Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Lib Dems - the truth about these people

56 replies

growell · 20/04/2010 23:07

Voted on unanimously within their party a couple of years ago (was NIck Clegg an MP then?):-

"Youngsters aged 16 and 17 should have the right to watch and appear in explicit pornography, the Liberal Democrats decided yesterday"

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/let-16yearolds-visit-sex-shops-and-see-explicit -porn-say-lib- dems-567128.html

Sorry but scum of the earth.

OP posts:
Clairewilliams1973 · 23/04/2010 10:40

I have posted on this on another forum, the Lib Dem one.

But Trice you miss the point entirely and by God I hope your kids are from safe secure homes that means they will never be in a position where at 16 they are faced with a choice of a few pounds to star in a porn flick.

16 year olds can be pretty all over the place. Both developmentally and emotionally. My son look smuch much younger then he is, my daughter looks more mature than her years even though she is just 12. teens need special protection under the law that lets them experiment with life, have sex, define themsleves etc, but protects them from people who may exploit them.

I simply cannot vote for a party that advocates this and none of the rest of their policies are a price worth paying for what is essentially legalisation of child porn.

WebDude · 21/04/2010 23:55

beat me to it, Heathen

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 21/04/2010 17:21

Droosiecat - you know you can hide the politics topic, right? You need to go to 'Customise', 'Hide Topics'....

DroosieCat · 21/04/2010 13:40

To the OP and any other Proll who has joined MN just to tell me how crap LibDem/Lab/Tory/UKIP/whoever are (or how brilliant they are)

SOD OFF ALL OF YOU I AM NOT BLOODY INTERESTED. I KNOW WHO I AM VOTING FOR AND YOUR WITTERINGS WILL NOT CHANGE MY MIND.

Now if you have children take a look around and talk about NORMAL things.

anastaisia · 21/04/2010 13:32

I have one child crystal123.

I home educate my DD.

We're learning lots about politics, use of media and debating ATM

WebDude · 21/04/2010 13:12

cut and paste is perfectly legitimate if someone is taking an extract from some other document and using it to clarify an argument.

It's normally "polite" to cite a source, or give a link. If the quote would extend to a very large extract, it would break copyright acceptability on "reasonable levels" for an extract, and a precis of what's in the actual document would make sense.

I see nothing wrong in what was posted - clarifies the findings and gets away from headline grabber style 'Lib Dems want porn available for 16 year olds' (my own precis!)

WebDude · 21/04/2010 13:00

Similarly on voting age vs going into one of the Army / Navy / RAF.

crystal123 - if you think Anastaisia writes "reams" you should see some of my posts (and Heathen... I rarely use cut and paste, but do sometimes go off at a tangent).

Trouble is, so many are used to the limitations of a tiny screen on a mobile and a text with a maximum of under 1000 characters they feel constrained to write short comments (and sometimes cause confusion, because it can be unclear who they were answering/criticising) and/or too short to properly explain (if necessary with sufficient detail) the views they have put forth.

Seems more than half on MN have a degree or higher education, but sometimes it looks exactly the opposite (or are most contributors thick from the non-degree holding group) ?

trice · 21/04/2010 12:27

Thank you for pointing out another of the liberal democrat policies that I totally agree with crystal. Laws should make sense. It does not make sense that a seventeen year old is old enough to shag but not old enough to see others shagging.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 21/04/2010 12:25

crystal 123: I believe Anastasia used Ctrl C=> Ctrl V.

Ask your mate lincstash, he's a dab hand at it.

stripeyknickersspottysocks · 21/04/2010 12:20

Ah good, wasn't going to vote for Lib Dems but probably will now. Cheers.

crystal123 · 21/04/2010 12:20

Anastaisia> Do you hae children? how do you have time to write reems and reems as you do?

OrmRenewed · 21/04/2010 12:20

"weasel words"

What an annoying phrase that is. Weasel words would presumably be squeaks. Or do they communicate with smell too.

ShadeofViolet · 21/04/2010 12:19

Who did?

crystal123 · 21/04/2010 12:16

Shadesofviolet. Oh and linctash as well, he gave you (and others) a good pasting last night.

ShadeofViolet · 21/04/2010 12:14

I couldnt vote for the Libertines, I dont think I would like their policies on social policy or drug control.

animula · 21/04/2010 12:08

Crystal123 I think you're mixing up your libertarians, libertines, and liberals.

Easy to do, all sit v. close together in the dictionary.

I don't think it says anywhere in the Liberal manifesto that they are going to scrap all legislation. I'm just pointing that out, in case there is anyone lurking who is thinking "hmm. is that what liberals think?" No. It's not.

animula · 21/04/2010 12:02

I am loving Heathenofsuburbia this week.

Pofacedagain · 21/04/2010 11:57

LOL Heathen.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 21/04/2010 11:54

Yes, damn you liberals, reading your manifestos thoroughly and backing them up with facts!

Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! (c) Homer Simpson

ShadeofViolet · 21/04/2010 11:50

At least we know what the mainfesto is Crystal, instead of trotting out the same tripe about UKIP that you do!

crystal123 · 21/04/2010 11:48

Animula. If anyone is weak minded it's you! I correct myself, feeble minded in your case.
Legislation is put in place for a reason to protect young people. What a weak response to say that people will do what people will do.
people murder other people and legislation and the law says that some may get get life sentences for these crimes, does that mean because crime exists it should not be punished? That we should not have legislationand/law to protect people? Liberals (and you're one of them) you seem to know the manifestos/policies off by heart (so boring) would let anyone, do anything as long as you can back it up by so called facts from weasel worded policy papers. Don't use personal attacks, because you will receive them right back.

liamsdaddy · 21/04/2010 11:23

So, if you are 16 or 17, you are allowed to have sex but not to watch it?

Does this mean that 16 and 17's have to be blindfolded before having sex? So mandatory S&M for young couples?

(sorry, yes I know I shouldn't feed the trolls)

animula · 21/04/2010 11:18

@ "weak-minded" that is an awful thing to say. sorry. I meant weak thing, sloppy thinking. And I'm afraid I slipped into the cliches of a superseded past there. Gone for good reasons. that's what happens if I don't pause a bit.

Sorry.

animula · 21/04/2010 11:15

It's weak-minded to think that legislation that introduces a massive consistency around the legal age of adulthood will do anything to curtail exploitation.

Which doesn't stop at 16, or 18, or even 30, anyway, for heaven's sake. That piece of legislation was an insane way to deal with exploitation.

I thought Anataisia's post was good, too.

crystal123 · 21/04/2010 11:04

Thumbwitch. No it's not a good post. Many young people aged 12 appear 16 or 17 and could easily end up in explicit pornagraphy. Young people need protecting from perverts, and those who would exploit them in this industry. The Liberals/Libdems or whatever they now call themselves use weasel words to advocate the explotation of children.