IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Kafka on Thames
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Wyot |
Whole Truth wrote:
Even misbehaving infants are routinely sanctioned by non-corporal scolding, or 'early bedtime', or a mild corporal wrist-slap.
Consistent boundary enforcement is key to the healthy psychological development of children. It makes them feel safe and teaches them how to navigate future relationships in a way that is helpful to themselves and others.
Raise a child without boundaries and see what happens...
It won't be pretty! |
|
Whole Truth |
Wyot wrote, "But your "er" shows significant assumptions on your part WT; if I may suggest."
No assumptions nor conclusions intended. Yet, in far too many similar cases there is no evidence only 'she said/he said'.
And in-practise Worldwide almost no lower age limit exists for behavioural sanctions.
Even misbehaving infants are routinely sanctioned by non-corporal scolding, or 'early bedtime', or a mild corporal wrist-slap.
While universally learning by around age seven the historical 'Age of Wisdom' that the time honoured 'Do No Harm/Receive No Harm' encourages mutual empathy and avoids mutual pain. E.G. "Dont pull doggies' tails or they'll turn round and bite you!"
And, no jurisdiction can ever stop Worldwide all age natural pleasure 'Sex'. Whether solo, mutual same-age, same-sex, younger age, older age, or unknown happy humping pup, "Get orf my leg you naturally randy mut!". |
|
Wyot |
Whole Truth wrote:
Wyot wrote, "Why are the time-lapse and sentence the issues WT? Genuine question, it is not obvious to me."
We, and maybe the court, still don't know if the girl complained at the time and if not then Wyot, er, why not?
Oh I see.
Well yes, the FAI is one possible explanation if she did not complain at the time and the sentenced is innocent; one among several others. But your "er" shows significant assumptions on your part WT; if I may suggest. |
|
Whole Truth |
Wyot wrote, "Why are the time-lapse and sentence the issues WT? Genuine question, it is not obvious to me."
We, and maybe the court, still don't know if the girl complained at the time and if not then Wyot, er, why not?
What is well known (not least by JK), is that post-1990s huge publicity about BIG Cash Compo has created the vast and growing FAI. With greedy false claimants 'who will be believed' easily exaggerating and fabricating, incited by bent-cops backed up by fake-media, all for 'MeTooMoreDough' - DOH!
Meaning that what may have been consentual/psuedo consentual 'horsepelay' (yes, young kids following sex-filled 'Family' media, do pro-actively 'play sex' with other kids, older kids, and older folks) has now been made by the woman into forced fumblings and violent 'Rape'. (But no blood on the tracks, er, bed found by Mum?)
Always respect true, not fake, victims. |
|
Wyot |
Whole Truth wrote:
Surely, the long time-lapse and current sentence are the issues, not the ages?
Why are the time-lapse and sentence the issues WT? Genuine question, it is not obvious to me.
The judge has explicitly set the sentencing very low for multiple rapes of a pre pubescent child. If you check the details they have also suspended some of it; but because of the age of the perpetrator, not the time lapse.
I think the age of the perpetrator (at the time of the crime) is central. The judge has allowed for this.
Whether 14 year olds should recieve prison sentences is another question.
Our age of criminal responsibility in the UK is criminally low, and much lower than most other European countries at 10. Mind you, the proportion of under 18s locked up is vanishingly low.
I am not sure how we should process 14 year olds who rape small children, if honest. They clearly have intent and capacity. My heart wants to do so outside of incarceration; but my head tells me this may be reckless for such serious crimes. |
|
|
|
|
