Child protection

[noseall]

Just for you LMB...
The length of the sentence stunned many inside the packed courtroom, with sources close to the trial expecting Clifford to be jailed for between two and three years due to the sentencing guidelines at the time of the offences

Judge Anthony Leonard imposed a sentence more than double than had been expected, partly because of Clifford's attitude during the trial at Southwark crown court, where he was "laughing and shaking his head" in the dock at some of the accusations made against him.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Just for you LMB...
The length of the sentence stunned many inside the packed courtroom, with sources close to the trial expecting Clifford to be jailed for between two and three years due to the sentencing guidelines at the time of the offences

Judge Anthony Leonard imposed a sentence more than double than had been expected, partly because of Clifford's attitude during the trial at Southwark crown court, where he was "laughing and shaking his head" in the dock at some of the accusations made against him.

F*ck the stunned courtroom.

Just admit your statement was wrong.

 

[Norcon]

Given recent events which seem to stretch back at least a few decades, at what stage and what age difference can one definitively state inappropriate sexual activity to have taken place?[/u]

Are you getting worried?

Yep

Then seek legal advice.

 

[JBR]

In the seventies robbers were locked up for 30 odd years.
Paedophiles and child killers were 'hospitalised' in lunatic asylums.

Now we have the wonder and joy of rehabilitation.

Not to mention the fact that today's prisons are beginning to resemble four star hotels.

And let's not forget the rope.

The present penal system is what the powers-that-be regard as the answer to our crime problems. Leniency has been holding sway for decades now. Has it been shown to be successful?

 

[Dextraneous]

Then seek legal advice.

You should seek medical advice

 

[RNReindeer]

If I might momentarily return to the intended discussion point of this thread ( ), the age of consent in the UK was set at 13 in 1875 which isn't really all that long ago. It again highlights how arbitrarily our sense of moral indignation can be "learned" and embedded into our culture and how easily we seem to forget that what is now considered reprehensible was fairly recently thought as being acceptable and normal.

Arbitrary yes, Dex, but we live in the here and now. Which is where our moral compass ought to be based.

Two points, Brigadier. One relating to this comment and the other, to our subsequent comments:
1. I don't think life is that simplistic. Just as I suggested that there is a continuum line for which cultural practices are acceptable or not. Isn't there also a continuum along which historical issues could be placed.
For example, there are relatively benign issues such as doffing your hat to the ladies, giving up your seat, walking on the outside of the footpath, etc that need no reflection.
There are other issues that perhaps should be explicitily recognised as acceptable then, but not now, such as corporal punishment, racism, homophobia, sexism, slavery, etc.
Then there are issues that should be addressed, even re-dressed, such as criminalising homosexuality, firing squads for deserters, and perhaps slavery might fall into this category.

2. Starting from the assumption that "mob mentality" exists, and with the full awareness of how our moral compass changes over time, is our moral compass so shallow that it is/can be influenced by legislation or social influences. It would appear to me that our collective moral compass is indeed very shallow, especially when in relation to such things as what is acceptable sexual behaviour.

 

[Dextraneous]

I think that sometimes it isn't that things were more acceptable back then, but rather that they were less unacceptable than they are now.

 

[Brigadier]

If I might momentarily return to the intended discussion point of this thread ( ), the age of consent in the UK was set at 13 in 1875 which isn't really all that long ago. It again highlights how arbitrarily our sense of moral indignation can be "learned" and embedded into our culture and how easily we seem to forget that what is now considered reprehensible was fairly recently thought as being acceptable and normal.

Arbitrary yes, Dex, but we live in the here and now. Which is where our moral compass ought to be based.

Two points, Brigadier. One relating to this comment and the other, to our subsequent comments:
1. I don't think life is that simplistic. Just as I suggested that there is a continuum line for which cultural practices are acceptable or not. Isn't there also a continuum along which historical issues could be placed.
For example, there are relatively benign issues such as doffing your hat to the ladies, giving up your seat, walking on the outside of the footpath, etc that need no reflection.
There are other issues that perhaps should be explicitily recognised as acceptable then, but not now, such as corporal punishment, racism, homophobia, sexism, slavery, etc.
Then there are issues that should be addressed, even re-dressed, such as criminalising homosexuality, firing squads for deserters, and perhaps slavery might fall into this category.

2. Starting from the assumption that "mob mentality" exists, and with the full awareness of how our moral compass changes over time, is our moral compass so shallow that it is/can be influenced by legislation or social influences. It would appear to me that our collective moral compass is indeed very shallow, especially when in relation to such things as what is acceptable sexual behaviour.

Eh?

 

[RNReindeer]

Arbitrary yes, Dex, but we live in the here and now. Which is where our moral compass ought to be based.

Two points, Brigadier. One relating to this comment and the other, to our subsequent comments:
1. I don't think life is that simplistic. Just as I suggested that there is a continuum line for which cultural practices are acceptable or not. Isn't there also a continuum along which historical issues could be placed.
For example, there are relatively benign issues such as doffing your hat to the ladies, giving up your seat, walking on the outside of the footpath, etc that need no reflection.
There are other issues that perhaps should be explicitily recognised as acceptable then, but not now, such as corporal punishment, racism, homophobia, sexism, slavery, etc.
Then there are issues that should be addressed, even re-dressed, such as criminalising homosexuality, firing squads for deserters, and perhaps slavery might fall into this category.

2. Starting from the assumption that "mob mentality" exists, and with the full awareness of how our moral compass changes over time, is our moral compass so shallow that it is/can be influenced by legislation or social influences. It would appear to me that our collective moral compass is indeed very shallow, especially when in relation to such things as what is acceptable sexual behaviour.

Eh?

Which bit did you not understand? I'll try to clarify it for you.
Or did you simply not want to continue the discussion?

 

[RNReindeer]

I totally accept that child marriage (among other traits that we westerners find abhorrent) is a "problem" of developing societies. Have you considered the possibility that Islam is prevalent in "developing" societies?

So are most other religions.
Despite overwhelming evidence, you still try to twist the blame onto Islam.

Furthermore....

your own quote....

Major factors perpetuating child marriage are economic considerations (poverty, marriage-related expenses, dowry), gender norms and expectations, concerns about girls’ safety and family honour, and a lack of educational opportunities for girls.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/india/[/QUOTE]


"gender norms and expectations"........"family honour"......"lack of educational opportunity for girls"........

Sound familiar?

Issues faced in the developing world.
Despite overwhelming evidence you still try to twist the blame onto Islam.

Child marriage is related to child betrothal and forced early marriage because of the pregnancy of the girl. In many cases, only one marriage-partner is a child, usually the female. Child marriages are also driven by poverty, bride price, dowry, cultural traditions, laws that allow child marriages, religious and social pressures, regional customs, fear of remaining unmarried, illiteracy, and perceived inability of women to work for money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage#Prevalence_data

"laws that allow child marriages"......."religious...pressures"........"regional customs"......"illiteracy"......"perceived [forced?] inability of women to work for money"........


Sound familiar?

Ditto.

"hence why the highest absolute numbers of child brides occur in India (some 10,000,000) which is predominately Hindu."

You can draw about the same statistical conclusions out of your quote above, as you can out out of my "14%" one.

Sorry, what statistical conclusion would that be?
We've already rubbished your "statistical conclusion".

The insitutions specifically set up to deal with the issue of child brides do not associate the problem with Islam.
Yet you repeatedly suggest that your opinion is more accurate.

Can you not accept that your opinion is based purely on prejudice?

If you can't see that, I've over-estimated you.

 

[Norcon]

If I might momentarily return to the intended discussion point of this thread ( ), the age of consent in the UK was set at 13 in 1875 which isn't really all that long ago. It again highlights how arbitrarily our sense of moral indignation can be "learned" and embedded into our culture and how easily we seem to forget that what is now considered reprehensible was fairly recently thought as being acceptable and normal.

Arbitrary yes, Dex, but we live in the here and now. Which is where our moral compass ought to be based.

Two points, Brigadier. One relating to this comment and the other, to our subsequent comments:
1. I don't think life is that simplistic. Just as I suggested that there is a continuum line for which cultural practices are acceptable or not. Isn't there also a continuum along which historical issues could be placed.
For example, there are relatively benign issues such as doffing your hat to the ladies, giving up your seat, walking on the outside of the footpath, etc that need no reflection.
There are other issues that perhaps should be explicitily recognised as acceptable then, but not now, such as corporal punishment, racism, homophobia, sexism, slavery, etc.
Then there are issues that should be addressed, even re-dressed, such as criminalising homosexuality, firing squads for deserters, and perhaps slavery might fall into this category.

2. Starting from the assumption that "mob mentality" exists, and with the full awareness of how our moral compass changes over time, is our moral compass so shallow that it is/can be influenced by legislation or social influences. It would appear to me that our collective moral compass is indeed very shallow, especially when in relation to such things as what is acceptable sexual behaviour.

Incoherrent nonsense as usual.

 

[noseall]

I think that sometimes it isn't that things were more acceptable back then, but rather that they were less unacceptable than they are now.

I think it was that children had no 'voice' back then and neither did a lot of women.

Celebrities were like royalty too. Untouchable. These days we have diluted 'celebrity' status so much so that even a dumb Essex school drop-out is considered a TV star.

 

[noseall]

Incoherrent nonsense as usual.

Some pretty big words there eh Norcs?

 

[Brigadier]

"hence why the highest absolute numbers of child brides occur in India (some 10,000,000) which is predominately Hindu."

You can draw about the same statistical conclusions out of your quote above, as you can out out of my "14%" one.

Sorry, what statistical conclusion would that be?

This one of yours:

"hence why the highest absolute numbers of child brides occur in India (some 10,000,000) which is predominately Hindu."

Why mention Hinduism, if not to imply that Hindus are the predominant supporters of child marriage?
Otherwise, your statement is irrelevant.

Just because you keep saying that you have rubbished my (and others) facts, figures, and quotes, doesn't make that true.

Your entire argument (that the vast majority of child marriages are nothing to do with Islam) is, after I have shown that the most "enthusiastic" supporters of the practice are "muslim countries", has now shifted to "absolute numbers of marriages". Which is why you're banging on about India. You're relying on India's enormous population to skew the message, in your favour. Hence the misleading / irrelevant "Hindu" "stat" above.
Child marriage is illegal in India. Except for Muslim exception (Sharia Act of 1937). Child marriage rates have been falling across India, for decades. Except in muslim communities. (All previously linked to).

If you can't see the correlation, you can't hope to address it.

 

[RNReindeer]

"hence why the highest absolute numbers of child brides occur in India (some 10,000,000) which is predominately Hindu."

You can draw about the same statistical conclusions out of your quote above, as you can out out of my "14%" one.

Sorry, what statistical conclusion would that be?

This one of yours:

"hence why the highest absolute numbers of child brides occur in India (some 10,000,000) which is predominately Hindu."

Why mention Hinduism, if not to imply that Hindus are the predominant supporters of child marriage?
Otherwise, your statement is irrelevant.

As opposed to being predominately Muslim. Therefore not irrelevant but extremely pertinent.

Just because you keep saying that you have rubbished my (and others) facts, figures, and quotes, doesn't make that true.

The respected institutions throughout the world also argue that economics is the driving factor.

Your entire argument (that the vast majority of child marriages are nothing to do with Islam) is, after I have shown that the most "enthusiastic" supporters of the practice are "muslim countries", has now shifted to "absolute numbers of marriages". Which is why you're banging on about India. You're relying on India's enormous population to skew the message, in your favour. Hence the misleading / irrelevant "Hindu" "stat" above.

Wasn't intended to be misleading but to be illuminating.
So interpretation of statistics is the argument.
Rspected institutions throughout the world prefer the economic argument over the Islam argument.

[
Child marriage is illegal in India. Except for Muslim exception (Sharia Act of 1937). Child marriage rates have been falling across India, for decades. Except in muslim communities. (All previously linked to).

Lots of things are illegal in the developing world. It doesn't meant that the poor people espect the laws.

If you can't see the correlation, you can't hope to address it.

Your prejudice is getting in the way of you seeing the truth.
Despite the opinion of respected institutions, you prefer your opinion.