Forum posts made by daniellex

Topic A Blowjob Cafe Staffed by Sex Robots Is Opening in London
Posted 06 Dec 2016 10:00

This thread has given me a great idea for a story! Embarassed


Topic Should there be a maximum age at which a person can be put on trial?
Posted 06 Dec 2016 09:49

Yes, Lord Janner did not stand trial because he was deemed to be incapable of understanding the charges and subsequent events surrounding his alleged crimes. Unless there are medical reasons that would impede a person getting a fair trial, such as dementia, then there should be no age limit. But let's remember that under law a person is deemed innocent until proven guilty. There has been quite a number of high profile cases over recent years where the press and public have acted as judge and jury only to find that the defendants have been found innocent.

I thought that in the Janner case, because there was strong evidence there was an option of 'a trial of the facts' but that was never pursued for some reason. I understand the reason his prosecution wasn't pursued, but doesn't the same thing apply? Jimmy Savile was effectively tried on the facts, albeit outside the courts, but Janner's alleged victims surely deserve the same amount of closure and justice as Savile's and Mr Clarke's? There should be consistency.

I also agree with you that people are effectively tried by the media, which means they're always tarnished even when they are innocent

D x

Topic Should there be a maximum age at which a person can be put on trial?
Posted 05 Dec 2016 21:55

Just to be clear. I wasn't actually advocating that he shouldn't be on trial. It is just such an extreme case I wondered if there was circumstances, which are obvious owing to his age that he might not be fit. I totally agree that his victims deserve justice.

Interestingly, an MP was allowed to get away with not having a trial recently because he had dementia. He has since passed away. There have also been different standards and cover ups where there have been MP.

Topic Should there be a maximum age at which a person can be put on trial?
Posted 05 Dec 2016 13:53

Certainly not. If there were an age limit at which a person could be put on trail for crime, then once said persons reached that limit they could go out and commit all sorts of crime knowing full well they won't have to suffer the consequences of their crimes.

This is a good point!

D x

Topic Should there be a maximum age at which a person can be put on trial?
Posted 05 Dec 2016 13:30

I was shocked when I saw this. Maybe a bit controversial but wondered what others thought.

Anyway, this guy is 101 and he's in court for historic child abuse. One hundred and one! Isn't being accused of that, at his age punishment enough?! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any crime, particularly child abuse should ever be excused, but 101 years old? To put it into context, historic child abuse is like at epidemic proportions in the UK. Honestly, that's not an exaggeration. There was the Catholic priests, then a whole string of celebrities, and now it's football coaches. There's been hundreds of victims come forward in the last few days alone.

If a relative of mine was charged with that, heaven forfend, the shame alone would be terrible. I'm just not sure what purpose it serves to prosecute someone that old.

D x

Topic Help me get my first legendary story!
Posted 29 Nov 2016 08:23

I've already read and commented, and it was a great story. I've given it a click so good luck!!


Topic Help me get my first legendary story!
Posted 28 Nov 2016 09:51

Thank you! Amazing response

D xx

Topic Help me get my first legendary story!
Posted 27 Nov 2016 09:44

done and done for both of you.

Thank you :) xx

Topic Help me get my first legendary story!
Posted 27 Nov 2016 09:42

Done cat xxx

Thank you

D xxx

Topic Help me get my first legendary story!
Posted 27 Nov 2016 09:41

I'll read yours if you'll read mine ;)

See link below!


D x

Topic Help me get my first legendary story!
Posted 27 Nov 2016 04:54

Hi folks,
I'm within 8,000 views of getting a legendary story.

If you could give it a read, you'll help get me a new badge and read a crazy hot story, too!

Thanks you love10

Danielle xxx

Topic The farmer and the fox riddle
Posted 19 Nov 2016 04:59

This is a piglet in my mind piglet.jpg

Topic The farmer and the fox riddle
Posted 17 Nov 2016 13:00

farmer takes the pig & chickens across first
then the grain and fox but he comes back with the chickens (or the fox will eat the chickens)
makes a final trip with the chickens and the turnips

This is the correct answer! boobieflash2

Topic The farmer and the fox riddle
Posted 17 Nov 2016 10:18

what about one of those mini-pigs?

Like piglets? No, the one in the riddle is a proper porker! snorting

Topic The farmer and the fox riddle
Posted 17 Nov 2016 10:15

Have you nice folks not read Animal farm? Some animals are more equal than others. Pig doesn't have to worry about the fox.

Read it at Uni. An amusing and thought-provoking book.

Topic The farmer and the fox riddle
Posted 16 Nov 2016 13:18

But then the fox could eat the pig, or is pork not on the fox's diet?

There's no way a fox could eat a pig!

Topic What turns you on immediately ?
Posted 15 Nov 2016 14:44

Melted chocolate smeared over boobies

Topic Nibiru, Planet X real or bs what do you think?
Posted 15 Nov 2016 12:53

I wrote a story about something like this...

D x

Topic If aliens came to our planet...
Posted 15 Nov 2016 12:51


Topic The farmer and the fox riddle
Posted 15 Nov 2016 12:22

A farmer has a fox, 10 chickens, a bag of turnips, a sack of grain and a pet pig. He needs to cross a river to get the chickens and the grain to market. He has a boat.

The thing is, the boat will only hold the farmer and two other things. He can't take the fox and the pig, cos then the chickens will eat the grain. He can't take the fox and the grain cos the pig will eat the turnips.

How does the farmer get everything to the other side, in order to sell his stuff at market?


Topic If aliens came to our planet...
Posted 15 Nov 2016 11:06

There is other life out there; I don't have any doubt! How is is possible that we are the only planet with life ? It's not, that's how.

It's possible if the conditions that are required for life outweigh the assumption that life exists given the postulated number of planets in the galaxy/universe.

This is a dichotomy that is likely to never be resolved. The space between planets is so unimaginably vast that even an advanced technology is unlikely to be able to overcome the distances involved. Life is likely to be either very common or extremely rare. If life were common, we really should have discovered something microbial, somewhere in the solar system outside of the Earth by now. A little squiggly thing or a mould, or some bacteria...just something! We haven't. If we're the only life in the solar system, then maybe we have to look to our nearest solar system - Alpha Centauri. Well maybe we could go and look there. Trouble is, even at the fastest speed that humans have travelled, it would take us one hundred and twenty four thousand years to get there!
Most stars are many times more distant than this. Hold this thought.

To assume that there is life that can somehow overcome these distances, is about the same logical jump as to assume that somewhere in Africa, Chimpanzees have invented a kettle. Also, as for the super duper advanced and common aliens... where are they?

On the other hand, let's assume that life is extremely rare...

Sorry, it's not happening.

We're alone

D x

Topic Is my story coming true?
Posted 13 Nov 2016 02:08

I began to write my novella, 'Blonde Ambition' in 2013. Then, I predicted that the twentyteens would see a new world order with the break up of the EU and the collapse of the Euro at the centre of this.

This is of course a small back drop to a very erotic love story, which I would hope you read, if you haven't already!



Topic Is the poppy a political symbol?
Posted 12 Nov 2016 13:20

If FIFA doesn't like red puppies, I say we sic PETA on them. Start a left rumpus. I like red puppies. Here's a cute red puppy...

Awww id a cute puppy!

Topic Trump the Traitor - Stepping Back on Repealing Obamacare
Posted 12 Nov 2016 10:28

I agree with you, I think our health care system is brilliant.

I am curious as to why you say it's broken by obesity and alcohol tho? I am no expert but I believe if these 2 are a factor in problems with a persons health and the person is unwilling to cut back on either food or alcohol then the NHS does not go out of its way to spend its funds on treatment for that person. I believe they have to go private which isn't ideal because its expensive and i believe once you have been treated for something it then gets scrapped from your available treatment list and you're sent back to the NHS.

By way of example, a person overweight rarely if at all qualifies for a gastric band, they have to go private and pay for it themselves. Likewise, an alcoholic is not going to be a priority patient for the NHS as it's self-inflicted.

I am not disagreeing with you, I am curious because that was my understanding of how the NHS works and I agree with it if these people are not willing to help themselves then why should the NHS when they can use their money to help people who deserve to be helped.

Just to say, my Mum is a doc, so she tells me a lot of facts about medical matters and she's an uber geek with stuff, so I'm not just making it up lol.

So, with obesity, it's the way it affects people's health rather than just direct treatment for being overweight. Obesity is crippling the NHS and that's not an exaggeration. Being very overweight effects the respiratory system, contributes to heart disease and is a factor in some cancers.

The alcohol problem is more to do with A & E. When my Mum was working as a doc in A & E, she said that most people of an evening who came in, were there for some sort of alcohol related incident. Like well over half!!! They were either suffering from alcoholic poisoning, had fallen over through being drunk and hurting themselves or had got into an altercation and had been injured that way.

Honestly the statistics are truly shocking!

D x

Topic Why Democrats Lost the Presidency
Posted 12 Nov 2016 04:14

Democrats lost for two reasons:

1. because Trump says what a lot of people think in private and has an organic manner that a lot of people identify with.

I think it's less about policy and more about the presentation of ideas. There's no way that Donald Trump was going to make all the Muslims stay out of the USA or make the Mexicans build the Great Wall of the USA. But the fact that he said it, made a connection with a lot of folk, who embrace fears of immigration.

His anecdotes about women while revolting, is what guys say in locker rooms etc. We all know that. It's just not what politicians are meant to say, and I think the populace took that for what it was.

2. Hilary Clinton was too much old school politics of the elite. Also she was damaged by allegations of the dodgy emails. Even though she was absolved of guilt, it was too late. People would think 'no smoke without fire!'

D x

Topic Trump the Traitor - Stepping Back on Repealing Obamacare
Posted 12 Nov 2016 01:25

I don't know about the USA but The National Health Service in the UK is a great system. You pay in something each month and also pay for your optical care and dentist and then when you need medical care it's there - free at the point of service.

As I say a great system, except in the UK it's broken; broken by obesity and alcohol.

Just saying

D x

Topic Two pubs in one day!
Posted 10 Nov 2016 12:58

Hey, well look at that! I submitted a story four or five days ago, and then a poem just a couple of days ago. Both were coincidentally approved within hours of each other. Also, the story is the first RR since the election, which I guess makes it historic.

Here's the story: America's Sweetheart

And here's the poem: I don't mean to cause alarm

I thought you'd been on some sort of booze binge!


Topic The UK might not be leaving Europe after all
Posted 10 Nov 2016 12:55

Over 50% of voters voted out, to go against that vote would be effing crazy. There would be chaos and riots all over the country without a doubt.

No strictly true. Only 72% actually voted. Of those that voted 52% voted out, so only 37% of voters voted to leave the EU.

D x

Topic Is the poppy a political symbol?
Posted 10 Nov 2016 12:51

So this is the thing.

Sunday is Armistice Day when the British and some other countries commemorate those fallen in conflicts since the First World War. The red poppy has become a symbol of the blood that was shed by all the soldiers, particularly in the two world wars but for more recent battles, too. Because this year, there's a soccer match between England and Scotland, the teams have decided to wear poppy emblems embroidered on their sleeves. Nothing wrong with that - all respectful and appropriate you'd think.

The thing is, FIFA who are the governing body of world soccer say the poppy is a political symbol and therefor inappropriate. They have threatened the English and Scottish Soccer teams with fines and/or deducted points.

There's been a right rumpus about it over here.

So is the poppy a political symbol or have FIFA got their knickers in a twist for no good reason?

Danielle x

Topic The UK might not be leaving Europe after all
Posted 10 Nov 2016 10:26

Hi Danielle

I'll respond to you now, the original poster!

A lot of what you say there is correct. No one expected us to vote to leave, and as such there was no plan. Unfortunately, there can be no way to actually plan for leaving the EU as it's a lot more complicated than they had you believe. The question itself was far too simple for what is a really complicated affair.

If we voted to stay, then we voted to stay and things remain as they were, so that would have been simple enough (such as in 1975). But voting to leave could mean one of many different things- the problem we now have is that no one can agree on what path (of many) to take.

Within parliament, no MP is saying that we shouldn't follow the 'will of the people' (as much as I believe that the 'will of the people' was based on some several whopping lies, many of which have already been proven to be so (and many within hours of the vote), but simply trying to determine how it is we should try and negotiate our way out of the EU.

Now this is the really difficult thing. Because what most MP's strive for is to retain access to the Single Market, and keep our 500 million strong customer base, without having to comply with any free movement of labour rules. The problem with that, however, is that the rest of the EU won't allow us to do that (that's one of the lies the leave campaign told the British people).

So there is an internal debate happening, behind closed doors, which is 'what should our negotiating position be'. But remember, whatever it is they decide that they want isn't necessarily what we are going to get. In fact, what we definitely want, we definitely won't get. So now it's a case of determining what is more important to us. There are lot's of smaller things to consider, but essentially it boils down to these two major things: is it more important for us to keep access to the single market, or is it more important that we are able to control our borders (not be committed to free movement of labour)?

The problem with the question that was asked (in the referendum), was the the British people didn't get to say what type of Brexit they wanted (a 'soft' (keep access to the single market) or 'hard' (completely leave EU and the single market) one). The next problem is that the MP's who campaigned for Brexit also can't agree with what they want.

This is why I think a general election HAS to be called for. We don't need another referendum, but simply for each party to have a manifesto, with their Brexit plans detailed for us all to read, that the UK public can vote for. The manifestos would probably go: Conservative, hard Brexit. Labour, soft Brexit. Lib Dems, no Brexit* (or somewhere close to no Brexit....).

Because as things stand, whatever it is the conservative party push for in Parliament hasn't been voted for by the British people. Some think that it has, but it actually hasn't. Yes, it has been voted for to leave the EU, but as I said....that could mean several things.

Referendums aren't legally binding (they just aren't....anyone can very easily look it up (I thought)) and that's what the courts have confirmed recently). What they are saying is that triggering article 50 has to be ratified in Parliament, and for that to happen the plans for Brexit have to be agreed on (which no one can)

Now, if the public voted on a manifesto of how they want to leave the EU, especially if that party has a majority, it would make the process so much easier and clearer.

That's why I believe we NEED a general election. I simply can't see how this is going to go through the both houses of Parliament without that election. If the Tory government pushes for a hard brexit, it would be far too easy for either houses of parliament to simply block it because 'that's not what the people voted for'- and many of them wouldn't have.

It's just too complicated to not have an election, and not having an election would be undemocratic (in the eyes of many, including myself)

To be also very very clear, no one is saying that the 'will of the people' shouldn't be followed, but simply that no one really knows what the 'will of the people' actually is. Therefore, an election needs to take place. There will be a constitutional crises, in my opinion, without one.

What you shouldn't believe, however, is that the court of law have 'overturned' the referendum result (which many have falsely suggested), or the MP's are going to try and ignore the referendum result (even with no legal requirement for them to following it. Overturning a referendum result would be completely unprecedented).

Finally, remember what I said, in that whatever manifesto is agreed on is simply our negotiating position and what it is we are striving to achieve in leaving the EU (and not necessarily what we will get). Still, a negotiating position is at least a start! Somewhere to begin so that Article 50 can be triggered.

*some will tell you that 'no Brexit' would be overturning the referendum result, but I don't think it will be. As I've pointed out, and what can't be argued, is that 'Brexit' can take one of many different forms. Those who say '52% have voted to leave the EU' may as well say 'a referendum was taken on what to eat for dinner. 48% said Pizza, 52% said not Pizza'.

However, what if (for arguments sake) 48% of people wanted pizza, 32 % wanted Chinese, and 20% wanted fish and chips? In that scenario, surely the 'will of the people' is to have pizza?

As I said, it's very complicated and there is no simple answer. If the conservatives push for a hard brexit, but more than 2% of the public would rather have no brexit than a hard brexit (extremely probable), then the actual 'will of the people' was to not leave the EU


you made some interesting points and have helped me understand one or two things better. I've been really reading up about this, so am in a better position to comment.

I think I might drill down on something. As you say the High Court didn't overturn Brexit but merely ruled on a point of law that says that Parliament must vote on the triggering of article 50. I don't see how the Supreme Court can overturn that. It's not like there was some equivocation or abstruse legal point that was subject to interpretation, but a pretty black and white issue.

That calls into question Theresa May's intuition and trustworthyness, if 1. She thought she could get this through by the seat of her pants to begin with and 2. That she will secure the Supreme court's backing. The next step would be to go the European courts for a ruling!

D x