Woman's living in bathroom may lead to criminal case

By Edie Hall - The Hutchinson News - ehall@hutchnews.com
The Ness County Sheriff's office is considering charges in the case of a woman who had not left her boyfriend's bathroom in approximately two years.While the investigation is ongoing, Ness County Sheriff Bryan Whipple said his office is "possibly looking into" charges against the woman's boyfriend of mistreatment of a dependent adult.Whipple declined to give the woman's name or her boyfriend's name.In late February, the woman's boyfriend called the sheriff's office and alerted them that something was wrong with his girlfriend. When police arrived, they found the woman sitting on the toilet - a position from which they believe she had not moved for approximately two years. Her boyfriend had sustained her by bringing food and water.Whipple said the woman's muscles had atrophied and that medical personnel had to remove her from the toilet because she was bound to it by "natural means." Currently, the woman is being treated at a Wichita hospital. So far, she has not cooperated with police by granting an interview, and therefore some of the details - such as how she slept or why she went into the bathroom in the first place - are not yet clear. Whipple is hopeful that mental health workers can soon do an evaluation to establish her mental capabilities and her dependence on her boyfriend.Whipple said his office will not be able to determine whether the woman stayed in the bathroom of her own free will, as her boyfriend claims, until the mental evaluation is complete. "With her actions she has kind of supported his claims because when we found her she initially refused ambulance service," Whipple said. "The situation was serious enough that we called the ambulance anyway - but she didn't want to leave." Both the woman and her boyfriend are originally from Ness County, Whipple said, adding that the woman did have family in the area, but that she "didn't have much to do with them."

Digerati

I am quite agree with this opinion about being digerati extracted from http://www.edge.org

"I resent the shallowness of the critics who say that if you sit in front of a computer and participate in online conversations worldwide you are not leading an authentic life. I question the premise that one person can judge the authenticity of another person's life. Millions of people passively watch television all day long. Don't tell me that having an email relationship with someone on the other side of the world is less authentic than sitting alone and watching the tube. For many people, this new medium is a way of breaking out of the virtual world they already live in."

Howard Rheingold

SPAIN ROYAL SEX CARTOONISTS FINED

(Published in BBC News)

Sir: Regarding your article published on 13 November 2007 about “Spain royal sex cartoonists fined” I noticed your diary has not mentioned anything about what scandalous is to be judged by different rules depending on being privileged or not privileged. As a Spaniard, I am very upset with my law system. I am not keen on Monarchy validity; however I recognize the value of King Juan Carlos and observe his representation meanwhile my countrymen wish to keep this system as institution of Head of State. What is wrong and I think it is a hypocritical attitude by Royal Family is to ask to be considered a current Spaniard. Well, it seems not to be a current people when they are judged by different laws, specifically, cartoonists have been judged in relation with “Crimes against heir to Spanish throne”.
We have to distinguish between an affront to Monarchy, as a portrait burning, and a critic against Royal institution in an ironic way (exactly using the Monarchy as an element of highlight a government project, like to give 2.500 euros to each new birth as a method of raising the birth rate). I would like to ask to the people who back this sentence whether they are against political jokes too or kidding against current people. After all in these sort of jokes there is always a person who is humiliated or “vilified” (extracted from sentence).
The reaction of Arabic countries against satirical magazines drawing Mahoma was considered exaggerated to many people, and now it results that most of this people critic the behaviour of “El Jueves”, even more, have considered it a scandal. Is it not a scandal that a determined Family have the representation for life of a democratic country without being elected?
King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofia do not I critic, even Prince Felipe too. They seem to me to be well trained to represent Spain, what I refuse is the institution by nature. In my idea of politics, men and women have to have the same opportunity, to reach head of state included and must be judged with the same rule. A society which does not laugh about itself it is a society unable to do self-criticism and progress. Humour is very important for a community. Is it also important to politicians? I don´t believe so.

Coming soon

In a few days, I will publish my first post. Don´t disturb me with phone calls