Gladys Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 That was the joke PL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 You're being generous, Gladys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 That was the joke PL. Yes I realised that. I was simply trying to tease Max Power into expounding on his opinion that schoolchildren are well equipped to deal psychologically with the blood and gore that his racing roadshow brings into the classroom, and whether this sort of gallows humour is instrumental in helping them do just that. I remain unconvinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 That's subtle. And I thought you were just milking a cheap joke by going cheaper, like Frankie Boyle on Mock The Week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Gosh PL, that's deep thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxmuppet Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Susan Boyle has jumped on the bandwagon to DEFEND Sir Jim, "I was on his show when i was 13 years old, and he never interfered with me", she is quoted as saying in The News of the World!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 That was the joke PL. Yes I realised that. I was simply trying to tease Max Power into expounding on his opinion that schoolchildren are well equipped to deal psychologically with the blood and gore that his racing roadshow brings into the classroom, and whether this sort of gallows humour is instrumental in helping them do just that. I remain unconvinced. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted October 20, 2012 Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 Savile just the tip of the iceberg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9620223/Jimmy-Savile-He-was-the-tip-of-the-iceberg.html Miliband calls for independent inquiry http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9611080/Jimmy-Savile-Ed-Miliband-calls-for-independent-inquiry.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Susan Boyle has jumped on the bandwagon to DEFEND Sir Jim, "I was on his show when i was 13 years old, and he never interfered with me", she is quoted as saying in The News of the World!!! Even Jimmy had his limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Is it me or is this whole thing taking on a life of it's own? It seems that every 'told you so' wants to jump on the bandwagon and advocate even more stringent controls on who has access to children and the type of contact which is appropriate. I saw a woman interviewed on the Andrew Marr show calling for no anonymity for people accused of inappropriate behaviour with children while investigations are going on. The very fact that a child has accused someone can ruin their lives, even if proved wrong. Genuine concerns I'm sure but is this the correct way to tackle the problem? Jimmy Savile was very cunning, as it seems many paedophiles are, he used his charity work, which was very successful, to mask his activities. The fact is that there were not the same safeguards and legislation in place at the height of his career. It would be difficult to get away with what he did in today's world. Do we need further rafts of legislation and restrictions based upon allegations and actions which occurred up to forty years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 your well behind max.this has moved on to # 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credente Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 The major difference is that modern communications - the Internet in particular - have made it possible for us to know about, and even view, many perversions that would have been beyond thge imaginations of most people 40 years ago. Progress comes at a price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Is it me or is this whole thing taking on a life of it's own? Well it's certainly taken over at least two threads here and is apparently being used by television news to obliterate anything of importance going on in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Do you believe the widespread abuse of children, in the national broadcaster's studio, hospitals, and children's homes isn't "anything of importance"? Why would the BBC take all this flack simply to keep other news off the telly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credente Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 And the Vatican aren't saying anything on the grounds that it would be inappropriate to comment on rival organisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.