"FRAN" <fran_beta@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:1123138045.036091.182000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> The BBC actively campaigns for the Democrats
>> (at 2 am for the local audience).
>
> I guess that will be the counterbalance to most
> everyone else in the commercial media then.
Doesn't counter balance anything worthwhile. BBC broadcasting to the US
never shows up in the ratings, the television news service, BBC World,
almost unknown.
> Of course, from my point of view, I think socialism
> should get equal time, since both the Democrats and
> the Reublicans are on the same side -- capitalism.
You mean equal value time. You don't mean giving the Australian Liberal
Party fifteen minutes of peek ABC viewing time, balanced by Australian
Socialists getting exactly the same time on coincidental transmitters,
with the same power, broadcasting on hitherto unused channels.
> During the 1926 General Strike in Britain the BBC did
> campaign actively for Lloyd George and the government.
True. Today, the BBC's founder, Lord Reith, is held up as some kind of a
broadcasting hero. Lord Reith established the BBC as sup****ting the
Consensus View, the view of the British establishment.
> If you mean "the government" you should says so, perhaps
> including an apt descriptor "the Federal Government", the
> "British Government", "Coalition Governments" etc.
You mean the British Authority, like the Taiwan Authority. Having leased
the UK's foreign policy, and vote in UN Security Council to the USA, the
London government has relegated itself to the same level it forces on the
government in Taipei.
> If it's uncertain that a person has given their consent
> to an activity, but turns out not to have suffered any
> measurable harm as a result, or only a trivial or notional
> harm, then imprecision on the exact question of consent
> is a trifling matter.
Unless you are mislead by the child of someone with wealth and influence.
In that case, you will spend the rest of you life pay compensation for
'emotional damage.'
> Now clearly, some ***ual activities are potentially far
> more harmful, and far more likely to harm a person than
> others, physically, psychologically or socially.
There is no evidence for psychological harm caused post age 7, very
little evidence for any caused post age 2.
> Clearly, the standard of proof is going to
> be MUCH higher if we are to believe that a
> person has consented to that.
You mean that if a Defendant claims the latter, the evidence society can
reasonably expect to be available in sup****t of his innocence, is much
greater. That's not the same as ****fting the onus of proof.
> On the other hand, if the older partner is a wealthy
> 45-year-old business executive and he's having
> unprotected *** with the thirteen-year-old, it's a
> fair bet she wouldn't be able to come up with a
> comprehensive list of the possible consequences.
Society would expect that 45 year old had taken a number of measures to
ensure consent, ability to consent, knowledge of the consequences of
consent, and taken reasonable actions to guard against damage not needed
with a 30 year old. The absence of those measures is evidence of guilt,
and a simple "yes" no excuse. Otherwise, you can ask an animal to say if
it is not okay, and claim that is consent.
>> Do you really think the onus should be
>> on defendants to prove their innocence?
>
> Yes. Adults are deemed to have greater insight about the risks
> and benefits attaching to pleasurable activities than minors.
No you don't. You think that adults should be more careful in ***ual
relations with children, and the lack of such care is evidence of guilt;
and I think you are right.
> And there is also the question of trust.
Trust is a necessary evil, and a much abused term.
> Children are encouraged to place their trust
> in the adult world in general, [ . . . ].
One of society's many failings. Jesus Christ allegedly had it right,
"put not your trust in any man" (or woman).
> If a caregiver says "trust me, this will be good"
S/he is bullying the child into believing trust has anything to do with
human relations outside one's close family: it does not.
> He or she may suspend their reason on the basis
> of their trust for the good intent of the caregiver.
I'm with you, but the very introduction of the term 'trust' suggests the
care giver should not be giving care before the problem of *** arises.
> And then we're back with the Surgeon General -- if
> they don't know what the agenda is, they are at risk
> of ambush, and the "consent" cannot be informed.
You've said it. Informed consent is not trust, is it?
Look at the way that the intelligent and well read person you clearly
are, has been conned by modern world, and its psychobabble, into using
'trust' as if it were a legitimate tool in ordinary human relations.
> Such behaviour by caregivers [ . . ] ought not to be endured.
You're right.
>> Most child *** abuse is intra-, not
>> inter-, generational.
>
> It's hard to say because for fairly obvious reasons, those
> engaged in it have an interest in keeping it quiet.
As a numerate former inmate of UK local authority "care," I know. I know
this is pulling rank, and unfair, but it's also true, and worth knowing,
most child *** abuse is intra-, not inter-, generational.
> Enormous pressure is placed
> on kids to say nothing.
That's part of child *** abuse: make your victim feel guilty for what
s/he encouraged the adult to do. These people have no standards compared
to you and me.
> Personally, I'd favour a general lowering of the age of
> consent for protected intercourse -- perhaps to 14 [ . . . ].
Agreed. A little less pomposity on the subject would be welcome. It
happens. It's part of life, and we were designed to do it before our
sixteenth birthdays.
--
T Moore
N E Manchester, England
http://sitemenu.tom-moore.com/
|
