Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

The one who is actually willing to sexually assault a child is far more of a danger to society though. And they're the ones directly causing the trauma.

 

It's a small step from watching to acting....keep them off the streets. I care more about the rights of the child than the human rights of *****philes.

 

Ah, you're probably right. It's not fair on Mo, he'll probably have to lower the Marathon national record to win it.

Froome-dawg in 3rd.

 

singer of Welsh rock band Lostprophets, has pleaded guilty to a series of "depraved" child sex offences including attempted rape of a baby

Hope he rots !!!

 

Sick bastard.

 

Got my op on my foot 11th December, have a month off.

 

www.twitter.com/rupertevelyn

This guy tweeted the details of the trial. It's pretty nasty. He'll do serious time.

 

Needs a heavy beating as well, i'm sure he will do.

 

Ha-Ha..! Actually, the Hitler signed shirt would sell for a lot. I think there would lie the difference.

 

I can't begin to describe how sick that bloke from the rock band makes me feel.

 

Evil keeps itself well hidden, but there are always clues if people are curious enough.

I've just been reading up on the 3 slave women in London. A neighbour, who lived two doors away [two doors only, FFS] would walk past the window and see a woman holding paper up to the window, with writing on it, for hours on end. She couldn't read it. For legod's sake, aren't people curious, if not interested in their fellow human beings..? How can you walk by and not ask yourself why a person would do that if there was not something wrong..? Either with them or their situation..? How can you just turn away and dismiss it..? The rock singer who was raping young children was trying to keep his evil deeds private, so these things perpetrate themselves, but this women was desperately calling for help and a ****ing neighbour just kept walking, making it none of her business. This was and is easily preventable stuff.

What I'm trying to say is, if we are going to continue to react to situations, such as the *****phile singer, after the fact, then we have an obligation to care about preventing it. I'm not talking about generally depriving people of liberty, I'm talking about stepping in when there are signs that people are not 100%, maybe starting to buckle under with their personal troubles. Everybody knows someone who is sad, or despairing, or lonely, or who are simply not coping, while we walk on the other side, perhaps deliberately looking the other way.

 

I agree TSS

 

Anyone else seen that Cameron's admitted that along with the new filters for child/obscene pornography he'll also be implementing a filters for sites with "extremist views". Shockingly there's no description of what an "extremist view" constitutes, simply the promise that it will "keep the country safe". It's a slippery slope.

 

Anything that keeps us safe from bombers is fine by me. The fact that we keep hearing of arrests without bombing incidents says it is working. Sadly we are dealing with people acting beyond our comprehension...they see our freedoms and laws as weaknesses to be exploited.

 

Before the odd poster jumps down your throat, I suspect you meant to say... anything reasonable that keeps us safe is fine by you.

 

On a lighter note, I see that David Jason is to return as Granville in [Still] Open All Hours, this Xmas. As a comic actor, Jason doesn't have many equals, and although Granville was over shadowed by Dell Boy, I liked him better. I hope he can conjure up the chemistry with the ghost of Ronnie Barker.

 

Loved Open All Hours...the old cast are in it (apart from the late great Ronnie Barker). Looking forward to Xmas telly...lots I like: Midsomer Murders, Marple, and Sherlock.

And Dr Who...with the latest regeneration.

 

In this case there's no way it's reasonable. We're not under a constant threat of terrorism; certainly not enough of a threat to justify censorship of this degree. He came up with this "porn filter" a while ago and it was obvious that this would just be an excuse for him to start adding things to it. He even announced it at the same time as the birth of the royal baby so it would slip through without the public noticing. It's funny how parents can't be trusted to keep their own kids from seeing pornographic images online but page three of The Sun is totally fine. He doesn't care about the porn; he's just easing us into his own version of the Chinese Firewall. He's going to need to pass it through parliament, so our MPs need to be told their constituents don't support it.

 

I thought Cleggy already said he was gonna shoot it down? Might be getting totally confused.

 

When I added the anything reasonable.., it didn't mean I agreed with Fran. That's twice you've jumped on me today and you've got the wrong person.