| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
"Operation Midland is examining claims boys were abused by a group of powerful men from politics, the military and law enforcement agencies at locations across southern England and in London in the 1970s and 1980s."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31744282
Do they wear a badge?
His was a name that attracted rumours years ago. It is amazing Gluey isn't it how these vermin recognise the signs of their perversion in others ? My old Grandmother used to talk about peoople being stuck together like "shit to a blanket" and in these cases it's a very apt saying indeed.
Letting the White race down aren't they?
Disgusting crimes and possibly 3 murders.
It's all about the handshakeOriginally Posted by Gluey wrote on Thu, 05 March 2015 09:08
Proctor was convicted in the 1980s of having sex with rent boys under the age of 21. I think they were all over 16, so it wouldn't constitute a criminal offence today but in those days it did and he subsequently resigned as an MP.
I listened to this on R4 this morning and he came across as someone who has been attacked in the past for his sexuality. We really shouldn't go the route of Russia and assume that a poof is a child molester by default.
what is your point? the man was found guilty of a crime of having sex with someone under the age of consent which was 21 at the time. It is now 16 in line with everyone else and there are now amendments on the statute book which allow those previously convicted of such crimes to have them overturned.Proctor was convicted in the 1980s of having sex with rent boys under the age of 21. I think they were all over 16, so it wouldn't constitute a criminal offence today but in those days it did and he subsequently resigned as an MP.
I think it was just more accepted back then, if reluctantly.
A simple remark can give out a clue, if the other person is also that way inclined they can work it out.
For example you could write a song about 2 little boys and their 2 little toys, or a song about wanting to be in my gang. The writings on the wall (or in the song)
Yes the white race do things like this, if you went by the anti-Muslim agenda pushed on this board on a daily basis you would get the impression that it's just them doing it.
'Most' peoples annoyance with Rotherham was the ineffectiveness of Social Workers, the Council and The Police due to them being sacred they maybe called racist if they had actively pursued the thousands of complaints made against the perpetrators (who were all of Pakistani heritage, culture, religion and gender).
In Rotherham - the estimated figure is currently a minimum of 1400 girls (white or black, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, non Christian etc) - and possibly double that figure. In Oxford there over 400 girls abused - and counting
Arent you getting 'race' and 'religion' mixed up.
Not all muslims are asian or even Pakistani !!! just the same as we have asian christians.... and black jews
Maybe, anti-religion, anti-race, it's all pushed on here.
He was a Member of Parliament who was breaking the law as it stood at the time. He had to face the consequences for that. I don't happen to agree with the law as it was then for what it's worth but the facts are quite clear.Proctor was convicted in the 1980s of having sex with rent boys under the age of 21. I think they were all over 16, so it wouldn't constitute a criminal offence today but in those days it did and he subsequently resigned as an MP.
The point I'm trying to make is that he should be considered for investigation on the merits of the evidence and not because 30 years ago he engaged in some sexual act with a consenting adult which at the time was considered criminal.Proctor was convicted in the 1980s of having sex with rent boys under the age of 21. I think they were all over 16, so it wouldn't constitute a criminal offence today but in those days it did and he subsequently resigned as an MP.what is your point? the man was found guilty of a crime of having sex with someone under the age of consent which was 21 at the time. It is now 16 in line with everyone else and there are now amendments on the statute book which allow those previously convicted of such crimes to have them overturned.
Let me repeat myself in different words: he was a part of the legislature and he broke the law which his legislature had legislated. I don't think what he did was wrong but he broke his contract with the electorate.Proctor was convicted in the 1980s of having sex with rent boys under the age of 21. I think they were all over 16, so it wouldn't constitute a criminal offence today but in those days it did and he subsequently resigned as an MP.what is your point? the man was found guilty of a crime of having sex with someone under the age of consent which was 21 at the time. It is now 16 in line with everyone else and there are now amendments on the statute book which allow those previously convicted of such crimes to have them overturned.He was a Member of Parliament who was breaking the law as it stood at the time. He had to face the consequences for that. I don't happen to agree with the law as it was then for what it's worth but the facts are quite clear.
Stop digging.
thanks for the sarcasm but I understood you the first time.Proctor was convicted in the 1980s of having sex with rent boys under the age of 21. I think they were all over 16, so it wouldn't constitute a criminal offence today but in those days it did and he subsequently resigned as an MP.what is your point? the man was found guilty of a crime of having sex with someone under the age of consent which was 21 at the time. It is now 16 in line with everyone else and there are now amendments on the statute book which allow those previously convicted of such crimes to have them overturned.He was a Member of Parliament who was breaking the law as it stood at the time. He had to face the consequences for that. I don't happen to agree with the law as it was then for what it's worth but the facts are quite clear.Are you aware of the restitution for those previously convicted of these laws that have subsequently been repealed? as it stands he could have his conviction quashed but for whatever reason he hasn't elected to do so.
I wasn't being sarcastic. I think we actually agree with each other.Proctor was convicted in the 1980s of having sex with rent boys under the age of 21. I think they were all over 16, so it wouldn't constitute a criminal offence today but in those days it did and he subsequently resigned as an MP.what is your point? the man was found guilty of a crime of having sex with someone under the age of consent which was 21 at the time. It is now 16 in line with everyone else and there are now amendments on the statute book which allow those previously convicted of such crimes to have them overturned.He was a Member of Parliament who was breaking the law as it stood at the time. He had to face the consequences for that. I don't happen to agree with the law as it was then for what it's worth but the facts are quite clear.Are you aware of the restitution for those previously convicted of these laws that have subsequently been repealed? as it stands he could have his conviction quashed but for whatever reason he hasn't elected to do so.He is being targeted today because of a crime he committed 30 years ago that is no longer thought of as a crime. Society has moved on and if it (the use of rent boys) happened today then no one would assume he must also be involved in child abuse cases just because he happens to be a poof.
I wasn't being sarcastic. I think we actually agree with each other.Then please accept my apologiesProctor was convicted in the 1980s of having sex with rent boys under the age of 21. I think they were all over 16, so it wouldn't constitute a criminal offence today but in those days it did and he subsequently resigned as an MP.what is your point? the man was found guilty of a crime of having sex with someone under the age of consent which was 21 at the time. It is now 16 in line with everyone else and there are now amendments on the statute book which allow those previously convicted of such crimes to have them overturned.He was a Member of Parliament who was breaking the law as it stood at the time. He had to face the consequences for that. I don't happen to agree with the law as it was then for what it's worth but the facts are quite clear.Are you aware of the restitution for those previously convicted of these laws that have subsequently been repealed? as it stands he could have his conviction quashed but for whatever reason he hasn't elected to do so.He is being targeted today because of a crime he committed 30 years ago that is no longer thought of as a crime. Society has moved on and if it (the use of rent boys) happened today then no one would assume he must also be involved in child abuse cases just because he happens to be a poof.The point I'm trying to make is that he should be considered for investigation on the merits of the evidence and not because 30 years ago he engaged in some sexual act with a consenting adult which at the time was considered criminal.
No problems - I just think we were coming to the same point from different angles.Proctor was convicted in the 1980s of having sex with rent boys under the age of 21. I think they were all over 16, so it wouldn't constitute a criminal offence today but in those days it did and he subsequently resigned as an MP.what is your point? the man was found guilty of a crime of having sex with someone under the age of consent which was 21 at the time. It is now 16 in line with everyone else and there are now amendments on the statute book which allow those previously convicted of such crimes to have them overturned.He was a Member of Parliament who was breaking the law as it stood at the time. He had to face the consequences for that. I don't happen to agree with the law as it was then for what it's worth but the facts are quite clear.Are you aware of the restitution for those previously convicted of these laws that have subsequently been repealed? as it stands he could have his conviction quashed but for whatever reason he hasn't elected to do so.He is being targeted today because of a crime he committed 30 years ago that is no longer thought of as a crime. Society has moved on and if it (the use of rent boys) happened today then no one would assume he must also be involved in child abuse cases just because he happens to be a poof.The point I'm trying to make is that he should be considered for investigation on the merits of the evidence and not because 30 years ago he engaged in some sexual act with a consenting adult which at the time was considered criminal.Let me repeat myself in different words: he was a part of the legislature and he broke the law which his legislature had legislated. I don't think what he did was wrong but he broke his contract with the electorate.
lol "xenophobic" coming from youand your track record , I come from a mixed race family you utter berk
I think it's a little bit more organised than that
Do they wear a badge?
I see some of the usual suspects have regained their voice in this thread, you know, the ones who dissapear when a head is cut off or someone who is burnt alive in a cage, a plane flown into a building etc. etc.
Silly me, I forgot, none of these incidents happened, they are made up by the terrible west.
Beam me up Scotty.
3.
2.
1.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote