Child protection

[noseall]

There's about 80 odd sharia courts set up now in the uk so that legislation won't apply to the women before those courts.
Under Islamic sharia law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses.

Eh up, he's off again.

STFU!

 

[Norcon]

Not what you want to hear I know.
saville and clifford would have liked their secrets to have been buried also.

 

[LastMagicBean]

I think it is true to say that sentencing is a lot more severe than it was back then.

Absolute nonsense.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...-remarks-hhj-leonard-r-v-clifford.pdf[/QUOTE]

Just read through it. No idea how that defends your statement.

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.

Burst the fluffy bubble FFS.

 

[noseall]

Just read through it. No idea how that defends your statement.

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.

Burst the fluffy bubble FFS.

I'm referring to sexual offences as discussed in this topic.

The sexual offences act 2003 reformed the laws and sentencing and it was this to which I was referring. Had Max clifford been sentenced according to the laws of today he would have received a longer sentence.

Now go take your fluffy bubble and yer bank robbers and start a new thread.

 

[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.

So true. Fed up with people justifying Islamic atrocities committed now with what the knights did in the crusades.

That is not my intention. I created this thread with Saville in mind and how Yewtree seems to be extending its wings back to cover ups of 50 or so years. The question I'm asking is at what point in time will we decide to call it a day and accept that that's how things were since a different moral compass existed. Unfortunately (but I suppose inevitably ) the thread has been taken away from the intended track and into the usual tedious and repetitive arguments by the OCD members

To be fair Dex, your intial post was ambiguous at best - I did initially wonder if you were trying to get something off your chest
If you had just put Savile in, we might have got the steer you intended.

 

[Brigadier]

Edit; Just had another thought, is there a "mob effect" potential in sex abuse offences? Is one's moral compass so easily affected?

Read more: //www.diynot.com/diy/threads/child-protection.425957/page-8#ixzz3R9YpjV00

Would you expand on your point above, RN, so that we might better come up with a proposal?

 

[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?

 

[LastMagicBean]

The sexual offences act 2003 reformed the laws and sentencing and it was this to which I was referring. Had Max clifford been sentenced according to the laws of today he would have received a longer sentence.

The sexual offences act 2003 was merely a guideline to minimum and maximum sentences.

The judge then hands down the sentence within those guidelines.

It means nothing. It can be harsh or lenient.

 

[noseall]

"Clifford was told that had some of offences been tried under today's law, they would be considered as rape or assault by penetration with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment."

FFS.

 

[LastMagicBean]

"Clifford was told that had some of offences been tried under today's law, they would be considered as rape or assault by penetration with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment."

FFS.

Yes, you f*ckwit, but that's what i'm saying.

Life imprisonment in todays judicial system is completely different to that of the seventies.

Keep up FFS

 

[noseall]

Life imprisonment in todays judicial system is completely different to that of the seventies.

Ok. So why are we arguing?

 

[noseall]

The judge actually imposed a sentence that was DOUBLE what was expected in view of Cliffords contemptuous attitude towards his victims.

 

[Dextraneous]

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...for you

 

[LastMagicBean]

Life imprisonment in todays judicial system is completely different to that of the seventies.

Ok. So why are we arguing?

Because I like you so much.

 

[Dextraneous]

To be fair Dex, your intial post was ambiguous at best
If you had just put Savile in, we might have got the steer you intended.

True
Not my most coherent of openers (perils of booze )