So Farewell Then SNP'S Derek Mackay

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

What more are you looking for? Everyone who has posted has condemned it? He's a sleazy bastard who's resigned before he could be sacked.
Doesn't seem to happen with tories - only mentioning it as you brought it up.

You, for one, would have been dribbling all over it had it been a Tory.

You can't wait to have a pop at anything, jeezo, what a life you lead. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

You, for one, would have been dribbling all over it had it been a Tory.
You can't wait to have a pop at anything, jeezo, what a life you lead. 

Did that post sound good in your head? You have a pop at everyone on this forum you utter bellend.

[faraway saint]

3 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Did that post sound good in your head? You have a pop at everyone on this forum you utter bellend.

Oh, more sweary words, hard man. 

PS I meant ANYTHING to do with the Government, not people, never mind, 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by faraway saint

[St.Ricky]

8 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Did that post sound good in your head? You have a pop at everyone on this forum you utter bellend.  

The F Man has or is very close to losing the place. He rushes around from thread to thread with insults thrown around. Fascinating but highly uncomfortable to see a man disintegrate like this. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by St.Ricky

[faraway saint]

11 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Did that post sound good in your head? You have a pop at everyone on this forum you utter bellend.

 

6 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

The F Man has or is very close to losing the place. He rushes around from thread to thread with insults thrown around. Fascinating but highly uncomfortable to see a man disintegrate like this. 

If you weren't so stupid it would be funny.

Show me anything close to the quote above that I have dished out and why are you not in a frenzy about this level if insult?

I'll save you the trouble trying to squirm around, you are my own special troll. 

Thanks for playing. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Oh, more sweary words, hard man. [emoji38]
PS I meant ANYTHING to do with the Government, not people, never mind, [emoji38]
 
 

You've obviously had an irony by pass

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

22 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Oh, more sweary words, hard man. 
PS I meant ANYTHING to do with the Government, not people, never mind, 
 
 

You've obviously had an irony by pass

You've obviously had a personality bypass. 

Thanks for passing 5 minutes, it's been fun. 

Even funnier, your liking the forum fools posts when he's whining about insults. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by faraway saint

[St.Ricky]

You have to laugh. What is the thread about again? Oh, I remember, Derek Mackay. A, more than promising, career in ruins. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

You have to laugh. What is the thread about again? Oh, I remember, Derek Mackay. A, more than promising, career in ruins. 

By all accounts he had a promising career. Most folk who had dealings with him when he was at Renfrewshire council are probably surprised he got as far as he did as he was a bit of an arse.
Now he's a sleazy arse

[W6er]

Ach, I heard about this earlier. It certainly is creepy, but I have to wonder why the age of consent was lowered to sixteen? I mean if you cannot vote at sixteen, and you cannot drink alcohol or buy cigarettes, then why is the age of consent 16? Either someone of that age is mature enough to make decisions about their life or they aren't. I cannot help but think the legislation was passed to appease Peter Tatchell and other gay rights lobbyists. 

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Ach, I heard about this earlier. It certainly is creepy, but I have to wonder why the age of consent was lowered to sixteen? I mean if you cannot vote at sixteen, and you cannot drink alcohol or buy cigarettes, then why is the age of consent 16? Either someone of that age is mature enough to make decisions about their life or they aren't. I cannot help but think the legislation was passed to appease Peter Tatchell and other gay rights lobbyists. 
 

Do you think the age of consent should different for males and females? Or heterosexual males and homosexual males?

[W6er]

3 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

10 minutes ago, W6er said:

Ach, I heard about this earlier. It certainly is creepy, but I have to wonder why the age of consent was lowered to sixteen? I mean if you cannot vote at sixteen, and you cannot drink alcohol or buy cigarettes, then why is the age of consent 16? Either someone of that age is mature enough to make decisions about their life or they aren't. I cannot help but think the legislation was passed to appease Peter Tatchell and other gay rights lobbyists. 
 

Do you think the age of consent should different for males and females? Or heterosexual males and homosexual males?

No. I think there should be a universal age agreed upon when somebody is considered mature enough to make decisions about their life, and that should be it. I cannot see how one can be mature enough to make decisions about their sexual conduct, i.e. potentially procreate or contract STIs, but not be mature enough to buy cigarettes/alcohol, drive a car or vote.

If sixteen is a legitimate age of consent, then why are people so angry about this? To me it implies society is uncomfortable with it. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

No. I think there should be a universal age agreed upon when somebody is considered mature enough to make decisions about their life, and that should be it. I cannot see how one can be mature enough to make decisions about their sexual conduct, i.e. potentially procreate or contract STIs, but not be mature enough to buy cigarettes/alcohol, drive a car or vote.
If sixteen is a legitimate age of consent, then why are people so angry about this? To me it implies society is uncomfortable with it. 

Don't k iw about angry but I think society is uncomfortable with a 42 yo harassing a 16 yo and abusing their position to do so.

[W6er]

6 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

12 minutes ago, W6er said:

No. I think there should be a universal age agreed upon when somebody is considered mature enough to make decisions about their life, and that should be it. I cannot see how one can be mature enough to make decisions about their sexual conduct, i.e. potentially procreate or contract STIs, but not be mature enough to buy cigarettes/alcohol, drive a car or vote.
If sixteen is a legitimate age of consent, then why are people so angry about this? To me it implies society is uncomfortable with it. 

Don't k iw about angry but I think society is uncomfortable with a 42 yo harassing a 16 yo and abusing their position to do so.

Ah! To be honest I haven't actually read the story, though my Mrs did tell me that he'd sent 100 texts to the boy. I said to her that those 100 texts could have been over a period of months, and part of a conversation in which the boy had frequently replied. Equally, it could be that the politician harassed the boy and was trying to coerce him into sexual activity. The media can present facts in such a way as to make an innocent person looks bad. 

Would you be comfortable with a fully consensual relationship with a 42 year old man and a 16 year old boy? What about a relationship between men of 25 and 51?

Edited February 6, 2020 by W6er

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Ah! To be honest I haven't actually read the story, though my Mrs did tell me that he'd sent 100 texts to the boy. I said to her that those 100 texts could have been over a period of months, and part of a conversation in which the boy had frequently replied. Equally, it could be that the politician harassed the boy and was trying to coerce him into sexual activity. The media can present facts in such a way as to make an innocent person looks bad. 
Would you be comfortable with a fully consensual relationship with a 42 year old man and a 16 year old boy? What about a relationship between men of 25 and 51?

I don't think there's any defending a 42yo having a relationship with a 16yo.
Although 25 and 51 is same age difference it is a different scenario due to maturity. Doesn't mean it would meet with my approval.
Just my opinion.

[W6er]

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

I don't think there's any defending a 42yo having a relationship with a 16yo.
Although 25 and 51 is same age difference it is a different scenario due to maturity. Doesn't mean it would meet with my approval.
Just my opinion.

Precisely! That would imply that a sixteen year old is not mature enough to make decisions regarding their sexual partners.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Precisely! That would imply that a sixteen year old is not mature enough to make decisions regarding their sexual partners.

No, it implies that they are more susceptible to grooming type behaviours.

[Cornwall_Saint]

10 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I don't think there's any defending a 42yo having a relationship with a 16yo.
Although 25 and 51 is same age difference it is a different scenario due to maturity. Doesn't mean it would meet with my approval.
Just my opinion.

I’m in the latter half of my 20s and it wouldn’t feel to me right messaging a burd who’s 16 or 17. Wouldn’t even go 18 or 19.

[W6er]

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

3 minutes ago, W6er said:

Precisely! That would imply that a sixteen year old is not mature enough to make decisions regarding their sexual partners.

No, it implies that they are more susceptible to grooming type behaviours.

Either you believe a sixteen year old is capable of making a rational choice about their sexuality and with whom they would like to have sex with, or they're not. Define 'grooming'? If I make discrete enquiries about a girl to check her availability, send her flowers and contrive to bump into her and engage her in conversation, am I not 'grooming her'?

Anybody can block a telephone number, or tell somebody they're not interested. Of course there are situations whereby somebody can use their position of authority or seniority to coerce somebody, but that's a different thing. There has to be an age where people are allowed to make their own decisions about important matters, whethere that's 16, 18, 21 or 25 is up to society.

[W6er]

2 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

I’m in the latter half of my 20s and it wouldn’t feel to me right messaging a burd who’s 16 or 17. Wouldn’t even go 18 or 19.

Aye, there's some sort of rule - I think you half your age and add eight. Though, I've always gone for older women - I have had girlfriends eight, ten and thirteen years older than me! 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Either you believe a sixteen year old is capable of making a rational choice about their sexuality and with whom they would like to have sex with, or they're not. Define 'grooming'? If I make discrete enquiries about a girl to check her availability, send her flowers and contrive to bump into her and engage her in conversation, am I not 'grooming her'?
Anybody can block a telephone number, or tell somebody they're not interested. Of course there are situations whereby somebody can use their position of authority or seniority to coerce somebody, but that's a different thing. There has to be an age where people are allowed to make their own decisions about important matters, whethere that's 16, 18, 21 or 25 is up to society.

Yes that age is 16. You seem to be getting a few things muddled here

[W6er]

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

14 minutes ago, W6er said:

Either you believe a sixteen year old is capable of making a rational choice about their sexuality and with whom they would like to have sex with, or they're not. Define 'grooming'? If I make discrete enquiries about a girl to check her availability, send her flowers and contrive to bump into her and engage her in conversation, am I not 'grooming her'?
Anybody can block a telephone number, or tell somebody they're not interested. Of course there are situations whereby somebody can use their position of authority or seniority to coerce somebody, but that's a different thing. There has to be an age where people are allowed to make their own decisions about important matters, whethere that's 16, 18, 21 or 25 is up to society.

Yes that age is 16. You seem to be getting a few things muddled here

TRAFKATS wins the debate. I throw in the towel...

[oaksoft]

38 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Although 25 and 51 is same age difference it is a different scenario due to maturity. Doesn't mean it would meet with my approval.
Just my opinion.

I'm sure that will be a devastating blow to anyone in this situation?

Here's a wee thought. Why not mind your own f**king business? Is your life not interesting enough for you?

This is the worst kind of "curtain twitching" behaviour.

[antrin]

In Scotland, you can join the Army and get yourself killed at 16, you can choose to get married at 16 and have sex at with older people at 16.  Scottish society has endorsed that age of 16 being the benchmark of the move from childhood into maturity for a very long time.

MacKay may well be an utter arse (he IS.)

He may well have demonstrated that he is not bright enough for public office by his less than sophisticated reasoning about what might be a sensible course of action for a man in his position to take wrt this young man.

Perhaps a majority of people would consider his actions to have been sleazy rather than simply stupid, but as far as I can make out, he has done nothing that goes  against the laws of Scotland.

There's a shitload of hypocrisy going down here...

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by antrin

[oaksoft]

23 minutes ago, W6er said:

Aye, there's some sort of rule - I think you half your age and add eight. Though, I've always gone for older women - I have had girlfriends eight, ten and thirteen years older than me! 

There is no "rule". What on earth are you and TPAK thingy wittering on about? 

Too many people in this country with too much to say about too many people.

Nobody has the right to judge people in legal relationships involving two fully consenting adults.