kickin it wit the kliq Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Neil rom the Young Ones is just to the left of Roache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name_here Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 And for some reason Gillian Anderson is dressed as a barrister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfMetal Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Roberto Manchini sat in front of Butterbean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinc Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Roberto Manchini sat in front of Butterbean That's Jeremy Irons mate. He never goes anywhere without Chris Isaak these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted February 7, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted February 7, 2014 I wondered where Dave Pick had got to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members nfc90210 Posted February 8, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted February 8, 2014 Edit: Nevermind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members bAzTNM#1 Posted February 9, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted February 9, 2014 Most of these witnesses appeared to be absolute nutters. You'd think somebody would have picked up on that before this thing hit court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The horrible thing is the worry that just one of these woman was telling the truth, and then the deluded and deranged make it nigh on possible for justice to be served. Â The accused must be in his or her element in such scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sockospice Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 And if you think that historic victims have probably spent the last 30-40 years trying to forget what happened to them, is it really that surprising that some of the details might be wrong, or they have actually managed to block part of it out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 And if you think that historic victims have probably spent the last 30-40 years trying to forget what happened to them, is it really that surprising that some of the details might be wrong, or they have actually managed to block part of it out? Precisely. As I've repeated ad nauseum, in all cases, a not guilty verdict doesn't equal a false allegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 And there's no smoke without fire anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalaxyV.2 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 And there's no smoke without fire anyway. Â I hate that bloody saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Thesz Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 And there's no smoke without fire anyway. Â You are a great poster on this amazing forum whereas I hardly ever say anything so I have no wish to get into a spat with you. That said your phrase is both pish and offensive. Â Just before Christmas ive years ago I wandered into my job as a Support Workerassisting children and young adults who have Additional Support needs to find out I was suspended. On the Christmas Eve I was made aware of an allegation that I had struck a child whom I had been supporting the previous week. The one question asked, after a lengthy explanation was "(My name) did you hit (young persons name) when you supported him on this date. A charge which I denied as I had not done such a thing. Â Due to the festive period then staff haveing post Christmas leave it was late January before I was questioned again then another four weeks before they decided to proceed to a hearing - more on that later. Â When I was sent the evidence bundle it turns out that the kid had said something to his two escortsafter I had supported him last. Despite these two escorts statements contradicting one another - even though they were in the same fucking taxi - they were not pressed as to why their evidence difffered. Â As my name sounded similar to one of the seven names he had alledged to have struck him - again more on that later - this was enough to have this reach formal hearing level. Â Out of another six or seven staff members interviewed all agreed that they had not seen me strike the boy at any stage. Â During my shift he had become very upset in what was a loud, busy, noisy and bright envirionment so had suported him outside as he was in his chair. My shift leader agreed that I had told her this in her statement. Â Unfortunately this shift leader then sent an unsigned, undated letter where, in her five barely ledgible paragraphs, she contradicted herself seven times from the four page witness statement she had given. When pressed, the main investigating offices, could not tell me when this was written, why there was no formal evidence of it being requested or as to why these contradictions were never investigated. Â The Chairperson of the Hearing started her part by saying this had proceeded to official hearing status as she thought that something must have happened for the child to say this although she did clarify that this could mean the possibility of him getting a fright about somethingg and misunderstanding the situation. Â To answer this I pointed to my working and reporting practice; including that of the day in question. I also pointed out how he had made allegations of being shouted art or pushed but the mainly female staff supporting him wouild make jokes referring to him as "their big boy", "my big baby" or "our wee darling" - all infantalisation name calling considering this boys age. I further presented my own evidence from his school whereupon it was clear he made such allegations before. This evidence was never saught by the investigation officer. Nor was any explanation as to how, when at what place or where on his person he had been hit. Nor was there any investigations as to the seven names he had said had all hit him. Â After three and a half months of hell I was found not guilty but given a minor charge of not communicationg with my colleagues. That charge, according to my representative, was a back covering exercise in case I took legal action - something which I had thretened to do due to the incompetence of the investigation. Â I appealed not only the charge but became the only person anyone seems to have heard of who also appealed my own not guilty verdict as the words not proven appeared in the narrative; albeit only once compared to the few not guilty mentions. Â My appeal against the minor charge was unsuccessful and the narrative amended to ensure it was clear to all that this was a not guilty rather than not guilty verdict. Â In total I missed over four months off work. Due to the shift leader and another member of staff breaching my confidentiality I had a parents of another kid approach me over a year later to say something along the lines of "listen; we were told something about you that we should never have been told" and went on to elucidate most of the details of my case along with the closing line of "and they said although you were found innocent you would never work in that project again" - something that wasn't true as I did on a semi regular basis for a whike. Â Try going through that and then accepting people saying the smoke without fire shite. Maybe you have and therefore you are a better person thatn me. I still enjoy being one of the few male staff and love the rough and toumble close intensive interaction that my wonderfull job brings but what happened still stings; especially having my confidentiality breached. Of course the allegation needed to be investigaed but in a professional manner. Â Sorry for the lomng reply and as my laptop is playing up I am scared to run a spell check but I hope you realise how fucking hurtfull that phrase can be to someone who was completely innocent. That said Social Care is the best profession in the world and there are too few males who apply or stay in the job so please do not let this story dissuade anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Bifkin Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 And there's no smoke without fire anyway. Â That said Social Care is the best profession in the world and there are too few males who apply or stay in the job so please do not let this story dissuade anyone. Â I think most international billionaire playboys might dispute that claim. Tough story mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted February 12, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted February 12, 2014 And if you think that historic victims have probably spent the last 30-40 years trying to forget what happened to them, is it really that surprising that some of the details might be wrong, or they have actually managed to block part of it out? Precisely. As I've repeated ad nauseum, in all cases, a not guilty verdict doesn't equal a false allegation. Keith, a genuine question as you know more about this subject than most. Do we actually see that many false allegations, do you reckon? I'm aware that's a guess and no more, but I'm curious as to what your gut would say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.