Andy I did 14 years and left in feb this year so I was just messing. Jeez h Christ sense of humour failure
and this is the point of the thread…..you were not there, how do you know what happened Stu or anyone else who was not there...?
….left?……………….:wink: now thus the dis believer in me coming out…i want facts that you did just leave!:biggrin:
Part of my Open University course discusses the reactions of individuals in an emergency situation - specifically the abduction of james bulger and the murder of some woman in new york in the 70's. In both cases there were 38 witnesses but not one person intervened to change the situation. There appears to be some evidence that people feel a shared responsibility to take action - everyone assumes someone else will do it so they best not get involved. As soon as one person ignores the incident other people start to feel like they can also, acceptably, not react. In one experiment where various groups of people were filling out forms in a controlled room, who then heard a recording of the woman they had been dealing with have an accident outside - 70% of individuals reacted when they were the only person in the room. only 40% responded when there were 2 strangers in the room (both of whom were unaware of the experiment) and only 7% reacted when one of the 2 people in the room was part of the experiment and was to deliberately ignore what was going on. It's known as the 'bystander effect' and was partly complicit in the james bulger case and the woman in new york. Catherine Genovese was her name. So this isn't a reflection on current society, but in fact a reflection of the human condition and the balance must people strike between other's right to privacy and the need to 'look out for each other'.
I see, so it was Dave, with the Merc, on the high street! What do you expect from a Merc driver - Compassion?
with a defence as poor as that you could try to get away with having a firearm and a load of ammunition under your bed……;-0
Kin ell this a pace I/v ? The proof is I now work for among other people the NSPCC now I am not likely to do that if I left under a cloud. I resigned because the home office are more interested in the compliance of registered sex offenders than they are about nailing them. Thus every time I carried out a forensic interview and nicked them I was reminded by my d.i that HO policy and how we were measured was on their compliance and not about getting them locked back up. Consequently that didn't resonate with my integrity or my training in the forensic psychology of child sex offenders. As such I know work with charities, schools etc etc i still have a full enhanced crb etc etc i am more than happy to provide proof. Or do you still not believe me as you are unable to verify the facts and evidence ? . Sorry for thread hijack
Can I just clear up a couple of things here? Am I right in thinking that : Dave comes on and posts about how the worlds going tits up, recounting a story about how his friend Dave got knocked off a bike and was ignored by lots of people including some chap called Dave. Dave then posts to say the story and/or facts contained therein may not be 100% accurate and that certain elements of Dave's story may have been embellished by Dave when he posted on the forum with a view to eliciting a response from forum members. Dave, Dave and David then post to think that they say that they think that Dave's response is harsh/irritating/downright argumentative, whilst Dave says that he's just pointing out that face value/third hand recounting of stories may be given the tabloid treatment to seem more outrageous or opinionated with a view to generating response from the online community. Various trees called Nigella fall down in the woods but no one hears them. The Police start to get annoyed with each other and have a minor 'police-off'. All along there were incidents and accidents, hints and allegations and if you'll be my bodyguard then I can be your long lost pal.........and you can call me Al.......or Dave if you prefer.
