Is This The Final Nail In The Coffin For...
News4 mins ago
Woman At Centre Of Paedophile Ring.
30 Answers
We hear much on AnswerBank on the subject of paedophilia committed by Pakistani males, male politicians and priests etc, but women paedophiles??????????
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG - //Gromit
/// Carol Stadler was cleared of ALL sex charges and convicted for assault only. ///
ONLY??????????? //
I feel I have to come to Gromit's defence here -
his statement is grammatically correct, in that referring to one conviction out of several charges can be referred to as the only one - meaning the single one.
I do not think he intended to infer that there was any less of a crime committed in the assault charge, or that it was less serious in the final analysis.
I feel you may have concluded an inference of indifference which I believe Gromit did not intend.
/// Carol Stadler was cleared of ALL sex charges and convicted for assault only. ///
ONLY??????????? //
I feel I have to come to Gromit's defence here -
his statement is grammatically correct, in that referring to one conviction out of several charges can be referred to as the only one - meaning the single one.
I do not think he intended to infer that there was any less of a crime committed in the assault charge, or that it was less serious in the final analysis.
I feel you may have concluded an inference of indifference which I believe Gromit did not intend.
andy-hughes
Most admirable of you coming to Gromit's defence, but I think you are missing the point.
By missing off 'causing actual bodily harm' he totally misrepresented the seriousness of her crime, a similar offence to what he was accusing me of.
/// We can all read the article. By not finishing the Prosectutors sentence, you have totally misrepresented what She said.. ///
Most admirable of you coming to Gromit's defence, but I think you are missing the point.
By missing off 'causing actual bodily harm' he totally misrepresented the seriousness of her crime, a similar offence to what he was accusing me of.
/// We can all read the article. By not finishing the Prosectutors sentence, you have totally misrepresented what She said.. ///
Gromit
/// Your sensationalist question title is also dodgy. ///
Can't completely blame me or even the Daily Mail for that sensationalism, note the Guardian's headline
Incidentally the Mail chose to put 'Female rapist'.
In answer to your question,
/// Can she be the centre of a duo? ///
Yes easy one on either side of her.
/// Your sensationalist question title is also dodgy. ///
Can't completely blame me or even the Daily Mail for that sensationalism, note the Guardian's headline
Incidentally the Mail chose to put 'Female rapist'.
In answer to your question,
/// Can she be the centre of a duo? ///
Yes easy one on either side of her.
Thanks for that link Baldric, looks like AOG is making daft puns instead of commenting on the content.
// Ms Barnard was asked if she had been questioned over claims she told a foster agency supervisor, Malcolm Blissett, to “tidy up” reports in the case.
It was alleged she told him to remove leading questions and put some of the apparent claims by children into direct speech in order to comply with professional guidelines.
Ms Barnard replied: “I knew there were complaints made against me.”
In 2010 police dropped their original investigation into the abuse saying the sheer number of allegations made the claims “implausible”, the court heard.
Ms Barnard is then said to have carried out her own investigation, including discussing the case with a chiropractor who had contact with one of the children, contrary to the guidelines.
Ms Elliott said: “You were aware there was no ongoing police investigation. Did you decide to carry out your own investigation?”
Ms Barnard said: “I wouldn’t call it investigating but I did make inquiries.”
She also failed to tell police she was a patient of the chiropractor - despite allegations that the chiropractor was involved in abuse. //
So the Head of Social Services held interviews with the children which allegedly lead the children. She asked for the statements to be rewritten to take out the leading questions, arguably to falsify their context. It is unclear if this was done before or after the poluce concluded in 2010 that the allegations were 'implausable'.
Meanwhile she discussed the case with 'someone accused of abuse'. Are we to read that as one of the defendents?
Some odd elements about this prosecution
// Ms Barnard was asked if she had been questioned over claims she told a foster agency supervisor, Malcolm Blissett, to “tidy up” reports in the case.
It was alleged she told him to remove leading questions and put some of the apparent claims by children into direct speech in order to comply with professional guidelines.
Ms Barnard replied: “I knew there were complaints made against me.”
In 2010 police dropped their original investigation into the abuse saying the sheer number of allegations made the claims “implausible”, the court heard.
Ms Barnard is then said to have carried out her own investigation, including discussing the case with a chiropractor who had contact with one of the children, contrary to the guidelines.
Ms Elliott said: “You were aware there was no ongoing police investigation. Did you decide to carry out your own investigation?”
Ms Barnard said: “I wouldn’t call it investigating but I did make inquiries.”
She also failed to tell police she was a patient of the chiropractor - despite allegations that the chiropractor was involved in abuse. //
So the Head of Social Services held interviews with the children which allegedly lead the children. She asked for the statements to be rewritten to take out the leading questions, arguably to falsify their context. It is unclear if this was done before or after the poluce concluded in 2010 that the allegations were 'implausable'.
Meanwhile she discussed the case with 'someone accused of abuse'. Are we to read that as one of the defendents?
Some odd elements about this prosecution
As I have said on another thread, it is obvious you do not bother to read links that are posted to you. If you did, you would know that the Eastern Daily Press referred to the Eastern part of England. And the Norwich in the report was the place in East Anglia, and not somewhere in the United States.
I assume both posts are an attempt at wit, and you really are not that geographically challenged. You do seem to be cured of referring to Africa as a country.
I assume both posts are an attempt at wit, and you really are not that geographically challenged. You do seem to be cured of referring to Africa as a country.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.