Slashdot Mirror
The Text Message Typo That Landed a Man In Jail
Barence writes "A British man was jailed for 18 months for accidentally sending an explicit text message to his entire address book. 24-year-old swimming coach Craig Evans intended to send a text message to his girlfriend asking her for sex. Instead, the message was accidentally sent to his entire BlackBerry address book, including two girls, aged 13 and 14, from his swimming class. He was subsequently arrested and charged with 'causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity,' and – incredibly – jailed for 18 months at Birmingham Crown Court in July. Yesterday, an appeal's court freed Evans, although he wasn't cleared — the sentence was merely reduced to a nine-month suspended jail term."
that it must have been a jury made up of 12 Daily Mail readers.
Soapbox, ballot box, jury box, ammo box... containing paintballs. ;)
Why did he have the phone numbers of 13 and 14 year old students on his mobile phone?
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I can't even figure out how to send a message to all my Blackberry contacts...
How does one make a mistake like that?
Great advertisement! Just what BB desperately needs now. Oh, wait..
Sounds a little like the ProjetX we had here in Holland. A girl accidentally asked the whole FB community to join her on her birthday-party. She forgot to mention that it was for her friends and family only.
Thousands gathered in a small village (pop. 20.000), rioted, plundered stores, burned cars, damage ~ 1 million total.
A quick search on "projectX Haren" should suffice for more info.
On the guy... that is well inconvenient mate!
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
Only source for this appears to be the Daily Mail, not a publication noted for its accurate reporting. How easy is it to accidentally send a text message to an entire contact list on Blackberries? I've never used a phone that made such a thing possible.
How do you even send a text message to your entire address book? This sounds more like the guy used some very poor judgement, but I doubt it was accidental.
Just plain ridiculous
I guess they didn't consider reasonable doubt. If his girlfriend was in his address book, then it's obvious his girlfriend would see it if it were sent to the whole address book. What person would do that in his or her right mind? Obviously it was an accident. It would be like yelling over a megaphone to a crowd as to who wants to have sex with you, knowing full well that your wife is in said audience.
HE WAS JOKING.
Fucking morons.
incredible. IANAL but i think it would be trivial to prove it was a accidental message (all of his contacts received it roughly at the same time, including, probably his mother and father), but since it's about chiiiiildren, we must think of them right?
What stupid user interface does a blackberry have to enable that in the first place? I cannot imagine any message that I would ever want to send to everyone I know.
Also, if he would have started the text with the name of his girlfriend, I'm sure he would have been in far less trouble.
Also, stupid Brits. It was a mistake.
the consequences will never be the same.
he done goofed. got backtraced.
i agree... fucking mormons...
Was he also joking when he said he did not worry about the poor or when he said 47% of Americans feel entitled to things like food?
I don't even think he is programmed for humor, so what are the odds he was joking?
He says this bullshit, while paying a lower tax rate then me by doing shifty shit like claiming his wife's dancing horse is a business not a hobby.
You can send a broadcast message to all contacts in a folder or to individual contacts. Recipients cannot reply to broadcast messages.
On the Contact list screen, press the Menu key.
Click Broadcast Message.
Complete the Announcement field.
If you have administrator permissions and want to send the broadcast message to all of the users on the server, select the System message check box. Click OK.
Click Recipients.
Click a folder.
Perform one of the following actions:
To send the broadcast message to all of the contacts in the folder, select the Select All check box.
To send the broadcast message to individual contacts in the folder, select the check box beside the contacts.
Click OK.
Click OK.
That seems hard to do by accident, but at least slightly possible.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Should have gotten an iPhone, then he'd only have sent the message to the men on his contact list.
In case he needed to say that practice was cancelled? At that age, I was coming to and from school on my own, so it wouldn't surprise me if a few of these swimmers were also coming and going on their own. Of course, I didn't have access to a cell phone at that age either.
Maybe it's because he was their swimming instructor, and gave them a ride somewhere or something? It's not like he had dozens of minors' contacts lying around and a string of lewd messages to them in his contact history (believe me, the police will have checked with the phone company by now).
Christ, panic mongers like yourself are the reason children are increasingly living in padded isolation boxes to protect them from big scary reality, and men are terrified to so much as speak to a child lest they be accused of molesting them. It's at the point now where, out of self-preservation, I would drive right by a child alone on the side of the road in the middle of winter. I would not stop to help. Why? Because if god forbid something happened to them later, or they decided to say something about me, the world would ruin my life for the greater good.
Ask yourself if that's really the best thing for children. For every pedophile you've cowed into hiding (they don't go away mind you, and when they think nobody is looking they're still going to do horrible things) you scare away hundreds or thousands of decent human beings who would help a child in need. Your child is far more likely to be hurt by tripping and falling, getting lost, or eating something dangerous; and if you're not around, you'd best hope there's a woman nearby to help because with this attitude the men will stay the fuck away.
That it was by accident makes it alright?.... If I kill you by accident, that is alright then?
It doesn't make it alright, but it is different - see first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_%28Canadian_law%29#First_and_second_degree
Perhaps the law in question is strict liability - if you did you're liable even without malicious intent.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
>>> If I kill you by accident, that is alright then?
No, but I don't expect you will get charged with premeditated murder. Intention matters.
Obviously (at least if the Daily Mail is to be believed, and I do have some doubts about this), the guy does not belong in jail, nor does he belong on the sex offenders list. The worst that should have happened to him was that he had to apologize to everyone he sent this message to, nothing more, nothing less.
Negligent? Maybe, but to err is human. All too often these days a simple mistake (whether it be sending the message or buying a Blackberry in the first place) is twisted into something that it simply is not: a crime.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
You must be american. "Oh noes, he knows someone underage! Burn, pedo, burn!!!"
Anyway, there new stuff for him to use until then, and it all flows together.
I can't think of any circumstance in which I would want to send a single message to everyone in my address book.
Lawyers are always going on about "intent". So, where are they in this case? Oh wait no "intent" is just another tool used to put you in jail, not to help you get out.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's obvious Romney was trying to be funny.
It's clear he should just stick with what he is good at: making money by any means necessary
Killing somebody is never ok, but if it was an accident then there should be no reason i should be punished. For example, I press the button to call an elevator and this elevator somehow ends up killing you. I am not guilty of murder and in fact innocent.
What representatives? This was a trial by jury, the jury decided he was guilty.
Second, he did send a sexual text to underaged children. That it was by accident makes it alright?
Mens rea is sort of a thing in common law jurisdictions... It isn't an absolute/binary matter; but it has long been the case that both act and intent are what make the crime. This is why, for instance, 'negligent homicide' is different than '1st degree murder'. If you were to kill me by accident it obviously wouldn't be 'alright', I'd still be pretty dead, and depending on the circumstances you might be on the civil and/or criminal hook for some sort of negligence, recklessness, or indifference; but, yeah, you certainly wouldn't be going down on Murder 1 charges...
Having, thankfully, not dealt with a Blackberry user interface in a while, I have no idea where on the continuum from 'freak accident, could have happened to anyone' to 'epic negligence' sending a given message to your entire address book is; but none of those places are the same as intentionally sending the message to the legally problematic recipients.
I'm not sure I trust this story. No one seems to be reporting it except the Daily Mail.
Anyway, I am reminded of an old Dilbert strip from back in the 90's. Dogbert suggests to Dilbert that he leave the pointy-haired boss voicemail messages in the middle of the night, so that the boss will think he is diligently working on projects at all hours. Dilbert wakes up in the wee hours of the morning to leave the message, and groggily begins, "This is Dilbert. I'm sitting here in my underwear, thinking about you..." Suddenly he realizes what he has just said and frantically starts pressing buttons to delete the message. Instead, he accidentally sends it to everyone in the office.
Proverbs 21:19
A woman at work was having an affair with a man in the office. She wanted to send him a sexy picture via email, she accidentally sent it to the 4th floor distribution list.
She was gone so fast that I didn't even see her after the email, and she came back to get her things after hours.
"Second, he did send a sexual text to underaged children. That it was by accident makes it alright?"
I hope the next time you say 'fuck you', a kid is standing right behind you.
Then at least we won't have to read your crap for some time.
>If I kill you by accident, that is alright then?
Maybe. You won't be charged with murder. You MAY be charged with manslaughter. The legal test for manslaughter is: 'caused a death where a reasonable person would not'.
So if reasonable precautions on your part would have prevented the death - and you didn't take them - then you're guilty, otherwise you are indeed innocent.
To make up a random example. You're a forklift driver. Your forklift runs downhil while you stop for lunch, runs over a car and kills the driver. Are you guilty ? Well if you had left the handbrake off - then you are. If you had pulled it up but the brake FAILED while you were gone, then you're innocent.
See how it works ?
So we can apply a similar test to this accident if it helps you feel better.
We know (and an appeals court judge has declared) based on the available evidence that there was no intent here. But was the accident excusable ? Well it depends - was it an accident a reasonable person would have been able to avoid ?
For that one would have to look at the interface of the specific phone, the methods that led to this happening and the particular circumstances of the case. You cannot just universally make a declaration about it. There is even the possibility that this was caused by an obscure or sporadic bug in that version of the blackberry OS - that even RIM may not know about yet and NO action of his would have prevented it. Such bugs can and do happen - this site is full of programmer's we've all seen bugs like that. If that is the case (and we - and likely HE doesn't know that) then he would be completely innocent by the "reasonable person" measure.
I sincerely doubt the Jury ever really tried to question how reasonable his actions were since they never even asked the intent question despite the strong evidence showing there wasn't any.
Now the fact is that this question quite academic - the question of whether he had acted in a reasonable manner hasn't been answered and we don't have enough information to answer it. The appeals judge may have, and may have decided on those grounds that he did NOT take reasonable precautions to keep his sexual message away from the minors and this is why he remains guilty - but the judge DID agree the actions were without INTENT and this is why his sentence was so significantly mitigated.
But that is just a guess - I haven't read the actual court reports so don't take this as a claim of fact, just a likely explanation of the outcome.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Is there any real reason airplane windows don't open?
It's not like they spend their entire service life at 30k feet.
Next your going to tell me they should have doors, because if you open them all the air gets sucked out.
This isn't a Blackberry issue, this is an issue about a slip of the finger, I think Jail was a little extreme. He didn't ask these girls for sex on purpose. Plus I'm sure he said more then just "lets have sex', there was probably some indication that it was meant for a certain person and not everyone.
Forget it, the Two Minute Hate has begun.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Jury justice is a silly form of justice anyway. Suspects should at least get the chance of a fair trial. There is no chance of that with the jury system. The person who invented the jury system was a probably a moron who liked lynchparties.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
getting really OT here... but I take it you haven't watched many stand-up comedians... If you were an appreciator of comedy in its true form, you would never say either "stupid liberal bitch" or "dumbass redneck conservative" when in this context. In short - if you found that to be a joke, that's fine. It was in the poorest of taste, and a good politician tries to avoid things that will make him look like an idiot - even by joking. So there ya go - your vote is going to a dumbass who doesn't care about you.
"Stupid liberal bitch"
Wow, calm down there, partisan much?
He was for the most part trying to be funny without a doubt, but that question was a question that he foolishly slipped in because he clearly genuinely didn't know the answer.
I'm not from the US, so I don't really care who wins, as I think they're both shit for the rest of the world, and when I started watching that video and saw he was talking with the tone he was I instantly assumed that it was as you say, that it was something being taken out of context. For what it's worth, I also thought Romney was a pretty decent speaker, having not really bothered to listen to him before. However when he reached that bit it was the mannerism, the way he phrased it, it was clear he was slipping a genuine question in as an aside. This is a common thing many stand up comedians actually do, they slip a serious question into their routine between the comedy to make people think, the problem is in Romney's case, it was not the sort of question you'd want a future president to be needing to slip in. Even if it was part of his routine I'm not sure that really helps much anyway as it would mean he was playing the card of celebrating stupidity, much like people seem to think it's funny that they're shit at maths. Again, you'd hope a president would encourage education, intelligence, and brilliance, if they make light of stupidity as if it's somehow cool to be stupid and ask stupid questions then that in itself is a major problem.
Chances are that that kid knows more about sex than any of us will ever forget.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
p>It's clear he should just stick with what he is good at: making money by any means necessary
Sounds like a person I would like to see get our government out of debt, and our economy out of the toilet.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
And so is everyone else. No one changed their vote based on taking that gaffe seriously. I was already going to vote against Romney. Thinking he didn't understand altitudes and air pressure was a reason to laugh at him, not my reason to vote against him.
There may be some people who changed their vote based on taking that statement seriously, but such people are basically flipping coins to determine their vote anyway.
I agree that funding for Medicare et al is an issue, I just don't think its a more important issue than ensuring equal civil rights for homosexuals, preventing a serious backwards slide in rights for women, and the growing anti-science movement. I'd actually be fine with having the argument over whether its ethical to support medical care for children in poverty by preventing some finance banker from buying a second Lexus this year. But I'd rather have that argument after we've shored up things like basic civil rights and international diplomacy.
Wow, you would be absolutely terrified to find out that I have my both stepson's girlfriends on Facebook, Google Talk AND in my mobile phone contacts.
What you are doing is applying a paradigm from decades ago topped by an unhealthy amount of fear to the modern world.
30 years ago, you are correct, a parent would have had the telephone numbers of the other parents in the kid's social group, because 30 years ago, the kids didn't have their own phone. No both my stepsons, for all the fact they are nice kids, are absolute dildos when it comes to remembering basic administration like keeping their phones charged. It's happened enough that rather than have to rely on smoke signals and hope, I and my wife now have the phone numbers of the people they are most likely to be around so we can get in touch if we have to.
Besides that, both of the girls are really nice kids. Personally, I'm glad I got the opportunity to see them grow up a bit as well.
I have to agree with some of the posts above - it is entirely possible - common even, since I think it's safe to say that pedophiles are a minority - for an adult male to have a non-creepy, platonic and non-romantic relationship with minors. It's called friendship.
A.I. Research. The peculiar science in which we know the question and we know the answer, but can't show the working
Yes, he was an idiot. But the offence he was convicted of will place him on the Sex Offenders Register for a minimum of 10 years ; he can basically kiss goodbye to his job, or any job working with minors. He probably won't even be allowed back into a swimming pool, as an "area frequented by children".
His life has been ruined by a social faux-pas.
I don't think either candidate is denying that we're in trouble. The incumbent is always going to try to shine a positive light unto what he has done, and his opponent will always try to lambast him. I can acknowledge the sky is blue, and you know that to be truth, so will you vote for me? On the positive side, I do not believe the world is 6000 years old, Jesus was born in Kentucky, and that yes... Every US citizen is entitled to a house, IF they work hard for it.
I won't vote for Obama because nothing significant changed with him vs Dubya Bush. But then again, I won't vote for Romney because he will set our country back 4 or 8 more years. China caught up to us since the year 2000. You can blame that on Bush, or whatever - I don't care. The *fact* is that it happened during his term.
People like that just don't want to look at the facts. The facts are that the vast majority of pedophiles know the victim by being a family member or a friend of the family aunt or uncle). And while men are slightly more often found to be doing this sort of thing 1/3rd of pedophiles are actually women most are never convicted though and boys are far less likely to come forward if I woman makes a sexual advance).
Yet men and more so 'strange' men who are not family friends or relatives are the targets of the publics outrage over these things. It just goes to prove how irrational most people are and how sensationalist most of the media is.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
So let me get this straight, your daughters friends come over to go to a movie. You drop them off at the movies and go home. It's a small town or whatever you don't need to worry about them at the theater alone. You get home and realize your daughter forgot her cellphone and won't be able to call you for a pickup so.... you call her friends parents instead of her friends?
Stupid liberal bitch newscaster
Whether the newscaster was wrong or not, that was uncalled for.
Also, Mitt Romney needs to learn how to properly tell a joke - might I suggest he sit down with Mike Huckabee or Arlen Specter?
I am officially gone from
"Second, he did send a sexual text to underaged children. That it was by accident makes it alright?"
I dare say if its accepted that it was truely an accident, he shouldn't be punished for it.
"If I kill you by accident, that is alright then?"
Using the word 'alright' is a bit out of place, but if you kill someone by accident, lets say you run over them with your car, its unlikely to be called manslaughter unless you were doing something dangerous at the time such as speeding or driving erratically. I imagine its harder to kill someone by accident without some sort of neglect, but if you do, I imagine you wouldn't be punished for it.
"First of all, anything the Daily Mail writes is a lie, even the date on the front page."
True.
That's a pretty good joke..
In case you were serious, making money by any means necessary means giving away no bid contracts to your friends when you get a government job. Government is not a business, you don't want it to work like one. Otherwise you get what we have now. Like any big company we have people protecting fiefdoms and making sure they always use the whole budget. This damages companies and our government.
But that's how they reproduce!
Cost. To make a window that opens you have to make it like the airplane doors, sealed against the inside and fairly airtight. It also cannot be a detriment to the rigidity of the body of the aircraft. Then you will need to service all those seals regularly and inspect them.
If I was cleaning my gun, and it went off and killed someone,
I can expect harsh consequences.
I should have exercised more care.
If you are asking for sex, you better well be double/triple checking
that To: field.
Better yet, a phone call or flowers would have been better for any :)
number of reasons.
(Disclaimer: Not an American)
Why? He is good at making money for himself.
If this includes making money for his company (or country) then ok, but if he is making more money for himself by screwing over the company/shareholders/country/citizenry, there is currently no reason to expect that he would not do so, if he thinks he can get away with it.
Either way, all we seem to know is that he has a plan to cut services, and make rich people richer (judging from what makes it over here ... and the Daily Show)
Who told you this bullshit?
Social Security is not going to be out of money by 2033. http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00628
There is a simple solution that Republicans will never allow, simply raise the ceiling on SS tax. That would solve it right there.
His solution for Medicare is to make the insurance companies richer. Let's solve this once and for all as well, single payer.
Honey, I bought the seven pints of custard and 3 packets of wooden skewers. Tonight we're going to get dirty! Phwoar!!!
(I didn't just press the "Submit" button? Did I?)
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
In a sane world, his apology and personal embarrassment would be more than enough punishment.
Posted AC, because in the US, even defending a possible pedophile.....
No one that doesn't already have the facts do not want to hear them. They will ignore them and use versions of them to advance their own little lies.
The windows on a plane is a joke (although there are planes that do have windows that open). It got laughs when it was said, Romney was laughing. The 47% comment was about what voters he was going to try to get to vote for him in a speech to donors who he had to convince he could win an election. Nothing about his personal feelings towards a portion of America- it was about getting money from rich people by ensuring them he wasn't going to waste it on people who no matter what, wouldn't vote for him. People still bring it up fully knowing this like it was some personal insult aimed at the poor just like they bring up the comment about seeing Russia from her front porch that is attributed to Sarah Palin when it was Tina Fey who said it.
These idiots do not care about facts. They do not care if anything is true or false, real or a lie. All they care about is using bits and pieces of the truth in order to maintain an ideology and support of a politician that has been failing them every chance possible on the last four years.
Yeah, just ship it ALL over seas!
That will work out well. Again.
There is a reason why I always send only a hallmark card to my girlfriend asking for sex and thanking for sex. I can write only one address on the envelop.
"Sounds like a person I would like to see get our government out of debt, and our economy out of the toilet." He gets rich by fucking others over, that's NOT who I want in charge of my country.
If I'm driving down a 2-lane highway and have a catastrophic failure in a tire that causes my car to spin out, cross the center line, hit your car killing you... is that really my fault? What if it was a piece of debris in the road that caused the tire to fail?
Accidents happen, I'm so sick of society having to find someone to blame for everything that happens.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
I'm the father of a 13-year-old girl, and I have several of her friends' numbers in my phone. Why? Here's a few reasons:
While my daughter has her own phone, she often forgets it or forgets to charge it. Also, she's often on restriction at her Mom's house and not allowed to have a phone there, and when she is, she simply leaves it at my house. (I have her every other week.) Thus, her friends often call me looking for her. I don't have a good memory for phone numbers, so I've saved the numbers of those who call looking for her often, along with their names, so the caller ID on my phone will show me the name instead of the number. That way, I can often answer with a simple, "Hi. She's not here, she's at her mom's" or simply hand the phone over to her to answer.
Secondly, and relating to number one, sometimes she needs to call her friends, and doesn't have her phone. Having their numbers in my phone allows me to hand it over to her and let her call them, without having to go through the hoops of calling their parents. (Some of whom are divorced, and thus it can be a guessing game as to which parent one needs to call to reach the child.)
(And parenthetically here, that's part of what led me to start saving the kids' numbers in the first place. After having done the game of "Oh, you need to talk to Jenny? Okay, I'll call her mom... hi, Angie, Margie needs to talk to Jenny... oh, she's with Mark? Okay, I don't have Mark's number, can you give it to me? Thanks. Hi, Mark, this is Margie's dad. Margie Andrews. She's a friend of Jenny, and she wants to ask her about... oh, she's over at Alicia's? Do you have the number there? No? Oh, Alicia has a phone? Okay, let me write that down...." two or three times a month for several months, I found it was much easier when she wanted to contact one of the other kids to just have her call that kid directly.)
Third, when she's out with friends and has forgotten her own phone (or it's out of charge), it makes it easy for me to call and get her, since I know who she's with. Even if they've gone out walking, or have walked over to another friend's house in the neighborhood, I can still get her, since I have the numbers of people she's actually physically with.
Now, I don't go around asking for these kids' phone numbers -- I just tag them with their names after they've called me, or save them after I've been given their number and had to call them. (I'd hope by now that in a world of Caller ID, all parents are teaching their children that if you don't want someone to have your number, you shouldn't call them directly.)
I also have the phone numbers of a few older teens who are in my weekly D&D group that meets at a gaming store. I'm the GM, so people have given me their numbers so I can let them know if I'm not going to be able to make it for some reason, or if I'm going to be late, or for similar things. Some of their parents I know; some of them I don't, since these are high school kids who have their own cars and get around on their own. I'd actually prefer to use email for that, since I usually know well in advance, but one of them especially checks her email very rarely, but always gets texts -- and, of course, sometimes I don't know I'm going to be running late until only an hour or so before the game, and many people don't check their email that often. (Usually in that case I actually just text two of the people, and ask them to text everyone else... but one of those is the girl who's the social hub of the teen group.)
Whenever I read about something this stupid all I can come up with is that the guy must have the worst lawyer on the planet.
Of course China caught up to us. They've got more than three times our population and their reserves of natural resources are at least as good as ours. What the fuck did you expect? All they had to do was pull their head out of their ass; it's not all the way out yet but they're past the nose and moving to the forehead.
Why did you expect to always be ahead of everyone else? "American exceptionalism"? A psuedo-religious faith that America will triumph over everone else just because, even if our government is trying to drown itself in a bathtub?
Until we stop spending trillions on military, our money problems won't stop. It's our single biggest cost, because for some reason we seem to need to be the world's police.
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/defense_budget_2012_3.html
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
>>If I kill you by accident, that is alright then?
>Maybe. You won't be charged with murder. You MAY be charged with manslaughter.
And if you kill someone by accident in a humorous way, you may be charged with mans laughter.
British juries are about as intelligent as American juries, however British judges are not political appointments and so don't have to grandstand to keep their jobs.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
And then you have to have sensors on all the windows so that a window that fails to close and seal at ground level doesn't kill everyone on board when the plane takes off. Basically, if you add openable windows to a jet airframe, you're adding weight, complexity, and dozens of redundant *failure modes*. Redundancy is good in safety systems, not so much in sources of risk.
IANAL, but: intent may be irrelevant in this case. The current fashion is to make so-called "strict liability" laws, especially in the area of "child protection". For example, in the UK, if there are child-porn pictures on your computer, then you are guily of an offence, regardless of how they got there. I don't know, but the same may apply in this case.
The beauty of this is that it allows the police to arrest people like this unfortunate person and put them in jail without all the tedious arguments about whether they intended do harm or whether it was an accident. A jury will be told "if he sent the message then he is guilty, even if it was a mistake".
Indeed, it is even possible for a policeman to force someone to do something against their will, and then arrest them for it. Google the case of "Winzar (1983)" if you don't believe me.
yea, except that doesn't make HIM money by any means necessary.
The only budget proposal that balances the budget is the one created by the congressional progressive caucus.
The Ryan plan does not balance the budget, it continues deficit for the foreseeable future.
Romney will do the same thing to the US Government as he did for the companies he bought through Bain capital. Leach them dry and sell their dessicated corpses for fun and profit.
It's obvious Romney was trying to be funny.
For a Presidential candidate to try for laughs by pretending to be stupid is pretty damned stupid.
Free Martian Whores!
Pedophilia is a sexual preference for prepubescent children. Sexual preference for young adolescents is hebephilia.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents
The relevant section is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/10
"Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity,
(b)the activity is sexual, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused or incited involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(3)Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."
"would you fuck me" - is clearly inciting penetration, so you can do up to 14 years for this.
This is _NOT_ a strict liability offence.
The jury must have had reason to believe that he intended to do this.
Doing it by accident _CANNOT_ lead to a conviction, unless the judge misdirects them.
For example - if he'd directed that because he intended to send it to one person on the list, that intent carried over to the unintended recipients.
Indeed, I can't seem to see any 'strict liability' offences in the act.
I may have missed some.
At a minimum you need to have intended the action and not known the other party was underage.
"Stupid liberal bitch"
Wow, calm down there, partisan much?
You assume ultra-conservatives must be better? You mortals are so narrow-minded, always imagining the universe as a line with one end 'good' and the other end 'evil', and everything that can be reduced to a line must be a battle between 'good' and 'evil'. There must be balance.
He was for the most part trying to be funny without a doubt, but that question was a question that he foolishly slipped in because he clearly genuinely didn't know the answer.
The being funny part is what the psycho on TV was arguing he wasn't doing. The knowledge about atmospheric pressure and aerodynamics part is up for debate.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You want to police to be respectable, not put their own interest first, and to abide by the law themselves.
Bert
This appears to be the source of bluefoxlucid's misogyny:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3148873&cid=41481053
Hopefully he'll get professional psychological help at some point. Contrary to popular opinion, spraying your anger on Slashdot doesn't count as therapy. Unless it's wrt to Microsoft, of course ;)
I want to say this in the nicest way possible, because it seems like you're well-intentioned, benevolent and compassionate, but: don't be a coward. Sure, it's true that some fuckwit might punish you for it, but it's also true that a meteorite might fall out of the sky and hit you on the head. Shit happens and life is full of risks, but think about it: risks like this one have their probabilities overblown, and the more realistic risk you face, comes from the fact that you're driving on a snowy road.
On average, chances are you'll end up rotting in your grave due to a driving accident, than rotting in prison because of a false accusation that was justified because you helped some little girl. Really.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
"You assume ultra-conservatives must be better?"
What nonsensical drivel, that doesn't even make any sense. I don't assume anything, I merely pointed out that her political leaning is largely irrelevant unless you're trying to naively attack one political leaning.
"You mortals are so narrow-minded"
This statement implies you are immortal. Tell me, do you also wear a superman cape whilst you run round in public too?
"There must be balance."
Agreed, but this is precisely why your mention of her political leaning is stupid. There are many liberals who would disagree with her, so what was the point in pointing out she was a liberal as if it was liberalism that was part the reason for her being stupid?
"The being funny part is what the psycho on TV was arguing he wasn't doing."
Sure, and I don't defend that, but attack her on her ineptitude, not her political leaning else you simply appear just as partisan as she is.
What backwards slide in rights for women? And what growing anti science movement?
Marriage is a state issue. It shouldn't even be on the federal stage.
the problem is in Romney's case, it was not the sort of question you'd want a future president to be needing to slip in.
While I'm no fan of Romney, simply asking something like that isn't really a problem. What matters is what happens after someone informs them about the reason. Do they learn and realize why windows on aircraft should not be rolled down, or do they try and ram through policy to force aircraft manufacturers to enable all windows be rolled down while ignoring everyone around them trying to explain why such a policy is dumb? Or perhaps even worse, having him try and ram such a policy through without even bothering to ask the question.
ask stupid questions
There are only two stupid questions. The one not asked, and the one asked again and again because you don't like the answers you are given. I've not heard Romney pushing the idea beyond that one question, so at the moment, I cannot call it dumb.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I love me some religious bigotry on Slashdot in the mornings.
Take your pick. By the way, Megyn Kelly reminds me of my mom, except down about 10 notches. Watch her when she finds anything that seems to support her, she draws out her speech and emphasizes and primps up like she's so proud of herself for being so much smarter than everyone else. She was the first news anchor I really noticed--the need to shoot this bitch in the face when I couldn't get out of earshot was pretty attention-grabbing (they put a TV in my office, it was set to news).
Oh god at 2:20 on that video, "*T*ax *T*ax *T*ax" emphasis just like my damn mom, Next she'll start raving that Obama is a muslim and the antichrist and talk about how gays are destroying the country and how the problem here is we don't have bibles in schools anymore.
We should duct tape Megyn Kelly to Rachel Maddow and throw them out of a plane with its windows rolled down.
(Has anyone noticed Megyn Kelly getting more militant around 2010-ish, and slowly cutting her hair shorter and shorter until she looked like a butch lesbian style... after she stopped arguing about how horrible it is we don't support the defense of marriage act and how it's okay to ridicule gays)
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Really, if you are in a sexual relationship, you could at least have the courtesy to ask for sex in person. SMS has all the warmth of a late postcard.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here is a question I can't seem to get an answer to. If insurance is ok for obamacare, then why isn't it ok for medicare? Medicare already pays insurance companies to do its billing and processing. I'm not sure there would be a big difference outside the government keeping the funds payed in buy the citizens who die early.
Are you fucking serious?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=creationism+public+school
Difference of opinion, I guess.
Anti-Science Movement? Intelligent design in schools. Portraying scientists as "academic elitists" who shouldn't be listened to.
Backwards Rights for Women: Cutting availability of contraception and childcare at the same time. Insisting on extremely invasive procedures before legal medical procedures as a method of discouragement/punishment/humiliation. Removal of regulations for equal pay for women. Allowing employers to cut medical care for women based on religious beliefs (which subjugate women).
Marriage is a contract. The ability of all people to enter into a contract is a Civil Right. The guarantee of Civil Rights is a federal issue.
Yeah, I do agree somewhat with what you're saying.
I guess the reason in this case is because the question asked is something that should be answerable with a high school education or having picked it up in even a film or TV documentary, a book, or even from conversations with people.
I guess the issue is that one would hope a candidate for a job such as president of the united states may have paid enough attention at school, or spent enough time in the real world to be worldly enough to not have to answer this question.
I think your point only holds true to a certain threshold on what people should normally know by their age- one would hope that a 20 year old man with no mental disability would not have to ask someone how to whipe their own arse for example.
Yes, the only way to solve a Ponzi scheme permanently is to put ever more money in it. Works great, until the Social Security tax is 100%. Well, we'll just raise taxes more when that happens.
There is no difference between Obama and Romney. Both are corporate stooges, both wrote the same economy destroying healthcare legislation, both want more and more war, both support continued and expanded use of coal, etc etc. There is no real difference, only stupid wedge issues that idiots can't see around.
You're +3 Informative. /. mods are a special breed, ya know? I take screenshots of these jaw dropping knee slappers, like when the remark about robots not entering the household in great numbers due to their unquenchable thirst for human blood went to +5.
No it was made up of 1 Daily Mail author. Or, even more precisely, it was made up.
If I'm driving down a 2-lane highway and have a catastrophic failure in a tire that causes my car to spin out, cross the center line, hit your car killing you... is that really my fault? What if it was a piece of debris in the road that caused the tire to fail?
No you would get off with that. If at the same time a notebook on your passenger seat with an intimate letter to your wife flew out of the window and landed on my teenage daughter's lap then you'd end up doing time.
Well sadly that's what happens when you have a party filled with the batshit like Donald Trump, like Poe's law its damned hard to tell when they are joking or the cheese has done slipped off the cracker again.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You base your knowledge of the US elections on a comedy news show?
You might wanna rethink that.
Not all charges require intent. Speeding, disobeying signs, jaywalking, unattended minor, and possession of stolen property are just some examples.
I don't know the UK legal system, but if this charge doesn't require intent, then it would be frowned upon if anyone in court suggested to the jury it did. It might even create a mistrial.
Damn... 18 months in jail for a typo. Did he at least get to have sex with one of the swimmers?
No, I don't want the US military to be the police in the middle east, asia, africa, europe or south america.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I'm the father of a 13-year-old girl, and I have several of her friends' numbers in my phone. Why? Here's a few reasons:
Thanks for taking the time to post an explanation, but throughout reading it all I could think of is:
It is precisely no one's business but your own.
The sexual-psychosis-fueled witch hunt has reached new levels when people feel they need to justify the presence of phone numbers in their contact list. Have the Western taliban really made this much progress towards paranoid dystopia?
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Punishment is more important than justice (to most people).
It should not be this way, but it is. People would rather put an innocent man in jail than bearing the slightest risk of letting a guilt man go free. This is the exact opposite of how things should be, but humans are like that.
Is there any real reason airplane windows don't open?
Remember when you were little and there was always that one kid on the bus sticking his head out of the window? Well, the ones that haven't been decapitated at an early age have grown up to become belligerent airline passengers.
Ann Coulter is at least semi-sane policy wise (if cut throat) and Sarah Palin is at least fiscally conservative (in a strike-everything-that-looks-stupid-with-a-red-pen kind of way), but they're both still batshit crazy overall. I'd trust Palin to run this country's finances; I wouldn't trust her to run foreign policy. The worst part? EVERYONE ELSE WE'VE GOT RUNNING THE COUNTRY IS EVEN WORSE AT FOREIGN POLICY!
Coulter isn't a politician, she's a talking head. Her social policy is spotty. Her foreign policy is legitimate ("Why not have a war for oil? We need oil." That summarizes Ann Coulter nicely) but may not sit right with everyone (she would have a very aggressive diplomatic policy, which can have definite negative impacts). She might make a top-tier Republican candidate if she wanted to get into politics; at the very least she's not WORSE than what they're offering.
I'd bet money she's completely horrible with fiscal policy--anything you can barely say we "need" she'd sign off on, and to hell with where the money's coming from. That's what Palin's got: we need it why? And this is important why? Do you know how expensive this shit is? That's not good enough, give me a real reason besides "we don't have it". OOH DID YOU KNOW RUSSIA'S OVER THERE?! :D HIIIIIII VLADIMIIIIIIR! ^.^
Ron Paul is sane and also a fake Republican. He's only running as a Republican because you have to be in one of the two big kids' clubs or you go sit down and build a sandcastle in the playground sand.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The point is that it offers him plausible deniability as a fishing expedition - send it out and if one of the teen girls replies then he's got what he wanted
And do to that you would send a request for sex to your mom, your DAD, all your co-workers, your banker, your accountant, your SISTER, etc???
That is the dumbest theory I have ever heard. It's like "fishing" with an atom bomb, where not even the water or your own boat are left at the end of the process.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
See? That's what's wrong with this country! Our litigious, lawsuit focused culture has so many bureaucrats looking to build their own little fiefdom that even that one appeal get's it's very own court! A court, for that one, individual appeal! WTF??!???!?88??!
If I kill you by accident, that is alright then?
Maybe. You won't be charged with murder. You MAY be charged with manslaughter. The legal test for manslaughter is: 'caused a death where a reasonable person would not'.
Well, the scale usually goes accident - negligent - reckless - knowingly - intentionally. Usually the top three equal manslaughter, second and first degree murder. Sending these text messages I would say is an accident at best and negligent at worst, reckless is a pretty big step up.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
As an IT person I see stupid mistakes all the time, we are people, it happens, no biggie. So to jail someone for what anyone could do by accident is unconscionable.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
To child services for neglect, and see how she likes it. Whose fault is it the kid was locked out without an emergency contact?
I would bet if he had accidentally killed those two girls with his car, he would have gotten less jail time.
It is a bet you might very well lose:
Sentencing
A person convicted of causing death by dangerous driving is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Disqualification for a minimum of two years is obligatory on conviction. Endorsement is obligatory on conviction. The offense carries three to eleven penalty points (when the defendant is exceptionally not disqualified).
The Court of Appeal in R v Cooksley and others gave guidelines for cases where death is caused by dangerous driving. In R v Richardson the Court of Appeal reassessed the starting point set out in R v Cooksley taking into consideration the increase in the maximum penalty. The relevant starting points identified in Cooksley should be reassessed as follows:
i) No aggravating circumstances --- twelve months to two years' imprisonment (previously 18 months);
ii) Intermediate culpability --- two to four and a half years' imprisonment (previously 3 years);
iii) Higher culpability --- four and a half to seven years' imprisonment (previously 5 years);
iv) Most serious culpability --- seven to fourteen years' imprisonment (previous starting point of 6 years).
Causing death by dangerous driving
He should have got an iPhone and asked Siri to do the dirty work. No convictions there!
The context of the recipient matters too. Since the girls were strictly platonic with the coach they would react with 'uuggg gross'. Nothing sexual was 'incited'
love is just extroverted narcissism
Perhaps it's not alright to have an accident, but neither is it deserving of serving a sentence in jail, and having a "justice" system ride one's back for any length of time. Frankly, the embarrassment served by sending such a text message to one's own family, his mother, father, friends and acquaintances, no less the kids, aught to be punishment enough--unless his intent truly was to have sex with the minors at the risk of becoming a social pariah amongst all of his close friends; but it doesn't sound like that idea was really proven, no less thoroughly vetted. Did he have a history of trying to solicit children? No? Give 'em a mulligan and keep an eye on his behavior for a while. But that's too sensible.
Obligatory slashdot car analogy: if you have a traffic accident with your car, with no apparent levels of negligence, should you also now be criminally prosecuted and jailed for the injury of the victim(s) like you would had you assaulted them with a weapon? Of course not, that's not the way things work in a civilized society.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
America has a strong tradition of anti-intellectualism.
Appearing dumb is probably a smarter move than looking too smart; the average folks will think you're one of them and the eggheads will feel all smug and superior and think you aren't a threat.
See also: Bush, Bush II, Reagan, Ford...
No, belay that. Ford probably really was dumb.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well it can't be our fucking turn again.
Signed,
Great Britain.
Have you called Rome? They've been sitting on their fat wop arses doing fuck all of any use for over a millennium.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
First of all, how the hell did he manage to accidentally do that? I have a Blackberry and I can't figure out a way to do that even if I try. Secondly, why the hell would a 24 year old coach have cellphone numbers of a 13 and 14 year olds, as opposed to numbers of their parents?
Bow before me, for I am root.
Oh, it very much seems like this guy was unlucky enough to get caught up in Britain's collective pedo-panic and ended up receiving an absurdly overblown penalty for an unimportant mistake.
My point was just that, both specifically around the 'mens rea' concept and in analogous legal constructions, there is an understanding(albeit often one cobbled together over time by a shaky mix of reactive legislation and handwaving legal precedent rather than any overarching theoretical grounds) of different degrees of culpability based on different degrees of intent, from wholly innocent accident up through premeditated malicious intent; but also including certain sorts of accidents that are not intended; but are culpable because of the degree of negligence or recklessness.
I would agree, based on the relatively few facts I have available, that this guy was badly classified and should not have been punished as he was(much less as he was going to be before appeal); but did want to note that, depending on how easy it is to make the mistake he did, it would be at least theoretically possible for him to fall into one of the culpably negligent categories of accident.
That it was by accident makes it alright?
Are you serious? Yeah, I'm sure that text scarred them for life. They're as good as dead!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You mortals
Wait, aren't underage furry Gaia roleplayers usually liberal?
"The jury must have had reason to believe that he intended to do this" is false.
They have to have decided they will ignore the judge's statement and give a guilty verdict.
The reason may be "Well, he's accused of being a paedo, that's good enough for me", but it is hardly a reason you were intending in that sentence.
Well, he's lucky he wasn't in the US. Even after he got out, we would have put his name and picture on a public registry, made him stay a hundred yards away from all schools and playgrounds, and monitored his movement with GPS... AFTER he got out of prison.
That's nice, but tell me when that small chance coming up doesn't end up with my life being ruined, my name being mud, my family having to put up with being related to someone on the sex offender list, spending the rest of my life in jail, or unhirable with vigilantes harassing me constantly, etc.
No matter how remote the chance is, considering the risks, it is still too high.
This is someone who tackled somebody and cut off all their hair 'as a joke'. Clearly he has a sense of humour, even if it is twisted and different from everybody else's.
It's not anyone's business, but maybe other readers are legitimately interested in reasonable answers they had not thought up themselves.
What did they put the unsend button ?
I did google - ended up here. This is scary beyond belief. I don't even know how that can be called justice. I know that is not at the same scale but that certainly put our outrage against some aspect of justice in other countries in perspective.
> I would drive right by a child alone on the side of the road in the middle of winter. I would not stop to help.
You should stop. If necessary call the Police and ask for advice.
My Bullshit detector went off as soon I read the summary. You can't send a text to all contacts with BB (just checked mine now). The only way to do this is to create a group, add all your contacts, then send a txt to the group. Hardly the sort of thing you would do accidently. Also the Daily Mail is one of those "President Kidnapped by Aliens!" publications. Why we keep getting Daily Mail stories on Slashdot is beyond me. Wake up Slashdot Editors.
I do Blackberry support for my company and I can vouch for how this can happen all to easily. It is also an issue that seems to happen to other phones as well. I believe it has something to do with text messaging not originally being designed for multiple recipients. What happens is you send a message to a group of people on purpose, but then later you try to send a message to just one of the people that was on that list--it has a chance to send it to everyone on the list. We verified that they are not using a group, or just responding to a group text--they are creating new texts straight from a contact and it still goes to everyone--it doesn't even say it's going to multiple people when it sends.
Coach or no,13 & 14 year old students email addresses/phone numbers or anything else do not belong in his phone or anywhere else.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Have the Western taliban really made this much progress towards paranoid dystopia?
Yes.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Dude if you think Coulter isn't batshit you should watch that debate on YouTube with her against Al Franken, where he takes a page from her book he said he picked at random while waiting for his wife to put on her makeup and shows how badly she warps everything she says to fit her agenda. The passage he picked was a dem trying to make a "modest proposal" of how we could solve all the airport problems if we were just all nekkid, no need for the TSA to grab your junk if its right there after all.
A sane person, especially one as supposedly educated as Coulter is supposed to be, would know what "A Modest Proposal" meant and that anything said in that vein was strictly satire to point out the insanity of a situation, yet Coulter attacked like a rabid pit bull how the left was "gonna make an attack on the believers by making them get nekkid" or some shit. Even the audience was laughing at the way the crazy woman was trying to make flaming hoops to jump through to try to defend herself over her book, and that's just sad. She ended up just trying to shout down Franken every time he tried to speak, even though he quietly let her ramble all she wanted, because she knew if he opened his mouth she'd look like an idiot again. just sad.
And Palin? Let me ask you just ONE question...would you trust Caribou Barbie to have her hand on the button? I sure as hell wouldn't. Not her, not Cain, not Bachmann, and sure as hell not Trump. Finally as for Paul? He's NOT sane, he just has a few sane ideas, such as auditing the fed. You read his platform and it would pretty much end up an Ayn Rand version of paradise, which would be hell for anyone who isn't a 1%er. Hell even HE was shocked at how quickly the Randites in his own party screamed "LET HIM DIE!" when he asked what should happen to the young man who is hurt and needs an operation but doesn't have the money. The ugly little secret of libertarianism is that it would be heaven for the 1%, a living hell for everyone else. I have been told with a straight face that a relative that is under 50 and requires a $100K a year medication to have a quality of life worth living should be put down like a dog because 'If he or his relatives can't pay for it why should I?" and that is libertarianism in a nutshell..pure GREED and ZERO empathy for the suffering of those not given a golden spoon by accident of birth like Romney or who luck into being in the right place at the right time like Gates.
What we NEED is a third party, talking with folks frankly most are right on foreign policy but VERY left when it comes to helping the weak among their fellow Americans, but our supposed "left wing party" is frankly right wing, its just our right wing has gone so far right it makes Attila the Hun look like a socialist by comparison. the nuts took over the nuthouse, that's why you don't see fiscal conservatives anymore, its all batshit loonies.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It must be in their water over there. The limies are nuts!!! and what's worse is Americans want to be just like them...
Note that strict liability offenses also exist in US, and in many other countries. In particular, statutory rape is typically a strict liability offense pretty much anywhere.
I know a case where two persons had an affair and they had been sending e-mails to each other. Then one of them managed to get a computer virus on the computer and the virus sent some of those private messages to the people on the address book and soon the affair was common knowledge.
If he had simply included his girlfriend's name in the message, then none of this would have happened (unless one of the underage recipient's happened to have the same first name).
Finally as for Paul? He's NOT sane, he just has a few sane ideas, such as auditing the fed. You read his platform and it would pretty much end up an Ayn Rand version of paradise, which would be hell for anyone who isn't a 1%er. Hell even HE was shocked at how quickly the Randites in his own party screamed "LET HIM DIE!" when he asked what should happen to the young man who is hurt and needs an operation but doesn't have the money.
As opposed to government programs which do the exact same thing. News flash, resources are finite, especially medical care. (if you disagree then please tell me where unlimited medical resources fall from the sky as I know several people who would be interested in finding it.) Medicare wanted to let my grandma go blind rather then get her the treatment needed to save her sight so don't pretend that government programs are the land of milk and honey either..
The ugly little secret of libertarianism is that it would be heaven for the 1%, a living hell for everyone else.
So the freedom to not have the fruits of your labor stolen from you and not be forced into agreements you do not consent to only benefits the 1%? Please elaborate further.
The Crony capitalists would HATE a libertarian US because it would mean that they would have to COMPETE to maintain their position. Warren Buffet would be eating Rahmen noodles if not for his government buddies. He profits heavily from the death tax. All the major bankers would be bankrupt and the smaller banks would have simply taken their place once the assets were bought up in bankruptcy court.
I have been told with a straight face that a relative that is under 50 and requires a $100K a year medication to have a quality of life worth living should be put down like a dog because 'If he or his relatives can't pay for it why should I? and that is libertarianism in a nutshell..pure GREED and ZERO empathy for the suffering of those not given a golden spoon by accident of birth like Romney or who luck into being in the right place at the right time like Gates.
You know full well that they did not say "put down like a dog."
Who is going without medicine because of that one person who needs $100,000 worth? Answer that question for me please? What are you going to tell the 5 people who need anti-rejection drugs so their transplanted heart doesn't die? What about the 100 low income diabetics who need insulin? Why are any of their lives and the medication they need worth less than the person who needs $100,000 worth of drugs? What right do you have to say it should go to the $100,000 guy?
You also never answered the question 'If he or his relatives can't pay for it why should I?" Why should I or anyone care? You simply assert your view as correct with no argumentation to back it up. Once you have done that, elaborate further as to how much one should be forced to pay towards someone else. 40% of their income? 80%? You're throwing around bald assertions like the Linux guys you deride so much for doing the same thing.
How much money do YOU give to those "Poor person who needs $100,000 for medicine?" What if I want to have my money go to the diabetics?
Another practical question, how is the government going to not default on Social Security and Medicare? Where are the physical resources supposed to come from to make good on those promises?
What we NEED is a third party, talking with folks frankly most are right on foreign policy but VERY left when it comes to helping the weak among their fellow Americans, but our supposed "left wing party" is frankly right wing, its just our right wing has gone so far right it makes Attila the Hun look like a socialist by comparison. the nuts took over the nuthouse, that's why you don't see fiscal conservatives anymore, its all batshit loonies.
The reason we don't have such a party is because we have an organization like the F
I should also probably add that i find it interesting that you think it is "greedy" to want to keep the money you've earned, but not "greedy" to take someone elses money.
If I rob a your house with the intention of spending every penny of it on orphan children, I am still a thief and it is still wrong.
That's not quite anti science, it's more equall access. Besides, school curriculum is a state issue, not a federal one. Let's look at your other ideas.
First, neither of those is a right. Second, the contraception thing was about extending additional coverage mandates, not taking something that was there and established away. As for the childcare, I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. I would hope the federal government is not involved in providing childcare at all.
lol.. I need some cites. I've not heard of this. I've heard of counseling and making sure the woman understand exactly what an abortion is before having one, but nothing extremely invasive. And as far as I know, that is a state issue because the Roe decision said the feds couldn't get involved. Now I have seen where Romney wants to see Roe over turned, but he's not running to be a judge.
Bullshit. What they want to remove is the new law saying that women can sit for 50 years then decide they weren't paid the same as a man and sue where in some situations, records are not even available to defend themselves. The problem with the new law is that any woman who negotiates a salary less then any comparable male's salary, even if it is just to get a job, they now have grounds to sue (because of their own actions) 200 years later if they are still alive.
I'm calling bullshit on this one too. A group of unelected officials all the sudden decides that all religious organizations have to ignore their doctrine and provide something that has been a spiritual off limits device ever since it was created. And after the outrage over it, the Obamacare panel (the unelected officials who aren't even confirmed by congress) decided that Churches do not have to provide birth control but they have to pay the premium for it because they know the damn decree was unconstitutional. In the past, we would wait for congress to pass a fucking unconstitutional law, now we have appointed committees not governed by congress decreeing it by proclamation. And to this point, the federal government should not be dictating everyone gets birth control in the first place. Sex is a private issue and your enjoyment or participation in it, unless there is an over ridding medical condition that needs addressed, should be taken care of by those participating in it- not the federal government. Now you got the government in your bed room which is quite frightening, especially when they decide that anal sex and Vaginal to vaginal sex is too dangerous because of the spread of aids and the lack of effectiveness of condoms so it will be outlaws as decreed by this unelected panel who congress doesn't even confirm to the post.
If you think any of that is a good idea, you are crazy.
Marriage is a licensed activity that state government regulates who can and cannot participate in as to the interest of the society it serves. It is not a contract else you would not need a prenuptial agreement or a divorce decree issued and or approved by a judge. Children can enter into contracts with their parents permission and yet, children cannot get married. Brother and Sister can legally enter a contract and yet they cannot get married.
I've seen a lot of things you simply have not thought through. I hope you decide to do a better job on that when you get back to me on those other issues.
HE WAS JOKING.
He wasn't joking. Read it.
"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no, and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem."
He also needs the windows to open so he can look out and check on the dog.
It's obvious Romney was trying to be funny.
It's clear he should just stick with what he is good at: making money by any means necessary
Awww, you're being too hard on him. He can be hilarious at times.
Remember when he said, "We will not let China continue to steal jobs from the United States of America?"
This is the same guy who outsourced American jobs to China when he was at Bain!"
What a crack-up!
You might want to watch the show. They do an *excellent* job of covering aspects of issues you've probably never even considered.
And when fox "news" is doing such a bad job, is it really such a surprise to find actual news content in a comedy show?
Someone needs to cover these details; fox "news" sure doesn't do it.
How about stopping the dirty dealing between big pharma and the government? Know who paid to develop that drug? YOU DID, it was found and developed at the University of Buffalo with tax dollars, who then sold the patents to big pharma. Know how much the SAME DRUG costs in Canada and Mexico? $12,700. Wow $113,000 vs $12,700...pretty big difference huh?
Personally I almost wish the extreme right would get their wish, we can have our own Arab spring and after they are all lined up and shot we can start over. How true is Lenin's words today "A capitalist will sell you the rope you intend to hang him with" and the simple fact is you are outnumbered by the poor by about 10,000 to 1. Do you LIKE those kinds of odds? Might want to look up the wolf packs the black teens have already started doing, sorry 'flash mobs" for the politically correct, where they know by sheer force of numbers they can have might make right by just taking an area and robbing to their heart's content.
Remember society ONLY works if the people as a whole agree to abide by its rules, if huge masses of people decide to say "fuck their rules" and just help themselves? Well then might makes right and with enough numbers on your side whole neighborhoods can fall. A society where the rich can get all the medical care that they want while the poor die in the streets, why should I care if that society falls? i'm not part of the 1%, I wouldn't piss on a 1%er if they were on fire, so why should I care about such a society?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Regardless whether or not it can be proven or disproven, the matter of the fact is that this is just another case on what that other guy/girl said of a pedophile witch hunt. I can attest to many situations where I was being innocent at helping children do the things they enjoyed doing even if is about learning something but sometimes their parents start calling me a pedophile or a child molester without even realizing that I'm just there as a helping hand to those that ask for it. I respect boundaries but it's just silly that in my home country I was never once called a child molester for educating a child on say, physics -- but in the US it happens all too often. What is this place, Salem?
Why send that message via text anyway? How impersonal. He should have called her, swooned her and then enjoyed her lovely hot encounter. I'd never consider sending my wife a text for that.
Was that the debate where Franken cited that the US South was basically "an undeveloped third world country"?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Oh I mistakenly killed somebody, that's called homicide/manslaughter. I accidentally copied an article, that's called plagiarism. I accidentally revealed government's secret, that's treason. What if I did the same because I am a "teacher of teens" and said that it was an accident when somebody reported me. I might also text them like this, I want n****d pics baby. See?