Girls falsely accuse??? No way!

Um... huh? I'm sorry, did you say something? My mind wandered :-)

That isn't cool. Someone needs to b***h slap her parents for not punishing the girl. Lying is wrong, falsely accusing someone should earn the same punishment as the fictional crime.

Is there a copy of this story that's not on such a blatantly slanted site? It's very hard to believe I'm getting the truth of all this.

The source is linked at the site and it is linked in my description.

2many, I'm surprised at you. To post that slanted piece as the main post and not the story is really poor judgment.

The Sun reported what parents were saying, the paper NEVER called for these actions to take place. We have no idea what the political inclinations are of the parents/school board and therefore the paper can well be pandering to right-wing hysteria. More likely though, they are doing a report as most reports about school situations are done today, by interviewing other parents. That being said, one should be outraged at the parents, not the paper. Further, unless you live in MD this won't cost you or I a cent, and even if you did live in MD, the paper never said anything would be done that would increase the cost, in fact the school board said it's not feasible to change the hours of construction.

This 11 year old child sounds like she has an emotional problem, possibly histrionic personality disorder. If that is the case she needs help and if you know something about that condition, the less exposure about her abhorrent behavior, the better.

For all we know (and it's not mentioned ANYWHERE in the actual article) the parents are all Republican, or right-wing, for all we know, the school board is too. But since it's not mentioned in the article and the only mention we get of any political leaning at all is in the biased opinion piece you linked in the headline, it is completely inappropriate to skew this story.

Why not post the main article and then link in your comments to the misguided opinion piece, or give your own views on this (as you often do)?

I'm really surprised and disappointed.

Let's see I didn't express an opinion. I merely summarized what the link said. Heck, I didn't even express outrage. You've seen my rants. I tend to go on and on and go slightly overboard. I didn't give my opinion at all.

I guess I could have switched the two links. I linked the blog's covering first because it had comments and thought it would bring up more discussion than just another story of a man being falsely accused of sexual misconduct. Someone being falsely accused happens so often that it isn't that newsworthy. Yes, percentage-wise the vast majority (i assume) of accusations are not false, nevertheless many many accusations are false.

As posted and discussed in other links here on Plime, it has come to a point where men don't want to be around children for fear of being falsely accused or of being falsely assumed to have committed a crime.

Some airlines discriminate against men and won't sit a child next to a man. Are there men who are molesters such as your previous link? Yes there are. That doesn't mean you discriminate against all men no more than you would discriminate against all ________.

Yes, the site is slanted but there isn't one thing that was untrue. The majority of the article did talk about changes to protect the children even though the accusation was false.

I have no idea why you bring in politics to this. Right-wing, left-wing, socialist, communists, anarchist, or whatever have no bearing on the case. The political views of the people involved are immaterial.

The article did mention several changes that either did happen or were being called for which will cost the taxpayers quite a bit of money. Adding a separate entrance, stopping construction, changing construction times to holidays and weekends, and more, will result in greatly increased expenses. The school said it wasn't always possible, not that it wasn't possible to change construction times.

The fact that it isn't costing me anything is immaterial. Are we only to post articles that effects us directly?

I didn't express outrage at the paper, the parents, or the school. I do feel that the coverage should have been done differently.

Heck, I'll even admit that although this case was a false alarm, that doesn't meant that the next case will be false. Perhaps changes are called for. I don't know.
I know that such false accusations can result in the next case not being believed which some predators may take advantage of.

Basically you have a child who falsely accused a construction worker of committing a crime. The result is a call for vigilance for protecting the children from construction workers.

Should the girl face criminal charges for the crime she committed? No, I don't thing so. Although it is interesting that we feel she shouldn't be charged for her crime because she has emotional problems but a man who commits a crime of molestation because he has emotional problems should be killed. [not saying I disagree with that idea, just saying it is an interesting difference. I believe that molesters should be punished severely for the crime]

Actually, I feel she shouldn't face charges for her actions due to her age more than anything else. That and my assumption that this is a first time thing. I would say she should get some sort of therapy and I imagine she will.

The parents need to determine why she did this. Was it due to emotional problems, was it just for attention, was it to cover for something that she did?

There may - I'm not sure, not convinced one way or the other - be a justification in making her family pay for at least part of the expenses that were incurred by the construction company and the worker for the false accusation.

I have seen you rant, more than once on people who posted blogs and not the original article. It's hypocritical to the same, regardless of rationale, which I don't get. I don't think the article needs a slanted/biased view to stimulate discussion, it can start discussion on it's own.
It happens, it happens to good people, but it's not as common as the men who actually do molest children, a far more common occurrence. Not that I don't get your point, believe me it hits home, but you should have posted your opinion about the circumstances, not somebody with a political agenda's view of the media instead. Makes no sense.
It's less discrimination than protecting themselves from liability. Let's fault the parents for not watching their kids instead of the airlines for fear of being sued.
The first line is untrue, there is nothing in the least "left" about the article, that leads to the rest which is then slanted and thereby false.
Did you read the blog you posted? It starts out on a political rant from jump. I didn't bring it in, you did.
If the parents in this situation want those changes and lobby hard enough for them they will get them, they will also be the ones paying for them, I do believe that's taxation with representation.

Personally, I think the parents are reactionary idiots, but that's nothing do with the way the newspaper wrote the article, it's neither left nor right. But if they're willing to pay for those changes and they can get that passed (I suspect enough intelligent people would lobby in opposition to not get that passed), then that's their decision.
No, when did I say you shouldn't post articles that don't affect us directly? Your commentary originally said (you've since changed it) "and it will cost us taxpayers", again, slanted, it won't. It'll cost THOSE taxpayers. Big difference.
Your commentary originally was not the one that's now there, it definitely came off outraged. Perhaps you quoted or summarized the blog but it was inflammatory at the least to do so. Why not let the facts stand and let everyone else decide if the coverage was bad, if the cost is a problem? Or put your opinion in the comments, I do know you know how to do that ;)
Yes, that is a problem, perhaps you're not hearing what I'm saying. I think posting the ORIGINAL article was good, important, it brings to light an issue which has ramifications in many areas, but posting the blog as the main source of information and the article as a near invisible side-note was completely out of line.
I don't disagree with any of this and now we have a discussion on the facts.
That may be justified, I'm not sure either but a public apology is in order.

My rant is when they don't post the original source at all and when the blog doesn't add anything to the story.

I posted both, the blog and the original.

There is nothing hypocritical about that.
I switched around because of your comment.

I also switched it around because of the colors in the wtf category makes the embedded links less obvious. As you mention above they are "near invisible". In the other categories, the blue lettering on white background makes them stand out.

My original summation of the blog was:
So you see, I never said "us taxpayers"

I just glanced at the highlights of the blog, didn't read most of it. I didn't even notice the first line "Only the left and their lapdogs in the media..." which I will admit is silly and over-the-top. Still that was the only political slant. I guess what that line is trying to say is that reaction is the liberal reaction? Maybe? As I said, I agree it is silly and out of place.