• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Official Paedo Discussion Megathread v2

Haha, word =D

I scrolled past this thread the other day and thought 'fucking hell another ten pages and we'll need a second paedo discussion megathread' which was a bit depressing

edit: also the reference to Nazi uniforms as 'period dress' absolutely killed me, even though it's technically correct
 
and Len Fairclough was apparently innocent. Now, back in the day he was removed from coronation st never to return allowing Rita to get involved with all manner of dodgy men. Anyway, his life was ruined by it yet the door is open for Kevin Webster.

Can I also mention Bill Wyman he's likely been mentioned before but how did he get away with itwith Mandy Smith.
 
pinkpapaver said:
Can I also mention Bill Wyman he's likely been mentioned before but how did he get away with itwith Mandy Smith.
Click to expand...

yeah i think she was 14 when they first met, possibly even younger, and no one really batted an eye lid. The culture has totally changed now though, the tabloids have reached fever pitch and caused this current mass hysteria about paedophiles.

Even the film Lolita and its re-make with Jeremey Ions would be a no go now i reckon. The Daily Fail would be up in arms in MORAL OUTRAGE and lynch mobs would attack the cinemas and the audience. The Ions film clearly sexualised the girl. I cant remember how old she was supposed to be.
 
Last edited:
pinkpapaver said:
Can I also mention Bill Wyman he's likely been mentioned before but how did he get away with itwith Mandy Smith.
Click to expand...

Rock stars don't count. Otherwise we'd all have to throw away our record collections. ;)

To what extent Mandy Smith was 'groomed' and influenced by Bill Wyman's fame (or even her own parents) is debatable, and the same is true of all the other musicians who've had similar liaisons. There does seem to have been consent on her side though.
 
Sammy G said:
There does seem to have been consent on her side though.
Click to expand...

thats the thing though, because they are underage, even if they are consenting, eager and willing, by law they are judged to be too young to be able to give informed consent. I'm fairly sure that law hasnt always existed, and i expect it will change again at some point in the future.
 
mydrugbuddy said:
yeah she was 14 when they first met, and no one really batted an eye lid. The culture has totally changed now, the tabloids have reached fever pitch and caused this current mass hysteria about paedophiles.
Click to expand...

The 'mass hysteria' as you put it is not an over reaction. There is an awful lot of it about, they get light sentences or suspended sentences and just go on to do it again.

If you feel like being outraged google the Peadophile Information Exchange, it was a group dedicated to spreading the word that children like being abused and was funded by the british govt.

Its not a hysterical reaction to tabloid bullshit, its genuine fear caused by trying to raise kids in an increasingly dangerous world.
Ive got an 11 year old daughter, if she puts on make up she'd easily pass for 15... Its not the tabloids that make me concerned when she's getting a bus home on these dark evenings
 
mydrugbuddy said:
thats the thing though, because they are underage, even if they are consenting, eager and willing, by law they are judged to be too young to be able to give informed consent. I'm fairly sure that law hasnt always existed, and i expect it will change again at some point in the future.
Click to expand...

I hope not.
Kids from shit backgrounds sometimes, through no fault of their own, feel that sex is a way of getting the approval and attention they need.
Kids like that need protecting, the people that take advantage need punishing.

The age of consent is fine as it is IMO
 
Im sure Id feel very differently if i had an 11 year old daughter, id probably be worried sick tbh and allthough im sure she brings you a great deal of joy and affection i wouldnt be able to cope for worrying about her out there in the world. I say that not to scare you, but as an example of my own neurosis. IMO the tabloids are irresponsible scaremongerers, preying on the publics worries, they love nothing better than to cause the general public to panic, whether it be about house prices, youth unemployment and street gangs, the state of the economy, paedophiles, or whatever else is the flavour of that month/year/decade.
 
soaring peace2 said:
The 'mass hysteria' as you put it is not an over reaction. There is an awful lot of it about, they get light sentences or suspended sentences and just go on to do it again.
Click to expand...

Where's the evidence for that? :?

soaring peace2 said:
Its not a hysterical reaction to tabloid bullshit, its genuine fear caused by trying to raise kids in an increasingly dangerous world.
Click to expand...

It's alarmingly disproportionate though, isn't it? Your kids have far more chance of being involved in a traffic accident, but nobody talks about road safety. Or if they do, it's just a cursory nod. Whereas everybody seems to be looking for a paedo under the bed.

soaring peace2 said:
Ive got an 11 year old daughter, if she puts on make up she'd easily pass for 15... Its not the tabloids that make me concerned when she's getting a bus home on these dark evenings
Click to expand...

I'd argue on the strength of what I've read that perhaps it is.

mydrugbuddy said:
Im sorry but i find that very hard to believe. Was it printed by the Daily Fail when Labour were in charge ? :p;)
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, they're the ones shouting the loudest. And the links are predictably tenuous:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...government-gave-money-child-sex-ring-70s.html
 
^ yeah the tabloids are ugly, ugly things.
You find the very worst of humanity writing, reading, and featured in them.

But sometimes they do reflect genuine concerns and frustrations of people.
But mostly they're just satisfying ghoulish curiosity ( we're all guilty of that i guess )

I dont think the daily mail are capable of writing the word rape without inverted comers.
Like a rape really isn't a 'rape' its just some silly girl who shouldnt've worn a short skirt and is making a bit of a fuss.

Not sure if I read too much into their use of punctuation....i suspect not


edit - @ sammy G

I don't read newspapers.
Its the stuff i hear from real people that worried me more, where i live girls getting flashed in the park doesnt even get into the papers anymore as its so frequent


another edit - heres one source of info
http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/

I'm not gunna get into a debate about this, i'm just gunna say that there is too much of it about.
One child is too many.
Branding concerned parents as 'hysterical' is seen as a bit trendy ( for want of a better word ) and just because the papers write about something doesnt mean everyone with concerns has switched their brains off.
 
Last edited:
No, I think you're on the right lines there.

Tabloids do tap into people's fears expertly, and everybody wants to protect children, whether they're a parent or not. It's all highly effective.
 
Sammy G said:
We might well need another paedo discussion! They're not finished with Rolf and DLT yet for starters...
Click to expand...

I picked up on 'another' and checked the thread title and yep this isn't the first one haha, fucking hell.
 
soaring peace2 said:
I'm not gunna get into a debate about this, i'm just gunna say that there is too much of it about.
One child is too many.
Branding concerned parents as 'hysterical' is seen as a bit trendy ( for want of a better word ) and just because the papers write about something doesnt mean everyone with concerns has switched their brains off.
Click to expand...

Any truly concerned parent would want to know the actual extent of the problem though, wouldn't they?

And seeing as it's far less prevalent than most people seem to believe (and let's restate this - the overwhelming majority of child sex abuse is committed by the victim's family) then surely there's something more than 'trendiness' influencing those who would speak of 'hysteria'?

soaring peace2 said:
another edit - heres one source of info
http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/
Click to expand...

That's just a database of sex offenders, presented pretty sensationally. It proves nothing other than the fact that there are sex offenders.
 
soaring peace2 said:
I hope not.
Kids from shit backgrounds sometimes, through no fault of their own, feel that sex is a way of getting the approval and attention they need.
Kids like that need protecting, the people that take advantage need punishing.

The age of consent is fine as it is IMO
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I feel the same. When I was younger I legally made a lot of decisions that, looking back, I wished I hadn't. Like smoking at 16 and basically just doing stupid stuff that I considered fine at the time because 'I can make my own decisions mum shut up'. I didn't lose my virginity til 16 and even then I got a bit emo over it, not because she forced me into it but because 'oh my god feelings' and if I'd made that decision two or three years prior it'd would have probably been even more pronounced. Of course not all people are the same but in general, kids are either weird emotional messes or just plain daft.

Not that a magical switch flips the second you turn legal for whatever pursuit is in question, but it's a good guideline. I know thirty year olds who sound like they should still be in secondary school so I'd rather generalise with an age of consent to protect those who need.
 
Last edited:
Jeez have you heard his cunt of a defence barrister? Still trying to trash the character of the woman who went to the police about him ("She's into sex!") while trying to blame it all on the droogz.

And there was a transcript of a phone call read out in court. The phone call was between Watkins and a woman and made the day AFTER he pleaded guilty. He's joking all the way through, saying stuff like it wasn't rape and it was a load of LULZ (his word).

And denying he's a paedophile.

What. A. Cunt.
 
soaring peace2 said:
Just two ?


You need to live a little
Click to expand...
Ah well, sorry n that, maybe I have though . I'm more than happy to admit I'm as vanilla as they come at this time of life though. With a few kinks here n there but nothing worth mentioning

How about 5 concenting adults who get off on nailing their scrotums to the table? I'm fine with that too, but appparently the law no longer is.
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
Jeez have you heard his cunt of a defence barrister? Still trying to trash the character of the woman who went to the police about him ("She's into sex!") while trying to blame it all on the droogz.

And there was a transcript of a phone call read out in court. The phone call was between Watkins and a woman and made the day AFTER he pleaded guilty. He's joking all the way through, saying stuff like it wasn't rape and it was a load of LULZ (his word).

And denying he's a paedophile.

What. A. Cunt.
Click to expand...

Here's what he said.

Paedophole rockstar Ian Watkins described his sick crimes as "mega lols" the day after he had admitted a string of child sex offences including the attempted rape of a baby.

Watkins, 36, is being sentenced this morning after pleading guilty to 13 offences on the day his trial was due to start last month.

But the court heard today how he had phoned a female friend from Parc Prison in South Wales the day after he admitted his crimes, and said: "It was like either me go up there and say 'Come on, it wasn't that bad, nobody got hurt'. I do my charm or do I end up making things worse for myself or do I just say I was off my head and can't remember?"

Discussing his possible sentence, he added: "I'm going to put out a statement on the 18th now (the day of his sentencing) just to say it was mega lols, I don't know what everyone is getting so freaked out about."

Lols stands for "laugh out loud".

In another conversation the following day he said: "It's so hard. There's a lot of ****ing meaningless bull**** like chat that I did to show off when I was ****ing off my head.

"There was no medical evidence, nobody was harmed at all.

"I'm not a paedophile, I'm not. You know I plead (sic) guilty just to avoid a trial, not realising 'Hang on, that makes me look a bit guilty' but I would never harm anybody."

When asked if he would still issue a statement saying his conduct was "mega lols" he replied: "No, it's just lols now."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top