Parents fined after failing to ensure their children went to school

Parents fined after failing to ensure their children went to school

Parents fined after failing to ensure their children went to school

First published in News

The parents of two secondary school pupils in Cornwall have been prosecuted for failing to ensure their two children attend school on a regular basis.

Both parents pleaded guilty to the offence of failing to ensure their two children attended regularly at Brannel Community School.

Magistrates in Bodmin were told that the one pupil had a 88 per cent non attendance rate, with the other having a 53 per cent non attendance rate.

The mother was given a six months conditional discharge, and ordered to pay a contribution of £250 towards the council’s costs, while the father, who had previously been in court for a similar offence, was sentenced to a 16 week community order and a curfew which would be in operation between 6pm and 6am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

He was ordered to pay a contribution of £300 towards the council’s costs as well as a victim surcharge of £60.

John Heath, the council’s principal education welfare officer, said he hopes that the sentence will send a very clear message to other parents and carers who are failing to fulfil their legal duty to ensure that their children attend school regularly.

He said: “Education welfare officers in Cornwall work closely with schools, parents and pupils to try to sort out attendance issues.

"This may involve arranging home and school visits to discuss the situation. They will try to find out the reasons why the child is not attending school and take steps to try and get the child back into school. This includes offering support or signposting to other agencies.

 “Prosecution is a last resort when everything else has failed. Where parents are finally taken to court for school attendance offences they do run the risk of being fined or even sent to prison."

Comments (52)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:05am Sun 10 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

I would be interested to know if prosecuting parents and issuing fines actually makes a difference, and whether or not it satisfactorily rectifies the situation completely. Are there any figures for success rates over the years?
I would be interested to know if prosecuting parents and issuing fines actually makes a difference, and whether or not it satisfactorily rectifies the situation completely. Are there any figures for success rates over the years? Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 6

8:58am Sun 10 Aug 14

Helston John says...

No good asking questions Gill, Cornwall Council are running a dictatorship and won't give you any answers. Perhaps the dictator that voted your comment down might like to answer your question, they obviously dictate Your're not allowed to ask questions, yet too gutless to leave a comment themselves. Haven't even bothered asking you why you ask, actually why do you ask Gill?
No good asking questions Gill, Cornwall Council are running a dictatorship and won't give you any answers. Perhaps the dictator that voted your comment down might like to answer your question, they obviously dictate Your're not allowed to ask questions, yet too gutless to leave a comment themselves. Haven't even bothered asking you why you ask, actually why do you ask Gill? Helston John
  • Score: -10

8:59am Sun 10 Aug 14

Helston John says...

Are you saying they shouldn't be fined etc?
Are you saying they shouldn't be fined etc? Helston John
  • Score: -4

1:28pm Sun 10 Aug 14

Helston John says...

Aren't you going to answer my questions Gill?

No good you asking Cllr Wallis any questions he doesn't answer my sensible questions in my emails, yet Cllr Haycock does.
Aren't you going to answer my questions Gill? No good you asking Cllr Wallis any questions he doesn't answer my sensible questions in my emails, yet Cllr Haycock does. Helston John
  • Score: -6

3:05pm Sun 10 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

I asked my initial question because I was just wondering as to whether prosecutions and/or fines for a child's absence from school are completely effective, I did not say they should not prosecute or fine, I have an open mind on the subject, until such time figures on a success rate are published. Asking questions generally widens ones knowledge.

From a personal view, as someone who was systematically physically bullied long term at senior school, (and consequently I never attended school at all after the first two years) without the situation being rectified, despite repeated claims the issue would be addressed, had my parents been fined, it would not have returned me to school, hence my initial question.
I asked my initial question because I was just wondering as to whether prosecutions and/or fines for a child's absence from school are completely effective, I did not say they should not prosecute or fine, I have an open mind on the subject, until such time figures on a success rate are published. Asking questions generally widens ones knowledge. From a personal view, as someone who was systematically physically bullied long term at senior school, (and consequently I never attended school at all after the first two years) without the situation being rectified, despite repeated claims the issue would be addressed, had my parents been fined, it would not have returned me to school, hence my initial question. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 5

3:07pm Sun 10 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

Helston John wrote:
Aren't you going to answer my questions Gill?

No good you asking Cllr Wallis any questions he doesn't answer my sensible questions in my emails, yet Cllr Haycock does.
Councillor Andrew Wallis has always answered my questions in emails. If he does not answer your questions then there must be a very good reason why not.
[quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: Aren't you going to answer my questions Gill? No good you asking Cllr Wallis any questions he doesn't answer my sensible questions in my emails, yet Cllr Haycock does.[/p][/quote]Councillor Andrew Wallis has always answered my questions in emails. If he does not answer your questions then there must be a very good reason why not. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 7

6:11pm Sun 10 Aug 14

Helston John says...

Gill Z Martin wrote:
Helston John wrote:
Aren't you going to answer my questions Gill?

No good you asking Cllr Wallis any questions he doesn't answer my sensible questions in my emails, yet Cllr Haycock does.
Councillor Andrew Wallis has always answered my questions in emails. If he does not answer your questions then there must be a very good reason why not.
There's no reason why he doesnt answer my emails other than he can't be bothered. He would only be bothered as Cllr for children and young people to take people to court and fine them if their children dont go to school because the fines rake in money for the council.
[quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: Aren't you going to answer my questions Gill? No good you asking Cllr Wallis any questions he doesn't answer my sensible questions in my emails, yet Cllr Haycock does.[/p][/quote]Councillor Andrew Wallis has always answered my questions in emails. If he does not answer your questions then there must be a very good reason why not.[/p][/quote]There's no reason why he doesnt answer my emails other than he can't be bothered. He would only be bothered as Cllr for children and young people to take people to court and fine them if their children dont go to school because the fines rake in money for the council. Helston John
  • Score: -5

6:23pm Sun 10 Aug 14

Helston John says...

Why is Cllr Wallis telling people no fines have been issued to parents or carers of children failing to attend school yet this article says two parents have been fined? Cllr Wallis obviously tells lies.
Why is Cllr Wallis telling people no fines have been issued to parents or carers of children failing to attend school yet this article says two parents have been fined? Cllr Wallis obviously tells lies. Helston John
  • Score: -6

7:35pm Sun 10 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

Helston John wrote:
Why is Cllr Wallis telling people no fines have been issued to parents or carers of children failing to attend school yet this article says two parents have been fined? Cllr Wallis obviously tells lies.
Councillor Andrew Wallis did not lie, I also read the information to which you refer, the information he gave stated it was up until the 6th Aug. The article above is dated the 9th.
I doubt anything pending could have been included in the information he gave either.
[quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: Why is Cllr Wallis telling people no fines have been issued to parents or carers of children failing to attend school yet this article says two parents have been fined? Cllr Wallis obviously tells lies.[/p][/quote]Councillor Andrew Wallis did not lie, I also read the information to which you refer, the information he gave stated it was up until the 6th Aug. The article above is dated the 9th. I doubt anything pending could have been included in the information he gave either. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 6

7:40am Mon 11 Aug 14

Lev Repel says...

Helston John wrote:
Gill Z Martin wrote:
Helston John wrote:
Aren't you going to answer my questions Gill?

No good you asking Cllr Wallis any questions he doesn't answer my sensible questions in my emails, yet Cllr Haycock does.
Councillor Andrew Wallis has always answered my questions in emails. If he does not answer your questions then there must be a very good reason why not.
There's no reason why he doesnt answer my emails other than he can't be bothered. He would only be bothered as Cllr for children and young people to take people to court and fine them if their children dont go to school because the fines rake in money for the council.
Complete tosh, the only reason Cllr. Wallis wouldn't answer someone's emails would obviously be if you were rude in your emails, and looking at some of your comments on here it wouldn't surprise me.

I think fines should only be issued if the school can prove the fault doesn't lie with them by the failure to address issues within the school.
[quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: Aren't you going to answer my questions Gill? No good you asking Cllr Wallis any questions he doesn't answer my sensible questions in my emails, yet Cllr Haycock does.[/p][/quote]Councillor Andrew Wallis has always answered my questions in emails. If he does not answer your questions then there must be a very good reason why not.[/p][/quote]There's no reason why he doesnt answer my emails other than he can't be bothered. He would only be bothered as Cllr for children and young people to take people to court and fine them if their children dont go to school because the fines rake in money for the council.[/p][/quote]Complete tosh, the only reason Cllr. Wallis wouldn't answer someone's emails would obviously be if you were rude in your emails, and looking at some of your comments on here it wouldn't surprise me. I think fines should only be issued if the school can prove the fault doesn't lie with them by the failure to address issues within the school. Lev Repel
  • Score: 5

11:25am Tue 12 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

Helston John wrote:
Gill Z Martin wrote:
I asked my initial question because I was just wondering as to whether prosecutions and/or fines for a child's absence from school are completely effective, I did not say they should not prosecute or fine, I have an open mind on the subject, until such time figures on a success rate are published. Asking questions generally widens ones knowledge.

From a personal view, as someone who was systematically physically bullied long term at senior school, (and consequently I never attended school at all after the first two years) without the situation being rectified, despite repeated claims the issue would be addressed, had my parents been fined, it would not have returned me to school, hence my initial question.
So you're a little bit dopey then if you didn't go to school. Perhaps thats why you think the Cornwall Cllrs are good.
Why would my intellect level or lack of formal education have any bearing on my ability to assess the work of any local Cornwall Councillor, anyone lacking in intelligence or education would be quite capable of seeing what has been achieved in the local areas by a councillor, and to whom the credit should be given.
[quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: I asked my initial question because I was just wondering as to whether prosecutions and/or fines for a child's absence from school are completely effective, I did not say they should not prosecute or fine, I have an open mind on the subject, until such time figures on a success rate are published. Asking questions generally widens ones knowledge. From a personal view, as someone who was systematically physically bullied long term at senior school, (and consequently I never attended school at all after the first two years) without the situation being rectified, despite repeated claims the issue would be addressed, had my parents been fined, it would not have returned me to school, hence my initial question.[/p][/quote]So you're a little bit dopey then if you didn't go to school. Perhaps thats why you think the Cornwall Cllrs are good.[/p][/quote]Why would my intellect level or lack of formal education have any bearing on my ability to assess the work of any local Cornwall Councillor, anyone lacking in intelligence or education would be quite capable of seeing what has been achieved in the local areas by a councillor, and to whom the credit should be given. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 7

12:12pm Wed 13 Aug 14

CousinJack says...

These parents shouldn't be fined, their kids should be taken into care and placed with responsible foster parents
These parents shouldn't be fined, their kids should be taken into care and placed with responsible foster parents CousinJack
  • Score: -23

8:10pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Helston John says...

CousinJack wrote:
These parents shouldn't be fined, their kids should be taken into care and placed with responsible foster parents
Oh yeah and course Cornwall is booming with excess foster carers you donut, that's why they keep advertising for them. What makes you think a foster Carer could make a eleven, thirteen fourteen fifteen etc year old stay in school anymore than the parents, even if they took them to the gate there's nothing stopping them walk out of it after the parents have gone or school has started, they don't lock the gates.
[quote][p][bold]CousinJack[/bold] wrote: These parents shouldn't be fined, their kids should be taken into care and placed with responsible foster parents[/p][/quote]Oh yeah and course Cornwall is booming with excess foster carers you donut, that's why they keep advertising for them. What makes you think a foster Carer could make a eleven, thirteen fourteen fifteen etc year old stay in school anymore than the parents, even if they took them to the gate there's nothing stopping them walk out of it after the parents have gone or school has started, they don't lock the gates. Helston John
  • Score: 5

7:48am Thu 14 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

Helston John, I think your comment directed to 'CousinJack' is a little rude, I understand the point you are making but 'CousinJack' does have a valid point too, in my view it would depend on the age of the child and the circumstances as to why the child is not attending school.
Helston John, I think your comment directed to 'CousinJack' is a little rude, I understand the point you are making but 'CousinJack' does have a valid point too, in my view it would depend on the age of the child and the circumstances as to why the child is not attending school. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 8

12:09pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

Gill Z Martin wrote:
Helston John, I think your comment directed to 'CousinJack' is a little rude, I understand the point you are making but 'CousinJack' does have a valid point too, in my view it would depend on the age of the child and the circumstances as to why the child is not attending school.
Yeah I suppose if a young child had a mother that was drunk all the time and didn't get it to school or if the parents were separated and the dad kept taking it off school to spend time with it or something like that then it would be irresponsible parents and if they still didn't get it to school after a fine then ok perhaps it should be fostered. But there arnt enough foster parents available so I still think CousinJacks comment is daft as first suggestion. Why do you think I'm rude to CousinJack then?
[quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: Helston John, I think your comment directed to 'CousinJack' is a little rude, I understand the point you are making but 'CousinJack' does have a valid point too, in my view it would depend on the age of the child and the circumstances as to why the child is not attending school.[/p][/quote]Yeah I suppose if a young child had a mother that was drunk all the time and didn't get it to school or if the parents were separated and the dad kept taking it off school to spend time with it or something like that then it would be irresponsible parents and if they still didn't get it to school after a fine then ok perhaps it should be fostered. But there arnt enough foster parents available so I still think CousinJacks comment is daft as first suggestion. Why do you think I'm rude to CousinJack then? Helston John
  • Score: 7

1:52pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

Helston John wrote:
Gill Z Martin wrote:
Helston John, I think your comment directed to 'CousinJack' is a little rude, I understand the point you are making but 'CousinJack' does have a valid point too, in my view it would depend on the age of the child and the circumstances as to why the child is not attending school.
Yeah I suppose if a young child had a mother that was drunk all the time and didn't get it to school or if the parents were separated and the dad kept taking it off school to spend time with it or something like that then it would be irresponsible parents and if they still didn't get it to school after a fine then ok perhaps it should be fostered. But there arnt enough foster parents available so I still think CousinJacks comment is daft as first suggestion. Why do you think I'm rude to CousinJack then?
The point I was making was that I think CousinJack is entitled to their opinion without you returning a comment expressed in the manner in which you did.
[quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: Helston John, I think your comment directed to 'CousinJack' is a little rude, I understand the point you are making but 'CousinJack' does have a valid point too, in my view it would depend on the age of the child and the circumstances as to why the child is not attending school.[/p][/quote]Yeah I suppose if a young child had a mother that was drunk all the time and didn't get it to school or if the parents were separated and the dad kept taking it off school to spend time with it or something like that then it would be irresponsible parents and if they still didn't get it to school after a fine then ok perhaps it should be fostered. But there arnt enough foster parents available so I still think CousinJacks comment is daft as first suggestion. Why do you think I'm rude to CousinJack then?[/p][/quote]The point I was making was that I think CousinJack is entitled to their opinion without you returning a comment expressed in the manner in which you did. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 12

1:57pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it.
With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston.
To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.
Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it. With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston. To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -10

2:08pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

Absurd. Stupid phone again.
Absurd. Stupid phone again. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -13

3:07pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it.
With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston.
To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.
I do not think anyone would just assume the fault would lie with any parent or carer, I believe prosecution or a fine would be the last resort after all other options had been explored. I do not believe in splitting families up unless of course the child is at risk.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it. With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston. To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.[/p][/quote]I do not think anyone would just assume the fault would lie with any parent or carer, I believe prosecution or a fine would be the last resort after all other options had been explored. I do not believe in splitting families up unless of course the child is at risk. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 9

3:22pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

Gill Z Martin wrote:
ronedgcumbe wrote:
Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it.
With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston.
To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.
I do not think anyone would just assume the fault would lie with any parent or carer, I believe prosecution or a fine would be the last resort after all other options had been explored. I do not believe in splitting families up unless of course the child is at risk.
So why then defend the comment and suggestion that school absenteeism is a valid reason to break up families.
Do you believe all comment are acceptable even one's as extreme as this one.
[quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it. With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston. To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.[/p][/quote]I do not think anyone would just assume the fault would lie with any parent or carer, I believe prosecution or a fine would be the last resort after all other options had been explored. I do not believe in splitting families up unless of course the child is at risk.[/p][/quote]So why then defend the comment and suggestion that school absenteeism is a valid reason to break up families. Do you believe all comment are acceptable even one's as extreme as this one. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -22

5:34pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
Gill Z Martin wrote:
ronedgcumbe wrote:
Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it.
With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston.
To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.
I do not think anyone would just assume the fault would lie with any parent or carer, I believe prosecution or a fine would be the last resort after all other options had been explored. I do not believe in splitting families up unless of course the child is at risk.
So why then defend the comment and suggestion that school absenteeism is a valid reason to break up families.
Do you believe all comment are acceptable even one's as extreme as this one.
I was not particularly defending the content of the comment, I was defending CousinJacks right to an opinion, who am I to say their opinion is wrong, I support children being removed from their parents if the child is at risk, and who knows if not attending school could possibly be linked with other problems, it is all hypothetical unless we are presented with an exact case and all the facts. In most situations a solution for all can be found, in some cases, the parent/s/ carers are prosecuted and/or fined. If a child being absent from school was part of any abuse at home then yes I would support the removal of the child from the home.
No I do not think any comment is acceptable on here, I personally think some of Helston Johns comments are unacceptable but then that is just my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it. With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston. To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.[/p][/quote]I do not think anyone would just assume the fault would lie with any parent or carer, I believe prosecution or a fine would be the last resort after all other options had been explored. I do not believe in splitting families up unless of course the child is at risk.[/p][/quote]So why then defend the comment and suggestion that school absenteeism is a valid reason to break up families. Do you believe all comment are acceptable even one's as extreme as this one.[/p][/quote]I was not particularly defending the content of the comment, I was defending CousinJacks right to an opinion, who am I to say their opinion is wrong, I support children being removed from their parents if the child is at risk, and who knows if not attending school could possibly be linked with other problems, it is all hypothetical unless we are presented with an exact case and all the facts. In most situations a solution for all can be found, in some cases, the parent/s/ carers are prosecuted and/or fined. If a child being absent from school was part of any abuse at home then yes I would support the removal of the child from the home. No I do not think any comment is acceptable on here, I personally think some of Helston Johns comments are unacceptable but then that is just my opinion. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 11

5:47pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

Cousinjacks comment is clearly in response to the article.
Sounds to me you are backtracking.
Surprised you defend a comment that states children should be removed from there family simply because of a problem with school attendence.
Cousinjacks comment is clearly in response to the article. Sounds to me you are backtracking. Surprised you defend a comment that states children should be removed from there family simply because of a problem with school attendence. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -31

5:54pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

Gill Z Martin wrote:
ronedgcumbe wrote:
Gill Z Martin wrote:
ronedgcumbe wrote:
Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it.
With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston.
To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.
I do not think anyone would just assume the fault would lie with any parent or carer, I believe prosecution or a fine would be the last resort after all other options had been explored. I do not believe in splitting families up unless of course the child is at risk.
So why then defend the comment and suggestion that school absenteeism is a valid reason to break up families.
Do you believe all comment are acceptable even one's as extreme as this one.
I was not particularly defending the content of the comment, I was defending CousinJacks right to an opinion, who am I to say their opinion is wrong, I support children being removed from their parents if the child is at risk, and who knows if not attending school could possibly be linked with other problems, it is all hypothetical unless we are presented with an exact case and all the facts. In most situations a solution for all can be found, in some cases, the parent/s/ carers are prosecuted and/or fined. If a child being absent from school was part of any abuse at home then yes I would support the removal of the child from the home.
No I do not think any comment is acceptable on here, I personally think some of Helston Johns comments are unacceptable but then that is just my opinion.
There is certainly no mention of any abuse in the article. Are you broadening the subject to justify your support for cousinjack comment
[quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it. With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston. To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.[/p][/quote]I do not think anyone would just assume the fault would lie with any parent or carer, I believe prosecution or a fine would be the last resort after all other options had been explored. I do not believe in splitting families up unless of course the child is at risk.[/p][/quote]So why then defend the comment and suggestion that school absenteeism is a valid reason to break up families. Do you believe all comment are acceptable even one's as extreme as this one.[/p][/quote]I was not particularly defending the content of the comment, I was defending CousinJacks right to an opinion, who am I to say their opinion is wrong, I support children being removed from their parents if the child is at risk, and who knows if not attending school could possibly be linked with other problems, it is all hypothetical unless we are presented with an exact case and all the facts. In most situations a solution for all can be found, in some cases, the parent/s/ carers are prosecuted and/or fined. If a child being absent from school was part of any abuse at home then yes I would support the removal of the child from the home. No I do not think any comment is acceptable on here, I personally think some of Helston Johns comments are unacceptable but then that is just my opinion.[/p][/quote]There is certainly no mention of any abuse in the article. Are you broadening the subject to justify your support for cousinjack comment ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -16

6:34pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
Cousinjacks comment is clearly in response to the article.
Sounds to me you are backtracking.
Surprised you defend a comment that states children should be removed from there family simply because of a problem with school attendence.
I am not back tracking at all, I never back track, I either stand by my opinions or else apologize when I am wrong. You clearly cannot understand my point, I defended CousinJacks right to an opinion.
My actual response was not to CousinJack so I did not take their concept on the actual article into consideration, my response was to Helston John, and the point I was making to him was that his attitude to me showed that he thought CJ should not have an opinion, I followed this through with an example of why or how a child could be removed into care.
You are categorically wrong to accuse me of back tacking. If I had agreed precisely with CJs comment I would have quoted their comment and said so. I think everyone's points are valid in as much as everyone is entitled to an opinion, I do disagree with people making personal insults though. As I previously said to Helston John in my opinion it would depend on the circumstances. I never specified any particular case.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: Cousinjacks comment is clearly in response to the article. Sounds to me you are backtracking. Surprised you defend a comment that states children should be removed from there family simply because of a problem with school attendence.[/p][/quote]I am not back tracking at all, I never back track, I either stand by my opinions or else apologize when I am wrong. You clearly cannot understand my point, I defended CousinJacks right to an opinion. My actual response was not to CousinJack so I did not take their concept on the actual article into consideration, my response was to Helston John, and the point I was making to him was that his attitude to me showed that he thought CJ should not have an opinion, I followed this through with an example of why or how a child could be removed into care. You are categorically wrong to accuse me of back tacking. If I had agreed precisely with CJs comment I would have quoted their comment and said so. I think everyone's points are valid in as much as everyone is entitled to an opinion, I do disagree with people making personal insults though. As I previously said to Helston John in my opinion it would depend on the circumstances. I never specified any particular case. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 18

6:43pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
Gill Z Martin wrote:
ronedgcumbe wrote:
Gill Z Martin wrote:
ronedgcumbe wrote:
Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it.
With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston.
To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.
I do not think anyone would just assume the fault would lie with any parent or carer, I believe prosecution or a fine would be the last resort after all other options had been explored. I do not believe in splitting families up unless of course the child is at risk.
So why then defend the comment and suggestion that school absenteeism is a valid reason to break up families.
Do you believe all comment are acceptable even one's as extreme as this one.
I was not particularly defending the content of the comment, I was defending CousinJacks right to an opinion, who am I to say their opinion is wrong, I support children being removed from their parents if the child is at risk, and who knows if not attending school could possibly be linked with other problems, it is all hypothetical unless we are presented with an exact case and all the facts. In most situations a solution for all can be found, in some cases, the parent/s/ carers are prosecuted and/or fined. If a child being absent from school was part of any abuse at home then yes I would support the removal of the child from the home.
No I do not think any comment is acceptable on here, I personally think some of Helston Johns comments are unacceptable but then that is just my opinion.
There is certainly no mention of any abuse in the article. Are you broadening the subject to justify your support for cousinjack comment
As I have said in my last post to you, I was not supporting the exact concept of the content in CousinJacks comment if their comment is specifically related to the above article, and I do not need to justify anything, my response was to HelstonJohn not CJ. If you continue to choose to misinterpret my comments for sake of argument that is of course your prerogative. I do not however ever back track nor obviously would I support the removal of a child from its family purely for school absentism, why on earth would I, I did not attend senior school at all after the first two years because of repetitive physical bullying but I would not have wished to be removed from my family and it would have been unjustified so I am hardly likely to suggest that action for any other child, as I previously said, only if the child was at risk in the home.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: Every case of absence is different and with older children it can be very difficult as stated before once they are taken to school there is nothing to stop them leaving again if they feel like it. With younger children it can be that the school has had a bad patch which has happened in Helston. To assume it is the parents fault and the solution is to break up families is obscured.[/p][/quote]I do not think anyone would just assume the fault would lie with any parent or carer, I believe prosecution or a fine would be the last resort after all other options had been explored. I do not believe in splitting families up unless of course the child is at risk.[/p][/quote]So why then defend the comment and suggestion that school absenteeism is a valid reason to break up families. Do you believe all comment are acceptable even one's as extreme as this one.[/p][/quote]I was not particularly defending the content of the comment, I was defending CousinJacks right to an opinion, who am I to say their opinion is wrong, I support children being removed from their parents if the child is at risk, and who knows if not attending school could possibly be linked with other problems, it is all hypothetical unless we are presented with an exact case and all the facts. In most situations a solution for all can be found, in some cases, the parent/s/ carers are prosecuted and/or fined. If a child being absent from school was part of any abuse at home then yes I would support the removal of the child from the home. No I do not think any comment is acceptable on here, I personally think some of Helston Johns comments are unacceptable but then that is just my opinion.[/p][/quote]There is certainly no mention of any abuse in the article. Are you broadening the subject to justify your support for cousinjack comment[/p][/quote]As I have said in my last post to you, I was not supporting the exact concept of the content in CousinJacks comment if their comment is specifically related to the above article, and I do not need to justify anything, my response was to HelstonJohn not CJ. If you continue to choose to misinterpret my comments for sake of argument that is of course your prerogative. I do not however ever back track nor obviously would I support the removal of a child from its family purely for school absentism, why on earth would I, I did not attend senior school at all after the first two years because of repetitive physical bullying but I would not have wished to be removed from my family and it would have been unjustified so I am hardly likely to suggest that action for any other child, as I previously said, only if the child was at risk in the home. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 21

6:45pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

Sorry but you clearly state that cousinjacks has a valid point that these parents should not be fined and the children should be removed from there family and put into care simply for school absenteeism.
To me an extreme response to a problem that can be coursed by a number of things.
Sorry but you clearly state that cousinjacks has a valid point that these parents should not be fined and the children should be removed from there family and put into care simply for school absenteeism. To me an extreme response to a problem that can be coursed by a number of things. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -28

6:51pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Gill Z Martin says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
Sorry but you clearly state that cousinjacks has a valid point that these parents should not be fined and the children should be removed from there family and put into care simply for school absenteeism.
To me an extreme response to a problem that can be coursed by a number of things.
I said they have a valid point, meaning they have their own choice of valid opinion.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: Sorry but you clearly state that cousinjacks has a valid point that these parents should not be fined and the children should be removed from there family and put into care simply for school absenteeism. To me an extreme response to a problem that can be coursed by a number of things.[/p][/quote]I said they have a valid point, meaning they have their own choice of valid opinion. Gill Z Martin
  • Score: 19

6:51pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

Ron what is your problem why are you getting so aggressive with Gill, if youre too daft to understands her point thats your problem. And even if I thought or cousin jack thought kids should be taken into care, what makes your opinion more right than ours. You would make a crap Cllr. You don't think outside the box you get something stuck in your head and won't budge.
Ron what is your problem why are you getting so aggressive with Gill, if youre too daft to understands her point thats your problem. And even if I thought or cousin jack thought kids should be taken into care, what makes your opinion more right than ours. You would make a crap Cllr. You don't think outside the box you get something stuck in your head and won't budge. Helston John
  • Score: 18

7:00pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

And why the hell would Gill think kids should be taken away for a non home abuse reason, if she was bullied herself and missed school, it doesn't make sense. The only person I've seen back track on here loads of times is you Ron. And what part of "it would depend on the circumstances" that she said, don't you understand, talk about stubborn. Ron did you have bad day at work and you're taking it out on here. I know Flambards have stitched their prices up and there are no family tickets now and they now charge for disabled people so why don't you take some of your aggression out there and take the issue up with someone.
And why the hell would Gill think kids should be taken away for a non home abuse reason, if she was bullied herself and missed school, it doesn't make sense. The only person I've seen back track on here loads of times is you Ron. And what part of "it would depend on the circumstances" that she said, don't you understand, talk about stubborn. Ron did you have bad day at work and you're taking it out on here. I know Flambards have stitched their prices up and there are no family tickets now and they now charge for disabled people so why don't you take some of your aggression out there and take the issue up with someone. Helston John
  • Score: 9

7:03pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
Absurd. Stupid phone again.
Youre always blaming your phone, there are no stupid phones Ron, you're the one that's stupid.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: Absurd. Stupid phone again.[/p][/quote]Youre always blaming your phone, there are no stupid phones Ron, you're the one that's stupid. Helston John
  • Score: 20

7:10pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
Sorry but you clearly state that cousinjacks has a valid point that these parents should not be fined and the children should be removed from there family and put into care simply for school absenteeism.
To me an extreme response to a problem that can be coursed by a number of things.
If she was saying the actual exact comment was valid in relation to the above article she would have been saying it to cousin jack not to me you dozy person. She's saying he has a valid point to have a general opinion she then followed it up with in her opinion it would depend on circumstances, just because other people think ahead with their brain and focus on different things at the same time and you don't understand doesn't give you the right to accuse them of back tracking and she has told you she doesn't back track, and I have seen her admit she is wrong on this website several times and apologise, so you're saying she's lying by not accepting what's shes saying , good luck with your Cllr application the only thing you'd bring to Helston I think is a full house at a council meeting for the entertainment value.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: Sorry but you clearly state that cousinjacks has a valid point that these parents should not be fined and the children should be removed from there family and put into care simply for school absenteeism. To me an extreme response to a problem that can be coursed by a number of things.[/p][/quote]If she was saying the actual exact comment was valid in relation to the above article she would have been saying it to cousin jack not to me you dozy person. She's saying he has a valid point to have a general opinion she then followed it up with in her opinion it would depend on circumstances, just because other people think ahead with their brain and focus on different things at the same time and you don't understand doesn't give you the right to accuse them of back tracking and she has told you she doesn't back track, and I have seen her admit she is wrong on this website several times and apologise, so you're saying she's lying by not accepting what's shes saying , good luck with your Cllr application the only thing you'd bring to Helston I think is a full house at a council meeting for the entertainment value. Helston John
  • Score: 13

7:15pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

Helston John wrote:
Ron what is your problem why are you getting so aggressive with Gill, if youre too daft to understands her point thats your problem. And even if I thought or cousin jack thought kids should be taken into care, what makes your opinion more right than ours. You would make a crap Cllr. You don't think outside the box you get something stuck in your head and won't budge.
I am certainly am not aggressive ever. If you say someone's point is valid it shows you have some agreement with it. If Gill wishes to stand by that comment that is her prerogative. I will disagree and respect her opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: Ron what is your problem why are you getting so aggressive with Gill, if youre too daft to understands her point thats your problem. And even if I thought or cousin jack thought kids should be taken into care, what makes your opinion more right than ours. You would make a crap Cllr. You don't think outside the box you get something stuck in your head and won't budge.[/p][/quote]I am certainly am not aggressive ever. If you say someone's point is valid it shows you have some agreement with it. If Gill wishes to stand by that comment that is her prerogative. I will disagree and respect her opinion. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -25

7:15pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

Ron if you take a look at my comment about drunk parents etc, you could say I agree with taking a child into care, so,funny you never picked on my comment and argued with me, I suppose Gill is an easy target because she won't be as nasty and agumentative as you or me.
Ron if you take a look at my comment about drunk parents etc, you could say I agree with taking a child into care, so,funny you never picked on my comment and argued with me, I suppose Gill is an easy target because she won't be as nasty and agumentative as you or me. Helston John
  • Score: 18

7:19pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
Helston John wrote:
Ron what is your problem why are you getting so aggressive with Gill, if youre too daft to understands her point thats your problem. And even if I thought or cousin jack thought kids should be taken into care, what makes your opinion more right than ours. You would make a crap Cllr. You don't think outside the box you get something stuck in your head and won't budge.
I am certainly am not aggressive ever. If you say someone's point is valid it shows you have some agreement with it. If Gill wishes to stand by that comment that is her prerogative. I will disagree and respect her opinion.
For goodness sake, she did not say CJ had a valid point to CJ she said it to me so she obviously meant they had a right to their opinion, ffs, you don't always express yourself exactly so every single person reads it the same way and you've been to school. You can't respect her opinion you plank because her opinion is NOT that any child should be taken into care for absentism.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: Ron what is your problem why are you getting so aggressive with Gill, if youre too daft to understands her point thats your problem. And even if I thought or cousin jack thought kids should be taken into care, what makes your opinion more right than ours. You would make a crap Cllr. You don't think outside the box you get something stuck in your head and won't budge.[/p][/quote]I am certainly am not aggressive ever. If you say someone's point is valid it shows you have some agreement with it. If Gill wishes to stand by that comment that is her prerogative. I will disagree and respect her opinion.[/p][/quote]For goodness sake, she did not say CJ had a valid point to CJ she said it to me so she obviously meant they had a right to their opinion, ffs, you don't always express yourself exactly so every single person reads it the same way and you've been to school. You can't respect her opinion you plank because her opinion is NOT that any child should be taken into care for absentism. Helston John
  • Score: 24

7:26pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

You Ron are blatantly calling Gill a liar because you will not accept that she would not agree with any old child being taken into care because she didn't go to school herself so she must know what it's like to be absent from school and she obviously and clearly says she wouldn't have wanted to be taken into care. Next time you express yourself on here Ron so that not everyone reads it the same way I'm going continually pick fault with you. And by the way you never did answer meerkats question and you back tracked and tried to say something else and it was pointed out to you your exact words were still in the packet archives and you've done that on several occasions so how you have the cheek to accuse Gill of back tracking amazes me.
You Ron are blatantly calling Gill a liar because you will not accept that she would not agree with any old child being taken into care because she didn't go to school herself so she must know what it's like to be absent from school and she obviously and clearly says she wouldn't have wanted to be taken into care. Next time you express yourself on here Ron so that not everyone reads it the same way I'm going continually pick fault with you. And by the way you never did answer meerkats question and you back tracked and tried to say something else and it was pointed out to you your exact words were still in the packet archives and you've done that on several occasions so how you have the cheek to accuse Gill of back tracking amazes me. Helston John
  • Score: 26

7:32pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

Helston John wrote:
Ron if you take a look at my comment about drunk parents etc, you could say I agree with taking a child into care, so,funny you never picked on my comment and argued with me, I suppose Gill is an easy target because she won't be as nasty and agumentative as you or me.
No its because I respect Gill opinion and surprised she found that comment a valued opinion.
As to your comments I always think when you insult people you have lost the argument.
[quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: Ron if you take a look at my comment about drunk parents etc, you could say I agree with taking a child into care, so,funny you never picked on my comment and argued with me, I suppose Gill is an easy target because she won't be as nasty and agumentative as you or me.[/p][/quote]No its because I respect Gill opinion and surprised she found that comment a valued opinion. As to your comments I always think when you insult people you have lost the argument. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -14

7:51pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

Gill Z Martin wrote:
ronedgcumbe wrote:
Sorry but you clearly state that cousinjacks has a valid point that these parents should not be fined and the children should be removed from there family and put into care simply for school absenteeism.
To me an extreme response to a problem that can be coursed by a number of things.
I said they have a valid point, meaning they have their own choice of valid opinion.
Ok I think we will have to disagree. Too me if you say someone has a valid point it means you think there point is correct.
[quote][p][bold]Gill Z Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: Sorry but you clearly state that cousinjacks has a valid point that these parents should not be fined and the children should be removed from there family and put into care simply for school absenteeism. To me an extreme response to a problem that can be coursed by a number of things.[/p][/quote]I said they have a valid point, meaning they have their own choice of valid opinion.[/p][/quote]Ok I think we will have to disagree. Too me if you say someone has a valid point it means you think there point is correct. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -13

7:57pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
Helston John wrote:
Ron if you take a look at my comment about drunk parents etc, you could say I agree with taking a child into care, so,funny you never picked on my comment and argued with me, I suppose Gill is an easy target because she won't be as nasty and agumentative as you or me.
No its because I respect Gill opinion and surprised she found that comment a valued opinion.
As to your comments I always think when you insult people you have lost the argument.
She didn't find it a valued opinion no where did she state that, she said everyone has a valid right to their own opinion, if you read what she posted under my comment about drunk parents etc, she makes it plain.
And I might be a bit vocal with insults but you just insult people in an indirect way like calling Gill a liar and saying shes back tracking because that's how I read your comment and like you, I am right in the way I interpret your comments, works both ways.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helston John[/bold] wrote: Ron if you take a look at my comment about drunk parents etc, you could say I agree with taking a child into care, so,funny you never picked on my comment and argued with me, I suppose Gill is an easy target because she won't be as nasty and agumentative as you or me.[/p][/quote]No its because I respect Gill opinion and surprised she found that comment a valued opinion. As to your comments I always think when you insult people you have lost the argument.[/p][/quote]She didn't find it a valued opinion no where did she state that, she said everyone has a valid right to their own opinion, if you read what she posted under my comment about drunk parents etc, she makes it plain. And I might be a bit vocal with insults but you just insult people in an indirect way like calling Gill a liar and saying shes back tracking because that's how I read your comment and like you, I am right in the way I interpret your comments, works both ways. Helston John
  • Score: 9

8:06pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

I have no argument to lose, it's Gills argument and your insulting her by calling her a liar and that's my interpretation of your posts. Theres no argument anyway, she has explained what she meant and if you choose not to believe her that's up to you but I know by all her comments on here she honest and always admits when she's wrong an apologises. You don't you didn't answer meerkats question you back tracked and just didn't comment for ages afterwards. And you said Helston should be taken back by helstonians once and when asked by three people what you meant you never supplied an answer. The only thing I don't agree with Gill on is Cllr Wallis but apart from that I agree with her and meerkats.
I have no argument to lose, it's Gills argument and your insulting her by calling her a liar and that's my interpretation of your posts. Theres no argument anyway, she has explained what she meant and if you choose not to believe her that's up to you but I know by all her comments on here she honest and always admits when she's wrong an apologises. You don't you didn't answer meerkats question you back tracked and just didn't comment for ages afterwards. And you said Helston should be taken back by helstonians once and when asked by three people what you meant you never supplied an answer. The only thing I don't agree with Gill on is Cllr Wallis but apart from that I agree with her and meerkats. Helston John
  • Score: 11

8:44pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Helston John says...

One last thing Ron I remember you accusing meerkats of back tracking once when she made a comment on the car washing business in the layby and about Tescos, just because she did not explain herself in a way that you could understand and she explained again and again what she meant and you didn't believe her and you argued with her. So I think the fault lies with you, you don't understand something and then when someone tries to re explain whatbthey meant in a way you might understand, you accuse them of back tracking and in effect call them liars. I also notice it only seems to be women you do this to and not men. Yet you criticise Cllr Wallis on here frequently but you don't have the guts to email him and say what you say on here. I criticise him but I've emailed him and told him exactly what I think. I think your a coward Ron that only picks on easy targets to argue with.
One last thing Ron I remember you accusing meerkats of back tracking once when she made a comment on the car washing business in the layby and about Tescos, just because she did not explain herself in a way that you could understand and she explained again and again what she meant and you didn't believe her and you argued with her. So I think the fault lies with you, you don't understand something and then when someone tries to re explain whatbthey meant in a way you might understand, you accuse them of back tracking and in effect call them liars. I also notice it only seems to be women you do this to and not men. Yet you criticise Cllr Wallis on here frequently but you don't have the guts to email him and say what you say on here. I criticise him but I've emailed him and told him exactly what I think. I think your a coward Ron that only picks on easy targets to argue with. Helston John
  • Score: 10

9:38pm Thu 14 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

You are brave you deserve a medal. Well done But not brave enough to say who you are.
You are brave you deserve a medal. Well done But not brave enough to say who you are. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -6

7:20am Fri 15 Aug 14

Helston John says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
You are brave you deserve a medal. Well done But not brave enough to say who you are.
Why I am brave Ron? Say what you actually mean instead of being evasive as usual? No one needs to be brave to email Cllr Wallis, and every time I emailed him I emailed under my own full name.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: You are brave you deserve a medal. Well done But not brave enough to say who you are.[/p][/quote]Why I am brave Ron? Say what you actually mean instead of being evasive as usual? No one needs to be brave to email Cllr Wallis, and every time I emailed him I emailed under my own full name. Helston John
  • Score: 5

7:27am Fri 15 Aug 14

Helston John says...

Don't suppose you will come back with an answer like usual Ron when you are asked to explain what you mean properly. And at least I'm giving you the opportunity to explain what you mean not like you just telling Gill what you thought she meant instead listening to her explanation and believing her, she must know what she meant and when she tried to explain you just call her a liar and not believe her. Well one things for sure, I'm not cowardly enough to pick on women or ever call a woman a liar or ever hit a women.
Don't suppose you will come back with an answer like usual Ron when you are asked to explain what you mean properly. And at least I'm giving you the opportunity to explain what you mean not like you just telling Gill what you thought she meant instead listening to her explanation and believing her, she must know what she meant and when she tried to explain you just call her a liar and not believe her. Well one things for sure, I'm not cowardly enough to pick on women or ever call a woman a liar or ever hit a women. Helston John
  • Score: 5

9:02am Fri 15 Aug 14

Helston fly on the wall says...

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say Gill i think ron is just looking for an excuse to pick fault with your comments.
Helston John Ron has obviously read.your comment because its been thumbed down but he wont answer you because like you he is always having digs at Cllr Wallis but unlike you hes too cowardly to say it outright and just makes snide remarks like your brave and deserve a medal because you emailed Cllr Wallis. I think if parents cant.get their children to school there must be a reason.
I understand perfectly what you are trying to say Gill i think ron is just looking for an excuse to pick fault with your comments. Helston John Ron has obviously read.your comment because its been thumbed down but he wont answer you because like you he is always having digs at Cllr Wallis but unlike you hes too cowardly to say it outright and just makes snide remarks like your brave and deserve a medal because you emailed Cllr Wallis. I think if parents cant.get their children to school there must be a reason. Helston fly on the wall
  • Score: 5

11:17am Fri 15 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

Helston fly on the wall wrote:
I understand perfectly what you are trying to say Gill i think ron is just looking for an excuse to pick fault with your comments.
Helston John Ron has obviously read.your comment because its been thumbed down but he wont answer you because like you he is always having digs at Cllr Wallis but unlike you hes too cowardly to say it outright and just makes snide remarks like your brave and deserve a medal because you emailed Cllr Wallis. I think if parents cant.get their children to school there must be a reason.
How on earth do you reply to a comment that end with a statement that the writer is not a coward that hits women.
If I had a reason to contact any local councillor or MP I would always do so and have done so many times in the past.
[quote][p][bold]Helston fly on the wall[/bold] wrote: I understand perfectly what you are trying to say Gill i think ron is just looking for an excuse to pick fault with your comments. Helston John Ron has obviously read.your comment because its been thumbed down but he wont answer you because like you he is always having digs at Cllr Wallis but unlike you hes too cowardly to say it outright and just makes snide remarks like your brave and deserve a medal because you emailed Cllr Wallis. I think if parents cant.get their children to school there must be a reason.[/p][/quote]How on earth do you reply to a comment that end with a statement that the writer is not a coward that hits women. If I had a reason to contact any local councillor or MP I would always do so and have done so many times in the past. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -9

11:39am Fri 15 Aug 14

titanium says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
You are brave you deserve a medal. Well done But not brave enough to say who you are.
From your grammar and spelling, I reckon you missed quite a bit of schooling.
In a democracy, anyone can make a comment. GZM was simply defending that point. It doesn't mean she either agrees or disagrees with the comment.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: You are brave you deserve a medal. Well done But not brave enough to say who you are.[/p][/quote]From your grammar and spelling, I reckon you missed quite a bit of schooling. In a democracy, anyone can make a comment. GZM was simply defending that point. It doesn't mean she either agrees or disagrees with the comment. titanium
  • Score: 8

11:59am Fri 15 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

From your comment I reckon you studied patronisation at university.
If I ever want someone to tell me the bleeding obvious I will know who too ask.
From your comment I reckon you studied patronisation at university. If I ever want someone to tell me the bleeding obvious I will know who too ask. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -14

12:33pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Helston John says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
Helston fly on the wall wrote:
I understand perfectly what you are trying to say Gill i think ron is just looking for an excuse to pick fault with your comments.
Helston John Ron has obviously read.your comment because its been thumbed down but he wont answer you because like you he is always having digs at Cllr Wallis but unlike you hes too cowardly to say it outright and just makes snide remarks like your brave and deserve a medal because you emailed Cllr Wallis. I think if parents cant.get their children to school there must be a reason.
How on earth do you reply to a comment that end with a statement that the writer is not a coward that hits women.
If I had a reason to contact any local councillor or MP I would always do so and have done so many times in the past.
Predictable comment from you again Ron, evade answering the question, it's quite simple to understand, why did you say I'm brave and deserve a medal just because I said I emailed Cllr Wallis?

There, is that simple enough to understand.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helston fly on the wall[/bold] wrote: I understand perfectly what you are trying to say Gill i think ron is just looking for an excuse to pick fault with your comments. Helston John Ron has obviously read.your comment because its been thumbed down but he wont answer you because like you he is always having digs at Cllr Wallis but unlike you hes too cowardly to say it outright and just makes snide remarks like your brave and deserve a medal because you emailed Cllr Wallis. I think if parents cant.get their children to school there must be a reason.[/p][/quote]How on earth do you reply to a comment that end with a statement that the writer is not a coward that hits women. If I had a reason to contact any local councillor or MP I would always do so and have done so many times in the past.[/p][/quote]Predictable comment from you again Ron, evade answering the question, it's quite simple to understand, why did you say I'm brave and deserve a medal just because I said I emailed Cllr Wallis? There, is that simple enough to understand. Helston John
  • Score: 9

12:38pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Helston John says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
From your comment I reckon you studied patronisation at university.
If I ever want someone to tell me the bleeding obvious I will know who too ask.
Don't try and make out you missed school Ron, because you've said on here in the past you blamed the education standard in Helston you never said you missed going. And you obviously do need the obvious pointed out to you because despite Gills numerous attempts to explain what she meant, you continually called her a liar by repeating yourself telling her what she meant, when she didn't mean what you were saying at all.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: From your comment I reckon you studied patronisation at university. If I ever want someone to tell me the bleeding obvious I will know who too ask.[/p][/quote]Don't try and make out you missed school Ron, because you've said on here in the past you blamed the education standard in Helston you never said you missed going. And you obviously do need the obvious pointed out to you because despite Gills numerous attempts to explain what she meant, you continually called her a liar by repeating yourself telling her what she meant, when she didn't mean what you were saying at all. Helston John
  • Score: 9

12:42pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Helston John says...

And by the way Ron, despite Gills placid approach to answering your endless repeated accusations/question
s , I found your replies aggressive, so that's how I read your comments, in fact I don't know how she remains so placid on here, if it was me I'd give out what I receive from you.
And by the way Ron, despite Gills placid approach to answering your endless repeated accusations/question s , I found your replies aggressive, so that's how I read your comments, in fact I don't know how she remains so placid on here, if it was me I'd give out what I receive from you. Helston John
  • Score: 7

12:54pm Fri 15 Aug 14

ronedgcumbe says...

He is not my councillor I am only commenting on the stories in the packet. I have no reason to contact him personally.
I don't think you are brave contacting a councillor I was sarcastic.
He is not my councillor I am only commenting on the stories in the packet. I have no reason to contact him personally. I don't think you are brave contacting a councillor I was sarcastic. ronedgcumbe
  • Score: -7

1:14pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Helston John says...

ronedgcumbe wrote:
He is not my councillor I am only commenting on the stories in the packet. I have no reason to contact him personally.
I don't think you are brave contacting a councillor I was sarcastic.
Typical cop out, you comment on the stories on here about Cllr Wallis and slate him frequently, well he might not be your Cllr but some of the things you've said in the past about the park, skateboard ramp, whatever, obviously bother you enough to comment, like when you accused him of poor representation, so my argument is if you want to slate someone on here you should be prepared to email them direct and say the same thing and raise the concerns you obviously have because you post them on here. I have and I've told Cllr Wallis what I think. Just face it Ron, youre happy to slate people on here but wouldn't say it to their face/ie by email.
Well see you for breakfast Ron on the opening day of Wetherspoons then you can tell me face to face what you think.
[quote][p][bold]ronedgcumbe[/bold] wrote: He is not my councillor I am only commenting on the stories in the packet. I have no reason to contact him personally. I don't think you are brave contacting a councillor I was sarcastic.[/p][/quote]Typical cop out, you comment on the stories on here about Cllr Wallis and slate him frequently, well he might not be your Cllr but some of the things you've said in the past about the park, skateboard ramp, whatever, obviously bother you enough to comment, like when you accused him of poor representation, so my argument is if you want to slate someone on here you should be prepared to email them direct and say the same thing and raise the concerns you obviously have because you post them on here. I have and I've told Cllr Wallis what I think. Just face it Ron, youre happy to slate people on here but wouldn't say it to their face/ie by email. Well see you for breakfast Ron on the opening day of Wetherspoons then you can tell me face to face what you think. Helston John
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree