WHAT IS GOING WRONG

[davegw]

My Personal Point of view:

It's not wrong to say anything you like... as long as:

You aren't inciting violence against someone else, and
You aren't saying expressly to offend (starting a debate is fine of course)

We do generally have have freedom of speech in this country (there are certainly many more that are worse)

We need to be ever vigilant about our freedoms being eroded.

and Just for the record... I really don't mind about CCTV cameras - espeically given that this week alone in my street they have been used to catch (and convict) a car thief, and direct a drugs raid.

 

[Jenx]

I'm middle aged,working,enjoy a discussion over a beer,and am also known to be facetious and argue just for the sake of it.. :wink:

I appear to have traits similar to both of you.

Bugger! :lol:


Andrew

Remember **** Emery ? ...

"ooh you are awful, but I leyyke you "


I'll be up for that walnut this week andrew :wink:

 

[Benchwayze]

Jake,

The last Homosexual Pirate I encountered was in 'Peter Pan'. Read between the lines. I used the word 'Pirates' because I didn't want to use the word 'Gypsies'. (Racist connotations) OK?

If you know anything about Maths then please; work it out with a pencil!

FIN

 

[Benchwayze]

and Just for the record... I really don't mind about CCTV cameras - espeically given that this week alone in my street they have been used to catch (and convict) a car thief, and direct a drugs raid.

Much better to prevent a crime than 'clear it up'.

In order of priority, a Police Officer's lawful duties are:

The PRESERVATION OF LIFE
The PROTECTION of PROPERTY.
The INVESTIGATION of crime
and the ARREST and PROSECUTION of OFFENDERS against the Queen's Peace. End of story.
Where do you place cameras there?

A Police Officer would not stand by and just watch someone commit an offence. The Officer would intercede. (I hope!)

Cameras merely allow the Police to later identify perpetrators. (Sometimes) Usually too late to save a victim from dying.

The only true deterrent to crime is the certainty of being caught. Camera contribute towards that, but criminals know this. So, they wear hoods or masks. (they are Hoods after all!)

When there is the likelihood of a live, 'real' 'Bobby' just around the corner, then crime rates drop. Which is one reason the Police Force was formed in the 1830's.

I have nothing to fear where cameras are concerned, but that doesn't stop me from feeling spied upon.

 

[Benchwayze]

'Old' has slightly disrespecful connotations.
'Experienced' and/or 'Wise' are far better and far more accurate.

(this has nothing to do with the ear-rings conversation or John now, just your arguments, Jenx).

This man is old. Experienced, well yes - especially in being a very unpleasant man. Wise?

Wisdom is linked to age, but only to an extent. Ditto experience.

He's old yes.
But he is probably demented, which might excuse and explain his extreme behaviour. So he is not a good example Jake!

 

[RogerS]

'Old' has slightly disrespecful connotations.
'Experienced' and/or 'Wise' are far better and far more accurate.

(this has nothing to do with the ear-rings conversation or John now, just your arguments, Jenx).

This man is old. Experienced, well yes - especially in being a very unpleasant man. Wise?

Wisdom is linked to age, but only to an extent. Ditto experience.

But which one is this one? Mugabe 1 or Mugabe 2 (the clone), as rumour would have it :wink:

 

[Benchwayze]

Clone?
Don't you mean 'Clown'? :lol:

 

[Jake]

The last Homosexual Pirate I encountered was in 'Peter Pan'. Read between the lines. I used the word 'Pirates' because I didn't want to use the word 'Gypsies'. (Racist connotations) OK?

OK, you lost me there alright - the dying version I remember us rejecting in my early teens was girls and gays (usually a more offensive term was used).

 

[Benchwayze]

Jake,


No one has the right to say just anything they wish, about anyone.

Opinion yes. But flase accusatioons no. You cannot accuse someone of a crime, without reasonable proof.

Hence Libel or Slander.

Got it now?

 

[Jake]

Jake,


No one has the right to say just anything they wish, about anyone.

Opinion yes. But flase accusatioons no. You cannot accuse someone of a crime, without reasonable proof.

Hence Libel or Slander.

Got it now?

Got what?

 

[davegw]

Much better to prevent a crime than 'clear it up'.

Of course

In order of priority, a Police Officer's lawful duties are:

The PRESERVATION OF LIFE
The PROTECTION of PROPERTY.
The INVESTIGATION of crime
and the ARREST and PROSECUTION of OFFENDERS against the Queen's Peace. End of story.
Where do you place cameras there?

Simple really the last four items in your list

A Police Officer would not stand by and just watch someone commit an offence. The Officer would intercede. (I hope!)

Cameras merely allow the Police to later identify perpetrators. (Sometimes) Usually too late to save a victim from dying.

The only true deterrent to crime is the certainty of being caught. Camera contribute towards that, but criminals know this. So, they wear hoods or masks. (they are Hoods after all!)

You seem to suggest that criminals wouldn't commit crime if they thought they would be caught, of course this is true. However, my (limited) experience of people who commit any crime is that they assume they won't caught - even when the likely hood is that they will.

If there is something that can act as a deterrent (which cameras do) and helps in investigations, which cameras do, then I don't see a problem.

 

[Jake]

But he is probably demented, which might excuse and explain his extreme behaviour. So he is not a good example Jake!

Jenx's comments weren't qualified so as to accept exceptions - it was an absolute paean to the benefits of age, such that the fact of age should confer automatic respect for the corollary facts of wisdom and experience.

Obviously there are many, many wise and experienced old people - but that's not exactly the point.

 

[Benchwayze]

Apart from the classic "fire in a theatre" there aren't that many - unless you mean things that you will get criticised for saying by people who think you are wrong to say what you are saying?

That seems to me to the basis of much of the complaints about 'political correctness'.

But what gives them the right to criticise? I suppose the same right that I have - to tell 'em to sod off.

Uh huh. But they have the right to say what the hell they like about you too, so suck it up.

Jake,

I think it was you who said, ( "Uh huh. But they have the right to say what the hell they like about you too, so suck it up.")

That isn't exactly true Jake. There really are certain things you cannot say about certain people, unless there is truth to back you up. Hence my asking if you have got it now.

Now do you see what I meant?
I'm off to argue with some curly Maple!

 

[Benchwayze]

Much better to prevent a crime than 'clear it up'.

Of course

In order of priority, a Police Officer's lawful duties are:

The PRESERVATION OF LIFE
The PROTECTION of PROPERTY.
The INVESTIGATION of crime
and the ARREST and PROSECUTION of OFFENDERS against the Queen's Peace. End of story.
Where do you place cameras there?

Simple really the last four items in your list

A Police Officer would not stand by and just watch someone commit an offence. The Officer would intercede. (I hope!)

Cameras merely allow the Police to later identify perpetrators. (Sometimes) Usually too late to save a victim from dying.

The only true deterrent to crime is the certainty of being caught. Camera contribute towards that, but criminals know this. So, they wear hoods or masks. (they are Hoods after all!)

You seem to suggest that criminals wouldn't commit crime if they thought they would be caught, of course this is true. However, my (limited) experience of people who commit any crime is that they assume they won't caught - even when the likely hood is that they will.

If there is something that can act as a deterrent (which cameras do) and helps in investigations, which cameras do, then I don't see a problem.

Camera's don't act as a deterrent, any more than anything else. If they did we wouldn't have metre upon metre of criminals going about there unlawful business. There would be even more of it if there weren't some criminals with a brain-cell they actually use. The fact is, some criminals don't give a fig about cameras, and even put the proverbial fingers up to them. Knowing they won't be caught.

If cameras do work, they do so because it's known they are there. (Speed cameras?)

My point is, with a beat Bobby, criminals know there might be someone who can lock them up, there and then. Thus saving huge amounts of time and money, spent analysing and following up their enactments on video!

I still have nothing to fear from street cameras, unless some puddled officer gets me mixed up with the true 'perp'. Yet, I still don't like the idea that someone can sit in front of a screen and follow my lawful comings and goings, just by moving a switch on a panel. Feelings shared, I am sure, by many attractive young girls in the Summer! :wink:

 

[davegw]

If there is something that can act as a deterrent (which cameras do) and helps in investigations, which cameras do, then I don't see a problem.

Camera's don't act as a deterrent, any more than anything else. If they did we wouldn't have metre upon metre of criminals going about there unlawful business. There would be even more of it if there weren't some criminals with a brain-cell they actually use. The fact is, some criminals don't give a fig about cameras, and even put the proverbial fingers up to them. Knowing they won't be caught.

If cameras do work, they do so because it's known they are there. (Speed cameras?)

My point is, with a beat Bobby, criminals know there might be someone who can lock them up, there and then. Thus saving huge amounts of time and money, spent analysing and following up their enactments on video!

I still have nothing to fear from street cameras, unless some puddled officer gets me mixed up with the true 'perp'. Yet, I still don't like the idea that someone can sit in front of a screen and follow my lawful comings and goings, just by moving a switch on a panel. Feelings shared, I am sure, by many attractive young girls in the Summer! :wink:

I suppose the adult mature thing for me to do here is agree to disagree but, I love a debate (and I really don't mean any offence).

IMHO: Cameras do act as a deterrent - as in the example you stated - because people do know they are they.

I don't think the lack of beat coppers has significantly increased crime, personally I think that, assuming that Crime has increased, the main reasons are:

• 1) The reluctance of the CPS to prosecute cases where there is a chance they won't win
  
  2) The issue of (perceived) lighter sentences making the cost of getting caught less onerous
  
  3) The lack of a basic respect culture, especially, but not exclusively, amongst the young
  
  4) The lack of basic discipline in the home and in educational establishments (not just schools)
  
  5) The lack of direction in society, caused by the ability of everyone to claim their opinion as fact without recourse (mainly the media, but also government)

Getting back to our civil liberties. Whilst I don't disagree that misuse of CCTV and other surveillance technology is a bad thing and we need to guard against it, the same could be said of most (if not all) new technologies (the internet for example), That doesn't mean it shouldn't be used - just that we should monitor the users, whoever they are Government or NGO.

 

[TrimTheKing]

Getting back to the OP (if you can remember that far back....) I think there has to be more to this than has been reported, or if not then the one who should be investigated is the teacher surely???

The very most I can see that should have happened if the school were upset with what the child was saying would be a quiet word from Head to Parent asking her to speak to the child (rightly or wrongly).

I also note a distinct lack of content of the 'personal email', now unless there is a legal reason why this isn't shown I would suggest that based on the Mother's description of the content there is absolutely no reason why the news media couldn't show this to add weight to their argument against the school. This (along with the Head's allegations of comments made against the school) suggests to me that there is more to the content than we are being allowed to see.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that any child should be allowed to discuss their religion with another child in school, regardless of what that religion is, so long as it stays within the bounds of peace.

Cheers

Mark

 

[Jake]

I'd completely forgotten where it started, for one.

This is a bit more revealing (local paper with better journalism than the Telegraph, unsurprisingly): http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Girl ... ticle.html

 

[davegw]

I'd forgotten too. So the quote from the Headmaster :"What we do not condone is one child frightening a six-year-old with the prospect of 'going to hell' if she does not believe in God"

It's not ok for a child to say that - but it's fine for any adult? What a pile of cr*p

 

[TrimTheKing]

Thanks Jake, that certainly seems to suggest a little more than 'being told not to talk about Jesus'. I know if someone, anyone, told a kid of mine that they would 'go to hell if thye didn't believe in God' I tell you here and now that I would be kicking off with that person (or the parent if it was a child).

There must surely also be more substance to the details about the email that there are claims made about the school and/or staff or there is no way possible that the school could follow this up...

The mother's claims that her beliefs are not being respected and that her and her family as peaceful Christians are being persecuted are b*ll*cks as far as I can see. She's feeling sorry for herself because she doesn't want someone else telling her kids that they can't go around scaremongering.

As far as I am concerned, with what I have read of this so far (and am fully aware that there will undoubtedly be more that is yet to be revealed) I am behind the school on this one.

Mark

 

[Jake]

At 5 or 6 years old, I think that's perfectly appropriate.