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.
So, the soldier grabs the child's hand and pulls it toward his groin and says, "touch me in my special place." How is that not sexual? On what world would there be people who do not keep anything sexual in their groin?
Secondly, how on Earth is this "just like" a soldier possessing illegal weapons and ammunition?
I'm really struggling to make the connection there.
I am alluding the blind hero worship that goes on regarding British soldiers and how they should be held up as something apart from the rest of society.
The next time a judge says that a girl was "asking for it," or that they let an offender off, by ruling that they had been punished enough, perhaps, during your period of outrage, you might remember the infallibility of judges. :rolleyes:
Every single one of which was identified when they were arrested.
So you want these two identified, then set up with new identities at tax payers expense? That seems both pointless and a stupid waste of money. Far better to just not name them in the first place.
So, the soldier grabs the child's hand and pulls it toward his groin and says, "touch me in my special place." How is that not sexual? On what world would there be people who do not keep anything sexual in their groin?
It's not sexual because there was no sexual intent.
People who claim there was as a means to exaggerate the seriousness of the offence are just being obtuse.
It was certainly disrespectful and bad conduct but the whole "ZOMG!! He could go on to molest kids in Britain if we aren't told his name!!!!" thing is just bullshit.
I am alluding the blind hero worship that goes on regarding British soldiers and how they should be held up as something apart from the rest of society.
So you want these two identified, then set up with new identities at tax payers expense? That seems both pointless and a stupid waste of money. Far better to just not name them in the first place.
Isn't the argument that if the public are aware of a sex offender being prosecuted, that more victims may come forward?
It's not sexual because there was no sexual intent.
People who claim there was as a means to exaggerate the seriousness of the offence are just being obtuse.
It was certainly disrespectful and bad conduct but the whole "ZOMG!! He could go on to molest kids in Britain if we aren't told his name!!!!" thing is just bullshit.
Ah, right.
Which blind hero worship would that be?
The one being demonstrated on this thread, for a start. Then there's the flaming people get whenever they say anything negative about "our boys." As if everything they do is a display of the utmost heroism. A bit like the blind faith that some have that the police can do no wrong.
Isn't the argument that if the public are aware of a sex offender being prosecuted, that more victims may come forward?
Given that one of these soldier's didn't commit a sex offense by any stretch of the imagination, why do you want his identity made public?
The other one does have sexual connotations to his actions, but not enough to counter balance the argument that he and his family are at risk of murder if his identity is known.
The one being demonstrated on this thread, for a start. Then there's the flaming people get whenever they say anything negative about "our boys." As if everything they do is a display of the utmost heroism. A bit like the blind faith that some have that the police can do no wrong.
Can't say I've seen any of that in this thread myself.
It's not sexual because there was no sexual intent.
People who claim there was as a means to exaggerate the seriousness of the offence are just being obtuse.
It was certainly disrespectful and bad conduct but the whole "ZOMG!! He could go on to molest kids in Britain if we aren't told his name!!!!" thing is just bullshit.
I dont know if you have a daughter yourself Si.
Imagine someone "anyone not just serving soldiers" grabbed your daughters hand and thrust it to their groin.
What form of redress would be appropiate in your eyes.
Would you be happy to have such a person wandering freely amongst us knowing full well that he "might" commit a similar offence on other children.
Comments
So, the soldier grabs the child's hand and pulls it toward his groin and says, "touch me in my special place." How is that not sexual? On what world would there be people who do not keep anything sexual in their groin?
I am alluding the blind hero worship that goes on regarding British soldiers and how they should be held up as something apart from the rest of society.
The next time a judge says that a girl was "asking for it," or that they let an offender off, by ruling that they had been punished enough, perhaps, during your period of outrage, you might remember the infallibility of judges. :rolleyes:
Only the most ignorant and naive would imply that it as clean as a whistle.
Declaring a sexual assault, as not a sexual assault, certainly seems as though you are trying to make excuses.
Every single one of which was identified when they were arrested.
I do, and I sympathise
So you want these two identified, then set up with new identities at tax payers expense? That seems both pointless and a stupid waste of money. Far better to just not name them in the first place.
It's not sexual because there was no sexual intent.
People who claim there was as a means to exaggerate the seriousness of the offence are just being obtuse.
It was certainly disrespectful and bad conduct but the whole "ZOMG!! He could go on to molest kids in Britain if we aren't told his name!!!!" thing is just bullshit.
Ah, right.
Which blind hero worship would that be?
Isn't the argument that if the public are aware of a sex offender being prosecuted, that more victims may come forward?
The one being demonstrated on this thread, for a start. Then there's the flaming people get whenever they say anything negative about "our boys." As if everything they do is a display of the utmost heroism. A bit like the blind faith that some have that the police can do no wrong.
Given that one of these soldier's didn't commit a sex offense by any stretch of the imagination, why do you want his identity made public?
The other one does have sexual connotations to his actions, but not enough to counter balance the argument that he and his family are at risk of murder if his identity is known.
Can't say I've seen any of that in this thread myself.
Maybe it's just you?