Police video

Status
Not open for further replies.
Her Ivory Tower said:
I'm not going to post all the vile things you said to decent people on here that day, like telling them that they "obviously wanted to fuck children" which you concluded must be the case simply because they were discussing the age of consent. Most of the child abuse accusations you made were not even made at me, and I'm not going to spend a weekend searching for them. I've already posted one of your heinous remarks, is saying that I think it's ok to have sex with 12 year olds when I never said anything of the sort not enough for you? I think that amounts to "accusing someone of being a Paedophile".
Click to expand...

Put it in context, post what I was replying too then ! Obviously, you didn't fancy that. I have never accused you of being a paedophile, get over yourself man. You were arguing that girls under 16 can have consensual sex, which of course they can. I said that under 13, legally,they can't give consent. You said some 12 year olds were mature enough to be able to. I disagree and pointed out that in law they can't. The argument went along those lines for a bit, I pointed out that anyone having sex with an under 13 is guilty of rape and others argued that this was unfair if the 13 yr old consented.
We disagreed and the argument went on. I may have said " so you think it's ok to fuck kids" which fair enough, is a brutal way of furthering my point. I don't, for the record, having seen you post of here regularly, assume you do advocate that f***ing kids is ok.
Nor, do I think you are a paedophile or have ever accused you of being such. It's a sensitive issue of which I have had a lot of experience, shit experience and perhaps my psyche is influenced by what the years I spent looking after abused kids and prosecuting their abusers.
I'm not apologising for anything I have accused you of on here- I don't think I have, but you know what, life's short mate and if I have upset you in the past, I apologise.

Az* said:
Why not? Because I suspect you'd be in the job about 15 minutes before being dismissed.

What is you having a baldy head got to do with him being stopped? :lol:
Click to expand...

Nah. My inquisitive nature has suited me very well . I lasted rather longer than 15 minutes too. Commendations coming outta my ears for all the burglars I used to catch with gear on them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


gavinmcant said:
Put it in context, post what I was replying too then ! Obviously, you didn't fancy that. I have never accused you of being a paedophile, get over yourself man. You were arguing that girls under 16 can have consensual sex, which of course they can. I said that under 13, legally,they can't give consent. You said some 12 year olds were mature enough to be able to. I disagree and pointed out that in law they can't. The argument went along those lines for a bit, I pointed out that anyone having sex with an under 13 is guilty of rape and others argued that this was unfair if the 13 yr old consented.
We disagreed and the argument went on. I may have said " so you think it's ok to fuck kids" which fair enough, is a brutal way of furthering my point. I don't, for the record, having seen you post of here regularly, assume you do advocate that f***ing kids is ok.
Nor, do I think you are a paedophile or have ever accused you of being such. It's a sensitive issue of which I have had a lot of experience, shit experience and perhaps my psyche is influenced by what the years I spent looking after abused kids and prosecuting their abusers.
I'm not apologising for anything I have accused you of on here- I don't think I have, but you know what, life's short mate and if I have upset you in the past, I apologise.
Click to expand...


I never said that 12 year olds are mature enough for sex, or should be having sex or consenting to sex, I said that I disagree that it is right that, in the eyes of the law, a 12 year old having sex equates to rape. I said it depends on the circumstances. I said that some girls around 14/15 feel mature enough for sex. I also said that 16 was about right for an age of consent. Of course the thread no longer exists so neither of us can "prove" what was said. However every time I or anyone else put forward a discussion point about how for example, two 15 year olds mucking about and trying sex was not the same as an adult abusing a child but is (wrongly) treated the same in law, your default response was to accuse them/me of "wanting" the age of consent lowered so they/I could "fuck children" legally, and variations of that theme, for several pages, until the thread eventually got deleted.

Having ranted that, I appreciate that you have made an apology and I accept, thank you. I will consider the matter closed and won't mention it again.
 
Her Ivory Tower said:
I never said that 12 year olds are mature enough for sex, or should be having sex or consenting to sex, I said that I disagree that it is right that, in the eyes of the law, a 12 year old having sex equates to rape. I said it depends on the circumstances. I said that some girls around 14/15 feel mature enough for sex. I also said that 16 was about right for an age of consent. Of course the thread no longer exists so neither of us can "prove" what was said. However every time I or anyone else put forward a discussion point about how for example, two 15 year olds mucking about and trying sex was not the same as an adult abusing a child but is (wrongly) treated the same in law, your default response was to accuse them/me of "wanting" the age of consent lowered so they/I could "fuck children" legally, and variations of that theme, for several pages, until the thread eventually got deleted.

Having ranted that, I appreciate that you have made an apology and I accept, thank you. I will consider the matter closed and won't mention it again.
Click to expand...

Jesus man this is the whole point of contention again. Legally, it is rape to have sex with an under 13. Fair enough you might disagree but legally, as it is, you're advocating that sex with an under 13 might not always be an offence depending on the maturity of the girl whereas I was saying, at this time, it would be rape. FFS we've done this like. Anyway, aye, let's put this to bed. I'm in the smoke in January for a few weeks for a job so I want to meet you I person for a fight. Grrrr. And I don't look how you probably imagine I do.
 
gavinmcant said:
Jesus man this is the whole point of contention again. Legally, it is rape to have sex with an under 13. Fair enough you might disagree but legally, as it is, you're advocating that sex with an under 13 might not always be an offence depending on the maturity of the girl whereas I was saying, at this time, it would be rape. FFS we've done this like. Anyway, aye, let's put this to bed. I'm in the smoke in January for a few weeks for a job so I want to meet you I person for a fight. Grrrr. And I don't look how you probably imagine I do.
Click to expand...

Skinhead with tatts you said?

I fight like a girl btw.
 
PixieFaceFTM said:
Circulating the Internet at the minute, some Scottish moron having a go at 2 police officers who are parked up with a speed camera, but apparently are "breaking the law as they aren't in a visibly marked car"

My 2 problems with this video are:

1. Anyone who speeds in a car is a arsehole, but anyone who argues a case against those who are stopping speeding are even worse, I think they should be in unmarked cars! Then it'll catch the idiots who do it and could potentially cause an accident.

2. Who the hell does this bloke think he is to speak so disrespectfully to a female police officer? It seems a lot of people nowadays have no respect for what these officers actually do.

I'll try and get a hold of a link and post it.


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1521202874775917&id=1411910149038524
Click to expand...
the police literally shit themselves there like. They were breaking the law.

fair play to the two responsible citizens for holding them to the law!
 
Freight Train said:
For the piece of kit they are using (unipar speed gun) they need to be clearly visible. That means they either need to be sitting in a marked police vehicle, or they need to be stood outside of their vehicle in high vis clothing.
Click to expand...

Im sure the 'guidelines' on being visible and having signage up so many metres prior to where they are is just exactly that 'guidelines' and not law. In regards to placement and capture there are no rules for mobiles but just guidelines.
 
BlackOps said:
Im sure the 'guidelines' on being visible and having signage up so many metres prior to where they are is just exactly that 'guidelines' and not law. In regards to placement and capture there are no rules for mobiles but just guidelines.
Click to expand...

Yep mate just guidelines, however if someone decides to take the speeding case to court then a defence lawyer can have a field day because police didn't follow guidelines.
 
Freight Train said:
Yep mate just guidelines, however if someone decides to take the speeding case to court then a defence lawyer can have a field day because police didn't follow guidelines.
Click to expand...

However the guidelines dont have to be followed. They were acting within the law so cannot be punished in the form of the ticket being overturned. If the guidelines were law, the magistrate would overturn however, there is no reason for them to turn it over as it a guideline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top