I don't need to do anything, you're making a fine job of it yourself. As for me and the Mail, I thought after they took you on as a columnist they wouldn't want the likes of me.

I guess that they are is you believe that every story about George Michael or Boy George somehow represents the gay community accurately

The facts, that are being neatly avoided here (but mentioned in the article) is that child abuse is far more likely to be carried out by a relative if the child. You only have to look at the reports of such incidents to notice a pattern. It’s a parent, an aunt or uncle, not some complete stranger.

I was stating facts that are as irrelevent and none valuable as BA suggesting because a man is capable of being a child molestor, all men are possibly child molestors, to think that their policy means anything else is at best naive and at worst downright stupid.


Suggesting I am make a 'fine job of doing it myself' clearly shows your ad hominem argument and twisting what you clearly understand I am trying to say.

For the record as well, my father is from the West Indies and my mother divorced him, because he 'came out of the closet'.

Also a very silly comment. I understand clealry there is victimisation of homosexuals by police and judges and Homophobic Bias Of The Criminal Justice System. 1,503 men were convicted of the gay consensual offence of "gross indecency" in 1989, compared with 887 in 1955. In other words, there were over one and a half times more guilty verdicts in 1989 than in the mid-1950s when male homosexuality was still totally illegal and Britain was gripped by a McCarthyite-style anti-gay witch-hunt.

I clearly stated that fact was "more gay people are involved in acts of gross indecency in public places". The classification of what entails gross indency is in fact very biased against Homosexuals. Therefore there could be thousand more hetro people involved in what could be labelled as gross indecency, but as the police, courts, judicial are not biased against them, it is not always classified as this.

The example was also used to highlight the premise that BA are using against men as potential threats to children. But seemingly you and ProfessorF have conveniently tried to turn it round with him claiming I have already made a clear attack on homosexuals and black people and you considering my knowledge of homosexual infividuals activity is limited to what I read about George Michael and Boy George.

I suggest that you both show a little more respect before mounting your high horses in future.



I

Yay for sarcasm and confusion.

Perhaps they should sit them with a priest to ensure their physical and spiritual safely.

Hmm. I'm struggling to find the link between BA acting like idiots, homosexuality laws and gun crime.



Maybe I'd understand it better if you clearly said it.
I felt you appeared to come across as saying that BA is riddled with homosexuals who are all part of a culture of criminal indecency and child abuse, and that gun laws don't work. Which is just the sort of thing I'd expect from the Mail.
I apologise for thinking you were taking a somewhat negative, blanket assessment of a community you may or may not be a part of, depending if you're a black, gay pilot who presumably thinks hand guns are great.



Good for her.

No, this is simple wrong.

All people are potentially child molesters. To limit to men is simply not true, to limit the suggestion of child molestation is only capable of men is incredibly inaccurate when women are just as capable

Did he ever find Narnia though?

I would have to disagree with that, I think the seeds of paedophilia are planted in childhood (through abuse) so I cannot imagine what would lead someone who'd had a normal childhood and grown up to be a functional adult to become a child molester. Other than the government via the media denouncing them as one as a result of being anti governmental.

I think the point being made is that given any random group of people it would be impossible to say that any one of them was more likely to be a child molester than the others because of the way they looked, their sexual orientation, their gender, their race, etc...

However paedophilia starts out in someone's life it would be possible for it to start that way an ANYONE's life.

Actually it is possible to say that <some facet of someone's life> made them more or less likely to commit any given offense. There's plenty of data to back that up. It may well possibly be that men are more likely to be guilty of child abuse than women, for example. However it is impossible to use that data to say that any given individual would commit that offense. That's the big fat legal line in the sand that BA kind of jumped over in an olympic triple jumper kind of way.

Jon

Ah yes. I think I should have written...

"...it would be impossible to say that any one of them is or isn't a child molester..."

That's more like it.

LMFTFY.