Adam Johnson

Angry wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Still waiting for those mythical examples Angers. I've got the feeling I'll be waiting some time
I'm nailing you down Angers, lets have those examples of what a horror of a man I've been.

how about i already answered you more than once be content with that and move on. With every passionate reply you give keeps proving my point. I refuse to play your games.

Would it hurt just once to admit you were wrong say sorry and move on? Just once, please, just try it. You'll feel better I promise you.

Angers, you haven't delivered your examples, as I knew you couldn't. There's nothing more to debate.

The history of the legal age of consent in England and Wales is certainly from a bygone era. This is not a defence for LT's comments on the age issue he earlier mentioned.

From 1275, the legal age for consent in England was 12 (for females), Wales come into line with England from 1536 to 1543. In Welsh medieval law, there was no age of consent as such and it was taken that once a girl reached puberty 12-14, that was that. It is also noted that had anyone taken a girl's maidenhood by force, those responsible were fined. The laws were varied according to status.

In 1875, the age was increased to 13 under the Offences against the Person Act 1875 and was due to concern of young girls being sold into brothels.

However, in 1885 the legal age was again increased by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 and it was set at 16. This was after articles appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette by W.T. Stead, which were entitled '' The Maiden Tribute of Babylon. [SOURCE:WIKIPEDIA]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


And marriage was totally unlike today.

Careful Village, I wouldn't want you to find yourself in a Pete Townsend like situation.

I was curious to see (on a social scale) what the dates, facts and figures were on the legal of age consent in England down through the centuries. It is unbelievable (and shocking) to read that for 600 years the age for females was 12.  

10 years at 13 is absurd, but 131 years at 16 is correct.

Males as far as I read had no age limit in medieval times, there is no reference to when males were included in the new age of 16. I assume it is 1885 also. They married at age 17 mostly though.

Were the youngsters from 1275-1875 more grown up than today's youngsters, both physically and emotionally ?.

It would have been a hard life back then for the majority. There would have been no education, just work from dawn to dusk. And living in squalor everyday too.

I knew the legal age was 16, but had no idea as to why that age or to why they choose the year they actually came to a conclusion too. I thought the Government brought the 16 age bracket law into being in the early 20th century.

You can understand the concerns of many regarding the behaviour of the brothels, and that of parents/kidnappers, towards the females of a certain age. Yet all they (the authorities) did was raise it by a year.

Thanks to W.T. Stead, action was taken 10 years later in 1885 and which has stayed in place since.

That is the history researching over now, certainly a few bizarre laws over the last 731 years.

Les Miserable wrote:

Careful Village, I wouldn't want you to find yourself in a Pete Townsend like situation.

where is that book of his?

Lord Melbury wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

This is a football forum - if you want to debate about race/EU/asylum you can always find a forum where the moderators are experts in what is acceptable. All the mods here signed up to moderate a football forum.

Isn't this exactly what the half-time board is for ? Same as the Opinions board over the road ?

Very poor decision IMO. Mods breaking established rules & making up their own at will is exactly what we all (including current mods) complained so bitterly about on PASOTI.

Lord Tisdale's posting style is indeed brash & straight talking but hell, are we not all adults who would hear exactly the same type of opinions on a match day at HP or in the pub ? Everyone has the opportunity to argue back.

Posters of Tis's intelligence & political stance are what makes this forum worth reading as a counter to the vomit inducing lefty nonsense posted by a few others.

I will have just one more comment on this subject, let's see what's being discussed on the most heavily moderated football forum in the country shall we?
Brussels IS Attack
CJH
11
443
Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:52 am
french-doors  
Johnny Mercer-nary
up_the_line
0
93
Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:49 pm
up_the_line  
IDS resigns
cheshiregreen
6
367
Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:46 pm
Kevin_Dacombe  
Poll: EU vote
[ Go to page: 1 ... 456 ]
PL2 3DQ
74
2740
Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:22 pm
X Isle  
Gravatational Waves.....
[ Go to page: 12 ]
Ave_IT
23
1154
Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:00 pm
t._green  
Donald Trump
[ Go to page: 1234 ]
Ave_IT
40
2534
Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:53 pm
greeneagle  
Refugees
[ Go to page: 1 ... 789 ]
pilgrimage
114
4377
Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:33 pm
greeneagle  
Records that move you share
[ Go to page: 12 ]
t._green
24
2149
Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:14 am
Quinny  
The Litvinenko inquiry
Steve Evans
3
562
Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:51 pm
Ave_IT  
Wind and rain
pilgrimage
4
338
Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:39 pm
Pogleswoody  
Tory MPs in Cornwall vote against safeguards for tenants
Green Rhino
6
635
Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:09 pm
harry's sandwich  
Recent Flooding
[ Go to page: 12 ]
pilgrimage
14
1121
Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:03 pm
Steve Evans  
Next Labour Leader
[ Go to page: 1 ... 242526 ]
Frank_Butcher
325
13154
Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:09 pm
andyr1963  
Committing crimes abroad
Ade the green
10
828
Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:51 pm
Ham Green  
Syria Bombing
[ Go to page: 1234 ]
Green Rhino
39
2071
Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:52 pm
Ade the green  
Labour division over Syria/ISIS
[ Go to page: 123 ]

Doesn't copy very well but in opinions over the road, the Tories, the labour party, bombing Syria, Refugees.....
Any change of direction in the ethos and general setup of ATD should be voted for by it's members and not the mods.
I still think that Tis should be banned for the week and the members asked about the permanent ban, the trouble with this is you may not get the answer you like.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make 'amster.
Anything can be and is discussed on here under the law and common decency, and still can be. One poster has been banned on here because his contribution was deemed wholely inappropriate after repeated warnings. If you want to change the moderating mix, perhaps you should stand for election, or do what both you and I have both done before, and ban yourself. The truth is I would have banned myself quite soon if Tisdale had been allowed to continue with his racist and paedo supporting crap. I don't log onto ATD to read such stuff. I don't need that sort of poison in my life.

Let's be quite honest here, Pasoti's heavy censorship is reserved in the main to stop open discussion on Argyle matters. Nothing to do with their Opinion forum, and I couldn't really comment if it is moderated heavily or no, not being a user or reader.

As has been mentioned, the democratic part of ATD refers to the election of moderators. After that, it is their job to do what they do, and change rules as appropriate with the Keyholders having a final say. No one can say we don't have enough elections. In fact, the biggest threat to ATD is running out of fans wanting to stand and do their stint. We both know it takes up a lot of time, and they deserve to be left to get on with it.

basically Katie Hopkins with back trouble. He won't be missed by me, wanker.

Lord Biro wrote:

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make 'amster.
Anything can be and is discussed on here under the law and common decency, and still can be. One poster has been banned on here because his contribution was deemed wholely inappropriate after repeated warnings. If you want to change the moderating mix, perhaps you should stand for election, or do what both you and I have both done before, and ban yourself. The truth is I would have banned myself quite soon if Tisdale had been allowed to continue with his racist and paedo supporting crap. I don't log onto ATD to read such stuff. I don't need that sort of poison in my life.

Let's be quite honest here, Pasoti's heavy censorship is reserved in the main to stop open discussion on Argyle matters. Nothing to do with their Opinion forum, and I couldn't really comment if it is moderated heavily or no, not being a user or reader.

As has been mentioned, the democratic part of ATD refers to the election of moderators. After that, it is their job to do what they do, and change rules as appropriate with the Keyholders having a final say. No one can say we don't have enough elections. In fact, the biggest threat to ATD is running out of fans wanting to stand and do their stint. We both know it takes up a lot of time, and they deserve to be left to get on with it.

Frank Bullitt wrote:
This is a football forum - if you want to debate about race/EU/asylum you can always find a forum where the moderators are experts in what is acceptable. All the mods here signed up to moderate a football forum.

This bit. I have already said I don't condone what Tis was saying and added that we should either vote to scrap the existing rules or abide by them, that goes for mods and posters. As has been mentioned by me and others Tis could still be serving his weeks ban whilst a revision of the rules was discussed, I don't think for one moment the mods would have been over ruled I just want to see it happen openly and democratically.

And after a week's ban he would be posting his poison again.
Look what happened when he came back from his 24 hour ban.
Maybe we should have made it a week but all of us had had enough of him.

Some people should not be taking such moral high ground about rules.

If my memory serves me right, we were not consulted about the present rules, or the original democratic election process. It was an organic process of GOB's and then the moderators at the time, and to a certain extent, still is. The rules are there, in part, to stop the infiltration and general abuse by Nool and his couple of mates. You seem to be wanting to change the rules now, when that option is not actually in the rules as far as I'm aware. It's up to the moderators to decide if there is a need for a change, or at the very least, a fair old ground swell of opinion to start the process.

I would suggest we continue this discussion, if anyone is interested, on the site forum, that's set up for that very purpose, as it's moved on from the banning of one poster. I've posted a copy of this post there as a new thread.
My opener is, if you want the forum to be a forum that users themselves vote on banning any poster, as you might be implying in your last sentence, then I feel that is totally unacceptable, and negates the whole point of having moderators. It also opens the door for lynch mobs.