It already is essentially decriminalized. Advertising sites wouldn't exist if it weren't.

As someone who spends time in courts, will tell you, there is never a case brought forward for it.

There are other aspects to the industry but not the transaction or if everything else is in order.

The idea of a WG or punter standing in front of a WG is too ridiculous to imagine. Trafficking, underage or visas maybe .

Standing in front of a magistrate

Don't be silly now, Teletubby.

Of course not

But.

Comprehension goes a far way reading the many engaging and debatable responses that got the gist of the OP's post

Yep.

I am sure both you and I and many others could argue this until we purple in the face.



RB.

On 2025-08-30 15:11:30 Russian Bridgitte said:
Don't be silly now, Teletubby.

Of course not

But.

Comprehension goes a far way reading the many engaging and debatable responses that got the gist of the OP's post

Yep.

I am sure both you and I and many others could argue this until we purple in the face.



RB.

You can't say "Of course not", when your response to Jackparrow dismissed his entire post based solely on the fact that he didn't stick to those 3 aspects. I'm not being silly, you're being disingenuous.

Ok. Okaaaayyyy.

Of course not!

But you were being silly and pulling my leg. Right?

By the way.

Not the first time a punter has called me disingenuous...considering punters know everything about anything....especially me.


:)



RB.

Ps. do u have more than one profile?

I was absolutely not pulling your leg. *YOU* dismissed JP69s post just because it didn't directly fit in with the 3 aspects OP raised, why would asking if you somehow think that the conversation must be limited to those 3points be pulling your leg?

I don't need to know anything about you to recognise that the contradictions in what you say now, and how you responded to JP69 clearly mean you are now arguing in bad faith ( i.e being disingenuous).

No, I do not have multiple profiles. Maybe if more than one profile have pointed out that you are being disingenuous, it's because you're being disingenuous, not a sign that it must be the same punter.

Dismissed JP69's post?

Most definitely yes.

Arguing in bad faith ? Whose arguing? I made a statement and still hold to it without responding to JP69's response to my post addressed to JP69...which seems to have irked u ...

And thus my question...do u have another profile ?

;/

RB.

On 2025-08-30 19:47:31 Russian Bridgitte said:
Dismissed JP69's post?

Most definitely yes.

Arguing in bad faith ? Whose arguing? I made a statement and still hold to it without responding to JP69's respond to my post addressed to JP69...which seems to have irked u ...

And thus my question...do u have another profile ?

;/

RB.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or just accidentally so? Arguing doesn't just mean 'fighting'. It also means "give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action"
You dismissed someone's contribution based on a decidedly tenuous interpretation of OPs post. I challenged you on why. You defended it. So yes, arguing.

I dislike JP69 intensely, (I've clashed with him more frequently than I have with you - which you can verify yourself if you are so inclined) but what irks me is dishonest engagement (disingenuousness included).

...and with that I am deliberately, purposefully dismissing you.

Smooch!

As to liking JP69.

I have no reason to dislike that profile ...intensely or otherwise.

And being very honest about it.
Actually feel the same about that profile as I do about yours.


I promise.

How you interpret my engagement is upto you and, yours to do so.


:)


RB.

Classic RB. When called out on poor reasoning or argumentation first double down, ignore the content of the engagement, and then run away.

(I couldn't care less if you like JP69 or not (or me for that matter) - I mentioned my opinion of him because you seemingly implied that I might be him)