Cat bin woman fined

[Suffragette1]

I guess there'll be another blown up media circus to encourage half the country to hate somebody for no real reason soon.

 

Bring it on!

 

I agree, I cannot believe the furore over this. Granted, what she did was cruel but the media attention and public vilification are totally out of proportion.

 

I had an Irish boyfriend once, whose mother's endless diatribes included the following:

 

'the feckin' English, they love their pets more they do their chil'en.'

[splodgeyAl]

I agree, I cannot believe the furore over this. Granted, what she did was cruel but the media attention and public vilification are totally out of proportion.

 

I had an Irish boyfriend once, whose mother's endless diatribes included the following:

 

'the feckin' English, they love their pets more they do their chil'en.'

 

Seems she wasn't wrong!

[Noob]

So she was fined £250. Probably calculated by the judge to cancel out her "You've Been Framed" payment.

 

Poor woman can be left alone now.

[Conrod]

Yes, that's because people found guilty of abusing children don't get cautions.

For somebody with such a know-all attitude, you really should check your facts before spouting.

 

"Figures provided by 33 police forces show 8,043 people who committed sexual and physical abuse offences against children were charged in the year to April, while 2,764 were given a caution".

 

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Rapists-child-abusers-103-sex-offenders-given-police-cautions/article-2169104-detail/article.html

 

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Bristol-child-abusers-let-caution/article-1372521-detail/article.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215444/Quarter-child-abusers-escape-court-action-police-cautions-instead.html

 

I look forward to your attempts to deflect this one. Would you like some seasoning with the words you're eating at the moment?

[Mr Prime]

Seems she wasn't wrong!

 

My Greek mate says that too. I always say it's posible to be good to both. Even if we stopped all prosecutions for animal cruelty it would not stop child cruelty one iota.

[Conrod]

Yes, that's because people found guilty of abusing children don't get cautions.

For somebody with such a know-all attitude, you really should check your facts before spouting.

 

"Figures provided by 33 police forces show 8,043 people who committed sexual and physical abuse offences against children were charged in the year to April, while 2,764 were given a caution".

 

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Rapists-child-abusers-103-sex-offenders-given-police-cautions/article-2169104-detail/article.html

 

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Bristol-child-abusers-let-caution/article-1372521-detail/article.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215444/Quarter-child-abusers-escape-court-action-police-cautions-instead.html

 

I look forward to your attempts to deflect this one. Would you like some seasoning with the words you're eating at the moment?

Are you still there, Spindrift?

[spindrift]

They weren't found guilty.

 

Learn to read.

 

They were cautioned, no trial took place, so they weren't found guilty.

 

Please don't barge into threads you haven't bothered to read properly, makes you look silly.

[Conrod]

They weren't found guilty.

 

Learn to read.

 

They were cautioned, no trial took place, so they weren't found guilty.

 

Please don't barge into threads you haven't bothered to read properly, makes you look silly.

I can read, my dear friend. I can also remember things - can you?

 

Like these posts, for example:

 

. . . . Parents who have abused their children will get off with a caution . . . .

Which parents?

I wondered if you had any actual examples of people who had abused children being dealt with by a caution. Otherwise your post is just silly.

. . . I can hardly quote specifics, . .

Yes, that's because people found guilty of abusing children don't get cautions.

"Figures provided by 33 police forces show 8,043 people who committed sexual and physical abuse offences against children were charged in the year to April, while 2,764 were given a caution".

 

You see, I never said anything about guilt vs cautions - you added that later. My initial statement was that some abusers get off with cautions - which you challenged. I think we both know that a caution is an alternative to a charge and trial, so of course they would not be found guilty, but the fact that they were cautioned records the crime having taken place.

 

You know, some people have the good grace to admit when they've been spouting, while others, it would seem, just step their obnoxious attitude up a gear each time they are shown to be wrong. I put it down to a lack of emotional intelligence, but there may be other reasons.

I don't look silly, but even if I did, I'd prefer that to rude, obnoxious and arrogant, all the while being wrong.

[spindrift]

They weren't found guilty.

 

There was no trial.

 

So they weren't found guilty.

 

It's not a difficult point to grasp, if you fetch a blackboard I'll draw a diagram for you.

 

What was your previous user name?

[Worjackie]

Why is Spindrift obsessed with taking every thread off topic?

 

This thread is about a specific animal cruelty case not child abuse or some people bombing each other in Russia.