[Closed] Oh Rolf 🙁

I didn't quote the teaching bit. It doesn't bother me and I'm not PC either. I posted it for a bit of balance, as stated. HTH.

As you're loitering - how do you feel about the "ludicrous" statement now you've been presented with accounts of it taking place?

One of the arguments in favour of prescription is that those who do not denounce crimes within a reasonable time period are negligent. For this reason the prescription time starts from the age of 18 for crimes against children so that they have adequate time to denounce the crimes suffered as children when adult. If you don't immediately denounce a crime you should have, you are negligent and further crimes could result from your negligence.

I don't think that having a limitation period of prosecution of these crimes does anything to encourage reporting, at least in the field of sexual assault. I don't think that there are many sexual assault victims thinking "you know, I really must get around to popping down to be police and reporting that assault" that just need a kick up the arse from the law to make them focus better - I think there are probably other reasons why assaults are not reported. Saying to a victim "well, you took too long to do it, so we are just going to let him off" doesn't send a message to other victims that they should feel comfortable reporting crimes.

TBH I find to believe that what you say above is really a principle behind "prescription" in French law (as opposed to your own interpretation p) but otoh I know sod all about French law and surprises pop up all the time.

If you're going to be sensitive at least be balanced. Ernie Lynch wrote the following a few pages back but in your haste to join those sticking the boot in you seem to have missed it..

Are you seriously asking me to go through all the posts and highlight all the cases where I think appropriate terminology is used? Besides which, if you think that the term 'gay' is what was wrong with the post, then you have missed the point.

Oh, by the way, being non-PC is not a thing of which one should be proud

Well you seem to have managed to find it in Edukator's posts and not Ernie's, so as I wrote, it was for balance. I think I get the point - it's the segregation by using the word 'them', right.

As for the PC bit - I don't really give a shit what your opinion on that is TBH.

Why do folk engage in a "debate" by raising points they say dont bother them ?
Personally I think you do get a wee bit upset at PC or else you would have walked away.

I think I get the point - it's the segregation by using the word 'them', right.

Personally I think you do get a wee bit upset at PC or else you would have walked away.

I'd rather think for myself than make a decision based on whatever's in fashion. If I offend someone and become aware of that then I'd rather look inward for the reason than think I was wrong because it was the right thing to do.

Probably best not to make assumptions on what I mean by not PC, though.

Also, Ernie's response to my quote kind of suggests his attitudes are similar to that which Charlie Mungus tried to hint Edukator's are, if you get my drift. Not that I think either are raving loonies where the subject of homosexuality is concerned.

Why do folk engage in a "debate" by raising points they say dont bother them ?

I'll write it one more time - balance. Charlie Mungus's post takes a shot at Edukator, not for his opinion on the thread subject but for his terminology concerning homosexuals and the fact he taught folk at some time or another. It was an attempt to insult or humiliate and to call into question whether or not he was fit to teach, nothing more. It was a bit pathetic, if you ask me. A cheap shot...

I think I get the point - it's the segregation by using the word 'them', right.

It was a bit pathetic, if you ask me. A cheap shot..

I don't really give a shit what your opinion on that is TBH

Wrong

Then, please, correct me.

I'll give you a clue. It is in Edukator's post but not in Ernie's.

I don't like playing guessing games. Why not just spell it out - surely there's no problem in doing so...

Well, yes there is. You will experience a deeper understanding if you think about what might be wrong. Reflection on possible reasons will help your breadth of understanding too. If i were to just tell you, the surface learning you would achieve as a result would not be useful knowledge. Part of the process must involve a desire to learn and understand, it needs some commitment from you too. Ultimately, you have no interest in what is wrong with the paragraph.

You forgot to add[i] Grasshopper[/i] to the end of that...

🙂

Ultimately, you have no interest in what is wrong with the paragraph.

That's a big assumption on your part; I have a genuine interest or else I wouldn't be responding to your posts.

I'm glad to hear it. In that case I look forward to your reflections on what might have been wrong with what Edukator wrote.

C'mon, spill the beans. Prove you're not just being bitter because I disagree with you. I get the whole self discovery stuff but I think you're being awkward because you're feeling hurt or something.

Just tell me - I can deal with the surface learning shit you mention...

Unless, of course, it's a grammar thing. I'm shit with grammar...

Okay, then. You go on sulking or trying to humiliate me or better me or whatever it is you think you're doing.

I was actually, for once, trying to have a sensible discussion as opposed to making facetious comments like I usually do. Obviously you have other intentions.

[img] [/img]

Argh, too slow!

Would you believe it...

[IMG] [/IMG]

We can't go on together, with suspicious minds...

🙂

I just wanna know what his view or perception of that post is. It obviously differs from mine but apparently it's the only view to have and one needs to be more mindful or contemplative in order to elucidate the deeper meaning.

I don't see the problem with just expressing what it is you want to get across instead of all this ambiguity. It's a mugs game...

Also, Ernie's response to my quote kind of suggests his attitudes are similar to that which Charlie Mungus tried to hint Edukator's are, if you get my drift.

Charlie Mungus isn't responsible for what I say and post, I am.

What's your point?

My reason for that was to show another user with similar outlooks to that which Charlie appears to have commented on with regard to Edukators post. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

lol @ spacemonkey

I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

CM has responded with the very obvious response :

[i]Are you seriously asking me to go through all the posts and highlight all the cases where I think appropriate terminology is used? [/i]

You can expect him to know what he himself has posted but not everything I've posted.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Because he went back far enough to see Edukator's and not yours. All seems a bit selective. I'll put my hand up and apologise if I'm wrong but I get the impression it's all a bit personal where Edukator's concerned and all and sundry feel it's okay to insult him because he has the troll attachment. It's **** bollocks and you know it.

I wish I knew what sort of kick you guys get from it...

Ok, that's long enough to think about it. What ideas have you come up with? In what ways could the post from Edukator have been deemed inappropriate?

You mean, how do I think [b]you[/b] perceive Edukator's post, surely. How I read it and you read it are going to be totally different. I think that's quite clear by now.

What you seem to be avoiding is why you chose to comment on that and not his views on jailing Rolf Harris. I'm intrigued to know your motivations.

You mean, how do I think you perceive Edukator's post, surely.

No, no, no. I mean how could it be perceived, in general, not by any specific person.

What you seem to be avoiding is why you chose to comment on that and not his views on jailing Rolf Harris. I'm intrigued to know your motivations.

Fine, but let's do one thing at a time

Ernie also has so far avoided commenting on whether or not it's still a ludicrous notion that kids reporting sexual assault would be dismissed by parents or adults. I'm genuinely curious given the tales on this thread.

You know you two could pick up a phone, dont you?

No, no, no. I mean how could it be perceived, in general, not by any specific person.

Like I write, it's all rather pointless given the idiosyncratic nature of perception. I know you think you're being smart but the developed person's reaction should be to express oneself with clarity and sincerity. I think you just like to play games - for what reason, I wouldn't like to speculate.

I wouldn't like to speculate.

I think that has become clear. In which case we'll have to leave it there. But thanks for trying.

For clarification:

"Gay" as a word is absolutely no problem where I've lived for the last quarter of a century. [url= http://www.gaypride.fr/ ]Gaypride[/url] is the most visible organisation promoting equality for and tolerance of homosexuals, and an internationally recognised "brand". I'm surprised the word "gay" causes offense but if someone links something in a reputable paper to suggest I shouldn't use it on this British-based forum I'll stop. [url= http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/slang/homosexual-slang-terms.html ]Dictionaries say using the word gay is fine.[/url]

"them" refers to the gay men who made/make advances to me. Grammatically it's correct, the lexical structure of the sentence fine. There is no other alternative for "them".

Boom! There goes the forum version of a defibrillator ^^ 😀

I think that has become clear. In which case we'll have to leave it there. But thanks for trying.

Really? I think you know you're deliberately misunderstanding what you've quoted.

Why so childish, Charlie? I don't understand what I've done to deserve such contempt.

Boom! There goes the forum version of a defibrillator

Really? I see it as more of a tazer; CMs opinions of intent or meaning aren't relevant when you have it straight from the horses mouth. I'm sure that won't be the case, though...

And for Konabunny, the latest Sénat debate on préscription [url= http://www.senat.fr/rap/r06-338/r06-338_mono.html#toc11 ]Sénat[/url]. You'll find all the justifications I posted for prescription in there, and more.

From page 10

Edukator - troll

Either way I'm out

Possibly listen to yourself?

Will this thread please end?

It's going round and round like an attention seeking dog chasing it's tail.

Either way I'm out

Is he one of them?

teasel - Member

Ernie also has so far avoided commenting on whether or not it's still a ludicrous notion that kids reporting sexual assault would be dismissed by parents or adults.

Because I can't be bothered to engage in an argument about a comment that I made several pages ago, which you have just recently brought up, presumably cause you fancy having an argument with me, and which you deliberately choose to misrepresent the point I was making.

OK I will.

Of course when children, and for that matter sometimes also adults, make allegations of sexual assault those allegations are often not taken seriously enough, everyone knows that to be a fact and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. It is one of the big problems specifically associated with sex crimes.

And just like domestic violence, racism, etc, the judicial system today is far more sensitive to the needs of the victims of childhood sexual abuse than it was say 30 years ago. But that's a long way from saying that 30 or 40 years ago sexual assault against children was tolerated.

The mechanism for prosecuting Rolf Harris existed within the judicial system 30 years ago. In fact as has been pointed out on this thread by Deluded Harris was found guilty under legislation dating from that time.

So it's "ludicrous" to claim that 30 or 40 years ago sex crimes against children were deemed in some way acceptable, they weren't. Otherwise the prosecution against Harris would have failed.

HTH but I suspect it probably won't.

Imagine if all this bickering energy was channeled into pressuring the establishment into providing full and transparent answers!!

Contact your MP to ensure this doesn't slip by unchecked

[url= http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5284/every-mp-asked-to-back-inquiry-into-organised-child-sex-abuse ]
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5284/every-mp-asked-to-back-inquiry-into-organised-child-sex-abuse [/url]

HTH but I suspect it probably won't.

It does; I understand your viewpoint a lot clearer now. Don't agree with some of it but thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

*morbid thought*

I wouldn't be surprised if Harris commits suicide before his sentencing tomorrow.

84 years old and convicted of sexual assaults on children. A nonce then.

If he gets 8 years, he'll serve 4. It won't be in a cat. Z prison will it? He'll be in amongst some bad cheese.

He'll likely perish in prison so maybe he'd rather take the last steps over his threshold on his own terms?

I don't think he's up to hearing those fateful words - "take him down."

derek_starship - Member

*morbid thought*

I wouldn't be surprised if Harris commits suicide before his sentencing tomorrow.

No morbid thought here as in life the only certainty is death, the only difference is the way we die.

Well, he is 84, enjoyed his life, wealthy, rather healthy but took the gamble to indulge in his habits in his younger days then they come back to haunt him near the sunset of his life. If he wishes to commit suicide then I guess he is taking the easy way out. I suppose you can say that he has achieved everything in his life so nothing else to look forward to if that is the case? The question is what sort of person is he? A person with strong principle? With pride and dignity? Proud or inherently evil in disgust? Either way we shall know ...

😯