|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 8, 2022 15:02:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 8, 2022 15:15:56 GMT
Can't say I am an avid watcher of I'm a celebrity Vinny
As a general rule, once someone has served their sentence for any offence, would you say they should then be free to get on with their lives or should they for ever hide from sight with an "unclean" sign around their neck?
|
|
|
|
Post by sword on Nov 8, 2022 16:02:20 GMT
I have watched some of it,but where is Wankcock?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 8, 2022 16:44:52 GMT
I have watched some of it,but where is Wankcock? He's coming in tonight I think, something radically wrong with that guy. |
|
|
|
Post by sword on Nov 8, 2022 19:22:14 GMT
I have watched some of it,but where is Wankcock? He's coming in tonight I think, something radically wrong with that guy. Yes his price,£400k. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 9, 2022 13:53:22 GMT
Can't say I am an avid watcher of I'm a celebrity Vinny As a general rule, once someone has served their sentence for any offence, would you say they should then be free to get on with their lives or should they for ever hide from sight with an "unclean" sign around their neck?
Do you think that Rolf Harris should be back on children's TV?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 9, 2022 16:17:38 GMT
Do you honestly not see the difference, Squeezed?
Honestly honestly?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 9, 2022 17:44:19 GMT
Of course I do. I was wondering if you do.
So do you think that you could answer my question?
Honestly, honestly?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 10, 2022 6:32:17 GMT
No, thought not.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 10, 2022 8:16:53 GMT
I can’t always be here to answer questions 24/7 Squeezed especially questions as inane as yours.
Did you notice the phrase “as a general rule” in my post and ponder what it was there for? Did it occur to you that real life is rarely “ black or white” or “goodies or baddies”. As a result it requires balancing competing rights and priorities.
While ex-offenders should in general be free having served their sentences to get on with their lives without being punished again for their crimes by ongoing restrictions, there will be times when that is not appropriate. In particular it may with some offenders be necessary to restrict what they are able to do to protect children and vulnerable adults who are less able to protect themselves. It is right therefore in most circumstances that ex sex offenders are not permitted to work in positions of trust in schools as the risks to children would be too high.
So in your rather silly example (is Rolf Harris even still alive?), it would not be right for him to perform with or to children in most perhaps all circumstances as the risk to children is too high. There is little or no corresponding risk to children or vulnerable adults in Boy George appearing in a crap ITV reality show given the nature of his offense.
I would have thought this was blindingly obvious and frankly am surprised it needed to be spelled out to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 10, 2022 11:18:05 GMT
I can’t always be here to answer questions 24/7 Squeezed especially questions as inane as yours. Did you notice the phrase “as a general rule” in my post and ponder what it was there for? Did it occur to you that real life is rarely “ black or white” or “goodies or baddies”. As a result it requires balancing competing rights and priorities. While ex-offenders should in general be free having served their sentences to get on with their lives without being punished again for their crimes by ongoing restrictions, there will be times when that is not appropriate. In particular it may with some offenders be necessary to restrict what they are able to do to protect children and vulnerable adults who are less able to protect themselves. It is right therefore in most circumstances that ex sex offenders are not permitted to work in positions of trust in schools as the risks to children would be too high. So in your rather silly example (is Rolf Harris even still alive?), it would not be right for him to perform with or to children in most perhaps all circumstances as the risk to children is too high. There is little or no corresponding risk to children or vulnerable adults in Boy George appearing in a crap ITV reality show given the nature of his offense. I would have thought this was blindingly obvious and frankly am surprised it needed to be spelled out to you. So a prison served embezzler is OK to work in handling money? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 10, 2022 12:28:39 GMT
Boy George all judgmental and outraged about Hancock's arrival, little does he know all the shit that come out about him since he's been in there, he actually makes Hancock look like the good guy lol
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Nov 10, 2022 12:53:48 GMT
Boy George all judgmental and outraged about Hancock's arrival, little does he know all the shit that come out about him since he's been in there, he actually makes Hancock look like the good guy lol What's he done now? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 10, 2022 13:16:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Nov 10, 2022 13:18:54 GMT
That was 15 years ago! Very old news. |
|
