paris brown quits

rolf_f

A curious one. I think it is a poor analogy to compare a childs behaviour on social media with an adults - so the line that someone in their 30s posting offensive material on social media and being sacked for it is not necessarily a justification for the same outcome in this case. Children are under a lot of pressure to conform to the demands of peer pressure so I don't think that the tweets alone are enough to condemn her character (though that doesn't mean she isn't terrible!).

Ironically though, given that the job was guaranteed to achieve nothing of any value, her resignation will probably do more to benefit the young simply as a very graphic illustration of the consequences of what you place on social media.

solosuperia

Surely this situation should have never been allowed to arise anyway.........
Had the board employing her done their job properly.

How does all this publicity about her in the press sit with the Leveson Royal Charter????http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/posting.php?mode=reply&f=40088&t=12915562#

solosuperia

That last line should have been a smiley......
Why do I try and do things that are way beyond my capability.

bdu98252

The bigger picture is why are we paying £15k in public money to young and inexperienced individuals to advise the police on how to do their job. Given we pay the chief constable a considerable sum would it no be better to simply ask him to do his job well and those beneath him. In engineering we would not take advice on how to run a company or generate an engineered product off someone with zero demonstable knowledge of the subject.

Getting shagged, drinking, taking drugs and spouting offensive bile on the internet is not the qualification process for a police officer. I for one would rather a PC was hired for every 2 or 3 Paris's. Why work hard to be a chief constable when on Monday morning you are going to have to sit round a table with a bunch of elected idiots who are creating ever more elaborate ways to get their mates on the pay role whilst telling you how to police and set your budget.

Who is responsible when more money is spent on a certain area of policing to the detriment of others. Is it the chief constable or is it the new elected official?

Ben6899

VTech wrote:

I posted on this forum about the fact that someone was selling counterfeit goods and explained that at a later date it could haunt people who suggested that it wasnt illegal and more so that it should be fine as they are made int he same places but that wasnt true and when I suggested that people should be careful as they are indeed making themselves accessories to an illegal activity I was again mocked but this whole topic proves that on the net you cant hide from what you write.

But this thread is about Paris Brown.

VTech

Ben6899 wrote:

VTech wrote:

I posted on this forum about the fact that someone was selling counterfeit goods and explained that at a later date it could haunt people who suggested that it wasnt illegal and more so that it should be fine as they are made int he same places but that wasnt true and when I suggested that people should be careful as they are indeed making themselves accessories to an illegal activity I was again mocked but this whole topic proves that on the net you cant hide from what you write.

But this thread is about Paris Brown.

If you cant understand what was meant Im sorry.

Ben6899

VTech wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

VTech wrote:

I posted on this forum about the fact that someone was selling counterfeit goods and explained that at a later date it could haunt people who suggested that it wasnt illegal and more so that it should be fine as they are made int he same places but that wasnt true and when I suggested that people should be careful as they are indeed making themselves accessories to an illegal activity I was again mocked but this whole topic proves that on the net you cant hide from what you write.

But this thread is about Paris Brown.

If you cant understand what was meant Im sorry.

I understand what was meant; I just find it incredible that you manage to bring every topic around to something you did or said. It's quite a skill.

bartman100

pipipi wrote:

I'm a teacher. I am trying to tell kids that the stuff that they do online matters, especially when it leaves a trace. And someone who wants to go and look up all your history can find it there :shock:

Imagine if all the conversations you had down the pub had been recorded :shock: , and then replayed to your wife/employer/parents etc. I think most of would say [grammar] that we were relaxing, didn't know we were being recorded, had too much to drink etc.

Sadly lots of kids are posting lots of immediate comments without really thinking about the longer implications.

And from an intellect point of view (not just me) if it's immediate reaction then it's superficial , not really deep thinking about things. But there are plenty of serious programs [spelling], and I'd include BBC Breakfast 'news' here, that love to go and shove a microphone in someone's face hoping for something succint [spelling] and contraversial [spelling] to jump out...

D minus. V.Poor; see me after school

Frank the tank

Just about everybody that's posted on BR over the time I've been a member would have trouble taking up any kind of public post of authority or influence, FACT.

bartman100

Ben6899 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

VTech wrote:

I posted on this forum about the fact that someone was selling counterfeit goods and explained that at a later date it could haunt people who suggested that it wasnt illegal and more so that it should be fine as they are made int he same places but that wasnt true and when I suggested that people should be careful as they are indeed making themselves accessories to an illegal activity I was again mocked but this whole topic proves that on the net you cant hide from what you write.

But this thread is about Paris Brown.

If you cant understand what was meant Im sorry.

I understand what was meant; I just find it incredible that you manage to bring every topic around to something you did or said. It's quite a skill.

Give him a break. He's managed to avoid talking about his wealth, acquisitions, status and jet-set lifestyle for a whole thread.

VTech

Frank the tank wrote:

Just about everybody that's posted on BR over the time I've been a member would have trouble taking up any kind of public post of authority or influence, FACT.

Very True

@bartman100 and Ben6899, I was actually thinking about Paris, (whilst on a helicopter flight to "Paris" with a Louis 13th on the table and a schott zwiesel glass in hand), and thought, that girl, probably decent by nature has made what is in effect a simple, small error in judgement and now here life is in tatters, I wonder if some of the people who post on BR about illegal activities would ever consider that they could one day be in the same position.

Ill give an example.

You have a break in at your house (I truly hope that never happens to anyone) and the insurance ask a question as they do and you make a mistake and get the answer wrong, (it could be anything but play along with me here).
They question your honesty and integrity, you fight them and they say they wont pay you out.

You argue, get solicitors involved and they send you a printout of a post on a forum where you condone counterfeit goods and illegal activity.
Your honest and integrity stance is blown to smithereens. And all for the sake of a daft forum post.

Saying that would never happen is stupid, it just did to Paris !

bartman100

@VTech - I actually agree with your views on Paris Brown. Not fair for someone, who is still actually a child, to be mauled by the national media. She's probably not the girl for the job, but that's another matter.

I don't agree with your views on what might be admissible in court in the circumstances you mention. A judge wouldn't allow it in a million years. Defamation and/or threats of violence are a whole different ball game however. Comparing your example to the Paris case is to compare apples and pears.

VTech

bartman100 wrote:

@VTech - I actually agree with your views on Paris Brown. Not fair for someone, who is still actually a child, to be mauled by the national media. She's probably not the girl for the job, but that's another matter.

I don't agree with your views on what might be admissible in court in the circumstances you mention. A judge wouldn't allow it in a million years. Defamation and/or threats of violence are a whole different ball game however. Comparing your example to the Paris case is to compare apples and pears.

That stopped a few years back im afraid.
There was a time, not so long ago where only evidence to do with the case was allowed but now they are legally allowed to bring up other information deemed fit for the case so you could well be punished for previous actions.

bdu98252

Are you sure. It was only after the case for the mad man who burnt his kids did it come out that he had previously threatened to kill or harmed previous girlfriends. That would have been pretty relevant as to his character in this high profile case but was not allowed.

VTech

bdu98252 wrote:

Are you sure. It was only after the case for the mad man who burnt his kids did it come out that he had previously threatened to kill or harmed previous girlfriends. That would have been pretty relevant as to his character in this high profile case but was not allowed.

Thats why he was found guilty.
During the trial, evidence should not be made public but it is admissible to those doing the judging.

CambsNewbie

VTech wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

Are you sure. It was only after the case for the mad man who burnt his kids did it come out that he had previously threatened to kill or harmed previous girlfriends. That would have been pretty relevant as to his character in this high profile case but was not allowed.

Thats why he was found guilty.
During the trial, evidence should not be made public but it is admissible to those doing the judging.

Are you sure the jury would have been told? I've been in court before for a prolific shoplifter. The prosecution will often ask you as a police officer how you identified the offender. Now this guy, I have personally nicked 3 times and he had something like 47 convictions from 65 offences. So when I saw CCTV images that had been circulated with this guy on I could say 'that's Sideshow Bob, I recognise him because I have arrested him 3 times for theft from shop.'

However in court huge parts of my statement had been blacked out and I couldn't say those parts as part of my evidence. It also meant I couldn't tell the court how I knew the offender and could recognise him.. It meant my evidence was pretty useless in the end as pretty much all I could tell the court was that I was a police officer and had arrested Sideshow Bob.

(names have been changed to protect the lying stealing druggie bastard!)

bartman100

VTech wrote:

bartman100 wrote:

@VTech - I actually agree with your views on Paris Brown. Not fair for someone, who is still actually a child, to be mauled by the national media. She's probably not the girl for the job, but that's another matter.

I don't agree with your views on what might be admissible in court in the circumstances you mention. A judge wouldn't allow it in a million years. Defamation and/or threats of violence are a whole different ball game however. Comparing your example to the Paris case is to compare apples and pears.

That stopped a few years back im afraid.
There was a time, not so long ago where only evidence to do with the case was allowed but now they are legally allowed to bring up other information deemed fit for the case so you could well be punished for previous actions.

I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that an insurance company might try and repudiate your claim for burglary and even run it to court, on the basis that they found something attributable to you on the internet that they thought was morally dubious or cast doubt on your ethics? That's nonsense. Let's not even start to look at if or how they can prove it was you and the methods they might (be allowed) to employ to gain that proof.

CambsNewbie

bartman100 wrote:

VTech wrote:

bartman100 wrote:

@VTech - I actually agree with your views on Paris Brown. Not fair for someone, who is still actually a child, to be mauled by the national media. She's probably not the girl for the job, but that's another matter.

I don't agree with your views on what might be admissible in court in the circumstances you mention. A judge wouldn't allow it in a million years. Defamation and/or threats of violence are a whole different ball game however. Comparing your example to the Paris case is to compare apples and pears.

That stopped a few years back im afraid.
There was a time, not so long ago where only evidence to do with the case was allowed but now they are legally allowed to bring up other information deemed fit for the case so you could well be punished for previous actions.

I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that an insurance company might try and repudiate your claim for burglary and even run it to court, on the basis that they found something attributable to you on the internet that they thought was morally dubious or cast doubt on your ethics? That's nonsense. Let's not even start to look at if or how they can prove it was you and the methods they might (be allowed) to employ to gain that proof.

Insurance companies have used Facebook photos of someone on holiday bungy jumping and rock climbing to disprove their claims for long term sickness etc

bartman100

Yes, but that's a completely different scenario = proving that your claim is fraudulent, akin to video evidence of someone loading their car.

VTech

I am not talking necerseraly about a court of law but county court or similar where no jury is required (as jury cant know until after the case to avoid persecution).

I am right, I had a personal similar issue a few years ago that I dont wish to go into but please please, even if you only do it once, trust me that insurance companies and the like will go to any length not to pay out if given the chance.

bartman100

VTech wrote:

I am right

..of course you are VTech, you're always right - even when you can't, or can't be bothered to support your claims.

CambsNewbie

bartman100 wrote:

Yes, but that's a completely different scenario = proving that your claim is fraudulent, akin to video evidence of someone loading their car.

Its the same principle!

And they have also used Facebook etc to see if the 46" Bang and Olfson tv you claimed was stolen was actually in the living room, and checked photos of bikes to see if it matches what's being claimed for.

bartman100

No it isn't.

"Your honour,

We found this internet post which we believe shows the claimant's criminal mindset. We can't prove it's him, because the forum provider refused to disclose their personal details, but their profile says they live in Stratford on Avon and the username is a bit similar. That's good enough for us. On this basis, we'd like to kick out their claim for burglary. Even though the Police have attended and confirmed it as a burglary. "

CambsNewbie

bartman100 wrote:

No it isn't.

"Your honour,

We found this internet post which we believe shows the claimant's criminal mindset. We can't prove it's him, because the forum provider refused to disclose their personal details, but their profile says they live in Stratford on Avon and the username is a bit similar. That's good enough for us. On this basis, we'd like to kick out their claim for burglary. Even though the Police have attended and confirmed it as a burglary. "

You will be amazed what people will put online regarding their criminal activities.

I think you are missing my point. It isn't unknown for people when making insurance claims for a burglary to up the spec or model for what they are claiming. If someone has a basic tablet they might claim for a top of the range iPad. A 32" tesco own brand tv becomes a Bang & Olfson. Insurance companies will look at stuff like Facebook to see what's been posted and to look at what tv is in the corner of the pic posted showing you having a few drinks before going out.

They will also cross reference other insurance policies eg if you have car insurance you have to declare your occupation. If the income from this occupation doesn't match what you are claiming for example when you get burgled, alarm bells get raised. I'm not saying every claim and policy will be examined to this extent but when they suspect a false or inflated claim they will check all these things..

I think your dislike of VTech has reached a point where you can't stand someone agreeing with him! :roll:

VTech

bartman100 wrote:

VTech wrote:

I am right

..of course you are VTech, you're always right - even when you can't, or can't be bothered to support your claims.

Your being daft now.

As with this girl there was a DIRECT link to her, she did it.
We are not talking about guesswork, just fact.

You can argue with me all you like but your looking a fool when you keep arguing that im not right when in fact I am.
In fact, im bashing you so much im feeling like giving you an own goal so you dont feel so hurt so here goes.

Im going to the moon in 2014

bartman100

<slow hand clap> moron.

capt_slog

VTech wrote:

Im going to moon in 2014

Nothing special about this, I've shown my @rse lots of times.

VTech

bartman100 wrote:

<slow hand clap> moron.

BooHoo

Im off into space instead WOOOOOHOOOOOO !!!!!!!

Ticket 89 is mine

the playing mantis

its a non story. not even getting tot he poitnt hat such a position shouldnt exist in the first place as its a complete waste of time.

regarding her language, imo (its only an opinion) a lot of you on here are so out of touch. pikey, illegals, fag, are words you here amongst youth, chavvy women, and males, be it groups of mates down the pub, rich bankers etc. these are common place (like it or not rightly or wrongly) used terms amongst probably all but the champagne socialist and PROPER (ie not based on wealth but 'breeding') middle classes.

that the world we live in.

these terms may not be used when talking to strangers or in an unguarded fashion as was the case here, but amongst these peoples peers, at school,in 'pub talk' etc they are common place.

VTech

the playing mantis wrote:

its a non story. not even getting tot he poitnt hat such a position shouldnt exist in the first place as its a complete waste of time.

regarding her language, imo (its only an opinion) a lot of you on here are so out of touch. pikey, illegals, fag, are words you here amongst youth, chavvy women, and males, be it groups of mates down the pub, rich bankers etc. these are common place (like it or not rightly or wrongly) used terms amongst probably all but the champagne socialist and PROPER (ie not based on wealth but 'breeding') middle classes.

that the world we live in.

these terms may not be used when talking to strangers or in an unguarded fashion as was the case here, but amongst these peoples peers, at school,in 'pub talk' etc they are common place.

Nail on head moment.
This is why I suggested that she was being punished and ridiculed far greater than she should have been.