[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 9430)
Message
File  []
close
_77623460_breaking_image_large-3.png
943094309430
>> No. 9430 Anonymous
26th January 2016
Tuesday 10:09 pm
9430 spacer
Huddersfield charity shop finally says goodbye to a shutter which lasted 26 years


http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-charity-shop-finally-says-10780879

That's it. That's literally it. A charity shop has replaced one of its roller shutters after having the same one for 26 years. It's all go in Huddersfield.

I challenge you lads to find a more pointless news story than this.
326 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 13532 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 12:43 am
13532 spacer
>>13531

>stupidlad

Now, now.
>> No. 13533 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 12:46 am
13533 spacer
>>13532
How can he say that peado-teachers never get away with it, and that fucking a child doll is okay while being a teacher?

Too many fucking paedos and paedo-sympathisers in this thread.
>> No. 13534 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 12:52 am
13534 spacer
>>13526
>but since I've read the ruling of R v Brown

Are you sure? Perhaps you're one of those people who are deliberately thick on the internet but the judgements did consider convention rights throughout and more importantly the ECHR itself later supported the conclusion of the HoL in Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v United Kingdom.

As for section 18 it's quite clear when you consider the next bit "with intent, to do some grievous bodily harm to any person". It's not 'inherent ambiguity' it's blanket.
>> No. 13535 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 1:00 am
13535 spacer
Watch out lads, the armchair lawyers are at it again.
>> No. 13536 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 1:23 am
13536 spacer
>>13535

Nobody else is armchair-anything in this thread, no.
>> No. 13537 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 1:44 am
13537 spacer
>>13523

> Outside of a boxing ring I can't just consent to you punching my lights out for some pretty big personal and public interest reasons and I don't think a clear solution can exist to this problem unless we ban everything.

What is it about the boxing ring that makes it an exception? Is it the contract, the public spectacle, the say-so of the governing body or whatever we have in the UK that makes do for an Athletic Commission? I've born witness to dozens of amateur MMA matches in the UK, judged a couple, and trained with a bunch of fighters and I still don't really get what exactly stops the bobbies coming in and charging both lads with ABH and, in the case of certain strangle holds, attempted murder.
>> No. 13538 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 2:03 am
13538 spacer
>>13537
The rule is that in violent sports, the willing competitor consents to the violence that may arise as part of play. A punch to the face is fine in boxing, but not in rugby.
>> No. 13539 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 2:09 am
13539 spacer
>>13535
I'd have you know that I barely passed Criminal Law at the undergraduate level!

>>13537
There's waffle is the short answer. It comes down to it being culturally valued (displays of heroism -yes, a moral judgment), safety rules and the all important referee whose job it is to make sure nobody gets seriously hurt.
>> No. 13540 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 2:21 am
13540 spacer
>>13538
>>13539

Is there actual legislation governing this or does it boil down to common sense and case law?

As an aside, I remember a BKB night where the cops basically stood around and said "well we could nick them both but to be honest without anyone pressing charges it wouldn't ever stand up in court". This was a filmed and streamed online event mind you, it's not like there was a lack of available evidence if it was needed.
>> No. 13541 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 12:13 pm
13541 spacer
>>13537

The whim of a jury, basically. There have been a handful of prosecutions for unlicensed bare knuckle boxing matches, but the general public just isn't going to send someone to prison for participating in a well-regulated sporting contest.
>> No. 13542 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 6:18 pm
13542 Help, I Can't Stop Hooking Up With Trump Supporters
Not UK, but...

https://www.glamour.com/story/hooking-up-with-trump-voters-essay
>> No. 13543 Anonymous
13th September 2017
Wednesday 9:33 pm
13543 spacer
>>13523

>Do I need to point out the difference?

Does it even matter? The point is simply how society's values have changed. Couple of hundred years back and we'd all have been marrying teenagers.

There are places in America where they still think homosexuals can be "rehabilitated" and "cured". Likewise there are parts of the undeveloped world where kiddyfiddling is still very much the norm. As someone pointed out in the other thread, it would be racist to assume our values are superior to theirs.
>> No. 13544 Anonymous
14th September 2017
Thursday 1:27 am
13544 spacer
>>13543

>would be racist to assume our values are superior to theirs.

Utterly racist to demand that middle-aged Arab men must not be allowed to marry and fuck twelve year olds. You have that right.

On the whole age of consent thing though, please let's not start that old chestnut again. Surefire way to get perma banned on .gs if you don't happen to make yourself clear enough. Also, paedos have a sixth sense for that, they can smell any online debate of age of consent from many servers away, and then before you know it you will begin to think you are the cunt for saying they shouldn't get to fuck fourteen year olds.

I used to be sub admin for a now defunct political debate web site, and we had to deal with that shit and warn or ban people every other day. Before our policy became to ban people and delete theads almost instantly and usually without warning. We later more generally amended our terms of use to warn that any thread about illegal activity would be at the discretion of the admins to be locked and/or deleted any time without notice. But I digress.
>> No. 13545 Anonymous
14th September 2017
Thursday 1:58 am
13545 spacer
>>13544
Yeah as you know, we get that shit here too - usually in /lab/ with some scientific justification. Once you grant that lot license to talk about it....
>> No. 13546 Anonymous
14th September 2017
Thursday 12:30 pm
13546 spacer

VirginMediaBlock-796x398.png
135461354613546
>>13544
>>13545
Not any of them, but where does one draw the line if you start deciding that certain topics are not acceptable? Once you make that sort of decision, you set a precedent, as anyone who remembers the vicious campaign of harassment over filtering child porn will know.
>> No. 13547 Anonymous
14th September 2017
Thursday 12:36 pm
13547 spacer
>>13546
At the point where letting it go any further would lead to people doing illegal things if left unchecked. You know, where it is.
>> No. 13548 Anonymous
14th September 2017
Thursday 12:53 pm
13548 spacer
>>13547
>At the point where letting it go any further would lead to people doing illegal things if left unchecked
You mean like the book thread on the front page of /*/ right now? (To draw the actual parallel I was referring to.)

>You know
No, we don't. Please elaborate.
>> No. 13549 Anonymous
14th September 2017
Thursday 1:51 pm
13549 spacer
>>13548
Try and explain to your "peers" (a jury) why linking to some children's books is the same as distributing child pornography, then you tell us how you get on. I'll meet you at A&E.
>> No. 13550 Anonymous
14th September 2017
Thursday 2:17 pm
13550 spacer
>>13549
Don't look at me, "people doing illegal things" was your idea, not mine.
>> No. 13551 Anonymous
14th September 2017
Thursday 2:33 pm
13551 spacer
>>13549
If Fox v. BT is anything to go by, the A&E visit will be because someone got pissed up on champers and fell on the kerb.
>> No. 13552 Anonymous
14th September 2017
Thursday 4:13 pm
13552 spacer
>>13550
Fine; read it as "people doing things that might get us lynched".
>> No. 13553 Anonymous
14th September 2017
Thursday 4:58 pm
13553 spacer
>>13552
Sorry, I didn't realise we were living in 1930s Alabama where daring to suggest it might be racist to presuppose the superiority of white European cultural values is somehow going to get anyone lynched.
>> No. 13559 Anonymous
15th September 2017
Friday 1:56 am
13559 spacer
It's just risky for somebody who is operating a web site or forum where some people continuously flirt with the outer boundaries of what is legal.

For example, before all the copyright reforms of the early noughties, you had people posting all kinds of info and tutorials on web forums about how to circumvent DVD copyright protection, using DeCSS-Plus and other software tools. When the laws were then tightened considerably, web forums started posting new rules as sticky forum topics advising users to stop talking about that kind of thing.

Likewise, several Kodi add-ons are now under fire on the Kodi web forums because they violate copyrights by linking to illegal movie hosting web sites or otherwise violating content providers' terms of use. The latest thing seems to be that they no longer want people to talk about using addons like the BBC iPlayer or the ITV Player from abroad using VPN or SmartDNS. This appears to include TV licence holders who say they want to watch EastEnders while on holiday in Spain.

Anyway, what I am saying is, you can get in hot water quickly if you provide information on a web forum (or image board), or allow your posters to provide it, on how to break the law. In the case of copyright infringements, you might be let off with a takedown notice. But if you allow paedos to chat freely in a forum thread, that can open a whole different can of worms for you.
>> No. 13560 Anonymous
15th September 2017
Friday 2:05 am
13560 spacer
>>13546
The only topic we actively filter are the paedos. You only have to observe the regular occasional posting in /lab/ where some dimwit seems to keep trying to make a scientific argument for it, to observe the problem - those posts are a marker, to see if we'll allow that kind of discussion, and see if there are like minded individuals here. In a way, they're trying to shift the Overton Window on the site and see if we tolerate it.

>>13559
Exactly right. There are plenty of .onions they can find that shit, I'm not paying for it.
>> No. 13564 Anonymous
16th September 2017
Saturday 12:42 am
13564 spacer
>>13560

>where some dimwit seems to keep trying to make a scientific argument for it

oh yes, the sciencelad paedos. They would have you believe that girls being full breasted at 14 is Mother Nature's way of telling you they are ready for sex with a middle-aged git who is possibly also a manospherelad and thinks it's all aging fishperson womens' fault for keeping the age of consent "unrealistically" high.

The real science is that your taste in sexual partners usually progresses more or less with your own age and your sexual experience. At some point, you will look back and find 20-year-olds definitely still sexually arousing to look at, but you will wonder what they could really offer you in bed besides firm tits and a tight minge. One school of thought is that some paedos have somehow missed sexual developmental stages and are stuck on the level of priapic 14-year-olds. Or on the level of whatever age they feel attracted to. They never progressed to an interest in sexually mature (young) women, possibly because of inner sexual repression. More grim explanations even imply that some of them have unhealthy attachments to their mothers.

But you never hear any of that from sciencepaedolad.
>> No. 13565 Anonymous
16th September 2017
Saturday 12:59 am
13565 spacer
>>13564
>The real science is
At least sciencepaedolad alludes to actual studies.
>> No. 13569 Anonymous
16th September 2017
Saturday 2:20 am
13569 spacer
>>13564
>The real science is that your taste in sexual partners usually progresses more or less with your own age and your sexual experience
Dunno if it's true or not, but there's a widely passed around chart showing that women prefer men within a band of their own age while men tend to hold their interest somewhere around 18-20 throughout their life

Can't remember what exactly it purported to measure though (in particular whether it was just ranking appearance, or whether there was an element of sexual attraction to it - getting into the question of "what could they really offer you in bed?")
>> No. 13570 Anonymous
16th September 2017
Saturday 2:56 am
13570 spacer
>>13564
>At some point, you will look back and find 20-year-olds definitely still sexually arousing to look at

20-year olds aren't the problem though lad. I agree with everything you say though, you are spot-on, but I remember clearly getting to that age of 30ish and things changing - before that, most women looked older and more mature than me regardless of age. Around then, suddenly the underage pretenders stick out like a sore mile - you can see they're girls and not women. You get to a point in male maturity in your thirties where you are suddenly not fooled anymore and the younger womens physical and emotional immaturity is obvious and you just don't fancy them. MILFs all the way. Unless you're a paedo obviously.
>> No. 13573 Anonymous
16th September 2017
Saturday 11:55 am
13573 spacer

ijgzwsk.png
135731357313573
>>13569
It was from OKCupid surveying their users.
>> No. 13575 Anonymous
16th September 2017
Saturday 11:42 pm
13575 spacer
>>13570

What this statistic doesn't make clear enough is that women really struggle to find either a romantic or a sexual partner from a certain age onward. Women experience sort of a reversal of fortunes from the time they're in their early 20s to about when they approach their late 30s. If you're not a complete munter at age 20, you can have all the dick you'll ever want. And lads of all ages will be queueing up around the block for you. But my best mate's older sister is 38 and divorced, and she says men in her age group, if they are single at all, want the 28-year-olds, and the only men on dating sites who have expressed genuine interest in her are well in their 50s.

On the other hand, actually attracting 28-year-olds becomes harder for men as well with every year that passes. You can delude yourself all you want; the vast majority of those young women will find the idea of shagging a man 20 years her senior outright repulsive.
>> No. 13576 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 12:15 am
13576 spacer
>>13575

>On the other hand, actually attracting 28-year-olds becomes harder for men as well with every year that passes. You can delude yourself all you want; the vast majority of those young women will find the idea of shagging a man 20 years her senior outright repulsive.

Age is cruel to us all, but most men badly let themselves go once they're past 30. You can knock the best part of a decade off if you just look after yourself - a decent grooming routine, properly tailored clothes, a fair amount of effort in the gym and a good psychologist. As a man, you have the advantage of traditional gender roles; a lot of young women (and twinks) really like being looked after by an older, wiser and wealthier man.

Most men could do quite well for themselves well into their forties if they looked after themselves. Most straight men don't, because they're utterly deluded about what they have to offer.
>> No. 13577 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 1:19 am
13577 spacer
>>13575
> Women experience sort of a reversal of fortunes from the time they're in their early 20s to about when they approach their late 30s.

>>13576

I'd argue that 23-27 is basically vintage age for lasses. Under 23 and you're looking at someone who's likely never paid a bill, never cooked a real meal, never worked a washing machine and by extension has no real clue what real life is really all about. I'm not saying that I expect lasses to fulfill those roles for me but I like my women the I am: independent and completely able to look after myself. Trying to explain to some utterly inexplicably self-entitled 19 year old that you won't be seeing her this weekend because you've had something penned in since before you met her is so far beyond tiresome that it hurts my soul just to think about it.

Likewise over about 27 or so and, and I'm sorry for offending any super-giga-feminists around, but the old biological clock starts ticking and they start wanting to settle down and maybe even have kids. If that's not your thing, or if they're not "the one" then this also starts to get a bit tiresome.

> On the other hand, actually attracting 28-year-olds becomes harder for men as well with every year that passes. You can delude yourself all you want; the vast majority of those young women will find the idea of shagging a man 20 years her senior outright repulsive.

Utterly disagree. Once you hit 30 you'll probably never shag another teenager again unless she's looking to tick "older man" off her ill-advised bucket list; most 18-19 year old lasses generally go up to around 25-27 tops but I've known plenty that have gone a lot higher just to have done it. I sort of get it as well, for 21 year old me bedding a 27 year old woman was pretty great.

Once women hit about 21 or so they're generally open to any age up until whenever that man falls utterly apart which generally falls anywhere in his 40s depending on how well he takes care of himself.
>> No. 13578 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 1:37 am
13578 spacer
>>13577
Christ, how does one 'do' casual sex outside of Tinder? I'm through the looking glass here.
>> No. 13579 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 1:45 am
13579 spacer
>>13578

Unfortunately I'd find myself having to invert the question because I've never installed tinder in my life.

For me it generally went: go out, meet girl, meet girl's friends, act charming, get invited to social gathering, ramp up the charm, receive phone calls from girls (who apparently got my number via osmosis), metastasise.

Obviously I'm a responsible married man these days and couldn't possibly find myself balls deep in teenage guts on any given night, so this advice may well be out of date.
>> No. 13580 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 1:47 am
13580 spacer
>>13579
Fair enough, I've not hit thirty yet so I guess there is a generation gap here.
>> No. 13581 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 1:55 am
13581 spacer
>>13580
> I've not hit thirty yet so I guess there is a generation gap here

Probably not as much as you think, I'd say about 10 years max.

You'll probably find that 30-35 is pretty much prime age for men to attract women in the 20-25 age group. For most men you tick all the boxes for a girl who hasn't quite broken out yet: independent, own place, won't be directly involved in her friendship circle, hasn't gone over the hill yet, can still fuck on demand. Just don't act all Peter Kay dad on a night out and you'll be swimming in fanny, lad.
>> No. 13582 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 2:17 am
13582 spacer
>>13581
>30-35 is pretty much prime age for men to attract women

Exactly this. Agree with another poster that women are at the height of their powers at 27 - they look awesome, they're clever and experienced in the world and they've probably got some degree of independence that means they'll let you have some too. It goes downhill after that.

My experience of getting to 30 though is that everything turns around - in your early thirties as a male, you're a bit more comfortable in your own skin, established in whatever career you've chosen and have some confidence about life - women of any age pick up on that very quickly.
>> No. 13583 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 2:27 am
13583 spacer
>>13582

This lad gets it.
>> No. 13585 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 11:36 am
13585 spacer
>>13581

>30-35 is pretty much prime age for men to attract women in the 20-25 age group. For most men you tick all the boxes for a girl who hasn't quite broken out yet: independent, own place, won't be directly involved in her friendship circle, hasn't gone over the hill yet, can still fuck on demand. 

It all greatly depends on you having your shit together in your own life. If you are a well adjusted, educated early-30something with a career and a strong likeable personality, then there is actually a fair amount of hope for you to pull women ten years younger than you.

But if you are a fuck up in one way or another, if you are jobless, broke, have no personality and no goals in life and you are getting more out of shape with every day that passes, do yourself a favour and forget about it.

In the end, as an olderlad, you are going to have to give women a valid reason why they should be hanging out with you instead of a younglad who is more towards their own age.

Just being "young at heart" won't cut it. Again, why should a young woman be with an old man who feels young at heart, when she can be with a lad who actually is young.

And all that isn't even considering all the flak you will get as an age gap couple both from your friends and hers, as well as from her parents.

I have simply seen this play out many times. And at some point, as an olderlad you just have to ask yourself, true love notwithstanding, if it's really worth the bother. If you are so desperate to fuck a 22-year-old, why not just go see a prozzie. And do some growing up afterwards.
>> No. 13586 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 2:45 pm
13586 spacer
>>13585

> It all greatly depends on you having your shit together in your own life.

Well that should go without saying. The whole point basically boils down to maturity and money; if you didn't acquire either of those then you're basically a sadder and more wrinkly version of early 20s you.

As one Simon David Williamson once said "In your twenties you can do it on looks, your thirties on personality, but in your forties you need cash or fame. Everyone thinks I'm aspirational, but I'm not. It's a maintenance thing with me, a kind of crisis management".
>> No. 13588 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 4:50 pm
13588 spacer
>>13586

Wealth tends to be more fragile than looks or personality though. If you maintain a bare minimum of personal hygiene, physical exercise and sensible diet, looks, for a guy, are not that easily ruined in your 20s. Even the onset of baldness in your late 20s will not be a true game changer.

Well and personality, I wouldn't say it comes for free in your 30s, it's hard earned both through losses and triumphs. But between looks and money, it tends to be the most enduring asset. The one that's really not that easy to fade or be taken away from you.

Money and wealth, by contrast, are much easier lost than gained. All it takes is a divorce from hell, some bad personal investments or being laid off from your well paying job in your late 40s, and you're fucked.
>> No. 13589 Anonymous
17th September 2017
Sunday 5:04 pm
13589 spacer
>>13588
>All it takes is a divorce from hell
If you're talking about attractive qualities for single people then I don't think anyone who's considering you as a partner is going to be worried about you losing your money in a divorce.
>> No. 13595 Anonymous
19th September 2017
Tuesday 1:16 am
13595 spacer
>>13589

Probably not, if they really see you for the person that you are.

But we were talking about what pulls young birds during which respective decade of your life. As a divorced penniless 40something, you may find solace with a fellow 40something or late-30something woman who also has to start her life from zero for whatever reason. But losing whatever wealth you had will rob you of one of the key selling points about yourself to those much coveted "pretty young things".
>> No. 13597 Anonymous
19th September 2017
Tuesday 9:50 am
13597 spacer
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/19/major-acid-leak-creates-vapour-cloud-over-hull

RIP Otherlads.
>> No. 13598 Anonymous
19th September 2017
Tuesday 11:49 am
13598 spacer
>>13597
"Acid leak in Hull causes £17.5 million improvements."
>> No. 13599 Anonymous
19th September 2017
Tuesday 11:08 pm
13599 spacer

44791DCD00000578-0-image-m-31_1505826708284.jpg
135991359913599
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4899146/Where-s-Dinky-Cat-VANISHES-flight-Dubai-UK.html

>A British pensioner has launched a search appeal after his cat mysteriously vanished while being flown from Dubai to England.

>Dinky has not been seen since she was checked in for the long haul flight ahead of a journey to London Gatwick, her owner Ian Lees said.

>But when he and wife Susan landed in Britain, the cage was handed back to him empty. The plane was thoroughly searched but the cat could not be found. 

>The cage Dinky had been travelling in had a slightly loose hinge and Mr Lees says it is possible his pet escaped before the plane took off.  
>> No. 13600 Anonymous
22nd September 2017
Friday 11:20 am
13600 spacer
>>13599
Bless him that's awful.
>> No. 13601 Anonymous
22nd September 2017
Friday 5:55 pm
13601 spacer
>>13600

>'Life has been terrible without Dinky. My wife and I are worried about him. We come from a nation of animal lovers and we are committed to our pets which are like family. We can only pray and hope we find Dinky.'

>Donna added: 'My father was so distressed about the whole situation that he just had to come back. He has lost weight and is now on medication for hypertension.'


Kind of just that slight bit of an overreaction.

Then again, I remember how it disrupted our family life when I was little and our cat was shot and killed by hunters in the woods adjacent to our street. They then just left our cat to die there, and we later found him while frantically searching the neighbourhood.

Luckily, we were able to find witnesses who saw the hunters in the area that day and knew them personally, and we could argue our case that the hunters, who then confessed, had no way of mistaking a Siamese cat for anything that was legal for them to shoot. At least not from the assumed shooting distance of 100 feet, with scopes on their rifles.

We actually went to court over it, and the hunters were found guilty of a violation of hunting laws as well as animal cruelty, and we were compensated for the replacement value of our Siamese cat. They argued that we shouldn't have let our cat run free in an area that was known to be frequented by hunters, but the judge wasn't having any of it and said it is up to the person who hunts to make sure they don't shoot an animal that isn't legal for them to pursue. And that the risk should not be carried by a pet owner who affords their cat species-adequate living conditions.

You don't really replace a cat though. That's indeed somebody's family member. You wouldn't shoot their uncle in the woods, would you.
>> No. 13602 Anonymous
22nd September 2017
Friday 7:52 pm
13602 spacer
>>13601
Congratulations on getting the best result that you could have legally achieved, though.
>> No. 13603 Anonymous
22nd September 2017
Friday 11:31 pm
13603 spacer
>>13602

Yeah, it was just sheer luck that somebody had seen the two hunters in the neighbourhood that day. That alone wouldn't have sealed it. But they didn't seem to be that bothered to admit that they shot our cat (which they didn't know belonged to us), because for some inconceivable reason, they thought they were more or less almost within their rights to do so, and that it was our fault for letting our cat go into those woods where people were frequently hunting.

What actually got into their heads when they decided to fire a hunting rifle at a defenceless domestic cat (Siamese or not), they were never able to tell us. I mean, there still had to be some sort of leap between vaguely assuming that cats would be fair game in a hunting area, and actually aiming your weapon at one and then pulling the trigger.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password