puchooay

Indeed that is false. I have never said that either. I am not evading the issue either. I am trying to explain and see it from both sides. As the parole board will, or at least should do.

And have you watched the documentary and read up on the lawyers brief? It seems the life sentence was a bit of a farce. Who else has ever been given a life sentence with minimum 3 years? I can't find reference to any. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what he has done or what has been done to him. It's an interesting case. If he were jailed for the first time today, he would have been treated very differently. He would not be institutionalised but rather treated for his condition. Psychiatrists have reported that the 23 hour lock up he has been under has worsened his state of mind. What is interesting is the use of the word "asylum" when referring to Broadmoor and Rampton. The latter having been the subject of many reports of staff cruelty, drugging patients and locking them up for days on end.

That's better. You used the word "some" snd singled out a particular group instead of assuming all were the same. Why not go the whole hog and explain to us that not all degreed teachers are good teachers???

You clearly didn't read the whole thread and the references to legalities and the lawyers brief so, please do.

Once again, someone putting words in my mouth. One of the most qualified and experienced psychiatrists has said he is showing good signs of being able to be released. Having had no reports of violent behavior for over 5 years, being 70 years old snd having been down graded to medium risk for the first time ever.

I don't recall saying it wasn't. However, the sentence appears to be on the high side. Even the teacher himself suggested time served is already sufficient

Why? The teacher, not prison officer, is retired. Surely he would rather Bronson stay locked up.

No. It was discretionary, to serve 3 years. At the time the sentence for hostage taking was 1 to 12 years. That is the arguement from his lawyers.

The general concensus amongst lawmakers is that he has served his time and more. The reason for the parole hearing is to decide if he is a risk to the public.

It was interesting. Particularly those suggesting it is time to give him a chance.

If you add all of his sentences together, he has still been in prison 18 years longer than his sentences. I actually watched a documentary about him yesterday based on his up coming parole hearing. Many of the experts suggest he is ready to leave prison. Even the prison officer whom he held hostage for 44 hours says it's time. I think, with procedures and restrictions in place, it could be time to let him go. It has to be remembered he has never killed anyone, never attacked or hurt a woman and never abused children. There have been prisoners released recently who have done a lot worse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-64786436 This is interesting. The man has served 18 years more than the sentence he is serving. Can they keep him imprisoned just because of what a few parole officers think of him?

I agree. Hence my question.

It is a complex situation. Really, the only solution is to go and speak to the local Ministry of Education office.

Oh dear. Once again you are twisting what I said. I've been asking questions. Not condemning or condoning. When you get that straight in your head, I'll listen to what you have to say.

You are confusing transgender with transvestite or cross dressing. They're fundamental different.

No. As usual you are twisting what I said to meet your own agenda. I have asked why certain groups of the community feel the need to speak out. Why not just get on with life? Also, I have not condoned the speech that is the subject of this thread.

I didn't say I disagree. I said I don't see why they feel the need to. If they feel different and are happy with how they feel, why do they need to tell others about it.

UK is not far behind.

You'll have to elaborate. I think I've explained myself sufficiently.

Not at all. I was referring to the World. Not USA. Also, I was referring to the individuals who insist on speaking out about how they are different, not the politicians. If you read my post you will see my reasoning. Nothing to do with politics.

I agree. I don't go round shouting from the roof tops " I'm straight. I like women. Im happy to be a man". Why do those who feel differently have to tell everyone? Indeed. If people didn't shout about their sexuality, no one would get involved.

Without knowing how the course was set up. What contact and interaction I had with teachers and other students, what mentoring I received and how the course was completed, you wouldn't know. Besides, as I have already pointed out. At time of graduation I had already been teaching for 14 years and my skills were warmly appreciated by all concerned. The degree was to remain on the right side of the requirements.

A gross generalisation. Firstly, I've never known any teacher feel the need to introduce themselves to class with an in depth history regarding their education. Secondly, my father was and still is a great role model. He left school at 16. Thirdly, I challenge anyone, when faced with 5 teachers with degrees and five without, in a demonstration class, to successfully put them into the correct group. Lastly, but not least, I started teaching in Thailand in 1998. I did not have a degree. I studied online when the rules of needing a degree for work permits were more rigorously enforced. I graduated in 2012. Did the degree make me a better teacher? No. Did the 14 years of experience I had make me a better teacher? Yes, immensely. Did I become a better role model to the students? No, as they had no knowledge of my recent graduation or the fact I had been teaching previously without a degree. Students, colleagues and parents were equally happy with me both pre and post graduation.

The Falklands belong to neither UK nor Argentina. They belong to the Falkland Islanders. Any future regarding sovereignty is their decision. No one else's.