|
|
Fri, Dec. 15th, 2006, 11:14 am
Just so we're clear
The irish judicial system sets a precedent whereby it was (for a short while at least) legal for a paedophile to use the "I didn't know she was under age" as a defence against having sex with a minor. Then they set up a precedent where its okay to beat a bloke with a stick and shoot him in the back in "self defence" - presumably so long as he's a traveller. They *won't* set a precedent for recognising the marriage of two lesbians who were legally married/unioned in canada because there isn't a provision for it in the constitution - there isn't anything in the constitution particularly prohibiting it neither from what I can tell. The cynic in me awaits the next challenge by two hot teenaged spandex clad lesbians to see what sort of difference that makes to media coverage and public support of the issue. Aaand finally, the government is set to introduce risk equalisation in the health insurance market to prevent one insurance company from charging the elderly and/or infirm more money than those in perfect health. I eagerly await the same being done to the car insurance companies. In response BUPA pulls out of the irish market.
Fri, Dec. 15th, 2006 11:46 am (UTC)
 bastun_ie
Aaand finally, the government is set to introduce risk equalisation in the health insurance market to prevent one insurance company from charging the elderly and/or infirm more money than those in perfect health. I eagerly await the same being done to the car insurance companies. In response BUPA pulls out of the irish market.
No. Risk equalisation doesn't do that. What it does do is make a company with a lower-risk clientbase (i.e., younger, healthier) pay a premium to company/ies with older clients. They older clients don't pay more. The younger ones effectively subsidise them.
It's double standards on BUPA's part - they already operate in other markets that have RE in place and still manage to make a profit.
And yeah, if RE applies to the health insurance market, then there is absolutely no reason it shouldn't apply to the car insurance market too, with companies with an 'older/(allegedly!)safer' clientbase having to subsidise companies with a younger clientbase.
Fri, Dec. 15th, 2006 12:13 pm (UTC)
mr_wombat
Yeah, sorry, thats a bit more accurate. The end result is the same I suppose, they can't hit higher risk people with a higher premium but the route there is different.
Fri, Dec. 15th, 2006 01:24 pm (UTC)
mollydot
I'm surprised they're pulling out. I thought they were bluffing, as I'm pretty sure risk equalisation was on the cards before they came here. Plus the other markets thing you mentioned.
Fri, Dec. 15th, 2006 01:06 pm (UTC)
ulaire_daidoji
Ward being a traveller has NOTHING to do with the case. You are guilty of polarising the argument into it being about a minority ethnic group. That is not what it is about at all. If Padraig Nally had killed an intruder with his first shot there would not be a case at all. He was acting in self-defense. And he should have been found guilty of manslaughter. I defy anyone to tell me that when they have been terrorised on their own property for years, that they would be in any frame of mind to look coldly at their actions after a struggle had ensued.
Fri, Dec. 15th, 2006 07:18 pm (UTC)
mr_wombat
Noooooo, this one was polarised as all hell by the time I got anywhere near it and I don't for a second buy that were Frog not a traveller that the same result would have been reached, though this is pure conjecture on my part. Nally didn't kill with the first shot, the bloke was running away, there was no self defence going on as (I understood) the law understands it and crimes of "passion" are tenuous defences at best. So, without being emotive, Nally's own testimony stated that: The years were actually five months, Nally regularly hid in the shed with a shotgun waiting for the intruders and on the night in question he shot the bloke twice, once by "accident" and once to "frighten him off" in the back while the dude was running away. Inbetween times he managed to beat Frog between ten and twenty times with a stick before reloading for the second shot - delivered after he chased the already injured (by a shotgun blast to the leg) Frog down the road. Many people put up with an awful awful lot more torment without killing anyone. People are stalked and beaten for years without resorting to murder, Nally, as with anyone who hides in a shed with a gun, was out to kill. I'm sure you're right - if he'd killed with the first shot there probably wouldn't be a case but thats because it wouldn't be so abundantly clear that Nally had every intention and desire to kill Frog.
Fri, Dec. 15th, 2006 10:11 pm (UTC)
tobinjt
> If Padraig Nally had killed an intruder with his first shot there would not be a case at all. He was acting in self-defense. And he should have been found guilty of manslaughter.
Legally, he wasn't acting in self-defense - he assaulted his victim with a deadly weapon. If I walk up to you, punch you, and step back, you cannot hit me - because I'm not a threat any more; if you hit me, you're assaulting me. You must use the minimum amount of force required to protect yourself, and stop as soon as the threat is removed.
Nally followed Ward, beat him, went back into his house, reloaded, and shot him again. He went far beyond self-defense - that's fine in an action movie, but not in the real world.
Personally I think that if a settled person went into a traveller camp, was shot, beaten, and shot again by a traveller, the traveller would be in jail and all we'd hear would be how dangerous the travellers are.
Fri, Dec. 15th, 2006 02:01 pm (UTC)
unblinkered
Yup. Been a good week, hasn't it? Happy fucking Christmas.
Fri, Dec. 15th, 2006 04:28 pm (UTC)
iresprite
I can see the first two precedents happening in close proximity to one another. The cynic in me awaits the next challenge by two hot teenaged spandex clad lesbians to see what sort of difference that makes to media coverage and public support of the issue.Dude, you're OLD. There's no way spandex will spark the public's interest. Maybe latex or body paint. :)
Fri, Dec. 15th, 2006 10:36 pm (UTC)
tobinjt
> The irish judicial system sets a precedent whereby it was (for a short while at least) legal for a paedophile to use the "I didn't know she was under age" as a defence against having sex with a minor.
"I made a mistake, I shouldn't have had that fourth drink; if I'd know I was going to hit someone I wouldn't have done it."
"I made a mistake, I wired the light in the bathroom wrongly, if I'd known the five year old would die I would have been more careful."
"I made a mistake, she said she was doing her leaving cert, she came on to me, told me she was on the pill and wasn't wearing underwear - and now that's she's pregnant, her father is pressing charges." You get life imprisonment.
"I made a mistake, I had sex with a pupil, but bwahahaha I'm a woman, so I don't need to worry about it."
Do some of those seem wrong to anyone else? You should be able to claim you made a mistake; if the girl was 12 at the time the judge/jury will think "no fucking way he made a mistake, she hadn't even hit puberty", whereas if she was 16 and dressed like Britney Spears, they judge/jury will say "maybe he knew, maybe he didn't".
If you can't claim you made a mistake with statutory rape, why doesn't that apply to other crimes? If you get pissed after 15 straight vodkas in an hour (or you snort a gram of heroin, whatever), then drive home and kill three people, you'll only be charged with dangerous driving. On the other hand, if you're 17, have sex with your girlfriend who's 16, get caught - you're liable to life imprisonment. Naturally that doesn't apply to a 17 year old girl has sex with a 16 year old boy, because 40 years after women were burning their bras equality still hasn't entered our judicial system.
Sat, Dec. 16th, 2006 02:41 am (UTC)
sares2000
The irish judicial system sets a precedent whereby it was (for a short while at least) legal for apaedophile to use the "I didn't know she was under age" as a defence against having sex with a minor.
But of course it would also apply to non-paedophiles, such as an 18 year old sleeping with a 17 year old who says she's 18.
Aaand finally, the government is set to introduce risk equalisation in the health insurance market to prevent one insurance company from charging the elderly and/or infirm more money than those in perfect health. I eagerly await the same being done to the car insurance companies.
As much as I hate health-insurance "community rating", at least young people can reasonably expect to become old one day. Men are generally (in some sense) riskier drivers than women, and a woman who has to subsidise men's insurance will never enter the higher-risk category of being male.
|
