FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Is this for real?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I really hope this is just a media click bait and not an actual case, anyone got any more insight about it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8201521/Sex-offenders-including-paedophiles-should-be-allowed-to-adopt-Theresa-May-told.html

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago

Chester

You must have read it. Told by whom?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

"Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago

Chester

If they abused someone else's human rights then I won't shed a tear if theirs are curtailed. It does nicely demonstrate that ivory tower thinkers are massively out of touch with those living in the real world.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"If they abused someone else's human rights then I won't shed a tear if theirs are curtailed. It does nicely demonstrate that ivory tower thinkers are massively out of touch with those living in the real world. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i do worry about our judicial system sometimes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I wonder how well her campaign would go with this in her manifesto...

This makes me sick.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"i do worry about our judicial system sometimes "

She's a READER in law.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke

It's not a story really. Just the opinion of an academic.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•

i've just read her actual blog about this, from 2010 she doesn't present a very good case and uses at least one fallacy.

it is click bait basically, yes. there's no evidence at all to back up anything said by either side. but, more worryingly, the blog says this:

In June, Home Secretary Theresa May

halted the vetting scheme, claiming that it is disproportionate, burdensome and infringes on civil liberties, and had “draconian” implications in which people were assumed guilty until proven innocent. Rather than presuming that everyone is a potential risk to children and must therefore be vetted, any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk.

This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jun/15/child-worker-vetting-scheme-review

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I'd let them adopt Theresa May, no problem. As long as she's kept restrained from public life it's got to be for the greater good.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"i've just read her actual blog about this, from 2010 she doesn't present a very good case and uses at least one fallacy.

it is click bait basically, yes. there's no evidence at all to back up anything said by either side. but, more worryingly, the blog says this:

In June, Home Secretary Theresa May

halted the vetting scheme, claiming that it is disproportionate, burdensome and infringes on civil liberties, and had “draconian” implications in which people were assumed guilty until proven innocent. Rather than presuming that everyone is a potential risk to children and must therefore be vetted, any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk.

This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jun/15/child-worker-vetting-scheme-review

"

There's a saying about (some) academics that "you have to be really well educated to be that dumb"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•


"i've just read her actual blog about this, from 2010 she doesn't present a very good case and uses at least one fallacy.

it is click bait basically, yes. there's no evidence at all to back up anything said by either side. but, more worryingly, the blog says this:

In June, Home Secretary Theresa May

halted the vetting scheme, claiming that it is disproportionate, burdensome and infringes on civil liberties, and had “draconian” implications in which people were assumed guilty until proven innocent. Rather than presuming that everyone is a potential risk to children and must therefore be vetted, any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk.

This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jun/15/child-worker-vetting-scheme-review

There's a saying about (some) academics that "you have to be really well educated to be that dumb""

like she hasn't had a life or experienced much and just been educated? or that you can dumb things down to laymans terms?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"i've just read her actual blog about this, from 2010 she doesn't present a very good case and uses at least one fallacy.

it is click bait basically, yes. there's no evidence at all to back up anything said by either side. but, more worryingly, the blog says this:

In June, Home Secretary Theresa May

halted the vetting scheme, claiming that it is disproportionate, burdensome and infringes on civil liberties, and had “draconian” implications in which people were assumed guilty until proven innocent. Rather than presuming that everyone is a potential risk to children and must therefore be vetted, any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk.

This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jun/15/child-worker-vetting-scheme-review

There's a saying about (some) academics that "you have to be really well educated to be that dumb"

like she hasn't had a life or experienced much and just been educated? or that you can dumb things down to laymans terms?"

As in she has spent so much time studying / teaching in a university echo chamber that she's conpletely lost touch with what the outside world is like. She can't see the wood for the trees.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago

•+• Access Denied •+•


"i've just read her actual blog about this, from 2010 she doesn't present a very good case and uses at least one fallacy.

it is click bait basically, yes. there's no evidence at all to back up anything said by either side. but, more worryingly, the blog says this:

In June, Home Secretary Theresa May

halted the vetting scheme, claiming that it is disproportionate, burdensome and infringes on civil liberties, and had “draconian” implications in which people were assumed guilty until proven innocent. Rather than presuming that everyone is a potential risk to children and must therefore be vetted, any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk.

This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jun/15/child-worker-vetting-scheme-review

There's a saying about (some) academics that "you have to be really well educated to be that dumb"

like she hasn't had a life or experienced much and just been educated? or that you can dumb things down to laymans terms?

As in she has spent so much time studying / teaching in a university echo chamber that she's conpletely lost touch with what the outside world is like. She can't see the wood for the trees."

ok thanks.

yeah, i think she's maybe studied the statistics surrounding what she's on about but without a deeper understanding of anything else. that's how her statement came across to me anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke


"i've just read her actual blog about this, from 2010 she doesn't present a very good case and uses at least one fallacy.

it is click bait basically, yes. there's no evidence at all to back up anything said by either side. but, more worryingly, the blog says this:

In June, Home Secretary Theresa May

halted the vetting scheme, claiming that it is disproportionate, burdensome and infringes on civil liberties, and had “draconian” implications in which people were assumed guilty until proven innocent. Rather than presuming that everyone is a potential risk to children and must therefore be vetted, any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk.

This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jun/15/child-worker-vetting-scheme-review

There's a saying about (some) academics that "you have to be really well educated to be that dumb"

like she hasn't had a life or experienced much and just been educated? or that you can dumb things down to laymans terms?

As in she has spent so much time studying / teaching in a university echo chamber that she's conpletely lost touch with what the outside world is like. She can't see the wood for the trees.

ok thanks.

yeah, i think she's maybe studied the statistics surrounding what she's on about but without a deeper understanding of anything else. that's how her statement came across to me anyway."

We have two thought processes, an impulsive quick subconscious one and a slow concious one. Given enough time and the right incentives, the latter can eventually rationalise pretty much anything. Sometimes you need to listen to the first thought that comes into your head. Sometimes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top