mbassoc2003 wrote:In the UK it would be a clear cut social services intervention while the decision to prosecute would then be up to the Crown Prosecution Service. Technically, if the mother admitted to injecting the child's face, she would be arrested and questioned under oath, and probably released pending investigation of the case by the CPS. The child's welfare is considered more important than the parent's rights operate on their children in the UK. It seems the other way round in the UK. I wonder if that is because of social vanity or some strange value system, or because everyone is terrified an abusive parent will find a lawyer willing to sue Social Services.

Just to be devils advocate.  Conducting pointless medical procedures on kids....what about braces on your teeth.  I had them....hurt like hell on and off for about 3 years and now I have slightly straighter teeth than I would have without.  Purely cosmetic with no medical benefits.  We see that as OK but not botox.  As I understand it botox eventually wears off.  I am stuck with my teeth the way my parents wanted them.
It is only a slightly different view point saying that the parent wants their kids face to look one way to a parent saying they want their kids teeth to look another.  I agree that kiddie botox is wrong but I'm not totally sure that I could argue myself into being satisfied with the answer one way or the other.

mbassoc2003 wrote:By the same accounts, both could have been avoided by adherence to very clear laws by the perpetrators. It isn't difficult in the US to obey the law. It's just that some find it very hard to do so.

No one would argue that the victims in both of these cases were completely blameless.

They remain iconic incidents in American history where federal officers broke laws, bent laws, killed people and should have done jail time.

They are classic examples of what police should not do.

SimperingToad wrote:And they all work in the U.S. Federal Gummint. State and local ones as well. The U.S. Constitution is gone. Face it, it's a facade. The Banks own the U.S.. Corporatism rules the day. Our Finance Comittees make weak queries of Herr Bernanke where all the money from the ILLEGAL bailouts went, and he basically thumbs his nose at Congress and tells them to F-Off. No punishment. No removal from his position. No balls.

And the people here just keep electing the same pieces if S**T every time (sans overwhelming fraud), and don't do a damn thing to stop this BS. Why? Because doing so would be an inconvenience. They have the time to go to the stadium dressing and acting as Neanderthals, yet none of these low-brow terds can bother themselves to go on jury duty to overturn bad laws WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY!!! Not to mention that most probably have never read the U.S. Constitution in their lives, or at least not recently.

The pot is boiling. The frog is just about cooked.

I vomit inside every time I see something like Indiana take place. See any legislators getting recalled or impeached? You won't. You might get called a bad name in the press.

That is just the nature of the American system and the will of its people. The society you have in a country is a reflection of the desires and preferences of its electorate, or conversely, the weakness and apethy of its people. In the case of the US and Britain, we live in a society that has developed to serve the needs of those within it with the greatest desire to change the country to fit their needs. Those who are left to complain are those too weak or apathetic to affect change, or those who are active, but have elected to align themselves with the causes of the weak and apathetic, and with insufficient drive, determination or skill to lead.

In any given circumstance, the strong and determined personality will exert its will over the weak minded and the ineffectual. So buy definition, the collective will of the people, weighted according to how passionate those wills are, shapt the country. America is the way it is becaise its people want it that way. Same with Britain. Same with Lybia. When the people want it changed, they will change it.

I live in a country run for the benefit of the scum white under-classes. They use up 90% of ALL public resources, and consume the total working time of close on 20% of the UK's working adults. When 90% of all of a country's public resource are given over to the lazy and the scaberous, you know your country is f"ched. Yet, the country as a whole wants it that way, and I have no desire or passion to change it. So I have no real right to complain that someone won't change it for me.

Gnat the Beggar wrote:Still find it amazing that the Mavericks were overwhelming underdogs going at LA Lakers.

The teams were ranked #2 and #3 and had the exact same regular season record.  Not exactly a huge underdog - I think it is something more hype that the media or Dallas create.  A sweep was still very suprising.

The Lightning in Hockey did the same thing.  The head coach came said how his team was a huge underdog against Phili yet they went on to dominate the series.

Gnat the Beggar wrote:Still find it amazing that the Mavericks were overwhelming underdogs going at LA Lakers.
The Mavericks not only won the series, they Swept them 4 games to NONE and that the final game was a completely embarrassing laugher wherein after the game was already decided, TWO of the Lakers stars were ejected for flagrant and unnecessary fouls.

Until you win a ring, you don't get a lot of respect in most sports.  The fact the Lakers were going for a threepeat and field one of the top three players in the game caused 100% of the league to pick them in the series (not one single commentator on ESPN, SI.com, NBA.com, or any other online publication I saw picked the Mavericks to win that series).  It's still a state of disbelief in Laker land, I am reading articles bemoaning the fact the Lakers lost the series, not that the Mavericks won (hard to prove when the result is a sweep ended by one of the most embarrassing loses in LA history).  

If the Mavericks get by either the Griz or Thunder, they'll still have not convinced anyone of anything. They are going to have to beat the Bulls or the Heat in the finals (either team will be a favorite over the Mavericks) to begin to get a grudging respect from any sports fans or media.  IMO that's no problem, some teams seem to work well from a underdog mentality (look at the Packers run this year).

Mike B.

EDIT: This made me laugh.  Also remember, every single one of these guys picked the Spurs over the Grizzlies in the first round

http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee4 ... 9335_n.jpg

Gnat the Beggar wrote::lol:

I hope everone of them put big money on thier picks too.

FWIW: Charles Barkley picked the Mavericks to win the series in 6 games (IIRC).
And one of his co-hosts laughed when he said it.
In fact since he was almost alone picking the Mavs, amongst other basketball pundits and commentators; his pick in that series made sporting news all over the place.
Yahoo and MSN posted news blurbs on the front home pages and I saw it on the nightly news too.
I think that most BBall fans were agast that Barkley could be so stupid as to pick the Mavericks over the unbeatable Lakers and the Greatest BBall Coach in NBA history.

Charles Barkley is not always as stupid as he sounds, not that he always sounds stupid.  Personally, I liked Barkley's commentary during March Madness.  I think part of the reason I like him is that he is himself and not what people think he should be or what people expect.  

EDIT: I am now over 3000 feedback on eBay.  Yay for me.  Big whoop.  

Don't know much about rugby and its rules.  Doesn't it seem like all the punching warranted expulsion and a major fine for the player in green?

Is that what a yellow card means?

mbassoc2003 wrote:I'm curious about a case that is being reported in the UK. A woman from Birmingham who lives in the States is injecting Botox in her 8yo child's fave for beauty pagents. In the UK this would be classed as child abuse and Social Services would be involved. Is it the case that in the US this sort of thing is not considered child abuse?

The lag of action appears to be because the UK found out about it first:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/18/l ... z1MkX0v9X7
"It was the tabloid-y Sun, from England, that first introduced us to Kerry Campbell. In a March 23 article..."

sauromatian wrote:
A similar story, but with very different justification: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/0 ... -seizures/
Seems kind of creepy that this is happening all at once.

Great, now that the RIAA and the Motion picture industry thinks we should suspend civil liberties, well by all means!

Mike B.