'Disgrace' PCSO jailed for abusing his position to prey on vulnerable women

A Camborne and Redruth PCSO has been sentenced to seven years in jail after abusing his position to prey on vulnerable women.

Peter Bunyan, 40, of Carharrack, near Camborne, called a 'a disgrace to the police service' had turned his radio down when having sex with women.

He was also accused of using the computerised criminal intelligence system like a "dating agency", looking up sensitive information on women 

Bunyan had denied all the charges, however he admitted having sex with four women, but claimed it was while he was off duty.

The officer was charged with 12 counts of misconduct in public office for engaging in sexual relationships with five women; sending sexualised text messages to one woman; accessing the police records of six women and two men; accessing computer records and passing it onto two other individuals; and obtaining a loan of money.

Bunyan was found guilty of eight counts of misconduct in public office.

A spokesman for Devon & Cornwall Police said the public have a right to expect "exemplary behaviour from all members of the Police service who are there to protect them.

Adding that the sentence shows the "very serious nature of the charges that the accused faced and the force will always investigate any allegations of this nature thoroughly".

A disciplinary hearing will be held to decide his future this morning, Wednesday, March 20. Bunyan has been suspended from the force since 2011. He had served as a PCSO since 2003.

The case was heard at Taunton Crown Court.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) have launched an investigation into how he was able to commit his offences.

The IPCC is managing an investigation by the professional standards department after a referral was made by Devon and Cornwall Constabulary on March 22, 2011.

IPCC Commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said: "This man completely abused the position of trust he was in and is a disgrace to the police service. These were criminal actions and he has rightly been found guilty.

"The IPCC has expressed concern at the number of cases across England and Wales where officers have targeted vulnerable women for sex and I hope that this sends a message that corrupt officers will be found out and severely punished.

"We will be receiving a full report from Devon and Cornwall Constabulary and will detail the investigation findings and any learning in due course."


Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:23pm Tue 19 Mar 13

Wave says...

I don't think the public have the right to expect anything other than human behaviour from humans.
But we do have laws to control it.
I don't think the public have the right to expect anything other than human behaviour from humans. But we do have laws to control it. Wave
  • Score: 0

8:53am Wed 20 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

I wouldn't consider that generally normal human behaviour, most men would not abuse women nor would most police officers or community support offices abuse their positions of trust. Yes it is a good thing we have laws to deal with the minority of people that behave that way. I personally do think the public have the right to expect that the kind of behaviour mentioned in this article does not occur.
I wouldn't consider that generally normal human behaviour, most men would not abuse women nor would most police officers or community support offices abuse their positions of trust. Yes it is a good thing we have laws to deal with the minority of people that behave that way. I personally do think the public have the right to expect that the kind of behaviour mentioned in this article does not occur. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

10:49am Wed 20 Mar 13

Wave says...

The reason we don't see it much is because of the risk of getting caught. And social fear.

A policeman is the same human as any other human.
People need to be judged equally and not characterised by their job.

We already have laws in place to punish the police, so that proves we expect them to abuse their position.
It's entirely natural and predictable.
Even mathematical I would say.
The reason we don't see it much is because of the risk of getting caught. And social fear. A policeman is the same human as any other human. People need to be judged equally and not characterised by their job. We already have laws in place to punish the police, so that proves we expect them to abuse their position. It's entirely natural and predictable. Even mathematical I would say. Wave
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

We do not have laws in place for the police because we expect them to abuse their position, we have laws in place because we live in what is considered a civilised society whereby laws are part of that society including those of all work environments not just the police service. I suggest the reason we do not see tgat type of behaviour much, is not because of the fear of being caught but rather because the majority of police officers are honest and not depraved.
We do not have laws in place for the police because we expect them to abuse their position, we have laws in place because we live in what is considered a civilised society whereby laws are part of that society including those of all work environments not just the police service. I suggest the reason we do not see tgat type of behaviour much, is not because of the fear of being caught but rather because the majority of police officers are honest and not depraved. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

Should read 'that' not tgat as in my last post.

Incidentally regarding treating people equally and not categorising them by their job is debatable, whilst most things should apply equally if one has a job within the public servants category then I believe those people should be more accountable and their wages reflect that position, otherwise if there was complete equal treatment why does not everyone earn the same wages.
Should read 'that' not tgat as in my last post. Incidentally regarding treating people equally and not categorising them by their job is debatable, whilst most things should apply equally if one has a job within the public servants category then I believe those people should be more accountable and their wages reflect that position, otherwise if there was complete equal treatment why does not everyone earn the same wages. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Wave says...

Everyone is 'depraved', that is normal human behaviour. Which is why we have laws for all of us.
Everyone is 'depraved', that is normal human behaviour. Which is why we have laws for all of us. Wave
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

No everyone is not depraved, everyone may have the human capabilities of being depraved but it does not necessarily make them use those capabilities, my understanding of the word depraved is 'morally bad' I am categorically not morally bad.
No everyone is not depraved, everyone may have the human capabilities of being depraved but it does not necessarily make them use those capabilities, my understanding of the word depraved is 'morally bad' I am categorically not morally bad. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Wave says...

There is no such thing in reality as morals, or right or wrong, they have no scientific value.
To say whether someone is morally good or bad is just a subjective, personal or group opinion, based from faith or cultural customs.

As an individual I try to distance myself from 'made up' convictions.

If you judge yourself as morally good, I can equally judge you as morally bad. It's a futile disagreement.

Morals are a set of principles, principles are derived from belief.

Whether the whole country agree with you and just one person disagrees is irrelevant. Morality is not a democracy.

Though I said we are all depraved, I would not choose to use that word myself, as it has no real meaning anyway. It's not useful. As it presumes too much.

We are all animals that obey instincts and interests of survival.
There is no such thing in reality as morals, or right or wrong, they have no scientific value. To say whether someone is morally good or bad is just a subjective, personal or group opinion, based from faith or cultural customs. As an individual I try to distance myself from 'made up' convictions. If you judge yourself as morally good, I can equally judge you as morally bad. It's a futile disagreement. Morals are a set of principles, principles are derived from belief. Whether the whole country agree with you and just one person disagrees is irrelevant. Morality is not a democracy. Though I said we are all depraved, I would not choose to use that word myself, as it has no real meaning anyway. It's not useful. As it presumes too much. We are all animals that obey instincts and interests of survival. Wave
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

Of course there are such things classed as right and wrong in society, it is wrong to assault someone unprovoked, if it wasn't wrong some people wouldn't be prosecuted for it.

I fail to see how could judge me as morally bad, you do not know me and have no idea about how I behave in any given situation.

No we are not all animals that obey instincts and interests of survival because otherwise there would not be those that commit suicide.
Of course there are such things classed as right and wrong in society, it is wrong to assault someone unprovoked, if it wasn't wrong some people wouldn't be prosecuted for it. I fail to see how could judge me as morally bad, you do not know me and have no idea about how I behave in any given situation. No we are not all animals that obey instincts and interests of survival because otherwise there would not be those that commit suicide. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

3:51pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Jo Kernow says...

What planet are you on wave, you seem to me to try to add scientific clap trap to many stories. The PCSO in the above story was WRONG yes WRONG and yes it was MORALLY wrong of him what he did. You carry on with your head in your scientific cloud but i dont think you have a clue about the real world. Before you accuse me of insulting you, remember you accused 'people' of insulting you in the past and it turned out it was only one person and they posted under the same name so it was scientifically obvious to everyone else except you that it was only one person, and yet you called PEOPLE ruffians. Work all that out with your scientific figures. Even the police spokesperson in the above story says we have the right to expect exemplary behaviour from people in the police service who are there to protect us.
I dont know who Gill is but i know she has posted on this site in the past and mentioned she has been assulted in the past so i would think she has more idea about what is morally right than you do. Where were your morals when you posted that comment about keep the noise down at the Porthleven food festival or the Israelis will kill you, oh of course you dont think morals exist in your scientific world.
What planet are you on wave, you seem to me to try to add scientific clap trap to many stories. The PCSO in the above story was WRONG yes WRONG and yes it was MORALLY wrong of him what he did. You carry on with your head in your scientific cloud but i dont think you have a clue about the real world. Before you accuse me of insulting you, remember you accused 'people' of insulting you in the past and it turned out it was only one person and they posted under the same name so it was scientifically obvious to everyone else except you that it was only one person, and yet you called PEOPLE ruffians. Work all that out with your scientific figures. Even the police spokesperson in the above story says we have the right to expect exemplary behaviour from people in the police service who are there to protect us. I dont know who Gill is but i know she has posted on this site in the past and mentioned she has been assulted in the past so i would think she has more idea about what is morally right than you do. Where were your morals when you posted that comment about keep the noise down at the Porthleven food festival or the Israelis will kill you, oh of course you dont think morals exist in your scientific world. Jo Kernow
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Lord Barrington Forbes-Smythe says...

Sorry Wave but it's just wrong as Gill and Jo clearly explain above, as if it should need explaining.
Never mind the pseudo-scientific rationalisation; if I was in that position and the thought to take advantage flashed through my mind, it would be quickly followed by the thought 'but it's wrong', and I would not do it.
I believe the majority of people have similar standards and refute your argument that it's only laws and fear that stop us.
Sorry Wave but it's just wrong as Gill and Jo clearly explain above, as if it should need explaining. Never mind the pseudo-scientific rationalisation; if I was in that position and the thought to take advantage flashed through my mind, it would be quickly followed by the thought 'but it's wrong', and I would not do it. I believe the majority of people have similar standards and refute your argument that it's only laws and fear that stop us. Lord Barrington Forbes-Smythe
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Wed 20 Mar 13

meerkats says...

The PCSO was wrong .simple and i would think the majority of readers and commenters would agree..
The PCSO was wrong .simple and i would think the majority of readers and commenters would agree.. meerkats
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

I must admit I thought that was a strange comment posted on the Porthleven food festival article and should it not be Israelites anyway for plural of Israeli.
I must admit I thought that was a strange comment posted on the Porthleven food festival article and should it not be Israelites anyway for plural of Israeli. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Wave says...

It's not only laws and fears that stop us, I just said the laws exist because it is so normal and expected for these potential 'wrongs' to happen (if the laws were not there at all).
We all have our internal moral code, but they are highly variable, and none of them are 'right' they just exist in our heads as an imagined state. We are also not completely born with our morals, we are manipulated as children by schools and parents into giving us a moral code.
For example there is nothing wrong about killing someone randomly or for a reason, yet it feels very wrong to us to even consider it. This is due to the influence of society. And that influence works to a degree.
But sometime in the future the general moral 'right' maybe to kill any human on sight (unless to mate), as we could live in a more independent and individual existence. Being 'nice' to people is only a fashion of the times for the human race. It is governed by nature, even our intelligence is a slave to it.

Jo kernow, you are not worth debating with if you want to character assassinate.

Gill suicide is easy to explain. it's a perfectly normal animal instinct.
Suicide is self termination. Self termination is even genetically built into many living things after their useful life spreading purpose has ended.
if a person can see no hope for themselves they it's perfectly logical to kill ones self. That's based on their own self assessment. Which of course maybe incorrect. But at the time of suicide the reasoning fits in with nature. It provides the remaining humans with more resources and less of a burden from a person that is problematic and therefore suicidal, perhaps in historical times, that person would have been killed by the tribe long before they became suicidal.
Suicide can also occur quickly from a sudden grief perhaps from a tragic loss of family or partner. This is also understandable in nature as emotional pain might make them no longer suitable to raise another family successfully
Additionally suicide can just be a by-product of our highly evolved intelligence, something that is not helpful to us, but is an acceptable (in nature) result of our speedy evolution of the brain.

.


.
It's not only laws and fears that stop us, I just said the laws exist because it is so normal and expected for these potential 'wrongs' to happen (if the laws were not there at all). We all have our internal moral code, but they are highly variable, and none of them are 'right' they just exist in our heads as an imagined state. We are also not completely born with our morals, we are manipulated as children by schools and parents into giving us a moral code. For example there is nothing wrong about killing someone randomly or for a reason, yet it feels very wrong to us to even consider it. This is due to the influence of society. And that influence works to a degree. But sometime in the future the general moral 'right' maybe to kill any human on sight (unless to mate), as we could live in a more independent and individual existence. Being 'nice' to people is only a fashion of the times for the human race. It is governed by nature, even our intelligence is a slave to it. Jo kernow, you are not worth debating with if you want to character assassinate. Gill suicide is easy to explain. it's a perfectly normal animal instinct. Suicide is self termination. Self termination is even genetically built into many living things after their useful life spreading purpose has ended. if a person can see no hope for themselves they it's perfectly logical to kill ones self. That's based on their own self assessment. Which of course maybe incorrect. But at the time of suicide the reasoning fits in with nature. It provides the remaining humans with more resources and less of a burden from a person that is problematic and therefore suicidal, perhaps in historical times, that person would have been killed by the tribe long before they became suicidal. Suicide can also occur quickly from a sudden grief perhaps from a tragic loss of family or partner. This is also understandable in nature as emotional pain might make them no longer suitable to raise another family successfully Additionally suicide can just be a by-product of our highly evolved intelligence, something that is not helpful to us, but is an acceptable (in nature) result of our speedy evolution of the brain. . . Wave
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Lord Barrington Forbes-Smythe says...

Wave, your stripped-down scientific approach includes certain valid points from a purely scientific perspective, but we do indeed happen to live in a society and most of us want to live without suffering violence and abuse so we choose the 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' approach. Call it morals if you like.
This copper was not playing the game.
Wave, your stripped-down scientific approach includes certain valid points from a purely scientific perspective, but we do indeed happen to live in a society and most of us want to live without suffering violence and abuse so we choose the 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' approach. Call it morals if you like. This copper was not playing the game. Lord Barrington Forbes-Smythe
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

Wave you state there is nothing wrong about killing anyone randomly or for a reason, yet it feels wrong even to consider it due to the influence of society etc etc. - Yes there is something dramatically wrong about killing someone randomly in a civilised society. It is not thought wrong because of the influence of society it is thought wrong by many including myself due to our own personal opinions and decisions. You appear to try to explain everyone's opinions away with what you believe is scientifically right, well I am afraid whilst we are all entitled to our own opinions and outlooks on life, I don't live in a scientifically explained away environment I live in normal civilised society where generally speaking most people I know do not accept that violence/abuse/assau
lts are acceptable. Count me out of this debate now, as I personally find some of your comments disturbing.
Wave you state there is nothing wrong about killing anyone randomly or for a reason, yet it feels wrong even to consider it due to the influence of society etc etc. - Yes there is something dramatically wrong about killing someone randomly in a civilised society. It is not thought wrong because of the influence of society it is thought wrong by many including myself due to our own personal opinions and decisions. You appear to try to explain everyone's opinions away with what you believe is scientifically right, well I am afraid whilst we are all entitled to our own opinions and outlooks on life, I don't live in a scientifically explained away environment I live in normal civilised society where generally speaking most people I know do not accept that violence/abuse/assau lts are acceptable. Count me out of this debate now, as I personally find some of your comments disturbing. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Wave says...

Yes I count you out.
Yes I count you out. Wave
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Wed 20 Mar 13

meerkats says...

Wave wrote:
Yes I count you out.
We all have our own opinions on rights and wrongs and i agree with Gill that in general most people do not accept violence/ assaults or abuse of any kind. Whats more they should not have to.
[quote][p][bold]Wave[/bold] wrote: Yes I count you out.[/p][/quote]We all have our own opinions on rights and wrongs and i agree with Gill that in general most people do not accept violence/ assaults or abuse of any kind. Whats more they should not have to. meerkats
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Wed 20 Mar 13

Wave says...

I agree with that too.
I agree with that too. Wave
  • Score: 0

6:45am Thu 21 Mar 13

molesworth says...

Wave, you seem to be saying the only reason people (you?) don't commit crime is they might get caught. Granted, there are no such things as natural morals, and it's true that when the power gets cut in large congested cities or rioting ensues you might see little old ladies stealing tellies but this is not the norm. Thankfully the majority of mature reasonable people don't behave in this way.
Actually, it's a very interesting subject what a society considers right or wrong but you should try to resist making generalisations. This policeman is not representative of most people. Most people have a conscience regardless of what's legal or what they're allowed to do by whatever society they happen to be in.
Finally, behaviour can be driven by the fight to survive, which is something else altogether and several books have been written on the subject. This policeman was not trying to survive either. He was taking advantage because he could. Selfish and wrong by most people's moral code from any society.
Wave, you seem to be saying the only reason people (you?) don't commit crime is they might get caught. Granted, there are no such things as natural morals, and it's true that when the power gets cut in large congested cities or rioting ensues you might see little old ladies stealing tellies but this is not the norm. Thankfully the majority of mature reasonable people don't behave in this way. Actually, it's a very interesting subject what a society considers right or wrong but you should try to resist making generalisations. This policeman is not representative of most people. Most people have a conscience regardless of what's legal or what they're allowed to do by whatever society they happen to be in. Finally, behaviour can be driven by the fight to survive, which is something else altogether and several books have been written on the subject. This policeman was not trying to survive either. He was taking advantage because he could. Selfish and wrong by most people's moral code from any society. molesworth
  • Score: 0

9:06am Thu 21 Mar 13

ucsweb says...

Wave, you contradict yourself. Humans are naturally social animals, and to be social animals need to compromise and cooperate.
It is not possible to have a society based on everyone doing whatever pops into their head. Rules and guidelines are setup by society to give a framework of expected behaviour for the greater good. Penalties exist for the few who cannot or will not live within that framework.
If there is no moral right or wrong then how is it natural for people who have all they need to survive to steal anything?
Very few animals take or consume more than they need to survive.
Wave, you contradict yourself. Humans are naturally social animals, and to be social animals need to compromise and cooperate. It is not possible to have a society based on everyone doing whatever pops into their head. Rules and guidelines are setup by society to give a framework of expected behaviour for the greater good. Penalties exist for the few who cannot or will not live within that framework. If there is no moral right or wrong then how is it natural for people who have all they need to survive to steal anything? Very few animals take or consume more than they need to survive. ucsweb
  • Score: 0

9:56am Thu 21 Mar 13

ForCryingOut Loud says...

Why do so many people refer to PCSO's as police officers? THEY ARE NOT. They are dressed like them to make the public think they are a police officer but they are a community support officer, not a regular, sworn officer with all their associated powers. Why is it so hard for people to take this on board?
Why do so many people refer to PCSO's as police officers? THEY ARE NOT. They are dressed like them to make the public think they are a police officer but they are a community support officer, not a regular, sworn officer with all their associated powers. Why is it so hard for people to take this on board? ForCryingOut Loud
  • Score: 0

10:09am Thu 21 Mar 13

Lord Barrington Forbes-Smythe says...

I don't care which they are; I just want them to be honest and have decent standards either way.
I don't care which they are; I just want them to be honest and have decent standards either way. Lord Barrington Forbes-Smythe
  • Score: 0

10:56am Thu 21 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

ForCryingOut Loud wrote:
Why do so many people refer to PCSO's as police officers? THEY ARE NOT. They are dressed like them to make the public think they are a police officer but they are a community support officer, not a regular, sworn officer with all their associated powers. Why is it so hard for people to take this on board?
Not quite sure who you are referring to but as far as I am concerned my only mention of police officers or the police service was purely within the associated realms of the debate, not in reference to the offending PCSO. I am quite well aware of the difference between a PCSO and a sworn police officer and the difference in their powers. I also disagree that they are dressed like police officers, there are clear differences between their uniforms. When you say "why it so hard for 'people' to take this on board" you are in my opinion generalising.
[quote][p][bold]ForCryingOut Loud[/bold] wrote: Why do so many people refer to PCSO's as police officers? THEY ARE NOT. They are dressed like them to make the public think they are a police officer but they are a community support officer, not a regular, sworn officer with all their associated powers. Why is it so hard for people to take this on board?[/p][/quote]Not quite sure who you are referring to but as far as I am concerned my only mention of police officers or the police service was purely within the associated realms of the debate, not in reference to the offending PCSO. I am quite well aware of the difference between a PCSO and a sworn police officer and the difference in their powers. I also disagree that they are dressed like police officers, there are clear differences between their uniforms. When you say "why it so hard for 'people' to take this on board" you are in my opinion generalising. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Wave says...

Why do I have to do all the thinking to explain things it's very tiring!
uscweb, we are social animals, for now anyway, as I said that may change in the future if its worth doing. But we are social to a degree, perhaps upto a few hundred people is what we have evovled intergrated socialness in. With populations higher than that things get more war like. A larger population is a bit like an enemy. Everyone can not be part of your close social group.
Even if you are very strong and have everything you need in life, it still makes sense to reduce the threat of the millions of other people not in your social community. Taking it smaller it's also in the interest of a family to make sure it is a stronger family than the other families in the accepted social group. All these things can work automatically in the sub concious and not just in pro-active actions. We can still be friendly and aggressive to the extreme of mass murder. The world of politics works on this principle I would say. Metaphorically and literally.

Animals strive to be dominant, they expend a balanced amount of energy to achieve it.
Obervations are not always about the norms though. We have a good degree of natural variation in our psychological way of life and outlook.
It's essential for us to be successful.
Obviously the PCSO was caught.
But if he had done things slightly differently he might have got away with it. His way of life may have had influence on others and created offspring he could control and educate or simply pass on his genetics.
For humans as a species there is nothing wrong about a successful criminal, only unsuccessful criminals are bad, and funnily enough this is what happens in actual cases, the unsuccessful criminals get caught, making the uncaught ones even stronger and able to pass on their knowledge and morality to their social group.

You may have seen the penguin thief on that Attenborough documentary a few years back. That is a perfect example of how crime is a good thing and how it benefits a species. Obviously not all, if we were all criminals then we would all die. But craftiness and opportunity are evolved and clever behaviours.

The more police and laws we have the better and stronger criminals will become. It's inevitable.
And that's one reason humans are so dominant on the planet. We are an aggressive species to each other, and just as powerfully social too. In an interesting variety of ways.

Comment posts on a news website are little battles and tests of strength. Deliberate or not. The pattern happens.
It's a social element we naturally like, a sharing of information, but also a threat of other peoples different views. We barely tolerate each other here. There is always some hope of common ground though. Either that or war!
Why do I have to do all the thinking to explain things it's very tiring! uscweb, we are social animals, for now anyway, as I said that may change in the future if its worth doing. But we are social to a degree, perhaps upto a few hundred people is what we have evovled intergrated socialness in. With populations higher than that things get more war like. A larger population is a bit like an enemy. Everyone can not be part of your close social group. Even if you are very strong and have everything you need in life, it still makes sense to reduce the threat of the millions of other people not in your social community. Taking it smaller it's also in the interest of a family to make sure it is a stronger family than the other families in the accepted social group. All these things can work automatically in the sub concious and not just in pro-active actions. We can still be friendly and aggressive to the extreme of mass murder. The world of politics works on this principle I would say. Metaphorically and literally. Animals strive to be dominant, they expend a balanced amount of energy to achieve it. Obervations are not always about the norms though. We have a good degree of natural variation in our psychological way of life and outlook. It's essential for us to be successful. Obviously the PCSO was caught. But if he had done things slightly differently he might have got away with it. His way of life may have had influence on others and created offspring he could control and educate or simply pass on his genetics. For humans as a species there is nothing wrong about a successful criminal, only unsuccessful criminals are bad, and funnily enough this is what happens in actual cases, the unsuccessful criminals get caught, making the uncaught ones even stronger and able to pass on their knowledge and morality to their social group. You may have seen the penguin thief on that Attenborough documentary a few years back. That is a perfect example of how crime is a good thing and how it benefits a species. Obviously not all, if we were all criminals then we would all die. But craftiness and opportunity are evolved and clever behaviours. The more police and laws we have the better and stronger criminals will become. It's inevitable. And that's one reason humans are so dominant on the planet. We are an aggressive species to each other, and just as powerfully social too. In an interesting variety of ways. Comment posts on a news website are little battles and tests of strength. Deliberate or not. The pattern happens. It's a social element we naturally like, a sharing of information, but also a threat of other peoples different views. We barely tolerate each other here. There is always some hope of common ground though. Either that or war! Wave
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Wave says...

Gill I just read your mention of my Israeli post, what's that doing here.
I thought Israeli was the right word, i have heard it before and it's ok in spell-check.
Or you wanted to weigh in about something else like Jo likes to do?
Gill I just read your mention of my Israeli post, what's that doing here. I thought Israeli was the right word, i have heard it before and it's ok in spell-check. Or you wanted to weigh in about something else like Jo likes to do? Wave
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

Wave wrote:
Gill I just read your mention of my Israeli post, what's that doing here.
I thought Israeli was the right word, i have heard it before and it's ok in spell-check.
Or you wanted to weigh in about something else like Jo likes to do?
It was in reference to Jo Kernows post, you did not put Israeli on the Porthleven food festival article you put Israeli's and I believe the plural of Israeli is Israelites.
What I post on this article is up to me or are you a self appointed moderator.
[quote][p][bold]Wave[/bold] wrote: Gill I just read your mention of my Israeli post, what's that doing here. I thought Israeli was the right word, i have heard it before and it's ok in spell-check. Or you wanted to weigh in about something else like Jo likes to do?[/p][/quote]It was in reference to Jo Kernows post, you did not put Israeli on the Porthleven food festival article you put Israeli's and I believe the plural of Israeli is Israelites. What I post on this article is up to me or are you a self appointed moderator. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Jo Kernow says...

Wave wrote:
I agree with that too.
As you once criticised meerkats for just saying she agreed with someone once, the fact you now keep doing it i think you are either a hypocrite or more likely a very sarcastic person. I know i post things on here people don't like or things i shouldnt have posted because i posted in haste, but i dont post on loads of articles just to pick fault with everything and everyone but you seem to work your way through the website posting comments just to cause an argument with everyone about everything, i think that is a very distaseful comment you put on the sad story about the lady that drowned and i think it was a stupid comment about closing the docks, i think you just do it to annoy people.
[quote][p][bold]Wave[/bold] wrote: I agree with that too.[/p][/quote]As you once criticised meerkats for just saying she agreed with someone once, the fact you now keep doing it i think you are either a hypocrite or more likely a very sarcastic person. I know i post things on here people don't like or things i shouldnt have posted because i posted in haste, but i dont post on loads of articles just to pick fault with everything and everyone but you seem to work your way through the website posting comments just to cause an argument with everyone about everything, i think that is a very distaseful comment you put on the sad story about the lady that drowned and i think it was a stupid comment about closing the docks, i think you just do it to annoy people. Jo Kernow
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Wave says...

There is nothing ineffective with being a hypocrite. All scientists are hypocrites. It's essential thinking.
I not sarcastic though.
I sometimes also have a go at humour
.
Gill I did not ever say you could not, I am questioning why, as In you can tell me why you mentioned it. You dont have to tell me why either.
Dear oh dear oh dear.

Jo, about causing arguments in debate have you read some of Plato's dialogues. That is how to be annoying. I'm nowhere near that.
You better tell the Police if you know the lady drowned, as it seems you have more than public information.
I think most of your comments are stupid Jo, but I have a go at answering some of them. Especially if it annoys you.
There is nothing ineffective with being a hypocrite. All scientists are hypocrites. It's essential thinking. I not sarcastic though. I sometimes also have a go at humour . Gill I did not ever say you could not, I am questioning why, as In you can tell me why you mentioned it. You dont have to tell me why either. Dear oh dear oh dear. Jo, about causing arguments in debate have you read some of Plato's dialogues. That is how to be annoying. I'm nowhere near that. You better tell the Police if you know the lady drowned, as it seems you have more than public information. I think most of your comments are stupid Jo, but I have a go at answering some of them. Especially if it annoys you. Wave
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Thu 21 Mar 13

meerkats says...

Jo Kernow wrote:
Wave wrote:
I agree with that too.
As you once criticised meerkats for just saying she agreed with someone once, the fact you now keep doing it i think you are either a hypocrite or more likely a very sarcastic person. I know i post things on here people don't like or things i shouldnt have posted because i posted in haste, but i dont post on loads of articles just to pick fault with everything and everyone but you seem to work your way through the website posting comments just to cause an argument with everyone about everything, i think that is a very distaseful comment you put on the sad story about the lady that drowned and i think it was a stupid comment about closing the docks, i think you just do it to annoy people.
I must admit i didnt know if Wave was genuine in his comment to me or just taking the mickey as he criticised me before with agreeing.
[quote][p][bold]Jo Kernow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wave[/bold] wrote: I agree with that too.[/p][/quote]As you once criticised meerkats for just saying she agreed with someone once, the fact you now keep doing it i think you are either a hypocrite or more likely a very sarcastic person. I know i post things on here people don't like or things i shouldnt have posted because i posted in haste, but i dont post on loads of articles just to pick fault with everything and everyone but you seem to work your way through the website posting comments just to cause an argument with everyone about everything, i think that is a very distaseful comment you put on the sad story about the lady that drowned and i think it was a stupid comment about closing the docks, i think you just do it to annoy people.[/p][/quote]I must admit i didnt know if Wave was genuine in his comment to me or just taking the mickey as he criticised me before with agreeing. meerkats
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Wave says...

I was genuine, but also taking the mickey. I.E. I wasn't lying.
I was genuine, but also taking the mickey. I.E. I wasn't lying. Wave
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Jo Kernow says...

Wave i think you are the most boring poster on this site why dont you redirect to a scientific website, and as for your pompous comment about me telling the police if i know the lady drowned, if you didnt live with your head in a scientific cloud you might know the national news says she drowned so until anyone says otherwise i can quote what the national news says dont bother replying with you clap trap because i cant be bothered to read anything you put anymore like your rubbish about the charity event.
Wave i think you are the most boring poster on this site why dont you redirect to a scientific website, and as for your pompous comment about me telling the police if i know the lady drowned, if you didnt live with your head in a scientific cloud you might know the national news says she drowned so until anyone says otherwise i can quote what the national news says dont bother replying with you clap trap because i cant be bothered to read anything you put anymore like your rubbish about the charity event. Jo Kernow
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Jo Kernow says...

Wave i think you are the most boring poster on this site why dont you redirect to a scientific website, and as for your pompous comment about me telling the police if i know the lady drowned, if you didnt live with your head in a scientific cloud you might know the national news says she drowned so until anyone says otherwise i can quote what the national news says dont bother replying with you clap trap because i cant be bothered to read anything you put anymore like your rubbish about the charity event.
Wave i think you are the most boring poster on this site why dont you redirect to a scientific website, and as for your pompous comment about me telling the police if i know the lady drowned, if you didnt live with your head in a scientific cloud you might know the national news says she drowned so until anyone says otherwise i can quote what the national news says dont bother replying with you clap trap because i cant be bothered to read anything you put anymore like your rubbish about the charity event. Jo Kernow
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Wave says...

Hmmm the smell of unintelligent emotion.
But thanks for noting the drowning is national news. I wonder why The Packet in it's various articles has never said the woman drowned. The other local papers do not say how she died. The national newspapers must have higher level access.
Hmmm the smell of unintelligent emotion. But thanks for noting the drowning is national news. I wonder why The Packet in it's various articles has never said the woman drowned. The other local papers do not say how she died. The national newspapers must have higher level access. Wave
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Thu 21 Mar 13

ucsweb says...

Wave, you are getting a philosophical debate mixed up with a scientific one!
And with the comment that "All scientists are hypocrites" it sounds like you are starting a religious debate!
Wave, you are getting a philosophical debate mixed up with a scientific one! And with the comment that "All scientists are hypocrites" it sounds like you are starting a religious debate! ucsweb
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Wave says...

The BBC Does not say she drowned, The Telegraph does not say she drowned.
The Times does not say she drowned.
The local papers do not say she drowned.

The Daily Mail and Mirror says she drowned.
Make of that what you will.
The BBC Does not say she drowned, The Telegraph does not say she drowned. The Times does not say she drowned. The local papers do not say she drowned. The Daily Mail and Mirror says she drowned. Make of that what you will. Wave
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Wave says...

@ ucsweb
Possibly, I enjoy both philosophical and scientific debates.
I'm probably better at philosophy than science.

In regards to hypocrisy I think it's a worthwhile position to say one thing, then at another second in time, say something contradictory.
If nothing else it shows freedom of thought.
@ ucsweb Possibly, I enjoy both philosophical and scientific debates. I'm probably better at philosophy than science. In regards to hypocrisy I think it's a worthwhile position to say one thing, then at another second in time, say something contradictory. If nothing else it shows freedom of thought. Wave
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Jo Kernow says...

Wave The Western Morning news says she drowned and what ever happened it dosnt alter the fact you were wrong to say i should tell the police just because i quoted something from the national news. Im not bothering with you anymore i find you boring and i notice not many others debate with you anymore on this site. You seem to try to wind people up which i think is pathetic.
Wave The Western Morning news says she drowned and what ever happened it dosnt alter the fact you were wrong to say i should tell the police just because i quoted something from the national news. Im not bothering with you anymore i find you boring and i notice not many others debate with you anymore on this site. You seem to try to wind people up which i think is pathetic. Jo Kernow
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Wave says...

In the words of Obi-Wan kenobi.
'You must do what you feel is right, of course.'

But I don't think you find me boring.
But I think you do find me pathetic!
In the words of Obi-Wan kenobi. 'You must do what you feel is right, of course.' But I don't think you find me boring. But I think you do find me pathetic! Wave
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Thu 21 Mar 13

meerkats says...

Wave wrote:
I was genuine, but also taking the mickey. I.E. I wasn't lying.
Why take the mickey ? please explain your comment.
[quote][p][bold]Wave[/bold] wrote: I was genuine, but also taking the mickey. I.E. I wasn't lying.[/p][/quote]Why take the mickey ? please explain your comment. meerkats
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Wave says...

You already have the information meerkats.
You said I criticised you for only agreeing to something.
I then agreed with you about something and gave no detail at all.
In the context and in the short time of the apparent criticism. This would suggest i was taking the mickey by doing something myself that I had already suggested not to. In addition to that I was also genuine in the sense I did actually agree with you.
Do you want a better explanation by post or email?
You already have the information meerkats. You said I criticised you for only agreeing to something. I then agreed with you about something and gave no detail at all. In the context and in the short time of the apparent criticism. This would suggest i was taking the mickey by doing something myself that I had already suggested not to. In addition to that I was also genuine in the sense I did actually agree with you. Do you want a better explanation by post or email? Wave
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Thu 21 Mar 13

meerkats says...

You have explained yourself perfectly well and as i have already said you are rude , so therefore if you post a reply i will not bother to reply . The way you are going , nobody will . post or email ,as if i would want you to have my address !!
You have explained yourself perfectly well and as i have already said you are rude , so therefore if you post a reply i will not bother to reply . The way you are going , nobody will . post or email ,as if i would want you to have my address !! meerkats
  • Score: 0

9:17am Fri 22 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

I do not think meerkats is weird I understand her posts perfectly. She is never rude to people either.
I do not think meerkats is weird I understand her posts perfectly. She is never rude to people either. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Fri 22 Mar 13

meerkats says...

Gillian Zella Martin 09 wrote:
I do not think meerkats is weird I understand her posts perfectly. She is never rude to people either.
Thank you Gill, i didnt understand his /her comment and simply asked for an explanation. wasnt expecting the reply i received.
[quote][p][bold]Gillian Zella Martin 09[/bold] wrote: I do not think meerkats is weird I understand her posts perfectly. She is never rude to people either.[/p][/quote]Thank you Gill, i didnt understand his /her comment and simply asked for an explanation. wasnt expecting the reply i received. meerkats
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Fri 22 Mar 13

Wave says...

Thankyou Gill, thankyou meerkats.
Thankyou everyone!
Thankyou Gill, thankyou meerkats. Thankyou everyone! Wave
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Fri 22 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

meerkats wrote:
Gillian Zella Martin 09 wrote:
I do not think meerkats is weird I understand her posts perfectly. She is never rude to people either.
Thank you Gill, i didnt understand his /her comment and simply asked for an explanation. wasnt expecting the reply i received.
You are welcome. I noticed waves comment has been removed which is good.
[quote][p][bold]meerkats[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gillian Zella Martin 09[/bold] wrote: I do not think meerkats is weird I understand her posts perfectly. She is never rude to people either.[/p][/quote]Thank you Gill, i didnt understand his /her comment and simply asked for an explanation. wasnt expecting the reply i received.[/p][/quote]You are welcome. I noticed waves comment has been removed which is good. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Fri 22 Mar 13

Wave says...

Meerkats makes weird comments, and has weird views.
That should be better put.
Meerkats makes weird comments, and has weird views. That should be better put. Wave
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Fri 22 Mar 13

meerkats says...

I do not make weird comments or have weird views and your attempt at better put is not much better than what you originally said about me. You obviously have a problem with me ,or my comments at least .
I do not make weird comments or have weird views and your attempt at better put is not much better than what you originally said about me. You obviously have a problem with me ,or my comments at least . meerkats
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Fri 22 Mar 13

Gillian Zella Martin 09 says...

Wave wrote:
Meerkats makes weird comments, and has weird views.
That should be better put.
In my opinion meerkats does not make weird comments or have weired views. If anyone has weired views it is probably me. If you Wave do not like meerkats comments then you need not read them. In my opinion you seem to take pleasure in trying to get a reaction from people by making unkind remarks to them or provoking them by placing posts to incite argument.
Please spare me the psychoanalysis diagnosis of me or my comments because I have no wish to interact with you any longer.
[quote][p][bold]Wave[/bold] wrote: Meerkats makes weird comments, and has weird views. That should be better put.[/p][/quote]In my opinion meerkats does not make weird comments or have weired views. If anyone has weired views it is probably me. If you Wave do not like meerkats comments then you need not read them. In my opinion you seem to take pleasure in trying to get a reaction from people by making unkind remarks to them or provoking them by placing posts to incite argument. Please spare me the psychoanalysis diagnosis of me or my comments because I have no wish to interact with you any longer. Gillian Zella Martin 09
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Fri 22 Mar 13

Wave says...

I think a few of you have weird views and comments. Also many times I have been told I am not being listened to or not replied to any more. But I still get the replies and comments based on what I say.
So it's also nonsense communication from you people.
I think a few of you have weird views and comments. Also many times I have been told I am not being listened to or not replied to any more. But I still get the replies and comments based on what I say. So it's also nonsense communication from you people. Wave
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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