That is just guesswork on your part. The report does not say that.paulbrown said:
Interesting how you dismiss what the article does say, and invent things that it doesn't.
Scottish bank manager gets more jail than a peadophile ?
- Thread starter Slogger
- Start date
Sponsored Links
P
paulbrown
Where have I dismissed the article?
Two parents are quoted as saying that there have never been problems.
A spokesman for the nursery said that there had been no problems in the 6 years that they had been there. (As an aside, it's interesting to note that that means they opened the place after the Staitheford House facility had already been there for at least 10 years)
Your reaction to that was to dismiss their statements as "hardly an endorsement" and to decide, even though the report contained no evidence of it, that there had been paedophiles at the hostel.
A spokesman for the nursery said that there had been no problems in the 6 years that they had been there. (As an aside, it's interesting to note that that means they opened the place after the Staitheford House facility had already been there for at least 10 years)
Your reaction to that was to dismiss their statements as "hardly an endorsement" and to decide, even though the report contained no evidence of it, that there had been paedophiles at the hostel.
Who said Scottish people were tight?
I wish he was my Bank manager.
I wish he was my Bank manager.
Sponsored Links
P
paulbrown
ban-all-sheds said:
I did not dismiss their comments or the article. I just don't see the comments of two parents, when the nursery cares for 59 kids, as a representative sample. That said, the parents who were concerned probably wouldn't be there anyway.
I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with this particular nursery, but where I live, nurseries are in big demand and parents may except aspects they don't particularly like due to this lack of choice. I accept the probation service hostel was already there, but that wouldn't be sufficient grounds to refuse planning for a nursery.
As regards the actual wording and whether there was ever paedophiles housed there. John Reid included this premise in a list which were no longer to be used for housing paedophiles, it is reasonable to assume it once did, even though the article doesn't specifically say so.
I would suggest you are being.
I would be interested in comment from our female members as to whether they would leave their kids here, if there was an alternative.
But you made the comment in order to lessen, or dismiss, the importance or significance of what they said.paulbrown said:
The point is that the nursery may well have started there knowing that the hostel existed.
No it isn't - it is reasonable to assume that it once was a place where they might have been, that's all.
P
paulbrown
ban-all-sheds wrote.
I would find some of your observations more acceptable if the probation service had a better track record. As it is they seem more concerned with the rights of villain than the victim.
I have nothing more to add to this thread as it is going nowhere.
Your interpretation only.
You are no doubt correct. That said, if the property belonged to a business person (prior to it becomming a nursery)and there was a demand for nurseries in the area, I don't think the hostel would put them off a new venture. Its called supply and demand, shortages reduce choice and mean "take it or leave it" for the customer. I am not suggesting this is the case with this nursery, only that these things do happen.
John Reid did not include it on his list for nothing, regardless of how you see it. Furthermore, this "list" came about for a reason, which may well have been public concerns. In the publics eyes paedophiles and children just don't mix.
I would find some of your observations more acceptable if the probation service had a better track record. As it is they seem more concerned with the rights of villain than the victim.
I have nothing more to add to this thread as it is going nowhere.
Indeed not - he is a politician.paulbrown said:
If that's the case then it makes your assertion even more flaky.
In the news report, Stafford MP David Kidney said: "The real danger to children is if such sex offenders are not supervised. There needs to be a package of supervision measures.
Staffordshire Police and Staffordshire Probation Service have always worked well together to supervise sex offenders."
? wtf are u 2 going on about
there was a few peados there in the past and there wont be now and thats the way it should be
unless of course bas thinks they have rights ?? is that it bas do they have rights or are you just being argumentative
for me i would never let them back into society and give them the option of euthanasia
there was a few peados there in the past and there wont be now and thats the way it should be
unless of course bas thinks they have rights ?? is that it bas do they have rights or are you just being argumentative
for me i would never let them back into society and give them the option of euthanasia
Sponsored Links
