Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The guy is dead, but we buried Sir Jimmy Savile, campaigner for charity and fundraiser for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. Maybe we need to go through a process of grieving for losing him so we can bury James Savile, molester of teenage girls, abuser of social position and sleazebag.
Ah well, at least we have our naked royal family to distract us when the going gets tough.
This isn’t new, my kids have all had school visits to the battlefields and done projects on them, Looks like Cameron wants credit for someone else’s initiative, quick as he is to try to blame someone else for any problems . . Quelle surprise!
@panda12 wrote:
. .. . . . . I will add the caveat that I may return in the future . . . . . Panda x
And now, the end is near and so I face the final curtain . . . . . .
I look forward to the 7th Anniversary Panda Farewell Thread!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
@kent f OBE wrote:
Blimey Tinks is it true about the Job Centre thingy? :shock:
Even taken at face value the motivation looks like nothing to do with so-called PC and everything to do with the litigation obsessed insurance world. As are so many of the so-called PC or Health and Safety excesses.
The great thing about UK civil law is that anyone can try to sue anyone else, courts throw out unreasonable cases in huge numbers all the time, but the universal right to Law is essential to a free society. So while it’s true that an unreliable worker ‘might’ sue, the probability is ridiculously low – unless a man in a suit tells you differently.
That’s assuming the story isn’t invented.
There will be no backlash against rubbish like this, as lawyers and insurance companies will always frighten the life out of potential clients.
There is no authority on what is ‘PC’ or not – and please god there never will be. However this means that any individual can make up hypothetical new rules or opinions which are too often taken as fact even when the simplest or most basic common-sense test would eliminate them.
A list of ridiculous ideas from a non-accredited website is meaningless – most of them are too difficult to pronounce anyway. There is probably more nonsense falsely alleged as coming from the non-existent PC Brigade than there is suggested by (hopefully) well-meaning eejits.
It’s worth making even a perfunctory Google check which will filter out many as just plain false, either mischievous or mistaken. Simply asking yourself “really?” will disqualify a lot more. If it seems too good/bad to be true, it probably is.
I do hope that wasn’t the most interesting or useful item on Panda’s course.
Poli, I anticipate many more contributions from on this subject in this thread. But everyone should have at least one Sinatra-style withdrawal from the JC stage.
Here’s to the 10th Anniversary Reunion debate . . . . .
Ian Brady, and possibly Abu Hamza and their ilk deny people human rights in fact, in principle and by intention.
The UK Legal system does not deny people their human rights, at least in principle if not always in fact, and not by intention.
I’m very happy indeed that my country’s legal system operates on very different principles than Brady and Hamza.
Long may it continue.
In order to forgive someone, you first have to acknowledge that they did something that warrants forgiveness. How can you do this without directly or indirectly identifying yourself as a victim?
If you subsequently refer to something that was done to you, does that mean you haven’t forgiven the person that has done it?
If the initial deed has resulted in other events in your history, and you refer to this, does mere reference to that fact mean you are adopting victim status?
Does forgiveness require that you pretend something has never taken place, even if it had significant consequences?
Or is it possible to be frank about something done to you and its consequences, and express an honest opinion about the person(s) who did it without either nullifying forgiveness or wallowing in victim status?
Jimmy Saville gained a reputation for being a good man, fortune and a knighthood via the media.
He used this media-gained reputation as a shield to protect himself while he did despicable things to young women and his media-maintained reputation protected him from even the righteous anger of Esther Ranzen, who has a reputation for fearlessness second-to-few.
Thus trial by media almost seems more appropriate than the safe, regulated world of the criminal court where, short of a guilty plea, his highly-paid lawyers would get the chance to rehearse obscene lies and excuses and put his victims through a psychological wringer in a process which even lesser lawyers with unknown clients manage to get guilty parties off.
If his knighthood, statues and other trappings are sullied or removed removed because his crimes become known then although it’s not the same as imprisoning a living man, it prevents his fame from overshadowing his evil.
As for his family, well if they lose any benefits that might have come from his estate or from association with him, then they really should let out their anger on their dead relative and – if they had any inkling of what he did – themselves.
