Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Alsatian on November 28, 2018, 06:50:41 PM
-
BBC News - Sammy Woodhouse: Rotherham 'rapist offered role in child's life'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46368991
I find it horrendous and incredibly unfeeling for the victim that Social Services could even think about such a callous act. They go on about his human rights, he didn't think about his victims human rights when he raped her.
-
I think some of the papers have over dramatised the situation. Though nothing surprises me with some councils nowadays!
This is something I read on the SheffieldForum.
As often seems to be the case, the reporting of this has been rather sensationalist. The Daily Mail link provided states "A council was last night criticised as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘perverse’ after it offered a prison inmate access to a son he fathered by raping a teenage girl".
Instead, what actually happened is that the individual in question was informed (as required by law) of their right to apply for access/involvement with the child. The individual has not, as reported, been given access to the child. Further down the page the article does go on to say that he in fact opted not to have any contact with the child. Whether or not the law should be changed is a separate issue, but the Council appear to have acted in accordance with the law as it stands.
-
Whilst we continue along the road of "Wrongdoers have rights too" the law will REMAIN an ass.
-
I'm not completely comfortable with all of the Human Rights criteria.
If it's true what the news paper reports this man has to get through the courts - if - he wanted to see the child.
The other side of it is the child would maybe be of an age considered to be able to make the decision as to whether they wanted to see their father -
How many would want to see a father who had raped their mother?