Mrs Roops

If I were a political campaign director I would be asking Madison Street executives why am I spending so much money on you when a bunch of bored house detainees are coming up with stuff like this,

Ah, I see I have you back on track, good boy - Yeah, nothing screams desperation more loudly than prefacing a post with the inference that any who disagrees with you must be "a bit sinister" and "someone who has a sexual interest or at least a curiosity in children". Luckily for you I recognise that such a cack-handed and clumsy assertion was borne by stupidity rather than malice. When this debate kicked off you asked me if I had "actually read this". More than 36 hours later its clear that you haven't - understandable as the document is some 60 plus pages long yet foolish for someone who choses to pontificate without understanding the background, rationale and context of the report. Not wishing to bring your blood pressure to dangerously high levels but the report asserts that the development of sexual behaviour, feelings and cognitions begins in the womb and continues throughout a person's lifetime. As a caveat the report also stresses that adults whether formally or informally should give information holistically and not in the narrow sense that you or I would understand, in other words in a context from the child's perspective and not the adults. Finally it makes it very clear that the appended matrix is not to be used as an implementation guide. As for the section that had you reaching for the smelling salts and in the context provided by the report's background rationale in reference to "masturbation" it is simply means that if you discover a three year old playing with themselves (as they do) then from a holistic stance one should give passive signals of indifference rather than censure otherwise the child will develop feelings of shame. Your hypocrisy is outstanding - happy to profit from providing a service to men with money, no doubt wanting to experience the girl-friend experience of a "considerably younger" woman, you appear to morph into Mr Moral Majority when it suites you. Notwithstanding that, I suggest you read the entire document before shooting off your stupid and bigoted gob again.

Strange, I thought we were having a discussion about repressed British attitudes and its impact on sex education, but you've made it all about you with a potted yet narcissistic history resembling a poor man's Peter Stringfellow complete with a string of failed marriages and dodgy businesses including a second-hand record market stall, one-armed bandits and some Soho pimping thrown in for good measure. Naturally, in common with a lot of punters here you of course have a partner that is "considerably younger" than you. I must say, its a lot of blather from someone who finds me "tedious".

You may want to read this. Tell us it ain't so.

Firstly you are confusing the page counter on the PDF reader with the actual page numbers on the document I suspect you do not have any children Billy, or if you do, you are probably one of those buttoned-up, repressed orthodox protestants who when pressed for answers about "where do babies come from?" turns crimson-red and stammers, "ask your mother". You probably fuck with lights out, socks on. If by any chance you are a parent, then you would have noticed that toddlers play with themselves. Are you one of those parents who slap the child's wrist with the admonishment, "don't do that, that's dirty"? You are one of the reasons why the British have so many hang-ups about sex and sexuality and will continue to do so with attitudes like yours. The document that causes you so much angst doesn't say anything new - its hardly ground-breaking. The narrative makes it quite clear that any conversations with children should be age appropriate and honest. This is no different to the decades old teaching philosophy practised in the Nordic countries.

Absolutely agree on this, not that the report has advocated anything to the contrary which makes your comment so utterly bizarre. Also strange is your condemnation of a report (actually researched and presented by the German Health Ministry) due to issues with Coronavirus. What next? The global eradication of smallpox was a bad thing because WHO played a significant part?

Only you Ape, is capable of being so assertively limp...

Silly Billy - searching the net finding reasons to be offended. Pages 40-41 relates to 4 to 6 years but never mind. The problem is that you obviously haven't read the report, skipping the wordy bits for the simpler matrix at the end. Before you kick of about kids touching themselves, show me a child that doesn't and I will show a child that has no arms.

Is that before or after you've imagined you touched someone's sides?

It doesn't recommend anything of the sort. The document charts sexual awareness and development from age zero to adulthood, notes the differing approaches between countries and cultures towards sex and gender education and looks to a world-wide unification of standards which emphasises that education must be age appropriate. https://www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/WHO_BZgA_Standards_English.pdf

As more than 80% of care homes in the UK is privately owned there isn't much choice in the matter. That said, your question opens a whole can of worms. I have visited council run care homes and at the other end of the market been in homes that at first glance give the appearance of an up-market country club. The issue is not the ownership of care homes but the funding of same, a thorny issue that successive governments always seem to kick into the long grass.

Not really, walking on a lake of fire to Gehenna is a dry experience, unlike your wit...or a Air Saudi flight, both of which I've had to endure.

Brilliance not required, just plenty of stamina, a high pain threshold and mental toughness. Oh yeah, and no spandex like wot you mountain bikers wear which looks a bit gay.

...he whimpered. What are you, man or mouse? Never mind, just pass the cheese.

Jeez, you were mildly bitch-slapped, not psychoanalysed

Yes, you'll find this discussed in "The Exit Strategy" thread.

I have several Barbour jackets and a fetching stockman's coat, all of which are useless (as are wellies) for sabbing due to the amount of running involved.

Some people think I'm a dead ringer for P J Harvey, but I take your point, developed calf muscles are a consequence of x-country and mountain running, something I seem to be doing a lot of at present.

It was a flounce...with a full-on exit stage left flourish. A word of advice in your shell-like to you and all punters with diva tendencies - its quite normal in wanting to take a rest from The Corner, which after all, is a small niche "bitch 'n' moan site. Instead of making big announcements about resigning, going on a sabbatical or retiring just simply go silently and avoid looking silly on returning 25 minutes later which is what usually happens. No idea where you get the notion I have a predilection for going commando...

Well, look at you in your new flouncy skirt.

Eh? A week after Decs missed his foot and blew his brains out he attempted to gain entrance to The Corner via forged papers. Fortunately his digital DNA, fingerprints, sperm count and brain scan are kept on file and he was apprehended at the first hurdle. Sentence doubled and remission forfeited.

@Witheredscrote, you now may return to the site. Please behave this time otherwise you will be returned to the toxic jar now located at The Corner's leased space in the P4 Laboratory, Wuhan.

Funny, I thought it was an exercise in shameless exhibitionism. Make your mind up, you very clearly stated that you were an "entrepreneur" meeting demand, that explanation transmogrified to "an adventure gone wrong" and then onto something akin to being a clueless drug mule. Incidentally, I'm employed in the HiTech manufacturing industry and not in the financial investment sector and I was off the site for 20 hours prior to my previous post. But hey-ho, nothing screams louder about being on the ropes than a weak sap changing the story(ies) and diverting the debate subject, eh?

More worrying it took you two and a half days to formulate the above piece of cack... As for my scattered brain conclusions and after viewing your analysis on whom I may or may not have orally pleasured then I would contend that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, though I actually suggested you are the sort of week-minded sap that is easily manipulated by the denial of sex I note that you've trotted out yet more tin-hattery, naturally without any evidence, and no doubt based on a YouTube vid (18 views) by Sid Bonkers though you have miraculously changed the central premise: Your original assertion that 9/11 was an inside job to cover up a misappropriation of $2.3 trillion out of a then US Defense budget of $0.33 trillion (still not worked that one out), now you infer that the resulting Afghan war was engineered to pillage the country's natural resources though I am at loss to understand how Uncle Sam materially benefitted after spending $2.4 trillion in prosecuting the conflict. You certainly are a week character - you asserted that your role in the failed drug smuggling role was not that of a significant or leading actor which leaves only having a "lesser role", that is you were cajoled, coerced, persuaded or otherwise manipulated into criminality by your more dominant brother and cousin. My concern for you is limited to that you didn't have to pick up the communal-shower soap too often. Finally giving a gig economy data-inputter some batch files to play with does not make you a coder, "respected" or otherwise, though I accept you seem well versed in Bollux++