The UK Puritans Carve another Notch in the Bedpost

And you won the war by using a super genus "pervert" like Turing and after the war driving him to suicide.

No wonder you Brits had not led in any area of technology after the war and needed to live off our bread crumbs.

You were right at or near the top in both computer technology and microwave technology and even jet technology during the war.

Even coming out with the first passenger jet before the 707. Too bad it kept killing the passengers as you Brits did not know how to design windows that would not blow out.

How the post war period would had been difference if you had been able to give AT@T, IBM and Boeing a run for their money.

Like in the war you had a great beginning and then no follow through leaving that up to us.

Sorry I would not be interested in forming a relationship with a 17 years old girl sexual or otherwises but she is just as fully a function human female as say a 30 years old female and just as enjoyable to look at in that manner as her 30 years old sister.

Second no matter what your and mine social conditioning and logic happen to say we still are going to have causal sexual feelings as she walk by as that is build into our genes.

You are sorry, there's no doubt about that. No, i don't have casual sexual feelings when children walk by me.

Oh if anyone would like to see how very advance the UK was in technology during WW2 a book by the title of the "Wizard WAR" by a Dr. Smith is well worth the read.

He had the position, if memory serve me correctly, as Churchill science and technology advisor during the war.

Too bad once more the Brits seem to had no follow through at least for them not for us.

A 17 years old is not repeat not a child in any biology sense of the word even if we view her as such in a social sense of the word.

Too bad your social conditioning does not allow you to used your reasons and force you to place her in the same grouping as a 13 years old.

It must cause you guilt feelings when your body react to those children that are not children once more in any biology sense of the term.

What a pathetic creep. I suffer no guilt feelings because i don't have a physical reaction to seeing a child walk by. As i've already pointed out, i react to women who are well into their 20s as children. You have a serious maturity problem.

No you had sexual hang-ups and given the proper outfits you can pass a 17 years old as ten years older and a 27 years as a 17 years old. In a biology sense they are both fully function human females and the 27 years old does not have winkles or others such clues to allow you to tell them apart with a fast look.

Without clues that have nothing to do with biology but with dressing and acting there is no good way to tell them apart as they walk by you.

Hell the US TV show TO Catch a Predator dress a 19 years old as a 13 years old and get away with it.

I love it that someone on this thread is so anti-Brits they voted down a posting concerning a book that showed how advance in a technology sense the UK happen to had been during WW2.

Shame on anyone who wish not to recognition the many achievements of the UK during WW2 in th field of technology.

I don't have any sexual hang-ups, i'm just not attracted to children. You do have a problem with sexuality, though, and projecting it on to others is about par for the course with what passes for logic at your house. As incredible as it might seem to anyone literate, you are even less well equipped in logic than you are in the English language, which you routinely butcher. I'd flunk you in a seventh grade English class.

I wouldn't know about any such show as "To catch a predator," both because i almost never watch television, and certainly wouldn't waste my time on the morbid titilation of paedophile wannabees, such as yourself. I'm not surprised, though, that you watch it. Since your logic actually is, incredibly, worse than your use of the English language, let me clue you in here. Projecting your sick and immature sexual reactions onto others and claiming that they have "hang-ups" if they don't react as you do you is the fallacy of the appeal to common practice. Even if you could demonstrate that a majority of men react that way (which i seriously doubt), you would not have demonstrated that such sexual responses are natural, you'd only have demonstrated that the majority of men have immature sexual attitudes.

Of course, you have demonstrated no such thing.

I love your claim that your social conditioning/morals and intellect can end stop a biology reaction build into us long before we develop into humans.

Kind of like stating that you can keep your eyes pupils from getting smaller when a strong light is shine into them by sheer will power.

Sorry I am sure like myself you control those reactions with out even thinking about it to any extend but you do have such reactions just as your eyes get smaller in bright lights.

That is assuming you are a fully functional human male without medical problems that would prevent you from having normal male responses.

No, it's not like that at all. You're one sick puppy. Do you allege that fathers who see their adolescent daughters are sexually stimulated? The biological (as usual, you **** up what you claim is your native language--what you wanted as an adjective, what you used was a noun) reaction is common to adolescent and immediately post-adolescent boys. This is why it's obvious that you have a maturity problem. Considering your posting history at this site, i have no reason to assume that you have any idea what a "normal male response" is in any given circumstance.

There are "biological"[thanks] barriers to fathers or brothers from viewing daughters and sisters in such a manner as well as social conditioning that work most of the time.

Not all the time sadly and in fact now that some routine DNA testing is being done to screen for possible problems in newborns it is also picking up cases of incests to the degree that had been very surprising.

Oh in any case such barriers tend to fail when for example the brother is not raised in the same household with his sister and they meet as adults later on in life.

Then of course you had examples in history of royal families where brother/sister incest and marriages was the rule not the exception.

All in all you had a far too simple view on human sexuality.

Not completely sure what you're saying here, I'm not a mind reader. However, I don't find Setanta's posts anti-British. Unlike you, he is mature enough to accept when he has made a mistake. The main problem you have with us, is our banning of rape and torture porn. As such you seem to view a pervert's right to view, and in some cases participate, in such disgusting activity, as far more important than the protection of children and vulnerable adults.

In this you seem to give Vincent Tabak's right to participate in depraved activity greater priority than Jo Yeates' right to life. Perhaps if we'd brought these laws in earlier she would still be alive today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8856817/Vincent-Tabak-guilty-killer-fantasised-about-women-being-choked-during-sex.html

I knew you'd bite for that one, and come up with more of your trademarked bullshit. If a sexual response is the same as the dialation or constriction of a pupil, then it's not going to be affected by a close relationship--you can't have it both ways. Social conditioning, certainly--biological barriers? I have no reason to believe that. I have no reason to believe any of your bullshit. Are you a geneticist? Are you a physiologist? If you claim to be any of those things then i can only deplore the precipitous degredation of institutions of higher learning that let someone with less language ability than the stereotypical hillbilly obtain an advanced degree.

When we get right down to it, you're just peddling bullshit. You're engaged in ex cathedra statements on subjects about which no one here has reason to consider you expert. What's more pathetic is that you and your asshole buddy Rapist Boy took on Firefly in the thread discussing if a woman can asked to be raped. So apparently, you two are OK with "puritanism" to protect men from themselves, so that they don't rape women who dress carelessly, but you are not OK with people calling for more decorum in the attire of adolescent girls in advertising, that sort of "puritanism" apparently offends you. Like most ignorant and sententious clowns, you and the Rapist Boy routintely contradict yourselves.

SM activity videos where all are adults and is taking part willingly is ban under your new laws and that protect no one at all.

As far as banning non real rape scenes that made as must sense as banning scenes where there is a murder shown on the theory that people who view a fake murder will be driven to do the same for real.

The UK had taken the lead in allowing those with sexual hangups to control what other adults can legally view.

I am not into SM or gay sex or any numbers of other type of porn but I do not see where I had a right to tell other adults that they can not enjoy such films if they care to.

Oh I also love that fact that you had stated/posted that you are proud that the UK do go after perverts and that I and Hawkeye complain about the fact.

I would assume that cover the case of Alan Turing.

A "pervert" who greatly aided your country and mine in winning WW2 yet who was given the wonderful choice of having his manhood destroy by hormone injections or spending time in prison due to the fact that he was found out to be having gay sex.

This super genius took a third choice of killing himself with poison.

I bet you wave the union jack proudly on June 7 the date he took his life.

If you cannot tell the difference between a paedophile and a homosexual you're even sicker than I thought you were.

Your laws could not tell it would seems at one point and the results was the early death of a super genius who was doing work that would had likely benefit all of mankind and now it can not tell the difference between having SM videos and child porn videos.

But what the hell as you had posted no rights to anyone label a pervert.

How proud you must be................

Footnote to Hawkeye at the bottom of my page on this thread was an ADV and link stating that one in three women will be either rape, beaten or abused in their life times.

Wake up and send money...............

Of course we will not define abused such as a husband or boyfriend cursing during an argument or raising his voice.

Oh given your system is running into such problems as below when limited just to the child porn laws it is amusing that now the courts will need to deal with fake rape videos and SM videos beside.

It would seem the best protection is to buy from major retailers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waterstones and Amazon are 'selling books which contain illegal child porn'
By Stephen Hull

Last updated at 3:27 PM on 18th September 2011

Winning criminal cases against alleged paedophiles is being put at risk because Britain's biggest book suppliers sell products which are classed as child porn, it has been claimed.

Online stores such as Waterstone's and Amazon advertise and sell books - including David Hamilton's 'The Age of Innocence' - which contain images of children that are classed as illegal.

Despite a previous tough line in the courts, now it seems at least one case has collapsed against a man accused of being interested in child sex.
Controversial: Retailers in the UK sell The Age of Innocence by David Hamilton even though photos it contains are classed as child porn

Now a leading child charity has hit out by claiming the big suppliers should be stopped. Michele Elliott, founder of Kidscape, said: ‘If you get to the publishers and the people who are retailing it then you stop it going out to thousands and we send a clear message.’

In February this year a judge questioned why a man was prosecuted for possessing the ‘indecent’ images of children when they were available in mainstream bookshops.

Lord Justice Richards said it was ‘very unfair’ that Stephen Neal, 59, was taken to court. He overturned the conviction and cleared Mr Neal’s name.
Mr Neal of Walthamstow, east London had been convicted of five counts of possessing indecent images of children at Snaresbrook Crown Court in November, receiving a community sentence.

Lord Justice Richards said the books found at Mr Neal's home were ‘widely available from a number of reputable outlets’.
The Crown Prosecution Service's application for a retrial was refused after the judge concluded that re-prosecuting Mr Neal was ‘not in the public interest’.
Amazon describes its product as a ‘collection of Hamilton's erotic photographic portraits of young girls’ which is ‘accompanied by lyrical poetry.’

Selling: Amazon is one of the retailers which openly advertises David Hamilton's The Age Of Innocence which contains pictures of naked children
People who have viewed the book on Amazon then go on to buy Sally Mann’s ‘At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women and ‘The Mammoth Book of New Erotic’ edited by Maxim Jakubowski.

One customer who reviewed Hamilton’s book said: ‘Well produced and excellent quality is surpassed only by the beauty, sensuality and innocence of these teenage lovelies.

‘Women or children - you be the judge. Be they 12 or 17, they all have an erotic character whilst retaining youthful innocence and naivety. This book takes pride of place in my library and was the best investment I have ever made.’
Operation ore: Police remove suspicious material from a house following a raid relating to suspected child porn

Another anonymous review says: ‘This wasn’t what I expected. Pages of miserable looking teen girls with their ***s out. Most just looked miserable. None looked artistic. Erotic? Not at all. I sent mine back for a refund. Dirty old men might get a kick I guess. But I didn’t.
’
Two other books, At Twelve by Sally Mann and Notes by Jock Sturges, fall into the same category as Hamilton's book.

Issues started in 2005 with the case of Stanley Loam, then a 49-year-old auditor from Walton on Thames, Surrey.
He was charged with being in possession of 19,000 indecent images of children, including The Age of Innocence, following raids as part of Operation Ore

Loam said he had a genuine interest in artistic material, and that the images - which were of the lowest indecency rating category 1 - were freely available in books then sold by websites run by WHSmith, Tesco, Waterstones and Amazon.

Loam was prosecuted after lawyers said the images were ‘plainly indecent. The content cannot be described as artistic and is plainly of a sexual nature.’
The CPS told The Sunday Times that it is not their role to advise retailers or publishers about what they should sell of publish.'

Both Waterstone's and Amazon were today unavailable for comment.

Print this article Read later Email to a friend Share this article: Facebook Twitter Digg it

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038797/Britains-biggest-book-stores-threaten-paedophile-cases-sell-child-porn-books.html#ixzz1dPer1i6Z