|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 11:14:50 GMT
Oh and btw, as previously stated on several occasions now, this thread is about whether offences have been committed in law and not about your subjective opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 11:40:37 GMT
It’s THE definition not mine . You undermine just how horrendous sexual activity with pre pubescent is when you call watching a 17 year old undress paedophilia . However , if you think that watching a 17 year old undress is the same as abusive 9 year olds then that your problem . Isn’t it..old chap. Dictionaries are free now. I suggest that you use them. Nope, as stated, there is no universally accepted standard definition. There are however, quite clear legal definitions around sexual activity with minors. That is why my own personally accepted definition falls exactly into line with sexual offences as defined by law. That way I don't need to draw imaginary, and highly subjective, lines in the sand. Let me be quite clear: If you are above the legal age and you engage in sexual activity with someone defined in law as being below the legal age then you are a paedophile. No if's, no buts. If you think otherwise, then you're on very thin ice. Old chap. Yup. The definition of paedophilia is sexual desire towards pre pubescent children . Buy a dictionary and educate yourself . Cone back to me when the BBC presenter is charged specifically with ‘ paedophilia ‘ The thin ice is when the Mr Angrys redefine a specific sexual deviance for the purpose of hyperbole and outrage but at the same time undermine the depravity of the real definition …old chap. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 11:42:03 GMT
Oh and btw, as previously stated on several occasions now, this thread is about whether offences have been committed in law and not about your subjective opinion. Nope, redefining the true definition to suit your purposes is your subjective opinion ..old chap. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 11:43:33 GMT
Tell you what, if you're ever in the dock just point the judge in the direction of the nearest dictionary. Let us know how you get on!  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 11:45:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 11:45:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 11:46:16 GMT
Tell you what, if you're ever in the dock just point the judge in the direction of the nearest dictionary. Let us know how you get on! See above .https://ukpoliticsdebate.boards.net/post/120985/thread |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 11:46:33 GMT
Now, as previously requested: Please quote the act and section that contains that definition. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 11:49:33 GMT
Now, as previously requested: Please quote the act and section that contains that definition. You have been told the definition and you are still squirming . Read the whole link and educate yourself . |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 11:51:53 GMT
The thread is about the law.
The law does not contain your definition and a dictionary is not a legal text.
You have been told this repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 11:56:56 GMT
The thread is about the law. The law does not contain your definition and a dictionary is not a legal text. You have been told this repeatedly. It’s not my definition it’s THE definition . I’ve told you this repeatedly. Now how about you backing up your false claim and posting the act and section that says that you will be charged with ‘ paedophilia ‘ if you look at lewd pictures of 17 year olds . You can’t. Take a look at the link and educate yourself ..or maybe rant at the publishers of the link that you know best . |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jul 10, 2023 12:00:40 GMT
Perhaps this may help explain things
dera.ioe.ac.uk/31272/1/Indecent%20images%20of%20children_%20guidan
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 12:03:30 GMT
Now how about you backing up your false claim and posting the act and section that says that you will be charged with ‘ paedophilia ‘ if you look at lewd pictures of 17 year olds . You can’t... Straw man alert! I never made any such assertion, you made that up. I'm beginning to think that you work for the BBC! |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 12:07:01 GMT
We seem to have stepped on the Bentley-go-round: Bentley posts an opinion. Squeezy points out that Bentleys opinion isn't law. Bentley posts a link which supports his opinion. Squeezy points out that it still isn't law. Bentley posts more links which support his opinion. Squeezy points out that it still isn't law. And asks for a link to any relevant law. Bentley is of course unable to provide such, resorts to a Strawman and accuses Squeezy of squirming! Squeezy laughs and laughs. And I think I'll bow out there.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 12:48:20 GMT
We seem to have stepped on the Bentley-go-round: Bentley posts an opinion. Squeezy points out that Bentleys opinion isn't law. Bentley posts a link which supports his opinion. Squeezy points out that it still isn't law. Bentley posts more links which support his opinion. Squeezy points out that it still isn't law. And asks for a link to any relevant law. Bentley is of course unable to provide such, resorts to a Strawman and accuses Squeezy of squirming! Squeezy laughs and laughs. And I think I'll bow out there. The thread addresses a BBC presenter breaking the law by looking at lewd pictures of a 17 year old . You called it paedophilia . You was wrong . I repeatedly pointed out that you were wrong and posted evidence . You are still wrong . I agree that you should walk away . There is only so many times you need to be wrong in a day ..old chap. Still have found evidence that this BBC presenter will be convicted of ‘ paedophilia ‘ yet , I see.😁 |
|
