Can we talk about Germany for a bit?
Discussion
rovermorris999 said:
Gatestone's latest.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9154/germans-le...
You may as well quote the EDL and BNP (and Breitbart) websites if you're going to resort of Gatestone. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9154/germans-le...
rovermorris999 said:
Gatestone's latest.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9154/germans-le...
Well you've picked yourself a saucy bit of agitprop there !https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9154/germans-le...
What are your personal thoughts on the content ?
BOR said:
rovermorris999 said:
Gatestone's latest.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9154/germans-le...
Well you've picked yourself a saucy bit of agitprop there !https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9154/germans-le...
What are your personal thoughts on the content ?
I'm happy to read stuff from all sources. Perhaps it would be better to comment on the content rather than slag the messenger. Is it wrong? Cherry-picked I'm sure, Gatestone have their take on things, but just whistling and saying 'nothing to see here' isn't very useful. If it is crap, shoot it down with factual information.
Although it's from next door in Austria this "sexual emergency” case was mentioned earlier in the thread. Well his sentence has been overturned because "judges found he may have believed the child consented". The child was 10 ffs!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ira...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ira...
BlackLabel said:
Although it's from next door in Austria this "sexual emergency” case was mentioned earlier in the thread. Well his sentence has been overturned because "judges found he may have believed the child consented". The child was 10 ffs!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ira...
Not quite what it seems from the headlines. It is all down to the offence charged and the proof available to the court.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ira...
Derek Smith said:
BlackLabel said:
Although it's from next door in Austria this "sexual emergency” case was mentioned earlier in the thread. Well his sentence has been overturned because "judges found he may have believed the child consented". The child was 10 ffs!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ira...
Not quite what it seems from the headlines. It is all down to the offence charged and the proof available to the court.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ira...
I do hope you read the story linked and looked for other reports of the same event.
don'tbesilly said:
Unbelievable summation Derek!
I do hope you read the story linked and looked for other reports of the same event.
The report in the Independent is quite clear why the person has to be tried again. I do hope you read the story linked and looked for other reports of the same event.
I'm not sure what generated the exclamation mark. If you want me to explain the processes required by courts, I'll be happy to.
Derek Smith said:
Not quite what it seems from the headlines. It is all down to the offence charged and the proof available to the court.
independent said:
While the sexual abuse verdict was “watertight”, the more serious offence requires evidence that the defendant knew their victim did not consent to sex.
Supreme Court judges ruled that the first court should have established whether the attacker thought his victim agreed to a sexual act and intended to act against the boy’s will.
It really shouldn't matter though because a 10 year old cannot give consent in such a scenario. So all we're left with is what the rapist thought the boy wanted and would this really make a difference to the conviction and sentence?Supreme Court judges ruled that the first court should have established whether the attacker thought his victim agreed to a sexual act and intended to act against the boy’s will.
I guess this is a case of "their country, their rules" but it seems incredibly cruel and unnecessary to force a suicidal child and his family to go through another trial over what appears to be a technicality.
BlackLabel said:
It really shouldn't matter though because a 10 year old cannot give consent in such a scenario. So all we're left with is what the rapist thought the boy wanted and would this really make a difference to the conviction and sentence?
Nah you're wrong there BL. I mean Aisha was 9 and she must have consented, otherwise Mo would be a rapist and that can't be right, peace be upon him and all that.Edited by br d on Monday 24th October 18:08
Derek Smith said:
don'tbesilly said:
Unbelievable summation Derek!
I do hope you read the story linked and looked for other reports of the same event.
The report in the Independent is quite clear why the person has to be tried again. I do hope you read the story linked and looked for other reports of the same event.
I'm not sure what generated the exclamation mark. If you want me to explain the processes required by courts, I'll be happy to.
The exclamation mark was to register my disbelief in your stance, based on the report in the Independent.
It might have been clear to you that it was necessary to establish whether a 10 year old child had been asked and subsequently consented to be anally penetrated by 20 year old male, but I find it quite alarming.
Apparently a conviction was unsafe based on the premise that the ten year old had not definitely said yes or no, and it was therefore not clear whether the 20 year old had intended to act against the wishes of a 10 year old CHILD.
Beggars belief, but so much about immigration,religion,degree of latitude allowed as mitigation, which goes on to what's right and wrong in what I would consider to be normal people's minds.
You and I clearly see things differently.
BlackLabel said:
Derek Smith said:
Not quite what it seems from the headlines. It is all down to the offence charged and the proof available to the court.
independent said:
While the sexual abuse verdict was “watertight”, the more serious offence requires evidence that the defendant knew their victim did not consent to sex.
Supreme Court judges ruled that the first court should have established whether the attacker thought his victim agreed to a sexual act and intended to act against the boy’s will.
It really shouldn't matter though because a 10 year old cannot give consent in such a scenario. So all we're left with is what the rapist thought the boy wanted and would this really make a difference to the conviction and sentence?Supreme Court judges ruled that the first court should have established whether the attacker thought his victim agreed to a sexual act and intended to act against the boy’s will.
I guess this is a case of "their country, their rules" but it seems incredibly cruel and unnecessary to force a suicidal child and his family to go through another trial over what appears to be a technicality.
I would, quite naturally, agree that consent should not be a factor in this case. However, I know little about the system of law out there. I wonder why the lenient sentence? Could it be the offender's age. Whatever, the offender needs to be removed from society and for some time.
don'tbesilly said:
Derek Smith said:
don'tbesilly said:
Unbelievable summation Derek!
I do hope you read the story linked and looked for other reports of the same event.
The report in the Independent is quite clear why the person has to be tried again. I do hope you read the story linked and looked for other reports of the same event.
I'm not sure what generated the exclamation mark. If you want me to explain the processes required by courts, I'll be happy to.
The exclamation mark was to register my disbelief in your stance, based on the report in the Independent.
It might have been clear to you that it was necessary to establish whether a 10 year old child had been asked and subsequently consented to be anally penetrated by 20 year old male, but I find it quite alarming.
Apparently a conviction was unsafe based on the premise that the ten year old had not definitely said yes or no, and it was therefore not clear whether the 20 year old had intended to act against the wishes of a 10 year old CHILD.
Beggars belief, but so much about immigration,religion,degree of latitude allowed as mitigation, which goes on to what's right and wrong in what I would consider to be normal people's minds.
You and I clearly see things differently.
Unbelieveable story. He was even fined £3,700 - 20 year old Iraqi refugee, eh? Bet the family of the little boy, a REAL child in this case (note all you liberal luvvies out there) got that money, from a scumbag migrant, bottom of the cesspit migrant too.
I wonder what the reaction would have been here? In fact, now his conviction has been ridiculously overturned, perhaps he might want a better easier life ...here. He'd probably get it too.
You couldn't make up anything anymore. Makes you want to weep.
dandarez said:
I'm with you.
Unbelieveable story. He was even fined £3,700 - 20 year old Iraqi refugee, eh? Bet the family of the little boy, a REAL child in this case (note all you liberal luvvies out there) got that money, from a scumbag migrant, bottom of the cesspit migrant too.
I wonder what the reaction would have been here? In fact, now his conviction has been ridiculously overturned, perhaps he might want a better easier life ...here. He'd probably get it too.
You couldn't make up anything anymore. Makes you want to weep.
Which part of still in custody and retrial are you struggling with?Unbelieveable story. He was even fined £3,700 - 20 year old Iraqi refugee, eh? Bet the family of the little boy, a REAL child in this case (note all you liberal luvvies out there) got that money, from a scumbag migrant, bottom of the cesspit migrant too.
I wonder what the reaction would have been here? In fact, now his conviction has been ridiculously overturned, perhaps he might want a better easier life ...here. He'd probably get it too.
You couldn't make up anything anymore. Makes you want to weep.
It's a less than ideal situation, but legal process has to be followed - if you make exception for emotive cases like this, how many more cases do you want to except from the system? - and let's face it, no justice system is perfect - so we have to allow retrial, or innocent people could spend their entire lives locked up without any path for appeal.
don'tbesilly said:
I'll give that a miss thanks Derek.
The exclamation mark was to register my disbelief in your stance, based on the report in the Independent.
It might have been clear to you that it was necessary to establish whether a 10 year old child had been asked and subsequently consented to be anally penetrated by 20 year old male, but I find it quite alarming.
Apparently a conviction was unsafe based on the premise that the ten year old had not definitely said yes or no, and it was therefore not clear whether the 20 year old had intended to act against the wishes of a 10 year old CHILD.
Beggars belief, but so much about immigration,religion,degree of latitude allowed as mitigation, which goes on to what's right and wrong in what I would consider to be normal people's minds.
You and I clearly see things differently.
I think you and I read things differently.The exclamation mark was to register my disbelief in your stance, based on the report in the Independent.
It might have been clear to you that it was necessary to establish whether a 10 year old child had been asked and subsequently consented to be anally penetrated by 20 year old male, but I find it quite alarming.
Apparently a conviction was unsafe based on the premise that the ten year old had not definitely said yes or no, and it was therefore not clear whether the 20 year old had intended to act against the wishes of a 10 year old CHILD.
Beggars belief, but so much about immigration,religion,degree of latitude allowed as mitigation, which goes on to what's right and wrong in what I would consider to be normal people's minds.
You and I clearly see things differently.
As another poster said, due process has to be followed. It is imperfect but so will be whatever replaces it.
All that has been said is that lack of consent has not been proved. There is now to be a retrial. What beggars belief there?
It would appear that the prosecution has not done its job. A retrial seems fair in those circumstances. What do you suggest? Ignoring the rules of law in cases which are particularly offensive to you?
It would appear that the offender will be prosecuted for rape, and if the prosecution can prove that there was no consent, or perhaps that the offender did not believe there was consent, then the penalty remains.
You clearly don't understand my 'stance', even refusing to have me explain it. I know nothing about the law in Austria. But if the general public are happy with the law as decided by the legislature then it must run its course.
s3fella said:
Clearly, little Jurgen was gagging for it. Dressing provocatively in them trunks and all, the tease.
Tell me, how the f
k can a ten year old give consent to be emergency bummed?
was it a case of "if you consent I'll not cram my fist into your face"/"if you consent I'll not hurt your mother"? either way I can't help but think it'll aid the resurgence of the far right Tell me, how the f
k can a ten year old give consent to be emergency bummed? 
irocfan said:
s3fella said:
Clearly, little Jurgen was gagging for it. Dressing provocatively in them trunks and all, the tease.
Tell me, how the fk can a ten year old give consent to be emergency bummed?
was it a case of "if you consent I'll not cram my fist into your face"/"if you consent I'll not hurt your mother"? either way I can't help but think it'll aid the resurgence of the far right Tell me, how the f
k can a ten year old give consent to be emergency bummed? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff