ok

Excuse me , I was merely taking issue with what you wrote.
If you were a Cam fan would you not get upset by reading that that sort of thing ? Sorry if I worded things in a way you think might get you into trouble. That wasn''t my intention.

Most of us have got more sense than to be a Stout fan.

Ok.

It's not so much that I was upset.
It was just that it was very important for me to capitalize that message to make it crystal clear that I never made such a serious allegation.

If it was believed that I made an allegation that Cameron is a child abuser,..........I would be likely to get banned,... for good.

(To clarify my point...the point that Cameron has worked with children before, and that not everyone who has done so before is so squeaky clean..was not to say that Cameron is a child abuser,..it was simply to illustrate that it doesn't prove a persons integrity in itself, one way or the other.
It simply doesn't prove anything either way . It just doesn't prove he is any less likely to be a bad person any more than somebody working in any other area)

It depends how much of a fan I had become.
If I got that upset...I would have to re-evalute if I was too much of a fan.

Other peoples children don't pay a penny in tax...Cameron surely doesn't like any of them and believes they should stay on an island until they can pay their own way.....

I know that people that work with children can occasionally turn out to be perverts etc.. thats why they do police checks etc on people working with children .You don't have to think too hard to think of a few , such as the guy at the Dunblane shooting.

But the good people far outweigh the pervs.

I merely gave the example of the orphanage , youth groups etc to illustrate that Cam has had a good record up to now .

ah well.....there's not many of us on here so I have to try extra hard to compensate

"But the good people far outweigh the pervs."

Yes, but that applies to every profession.

A postman, a factory worker, a porn actor, a stripper, a doctor..........you could take any selection of people from any profession, or area of work..and they will be have a good record.

Just saying that your chosen profession, or choice of work...does not automatically say anything about you as a person..Positive or negative.

so what was with the thing about *trusting* him, and the insinuating remark about Michael Jackson?

Iain

not sematic quibbles at all.

read this, and tell me what else is being implied....

"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."

Iain

Aw heck, knocking Shameron is one of my favourite pastimes!

I'm not going to start quoting and arguing with people....but beating children is wrong. It's physical abuse and I don't care if it's just a little slap or not - IT'S WRONG.

By the way, some of the money Children In Need raises is used for charities in the UK. It horrifies me that we need those charities in the first place.

What Cameron said about beating kids is wrong. If he's appearing on Children In Need he should be asked about that statement. I'd feel the same way about anyone.

That's better,..ask and I'll answer you.
Then you won't have to acuse me first, then ask questions later.

The thing about trusting Cameron?
I simply don't trust him.

The remark about Michael Jackson?
Well he may fill the kid's head with a load of shit, and he might have weird ideas about how you feed a baby,..but at least I'd feel there was less chanceof him getting enraged by a crying baby. And he wouldn't get so wound up that his head would start to vibrate, and his face go red with rage.

Cameron is an angry man, who gets a temper at the most trivial things.
I simply wouldn't let a man with such anger look after kids.

I haven't twisted a thing there iain.

I simply questioned your own personal definition of abuse.
And then I gave my own personal opinion about Cameron as a champion for children's rights.

If you thought I twisted your words in some way, I honestly didn't. If it read that way, it wasn't deliberate.

Just to clarify , Alrightmate, because you seem to think that I was saying that you said that Cam had abused a child that I did not actually do that.

I said that Cam was accused of being the sort of person who would , and there is a distinction there , as when I said that Josh and Paul had not been branded potential child abusers for saying it wasn't wrong to smack.

Noone has argued anything on here that would convince me that Cam would go over the mark. I'm not saying he is right or wrong to agree with physical punishment of children just that from what he actually said I don't think there's enough to infer that he might go over the score and abuse one.

I just think Cam is oldfashioned in his views. He's more like someone from the 1950s with his views on sex before marriage etc and with his outlook and standards I think he would have fitted more comfortably into that era than ours.

You are talking about what you think he is capable of doing but I am just saying that from the way he has actually behaved in the many years prior to entering the house he has behaved in a compassionate way ie helping out at the orphanage and giving of his time to help with boys brigade etc. He is well respected in his local community. As far as anyone knows his record with those children is exemplary. That has to count for something.

Hey, I thought we'd cleared that up.

You said that you didn't mean it to sound like it did,..I said okay,..and accepted that.

It's okay you know,..I haven't got an axe to grind with you or anything, I accept your explanation you gave, a few posts above.

perhaps, but what were you implying with the comment about trusting Michael Jackson more with kids than Cameron?

Iain

Yeah, but there is where i kind of have some problems with the guy.
The 1950's was then.
What was okay in the 1950's isn't necessarily okay with me now.

Sexism, racial abuse, homophobia was probably great then,...you could get away with so much.
But nowadays I absolutely abhor that kind of subhuman behaviour.

Giving a child a really good hiding was probably fine and dandy then.
But nowadays it can be deemed abuse,..even if you really give their legs, or arse a good spanking.
You don't have to just hit them on the head to cause harm. If a kid is getting spanked hard enough anywhere, it probaly feels like abuse to him/her.

Cameron may well not induldge in such practices in the future when, or if, he has kids of his own, even though he seems to be throwback from the 50's.

But he hasn't expressed any displeasure in such activities,..quite the opposite.
That's why I don't rate him as a great moral protector speaking out about activities that he doesn't actually condemn himself.

That's why I'm not keen on the guy,..and why I won't automatically accept some false crap he's bleating on about, on my television.

Iain, I've just answered you above.
Was the first answer not good enough for you?

(Please don't start doing misterpartridge stuff on me, iain...I'd like to think you are very different from that)

ok - but i'm not convinced that Cameron said anything about *a damn good thrashing*. you must admit, there was still a dodgy connotation with the whole MJ reference, and certainly uncalled for IMO.

also - as for mrp - AFAIK he usually talks a lot of sense...

as for where I stand - of course kids shouldn't get *a damn good thrashing*, but the odd smack is quite different.

Iain

*A damn good thrashing*

Of course Cameron didn't say that.
It was good old fashioned spin.

I just sometimes present a way of looking at things that have possibilities.

From what I've seen of Cameron..I point things in a direction that seem plausible to me.....If I was completely neutral, I couldn't show things from my perspective.

That doesn't mean I'm 100% right in the way I see things.
But if I think I'm leaning in the right direction, I will add a bit of spin, to see if anybody else can see things my way.
In Cameron's situation...I think I'm more right than wrong.
Not trying to change minds,...just seeing if I can get people to see things a diferent way.

That's very different fro me making acusations.

I haven't said that Cameron abuses children.
I simply break down the assumptions that say that he obviously couldn't, or wouldn't.
Why should I blindly accept a view that doesn't convince me?
I'm not going to just accept something somebody else is telling me,..just because they state it is so obvious to them, so that makes any other view wrong.
So if I challenge that view,..that does not mean I am accusing him of doing such things.

Anyway,..........*the Michael Jackson thing*.

Sorry iain,..but it was your fault.............You were the one who decided to change physical abuse into simple abuse...then extreme abuse.
If you want to blame anyone for blurring the meanings of words,...you should be taking a look at yourself first.

If you have made your own connatations about what I meant,..then think about the direction in which you yourself decided to take when thinking about it.

I've explained above what I meant,...it was crystal clear.

If you have your own perceptions about Michael Jackson,..that's up to you. But as far as I'm aware he hasn't been found guilty of a crime.
According to you it was uncalled for, in your opinion, for me to mention MJ???.....Why?
It all depends where you decide you want to go with it.
You can't tell me not what to post,..because it doesn't conveniently sit well with your pre-conceived ideas.
Maybe you should draw up a list of what I can or cannot mention, because you may raise an eyebrow of disapproval.

Yes of course I'm aware it was a dodgy connection. Because I know that people often jump to conclusions.
But is that my fault?
Maybe you should think about your precious tabloid papers again iain,..the ones that you say you don't believe.

Anyone who understands me will know that I was simply talking about trust.
No accusations were made.

The more that people keep bringing up Michael Jackson to me,..the more they make an issue of it.

I explained above,..then explained again.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm quite happy to stop talking about MJ. I wasn't the one who insisted on repeatedly bringing it up.

Why do you keep bringing it up iain?...Is it because you believe it would be a good weapon against me?

If all this talk about MJ is offending you iain,..stop talking about it.
If it makes you feel you have some power,...ask the moderators to delete all talk of MJ, on this thread,..I don't mind.

I'd like to think we have the opportunity for free speech here.
As long as we don't break rules, I'd like to think we are fine.
If you want to be all politically correct, and decide to make a mountain out of a molehill,..it would be a shame that free discussion has been stifled.

Forget MJ iain,...I have explained my position.
You must either not believe me,...or you simply don't care if I get into trouble..Which would really disappoint me, as you haven't personally offended me.....yet

How about the connatation that michael Jackson is innocent of any crime,,........so therefore Cameron is also innocent of any wrong doing?
You can come up with all the connatations you wish,..there's a myriad of options.

You asked,..I answered,.if you have problems with that,..that's just your hard luck,............let it go.
Last edited by Alrightmate : 16-11-2003 at 02:43

For somebody like iain who can read newspapers objectively, and doesn't get affected by spin,....I'm quite surprise that he let his pre-conceived biased ideas get in the way of neutrality here.

Absolutely.

Yes indeed. We should be grateful that society has progressed (a little). Scratch the Victorian veneer and something very nasty comes seeping out.

I do remember someone on this forum arguing that they liked Stout because he represented a time when "things were safer and friendlier" and I was horrified by their sheer naivety.