Community Chat

[vsm]

@suzyQ3   He may be "dutifully employed," but that doesn't mean he's no longer a security risk.  I can't imagine any parents -- let alone parents of children who present heightened safety concerns -- would be comfortable learning that a felon convicted of a violent crime had come within feet of their kids.  What happened here also raises questions about the quality of palace security generally.

[suzyQ3]

---

@vsm wrote:

@suzyQ3   He may be "dutifully employed," but that doesn't mean he's no longer a security risk.  I can't imagine any parents -- let alone parents of children who present heightened safety concerns -- would be comfortable learning that a felon convicted of a violent crime had come within feet of their kids.  What happened here also raises questions about the quality of palace security generally.

---

@vsm, he would likely have a hard time getting a job that involved any type of a job in security or policing, but he was simply delivering something and in so doing happen to be in proximity to a child.

It's a ginned up story worthy of trashy news outlets.

[NicksmomESQ]

  I think it’s terrible that this man got near any child not just the royal children. All of society deserves equal protection. This man should not be in a job that allows him to mingle with the public so freely.

[sidsmom]

The Sun....love how they ramp up the ‘color’ of the story.

’Worried Prince William’, ’boasted to pals’, ‘touching distance’.

Classic Sun

I find it really, really hard to believe this story is true.

I know there are pictures & names...but I find it really hard to believe 

out of the massive size of Kensington Palace (operative word PALACE),

all this happened w/ the nanny, the kids & the big evil man

within ‘touching distance.’

Even if it is, they make it sound like this dude is like a hungry dog,

salivating over the little kids, ready to commit another crime.

Here in the states, using a rag-story like this might be a case of Libel

besmirching his name, after he made amends to society by

serving the time & currently holding down a job. 

[vsm]

@suzyQ3 

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@vsm wrote:

@suzyQ3   He may be "dutifully employed," but that doesn't mean he's no longer a security risk.  I can't imagine any parents -- let alone parents of children who present heightened safety concerns -- would be comfortable learning that a felon convicted of a violent crime had come within feet of their kids.  What happened here also raises questions about the quality of palace security generally.

---

@vsm, he would likely have a hard time getting a job that involved any type of a job in security or policing, but he was simply delivering something and in so doing happen to be in proximity to a child.

It's a ginned up story worthy of trashy news outlets.

---

The outlet may be "trashy," but that doesn't make the reports untrue or less troubling.

[suzyQ3]

---

@vsm wrote:

@suzyQ3 

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@vsm wrote:

@suzyQ3   He may be "dutifully employed," but that doesn't mean he's no longer a security risk.  I can't imagine any parents -- let alone parents of children who present heightened safety concerns -- would be comfortable learning that a felon convicted of a violent crime had come within feet of their kids.  What happened here also raises questions about the quality of palace security generally.

---

@vsm, he would likely have a hard time getting a job that involved any type of a job in security or policing, but he was simply delivering something and in so doing happen to be in proximity to a child.

It's a ginned up story worthy of trashy news outlets.

---

The outlet may be "trashy," but that doesn't make the reports untrue or less troubling.

---

@vsm, it's troubling because of the the type of journalism it employs. It is designed to rile people up. A convicted felon who served his time did his job without any incident whatsoever. Yet the article sounds as if the the child was in danger.

This is the epitome of yellow journalism.

[suzyQ3]

---

@NicksmomESQ wrote:

  I think it’s terrible that this man got near any child not just the royal children. All of society deserves equal protection. This man should not be in a job that allows him to mingle with the public so freely.

---

@NicksmomESQ, that would be blatantly unconstitutional. 

[sidsmom]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@NicksmomESQ wrote:

  I think it’s terrible that this man got near any child not just the royal children. All of society deserves equal protection. This man should not be in a job that allows him to mingle with the public so freely.

---

@NicksmomESQ, that would be blatantly unconstitutional. 

---

ITA

And I don’t get the ‘child’ angle everyone seems to be focused on.

Yes, a crime is a crime is a crime but the guy in question 

doesn’t have a pedophile/kidnapper MO. 

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@NicksmomESQ wrote:

  I think it’s terrible that this man got near any child not just the royal children. All of society deserves equal protection. This man should not be in a job that allows him to mingle with the public so freely.

---

@NicksmomESQ, that would be blatantly unconstitutional. 

---

@suzyQ3 

Oh, that old thing?  Who cares about that anymore?

[NicksmomESQ]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@NicksmomESQ wrote:

  I think it’s terrible that this man got near any child not just the royal children. All of society deserves equal protection. This man should not be in a job that allows him to mingle with the public so freely.

---

@NicksmomESQ, that would be blatantly unconstitutional. 

---

  @suzyQ3   Lol!! Then you work with him.I don’t want him anywhere near me or my loved ones.