www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-22210...sation-children.html

Can someone please explain to me how it is in any way 'liberal' to infringe on the rights of children?

Surely turning the clock back to the days when people could abuse children with no issues whatsoever or perhaps enacting sharia law would be a 'conservative' thing to do?

Why do these authoritarian assholes have such a brainfart when it comes to these things?

Obviously its because they wish to see a society dominated by control freaks who wish to get away themselves with the very stuff that Savile did. Or appear to be in the right when after all this time no-one in the power establishment said dicky shit about Savile until he was pushing up the daisies and then use the whole media circus event to push their own agenda.
More fear, more control.

The 'left' are not liberal.
The 'right' are not liberal.

Why even associate an authoritarian wing with a belief that doesn't exist within the political arena?
It really gets on my tits when seemingly well educated people abuse words in such a manner, particularly important words.
Lots of people seem to have read orwell and inferred nothing from it whatsoever...

They should take shakespeare off the f**king curriculum :/

Stick some bloody Shelley in there.

The way the word is used has made it completely meaningless. It's even worse in America where everyone that doesn't wasn't to turn Iran into a parking lot is accused, derisively, of being a 'liberal'.

Aren't the Daily Mail skating on thin ice with the observation in the article? "The media constantly exposes children to displays of a sexual nature, whether implicit or explicit, such as pop star Rihanna". You're part of the media, and you do precisely this absolutely relentlessly every day!

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?sel...e=%22all+grown+up%22

melanie phillips, the author, won the orwell prize for journalism.

The Daily Mail is full of shit as usual.

I don't know which parents and teachers they spoke to, but I have definitely never met any teachers and parents who think that it's appropriate or cool for 11 year old children to have sex.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
That'll just have been a BBC employee being quoted I'll bet!

That was pretty sharp Gilly, and also rather fitting that the documentary was made by the BBC. They might think that way, but normal people don't!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Absolutely!
The femail columns soft pr0n tbh...

Does anyone have that watson smirk at sherlock holmes gif?

They're sleazes. The media are always portraying kids in a sexual way, even now. Look at how many years the likes of Miley Sirus has been tarted up on the screen, for eg, & she's still only a kid now!

oioioi wrote:
lol!!!

oioioi wrote: I heard someone talking about this on the radio the other day. There is an article about this here:

www.vice.com/read/all-grown-up-sexing-up...-with-the-daily-mail

The Mail is completely and utterly shameless, though.

I quite liked this comment...

The last line really touched a nerve!

Yes for me too Lesley, robust Hessian garments definitely serve a purpose.

Knickers & outer garments would be sufficient, as opposed to bikinis & rhinestone spangled pigging thongs!

I actually mean the other bit, but you're right, robust Hes­s­ian gar­ments do have a part to play.

Gilly wrote: i've never understood the appeal of undergarments but if i was to wear some they would certainly be robust and either hemp or hessian.

I think they'd chafe & you'd suffer from friction burns to the cheeks.

However, it was specifically young kids on screen I was disapproving of the attiring of in rhinestone thongs. A big lad like you should wear whatever tickles your fancy.

What's the name of that disease where hair grows in large amounts over your whole body?

Guevarista wrote:
Lycanthropy?

Guevarista wrote:
Being a bloke unfortunately, lol