llamatron Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Whats the difference here between this and a peeping tom!!, im sorry but tjis is just wrong on so many levels!! someones been sucked in by a headline haven't they:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Yes I read the article too. I just think that CCTV anywhere inside toilets is just plain 'wrong'. When I was a lad teachers used to go into them, mainly to stop kids smoking in there. But to have whatever goes on in there recorded just aint right. For instance we all know girls go in there in groups and don't just visit there for the call of nature. (although that's still to me, one of lifes little mysteries what they actually do in there together). sorry to pee on your bonfire but they won't be undressing each other and kissing, they will be talking about boys and washing their hands...or beating each other up in some schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Agree 100% I find it disturbing. Imagine what social services would say if you told them you film your kids whilst they are changing or using the toilet. Family courts anyone? :hihi:brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I've just had a look at the Big Brother Watch site and a little window informs me that King Edwards here in Sheffield has 15 cameras per pupil - Guessing that the school has maybe 800 - 1000 on roll, 15,000 Cameras??? I think not - quality scaremongering! There would no room to pee in their bogs! :hihi:the metro said it was as high as 1 camera per 15 pupils. They got the numbers the wrong way round:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 So why are parents (in a lot of schools) banned from taking pictures of their kiddies doing sport on school sports day? 'Intent' is the short answer. They're concerned with the legitimacy of the photos. Here's a much longer answer to the same question. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/photos-children-school-ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Perverts , pure and simple. And to think these people are running our schools and are in charge of our children. Maybe you should see the system in operation before you make a judgement from the vantage point of your armchair being spoon fed "facts" by tabloids and lobbyists with hidden agendas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 A total, 100%, non-story. A screaming headline which implies something, which then turns out not to quite as lurid as the first impression upon a little digging. I can't believe that certain newspapers still actually manage to sell any papers in this day and age. I don't know about anyone else, but if I did want to buy a paper like that, I'd want to have it under a plain cover... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted September 13, 2012 Author Share Posted September 13, 2012 Did you ever consider' date=' even for one moment, that that could be because you are, in fact, wrong?[/quote'] Ummm..No, not really. I have an opinion, and that's it. You have yours, everyone else has theirs. There's been much talk of being sucked in by sensationalist BBW, who have some sort of hidden agenda....Nope! The plain fact is, is that cameras 'are' fitted in 'some' school toilets, and changing rooms. That's enough for me to think it's wrong. I'm really not interested in any sort of 'hidden agenda' the BBW might or might not have. My opinion counts to ME. End of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 A total, 100%, non-story. A screaming headline which implies something, which then turns out not to quite as lurid as the first impression upon a little digging. I can't believe that certain newspapers still actually manage to sell any papers in this day and age. I don't know about anyone else, but if I did want to buy a paper like that, I'd want to have it under a plain cover... They sell them to simpletons who swallow their lurid stories in discriminately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted September 13, 2012 Author Share Posted September 13, 2012 They sell them to simpletons who swallow their lurid stories in discriminately. I really can't understand why, if someone has a different opinion to you, you resort to insulting them. Is there any real need for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.