A question no-one - at least, no-one I've encountered - has asked:
How will this legislation - the Online Safety Act - be applied to PRIDE events, those annual, month-long, rainbow-bedecked, and state-sanctioned festivals of public depravity brimming with tumescent human teddy bears (better known as 'furries') and lubed-up leather daddies?
I rather think it won't be.
...especially as those in the political (or better, parasitic) class are either personally aligned or potentially compromised by either rumour or active affiliation with said depravity.
Somehow, I think this latest censorious gambit has NOTHING to do with preserving innocence or protecting children...our Masters do NOT care a rap about children, other than how they might be utilised or, better still, weaponised...and is much more likely simply the latest manoeouvre in the State's long war on un-approved expression and the electronic organs by which that expression is, well...expressed.
In the same month that the UK decides teenagers do not have the ability to decide what porn they can choose to watch we have given them the right to vote to decide who will sit in parliament. Something not quite right here!
Lots of the males in the industry don't have the same desire to protect children that you express here. It is largely propogated by pedofiles. An catogorised to encourage pedofiles. I think you need to recognise that and accept it.
77000 on the British sex offenders register. How many of those with problematic pornography habits would you say ? Society is feeling the negative effects of large scale porn consumption.
I'm sorry what? Are you saying that *performers* are mostly pedophiles? Or that *producers* are mostly pedophiles? Either way, according to what data? I'd also question what you're doing, subscribing to my Substack, if that's what you think of my colleagues and me. It seems a rather perverse choice.
Oh now I see. You're not a Substack user at all. You've just come over here because I blocked you on YouTube. Which suggests a worrying lack of understanding of the concept of consent. Perhaps you should be worried about your own behaviour towards women, if that's the kind of thing you think is appropriate.
A question no-one - at least, no-one I've encountered - has asked:
How will this legislation - the Online Safety Act - be applied to PRIDE events, those annual, month-long, rainbow-bedecked, and state-sanctioned festivals of public depravity brimming with tumescent human teddy bears (better known as 'furries') and lubed-up leather daddies?
I rather think it won't be.
...especially as those in the political (or better, parasitic) class are either personally aligned or potentially compromised by either rumour or active affiliation with said depravity.
Somehow, I think this latest censorious gambit has NOTHING to do with preserving innocence or protecting children...our Masters do NOT care a rap about children, other than how they might be utilised or, better still, weaponised...and is much more likely simply the latest manoeouvre in the State's long war on un-approved expression and the electronic organs by which that expression is, well...expressed.
This is about quashing dissent, not debauchery.
In the same month that the UK decides teenagers do not have the ability to decide what porn they can choose to watch we have given them the right to vote to decide who will sit in parliament. Something not quite right here!
Lots of the males in the industry don't have the same desire to protect children that you express here. It is largely propogated by pedofiles. An catogorised to encourage pedofiles. I think you need to recognise that and accept it.
77000 on the British sex offenders register. How many of those with problematic pornography habits would you say ? Society is feeling the negative effects of large scale porn consumption.
I'm sorry what? Are you saying that *performers* are mostly pedophiles? Or that *producers* are mostly pedophiles? Either way, according to what data? I'd also question what you're doing, subscribing to my Substack, if that's what you think of my colleagues and me. It seems a rather perverse choice.
Oh now I see. You're not a Substack user at all. You've just come over here because I blocked you on YouTube. Which suggests a worrying lack of understanding of the concept of consent. Perhaps you should be worried about your own behaviour towards women, if that's the kind of thing you think is appropriate.