Britain First

Status
Not open for further replies.
well jesus definitely had a mother ;)
 
Come on Children
play nice :)
 
Yeh, couple of quick deletions. Good!!!

I wonder if she actually saw mine because I definitely saw hers. Noted. Cheers!!!!
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
It don't think it is. I think there is a good chance the 1,500 year old text is probably incomparable to today and to use it as a fact is unwise. Where as its will documented that the Vatican only changed its stance two years ago.

It also shows that Islam is far from the only religion to turn a blind eye to paedophilia.
Click to expand...
Age of consent has no relation to paedophilia...Let's leave Mohammed's link out of for a moment. Just because there is a low age of consent that doesn't mean or has any link to paedophilia at all. That was merely the point I was making. Or to put it bluntly having an age of consent of 12 doesn't make it right or a 16+ to have sex with a 12 year old.
 
cambsno said:
But don't we have a system in place for people to claim asylum? Surely if these people have a genuine reason they would go through the process and come into the country legally.

As regards to laws, the damage they cause to the lorries is surely illegal, and if they did manage to stow away and enter this country this is breaking the law.
Click to expand...


They have to get here before they claim asylum.

Entering the country as an asylum seeker is not breaking the law.the un convention on the refugee (to which the UK is a signatory) negates any offences caused by travelling without visas
 
Last edited:
recent posts remind me of an old Bernard Manning joke:

8 year old lad shagging his 6 year old sister. Lad says " you're a better shag than me mam", little girl says " yeah I know, my dad says the same"
 
BRASH said:
I wonder if she actually saw mine because I definitely saw hers
Click to expand...
Her's went first, so I assume that she had time to see yours. :thumbs:
 
dejongj said:
Age of consent has no relation to paedophilia...Let's leave Mohammed's link out of for a moment. Just because there is a low age of consent that doesn't mean or has any link to paedophilia at all. That was merely the point I was making. Or to put it bluntly having an age of consent of 12 doesn't make it right or a 16+ to have sex with a 12 year old.
Click to expand...


No, I agree but the reason the Vatican raised the age of consent was to stop older men having sex with 12 year olds. Sadly, if your age of consent is 12 then no criminal offence (ignoring the morals for a second) by anyone of any age having sex with a 12 year old
 
Phil V said:
Well that'll do for a start, I said

I didn't have to try hard now did I ;)
Click to expand...
But I wasn't quoting you there, was I? Hence the lack of a quote or quotation marks. 1st time I did indeed quote your own words. You need to put the trumpet away and stop starving your brain of much needed oxygen.
 
nilagin said:
But I wasn't quoting you there, was I? Hence the lack of a quote or quotation marks. 1st time I did indeed quote your own words. You need to put the trumpet away and stop starving your brain of much needed oxygen.
Click to expand...
Youre funny. :D

Maybe not in the way you hope, but funny all the same ;)
 
boyfalldown said:
No, I agree but the reason the Vatican raised the age of consent was to stop older men having sex with 12 year olds. Sadly, if your age of consent is 12 then no criminal offence (ignoring the morals for a second) by anyone of any age having sex with a 12 year old
Click to expand...
Well I stand corrected. That is just wrong. All they had to do was introduce an close in age type clause. I'm shocked that that wasn't there. In Holland it was 12 as well when I grew up. But 16+ and a 12 yo was not acceptable. Further more it also had a parental override, although I'm not sure it was ever invoked. Further more interestingly the actual average age of intercourse was 18. Yet again demonstrating a lack of link between the age of consent. I think it is very much a cultural issue as well, just like the UK struggles with alcohol and drugs, it really doesn't have a good recent history in its attitude towards children.
 
Phil V said:
Youre funny. :D

Maybe not in the way you hope, but funny all the same ;)
Click to expand...

It wasn't an attempt at being funny.

Phil V said:
So you're suggesting I just have to trust your word for it?

Now then, if you were a straight up bloke who had a history of honesty and open mindedness...

But as it is (particularly as you misquoted me on purpose to point score)

I'll stick with not believing you.
Click to expand...
Still awaiting your evidence that I am not as above.
 
nilagin said:
It wasn't an attempt at being funny.


Still awaiting your evidence that I am not as above.
Click to expand...
It's pointless, you see your closed minded ignorant ill conceived ill informed opinions as thinking and intellectual, when you ignore a direct point to shift the debate back to a stock response, you think you're being smart.

As you can see from other people's responses to them, that's not a unanimous opinion. Most people appear to see those opinions as ignorant at best and wilfully deceitful at worst.

But you won't read that as a factual commentary of the thread, because you can only see you as 'right', so it's obvious to you that I'm just mud slinging.

ETA and to me that is funny. :)
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
Well I stand corrected. That is just wrong. All they had to do was introduce an close in age type clause. I'm shocked that that wasn't there. In Holland it was 12 as well when I grew up. But 16+ and a 12 yo was not acceptable. Further more it also had a parental override, although I'm not sure it was ever invoked. Further more interestingly the actual average age of intercourse was 18. Yet again demonstrating a lack of link between the age of consent. I think it is very much a cultural issue as well, just like the UK struggles with alcohol and drugs, it really doesn't have a good recent history in its attitude towards children.
Click to expand...


Didn't reflect well on them (I thought)
 
dejongj said:
Well I stand corrected. That is just wrong. All they had to do was introduce an close in age type clause. I'm shocked that that wasn't there. In Holland it was 12 as well when I grew up. But 16+ and a 12 yo was not acceptable. Further more it also had a parental override, although I'm not sure it was ever invoked. Further more interestingly the actual average age of intercourse was 18. Yet again demonstrating a lack of link between the age of consent. I think it is very much a cultural issue as well, just like the UK struggles with alcohol and drugs, it really doesn't have a good recent history in its attitude towards children.
Click to expand...

I think holland is possibly unique with the close in age thing , in most countries age of consent is just that ... tbh I'd see a 50 year old bloke doing a 16 year old as somewhat distasteful, but its legal

The only proviso i'm aware of in the Uk is its illegal to have sex with someone under 18 who is under your care ( for example if you are a teacher or social worker etc) even if they are over 16
 
dejongj said:
t. I think it is very much a cultural issue as well, just like the UK struggles with alcohol and drugs, it really doesn't have a good recent history in its attitude towards children.
Click to expand...

mind you no country would appear to be immune from both noncery and covering it up http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/16/children-dutch-catholic-institutions-abused that also goes to what I was saying to ST4 earlier about Islam not being the only faith where paedophillia is sometimes covered up and swept under the rug
 
big soft moose said:
mind you no country would appear to be immune from both noncery and covering it up http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/16/children-dutch-catholic-institutions-abused that also goes to what I was saying to ST4 earlier about Islam not being the only faith where paedophillia is sometimes covered up and swept under the rug
Click to expand...
Agreed, and I just never can understand it. Especially not from a church to try and cover it up. Doing that and talking about morality is just so hypocritical. No excuses apply.
 
Phil V said:
It's pointless, you see your closed minded ignorant ill conceived ill informed opinions as thinking and intellectual, when you ignore a direct point to shift the debate back to a stock response, you think you're being smart.

As you can see from other people's responses to them, that's not a unanimous opinion. Most people appear to see those opinions as ignorant at best and wilfully deceitful at worst.

But you won't read that as a factual commentary of the thread, because you can only see you as 'right', so it's obvious to you that I'm just mud slinging.
Click to expand...
That reply is not your evidence that I asked for earlier but when you've finally supplied that, you can provide the evidence of all of the above.

If anyone has any evidence of me being as such above, please feel free to provide it also.
 
Last edited:
nilagin said:
That reply is not your evidence that I asked for earlier but when you've finally supplied that, you can provide the evidence of all of the above.

If anyone has any evidence of me being as such above, please feel free to provide it also.
Click to expand...

We you probably won't consider it as evidence, but I have to say that in my opinion, that description of you is spot on.
 
So glad that after the cancellation of my flight, the 3 hour wait for the next one and then the crap journey to the hotel was topped off by seeing that you all just ignored my post. Thanks people
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top