Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: S Yorks 'grooming victims' to sue Rotherham Council
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Tuppenceworth |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I think they have a case for complaint. The whole world could see that letting young (already troubled) teenagers make their own decisions about having sex with older men would be disastrous.
Ummm... but no one "lets" teenagers make these decisions. They make the decisions for themselves and then reap what they sow. As you wrote, the teenagers"make their own decisions."
Consider if this case were not about sex, but about bare knuckle boxing. The teenagers willingly attend and fight for a fee of money or alcohol/drugs. Years later, they sue the local council for failing to stop them picking up a few cuts and bruises.
Tough sh*t is my tuppenceworth. |
|
hedda |
I mean it (not suing ITK..you can't sue stupidity)...the more authorities who get sued the better.
Why stop at the council ?. Surely the police failed in their duty to protect..the government failed in their duty to provide a police force to protect..car manufacturers provided transport for abusers etc etc and so on.
It is why NSW has now put a 10 year time limit on claims (to protect the Catholic Church's immense assets). The squealing and anguish of the "protection" industry is deafening...they are beside themselves with rage. But fuck them. |
|
In The Know |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I think they have a case for complaint. The whole world could see that letting young (already troubled) teenagers make their own decisions about having sex with older men would be disastrous.
These people were taken from the care of their parents, given a playstation and a wad of cash and allowed to run wild.......
.... by loony Labour councils ! |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
I think they have a case for complaint. The whole world could see that letting young (already troubled) teenagers make their own decisions about having sex with older men would be disastrous.
These people were taken from the care of their parents, given a playstation and a wad of cash and allowed to run wild.
I cant see the point of compensation though. the money would be better spent protecting others who are in "care" at the moment. |
|
Tuppenceworth |
As I understand this case, the "victims" willingly sold themselves to the "abusers" in exchange for alcohol. This isn't very nice, but neither is it coercive, and there's an element of fair exchange being no robbery too.
Now older and wiser, the "victims" look back and think what they did wasn't such a good idea (and which of us doesn't have misadventures to look back on and regret - and maybe learn from?). They retrospectively reimagine events to depict themselves somehow being forced into their bad behaviour with the dual purpose of dodging personal responsibility and getting some compo.
If 13, 14 and 15 year olds can be tried for rapes and sexual assaults, then (as someone else pointed out on here, can't remember who, sorry) the law can't have it both ways in terms of responsibilty.
Here endeth my tuppenceworth. |
|
|
|
