News3 mins ago
Maybe Footballer Adam Johnson Won't Get Such A Harsh Jail Sentence After All?
180 Answers
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.
And still the lofty chin-stroking comparisons flood in from those who want to see the Muslim groomers as worse than Johnson, and their only conclusion seems to be that if the Muslim groomers are more guilty, then Johnson must be less guilty, and that is the point I simply cannot stomach.
Comparisons in these cases are meaningless, so why does one side of the argument continue to make them with such vigour and determination?
If the man next door breaks his leg, does that alleviate my tooth ache? Both of us are in pain, his more serious than mine, but the comparison is utterly futile.
Ask any one of the grooming victims in either case if the fact that there were more or less people involved in her situation, does that make her feel any better, any less abused?
According the to 'Comparison Kings' it must do - its the basis of their argument.
I would suggest that it does not - and that we stop making comparisons that waste valuable time.
Which brings me neatly back to the OP - remember that????
'Maybe' the judge will deal with the case on its individual circumstances, as it is only right and proper that he does, and he will not do as some on here and pootle around in ever-decreasing circles with a 'Worse things happen at sea ...' triteness that fails to address the singularity of these crimes - the sexual abuse of children.
Comparisons in these cases are meaningless, so why does one side of the argument continue to make them with such vigour and determination?
If the man next door breaks his leg, does that alleviate my tooth ache? Both of us are in pain, his more serious than mine, but the comparison is utterly futile.
Ask any one of the grooming victims in either case if the fact that there were more or less people involved in her situation, does that make her feel any better, any less abused?
According the to 'Comparison Kings' it must do - its the basis of their argument.
I would suggest that it does not - and that we stop making comparisons that waste valuable time.
Which brings me neatly back to the OP - remember that????
'Maybe' the judge will deal with the case on its individual circumstances, as it is only right and proper that he does, and he will not do as some on here and pootle around in ever-decreasing circles with a 'Worse things happen at sea ...' triteness that fails to address the singularity of these crimes - the sexual abuse of children.
-- answer removed --
I haven’t read all the posts but I think I get the gist of the argument from andy-hughes extraordinary offering at 22:20 of chin-stroking, toothaches and broken legs. As I see it one is a stupid flash git who keeps his brains in his pants and has eager young girls throwing themselves at him purely for his ‘celebrity’ - the others, the absolute vilest of creatures. Which crime is more serious? The Muslim groomers without doubt.
Here are three scenarios. Let's imagine that the victim in each case is the same fifteen year old girl.
First scenario.
Victim walking home is attacked, dragged into an alley and raped. Perpetrator makes off after ten minutes.
Second scenario.
Victim is attacked, has a knife put to her throat and is forced into a shed in a nearby allotment when he ties her up, has a few beers then rapes her. Perpetrator leaves after an hour.
Third scenario.
Same as 2, but after the rape the perpetrator starts calling his friends. They turn up at intervals and the girl is subjected to further rapes. This continues until early morning when the last rapists leave.
If you consider these three scenarios I think some observations SHOULD be self-evident:
1. Case 3 is a more heinous crime than case 1.
2. The terror suffered by the victim is greater in case 3 than in case 1.
3. The effects on the health of the victim, both mental and physical, both in the short and long term, are likely to be worse in case 3 than in case 1.
4. A judge who awarded the same punishment in each case would be defective not only in his sense of natural justice, but in his grasp of common humanity.
Which brings me "neatly back" to some recent stupid remarks.
Here's one:
"and their only conclusion seems to be that if the Muslim groomers are more guilty, then Johnson must be less guilty, and that is the point I simply cannot stomach."
Toothache AND stomach ache, eh? Oh dear. Anyway, the argument, Mr. Hughes, is not about degrees of guilt, it's about the severity of the crime and punishment accordingly. Is that SO very difficult to understand?
Here's a second:
"Ask any one of the grooming victims in either case if the fact that there were more or less people involved in her situation, does that make her feel any better, any less abused? ...
I would suggest that it does not."
I think this remark is far worse than merely stupid. It suggests at the very least limited powers of imagination. What do you think about it, Pixie?
First scenario.
Victim walking home is attacked, dragged into an alley and raped. Perpetrator makes off after ten minutes.
Second scenario.
Victim is attacked, has a knife put to her throat and is forced into a shed in a nearby allotment when he ties her up, has a few beers then rapes her. Perpetrator leaves after an hour.
Third scenario.
Same as 2, but after the rape the perpetrator starts calling his friends. They turn up at intervals and the girl is subjected to further rapes. This continues until early morning when the last rapists leave.
If you consider these three scenarios I think some observations SHOULD be self-evident:
1. Case 3 is a more heinous crime than case 1.
2. The terror suffered by the victim is greater in case 3 than in case 1.
3. The effects on the health of the victim, both mental and physical, both in the short and long term, are likely to be worse in case 3 than in case 1.
4. A judge who awarded the same punishment in each case would be defective not only in his sense of natural justice, but in his grasp of common humanity.
Which brings me "neatly back" to some recent stupid remarks.
Here's one:
"and their only conclusion seems to be that if the Muslim groomers are more guilty, then Johnson must be less guilty, and that is the point I simply cannot stomach."
Toothache AND stomach ache, eh? Oh dear. Anyway, the argument, Mr. Hughes, is not about degrees of guilt, it's about the severity of the crime and punishment accordingly. Is that SO very difficult to understand?
Here's a second:
"Ask any one of the grooming victims in either case if the fact that there were more or less people involved in her situation, does that make her feel any better, any less abused? ...
I would suggest that it does not."
I think this remark is far worse than merely stupid. It suggests at the very least limited powers of imagination. What do you think about it, Pixie?
-- answer removed --
v-e; Firstly it questioned knowledge of my religious outlook, and then challenged the view that anyone upholding a religious position, be it Christian or whatever, was somehow contradicting it by holding forthright views and defending them robustly, and then it more or less reiterated my previous post above, (23:14 Thurs.)
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.