• Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

heheeee

ImNotFromIndia

Should post faster
Thanks received
0
1. Last week an officer said it's ok to have sex with under age kids
2. This week an officer said it's good idea to prescibe herion on the NHS

What's next? :D

Are these officers admitting that they had lost the battle? ... :mad:
 
ImNotFromIndia said:
1. Last week an officer said it's ok to have sex with under age kids
2. This week an officer said it's good idea to prescibe herion on the NHS

What's next? :D

Are these officers admitting that they had lost the battle? ... :mad:


2 excellent ideas!!

Whats your point?

Oh, whats next? Erm....Legalised prostitution, legalised canabis, undo the smoking ban...

actually, think I might just move to Holland!
 
SallyAnne said:
2 excellent ideas!!

Whats your point?

Oh, whats next? Erm....Legalised prostitution, legalised canabis, undo the smoking ban...

actually, think I might just move to Holland!


My points are:

1. the police are not doing their job
2. there are ppl who can't get cancer treatments because of costs :mad:
 
Actually the first point was fair, he got quoted out of context. He was saying that he doesn't think young men - i.e. say 17 should be classified as paedophiles for having sex with girls of say 14 and up.

Percetly sensible viewpoint in my opinion. Obviously the press had a field day with it since technically a 17 teen year old boy is a man, but a 14 year old girl is a 'kid'.

Reality these days (And in my day) is that the majority of boys and girls lose their virginity well before 16, and lot's of perfectly normal relationships happen at that age between kids with a couple of years age difference. In fact I seemt o remember it being the norm.
 
I think he may have had a hidden agenda as he should know he was suggesting something that is illegal!
 
snaw said:
Actually the first point was fair, he got quoted out of context. He was saying that he doesn't think young men - i.e. say 17 should be classified as paedophiles for having sex with girls of say 14 and up.

Percetly sensible viewpoint in my opinion. Obviously the press had a field day with it since technically a 17 teen year old boy is a man, but a 14 year old girl is a 'kid'.

Reality these days (And in my day) is that the majority of boys and girls lose their virginity well before 16, and lot's of perfectly normal relationships happen at that age between kids with a couple of years age difference. In fact I seemt o remember it being the norm.

He was trying to say "old enough to bleed, bleedin old enough" in a PC, 21st century way.
 

Advertisers

Back
Top