Teenager who sexually abused a child given absolute discharge

[Halibut 12]

1 hour ago, woodview said:

Haha I'm not right wing. If you think defending a proven paedophile is left wing then you are sadly mistaken.

I asked for an example of the type of circumstances that might justify the sherriffs decision, in order that the point could be understood or discussed. There has been no example given. So my assumption is that there is blind faith in the judiciary, again, not a very left wing stance.

Are you blind or stupid? Re-read ECCOnoob's post, which contains as much of the evidence as we're ever likely to have access to.

[woodview 10]

54 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Are you blind or stupid? Re-read ECCOnoob's post, which contains as much of the evidence as we're ever likely to have access to.

Neither. I have manners though, and know how to communicate in a normal fashion.

Edited February 15, 2019 by woodview

[Top Cats Hat 10]

3 hours ago, woodview said:

Haha I'm not right wing. If you think defending a proven paedophile is left wing then you are sadly mistaken.

I accuse you of being king of the strawman argument and you reply with another strawman! You couldn't make it up!

 

Blind faith in the judiciary? Really? This is no Birmingham Six, Sally Clark or Sam Hallam case. Nobody is disputing any of the evidence in the case or the judicial process, simply the Sheriff's ruling.

 

Your views on most subjects on here are very reactionary which makes you right wing in most people's eyes.

[woodmally 10]

The problem is that there is never any clarity on how decisions are made. I know we cannot know the full details of this case but it seems that there are a lot of judicial decisions that to us members of the public do not understand.     Take this example.  Thousands of motorists have over 12 points and can still drive. These are vehicles that can kill yet they still keep their cars. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40862975

[Top Cats Hat 10]

4 minutes ago, woodmally said:

The problem is that there is never any clarity on how decisions are made. I know we cannot know the full details of this case but it seems that there are a lot of judicial decisions that to us members of the public do not understand.     Take this example.  Thousands of motorists have over 12 points and can still drive. These are vehicles that can kill yet they still keep their cars. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40862975

Which is why sentencing guidelines are only guidelines. 

 

They can then be applied 'judiciously' to take into account different individual circumstances.

[woodmally 10]

8 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Which is why sentencing guidelines are only guidelines. 

 

They can then be applied 'judiciously' to take into account different individual circumstances.

But why should we take into account a persons circumstance.  A crime should be punished the same.  He abused a child so should be punished the same as someone else abusing the child otherwise you get those with a "poor upbringing" getting away with something another pedophile wouldnt.   The law should be applied the same to all. Sadly it is not.  

[willman 10]

I noticed that throughout this post the remarks made that the victim at the age of 6 showed no signs of suffering or effects by his actions.

Isn't that slightly like Jimmy Saville/Rolf Harris and the other fondlers, none of their victims exhibited signs of distress until later in life,when they became old enough to realise what had been done to them.  I wonder if that decision is going to come back and bite someone in the arse.

[Halibut 12]

6 minutes ago, willman said:

I noticed that throughout this post the remarks made that the victim at the age of 6 showed no signs of suffering or effects by his actions.

Isn't that slightly like Jimmy Saville/Rolf Harris and the other fondlers, none of their victims exhibited signs of distress until later in life,when they became old enough to realise what had been done to them.  I wonder if that decision is going to come back and bite someone in the arse.

You have no way of knowing whether that's true in the case of Savile, and in the case of Harris, there is plenty of evidence that they did indeed show signs of distress.

38 minutes ago, woodmally said:

But why should we take into account a persons circumstance. 

I would have thought that was fairly obvious - would you give a woman who stabs her abusive husband to death after years of taunts, beatings and and humiliation the same sentence as a man who takes a child out of its bed in the middle of the night and strangles them?

[woodview 10]

18 minutes ago, willman said:

I noticed that throughout this post the remarks made that the victim at the age of 6 showed no signs of suffering or effects by his actions.

Isn't that slightly like Jimmy Saville/Rolf Harris and the other fondlers, none of their victims exhibited signs of distress until later in life,when they became old enough to realise what had been done to them.  I wonder if that decision is going to come back and bite someone in the arse.

True. Maybe the perpetrators family have links like savile did. Pure speculation of course. Wonder what Lodge the sheriff is a member of?

[Halibut 12]

41 minutes ago, woodmally said:

But why should we take into account a persons circumstance.  A crime should be punished the same.  He abused a child so should be punished the same as someone else abusing the child otherwise you get those with a "poor upbringing" getting away with something another pedophile wouldnt.   The law should be applied the same to all. Sadly it is not.  

Another example for you - a man kills another man in a fit of rage whilst drunk. Another man murders his own father for financial gain. Both murder. Same sentence? You're joking.

[woodview 10]

3 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

 

Your views on most subjects on here are very reactionary which makes you right wing in most people's eyes.

'your eyes' actually or 'some eyes'.

I believe in helping the needy through taxing those with the ability to pay. I also believe that people able to work should and contribute to society.

Simply because I don't like causes supporting people who suck goodness out of the world doesn't make me right wing .

You carry on with your causes that you believe to be left wing, but leave behind the silent majority of people who carry the burden of helping those who are capable of helping themselves, or worse, helping those who are drag society down and hurt the innocent.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, woodmally said:

But why should we take into account a persons circumstance.  A crime should be punished the same.  

Really?

 

A homeless woman shoplifts a packet of tampons from Poundland and is caught by a store detective.

 

A woman who owns a care home with a million pound turnover, systematically goes through the purses and wallets of the old people in her care stealing thousands of pounds in cash and is caught by a suspicious relative.

 

Both are the crime of theft and both women will be charged under the Theft Act (1968).

 

Are you seriously saying that both, if convicted, should receive the same punishment? And if you are saying that, can you explain how this benefits society?