Liberal Democrats take Burnley

[cheeky monkey]

Originally Posted by Darren Reynolds

Some are perfectly friendly until it comes time for voting on equality issues. I wish Sharon was here to answer a few questions about immigration and inter-community cohesion so that you could see what the problem is. The rest of the time I agree, she's perfectly friendly.



You've got it wrong. They have their fair share of the seats on the scrutiny committees, in proporion with the number of seats on the Council. You have to remember there are only 4 of them to 23 Lib Dems, so it's hardly likely we're going to put them in charge of anything much. Besides, as a Lib Dem, I disagree profoundly with many BNP policies, but upold their right to campaign for them.




I've no idea what you mean. As far as I know, Gary Glitter (or whatever his real name is) is a convicted criminal currently serving a sentence in Thailand. I could be wrong - I haven't checked. What exactly are you asking? What party line are you talking about?

I was refering to a post on a right wing site called Stormfront I read, The person who wrote it claimed to be you, This person certainly knew who Gary Glitter was/is and agreed he should be handed over to victims parents for them to dish out justice, If it was you, Is this a LibDem election pledge? because it would seem strange when as I understand it the LibDem's would like to lower the age of consent for all kinds of sexual activity, thus reducing the number of victims of assault, not punishing the people who carry out these atacks, if I am wrong and sombody has been impersonating you on that website may I say sorry in advance, and just say I do agree with the answer on there .

[Darren Reynolds]

Originally Posted by cheeky monkey

I was refering to a post on a right wing site called Stormfront I read, The person who wrote it claimed to be you, This person certainly knew who Gary Glitter was/is and agreed he should be handed over to victims parents for them to dish out justice, If it was you, Is this a LibDem election pledge? because it would seem strange when as I understand it the LibDem's would like to lower the age of consent for all kinds of sexual activity, thus reducing the number of victims of assault, not punishing the people who carry out these atacks, if I am wrong and sombody has been impersonating you on that website may I say sorry in advance, and just say I do agree with the answer on there .

I have posted on Stormfront before today in defence of Liberal positions but have no recollection of any discussion about Gary Glitter. A search for all my posts turns up nothing and a Google search turns nothing up either. If you can provide a link I could explain in a trice.

Sadly I am not yet permitted to post the links showing the search results as I've not yet been active enough on the board.

In the mean-time, Liberal Democrats have previously moved in favour of changing the law relating to sexual activity between minors, but the proposals are sadly easy to misinterpret. As the law stands, if two fifteen year-old schoolkids get it on behind the bike sheds, they could both be sent to prison. Whilst I'd discourage kids from this kind of behaviour, it seems deeply wrong to me to send them to prison. In practice, judges don't send such children to prison. In fact, police rarely investigate at all. So, changing the law is not really such a high priority and is more a matter of tidying it up so it reflects what actually happens. The whole subject is a years-old debate dredged up by BNP supporters to paint a false picture of Lib Dem policy.

Getting anti-social behaviour under control in Burnley is much more important.

[cheeky monkey]

I could not agree more Darren. But I would have thought getting a set of standards instaled into children would have been the first step.
Moral standards are a very important addition to any good citizen, and if you allow say 15 year olds to "get it on" then how can you tell them it is wrong to let some 45 year old do it with them? then if 15 year olds are allowed 14 year olds will want to do it and so on, Then before you know it we will be like an Asian country or eastern european and letting children get married at a very early age, Thus making "grooming" legal.
A far better proposal would be to make parents responsible for their childrens behaviour up until they reach 16, Then 2 years of national service, Giving them a sense of pride and respect towards people and property.
Surely you would not condone a man marrying a girl of 5/6 or agree with anybody who says that is ok, Or would want children taught that it ok?
I am sure I do not know any parent who would want their children to accept that kind of thing.

[cheeky monkey]

Darren quiet by chance I bumped into Cllr Sharon Wilkinson today, I mentioned thig great website for Burnley, She was very interested and thought it a good way to find out what people want, but as she is an elected councillor and works very hard for her ward in Hapton she does not have a lot of time to get on the internet.
She has though promised to make time as it is for the good of Burnley, I told her that she could find out a lot on here including the mood of the people. Giving her the chance to answer peoples questions.
I am glad she agreed as I have several questions myself that need answering to a wider audience.
I will send you the Gary link from stormfront, But will have to send it to your website.
Regards Cheeky Monkey

[cheeky monkey]

Darren The post is on page 7 of a thread titled Ex BNP candidate on explosive charges. on STORMFRONT
Cheers Cheeky Monkey

[Darren Reynolds]

Originally Posted by cheeky monkey

Darren The post is on page 7 of a thread titled Ex BNP candidate on explosive charges. on STORMFRONT

I can confirm it was really me. I think the statement I made speaks for itself ("none of the above"). I also understand that evidence shows restorative justice to be effective. I would support it. It is similar to your suggestion that criminals should be given to their victims, although with possibly slightly less tearing of limb from limb. I stand by the statement I made.

Originally Posted by cheeky monkey

If you allow say 15 year olds to "get it on" then how can you tell them it is wrong to let some 45 year old do it with them?

Er, like this. "You shouldn't have sex until you're old enough to understand it properly, and that means being at least 16. If someone aged 45 tries this with you - that's seriously illegal because it's unfair and dangerous to you. That person will go to jail. For your own safety you must tell me."

Fairly easy, really. I just think sending my own lovely kids to jail for responding to instincts they don't understand would be the wrong approach, not least because jails are awful places full of serious criminals.

If you think jail for normal, law-abiding and friendly but angst-ridden teens is the answer, well, I think you're wrong.

Originally Posted by cheeky monkey

Surely you would not condone a man marrying a girl of 5/6 or agree with anybody who says that is ok, Or would want children taught that it ok?

I'm finding it hard to keep a straight face. Are you on medication? Sorry, I have to ask, as you seem to be on a different planet.

No, of course not - your suggestion is ridiculous. I wonder if you're about to start the standard BNP rant about an Islamic text that describes how this sort of thing was acceptable in the middle-east 1,400 years ago. Well, it ain't acceptable any more, not here, and not anywhere.

Anyway, as you pointed out, there are other priorities for a councillor than debating this kind of nonsense so if it's OK, I'll leave this thread now. Thanks all the same.

All the best,
Darren

[cheeky monkey]

Originally Posted by Darren Reynolds

I can confirm it was really me. I think the statement I made speaks for itself ("none of the above"). I also understand that evidence shows restorative justice to be effective. I would support it. It is similar to your suggestion that criminals should be given to their victims, although with possibly slightly less tearing of limb from limb. I stand by the statement I made.


Er, like this. "You shouldn't have sex until you're old enough to understand it properly, and that means being at least 16. If someone aged 45 tries this with you - that's seriously illegal because it's unfair and dangerous to you. That person will go to jail. For your own safety you must tell me."

Fairly easy, really. I just think sending my own lovely kids to jail for responding to instincts they don't understand would be the wrong approach, not least because jails are awful places full of serious criminals.

If you think jail for normal, law-abiding and friendly but angst-ridden teens is the answer, well, I think you're wrong.


I'm finding it hard to keep a straight face. Are you on medication? Sorry, I have to ask, as you seem to be on a different planet.

No, of course not - your suggestion is ridiculous. I wonder if you're about to start the standard BNP rant about an Islamic text that describes how this sort of thing was acceptable in the middle-east 1,400 years ago. Well, it ain't acceptable any more, not here, and not anywhere.

Anyway, as you pointed out, there are other priorities for a councillor than debating this kind of nonsense so if it's OK, I'll leave this thread now. Thanks all the same.

All the best,
Darren

Thank you for being frank, Darren, no pun intended.
I am sorry if it seems like I am having a pop at you, It is just not often people get a chance to put these things to councillors and I for one thank you for making the effort and spending some of your time with us.
You were quiet right that I was going to mention Islam and how their Prophet married a girl of six and I don't think this is the sort of thing teachers should be teaching primary school children.
Jesus never did it, At least he never boasted about it.
I too am a family man, although we have views that are poles apart, (again no pun) there can be no doubt we care about our children, I protect mine 1 way and you do yours another, Time will tell which one of us is right.
As regards sending our children to jail I am also with you on that to a certain extent, We have all been young and tried the forbidden fruit, but we have also allowed into our country certain people who have no regard for the laws of ours, who come from countries where it is the norm to commit disgusting crimes against children, As a parent who would protect my children to the death I can't understand a goverment or anybody who would sit by and let this happen without saying somthing against it,There is only one political party that I have heard mention it, The others turn a blind eye because they do not want to lose that vote.
Well I vote as a parent, prevention is better than a cure.
Rant finished I hope we can meet on other threads where we can agree with each other, Maybe somthing not so in depth.

[cheeky monkey]

Originally Posted by Darren Reynolds

I can confirm it was really me. I think the statement I made speaks for itself ("none of the above"). I also understand that evidence shows restorative justice to be effective. I would support it. It is similar to your suggestion that criminals should be given to their victims, although with possibly slightly less tearing of limb from limb. I stand by the statement I made.


Er, like this. "You shouldn't have sex until you're old enough to understand it properly, and that means being at least 16. If someone aged 45 tries this with you - that's seriously illegal because it's unfair and dangerous to you. That person will go to jail. For your own safety you must tell me."

Fairly easy, really. I just think sending my own lovely kids to jail for responding to instincts they don't understand would be the wrong approach, not least because jails are awful places full of serious criminals.

If you think jail for normal, law-abiding and friendly but angst-ridden teens is the answer, well, I think you're wrong.


I'm finding it hard to keep a straight face. Are you on medication? Sorry, I have to ask, as you seem to be on a different planet.

No, of course not - your suggestion is ridiculous. I wonder if you're about to start the standard BNP rant about an Islamic text that describes how this sort of thing was acceptable in the middle-east 1,400 years ago. Well, it ain't acceptable any more, not here, and not anywhere.

Anyway, as you pointed out, there are other priorities for a councillor than debating this kind of nonsense so if it's OK, I'll leave this thread now. Thanks all the same.

All the best,
Darren

Just a quick point Darren, So on planet LibDem it is ok for an old man to have sex with a 16 year old but not a 15 year old, but 15 year olds to have sex together? forgive me for being thick but i am just a normal person.

[Weehen]

jails are awful places full of serious criminals

on what planet?

Here on Earth prisons are single rooms with sky TV etc and the really bad criminals are not in them cos no one is brave or clever enough to catch them!