Irish Sports
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
28 Jan 14
10:49
Joined:
Date Joined:
30 Nov 10
Ireland should reject this courts ruling and refuse to pay the massive legal bills.
This is the court that upheld the rights of the Jordanian Imam against deportation from Britain costing Britain millions.
They have now ruled the state liable for a host of compensation claims from people who have already received compensation.
Its never ending,you now get some dubious compensation you spend it so you return for more this has now become the norm,the excuses are childlike,we didnt know how to handle the money first time round.
Those rapacious lawyers are rubbing their hands,the state is now defenceless before them watch the billions they claim in dubious fees.
The one time the Irish Courts cried halt to the compensation culture they got the European Court to overturn the decisions.
Compensation is now to be paid at the double,when you spend the first tranche you just return for some more justice.
This is the court that upheld the rights of the Jordanian Imam against deportation from Britain costing Britain millions.
They have now ruled the state liable for a host of compensation claims from people who have already received compensation.
Its never ending,you now get some dubious compensation you spend it so you return for more this has now become the norm,the excuses are childlike,we didnt know how to handle the money first time round.
Those rapacious lawyers are rubbing their hands,the state is now defenceless before them watch the billions they claim in dubious fees.
The one time the Irish Courts cried halt to the compensation culture they got the European Court to overturn the decisions.
Compensation is now to be paid at the double,when you spend the first tranche you just return for some more justice.
Show More
Flood gates now open it seems.
The State ( we the taxpayers) must prevent all crime everywhere or else pay all victims handsomely.
Makes no sense to me. Thankfully it made no sense to six members of the European Court either so at least I'm not alone.
The triumph of Political Correctness is now complete. It has overwhelmed the Education system ( I saw this happening at first hand years ago) and now it has nobbled the Legal arena.
Open your purses folks and pay up with a smile.
The State ( we the taxpayers) must prevent all crime everywhere or else pay all victims handsomely.
Makes no sense to me. Thankfully it made no sense to six members of the European Court either so at least I'm not alone.
The triumph of Political Correctness is now complete. It has overwhelmed the Education system ( I saw this happening at first hand years ago) and now it has nobbled the Legal arena.
Open your purses folks and pay up with a smile.
I hear the beneficiary of this largesse saying its a victory for the children of Ireland,its definitely not.
How do they think the government are going to fund all this top up compensation,fund those as usual brilliant legal teams,probably by cutting the education budget.
How do they think the government are going to fund all this top up compensation,fund those as usual brilliant legal teams,probably by cutting the education budget.
This has nothing to do with children now at school,a woman got an award of 300,000 but thought there was more money to be got so spurred on by a brilliant legal team went to the High Court,lost went to the Supreme Court lost and then went to Europe.
The fact that we the state were winning two nil is deemed irrelevant,the European Court trumps everything and always rules against the nation state.
There is now going to be yet another fund set up to compensate these people who have already been compensated,a sort of top up fund,a second time round fund.
It will be music to the ears of the legal profession,back payments going back years a chastened State afraid to query any bill.
The fact that we the state were winning two nil is deemed irrelevant,the European Court trumps everything and always rules against the nation state.
There is now going to be yet another fund set up to compensate these people who have already been compensated,a sort of top up fund,a second time round fund.
It will be music to the ears of the legal profession,back payments going back years a chastened State afraid to query any bill.
wildman where did your thread on conor cusack go? I see he now has announced that he likes men also......
They will probably find a way to make that compensatable.
http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/girls-brain-injected-with-glue
A UK teenager is set to receive a multi-million pound payout after an operation at Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital left her permanently brain-damaged.
Maisha Najeeb has a rare condition, which means her veins and arteries are tangled.
Despite this, she was a healthy 10-year-old before attending Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital in June 2010.
Treatment of her condition involves injecting glue to block bleeding arteries and injecting a harmless dye to check the flow of blood around the brain and head.
On this occasion, her lawyer Edwina Rawson has stated, the syringes containing the glue and those containing the dye got mixed up, resulting in glue being injected into Najeeb's brain, causing devastating damage.
Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, responsible for carrying out the operation, was ordered to pay the girl a lump sum of £2.8 million lump sum. They will also have to pay her a total of £383,000 a year until she is 19, increasing to £423,000 per year for the rest of her life. She has a life expectancy of around 64.
The Hospital Trust praised parents Sadir Hussain and Rukshana, who have provided "probably the most intensive cognitive rehabilitation we have ever seen by a family", said Neil Block, QC.
Outside court, Sadir Hussain said "We are sad and devastated by what has happened to our daughter. Her life is ruined."
The compensation paid out will go towards providing care and assistance to the 13-year-old girl, who has now lost the vast majority of her physical and cognitive capabilities.
A UK teenager is set to receive a multi-million pound payout after an operation at Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital left her permanently brain-damaged.
Maisha Najeeb has a rare condition, which means her veins and arteries are tangled.
Despite this, she was a healthy 10-year-old before attending Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital in June 2010.
Treatment of her condition involves injecting glue to block bleeding arteries and injecting a harmless dye to check the flow of blood around the brain and head.
On this occasion, her lawyer Edwina Rawson has stated, the syringes containing the glue and those containing the dye got mixed up, resulting in glue being injected into Najeeb's brain, causing devastating damage.
Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, responsible for carrying out the operation, was ordered to pay the girl a lump sum of £2.8 million lump sum. They will also have to pay her a total of £383,000 a year until she is 19, increasing to £423,000 per year for the rest of her life. She has a life expectancy of around 64.
The Hospital Trust praised parents Sadir Hussain and Rukshana, who have provided "probably the most intensive cognitive rehabilitation we have ever seen by a family", said Neil Block, QC.
Outside court, Sadir Hussain said "We are sad and devastated by what has happened to our daughter. Her life is ruined."
The compensation paid out will go towards providing care and assistance to the 13-year-old girl, who has now lost the vast majority of her physical and cognitive capabilities.
Wildman, I cannot agree with your opinions on this topic.
Ms O'Keeffe's appeal was based on the refusal of the Irish HC/SC to hold the Irish State vicariously liable for the sexual abuse she suffered while in primary school at the hands of Leo Hickey who in turn was employed by the Catholic Church and paid by the State, but not directly employed by the State.
The Irish SC took the line of least resistance and held that since her abuser wasn't directly 'employed' by the State, the State wasn't liable.
Today's ruling has interesting ramifications for the whole detour/frolic line of reasoning when assessing vicarious liability.
Today's ECHR decision is more in line with the change of jurisprudence on this area of vicarious liability of the Canadian SC in 1999, which our SC chose not to follow (mainly based on policy considerations) and to a lesser extent the jurisprudence of the House of Lords in 2002.
It's worth reading the main finding in the ECHR judgment:
The crucial question in this case was not the responsibility of LH, of a clerical Manager or Patron, of a
parent or of any other individual for the sexual abuse to which Ms O’Keeffe was subjected in 1973.
Rather the case concerned the State’s responsibility and whether it should have been aware of a risk
of sexual abuse of minors such as the applicant in National Schools at the relevant time and whether
it had adequately protected children, through its legal system, from such ill-treatment.
On the first point, the Court found that the State had to have been aware of the level of sexual crime
against minors through its prosecution of such crimes at a significant rate prior to the 1970s. A
number of reports from the 1930s to the 1970s gave detailed statistical evidence on the prosecution
rates in Ireland for sexual offences against children. The Ryan Report of May 2009 also evidenced
complaints made to the authorities prior to and during the 1970s about the sexual abuse of children
by adults. Although that report focused on reformatory and industrial schools, complaints about
abuse in National Schools were recorded.
Despite this awareness, the Irish State continued to entrust the management of the primary
education of the vast majority of young Irish children to privately managed National Schools,
without putting in place any mechanism of effective State control.
The Government maintained that certain mechanisms of detection and reporting had been in place.
However, the Court did not consider these to be effective.
In the first place, the Government pointed to the 1965 Rules for National Schools and the 1970
Guidance Note outlining the practice to be followed for complaints against teachers. However,
neither referred to any obligation of the authorities to monitor a teacher’s treatment of children nor
provided a procedure for prompting a child or parent to complain about ill-treatment directly to a
State authority. Indeed, the Guidance Note specifically channelled complaints directly to non-State
Managers, generally the local priest as in Ms O’Keeffe’s case. Complaints had in effect been made in
1971 and 1973 about LH to the Manager of Ms O’Keeffe’s school but the Manager had not brought
those complaints to the notice of any State authority.
Secondly, the system of School Inspectors, also relied upon by the Government, did not refer to any
obligation on Inspectors to inquire into or monitor a teacher’s treatment of children, their task
principally being to supervise and report on the quality of teaching and academic performance.
While the Inspector assigned to Ms O’Keeffe’s school in Dunderrow had made six visits from 1969 to
1973, no complaint had ever been made to him about LH.
Indeed, no complaint about LH’s activities had been made to a State authority until 1995, after LH
had retired. The Court considered that any system of detection and reporting which allowed over
400 incidents of abuse by LH to occur over such a long period had to be considered to be ineffective.
Adequate action taken on the 1971 complaint could reasonably have been expected to avoid Ms
O’Keeffe being abused two years later by the same teacher in the same school.
In sum, in Ms O’Keeffe’s case, the consequences of a lack of protection from abuse had been the
failure by the non-State Manager to act on prior complaints of sexual abuse by LH, Ms O’Keeffe’s
later abuse by LH and, more broadly, the prolonged and serious sexual misconduct by LH against
numerous other students in that same National School.
Therefore, the Irish State had failed to meet its obligation to protect Ms O’Keeffe from the sexual
abuse to which she had been subjected in 1973 whilst a pupil in Dunderrow National School, in
violation of Article 3
Article 13 (recognition at national level of the failure to protect Ms O’Keeffe from abuse) in
conjunction with Article 3
The Court considered that it had not been shown that any of the national remedies on which the
Government had relied (the State’s vicarious liability, a claim against the State in direct negligence or
a constitutional tort claim) had been effective as regards Ms O’Keeffe’s complaint about the failure
to protect her from abuse. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13.
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court held, by eleven votes to six, that Ireland was to pay Ms O’Keeffe 30,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 85,000 for costs and expenses
I think is it entirely incorrect of you to surmise that Ms O'Keeffe:
(a) received dubious compensation for the terrible wrong perpetrated upon her;
(b) squandered her compensation money; and
(c) received compensation on the double.
Ms O'Keeffe apparently received €53k from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and as you alluded to, secured an order for judgment in default against her abuser for €300k (of which she appears to have received only €30k). Small recompense in my book for the crime committed. Negligence is nearly always about the 'deep pocket' and since her abuser is impecunious, she was entitled to sue the State. If I was to fault Ms O'Keeffe at all, it is for not having sued the Church in her action - they were the obvious deep pocket and should be made pay for their negligence.
The ECHR has awarded her €30k payable by the Irish State plus her legal costs. The Court found that the Irish State in the 1970's knew or ought to have known of the sexual abuse being perpetrated on children in national schools and failed to protect in this instance a child from being subjected to such abuse by allowing primary education to be conducted in this school by a non-state body, where it was known that sexual abuse had or might occur.
There is a very strong resonance with the conduct of Father Seán Brady surrounding complaints made about Brendan Smyth in 1975.
I have no qualms with taxpayer money money being used to pay compensation for clerical sex abuse, because I have to accept the will of the majority when they elect politicians like Michael Woods to ensure that taxpayers carry the can.
Subject to correct, it would seem that the State will get off lightly here, since they won't have to pay the difference between the €300k and the €125k awarded by the ECHR!
Ms O'Keeffe is to be applauded for her persistence.
Ms O'Keeffe's appeal was based on the refusal of the Irish HC/SC to hold the Irish State vicariously liable for the sexual abuse she suffered while in primary school at the hands of Leo Hickey who in turn was employed by the Catholic Church and paid by the State, but not directly employed by the State.
The Irish SC took the line of least resistance and held that since her abuser wasn't directly 'employed' by the State, the State wasn't liable.
Today's ruling has interesting ramifications for the whole detour/frolic line of reasoning when assessing vicarious liability.
Today's ECHR decision is more in line with the change of jurisprudence on this area of vicarious liability of the Canadian SC in 1999, which our SC chose not to follow (mainly based on policy considerations) and to a lesser extent the jurisprudence of the House of Lords in 2002.
It's worth reading the main finding in the ECHR judgment:
The crucial question in this case was not the responsibility of LH, of a clerical Manager or Patron, of a
parent or of any other individual for the sexual abuse to which Ms O’Keeffe was subjected in 1973.
Rather the case concerned the State’s responsibility and whether it should have been aware of a risk
of sexual abuse of minors such as the applicant in National Schools at the relevant time and whether
it had adequately protected children, through its legal system, from such ill-treatment.
On the first point, the Court found that the State had to have been aware of the level of sexual crime
against minors through its prosecution of such crimes at a significant rate prior to the 1970s. A
number of reports from the 1930s to the 1970s gave detailed statistical evidence on the prosecution
rates in Ireland for sexual offences against children. The Ryan Report of May 2009 also evidenced
complaints made to the authorities prior to and during the 1970s about the sexual abuse of children
by adults. Although that report focused on reformatory and industrial schools, complaints about
abuse in National Schools were recorded.
Despite this awareness, the Irish State continued to entrust the management of the primary
education of the vast majority of young Irish children to privately managed National Schools,
without putting in place any mechanism of effective State control.
The Government maintained that certain mechanisms of detection and reporting had been in place.
However, the Court did not consider these to be effective.
In the first place, the Government pointed to the 1965 Rules for National Schools and the 1970
Guidance Note outlining the practice to be followed for complaints against teachers. However,
neither referred to any obligation of the authorities to monitor a teacher’s treatment of children nor
provided a procedure for prompting a child or parent to complain about ill-treatment directly to a
State authority. Indeed, the Guidance Note specifically channelled complaints directly to non-State
Managers, generally the local priest as in Ms O’Keeffe’s case. Complaints had in effect been made in
1971 and 1973 about LH to the Manager of Ms O’Keeffe’s school but the Manager had not brought
those complaints to the notice of any State authority.
Secondly, the system of School Inspectors, also relied upon by the Government, did not refer to any
obligation on Inspectors to inquire into or monitor a teacher’s treatment of children, their task
principally being to supervise and report on the quality of teaching and academic performance.
While the Inspector assigned to Ms O’Keeffe’s school in Dunderrow had made six visits from 1969 to
1973, no complaint had ever been made to him about LH.
Indeed, no complaint about LH’s activities had been made to a State authority until 1995, after LH
had retired. The Court considered that any system of detection and reporting which allowed over
400 incidents of abuse by LH to occur over such a long period had to be considered to be ineffective.
Adequate action taken on the 1971 complaint could reasonably have been expected to avoid Ms
O’Keeffe being abused two years later by the same teacher in the same school.
In sum, in Ms O’Keeffe’s case, the consequences of a lack of protection from abuse had been the
failure by the non-State Manager to act on prior complaints of sexual abuse by LH, Ms O’Keeffe’s
later abuse by LH and, more broadly, the prolonged and serious sexual misconduct by LH against
numerous other students in that same National School.
Therefore, the Irish State had failed to meet its obligation to protect Ms O’Keeffe from the sexual
abuse to which she had been subjected in 1973 whilst a pupil in Dunderrow National School, in
violation of Article 3
Article 13 (recognition at national level of the failure to protect Ms O’Keeffe from abuse) in
conjunction with Article 3
The Court considered that it had not been shown that any of the national remedies on which the
Government had relied (the State’s vicarious liability, a claim against the State in direct negligence or
a constitutional tort claim) had been effective as regards Ms O’Keeffe’s complaint about the failure
to protect her from abuse. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13.
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court held, by eleven votes to six, that Ireland was to pay Ms O’Keeffe 30,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 85,000 for costs and expenses
I think is it entirely incorrect of you to surmise that Ms O'Keeffe:
(a) received dubious compensation for the terrible wrong perpetrated upon her;
(b) squandered her compensation money; and
(c) received compensation on the double.
Ms O'Keeffe apparently received €53k from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and as you alluded to, secured an order for judgment in default against her abuser for €300k (of which she appears to have received only €30k). Small recompense in my book for the crime committed. Negligence is nearly always about the 'deep pocket' and since her abuser is impecunious, she was entitled to sue the State. If I was to fault Ms O'Keeffe at all, it is for not having sued the Church in her action - they were the obvious deep pocket and should be made pay for their negligence.
The ECHR has awarded her €30k payable by the Irish State plus her legal costs. The Court found that the Irish State in the 1970's knew or ought to have known of the sexual abuse being perpetrated on children in national schools and failed to protect in this instance a child from being subjected to such abuse by allowing primary education to be conducted in this school by a non-state body, where it was known that sexual abuse had or might occur.
There is a very strong resonance with the conduct of Father Seán Brady surrounding complaints made about Brendan Smyth in 1975.
I have no qualms with taxpayer money money being used to pay compensation for clerical sex abuse, because I have to accept the will of the majority when they elect politicians like Michael Woods to ensure that taxpayers carry the can.
Subject to correct, it would seem that the State will get off lightly here, since they won't have to pay the difference between the €300k and the €125k awarded by the ECHR!
Ms O'Keeffe is to be applauded for her persistence.
You make a very good case and I can't find any fault in your thought process.
I am against this idea that everything is compensatable.
I am against anyone getting compensation more than once.
I am against the concept that the State is not allowed defend itself.
I am against the ludicrous amounts doled out.
In this particular case this woman sued and got an award,she sued again and got another award,that wasn't enough went for a third strike but this time she lost in both the High Court and Supreme Court but the State for fear of being called cruel refused to press for costs which they were duty bound to.
WWW states the State got off lightly,well thank God for that because we are the State.
Michael Woods was correct with regards the Church as Bertie Ahern decided to give everyone compensation whether deserved or not.
The Church would have mounted some defence but again no defence is allowed and the reason no defence allowed they might have to prove something,most of these claims seem bogus.
This idea that vast swathes of money will cure all misfortune is crazy and unsustainable.
If people are so mercenary then their claims should be treated in a mercenary way,this new source of cash is the death of a child when on a strictly mercenary basis the death is a saving.
The Bono Bob Geldof syndrome is a desire to give away others monies,our judges have it in spades,this is further aggravated by the judges ruling against the State in pursuit of their pay claim
I am against this idea that everything is compensatable.
I am against anyone getting compensation more than once.
I am against the concept that the State is not allowed defend itself.
I am against the ludicrous amounts doled out.
In this particular case this woman sued and got an award,she sued again and got another award,that wasn't enough went for a third strike but this time she lost in both the High Court and Supreme Court but the State for fear of being called cruel refused to press for costs which they were duty bound to.
WWW states the State got off lightly,well thank God for that because we are the State.
Michael Woods was correct with regards the Church as Bertie Ahern decided to give everyone compensation whether deserved or not.
The Church would have mounted some defence but again no defence is allowed and the reason no defence allowed they might have to prove something,most of these claims seem bogus.
This idea that vast swathes of money will cure all misfortune is crazy and unsustainable.
If people are so mercenary then their claims should be treated in a mercenary way,this new source of cash is the death of a child when on a strictly mercenary basis the death is a saving.
The Bono Bob Geldof syndrome is a desire to give away others monies,our judges have it in spades,this is further aggravated by the judges ruling against the State in pursuit of their pay claim
What I find intriguing in all this sorry case is that abuse occurred in the school situation and it has to be obvious that the state was responsible for the running of education in Ireland but yet the state was prepared to wash it's hands of responsibility for what had happened, but, the real intriguing thing to me is the viciousness with which the Government pursued the 135 other victims to drop their cases and the coincidence of the high and supreme court interpreting their decision in the case as the Department had done. wildman there is a time for compensation but in this case there should be an examination of the facts and an inquiry as to whether the correct advise was given in the first instance.
The compensation seekers are allowed use every trick in the book,get sympathetic RTE interviews,threaten any official or politician who has the temerity to question their demands for cash.
The State has a duty of care to look after the States finances,the use of the term viciousness is emotive but surely you will allow us the State some defence.
The State has a duty of care to look after the States finances,the use of the term viciousness is emotive but surely you will allow us the State some defence.
Mixed emotions.
Is justice that this teacher served time in jail?
Culture of compensation is not being questioned enough.
Is justice that this teacher served time in jail?
Culture of compensation is not being questioned enough.
Here is a list of the age of consent of all the countries in Europe, your a pervert if you have sex with a 16 year old in Ireland but if you have sex with a 13 year old in Spain, bobs your uncle?, anybody like to give me some sort of explanation that can justify how you're labeled as a pervert in one country for having sex with a girl 3 years older than the girl in Spain?.
Consent by age[edit]
The age of consent is 13 in Spain. It is 14 in Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino and Serbia. It is 15 in the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Faroe Islands, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. It is 16 in Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine and the UK. It is 17 in Ireland and 18 in Malta and Turkey.
Consent by age[edit]
The age of consent is 13 in Spain. It is 14 in Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino and Serbia. It is 15 in the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Faroe Islands, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. It is 16 in Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine and the UK. It is 17 in Ireland and 18 in Malta and Turkey.
Greaser, just to be thorough and clear, the ages of consent listed above can vary for Homosexual sex. Just in case we have any tuning in or in our midst.
fair enough oz but I'm asking a pretty serious question here, you can if you want have sex with a 13 year old in Spain without breaking the law but you cant have sex with a 16 year old in Ireland, and if you do your instantly branded a sex offender, go figure?
and you may scoff but apparently academic research suggests that Gay men are likelier to gamble addictively;
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/061109_gambling.htm
All gay forumites should be reassured that the Irish Forum is a very supportive, progresssive, modern and understanding environment and they should not hesitate to be open with us.
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/061109_gambling.htm
All gay forumites should be reassured that the Irish Forum is a very supportive, progresssive, modern and understanding environment and they should not hesitate to be open with us.
Greaser, I don't know what to say to you about the 13 yo Spanish Chick. I am not a lawyer but my reading of the law is that you are off the hook!
Homosexuality has been with us since time began, take the Spartans for instance they nurtured their young braves by giving them over to a tutor who would teach them the skills of war but also give them sexual relieve.
There's no absolute morality.
Mores change from culture to culture and from era to era within cultures.
Laws change according as attitudes change -e.g. slavery , the death penalty , homosexuality , prostitution etc.
No one knows what should absolutely be done -but something HAS to be decided so arbitrary decisions emerge and survive until the attitudinal pendulum swings again.
To take an example from Gaelic literature -Seán O Riordain wrote a poem in which he lamented that when he was young women tended to be frigid and sexuality was a fraught business. But when he was an old man he saw that women were parading around half-naked, letting it all hang out and as well as procreational sex we now had a whole new ballgame (sic) called recreational sex.
It's all a philosophical dilemma and no definitive answers are available. We all- individuals , groups , countries -muddle through.
Mores change from culture to culture and from era to era within cultures.
Laws change according as attitudes change -e.g. slavery , the death penalty , homosexuality , prostitution etc.
No one knows what should absolutely be done -but something HAS to be decided so arbitrary decisions emerge and survive until the attitudinal pendulum swings again.
To take an example from Gaelic literature -Seán O Riordain wrote a poem in which he lamented that when he was young women tended to be frigid and sexuality was a fraught business. But when he was an old man he saw that women were parading around half-naked, letting it all hang out and as well as procreational sex we now had a whole new ballgame (sic) called recreational sex.
It's all a philosophical dilemma and no definitive answers are available. We all- individuals , groups , countries -muddle through.
What has the age of consent got to do with this case.
I watched Prime Time and it was as one sided as I expected it to be,gushing interview after gushing interview followed by an interview with some law professor,she could hardly conceal her glee and demanded a special fund for all these victims plus another tranche of claimants in that anyone who suffered physical abuse now entitled to claim.
My tongue in cheek suggestion of an award of a hundred grand for anyone born before 1960 is beginning to look reasonable
I watched Prime Time and it was as one sided as I expected it to be,gushing interview after gushing interview followed by an interview with some law professor,she could hardly conceal her glee and demanded a special fund for all these victims plus another tranche of claimants in that anyone who suffered physical abuse now entitled to claim.
My tongue in cheek suggestion of an award of a hundred grand for anyone born before 1960 is beginning to look reasonable
That is a good question vubiant what constitutes absolute morality when the lines are drawn so differently depending on the country you live in?
Funny isn't it that Spain is a very Catholic country yet it has the most lax laws when it comes to sexual consent?
Funny isn't it that Spain is a very Catholic country yet it has the most lax laws when it comes to sexual consent?
Wildman I was just giving an example she was 14 when the abuse happened but if she was spanish she wouldve been deemed consenting?
sorry I should've re-worded that wildman I'm not saying for one second she wasn't taken advantage of which she almost certainly was.
In a medium sized town in Andalusia -San Pedro de Alcantara- about 6 years ago, walking around during the siesta, I saw two teenagers ,boy + girl about 13/15 age bracket having what appeared to be full penetrative sex standing up against a wall.
It was a street where there would be reasonable footfall although it was quiet at that time. I didn't know what to think -I was surprised but not shocked. One might expect this at night after some liquor to lubricate the passions but this was 2.00 in the middle of the day. I changed course and let them at it.
First and only time I've seen that -but it wouldn't surprise me if it cropped up on some Irish street now and again.
It was a street where there would be reasonable footfall although it was quiet at that time. I didn't know what to think -I was surprised but not shocked. One might expect this at night after some liquor to lubricate the passions but this was 2.00 in the middle of the day. I changed course and let them at it.
First and only time I've seen that -but it wouldn't surprise me if it cropped up on some Irish street now and again.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539