The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25617
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:43 pm UTC

speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The fact that it's discouraged by the mainstream doesn't contradict the fact that, among other things, the legal loopholes allow parents to marry off their children to their rapists.

That's not a loophole. Adults can marry their rapists, too, if they want.
Yes, if they want. Being forced by your parents to marry your rapist is rather different from choosing to marry your rapist as an adult.

The whole "rape" angle is a complete fabrication not supported by the article, anyway.
Except for the part that the girls are too young to legally consent to sex outside of marriage.

Especially if we're talking about highly religious US people, it seems rather more likely that the girls didn't have any sex before marriage at all, willing or not.
Why the fuck are you under the impression that rapists care whether their victims had intended to save themselves for marriage? They were also probably planning to save themselves for someone they wanted to have sex with, but obviously the rapist didn't care about that, either.

Also, i don't really like the linguistic conflation of statutory rape with "normal" rape. Yes, sex between legal minors and adults is a problematic subject, but it's not anywhere near a violent rape, as long as there was consent, however uninformed.
No, fuck that noise. The whole point of statutory rape laws is that some people are too young to meaningfully consent. You can't just pretend that's not a thing and act like it's (ever even possible to be) totally consensual for a 13-year-old to be having sex with a 40-year-old church elder or whatever.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8510
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:56 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:You can't just pretend that's not a thing and act like it's (ever even possible to be) totally consensual for a 13-year-old to be having sex with a 40-year-old church elder or whatever.


Such an example screams coercion/rape, possibly beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is indeed entirely possible for a young teenager to "meaningfully" consent. Just that the probability of it being informed consent in such a case is so low that it's easier just to slap all the 40 year olds with 13 year old lovers with a statutory rape charge than to go through each relationship on a case by case basis.

Unless you want to make the claim that 1) there are absolutely no 13 year old with the maturity/intelligence of a typical 20 year old, and 2) that absolutely no one in that group could possibly love someone older than themselves.

speising
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby speising » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:47 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:No, fuck that noise. The whole point of statutory rape laws is that some people are too young to meaningfully consent. You can't just pretend that's not a thing and act like it's (ever even possible to be) totally consensual for a 13-year-old to be having sex with a 40-year-old church elder or whatever.

Where did i ever pretend that?
I'm talking about eg. 16 and 19. Which is just as illegal, but a very different case. Do you want to claim that a 16yo girl can't have a consensual relationship with a 19yo boy?

And out of the thousands of cases in the article, only four were singled out for extreme age differences.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25617
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:54 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Do you want to claim that a 16yo girl can't have a consensual relationship with a 19yo boy?
No, and in many places (including NJ) that wouldn't be statutory rape, either.

And out of the thousands of cases in the article, only four were singled out for extreme age differences.
Therefore those must have been the only marriages out of those thousands that had significant age differences, right? That's some impeccable logic right there. Surely if there had been 50 such cases, they would have listed out all of them, right?

Edit: And those four weren't out of thousands, they were out of however many happened in 2011 alone, in New York State outside of New York City.
The article wrote:Data after 2010 excludes New York City, where statistics are kept separately. Still, the state data show that in 2011 alone, a 14-year-old married a 26-year-old, a 15-year-old was wed to a 28-year-old, another 15-year-old was wed to a 25-year-old and a 15-year-old married someone age “35 to 39.”
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2165
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:16 pm UTC

(I was replying to speising, but posts have occurred between then and now... Should have quote-replied to start with. Will add in the right quote later, if I can.)

(Here we are...)
speising wrote:And out of the thousands of cases in the article, only four were singled out for extreme age differences.


I'll butt in again to say... Irrelevant.

The point is (was) that, under the aegis of a given legal hurdle intended to give compassionate leeway to certain borderline class of situation, it seems that there are legitimate concerns being by-passed.

And there are a few likely very definite 'bad uses' and a disturbing trend indicated that even non-extreme examples are probably heavily doped with not-really-what-was-intended exceptions to the rule.

Hard cases make bad laws, and I suggest that this happened when the original, loophole(s) was(/were) opened, and now tyere's reluctance to block their use (or even complicity to exploit them improperly) in at least some of the current cases... Where we go from here is difficult to say (a libertarian answer focussed on the victims is diametrically opposed to a Libertarian answer focussed on not constraining no-victim cases, etc), but the problem must be acknowledged.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ObsessoMom » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:55 pm UTC

This recent article may shed some light on how common underage marriages are:

California has a higher than average underage marriage rate, at 5.5 for every 1,000 15- to 17-year-olds compared to the national average of 4.6, according to a Pew Research Center study from November 2016. It is tied for the sixth highest rate in the country with Tennessee. Hill said up to 1,000 underage children are married each year in California alone.


link

BTW, I foresee an awful lot of unintended negative consequences from the "zero tolerance, no exceptions, absolutely no marriages under the age of 18" approach advocated by the politician quoted in the article. Not every societal problem has a legislative solution.

Here's a link to the Pew Research Study that was mentioned.

Aw, heck, here's the map in the Pew Research Study:

Image

Note that both males and females are included in those rates per thousand. Some, presumably, to each other.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8510
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:00 am UTC

Don't be daft though, 80-90% of them are going to be female. All that I ask of the marriage laws is that they do not shield people from statutory rape charges.

morriswalters
Posts: 6742
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:43 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Edit: And those four weren't out of thousands, they were out of however many happened in 2011 alone, in New York State outside of New York City.
According to the vital statistics record in 2011, 60,114 licenses were issued outside New York City. I couldn't find the breakdown by age for 2011 but did find that data for 2009.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25617
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:48 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Edit: And those four weren't out of thousands, they were out of however many happened in 2011 alone, in New York State outside of New York City.
According to the vital statistics record in 2011, 60,114 licenses were issued outside New York City. I couldn't find the breakdown by age for 2011 but did find that data for 2009.
We're talking about underage marriages here.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:26 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Don't be daft though, 80-90% of them are going to be female. All that I ask of the marriage laws is that they do not shield people from statutory rape charges.


I'm not being daft. Lookee here:

Image

Granted, there's no data presented for those younger than 15, but the gender difference in the 15-17 year group is significantly less than 80-90%. It's 55%. So the actual gender breakdown suggests large numbers of young males marrying young females.

In other news:

Bill Cosby is planning sexual assault town halls

I was going to make a snarky comment like "Pro tips how to get away with rape?" until I saw that he apparently really wants to do exactly that: give men tips on how to avoid being accused of sexual assault. Wow.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5341
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:33 am UTC

Well, I guess you have to sell to the markets you are popular in.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

morriswalters
Posts: 6742
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:30 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:We're talking about underage marriages here.
You're talking, I'm offering data specific to the point.
ObsessoMom wrote:In other news:

Bill Cosby is planning sexual assault town halls

I was going to make a snarky comment like "Pro tips how to get away with rape?" until I saw that he apparently really wants to do exactly that: give men tips on how to avoid being accused of sexual assault. Wow.
Wealthy men live by different rules. I don't like that but it has been ever thus.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5605
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:46 am UTC

I'm really hoping that it ends up being things like 'make sure you get enthusiastic consent, make sure they aren't too drunk for enthusiastic consent, etc'.

That's a 'how to avoid being accused of assault course' I could get behind. I doubt that's what it is though.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25617
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:43 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:We're talking about underage marriages here.
You're talking, I'm offering data specific to the point.
But you're not.

The point had to do with underage marriage, and you responded with an irrelevant statistic about all marriages.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 6742
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:17 pm UTC

Quite frankly I'm not sure that you have a point. But granted that you do it seems we're at loggerheads. I'll restate my position. By definition if you force a non consensual marriage on a women then at some point in time assuming that sex was the point, there will be rape. How could there not be? But coercive marriages happen to women other than female children. And rape and molestation happen to children everyday, where no one intervenes, and no one marries anyone. It wouldn't seem to be a prerequisite that you should first marry a minor female before you rape her. Or want to marry her after you do. If the OP was a journalist I would have have called it out as Yellow Journalism. And with it I'm done.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25617
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:05 pm UTC

What the fuck does any of that have to do with the number of marriages in NY outside of NYC, though?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 6742
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:55 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:What the fuck does any of that have to do with the number of marriages in NY outside of NYC, though?
If you were paying attention when I first posted you would know. If you can't figure it out, I doubt that it would do me any good to try to further enlighten you. I've decided to stop feeding you.

Toodles :roll:

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25617
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:12 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:What the fuck does any of that have to do with the number of marriages in NY outside of NYC, though?
If you were paying attention when I first posted you would know.
I know what you thought it was related to, but as I said at the time, I was talking about underage marriages.

You quoted my comment about underage marriages to share statistics about all marriages, and since then rather than explaining what that had to do with anything, you've just gone round and round.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 6742
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:42 am UTC

I quoted the total number of marriages to provide scale, how many marriages by minors as compared to total marriages for the given year. I then provided an additional years data on 2009 for marriage by age. From the same data set as the Op Ed, in the same post where I gave you those numbers. In the post where I restated my position I pointed out obliquely that any sexual abuse involved in a forced marriage of a child is a subset of sexual abuse by adults to children overall. Which is orders of magnitude greater than the numbers for forced marriages that we have been bandying about. Which again goes to the scale of the problem.

The reason that I commented(which I now regret) was that the posters comments outran the data. The numbers are the numbers. What we can know about those numbers is limited by the context. The poster didn't have any. So he drew on his personal feelings to make a point. Thus his use of the word rape. The Op Ed provided context for something closely related, which was forced or coercive marriage. I'm not going to reread it, but I am under the impression she never mentioned rape.

I'm quite sure that the other fora members are tired of us going on about this. My apologies to them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5658
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:02 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Zohar wrote:
Mutex wrote:How come they don't pay tax? What sort of tax do they avoid?

They make very little money and get enormous subsidies from the government, both directly and indirectly as infrastructure. They're a huge lobbying force, both in the commerce as well as political domain. That's one of the reasons El Al has to cater for them - if El Al stops being the airline of choice for Orthodox Jews, it will lose a huge amount of business.

Re: Chen - it's not just that the airline tries to push people to comply, it's that the people objecting to this will not sit down in their seats and are delaying the departure of the flight, sometimes by over an hour. No one ever tells them "Either sit here or get off the plane".


They make very little money but can still afford international flights? Hah! The reality is that they do make money but it's in all cash businesses and the government can't do anything because like you said, huge lobbying force.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- ... e-majority
This came up on This American Life and it reminded me that the hassidi aren't an Israeli only problem.
Hasadis move into school district and become majority tax payers. They don't use public schools so the hassidi take over the school board, and divert everything to either fund hassidis or to lower property taxes that fund the school. It gets really tense when the anti-Semitism rears ugly head.

At a broad level, it makes sense, if most of the tax payers don't use public schools, it makes sense to divert resources away from it. None of the laws can really protect towns from this.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5375
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:08 pm UTC

sardia wrote:At a broad level, it makes sense, if most of the tax payers don't use public schools, it makes sense to divert resources away from it.
No, it doesn't. The main beneficiary of the public school system isn't the student, it's the community. It is in my best interests that your child is educated.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ObsessoMom » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:58 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
sardia wrote:At a broad level, it makes sense, if most of the tax payers don't use public schools, it makes sense to divert resources away from it.
No, it doesn't. The main beneficiary of the public school system isn't the student, it's the community. It is in my best interests that your child is educated.

Jose


Amen to this. My husband and I homeschooled our kids, but we enthusiastically support public schools because we consider doing so to be an investment in the health of the community/country/world in which we live.
Last edited by ObsessoMom on Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ObsessoMom » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:21 pm UTC

DOH! Double post. [Insert wisecrack about the intelligence of parents who homeschool their kids.]

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8510
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:50 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:
ucim wrote:
sardia wrote:At a broad level, it makes sense, if most of the tax payers don't use public schools, it makes sense to divert resources away from it.
No, it doesn't. The main beneficiary of the public school system isn't the student, it's the community. It is in my best interests that your child is educated.

Jose


Amen to this. My husband and I homeschooled our kids, but we enthusiastically support public schools because we consider doing so to be an investment in the health of the community/country/world in which we live.


But the "public" is very large, and you can be a free-rider if you don't pay for "your" segment of the public. E.g., there is a region with 100 towns. If one town refuses to pay for education, they can still get the qualified workers from the other 99 towns, so they don't pay for education. But then one by one, the other towns refuse to pay, until no town has any qualified workers and everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Which is why you need a strong central government to lay the smackdown whenever one town refuses to pay for education, and really, who's fucked up idea was it to base school taxes on property tax in the first place?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5658
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:02 pm UTC

While I agree with you that the school should have been funded, the hassidis were a majority. The only solution was federal or state level intervention. Also, if most of the kids in school don't go to public school, it makes sense that public schools need less money. It's just that the hassidi went too far and were corrupt.

https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/trial-and-terror/
Right wing domestic terrorism convicts are given half the sentence of Islamic terrorism convicts. Eg, a Muslim gets 30 years while a white boy gets 5 years probation plus second chances for probation violations.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ObsessoMom » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:01 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:who's fucked up idea was it to base school taxes on property tax in the first place?


Probably the same jerk who decided that to get health insurance, you need a job--so that my friend had to keep dragging himself to work when he was in a death spiral of chemotherapy and surgeries and should have been able to save his strength at home, and his employer (being decent) had to put up with his doing a lousy job for the months before he died, instead of being ethically free to hire someone else who could have done a good job. Everybody lost.

But I digress.

sardia, I found this graphic at your linked site interesting:

Image

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5375
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ucim » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:14 am UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Probably the same jerk who decided that to get health insurance, you need a job
Would that be the same person that decreed that to get a salary you needed a job? Remember, health insurance was not born full-blown at its inception. It was a perq for some employees at some (large) corporations, which took the place of salary. It was popular because it was paid for with pre-tax money (it was a tax deductable expense to the corporation, which also got it at a bulk discount). It was also introduced when the standard model for health was fee for service, and doctors would themselves often make allowances for lower income people.

But nothing happens that doesn't affect everything else, and as health insurance spread, the model of health service delivery adjusted itself, and now we are dependent on it.

Health costs have also increased because we know more medicine and have more tools (which cost money) to keep people alive with. In the old days, those people would have died.

It's not fair to implicate the past with the present.

CorruptUser wrote:But the "public" is very large, and you can be a free-rider if you don't pay for "your" segment of the public.
...which is why things like taxes are enforced by law, and not merely voluntary charitable contributions. But don't confuse enforcement (which is what you are talking about) with enactment (which is what I am talking about).

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8510
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am UTC

ucim wrote:
ObsessoMom wrote:Probably the same jerk who decided that to get health insurance, you need a job
Would that be the same person that decreed that to get a salary you needed a job? Remember, health insurance was not born full-blown at its inception. It was a perq for some employees at some (large) corporations, which took the place of salary. It was popular because it was paid for with pre-tax money (it was a tax deductable expense to the corporation, which also got it at a bulk discount). It was also introduced when the standard model for health was fee for service, and doctors would themselves often make allowances for lower income people.

But nothing happens that doesn't affect everything else, and as health insurance spread, the model of health service delivery adjusted itself, and now we are dependent on it.

Health costs have also increased because we know more medicine and have more tools (which cost money) to keep people alive with. In the old days, those people would have died.

It's not fair to implicate the past with the present.

CorruptUser wrote:But the "public" is very large, and you can be a free-rider if you don't pay for "your" segment of the public.
...which is why things like taxes are enforced by law, and not merely voluntary charitable contributions. But don't confuse enforcement (which is what you are talking about) with enactment (which is what I am talking about).

Jose


1) That's not quite right. The companies paid for health insurance because during WWII, it was illegal for employees to be paid more, but the companies still needed to attract the best workers, so they offered benefits instead of money to get around the law. After WWII, the government saw a way to get a health system without having to do any extra work, so a few tax breaks later it became basically enshrined. Of course, the system effectively screws over anyone trying to start their own business, especially working and lower-middle class people trying to do so, but that's totally a coincidence.

2) I'm referring to the whole town being free-riders rather than an individual being a free-rider. The town could get away with not paying for any education and just sponging trained workers off of neighboring towns, so long as the other towns fund their own education. That happens a lot more frequently than people will admit; many towns are made up of retirees with no kids of their own in order to avoid having a school district, but of course they collect Medicare from county/state level because fuck you that's why. Parasites.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:07 am UTC

On the subject of "ultra-Orthodox" (for their own definition of orthodox, of course) and education:
Department for Education knew evidence of illegal faith schools was destroyed

A London council’s education authority destroyed evidence of children being educated in illegal faith schools at the request of religious institutions, The Independent can reveal.

The Department for Education has been aware of the problem since 2010 but does not appear to have taken any steps to act against the destruction of these records.

An investigation by The Independent also found that more than 1,000 children are missing from schools in London and are at risk of abuse in illegal faith schools.

The 'Action of Note' records that a senior Department for Education staff member was present at the meeting and had agreed to inform the Department of all that was discussed. However, despite this, it appears that the Department of Education did not raise any objections to Hackney Learning Trust destroying evidence of children being placed in illegal schools, nor did they take any steps to intervene or act against the destruction of these records.


13-year-olds pulled out of education system to be taught nothing but the religion and then shoved into arranged marriages at 18. Council finds out. Council agrees to pretend not to have found out. Shit carries on happening. Council does nothing.

Daughters are not expected to undergo the same education because it is not seen as theologically important for women to have a deep understanding of religious texts when their primary role is looking after their families and the home, and so girls largely remain in legal, state schools.


Of course they're that kind of arse too.

I don't know whether this is the same group of "ultra-Orthodox" people with a thing against education, but it's got its similarities.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

morriswalters
Posts: 6742
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:16 pm UTC

I read something this morning that made me go wide eyed. From the New York Times.
London fire officials found that Dorney Tower and other buildings in the same complex lacked working fire doors, and in some cases were missing them altogether.
This makes me ill. I wondered what triggered the immediate evacuation of those other buildings. Have a missing or faulty door on a fire floor and you could render the stairs unusable. Given that basic level of failure I would probably feel safer sleeping in the park.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8510
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:16 pm UTC

Sleeping in the park doesn't guarantee you won't be set on fire, as the homeless can tell you.

morriswalters
Posts: 6742
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:05 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Sleeping in the park doesn't guarantee you won't be set on fire, as the homeless can tell you.
Given my experiences in high rises I'd take my chances. The question isn't about, will you have fires in high rises, the question is only how many and how often.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8510
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:15 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Sleeping in the park doesn't guarantee you won't be set on fire, as the homeless can tell you.
Given my experiences in high rises I'd take my chances. The question isn't about, will you have fires in high rises, the question is only how many and how often.


Ok, now I want to know the story. First round on me, *passes virtual brewski*

morriswalters
Posts: 6742
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:00 pm UTC

I once got a bonus for discovering a fire in a high rise. Mildly boring personal recollection spoilered for politeness.
Spoiler:
Looking back on it I should have been fired. I had been conditioned to protecting the owner from disturbance. Rather then considering their lives. Having said that that was one of three fires I was aware of there. It turns out that the wealthy start fires as well. I would buy in to that condo if I could afford it even considering that. Consider the wealthy if you will. They wanted wood burning fireplaces on the top two floors and gas fireplaces everywhere else. And they had them. As a service we delivered their firewood. I never once feared those fireplaces, the Fire Department never even blinked. I knew the building was constructed safely, even if they had hired me. Not only the halls were sprinklered but the homes as well. The building and fire inspectors timed the time it took the fire doors to close, 5 seconds as I remember. You failed if it didn't latch when it closed. Sigh, I always wanted to drink a good Scotch while looking out a two story bay window 19 floors up during a thunderstorm. I got that achievement with the exception of the Scotch. I never drank any liquor above 8.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8510
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:50 pm UTC

Spoiler:
That does seem dangerous, a crowded apartment with a wood fireplace. Even if it's a fancy penthouse, it's still not going to be some country home with plenty of space, and I highly doubt they would have stone floors as well. But even with the idiotic fire hazard, wouldn't a fire on the top floor still be safer than a fire on the bottom floor?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2165
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:00 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Maybe not if it's a thermite reaction...

morriswalters
Posts: 6742
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:43 am UTC

Spoiler:
CorruptUser wrote:That does seem dangerous, a crowded apartment with a wood fireplace. Even if it's a fancy penthouse, it's still not going to be some country home with plenty of space, and I highly doubt they would have stone floors as well. But even with the idiotic fire hazard, wouldn't a fire on the top floor still be safer than a fire on the bottom floor?
I wouldn't have the vaguest idea. But it appeals to common sense. But we had working fire doors, sprinklers and alarms. Somebody needs to go to a long term in jail.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:49 pm UTC

I've not-quite-seen a wood fire partially escape. It was burning in an open grate, with the usual fireguard in front of it to stop it spitting hot embers clear over the hearthstone on to the carpet. The spare firewood was stacked near it, also on the hearthstone. I left the room for no more than 30 seconds and came back to find three inches of smoke on the ceiling and foot-high flames leaping from the spare firewood. Flashovers happen, apparently. I was able to mix extinguishing the logs and throwing them onto the fire to burn in the proper place until there were none burning in the wrong place, so it was just a learning opportunity.
That fire has since been replaced with a wood-burning stove, which means the chimney is not constantly sucking warm air out of the house whether or not the fire's lit, which is good, and also means the fireguard is no longer necessary, so it look better too ... until my idiot brother adds fuel then doesn't quite shut the doors. With the doors open, it's an open fire. With the doors closed, it's a wood-burning stove. With the doors open just a quarter inch, it's a blast furnace. The sofa smelled awfully hot by the time we noticed. Fortunately, again, I was able to shut all the vents, wrench the doors open, shut them properly and then open a window to let some heat out.
Then there was the time I opened another such stove and the gust of air caused a coal to pop. White-hot fragment went over my shoulder level with my eyes and put a crispy spot into the carpet.
Scary stuff, fire. I should know. I've been on it. (Losing track of how many times is a sign you need to consider a career change.)
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2165
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:29 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:I was able to mix extinguishing the logs and throwing them onto the fire to burn in the proper place until there were none burning in the wrong place, so it was just a learning opportunity.

Very Walter Plinge-like, in a relative kind of way! You could definitely have done worse.

(The alternative is generally to obey the old adage: "When in fear, when in doubt, / Run in circles, scream and shout...")

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:27 pm UTC

In updates on Grenfell Tower, the bad news is that the "rush around the country frantically replacing all that flammable cladding with the non-flammable kind we should have used in the first place" doesn't include replacing the flammable insulation behind the cladding ... and the good news is that the rent the residents have been charged since the night of the fire is going to be refunded.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric, iamspen and 15 guests