Indeed you should. Saying you'd pass on that theoretical business deal kinda fatally destroys your 'I'm an awesome entrepreneur and I wouldn't deal with Huntley' argument TBH
Why? Are businessmen not allowed to have principles?
'Radical' prison changes.
- Thread starter Edrof
- Start date
Why? Are businessmen not allowed to have principles?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Successful businessman running their own business simply would not have the principles described as they would become unsuccessful business men (or plod along not going anywhere at £40K a year).
Sure, less successful businessmen can turn away very very easy profit for any reason they want. One could turn away a £90,000 Ferrari at £2000 because the seller had some zits if he wanted as 'the seller looked horrible'. Sticking to principles. however it'd make a shocking business man.
Well in my early twenties I spent 9 months on remand in Exeter then got sent to Dartmoor for 12 months after which I was put in Channingswood where I decided I wanted to sort my life out so requested a transfer to Coldingley where they had a drug treatment programme. Having completed that and my 3 year sentence I came to Brighton where I was given a place in rehab.You clearly have no actual experience of prison and no imagination. I have both and can see that not only are my ideas feasible (given funding and effort) but in all likelihood absolutely necessary to produce real radical change in the offending rates in our country.
That was almost 15 years ago and I haven't used since or commited a crime since because I WANTED to grow the hell up and sort myself out.
So that's exactly what I did and when I asked for help, I got it.
Is that experience enough?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
The people on this board suggest that you should basically NEVER be offered any job no matter how good you are .. and you should be effectively FORCED by society to spend the rest of your life on benefits because of your ancient conviction, as you are now in their eyes 'scum forever'. Oh, and in prison you should have been regularly humiliated, and physically forced to do manual labour.
Do you agree with them?
Did I say that?
Simi seems to have managed to sort himself out WITH a record. There was no need to remove the stigma attached with the criminal record.
He proved he was able to change and changed to a better person. People are able to change and prove to employers they have changed without having to remove the stigma of the record.
Oh and....lolbritboy.
Simi seems to have managed to sort himself out WITH a record. There was no need to remove the stigma attached with the criminal record.
He proved he was able to change and changed to a better person. People are able to change and prove to employers they have changed without having to remove the stigma of the record.
Oh and....lolbritboy.
Last edited:
Rubbish, unless all the best deals are being offered by serious sex offenders you can still be quite successful in business without dealing with them.
Anyone arguing less than burning at the stake for shoplifting on the OCUK forums will be seen as a weak liberal. No point in discussing rehabilitation of criminals because all they want is for the criminals to feel pain but then wonder why there house gets robbed by a repeat offender
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
You'll be spending considerable resources fingering through the sex register with every client/customer you get, and explaining the reason you are not selling your goods to them is because 14 years ago according to your kinda-vigilante search they touched a kid (god help you if you deal with a lot of clients, like run a shop - as this time consuming task of seeing if every single one is a perv would frustrate your legitimate customers).
But you run your business how you want. Can I set up next door and cover an identical market segment and we'll see who wins?
Last edited:
well they'd be past retirement age by the time they got out so the company probably wouldn't employ them.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Precisely.
er .. I mean .. BURN THEM. Tattoo 'criminal' on their foreheads so we know who the criminals are, then wonder why they don't manage to get a proper job!
The sad thing is I reckon about 60% of people here are MORE radical than the daily fail!
But deep down I love reading the radical right/fascist viewpoint on everything, it's dead entertaining!
You know when you were going on about how bad a debating technique an appeal to emotion was? Well, appeal to ridicule is also just as bad. You have however once again reminded me why it is pointless debating anything with you.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
'I will never deal with serious sex abusers as I run my business.'
'Er .. ok .. this is what you're gonna have to do then to ensure you don't - it's quite an overhead ..'
'Er .. oh yea .. I mean .. er .. stop being ridiculous I'm not talking any more I can't hear you lalalala'.
lolRDM?
It would appear that a few people in this thread have totally mis-interpreted my suggested point #4 in the list I posted. For the avoidance of doubt let me clear things up for you.
I never suggested that people should not have a criminal record and I certainly don't believe that a criminal record should not be used appropriately to identify people who are a risky proposition for employment in certain jobs. For example we should NEVER employ convicted paedophiles in jobs that involve contact with children as an inherent part of its duties.
The point I was trying to make (and so many of you appear to have missed) is that society demonizes people who have paid their debt to society and treats them as pariahs and then has the nerve to complain when they act as pariahs! This is just stupid.
Instead we need a more enlightened approach where funding and resources are poured into our poorly funded and over stretched prison system so it can prepare prisoners with the vocational and life skills to be useful productive members of society and then society has to accept people have paid their debt and help them into suitable work so they can actually contribute to society instead of breaking it.
Although if some of the posters in this thread are representative of the Great British public and it's attitude towards ex-offenders then we will never see this problem fixed.
I never suggested that people should not have a criminal record and I certainly don't believe that a criminal record should not be used appropriately to identify people who are a risky proposition for employment in certain jobs. For example we should NEVER employ convicted paedophiles in jobs that involve contact with children as an inherent part of its duties.
The point I was trying to make (and so many of you appear to have missed) is that society demonizes people who have paid their debt to society and treats them as pariahs and then has the nerve to complain when they act as pariahs! This is just stupid.
Instead we need a more enlightened approach where funding and resources are poured into our poorly funded and over stretched prison system so it can prepare prisoners with the vocational and life skills to be useful productive members of society and then society has to accept people have paid their debt and help them into suitable work so they can actually contribute to society instead of breaking it.
Although if some of the posters in this thread are representative of the Great British public and it's attitude towards ex-offenders then we will never see this problem fixed.
Oh look, britboy is lying again about what people said. What a suprise. I would never have expected him to do that. Again. Yawn.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 11,117
- Location
- West Yorkshire / Market Bosworth
Erm no one has said anything like that so far.
I think he should have as much chance as anyone else when going for job and he does.
That doesn't mean however that I'd hire someone with a criminal record over someone who is squeaky clean only on the grounds that he has a record...that's just stupid. For a "business man" you really don't get it do you?
Erm no one has said anything like that so far.
He doesn't normally let reality get in the way of the argument he wants to have...
I actually agree with all of what was said here I can see that a lot of common sense prevails in this statement. One time offenders are just that if you remove the barriers for them to reabilitate themselves back into society. At present the controls for them to return to work and the stigma associated with any crime they have committed precludes them because of CRB issues etc.
If someone makes a mistake and wants to make a change they should be supported not ostracised. So they commited a crime. We all make mistakes I am not making light of the damage they may have caused to any victims.
Society should not also make the mistake of not supporting them if they really want to resume their place in society. There is too much revolving door going on and why because of all the hurdles and to much looking back at what they have done.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Erm no one has said anything like that so far.
I think he should have as much chance as anyone else when going for job and he does.
That doesn't mean however that I'd hire someone with a criminal record over someone who is squeaky clean only on the grounds that he has a record...that's just stupid. For a "business man" you really don't get it do you?
Logical flaw
A) 'I think he should have as much chance as anyone else and he does'
B) 'I'd hire someone clean over someone with a criminal record'
The above two sentences mean different things. Should he have as much chance as anyone else or not? Which one do you mean please so I can debate it ..?
Read the post again. Your point B is incorrect and isn't actually what he stated.