Adult sharing inappropriate content

Guest101

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Most people posting here have a neutral view. You're the only one who isn't neutral.....

Your view may be neutral, but it's not informed...

Guest101

Andypandyboy wrote: »

How can simply informing another parent what their child has been exposed to possibly be construed as harassment? Or are you trying to alarm the OP?

It is a factual account. Nothing more, nothing less.

You may want to acquaint yourself with the definition, which includes words such as; systematic, persistent........

As long as it is factual...

I don't need to reacquaint any thing, thanks.

missbiggles1

Guest101 wrote: »

Your view may be neutral, but it's not informed...

Whereas you seem to know far too much on the subject....

AnnieO1234

Guest101 wrote: »

Your view may be neutral, but it's not informed...

Why do you seem to have it in for the OP on this thread? If I may, you sound as though you've been in a position where you've been blamed for things by the resident parent and that is clouding your view here.

(FWIW I actually had suspected I knew you in RL which, if it is, then I'm sorry to hear that you've had problems with W. xxx)

Andypandyboy

Guest101 wrote: »

Your view may be neutral, but it's not informed...

Any more than yours is, we are both/all going off what the OP said, although you seem to have inferred very different things to what the op actually stated.

Guest101 wrote: »

As long as it is factual...

I don't need to reacquaint any thing, thanks.

Then you must agree that it cannot be harrassment, given that the dissemination of a one off piece of factual information does not fit the definition.

Angry_Bear

I have no idea if the OP is a troll or not as per Spinkz comments, but I've no idea why we all keep feeding Guest101 and letting him derail threads with his own agenda. (and I do it too from time to time )

Guest101

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Whereas you seem to know far too much on the subject....

I don't, so I'm basing my view on what would logically happen

settlerofcatan

Guest101 wrote: »

I don't, so I'm basing my view on what would logically happen

What you seem to be saying is that because the police aren't pressing charges, then nothing bad could have happened.

Guest101

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

Why do you seem to have it in for the OP on this thread? If I may, you sound as though you've been in a position where you've been blamed for things by the resident parent and that is clouding your view here.

(FWIW I actually had suspected I knew you in RL which, if it is, then I'm sorry to hear that you've had problems with W. xxx)

I don't know if you know me or not, pm me and we'll find out I suppose.

I don't have it in for the OP, i don't know her. I just find it ludicrous that despite the CHILD PROTECTION TEAM deciding there's no issues - beyond some words of advice - the vast majority of posters seem hell bent on presuming the guy is guilty.

There are thousands of false complaints to the police and SS every year, that is bad enough, but then it seems acceptable to say - despite there being no action, the guy must be no good...

Anyone with a sensible head on would be asking why, if a this is true, did the police decide not to take ANY action.

Guest101

settlerofcatan wrote: »

What you seem to be saying is that because the police aren't pressing charges, then nothing bad could have happened.

I'm saying that what you described does not warrant a NFA. It just doesn't. It wouldn't happen.

So either the police are incompetent or you've been liberal with the truth.