| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2006 01:36:35 PM |
| Object: |
Family charged over girl's rape |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
One of the men, who are both 30, is the girl's uncle. The other man is
understood to be a family friend.
The child's mother, 44, and grandmother, 63, also appeared before
Belfast Magistrates Court charged with child cruelty.
The two men and the child's mother were remanded in custody, while the
grandmother was released on bail.
She was ordered to stay out of east Belfast, where the family are from,
and told to stay away from her granddaughter and her co-accused.
The girl's uncle is also charged with indecent assault, gross indecent
assault and making indecent images of children.
The offences against the girl are alleged to have taken place between
December 2002 and June 2006.
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
21 Nov 2006 01:50:03 AM |
|
|
In article <cs04m2t3423p9584nmjqidvvrrm3f7kg5f@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
One of the men, who are both 30, is the girl's uncle. The other man is
understood to be a family friend.
The child's mother, 44, and grandmother, 63, also appeared before
Belfast Magistrates Court charged with child cruelty.
The two men and the child's mother were remanded in custody, while the
grandmother was released on bail.
She was ordered to stay out of east Belfast, where the family are from,
and told to stay away from her granddaughter and her co-accused.
The girl's uncle is also charged with indecent assault, gross indecent
assault and making indecent images of children.
The offences against the girl are alleged to have taken place between
December 2002 and June 2006.
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
Frickin' creeps.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
28 Nov 2006 04:43:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:50:03 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <cs04m2t3423p9584nmjqidvvrrm3f7kg5f@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
One of the men, who are both 30, is the girl's uncle. The other man is
understood to be a family friend.
The child's mother, 44, and grandmother, 63, also appeared before
Belfast Magistrates Court charged with child cruelty.
The two men and the child's mother were remanded in custody, while the
grandmother was released on bail.
She was ordered to stay out of east Belfast, where the family are from,
and told to stay away from her granddaughter and her co-accused.
The girl's uncle is also charged with indecent assault, gross indecent
assault and making indecent images of children.
The offences against the girl are alleged to have taken place between
December 2002 and June 2006.
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
Frickin' creeps.
Yes.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
20 Nov 2006 02:08:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:36:35 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <cs04m2t3423p9584nmjqidvvrrm3f7kg5f@4ax.com>
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
One of the men, who are both 30, is the girl's uncle. The other man is
understood to be a family friend.
The child's mother, 44, and grandmother, 63, also appeared before
Belfast Magistrates Court charged with child cruelty.
The two men and the child's mother were remanded in custody, while the
grandmother was released on bail.
She was ordered to stay out of east Belfast, where the family are from,
and told to stay away from her granddaughter and her co-accused.
The girl's uncle is also charged with indecent assault, gross indecent
assault and making indecent images of children.
The offences against the girl are alleged to have taken place between
December 2002 and June 2006.
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
Is there any particular reason why you post something like this?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
20 Nov 2006 08:41:10 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein submitted this idea :
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:36:35 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <cs04m2t3423p9584nmjqidvvrrm3f7kg5f@4ax.com>
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
One of the men, who are both 30, is the girl's uncle. The other man is
understood to be a family friend.
The child's mother, 44, and grandmother, 63, also appeared before
Belfast Magistrates Court charged with child cruelty.
The two men and the child's mother were remanded in custody, while the
grandmother was released on bail.
She was ordered to stay out of east Belfast, where the family are from,
and told to stay away from her granddaughter and her co-accused.
The girl's uncle is also charged with indecent assault, gross indecent
assault and making indecent images of children.
The offences against the girl are alleged to have taken place between
December 2002 and June 2006.
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
Is there any particular reason why you post something like this?
Perhaps Stoney posted it as a public service. Many parents teach their
kids to be careful of strangers as do some schools... but don't teach
the kids that ANYONE who touches them in the "bathing suit area(s)" is
doing something wrong, that it is NOT the child's fault, and that the
child needs to tell someone. At nine this child is going to school...
if she had been taught the bathing suit rule - at school - this
tragedy might have been ended sooner.
Thanks, Stoney.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
28 Nov 2006 04:40:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:41:10 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Matt Silberstein submitted this idea :
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:36:35 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <cs04m2t3423p9584nmjqidvvrrm3f7kg5f@4ax.com>
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
One of the men, who are both 30, is the girl's uncle. The other man is
understood to be a family friend.
The child's mother, 44, and grandmother, 63, also appeared before
Belfast Magistrates Court charged with child cruelty.
The two men and the child's mother were remanded in custody, while the
grandmother was released on bail.
She was ordered to stay out of east Belfast, where the family are from,
and told to stay away from her granddaughter and her co-accused.
The girl's uncle is also charged with indecent assault, gross indecent
assault and making indecent images of children.
The offences against the girl are alleged to have taken place between
December 2002 and June 2006.
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
Is there any particular reason why you post something like this?
Perhaps Stoney posted it as a public service.
I posted it as it may be of interest to some folks. A reminder, if
nothing else.
Many parents teach their
kids to be careful of strangers as do some schools... but don't teach
the kids that ANYONE who touches them in the "bathing suit area(s)" is
doing something wrong, that it is NOT the child's fault, and that the
child needs to tell someone. At nine this child is going to school...
if she had been taught the bathing suit rule - at school - this
tragedy might have been ended sooner.
Thanks, Stoney.
Welcome.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MsFrustum" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
20 Nov 2006 09:10:30 PM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 7:41=A0pm, Pangur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
=A0Many parents teach their
kids to be careful of strangers as do some schools... but don't teach
the kids that ANYONE who touches them in the "bathing suit area(s)" is
doing something wrong, that it is NOT the child's fault, and that the
child needs to tell someone.
"ANYONE"? I hope that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old. Exceptions do exist, you know. At least I hope you
know.
"bathing suit area(s)"? What is that? "Bathing suits" come in many
shapes, and cover various areas. Many kids don't wear "bathing suits."
I sure hope that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old.
=A0At nine this child is going to school...
if she had been taught the bathing suit rule =A0- at school - this
tragedy might have been ended sooner.
Why must you propound "rules"? Children comprehend clear explanations,
you know. Or, at least, I hope you know.
"Bathing suit areas"! Sheeeesh!!!! Why must children be subjected to
convoluted euphemisms?
Teach her that no one may touch any part of her body without her
permission -- unless one of her parents are present and explain why.
---
LOP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
20 Nov 2006 10:02:32 PM |
|
|
After serious thinking MsFrustum wrote :
On Nov 20, 7:41?ngur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Parents teach their
kids to be careful of strangers as do some schools... but don't teach
the kids that ANYONE who touches them in the "bathing suit area(s)" is
doing something wrong, that it is NOT the child's fault, and that the
child needs to tell someone.
"ANYONE"? I hope that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old. Exceptions do exist, you know. At least I hope you
know.
"bathing suit area(s)"? What is that? "Bathing suits" come in many
shapes, and cover various areas. Many kids don't wear "bathing suits."
I sure hope that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old.
What I briefly described is from a booklet designed for children. It
explains - with cartoons - who the exceptions are (doctors, for
example). It also has cartoon two children - one male and one female -
wearing bathing suits. The boy is in trunks - the girl in a top and
separate bottoms (not a one piece). This booklet is available from
several sources on the internet.
?e this child is going to school...
if she had been taught the bathing suit rule ?chool - this
tragedy might have been ended sooner.
Why must you propound "rules"? Children comprehend clear explanations,
you know. Or, at least, I hope you know.
If parents clearly explained.... but all too many do not. I created a
small booklet for parents which explains how and what to teach children
about the subject.... and to teach the children that uncles, pastors,
teachers, neighbors, etc. can be added to the candy-carrying stranger.
I've had parents tell me that they had taught about strangers... and
then stopped. They hadn't thought to warn about "trusted" adults.
"Bathing suit areas"! Sheeeesh!!!! Why must children be subjected to
convoluted euphemisms?
When a booklet is being prepared for the school environment, it -
unfortunately - cannot be too explicit. Some dodo parents object to
correct terms. *shrug* So the children get cartoons and bathing
suits. At least the critical message gets to them.
Teach her that no one may touch any part of her body without her
permission -- unless one of her parents are present and explain why.
Unless a parent accompanies a child to school, that is impossible.
Some poor teacher touches the child without asking (maybe to correct
the holding of a pencil), and the child has hysterics. The child is in
a municipal swimming pool and someone inadvertently touches him/her -
more hysterics.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "MsFrustum" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
20 Nov 2006 11:04:36 PM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 9:02=A0pm, Pangur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:41?ngur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Parents teach their
kids to be careful of strangers as do some schools... but don't teach
the kids that ANYONE who touches them in the "bathing suit area(s)" is
doing something wrong, that it is NOT the child's fault, and that the
child needs to tell someone.
"ANYONE"? =A0I hope that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old. =A0Exceptions do exist, you know. =A0At least I hope you
know.
"bathing suit area(s)"? =A0What is that? =A0"Bathing suits" come in many
shapes, and cover various areas. =A0Many kids don't wear "bathing suits=
.."
=A0I sure hope that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old.
What I briefly described is from a booklet designed for children. =A0It
explains - with cartoons - who the exceptions are (doctors, for
example). =A0It also has cartoon two children - one male and one female -
wearing bathing suits. =A0The boy is in trunks - the girl in a top and
separate bottoms (not a one piece). =A0This booklet is available from
several sources on the internet.
As you describe it, the booklet would seem to teach three things: 1.
That doctors are a blanket exception. That's false. 2. That it's
necessary to wear clothes. That's highly debatable. 3. That little
girls must cover their bony chests. That's ludicrous.
this child is going to school...
if she had been taught the bathing suit rule ?chool - this
tragedy might have been ended sooner.
Why must you propound "rules"? =A0Children comprehend clear explanation=
s,
you know. =A0Or, at least, I hope you know.
If parents clearly explained.... but all too many do not.
So teach parents to explain clearly instead of teaching unexplained
_rules_ to kids.
=A0I created a
small booklet for parents which explains how and what to teach children
about the subject.... and to teach the children that uncles, pastors,
teachers, neighbors, etc. can be added to the candy-carrying stranger.
You left out parents, who are frequently the perps.
I've had parents tell me that they had taught about strangers... and
then stopped. =A0They hadn't thought to warn about "trusted" adults.
Anectdotal.
"Bathing suit areas"! =A0Sheeeesh!!!! =A0Why must children be subjected=
to
convoluted euphemisms?
When a booklet is being prepared for the school environment, it -
unfortunately - cannot be too explicit. =A0Some dodo parents object to
correct terms. =A0*shrug* =A0So the children get cartoons and bathing
suits. =A0At least the critical message gets to them.
And a lot of propaganda.
---
LOP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
21 Nov 2006 04:14:59 AM |
|
|
MsFrustum wrote after much deliberation:
On Nov 20, 9:02?ngur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:41?ngur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Parents teach their
kids to be careful of strangers as do some schools... but don't teach
the kids that ANYONE who touches them in the "bathing suit area(s)" is
doing something wrong, that it is NOT the child's fault, and that the
child needs to tell someone.
"ANYONE"? ? that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old. ?ions do exist, you know. ?st I hope you
know.
"bathing suit area(s)"? ?s that? ?ng suits" come in many
shapes, and cover various areas. ?ids don't wear "bathing suits."
? hope that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old.
What I briefly described is from a booklet designed for children. ?explains
- with cartoons - who the exceptions are (doctors, for example). ?o has
cartoon two children - one male and one female - wearing bathing suits. ?y
is in trunks - the girl in a top and separate bottoms (not a one piece).
?ooklet is available from several sources on the internet.
As you describe it, the booklet would seem to teach three things: 1.
That doctors are a blanket exception. That's false.
Here the parent is with the child during the exam; a cartoon shows
this - and in my county doctors must have a parent present. I did not
create this booklet...it is from the national organization.
2. That it's
necessary to wear clothes. That's highly debatable.
The cartoon with clothes is merely to indicate the portions of the
body; the choice of nudity is a personal one - and that cannot be
assumed for all parents.
3. That little
girls must cover their bony chests. That's ludicrous.
Tell that to a pedophile.
this child is going to school...
if she had been taught the bathing suit rule ?chool - this
tragedy might have been ended sooner.
Why must you propound "rules"? ?en comprehend clear explanations,
you know. ? least, I hope you know.
If parents clearly explained.... but all too many do not.
So teach parents to explain clearly instead of teaching unexplained
_rules_ to kids.
Why not do both? Besides, in a "churchgoing" community, getting
parents together to learn about such a topic is nigh impossible. At
least if it is in a school setting, the parents don't complain.
?ted a
small booklet for parents which explains how and what to teach children
about the subject.... and to teach the children that uncles, pastors,
teachers, neighbors, etc. can be added to the candy-carrying stranger.
You left out parents, who are frequently the perps.
Such parents would have no interest in the booklet.
I've had parents tell me that they had taught about strangers... and
then stopped. ?adn't thought to warn about "trusted" adults.
Anectdotal.
But true.
"Bathing suit areas"! ?sh!!!! ?st children be subjected to
convoluted euphemisms?
When a booklet is being prepared for the school environment, it -
unfortunately - cannot be too explicit. ?odo parents object to
correct terms. ?* ? children get cartoons and bathing
suits. ?st the critical message gets to them.
And a lot of propaganda.
Your opinion - to which you are entitled and are free to express - as I
am free to ignore.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim McGaughy" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
23 Nov 2006 06:41:32 PM |
|
|
MsFrustum wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:41?pm, Pangur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
?Many parents teach their
kids to be careful of strangers as do some schools... but don't teach
the kids that ANYONE who touches them in the "bathing suit area(s)" is
doing something wrong, that it is NOT the child's fault, and that the
child needs to tell someone.
"ANYONE"? I hope that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old. Exceptions do exist, you know. At least I hope you
know.
The only exception I could possibly think of would be a doctor. Nobody
else touches my kid in her private areas, on threat of snapped limbs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MsFrustum" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
23 Nov 2006 08:26:58 PM |
|
|
On Nov 23, 5:41=A0pm, Tim McGaughy <tee...@ispwest.com> wrote:
MsFrustum wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:41?pm, Pangur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
?Many parents teach their
kids to be careful of strangers as do some schools... but don't teach
the kids that ANYONE who touches them in the "bathing suit area(s)" is
doing something wrong, that it is NOT the child's fault, and that the
child needs to tell someone.
"ANYONE"? =A0I hope that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old. =A0Exceptions do exist, you know. =A0At least I hope you
know.
The only exception I could possibly think of would be a doctor. Nobody
else touches my kid in her private areas, on threat of snapped limbs.
Oh, geeeeeez, you make all the macho-papa errors. First, the "bathing
suit area(s)" has been previously defined to include the female chest
without reference to the age of the minor. Second, you change the term
to "private areas" without saying what you mean by that. Third, you
don't say what you mean by touch, or say anything about touch by what?
Fourth, how are you gonna break bones when the odds are high you're not
even there?
I sure hope your sleeping kid never has to rescued from a fire, never
has to saved from drowning in a lake, never wrestles with other kids in
a swimming pool, or does any of a thousand other things that could and
probably will result in her being innocently and/or necessarily
"touched" in some or all of the undefined body areas you consider
"private."
In short, you make no distinctions as to the intent of the toucher, the
necessity of the touching, what body part touches what body part, or
what the development of the touched body part might be. Yet you're
apparently going to break the bones of anyone who does so --
inadvertantly or otherwise, necessarily or otherwise.
As for doctors, do you really think they're all trustworthy?
I'd suggest you try thinking about licit versus illicit, intentional
versus unintentional, necessary versus unnecessary, and sexual versus
asexual.
---
LOP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim McGaughy" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
24 Nov 2006 11:05:44 AM |
|
|
MsFrustum wrote:
On Nov 23, 5:41?pm, Tim McGaughy <tee...@ispwest.com> wrote:
MsFrustum wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:41?pm, Pangur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
?Many parents teach their
kids to be careful of strangers as do some schools... but don't teach
the kids that ANYONE who touches them in the "bathing suit area(s)" is
doing something wrong, that it is NOT the child's fault, and that the
child needs to tell someone.
"ANYONE"? ?I hope that parents are a bit more precise than that with a
nine-year-old. ?Exceptions do exist, you know. ?At least I hope you
know.
The only exception I could possibly think of would be a doctor. Nobody
else touches my kid in her private areas, on threat of snapped limbs.
Oh, geeeeeez, you make all the macho-papa errors. First, the "bathing
suit area(s)" has been previously defined to include the female chest
without reference to the age of the minor.
First, I never said anything about 'bathing suit areas'.
Go away until you can keep track of who said what.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
28 Nov 2006 04:37:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:08:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:36:35 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <cs04m2t3423p9584nmjqidvvrrm3f7kg5f@4ax.com>
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
[]
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
Is there any particular reason why you post something like this?
Because it was a family affair?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
28 Nov 2006 09:38:05 PM |
|
|
stoney explained on 11/28/2006 :
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:08:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:36:35 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <cs04m2t3423p9584nmjqidvvrrm3f7kg5f@4ax.com>
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
[]
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
Is there any particular reason why you post something like this?
Because it was a family affair?
Urk!!! :-X
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
30 Nov 2006 03:31:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:38:05 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney explained on 11/28/2006 :
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:08:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:36:35 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <cs04m2t3423p9584nmjqidvvrrm3f7kg5f@4ax.com>
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
[]
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
Is there any particular reason why you post something like this?
Because it was a family affair?
Urk!!! :-X
Sorry. The straight line was irresistable.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
30 Nov 2006 10:40:28 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:38:05 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney explained on 11/28/2006 :
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:08:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:36:35 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <cs04m2t3423p9584nmjqidvvrrm3f7kg5f@4ax.com>
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
[]
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
Is there any particular reason why you post something like this?
Because it was a family affair?
Urk!!! :-X
Sorry. The straight line was irresistable.
*grin* The usual "Stoney laugh" and I am heading for sleep with a
smile!
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
03 Dec 2006 10:31:25 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:40:28 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:38:05 -0700, Pangur Ban
<PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism
stoney explained on 11/28/2006 :
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:08:18 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:36:35 -0800, in alt.atheism , stoney
<stoney@the.net> in <cs04m2t3423p9584nmjqidvvrrm3f7kg5f@4ax.com>
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6164322.stm
Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:12 GMT
Family charged over girl's rape
Two men from east Belfast have been remanded in custody charged with
raping a nine-year-old girl.
[]
The court heard that the case against the accused was based on entries
found in the child's diary. She has since been taken into care.
/end
Is there any particular reason why you post something like this?
Because it was a family affair?
Urk!!! :-X
Sorry. The straight line was irresistable.
*grin* The usual "Stoney laugh" and I am heading for sleep with a
smile!
Pleasent dreams. :)
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow001" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
20 Nov 2006 04:26:54 PM |
|
|
yeah Im also missing the point here
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
20 Nov 2006 08:44:55 PM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2006 14:26:54 -0800, "Shadow001" <emt_tuthill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
yeah Im also missing the point here
What's the religion in East Belfast?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
21 Nov 2006 08:03:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:44:55 -0500, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <q0q4m2hbkmr63880i4b9cbmdqehrm1cbc0@4ax.com>
wrote:
On 20 Nov 2006 14:26:54 -0800, "Shadow001" <emt_tuthill@hotmail.com>
wrote:
yeah Im also missing the point here
What's the religion in East Belfast?
To the best of my knowledge neither cities nor neighborhoods have a
religion. But perhaps you meant that it was likely that the people
involved had some religion or another. That would not surprise me
since most people have some religion or another. Or perhaps you wanted
to imply, without actually producing useful evidence, that people of
that unknown religion are somehow more likely to commit crimes. In
that case you and/or Stoney are just indulging in bigotry.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
21 Nov 2006 08:10:55 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
The court heard that the case against the
accused was based on entries found in
the child's diary.
Oh, I certainly hope they have some psychical
evidence. I'm reminded of a very recent event
when a woman I know found something her
daughter had written, something she had not
intended her mother to see. Going by it, you
would think she kept the girl tied up in the
basement and passed the time stubbing out
cigarettes on her face.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Family charged over girl's rape |
28 Nov 2006 04:44:51 PM |
|
|
On 21 Nov 2006 06:10:55 -0800, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
The court heard that the case against the
accused was based on entries found in
the child's diary.
Oh, I certainly hope they have some psychical
evidence.
More than likely they do.
I'm reminded of a very recent event
when a woman I know found something her
daughter had written, something she had not
intended her mother to see. Going by it, you
would think she kept the girl tied up in the
basement and passed the time stubbing out
cigarettes on her face.
[sigh]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
