Well, I'd never have thought this ...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Different subject, I appreciate, and maybe best of the athletics thread but the current crop of Jamaican athletes being caught using chemical assistance (innocent till proven guilty, blah-blah-blah) ... is it only me who so un-stunned I can barely explain it ??

As I said at the beginning of all this ... they'll be outing Liberace as gay next.

Liberace...Gay? to paraphrase a certain slightly demented equine character: you need your bumps feeling.

[bobo the clown]

Stop Press ;

Former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall's 15-month sentence for a series of indecent assaults was "unduly lenient", Court of Appeal judges have ruled.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said the impact on Hall's victims had been lifelong and that the assaults were "real". Hall, 83, of Wilmslow, admitted 14 counts against girls aged from nine to 17 between 1967 and 1985 in June.

More soon.

[bobo the clown]

Stop Press ;

Former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall's 15-month sentence for a series of indecent assaults was "unduly lenient", Court of Appeal judges have ruled.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said the impact on Hall's victims had been lifelong and that the assaults were "real". Hall, 83, of Wilmslow, admitted 14 counts against girls aged from nine to 17 between 1967 and 1985 in June.

More soon.

... and more is that the 15 months is doubled. With good behaviour etc. he'd be inside barely a year and doubtless open prisons and lots of incremental freedoms etc., etc. However, it's better than 15 months.

Former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall's 15-month sentence for a series of indecent assaults has been doubled by the Court of Appeal.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said his original term had been "unduly lenient" and the impact on Hall's victims had been lifelong.

[Bruce Rioja]

Stop Press ;

Former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall's 15-month sentence for a series of indecent assaults was "unduly lenient", Court of Appeal judges have ruled.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said the impact on Hall's victims had been lifelong and that the assaults were "real". Hall, 83, of Wilmslow, admitted 14 counts against girls aged from nine to 17 between 1967 and 1985 in June.

More soon.

... and more is that the 15 months is doubled. With good behaviour etc. he'd be inside barely a year and doubtless open prisons and lots of incremental freedoms etc., etc. However, it's better than 15 months.

Former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall's 15-month sentence for a series of indecent assaults has been doubled by the Court of Appeal.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said his original term had been "unduly lenient" and the impact on Hall's victims had been lifelong.

Superb playage of The Joker there by HMP, I think you'll agree.

[Wandering Willy]

[Bijou Bob]

There has to be a "The Belgians are coming" joke out there somewhere.......................

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -predatory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So much commentary that is both wrong and, worse, wrong-headed on this today.

Why is the first question when assessing the appropriateness of the barrister's comments not: "Well, is it true that the girl behaved in a predatory way?" I agree that it would be an extremely rare case in which this would be an accurate way to describe the behaviour of a 13 year old, but I don't understand the widespread indifference as to whether this is indeed one such rare case.

Is the word 'predatory' necessarily judgemental? There must be some cases when it is simply a factual description of what has gone on.

Nobody is saying the child is guilty of anything, or that any of this could have justified the man's acts so that he did not deserve a conviction for a crime of paedophilia. It is obviously true that a child cannot consent to their own abuse in a way that absolves the adult of blame.

But surely if a child does develop in a precocious way physically and sexually, takes risks and tries to involve themselves in adult behaviours, this is a relevant factor at the sentencing stage, once the adversarial fact-finding process is out of the way?

I happen to disagree with the leniency of the sentence, because adults do have a duty to protect kids from their own harmful behaviour, but that's irrelevant in the discussion of what lawyers and judges can and can't say.

[thebish]

i have to agree, Jon - that's very carefully and sensibly put...

[Montreal Wanderer]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -predatory

So much commentary that is both wrong and, worse, wrong-headed on this today.

Why is the first question when assessing the appropriateness of the barrister's comments not: "Well, is it true that the girl behaved in a predatory way?" I agree that it would be an extremely rare case in which this would be an accurate way to describe the behaviour of a 13 year old, but I don't understand the widespread indifference as to whether this is indeed one such rare case.

Is the word 'predatory' necessarily judgemental? There must be some cases when it is simply a factual description of what has gone on.

Nobody is saying the child is guilty of anything, or that any of this could have justified the man's acts so that he did not deserve a conviction for a crime of paedophilia. It is obviously true that a child cannot consent to their own abuse in a way that absolves the adult of blame.

But surely if a child does develop in a precocious way physically and sexually, takes risks and tries to involve themselves in adult behaviours, this is a relevant factor at the sentencing stage, once the adversarial fact-finding process is out of the way?

I happen to disagree with the leniency of the sentence, because adults do have a duty to protect kids from their own harmful behaviour, but that's irrelevant in the discussion of what lawyers and judges can and can't say.

The author is a strident and mediocre inheritor of a great name IMHO. The hyperbolic assertion that this case (I don't know the facts) proves that misogyny is endemic in society is simply silly. If there are things my generation has achieved in our Western society in my lifetime of which we can be proud, I would say that the (largely successful) addressing of issues surrounding discrimination (against women and others) would be up there. There have been huge strides made in women's rights in the last sixty decades. Certainly inequality continues to exists but the gasp narrows daily.

[William the White]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -predatory

So much commentary that is both wrong and, worse, wrong-headed on this today.

Why is the first question when assessing the appropriateness of the barrister's comments not: "Well, is it true that the girl behaved in a predatory way?" I agree that it would be an extremely rare case in which this would be an accurate way to describe the behaviour of a 13 year old, but I don't understand the widespread indifference as to whether this is indeed one such rare case.

Is the word 'predatory' necessarily judgemental? There must be some cases when it is simply a factual description of what has gone on.

Nobody is saying the child is guilty of anything, or that any of this could have justified the man's acts so that he did not deserve a conviction for a crime of paedophilia. It is obviously true that a child cannot consent to their own abuse in a way that absolves the adult of blame.

But surely if a child does develop in a precocious way physically and sexually, takes risks and tries to involve themselves in adult behaviours, this is a relevant factor at the sentencing stage, once the adversarial fact-finding process is out of the way?

I happen to disagree with the leniency of the sentence, because adults do have a duty to protect kids from their own harmful behaviour, but that's irrelevant in the discussion of what lawyers and judges can and can't say.

Well: What constitutes predatory behaviour from a 13 year old in your view?

If you mean she might have initiated sexual contact between her and the 41 (!) year old man surely that would be learned behaviour? unless you believe there are genetic causes that make children sexual predators. If it was learned behaviour - you offer sex, you get rewards - it means she has been abused and exploited in her past enough times to learn this. So this 'predator' is very likely to have been a repeat victim.

Abuse of the language in my view to put her in the same species as a hungry shark eyeing up a tasty 41 year old goldfish...

[Montreal Wanderer]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -predatory

So much commentary that is both wrong and, worse, wrong-headed on this today.

Why is the first question when assessing the appropriateness of the barrister's comments not: "Well, is it true that the girl behaved in a predatory way?" I agree that it would be an extremely rare case in which this would be an accurate way to describe the behaviour of a 13 year old, but I don't understand the widespread indifference as to whether this is indeed one such rare case.

Is the word 'predatory' necessarily judgemental? There must be some cases when it is simply a factual description of what has gone on.

Nobody is saying the child is guilty of anything, or that any of this could have justified the man's acts so that he did not deserve a conviction for a crime of paedophilia. It is obviously true that a child cannot consent to their own abuse in a way that absolves the adult of blame.

But surely if a child does develop in a precocious way physically and sexually, takes risks and tries to involve themselves in adult behaviours, this is a relevant factor at the sentencing stage, once the adversarial fact-finding process is out of the way?

I happen to disagree with the leniency of the sentence, because adults do have a duty to protect kids from their own harmful behaviour, but that's irrelevant in the discussion of what lawyers and judges can and can't say.

Well: What constitutes predatory behaviour from a 13 year old in your view?

If you mean she might have initiated sexual contact between her and the 41 (!) year old man surely that would be learned behaviour? unless you believe there are genetic causes that make children sexual predators. If it was learned behaviour - you offer sex, you get rewards - it means she has been abused and exploited in her past enough times to learn this. So this 'predator' is very likely to have been a repeat victim.

Abuse of the language in my view to put her in the same species as a hungry shark eyeing up a tasty 41 year old goldfish...

I was at boarding school, William, many decades ago. There were certainly boys there who would lie in wait for smaller helpless other boys to do a variety of unpleasant things. Even today one reads of bullies 'taxing' others with threats, taking their money and personal items. This is predatory behaviour. Sexual predators are, of course, somewhat different.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Well: What constitutes predatory behaviour from a 13 year old in your view?

The same thing that constitutes predatory behaviour in a 23 year old or a 53 year old.

All the age does it make it (much) less likely.

[bwfcdan94]

oops

[Bruce Rioja]

Well go one then The Wanderer explain this http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/08/23/bin-b ... d%3D203626

Daniel. This thread is 17 pages long and deals with a specific subject matter. I assume that you're just taking the piss now because not even someone that's as morbidly imbecilic as you can have mistaken it for 'General Chit-Chat'.

[BWFC_Insane]

Well go one then The Wanderer explain this http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/08/23/bin-b ... d%3D203626

Daniel. This thread is 17 pages long and deals with a specific subject matter. I assume that you're just taking the piss now because not even someone that's as morbidly imbecilic as you can have mistaken it for 'General Chit-Chat'.

[Bruce Rioja]

Well go one then The Wanderer explain this http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/08/23/bin-b ... d%3D203626

Daniel. This thread is 17 pages long and deals with a specific subject matter. I assume that you're just taking the piss now because not even someone that's as morbidly imbecilic as you can have mistaken it for 'General Chit-Chat'.

The subject of this thread is, wouldn't you agree? Or maybe you're DLT and that's why you were claiming to be 'at work' earlier. Ahhhhhhhhhh.

[bwfcdan94]

Sorry I read the title and posted without reading the 17 pages based on one particular topic

[clapton is god]

Rolf Charged:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0829/470994 ... -offences/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bruce Rioja]

"Can you guess what it is yet?" gags aside, I'm really not sure what's meant by 'making indecent images of a child', and I'm not about to look it up either.

[Montreal Wanderer]

"Can you guess what it is yet?" gags aside, I'm really not sure what's meant by 'making indecent images of a child', and I'm not about to look it up either.

It was a new one on me but I did look it up and in relation to a different defendant found this.

making indecent images of a child means simply clicking on a thumbnail in terms of the law.

If you save pictures on your computer you are considered to have 'made' an image. No suggestion that he was involved in taking the photos themselves.