Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[Rincewind]

I think it was an excuse for Moose to find something wrong with my post.  He does it all the time which is why I normally just skim over his snide remarks. Do not mothers have regular visits after giving birth if thought to be a risk? Did she have a care worker visit her? Not to look after her but over concern over the child.

There is no need to be sarcastic over what is a serious issue. Things are not always black and white as Mossebreath seems to think.

I was not suggesting handing over wads of cash and a mansion. maybe it was one of the authorities where funding for after care for new born babies is short. Do we know what her mental age was? Once all this has been established then she can be punished within the fullness of the law.

[ADK]

Does sound a bit like someone with depression or some other mental illness, but I suppose we don't know the full facts.

[Guest Basildon Fox]

I think it was an excuse for Moose to find something wrong with my post.  He does it all the time which is why I normally just skim over his snide remarks. Do not mothers have regular visits after giving birth if thought to be a risk? Did she have a care worker visit her? Not to look after her but over concern over the child.

There is no need to be sarcastic over what is a serious issue. Things are not always black and white as Mossebreath seems to think.

I was not suggesting handing over wads of cash and a mansion. maybe it was one of the authorities where funding for after care for new born babies is short. Do we know what her mental age was? Once all this has been established then she can be punished within the fullness of the law.

She was mentally ok enough to keep claiming child benefit for 2 years after starving her son to death and to order a pizza after the event.  The father is no better.  How can you not know that your child has been dead for 2 years? Did he not want to see him? Was he not concerned.  Absolute scum. 

[leicsmac]

She was mentally ok enough to keep claiming child benefit for 2 years after starving her son to death and to order a pizza after the event.  The father is no better.  How can you not know that your child has been dead for 2 years? Did he not want to see him? Was he not concerned.  Absolute scum. 

 

Being mentally ill doesn't necessarily mean you can't function in society despite being depraved enough to do something like that.

 

That's not an excuse - it's a fact. What some people call 'evil' is just mental imbalances causing them to not see the world and not see other people in the same way as most of us do. 

 

Lock her up by all means as a cold calculating psychopath/sociopath/whatever the term is for her, but as Finn mentioned the term 'evil' is childish.

[absolutelegend]

Saw it in the Metro. I know she is alleged to have alcohol and drug problems but she may have mental issues too. Somebody should have picked the signs up.

People in this country should learn to take more responsibility for their circumstances and not look to blame other people.

[Rincewind]

Mental illness is not a person. In general I agree, people should take responsibility for their actions. I was questioning as to why the signs of neglect was not noticed by a post natal health care worker assuming she had one given her other alleged health issues.

I am not defending her actions but other factors have to be considered to prevent it happening again.

 

Far from proving her sanity, ordering a pizza after 'the event' indicates to me as a non expert on the subject that she had some sort of mental problem. The majority of people would have panicked or most likely would not have let the situation go that far.

Edited 20 September 2013 by Rincewind

[leicsmac]

People in this country should learn to take more responsibility for their circumstances and not look to blame other people.

 

As has been said here before, these kind of people do not take responsibility for their actions because the thought simply doesn't occur to them. When that is the case it IS the responsibility of other designated people (in positions of relative authority) to step in and help/stop/prosecute. 

 

You're jumping to the same conclusions as others here - you think that mental illness is being used as an excuse here. It's not - this lady knew exactly what she was doing and should face the consequences of her actions, but with a person like that it does fall to other people to intervene to stop bad things happening if they know the situation. If they don't and it was their job to do so, then they have a share of the responsibility.

[Rincewind]

I wouldn't say mental illness was being used as an excuse but as someone (like the majority) who would never think of doing that sort of thing it is hard to think why or how anyone would. 

[Finnegan]

Oh and this woman is almost definitely not a psychopath.

[MooseBreath]

As has been said here before, these kind of people do not take responsibility for their actions because the thought simply doesn't occur to them. When that is the case it IS the responsibility of other designated people (in positions of relative authority) to step in and help/stop/prosecute.

You're jumping to the same conclusions as others here - you think that mental illness is being used as an excuse here. It's not - this lady knew exactly what she was doing and should face the consequences of her actions, but with a person like that it does fall to other people to intervene to stop bad things happening if they know the situation. If they don't and it was their job to do so, then they have a share of the responsibility.

Gone round the houses a bit there haven't you? First you say it's the responsibility of other people, then you say she knew exactly what she was doing (and thus surely implying its her responsibility), then you're back to saying it's someone else's responsibility, and then finally you finish by saying it should be shared.

[ADK]

If someone is mentally disabled to the point that they can't take care of their responsibilities then I don't think you can call them responsible for their inactions. I don't know the details or how social services operate but it sounds as though it was definitely a failure by social services.

[leicsmac]

Gone round the houses a bit there haven't you? First you say it's the responsibility of other people, then you say she knew exactly what she was doing (and thus surely implying its her responsibility), then you're back to saying it's someone else's responsibility, and then finally you finish by saying it should be shared.

The point I was making was that the responsibility should be shared, but yeah I could have put it better.

[Rincewind]

I don't know what the situation is for new parents. Perhaps the ones on here can shed some light. After the biirth have you had an health worker knocking on your door every other day or have they let you get on with it? At what age does the doctor contact you about injections. Do they retry if no response? Did the missus suffer from PND and if so was it treated?

Maybe each Health Authority operate differently or have different budgets. I think it would be best to have a set standard.

The mother is solely  responsible for the neglect and death of her child but lessons have to be learned so no more young lives are lost.

[BoneDog]

Evil most definitely exists, can't believe that some people seem to think it doesn't. It's definiton in the dictionary is 'profound immorality', which exists on a large scale and is not all to do with mental illness.

 

According to some neuroscientists, good doesn't exist either, and people who commit evil acts are not to blame - it's just a bit of 'wrong wiring' that causes their actions. But being as science can't even explain 10% of reality, and never will do, I would advise folk not to take much notice of their philosophy on good and evil tbh.

 

That's not a dig at scientists, just at the philosophy that some of them seem to be promoting. The recent 'mild paedo's are ok' claims from Dawkins spring to mind.

[MikeyT]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/21/20618440-gunmen-attack-crowded-kenya-shopping-mall?lite

[The Doctor]

Evil most definitely exists, can't believe that some people seem to think it doesn't. It's definiton in the dictionary is 'profound immorality', which exists on a large scale and is not all to do with mental illness.

 

According to some neuroscientists, good doesn't exist either, and people who commit evil acts are not to blame - it's just a bit of 'wrong wiring' that causes their actions. But being as science can't even explain 10% of reality, and never will do, I would advise folk not to take much notice of their philosophy on good and evil tbh.

 

That's not a dig at scientists, just at the philosophy that some of them seem to be promoting. The recent 'mild paedo's are ok' claims from Dawkins spring to mind.

 

 

You do realise he didn't say that, what he actually said was essentially that "fondling is wrong, but child rape is worse" - didn't say paedophilia was ok, but that there is a scale of how bad things are rather than a simple ok:not ok dichotomy...

[Vacamion]

science can't even explain 10% of reality, and never will do

 

 

 

Which parts of "reality" do you most think science can't explain.

 

Which branches of science are most deficient?  Biology, Cosmology, Genetics, Physics - or have you dismissed all of science?

 

Most importantly, what would you replace science with - what CAN explain reality in your opinion? 

[bovril]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/21/20618440-gunmen-attack-crowded-kenya-shopping-mall?lite

 

This is horrible. 59 dead now.

[Dr The Singh]

Keith Vaz, again

[BoneDog]

Which parts of "reality" do you most think science can't explain.

 

Which branches of science are most deficient?  Biology, Cosmology, Genetics, Physics - or have you dismissed all of science?

 

Most importantly, what would you replace science with - what CAN explain reality in your opinion? 

 

I just lost a post that I'd written for this. It had autosaved but I don't know how to get it back. It didn't explain what I meant very well but I'd done my best

[BoneDog]

Sorry for the long post, but this whole story is oh so wrong.

 

You do realise he didn't say that, what he actually said was essentially that "fondling is wrong, but child rape is worse" - didn't say paedophilia was ok, but that there is a scale of how bad things are rather than a simple ok:not ok dichotomy...

 

From what I've seen he explained how a teacher at his school put him on his knee and then put his hand up his shorts and 'fondled' his cock. He also explained how the same teacher had done the same thing to many other boys.

 

Then he said this :

'Should I have lied and said it was the worst thing that ever happened to me? Should I have mendaciously sought the sympathy due to a victim who had truly been damaged for the rest of his life? Should I have named the offending teacher and called down posthumous disgrace upon his head?

No, no and no. To have done so would have been to belittle and insult those many people whose lives really were blighted and cursed, perhaps by year-upon-year of abuse by a father or other person who was deeply important in their life. To have done so would have invited the justifiably indignant response: “How dare you make a fuss about the mere half minute of gagging unpleasantness that happened to you only once, and where the perpetrator was not your own father but a teacher who meant nothing special to you in your life. Stop playing the victim. Stop trying to upstage those who really were tragic victims in their own situations. Don’t cry wolf about your own bad experience, because it undermines those whose experience was – and remains – so much worse." '

 

He also said, 'I thought to myself that I had no right to be a victim because I think that being touched up once did me no harm.'

 

 

Triple Double WTF?! If you went up to a woman (or man) in the street and fondled their private parts you would either be lynched or charged with sexual assault. But according to Dawko it's different if it happens to a child. If a teacher fondles your child's private parts you should say 'oh it's only the once, not to worry'. He even tries to say that if you did make a fuss then people would say, 'How dare you make a fuss about your few minutes of abuse', or 'Stop playing the victim. Don't cry wolf about your own bad experience because it undermines others worse experiences'.

 

The answer to the third question he asks himself is astonishing. "Should I have named the teacher and called down posthumous disgrace upon his head?" The teacher who abuses his authority and puts his hand in childrens pants, and Dawkins says no, you shouldn't tell tales.

 

Why is he trying to tell people not to report 'mild' cases as he calls them? He is saying we should show leniency to cases where a teacher or whoever 'only has a little feel'. What a f*&king disgrace.

 

Why is he using his position to try and sway public opinion on these things? Fortunately, most people who have read his opinions on the matter can see sense and don't agree with him, probably because they have some sort of logical moral order.

 

And Dawkins says it never did him any harm! It obviously flipping did, he's an absolute mentalist.

[Captain...]

Sorry for the long post, but this whole story is oh so wrong.

 

 

From what I've seen he explained how a teacher at his school put him on his knee and then put his hand up his shorts and 'fondled' his cock. He also explained how the same teacher had done the same thing to many other boys.

 

Then he said this :

'Should I have lied and said it was the worst thing that ever happened to me? Should I have mendaciously sought the sympathy due to a victim who had truly been damaged for the rest of his life? Should I have named the offending teacher and called down posthumous disgrace upon his head?

No, no and no. To have done so would have been to belittle and insult those many people whose lives really were blighted and cursed, perhaps by year-upon-year of abuse by a father or other person who was deeply important in their life. To have done so would have invited the justifiably indignant response: “How dare you make a fuss about the mere half minute of gagging unpleasantness that happened to you only once, and where the perpetrator was not your own father but a teacher who meant nothing special to you in your life. Stop playing the victim. Stop trying to upstage those who really were tragic victims in their own situations. Don’t cry wolf about your own bad experience, because it undermines those whose experience was – and remains – so much worse." '

 

He also said, 'I thought to myself that I had no right to be a victim because I think that being touched up once did me no harm.'

 

 

Triple Double WTF?! If you went up to a woman (or man) in the street and fondled their private parts you would either be lynched or charged with sexual assault. But according to Dawko it's different if it happens to a child. If a teacher fondles your child's private parts you should say 'oh it's only the once, not to worry'. He even tries to say that if you did make a fuss then people would say, 'How dare you make a fuss about your few minutes of abuse', or 'Stop playing the victim. Don't cry wolf about your own bad experience because it undermines others worse experiences'.

 

The answer to the third question he asks himself is astonishing. "Should I have named the teacher and called down posthumous disgrace upon his head?" The teacher who abuses his authority and puts his hand in childrens pants, and Dawkins says no, you shouldn't tell tales.

 

Why is he trying to tell people not to report 'mild' cases as he calls them? He is saying we should show leniency to cases where a teacher or whoever 'only has a little feel'. What a f*&king disgrace.

 

Why is he using his position to try and sway public opinion on these things? Fortunately, most people who have read his opinions on the matter can see sense and don't agree with him, probably because they have some sort of logical moral order.

 

And Dawkins says it never did him any harm! It obviously flipping did, he's an absolute mentalist.

 

Dawkins response to criticism of his original comments, just to be fair like:

 

 

Today we read, almost daily, of adults whose childhood was blighted by an uncle perhaps, or even a parent, who would day after day, week after week, year after year, sexually abuse a vulnerable child. The child would often have no escape, would not be believed if he/she told the other parent, or told a teacher. In many cases it is only now, when the abused children have reached adulthood, that these stories are coming out. To make light of their stories, even after all these years, might in some cases re-awaken the trauma of not being believed at the time when it was all happening, and when being believed would have meant so much to the child.

…

… I cannot know for certain that my companions’ experiences with the same teacher were are brief as mine, and theirs may have been recurrent where mine was not. That’s why I said only “I don’t think he did any of us lasting damageâ€. We discussed it among ourselves on many occasions, especially after his suicide, and there was indeed general agreement that his gassing himself was far more upsetting than his sexual depredations had been. If I am wrong about any particular individual; if any of my companions really was traumatised by the abuse long after it happened; if, perhaps it happened many times and amounted to more than the single disagreeable but brief fondling that I endured, I apologise.

 

So in summary he was fondled once by a teacher, as were others, he didn't say anything at the time, the teacher killed himself, so he hasn't done anything more about it as it didn't cause him any harm, he doesn't need any closure, he doesn't want to drag up any traumatic feelings in those who have put it behind them, and doesn't want to take attention away from the more serious cases of abuse. 

 

The monster.

Edited 22 September 2013 by Captain Pancake Face

[Vacamion]

I just lost a post that I'd written for this. It had autosaved but I don't know how to get it back. It didn't explain what I meant very well but I'd done my best

 

 

Bullet point it...

 

 

 

Sorry for the long post, but this whole story is oh so wrong.

 

 

From what I've seen he explained how a teacher at his school put him on his knee and then put his hand up his shorts and 'fondled' his cock. He also explained how the same teacher had done the same thing to many other boys.

 

Then he said this :

'Should I have lied and said it was the worst thing that ever happened to me? Should I have mendaciously sought the sympathy due to a victim who had truly been damaged for the rest of his life? Should I have named the offending teacher and called down posthumous disgrace upon his head?

No, no and no. To have done so would have been to belittle and insult those many people whose lives really were blighted and cursed, perhaps by year-upon-year of abuse by a father or other person who was deeply important in their life. To have done so would have invited the justifiably indignant response: “How dare you make a fuss about the mere half minute of gagging unpleasantness that happened to you only once, and where the perpetrator was not your own father but a teacher who meant nothing special to you in your life. Stop playing the victim. Stop trying to upstage those who really were tragic victims in their own situations. Don’t cry wolf about your own bad experience, because it undermines those whose experience was – and remains – so much worse." '

 

He also said, 'I thought to myself that I had no right to be a victim because I think that being touched up once did me no harm.'

 

 

Triple Double WTF?! If you went up to a woman (or man) in the street and fondled their private parts you would either be lynched or charged with sexual assault. But according to Dawko it's different if it happens to a child. If a teacher fondles your child's private parts you should say 'oh it's only the once, not to worry'. He even tries to say that if you did make a fuss then people would say, 'How dare you make a fuss about your few minutes of abuse', or 'Stop playing the victim. Don't cry wolf about your own bad experience because it undermines others worse experiences'.

 

The answer to the third question he asks himself is astonishing. "Should I have named the teacher and called down posthumous disgrace upon his head?" The teacher who abuses his authority and puts his hand in childrens pants, and Dawkins says no, you shouldn't tell tales.

 

Why is he trying to tell people not to report 'mild' cases as he calls them? He is saying we should show leniency to cases where a teacher or whoever 'only has a little feel'. What a f*&king disgrace.

 

Why is he using his position to try and sway public opinion on these things? Fortunately, most people who have read his opinions on the matter can see sense and don't agree with him, probably because they have some sort of logical moral order.

 

And Dawkins says it never did him any harm! It obviously flipping did, he's an absolute mentalist.

 

He's old, he grew up in a time when people didn't like to make a fuss, he grew up in a time before awareness campaigns, wristbands, etc.  It didn't have a massive effect on his life.

 

His views, whilst outdated, are probably not untypical of someone his age and with his experiences.

 

None of which detracts from his excellent books about genetics, biology and evolution or his calling out of organised religion as delusional and dangerous.

[Dr The Singh]

 

Bullet point it...

 

 

 

 

He's old, he grew up in a time when people didn't like to make a fuss, he grew up in a time before awareness campaigns, wristbands, etc.  It didn't have a massive effect on his life.

 

His views, whilst outdated, are probably not untypical of someone his age and with his experiences.

 

None of which detracts from his excellent books about genetics, biology and evolution or his calling out of organised religion as delusional and dangerous.

Agreed with the stuff in bold!

 

The rest, the guy is intelligent enough and has moved with the times enough to know better!!  Either way, he's wrong!!

[Finnegan]

Amanda Knox, now there's a psychopath.