Taking away parents right to parent?

11 Feb 2010

Quote by awayman
Davey the two most valid points here are IF the authorities were so bothered, why did it take so long for her to get any visit? Surely IF there had been real concern they would have turned up at her house the same day?
Also she is now going to be kept on file, for years....why? Now they have carried out their investigations and found nothing, why does she have to be kept on file?
That is like having your DNA kept on file when you have been proved to have done nothing wrong, it must surely go against her human rights....now I am using that one like others do.
The baby P case as you well know, is completly different, for reasons we all know about and am not going to go around in circles.
Of course the authorities were right in looking into this case. Of course if you see a parent threatening a child with " what they got earlier " they have to act on that. But the problem that I see is IF they thought there was a genuine threat, why did it take what a month for them to turn up? The child could have been dead by then. Had they of turned up on the day and done their investigations there and then, they would have found no evidence of abuse, other than an irate Mother.
But oh no....they leave it for yonks then turn up, and even when there is no evidence whatsoever, they deem her enough of a risk to put her on their files. I do not think that should be allowed IF nothing was found that put those kids in danger.
If a child is being abused and is reported then for sure act, but not so much later that the child could be dead, and yet they " thought " something was wrong.
I always thought that when someone is reported the Social workers acted straight away? So WHY the delay?

So, the info from the shop incident and the police goes into the system. It throws up that nothing is known. A multi agency risk assessment meeting or similar will have been held. At the multi agency risk assessment meeting the police, the social work team, the school and the NHS people will have compared notes. They'll have come up that there's nothing known, and no cause to put the children on the at risk register. But how to close the file off, and double check the MARA conclusions? Why not send plod round to see them, point out what's been seen and what it can mean, and get a look at the family in the process?
As for record keeping, well, frankly, parents who lack effective ways of managing child behaviour and who have poor temper control are a higher risk factor for abuse. Knowing if there's an emerging pattern requires record keeping.
As a quick question though, why, when the exact time scale is in the the Daily Mail story, do you describe it as 'yonks'? Why do you assume there was a delay?
I presume you actually read the artical?
Most people..well there are some exceptions to every rule, would say that six weeks is a tad too long to go round and check this kind of story. In my world that IS yonks.

11 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Davey the two most valid points here are IF the authorities were so bothered, why did it take so long for her to get any visit? Surely IF there had been real concern they would have turned up at her house the same day?
Also she is now going to be kept on file, for years....why? Now they have carried out their investigations and found nothing, why does she have to be kept on file?
That is like having your DNA kept on file when you have been proved to have done nothing wrong, it must surely go against her human rights....now I am using that one like others do.
The baby P case as you well know, is completly different, for reasons we all know about and am not going to go around in circles.
Of course the authorities were right in looking into this case. Of course if you see a parent threatening a child with " what they got earlier " they have to act on that. But the problem that I see is IF they thought there was a genuine threat, why did it take what a month for them to turn up? The child could have been dead by then. Had they of turned up on the day and done their investigations there and then, they would have found no evidence of abuse, other than an irate Mother.
But oh no....they leave it for yonks then turn up, and even when there is no evidence whatsoever, they deem her enough of a risk to put her on their files. I do not think that should be allowed IF nothing was found that put those kids in danger.
If a child is being abused and is reported then for sure act, but not so much later that the child could be dead, and yet they " thought " something was wrong.
I always thought that when someone is reported the Social workers acted straight away? So WHY the delay?

So, the info from the shop incident and the police goes into the system. It throws up that nothing is known. A multi agency risk assessment meeting or similar will have been held. At the multi agency risk assessment meeting the police, the social work team, the school and the NHS people will have compared notes. They'll have come up that there's nothing known, and no cause to put the children on the at risk register. But how to close the file off, and double check the MARA conclusions? Why not send plod round to see them, point out what's been seen and what it can mean, and get a look at the family in the process?
As for record keeping, well, frankly, parents who lack effective ways of managing child behaviour and who have poor temper control are a higher risk factor for abuse. Knowing if there's an emerging pattern requires record keeping.
As a quick question though, why, when the exact time scale is in the the Daily Mail story, do you describe it as 'yonks'? Why do you assume there was a delay?
I presume you actually read the artical?
Most people..well there are some exceptions to every rule, would say that six weeks is a tad too long to go round and check this kind of story. In my world that IS yonks.
I read the article, yes.
The response was proportionate, timely and correct. Three things I'll never accuse you of.

11 Feb 2010

" The response was proportionate, timely and correct ".
Well with attitudes like that is it any wonder children stay in danger.
I may well not be the three things above that you " say " I am not but....most on here would I believe also put you in that catagory....oh and rude as well.

11 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
" The response was proportionate, timely and correct ".
Well with attitudes like that is it any wonder children stay in danger.
I may well not be the three things above that you " say " I am not but....most on here would I believe also put you in that catagory....oh and rude as well.

I know you think I'm rude. There's more than one definition of rudeness. I think your constant scapegoating of others when you're not in possession of all the facts and your leaping to conclusions unsupported by any evidence is also a kind of rudeness. It's part of the coarsening of public discourse in the UK, the idea that says that an ill informed vox pop should get as much time on a news broadcast as someone who actually knows what they're on about. This thread is a prime example - you lash about you in a way that says you're angry, but which never really gets to the root of why you're angry. You're angry if local authorities intervene, then you're angry because they didn't intervene quickly enough, then you're angry because the government changed the law about twenty years ago to make you pay separately to have your bins emptied. You're even angry because you can't be bothered to go out and find out about where your business rates go, or what your local council does.
I think being that angry, and showing it is rudeness. So we both know where we stand.

11 Feb 2010

Please can you stick to the topic in the opening post, or relevant comments leading from that.
If this thread does not go back on topic, it will be locked.
If anyone has a problem with this please pm me.
Thank you

11 Feb 2010

There is also the context of how the authorities handle such situations and the attendant problems of cultural procedures.
From what has been said in this case, it would appear that this mother has been wrongly given a quasi criminal record for 14 years, yet the authorities still let so many serious matters slip through the net.
Plim :sad:

11 Feb 2010

Quote by Plimboy
There is also the context of how the authorities handle such situations and the attendant problems of cultural procedures.
From what has been said in this case, it would appear that this mother has been wrongly given a quasi criminal record for 14 years, yet the authorities still let so many serious matters slip through the net.
Plim :sad:

Do you think local authorities set out to 'let so many serious matters slip through the net."?
Do you think local authorities should not record information that might let them prevent other cases of child abuse?

11 Feb 2010

Quote by awayman
There is also the context of how the authorities handle such situations and the attendant problems of cultural procedures.
From what has been said in this case, it would appear that this mother has been wrongly given a quasi criminal record for 14 years, yet the authorities still let so many serious matters slip through the net.
Plim :sad:

Do you think local authorities set out to 'let so many serious matters slip through the net."?
Do you think local authorities should not record information that might let them prevent other cases of child abuse?
Of course authorities don't set out to fail in anything they do, not just child abuse cases, but across the board. It's just a combination of poor cultural and communication problems that overwhelms them sometimes. Hope that clarifies the position.
Assuming that your second point refers to the mother in the thread, nothing said by anyone so far could, in my view, justify a 14 years record in this case, especially as she hadn't actually hit the child.
Plim

11 Feb 2010

Quote by Plimboy
There is also the context of how the authorities handle such situations and the attendant problems of cultural procedures.
From what has been said in this case, it would appear that this mother has been wrongly given a quasi criminal record for 14 years, yet the authorities still let so many serious matters slip through the net.
Plim :sad:

Do you think local authorities set out to 'let so many serious matters slip through the net."?
Do you think local authorities should not record information that might let them prevent other cases of child abuse?
Of course authorities don't set out to fail in anything they do, not just child abuse cases, but across the board. It's just a combination of poor cultural and communication problems that overwhelms them sometimes. Hope that clarifies the position.
Assuming that your second point refers to the mother in the thread, nothing said by anyone so far could, in my view, justify a 14 years record in this case, especially as she hadn't actually hit the child.
Plim
OK, here's how it works. If the person who saw the outburst in the shop had reported it, and the child had been on the at risk register, then there would have been a serious discussion about removing the child from the home. A social worker would have bene there in hours in most areas. That's how it should work. These kids weren't on the at risk register, so a discussion had to be convened about whether they should be on the register.
What causes failure isn't cultural in the societal sense, but the organisational. Haringey's organisational culture was almost non existent; over worked under motivated staff had no support, no culture of peer review and no mentoring to enable them to get some distance from and perspective on the cases they were handling. Instead of being an employer of choice Haringey were a sink, the place social workers went to if they couldn't get a job anywhere else.
This woman doesn't have a 14 year record. Her kids have protection until they're grown. If she loses her temper in a similar way again, or if the kids show up with unusual injuries, the record will have as much information as neccessary. It says something about this woman, as a mum, that it's all about her, not about her kids.
I apologise if the fact that I care about this stuff makes me sound a bit over assertive, but it's very important that we don't do contradictory things, criticising social workers when they act and criticising them when they don't....

11 Feb 2010

Quote by awayman
There is also the context of how the authorities handle such situations and the attendant problems of cultural procedures.
From what has been said in this case, it would appear that this mother has been wrongly given a quasi criminal record for 14 years, yet the authorities still let so many serious matters slip through the net.
Plim :sad:

Do you think local authorities set out to 'let so many serious matters slip through the net."?
Do you think local authorities should not record information that might let them prevent other cases of child abuse?
Of course authorities don't set out to fail in anything they do, not just child abuse cases, but across the board. It's just a combination of poor cultural and communication problems that overwhelms them sometimes. Hope that clarifies the position.
Assuming that your second point refers to the mother in the thread, nothing said by anyone so far could, in my view, justify a 14 years record in this case, especially as she hadn't actually hit the child.
Plim
OK, here's how it works. If the person who saw the outburst in the shop had reported it, and the child had been on the at risk register, then there would have been a serious discussion about removing the child from the home. A social worker would have bene there in hours in most areas. That's how it should work. These kids weren't on the at risk register, so a discussion had to be convened about whether they should be on the register.
What causes failure isn't cultural in the societal sense, but the organisational. Haringey's organisational culture was almost non existent; over worked under motivated staff had no support, no culture of peer review and no mentoring to enable them to get some distance from and perspective on the cases they were handling. Instead of being an employer of choice Haringey were a sink, the place social workers went to if they couldn't get a job anywhere else.
This woman doesn't have a 14 year record. Her kids have protection until they're grown. If she loses her temper in a similar way again, or if the kids show up with unusual injuries, the record will have as much information as neccessary. It says something about this woman, as a mum, that it's all about her, not about her kids.
I apologise if the fact that I care about this stuff makes me sound a bit over assertive, but it's very important that we don't do contradictory things, criticising social workers when they act and criticising them when they don't....
Not true at all.
When someone reports child abuse to Social Services or the police, a social worker visits the family, usually within a few hours or less. Where an accusation has been made the Social worker can...and does on occasion take the child, pending an investigation.
Then and only then can an at risk report be done. That could lead to the child being put into care, and a judge ordering a section 7 report.
Sometimes a report of abuse can be made when the child is at school, and before the parent arrives at that school the child can have been removed...fact.
The parent can be questioned by the police and the child is questioned as well, and only then will a decision be made about that child.
A child could be either placed on a " child in need " register, or on a child protection one.
Your second comment is like someone reporting you for trying to steal a car. You have never broken any laws, and certainly was not going to steal any car but....they arrest you, fingerprint you, take DNA from you, then let you go as there is no evidence.
But don't worry as they will keep all your details on file just in CASE you might think about breaking the law sometime in the future. Poppy bollox.
You would like most people would, want that deleted from your file if you had done nothing wrong. But a neighbour might well say after his car was stolen...no keep his details on file as he could have stolen my car.
Am sure you would be so happy about that one....blimey people hate cctv cameras for simliar reasons.
This case stinks of Social services over zealous interference, with regard to the baby p case. They are now so scared of their own shadows that cases like this madness will become common place. What is needed is a bit of common sense, but Social workers do not find that from a book, that is taught in the real world.
Believe me I know the dangers of child protection officers and social workers, I have dealt with some of the worst liars and lefties ever. I could tell a few things about them which would really make your hair curl, but am not going to as it is not for this forum....just take my word for it.

11 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
There is also the context of how the authorities handle such situations and the attendant problems of cultural procedures.
From what has been said in this case, it would appear that this mother has been wrongly given a quasi criminal record for 14 years, yet the authorities still let so many serious matters slip through the net.
Plim :sad:

Do you think local authorities set out to 'let so many serious matters slip through the net."?
Do you think local authorities should not record information that might let them prevent other cases of child abuse?
Of course authorities don't set out to fail in anything they do, not just child abuse cases, but across the board. It's just a combination of poor cultural and communication problems that overwhelms them sometimes. Hope that clarifies the position.
Assuming that your second point refers to the mother in the thread, nothing said by anyone so far could, in my view, justify a 14 years record in this case, especially as she hadn't actually hit the child.
Plim
OK, here's how it works. If the person who saw the outburst in the shop had reported it, and the child had been on the at risk register, then there would have been a serious discussion about removing the child from the home. A social worker would have bene there in hours in most areas. That's how it should work. These kids weren't on the at risk register, so a discussion had to be convened about whether they should be on the register.
What causes failure isn't cultural in the societal sense, but the organisational. Haringey's organisational culture was almost non existent; over worked under motivated staff had no support, no culture of peer review and no mentoring to enable them to get some distance from and perspective on the cases they were handling. Instead of being an employer of choice Haringey were a sink, the place social workers went to if they couldn't get a job anywhere else.
This woman doesn't have a 14 year record. Her kids have protection until they're grown. If she loses her temper in a similar way again, or if the kids show up with unusual injuries, the record will have as much information as neccessary. It says something about this woman, as a mum, that it's all about her, not about her kids.
I apologise if the fact that I care about this stuff makes me sound a bit over assertive, but it's very important that we don't do contradictory things, criticising social workers when they act and criticising them when they don't....
Not true at all.
When someone reports child abuse to Social Services or the police, a social worker visits the family, usually within a few hours or less. Where an accusation has been made the Social worker can...and does on occasion take the child, pending an investigation.
Then and only then can an at risk report be done. That could lead to the child being put into care, and a judge ordering a section 7 report.
Sometimes a report of abuse can be made when the child is at school, and before the parent arrives at that school the child can have been removed...fact.
The parent can be questioned by the police and the child is questioned as well, and only then will a decision be made about that child.
A child could be either placed on a " child in need " register, or on a child protection one.
Your second comment is like someone reporting you for trying to steal a car. You have never broken any laws, and certainly was not going to steal any car but....they arrest you, fingerprint you, take DNA from you, then let you go as there is no evidence.
But don't worry as they will keep all your details on file just in CASE you might think about breaking the law sometime in the future. Poppy bollox.
You would like most people would, want that deleted from your file if you had done nothing wrong. But a neighbour might well say after his car was stolen...no keep his details on file as he could have stolen my car.
Am sure you would be so happy about that one....blimey people hate cctv cameras for simliar reasons.
This case stinks of Social services over zealous interference, with regard to the baby p case. They are now so scared of their own shadows that cases like this madness will become common place. What is needed is a bit of common sense, but Social workers do not find that from a book, that is taught in the real world.
Believe me I know the dangers of child protection officers and social workers, I have dealt with some of the worst liars and lefties ever. I could tell a few things about them which would really make your hair curl, but am not going to as it is not for this forum....just take my word for it.

I am not a liar.
I am a lefty, in your eyes.
I know what I know.
I have real difficulties taking your word, because of what I know. I do not believe that makes you a liar. So you think I am a liar, and I think you're generalizing from the specific in an unreliable way. Others will have to draw their own conclusions from that.

11 Feb 2010

I never called you a liar...I said your comments were not accurate.
A liar is someone who sets out to deceive which I never said you had.
So everything you say on here has to be taken as fact by everyone now then?
The whole point of discussion is that there is usually two sides to that arguement, otherwise nobody would ever disagree.
You read books and newspapers, but for me I have had REAL dealings in this matter, so I can speak from experience.....can you?

11 Feb 2010

Quote by awayman
There is also the context of how the authorities handle such situations and the attendant problems of cultural procedures.
From what has been said in this case, it would appear that this mother has been wrongly given a quasi criminal record for 14 years, yet the authorities still let so many serious matters slip through the net.
Plim :sad:

Do you think local authorities set out to 'let so many serious matters slip through the net."?
Do you think local authorities should not record information that might let them prevent other cases of child abuse?
Of course authorities don't set out to fail in anything they do, not just child abuse cases, but across the board. It's just a combination of poor cultural and communication problems that overwhelms them sometimes. Hope that clarifies the position.
Assuming that your second point refers to the mother in the thread, nothing said by anyone so far could, in my view, justify a 14 years record in this case, especially as she hadn't actually hit the child.
Plim
OK, here's how it works. If the person who saw the outburst in the shop had reported it, and the child had been on the at risk register, then there would have been a serious discussion about removing the child from the home. A social worker would have bene there in hours in most areas. That's how it should work. These kids weren't on the at risk register, so a discussion had to be convened about whether they should be on the register.
What causes failure isn't cultural in the societal sense, but the organisational. Haringey's organisational culture was almost non existent; over worked under motivated staff had no support, no culture of peer review and no mentoring to enable them to get some distance from and perspective on the cases they were handling. Instead of being an employer of choice Haringey were a sink, the place social workers went to if they couldn't get a job anywhere else.
This woman doesn't have a 14 year record. Her kids have protection until they're grown. If she loses her temper in a similar way again, or if the kids show up with unusual injuries, the record will have as much information as neccessary. It says something about this woman, as a mum, that it's all about her, not about her kids.
I apologise if the fact that I care about this stuff makes me sound a bit over assertive, but it's very important that we don't do contradictory things, criticising social workers when they act and criticising them when they don't....
Not true at all.
When someone reports child abuse to Social Services or the police, a social worker visits the family, usually within a few hours or less. Where an accusation has been made the Social worker can...and does on occasion take the child, pending an investigation.
Then and only then can an at risk report be done. That could lead to the child being put into care, and a judge ordering a section 7 report.
Sometimes a report of abuse can be made when the child is at school, and before the parent arrives at that school the child can have been removed...fact.
The parent can be questioned by the police and the child is questioned as well, and only then will a decision be made about that child.
A child could be either placed on a " child in need " register, or on a child protection one.
Your second comment is like someone reporting you for trying to steal a car. You have never broken any laws, and certainly was not going to steal any car but....they arrest you, fingerprint you, take DNA from you, then let you go as there is no evidence.
But don't worry as they will keep all your details on file just in CASE you might think about breaking the law sometime in the future. Poppy bollox.
You would like most people would, want that deleted from your file if you had done nothing wrong. But a neighbour might well say after his car was stolen...no keep his details on file as he could have stolen my car.
Am sure you would be so happy about that one....blimey people hate cctv cameras for simliar reasons.
This case stinks of Social services over zealous interference, with regard to the baby p case. They are now so scared of their own shadows that cases like this madness will become common place. What is needed is a bit of common sense, but Social workers do not find that from a book, that is taught in the real world.
Believe me I know the dangers of child protection officers and social workers, I have dealt with some of the worst liars and lefties ever. I could tell a few things about them which would really make your hair curl, but am not going to as it is not for this forum....just take my word for it.

I am not a liar.
I am a lefty, in your eyes.
I know what I know.
I have real difficulties taking your word, because of what I know. I do not believe that makes you a liar. So you think I am a liar, and I think you're generalizing from the specific in an unreliable way. Others will have to draw their own conclusions from that.
Where did Kent call you a liar? His exact words were " Not true at all ", something quite different in the context it was used.

11 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
I never called you a liar...I said your comments were not accurate.
A liar is someone who sets out to deceive which I never said you had.
So everything you say on here has to be taken as fact by everyone now then?
The whole point of discussion is that there is usually two sides to that arguement, otherwise nobody would ever disagree.
You read books and newspapers, but for me I have had REAL dealings in this matter, so I can speak from experience.....can you?

Yes.
Next?

12 Feb 2010

Quote by Max777
Where did Kent call you a liar? His exact words were " Not true at all ", something quite different in the context it was used.

I think it is within the dialogue that they were using. Kenty said:

Quote by kentswingers777
Believe me I know the dangers of child protection officers and social workers, I have dealt with some of the worst liars and lefties ever.

and awayman replied with:

Quote by awayman
I am not a liar.
I am a lefty, in your eyes.
I know what I know.

You may have only read the first line of Kentys post and did not reach the end of it to see this bit. I am only guessing that awayman may have something to do with social work/child protection so the general tone could lead the reader to believe this is directed at them so they have replied to it. This is all guess work but that is how I have read the exchange between Kenty and awayman.
Now if I am correct, you have two individuals who have had experience of both sides of the subject. If these two can get to see the differences and understandings of the other then this will turn into one helluva debate and information sharing.........but if it just turns into a slanging match then nobody learns. I am watching this subject with interest.
Dave_Notts

12 Feb 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Where did Kent call you a liar? His exact words were " Not true at all ", something quite different in the context it was used.

I think it is within the dialogue that they were using. Kenty said:

Quote by kentswingers777
Believe me I know the dangers of child protection officers and social workers, I have dealt with some of the worst liars and lefties ever.

and awayman replied with:

Quote by awayman
I am not a liar.
I am a lefty, in your eyes.
I know what I know.

You may have only read the first line of Kentys post and did not reach the end of it to see this bit. I am only guessing that awayman may have something to do with social work/child protection so the general tone could lead the reader to believe this is directed at them so they have replied to it. This is all guess work but that is how I have read the exchange between Kenty and awayman.
Now if I am correct, you have two individuals who have had experience of both sides of the subject. If these two can get to see the differences and understandings of the other then this will turn into one helluva debate and information sharing.........but if it just turns into a slanging match then nobody learns. I am watching this subject with interest.
Dave_Notts
No Dave, I read the whole post and I'm sorry but I still don't see where Kent called Awayman a liar.....just as I couldn't see where Brightongeezer had said he despised Awayman in a previous post, as Awayman also claimed. For someone that accuses others of using "inflammatory language" his language seems to me to be intentionally provocative.

12 Feb 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Where did Kent call you a liar? His exact words were " Not true at all ", something quite different in the context it was used.

I think it is within the dialogue that they were using. Kenty said:

Quote by kentswingers777
Believe me I know the dangers of child protection officers and social workers, I have dealt with some of the worst liars and lefties ever.

and awayman replied with:

Quote by awayman
I am not a liar.
I am a lefty, in your eyes.
I know what I know.

You may have only read the first line of Kentys post and did not reach the end of it to see this bit. I am only guessing that awayman may have something to do with social work/child protection so the general tone could lead the reader to believe this is directed at them so they have replied to it. This is all guess work but that is how I have read the exchange between Kenty and awayman.
Now if I am correct, you have two individuals who have had experience of both sides of the subject. If these two can get to see the differences and understandings of the other then this will turn into one helluva debate and information sharing.........but if it just turns into a slanging match then nobody learns. I am watching this subject with interest.
Dave_Notts
Davey calling him a liar would mean I knew he had/has got something to do with Social services, which obviously I do not....so my comments were based on his accuracy of his facts.
Which I still stand by...they are false.
Which also leads me to believe he has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Social work, where children are concerned.
How do I know? Well his comments are NOT how social workers now deal with things nowadays. Times have changed big time since the baby p scandal, and my Daughter has been caught up in this mad lefty....scared of their own shadows, scenario.
I am not and will not go into any details of my private affairs on this forum to prove my point.
I never called him a liar, what I would say is his facts are not correct...something not quite the same.
I cannot be fecking arsed now with this topic, as when people don't like being argued against, and then start accusing me of calling them a liar, then it is time to move on.

12 Feb 2010

Quote by flower411
Where did Kent call you a liar? His exact words were " Not true at all ", something quite different in the context it was used.

I think it is within the dialogue that they were using. Kenty said:

Quote by kentswingers777
Believe me I know the dangers of child protection officers and social workers, I have dealt with some of the worst liars and lefties ever.

and awayman replied with:

Quote by awayman
I am not a liar.
I am a lefty, in your eyes.
I know what I know.

You may have only read the first line of Kentys post and did not reach the end of it to see this bit. I am only guessing that awayman may have something to do with social work/child protection so the general tone could lead the reader to believe this is directed at them so they have replied to it. This is all guess work but that is how I have read the exchange between Kenty and awayman.
Now if I am correct, you have two individuals who have had experience of both sides of the subject. If these two can get to see the differences and understandings of the other then this will turn into one helluva debate and information sharing.........but if it just turns into a slanging match then nobody learns. I am watching this subject with interest.
Dave_Notts
No Dave, I read the whole post and I'm sorry but I still don't see where Kent called Awayman a liar.....just as I couldn't see where Brightongeezer had said he despised Awayman in a previous post, as Awayman also claimed. For someone that accuses others of using "inflammatory language" his language seems to me to be intentionally provocative.
And as usual ..you come in with nothing to say except to try stirring up trouble and other people end up banned !!!
It`s a neat trick !!!
No, not trying to get anyone banned nor stir up trouble, simply responding to Dave's post.
As for having nothing to say, I learned a long time ago that it's usually pointless expressing any opinion on here, as most debates quickly degenerate into slanging matches.

12 Feb 2010

Quote by Sarah
Please can you stick to the topic in the opening post, or relevant comments leading from that.
If this thread does not go back on topic, it will be locked.
If anyone has a problem with this please pm me.
Thank you

27 Feb 2010

Another example of how crazy this country has now become.
Where the feck is common sense nowadays?

IF that would have been me out with my Grandaughter I without any shadow of a doubt,would have been arrested, after I had thumped that pratt of a copper.
I am suprised that a Social wanker....sorry worker, was not called as well and this guy put on a register for 14 years for taking a picture... ffs!!

27 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Another example of how crazy this country has now become.
Where the feck is common sense nowadays?

IF that would have been me out with my Grandaughter I without any shadow of a doubt,would have been arrested, after I had thumped that pratt of a copper.
I am suprised that a Social wanker....sorry worker, was not called as well and this guy put on a register for 14 years for taking a picture... ffs!!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What exactly do you want to happen in this sort of situation, or is this just another rant?
If the shopping centre has a no photo policy then the guy was in breach of it. How difficult would it to be to say sorry and delete the picture rather than subject the kid to witnessing the distressful scene? The guy seems to have made a mountain out of a molehill but it provides the media with another non story and another ranting opportunity.

27 Feb 2010

Quote by northwest-cpl
Another example of how crazy this country has now become.
Where the feck is common sense nowadays?

IF that would have been me out with my Grandaughter I without any shadow of a doubt,would have been arrested, after I had thumped that pratt of a copper.
I am suprised that a Social wanker....sorry worker, was not called as well and this guy put on a register for 14 years for taking a picture... ffs!!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What exactly do you want to happen in this sort of situation, or is this just another rant?
If the shopping centre has a no photo policy then the guy was in breach of it. How difficult would it to be to say sorry and delete the picture rather than subject the kid to witnessing the distressful scene? The guy seems to have made a mountain out of a molehill but it provides the media with another non story and another ranting opportunity.
I do not see it as a " rant " but you have your opinion on it.
I see it as I have described above....no common sense at all!!
The guy explained it was his son, I would have thought that every parent has a right to take a picture of one of their kids on a ride....thousands do it every day.
Next somewhere like Alton Towers will say no pictures. Would that be ok with you as well then? Where will it all end?
I know that Social services directives are to treat every guy out there as a possible child pervert, but is that not going a step too far?

27 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
I do not see it as a " rant " but you have your opinion on it.
I see it as I have described above....no common sense at all!!
The guy explained it was his son, I would have thought that every parent has a right to take a picture of one of their kids on a ride....thousands do it every day.
Next somewhere like Alton Towers will say no pictures. Would that be ok with you as well then? Where will it all end?
I know that Social services directives are to treat every guy out there as a possible child pervert, but is that not going a step too far?

Where is your source for this Social Services directive?
If the centre had a no photography rule then the guy was clearly breaching it, no matter who he was taking a photo of. He did not have the right to take a picture of his son in that location. And to kick off in front of his son (or granddaughter as you claimed you would do) is really setting a good example. Do feral children follow the examples of their parents, you often claim they do?
If Alton Towers brings in a no photo policy then I would abide by it or withhold my custom, or write to the management and express my opinion.
Personally I think that a no photo policy is silly, but it doesn't bother me enough to contact the papers or to rant on an internet site devoted to swinging.

27 Feb 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Another example of how crazy this country has now become.
Where the feck is common sense nowadays?

IF that would have been me out with my Grandaughter I without any shadow of a doubt,would have been arrested, after I had thumped that pratt of a copper.
I am suprised that a Social wanker....sorry worker, was not called as well and this guy put on a register for 14 years for taking a picture... ffs!!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What exactly do you want to happen in this sort of situation, or is this just another rant?
If the shopping centre has a no photo policy then the guy was in breach of it. How difficult would it to be to say sorry and delete the picture rather than subject the kid to witnessing the distressful scene? The guy seems to have made a mountain out of a molehill but it provides the media with another non story and another ranting opportunity.
I do not see it as a " rant " but you have your opinion on it.
I see it as I have described above....no common sense at all!!
The guy explained it was his son, I would have thought that every parent has a right to take a picture of one of their kids on a ride....thousands do it every day.
Next somewhere like Alton Towers will say no pictures. Would that be ok with you as well then? Where will it all end?
I know that Social services directives are to treat every guy out there as a possible child pervert, but is that not going a step too far?
Where were social services involved in this row between a minimum wage numpty in a shopping centre and a dad?