And before anyone says it: The UK absolutely has an issue with bigotry and racism. Just because it isn't the US doesn't mean racial biases don't exist within European communities.Love these comments. Yes, I should have added rich as a qualifier (although not really, white men always get away with bullshit), but his race ABSOLUTELY plays a part.
Haven't you heard, though? Racism is an American thing. Actually, I shouldn't be flippant. I appreciate you saying this, because I'm sick of seeing that sentiment everywhere whenever it's a thread outside of the US.And before anyone says it: The UK absolutely has an issue with bigotry and racism. Just because it isn't the US doesn't mean racial biases don't exist within European communities.
Well, just to note, he wasn't 18 when he did the acts, that's how old he is now. The courts are usually lenient on people who weren't adults when they committed their crimes."Well... I guess a thirteen year old shouldn't have his life-"
"He's eighteen."
"..."
But yeah, while I think the lifetime registry is a huge problem, this kid should not have gotten away so lightly. At the very least, he should have been placed on it for a few years and been barred from working with kids for life.
Nah this is class. If he was unemployed and from a council estate he'd be fucked wouldn't matter what colour he was.
Well, just to note, 15-17 is absolutely old enough to fucking know better.Well, just to note, he wasn't 18 when he did the acts, that's how old he is now. The courts are usually lenient on people who weren't adults when they committed their crimes.
Right? Things would be a lot easier for black and brown people across the world if the only people guilty of persecuting us were limited to one continent.Haven't you heard, though? Racism is an American thing. Actually, I shouldn't be flippant. I appreciate you saying this, because I'm sick of seeing that sentiment everywhere whenever it's a thread outside of the US.
Bit of a shit time to crack a joke when two people (that we know of) have been molested by this fuckbag
Full Ruling said:At Dumbarton Sheriff Court, Sheriff Gerard Sinclair discharged absolutely Christopher Daniel after he was found guilty of sexual assault.
Circumstances of the offence
The circumstances of the offence were that the family of the complainer was friendly with that of the accused, and would visit each other from time to time. During visits the complainer liked playing with the accused, who had a computer in his room. When they played on the computer she would often sit on the accused's knee. Several times during visits he touched her on her vagina, placing his hand over her vaginal area. His hand was cupped and he would press it against that area. Whenever he did this she had clothes on, either leggings or tights or pants.
The complainer's father described the accused as an intelligent, but quiet boy who seemed very young and immature. In the course of a meeting between the complainer's mother, the accused's parents and the accused, he initially denied, but later admitted, his actions. The complainer's parents agreed not to contact the police at that time understanding that the accused was to obtain professional help, to which he was agreeable. However, subsequently believing that he was backtracking on, and changing the nature of, his admissions they decided to contact the police.
Sheriff's disposal
The Sheriff considered all the relevant factors, including the nature of the offence, the impact on the victim and others affected by the case and the particular circumstances of the accused.
As to the circumstances of the offence, the Sheriff considered that the actions, occurring on more than one occasion could not be classed as spontaneous. However, there had been no attempt to escalate the nature of the offending. In light of the evidence as to the immaturity of the accused, and the nature of the discussion during which he admitted his actions, the Sheriff considered the offence to be the result of an entirely inappropriate curiosity of an emotionally naive teenager rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification. The accused had appeared both noticeably immature and socially awkward, features confirmed by other evidence in the case. It was fortunate that the complainer appeared to have suffered no injury or long lasting effects.
It was clear that the complainer's family held no ill will against the accused's family. They indicated in their evidence that they were not seeking any form of retribution. Their main focus appeared to be a wish to have the accused admit his culpability and address his behaviour. The accused's family were clearly a caring and supportive one who the sheriff considered would, in light of his verdict, wish to provide whatever support was necessary for their son.
The accused was a 17 year old, first offender. He had suffered considerable opprobrium, having been temporarily suspended from his university course. Since the matter had come to light, the accused had suffered seizures and had been diagnosed with epilepsy. During the trial he presented as someone who, with appropriate support and guidance, could become a valuable contributor to society. The Sheriff considered it unlikely that he would ever appear in court as an accused again. Any recorded conviction for this offence would have serious consequences in terms of the accused`s future career. On the authorities, this was also a relevant factor in deciding how to deal with the case. Any sentence would mean that he would probably be unable to continue his university course. The notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 would automatically apply to a conviction for this offence unless an absolute discharge was granted.
Considering all of these factors, the Sheriff reached the conclusion that justice could be served in this case by taking the wholly exceptional decision not to pass sentence and to grant an absolute discharge
Sheriff Gerard Sinclair concluded that the offence was "the result of an entirely inappropriate curiosity of an emotionally naive teenager rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification".
Well, just to note, he wasn't 18 when he did the acts, that's how old he is now. The courts are usually lenient on people who weren't adults when they committed their crimes.
The Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 (c.50) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom applicable only in Scotland which replaced the pre-existing rule of pupillage and minority with a simpler rule that a person has full legal capacity, with some limitations, at the age of 16[1].
In Scotland, the age of consent is 16 for sex whether straight (guy on girl) or gay (guy on guy or girl on girl). If either person is under 16, then the person over 16 is breaking the law.
I hope the family can get this challenged because letting someone who's happy to take advantage of children train to work in a field where he could be around vunerable children on a daily basis is all kinds of fucked.
Reading the report above, it doesn't look like the victims family wanted him to be punished - merely admit that he had done it and then get help.
I think you can keep that bridge, because this happened in Scotland. This is not about institutionalized racism. It's about class, plain and simple.
Reading the report above, it doesn't look like the victims family wanted him to be punished - merely admit that he had done it and then get help.
I know what I would do to him if it was my daughter, and it would probably involve me going to jail.holy fuck, that's fucked up. If i was the parent, I don't know what I would do that guy.
Boys will be boys.Any recorded conviction for this offence would have serious consequences in terms of the accused's future career.
HE DID IT MORE THAN ONCE...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...w-christopher-daniel-punishment-a8756056.html
I think you can keep that bridge, because this happened in Scotland. This is not about institutionalized racism. It's about class, plain and simple.