- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 1707 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 9432
I try to stick to local news to get out of the depressing torrent of international news being spewed out every nano-second, but I'm hit with nauseatingly mundane shite that isn't worth the megabits it's hosted on.
I wonder if there are any lads who don't read a jot of any news - none at all.
|>>|| No. 9433
I read what's linked to here and elsewhere if it looks interesting but I never actively browse or watch news media and I don't read any papers either.
|>>|| No. 9436
I gave up on the website for my local paper because it was too clunky to navigate and they went overboard with ads (I usually check the news at work so adblockers aren't an option) but I check their Facebook page daily, mainly for the smart arse puns and comments or when the family members of some scrote turn up to defend him "YA DONT KNO HIM. HE'D DO OWT FOR ANYBODY" after they've been sent down for glassing someone in the face.
|>>|| No. 9437
>Huddersfield charity shop finally says goodbye to a shutter which lasted 26 years
B-but that shutter was important to keep that shop safe at night!
|>>|| No. 9438
I gave up keeping up with the news for the sake of my mental health. I find that paying too much attention to the news (and in particular, newspaper opinion pieces about said news), gives you an awfully bleak view of the world and the people who inhabit it.
|>>|| No. 9440
Now that's not fair, the article makes it clear it's notable for being one of the longest-lasting in the country. Hardly front-page material yes but whenever something is the Xest in the country I for one am interested to hear about it.
|>>|| No. 9441
>it's notable for being one of the longest-lasting in the country.
I doubt this is something which can be easily verified. It's been a while since I read the Guinness World Records, but I can't recall there being a section on shop roller shutters. I find it hard to believe there is a comprehensive list of the age all shop roller shutters up and down the country in order to make such extravagant
claims and I can't imagine the journalist covering this at the Huddersfield Examiner went to such lengths to verify the facts.
|>>|| No. 9442
I'm willing to believe if I walked down my high street I could find shutters from 1990. I might even find one or two buildings older then that too.
|>>|| No. 9443
The ones on old department stores look like they've been there as long as the shop, which is often fifty or more years.
|>>|| No. 9447
The local news business is in a shit state. eBay and Gumtree killed off their golden goose, the small ads section. The announcements section has been mortally wounded by Facebook. Display advertising rates have been in freefall for years.
The result has been massive consolidation and rationalisation. Most local and regional newspapers are now owned by three massive groups - Newsquest, Local World and Johnston Press. Local papers are run on a skeleton staff; it's now common for three people to run half a dozen local papers from a single office.
Given these constraints, most local newspapers don't have the manpower to do real reporting. They're reliant on press releases and stories brought to them by members of the public. They'll publish any old shit that turns up on their desk and I don't blame them.
|>>|| No. 9449
End of an era lads!
Its probably more work than you would want but does anyone else find the idea of running a local paper with a couple of the lads interesting?
I can already picture myself putting together a valentines fluff edition asking couples how they met. Some pictures of an adorable elderly couple who met during the war, a couple who got together when their plane crashed in the Andes, "when he kept calling me a racist and correcting my grammar on .gs I knew he wanted to piss in my arse". Hit me up Journo lad, I could do with a career.
|>>|| No. 9450
Everyone has been on a school trip where they made you dress up like you were from them days. Most worthless school trip I went on was a Year 10 business studies trip to a Morrisons about 10 minutes walk away. That was a massive waste of everyone's time.
>“We are trying to raise standards and get better outcomes for the children and we noticed a lot of the parents are turning up to school as well as meetings and assemblies wearing pyjamas, if we’re to raise standards it’s not too much to ask parents to have a wash and get dressed,” she said.
|>>|| No. 9452
If we really wanted to raise standards (and raise self-reliant kids in the process), we would ban school runs to begin with and let those little bundles of joy walk to school or take the bus. Like other countries do. I've seen it in Germany, France, and Poland... from about age 8, give or take, children are expected to find their own way to school every morning, and their way back home, on their own, in the afternoon. What makes us so vastly different as a country that we have to have traffic jams in front of schools every morning, and parents practically walking their kids into the classroom?
|>>|| No. 9453
Like the US, we are heavily invested in oil/petrol. As a result of this, it's drummed into us from a very early age that cars are a necessity, and that it is impossible to live without one. I'd also be willing to bet that we spend less, relatively speaking, on providing reliable public transport in the UK compared to, say, Germany.
Services that are somewhat reliable tend to charge a lot more. It's not uncommon where I live to hear people say they 'could have hired a car' for the amount that they would spend on bus tickets.
|>>|| No. 9454
>Like the US, we are heavily invested in oil/petrol. As a result of this, it's drummed into us from a very early age that cars are a necessity, and that it is impossible to live without one.
Maybe. But you are forgetting that school runs are only a recent phenomenon of the last 20 to 25 years or so. Our "heavy investment" in oil and cars didn't really look all that different in the 90s or even the 80s.
I think that it's really helicopter parents who are to blame, and the old folk myths of child-snatching nonces that have resurfaced in recent years. Our culture has an unhealthy obsession with our kids. Add to that a pervasive and ever-present climate of fear in the post-9/11 world and parents' omnipresent fears of losing their jobs and status, in times when everybody is fully replaceable.
But still, we are fucked up, and we are raising fucked-up children.
|>>|| No. 9455
As a lad who had to walk for bastard miles everyday to get to school and back I can assure you that it didn't do me any good. Do you think I jumped out of bed in the morning and got to school in good order on those cold winter mornings? Did I fuck and in honesty my parents could've done a better job dropping me off on their drive to work.
Stop being a conformity-nonce just because the narrative sounds popular.
|>>|| No. 9456
I lived 1.5 miles from school when I was a younglad. There was a bus going from the bus stop 300 metres away, but it required you to get up 45 minutes earlier than you would have had to to catch a lift with Daddy who was going into work, or to ride your bicycle to school.
Which meant that usually, I would ride my bike to school, because it allowed me to leave from home just 10-15 minutes before school started (our neighbourhood was on a hilltop and the school was down in a valley, so it was pretty much just one big stretch downhill).
Except for grim winter mornings when our dad did give my brother and me a lift on his way to work, our parents would always tell us that getting to school was our responsibility, not theirs. And they felt that, within reason, you were never too young to learn responsibility for yourself.
All the competitive parenting mums will probably spit out their homemade organic gluten-free cupcakes with disgust at such a statement, but in truth, it did teach us independence and self-reliance, even as ten-year-old boys.
Would it have been nice to catch a lift with Dad every morning, who was more or less going in that same direction anyway? Yes. But in the end, I still think it was the right thing to do to let us fend for ourselves. I never thought my dad was an arsehole for only giving us a lift in the worst of weathers. That was how it was done in our family, and that was that.
When I have kids, I will do the same. Here's hoping my future wife won't be some helicopter mum who will think that that's all a no-go.
|>>|| No. 9457
>What makes us so vastly different as a country that we have to have traffic jams in front of schools every morning, and parents practically walking their kids into the classroom?
|>>|| No. 9459
Is it hysteria though? As a country we do seem to have more than other countries ranging from the Saville mega paedos down to toy shop operatives.
|>>|| No. 9460
Hm. I seem to recall that national crime statistics have shown a very robust decrease in sexual crimes against children in recent years.
It's easy to fall into mean world syndrome... but reality often isn't quite as grim as you make it out to be.
|>>|| No. 9467
I recall based on another thread digging through the NSPCC website and finding the definition of child sexual abuse being absurdly broad (children kissing other (all be it unwilling) children in normal play, and teenagers showing other teenagers porno being 'child abuse'). To try justify their existence by painting some sort of epidemic in number of 'victims'.
|>>|| No. 9470
I clicked on the image because that bird's left arm looks like an overly realistic dildo. I cannot un-see it.
|>>|| No. 9532
In the US we send our kids to school largely in the same way the continental Europeans apparently do.
|>>|| No. 9536
This is the kind of sheep that the wool is spun from which is being pulled over our eyes.
And people are content sucking up fuzzy warm non-news like this, firmly barricaded inside their own bubble, ingoring all the world's problems that need solving while they prefer to watch Jeremy Kyle or Big Brother.
THIS is why the global elites succeed at subduing the common people.
I can hear Immanuel Kant rotating in his grave.
"Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another."
|>>|| No. 9538
Has anyone ever suggested you might have schizophrenia? I only ask because you have paranoid delusions. One puff piece in a local paper where they struggle to find real news on their over stretched budget, does not mean that the new world order has taken over.
|>>|| No. 9539
>One puff piece in a local paper where they struggle to find real news on their over stretched budget, does not mean that the new world order has taken over
That's what THEY want you to believe, m8.
|>>|| No. 9540
Not him,but I do find it quite hard to ignore the subtext of the piece in the context of Tory government cuts and the benefit scrounger narrative.
Look at this cat. This cat works harder than you. And he's more cost effective. The is no living wage in the currency of Whiskers. He even lives at work.
|>>|| No. 9542
With an ability like that to bend all information to have a hidden meaning demonstrating you are discriminated against you'd make an excellent feminist academic.
|>>|| No. 9543
hes at it again!.jpg
In fairness Felix is adorable and I'm glad to read about his antics whereas the poor are generally unlikeable and reading about their hardships is depressing stuff that already know and cannot be helped.
Just being honest. This how how Cameron remains in power.
|>>|| No. 9546
To be honest I think Felix the Station Cat as a tool of burgeoisie propaganda makes a hell of a lot more sense than anything involving the patriarchy.
|>>|| No. 9554
It's a wank article about a cat.
You people really need a cockslap.
|>>|| No. 9555
How can an article using the puns purr-motion and paw-sition be wank? You people, honestly.
|>>|| No. 9556
Hm... I normally only wank to pictures or videos... not articles...
|>>|| No. 9562
I keep seeing round Birmingham, people who have gone to all the effort of bagging their dogs shit up, tied up the bag, and then just dropped it on the floor. It's just baffling, if you're not going to throw it in the bin, save your time and just leave it.
|>>|| No. 9563
>Nor is it a rare bird, or an offering to the pagan gods of spring.
You know your four years at liberal arts college weren't wasted if you get to pen lines like this for a local news piece.
|>>|| No. 9579
Wait a second, is there actually someone else on this board who's been in Falmouth all this time?
|>>|| No. 9582
Haha big up Falmouth. One of my favourite places to partake in drug abuse
|>>|| No. 9598
Fantastic story. Doesn't every parent start the day with a bit of Wake & Bake?
|>>|| No. 9601
Well obviously. To be clear, I'm no subscriber to 'reefer madness' ideas but everything has a time and a place. You wouldn't be drinking a pint on the school run, I don't see weed as that much different in that respect.
|>>|| No. 9602
>You wouldn't be drinking a pint on the school run
Obviously, you didn't grow up in North London.
|>>|| No. 9603
More importantly, the attention of which media and news is given detracts from a sensible world; those who can only see the world in linear temporal events are more likely to be less perceptual. Past and future domimate the mind where the present is often unseen, unfelt and unheard. It's all Maya.
|>>|| No. 9604
No, but my entire family is from north London. They all still managed to avoid becoming degenerates.
|>>|| No. 9789
I grew up in a rural area and our local newspaper was a constant source of amusement. Someone's wing mirror got dinged? Page two, police are asking for anyone who saw the incident to call in. Young lads shouting something homophobic at someone's house on a Friday night, police called to calm the situation? Front page gold, right there.
I went to visit a mate in my late teens who lived in some south London shithole and the local newspaper there was full of single mums injecting their babies with heroin and OD'ing, gangs of youths battering grannies and nicking their shopping, horrible shit like this.
It was a bit of an eye-opener.
|>>|| No. 9792
My ex girlfriend's parents lived in a rural village in Devon. And what qualified as news there was equally bewildering. One time, a mobile cement mixer was stolen in the night from a small local builder's business and was then the next day found again in a nearby creek. Clearly, it was some bored disaffected teenlads who for some reason thought it was fun to nick that cement mixer in the middle of the night, drag it across 200 metres of meadow, and then push it down a 30-foot embankment into that creek.
Anyway, that story became a two-column news item in the local paper the following Monday, and two days later, the fact that there was "still no lead on the cement mixer thieves" was worth another in-depth article to them.
|>>|| No. 10790
>49 brilliantly underwhelming local news headlines from across the UK
I'm not sure which was more underwhelming, finding out that my old town council was living dangerously with both getting a colour copier and stacking their tables in a different way, or that they somehow couldn't find a 50th "brilliantly underwhelming local news headline".
|>>|| No. 10908
> “I asked about the salary and they said it was £18,500 for a chef de partie role,”
Are chefs really paid such a measly salary? I thought they could make mad dosh since they were paid hourly and worked lots of overtime.
|>>|| No. 10909
My understanding, from chefs and those who know them, is that it's generally quite a shite wage.
|>>|| No. 10910
This. Chefs don't make loads of money.
But - a friend of mine was training as a chef ten years ago, and he told me back then that it really greatly depends on where you work.
An ordinary restaurant will not pay well, but if you're good at what you do and manage to get a job at some fancy expensive place, then you can work your way up to a decent salary. When we last spoke, he was making a little over £25,000 as one of the head chefs at a country house hotel. I think that's not too bad.
|>>|| No. 10911
You'd have to pay me a hell of a lot more than £25k to work my arse off in a sweaty windowless kitchen on my feet for stupid hours every week.
Though they must be able to shag some decent waitresses, which is a bonus I suppose.
|>>|| No. 10912
I'd be surprised if that really meant salary. Normally they advertise £18k, but what they mean is £7.20 an hour at fifty hours a week, or whatever.
£25k is pretty dismal for a head chef, unless the place is tiny. I was on £25k basic as a sous chef, not counting OTE bonuses.
It's one of those daft careers you don't really do for money. If you're good enough, you'll be comfortable on a head chef's wage, but anything below that and you're definitely being underpaid for your skilled work.
I currently get £38k a year as a head chef, plus a potential extra £8k a year in bonuses based on profit, wage margins, and feedback scores. Its not too difficult to hit them. But it's taken me a long, long time of making a pittance to get to this point.
And yeah, banging waitresses is a pretty decent perk.
|>>|| No. 10913
> he was making a little over £25,000 as one of the head chefs at a country house hotel. I think that's not too bad
I get that much entering data into a database. How has he not killed himself yet? I'm pretty sure I will kill myself in this year.
|>>|| No. 10917
Everything has its pros and cons.
Some people will take that over being a pencil pusher in a dull office desk job, even if that desk job pays 10 grand more.
I've always been a fan of the idea that (within reason!), doing a job that you enjoy but doesn't pay stellar salaries is better than a self-loathing-inducing job that's great money.
>£25k is pretty dismal for a head chef, unless the place is tiny.
I think he said something that it's a three-star country house hotel in the East Midlands somewhere. They've got two head chefs, it might be that my friend is some sort of junior head chef. I don't know, I don't really know the industry besides going to restaurants to eat.
>I get that much entering data into a database.
I know somebody who worked his way up from exactly that, with a degree in geology, at an oil and gas exploration company. The pay was rotten in the beginning, about £20K. But then again, with a geology degree, you are lucky to be working in your field of study. Or working at all.
Anyway, he is now a team lead at their offices in Aberdeen and makes a healthy £60,000 a year and still has room to climb on the career ladder.
|>>|| No. 10930
I could half understand urinating in a car park, or rather on the side of it near a hedge, where this woman seems to have been.
But to take a shit there is just uncalled for.
|>>|| No. 10934
> Karl Marx predicted that the proletariat will revolt if there is enough class-consciousness. The brilliance of this theory is that it cannot be falsified: that the revolution hasn't occurred yet doesn't mean it will never happen, it only means that here is not enough class-consciousness yet. So this could well be the start of the revolution.
Not having read Das Kapital, I may be wrong, but Karl Marx probably didn't write anything about people purposely shitting in public places to incite revolution.
That said, Henry Ford offered a slightly similar observation:
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
|>>|| No. 10936
I don't know... our mum always made sure we would shower right before going to a doctor's appointment, or brush our teeth before going to the dentist.
I still do this today. I try to put doctor's appointments either in the morning or in the evening, so that either I've just showered after getting out of bed, or so that I will have had time to go home and have a quick shower after work before going to see a doc. Dentist appointments are an exception in that I just brush my teeth at the office right before leaving for the appointment.
Women really are worse about personal hygiene at times. Yes, they will shower, slap on their best perfume and put on their most seductive lingerie if they know they will have sex with you that evening. They will routinely wrinkle their nose at what they perceive as men's lack of interest in preventing body odours, and they will chide you for not washing your clothes the right way, for leaving dirty socks and empty pizza boxes in the livingroom, and for leaving microscopic piss droplets on the toilet seat.
But talk to any toilet attendant at a public restroom, for example at a club or even at a train station, and they will tell you that women are pigs with their toilet hygiene. There will be piss and water on the floor, more so than in the men's room, there will be toilet paper scattered all around, and sanitary pads will plug up the toilet bowl.
Women are simply better at covering their tracks and having the rest of the world believe they're uber cleanly beings.
|>>|| No. 10937
My friend at uni house shared with a bunch of girls and there were constant skidmarks in the toilet, sometimes pubes on the seat too, and shaved hair left unrinsed in the bathtub.
|>>|| No. 10938
I did too, women are fucking filthy. They were so squeamish about basic work like cleaning up that they paid me £5 to take the bins out.
|>>|| No. 10939
Women never lift the toilet seat up, so they go their whole life not realising the amount of splashback they leave on the underside of it, right near the front. Disgusting creatures, the lot of 'em.
|>>|| No. 10940
Another misconception is that woman tenants take better care of a flat they have leased. They may light scented candles and vacuum the floor, wipe down the cabinets and clean the windows regularly, but one of my parents' friends owns a few properties for rent, and according to him, it is usually electrical appliances and technical fixtures in a flat that deteriorate over time with woman tenants. Men are more prone to trying to fix something when it starts breaking down, or at least have it fixed. Whereas women will tend to just keep using an appliance until it breaks down entirely.
For example, my washing machine is starting to make grinding noises. I know that that's a sign that the bearings are starting to seize up, and I have started looking online for replacement parts which I intend to install myself. I've fixed my own cars since I was a teenlad, so hopefully, with a bit of information gathered from the Internet, this should be a piece of piss. The alternative would be to just wait for the bearings to start locking up, in which case the washing machine motor will eventually burn through. Which will be a lot more expensive than buying new bearings in time.
|>>|| No. 10941
I've lived in 2 houses now as the only man and I can corroborate what everyone is saying. Its sad how they are genuinely afraid of simple jobs considering men stepped up long ago to learn how to iron and sow.
Deport them all to Venus I say. Those that survive will at least have learnt what you need to do when a fuse trips.
|>>|| No. 10944
If you've not yet looked inside, how would you know the difference between the bearings wearing out and a troll living in your washing machine imitating the sound of the bearings wearing out?
|>>|| No. 10946
How do you know that's not just how trolls speak? That's like saying all Chinkies sound like "ching chong nip nong nong". Racist.
|>>|| No. 10947
Are you a tenant? If so, your landlord is supposed to fix that for you at no cost to you.
|>>|| No. 10948
Yes, I rent. But I bought my own washing machine, as the flat came without one.
|>>|| No. 11121
Having encountered the hordes of rude Chinese tourists in multiple countries, I knew it was only a matter of time before they got here. It's happening.
|>>|| No. 11129
Hong Kongers are a delight compared to mainlanders. Mainlanders who can afford to travel internationally are dreadful nouveau-riche types.
|>>|| No. 11394
>A man '110 per cent did not have sex with jailed mum-of-five Maxine Cocks in a park'
Some of my favourite bits from the report:
>They had just come from Ramsgate station and Cocks had a strawberry coloured onesie on that barely covered her breasts.
>He said: "We were messing about in the park. Maxine fell over a couple of times. Maxine's breasts fell out. She seemed to think it was funny. It was annoying. It got to a point where she didn't care.
>"I was pinned down and Maxine was on top of me. I did not pull my trousers down. Maxine was under the influence of drugs - having sex with her would be like taking advantage of somebody who was p*ssed, 110 per cent I never had sex with Maxine in the park. She was still on top of me when the police turned up."
Fuck I love living in Thanet. We haz proper slags here!
|>>|| No. 11397
Did you get that impression of rudeness from
>They are always very courteous
>They do get very excited about it and really enjoy taking pictures in front of the gardens and flowers.
THOSE BLOODY SAVAGES. Take pictures of our flowers, will they? I suppose next they'll be capturing our dogs and barbequing them in the streets.
|>>|| No. 11398
>David Nelson, defending, said police had only one witness who claimed he saw Mr Sharp with his trousers down. He said to make the conviction stick the prosecution needed two witnesses to the act.
Christ is that all the burden of proof requires? 'Not one witness but two'?
|>>|| No. 11399
So... erm... if he had reciprocated her sexual advances... could you say that he would have been pleasuring Cocks?
|>>|| No. 11401
>A Staffie has been stolen by brazen thieves who bundled the dog into a car just yards away from her owner’s home.
The bastards. Why couldn't they pick it up and carry it half a mile down the road before bundling it into a car?
|>>|| No. 11402
They love black people in china and SE asia. Well, they find them ridiculous and they mock them. A friend who worked in Laos said the locals would just laugh in the faces of anyone of African descent doing the some job as him.
Recently I've come to think of the culture of celebrity and the fandom that comes with it as something like Pokemon. People see a celebrity and go, "Shit, there goes a rare one! Take its picture!". Some people will ask for photos or autographs, but some people really do make a hobby out of it, like collecting stamps. I really do not understand why anyone would do this, especially not D-List UK celebrities that attend club nights to boost attendance. So I'm starting to think that it's either: people see someone that they've only seen in the media before, and get that Pokemon Go feeling that they've gotta catch 'em all/the moment, or that the people who are into that whole thing really do actually believe that being on TV = you're better than everyone else (otherwise, like, why would they put you on TV in the first place, I mean, duuuh).
Bit of a tangent. But that video of the Chinamen photographing the black guy makes me think it's more the former, with a sprinkle of the latter on top, because of this:
|>>|| No. 11403
You wouldn't think that non-white minorities would be racist against each other, but it does happen. Black people are indeed looked down on by some Southeast Asians.
I used to go to an Asian supermarket in East London regularly to get my ingredients for Asian dishes, and one time, the owner was shooing away two young black guys who were just hanging around in front of his shop. And then he turned to me and said in his Chinese accent, "They're bad for business, and I don't want them here".
|>>|| No. 11404
>Black people are indeed looked down on by some Southeast Asians.
I actually witnessed the opposite of this once. A black woman shouting at an elderly Chinese man at a bus stop, about how Chinese people are scum and should be wiped off the face of the earth (her actual words).
My instictive reaction was "how could a black person possibly have an issue with Chinese people?", then I quickly realised that very thought process is a reflection of my own subconcious prejudices.
|>>|| No. 11406
>My instictive reaction was "how could a black person possibly have an issue with Chinese people?", then I quickly realised that very thought process is a reflection of my own subconcious prejudices.
Yeah, prejudice is a strange thing. I'm sure at that moment, it kind of blew your mind that a member of one ethnic minority would go against the member of another ethnic minority.
But even that already shows what kind of an ignorant world we live in as white people. People of minorities not behaving like a minority member, and putting themselves at the giving end of racism for once?? Pah, preposterous!!
|>>|| No. 11407
>how could a black person possibly have an issue with Chinese people?
I'm curious too, the Chinese have been one of of the great civilisations of human history, blacks have a few sticks in the mud as their history.
|>>|| No. 11408
Most Chinese people have never met a black person, even in big cities. There isn't much malice, they're just a curious novelty. Attitudes are starting to change, mainly through sport. The Chinese are mad about basketball, so some retired or failed NBA players are playing in the Chinese leagues.
The really weird thing is that Chinese companies will hire white people to stand around at business events. They're used as a sort of prestigious window dressing.
|>>|| No. 11409
I was in Evian last year and several groups of Chinese tourists started photographing and posing with a black girl, probably about 9 or 10 years old, just minding her own business in a playground. It was quite surreal.
|>>|| No. 11410
My great-granddad took part in the allied invasion of Germany at the end of WWII. When I was little, he told me once that when they entered Germany together with the Americans, there were a lot of Germans who were quite bewildered at the sight of a black person (the Americans in particular apparently had quite a few black people among their troops). Because there had really not been many black people living in Germany, so for many of the locals, those black soldiers were the first people of colour that they had ever seen with their own eyes.
|>>|| No. 11412
>will hire white people to stand around at business events
I think I'm qualified for this role. Where do I apply?
|>>|| No. 11413
Yes. I'm curious as to why god decided to visit backwards tribal illiterate people in the Middle East region a few thousand years ago and get them to write books based upon his (made up nonsense) will. Surely it would have been better to go to China where they had literature, science and a society far far more advanced.
|>>|| No. 11487
>The image was shared by more than 100 people with many agreeing it wasn’t something people wanted to see
And yet, over a hundred people shared it with somebody.
Have a word with yourselves.
|>>|| No. 11489
The woman is 12th in line of succession, right behind Lady Louise Windsor, daughter of the Earl of Wessex, what if a tornado picked up buckingham palace with everyone important in it? Suddenly doesn't look so stupid reporting she had a test does it!
|>>|| No. 11490
This is old news, from 2008, but it's stayed in my head as it's so bizarre:
"Hmm... he was the last tenant in this tower block, which had been bought by property developers and was due to be destroyed, but he refused to move on. And now here he is with his head cut off with a chainsaw. Sound suspicious to you, constable?"
"Shut the fuck up, I'm the detective. This case is a dead-end, obviously he did it himself. Everyone else had moved out, he was the only person left in the whole building. That was due to be redeveloped."
"Yes but that's what I'm saying, how could-"
"You little fucking toe-rag, shut your mouth before I shut it for you, you walking cadaver."
SOUND SUSPICIOUS TO YOU GUYS?!
|>>|| No. 11491
"There's nothing suspicious about the death"
Spokesman for coroner
'Cause it sure wasn't suspicious to them.
|>>|| No. 11492
I just dug around for info on this, apparently when they went the flat they found he had set up a weird death machine using a chainsaw, snooker table, one of those plug timers you use for lights, some string and a cardboard box.
|>>|| No. 11493
> he had set up a weird death machine using a chainsaw, snooker table, one of those plug timers you use for lights, some string and a cardboard box.
Picture of the man has been released.
|>>|| No. 11494
I think I remember that one. The first draft of the story didn't have much information other than there was a saw injury and repeatedly stressing that the authorities were saying it wasn't suspicious.
|>>|| No. 11506
>Why was the bus carrying a cement mixer?
Learn to read, lad. It says the bus was carrying a cement mixer lorry.
|>>|| No. 11507
The bus was carrying a cement mixer lorry winch was, in turn, carrying a cement mixer. Ergo, the bus was carrying, a priori, a cement mixer. QED, Father Fucker.
|>>|| No. 11513
I think it's the fact this happened at 9am is what really finishes it off for me.
|>>|| No. 11515
> AN 11-YEAR-OLD boy was allegedly punched in the stomach after refusing to get in a white van.
>Police said he was walking alone on the road when a white Transit van pulled up next to him and the driver asked him to get in.
>The boy refused then another man approached and punched the boy in the stomach, a Sussex Police spokesman said.
How rude. When I was that age, you were at least offered sweets before being asked to climb into a van.
|>>|| No. 11566
>Thirdly, going to the papers.
Yes, that's the bit which I also understand the least. How chav do you have to be to think that's actually a story that you should a) go to a paper with, and b) which should be in a paper at all.
Also, the second picture with her in a pose of fake amazement is just daft. That's about as big a no-no in any photo ever as the notorious "thumbs up".
|>>|| No. 11567
I've always wondered this too - there are stories every day in the papers which make you think "why did you agree to this?" - I've always assumed that somehow the papers found out about the story, investigated and threaten to write the story anyway unless you co-operate.
|>>|| No. 11569
> I've always assumed that somehow the papers found out about the story, investigated and threaten to write the story anyway unless you co-operate.
They'd be on thin ice with that though, because then you can still sue them for privacy infringement. Or just plain blackmail.
|>>|| No. 11570
I'd imagine that, in this scenario, the pictures of her in the hospital bed were probably posted on Facebook by her boyfriend whilst they were still drunk, so if it's going to spread you might as well pose for pictures of you holding the vibrator and make the most of it.
|>>|| No. 11571
Another reason why social media is rubbish then.
If I have a choice between my anonymity and being known worldwide for accidentally ending up with a dildo up my arse that was difficult to get back out, I don't think that's a difficult choice to sort out.
|>>|| No. 11650
Why did they blur it? Are deer meant to be properly dressed? Are they not allowed to walk around with their bollocks free?
|>>|| No. 11651
It was probably sexual misadventure anyway, like when Kristian off of To Buy or Not To Buy died whilst having a stranglewank.
I bet the deer deliberately lowered itself onto a branch, before shoving its head in a McDonald's bag so it could huff Big Mac fumes for a proper hard stonk on, but then the branch snapped and punctured all its innards.
|>>|| No. 11652
Oh yeah, that actually happened didn't it.
Is it a bit morbid if being reminded of something like that really brightens up my day?
|>>|| No. 11654
Personally I would have laughed it off rather than contacting the local press about it. Some people have no sense of humour. Still she got a free voucher out of it.
|>>|| No. 11655
You're a bit slow, aren't you? Presumably she made a noise in the hope that she'd get the voucher.
|>>|| No. 11657
Which is worse - being admittedly oblivious, or having no sense of humour?
|>>|| No. 11660
Swan found decapitated at Stockton nature reserve
A swan was found decapitated at a Teesside nature reserve.
The animal was discovered by a member of the public at Bowesfield Nature Reserve yesterday.
Officers say it appears that a sharp implement was used to remove the bird’s head.
It is believed to be the third incident of this kind at the reserve and it comes after a number of separate unconnected attacks on wildlife this month.
Two sheep suffered fatal head injuries in a “brutal” attack near Redcar overnight on Tuesday October 18.
A ram and a lamb were both attacked with a blunt instrument, which may have been a piece of wood, leaving them with head injuries which killed them both.
|>>|| No. 11661
I was watching a group of young teenagers trying to kill squirrels with big sticks in the park yesterday. The squirrels were far too fast and I was too craven to try to stop them otherwise.
|>>|| No. 11663
Is that the council's new redevelopment project? (Haha! Thanks, I'll see you in the next season of Live At The Apollo.)
I recently found out that Larkin and I share the same childhood suburb. Hull was far more desirable to him, which says it all really.
|>>|| No. 11671
Almost reminds me of the time I was riding in my mate's car and he ran over a cat. No shock, no look back, nothing. He only said one word with a completely emotionless look on his face after five seconds or so. "Dead." That's all he said. "Dead". So I said, we have to go back!... and he said, "to do what... pick up pieces of mashed cat?"
I could never put my finger on it, but there was just something wrong about him sometimes.
|>>|| No. 11672
That was your fault. As co-driver, you were meant to exclaim "Oooff, ten points!" the black humour of which defuses the initial shock and allows him to process it properly, i.e "We should go back... Nah, it was only a fucking cat".
|>>|| No. 11675
well if you consume those mushrooms, then life can indeed start to seem like a game of Mario to you, no doubt.
|>>|| No. 11691
This reminds me how we had one a while back on the hospital's intranet page during a particularly slow month, with photos, about one ward "finally" getting a toaster. The true face of Tory NHS cuts.
|>>|| No. 11692
>MORE than 100 mourners gathered to say goodbye to much-loved and popular teenager Jack Gudge yesterday.
>Eight of Jack’s friends carried the blue coffin, which had an Adidas logo printed on the side, into the church while the Liverpool anthem You’ll Never Walk Alone, by Gerry and The Pacemakers, was playing.
>Seventeen-year-old Jack died following an incident outside Tesco Express in Wimborne Road, Winton, at around 12.55am on Saturday, July 16 this year.
>Flowers spelling the words ‘grandson’, ‘brother’, ‘Jack’, ‘cousin’ and ‘chav’ were placed around the coffin. There was also flower versions of the Frozen character Olaf and a red and white football.
|>>|| No. 11694
I thought /iq/ had been a bit on the quiet side lately.
RIP in piece, ladm8.
|>>|| No. 11695
It seems almost too /iq/ for even /iq/. Getting killed after a scrap outside Tesco Express and then not being buried until almost four months later because it's taken your family that long to save up for a coffin that looks like an Adidas shoebox.
|>>|| No. 11697
A community is in outrage after a pub boss responded to a customer complaint by calling them a 'beggar' and 'belittling the work of food-banks'.
David, a sales manager aged 27, attended the pub on Saturday, November 5 and with family and upon ordering food he asked for a bowl to give his one-year-old daughter some mashed potato and gravy.
An employee refused, some say quite rightly. But when the pub responded to his complaint they resorted to name-calling and belittling language, which has prompted outrage from hundreds of people who have been responding to the story on social media.
David messaged them on Facebook to say: "Great customer service at the Rufford pub. All i wanted was a bowl of mash and gravy for my one year old girl."
Dee, an employee of the pub, responded to the dad over Facebook: "I don't want beggars in my pub. Thanks your comments. This is rufford not mansfield food bank. Find somewhere else. I'm Dee. Complaint what ever you want" (sic).
David spoke to the Chad after his ordeal and told the full story. He said: "Me, my girlfriend, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and my daughter went in and ordered our meals. The guy behind the bar had a bit of a strop on him. After I ordered my meals I said is there any chance I could have a bowl with a bit of mashed potato for my little girl. He said: ' No. If you want that you can pay for it'.
Outrage after pub doesn't give man food for free.
|>>|| No. 11698
>Caught on camera: Pervert who turned up to meet underage girl with pornography
>Jonathan Haswell thought he was meeting a 15-year-old for sex but was instead confronted in Newcastle by paedophile hunters Dark Justice
>Carrying pornography and hoping to meet an underage girl for sex, this is the moment Jonathan Haswell was caught on camera by paedophile hunters.
>The 44-year-old thought he was meeting a 15-year-old in Newcastle city centre but he had fallen into a trap set by Dark Justice.
>Haswell had told the fictional girl they could watch pornographic movies together and copy what they saw, after being told she had never had a boyfriend.
Nonces in Newcastle. Who knew.
|>>|| No. 11701
For a split second, I thought that was a picture of Samuel L. Jackson.
Luckily, I realised my mistake.
|>>|| No. 11703
>Outrage after pub doesn't give man food for free.
Did you even read the article you posted?
|>>|| No. 11704
Yeah, he asked for mash and gravy for his daughter and was told he'd have to pay for it. He had a hissy fit because when he's tried it before they've given him it as a freebie.
>I've been into the Rufford so many times and not once have they asked me to pay for it.
If you want to feed your infant daughter either bring food yourself, give her food off your plate or pay for it. They're a business and margins in the pub trade are tight enough as it is without having to placate those wanting to scrounge food.
|>>|| No. 11706
They're the pertinent points. The rest are his embellishments to make it sound worse for the papers. They wouldn't have asked for a full carvery cost for a bit of mash for a baby, take his exaggerations with a pinch of salt.
|>>|| No. 11707
Restaurant/Pub customers often seem to assume anything not printed on the menu is free. Asking for a side of veg with their steak and chips is a common one, then moaning when it shows up on the bill.
I've seen someone ask for extra scallops (for nowt) at a two Michelin restaurant before. Wankers
|>>|| No. 11708
The pertinent point is that's not what has caused 'outrage' as you seem to keep failing to read the rest of the article. A free bowl of baby mash, while by no means an obligation as the article itself says, is not the most unreasonable request anyone has ever made in a pub, so to respond to his complaint by calling him a food bank beggar is incredibly offensive and distasteful.
|>>|| No. 11709
But not unfair given that he was expecting free food handouts from a private business.
|>>|| No. 11710
Businesses should be free to be blunt and honest with customers, especially difficult ones. This isn't America with their fake nice "the customer is always right" bollocks. Sometimes the customer is a right knob.
|>>|| No. 11713
You've got it fucking backwards. You're supposed to stick it to the Man, not stick up for him.
|>>|| No. 11715
But the person affected was a special snowflake who the law shouldn't apply to, Tescos shouldn't be shaming and abusing women by following the law.
|>>|| No. 11716
>They're a business and margins in the pub trade are tight enough as it is without having to placate those wanting to scrounge food.
One of my mates used to work in a pub during uni. The pub owner's trick was to make his food salty. Not so salty that you wouldn't have liked it, just salty enough that people would always order a drink or two after they had eaten it.
|>>|| No. 11717
It's not entirely clear that they were even following the law. Also, as pointed out in the article, if the law somehow does require them to do this, which I doubt it does, it seems hypocritical of them when they're happily doing other things that are against the regulations. It would be like if that bloke selling fake fags out of the boot of his car said he won't sell to you if you're underage.
Of course, the real problem is that the car park isn't free in the first place.
|>>|| No. 11719
>Of course, the real problem is that the car park isn't free in the first place.
Why? Do you feel tescos has a moral duty to provide free parking to the community?
What about the tragedy of the commons? Surely the point of charging for parking is a token amount to encourage 'correct' usage and behaviour rather than to turn a profit, like the 5p bag tax, or having shoping carts have a £1 deposit slot (which in my mind is one of the most eligant designs for encouraging socially positive behaviour consumerism has ever conceived).
|>>|| No. 11720
>Why? Do you feel tescos has a moral duty to provide free parking to the community?
I feel that if people are going spend thousands of pounds every year, letting them park their car outside is the fucking least they could do.
|>>|| No. 11721
That's great. Tesco offers free parking to their customers, except where the law prohibits it.
|>>|| No. 11722
I can't believe people have such little dignity that they would even go to a supermarket that doesn't offer free parking.
|>>|| No. 11723
1. The law doesn't prohibit it.
2. Making people take a ticket and validate it is not the same as "offering free parking".
|>>|| No. 11724
I mean it's downright insulting if there's no free coffee. Paid parking? Crazy.
|>>|| No. 11725
Are you suggesting the Department of Health are conspiring with Tesco to lie about the law or are you just commentating on a story you've refused to even read?
|>>|| No. 11726
I refuse to shop anywhere that won't let me use a trolley without fumbling for change.
|>>|| No. 11728
It's mainly city centre ones or those that are part of shopping centres with their own chargeable car parks. My local Sainsburys enforces a minimum spend of £5 or they'll charge you to park on match days because they're near the football stadium.
|>>|| No. 11729
If they don't control the car park then that's understandable, but simply being in the city or near the stadium isn't an excuse, unless the stadium came along later. It's a bit like the people living near Heathrow. Not everyone who lives there consciously chose to do so, but those who did have no business complaining about the noise.
|>>|| No. 11730
>but simply being in the city or near the stadium isn't an excuse
You seem to have a weird moralistic stance on this topic, are you an embittered town planner?
Why would they need an excuse?
There is nothing to say you can't park your car else where and walk or take public transport. Or even shop somewhere else.
Why should tescos provide free parking to people who aren't even going to use their shop? Isn't making sure those people can get to the stadium the stadiums problem, why is it now tescos problem? Is it because they are a big company and therefore you on princepal think they should suffer?
|>>|| No. 11734
>You seem to have a weird moralistic stance on this topic
No, lad. Business isn't moralistic. Never has been, never will be.
>Why would they need an excuse?
Because people can very easily shop somewhere else, and their memories aren't all that short. The typical family food shop for Christmas runs to well over £200. If you got arsey with someone over spending a few quid in November, it's likely that come December they're going to go elsewhere.
>Why should tescos provide free parking to people who aren't even going to use their shop?
I don't know where you're going here, because literally nobody said this. Now, if we were to rephrase your question to something less retarded, like:
>Why should tescos provide free parking
Then you've alrteady answered your own question here:
>There is nothing to say you can't park your car else where and walk or take public transport. Or even shop somewhere else.
|>>|| No. 11735
>Why should tescos provide free parking to people who aren't even going to use their shop?
>I don't know where you're going here, because literally nobody said this.
Apart from here
"Of course, the real problem is that the car park isn't free in the first place."
And in response to
>"It's mainly city centre ones or those that are part of shopping centres with their own chargeable car parks. My local Sainsburys enforces a minimum spend of £5 or they'll charge you to park on match days because they're near the football stadium."
This reply was given
>"If they don't control the car park then that's understandable, but simply being in the city or near the stadium isn't an excuse"
So yes, it was said. Don't try equivocate you aren't very good at it.
|>>|| No. 11736
>Apart from here
>"Of course, the real problem is that the car park isn't free in the first place."
I don't get it. Where does this say that they should provide parking for people not in their shop? It's almost as if you were deliberately quoting it out of context, or something.
|>>|| No. 11737
Well that is all explained by context
Since the orginal quote is in response to a critcism of a shop that provided free parking to customers with the exception of several moral reasons (buying powdered milk tobacco). Logically it could only mean 'free for all'. Because otherwise there would be no point to making the statement.
|>>|| No. 11738
Here's the actual regulation at issue:
I genuinely can't see where they think that validating a parking ticket falls in here. The part about "premiums, special sales, loss-leaders or tie-in sales" is clearly about things like multibuys, BOGOFs, or "get X half price when you buy Y", and I can see how it might apply to loyalty cards and fuel vouchers. I fail to see how it might count as specifically "induc[ing] the sale of an infant formula" either. Where would you stop? Would you say that the council can't let you park for free on the street if you're only buying formula? If you bought a discounted bus ticket, travelled directly to the supermarket, bought only formula milk, then travelled directly home, have the bus company unlawfully "promoted" formula?
|>>|| No. 11741
Is your ego really so fragile you can't admit you were wrong on the internet, don't worry it's fine.
I'll just stop replying to you now so you can have the last word and tell yourself won the argument or were a master ruseman all along or whatever, else you want, okay.
|>>|| No. 11752
It's what McDonald's do, make their food so salty you'll drink loads of fizzy pop.
|>>|| No. 11765
The boss of a newly-opened city centre cafe has been forced to install combination locks on toilet doors after a man pooped on the floor.
Customers of Fed 'n' Watered, in Prospect Street, are now being issued with the 'Toilet Code', which is printed on the bottom of till receipts.
David Myers, the cafe's managing director, said the measure is needed to protect the facilities and customers from "unscrupulous characters". He cites one particularly unsavoury incident for the locks.
Mr Myers said: "We had one incident when a man came in and had a number two outside the toilet cubicle. Our poor staff had to clean it up. It's perhaps a sign of the times that we've had to do this but unfortunately we have some unscrupulous characters in the city centre and we need to be able to preserve our high hygiene standards."
|>>|| No. 11766
>a sign of the times
That's a /101/ tier irritation phrase for me. I mean, what makes him think people didn't shit on the floor in the 80's? Daft prick.
|>>|| No. 11782
The BBC News would probably go with "defecation". If they'd report a story like that at all.
On Channel 5, they might be a little less stuffy.
|>>|| No. 11839
You posted that knowing full well that the picture had been taken down from Twitter. You're the worst. I bet you enjoy pineapple on a pizza.
|>>|| No. 11877
>Nearly 90 mothers in Merseyside have had five or more children taken into care over the past ten years.
>Eight out of ten of these mothers never had any of their children returned to them.
>Across the country hundreds of UK mums have had five or more kids removed by social workers, a Freedom of Information request has revealed.
>A social care chief said the shocking findings showed the levels of ‘deprivation’ in 21st century British cities.
Liverpool, you legend.
|>>|| No. 11906
A man has denied having sex with a horse on a farm near his home.
The mare called Honey was examined after a couple allegedly challenged Julian Ridgeway what he was doing with the animal when he led it from a partially open stable to a more private outbuilding where they were keeping watch.
Patrick Palmer, prosecuting, told Leeds Crown Court the owner Louise Lumley had become suspicious something was going on.
Hedgeway ran off into woods and later denied to police he had been the man involved claiming he had been listening to football and Today in Parliament on the radio, but semen was subsequently recovered from the animal which matched his DNA. Mr Palmer told the jury: “The prosecution say he intended to commit an offence on the premises that night and had done so before which was why semen was found.”
He said in 1991 Ridgeway was found at a stables in the Wakefield area “about to have sex with a horse. He was found with his trousers and pants off, behind a horse apparently washing the horse’s bottom area.” He added: “You will also hear in 2011 his home was searched by the police and the police found a video and on it was a man having sex with a horse.”
He told the jury in a later defence statement Ridgeway claimed to have put his hand inside the horse once to see what would happen but denied anything sexual.
Mr Palmer told the jury Mrs Lumley had noticed the chain she use to secured the gates keeping the horse in its stable overnight were set differently in the mornings. “She also noticed the horse’s behaviour was quite different and became concerned about what was happening. She and her husband decided to keep a special eye on the stabling.”
Mrs Lumley told the jury they decided to watch from an old pig pen inside a nearby building and they stood on buckets to see over the walls. They saw a man go into the stables and lead Honey out with a rope over her neck and he made his way to the building where they were hiding. When they got inside the horse spotted her and alerted Ridgeway.
“She put her head up and gave the game away. I asked what was he doing with my horse. My husband said it was Ridgeway. At that the man pulled the rope free and ran off.”
|>>|| No. 11907
I'm so glad I don't feel an overwhelming need to fuck horses.
|>>|| No. 11908
You know all those 40 and 50 something year old women who own horses? They're not spending thousands of pounds a year on stabling and vet bills just so that they can take it for walks around the streets. Apparently it's better than any anti-ageing cream you can buy from Boots.
|>>|| No. 11909
The Mrs has horses. I'm reasonably sure there's nowt pervy going on.
Although you're right, it's a money pit with what seems like precious little return. Stable politics makes office politics look like toddler stuff, too. Picking up shit is the least annoying part of the game, as far as I can see.
|>>|| No. 11910
It sounds particularly onerous if you've got to give their bottom area a good wash first.
|>>|| No. 11911
Horse people are nuts, if they were just shagging the things it'd be an improvement.
|>>|| No. 11921
There's a young lass at my work who has a horse. She's dead fit and also goes to daft country folk shite like fox hunts. The first question she always seems to ask about people's pets is if they still have their balls or not.
She wouldn't be able to afford keeping the thing if she didn't live with her mum and dad, though, which I think is telling. The whole horsey person deal is a sort of status tool and aspirational fantasy. Even though the vast majority of it is literally spent shovelling shite, for a brief spell you get to pretend you're just like those poshos at the show jumping.
|>>|| No. 11925
Ah, Wakey. There's no better place to spend Christmas. Your links won't load for me though,
Do the other wakeylads here remember the Free Charles Bronson bar?
|>>|| No. 11926
>An elderly couple in their eighties have been taken to hospital after their Christmas tree set on fire earlier today (December 25) which caused their home to be destroyed.
>Adrian Murphy, Area Commander from West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (WSFRS) confirmed the couple had been taken to hospital following the fire which had ‘catastrophic consequences’.
>He added: “The couple were demonstrating traditional candles to their grandchildren when their tree set alight and this resulted in them losing their home.”
Remember, lads. Don't mix candles, Christmas trees and old people.
|>>|| No. 11927
I found myself reading about tea-pissing cash-nicking Wakefield bad carer last night then looking up his facebook at the behest of the Daily Mail comments section lynch mob. He has an 'ironic' military moustache and his girlfriend wears a bowler hat. They look like the sort of on-the-spectrum isolated hipsters without mates type that I sometimes think the other two of you on here might be. It is as depressingly English a case as Rick Parfitt's whole life and career was. Sage for being a miserable cunt on Christmas night.
|>>|| No. 11928
>In other Wakefield news, a carer has been jailed after pissing in the teacups of an elderly couple before serving it to them.
oh well. Among some Siberian hunter-gatherer tribes, it used to be a custom to drink the urine of shamans who had consumed fly agaric mushrooms for their rituals.
The enzymes in a person's body break down most of the toxins, so that what you still have in that person's urine only gives you a relatively mild and safe buzz.
|>>|| No. 11929
Does all piss give you a buzz or just shaman mushroom piss? I know that baby koalas have to eat their mother's poo in order to develop a tolerance for eucalyptus leaves.
|>>|| No. 11933
They do exist, but they have very little relation to the phantom toxins that "detox" diets are supposed to help with.
As an aside, I work in a hospital and it is truly astounding how many healthcare professionals at every level buy into that shite. Almost worrying actually.
|>>|| No. 11934
>but they have very little relation to the phantom toxins that "detox" diets are supposed to help with.
Which in turn have very little relation to the actual toxins that >>11928 was referring to.
|>>|| No. 11938
The biggest nonsense is that sweating during physical exercise is supposed to rid the body of toxins.
Human sweat contains little more than water, salt, a few proteins and a bit of sebum. Oh, and pheromones. And if you are a smoker then yes, your sweat will smell of smoke. But it's still not the body's principal way of expelling the substances you inhale during cigarette smoking.
Toxins are either metabolised and broken down, or they are expelled through your urine and faeces. But you can't "sweat them out".
|>>|| No. 12585
I went to a barn party at a farm estate once. It was a big party with probably close to 2,000 people, music and loads of booze. Anyway, there was a manure pit on the estate, which had been carefully cordoned off with a construction fence and a tarp cover over the fence. But somehow, some shitfaced git managed to climb over the fence late at night, and then plunged into the manure pit. They found him at 4 am, fast asleep on the edge of the manure pit, covered in shit.
Also reminds me of that time I was at a friend's little garden party; we were sat in his parents' summerhouse, and at some point I excused myself to go around the corner to have a wee. It was pitch dark outside, and I mistook a goldfish pond for a flower bed, and was going to walk straight across it to wee against a tree. Next thing I knew, I was standing in water up to my waist. Having suffered abounding laughter from my mates, I then took off my wet jeans and decided to pedal home on my bicycle half a mile to get some dry clothes. All the while thinking that I probably looked like a nonce, wearing nothing but a T-shirt and my white undies on a bicycle late at night, and my biggest fear was that I would be stopped by police. Luckily, nothing happened.
|>>|| No. 12609
To be fair lad, that happened to me last week. Although in my case I stepped off a dodgy clapboard bridge. Into a swamp. Thank fuck it had been raining.
|>>|| No. 13039
>A man has been convicted by a jury of encouraging his girlfriend to have sex with a dog and warned to expect a prison sentence.
>Michael Smith filmed what happened between Gwen Kerr and the bull mastiff Tank, but weeks later showed it to a social worker claiming he was concerned for the grandmother’s welfare.
>He told a jury at Leeds Crown Court in evidence yesterday(thurs) he thought Kerr must be on drugs and only wanted to prove her strange behaviour and was not acting for any sexual gratification when he pressed record on his camcorder.
>Mark McKone prosecuting told the jury in opening that it was the crown’s case Smith had encouraged Kerr to have sex with the dog, filmed it and that was supported by Smith saying at one point “let him take it” and tapping Kerr on the buttocks during the sexual activity.
>Mr McKone said matters came to light when Smith went to Huddersfield social services on May 27 last year and showed a team leader the footage on a camcorder.
|>>|| No. 13491
It's hard to tell whether he's now telling the truth or if he's still lying.
For weeks he kept up the lie that she'd left the sub at port, and then it suddenly sank later, and he's changed his story quite a few times since.
|>>|| No. 13492
>It's hard to tell whether he's now telling the truth or if he's still lying.
It's pretty clear everything he's said is total bullshit.
|>>|| No. 13493
A sick ex-school governor and churchwarden who imported a child sex doll into Britain has been jailed.
David Turner, 72, from Ramsgate, Kent, was today sentenced to 16 months in prison after he admitted importing and having sex with the life-like 3ft 10in model.
It comes after Turner pleaded guilty, thereby accepting the doll was obscene or indecent, in a UK first.
Officers also found 29 fictional stories – which described sexual abuse of children but fell outside the Obscene Publications Act – when they searched Turner's home.
One of these Turner wrote after dreaming about having sex with a child, the court heard.
The pervert was caught in November last year after Border Force intercepted a parcel containing another three foot doll he was attempting to import from China.
Also - is there anything you can't order from China these days??
|>>|| No. 13495
So wait, we can get jailed for fucking things that aren't real now? How far does this go?
|>>|| No. 13497
I'm fucking a seven-year old in my imagination right now. Try and catch me coppers.
|>>|| No. 13498
That's a bit unfair. Would you still get locked up if you put a wig on your pillow and said it was a 12 year old?
|>>|| No. 13500
Does it make me a wrongun if I sometimes still fantasize about sex with my first girlfriend while rubbing one out? We were both only sixteen...
|>>|| No. 13504
This straight up pisses me off. I'd much rather we have pedos shagging dolls than, you know, actual kids.
But I suppose that would spoil the public spectable of witch-hunting them.
|>>|| No. 13505
He didn't get done for owning or shagging the doll; he got done for importing it - which is fair enough if you think about it.
BRITISH CHILD DOLLS FOR BRITISH PAEDOS
|>>|| No. 13506
I don't generally mind authorities keeping an eye on paedos. But who exactly determines when an inanimate object is obscene, and enough so to warrant (criminal) charges?
Also, since paedophilia doesn't appear to be fundamentally curable, I guess it's better to have somebody humping a child sex doll than to have them going after actual human children. No real and living children are abused when a pensioner sticks his wizened old willy in what is really just a heap of vinyl and rubber.
I think you have to be much more worried about the fact that he apparently used to work in a school environment with children for a long time. Who knows what skeletons are still in the closet there. How was he able to keep under the radar there?
One of my teachers was fired and charged criminally because he tried to slide his hand up a twelve year old's skirt. You know what I mean...
|>>|| No. 13507
>But who exactly determines when an inanimate object is obscene
WHEN IT'S GOT A FANNY HOLE WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO SHOVE YOUR WILLY IN.
Are you lads being obtuse on purpose? I know this place is full of paedo sympathisers but, come on.
|>>|| No. 13509
It's still an inanimate object though. I'm definitely not being obtuse.
Would one of those blow up sheep with a hole in the arse be as criminal an object?
Is the doll inherently obscene, it is it that it's marketed as a sex toy? If it was sold as a medically accurate training dummy would it still be obscene? If I stuck my knob in a CPR dummy is that an offense?
|>>|| No. 13510
>If I stuck my knob in a CPR dummy is that an offense?
Depends on what sort of people are on the class with you.
|>>|| No. 13511
I'd be the last person to defend paedoism, but you're the one who is being thick here. Not everyone who questions the government's wisdom in its methods of cracking down on paedos is a paedo sympathiser.
And it's worth asking the question just what exactly constitutes obscene objects. And although, by contrast, sex with an adult human is usually legal, there have been those who have said adult sex dolls should be classed as obscene as well. Some feminists even call for an all out ban on realistic (again, adult) sex dolls.
>If it was sold as a medically accurate training dummy
Training dummy for what? For the humping of underage children? Now that would really be implying sinister motives.
|>>|| No. 13512
>Training dummy for what?
I mean for medical training. They definitely have gynecological models and even a baby foreskin circumsision trainer. So a cynical Chinese factory labeling a child doll with a fanny as an educational tool is not beyond possibllity. And I'd love to see how that falls, legally.
The things that judge said too, about how he thought buying a sex doll was proof the bloke was 'bored of 2D images' and the implication that eventually he'd be bored of the doll too.
As someone who likes a bit of BDSM, I'm worried that a judge could rule the contents of the box under my bed as criminally obscene, too.
|>>|| No. 13513
>They definitely have gynecological models and even a baby foreskin circumsision trainer. So a cynical Chinese factory labeling a child doll with a fanny as an educational tool is not beyond possibllity. And I'd love to see how that falls, legally.
The obscenity would then indeed not lie in the fact that somebody manufactured those life-like dolls, but that some wronguns use them for penetrative sex.
In that respect, even a cucumber from your local Tesco's could be an obscene object if somebody decides to put it up their bum (or their vag, that happens too). Then again, you can buy all manner of sex toys and implements online nowadays that go where the sun don't shine, and nobody ever thinks of intercepting them because some might feel they are obscene.
As a side note: if you look at your parents' or your grandparents' old mail order catalogues from the 1960s and 1970s, you will find that vibrating electrical massage implements were usually marketed as devices to relieve back and neck muscle tension, at least that's what the pictures in the catalogues would have you believe. When in reality, there could be no doubt in anybody's mind that they were really meant to be used on your genitals for sexual (self-)pleasure. But that would indeed have been considered obscene back then.
|>>|| No. 13514
OK, not him, and I know this isn't what the law says on this matter, but we already have laws that don't go into minute detail about what is and isn't illegal - they leave it up to 'any reasonable person' to judge. And 'any reasonable person' would naturally conclude that a child sex doll is obscene while a cucumber is not.
|>>|| No. 13515
> 'any reasonable person'
You're substituting one arbitrary term with another arbitrary term. "Any reasonable person", or most of them anyway, would have argued a hundred years ago that the death penalty was adequate punishment for various capital crimes. What "any reasonable person" thinks can change dramatically within the space of just a few decades.
Again, not defending the paedos. They get what's coming to them either way. But there are a lot of legal terms and concepts which make good sense at first glance, but then when you get into them deeper, you stumble upon quite a few pitfalls. And "obscenity", even if defined by what "any reasonable person" might think it means, is one of the most vague foundations on which to base the idea that a behaviour or an item should be illegal.
Maybe it's indeed a good idea to simply not let a paedo have his plastic child sex doll from China. Just because. Or because psychiatric science might indicate that they will go on from that to abusing actual children. In that case, you would at least have statistics to back up your idea that paedos mustn't be allowed to have child sex dolls. But again, sometimes, legal definitions that appear clear as day end up looking pretty murky after closer examination.
|>>|| No. 13516
>As someone who likes a bit of BDSM, I'm worried that a judge could rule the contents of the box under my bed as criminally obscene, too.
You have bigger problems m8
>What "any reasonable person" thinks can change dramatically within the space of just a few decades.
Which is why it is good that the definition of obscenity appears vague (in reality it's just broken) given Parliaments inability to pull its collective finger out. I mean at any rate what would be the alternative?
|>>|| No. 13517
> You have bigger problems m8
This kind of thing really rumples my crumpets, lads. You know they only got convicted cos they were a bunch of bumders. You'd never see a bloke getting done for getting his wife pregnant (and causing either a c-section or a blown-out fanny that needs stitches). Or a boxer knocking his opponents brains into Parkinson's parade, for that matter.
|>>|| No. 13518
>Again, not defending the paedos.
That's the trouble with all this isn't it. You try to take the side of reason and humanity, but in the end you're just sticking up for perverts.
It wasn't long ago at work they were having this discussion. One lass was saying we should just chop pedo's dicks off to make the punishment fit the crime, while some (admittedly more reasonable) people were saying that they are just mentally ill and need rehabilitation to cure them. I pointed out that 50 years ago we would have had the exact same conversation about gays, but it didn't go down well.
Nobody wants to confront the congnitive dissonance that arises if you accept gays, lesbians, trannies and all those other colourful non-cis folk are born that way, but pedos are vile monsters from hell and/or mentally ill and should be sent to gulags.
And again. I'm not defending pedos, but it seems to me that no otherwise healthy individual would make that decision consciously, knowing that it's the ultimate taboo of our society. Obviously the ones who act upon their urges are criminal individuals and should be duly punished, but like all other forms of crime, there has to be a catalyst. I don't buy the idea that people just wake up one day and decide to be utterly morally reprehensible.
Ah who the fuck knows anyway. This is a bit much to think about.
|>>|| No. 13519
R v Brown isn't relevant case law anymore, the 3 to 2 Majority opinion of the House of Lords was based on the argument that the European convention on Human Rights was not directly applicable to UK law and if it was then there was no crime (the minority opinion was that the ECHR did apply so there was no crime). Since then the Human rights act made the ECHR expressly applicable it stands to follow that based on the very precedent of R v brown, if the same case was heard today it would fail to get a conviction.
|>>|| No. 13520
You can hammer a nail through your consenting adult friend's cock, but if you take a photo of it, you're breaking the law.
|>>|| No. 13521
Are we allowed to have women sit on our faces or is it against the law regardless of photos?
|>>|| No. 13523
It was a bumder thing that clearly motivated the judgement but we've also had cases where a heterosexual couple have gotten into trouble:
The problem is while consent is the cornerstone of western legal tradition it isn't so easy to apply in practice. 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.
>I pointed out that 50 years ago we would have had the exact same conversation about gays, but it didn't go down well.
Do I need to point out the difference?
Er no, the case centred upon the Offences Against the Person Act which HRA cannot overrule in cases where Parliamentary intention is clear. Even the interpretive shift is itself a little controversial amongst judges.
|>>|| No. 13524
>That's the trouble with all this isn't it. You try to take the side of reason and humanity, but in the end you're just sticking up for perverts.
That isn't the fault of the reasonable people though who try to approach this from a legal philosophical angle. It's the result of well over a decade of low-brow paedo panic appealing to society's lowest common denominator, having been pushed by equally low-brow tabloid rags and paedo hunting TV programmes.
On the face of it, a crime like murder is an offence many times more serious than child molestation. You are not just sexually abusing somebody when they are at their most vulnerable as a young child, but you are actually irreversibly taking a person's life in cold blood. And yet, you can have all manner of enlightened discussion about how to reasonably punish murderers, without anybody assuming that you are defending murderers by saying things like they should still have a chance for rehabilitation at the end of a long prison term.
I think the whole child molester cultural meme is so enduring and successful because it taps into our most basic fears. That somebody will harm our family, our offspring. It's hardwired human nature to be very sensitive to those threats, both real and perceived. And the exploitation of that hardwired human trait isn't an invention of contemporary tabloids and cheap reality TV either. There were cartoon caricatures in the Third Reich of Jews that portrayed them as child snatchers and potential child molesters.
There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that child molestation is a very serious criminal offence, one that can inflict immense harm on innocent victims. And punishments have been stepped up accordingly in the last few decades. But the true test for any system of enlightened due process of law is whether it will stand even in areas of the law that are fraught with human emotions and hardwired fears. Even to the most horrible crimes imaginable, the law must be applied fairly and evenly. If we allow ourselves to slip in one area, it hurts the credibility and consistency of our entire legal system.
|>>|| No. 13525
That's the thing. I think pedos are born that way, though as it's a matter of consent, they still should never be allowed to fiddle kids.
Hence, sex dolls. And maybe prostitutes with that disease that makes your body never age.
|>>|| No. 13526
'Er no' is quite a good legal argument, but since I've read the ruling of R v Brown and R (Simms) v Home Secretary (to which you were referring in all but name) and the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and could see no conflict between the statements qualifier "Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words" and inherant ambiguity of the 'unlawfully and maliciously' in section 18 in the aforementioned act when applied to consentual matters I invite the honourable gentleman to 'jog on'.
|>>|| No. 13527
>Do I need to point out the difference?
Not him, but yeah, would you mind? Every time I google homosexuality and paedophilia together to learn about this, I end up having to wade through articles about people linking the two in a homophobic context, as opposed to actually discussing what the neurological distinction, if any, is between sexual orientations and sexual disorders.
|>>|| No. 13528
I'm sorry, but if a man is fucking a doll of a child, whilst working five days a week around children with an uncanny resemblance to his toddler-cum-fleshlight, something needs to be done. We're not talking about a greenkeeper who plays golf here.
Sage because the conversation has moved on, but the squeamishness of some posters here just hit me like extrajudicial carpet-bagger bashing.
|>>|| No. 13530
>I'm sorry, but if a man is fucking a doll of a child, whilst working five days a week around children with an uncanny resemblance to his toddler-cum-fleshlight, something needs to be done. We're not talking about a greenkeeper who plays golf here.
I'm the lad who said earlier in this thread that one of his school teachers was fired and charged criminally because that teacher had tried to put his hand up a twelve year old's skirt.
If you have a paedo teacher working in a school, and for decades as teachers tend to do, then it almost seems more unusual that there would be no incidents at all involving that teacher.
Not sure what happened to my former teacher; we moved to the other end of the country that summer and sort of didn't keep up anymore with local current events. Also, this was in the early 90s, so that was a different time altogether.
|>>|| No. 13531
My old primary school teacher used to make some of the girls sit on his lap and pat their bums. Maybe he has done more - I don't know. But he got away with it. He runs a chip shop now. I'm sure shit loads of paedos get away with it, stupidlad.
|>>|| No. 13533
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
>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
Watch out lads, the armchair lawyers are at it again.
|>>|| No. 13537
> 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
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
I'd have you know that I barely passed Criminal Law at the undergraduate level!
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
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
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. 13543
>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
>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.
|>>|| No. 13545
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
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
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
>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.)
No, we don't. Please elaborate.
|>>|| No. 13549
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. 13551
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. 13553
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
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.
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
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.
Exactly right. There are plenty of .onions they can find that shit, I'm not paying for it.
|>>|| No. 13564
>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. 13569
>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
>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. 13575
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
>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
> 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.
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
Christ, how does one 'do' casual sex outside of Tinder? I'm through the looking glass here.
|>>|| No. 13579
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
Fair enough, I've not hit thirty yet so I guess there is a generation gap here.
|>>|| No. 13581
> 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
>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. 13585
>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
> 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
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
>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
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. 13601
>'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
Congratulations on getting the best result that you could have legally achieved, though.
|>>|| No. 13603
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 ]