child spending money on playstation.

OlliesDad

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I still dont understand why you are bringing the age of criminal responsibility into this thread.

I think it is to point out that the law accepts that children progress mentally at different rates.. maybe you need to understand that.

To say if children can navigate the menu then they know what they are doing is just not true.. my children were able to work a tablet long before they could even read properly.

powerful_Rogue

OlliesDad wrote: »

I think it is to point out that the law accepts that children progress mentally at different rates.. maybe you need to understand that.

To say if children can navigate the menu then they know what they are doing is just not true.. my children were able to work a tablet long before they could even read properly.

Again, taking that logic to the extreme, the Jamie Bulger killers didnt know what they were doing was wrong?

adouglasmhor

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Again, taking that logic to the extreme, the Jamie Bulger killers didnt know what they were doing was wrong?

Actually as the killers were both 10 they were above the age of criminal responsiblity, so your repeated attempts to use them as an example and bring in emotional responses from others only weaken your failed arguments further.

OlliesDad

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Again, taking that logic to the extreme, the Jamie Bulger killers didnt know what they were doing was wrong?

You really need to do your homework before you post. Both boys were 10 years old. However, if they were a year younger, they couldn't be charged with a criminal offence.

powerful_Rogue

OlliesDad wrote: »

You really need to do your homework before you post. Both boys were 10 years old. However, if they were a year younger, they couldn't be charged with a criminal offence.

Yes, but there was an uproar by people at the time saying the age of criminal responsibility was too low and should have been raised.

Also, at that time the presumption of doli incapax was still in force.

Until 1999, there was also a legal presumption (known as “doli incapax”) that children aged under 14 did not know the difference between right and wrong and were therefore incapable of committing an offence.

However, the question was relating to children under 10 apparently not knowing right from wrong. So if they were both 9, you would believe they would not have known what they were doing was wrong?

powerful_Rogue

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Actually as the killers were both 10 they were above the age of criminal responsiblity, so your repeated attempts to use them as an example and bring in emotional responses from others only weaken your failed arguments further.

Im doing nothing of the sort. I initially said children know the difference between right and wrong at a very young age. Someone else brought up the "Age of criminal responsibility" discussion saying that children under the age of 10 do not know the difference between right and wrong.

I brought the extreme example up of the Jamie Bulger killers up because doli incapax was still in force at the time, despite them just falling into the age range of criminal responsibility. It was due to this case that it was rightfully removed.

OlliesDad

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

However, the question was relating to children under 10 apparently not knowing right from wrong. So if they were both 9, you would believe they would not have known what they were doing was wrong?

As I do not know any the children I couldn't possibly give an informed decision (unlike your belief that all 8 year olds know fully about online spending).

I would believe that there was a chance they didn't know (or at least didn't understand the full circumstances) and further information was required.

powerful_Rogue

OlliesDad wrote: »

As I do not know any the children I couldn't possibly give an informed decision (unlike your belief that all 8 year olds know fully about online spending).

I would believe that there was a chance they didn't know (or at least didn't understand the full circumstances) and further information was required.

Thats where we will have to agree to disagree then.

My own personal view is that if an 8 year old is old enough to be left alone playing on a Playsation, can navigate the Playstation store, see something he likes and follow all the prompts on screen to make that purchase then the parents should take responsibility for the money owed to the BIL.

gik

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Thats where we will have to agree to disagree then.

My own personal view is that if an 8 year old is old enough to be left alone playing on a Playsation, can navigate the Playstation store, see something he likes and follow all the prompts on screen to make that purchase then the parents should take responsibility for the money owed to the BIL.

To a point I agree....but! If my sprog's game's machine had been suitably restricted by me and someone else without my knowledge had put their bank details on it without my knowledge or permission surely THEY as an adult are the culpable person? Let the BIL take the 8 year old to Court...guess how far that would get? (
I'm joking of course)

DCodd

Do we know why the BIL's CC details were on the account yet? It does make a difference.