On Thursday, 21 November 2019 15:19:51 UTC, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:



The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got, and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

No it isn't or we wouldn't need prisons.

The laws used to be decided by the church (in the UK anyway)

In the USA drinking alcohol used to be illegal; that worked didn't it.

On the whole the laws are based on what the majority think the right way to behave is and why. So peole and places are more enlightened than others.




At best, it is a guide to what is gross immoral.

Is it?

It's a guide to what those in power think is immoral, such as sex before marraige.

Did you know that it is illegal to be drunk in a pub, that's a 1872 act that can still be enforced.

and a 1986 poaching law states that it is illegal €œto handle a salmon in suspicious circumstances€�.

I don't think there's any connection between this and Alex Salmond accused of sexual assaults.

Her'es an interesting one for Brexiteers.

No person shall, in the course of a business, import into England, potatoes which he knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, are from Poland.

It is illegal to activate your burglar alarm without first nominating a €˜Key-Holder who can switch it off in your absence




The laws surrounding prostitution are hardly a guide to moral behaviour..

Of course they are. If society disapproved, there would be laws against
it, just as there are against bestiality and cruelty to animals, which
are entirely moral issues.

But where does one get their morals from ?


Morals are not codified. It is as ridiculous to ask to see the "rules of
morlaity" as Nugent was when he wanted to see the contents of a "hidden
agenda".

I haven't asked for that, so you're lying again. Why does lying not
figure in your own moral code?

It does in mine, but should it be in law, that is another question.



Bestiality is not illegal in all juridictions. We can hardly say British
sex tourists to such destinations are behaving in a respectable and legal
manner.

Who says? If it's not illegal, it's up to the individual to decide.
And I don't think there's any law anywhere that requires anyone to be
'respectable'.

Defining respectable would be interesting.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 02:45:14 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

02:45 in Australia? AGAIN? So, for how long have you been out of bed and
trolling this night already, you clinically insane senile cretin? BG

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:40:21 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbasstarder®™", farted
again:

some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only the centre of the frame
looks relatively distortion and aberration free. That is consistent with a
cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely captured with an inexpensive 35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model. Nothing suggests
it has been postprocessed.

That's exactly the sort of camera the young lady said she used.

Is it? Did she, psychopath?

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID:

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 10:49, pamela wrote:
On 08:37 21 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:

On 21/11/2019 00:19, Roger Hayter wrote:

Even if the girls weren't trafficked, most people probably think using
the services of prostitutes is sufficiently morally despicable to
exclude such users from decent society.

It wouldn't be the world's oldest profession if there weren't the demand
and the supply. But I'm interested to know why you think it is 'morally
despicable', and the basis on which you think most people probably agree
with you. Where does that moral judgement come from?

Anyway, good luck in your campaign to eliminate it.

What's next from you, Norman? Perhaps you think bestiality should be
permitted and even approved of because, so it's practitioners claim, the
animals enjoy it.

For heaven's sake show some respect for what society considers decent
behaviour.

Society's decency standards are generally those set out in its laws.

There are no laws against prostitution as such in the UK, which indicates
that society at least tolerates it, and does not condemn it.

Your morality may be that it's 'unacceptable' (to use the word most
favoured by po-faced puritans) but the law doesn't indicate that it is. It
leaves it for individuals to decide the matter for themselves, and it is
not for others to impose their own views on them.

I asked you above 'Where does that moral judgement come from?'. Do say,
or we'll have to conclude that yours are just utterly random.

As regards bestiality, that is clearly illegal, so we have to assume
society condemns it. But there is an argument that nothing and no-one is
harmed by it, so why should the law intervene, however odd you think it
is? Oddity itself is not a ground for making something illegal.

The problem is seen in New Zealand, When someone shows up
wearing gum boots, what you lot call wellingtons, the sheep all
panic and cause massive traffic congestion as they all run like mad.

Thats why the huntaway breed of dogs was
developed there, to stop the sheep getting away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntaway

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 21/11/2019 09:09, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 08:54, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

If you think there is a 'USA age of consent', do please tell us what
is.

There is in the places that Roberts claims he did the ****ing.

Of course there is. Now tell us what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_o..._United_States

When a hillbilly wants to marry his cousin, his father says, "But she's a
eleven year old girl!" "Yeah, pop, but she *looks* nine!"

(I note that it used to be 7 in Delaware.)

Its even worse in Tasmania. That’s why they have two heads.

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 16:19:45 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:


The problem is seen in New Zealand, When someone shows up
wearing gum boots, what you lot call wellingtons, the sheep all
panic and cause massive traffic congestion as they all run like mad.

So when did you last go to New Zealand ?

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 14:22:12 UTC, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-11-20, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend
several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some
fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he
did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I
believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly
photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?


The photograph does not show sexual activity. In fact, it proves
nothing
at all. There's no need to photoshop such a picture, unless you want to
display it on your wall as a proud memento of meeting a Prince. If such
things please you.

So why are his supporters claiming that it could be fake? That just
sounds
desperate.

Because they are desperate.
I doubt it has been edited in any major way, it doesn't look
particually fake to me. Red eye from a cheap camera, I'm not
sure who would bother as it's can't prove anything either way.

If it isnt fake, it does prove that he did meet
that slut, something randy andy denys.

He also denys that it cant have been in the
UK because he claims that he never dresses
like that in the UK, only in the USA,

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:
On 13:50 21 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 10:49, pamela wrote:
On 08:37 21 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 00:19, Roger Hayter wrote:


Even if the girls weren't trafficked, most people probably think
using the services of prostitutes is sufficiently morally despicable
to exclude such users from decent society.

It wouldn't be the world's oldest profession if there weren't the
demand and the supply. But I'm interested to know why you think it is
'morally despicable', and the basis on which you think most people
probably agree with you. Where does that moral judgement come from?

Anyway, good luck in your campaign to eliminate it.

What's next from you, Norman? Perhaps you think bestiality should be
permitted and even approved of because, so it's practitioners claim,
the animals enjoy it.

For heaven's sake show some respect for what society considers decent
behaviour.

Society's decency standards are generally those set out in its laws.

There are no laws against prostitution as such in the UK, which
indicates that society at least tolerates it, and does not condemn it.

Your morality may be that it's 'unacceptable' (to use the word most
favoured by po-faced puritans) but the law doesn't indicate that it is.
It leaves it for individuals to decide the matter for themselves, and it
is not for others to impose their own views on them.

I asked you above 'Where does that moral judgement come from?'. Do say,
or we'll have to conclude that yours are just utterly random.

As regards bestiality, that is clearly illegal, so we have to assume
society condemns it. But there is an argument that nothing and no-one
is harmed by it, so why should the law intervene, however odd you think
it is? Oddity itself is not a ground for making something illegal.

The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got,

The god botherers disagree.

and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

It isnt on these sort of matters when the
law changes so dramatically over time.

At best, it is a guide to what is gross immoral.

Is it?

The laws surrounding prostitution are hardly a guide to moral behaviour.

Of course they are. If society disapproved, there would be laws against
it, just as there are against bestiality and cruelty to animals, which are
entirely moral issues.

Perhaps you enjoy visitng prostitutes but that does not make it
respcetable behaviour or model behaviour for children to adopt.

Who are you to decide what is 'respectable' or 'model' behaviour? It's
for everyone to come to their own conclusions and make their own
decisions.

Morals are not codified. It is as ridiculous to ask to see the "rules of
morlaity" as Nugent was when he wanted to see the contents of a "hidden
agenda".

I haven't asked for that, so you're lying again. Why does lying not
figure in your own moral code?

Bestiality is not illegal in all juridictions. We can hardly say British
sex tourists to such destinations are behaving in a respectable and legal
manner.

Who says? If it's not illegal, it's up to the individual to decide. And I
don't think there's any law anywhere that requires anyone to be
'respectable'.

There is actually, most obviously with those
involved in the legal profession, judges etc.

An Irish citizen can be proscuted for sexual offences committed
outside Ireland.

Prince Andrew's behaviour is finally getting the attention it deserves.
It is long overdue.

Be specific, dear.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 16:19:45 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:


The problem is seen in New Zealand, When someone shows up
wearing gum boots, what you lot call wellingtons, the sheep all
panic and cause massive traffic congestion as they all run like mad.

So when did you last go to New Zealand ?

Never been there. The last thing I need
is to be killed by an avalanche of sheep
running away from the sheep shaggers.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 03:22:58 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

03:22 in Australia? Still everything dark in Australia, you retarded senile
piece of troll****?

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 03:39:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile cretin's latest troll****

03:39 in Australia? Is your unbearable loneliness not letting you sleep in
again, you abnormal cantankerous senile cretin? Maybe if you were a little
less quarrelsome, some people in real life might perhaps not avoid you like
the plague ...and you could perhaps sleep in again? BG

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a Female name that stays
around around while you talk it to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from from you boring
them to death."
MID:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 03:19:34 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


The problem is seen in New Zealand

Your problem is that you are so cantankerous, quarrelsome, self-opinionated
and obnoxious that EVERYONE, but EVERYONE, in real life avoids you like the
plague ...and which is the ONE reason why you need to get up EVERY NIGHT
between 1 and 4 am in Australia, just so you can pester people with your
obnoxious presence, you abnormal forsaken senile pest!

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 03:46:01 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


So when did you last go to New Zealand ?

Never been there.

But you more about it than any New Zealander, right, senile Rodent? LMAO!

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 03:28:23 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the senile trolling asshole's latest troll****

03:28??? AGAIN? You psychopaths really know NO shame AT ALL, eh senile
Rodent? tsk

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

On 2019-11-21, Jeff wrote:

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on the left
and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you look at the edges
where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant chromatic
aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers, you can still see
some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only the centre of the frame
looks relatively distortion and aberration free. That is consistent with a
cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely captured with an inexpensive 35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model. Nothing suggests
it has been postprocessed.


But it is only the centre of the pic that might have been photoshopped!!

Are you saying that Roberts has been added to it and, presumably, his fingers
around her waist? What would have been there in her absence? Or are you
saying that her face has been added instead of someone else's? There is
nothing to suggest that either has been done.

On 21/11/2019 14:03, pamela wrote:
On 12:47 21 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:

There is nothing to indicate he [prince Andrew] has committed any
offence,


Spoken like a true sympathiser of sexual perverts.



Are you suggesting Andrew is a pervert? If so, on what basis?

"Jeff" wrote in message ...

Roberts does claim the ****ed her multiple times in
the USA tho, so the USA age of consent is relevant.
Tho its hardly a serious crime that he didn’t check
her birth certificate before ****ing her in the USA,


The age of consent in NY is 17

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he done the same
thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

On 21/11/2019 21:39, Rod Speed wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
...

Roberts does claim the ****ed her multiple times in
the USA tho, so the USA age of consent is relevant.
Tho its hardly a serious crime that he didn’t check
her birth certificate before ****ing her in the USA,

The age of consent in NY is 17

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he done the
same thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

No she doesn't. Read the thread, ignoramus.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:39:10 +1100, , better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he done the same
thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

Obviously not, senile retard!

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:20:39 +0100, Foreskin Peeler
wrote:

[FLUHS Grik skata]...and better air in here again! [sic][SIC!!! LOL]

Watch, it geezer!

Having multiple apoplectic fits anus? B

Having multiple mini-orgasms anus? G

All because Rod Speed has been posting anus? GB

GOT, your clock set to Oztralia time anus? VGB

Stugatz! Fanook! Vaffanculo!
tsk

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 21:39, Rod Speed wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
...

Roberts does claim the ****ed her multiple times in
the USA tho, so the USA age of consent is relevant.
Tho its hardly a serious crime that he didn’t check
her birth certificate before ****ing her in the USA,

The age of consent in NY is 17

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he done the
same thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

No she doesn't. Read the thread, ignoramus.

Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

"Incubus" wrote in message
...
On 2019-11-20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he
did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I
believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on the
left
and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you look at the
edges
where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant chromatic
aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers, you can still
see
some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only the centre of the
frame
looks relatively distortion and aberration free. That is consistent with
a
cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely captured with an inexpensive
35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model. Nothing
suggests
it has been postprocessed.

But it would well be two separate photos with the same cheap camera
which have been combined to make it look like they were both in the
same shot when they werent. With that hand added later.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:36:44 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


No she doesn't. Read the thread, ignoramus.

Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

No, she didn't, you auto-contradicting, senile cretin from Oz!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

"Incubus" wrote in message
...
On 2019-11-20, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend
several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he
did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I
believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly
photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?


The photograph does not show sexual activity. In fact, it proves nothing
at all. There's no need to photoshop such a picture, unless you want to
display it on your wall as a proud memento of meeting a Prince. If such
things please you.

So why are his supporters claiming that it could be fake?

Because he claims he has never met her.

That just sounds desperate.

Nope, not if he has in fact never met her. Clearly one
or other of them must be lying and its very likely that
Roberts is doing that given that she has already
received millions as a result of her civil case.

On 21/11/2019 15:16, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 15:02:50 UTC, Max Demian wrote:

Surely the maxim should be, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

If those in certain US states (I forget which) think that it's OK to
shag (compliant) animals, why should 'tourists' not do the same while
they are there?

It's an interesting point the age of consent in Thialand is 15, I asked the tecnician I dshare my office with as she is from thialand, and in Nigeria is 11.

This is perhaps where morals come in rather than the law.
Didnlt gary Glitter got to camboais for child sex that was sort of legal provided no one complained or similar ?.

Whose morals? Those of which place, and which time?

--
Max Demian

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 15:45, Ray wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 09:30, Ray wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 09:00, Ray wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 04:19, Ray wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile'
activity with
no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is
anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

At one time, it meant 'fancying' pre pubescent boys or girls. Now
used for
anyone who has sex with one under the age of consent in any
particular
country.

Its more complicated than that in most modern first world
countries.

Its not pedophilia if the both of them are under the age
of consent by not much or if one of them is only a small
number of years over the age of consent and the other isnt.

Is that just your own personal definition, plucked from thin air,

Nope its the law in some modern first world countries.

or do you have something a bit more reliable you can perhaps provide
a link to?

Yep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_o...land_and_Wales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Well, it's very kind of you to provide age of consent lists, but it
was the definition of 'paedophilia' I asked you to link to,

No you not. You asked Dave for that.

I said that when its kids just under age ****ing, it isn't
necessarily pedophilia and proved that with the first link.

Sorry, that doesn't prove anything as regards 'paedophilia'. It just
lists ages of consent.

It ;proves what I said, that consensual ****ing between those who
are just under the age of consent isnt necessarily pedophilia, in
spite of what you claimed.

I never claimed anything of the sort, so you're talking nonsense.

You really should delete from the quoting where you said that.

What you said is still there in the second para.

On 21/11/2019 15:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:

The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got, and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

Laws are supposed to reflect morality, not the other way round.

Things aren't bad because they're illegal: they're illegal because
they're bad.

But a place where everything bad is also illegal allows individuals no
moral freedom, except by breaking the law.

--
Max Demian

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:54:13 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


That just sounds desperate.

Nope, not if he has in fact never met her. Clearly one
or other of them must be lying and its very likely that
Roberts is doing that given that she has already
received millions as a result of her civil case.

So, why don't you tell the police all the things you know, you
"all-knowing", senile trolling asshole? G

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:51:41 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But it would well be two separate photos with the same cheap camera
which have been combined to make it look like they were both in the
same shot when they werent. With that hand added later.

snicker The senile troll from Oz knows it ALL better, ALWAYS! And I mean,
REALLY always!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 21/11/2019 23:13, Ray wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 15:45, Ray wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 09:30, Ray wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 09:00, Ray wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 04:19, Ray wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* Norman Wells wrote:
Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile'
activity with
no clarification.* Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'?* And is
anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

At one time, it meant 'fancying' pre pubescent boys or girls.
Now used for
anyone who has sex with one under the age of consent in any
particular
country.

Its more complicated than that in most modern first world
countries.

Its not pedophilia if the both of them are under the age
of consent by not much or if one of them is only a small
number of years over the age of consent and the other isnt.

Is that just your own personal definition, plucked from thin air,

Nope its the law in some modern first world countries.

or do you have something a bit more reliable you can perhaps
provide a link to?

Yep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_o...land_and_Wales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Well, it's very kind of you to provide age of consent lists, but
it was the definition of 'paedophilia' I asked you to link to,

No you not. You asked Dave for that.

I said that when its kids just under age ****ing, it isn't
necessarily pedophilia and proved that with the first link.

Sorry, that doesn't prove anything as regards 'paedophilia'.* It
just lists ages of consent.

It ;proves what I said, that consensual ****ing between those who
are just under the age of consent isnt necessarily pedophilia, in
spite of what you claimed.

I never claimed anything of the sort, so you're talking nonsense.

You really should delete from the quoting where you said that.

What you said is still there in the second para.

No it isn't. Get your attributions sorted oput and stop lying.

On 21/11/2019 22:36, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 21:39, Rod Speed wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
...

Roberts does claim the ****ed her multiple times in
the USA tho, so the USA age of consent is relevant.
Tho its hardly a serious crime that he didn’t check
her birth certificate before ****ing her in the USA,

The age of consent in NY is 17

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he done
the same thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

No she doesn't.* Read the thread, ignoramus.

Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

Give the link.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:13:03 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


You really should delete

You really should delete yourself, you absolutely useless 85-year-old
trolling senile pest!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 22:36, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 21:39, Rod Speed wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
...

Roberts does claim the ****ed her multiple times in
the USA tho, so the USA age of consent is relevant.
Tho its hardly a serious crime that he didn’t check
her birth certificate before ****ing her in the USA,

The age of consent in NY is 17

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he done the
same thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

No she doesn't. Read the thread, ignoramus.

Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

Give the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQi3wzNFGQ

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:36:23 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

Give the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQi3wzNFGQ

What's that, senile idiot?

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a Female name that stays
around around while you talk it to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from from you boring
them to death."
MID:

"Incubus" wrote in message
...
On 2019-11-21, Jeff wrote:

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on the
left
and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you look at the
edges
where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant chromatic
aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers, you can
still see
some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only the centre of the
frame
looks relatively distortion and aberration free. That is consistent
with a
cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely captured with an
inexpensive 35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model. Nothing
suggests
it has been postprocessed.


But it is only the centre of the pic that might have been photoshopped!!

Are you saying that Roberts has been added to it

More likely that two photos, one with randy in
it and the other with Roberts in it were combined.

and, presumably, his fingers around her waist?

Yep and rather ineptly because his left arm would
have to be much longer than his right arm.

What would have been there in her absence?

A different person.

Or are you saying that her face has
been added instead of someone else's?

No.

There is nothing to suggest that either has been done.

There is quite a bit to suggest that its two different
photos, particularly the skin tones and that hand.

Rod Speed posted
"Incubus" wrote in message
...
Are you saying that Roberts has been added to it

More likely that two photos, one with randy in
it and the other with Roberts in it were combined.

and, presumably, his fingers around her waist?

Yep and rather ineptly because his left arm would
have to be much longer than his right arm.


If you watch the Maitliss interview carefully you can see that Andrew's
left arm *is* much longer than his right arm.

I think the case is solved.

--
Evremonde

"The Marquis Saint Evremonde" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed posted
"Incubus" wrote in message
...
Are you saying that Roberts has been added to it

More likely that two photos, one with randy in
it and the other with Roberts in it were combined.

and, presumably, his fingers around her waist?

Yep and rather ineptly because his left arm would
have to be much longer than his right arm.


If you watch the Maitliss interview carefully you can see that Andrew's
left arm *is* much longer than his right arm.

No it isnt.
https://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/...62-640x360.jpg

I think the case is solved.

Fraid not.

On 21/11/2019 23:36, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 22:36, Rod Speed wrote:

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he done
the same thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

No she doesn't.* Read the thread, ignoramus.

Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

Give the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQi3wzNFGQ

Shiftiness noted.

There is nothing in that to support your contention.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 19:48:34 +0000, GB wrote:

On 20/11/2019 19:16, Cursitor Doom wrote:

How about Paxo?

Known in our household as Smug *******.

When it comes to smugness, no one can beat Fiona Bruce.



--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 23:36, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 22:36, Rod Speed wrote:

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he done
the same thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

No she doesn't. Read the thread, ignoramus.

Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

Give the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQi3wzNFGQ

Shiftiness noted.

There is nothing in that to support your contention.

That’s a lie. Maitlis TWICE asks randy to respond to Roberts'
allegations about where Robets claimed he ****ed her in the USA.