Jounalistic plodder
You can always rely on The Guardian for taking any issue and getting it completely arse backwards. The latest is Hannah Pool taking the judgement of Judge Finestein that 10 year olds should be treated differently from adults. This is a legal principal that has existed since ... oh ... forever, but she retrofits it as racist to fit her own prejudices:
Finestein was complaining about the Crown Prosecution Service pursuing a case against a 10-year-old boy from Salford, Greater Manchester, who allegedly racially abused another youngster (aged 11), calling him "paki", "Bin Laden" and using the N word. "Does this amount to a criminal offence? It is crazy. Nobody is more against racist abuse than me, but these are boys in a playground," said Finestein. Really, no one more than you, Finestein? Somehow, I doubt it.And there is Hannah Pool's own prejudice coming though. He makes judgments, he does not write for the Guardian, therefore these judgments must be racist.
Finestein, who apparently has a reputation for speaking his mind, went on to reminisce about his school days, during which other children taunted him about his weight. "I was repeatedly called fat at school. Does this amount to a criminal offence? This is political correctness gone mad, it's crazy," he said. Ah yes, that old chestnut. When will people realise racism is not just about the words said but the history of oppression behind those words.Kids are bastards, but they don't care what they say so long as it hurts. The malice is there, but the historical context is completely absent. They do not understand context or consequence yet. Because they are children, therefore they should be treated as children.
The CPS has issued a statement saying the three boys involved were offered a formal reprimand (an official slap on the wrist, that is) but only two accepted, the other offender's family preferring that he go to court and chance his luck by pleading not guilty. Still the CPS's fault now?Yes it was. The CPS could and should have simply thrown the case out before it got that far. The other two will now have a criminal record for something that, when it came to court, was found to be not a crime. The third boy would as well had his parents not stood by him and stood up to the system.
The age of the accused or the nature of the alleged crime? Is it that he doesn't think racist abuse should qualify as a criminal offence, or the fact the alleged perpetrators are young enough to be in short trousers?Obviously the latter, if you where willing to read what he said rather than jump to your own prejudiced conclusions. As Judge Finestein made quite clear it was because these where children, acting like children that the case should not have been brought.
Would he feel the same if the boys were 15, say, or 25?Well from his judgement, no he wouldn't. Certainly not an adult of 25. However Hannah Pool is so set on confirming her prejudice that actually trying to understand what he said is of little issue.
Of course the boy should be treated differently than an adult. He is not an adult. He is a child. He has not learned how to judge the consequences of actions properly yet, that process called growing up. Once he has grown up and learned what it is to be an adult then, and only then, should he be treat them as an adult. Or perhaps Hannah Pool would actually prefer that all children are always treated as adults. Caught hoping over someone's fence to get your ball back? 18 months in an adult goal for breaking and entry? Somehow, I doubt it.
1 Comments:
Hanna Pool engages in the same ridiculous non sequiters as the NUT. Judge Finestein is absolutely right, this case should not have come to court. Indeed, the CPS should never have been involved. These were children at school - the school should have dealt with it.
Yes, it is political correctness gone crazy.
Post a Comment
<< Home