Comments on: Judges are cunts – part 265.2b

By: Ibanez

Ibanez — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:31:02 +0000

what a fuckin rotten world we live in.

By: Catholic

Catholic — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:13:59 +0000

Sheesh, you’re right, most abuse is done by someone the family know very well, by a relative of the child, or someone that’s so close a family friend, they seem like relatives to the child. Especially at that age.

By: Sniffle&Cry

Sniffle&Cry — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:14:00 +0000

But so right about most abuse by a close relative

By: Holemaster

Holemaster — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:41:07 +0000

To Occasional Blogger

I think you’re referring to the prosecution service in Britain?

I don’t the Irish system works like that, thank God.

By: Sheesh

Sheesh — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:00:13 +0000

This is a terrible case, and I don’t understand how the sentence was so low. I know the judges are tied by legislation and precedents, but how could a sentence that low be right – in law, and morally? It is just repugnant. Especially when crimes against property or money seem to get far higher sentences (from my limited knowledge of news items).

Who knows what happened, or what circumstances led to the poor kid falling prey to this evil git. I mean this guy could’ve had a kid who was friends with the little girl – would anyone seriously suggest that a kid shouldn’t be allowed to go to her friend’s house? Or as someone else said, maybe he did the parents a favour in minding her once, and everything seemed fine, and they grew to trust him. As many have said, these sick people seem to be experts in getting both kids and – almost more importantly – adults to trust them. Because we operate from a more normal perspective, we don’t suspect the worst, we don’t think someone who seems nice and helpful and caring is just a sick fuck lying in wait to abuse that trust. I feel so sorry for the little girl, and her parents too. But I think it would be a truly awful society if we all operated on the basis that no-one was to be trusted, and instilled that fear into children. Imagine growing up automatically thinking that you couldn’t trust anyone, ever – that would ruin every relationship in later life, and make people constantly fearful and unhappy. And that is not a happy place to be. A reasonable balance is required – and that simply can’t include wrapping kids up and preventing them from attending social activities and engaging with other kids. It is so sad that parents have to worry about these things, but no parent can be with their kids 24/7, and surely all any parent can do is take reasonable precautions and talk to their kids – create an environment where they know that any adults asking kids to “keep a secret” is not good, and that they can tell their parents things without fear. There has to be a balance between precautions/fear for your child, and a teaching kids how to engage an form relationships.

Open to correction on this, but doesn’t a lot of abuse occur in the home/by a close relative? Surely that is at least as worrying as ‘The Fear’ of strangers.

By: problemchildbride

problemchildbride — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:24:51 +0000

Nonny, children, when they’re ashamed or scared are the best little actors in the world. They can carry on as if nothing in the world is troubling them. Many’s the good parent who has missed a severe case of abuse in their own children. Their best friends never notice anything wrong, their teachers, noone. Children absorb blows completely – blows that would shatter an adult – and the cracks will sometimes not show up for years after they’ve stopped being children. These are facts.

When those parents realize what has happened to their child, there aren’t words to describe how guilty they feel. You are too harsh here, Nonny. Much much too harsh.

By: occasional blogger

occasional blogger — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:12:39 +0000

Admittedly I have not read through ALL of the previous 188 entries but somewhere in there was a query about CPS and its workings. The first thing they do when they receive details of such a case is to apportion what they consider a fair budget to proceed with it. If the case comes in on, or even better, below budget then the relevant boxes are ticked and the case officers are praised. However if it comes in over budget then the Home office suggests to the case officer that his, or her, parents may wish to be married. CPS case officer then chats with the defence, who is probably on legal aid, which is paid for by you and me, so he or she couldn’t give a momnkeys about the budget. During this chat, the defence brief, knowing about the financial constraints put on the CPS, suggests that his client will plead guilty to a lesser charge but will plead not guilty to the original charge, knowing that this will lead to a full blown trial with jurors, barristers and the CPS budget going to rat shit. The CPS agree to this and; they end with a successful prosecution so that box is ticked; the case comes in on or below budget so that box is ticked and the case officer can add one more victory to his CV. The defence brief is happy knowing that his client had the best deal he could get; the holiday in the Carribean has just been paid for by the taxpayer and a shed load of business cards will be distributed inside the nick the client goes to. Everyone is therefore happy. What’s that you say? Justice has not been best served for the victim? Good grief – you don’t actually think the British Criminal Justice System is run for the benefit of victims of crime do you? You’ll be feeding kittens to your kids next!

By: Holemaster

Holemaster — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:25:56 +0000

Yeah! one of our neighbours kids used to try camouflage himself in with us for tea if we were having burgers and chips that night. Worked sometimes, he’d bunch up with us at the back door, four grey jumpers looked like three in a hurry.

By: Tinman18

Tinman18 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:11:04 +0000

All their mammies have called them in for their tea.

By: Holemaster

Holemaster — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:05:47 +0000

*******tumbleweed**********