And that's sticking up for a child molester is it Sorry but I can no longer take you seriously!
Err...yes, that is exactly what it is. He has been convicted of abusing the child and people are sticking up for him and making excuses about how he is no more guilty than being an idiot.
It's just like that twit Nightingale, who brought back an illegal weapon and tons of ammunition.
Err...yes, that is exactly what it is. He has been convicted of abusing the child and people are sticking up for him and making excuses about how he is no more guilty than being an idiot.
It's just like that twit Nightingale, who brought back an illegal weapon and tons of ammunition.
And with that, your agenda is blown wide open! You have no interest in the OP beyond your anti military agenda! You are really quite pathetic!
Oh and err, no, no one has stuck up for this soldier in this thread and if you believe they have then your logic is seriously flawed! Then again, with your agenda, maybe its just twisted!
Err...yes, that is exactly what it is. He has been convicted of abusing the child and people are sticking up for him and making excuses about how he is no more guilty than being an idiot.
It's just like that twit Nightingale, who brought back an illegal weapon and tons of ammunition.
How has this thread reached 14 pages? The guy himself has admitted he is GUILTY. Yet people keep defending him. I mean I could understand it if he insisted he was innocent, then there would be a question mark, but the guy himself has said "Yes im guilty, judge me". If he has done that, why in the hell are there people who have no relation to him defending him?
How has this thread reached 14 pages? The guy himself has admitted he is GUILTY. Yet people keep defending him. I mean I could understand it if he insisted he was innocent, then there would be a question mark, but the guy himself has said "Yes im guilty, judge me". If he has done that, why in the hell are there people who have no relation to him defending him?
Err...yes, that is exactly what it is. He has been convicted of abusing the child and people are sticking up for him and making excuses about how he is no more guilty than being an idiot.
It's just like that twit Nightingale, who brought back an illegal weapon and tons of ammunition.
Okay, firstly, you really need to go and read the various articles about the case again.
If I operated a cleaning business and sent kids up chimneys I could probably be convicted of "abusing a child".
That's not the same as "molesting a child", much less "raping a child".
There's nothing to suggest there's any sexual element involved at all.
All the stuff about "ZOMG! His name must be made public to protect teh childrenz!!!" is just disingenuous bullshit.
The judge advocate said there had been no sexual motive behind the behaviour.
Secondly, how on Earth is this "just like" a soldier possessing illegal weapons and ammunition?
I'm really struggling to make the connection there.
Sexual abuse, also referred to as molestation, is the forcing of undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another. When that force is immediate, of short duration, or infrequent, it is called sexual assault. The offender is referred to as a sexual abuser or (often pejoratively) molester.[1] The term also covers any behavior by any adult towards a child to stimulate either the adult or child sexually. When the victim is younger than the age of consent, it is referred to as child sexual abuse.
They also let him off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist and a fine. So what? he's committed a crime, but hasn't actually been punished for it.
Keep condoning this behaviour. You obviously didn't see anything wrong with it.
They also let him off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist and a fine. So what? he's committed a crime, but hasn't actually been punished for it.
Keep condoning this behaviour. You obviously didn't see anything wrong with it.
NO ONE IS CONDONING ANYTHING! Why do you keep saying that! Prove it!
Well that punishment obviously was! He commited a criminal act but all he got was a a good ticking off and thats it. So yes in this instance, justice was not served. Plus, a sex abuser is likely back in the UK and could well strike again. Don't know why that doesn't seem to bother you, but it bothers me and I am sure many parents out there would not be best pleased that a nonce is roaming the streets. There are enough as it is, so why protect this one??
Well that punishment obviously was! He commited a criminal act but all he got was a a good ticking off and thats it. So yes in this instance, justice was not served. Plus, a sex abuser is likely back in the UK and could well strike again. Don't know why that doesn't seem to bother you, but it bothers me and I am sure many parents out there would not be best pleased that a nonce is roaming the streets. There are enough as it is, so why protect this one??
Read the news articles or the thread. The answer to your question is there.
They also let him off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist and a fine. So what? he's committed a crime, but hasn't actually been punished for it.
Did it occur to you that the punishment he received was appropriate for his actual offence, rather than the one you've manufactured in your head?
I don't disagree with that principle, but it shouldn't be granted purely because of the job they do. If it is granted at all, it should be available to everyone, including civilians.
Have you ever heard of Mary Bell, Maxine Carr, Robert Thompson or Jon Venables?
Well that punishment obviously was! He commited a criminal act but all he got was a a good ticking off and thats it. So yes in this instance, justice was not served. Plus, a sex abuser is likely back in the UK and could well strike again. Don't know why that doesn't seem to bother you, but it bothers me and I am sure many parents out there would not be best pleased that a nonce is roaming the streets. There are enough as it is, so why protect this one??
You're still speculating about a scenario which you've dreamed up rather than considering the evidence that has been published.
Well that punishment obviously was! He commited a criminal act but all he got was a a good ticking off and thats it. So yes in this instance, justice was not served. Plus, a sex abuser is likely back in the UK and could well strike again. Don't know why that doesn't seem to bother you, but it bothers me and I am sure many parents out there would not be best pleased that a nonce is roaming the streets. There are enough as it is, so why protect this one??
Comments
Err...yes, that is exactly what it is. He has been convicted of abusing the child and people are sticking up for him and making excuses about how he is no more guilty than being an idiot.
It's just like that twit Nightingale, who brought back an illegal weapon and tons of ammunition.
And with that, your agenda is blown wide open! You have no interest in the OP beyond your anti military agenda! You are really quite pathetic!
Oh and err, no, no one has stuck up for this soldier in this thread and if you believe they have then your logic is seriously flawed! Then again, with your agenda, maybe its just twisted!
Abuse does not mean molestation.
We're discussing his right to anonymity.
Okay, firstly, you really need to go and read the various articles about the case again.
If I operated a cleaning business and sent kids up chimneys I could probably be convicted of "abusing a child".
That's not the same as "molesting a child", much less "raping a child".
There's nothing to suggest there's any sexual element involved at all.
All the stuff about "ZOMG! His name must be made public to protect teh childrenz!!!" is just disingenuous bullshit.
Secondly, how on Earth is this "just like" a soldier possessing illegal weapons and ammunition?
I'm really struggling to make the connection there.
Well his actions seem to fit this definition.
So yes, it was molestation and it was sexual abuse. But don't let me stop you from making excuses for and defending this nonce.
No it wasn't.
The judge said so.
To be fair, its more like his families right not to be put as serious risk!
Keep condoning this behaviour. You obviously didn't see anything wrong with it.
We'll get told that the Law is corrupt next!
NO ONE IS CONDONING ANYTHING! Why do you keep saying that! Prove it!
I was trying to keep it as simple as possible!
Well that punishment obviously was! He commited a criminal act but all he got was a a good ticking off and thats it. So yes in this instance, justice was not served. Plus, a sex abuser is likely back in the UK and could well strike again. Don't know why that doesn't seem to bother you, but it bothers me and I am sure many parents out there would not be best pleased that a nonce is roaming the streets. There are enough as it is, so why protect this one??
Read the news articles or the thread. The answer to your question is there.
But seriously, why are you defending a child molester??
Did it occur to you that the punishment he received was appropriate for his actual offence, rather than the one you've manufactured in your head?
Have you ever heard of Mary Bell, Maxine Carr, Robert Thompson or Jon Venables?
Ok you are now clearly on the wind up and baiting!
I haven't.
You're still speculating about a scenario which you've dreamed up rather than considering the evidence that has been published.
They're baiting now which makes the obtuseness a lot clearer!
You didn't really answer my question either.
Very obvious.