"FRAN" <fran_beta@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:1123044232.862370.233740@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Agreed.
And from me, a general agreed with your response.
>> [ . . . ] a BBC radio station, Five Live, [ . . . ].
> That's revolting, and ought to be defamatory.
Thanks. If anyone is interested, within the next three years, check out
the BBC's policies on political neutrality, and watch BBC coverage of the
US Presidential election debates. The BBC actively campaigns for the
Democrats (at 2 am for the local audience).
In the UK, the BBC is known as "Auntie," a British association along the
lines of motherhood and apple pie. It's a name that has lead some who
notice how the BBC gets away with distortion by excellent presentation,
to comment, "Auntie is a whore."
>> How we love to see the talented suffer.
>
> Please don't generalise. "We" don't "love" anything.
True, it's one of those words. I think in that context "we" means
"society." Like "we went to war with Iraq." I didn't go to war.
> Though I wonder if the defendant had been
> someone *not* of the elite how it might have gone?
Let me see. He's black. No more thinking needed.
> Personally, I think some more graded system
> of consent deeming might be apt.
I'm with you thus far, but your precise proposals need some
clarification.
> One could be deemed capable in principle of
> consenting at a given age to some ***ual acts
> under some cir***stances and not others.
Yes, and the ages need to be realistic. English law allows us to give
alcohol to anyone age 5 and over, younger if it's medicinal. This does
not create problems.
Was not Jackson charged with giving a 14 year old a drink? Is not 14 the
sort of age when someone ought to be introduced to sensible alcohol use?
> The burden would be on the accused to show both these questions
> were exculpatory, rather than on the prosecution to show that they
> were inculpatory.
Do you really think the onus should be on defendants to prove their
innocence?
> People in positions of authority in relation to children,
> or in positions of great relative social privilege
> would be excluded from the benefit of such deeming.
We're back in agreement. Big difference between a private citizen lying
in court, and a Police Officer perjuring himself/herself.
We're entitled to assume those in positions of responsibility do not
abuse their positions, to the extent that, even creating an impression of
law breaking - without sufficient justification - should be a crime for
such people.
Were I to intercept your email, and make your private business public, I
should be prosecuted. If your ISP even puts you in fear that it is doing
that - even if they are not - they should be prosecuted.
> [ . . . ] we will assume you've overstepped consent
> unless you can provide convincing evidence to the contrary.
Sounds good, but in practice, the convincing evidence will be difficult
to produce. Could it be, unless the defendant has resources not
available to the majority?
But your exclusion - those in positions of responsibility - would likely
be able to produce that evidence from their colleagues. Precisely the
sort of reason those in positions of responsibility should be excluded,
as you say.
> That sets the bar pretty high, but allows enough flexibility
> to take account of individual cir***stances.
Again, you're right, it needs to be. Behind all the hysteria, usually
aimed wrongly at adults, especially lonely adults, there's a lot more of
this going on. Most child *** abuse is intra-, not inter-, generational.
--
T Moore
N E Manchester, England
http://sitemenu.tom-moore.com/
|
