Post by john ashbyPost by KosmoI tend to the view that Elvis was alive when she left.
On what evidence?
Joy stated it. However as I have also said recollections may vary.
This may become important later.
Post by john ashbyPost by KosmoI suspect Joy asked someone to keep an eye on Rochelle - but at the
age of 15 could reasonably be expected to manage.
If that were the case why would Joy not have offered it as an excuse
that she was let down by the neighbour or whoever. Your suspicions are
based on the rational Joy we have got to know over the past years -
her behaviour at the beginning of a fugue state could have been very
different.
Which I accept - but as I have said the truth is somewhere between the
two and in the heat of the moment Joy did not have time to offer the
explanation.
But this is not the first time Joy and Rochelle have been round this
particular argument, and it is less believable that she has not
mentioned it at one of the previous times.
Post by john ashbyPost by KosmoRochelle let the people in and no doubt asked for help to bury Elvis
- but it was then her choice to sleep with a boy.
It may have been her choice but it was not a free choice on two
grounds: a) she felt (or now feels) coerced to "repay" the kindness he
showed in helping to bury Elvis and b) as she was under 16 she was not
legally able to consent to sex. I'm a bit perturbed that you made the
statement you did.
Err I am not sure why you should be perturbed.
I should perhaps have said "made the statement you did unqualified". You
make some of the qualifications below but miss ny two (IMO) important ones.
It is my understanding
(I have no personal experience) that girls under the legal age in this
country with our beliefs sometimes are involved in sexual activity under
the legal age.
I have (indirect) experience and can agree that they do. That does not
negate my point that it is a) illegal and b) open to doubt as to whether
consent can be fully informed and freely given.
It may be illegal and in breech of my wish for those
girls but that does not stop it happening. She may have felt an
obligation to the boy concerned - that does not in itself (no matter
what the law says)
That is a very confused parenthetical comment, it seems to suggest that
the law would permit a transaction of sex for gravedigging which I don't
think it does.
convert into sexual activity with the individual -
she could have refused. As a contrast in other parts of the world the
age of consent is lower or higher depending on the local law - but that
again has little impact I suggest.
If you want to use that as an argument that a 15 year old may be capable
of consent, feel free, That, of course, ignores the added vulnerabilty
of the recently orphanned and abandoned Rochelle.
One thing which is not in evidence is the age of the boy which might be
relevant to how susceptible she might have been to coercion.
Compare and contrast with Zainab
Irrelevant. Zainab is not Rochelle, she's not Rochelle who has recently
lost her father, she's not Rochelle whose mother has gone away leaving
her unsure hwen she will return.
As I am not now nor have ever been female it is of course impossible for
me to know how they think. I therefore fall back on Professor Higgins -
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
I'm led to believe that you are a married man and also that you had a
daughter, so you do have experience that you could draw on to understand
how at least some women think. Which brings me to the heart of my
perturbation: that your expressed attitudes to sexual abuse (which
Rochelle's experience was both legally and ethically) and to women in
general suggest that the changes in the views of mainstream society (not
just the wokerati) over the last forty-some years have largely passed
you by.
Perhaps perturbed is also not the right word. Disappointed, maybe.
john