Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
staffcple
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 53
Straight Female, 59
0 miles · Staffordshire

Forum

Quote by kentswingers777
Staffs your comment " how about I suggest another one? Public outcry was so great he offered a sacrificial lamb to turn attention away from his own and the government's failings " ?

What the heck do you base that one on, or is that just a snipe at Ed Balls. As his name suggests, at least he has some balls.
It's based on common sense and experience, who is ultimately responsible for the provision and governance of child protection procedures?
Who paid the price for the 'weapons of mass destruction' deception which directly led to the Iraq invasion and the later 'sexing up of the dossier' revelation?
Google Dr. David Kelly, for sacrificial lamb usage.
No I do not know what his investigation was, but the conclusion is pretty obvious, he sacked her.
The conclusion isn't obvious in anyway, all that is obvious is his decision.
Now if you are really telling me that an educated clever Minister like this guy is, decides at a whim to sack someone who he obviously knew would try for compensation, on the basis of using her as a " sacrificial lamb ", then you really must be up the wrong gum tree.
And you are in cloud cuckoo land if you believe for one second being employed by the government is any less likely to result in unfair dismissal than any other employer. Someone always has to pay the price, as ever it tends to someone just important enough to quieten the pitchfork mob whilst those truly responsible carry on doing the same things that caused the problems in the first place.
What about this one....he was called to Downing Street by the PM, to explain this tragedy with regards to baby P. He is then ordered to hold an in depth investigation into Harringays workings and Shoesmiths involvement.
He then finds out that she and her department have been negligent in this childs then decides to sack her for gross misconduct, of which he is entitled to do?
A reasonable suggestion, as long as she was dismissed in accordance with her contract of employment and more importantly the law, there should'nt be a problem, however, time will tell won't it?
That seems to me much nearer the mark than your suggestion. Still we will wait and see eh? But whatever the outcome she will NEVER work in childrens services again. Who would touch this smug arrogant woman?
So she may well end up getting " blood money " from our ridiculous tribunal system, but her career is finished.
Once again, your hatred and prejudice shows through, if she wins her case it will be because she was treated in a way that was against the law, it won't be blood money, it will be fair compensation for her treatment. Why can't you in your reactionary, knee jerk world see that? The same laws exist to protect everyone, society cannot decide which laws apply to individual cases.
In capitals for the hard of understanding "SHE DID NOT KILL THAT CHILD" Those that did have been tried, convicted and sentenced. The enquiry should take place, in public, by an independent body, not by a government watchdog, the enquiry should take all parts of child protection legislation into account from top to bottom, including, staffing levels, case loads, liason with other agencies, powers and accountability. Then you may get a system that actually works and is not reliant on people working themselves to death to simply 'keep it afloat'.
Yes I know it is the parents that ultimately are to blame but....and here is the but....Social services are there to protect children from further harm, and this child was under Harringays direction, and they failed. Whatever has happened we have a dead child in a grave, that because of incompetence from people at Harringay, could and should have been saved, and that is the worst thing about this whole sorry case.

But is it not realistic to understand no matter what agencies do, no matter how good the procedures, how harsh the penalties and how many people get thrown to the lions, children will still be killed by their parents, you only have to google the right words and it will give you rafts and rafts of pages of horrific stories, disturbing stats and quotes that will chill. It will not stop, no matter what happens, you think lessons have been learnt from this tragedy? You couldn't be more wrong....it's still happening and always will until we take humans out of the loop, for one reason, humans are fallible, we make mistakes, we make bad judgements and we can be decieved.
If you don't agree, i expect should you ever find yourself in a situation like this, you will of course happily fall on your sword, accept your life and career are to be destroyed, your family to suffer, you are to recive death threats and be demonised and hated by people who take no account of the years of good service you have given, but rather sit in ivory towers and spew bile, while all the time never having the guts to do it themselves? All of course without a single murmur of protest......Like hell you would.
Quote by kentswingers777
" Educate yourself for gods sake, you want to know how trustworthy and truthful the media are? It's easy, just go to google and search for 'tabloid libel payouts' I doubt it, but it may open your eyes a little ".
Bloody cheek!!
So oh mr knowledgable why did the Minister INCHARGE decide to sack her? Did he listen to the papers? Or did he make an INFORMED decision based on the investigation his very own department carried out?
Either of those two reasons seem plausible to me, how about I suggest another one? Public outcry was so great he offered a sacrificial lamb to turn attention away from his own and the government's failings?
I get tired myself when people like YOU bleat on and on and on and on, about the papers are this and the papers are that....poppycock.
Yes most of what I know about the case can be down to what the papers write, but I saw with my own eyes a Minister take a long hard look at this case, which he investigated, and then sacked her with immediate effect.
Again, the point is that you did'nt 'see a minister take a long hard look at anything' with your own eyes did you? You read it in a paper or watched the Ed Balls soundbite the news channels broadcast.
Of course YOU ignore that fact as much as you like, as you seemed to the last time we had a very similar conversation on here about baby P, and the tossers who ignored that childs desperate need for help. When you stated about the social workers in the case and how we did not know anything about the case, blah blah. Yet....when the evidence came out and social workers were sacked and Harringay were slated, I never saw you make one more point.
I did not ignore any facts, i and others spent a long time providing links to relevant parts of the case that were not being printed, such as the disguise of injuries, the fact that the police and CPS twice failed to find enough evidence to charge anyone with cruelty, not to mention Dave_Notts utter destruction of the 'social workers made 60 visits myth' You chose to ignore these facts because i can only imagine they don't serve to demonise social workers as much as you'd enjoy. If i remember correctly, I backed away from that discussion long before the review had been carried out or anyone was sacked, i did this for one reason, I cannot debate with people who advocate violence or any other punitive measures against those not yet proven guilty of anything, time, the law and a judge will tell whether the people sacked were done so legally and with good reason, not a media hyped witch hunt and not those with an axe to grind against social workers. That's how things work in a civilized country.
A bit like this time no doubt when Shoesmith goes to court and gets found out to be the greedy nasty bit of work she is, and the Minister wil be found to have acted correctly and within the law.
Your prejudice is staggering and plainly obvious to see, you know absolutely nothing about this person, this case and the circumstances behind it, short of what has been fed to you by the gutter press. Open your eyes, no one is actually saying your wrong, i believe all anyone has said is to wait until the full facts are given, unfortunately you are not going to find those in any of your usual choice of reading material.
Will you be another one to come on here and appologise? I wont hold me breath on that one, otherwise after the last time I would still be holding it.
Yep, you'll be holding your breath, i would never apologise for being fair, open minded and even handed, i tend to prefer that to blind acceptance, hatred and ignorance.
Get off your high horse over the paper issues fgs, anyone would think they held absolute power over the people....you have your views and I will have mine.
I don't have a problem with that at all, you have your own opinion's, i will defend to the death your right to have them, but and it's a huge but, i'll also challenge those i feel are based on ignorance and stupidity.
Now where is Ed Balls comments on this case again?
And you trust a political creature who at the same time he was taking this action and 'reacting to public outcry' was being lauded as a possible leadership challenger?

So any response to the rest of the post I made above? Did you discover that an awful lot of the 'facts' papers print have been proven in law not to be 'facts' at all but utter fabrication, punished by huge compensation orders and costs?
Quote by kentswingers777
That is a strange and pointless analogy. You could use that arguement EVERY time you heard someone argueing or moaning about something.....if you don't like it do this or do that about it.

Strange and pointless? I'm very surprised you think that considering it's one you used yourself on the 'Jungle' thread,
Quote by kentswingers777
Minxy if you are so concerned about mans fellow plight against fellow man, there are many things you can do to help.
From raising money to even going out to say Africa to help. Have you done any of that at all?
No point saying we should do this and that, without doing something yourself first.....unless you have?

Kenty, your media driven rants against social worker's are becoming tiresome, It's not really a case of people 'slinking off because they know their wrong' as you so humbly state, more of a case of there is no point in debating with someone who uses knee jerk, lynch mob reasoning on what is a serious and desperate situation, children are dying, not because of the easy cop out and sensationalist 'individual negligence' but because of systemic under investment, massive case loads, target driven governance and in this case evil, sadistic parents.
The tabloid media Kenty, sensationalise, lie, distort and twist the truth to sell copy, that seriously is not the problem, the idiotic sheeple who blindly take what they read in between the tit's and the 'celebrity non news' stories as the gospel truth are. As yet the public do not know the full facts behind this story, in fact you probably never will know the complete truth. All you know is what papers have printed using the above formula.
Educate yourself for gods sake, you want to know how trustworthy and truthful the media are? It's easy, just go to google and search for 'tabloid libel payouts' I doubt it, but it may open your eyes a little.
Ahhhh, democracy, that oft held ideal, sadly long since deceased, buried and rotted.
Get used to it, it no longer exists. There is no more red or blue, now all we have is just two similar shades of purple, it matters not who you vote for, your voting for the same system and ideas. Your voting for the same taxes, the same social decay, the same corruption. It will never change, why?
Career politicions. |It is a famous quote that those who wish to become politicions should be the first barred from doing so.
When you have a system which heaps massive benefits on those who are responsible for administering it, what chance have you got?
I've said this before, a government of national responsibility is the answer imho, a period of isolationist policy, no involvement in the affairs of other nations, a chance to sort our own problems, rioting will achieve nothing, voting will achieve nothing whilst westminster is in its current form.
We all need to look beyond our lives, our rampant consumerism and the desire to feather our own nests and become reinvolved with our communities, it is every citizens responsibility to work for the good of the whole.
Communism? Not imo, maybe humanistic?
I would love to see a 'non of the above' box on polling forms, will it ever happen? I don't think so, maybe a hung parliment would be fun for as long as it took one party to sell out to the highest bidder to gain a majority......one can dream eh?
Well I'm sure it would be pretty easy, I believe the number of incandescant and apopletic non smokers bursting out of the door would identify the smoking pub, the non smoking pubs would be empty and possibly derelict.
Not a problem is it? lol
Seriously, for small villages with one pub, that pub obviously should suit the majority of it's patrons. So if a majority of non smokers use it, its a non smoking pub.
With respect, it doesn't matter a damn what you think about smoking, the fact remains it's a perfectly legal choice for an adult to make, it is a smokers choice to smoke as much as it is a non smokers choice to not.
I'm surprised at the arrogance I read into the last statement you make, that of 'we're doing it for your own good' That is the single thing that most sticks in my craw over the whole smoking argument. It is my choice to smoke, it is a legal choice, if i abide by the terms of the smoking ban I harm no one except myself, I do not need anyone to think for me, to protect me from my legal choices, now for that I may pay the concequences, then again I may not, I'm not going to get into the whole smoking vs non smoking = longevity debate, because to be fair whether I smoke or not, I'm still going to die some day as is every single human being on the planet, it's a pointless argument.
Quote by Melting_pot
uhm..not so...drunken driving is not something you should do, because it's potentially harmful to others and yourself.. along the same principle, giving anybody the right to smoke in my face equals allowing him to bring me harm..
so..why should there be a law that punishes who drives under the influence and might cause me harm, and not one against smoking in my face, which is also likely to cause me harm?
the argument doesn't hold water..in fact, if anything it gives the non smokers side more ammo.

No one is saying that non smokers should not have the legally protected right to clean air, that I completely and totally agree with. I'm not even saying that smokers should be afforded an equal share of establishments that allow smoking, merely a percentage that reflects the amount of smokers in society (about 25% of adults I believe?)
So 1 in every 4 pubs is a smoking pub, staffed by smokers who agree to work there, run by smokers and frequented by smokers and any non smoker who wishes too, the other 3 are strictly non smoking establishments with stiff penalties for those flouting the rule.
So there's your law which protects your health, but wonder of wonder, everyones choice is respected.
Not so hard is it?
I remember having this debate just before the ban came into force, my thoughts now are exactly the same as they were then, the only sane, respectful and sensible way to do it was to have non smoking and smoking pubs at a level which tracked the amount of smokers in the population.
I see the 'how much does smoking cost the NHS' argument has come up again, in response, the figures are there, I'm sure Google will be your friend, but in a nutshell the answer is,
Not nearly as much as cigarette tax puts into the economy, if i remember correctly about 4-5 billion less actually and by way of balance, the cost to the NHS and society of alcohol related treatment (this includes violence, RTC's, the aftermath of drunk driving as well as the disease's it causes) is somewhere near double that of smoking.
Go figure eh?
Quote by Resonance
I wish it were that simple Dirty Girly, if it was then this terrible thing would not happen.
I have a friend going through this right at the moment. I have two others who have done so in the past. It is never a case of just growing up and "pulling themselves together".
It is also wrong to think of these women as stupid or ineffectual. None of my friends who have gone through this are either.
What you don't perhaps understand is that men who do this have often set a pattern in place which just escalates over time. It seldom happens that one day a mild mannered man flips his lid and lashes out. What happens is weeks, months, years even of conditioning. A cutting remark there, a gentle slap becomes a bit harder, a shove, a push, a kick up the arse, a punch... it is a slow escalation over time that breeds the acceptance of the violence that follows. This is all supported by callous manipulation and the destruction of a womans self-esteem and self-worth so in the end she feels entirely reliant on her abuser. He twists the love and trust she has in him to his own sadistic ends. Once he has achieved this, he can do what he likes.
Stick a frog in some hot water and he'll jump out immediately. Put him in cold water and slowly heat it up and he will remain in it until he dies. That is the difference.
Add into that a lot of women see what happens as somehow "their" fault. Their partner is only doing it for their benefit. This is slowly put to them time and time again so that when the abuse starts the person receiving the abuse actually believes it is their fault and what is happening is somehow natural. It sounds ludicrous but this is what happens. These women are not stupid, or victims. What they are is conditioned and manipulated and then abused.

I'm sorry I had to cut your post down Res, but I had to say IMHO that is one of the most understanding, insightful and thoughtful posts I have ever seen on this forum and one I agree with wholeheartedly.
You, again only IMHO, are a credit to this forum.
Thank you.
Quote by noladreams30
Why get narked by CCTV which, let's face it, does have safety benefits?

I apologise for pulling one line out of your post Nola, but perhaps someone could explain what these safety benefits are? Are there any figures which prove a correlation between number of cameras and crime rates? Do cameras prevent crime? Can they stop an offence from taking place? Can they prove an individuals intent before a crime is committed? Can they detain a suspect after a crime is committed?
They can't can they? I'd be amazed if the presence of CCTV cameras have stopped one crime of any type. If the answer is 'no' why do we need them? There are no viable 'safety' benefits to CCTV at all IMHO, as I said earlier on, they are only of use after the fact and even then, sometimes of limited value.
Some quite worrying facts and figures appear in this link;

It is of course two years old, but i see no reason to doubt it's validity, especially given the source.....
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I just say wrong timing!

So polite you are Minx.....Most of the women i have known usually say something along the lines of "Don't even think about it fat bloke"
Go figure eh?
How about
'Your ok this week, last week I could've stabbed you and got away with it!'
Some particular favourties of mine are;
Up on blocks and,
The no bathing flags flying this week.
Quote by JTS
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear !

That's an interesting phrase,
Attributed to, amongst others George Orwell in '1984' and Joseph Goebbels who also incidentally made the following quote:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
See where that line of thinking could possibly lead? At the moment we have I suppose, quite a benevolent political system, however, that is not to ensure it will always be the same. We all of us, have something about ourselves we do not wish to become public knowledge, whether to shield ourselves from embarassment, predjudice, financial penalty or a million and one other reasons.
Nothing to hide etc Is a false dichotomy, simply because it presumes that either you are guilty and deserve everything that comes your way, or are innocent and should not be afraid, very black and white isn't it? In my experience life consists of many shades of grey....I wonder if perhaps a large percentage of people contributing to this thread could think of something completely legal and consenting, although somewhat against societal conventions, they freely take part in which would cause them untold personal problems should it become public knowledge?
I wonder......
Quote by Dirtygirly
but I'm not giving up my liberty for saftey... or at least that's not how I view it. wink

Maybe not in any obvious way, but little by little, piece by piece you are giving countless organisations and individuals access to every snippet of information ever collected and stored about you. This in the future could include your medical records and infact your very genetic code.
Most of this data currently held is stored on databases managed with no oversight on who accesses it, in fact certain databases (DVLA) have been sold wholesale to marketing companies. Not to mention the countless memory sticks and laptops left on trains etc.
Future plans include the NHS database, where your medical records will be stored, the proposed DNA database (google prosecutors fallacy and the Arizona Convicted Felons database for some info on how reliable DNA really is as an identification medium) not to mention the absolute farce which will be the ID card database.....now I'd propose that the quote I used is very very pertinent to the last two cases.
As someone else has raised, biometrics is a developing science, one which is still highly fallible and in truth only as reliable as the original source data. Same with ID cards, same with DNA.
Everyone still sure their privacy is respected and protected?
Because to be honest, I'm sure as hell not convinced.....
Just for you DG as you asked so nicely....
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin.
Thanks for your lovely comment, I never been missed before wink
Quote by kentswingers777
one being to catch people doing things they should not be doing. I back them 100%!!

Had to pick up on this point,
Exactly how do they catch people?
Can camera's arrest and detain a suspect?
Nope, they are only useful 'after the fact' if anyone is concerned about their personal safety might I suggest more uniformed police officers on the streets, is probably the best way to deter the random criminal from commiting a crime in the first place?
We are allegedly the most surveillance heavy society in the world, why? We are watched and catalogued far more already (not to mention the future plans of this government) than most seriously oppressive regimes do to their populations....again under what justification?
If anyone personally does not have a problem with public cctv cameras and taking into account again that most 'serious' crime (Murder, , Child abuse etc)happens within the confines of a domicile, would it be seen as hypocritical to not support the installation and monitoring of cctv within the home?
A famous quote cries out to be used in this case....I'm sure I don't have to say it....
Quote by kentswingers777
It is even worse now though with the baby P scandal. Social services are so scared of their own shadows now, that now if you get into the system, nobody or nothing will stand in their way, whether it is just or not.

Why do you think that is Kenty?
Maybe, just maybe because they know if they get another one wrong, The Wail, the Sun and it's ignorant, ill informed readership will once again break out the pitchforks and torches? There's an old saying Kenty, "You reap what you sow".
It's no good vilifying social workers for not doing their jobs on one hand whilst still vilifying them for doing their jobs is it?
Mind you, in your world, their all lefty liberal sandalista's, who probably deserve all they get, so it doesn't really matter, does it?
As for my take on smacking children. I see no harm in a light tap to the hand or the legs. Anything more is imho unecessary.
Quote by Steve261970
Sorry but I believe if that most genuine swingers don't use winks or quickies. If they have something to say then they say it.

Well in that one statement you've probably just alienated half the site.
Who cares? Seriously, if there used as winks is it a problem?
Still up to the individual whether to accept them isn't it? They can be turned off I believe....
Oh and in my experience swingers come in all types, I've met all ends of the spectrum from the massively extroverted and gregarious to the almost painfully shy.
Takes all sorts, as the boss once said in a licorice factory.
All you got to be is yourself I find. That goes wether your a single guy, couple or single female.
All the false bravado and 'I could be the best you ever had' type of comments may get your foot in the door probably 1 in 10 times, but if you can't deliver you'll only get as far as the door and rest assured word will get about.
Offer only that you can give, be honest if asked a question, be upfront but not overly crude, never forget there are thousands of single guys on this and other sites, you have to stand out so make an effort! Always personalise your messages for those who you send them too, because there is nothing that will annoy people more than recieving an obvious bulk mailing.
Above all, be prepared to get out and meet people in a social setting (Munches, Social's etc), this for me is the best way to put yourself out there, especially as a single guy. In my experience 'most' couples and single females need to feel comfortable that the person they have arranged to meet is not going to turn into a raging psycho at the first given opportunity. Social events give you the chance to get in amongst people in a pressure free environment, have a laugh, a flirt and and make some new friends, if anything else develops out of that....good stuff, if not, least you'd have had a good night out!
Quote by Resonance
We only need pouty, blondie and dopey for the complete set.

Someone call?
Oh and welcome x
Quote by splendid_
But do you have two beans?
<books seat on next train north>
wink

she has three if worlass and I are staying over.
Ok....which one of you does'nt mind a foot job?
:twisted:
It's been taken down for cleaning I think,
Do remember seeing a post on there yesterday.
biggrin
Er....I don't see your problem?
He committed a crime, was tried and sentenced in accordance with the law. He's male, he goes to a male prison, that's how it works.
Or is this some reference to his sexuality?
As in 'he's gay, he'll love prison, all those big butch men to play with'
Ever been inside a prison? Obviously not from reading this.
As for hard labour? I'd suggest there are far more deserving cases to apply stiffer punishments to, rapists, killers and terrorists perhaps?
Dear me :shock:
Quote by Theladyisaminx
Some see this as a swinging site, others a sex site, I guess I see it as a place I just like to come to.

And IMHO everyone is correct, there should be no problem, nobody's motives to be here should be in question, no one group should take priority over any other.
You do it your way, I'll do it mine.
Simple isn't it?
Quote by Dirtygirly
Ooooooooooooh I'll have a large southern comfort with lemonade, in a tall glass with ice and a straw please! kiss
Oh... and a pickled egg since I dragged them out from behind the sofa and picked the feathers off. :silly:

Coming right up!
Out of pickled eggs...however may i interest madam in a rather tasty looking gerkin?
Nola,
Whatever your heart desires.....
Quote by Dirtygirly
And do we have any volunteers for naked barman?

What'll it be madam?
wink
Respect to you DG!
Congratulations, I'm sure you will be an asset to the site.
kiss