Abdur Rashid refuses to apologise to 6 year old that he abused.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

then why bother posting about it?

Jesus.

I asked a question earlier, based on the case this thread is about - Do mosques vet those teaching there?

Based on this guy the thread is about, and possibly the guy I spoke about, and the obvious conclusion that at least some of the guys teaching there are not likely to be in the country for long enough to pass vetting.

Simples.

Grayson wrote: »

I may have missed it but didn't he claim he never did it?

As for thinking it's not wrong, I think a lot of criminals do that. Remember in the vast majority of the mulsim world, child abuse is seen as wrong. You'd have to go to the most backwards parts of the world to find anywhere that thinks it's acceptable.

Read the news paper accounts again. He admitted to touching and handling the child intimately. Although he believed there was nothing wrong with his behaviour. On top of that he has been convcited of the offence in question.

As for 'child abuse being seen as wrong' - off the top of my head two of top countries where child marriage to older men still regularly happens include Pakistan and Bagladesh. Something not permitted supposedly by law there but which happens nevertheless because it is neither 'seen' as wrong or abuse by a significant part of the population.

Btw not to get hung up on the child marriage bit btw - the issue relates to the general abuse of children. Such practises in - what you refer to as 'backward parts of the world' unfortunately often remain as acceptable. A case in point is the continued genital mutilation of young girls for cultural reasons. Whatever way you dress it up its still child abuse.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

you're essentially an enabler for a potential paedophile

And you’re a wind up merchant.

Would it not be more accurate to change this threads title to “Abdur Rashid refuses to accept that he molested a 6 year old”?

Otherwise I should be allowed to start a thread that says “John Sacrimoni refuses to pay gambling debt of €1m to yoke”.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That would work with someone like you and I, but that's because we have the impulse control and long term planning to not commit crimes in the first place.

Criminals are much less likely to have the same impulse control and long term planning. Hence they commit crimes.

There's no point approaching the situation from the point of view of a law abiding person. You need to get Into the mindset of a person who's likely to commit crime first and then ask what would make them less likely to actually commit the crime.

Interesting statement. You are probably right for some percentage of criminals, which might need a different approach. However there is definitely a large contingent of casual scumbags (in Ireland) who would respond to part of their dole being taken away, or losing their council house and being put back on the housing list (or similar).

There are also a lot of “well off scumbags” who are in nice jobs but do things like workplace bullying etc., or harassment, and they only do it because they can completely get away with it.

Case in point: about 12 years ago I didn’t like the vibe I was getting off some prick in the office, he kept making offensive statements about me to my face, probably thought I couldn’t do anything about it since I was about 5 inches smaller than him and a lot lighter (he was nearly 6’6”), one time I was with a friend when he was walking the other way alone (in the building), he made a stupid comment about me, so I took my chance and gave him a couple of kicks and told him to never slag me again, and he never did it again despite working for the same company for another 2 years. His self control kicked in pretty quickly once he realised that there would be physical consequences for any verbal put-downs, despite our huge size difference.

This guy was in a well paid job in a large multinational so it just goes to prove that idiots can be anywhere - I’d almost guarantee that everyone’s seen the exact same kind of guy as this guy, drunk and starting fights in nightclubs thinking he’s untouchable because he’s huge etc.

They wouldn’t do it if they thought there’d be consequences further than just being thrown out of the club!

gozunda wrote: »

Read the news paper accounts again. He admitted to touching and handling the child intimately. Although he believed there was nothing wrong with his behaviour. On top of that he has been convcited of the offence in question.

As for 'child abuse being seen as wrong' - off the top of my head two of top countries where child marriage to older men still regularly happens include Pakistan and Bagladesh. Something not permitted supposedly by law there but which happens nevertheless because it is neither 'seen' as wrong or abuse by a significant part of the population.

Btw not to get hung up on the child marriage bit btw - the issue relates to the general abuse of children. Such practises in - what you refer to as 'backward parts of the world' unfortunately often remain as acceptable. A case in point is the continued genital mutilation of young girls for cultural reasons. Whatever way you dress it up its still child abuse.

I agree but peoples morals are weird. Touching a 15 year old is wrong. Marrying them is right because it's sanctioned. But taht's in places where it's sanctioned. A hell of a lot of places don't allow it.

BTW, I googled it and in bangledash the age for marriage is 18. I know that some marriages will occur younger in backwards parts but the law is 18
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#Asia

I think one of the western countries with the most child marriage is the US where children as young as 14 can get married in some states.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

More than 200,000 children were married in the US over the past 15 years, new figures have revealed.

Three 10-year-old girls and an 11-year-old boy were among the youngest to wed, under legal loopholes which allow minors to marry in certain circumstances.

The minimum age for marriage across most of the US is 18, but every state has exemptions – such as parental consent or pregnancy – which allow younger children to tie the knot.

BTW, I know a lot of this sounds like whatabouttery. It's not. I'm not trying to win an argument, I just thought you'd find it interesting.

gozunda wrote: »

I was replying specifically to the issue of child abuse prevalent in 'backward' countries per the previous post. Tbh no offence but that's not getting into who is worse or better - outside this descriptor.

As I detailed countries "child marriage to older men still regularly happens in Pakistan and Bagladesh. Something not permitted supposedly by law there but which happens nevertheless because it is neither 'seen' as wrong or abuse by a significant part of the population.

Here are two articles which highlight the fact that child abuse in the form of child marriage although technically illegal is very common and even accepted in these countries

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-child-marriage-law-minimum-age-zero-reduce-baby-marital-unicef-un-a7619051.html

https://m.dw.com/en/afghan-activists-concerned-about-rise-in-child-marriages/a-19444332

Isn't it legal in some states in the US to marry a child?

if I was trying to maintain my innocence or genuinely believed I didn't do it, I wouldn't apologise either

John Sacrimoni wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN6uVfaHERY

Seems the locals in D7 dont want this guy anywhere near them, hes been ran out by a few "gentlemen".

Keep the b*stard moving and looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life.

All that happens in those cases is the Gardaí lose track of them because they keep moving around and trying to keep a low profile.

Prison full of drug addicts. I wonder how good treatment is ?