More Child Abuse

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

More Child Abuse

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 5 << First < 1 2 3 4 5

cryrst The garden of England 01 Aug 19 1.30pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow I didn’t say it does - you have a bizarre habit of contesting points that are not being made by anyone but yourself. You do it below on the ‘low paid workers’ comment as well. I’ve read for months on here about how corrupt the courts are for convicting Robinson, and he was only involved because conentional policing was not achieving the results - now, when the abusers are of a different persuasion, the summary is that ‘the law has to deal with it’. If it was a corrupt system for TR, then it’s a corrupt system full stop - you can’t have it both ways. Firstly i never made the statement personal so apologies if you thought it was. It was a reply to a post to one with a reference to TR. Please read the TR posts and there are accusations of being right wing so that's correct. Because us unlearned people think its a corrupt conviction this is a matter of our own opinions. We are not the judiciary. The low paid line has;in a post or two and I cannot re read x1000s , been used for an analogy of modern day slavery. All I did was pre empt that being laid out.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 01 Aug 19 1.30pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

I didn’t say it does - you have a bizarre habit of contesting points that are not being made by anyone but yourself. You do it below on the ‘low paid workers’ comment as well.

I’ve read for months on here about how corrupt the courts are for convicting Robinson, and he was only involved because conentional policing was not achieving the results - now, when the abusers are of a different persuasion, the summary is that ‘the law has to deal with it’.

If it was a corrupt system for TR, then it’s a corrupt system full stop - you can’t have it both ways.

Firstly i never made the statement personal so apologies if you thought it was.
It was a reply to a post to one with a reference to TR.
Please read the TR posts and there are accusations of being right wing so that's correct.
Because us unlearned people think its a corrupt conviction this is a matter of our own opinions.
We are not the judiciary.
The low paid line has;in a post or two and I cannot re read x1000s , been used for an analogy of modern day slavery.
All I did was pre empt that being laid out.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Aug 19 1.31pm
Originally posted by Mapletree But not the majority of child abusers. What do you want to do send a packet of peanuts? Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Aug 2019 1.38pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Aug 19 1.31pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

But not the majority of child abusers.

What do you want to do send a packet of peanuts?

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Aug 2019 1.38pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Aug 19 1.36pm
Originally posted by Mapletree And by the way you are making yourself look ridiculous by defending the indefensible. Pray tell, how do you select out a potential abuser at interview? Is it tattooed on their forehead? And also tell me why if the pay had been better potential abusers would not have applied, I am intrigued. What the feck are you talking about 'defend the indefensible'? Higher pay attracts more applicants and hence provides more choice for the employer for a job....Fecking hell, ...you will ask me to tell you the benefits of wiping your arse next. You can't 'select out' and I haven't suggested you can. However there are methods by which incidents of sexual abuse can be reduced....some legal, some not. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Aug 2019 1.58pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Aug 19 1.36pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

And by the way you are making yourself look ridiculous by defending the indefensible.

Pray tell, how do you select out a potential abuser at interview? Is it tattooed on their forehead?

And also tell me why if the pay had been better potential abusers would not have applied, I am intrigued.

What the feck are you talking about 'defend the indefensible'?

Higher pay attracts more applicants and hence provides more choice for the employer for a job....Fecking hell, ...you will ask me to tell you the benefits of wiping your arse next.

You can't 'select out' and I haven't suggested you can. However there are methods by which incidents of sexual abuse can be reduced....some legal, some not.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Aug 2019 1.58pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 01 Aug 19 1.42pm
Originally posted by cryrst Firstly i never made the statement personal so apologies if you thought it was. It was a reply to a post to one with a reference to TR. Please read the TR posts and there are accusations of being right wing so that's correct. Because us unlearned people think its a corrupt conviction this is a matter of our own opinions. We are not the judiciary. The low paid line has;in a post or two and I cannot re read x1000s , been used for an analogy of modern day slavery. All I did was pre empt that being laid out. No need to apologise, though I respect the gesture - I don’t take anything personally on here
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 01 Aug 19 1.42pm

Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow

Originally posted by cryrst

No need to apologise, though I respect the gesture - I don’t take anything personally on here

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 01 Aug 19 3.08pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow No need to apologise, though I respect the gesture - I don’t take anything personally on here Nice cheers for that. I might be antagonistic but never nasty. I think most on here are just wind ups tbh but it makes bloody good banter
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 01 Aug 19 3.08pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

No need to apologise, though I respect the gesture - I don’t take anything personally on here

Nice cheers for that.
I might be antagonistic but never nasty.
I think most on here are just wind ups tbh but it makes bloody good banter

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 02 Aug 19 9.52am
Originally posted by cryrst I do hope your modern slavery line isnt going to include low paid workers. There is a difference in the two things. Two guys just got jailed yesterday for 8 and 4 years for slavery. Not enough imo but proof that it is being investigated and actioned on. Of course I know the difference. Strange post.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 02 Aug 19 9.52am

Originally posted by cryrst

I do hope your modern slavery line isnt going to include low paid workers.
There is a difference in the two things.
Two guys just got jailed yesterday for 8 and 4 years for slavery.
Not enough imo but proof that it is being investigated and actioned on.

Of course I know the difference. Strange post.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 02 Aug 19 9.57am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays What the feck are you talking about 'defend the indefensible'? Higher pay attracts more applicants and hence provides more choice for the employer for a job....Fecking hell, ...you will ask me to tell you the benefits of wiping your arse next. You can't 'select out' and I haven't suggested you can. However there are methods by which incidents of sexual abuse can be reduced....some legal, some not. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Aug 2019 1.58pm) Ah, I get it. A lower proportion of applicants will be potential abusers as they don’t like higher pay. So as it’s guesswork who may be an abuser statistically there is a lower potential for abusers. 35 years in HR and I didn’t spot that. How thick of me.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 02 Aug 19 9.57am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

What the feck are you talking about 'defend the indefensible'?

Higher pay attracts more applicants and hence provides more choice for the employer for a job....Fecking hell, ...you will ask me to tell you the benefits of wiping your arse next.

You can't 'select out' and I haven't suggested you can. However there are methods by which incidents of sexual abuse can be reduced....some legal, some not.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Aug 2019 1.58pm)

Ah, I get it. A lower proportion of applicants will be potential abusers as they don’t like higher pay. So as it’s guesswork who may be an abuser statistically there is a lower potential for abusers.

35 years in HR and I didn’t spot that. How thick of me.

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 02 Aug 19 8.44pm
There is a woman called Melanie Shaw,who is currently locked up in a secure unit. She has been trying to expose this for years and years. She was a victim and a whistle blower. Too close to revealing just who is involved.have a Google. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 02 Aug 19 8.44pm

There is a woman called Melanie Shaw,who is currently locked up in a secure unit.
She has been trying to expose this for years and years.
She was a victim and a whistle blower.

Too close to revealing just who is involved.have a Google.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Aug 19 8.59pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Ah, I get it. A lower proportion of applicants will be potential abusers as they don’t like higher pay. So as it’s guesswork who may be an abuser statistically there is a lower potential for abusers. 35 years in HR and I didn’t spot that. How thick of me. Well I have to be frank Maple, recently you haven't exactly been setting this forum alight with incisive commentary...it's Friday night and I reckon you're on the sherbets. To answer your dim comment, more applicants equals more choice.....which is better than one applicant for example....pay is used to achieve this in many professions.....more lame commentary from you. There is no way of excluding potential abusers, which is....again a dim comment to even make. There are only ways to reduce a percentage chance......for example, CCTV, employing women in direct contact roles, rules on staff levels....incident logs with multiple sign offs....it goes on. So much for 35 years when you engage me in stupid conversations when best fit answers can be thought up in seconds. Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2019 9.10pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Aug 19 8.59pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

35 years in HR and I didn’t spot that. How thick of me.

Well I have to be frank Maple, recently you haven't exactly been setting this forum alight with incisive commentary...it's Friday night and I reckon you're on the sherbets.

To answer your dim comment, more applicants equals more choice.....which is better than one applicant for example....pay is used to achieve this in many professions.....more lame commentary from you.

There is no way of excluding potential abusers, which is....again a dim comment to even make.

There are only ways to reduce a percentage chance......for example, CCTV, employing women in direct contact roles, rules on staff levels....incident logs with multiple sign offs....it goes on.

So much for 35 years when you engage me in stupid conversations when best fit answers can be thought up in seconds.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2019 9.10pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 02 Aug 19 11.35pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Well I have to be frank Maple, recently you haven't exactly been setting this forum alight with incisive commentary...it's Friday night and I reckon you're on the sherbets. To answer your dim comment, more applicants equals more choice.....which is better than one applicant for example....pay is used to achieve this in many professions.....more lame commentary from you. There is no way of excluding potential abusers, which is....again a dim comment to even make. There are only ways to reduce a percentage chance......for example, CCTV, employing women in direct contact roles, rules on staff levels....incident logs with multiple sign offs....it goes on. So much for 35 years when you engage me in stupid conversations when best fit answers can be thought up in seconds. Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2019 9.10pm) I posted that this morning as you can see Having more choice means nothing if you can’t sift the applicants. There is no reason to believe the proportion of abusers would change so there would be no net effect. It is a minor point but don’t try to be smart with me on my home territory The most important elements here are: Abuse happens in many ways with many perpetrators The modus operandi may or may not be affected by cultural differences All cases seem to have been poorly handled and taken excessive time In my opinion if the will were there, progress should and would have been faster in achieving justice Those in a position to prevent abuse have been asleep on their watch. Abusers put much effort into getting themselves in positions to abuse and our institutions need to react far better, quicker and stronger The current main backstop should be social services. They have been crippled by austerity and vilification through the media
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 02 Aug 19 11.35pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Well I have to be frank Maple, recently you haven't exactly been setting this forum alight with incisive commentary...it's Friday night and I reckon you're on the sherbets.

To answer your dim comment, more applicants equals more choice.....which is better than one applicant for example....pay is used to achieve this in many professions.....more lame commentary from you.

There is no way of excluding potential abusers, which is....again a dim comment to even make.

There are only ways to reduce a percentage chance......for example, CCTV, employing women in direct contact roles, rules on staff levels....incident logs with multiple sign offs....it goes on.

So much for 35 years when you engage me in stupid conversations when best fit answers can be thought up in seconds.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2019 9.10pm)

I posted that this morning as you can see

Having more choice means nothing if you can’t sift the applicants. There is no reason to believe the proportion of abusers would change so there would be no net effect.

It is a minor point but don’t try to be smart with me on my home territory

The most important elements here are:

Abuse happens in many ways with many perpetrators
The modus operandi may or may not be affected by cultural differences
All cases seem to have been poorly handled and taken excessive time
In my opinion if the will were there, progress should and would have been faster in achieving justice
Those in a position to prevent abuse have been asleep on their watch.
Abusers put much effort into getting themselves in positions to abuse and our institutions need to react far better, quicker and stronger
The current main backstop should be social services. They have been crippled by austerity and vilification through the media

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 03 Aug 19 2.46am
Originally posted by Mapletree I posted that this morning as you can see I didn't look I went on the tone. Originally posted by Mapletree Having more choice means nothing if you can’t sift the applicants. There is no reason to believe the proportion of abusers would change so there would be no net effect. The higher the pay the higher the calibre of applicant. While this isn't going to exclude abusers it is going to mean that you can fill your team with more motivated, more intelligent and proven employees who would make the environment harder for abusers to exist within. Pay does matter and its a tool used throughout industries and you are being nonsensical here....it is by no means a panacea and isn't suggested as such. Indeed, for me it would probably be third or fourth on the list. Originally posted by Mapletree It is a minor point but don’t try to be smart with me on my home territory I judge you on what you write and what I think of it, not your own sense of esteem for yourself. I've read a lot of your stuff and my conclusions as to your judgement in the wider scheme of things is mixed. Originally posted by Mapletree The most important elements here are: Abuse happens in many ways with many perpetrators The modus operandi may or may not be affected by cultural differences All cases seem to have been poorly handled and taken excessive time In my opinion if the will were there, progress should and would have been faster in achieving justice Those in a position to prevent abuse have been asleep on their watch. Abusers put much effort into getting themselves in positions to abuse and our institutions need to react far better, quicker and stronger The current main backstop should be social services. They have been crippled by austerity and vilification through the media Some good points but mine were more practical, specific and would bring results. Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Aug 2019 2.47am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

03 Aug 19 2.46am

Originally posted by Mapletree

I posted that this morning as you can see

I didn't look I went on the tone.

Originally posted by Mapletree

Having more choice means nothing if you can’t sift the applicants. There is no reason to believe the proportion of abusers would change so there would be no net effect.

The higher the pay the higher the calibre of applicant. While this isn't going to exclude abusers it is going to mean that you can fill your team with more motivated, more intelligent and proven employees who would make the environment harder for abusers to exist within.

Pay does matter and its a tool used throughout industries and you are being nonsensical here....it is by no means a panacea and isn't suggested as such.

Indeed, for me it would probably be third or fourth on the list.

Originally posted by Mapletree

It is a minor point but don’t try to be smart with me on my home territory

I judge you on what you write and what I think of it, not your own sense of esteem for yourself. I've read a lot of your stuff and my conclusions as to your judgement in the wider scheme of things is mixed.

Originally posted by Mapletree

The most important elements here are:

Some good points but mine were more practical, specific and would bring results.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Aug 2019 2.47am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 5 << First < 1 2 3 4 5

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

More Child Abuse

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors