FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Am I wrong to be shocked?
Am I wrong to be shocked?
Jump to: Newest in thread
I am as horny and sexually charged as everyone else here.
However, I do find certain things to be abhorrent.
Consent is one of my red lines.
For instance, if a female tells me that she consents to me calling her "a dirty little spunk loving bitch" whilst I spunk all over her breasts, then I am fine with that. I am unlikely to discuss this with her whilst queueing in McDonalds or John Lewis. However, I might choose to discuss this with her whilst cuddled up watching the tube of you on the sofa.
However, a few days ago, our Prime Minister, our very leader, stood up in Parliament and proudly stated (and I quote) "....last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions......"
Now I might be a village idiot, but even I can see a flaw in this theory.
Discuss.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am as horny and sexually charged as everyone else here.
However, I do find certain things to be abhorrent.
Consent is one of my red lines.
For instance, if a female tells me that she consents to me calling her "a dirty little spunk loving bitch" whilst I spunk all over her breasts, then I am fine with that. I am unlikely to discuss this with her whilst queueing in McDonalds or John Lewis. However, I might choose to discuss this with her whilst cuddled up watching the tube of you on the sofa.
However, a few days ago, our Prime Minister, our very leader, stood up in Parliament and proudly stated (and I quote) "....last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions......"
Now I might be a village idiot, but even I can see a flaw in this theory.
Discuss."
I had to guess at what word was supposed to be under those stars, but Google doesn't give me any results for that quote with the word I guessed.
Without knowing what you're talking about, it's hard to say whether you are a village idiot or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am as horny and sexually charged as everyone else here.
However, I do find certain things to be abhorrent.
Consent is one of my red lines.
For instance, if a female tells me that she consents to me calling her "a dirty little spunk loving bitch" whilst I spunk all over her breasts, then I am fine with that. I am unlikely to discuss this with her whilst queueing in McDonalds or John Lewis. However, I might choose to discuss this with her whilst cuddled up watching the tube of you on the sofa.
However, a few days ago, our Prime Minister, our very leader, stood up in Parliament and proudly stated (and I quote) "....last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions......"
Now I might be a village idiot, but even I can see a flaw in this theory.
Discuss.
"
Hate convictions are a problem especially no crime hate convictions.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
the first letter is r and the third letter is p.
To qualify my opinion, I find it abhorrent that our Prime Minister can stand up in front of Parliament and state that "...last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions....." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the first letter is r and the third letter is p.
To qualify my opinion, I find it abhorrent that our Prime Minister can stand up in front of Parliament and state that "...last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions....." "
If the word that you can't bring yourself to detail is "r@pe", then Google returns no results for a search on that quote. Which means that you can stop finding it abhorrent, because our Prime Minister didn't say it.
If you're going to continue posting on this subject, it might be helpful if you detail what exactly you think the problem is. Assuming that there was a 50% increase in r@pe convictions last year, what exactly is the problem with the Prime Minister saying so? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the first letter is r and the third letter is p.
To qualify my opinion, I find it abhorrent that our Prime Minister can stand up in front of Parliament and state that "...last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions....." "
I still don't get were you are coming from, what do you find abhorrent the statement or the increase in grape convictions, are you saying there are miscarriages of justice innocent men being convicted or more men are committing grape and are being convicted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the first letter is r and the third letter is p.
To qualify my opinion, I find it abhorrent that our Prime Minister can stand up in front of Parliament and state that "...last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions.....""
"I still don't get were you are coming from, what do you find abhorrent the statement or the increase in grape convictions, are you saying there are miscarriages of justice innocent men being convicted or more men are committing grape and are being convicted."
He doesn't seem to be concerned about the actual r@pe events, or about any subsequent convictions, he just seems to be upset that the Prime Minister is allowed to stand up and quote statistics in the House of Commons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"the first letter is r and the third letter is p.
To qualify my opinion, I find it abhorrent that our Prime Minister can stand up in front of Parliament and state that "...last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions....."
If the word that you can't bring yourself to detail is "r@pe", then Google returns no results for a search on that quote. Which means that you can stop finding it abhorrent, because our Prime Minister didn't say it.
If you're going to continue posting on this subject, it might be helpful if you detail what exactly you think the problem is. Assuming that there was a 50% increase in r@pe convictions last year, what exactly is the problem with the Prime Minister saying so?"
I believe Sunak was responding to Starmer’s question in the house 6th March, ref Sarah Everard. The exchange went back and forth, Starmer claimed only 2.4 % of case ended in conviction.
Sunak replied that changes over the last couple of years increased the conviction rate to 50% and every person charged would serve everyday of their sentence.
I could be wrong, but that is how I’m linking it to the comments made so far. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"the first letter is r and the third letter is p.
To qualify my opinion, I find it abhorrent that our Prime Minister can stand up in front of Parliament and state that "...last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions....."
If the word that you can't bring yourself to detail is "r@pe", then Google returns no results for a search on that quote. Which means that you can stop finding it abhorrent, because our Prime Minister didn't say it.
If you're going to continue posting on this subject, it might be helpful if you detail what exactly you think the problem is. Assuming that there was a 50% increase in r@pe convictions last year, what exactly is the problem with the Prime Minister saying so?
I believe Sunak was responding to Starmer’s question in the house 6th March, ref Sarah Everard. The exchange went back and forth, Starmer claimed only 2.4 % of case ended in conviction.
Sunak replied that changes over the last couple of years increased the conviction rate to 50% and every person charged would serve everyday of their sentence.
I could be wrong, but that is how I’m linking it to the comments made so far. "
The r@pe conviction rate is nowhere near 50%. That’s either misreporting, misunderstanding or a blatant lie from the PM. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the first letter is r and the third letter is p.
To qualify my opinion, I find it abhorrent that our Prime Minister can stand up in front of Parliament and state that "...last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions....."
I still don't get were you are coming from, what do you find abhorrent the statement or the increase in grape convictions, are you saying there are miscarriages of justice innocent men being convicted or more men are committing grape and are being convicted.
He doesn't seem to be concerned about the actual r@pe events, or about any subsequent convictions, he just seems to be upset that the Prime Minister is allowed to stand up and quote statistics in the House of Commons."
Offencephobia, people's irrational rationalisation of being offended by none offence.
I think.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"the first letter is r and the third letter is p.
To qualify my opinion, I find it abhorrent that our Prime Minister can stand up in front of Parliament and state that "...last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions....."
If the word that you can't bring yourself to detail is "r@pe", then Google returns no results for a search on that quote. Which means that you can stop finding it abhorrent, because our Prime Minister didn't say it.
If you're going to continue posting on this subject, it might be helpful if you detail what exactly you think the problem is. Assuming that there was a 50% increase in r@pe convictions last year, what exactly is the problem with the Prime Minister saying so?
I believe Sunak was responding to Starmer’s question in the house 6th March, ref Sarah Everard. The exchange went back and forth, Starmer claimed only 2.4 % of case ended in conviction.
Sunak replied that changes over the last couple of years increased the conviction rate to 50% and every person charged would serve everyday of their sentence.
I could be wrong, but that is how I’m linking it to the comments made so far.
The r@pe conviction rate is nowhere near 50%. That’s either misreporting, misunderstanding or a blatant lie from the PM."
Starmer said it will be fact checked, it will emerge I assume |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Conviction rate 2.4% rising by 50% is 3.6% still no basis for comparison if they try 1000 cases and 24 were convicted first . Next period only 500 go to court 18 may have been convicted the other 500 didn’t face charges at all . These statistics can be manipulated by anyone to push their narrative .
Lies, damned lies, and statistics .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the first letter is r and the third letter is p.
To qualify my opinion, I find it abhorrent that our Prime Minister can stand up in front of Parliament and state that "...last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions....."
If the word that you can't bring yourself to detail is "r@pe", then Google returns no results for a search on that quote. Which means that you can stop finding it abhorrent, because our Prime Minister didn't say it.
If you're going to continue posting on this subject, it might be helpful if you detail what exactly you think the problem is. Assuming that there was a 50% increase in r@pe convictions last year, what exactly is the problem with the Prime Minister saying so?
I believe Sunak was responding to Starmer’s question in the house 6th March, ref Sarah Everard. The exchange went back and forth, Starmer claimed only 2.4 % of case ended in conviction.
Sunak replied that changes over the last couple of years increased the conviction rate to 50% and every person charged would serve everyday of their sentence.
I could be wrong, but that is how I’m linking it to the comments made so far.
The r@pe conviction rate is nowhere near 50%. That’s either misreporting, misunderstanding or a blatant lie from the PM.
Starmer said it will be fact checked, it will emerge I assume "
Did he say the conviction rate itself is 50% or that the conviction rate increased by 50%? I highly doubt that the former is true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 37 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"the first letter is r and the third letter is p.
To qualify my opinion, I find it abhorrent that our Prime Minister can stand up in front of Parliament and state that "...last year there was a 50% increase in **** convictions....."
If the word that you can't bring yourself to detail is "r@pe", then Google returns no results for a search on that quote. Which means that you can stop finding it abhorrent, because our Prime Minister didn't say it.
If you're going to continue posting on this subject, it might be helpful if you detail what exactly you think the problem is. Assuming that there was a 50% increase in r@pe convictions last year, what exactly is the problem with the Prime Minister saying so?
I believe Sunak was responding to Starmer’s question in the house 6th March, ref Sarah Everard. The exchange went back and forth, Starmer claimed only 2.4 % of case ended in conviction.
Sunak replied that changes over the last couple of years increased the conviction rate to 50% and every person charged would serve everyday of their sentence.
I could be wrong, but that is how I’m linking it to the comments made so far.
The r@pe conviction rate is nowhere near 50%. That’s either misreporting, misunderstanding or a blatant lie from the PM.
Starmer said it will be fact checked, it will emerge I assume
Did he say the conviction rate itself is 50% or that the conviction rate increased by 50%? I highly doubt that the former is true."
Good spot! Increased by 50%.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
