jongo Posted May 1, 2010 Author Share Posted May 1, 2010 Fair dos - I'd not seen that. 6 years ago is quite a while though so it may not be current policy - it not being on their web site would imply not. It would be nice to see something more recent. Or it would imply that they dont want the general public to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 so basically 16 year olds can legally have sex but they can't look at or appear in porn presumably they can't look at each other either and have to wear blindfolds ? I think 16 is perhaps a little young to be having sex, but it depends on the persons involved, there are some very mature 16 year olds and there are also some very immature 16 year olds too, but if we're saying that you can have sex at 16 then lets be consistent and include the whole range of sexual activity including access to and appearing in porn it's a bit like the stupidity that says you can join the armed forces at 16 with parents consent, complete your training and be sent off to war and kill people but you can't have a say in the running of your own country until you are 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Or it would imply that they dont want the general public to see it. Not everything that gets passed at party conferences becomes policies that get put into the manifesto's of parties - they learned that after Labour in the early 1980's. Didn't the Tory Party conference want to abolish taxation on inheritances of under £1 million - don't think you'll find it in their manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 so basically 16 year olds can legally have sex but they can't look at or appear in porn presumably they can't look at each other either and have to wear blindfolds ?... I wonder whether the people arguing for 16 year olds to be able to appear in porn films wanted 16 year olds to be able to appear together in porn films or wanted 16 year olds to appear with much older people in porn films? A bit like those who wanted the age of consent for male homosexuals to be reduced to 16. Very few of them were 16 year olds, but there was no shortage of older men who wanted the age of consent to be reduced to 16. I wonder why? - Altruism or young meat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 I wonder whether the people arguing for 16 year olds to be able to appear in porn films wanted 16 year olds to be able to appear together in porn films or wanted 16 year olds to appear with much older people in porn films? Just to clarify ... the (now redundant) motion, back in 2004, did actually distinguish between "appearing in" films and "taking part in sexual activity" ... and maintained a natural objection to the latter. At no time did the motion suggest supporting 16 year-old "porn stars" as trotted out by The Sun and MumsNet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 Or it would imply that they dont want the general public to see it. Yes, just like Labour haven't published the policy about selling your 1st born son into slavery. It's not because it doesn't exist, it's just because they don't want the general public to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted May 1, 2010 Author Share Posted May 1, 2010 Just to clarify ... the (now redundant) motion, back in 2004, did actually distinguish between "appearing in" films and "taking part in sexual activity" ... and maintained a natural objection to the latter. At no time did the motion suggest supporting 16 year-old "porn stars" as trotted out by The Sun and MumsNet. I suppose you can provide us with a link to "clarify" your claim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted May 1, 2010 Author Share Posted May 1, 2010 Yes, just like Labour haven't published the policy about selling your 1st born son into slavery. It's not because it doesn't exist, it's just because they don't want the general public to see it. Is that the best you can do ? How clever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 no like banning drugs, refusing to talk about the subject even tho they NEVER will win and as a side effect create a massive criminal subculture and also making the drugs dodgier sounds like a great plan to me If we can get these 16 year olds stoned on legalised heroin then maybe it will be easier to get them in front of the camera...1 stone, meet 2 dead birds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted May 1, 2010 Share Posted May 1, 2010 I suppose you can provide us with a link to "clarify" your claim What claim? No-one in this whole thread can provide any copy of the minutes of the alleged debate. The only, remotely reliable, source has been the 2004 report by the BBC which does not support the claims by the Sun nor MumsNet nor others in this thread that the conference supported 16 year-olds becoming porn stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.