youreavinalaff

If the accuser said the same as the accused regarding the incident in question, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Think about it.

I am not deflecting. If you read the conversation between myself and another poster, you will see I was seeking clarification that the accused threatened rape. It appears, despite that poster originally saying he did, he didn't. It is my understanding indecent exposure is indeed a criminal offence. I don't recall ever doubting that. What is currently in doubt, as can be confirmed by lack of charge, arrest or conviction, is the part played by the accuser. The accused says one thing, the accuser says another. I'm quite sure the truth will come out in the end. If the accused is found guilty, he needs to be punished according to the law. Until that point, according to the same law, he is innocent until proven guilty. As has been my stance all along. I'm not condoning any of the offences he has been accused of, neither am I defending a sex offender. I'm waiting to see the evidence and what law enforcement do, based on that evidence. Just as happens with similar situations all the time, out of the glare of the media as those involved are not famous.

Allegedly.

The post to which I replied said he threatened rape. I simply asked for clarification of that. The accusation now appears to be withdrawn. That was the only incident in our discussion so no deflection, other than from the truth, by said poster, in what Brand actually, allegedly, said.

So he didn't threaten rape? You made that bit up.

OK. So he asked for sex. I don't recall that being the same as rape. She didn't consent. They didn't have sex. Good to clear that up.

Could you post the link where Brand is quoted as saying " I'm going to rape you with this". I've not see anywhere where he said that. If he did, it's clearly something the police would be interested in. I'm surprised they haven't seen it and arrested him already.

Indeed you don't. However, that is not the subject of my comments. My comments are in regards to labeling people incorrectly. If you wish to comment on hatred, quote a comment that mentions it.

No. You are arguing about something totally different to what I wrote in my comments. If you wish to discuss haters, please quote a different comment.

You missed the point. Indeed, the two phobias might be linked. However, I'm sure those living with the two conditions wouldn't link them and therefore would not want to be confused as being one or the other when they aren't.

It's not about who hates who. It's,about calling someone something they are not. Would a homosexual like to be called transgender? I doubt it. Would someone who is transgender like to be called homosexual? I doubt it

To all those linking political views with transgenderism, for effect, shame on you. Sexuality, sexual identity, sexual preference are all defined in the brain. The case of a young lad, under 16, taking the Brazilian government to court over the right to a sex change was a defining case. Many experts testified that sexuality is not defined by what body you were born in but rather the way the brain identifies. Unfortunately for some, this means the brain and body don't match. There are different views among experts as to what age the individual should be allowed to chose and decide for themselves. The most common theory is to wait until after puberty. During early life, some in later life to, mental health is a concern. Not just from the inside but also from peer pressure and discrimination from those that either fail to understand or refuse to accept. Keep politics out of it. It's not needed and only confuses the delicate subject.

AUA can. Give them a call or send an email.

I too can read and write Thai. I spent many years teaching English and helping many schools, businesses and government agencies to translate and transliterate Thai to English. ออก can be written both as "awk" and "ork". It is the same sound. As for writing to those in your link to tell them they are wrong, I'm sure, as one that reads Thai, you have seen many different dictionaries use different ways to transliterate as there are different ways to do it. I've accepted both ways as both are correct. I have never said they are wrong.

Looks like you've been drinking. Drivel and typos. Have a good sleep.

No. Sorry. My stance has not failed. It's law. I've said all along, if Brand is found to have committed the crimes he has been accused of, he should be punished according to the law. He is innocent until proven guilty. I can't be supporting a sex offender and have never said I am or would. More false accusations from you.

"Appears" being the vital word. One cannot be charged or convicted for appearing to be something. My wife says no need to pity her. She is more than happy with her life choices. It's a shame you feel the need to try, and fail, to belittle other just because they disagree with you.

Until the police decide to charge? What would enable them to decide? Evidence? Confession? If neither are present, the accusations would be deemed false. The accused, innocent. Meanwhile he's had to move himself and possibly his family because of the persecution he and they would have been subjected to. Is that something you would accept yourself if you were wrongly accused of such crimes?

Let’s just nail down this ‘anonymity for those accused but not charged with sex offenses’. So if allegations of serious sexual offenses are made against you. Would you.... A. Want to all your neighbours, aquaintences, work colleagues informed as soon as the allegations are notified to the police, B. Hope the authorities wait until formal charges are brought. And If you want everyone above to be informed as soon as allegations are made against you are informed to the police, would you expect them to be gagged by the law from telling other neighbors/parents?

I would never do such a thing. Your question is, therefore, inane. The link I posted is regarding the anonymity for someone who has been accused but, as yet, not charged.

That's funny, considering I've been very happily married for over 23 years. You seem to be quite judgemental. By judging me incorrectly you've proved your judgements stand for nothing.

But those that don't hate women can control them. With that, I disagree.

So, by understanding women it's possible and OK to control them. I disagree.

Sex offenders? Not until they've been charged with evidence to back the charge, in the eyes of the law. That's the whole point. I'm sure you'll agree it's wrong to call someone a sex offender when they are not.

No. You clearly maintain that many occupations are low level and that women should be controlled. It's there to see in your posts.