I'm not one for a reactionary rant but tonight I'm making an exception. There was a question about raising the age of criminal responsibility (of course all in the context of the Jamie Bulger murder ) & the woman from the Green party (like Will Self a couple of weeks ago) questioned whether a child of 10 could differentiate between right & wrong & therefore should not be criminally culpable. FFS they bludgeoned that kid to death and left him on a railway line to get splattered by the next oncoming train. How could anyone, no matter how old they are, think that that is right? Makes me so effing angry. Sorry.
-
-
Indeed. A child of 6 knows whether murder is right or wrong.
When I was 10, a 10 year old could be a Sixer in the Cubs and responsible for the activities and well-being of his gang of six smaller kids and would be doing such things as unsupervised voluntary work. And responsible for the development of his Seconder too.Last edited by RichardCranium; 19 March 2010, 07:32.My all-time favourite Dilbert cartoon, this is: BTW, a Dumpster is a brand of skip, I think. -
When I was six I got my name taken by a Copper, I was err, borrowing some wood for Bonfire night.
Even now I cower when the Law appear, convinced they've all got a record of my crime in their collective database and are waiting to bang me up for my misdemeanour.
Whatever, certainly taught me a lesson, I don't nick bommy wood now.Comment
-
At the age of 9 I dropped small stones from a bridge onto train roofs to see how far they kicked off. If I had killed a driver, does that make me evil?Comment
-
Not sure how that's the same?Originally posted by Doggy Styles View PostPractically perfect in every way....there's a time and (more importantly) a place for malarkey.
+5 Xeno Cool PointsComment
-
I would like to think my 10 year old, and 8 year old come to that, knows the difference between right and wrong. Maybe not legally, but morally anyway...Older and ...well, just older!!Comment
-
I'm not sure a child of ten is fully aware of the consequences of their actions.
They might know that murder is wrong, but they might not connect that the consequences to them and their victim are permanent?
That said, that woman was an idiot to bring it up at a time when Venables is being reported on a daily basis - that is no time to have a rational debate"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."Comment
-
I didn't realise the consequences, or in my case the potential consequences, because I was young.Originally posted by MaryPoppins View PostComment
-
I think the point they were trying to make is that most people teach their kids right from wrong and so most 10 year olds would know that what they did to Jamie Bulger was wrong. However, if you have been dragged up without that direction then perhaps that understanding might not be there. All bollocks as far as I'm concerned.Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.
I preferred version 1!Comment
-
Precisely. Even if they've been dragged up, as you put it, they are still going to be taught right from wrong at school at the very least.Originally posted by TonyEnglish View PostComment
Comment