Re: Five year old girls sexually abused: paedophiles get off scot free

"Maria" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:4hd2rpF1q6sq4U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


"Periander" <4rubbish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns97FBCCB6055ECulmbritwarcouk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IanAl <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:33j2b2pjrtq60k6k1ieeoksbmdjhd3j4tq@xxxxxxx:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:18:06 +0100, "Steve Walker"
<spam-trap@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

IanAl wrote:

You (like the immense 'child protection' system which has been
set up in the last few years - starting with the Cleveland
scandal in 1987 or so) are just unable to accept that you might
be wrong.

You didn't see the sentence "In any event there could be a very
simply, inoffensive, innocent
explanation." when you read Periander's previous post then?

I did, and I also saw the following sentence: "OTOH there could be
a far more sinister explanation either way the explanation will not
become known until an investigation has taken
place."

It's these 'investigations" that do the damage. A little common
sense should be applied *before* investigations are ordered.

Oh dear, you appear to be living in something of a dream world; the
only way to decide if a matter is trivial or serious is to
investigate.

Spoken like a true social worker, with the mandatory lack of
commonsense.

As I believe I've hinted at elsewhere Maria as I wouldn't get out of bed
for what a solicitor takes home I certainly wouldn't do it for what they
pay a social worker.

Still I don't understand your point. When does common sense come in to
play? When you've heard a story third hand or after you've asked a few
questions and got the story first hand? Asking questions is also known
as investigating, common sense comes in to play when you have sufficient
information by which you can make a decision.

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander
.

Relevant Pages
Loading