Tuesday 2 October 2012

Megan Stammers and Him!

I have so far refrained from the media frenzy on Megan Stammers and her teacher. However, now they have been found safe and well I feel obliged to give my tuppence worth. This tawdry affair is being repeated all over the country when attractive female under age teenagers flutter their eyes at weak male teachers.

Our politicians insisted on giving sex education to teeny weenies and then wonder why they are curious? In this country we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate probably in Europe because our politicians have encouraged outrageous sex education. We have a disgusting Internet chock full of porn which gives the impression that almost everyone, anywhere, is engaged in an abnormal activity which today is being portrayed as normal. 

Web cameras and sites like Facebook give youngsters a privacy which they have never previously enjoyed. They are being led down a path to perversity which no other generation has encountered. It will not stop! I don't think it can stop so my only hope is that when everything has been spilled onto the table then the kids learn to deal with it.

Megan Stammers is a product of this generation. Jeremy Forrest is a victim of the same system. His life is probably ruined because he will lose his profession and he is only 30. She, on the other hand, may become a minor celebrity and earn a lot of money because of her notoriety.  She is clearly attractive so the world is her oyster. He, on the other hand, is just another weak male.

She must have been aware however, that he had a wife. If she had any standards that should have been sufficient not to have entered a relationship with her Maths teacher. Unfortunately she is actually, according to law, a kid and the poor wife never entered her head so who is guilty?

In my humble opinion if you advance the knowledge of a group of young people then you ruin their childhood. They are not ready to absorb that kind of information. Our kids are being systematically corrupted by the government and the education authorities.

 No wonder Jimmy Saville escaped prison! No wonder the BBC turned a blind eye to child abuse. No wonder even the figurehead of 'Child Line', Esther Rantzen, who campaigned rigorously against child abuse 'closed her ears' against Jimmy Saville.  She knew (or had been advised)  that Saville was a wrong 'un but chose not to expose him.

When the lead campaigner for a campaign like 'Child Line' ducks the issue of a high profile child abuser then surely the whole issue needs reassessing. I am deeply saddened by it all. I have lost trust in every one of the nation's leaders. 

Today a little girl was abducted in North Wales. Her family must have gone through the tortures of the damned. I am sorry but if the abductor knew that, if caught, he would never again have a sex drive, then in my opinion he would hesitate before doing the deed.  

6 comments:

DRB said...

So true. Can probably be tracked back to The Frankfurt School...

http://www.maxfarquar.com/2012/09/racism-political-correctness-high-treason/


Interesting and disturbing stuff no doubt already seen by by your regular visitors but worth the link regardless.

Anonymous said...

Bryboy,

We may have the highest underage pregnancies in Europe but what about overage pregnancies?

The birthrate in the UK is now somewhere around 1.4 I believe. It needs two just to sustain a workforce. Then again, there is no work so that's understandably why.

Those in the UK who ARE procreating are of course the immigrants who came here after Blair blew up the dam. Peter Green of Migration Watch stated that 75% of all births over the next 25 years will solely be attributed to these incomers to the UK.

Now although I know that genetic manipulation of the populous has been ongoing for a while by the international, socialist elites, if there is a God, why did it give girls the ability to mature faster than boys, physically, able to give birth at a young age?

Now, while I'm most certainly not condoning paedophiles, I am however questioning the Christian west's lifestyle of discouraging underage sex, when if they believe in a God, by not procreating with a female, old enough to procreate, is going against the wishes of their creator.

This will of course be hard for some people to fathom, but it's nothing but common sense thought. We in the west have spent all of our time attacking African and Asian cultures, who have been procreating with females, old enough to reproduce for millennia now. This was also the way of life in the west for a long time as well.

Seeing as the overagers are abstaining from marriage, families and happily using their bodies as sexual tools, where abortions are regularly carried out to destroy unwanted results of sexual desires, at least the underagers are keeping the indigenous inhabitants of the peoples of this island from not becoming extinct.

If an animal was created to not be able to procreate at a young age, its creator wouldn't have made it so. This is something that should be addressed, as the moral standing of Christians is one that goes against the wishes of its creator.

Now while some may think that I'm promoting the agenda of the paedophile NWO elites, I'm far from it. Their agenda is to have sex with any female/male of any age before puberty and more importantly to bring down the population of the planet to under 500m people. It is their agenda that has been continually promoted within the west to utterly demolish its population (wars, deaths by vaccines, food and water pollution, GM foods, spraying, etc etc). I disagree vehemently with all of the above, but if someone has reached puberty (naturally and not by NWO manipulation) then they are ready to procreate. I'm for population increasing, not decreasing.

And yes, I do agree that far too many young girls flutter their eyelids at male teachers. It's not so much that they're weak Bryboy; they're just reacting to human nature.

regards

Harbinger

bryboy said...

As ever Harby you challenge us all. Sometimes you make me wince but then I too believe that we should use nature as our watchword. In the animal world they don't have same gender sex. It is only the human world which accepts it. Your post was thought provoking. Of course I don't necessarily agree but this humble blog accepts your interest I am pleased that you have toned things down. Please, please don't accept that as a challenge! You can come across so much better without the expletives!

bryboy said...

As ever Harby you challenge us all. Sometimes you make me wince but then I too believe that we should use nature as our watchword. In the animal world they don't have same gender sex. It is only the human world which accepts it. Your post was thought provoking. Of course I don't necessarily agree but this humble blog accepts your interest I am pleased that you have toned things down. Please, please don't accept that as a challenge! You can come across so much better without the expletives!

bryboy said...

DRB tks a lot! As you will see I have passed your info on. We must get the message out to a wider audience so I will do my bit.

Anonymous said...

Bryboy,

My simple point being, who are we to go against nature and thus, its creator?
It is understandable that in the past infant mortality was high and therefore births by young women was commonplace and more importantly vital to the survival of the human species. Are we supposed to live as long as we do? Is it natural or the elite's manipulation in order to profit (longer life = more work years = more taxation)? We see many older people suffer debilitating illnesses; is this natural or again manipulation through unnatural scheming by the elites?

I can play devil's advocate on all subjects as all have that option. Where do we draw the line on underage sex (with post pubescents) and species survival? More importantly, who gave the church the authority on dictating age decency especially when we know it has none, harbouring paedophiles and thus a hypocrite extraordinaire?

Again, I do not condone paedophilia as explained in my previous reply, but if humans weren't supposed to procreate before sixteen, nature would have greatly delayed puberty. I want to know what the underlying motive is and who decided something perfectly natural was unnatural?

regards

Harbinger