1st JUNE - Tommy is standing up for BRITISH freedoms!!

[Gary Childress]

"attofishpi" not just approves but even actually endorses and promotes the "british law" that adult human beings of any age are permitted to have sex with some children.

To some this is very much endorsing 'pedophilia'.

By "some children" do you mean young persons (children) between age 16-18?

How does one rationally and logically arrive at the definition of a 'young person' is 16-18 years of age? To do so would obviously imply that those younger than 16 are not even persons. Which is just beyond all sense of absurdity.

Not necessarily, Age. A child is a young person IMO. All children are also young persons. And not all persons are children (in the sense of being "underage" in legal terms, though all persons might be 'children' of a parent--to clarify). You've assumed I meant something that I did not.

[Age]

By "some children" do you mean young persons (children) between age 16-18?

How does one rationally and logically arrive at the definition of a 'young person' is 16-18 years of age? To do so would obviously imply that those younger than 16 are not even persons. Which is just beyond all sense of absurdity.

Not necessarily, Age. A child is a young person IMO. All children are also young persons. And not all persons are children (in the sense of being "underage" in legal terms, though all persons might be 'children' of a parent--to clarify). You've assumed I meant something that I did not.

What are you assuming I assumed you meant?

If society is going to call and label human beings from 16 to 18 years of age as 'young persons', then any human being younger than a so-called 'young person' could not rationally and logically be called 'a person', as to do so would be not just absurd but contradictory as well.

People in society have come up with the term and phrase 'young person' for those human beings from 16 to 18 to 'try to justify' permitting you adult human beings to have sex with what are actually essentially still children.

And, if you are going to call all children 'young persons', then why make a distinction about 'young persons' and it being legally permissible for adults to be having sex with 'them'?

The fact that the only way you adults could devise a way 'try to justify' what is essentially Wrong, in Life, that is; sex with children, through the making up of the term and phrase 'young person' for children at the ages of 16 through to 18 just shows how Truly irrational and illogical you adult human beings used to be, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

you adult human beings for centuries came up with Truly illogical 'rationalizations' and 'justifications' for your Wrong doings. Which, only after hindsight, it was discovered, by other human beings, just how barbaric, backwards thinking, absurd, and stupid adult human beings really were, previously.

And, just like every other society before you, you adult human beings in the days when this is being written, also cannot yet see clearly just how Wrong and 'backwards' some of your views, thinking, and behaviours really are.

you, in the days when this is being written, live in a very, very sick society. you, however, are just not fully aware of this because of the way 'those sick societies' have indoctrinated your to believe and to see things.

[accelafine]

AGAIN FOR THE Nth TIME:- Where is your EVIDENCE that I am a PEDOPHILE?

you already provided it

LIAR. Where is this EVIDENCE that I am sexually attracted to prepubescent children?

The silly old demented fool doesn't seem to have heard of 'age of consent' laws, and because HE, at 80, has decided that a young adult of 16 is a 'child', then apparently the law is a 'paedophile'.

[attofishpi]

you already provided it

LIAR. Where is this EVIDENCE that I am sexually attracted to prepubescent children?

The silly old demented fool doesn't seem to have heard of 'age of consent' laws, and because HE, at 80, has decided that a young adult of 16 is a 'child', then apparently the law is a 'paedophile'.

Yeah and I hear ya, 3/4 of the problem is that people still talk to this ** , now Harbal does (like u used to) and it seems to give the ** energy to write more **.

Just sayin.

[Gary Childress]

How does one rationally and logically arrive at the definition of a 'young person' is 16-18 years of age? To do so would obviously imply that those younger than 16 are not even persons. Which is just beyond all sense of absurdity.

Not necessarily, Age. A child is a young person IMO. All children are also young persons. And not all persons are children (in the sense of being "underage" in legal terms, though all persons might be 'children' of a parent--to clarify). You've assumed I meant something that I did not.

What are you assuming I assumed you meant?

If society is going to call and label human beings from 16 to 18 years of age as 'young persons', then any human being younger than a so-called 'young person' could not rationally and logically be called 'a person', as to do so would be not just absurd but contradictory as well.

That is exactly what I thought you meant. Thank you for confirming it, however, that is NOT what *I* meant. As I stated in my reply ALL children are "young persons". All adults are not "young persons", but they are, nevertheless "persons". I made no claim that children younger than 16 are not "young persons". You are making incorrect assumptions, Age.

[accelafine]

LIAR. Where is this EVIDENCE that I am sexually attracted to prepubescent children?

The silly old demented fool doesn't seem to have heard of 'age of consent' laws, and because HE, at 80, has decided that a young adult of 16 is a 'child', then apparently the law is a 'paedophile'.

Yeah and I hear ya, 3/4 of the problem is that people still talk to this ** , now Harbal does (like u used to) and it seems to give the ** energy to write more **.

Just sayin.

Don't talk to him then. I may have him blocked but I can still see his crap when others quote him.

[attofishpi]

The silly old demented fool doesn't seem to have heard of 'age of consent' laws, and because HE, at 80, has decided that a young adult of 16 is a 'child', then apparently the law is a 'paedophile'.

Yeah and I hear ya, 3/4 of the problem is that people still talk to this ** , now Harbal does (like u used to) and it seems to give the ** energy to write more **.

Just sayin.

Don't talk to him then. I may have him blocked but I can still see his crap when others quote him.

I've never tested the "block" function - thing is, if some **** is having a go I want to know about it.

[attofishpi]

That is exactly what I thought you meant. Thank you for confirming it, however, that is NOT what *I* meant. As I stated in my reply ALL children are "young persons". All adults are not "young persons", but they are, nevertheless "persons". I made no claim that children younger than 16 are not "young persons". You are making incorrect assumptions, Age.

Gazza, time U worked out the guy is a fuckstain upon the planet that two humans caused. That is all he amounts to.

..in other words - don't waste your time upon a remnant of a pointless fuck..(although at least one person had an orgasm...so I shouldn't be too harsh)

[Gary Childress]

That is exactly what I thought you meant. Thank you for confirming it, however, that is NOT what *I* meant. As I stated in my reply ALL children are "young persons". All adults are not "young persons", but they are, nevertheless "persons". I made no claim that children younger than 16 are not "young persons". You are making incorrect assumptions, Age.

Gazza, time U worked out the guy is a fuckstain upon the planet that two humans caused. That is all he amounts to.

..in other words - don't waste your time upon a remnant of a pointless fuck..(although at least one person had an orgasm...so I shouldn't be too harsh)

He might be autistic. I don't begrudge people with disabilities, regardless of how annoying we can be sometimes.

[Age]

Not necessarily, Age. A child is a young person IMO. All children are also young persons. And not all persons are children (in the sense of being "underage" in legal terms, though all persons might be 'children' of a parent--to clarify). You've assumed I meant something that I did not.

What are you assuming I assumed you meant?

If society is going to call and label human beings from 16 to 18 years of age as 'young persons', then any human being younger than a so-called 'young person' could not rationally and logically be called 'a person', as to do so would be not just absurd but contradictory as well.

That is exactly what I thought you meant. Thank you for confirming it, however, that is NOT what *I* meant. As I stated in my reply ALL children are "young persons".

So, if it is legal to have sex with so-called 'young persons', then what does this essentially entail, to you?

All adults are not "young persons", but they are, nevertheless "persons". I made no claim that children younger than 16 are not "young persons". You are making incorrect assumptions, Age.

I never even thought/assumed that that was what you claimed, let alone ever said anything about that that was what you claimed.

I was just pointing out that if as a society 16 to 18 year old human beings are classed as 'young persons' and that by classing them as such then permits adult human beings to have sex with those children, to try to detract aware from the fact that they are still children, then calling human beings of that age 'young persons' is foolish, absurd, irrational, and illogical, and for the reasons I have already provided here.

[Age]

you already provided it

LIAR. Where is this EVIDENCE that I am sexually attracted to prepubescent children?

The silly old demented fool doesn't seem to have heard of 'age of consent' laws, and because HE, at 80, has decided that a young adult of 16 is a 'child', then apparently the law is a 'paedophile'.

The presumptions continue.

[Age]

The silly old demented fool doesn't seem to have heard of 'age of consent' laws, and because HE, at 80, has decided that a young adult of 16 is a 'child', then apparently the law is a 'paedophile'.

Yeah and I hear ya, 3/4 of the problem is that people still talk to this ** , now Harbal does (like u used to) and it seems to give the ** energy to write more **.

Just sayin.

Don't talk to him then. I may have him blocked but I can still see his crap when others quote him.

Yet you still get so much Wrong and Incorrect.

[accelafine]

What part of 'you are on ignore' do you not understand you stupid old fart?

[Age]

What part of 'you are on ignore' do you not understand you stupid old fart?

The irony here.

you, obviously, must of read it, to reply to it. So, either the ignore function is not functioning, or, you just cannot help "yourself".

Either way your presumptions we notice, still, continue.

The ease of and the speed at that these people, back then, could be misled and deceived would be astonishing if it was not already fully known how and why it occurred.

[attofishpi]

1st JUNE

Featuring Tommy Robinson, Danny Tommo & Dean Neil on the upcoming London Event
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Z1D1OHw28&t=1135s