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:
OrmRenewed · 21/04/2010 10:05

FNAR at 'scum of the earth' . Now come on! They aren't the BNP.

tartyhighheels · 21/04/2010 10:03

You need to really have a look at the policy rather than the dumbed down daily mail reader version

ShadeofViolet · 21/04/2010 09:58

You already posted this within the Lib dems thread - whats wrong, not get enough attention then???

What do you have against the lib dems?

thumbwitch · 21/04/2010 01:49

good post anastaisia.

anastaisia · 21/04/2010 00:40

yes, that's exactly what the policy they voted on said.

No sensationalism in the press at all.....

The Working Group does not accept that people should have access to sexually
explicit material only from the age of 18:
(a) The law treats persons aged 16 as adults for the purpose of identifying the
age at which a person may lawfully choose to have sex and therefore the
age at which a woman may choose to have a baby, and also the age at
which a person may lawfully marry.
(b) The Working Group can see no sensible justification for the law to treat
those over 16 as still requiring special protection in relation to watching sex
acts on a film or video, or in relation to the purchase of a sex aid. It makes
no sense to say that a person is mature enough to choose to have sex at 16
(and to have a baby), but not mature enough to watch such an act on a
video and deal responsibly with sexually explicit materials.
(c) In addressing this issue, the Working Group does not accept that to lower
the relevant age to 16 will mean that young persons will be exposed to
sexually explicit material which would otherwise be entirely hidden from
persons aged 16 or 17 who wish to see it. Such material is readily available
on the Internet.
(d) For all these reasons, the Working Group does not consider that it would be
right to confer a discretion on local authorities to adopt a minimum age limit
of 17 or 18 as appropriate for the purchase of sexually explicit material, any
more than it would be appropriate for a local authority to have such power
in relation to the age at which young persons may lawfully have sexual
intercourse.

The policy document then goes on to talk about stricter regulation of sex industry to protect workers and under 16s.

Essentially they believe that if at 16 you are classed as adult enough to get married and have children you should really be classed as an adult properly.

Whether the age of consent should be raised rather than other things brought down to it might be a more interesting debate than posting a link saying 'oooh look; press makes a story sound shocking Aren't they such nasty horrible people.'

gaelicsheep · 20/04/2010 23:09

Yawn.