Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Newbunkle, Oct 17, 2009.
I know nothing of the UK system, but that's about what Social Security pays in the US.
No what I mean is...20,000 pounds?
That's not a good deal of money. At all. I don't mean from a welfare sense I mean...you would do that to someone for 20,000 pounds a year?
yeah, a mother mistreating her kid badly. Absolutely hilarous
That's politics for you.
I don't find anything funny about the government subsidizing child abuse, either.
Depends who. I wouldn't do that for my son for World's GDP.
The mother under question, though... I might replace her intestines with few leaky tubes for free.
So did private charities and the Royal Family. I propose we abolish them all!
It is your sentence that has nothing to do with anything.
Think some more.
Consider the following general principles.
(1) Accepting limits on freedom of speech is rarely a good thing.
(2) Journalists should be permitted to do their duty and report the truth.
Amongst other things the court should not breach employer employee contractual obligations for no good reason.
(3) It is rather difficult to expect to be able to complain that newspapers print lies, when they are forbidden to print the truth, what else can they print?
(4) Having one's name published and then being shamed is part of the punishment.
(5) I like to know whether the people I deal with are respectable. All laws which suppress knowledge of convictions prevent this, and increase my and other peoples' risk of being swindled - whether buying a second hand car or house or whatever.
(6) The convicted person may have have committed other fraudulent crimes
for which the publication of their identity would assist in their prosecution.
(7) Without the ability to publish the truth, false rumours can spread leading to other
innocent people being smeared.
I would do it to the said mother for much less
That's really not going to work. Explain your point, or I won't get it.
And I would argue that this is one of those times.
The truth has been printed (or at least, there's no evidence otherwise). Just not the whole truth, in that the name has been omitted.
So, you are ok with punishing an innocent party in order to (further) punish a guilty person? (Also, is this part of the legal punishment, or just something you want to do or think ought to be done?)
So you run CRB checks on every one you ever meet, talk to etc.? Seems a little...unnecessary. And like a complete lie.
Although, if you're in the market for a diseased child, I see why this may be relevant to you.
Sorry, this is getting away from the point. I'd imagine that it would be quite well known if this woman had done this before, wouldn't you? Remember I'm advocating protecting her identity as a necessary measure to protect the child's identity. Your point here is irrelevant to this case, and I really have no interest in arguing the general case of protecting identities.
Those are just names for a pattern of behavior! Anything can be a pattern of behavior. We don't pronounce thieves "insane" and lock them up on mental institutions because they have a pattern of behavior of stealing other people's stuff. Why should we do it for a mother who mistreated her won son for money, to con social security and charities? It's not unique, and it is certainly not new, the behavior has been described among "professional beggars" for centuries and known to be common in those means.
So what if some pediatrician stuck a label on it in the 1970s? I say dump her in prison with the rest pf the regular scum...
Next time please look up if the disorder gets you off from a crime. Which this condition doesn't, so everything this mother did to this child that could be considered a crime will get her in jail. Also when your declared insane and sentenced to a mental institute, they don't send you to a day spa institute, you go to the prison one.
If it doesn't, what's the point of bringing it up?
To stop one more person from shooting there mouth off about mental disorder and adding more fear for person to immediate they have problem. One more thing your the one that forced someone to bring it up, I choose to be that person.
I disagee with you on a point.
So you slur me by implying I am a paedophile.
What A COMPLETE PATHETIC TROLL you are.
Nobody noticed the tags? I only bothered posting this so I could get my fix. This sucks.
I wouldn't be surprised if that boy winds up killing his mother for what she has done.
The latter I would have no opposition to.
At least the boy gets a nice tube i guess
Separate names with a comma.