HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

The last of Pat Hickey?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2011, 10:23 PM
  #201
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,752
vCash: 1400
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
What are they mad at? Saying that James deserve hard time? Or that Fleury is being an hypocrite, which is true? This quote says it all.
He's right and I'm a big Theo fan. Actually a well written piece

Poignant Discussion is offline  
Old
12-13-2011, 10:35 PM
  #202
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
You're still missing the point here though... We don't know the circumstances behind this. Do you think that Fleury wanted to have anything to do with his abuser? Of course not.

But he was a VICTIM. His behaviour was affected by his abuse and his abuser obviously held power over him. It's easy enough for us to sit back in our comfy chairs and judge Fleury but we haven't walked in his shoes. It's not right to hammer on a victim of these kinds of crimes and label them as hypocrites when they argue that the government should've done more.

Was Hickey right about James being able to stay free longer because of his victims' silence? Sure he is. That's the way it always works with these guys. They pray on the vulnerable. That's what makes them so dispicible. They pray on the young who they feel will be scared enough to stay silent. This often goes on for years...

Fleury was victimized enough by James. Hickey didn't need to victimize him again with an article like this. It was over the line and I think he owes Fleury a sincer apology.

You are making all kinds of assumptions here...

Fleury hasn't been accused by anyone of allowing anybody to be abused. If he did this he WOULD be facing the law. That hasn't happened here.

And that's a big reason why Hickey is out of line. I haven't seen any evidence of criminal misconduct by Fleury here at all. And I gotta tell you, with the article having been written and the reactions of some of the posters in this thread it's no wonder Fleury chose to remain silent for as long as he did.

Normally, I would just walk away from this thread at this point but this is actually something worth staying here for. You really do need to understand this. I hope you can keep an open mind here and listen to what some of the others are telling you in this thread.

Lafleur's Guy.

I will simply say this and be done with this thread.

Fleury should have kept his mouth shut when James was sentenced. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have an open mind. I have nothing to gain by saying Hickey was right. I have nothing to gain by saying Fleury was wrong.

Hickey is right.

SouthernHab is online now  
Old
12-13-2011, 10:39 PM
  #203
guapo23
Registered User
 
guapo23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country:
Posts: 2,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Lafleur's Guy.

I will simply say this and be done with this thread.

Fleury should have kept his mouth shut when James was sentenced. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have an open mind. I have nothing to gain by saying Hickey was right. I have nothing to gain by saying Fleury was wrong.

Hickey is right.
So victims of sexual crimes should not make comments about the light sentences their abusers receive? Why ?

Are they not entitled to speak their mind ?

guapo23 is offline  
Old
12-13-2011, 10:41 PM
  #204
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,074
vCash: 500
Sorry, but if you aren't giving money to The Gazette, or aren't purchasing in The Gazette, or aren't having some kind of good basis for a lawsuit against The Gazette, you shouldn't tell The Gazette what to do.

The guy is paid to give his opinion. He did.

You disagree?

Don't give money to The Gazette, or sue them, if you think you have a good case.

I mean, I'm not purchasing Le Monde Diplomatique because they're somewhat loonies, and I'm not purchasing any Sun journal because I think they're a bunch of frustrated wingbats with erectile problems.

That's my prerogative.

But I'll never sue the columnists of the Sun.

MXD is online now  
Old
12-13-2011, 10:46 PM
  #205
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guapo23 View Post
So victims of sexual crimes should not make comments about the light sentences their abusers receive? Why ?

Are they not entitled to speak their mind ?
Context.

You didnt get it, I dont feel like explaining it so I will leave it at that since I said I was done with this thread.

SouthernHab is online now  
Old
12-13-2011, 10:58 PM
  #206
guapo23
Registered User
 
guapo23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country:
Posts: 2,453
vCash: 500
As some have pointed out, let's look at the facts.

- Graham James was convicted of over 350 acts of sexual abuse against minors.

- He served 3.5 years in jail and was given a pardon

- Fleury made comments about how ridiculously lenient that was

- Hickey wrote an article calling Fleury a hypocrite


My point is what should we really be concerned about :

Fleury's behaviour ?
Hickey's opinion ?

Or the failure of our Justice System to protect children from predators ?

The ridiculous posturing of the Harper Government pretending to be "tough on crime" while letting predators go free is more important.
In the new crime bill they passed last week a person growing 6 pot plants get the same amount of jail time as a pedophile.
Is this the kind of country we want to live in ?

guapo23 is offline  
Old
12-13-2011, 11:04 PM
  #207
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Lafleur's Guy.

I will simply say this and be done with this thread.

Fleury should have kept his mouth shut when James was sentenced. Nothing more, nothing less.
Who are you to say this?

Seriously man, did you think about this before you wrote it? The guy was abused by James, he sure as hell has the right to speak out about it. And he also has the right to be angry with the government for not handling this properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I have an open mind. I have nothing to gain by saying Hickey was right. I have nothing to gain by saying Fleury was wrong.

Hickey is right.
Right about what? The fact that Fleury not speaking out was dangerous and could've potentially led to more victims? Sure, nobody disputes this.

If that's all Hickey had said and if he'd phrased it such as (more victims should have the strength to come forward as it would be of benefit to everyone etc...) that would've been okay. But he didn't do this. He came after a guy who'd been abused for many years after the victim had spoken out about the government not doing enough.

Let me try another analogy here:

Two guys are out swimming in the ocean and both get bitten by a shark. One guy swims away in a panic and the other one dies. Obviously if the guy who swam back to shore had stayed in the water, he might've been able to help the other guy.

Do you think it would be right for a columnist to write an article blasting the guy who swam back to shore for being a coward? Do you think it would be okay to label him a hypocrite if he said that the local beaches should do more to prevent shark attacks?


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 12-13-2011 at 11:13 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
12-13-2011, 11:05 PM
  #208
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guapo23 View Post
As some have pointed out, let's look at the facts.

- Graham James was convicted of over 350 acts of sexual abuse against minors.

- He served 3.5 years in jail and was given a pardon

- Fleury made comments about how ridiculously lenient that was

- Hickey wrote an article calling Fleury a hypocrite


My point is what should we really be concerned about :

Fleury's behaviour ?
Hickey's opinion ?

Or the failure of our Justice System to protect children from predators ?

The ridiculous posturing of the Harper Government pretending to be "tough on crime" while letting predators go free is more important.
In the new crime bill they passed last week a person growing 6 pot plants get the same amount of jail time as a pedophile.
Is this the kind of country we want to live in ?
The same imbalance may also be found in the US. Apparently some criminals are more "equal" than others.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
12-13-2011, 11:28 PM
  #209
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Lafleur's Guy.

I will simply say this and be done with this thread.

Fleury should have kept his mouth shut when James was sentenced. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have an open mind. I have nothing to gain by saying Hickey was right. I have nothing to gain by saying Fleury was wrong.

Hickey is right.
Why should he have kept his mouth shut.

Fleury today is trying to use his celebrity to shine light on the issue that the law is far to lenient on these monsters.

What is wrong with shining such a light?

If Fleury can sway public opinion, the government will pass laws making these sentences harsher, the pardons harder to get.

No one should question his motives here. Its preposterous.

Fleury kept silent for far too long due to the emotional torment that his abuser put him through. Now that he's ready, there is no more keeping silent.

He should do all he can to ensure James, and future people like him never see the light of day.

IMO, Child molestation is the worst crime someone can possibly commit, even worse than murder. James is a monster, not a human being.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 12:10 AM
  #210
ROEN
HabsHQ
 
ROEN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,057
vCash: 500
Hickey made two major mistakes. The most lethal ones in this business.

Don't make it seem personal. Don't make your paper look bad.

Oh yeah ... and the one that says, don't ever pick on people that were molested as children ...

No matter what Hickey's points were, no matter how truthful or good, it ended up looking like he had beef with Fleury and people aren't talking well of the Gazette because of this.

People are acting like Hickey came out

Watch everyone forget about it 2 weeks from now, our attention span isn't that big anyways ...

ROEN is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 08:09 AM
  #211
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post

Fleury should have kept his mouth shut when James was sentenced. Nothing more, nothing less.
Let me pile on here and point out how unbelievably repugnant your comment is. A known, convicted pedophile gets a pardon and is out on the streets. Everyone should be commenting on how much of an outrage it is. Who better than to do so and to make people listen than one of his victims, who just happens to be a very famous hockey player ensuring people will actually listen to him?

If Fleury doesn't speak out, it might have been comletely swept under the carpet. Maybe no one even notices that James gets a pardon. Is that what you wanted? More freedom for pedophiles?

Anyone calling out Fleury for his comments is ridiculous. Trying to give James and the pathetic justice system a pass here just because it took Fleury a long time to face his deamons and come forward is reprehensible.

I am literally disgusted that someone on here is telling Fleury to keep his mouth shut.

CGG is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 09:37 AM
  #212
Universe
Patiently waiting.
 
Universe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commandant View Post
Woooooooah hold on their a second.

Fleury doesn't get 32.99 everytime the book is sold.

There are a whole lot of people to pay on this thing, in fact his percentage is probably 10-15% of that number, actually that would be his percentage if he was the sole author. Since he has a co-writer, its probably half of that.

Secondly..... he's given a ton of time, and money to numerous charitable causes.

Lastly and most importantly. I think its deplorable to question the timing of anyone finally being ready to come forward with their story of abuse. DEPLORABLE.

Fleury would have made a heck of a lot more money, and been able to keep it, if he came forward during his hockey career... he would have got treatment, wouldn't have been thrown to the curb in the Northern Irish league, and wouldn't have spent all the money he did earn on drugs and prostitutes. Come on now.

Saying he's only doing this for the money is a joke.

The more we question the motives of the victims, the more we put them on trial and criticize their actions, the more we disparage them. The harder we make it for every other potential victim to come forward.
Of course he doesn't get the full value of the book but what I was stating was the books earning in SIX weeks.

And it's great that he gives to charities. I don't have any money but I still manage to volunteer in my community for at least eight hours a week and nobody is calling me a hero.

Easy to say would haves too. If he was never abused, he would never have made those choices to waste what many players work their entire lives to get too. He lost a LOT of money due to his choices and it was his choice to release the book at that time.

I'm not saying it was strictly for money but there are people who never made it to the NHL and had the chances or money Theo had but had to go through the same thing.

Universe is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 09:39 AM
  #213
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guapo23 View Post
In the new crime bill they passed last week a person growing 6 pot plants get the same amount of jail time as a pedophile.
god damn, are you kidding me???

looks like i haven't seen the last of Seymour

coolasprICE is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 09:55 AM
  #214
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 20,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Wow, i read all responses. A lot of people missed the entire point of the article.

I had to read the article again to make sure I there wasn't another page I failed to read.

Hickey is 100 percent correct.

My words (not Hickey's ) after reading:

- Kennedy exposed a predator
- Fleury stayed quiet and maintained a relationship with the predator
- when it was convenient for Fleury he came forward, only after years of delay and after a lucrative book was ready for publishing,
- while Kennedy works for change, Fleury sells books and criticizes OTHERS for keeping James on the street.

Fleury is a hypocrit and an opportunist.
Kennedy is courageous and working to effect change.

Hickey knows the difference and is writing about it.
I think you and Hickey seem to think Fleury did all of it as an opportunity while nobody that has been abused can't know what's inside the person's head and soul and how difficult it is to admit that you're being abused. I bet it must have been a fight for Fleury his entire life. And his drug abuse proved it. He's an hypocrite just because he couldn't admit it? Because he waited so long? Also everybody publish books about their personal tragedy. If it can get them get over it and help others, so be it. They deserve all the money they can get from this stuff.

I don't even see from where Hickey is coming from defending the justice system where must of us agree that the law is too easy on these abusers.

Kimota is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 10:32 AM
  #215
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guapo23 View Post
As some have pointed out, let's look at the facts.

- Graham James was convicted of over 350 acts of sexual abuse against minors.

- He served 3.5 years in jail and was given a pardon

- Fleury made comments about how ridiculously lenient that was

- Hickey wrote an article calling Fleury a hypocrite


My point is what should we really be concerned about :

Fleury's behaviour ?
Hickey's opinion ?

Or the failure of our Justice System to protect children from predators ?

The ridiculous posturing of the Harper Government pretending to be "tough on crime" while letting predators go free is more important.
In the new crime bill they passed last week a person growing 6 pot plants get the same amount of jail time as a pedophile.
Is this the kind of country we want to live in ?
Amongst other things the omnibus bill added mandatory sentencing for pedophiles where none existed before, increased mandatory jail sentences for pedophilia and added 2 new offense categories, gave judges greater ability to prohibit contact between pedophiles and children, eliminated house arrest as punishment for pedophiles, and eliminated pardons for pedophiles.

This moral relativism on your part is really about your dope and your politics and not any real concern about sexual predators.


Last edited by Agnostic: 12-14-2011 at 10:52 AM.
Agnostic is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 10:50 AM
  #216
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
god damn, are you kidding me???

looks like i haven't seen the last of Seymour

He's not kidding but he's also ignorant on the subject.

A drug trafficker growing 6 - 200 marijuana plants IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING would face the same MINIMUM SENTENCE as a person who shows pornographic material to a child. He also fails to point out that prior to the bill the pedophile behaviour would not have resulted in jail time.

The OP would have you believe a person caught with 6 plants anywhere will get the same sentence as an adult who ***** a toddler. This is of course ridiculous as your instincts told you.

Agnostic is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 10:51 AM
  #217
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,762
vCash: 500
If Hickey hasn't been suspended or fired by now it won't happen.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 10:56 AM
  #218
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,170
vCash: 500
I kind of think we should try and boycott the Gazette until they make changes. When you combine this with some of the other gaffes they've done recently like reporting Pat Burns death when he was alive is very telling of the quality of the journalism at the Gazette.

macavoy is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 11:02 AM
  #219
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
I kind of think we should try and boycott the Gazette until they make changes. When you combine this with some of the other gaffes they've done recently like reporting Pat Burns death when he was alive is very telling of the quality of the journalism at the Gazette.
The Burns story originated in Toronto, was published , and made it's way around social networking sites before the Gazette picked it up.

The Hickey story is a good story.

You can boycott based on your conscience but others may disagree.

Agnostic is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 11:02 AM
  #220
Crimson Skorpion
Global Moderator
 
Crimson Skorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lachine, Quebec
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,896
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
I kind of think we should try and boycott the Gazette until they make changes. When you combine this with some of the other gaffes they've done recently like reporting Pat Burns death when he was alive is very telling of the quality of the journalism at the Gazette.
Remember the piece from Jack Todd on how ugly Gomez is? Brilliant work.

__________________
"I really like the way Drew Doughty plays the game. He's like a defenceman version of Erik Karlsson."
-68
Crimson Skorpion is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 11:51 AM
  #221
guapo23
Registered User
 
guapo23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country:
Posts: 2,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
He's not kidding but he's also ignorant on the subject.

A drug trafficker growing 6 - 200 marijuana plants IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING would face the same MINIMUM SENTENCE as a person who shows pornographic material to a child. He also fails to point out that prior to the bill the pedophile behaviour would not have resulted in jail time.

The OP would have you believe a person caught with 6 plants anywhere will get the same sentence as an adult who ***** a toddler. This is of course ridiculous as your instincts told you.
Actually I have been following the Bill C10 Ominbus Crime Bill story for quite some time. I did not want to go into great detail about it because it is a little off topic.

My problem with the bill is that it is very strict on minor crimes for things like drug possession. It does not go nearly far enough in terms of the punichment for serious things like child pornography and pedophilia.

As we have seen in the USA, Mandatory minimum sentencing is not a good thing. It takes away Judges discretion in sentencing and unfairly targets minorities, the mentally ill and aboriginal people.

Now in terms of comparing sentences of pedophiles and pot growers, your facts are wrong. Yes they face the same minimum sentence of 6 months - but the maximum sentence was 2 years longer for the pot grower.

This is the kind of thing we should all be angry about. Serious crimes should be punished seriously. Minor crimes that do not harm anybody should not be. The C10 Crime Bill is all about punishment & revenge, not about rehabilitation.

I could go on, but it's kinda off topic....

guapo23 is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 12:36 PM
  #222
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guapo23 View Post
Actually I have been following the Bill C10 Ominbus Crime Bill story for quite some time. I did not want to go into great detail about it because it is a little off topic.

My problem with the bill is that it is very strict on minor crimes for things like drug possession. It does not go nearly far enough in terms of the punichment for serious things like child pornography and pedophilia.

As we have seen in the USA, Mandatory minimum sentencing is not a good thing. It takes away Judges discretion in sentencing and unfairly targets minorities, the mentally ill and aboriginal people.

Now in terms of comparing sentences of pedophiles and pot growers, your facts are wrong. Yes they face the same minimum sentence of 6 months - but the maximum sentence was 2 years longer for the pot grower.

This is the kind of thing we should all be angry about. Serious crimes should be punished seriously. Minor crimes that do not harm anybody should not be. The C10 Crime Bill is all about punishment & revenge, not about rehabilitation.

I could go on, but it's kinda off topic....
Got it. It does seem a shame that a bill that attempts to address so many serious issues is criticized almost entirely for how heavy handed it deals with pot possession and distribution. Your initial post did seem politically charged and I always find this to be the case on crime-and-consequence issues.

I do have some experience with these issues and personally know ex-officers in the sex crimes and exploitation unit here in T.O. (including the leads on the Holly Jones case) and they will tell you that people don't wake up one morning as a pedo. It's a gradual escalating boldness that develops to support the urges of the condition. It's good that the government is committed to punishing these people at the earlier stages (when they show a child pornography or expose themselves, etc. ) as a way of helping these individuals and protecting our children.

Agnostic is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 12:37 PM
  #223
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Who are you to say this?

Seriously man, did you think about this before you wrote it? The guy was abused by James, he sure as hell has the right to speak out about it. And he also has the right to be angry with the government for not handling this properly.

Right about what? The fact that Fleury not speaking out was dangerous and could've potentially led to more victims? Sure, nobody disputes this.

If that's all Hickey had said and if he'd phrased it such as (more victims should have the strength to come forward as it would be of benefit to everyone etc...) that would've been okay. But he didn't do this. He came after a guy who'd been abused for many years after the victim had spoken out about the government not doing enough.

Let me try another analogy here:

Two guys are out swimming in the ocean and both get bitten by a shark. One guy swims away in a panic and the other one dies. Obviously if the guy who swam back to shore had stayed in the water, he might've been able to help the other guy.

Do you think it would be right for a columnist to write an article blasting the guy who swam back to shore for being a coward? Do you think it would be okay to label him a hypocrite if he said that the local beaches should do more to prevent shark attacks?

I was done with this thread but you made this post and I have subsequently been called "repugnant" so I will clarify my point about Fleury speaking up now.

About keeping silent now being the best for Fleury.

Fleury had an opportunity to speak out when Kennedy did. However, for whatever reason.....and I am not Fleury so I wont speculate........, he did not. He stayed silent and even co-owned a team that allowed the predator, James, to continue molesting young players.

Fleury speaking out then would have served a purpose. It would have stopped James from abusing young hockey players.

Fast forward to now. James is sentenced to prison and the courts allow him to remain free before his prison term begins. Fleury decides to speak out now.

For what purpose did Fleury speak out now? To save kids? The real opportunity to save kids from a predator by speaking out was YEARS ago, not now. Or was it self serving for Fleury to speak out now?

Fleury blamed the Canadian politicians for enabling James to abuse kids by not sending him to jail now instead of two months later. Ironic that Fleury was enabling James to abuse kids for years by not speaking out.

Hickey is right to point out that Fleury is a hypocrite.

And thus, since Fleury did not speak out then when he could have made a difference in saving kids, he should have kept his mouth shut now since it served no purpose other than to bring publicity to his book.

As far as your analogy, it is irrelevant. Here is a better analogy.

Your neighbor Bob was molested as a kid and runs a day care center. Your other neighbor's (Fred--and he is your best friend) daughter was molested by Bob. Fred does not file charges because he sympathizes with Bob's situation. And after being asked by Bob to become a business partner, Fred becomes co-owner of the daycare. Fred then asks you to enroll your daughter in the day care and you do.

Years later the truth comes out about both Bob and Fred and the number of girls that Bob molested.

What do you say when the reporter covering the story has it published in the newspaper? That the reporter should be fired? Or is there an issue with Bob and Fred?

Can you and the others on this thread give me an honest answer?

SouthernHab is online now  
Old
12-14-2011, 01:01 PM
  #224
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guapo23 View Post
Actually I have been following the Bill C10 Ominbus Crime Bill story for quite some time. I did not want to go into great detail about it because it is a little off topic.

My problem with the bill is that it is very strict on minor crimes for things like drug possession. It does not go nearly far enough in terms of the punichment for serious things like child pornography and pedophilia.

As we have seen in the USA, Mandatory minimum sentencing is not a good thing. It takes away Judges discretion in sentencing and unfairly targets minorities, the mentally ill and aboriginal people.

Now in terms of comparing sentences of pedophiles and pot growers, your facts are wrong. Yes they face the same minimum sentence of 6 months - but the maximum sentence was 2 years longer for the pot grower.

This is the kind of thing we should all be angry about. Serious crimes should be punished seriously. Minor crimes that do not harm anybody should not be. The C10 Crime Bill is all about punishment & revenge, not about rehabilitation.

I could go on, but it's kinda off topic....
So what if the person grows 5 plants then? Slap on the wrist?

neofury* is offline  
Old
12-14-2011, 01:02 PM
  #225
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,095
vCash: 500
Here is another real world example without the sexual abuse angle. This is real world because I have knowledge that this actually has happened and is probably happening :

1) A con man defrauds person A out of most of his life savings in an investment scam.
2) Person A is embarassed, is reluctant to admit he was ripped off, and so doesn't call the police
3) The con man continues to defraud more and more individuals over a period of months and years.
4) Other people realize they too have been swindled. Person B calls the police and an investigation begins.
5) A number of people come forward after publicity of the con man's scheme.
6) Person A learns that others have been victims of the scheme and thinking the police may make an arrest or recover money he too calls the police and reports being swindled years earlier.
7) Person A repeatedly asks for update on the case and publicly criticizes the police for not recovering his losses.


So, no sexual assault. Just money involved here.

This person is ripped off, won't report it to authorities and help prevent others from becoming victims, but wants to be first in line if there is a recovery.

Hypocrit or no?

Agnostic is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.