You're right! I doth protesteth too mutch!
Imeedth thider from Idle and Grim to pour it!!
(It's a ladies touch you see !!)

OR
I don't want a ten foot head on the b**t**d!

thanks maisy - although I don't think saying

*the odd smack isn't really comparable to extreme physical abuse, and its a bold leap of logic to conclude that Cameron doesn't care about children because he thinks that too*

is what you could really describe as

*digressing totally and the minutiae of tenuous and faintly related points so obscurely connected as to warrant the attentions of an electron microscope and the diligence of a semi-submerged crocodile awaiting it‘s next meal*

not really....

Iain

Ahh..iain,..we have been expecting you.

Oh, now it's extreme physical abuse now is it?
I wondered when the context/word twisting games would start.
How do you quantify physical abuse. Belting a child is preferable to pulling the little mite's fingernails out is it?..Ok you must have won the argument then.
No,... beating a kid black and blue must be fine.

After all, it never did me any harm,...(No, no..not the cupboard horsey nana,..not the cupboard)

I suppose you might want to make a point about how it depends how hard he administers the beating..Does he thrash the living bejesus out of the poor child,..of does he give the kid a light tap?
I suppose you'd need to know these things before you can assess how much the kid is affected.

Sorry, but i'm not intersted in your logic,..it doesn't have much bearing on my opinion.
Sometimes you have to forget about logic and trust your own perception.

Anyway, if Cameron doesn't care much for people, why would children be any different. After all they are kind of little people,..sort of.


I just don't think Cameron would be the ideal choice to represent a caring charitable celeb...Sorry but that's my opinion.
You'll need to do a grand job of convincing me that I'm wrong.

Anyway,..it would take a very trusting person to hire Cameron as a babysitter to their kids.
I think i'd prefer Michael Jackson.

well, i'd hate to disappoint you.


thats because you took something Cameron said about *the belt* and clearly took that and compared it more extreme physical abuse.


see? what are you talking about? why do you say *beating a kid black and blue must be fine*? noone is saying that. i'm not saying it, and as far as I know Cameron hasn't said that either.


you're doing it again - referring to *beatings*. other than you, who is actually talking about *beatings*? agaion, Cameron has said something about *the belt never doing anyone any harm* and twisting it into *Cameron thinks its OK to beat children black and blue*. If not explicitly, then thats certainly your implication.

you can argue all you like about *how hard* a *beating is administered*, but I think at the end of the day we can see a difference between a child getting a smack or the belt in school or whatever, and the sort of beatings you're alluding too.

i'm not saying i think its right, but I can certainly see a difference.


he doesn't?


if its your opinion, it can't be wrong.

although this from your other post :


absolute rubbish. well, not rubbish, and very possibly true to some extent - but you could say that about anyone appearing or contributing to these sorts of things. i think its harsh to single out Cameron, and I think its harsh to criticise people for doing this anyway - if he turned them down, you can be sure as eggs is eggs that people here would be harping on about *who the hell does Cameron think he is - too good for Children In Need, eh?*


don't be so bleedin' melodramatic. completely ignoring the fact that people usually get people they know to babysit their kids anyway, why exactly do you say that? what might you expect to happen? it seems now you're trying to paint this picture of Cameron being such a monster he couldn't be trusted to look after kids without beating them up.

you honestly believe he's that bad?

Iain

Does anyone have a gun on them at all?

I wonder what would happen if Cam ever became a member of the forum? There seems to be a very hypocritical split set of ethics round here about what it is ok to make up and what it is not ok to make up about someone from BB .
Long before Cam was ever in BB, and the publicity was neither here nor there to him it is widely known he helped in an orphanage in SA, worked with Aids victims etc., so to say he is only using this very worthwhile charity to promote himself when he clearly has a previous record of charity work is just plain silly and so OTT it beggers belief.

i know - posts previously referring to him desperately trying to promote his *career*? what *career*?

as far as I can tell its simply some imaginary career people here have in their heads - presumably as some sort of tv presenter / celebrity type.

as far as I know Cameron doesn't have such a career, or expects to have one. he may have said something like *presenting Top Gear would be fun*, but again, people are only to happy to take this sort of thing and twist it round to demonise the guy.

Iain

Bit longer than 2 pages then Iain

That's rather ironic since you are undeniably the expert in twisting other people's comments to suit yourself.

oh, hardly....

Iain

blimey !

I should count myself lucky they just consigned me to a dutbin !

yep, like the child beating accusations...what he actually said was something quite different to what had been alleged here I personally don't think they sound the views of someone who is a risk to children.

no - but that won't stop this shower starting on about *Cameron being inappropriate for Children In Need because he seems to think its OK to beat children black and blue...*

of course people will now post about me twisting it round, but I'm pretty sure that seemed to be the unsubstantuated gist earlier....

Iain

Since you evidently don't have much respect for other forum members - in some cases it cuts both ways - why do you even bother?

So people dislike Stout and have a reasonable perspective based on observation on him in the BB house. What concern is that of yours?

its not about disrespect. i just disagree.


I disagree that suggesting that Cameron is inappropriate for Children In Need because he seems to think its OK to beat children black and blue actually is a very reasonable perspective to take.

Iain

Is that why you refer to other FMs as "this shower" then?




I was referring to his time in BB actually.

Shish. :yawn:

The suggestion that Cam is the sort of person to abuse children is outrageous .

There is no evidence whatsoever that he is that sort of person.

Where's the evidence that Cam has harmed a child before, during or after BB ? .....Exactly, there is none !

On the contrary Cam has shown himself to be a caring person towards children, helping out at an orphanage long before he went on BB.

He has done masses of work with youth groups, the boys brigade etc prior to big brother . Nothing untoward has ever happened. He's squeeky clean in that respect.

Not everyone agrees with physical chastisement of children but Cam wasn't the only one in the house who thought physical chastisement was ok. I don't see anyone else being pilloried here.

Come to that I seem to remember Josh and Paul in BB2 were in the 'smacking is ok 'camp and they didn't come away from BB branded as potential child abusers.

No, the people who hate Cam just want to believe the worst as per usual.

Has anybody actually suggested that Stout is a child abuser? I've merely commented on the possible publicity seeking angle of some celebs participating in charity events - and let's face it, Stout needs all the positive publicity he can get.

It seems that you are the one who is being outrageous.

Based on his behaviour in the house - which is all I'm primarily interested in - I found him to be a sanctimonious, cold-hearted bastard.

Take a look at his reaction to Lisa's panic attack for starters - is that the behaviour of a caring Christian????

Please give an example of the "caring" he showed towards anyone in the BB house if he's such a great guy.

Oh so noone is actually suggesting that Cam would abuse a child. Good !!

No, disnae - it was Iain twisting things with his semantic quibbles as usual.

oh silly me..there was me thinking that remarks like

This guy is hardly that much on the side that speaks out against physical abuse against children.
If we go by what we already know,..he leans more to the side that believes in giving kids a good leathering

might actually mean that someone thinks Cam believes its ok to be giving kids a good leathering

Thanks ben, I appreciate you making it clear about what I really said.

And thanks to your first response to me in the thread

Yes, we're so hateful and nasty aren't we?
Apparently we accuse Cameron of being a child abuser by disney and iain.

The only point I really made, was that Cameron isn't the kind of guy I believe when it comes to being sincere. And I don't think he's a good choice to be talking about stuff that he doesn't actually feel that strongly about.

Can you imagine him on a live TV feed, talking with Terry Wogan on the show?
Cameron would just finish his report, thn they would cut back to the studio to Terry.
Terry would ask Cameron how he feels about adults harming children,.....Cameron would be there smiling, cuddling a little child with one arm,.. but if Cameron was really honest with his answer, he would say he would give 'em a good hiding if they deserved it, and isn't really that much against parents using the belt.

That would be Cameron being honest....How long do you think they'd stay on air after that?

That's why I think he's a bad choice.
He's a liar,..and is hardly a sincere person.
On shows that deal with such important issues,..I think I'd like to hear sincerity, and honest opinion. A bit of reality, maybe.

How about a celeb who is genuinely against any physical punishment of children.
There's a lot of debate right now, about the issue of smacking children, how to regulate what's acceptable or not.
Cameron has stated that he has no problem with smacking,..and said that there might be a case to outlaw the use of the belt.
Hardly the best candidate for the job, in my opinion.

If a celeb actually means what they say,..the honesty comes across, and in an important show that deals with issues such as child abuse, it's crucial that a strong message comes across to the viewer...If the message is half-hearted and weak, the programme doesn't dleiver the message effectively.
Unless the celeb is an excellent liar, of course,..then maybe they can get away with it.
But with something like this, I believe honesty is the best policy.

To even say that smacking is not abuse,..is actually trivialising a lot of situations where the act of smacking a child becomes a grey area.


Oh disney............the bit about all the work that Cameron has done for kids, kids charity's etc............yes the people who do so much work with children,...they're all squeaky clean aren't they?
Last edited by Alrightmate : 14-11-2003 at 21:40

What I said was
What you said was
so are you saying that what you said meant something else

ie 'giving kids a good leathering ' is not abuse of a child ?

and your remark

............the bit about all the work that Cameron has done for kids, kids charity's etc............yes the people who do so much work with children,...they're all squeaky clean aren't they?

your point being ?

If you are going to make allegations you should substantiate them.

disnaespeaksomuch

I stand by what I say.

I never said he abused anybody...I said he isn't exactly against the physical punishment of children.

[size=2] And don't you dare accuse me of making allegations,..you know very well I could get banned for that[/size]

I don't like Cameron much.
But there's no way on earth that I would try to spread a rumour that could potentially wreck his life.