It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JohnySeagull
Do people cosider this a life sentence crime?
Originally posted by Realtruth
Originally posted by JohnySeagull
Do people cosider this a life sentence crime?
Never happen.
They have to abide by State Statues, most like 10 to 20 worst case, but this will not happen here.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Apparently this isn't even illegal in the UK.
You folks need to learn your own laws and realize they are barely different than the laws in the US before you go off calling us barbarians.
nspcc.org.uk
Read them and weep.
You Brits are such barbarians! At least in the USA most people are required to report actual cases of abuse to the government, whereas in the UK this is apparently optional in most cases.
I'll be...
Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
It's legal here in SC to beat your children as long as it doesn't leave any visible bruising or marks.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by Realtruth
Originally posted by JohnySeagull
Do people cosider this a life sentence crime?
Never happen.
They have to abide by State Statues, most like 10 to 20 worst case, but this will not happen here.
In fact I can't find a single nation on Earth where this act is technically illegal.
I wonder why it's so difficult to pinpoint one?
Any help would be gracious, just for a little side-project for fun you know?
Originally posted by NadaCambia
But who beats their children in the UK?
Originally posted by NadaCambia
That's because you cannot read, it seems.
It's not that laws don't exist, it that you're seemingly unable to comprehend the ones already in placeedit on 2-11-2011 by NadaCambia because: (no reason given)
The Children Act 1989 defines “harm” as ill-treatment (including sexual abuse and nonphysical forms of ill-treatment) or the impairment of health (physical or mental) or development (physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural) (section 31). “Significant” is not defined in the Act, although it does say that the court should compare the health and development of the child “with that which could be reasonably expected of a similar child”. So the courts have to decide for themselves what constitutes “significant harm” by looking at the facts of each individual case.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by CALGARIAN
lmao.
All the people who said it was fine she is getting beating is CLEARLY men who:
1. Don't have a kid
2. Are single
3. Have a grudge against woman because of #2
I have a wife and two happy children.
My 7 yr old can do algebra, read a novel, and write proficiently.
I would have to say you are entirely bias and presumptive.
This is a old school witch hunt, and you folks know it.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by CALGARIAN
lmao.
All the people who said it was fine she is getting beating is CLEARLY men who:
1. Don't have a kid
2. Are single
3. Have a grudge against woman because of #2
I have a wife and two happy children.
My 7 yr old can do algebra, read a novel, and write proficiently.
I would have to say you are entirely bias and presumptive.
This is a old school witch hunt, and you folks know it.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by NadaCambia
That's because you cannot read, it seems.
It's not that laws don't exist, it that you're seemingly unable to comprehend the ones already in placeedit on 2-11-2011 by NadaCambia because: (no reason given)
The Children Act 1989 defines “harm” as ill-treatment (including sexual abuse and nonphysical forms of ill-treatment) or the impairment of health (physical or mental) or development (physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural) (section 31). “Significant” is not defined in the Act, although it does say that the court should compare the health and development of the child “with that which could be reasonably expected of a similar child”. So the courts have to decide for themselves what constitutes “significant harm” by looking at the facts of each individual case.
Looks like I am reading fairly accurately.
Why didn't you even bother to read your OWN LAWS before you disputed me?
This is laughable.
Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
My only wish? That somebody would've called those "Nazi" police when my mom started the sexual abuse.
So why didn't you?
Are you not capable of pressing a simple 9-1-1 on the phone?
Call me confused.
Its called fear.. The same reason people who are abused in relationships dont say anything.. You should watch the burning bed.. But you wouldnt understand it because you have never been there probably..
Originally posted by OzTruth
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by CALGARIAN
lmao.
All the people who said it was fine she is getting beating is CLEARLY men who:
1. Don't have a kid
2. Are single
3. Have a grudge against woman because of #2
I have a wife and two happy children.
My 7 yr old can do algebra, read a novel, and write proficiently.
I would have to say you are entirely bias and presumptive.
This is a old school witch hunt, and you folks know it.
Show your kids the video and tell them you support his behavior and see what happens. The more you talk the more I am certain about my thoughts of you.
I feel sorry for your kids... Somebody call DHS