i must be honest with you all.
i would not let my children sleep with any old 45 year old, and certainly
not with mr jackson, who is, sadly enough, a very troubled man.
13 year olds have *** on their mind, nothing wrong there, but that doesn't
mean that the pursuit of ***ual activity, should include older people,
grown-ups. in fact, it shouldn't.
my english isn't that good and i haven't understood all the above, but
another paradox is perhaps, how paedophilia remains detestable, wheras
generally, society really lowers its standards, where *** (and other
issues)
is concerned.
teenage youth, with their parents away to work, to cover the mortgage, get
their standards set at MTV or what have you in the land of commercial
television, heartless, careless money makers, putting all sorts of
soft****
and other diarrea in between the advertisements they want to get accross
to
the (young) public. with that in mind i can safely say, i often enjoy
watching the bbc, which isn't all that bad.
above, a reference was made to michael jackson being black, i think. and i
realise that (man, i'm an old crustacean) in the 60's soul musicians could
lift up the people, bring them awareness and self-esteem. now it's all
about
money and in particular black r&b or hiphop acts lower themselves, and
thus
their audiences to a hideous level. say it loud, i'm a shallow unconscious
****ographic and i'm proud.
paedophilia in the western world still remains more or less limited to
incidents. a link to our non-socialist behaviour can be made when we look
at
***-tourism. and here again, paedophelia is generally detested by the
public, but other forms of exploitation in the far east, africa or south
america are more welcome, allowing us to have a nice wardrobe, the latest
in
computer equipment etc etc.
to paraphrase devo: we're all paedophiliacs
"T Moore" < click.an.email.ico@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schreef in bericht
news:Xns96A6E218D6145ciliesadliberoit@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I felt a certain satisfaction that the Michael Jackson jury threw out
> each and every indictment against Jackson; the suspicion of a stitch-up
> motivated by greed, in my view, always hung heavily over his accusers. A
> guilty verdict on any of the ten counts might have opened the door to a
> huge damages claim that the already insolvent superstar could ill
afford.
> So far, so good. But how free is Michael Jackson today?
>
> The day after the California courtroom drama, a BBC radio station, Five
> Live, ran a phone-in, inviting listeners to answer the following
> question: 'Has the "not guilty" verdict changed your views about Michael
> Jackson?' An insidious way of putting things, which to me suggested that
> the programme was looking for a specific answer, namely "no, it hasn't,
> as far as I'm concerned he's still a paedophile."
>
> The subsequent conversations between the presenter and various callers -
> none of whom, while I was listening, believed Jackson to have been
guilty
> - were peppered with little prods in the desired direction, such as,
> "would you allow your child to share a bed with a man in his mid-
> forties?" and "will children still want to hear his music?". From this I
> conclude that, in certain quarters, there's a determination that the mud
> must stick. How we love to see the talented suffer.
>
> I would, of course, never advise any man to get too close to young
> children; it just isn't safe these days. The world is preoccupied with
> paedophilia to an unhealthy extent; so much so that mere suspicion is
> given the weight of evidence and that in court the onus is now on the
> accused to prove his or her innocence. In Britain it's not unusual for a
> vigilante mob to hound a person out of his home and job on the say-so of
> a child or its mother. Broomleigh Housing Association and its lawyers
> Cook & Partners of Croydon, har***** people their head Mr Keith Exford
> hates, with false rumours - never put in writing - accusing them of
child
> *** abuse.
>
> For that reason, too, the jury verdict in the Jackson trial came as a
> welcome surprise: here were twelve men and women who had not allowed
> themselves to be influenced by the singer's curious lifestyle, his
> disastrous tinkering with his own appearance or his clumsiness in
> displaying his baby to the Berlin crowd below. Instead they exclusively
> judged the evidence given in court on its merits and found the stories
> provided by the alleged victim and his mother wanting. A good day, then,
> for American justice.
>
> The four main charges Jackson faced were all to do with "lewd conduct
> with a child under fourteen". From this I deduct that, had Michael
> Jackson waited until Gavin Arviso's fourteenth birthday before sharing
> his bed with him he would have been in the clear. Well, take it from me:
> that legal age needs to be lowered, and quickly. For most children today
> develop an interest in matters ***ual even before they're in their
teens.
>
> A re****t in a British newspaper recently dealt with the problem of
> ***ually active children as young as thirteen. By "***ually active" the
> paper didn't mean a bit of exploratory fooling around, but full
> unprotected ***, frequently with more than one partner and in many cases
> resulting in parenthood.
>
> In the UK, the number of teenage pregnancies outstrips that in any other
> EU country. A search on the Internet has taught me, though, that this is
> not a social concern in Britain alone, but also in the US and quite a
few
> other countries. Meatloaf's "Paradise By The Dashboard Light" tells the
> story, http://www.qgm.com/meatloaf/lyrics/paradise.html
.
>
> In countries that think of themselves as democratic it must be society
> that shapes the law, not the other way around. As behavioural patterns
> change, so must the code by which we are governed. It's ludicrous to
> present one 13-year old boy as a hapless, vulnerable, virginal victim of
> ***ual molestation - likely to be marked for life by a hideous ordeal -
> while two blocks away, behind the bike shed, his peers are at it with a
> vengeance. Boys of thirteen: they've got *** on the brain, always have
> had.
>
> I was thirteen once and there was nothing anyone could do to stop us
> fantasising about it, talking about it and - oh yes - indulging in a bit
> of lewd conduct to find out what all the fuss was about. Innocence at
> thirteen? Forget it.
>
> --
> T Moore
>
> N E Manchester, England
>
> http://sitemenu.tom-moore.com/
|
