Female Paedo

A right load of bollocks...

Female Paedo

Postby Major Starbold » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:12 pm

A 28-year-old woman who used a 15-year-old boy 'to satisfy her own sexual needs' after seducing him with cannabis has been jailed for five years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z50bG3jTDH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

5 years, thats a bit stiff.
LOOK AFTER OUR OWN FIRST.
User avatar
Major Starbold
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:08 am

Re: Female Paedo

Postby McAz » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:18 pm

You raise child abuse by females on teenage boys on every forum with tedious regularity - usually with a comment like "lucky lad". :roll:

Your "stiff" joke is limp.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 22296
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Female Paedo

Postby Guest » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:12 pm

McAz wrote:You raise child abuse by females on teenage boys on every forum with tedious regularity - usually with a comment like "lucky lad". :roll:

Your "stiff" joke is limp.


i hope 'major' doesn't have access to any minors.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Female Paedo

Postby McAz » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:26 pm

Guest wrote:
McAz wrote:You raise child abuse by females on teenage boys on every forum with tedious regularity - usually with a comment like "lucky lad". :roll:

Your "stiff" joke is limp.


i hope 'major' doesn't have access to any minors.


Apart from regularly counting the number of black children at the gates of local schools I believe his past is behind him. :dunno:
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 22296
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Female Paedo

Postby Trapper John » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:03 pm

Guest wrote:
McAz wrote:You raise child abuse by females on teenage boys on every forum with tedious regularity - usually with a comment like "lucky lad". :roll:

Your "stiff" joke is limp.


i hope 'major' doesn't have access to any minors.


Why's that then?
Dear Lord, save us from the wrath of the Tartars
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 32021
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: The Emirates Stadium, Islington, London N5

Re: Female Paedo

Postby Guest » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:15 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
McAz wrote:You raise child abuse by females on teenage boys on every forum with tedious regularity - usually with a comment like "lucky lad". :roll:

Your "stiff" joke is limp.


i hope 'major' doesn't have access to any minors.


Why's that then?


if they went to him & told him they'd been sexually assaulted by an adult he would think it was hilarious.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Female Paedo

Postby Guest » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:09 am

Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
McAz wrote:You raise child abuse by females on teenage boys on every forum with tedious regularity - usually with a comment like "lucky lad". :roll:

Your "stiff" joke is limp.


i hope 'major' doesn't have access to any minors.


Why's that then?


if they went to him & told him they'd been sexually assaulted by an adult he would think it was hilarious.


Only if the kids were darkeeez and Pakiiis, innit? But not if they were Britishish whitiiz.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Female Paedo

Postby Trapper John » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:41 am

Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
McAz wrote:You raise child abuse by females on teenage boys on every forum with tedious regularity - usually with a comment like "lucky lad". :roll:

Your "stiff" joke is limp.


i hope 'major' doesn't have access to any minors.


Why's that then?


if they went to him & told him they'd been sexually assaulted by an adult he would think it was hilarious.


I thought the boy was 15 years old? ..... hardly a kid.

And before we get all sanctimonious about legal ages and child abuse, any boy at fifteen years old who didn't want to get down and grubby with a nice looking female teacher or older woman, is a fucking weirdo in my opinion and will probably need some psychiatric treatment in the future.

This bit makes me laugh:

It may be that on his part he wanted to brag about what was happening with you but at 15 he was not in a position to understand the long term effects that was going to have upon him


What fucking 'long term effects' are they then? .... and if he'd stabbed someone through the heart and killed them, would they still say "at 15 he was not in a position to understand the long term effects that was going to have upon him" would they fuck, it's all agenda driven bollocks.

Tell them the country is full to bursting with paedos and terrorists and they'll beg us to spy on them. :shake head:
Dear Lord, save us from the wrath of the Tartars
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 32021
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: The Emirates Stadium, Islington, London N5

Re: Female Paedo

Postby McAz » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:01 am

There is no point in having a law protecting children from sexual abuse if it can be circumvented simply because someone asserts that the victim enjoyed it. She got banged up entirely justifiably for her crime.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 22296
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Female Paedo

Postby Trapper John » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:27 am

McAz wrote:There is no point in having a law protecting children from sexual abuse if it can be circumvented simply because someone asserts that the victim enjoyed it. She got banged up entirely justifiably for her crime.


In the eyes of the law thats correct but it does beg the question that if someone 'enjoys' something how is that going to hurt them mentally?

I tell you what is more likely to hurt him mentally, being groomed, badgered and brow beaten by interested parties telling him that what happened was disgusting and filthy and against the law and if he doesn't give her up, he is likely to spend the rest of his life in and out of nuthouses because of the trauma of thinking he liked it when he was told he couldn't possibly have and it's all in his mind.

In ten years time he could very well top himself over the guilt of enjoying something that put someome in prison for 5 years and ruined their lives.

There is a reason for the blanket coverage of laws which clearly need to have 'degrees' of seriousness attached to them and it's all about keeping the figures up for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

No-one in their right mind would equate say a 21 year old woman and a 15 year old boy having some hanky panky to say someone raping a 5 year old kid, yet they are covered by law in exactly the same way and that is ludicrous.
Dear Lord, save us from the wrath of the Tartars
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 32021
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: The Emirates Stadium, Islington, London N5

Re: Female Paedo

Postby McAz » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:38 am

Trapper John wrote:
McAz wrote:There is no point in having a law protecting children from sexual abuse if it can be circumvented simply because someone asserts that the victim enjoyed it. She got banged up entirely justifiably for her crime.


In the eyes of the law thats correct but it does beg the question that if someone 'enjoys' something how is that going to hurt them mentally?

I tell you what is more likely to hurt him mentally, being groomed, badgered and brow beaten by interested parties telling him that what happened was disgusting and filthy and against the law and if he doesn't give her up, he is likely to spend the rest of his life in and out of nuthouses because of the trauma of thinking he liked it when he was told he couldn't possibly have and it's all in his mind.

In ten years time he could very well top himself over the guilt of enjoying something that put someome in prison for 5 years and ruined their lives.

There is a reason for the blanket coverage of laws which clearly need to have 'degrees' of seriousness attached to them and it's all about keeping the figures up for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

No-one in their right mind would equate say a 21 year old woman and a 15 year old boy having some hanky panky to say someone raping a 5 year old kid, yet they are covered by law in exactly the same way and that is ludicrous.


There are of course varying degrees of child abuse and this on first reading does not seem the most severe. But that is not my judgement to make since I am not in possession of the detailed facts of the case or the mental/emotional condition of the victim - the court was. If I trust you to drive trucks with professionalism and skill I must similarly trust the professionalism and skill of the judge and his/her court officials unless I have evidence to the contrary, which I don't.

You have a point regarding our cliff-edge age of consent law - some other countries adopt a more flexible approach - it is perhaps something we should take another look at - but I can't see the Mail and other professional reactionaries allowing that without a shriek.
User avatar
McAz
 
Posts: 22296
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Female Paedo

Postby Dean » Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:18 am

The ‘Paedo’ tag is a funny one. I might be wrong but a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to young children. A woman having sex with a 15 year old isn’t really a paedo. He isn’t a child, she isn’t attracted to him because he’s a child. It’s still wrong of course, but she isn’t a paedo.

The footballer Adam Johnson is doing 6 years for his crimes. He groomed a 15 year old and got caught. I’m in no way justifying what he done, but he was attracted to her as a woman, not a young child. It’s hard to make a point on this subject and not upset someone...

I suppose what I’m trying to say is someone attracted to young children is not the same as someone who has dealings with a 15 year old... me personally having teenage children, i see them still as kids, but I can see the difference...
User avatar
Dean
 
Posts: 21569
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:02 pm

Re: Female Paedo

Postby Canucklehead » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:11 am

Dean wrote:The ‘Paedo’ tag is a funny one. I might be wrong but a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to young children. A woman having sex with a 15 year old isn’t really a paedo. He isn’t a child, she isn’t attracted to him because he’s a child. It’s still wrong of course, but she isn’t a paedo.

The footballer Adam Johnson is doing 6 years for his crimes. He groomed a 15 year old and got caught. I’m in no way justifying what he done, but he was attracted to her as a woman, not a young child. It’s hard to make a point on this subject and not upset someone...

I suppose what I’m trying to say is someone attracted to young children is not the same as someone who has dealings with a 15 year old... me personally having teenage children, i see them still as kids, but I can see the difference...


I would agree that paedo isn’t the right word, but we do need to have a cut-off somewhere and then cases can be assessed individually. Otherwise it becomes a free for all. Some 15 year olds are mentally mature and others are not, many of them would be very susceptible to grooming techniques and feel flattered that an older person was interested. This doesn’t mean I’m hysterical and want to lock up all the kids til their 18th birthday, but I am glad there are laws that protect them.
Niiiii!!!!!!!
User avatar
Canucklehead
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:59 am

Re: Female Paedo

Postby Trapper John » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:41 am

The literal translation of the word 'paedophile' from the Greek is 'child lover' so the stupid thing is most of humanity could be described as such. As usual though it's been hijacked to take on a very different and sinister meaning and the word is instantly guaranteed to bring calls of the most vicious punishments on anyone with that label.

In this case, that woman - who reading the the scant reporting didn't even have sexual contact with the boy with the whole affair seemingly revolving around cannabis being the main ingredient causing the loss of her moral compass - will now be labelled a 'paedophile' forever and listed on the sex offenders register for life.

With that tag, no-one will be interested in the facts or nuances of the incident, she will be treated just the same as a bloke who snatches a 5 year old kid off the street and does unspeakable things to them. That just can't be right, particularly in this day and age of so called 'progressive' thinking.

I am sure you will find that it suits various interested parties to have this ludicrous state of affairs continue. Like I said in an earlier post, according to those who rule us, the country is full to bursting with paedophiles and terrorists, amazingly the very two groups who bring out the most dreadful fears in the public, though proof is rarely there to support it. I would hazard a guess that there are more instances of muggings on our streets in a day, than there are of both the others combined in a whole month or even longer.

Often juries are the best way to be tried for a crime, but not for these two crimes because they already carry an in built prejudice simply by the mention of their names.
Dear Lord, save us from the wrath of the Tartars
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 32021
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: The Emirates Stadium, Islington, London N5

Re: Female Paedo

Postby Markey mark » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:52 am

There used to be a paedo living on our estate , very old man that done time for abuseing his grandson , you rarely saw him during the day because everybody on the estate , would shout to their kids from their windows , telling the children to come in , the paedo there , everyone I know calls them either paedo or nonce , name and shame them
User avatar
Markey mark
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:46 pm

Next

Return to The Sleeping Dogs' Arms

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Odessa Steps, Viper and 12 guests