Yeah, all the Stag/Hen do's seem to be concentrated on the Hornby Rd and Reads Ave area, I went a mates do last year, they seem to cope well with large numbers of pissed up clients. My next trip will be at the Summer Bash at Bloomfield Rd watching Leigh, won't be supping ale in the ground though filling the cunt Oystens pockets. NAPM.

 

 

....they didn't stop there either on the piss up. It was the vidella wasn't it?

It was

 

LW, Danny G and Traf all sharing a bed ????

 

Top Bumming

fuck me we had 4 in a double bed in Blackpool

 

We saw the Lemon Party pics.

A gay hotel owner and very good friend of mine tells of a similar tale...

He was 13, lived near Chorley in some catholic back water and knew he was queer. He also knew the local priest was a boy toucher and put it on a plate for him.

The priest turned him down and went for his mate who was straight and ended up getting done for noncery.

Noncery- that's a great word; perhaps Collins etc will adopt it in next year's dictionary; after all fake news and gender fluid have made this years.

Whatever happened to rent boy - Client privilege

From all accounts that I've read, he was fully clothed and basically fell asleep on top of him.

 

Was it stupid, and wrong? Of course.

 

I have to side with madthatter a bit here though honestly. I've heard LOADS of stories of teenage boys putting themselves in this position because they suspect they are gay and can't discuss it with their peers and family because of the stigma, especially back in the era when this exchange took place. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case here, and perhaps the kid changed his mind or has regrets years later.

Milo Yiannopoulos has a story of a similar situation he put himself in when he was 14, and to this day he doesn't hold anything against the guy (I think it was a priest) who he was with. In fact, he claimed that he was the predator and not the adult.

 

Here's the link to the video (obviously lots of talk of things you might not want to hear):

 

Just because YOU don't understand why something happens doesn't mean it's wrong. 

 

Is it against the law? Yes.

Is it morally wrong? Debatable. Morality is relative after all.

 

 

Ah Milo that alt-right nonce

Emily Thornberry claiming that she was groped.

 

Could have been Stevie Wonder, I  suppose

Emily Thornberry claiming that she was groped.

 

Could have been Stevie Wonder, I  suppose

Don't rule out the lesbians.

Not sure about groped but i’d quite like to watch Emily Thornberry get punched in the face

Spacey completely pulled from House of Cards with immediate effect

 

Disaster!!

 

Was in my top 3 box sets of all time, can’t see a way they can cut him out at short notice without it going to complete shit

On a WhatsAp group with some old uni mates today one posted that his lad at 13 and a bit was going into the local town (Oxford) with his mates and no adults for the first time.

 

Puts into context how young that lad was when Spacey tried to bum him.

Now becoming a witch hunt..

 

Scottish National party MP.. "It was done in good humour"

 

is it that things were acceptable and people brushed stuff off before ?

Now becoming a witch hunt..

 

Scottish National party MP.. "It was done in good humour"

 

is it that things were acceptable and people brushed stuff off before ?

 

 

The fear has to be that in the current climate, anyone could say anything about anyone and it's a fucker of a job to disprove plus, mud sticks - your reputation is shot to pieces even if you are completely innocent.

 

That is where we are heading if common sense fails to prevail and the gutter press continue to sensationalise every single issue raised - especially if it's against a celeb or a politician.

 

The real cases have to be prosecuted to the maximum; no argument there. In the febrile atmosphere surrounding this issue right now, there is likely to be a lot of collateral damage where some malevolent wants to just ruin someone for reasons not related to sexual assault.

The fear has to be that in the current climate, anyone could say anything about anyone and it's a fucker of a job to disprove plus, mud sticks - your reputation is shot to pieces even if you are completely innocent.

 

That is where we are heading if common sense fails to prevail and the gutter press continue to sensationalise every single issue raised - especially if it's against a celeb or a politician.

 

The real cases have to be prosecuted to the maximum; no argument there. In the febrile atmosphere surrounding this issue right now, there is likely to be a lot of collateral damage where some malevolent wants to just ruin someone for reasons not related to sexual assault.

 

It's Murdoch's revenge because the Government failed to give the nod to Fox completely taking over Sky.

I don't think the issue is bandwagon jumping and folk making malicious claims here.

The fear has to be that in the current climate, anyone could say anything about anyone and it's a fucker of a job to disprove plus, mud sticks - your reputation is shot to pieces even if you are completely innocent.

 

That is where we are heading if common sense fails to prevail and the gutter press continue to sensationalise every single issue raised - especially if it's against a celeb or a politician.

 

The real cases have to be prosecuted to the maximum; no argument there. In the febrile atmosphere surrounding this issue right now, there is likely to be a lot of collateral damage where some malevolent wants to just ruin someone for reasons not related to sexual assault.

 

This.

 

Over here, it's the only law that's treated as "guilty until proved innocent" rather than the other way around.

 

There has to be some way of protecting REAL victims while not allowing "victims" to make false allegations. Buggered if I can think of it though.

This.

 

Over here, it's the only law that's treated as "guilty until proved innocent" rather than the other way around.

 

There has to be some way of protecting REAL victims while not allowing "victims" to make false allegations. Buggered if I can think of it though.

 

Perjury?

I don't think the issue is bandwagon jumping and folk making malicious claims here.

Yup - those that are making it about something it isn’t baffle me. It’s almost as they don’t want the current status quo questioned. No idea why that could be.

It's Murdoch's revenge because the Government failed to give the nod to Fox completely taking over Sky.

Is he really that arsed? You’ve pinned a couple of things on him being pissed off with the government

Is he really that arsed? You’ve pinned a couple of things on him being pissed off with the government

 

Wouldn't surprise me tbf

I watch a lot of SKY News and read a bit of the Times

 

I’m not seeing any obvious bias

I watch a lot of SKY News and read a bit of the Times

 

I’m not seeing any obvious bias

 

Does Murdoch still own those?

The man who pays no UK MADMAX

If you believe the left he does, he goes round telling all the journalists what they should write in them as well apparently

 

In reality I think his family owns about 10% of the shares or something silly

 

That’s News Corp anyway which I believe the Times comes under, not sure about Sky

 

Edit - with regards to paying UK Tax, why would he? He lives in the US doesn’t he?

Edited November 7, 20178 yr by birch-chorley

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a008439ed915d15b657741e/former-news-international-employee-resp-to-fox-sky-issues-statement.pdf

 

 

During the period News of the World operated Rupert Murdoch took a direct, personal interest in that newspaper, looking at key news stories especially political ones. He personally authorised a number of payments for politically oriented ‘news’ and checked all payments over £100,000 in later years.

 

There was a direct link between M15 and the NOW editor, allowing that agency to drop off tips that, ultimately, were used for political blackmail. The sudden closure of NOW had two hidden objectives. First to conceal the scale of political surveillance by the paper, and the de jure blackmail operated by the paper. Secondly, to conceal the link with the Security Services and the Whips Offices in Parliament

 

Between 2009 and the closure of the paper extensive ‘weeding’ was undertaken in order to eliminate signs of blackmail, especially in relation to political stories.

 

Rupert Murdoch’s personal interest in his UK media is political, not journalistic. This is evidenced by both the way he handled the NOW in particular but also in the news agenda of the Sun, Times and Sunday Times. All run a right wing agenda but more profoundly all ignore, most of the time, stories that might expose this bias and which might damage or embarrass parties Murdoch is supporting in Government.

 

Former News International Employee.

 

He was good in the A-Team.

 

Nah, he's like a kindly old grandad.

 

And I'm not saying owt against these mega-corporations tax-dodging 'responsibility to our shareholders' antics anymore - because I too have sinned - I took a videotape back to the videoshop once weeks late - to dodge the fee I posted it through the letterbox when they were shut with four pound coins sellotaped to the case as a derisory offering to make amends.

Edited November 8, 20178 yr by Youri McAnespie