legalbeagle

HeidiHi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I knew he was Nigerian, So I told him in HIS > country ( meaning Nigeria), it might be acceptable > to beat his kid, but in the UK we have laws for > that. > Someone asked me why I said in his country it > would be acceptable, I replied he was African. I > should have replied, he was Nigerian. > Stop nitpicking. Nigeria DOES have a bad human > rights record, Amnesty International if you want > to google? Not nitpicking at all, just trying to understand your post, which presumably you want to have understood or you wouldn't have posted. You didn't say he was Nigerian. Now you have, I understand better what you were trying to say. Not everyone who questions you is "having a go". Some of us are trying to understand. It is beyond doubt that Nigeria has a bad human rights record, I am a member of Amnesty and have represented those suffering human rights abuses as a lawyer before now, so I don't need any persuading there. My point is that I question the link between that and child abuse. What you described was a beating and kicking of a child. I am questioning whether this happened because the man was from a country with a bad human rights record, and therefore was likely to harm his child. I know a number of Nigerians who would find that incredibly offensive. They may have suffered human rights abuses but they would never inflict suffering on their children. In any event, there may not be laws banning the smacking of children in Nigeria, I don't know, but that isn't what he was doing.

HeidiHi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am sorry, does Nigeria have a good track record > for human rights? Who said that Africans are all > abusers? I did not, I said that in Africa they > might not have a law for smacking children ( and > they don't) but in the UK we DO have a law for > smacking children. Take that how you will. Sorry, but that's not what you said. Here's what you said: "He was an African man, so I was telling him that in his country it might be acceptable to beat children since their human rights is appalling, but in the UK it is against the law." So I stand by my last post. Africa is not a country it is a continent. "They" don't have one law for anything. And it simply does not follow that because a government has an appalling human rights record, it's citizens are more likely to abuse their children.

Deleted after complaint that post was offensive.

HeidiHi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He was an African man, so I was telling him that > in his country it might be acceptable to beat > children since their human rights is appalling, > but in the UK it is against the law. > What this man did to his child is dreadful, that's a no-brainer. And good for you standing up for that poor little boy. It was a brave thing to do and I hope it helped in some way. That said, I worry about your attitude to his origins. Africa is a continent, not a country. South Africans and Nigerians and Kenyans and Algerians are, for example, widely different people with very different cultures and human rights records and standards of treating children. Please don't assume just because someone is from the continent of Africa you can take a morally superior stance on what Africans consider to be the right way to treat children. I know a great many Africans who would incredibly insulted by the suggestion that child abuse is acceptable in the part of the continent that they live in. He didn't beat his child because he's African. He beat his child because he is a gutless heartless f*cker who should not be left in charge of another human being.

Eye of the Tiger - Survivor

You're right Mockney. Facts aside, he was spot on.

I find the beeb very reliable about the weather whilst it is actually occuring. So for example they are currently saying that today will be a bit overcase and it may rain. Spot on, I'd say. Does create a small linguistic issue with calling it a "forecast" but that aside, it works well.

Army

Angel eyes - Ella Fitzgerald

I think what I find confusing about the OP is not that she feels strongly, but her use of language: "brazenly smoking" "how disgusting is was to be smoking whilst pregnant, and so publically" (emphasis added). It's sounds like it was not the smoking that was offensive, but that she wasn't trying to hide it. In other words, as long as you are seen out in public behaving "correctly", what goes on at home needn't matter. You either think smoking is bad when pregnant or you don't. Suggesting that poor behaviour is better hidden than honestly carried out in public makes the OP sound like it is only appearances that matter, and therefore that her concern for the unborn child is insincere. I'm not saying that the OP is in fact insincere, but it did sound like that to me. Why comment like that otherwise?

I ask because your post made it sound like you thought there was a limit to the number of private schools that an area ought to have, and that we have reached/passed that limit. That might not be what you meant at all, but it sort of read like that, and I was confused about how that linked into needing better state schools. I don't think you'd get better/more state schools just by closing some of the private ones, if you see what I mean. So I was, and still am, confused by what your point was. Which isn't to say you don't have a good point, it's just that I couldn't work out what it was!

.

"Too many private schools" ? How many is too many?

neverever

none

I don't think anyone is saying it is alright. I think they are saying that we draw the line somewhere when deciding what we compel people to do, and what we let them choose to do. In this country we allow people to smoke even though it is bad for them and their unborn bambinis. Them's the rules. Laws don't make all actions morally right, they just mean you don't get arrested for doing them. Nor should you, IMHO, be berated in the street for it.

That's nothing. I also have the largest hands you've ever seen on a woman. No kidding.

Plimsoul - medical research shows that small amounts of alcohol do not cause harm during pregnancy. My doctor at St Thomas's told me that two or three glasses of wine a week was fine. Most pregnant women I know don't drink because they don't feel like it, rather than because they are told not to.

They really are actually. I hate them. They dig up my seedlings and crap all over the garden. Dog owners take a lot of flack (rightly) for not clearing up after their pooches, yet what about cats? If you don't give your cat a litter tray, and clean it out yourself, WHERE DO YOU THINK THEY ARE CRAPPING????!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Plus they kill too many birds. Anyway, I think that preggie smoking bird should be publicly berated. Utter disgrace. :))

Moos and giggirl, you're out of order. The woman is a total disgrace and I for one would have her in the stocks asap. There are the remains of the old Dulwich stocks next door to the village book shop. Just the place. note to self - must find pitchfork. Haven't seen it since the child snatching clown incident.

Waiting with baited breath......

*GRIN*

Please don't be too restrained Woof. It's duller than a row of tents round here at the moment.

Welcome back Woof! Where you been?!

I'm going to dress up as a clown and walk up and down Lordship Lane with my dog, handing out "I'm not just a clown I'm an M&S clown" leaflets. I shall make sure the dog craps at least 3 times, and I shall clear up not one dribble. I'm also attempting to restart lactation so that I can breast feed my 4 year old in an inappropriate place.