• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Ruth Kelly Vetting

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Ruth Kelly Vetting"

Collapse

  • mcquiggd
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus
    mcquiggd is Marcus Licinius Crassus and I claim my five sesterces.
    I thought it was 2 million back in the good old days... then again.... after tax...

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    He is a prominent member of the ruling party who wants to be the leader so it is natural that he has opinions outside of his immediate job.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Black
    replied
    "Chancellor Gordon Brown said the row over vetting had to be 'sorted out'."

    Since when does the Treasury's opinion on such things matter, or is GB just thinking of all this from a possible new tax basis...

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by wendigo100
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't going with a 15-year-old legal in many countries, including The Netherlands and anywhere east of Austria?

    Why did we set a legal limit at 16 anyway?
    Section 45 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 made it illegal to take or posses indecent images of anyone under the age of 18, unless the person taking or possessing the image is married to the person portrayed and no other persons appear in the image.

    Before you know it, sexual expoitation or indecent images of any innocent young person under 21 will be illegal

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by mcquiggd
    Personally, Id crucify him...
    mcquiggd is Marcus Licinius Crassus and I claim my five sesterces.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcquiggd
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus
    Is hanging too good for him, mcquiggd?

    Personally, Id crucify him...

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW
    He can still sue but he won't get big reward since he lacks reputation due to previous conviction -- hardly the same case as Sven's who did not even try to deny the words quoted in papers.
    For most crimes the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 wipes the slate clean after a time, and thereafter one can sue someone for defamation if they maliciously divulge details of one's spent conviction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Is hanging too good for him, mcquiggd?

    Leave a comment:


  • mcquiggd
    replied
    Well that guy has just been on Channel 4 news admitting he touched up an underage girl 'but didnt realise it was wrong'.... also admitted to fraud, insurance scams etc. He ran away with the girl to Scotland and her parents very obviously didnt want him anywhere near their daughter.

    Then he has the nerve to say someone downloading pictures of underage girls is 'disgusting' - I suppose he means touching them would be better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    It's because I sleep on my ring.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    why have you got an extra @rse hole in your chin ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    That's not what they said when my agent forwarded me a copy of the script.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus
    Not for much longer, EO. Now that the old bill can arrest you for no reason and then forcibly take a DNA sample, the days of any sort of anonymity are numbered. The only consolation is that EDS will **** up the ID card database implementation project and the whole thing will overrun by 10 years.

    Not true me old thracian silver miner !

    I fully hope and expect you to stand up in court shouting

    I AM EO

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist
    there's the statute of - 'you dont know who the **** I am'
    Not for much longer, EO. Now that the old bill can arrest you for no reason and then forcibly take a DNA sample, the days of any sort of anonymity are numbered. The only consolation is that EDS will **** up the ID card database implementation project and the whole thing will overrun by 10 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by ASB
    I have been known to let my children out of my sight. Go the the park. Enjoy the outdoors etc. Clearly I am totally irresponsible. Better pack my bag and go meet bubba.
    Actually that's very responsible of you, ASB. After all the biggest risk of abuse kids face is from their own parents. The less time they spend with their parents the better. In fact, all children should be raised in state run orphanages. After all, children have to be protected "at all costs".

    The more I hear about this DoE nonsense, the crosser I get.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X