Well obviously he deserves it...

[Johnmelad502]

In prison you spend the majority of your time in an 8'x 10' cell.
At work you spend most of your time in a 6'x 8'cubicle.

In prison you get three meals a day.
At work you only get a break for one meal and you have to pay for it.

In prison you get time off for good behavior.
At work you get rewarded for good behavior with more work.

In prison a guard locks and unlocks all the doors for you.
At work you must carry around a security card and unlock and open all the doors yourself.

In prison you can watch TV and play games.
At work you get fired for watching TV and playing games.

In prison they allow your family and friends to visit.
At work you cannot even speak to your family and friends.

In prison all expenses are paid by taxpayers with no work required.
At work you get to pay all the expenses to go to work and then they deduct taxes from your salary to pay for prisoners.

In prison you spend most of your life looking through the bars from the inside wanting to get out.
At work you spend your time wanting to get out and inside bars.

In prison you can join many programs which you can leave at any time.
At work there are some programs you can never get out of.

A prison cell...

 

[geraint]

Blasphemy Blasphemy Blasphemy!

surely off topic....ed.

 

[Blasphemous]

whaa?

 

[conny]

Ok, lets try and get back on topic.

If he gets £20,000 because the authorities didn't 'protect' him from harm, why can't the 2 girls families get compo from the authorities for not protecting their children by allowing this barsteward to roam freely after being previously convicted of molesting a child.

For the record, if my son/brother/father/uncle or aunt Maud did something like this then I would have no hesitation in declaring any punishment they suffer at the hands of others would not upset/sadden me in the least.

 

[skitzee2k]

Ok, lets try and get back on topic.

If he gets £20,000 because the authorities didn't 'protect' him from harm, why can't the 2 girls families get compo from the authorities for not protecting their children by allowing this barsteward to roam freely after being previously convicted of molesting a child.

For the record, if my son/brother/father/uncle or aunt Maud did something like this then I would have no hesitation in declaring any punishment they suffer at the hands of others would not upset/sadden me in the least.

Because the girls are in the care of their parents....he was in the care of the state.

 

[conny]

Bullocks!

So a parent has to walk around with all their children until they are adults?

He had previously been convicted of similar offences and set free!
The authorities are therefore responsible for their mistakes in doing so.

Following the collapse of his marriage, Huntley became more nomadic, moving from one rented flat to the next, and changing jobs frequently. He had a succession of relationships, one of which was with a 15-year-old girl, with whom he fathered a daughter in 1998. A subsequent inquiry revealed that, between 1995 and 2001, Huntley had sexual contacts with eleven underage girls, ranging between 11 and 17 years old.


In September 2001 he applied for the post of caretaker at Soham Village College, and in November 2001, despite his history of sexual contact with minors, he was awarded the position. Carr was employed as a teaching assistant at the local primary school.

 

[skitzee2k]

b*****s!

So a parent has to walk around with all their children until they are adults?

He had previously been convicted of similar offences and set free!
The authorities are therefore responsible for their mistakes in doing so.

He wasn't ever convicted...that is how he could still work for the school.


Think of it this way, if a child was sent to school and hurt themselves there, the school would have to pay, if the kid was at home and hurt themselves, no-one would have to pay.