Yes, no, yes, no.

When a punishment is duly completed, it can still carry a reputation and that reputation may or may not cause problems for certain work roles in the future.

An example of that is the care industry. If someone has had a previous conviction for abuse of the elderly, regardless of that conviction being spent, they are not likely to get a job anywhere in the care sector again.

This particular woman deeply regrets what she did. She's paid for her crime and she's probably a very safe candidate to take on but she's got a reputation and that reputation is corruption within politics. That reputation will inevitably raise suspicion in future elections, regardless of how honest or not she is.

The right-wing media aren't going to let this go and her name will be used again and again to blacken the reputation of the Labour party.

Re-employing this woman doesn't sit well with me because of all the siht that comes with it. I want the Labour party to go from strength to strength but things like this don't help.

It's the way the left wing media works. It's all a great big pantomime.

It certainly exposes his arrogance to me. With all the adoration by some it seems he thinks he is untouchable.

Many of his young fans will ignore it and he knows it. But it’s a gamble as there will also be many that won’t and the opposition and the media will have a field day at election time. But when some people describe you as a ‘God’ you are flying high... in more ways than one.

The god like status chimes as the ravings of a fevered mind brillo, he gave someone a second chance following a misdemeanor 11yrs ago... that's it.

I would re-direct that at those that idolise him that way ... hmm.

You know and we know if it had been May that appointed an election fraudster in the cabinet you would be chomping at the bit.

People warrant 2nd chances, this individual was not as part of her punishment, barred from being employed in politics.

Comparing this to care abuse or where physical injury or physical harm has been done to another is not in my view appropriate.

She got community service 11 years ago, now it is down to others in a position to,to either employ her or not.
Whether that is good judgement is another matter.
It's also for time to tell.

Fine if some people will never give anyone another chance for one misdemeanour, that's up to them.
Not everyone has to follow such an extreme line thankfully.

Otherwise re offending could be more bigger an issue.


Even an MP, convicted and even sent to prison for under a year, can then still,if they wish,stand for re election to Parliament.

Yep,the place would be in an uproar about how 'useless she is' .:hehe:

Actually that's not true.

Anyone giving someone a 2nd chance for one wrong done especially over a decade ago,would get credit from me,whether I liked them or not.

When David Cameron was in bother re Coulson.
I was one who on here stuck up for him standing by a friend.

I said at the start this wasn't Corbyn's wisest move,it's not however a necessarily wrong one.
However alli you possibly want rather than a real serious debate,is a run of Corbyn bashers agreeing with you.

I do my best to avoid your threads, I should have held that counsel of mine and not waste my time thinking there could result any fair or balanced discussion here on this one again.

Who idolises him? ...

Once again you appear to be fixated on my reactions in this thread, so much so I have the sneaking suspicion that the entire premise for your constant Corbyn related threads is to perpetuate your low level trolling and baiting across SD of late.
You have no interest in the subject at hand other than to seize on the reactions of myself and other members.

For the record no mater what Corbyn does or does not do May will continue to be useless as well as ineffective as PM.

Yes well thanks for that intelligent response Livia!

Abuse of care could be anything. It could be forging a postal vote for someone they support. Most abuse within care isn't physical, its devious and so my example is appropriate.

This is where a thread starts to go downhill.
Joey and DM give balanced and respectful views on a perfectly legitimate thread.
Why can't you? Another case of pushing buttons to derail a thread you don't like.

Sorry but no way would I agree this greed/paper crime and conviction has any credible comparison to any physical crime.
This person wasn't actually caring or even employed in direct care for anyone either.

There is nothing new in any of this really, lessons just never seem to be learned. Who remembers all the fun with Jeffrey Archer, then there was the cash for questions chap, Peter Mandelson, the list is endless. Each one of those came back and held prominent positions after misdemeanors, and guess what, when given another chance, they each messed up again.

Politics is corrupt to the core at all levels. To stamp it out, we would need to get shot of them all.

I agree.

No surprise you resort to the old and tired baiting and trolling allegations. Your no 1 weapon of annoyance. I reply to your threads for several different reasons, in this case because you are being evasive. Everyone on here knows by now how into the guy you are - he can do no wrong in your eyes. You see him through rose-tinted glasses.

That makes your views on him dubious in my opinion.

This is your thread not mine, I am a Labour supporter and he is the Labour leader.
I see now that your constant Corbyn related threads are nothing but a rouse to goad me into commenting so you can personally attack me for my political views.

My point is, abuse of power, to do something deceitful to any person, vulnerable or not, is wrong and rightfully punishable. When that deceitfulness is done within a particular work role, a similar work role at a future date should, imo, not be an option, especially if employing that person could inflict a bad reputation on that company.

Its got nothing to do with compassion or pity and all to do with 'damage limitation'; something most employers take very seriously.

So we're back to the expenses scandal? That was an abuse of public office for monetary gain or fraud as it's more commonly known, that was quite swiftly swept under the carpet for most.

Well, I wasn't specifically talking about that but seeing you brought it up, yes, the same applies or should of.

Point being it isn't... Because this is a more targeted attack on Corbyn specifically.

Its the only 2 ive heard about,:conf::shrug:i will say when i hear abiut theressa doing the same as i dont follow any party as they are all the bloody same.

But an accountant convicted of fraud and false accounting...would you use the same forgiving stance and give a convicted pedo a job in the local education comittee?

What is this, bizarre hypothetical day? LOL

It was specifically structured to go downhill... Do you think the OP had a balanced debate in mind when creating it? No of course not. I am wise to these now and will be avoiding them in the future.
I thought all the anti Corbyn threads started by the OP had been lumped into one super Corbyn bashing thread anyway? this one must have missed the memo.