Starmer And The Southpost Triple...
News1 min ago
Woman To Be Freed After Only 2-3 Months In Jail.
100 Answers
http://
Is 2-3 months in jail a satisfactory punishment for causing "catastrophic" brain injuries to one's child?.
Is 2-3 months in jail a satisfactory punishment for causing "catastrophic" brain injuries to one's child?.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"trig - that is true, but you must conceede that the thrust of AOG's post does indicate that he feels that 'satisfactory punishment' has not been issued here.
Of course, I along with others await AOG's response with interest"
what thrust, a simple question was asked
amazing how you managed to draw that conclusion, speculative at best
hold on I forgot on AB, 2 +2 = 5 according to some of you
Of course, I along with others await AOG's response with interest"
what thrust, a simple question was asked
amazing how you managed to draw that conclusion, speculative at best
hold on I forgot on AB, 2 +2 = 5 according to some of you
/ hold on I forgot on AB, 2 +2 = 5 according to some of you /
putting bazzer's little neuroses to one side
aog's question:
/Is 2-3 months in jail a satisfactory punishment for causing "catastrophic" brain injuries to one's child?/
clearly presupposes that some form of 'punishment' was appropriate
in fact, the Appeal Judges have ruled that no punishment was appropriate, so the question is, at the very least, irrelevant
putting bazzer's little neuroses to one side
aog's question:
/Is 2-3 months in jail a satisfactory punishment for causing "catastrophic" brain injuries to one's child?/
clearly presupposes that some form of 'punishment' was appropriate
in fact, the Appeal Judges have ruled that no punishment was appropriate, so the question is, at the very least, irrelevant
"clearly presupposes that some form of 'punishment' was appropriate "
it presupposes diddely except in your tiny little world of a mind
yet again the same old twisting and distorting game
explain where AOG presupposes suggests or otherwise that the sentence is not satisfactory or is it just the usual game of semantics and pedantry
it presupposes diddely except in your tiny little world of a mind
yet again the same old twisting and distorting game
explain where AOG presupposes suggests or otherwise that the sentence is not satisfactory or is it just the usual game of semantics and pedantry
yeah, if you are ill as in mad
then you are not usually held to be guilty of a crime
First surfaced in the 1840s with M'Naghten rules
and quite a few of the people attempting to shoot stab or blow up Quenn Vic (no not the pub) were found to be unfit to plead as it was at that time.
Queen Vic strongly dissenting on that one
then you are not usually held to be guilty of a crime
First surfaced in the 1840s with M'Naghten rules
and quite a few of the people attempting to shoot stab or blow up Quenn Vic (no not the pub) were found to be unfit to plead as it was at that time.
Queen Vic strongly dissenting on that one
/it presupposes diddely except in your tiny little world of a mind /
bazzer
you appear to be a bit short on the old: Comprehension of the English Language
If a question is asked "Is x enough of a Y?"
Then there is an inbuilt presupposition that there should be some amount of Y
You have to presuppose that in order to decide whether x is not enough or too much
"Is £10 the right amount to spend on a book?"; presupposes that you should spend any money on books
An idea I expect you would take issue with
bazzer
you appear to be a bit short on the old: Comprehension of the English Language
If a question is asked "Is x enough of a Y?"
Then there is an inbuilt presupposition that there should be some amount of Y
You have to presuppose that in order to decide whether x is not enough or too much
"Is £10 the right amount to spend on a book?"; presupposes that you should spend any money on books
An idea I expect you would take issue with
/explain where AOG presupposes suggests or otherwise that the sentence is not satisfactory or is it just the usual game of semantics and pedantry /
bazzer (good grief this is like remedial work)
i never said aog presupposes the sentence is not satisfactory
I said he presupposes that 'punishment' of some form was in order and the Courts have just ruled it wasn't - hence his question is irrelevant
semantics (that you seem so disdainful of) concerns the correct use of words
as all we have on here is communication through an exchange of words, I would suggest that using them correctly is rather useful.
the only people who would disdain the correct use of words in these exchanges are the poorly educated, the lazy minded or those who think that the sloppy use of words will help in the communication of their vague and poorly thought through ideas
bazzer (good grief this is like remedial work)
i never said aog presupposes the sentence is not satisfactory
I said he presupposes that 'punishment' of some form was in order and the Courts have just ruled it wasn't - hence his question is irrelevant
semantics (that you seem so disdainful of) concerns the correct use of words
as all we have on here is communication through an exchange of words, I would suggest that using them correctly is rather useful.
the only people who would disdain the correct use of words in these exchanges are the poorly educated, the lazy minded or those who think that the sloppy use of words will help in the communication of their vague and poorly thought through ideas
bednobs - my answer was intended to be light-hearted, I think it has lost some of its levity between my keyboard and the Site!
that said, there is a valid argument that men are not always empathetic of wsomens' circumstances, fair enough that is lack of circumstance, rather than lack of desire, but the fact remains.
It was illustrated by the rather wonderful cod-Country musician Hank Wangford - his day job, as Kim Hut, is a gynachologist.
Mr Hut points out that he always gives an aneasthetic before fitting an inter-uterine coil because it can often be painful, but a lot of his male colleagues have never considered that.
As Mr Hut advises - no man would offer a dental filling without anaesthetic because we all have mouths, and know what the pain is, but oonly women have wombs - hence his point, which is valid.
So - please ignore my sledgehammer humour - put it down to the heat!
that said, there is a valid argument that men are not always empathetic of wsomens' circumstances, fair enough that is lack of circumstance, rather than lack of desire, but the fact remains.
It was illustrated by the rather wonderful cod-Country musician Hank Wangford - his day job, as Kim Hut, is a gynachologist.
Mr Hut points out that he always gives an aneasthetic before fitting an inter-uterine coil because it can often be painful, but a lot of his male colleagues have never considered that.
As Mr Hut advises - no man would offer a dental filling without anaesthetic because we all have mouths, and know what the pain is, but oonly women have wombs - hence his point, which is valid.
So - please ignore my sledgehammer humour - put it down to the heat!
It looks as if the judge in the original case did accept the diagnosis....
"Judge Kate Thirlwall said she accepted Abdulrahman's actions were not premeditated and she was suffering from post-natal psychosis at the time.
In sentencing the Iraqi national, she said: "You will have to live with the consequences of your actions for the rest of your life."
http://
"Judge Kate Thirlwall said she accepted Abdulrahman's actions were not premeditated and she was suffering from post-natal psychosis at the time.
In sentencing the Iraqi national, she said: "You will have to live with the consequences of your actions for the rest of your life."
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.