Oolite Bulletins

Moderator: moved from testing & bug reports

In my job the use of a female norm (by child psychologists and social workers) grates with me when reading a report. It seems the convention there to refer to the child as "she" regardless of gender.

This becomes annoying when a stapping 15 year old lad is refered to as "she" thought the report dealing with the issue of dangerousness and an automatic life sentence, so I see the femenist's point in objection to a male norm! My 2Crs is for a singular "their". Rather than "I assess that she poses a risk to the public" "I assess that their release would pose a risk to the public." I mean if you want to lock a lad for life as he had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, you could at least not call him she thoughout the report! Bad enough that your assessment is wrong statistically as you've applied some ten year old study to an individual without getting his gender wrong. <mutters darkly about this being like applying kentic theory to a single molecule etc>

<offtopic>

I mean if you want to lock a lad for life as he had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend

Please tell me this is a case you made up, or from Iran or at least the USA

</offtopic>

* wanders away *

L

Lestradae wrote:

Please tell me this is a case you made up, or from Iran or at least the USA

What a conjunction!

What a conjunction!

Sad, but sometimes actually true ... but this now really descends into off-topic ...

Nope I'm afraid not. Rape (under Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes consentual sex with a girl under 16). This is so even if both parties are under 16. Sexual Activety With a Child (under Section 9) also includes (say) two 15 year olds kissing. All Sexual Offences are "serious specified offences" under Section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A second "serious specified offence" carries automatic life (or Imprisonment for the Public Protection - which is basically the same thing). It is no defence that both parties are kids. The Court of Appeal in the case of Lang (on the facts upholding the IPP) held the the Judge had to be satisfied that the Defendant was actually dangerous. But the word dangerous has a wide definition to include the risk of the Defendant causing serious pychological harm as well as physical harm. Some Probabtion Officers will insist that underage sex poses a risk of pychological harm. To my knowllege no 15 year old has yet been IPPed off in these circumstances (yet), although it is possible and I have had reports assessing the lad as dangerous (although the Judge did not follow them).

LittleBear wrote:

Nope I'm afraid not. Rape (under Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes consentual sex with a girl under 16). This is so even if both parties are under 16. Sexual Activety With a Child (under Section 9) also includes (say) two 15 year olds kissing. All Sexual Offences are "serious specified offences" under Section 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A second "serious specified offence" carries automatic life (or Imprisonment for the Public Protection - which is basically the same thing). It is no defence that both parties are kids.

What?! In the UK, you say? I thought you limeys had had enough with Victorian-Edwardian morality... Or is the pernicious yank influence that strong there?

But the word dangerous has a wide definition to include the risk of the Defendant causing serious pychological harm as well as physical harm. Some Probabtion Officers will insist that underage sex poses a risk of pychological harm.

Oh my... This is so serious I can't allow myself to laugh at such idiocy -- I see more psychological damage being made by this whole legal buffoonery (not to mention the histrionic sexual repression's effects) than what any spontaneous teen kiss can ever cause!

Lawyers did point out the sillynes of this, but as usual were ignored! Of course MPs don't sell it like this. They say "we're getting tough on peadophiles". Then draft the law so widley to increase the chances of conviction. The public support this sort of thing, untill it happens to them of course. It was debated in the Commons with a lot of MPs suggesting that a defence (of both being kids should be added), but the Home Office misinster said it was not needed as the CPS guildlines said not to prosecute in these circumstances. Guildines can (and are) be ignored. Most cases will actually involve a conditional discharge rather than prison, but that is small comfort to the lad with a criminal record for rape and who is now on the Sexual Offenders Register.

A society gets the politicians, and hence the laws, it deserves... it was members of our British public who attacked the home of a paediatrician because they were too half-witted to know the difference between a doctor specialising in treating children and a sexual deviant. Until we all stop voting for the biggest bozo we can find, until we all stop reading the truly ghastly, sordid excuse for newspapers we are inflicted with in this country, who will stoop to any level just to sell a few more chip-wrappers, this kind of crap will continue. LittleBear, you're pretty much our last line of defence against this clucking lunacy... fight them, wherever you can! And if you can get them into a spot outside the near-ubiquitous CCTV coverage, slap them, too.

This whole thing is so mad, so stupid and so serious that I am at a lack for words.

And you`re right, there is nothing funny about that any more. Because laws like that actually make the situation of really abused children much worse, and two 14-year-olds getting a court reprimand (!) for a sexual act have been abused - by the old men who made them talk about their intimacy with strangers against their will.

This is not about protecting children, this is about protecting the "morals" of people with values from the 18th century.

For me, the topic is actually to heavy for a forum like this one, but I`m happy that there are obviously people here who look through this crap ...

I wouldn`t have thought that the political and legal situation in the UK is this far beyond any reason or character - I was wrong. People who vote for this kind of thing just don`t know what kind of damage they do.

Terrified

L

Quite right for the mods to split this off! I did go into rant mode. But this sort of thing does really piss me off! I'm afraid the situation is much worse. It has nothing to do with sexual morality it has to with people wanting "tough laws". There are 73 specified offences now. And the good old public lapped them up. I spend half my time explaining to people that these are the laws they voted for. Next time a law is proposed as it is "necessary" for fighting "terrosim" / "fraud" "murder" etc remember that this is the state trying to take YOUR rights.

Lock up subjects for 58 days without charge, then another 28 days whilst the case is transfered for then a further 42 days before the state has to even serve any evidence that you did anything. Naturally LB only has 14 days (unpaid) to see you in prison, take your instructions, proof all your witnesses and state what your case is. But naturally the entire appareatus of the state needs 126 days to decide what to even accuse you of. Thats been the law for 9 years now. Nobody said anything. Oh and by the way the Regulatory Reform Bill reversed the effect of the English Civil War (it allows a member of the executive to reverse any vote in Parliment or make or unmake any rule of the common law). Don't even get me started on the DNA database - Sir Alex Jefferys has publicly condemed the practice of keeping STR profiles from unconvicted people as wrong and unscientific. Still what would the guy who invented the damm test know! Better to follow the police on this one!

I started practice in 1995. I just measured my 2008 copy of Archbold. It is nearly three times the size! The UK govenment has passed more criminal laws in the last 10 years than all former rulers did in the last 1,000. The record has to go to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Some of its provisions were in force for 3 days before being "reformed". On the other hand all Sexual Offences were legal for two months in 2004 as the Govenment repealed the old law and forgot to bring in the new SOA. Nice to know laws are so carefully considered before being voted on.

POST DELETED

Sorry about that. I agree to some point. Really sorry. I think the town I live in could use some improvement (I live in the springfield that the simpsons live in).

@Lestradae, Hay, I live in the U.S.!

Hi FSO,

I didn`t say anything against people living in the US, I said something against destructive laws that exist in the US (and by far not only there).

My personal intuition about the US`s future (societal, economic, political) is not optimistic - but, I would be really happy if I was proven wrong on that account!

So, all good wishes to you,

L

PS: I also think that this topical digression belongs into the Outworld Forum. My personal relation to the whole topic is that my job also brings me into contact with real abuse victims and with people who are being persecuted for things that are so-called "victimless crimes" under the pretense of protecting people ... in reality, everyone looses. And I think, if you observe something as idiotically destructive as such "laws", then it would be absurd not to be pissed off by that.

Really frightening legal excurse. And there are more variations to it. In my country of living under the Sexual Offences Special Provision Act an under-18-years old rapist (and also here "rape" includes any sexual activity with an under-18-years old girl) will get 12 lashes with a whip for the first offence. On repetition another 12 lashes and a year in prison. Second repetition carries an automatic life-sentence.

The real problem, however, is that by far most rapists never are brought to court. (Which is even more frightening.)

Really frightening legal excurse. ... In my country of living under the Sexual Offences Special Provision Act an under-18-years old rapist (and also here "rape" includes any sexual activity with an under-18-years old girl) will get 12 lashes with a whip for the first offence. On repetition another 12 lashes and a year in prison. Second repetition carries an automatic life-sentence.

That`s even more frightening ...

The real problem, however, is that by far most rapists never are brought to court. (Which is even more frightening.)

I agree. And, what is the even more stupid thing, laws like the one you cite from your country and the other examples cited here lead to the police having to solve many more "crimes", so real child abuse and real rape (meaning noncensensual and/or violent or abusive sexual contact) become much more difficult to target, as the police has their hands full already with "solving" "crimes" like the abovementioned ...

Still speechless & angry about the topic

L