h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Really, look:

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=12366946&src=rss/oddlyEnoughNews

What is that? Some kind of warped joke?

Hopefully it's simply a joke - but even if that _is_ the case, it's in rather bad taste...

I doubt it is a joke, the Dutch are not renowned for them.

Novo

Well, to be honest I think it has its positives

1) the ridiculously low number of votes that they will recieve might penetrate the skulls of some of them as a signal of the general opprobrium in which they are held.

2) Anybody styanding for the party can instantly be taken off the streets and thoroughly investigated.

"Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal"

Ummm, and the difference is . . . ?


az

These are people who don't understand that sex with a 12 year old would be abuse.

You expect them to understand it about animals?

If nothing else, at least these sickos will be publicaly naming themselves, so they can't be too bright then!

As a slight aside, this has a huge resonance in Ireland at the moment. The Supreme Court overturned a law on statuary rape a couple of days ago deeming it to be "unconstitutional". Child sex offenders are lining up one-by-one to be freed from prison, and they are being set free.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5034248.stm

Interesting.

In the UK, you get one go at saying you didn't know the age of the aggrieved. And you still have to take your chances with a jury.

But you can only use that defence *once*.

Not knowing much about the Irish Constitution, why would *not* being able to use that defence be unconstitutional? (The article is not clear on the reasoning, merely the furore the decisuion has caused.)

I was going to starts a thread on that irish law change. Very weird.

In Denmark there is something called the Pedophile Group, a sort of club. Due to the laws on congregation in the constitution such a group cannot be made illegal. But I do hope the police are keeping an eye on the members.

Perhaps they saw the law as being about defending your innocence, instead of having to have your guilt proven. But really it is when you have been shown guilty, and you are arguing for mitigating circumstances.

The full reasoning is below (good luck! )

It appears that because the original 1935 law excluded any defence based on a mistake as to the other persons age. So if you had done it, irrespective of the circumstances, you were automatically found guilty. I think the closest the Constitution comes to is Article 40.3.2 "The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen." In essence, everyone is entitled to a reasonable defense.

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/877f6b6773b3dcee80257177003c6586?OpenDocument

Hmm, I think that's very specious logic from your Supreme Court. I find it hard to believe that a man who has sex with a 6, 8 and 10 year old has a reasonable defence on the grounds he thought they were over 15.

The other odditty that ocvcurs to me is how in the Bod does Bertie Aherne get a kicking for an accident that has presumably been waiting to happen since 1935?

Hey, we have to blame someone.

According to the redtops today, another 3 men are waiting to apply for release under the new law change.

Well, the Supreme Court made the original decision against someone who had sex with a 16 year old, AFAIK.

The High Court opened the floodwaters when they decided a few days later in favour of "Mr A", who had sex with a 12 year old. Their argument (I think) being that if the original law on statutory rape was against the constitution then anyone who was imprisoned as a result of this law is unlawfully detained.

It's a flipping mess. When a large number of convicted child abusers start getting let out of prison on a matter of law, people are obviously going to look at someone to throw the book at. The government are the target in one sense because they used law reform as one of their aims in government, and because they knew that this case was coming up from some time ago. In addition, it's their clear responsiblity now to rectify the situation, and any delays in getting the necessary legislation will make matters even worse.

All that should be necessary should be a re-trial where the accused will be allowed to argue how they thought an 8 year old was really over age. And then sent back into prison.

>because they knew that this case was coming up from some time ago<

What difference does that make? Presuming some sanity to the Irishj legal system, you can't pass a law and make it retro-active. So even if they had passed a new law between the appeal being lodged and being heard, the Court would still have to let him out on their specious logic.

Seems to me some of your judges need a good kicking, not Bertie.

<> (Blues)

Obviously not. Just found it curious that they separated having sex with animals with abusing them, though they didn't do this with regards to children. The entire quote was:

"Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said."

Toddlers should be given sex education.

Before totally spitting at those sick flicks and wanting to see them all die a horrid and painful death, which would be far too good for them.



az

Hmm, it seems like an odd way to do it.

Surely, if that defence is allowed, those who are preparing to use it could appeal their sentences?