corevalue

Members
  • Content count

    3,947
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About corevalue

  • Rank
    HPC Senior Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

531 profile views
  1. In Savile's case, "victim A" of the Yewtree report was 22, married, and Savile's crime was to make a pass at her. When his advances were rejected, he didn't persist, but gave her a present and the fare home. Somehow, this still qualifies as "assault" nowadays. You're plain wrong in your last sentence, as the cases of Johnathan King, Rolf Harris and others show. The courts allow the prosecution to be quite unspecific about dates and ages, whereas the defence has to be exact.
  2. So says Mark Williams Thomas, witchfinder general. No evidence, but "concerns". It really is getting preposterous. https://mobile.twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/624860014717595649
  3. There are adverts around on the radio now threatening nasties for small employers unless they have a workplace pension scheme in place. Even elderly and disabled people have been sent letters threatening fines. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32935827 Personally, I have a jaundiced view of pensions schemes, they simply aren't worth the money. Once fees and costs have been taken, you're probably better off just salting the money away in a good deposit account (I know I would have been better off). At least you now it's there when the time comes, and after you die, it can be left to your heirs. And what impact is this going to have on very small employers? If I employed just one person, I'd be tempted to fire them and suggest they can come back in as a zero-hours casual worker. I suppose it's governments way of making sure most of our money goes right back into the hands of the city spivs. Really, just a tax, but dressed up differently.
  4. Let's conflate looking at pics of 17 year old Samantha Fox, with real actual abuse to get the numbers up.
  5. Because the definition of abuse has been progressively lowered (playing doctors and nurses anyone?), it is even more of a logic fail.
  6. I would assume that teenagers, being 13 or over by definition, are post-pubertal adolescents and so do not fit the category "child". They have hormones at that age, ffs, and I remember mine being VERY active.
  7. What did the investigators consider "underage" in their definition of paedophilia? 21, as in some US states? Or pre-pubescent, which is as it should be? I'd hazard a guess at 18, which means about 5 years or so of the girls having fully-developed secondary sexual characteristics.
  8. The Rise Of The Russian Bear Thread

    They weren't at war with anyone, why would they have needed nerve gas?
  9. Outrageous Bbc Bias Against J4Mb

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/06/bbc-bans-mens-political-party-from-talking-about-men-or-even-talking-to-them/
  10. would that be 240a Battersea Bridge Road? www.annaraccoon.com
  11. Westminster paedophile/satanic ring? Annaraccoon details where the stories originated. No children visible in the plot, but plenty of the Devil's work involving the aristocracy. http://annaraccoon.com/2015/04/02/even-grimmer-fairy-tales
  12. Deluded Old Scrapper Birds On Dating Sites

    John Steinbeck nailed what "being a man" meant in the Grapes of Wrath. Resilience, stoicism, determination, keeping one's emotions in control.
  13. I have no doubt TPTB would be quite capable of "finding" indiscretion where none existed.
  14. This is truly Orwellian. Operation Spade relates to pornography sold in Canada, and I would ask how is it possible to sell "child porn" in Canada. This has a re-run of Operation Ore all over it. From the article: This infers the least serious category of "child porn, i.e. clothed 17 year olds, such as can be found in the Daily Mail sidebar of shame, can ruin you.