Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Freaky Biker wrote:
PMSL- Laugh?
I nearly wet myself!
Thank God it was only “nearly”!!!!!
I suspect that you all have missed the point of all this stuff about the ‘gruesome twosome’.
The object of the exercise at this stage is to keep the show at the front of a media publicity campaign, as well as to make ‘loadsa money’ out of all the phoned in votes for the show’s owners.
By letting ‘Jedward’ go through to the next round, a media storm is once again created, one that will positively encourage voters next week (and the week after etc) to phone in with their votes to ensure that their favourite act doesn’t get bumped off by ‘Jedward’
Sadly, Simon Cowell’s comments to the effect that the delicious Miss Jones could’t have won the final were all too true. She is a lovely looking girl and has a charming and open smile AND she can sing in tune – a combination of which has brought her this far. Problem is that she is still too young & innocent and lacks the necessary toughness to succeed in the pop misic world. Her parents must be incredibly proud of their little girl (and quite rightly so), but at the end of the day she is still a naive 18 year old from a tiny Welsh village.
I predict that Jedward will go through AGAIN next week!
Isn’t it heartwarming when a seemingly impossible technical issue gets resolved with a simple bit of advice?
It may well be that ‘back in the day’ parents were a tad more relaxed about allowing their children to walk to school and back unsupervised.
However, in today’s world with the focus on ‘safeguarding’, this is seen as a high risk exercise in independance and one to be avoided if at all possible – especially returning home in the dark.
That said, the central issue here is in fact a mother of a pre-teen failing in her duty of care towards her child by ‘working late’ such that the child wasn’t collected by her when it should have been – and for this she is 100% culpable.
Over the years I’ve been a school governor, i’ve seen this happen more times that you’d think. Sadly, it’s usually the same group of parents who arive late (or sometimes not at all) with an assortment of excuses – week after week. Inevitably their child is made to feel guilty for causing ‘mummy’ such a lot of bother – and the mother’s attitude is often confrontational to say the least.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the mother would be amongst the first to complain to all and sundry if the youth worker had breached the strict rules on safeguarding and taken the child home (or allowed someone else to do so).
“Stacey” is Stacey Solomon, a girl from Essex who has a most unfortunate and indeed gormless manner when she speaks (think Wurzel Gummidge but with an unintelligible ‘Essex’ accent) ….. but when she sings her voice is true and clear and her diction is close to perfect. Same shyness and awkwardness as Leona Lewis at the beginning, but she is learning and maturing rapidly – as did Leona, and look where she is now!!!
I kinda like the ‘pub rocker’ – Jamie Archer. He did a superb rendition of “Crying” (a Roy Orbison hit from the 1960’s) and I thought did it really well. Previously he was the ‘wild man’ of the show, ; a consummate performer who could work the audience and delivered his ‘rock style’ songs with tremendous energy and enthusiasm. He now has demonstrated that he is more than a ‘one style singer’. Clean him up a bit; provide him with a sensible wardrobe (drop the grungy jeans & T Shirts); lose the oh so gay handkerchief hanging from his hip pocket; and I reckon he’ll be pretty good.
“Jedward”-what can be said about them (by way of insults or criticism) that hasn’t been said already? Still, the lovely Louis simply adores them – which is hardly a surprise eh?
I reckon that the ‘teenie’ votes will go to ‘Geordie Jo’ (Joe McEldery or similar). He has an amazingly true voice, practically perfect pitch; he has the slightly feminine good looks that set him aside as a teenage heart throb; coupled with an engaging and open smile that will also win over the mums (he could be the son they always wanted to have).
Danyl – the history teacher with the absolutely enormous mouth and who allegedly kicks with both feet, will probably survive another round or two – but I don’t see the teenie girls voting for him for much longer and the mums won’t want to envisage a son who might be a ‘gender bender’.
As for the rest ………. goodbye!
OK, there is a point here – but how about we look at it from a slightly different angle.
The youth club worker – in spite of being told very very clearly that they must NOT transport children in their care alone in their cars – decides th break the strict rules of their engagement and does so. The organisers of the club subsequently discover this – the worker is immediately dismissed. Jenni Russel (the Times columnist) would be leading the charge to hang draw and quarter the worker.
ALL those in charge of other people’s children are specifically warned NOT to transport them in their own cars at all …. at any time ….. ever!
The child being transported (falsely?) alleges some sort of ‘innappropriate conduct’on the journey home – same story, sack the worker, report it to the Police and good old Jenni Russell can write another column about paedophiles masquerading as youth workers.
ALL those in charge of other people’s children are repeatedly warned NOT to put themselves in a position where (unfounded) allegations could be made against them and to which they would have absolutely no defence.
How about letting the father of another child take the abandoned one home? There’s plenty of meat here for Jenni Russell to chew ovewr in her quest for a Pulitzer prize for campaigning journalism – centred no doubt on the huge risks of ‘stranger danger’ and releasing a child into the care of someone not authorised by the parent to have the child in their care.
ALL those in charge of other people’s children are specifically and expressly told NOT to release the child into another person’s care under ANY circumstances, unless they have clear authority from the parent to do so.
Sorry but the person 100% to blame for this situation is the child’s mother. SHE has the responsibility for collecting her child; SHE has the responsibility for making alternative arrangements in case of delay or illness etc; SHE is the person who didn’t turn up (even late) to collect her child and thus Jenni Russell should save her smug comments about child care and maybe direct them at the mother.
BTW: Most clubs including after school clubs agree a secret ‘password’ between themselves, the parents and their child. Only if this particular password is used can a third party collect a child as it signifies that the parent has genuinely agreed that their child can be released to somebody else.
There’s a lot of tosh talked about CRB checks (or even “enhanced” CRB checks) and the presumption that a “pass” is somehow a guarantee that the subject won’t do anything untoward.
The applicant supplies their name address and date of birth to the organisation checking them. This is in turn sent on by that organisation for a CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check.
All the check is doing is specifying whether or not a) the subject has or has ever had a criminal record (and for what offence) and b) verifying whether or not any ‘intelligence’ information is held on the subject – i.e. arrested but not necessarily charged or convicted; or known to associate with criminals or be involved at the edges of criminality.
Passing a CRB check is in no way a GUARANTEE that the subject is ‘clear’ – it is simply an indication that they haven’t previously come to the attention of the authorities, particularly for sexually related offences.
There will always be the relatively few people who manage to avoid detection for a while (and thus pass their CRB check) but when you think about it, there really isn’t another way of dealing with this issue.
@jen_jen wrote:
A lot of the news recently has been about children and the internet, and as adults we like to think we wouldn’t be fooled, but it can happen to the best of us.
If I had only £1 for every time a female complained to me over the years about the ‘behaviour’ of some bloke she met via the internet………. !!!
Most times it is because the handsome hunk aged 25 or so turns out to be an overweight balding 50 year old; the tall ‘well hung’ prospective lover turns out to be 5’2” with a button mushroom; and most of all, the single guy who wants to develop a serious relationship etc turns out to be married with several kids and just wants a one night stand.
I never cease to be amazed at the sheer gullibility of internet users.
Actually minim, i don’t totally agree with you here. I’m a governor of a primary school and i can tell you that absolutely EVERYONE in anyway connected with doing anything at all at the school HAS to be CRB checked before they are allowed to do it. This includes governors (who generally don’t come into contact directly with the children) through to mothers who might give a talk at a lunchtime to a small group of children.
Nobody is prepared to take the risk of any incident arising from a non CRB checked person doing anything to or with a child – and quite rightly too in my opinion.
We also tightly restrict access, by both parents and others, to the school grounds during school hours. In the past (thank God not with the school I’m involved with) people have accessed nearby school premises during school hours and been seen trying to ‘talk’ to children in the playground.
We had a case last summer of a single mum who took up with a ‘boyfriend’ who, by his behaviour near the school, caused other parents to report him both to the headteacher and to the Police. (He was seen trying to put his arm round and cuddle Year 4 girls as they left the school).
It turned out that he was a registered sex offender and had established a relationship with this woman so as to gain access both to her child and to other children through her.
So yes ‘parents’ can be dangerour to children as can their (sometimes casual or short term) ‘boyfriends / girlfriends. Allowing people onto school premises contravenes every safeguarding rule in the book.
