“Pleading guilty to the murder of a friend at the age of 14…”

How does Ben treat his enemies ?

“Along with “paedophilia”, the term “child” has become so expanded as to risk losing coherent meaning”.

Ditto “racism, fascism” amongst many others. Sometimes it happens via natural progression, sometimes as a deliberate tactic to muddy coherent discussion.

Try commenting on the article, Laban…

As Ben’s not in position to respond to comments and, therefore, defend himself, any further ad-hominem remarks will go straight in the span bin.

There was a case a few years ago involving two – I think – two Dutch boys who filmed themselves having sex, circulated it to their mates, and were summarily convicted of serious child porn offences.

[I'd try and check the details but I'm a bit frightened of what the google search might throw up.]

I’ll definitely be checking out more of this guy’s writing, good post.

Like with so many things, the significance of the word child, particularly in reference to the law, requires as much semantic and philosophical understanding as does gender. I can very well understand people’s aversion to questions like what is male, what is female? as the folly of humanities students, but that these questions should be extended in law is a sine qua non.

The law is not the admittance that each act or crime is black and white, it’s a kind of template with which judges and the high court should go into their case with, then base their judgement on the circumstances. If the law was the last word there would be no reason for the judicial system; it would be that you did this, or failed to do that, therefore this and this will happen as a consequence as punishment. but that is not how it works; there are paid professionals to work out how the circumstances fit within the template (which is the law) and, importantly, how they don’t quite fit.

It may looked confused, but it is not; some examples are given by Ben. For example: A 15 year old boy hires the services of a 17 year old prostitute. She is guilty of underage sex, child abuse; and he is guilty of sexual exploitation of a child. Now if the way we approached law in this country was black and white, we wouldn’t consider the circumstances, we would just be throwing the book at these criminals (literally). The fact that this should not be the case is exactly Ben’s main charge here, which is why I fully agree.

It is not a call for Judge autonomy, far from it, but judges are paid to consider the circumstances and how they fit the law. The fact that this exemplary way of doing justice is becoming undone by flimsy interpretation of the law – Ben’s point – is itself a misjustice, and should be subject to rigorous examination.

or should I say an injustice

‘Examine early photographs and children look like miniature adults.’

So do bonobos. Good post though.

Excellent post.

I have joined the Facebook campaign to lobby for Ben’s release.

I don’t now the full story but it would seem everyone is agreed he is no threat to society and, by any normal yardstick, he has more than served his sentence.

An interesting post.

I’ve recently worked in housing, including managing a scheme for 16-18 year olds. In theory, under Every Child Matters, we should formally send a child protection report to social services when, say, an under-18 goes out, gets drunk and falls over.

If we’d worked to the letter of the legislation we’d have been sending several child protection reports every day. Obviously we didn’t, our local social services team wouldn’t have thanked us and the young people we work with would have found it hugely intrusive. We made a judgement call and reported when necessary.

That put us at risk if we got the judgement wrong. But to do what Every Child Matters requires was simply impossible and unhelpful. I think it was a mistake to extend ‘childhood’ up to 18. Between 16 and 18 young people are experimenting, taking risks, failing and learning about independent life. They’re not children and it doesn’t work to treat them as children.

It now seems that Kent police have been warned off using divisive terms and language, such as:
‘”christian name…”businessman”, “housewives” and “child”, all of which organisations argue have negative connotations. ‘

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7472046/Police-officers-banned-from-asking-for-Christian-names.html

Child ?