Be Excellent To Each Other

I would fully back some such program, or compulsory implants for girls* as soon as their periods start.



*Only because I'm not aware of one for males, and as ad as some STDs can be, an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy must be much worse as it's childrens lfes being played with. That and 16 year olds are still just kids themselves, kids brining kids up doesn't allways turn out to well as they have had little life experience.

Chastity belts.

From the sound of what goes on in some schools, I don't think it wuld take much to get them off!
The problem is that it's the sex they want, the pregnanacy or std is just the risk they take with the ride.

Plus, some people just shouldn't breed anyway.

/hides.

This.

*nods*

Anal. Solving all the world's problems since 1746.

Is there not some loophole involving parental permission or something? I'm sure there was some issues regarding this and Keira Knightley flashing her boobs in 'The Hole'.

That wasn't a problem because they look like boys'.

No. The issue is whether the photo or film is "indecent" or not, which is a fairly malleable judicial concept. Presumably Kneightly's boobs were thought to be sufficiently non-existent that they wouldn't have the capacity to be seen in a sexual manner and, therefore, weren't indecent. And presumably still aren't.

I had to research all this for a US client a few years ago who wanted to expand a fairly explicit US website for call girl ads into the UK, together with researching all the UK's laws on prostitution and solicitation (and bloody confusing they are, too).

Yeah, sure. Or at least that's what you told Mrs Chris when she found all that porn and those call-girl flyers in your briefcase.

I thought it was the Sport and Linsey Dawn Makensie?

There was some girl who 'couldn't wait' to show off her norks in The Sun (as I believe it was, or possibly the Sport), and for some weeks/days/months before she finally got them out, there were 'teaser' pictures. Yes, a legally underage girl being encouraged to sexually provoke a nation's grubby pervs, with the promise that once she's legal, she'll show her baps.

This great nation etc.

Which probably comes from still having the sexual maturity as a nation as the average Carry On film.

Carry On London is due out later this year.

Carefully timed to coincide with Boris becoming mayor? I'd like to think so.

That was the Star, during the brief time it was taken over by The Sunday Sport's management, and turned into what in effect was The Daily Sport. They had difficulty keeping the paper together because the journalists resigned en masse. The agony columnist resigned when she was told to make up pervy confessions to answer. The axe finally fell when Tescos withdrew their advertising, and the Sport conceded defeat.

The Star's journalists resigned en masse. Jesus.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster moves in mysterious ways...

This. Based purely on ('specialist Dutch publications' -Ed.) the Netherlands seemed to have figured this out ages ago.

Need I remind anyone of the tale of romanista and Maryse?

It appears there is honour among subhuman parasites.

Yes.

Haaaaang on.

BBC latest

If the mother is being done for child neglect and perverting the course of justice because she was colluding with Michael Donovan (who had Little Shannon in his bedroom), how can Donovan actually be charged with kidnapping Shannon? Shannon was there with her mother's permission and consent. Yes, Karen Matthews can be charged with perverting the course of justice and child neglect, but he surely can't be done for kidnap.

Here's why.

Kidnap is basically taking someone against their consent. And as minors can't legally consent to anything*, this would be without the parents' consent in the case of a minor (otherwise a kid being dropped off at school kicking and screaming could be said to have been kidnapped by her teacher). Ergo, as Karen consented to Donovan having Shannon there, it wasn't kidnap, regardless of Shannon's feelings on the matter.

Or, and I appreciate this is a distinct possibility given my increasingly scatter-brained state, have I missed something here?


*With a handful of small exceptions, such as consenting under the Data Protection Act to having their fingerprints taken by their school library for use in a *cough*national criminal database*cough* library card system.

They are poor therefore guilty.

Moreover, why would Shannon's mother want her kidnapped in this way? I still have a horrible suspicion that the abduction, possible molestation and brainwashing of Shannon was the plan, because of her birth father. I really, really, really want to be making a big deal out of nothing and a big stupid over-reacting presumptuous twat.

I really think it's as simple as Karen Matthews wanting this "distant" relative to hold onto Shannon for a bit, so that the Matthews clan can get their mugs on telly and make a Maddie style appeal and get some cash. Shannon is then found wandering around the local streets unable to say where she's been. Karen Matthews wouldn't benefit from having her daughter being fiddled with for three weeks (and I can't imagine she's interested in much beyond what's of immediate benefit to her i.e. money (apologies for being prejudiced about pikey cunts, but there we are)), and, more tellingly, the "kidnapper" has not been charged with any fiddling offences.

The police can tell quite easily from kids whether they've been interfered with - an ex girlfriend's uncle had abused his own kids, and the police were quite able to tell, despite them being very young, quite traumatised, and having no idea about or vocabulary for what it was that had happened to them. And excellently the bastard's in jail.

Unfortunately the above post can be interpreted as me agreeing with you being a presumptuous twat, but that's not the intention. Or at least not the main point...

I think Mr Chris is bang on the money.

About being a presumptuous twat, you mean.

No, it's well known yu are a cunt, not a presumptious twat. You can't have both.

This seemed to fit in here as it's about a father and daughter.

BBC linky here.

It seems more like something I would expect to have read about happening in Russia a few centuries ago. Not sure why that is though.

I, personally, don't believe it. She had 7 kids in a basement without medical assistance? And none of them ever escaped, even when the father got old and weak?

Pfft.

One died, three went to live with their grandparents.
One got ill, and she hid a letter in the childs clothing and sent it to hospital.

Upstairs. Bit weird the kids never mentioned anything to anyone outside about their mum and 3 surviving siblings living in a basement. Maybe they thought that was normal?

I read that story, and what I thought was the worst thing was how many people there must be locked up in cellars around the world that we don't know about.

It was the three younger children, I believe they were taken there as babies.

(but not the youngest who was five)

I thought that too, actually, given that none of the neighbours apparently noticed. It's like those other stories about kidnapped kids in paedos' basements. Weird, really, that we have so little interaction with our neighbours that that sort of thing can go unnoticed. Sign of the times, I suppose.

What was that film where some criminals take a family hostage in their home, and it turns out that the family were a bunch of nutzoids who end up chasing the criminals round their basement trying to kill them?

uhhhhhhhh.... The Friedmans? At Home With The Friedmans? Something like that.

It was a fucking brilliant film.

If my neighbours are the kind of people who'll do that I don't WANT to know them

You're thinking of Capturing the Friedmans - that was a documentary.

This was a silly film. C'mon, internet people. Craster - you must remember the name, you recommended it to me.

Yeah, like a decade ago.

I don't care, I must know what it is. Now. I've been searching by plot summary on IMDB and I can't find it. I must know now. Must. Must.

Home Alone?

I dunno about your film, but a similar one is "Funny Games". I don't know if the hostage family are nutters in that one though.

Could the bloke be guilty of kidnapping for not turning her in when she was officially declared 'missing', and therefore no longer under her parents' jurisdiction?