Thread: The jammy little ****er

And again, latin dancer, buribum, looper, mr earl.

does anyone of you have the qualifications, skill and experience to tell me that the boy is not a victim?

Doctors, child psychologists, child development experts and sexual abuse experts will say he is. Can you show me a shred evidence that says they're wrong?

Originally Posted by kingwilly

And again, latin dancer, buribum, looper, mr earl.

does anyone of you have the qualifications, skill and experience to tell me that the boy is not a victim?

Doctors, child psychologists, child development experts and sexual abuse experts will say he is. Can you show me a shred evidence that says they're wrong?

Are you really this retarded or just trolling???

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Now if it comes to light that these 2 teachers preyed on 16 year old student boys and this was a regular occurrence and they bedded other lads aswell then i'll change my opinion

But that's exactly the point you are refusing to acknowledge. In THIS case you are right but what about the next case where the teacher WAS taking advantage of a shy, nervous 16 year old, wouldn't that case look very very similar to this one in court?

You put 100 cases like this in court and you honestly think think the system is capable of differentiating accurately between the levels of abuse, whether the child was 100% up for it or was cajoled, and whether any long term damage was done or not?

Of course it isn't. The system would make loads of mistakes and guilty people would get away with abusing children.

The law isn't the way it is to protect boys like this one, it's the way it is to protect ALL children from ever being abused. It's a zero tolerance policy to make sure NO children get abused. You want to play Russian roulette with your kids well being then go for it, most people don't and understand why and are glad the laws are the way they are.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by kingwilly

And again, latin dancer, buribum, looper, mr earl.

does anyone of you have the qualifications, skill and experience to tell me that the boy is not a victim?

Doctors, child psychologists, child development experts and sexual abuse experts will say he is. Can you show me a shred evidence that says they're wrong?

Are you really this retarded or just trolling???

Not at all. Please answer the question, are you more qualified than the experts?

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by kingwilly

And again, latin dancer, buribum, looper, mr earl.

does anyone of you have the qualifications, skill and experience to tell me that the boy is not a victim?

Doctors, child psychologists, child development experts and sexual abuse experts will say he is. Can you show me a shred evidence that says they're wrong?

Are you really this retarded or just trolling???

Yes he is; he thinks Ajinomoto/MSG/Apartame and GMO's are health foods.
He thinks Monsanto is a world health organization. He's so fucking stupid he actually thinks Jakarta is a nice place to live.

Originally Posted by chassamui

As far as punishment goes the case has to be treated on its individual merits.

Mandatory sentences are there for a reason. They are designed to dissuade people from committing particular crimes.

When the mandatory sentence is reduced, it stands to reason that the amount of people that will be prepared to take the gamble of getting caught will increase, as the consequences if the gamble fails are less frightening.

When it comes to the welfare of children mandatory sentences are there to make the number of children being abused as low as humanly possible. Can't see why anybody would want it any other way.

These women don't go to prison, then the next time somebody is thinking about doing something similar, they are far more likely to follow through than they would have been if these women had gone to prison. That's a simple fact of life.

There needs to be zero tolerance to ALL sexual crimes against children, as that is clearly the way they are protected the most.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

As a 14/15 year old, being 'abused' by older ladies (18/19 year olds) was not something that has done anything other than fill me with joy

Why are you such a raving shifter then ?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by kingwilly

And again, latin dancer, buribum, looper, mr earl.

does anyone of you have the qualifications, skill and experience to tell me that the boy is not a victim?

Doctors, child psychologists, child development experts and sexual abuse experts will say he is. Can you show me a shred evidence that says they're wrong?

Are you really this retarded or just trolling???

Yes he is; he thinks Ajinomoto/MSG/Apartame and GMO's are health foods.
He thinks Monsanto is a world health organization. He's so fucking stupid he actually thinks Jakarta is a nice place to live.

Is piss more healthy?

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Mandatory sentences are there for a reason. They are designed to dissuade people from committing particular crimes.

Yes but we all know that they do not work. Death Penalty - USA - has it curbed murder rates? NO

Another example of where mandatory sentences does not work is the TD Jail - where convicted felons take on a new identity, escape and commit their crimes all over again.
Any ideas on what should happen to those sad sacks?

^ Plastic surgery on the eyes?

Discuss the topic or slink back to the DH where you belong baggy face.

Originally Posted by Fozzy

There needs to be zero tolerance to ALL sexual crimes against children, as that is clearly the way they are protected the most.

Absolutely, but the definition of a child should be biological not some arbitrary age number. Most males and females are sexually mature by 13-14 years. The female human generally matures earlier the male.

Imposing puritanical legal artifices on human nature is contrary to nature and is itself a crime against nature.

I find it most amusing how our resident libtards embrace puritanical religious dogma when it suits them. Would hypocritical be a reasonable word to use?

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Originally Posted by chassamui

As far as punishment goes the case has to be treated on its individual merits.

Mandatory sentences are there for a reason. They are designed to dissuade people from committing particular crimes. .

Bullshit, possible sentences are not a factor in whether people commit crimes by and large.
Mandatory sentences are there to stop individual judges from applying their own individual morals when sentencing rather than what is perceived to be community sentences.

Originally Posted by Necron99

Bullshit, possible sentences are not a factor in whether people commit crimes by and large.

Yeah sure. Change it so you don't get three points or a fine for speeding but just a warning, and you're telling me more people won't get caught speeding? Dream on.

People are controlled by the fear of the legal consequences of their actions.

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by kingwilly

And again, latin dancer, buribum, looper, mr earl.

does anyone of you have the qualifications, skill and experience to tell me that the boy is not a victim?

Doctors, child psychologists, child development experts and sexual abuse experts will say he is. Can you show me a shred evidence that says they're wrong?

Are you really this retarded or just trolling???

Not at all. Please answer the question, are you more qualified than the experts?

Of course not. However, they are not trying to justify their existence in their professions by jumping on a case like this to boost their careers.

Does the Kid think he is a Victim? Don't it. I bet he had photos of it he still spanks the monkey whilst looking at them.

A breach of trust: Teachers having sex with students

While Abbott admits his research isn't exact — it's based on media accounts of such cases — he has found 460 such cases in the U.S. from Jan. 1 through Aug. 10. Of those, almost two-thirds of the teachers were male; the average age of the accused teacher was 35.

"I think we're looking at a national epidemic," Abbott added.

Critics suggest that as many as one in 10 U.S. public school students — or about 4.5 million children — are involved in some kind of inappropriate teacher-student relationship.

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Originally Posted by Necron99

Bullshit, possible sentences are not a factor in whether people commit crimes by and large.

Yeah sure. Change it so you don't get three points or a fine for speeding but just a warning, and you're telling me more people won't get caught speeding? Dream on.

People are controlled by the fear of the legal consequences of their actions.

Unless you are a career criminal, the length of a jail sentence is moot.
The average honest joe's life would be ruined by being convicted and jailed. He doesn't care if the sentence is one year or five.

Originally Posted by Necron99

The average honest joe's life

We're talking about teachers who fuck children here not "honest joe"

Somebody who is capable of fucking his student is more than capable of deciding not to do it through fear of prison, and equally capable of deciding that he will do it as a result of knowing that he most likely won't go to prison if he gets caught.

Long sentences are used as a deterrent, that's a known fact.

Originally Posted by Fozzy

You put 100 cases like this in court and ....

I'll stop you there .
if there were that many cases and more, it would be one happy country !
Half the problem is young men not getting any action.

Originally Posted by Fozzy

You don't get shy, nervous, quiet 16 year old boys then? They must be fags and not deserve protection right?

Indeed , that shy 16 year old could easily turn gay , just what he needs a couple of stocking wearing teachers to show him the feminine delights and bring him out of his shell.

Originally Posted by kingwilly

How do you know he has not been negatively affected? You dont.

How do you know he has not been positively affected and his life greatly enriched ; you don't

Originally Posted by kingwilly

does anyone of you have the qualifications, skill and experience to tell me that the boy is not a victim?

Well just the fact that he was so full and bursting with pride that he bragged about it to all his mates , hardly a trait of a victim .

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Please answer the question, are you more qualified than the experts?

Yes
Because all of them have to be !00% politically correct to get the job , and as such are totally brainwashed- any normal person with a reasonable level of intelegence would be more qualified .

Originally Posted by chassamui

I believe the legal age of consent was raised in civilised society in order to protect the vulnerable.

Well, raised from say 12 to 16 I agree , and that was mostly to give hesitant girls a good reason to say no.
Age of consent of 18 in USA is ridiculous.


The only reason i can think to jail these 2 teacher is if the 16 year old was a nigger , then I say throw away the keys .
But i doubt he was , the teachers dont look that thick .

Originally Posted by blue

Originally Posted by Fozzy

You put 100 cases like this in court and ....

I'll stop you there .
if there were that many cases and more, it would be one happy country !
Half the problem is young men not getting any action.

Originally Posted by Fozzy

You don't get shy, nervous, quiet 16 year old boys then? They must be fags and not deserve protection right?

Indeed , that shy 16 year old could easily turn gay , just what he needs a couple of stocking wearing teachers to show him the feminine delights and bring him out of his shell.

Originally Posted by kingwilly

How do you know he has not been negatively affected? You dont.

How do you know he has not been positively affected and his life greatly enriched ; you don't

Originally Posted by kingwilly

does anyone of you have the qualifications, skill and experience to tell me that the boy is not a victim?

Well just the fact that he was so full and bursting with pride that he bragged about it to all his mates , hardly a trait of a victim .

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Please answer the question, are you more qualified than the experts?

Yes
Because all of them have to be !00% politically correct to get the job , and as such are totally brainwashed- any normal person with a reasonable level of intelegence would be more qualified .

Originally Posted by chassamui

I believe the legal age of consent was raised in civilised society in order to protect the vulnerable.

Well, raised from say 12 to 16 I agree , and that was mostly to give hesitant girls a good reason to say no.
Age of consent of 18 in USA is ridiculous.


The only reason i can think to jail these 2 teacher is if the 16 year old was a nigger , then I say throw away the keys .
But i doubt he was , the teachers dont look that thick .

Fogetabout arguing with queenwiily, she is dumb as dog shit.

Apparently blue and mr earl are more knowledgeable than experts in their field.

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Originally Posted by chassamui

As far as punishment goes the case has to be treated on its individual merits.

Mandatory sentences are there for a reason. They are designed to dissuade people from committing particular crimes.

When the mandatory sentence is reduced, it stands to reason that the amount of people that will be prepared to take the gamble of getting caught will increase, as the consequences if the gamble fails are less frightening.

When it comes to the welfare of children mandatory sentences are there to make the number of children being abused as low as humanly possible. Can't see why anybody would want it any other way.

These women don't go to prison, then the next time somebody is thinking about doing something similar, they are far more likely to follow through than they would have been if these women had gone to prison. That's a simple fact of life.

There needs to be zero tolerance to ALL sexual crimes against children, as that is clearly the way they are protected the most.

I may have missed something here about mandatory sentences. If the women plead guilty to having sex with a student, is there is a mandatory sentence? As far as i am aware posters have just suggested options for sentencing? Apologies if I am wrong.

^ No there isn't as far as I know. My point was that there should be a mandatory jail sentence for these kind of crimes IMO, but I wasn't very clear. I was arguing against the opinion that she shouldn't do jail time and against the notion that a more lenient sentence was appropriate because of the individual circumstances.

Originally Posted by blue

any normal person with a reasonable level of intelegence would be more qualified

I see what you did there.

Originally Posted by Fozzy

^ No there isn't as far as I know. My point was that there should be a mandatory jail sentence for these kind of crimes IMO, but I wasn't very clear. I was arguing against the opinion that she shouldn't do jail time.

Excuse me; but how is consensual sex between sexually mature human beings a crime???