2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYou were not asked this FMF and quite frankly I find your obfuscation rather worrying as if you have something to hide. How else are we to account for our rather strange antics? What you were actually asked possibly eight or more times is whether you think that a child abuser is more or less likely to come forward if they know that they will be reported. There are only two possible answers,
I believe that a child abuser is more likely to abuse children - and to abuse children again and again - and to resume his abuse of children - if he knows that the corporation he's a member of is going to keep it secret.
I think he's less likely to come forward and will just chance his arm, safe in the knowledge that the organization will keep it all confidential if he gets caught.
more likely and less likely and it seems that for some reason you are unable to answer this simple question. Why again is known only to you but I tell you truly it does not reflect well on you.
I will open it up to the forum.
Great ones! Do you think it more or less likely that a perpetrator of child abuse or any abuse for that matter is more or less likely to come forward knowing that they will be reported. On this issue I was judged by FMF to be a defender of the non reporting of child abuse because I stated that an abuser was probably less likely to come forward knowing that they will be reported. This appeared to me to be reasonable. Despite this I support mandatory reporting.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet it go, robbie. It's over.
You were not asked this FMF and quite frankly I find your obfuscation rather worrying as if you have something to hide. How else are we to account for our rather strange antics? What you were actually asked possibly eight or more times is whether you think that a child abuser is more or less likely to come forward if they know that they will be repo ...[text shortened]... to come forward knowing that they will be reported. Despite this I support mandatory reporting.
-Removed-Actually old chap, rather than being 'capricious', I think you'll find I am 'consistently non-partisan'.
This thread is a prime example, where I have both challenged and 'supported' (your word) Robbie Codswallop.
If I agree with Mr X I say so. If I disagree with Mr X, I say so. - If you view this as being fickle, so be it.
(I do though rather like the word capricious).
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThere used to be a bar in my town called The Caprice! you would have liked it.
Actually old chap, rather than being 'capricious', I think you'll find I am 'consistently non-partisan'.
This thread is a prime example, where I have both challenged and 'supported' (your word) Robbie Codswallop.
If I agree with Mr X I say so. If I disagree with Mr X, I say so. - If you view this as being fickle, so be it.
(I do though rather like the word capricious).