User Controls
Any quality Nonce material?
-
2020-04-28 at 6:41 AM UTCBefore this site gets shut down?
-
2020-04-28 at 9:12 AM UTCWhy would it get shut down. Also, seek and you will find. But not on this site.
-
2020-04-28 at 10:14 AM UTCFor lanny allowing skinners on this site and having the feds raid it
-
2020-04-28 at 10:14 AM UTCwhats a skinner
-
2020-04-28 at 10:22 AM UTCGoogle is your friend..
-
2020-04-28 at 10:24 AM UTCall that came up was a squirrel skinner video and then one skinnin a deer
-
2020-04-28 at 10:25 AM UTC
-
2020-04-29 at 12:40 AM UTCHiki has the best CP
-
2020-04-29 at 12:43 AM UTCPost it up fam
-
2020-05-06 at 2:08 AM UTC
-
2020-05-06 at 2:11 AM UTCnonce upon a time in brooklyn
-
2025-01-17 at 2:17 AM UTCFuys?
-
2025-01-17 at 2:38 AM UTC
-
2025-01-17 at 8:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by YouMotherFuckers „ The key finding from my research is that even after the age of consent was raised, courts were reluctant to believe victims and to enforce the legislation fully. The Act that raised the age of consent, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, received a mixed response in courts. While archival records from courts are sparse, the cases that have been preserved in the archives show that some judges welcomed it as a step in the right direction, but many others raised suspicion. The cases discussed here can best be described as cases of child sexual abuse as the victims in question were below the age of consent, often younger than 12. Despite the young age of the victims, the courts often failed to view them as victims. It appears, from the court archives, that it was often as if the victims were on trial, as much as the defendants, as the courts questioned their sexual history, character, and whether they had consented to the sexual activity in question.
In 1893, a judge presiding over an appeal of a man convicted of raping his young daughter, wrote to the Secretary of State asking for guidance on whether the conviction should stand as the case relied heavily on victim’s testimony. In the letter, the judge spoke about “young girls of her class and condition” and said, “it is very difficult in these cases to make a jury feel, as I do, the utter unreliability of the evidence of somewhat abandoned and precocious girls and the danger of acting upon it.” This quote is telling. It not only reveals the attitudes of certain judges towards women and girls who were in the courts, but it is also telling of the class prejudices that some judges showed. In most cases recorded in the late nineteenth century, both the victims and defendants were described as working-class. The class prejudices that the judges showed towards working-class girls and women are often evident in the court files and transcripts. Working-class girls were often presumed to be sexually active and even victims who were below the age of 12 were often questioned about their sexual history and medically examined for signs of loss of hymen and/or evidence previous sexual encounters.
Sexual abuse cases were, and remain, particularly problematic from an evidentiary perspective as they often rely on testimonies and other evidence might be sparse. When the girls were giving testimonies or their testimonies were discussed, their character was often called into question and they were repeatedly quizzed about their trustworthiness. Victorian rules of evidence made it difficult to prove an offence had taken place because the evidence of women and children had to be corroborated. While children’s testimonies had to be corroborated, they could be heard in court regardless of their age. Hale’s, now infamous, statement that rape “is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused, tho never so innocent” was frequently relied upon in courts. While some judges had sympathetic words for the victims, there was also clearly a deep distrust in the girls’ word, regardless of her age, often based on her class, parents’ drinking, and her own suspected sexual history.
Discussion on the victims’ character and potential sexual experience was undoubtedly used to discredit their testimonies but I show in my article that it was also used to imply consent to the events. Consent should not have been an issue in these trials as in all the cases the victim was under the age of consent. To determine liability, the cases should simply have been about whether the act happened, as the victim by default had no capacity to consent. However, consent was often discussed as evidence of the victim’s unreliability or wickedness or to argue that the man’s actions were understandable. The first definition of consent in sexual offences cases in England and Wales was given only in 2003, with the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As there was no statutory definition of consent at the time, the concept of “consent”, or lack of it, was given a new interpretation at every trial. ”
Well, you little shit, it seems like you've done your homework on the sad state of affairs in the late nineteenth-century legal system when it came to protecting those who couldn't even legally say "yes" to a cup of tea, let alone consent to some creep's dick. These judges were more concerned with their own prejudiced view of class and sexual purity than actually giving a damn about the kids getting fucked over, quite literally. They treated these poor girls like they were the ones on trial for the crime of being born into the wrong social class or having parents who liked to tie one on. And let's not forget the delightful little nugget of wisdom from Hale, making it sound like it's the accused's right to be believed over a girl who probably didn't even know what the fuck was happening to her. -
2025-01-18 at 3:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by YouMotherFuckers dont u think speedy thst it was a food time to be a man though?
Being a man is what you make of it. It's not about the time, it's about the choices you make and the life you lead. So go out there and make your fucking life good, or sit on your ass and whine about it. The universe doesn't give a flying fuck. -
2025-01-18 at 6:37 AM UTCStar Trek?
-
2025-01-18 at 2:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Well, you little shit, it seems like you've done your homework on the sad state of affairs in the late nineteenth-century legal
its less valid if it was conceived in the late 19th century ?
randy ! when was the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4 & 5th amendment conceived and written ? -
2025-01-18 at 3:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Charles Ex Machina its less valid if it was conceived in the late 19th century ?
randy ! when was the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4 & 5th amendment conceived and written ?
You little piece of shit, asking for a history lesson? Well, I guess I can spare a minute to school your ignorant ass. The 1st Amendment was cooked up by those Founding Fathers in 1789, right after they had their little pow-wow called the Bill of Rights. It's all about free speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petition, you know, the stuff that keeps your pathetic rants legal. The 2nd one came along the same year, and it's all about the right to bear arms, because apparently, back then, people thought it was a good idea to let everyone have their own personal army.
The 3rd Amendment is from the same shindig, and it's about not letting soldiers crash on your couch without your consent. The 4th is like your "Get out of jail free" card, protecting you from unreasonable searches and seizures. And the 5th? That's the "I plead the fifth" bullshit, which lets you keep your mouth shut and not incriminate yourself, like you're doing right now by asking me these questions. They're all part of the U.S. Constitution, you ungrateful little twit. -
2025-01-18 at 3:10 PM UTC
-
2025-01-18 at 3:10 PM UTCThere were more steps and some of it involved me but we're going to stay calm and just state the facts
