Should we have more information about Sex Offenders or should they have the righ to anonimity that is afforded them at present. I came across this in the Times today and saw how many are living in amongst us. South Yorkshire has 90 very high risk sex offenders. Derbyshire has 27. Should we have information as to where they live, or do they have the right to remain hidden.
owdlad.

Here's a link to all the information
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1194896,00.html

Leave it to the police. The article in the Star made it quite clear that an excellent job was being done in keeping these people under observation. When they stepped out of line they were being firmly dealt with (and I'm not talking about them re-offending)
Name and shame and they will go underground. The police, probation service and other agencies wont know where they are. they will be hidden timebombs waiting to go off.
Then there's the fact that we will have murders taking place and some of these will be mistaken identity.
It's not nice to think that there may be someone like this living down the street but the answer is not mob rule and having offenders in hiding.
Let's not forget that for every convicted offender there will be a dozen others who have never been caught. They say that offenders against children may have committed dozens or hundreds of offences before they come to the attention of the police. Knowing the whereabouts of those with convictions would only be the tip of the iceberg anyway

And let's not forget that the location of the vast majority of sex offenders are known to their victims... why? Because most sex offences are within the family, not amongst strangers.

Mind you - if a list was published, at least it would help prevent peadeatricians getting beaten up. :loopy:

Leave it to the police.

I would rather the authorities contained the issue rather the ill informed vigulanty groups outting peadiatricians, as was the case in Portsmouth

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
Leave it to the police.



Originally posted by dylan_61
Leave it to the police.

I would rather the authorities contained the issue rather the ill informed vigulanty groups outting peadiatricians, as was the case in Portsmouth

OK guys, but should these people ever be allowed out at all? Can they ever be cured?

For instance didn't the killer of little Sarah Payne refuse treatment after he was sent to prison in 1995 for abducting and indecently assaulting a 9-year-old girl?

And if he was a convicted paedophile, why on earth weren't the Police were 'monitoring' him (I think we need a proper defintion for Police monitoring)?

Why was he ever released back into the community to commit another crime?

The fact is, parents do not want paedophiles living anywhere near them. If parents aren't informed as to their exact whereabouts, then you're going to continue to have paediatricians firebomed in their homes in cases of mistaken identity (or a good old-fashioned neighborhood purge).

I would prefer that sex offenders didn't live near me. If they did, I'd like to know where, so I can ensure my children take extra care.

i'd prefer lots of things, but fortunately laws aren't passed simply on our preferences.

Sex offenders (we aren't just talking about paedophiles here) are sentenced by a court and serve that sentence. Of course they should be allowed out after that. They remain on the register for a fixed length of time (depends on the offence and the sentence).
Monitoring means that they have to inform the police if they move house, changes names or leave the country at all. In the case of 'high risk' people it might be more active than that, but these people still have rights as well.

Cyclone
Surely the rights we should worry about are the rights of the victims, before we get bogged down with the rights of the people who commit the crimes, they do after all have a choice as to whether they commit the crime, unlike the victim who is often left traumatised for life by the assault. Having said that I am not sure if I would want their names and address making public. Was the case of the paediatrician who had his house attacked surely not a wake up call to all of us that mob rule can never be a cure to the problem.

owdlad

the rights of both parties are already clearly enscrined in law.
And the perpertrator has already suffered a temporary loss of the right of freedom (ie been locked away).
After the punishment is finished, that's it, they shouldn't be punished anymore, which is what would happen, illegally, if their names and addresses were punished.

I doubt that advertising the names and address of known sex offenders would do anything to reduce the incidences of vigilante attacks on people, innocent or otherwise. Most people involved in these attacks, as has been pointed out, don't realise the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile, so will probably view such a listing as a license to attack.

I would argue that some people on the sex offenders register are sad, one off offenders - like these folks nicked for being dumb enough to download child porn with their credit card - and will probably never offend again. But others probably have to be viewed as 'dangerous until proved otherwise' and as people might live 60 years after attacking someone, we have a problem.

One possible future use for RFID tags might be as follows. Implant a tag in your offender. Then put 'scanning' equipment in areas around schools, playgrounds, etc. If they go near these areas the detector fires off and the local authorities can be informed. With the tag being an implant, it wouldn't be easy to remove (not without leaving scars, anyway).

Some sex offenders have pleaded to be kept inside or treated in some way - they know they have a problem. Perhaps we need to revisit the idea of using drugs to control libido. It's not a nice thought, but this sort of balancing act between the rights of potential victim and potential re-offender is never going to be easy.

Joe

How do we find out if there is a sex offender living on our road. Cos I for one would like to know who to protect my children from.

Should we have more information about Sex Offenders or should they have the righ to anonimity that is afforded them at present. I came across this in the Times today and saw how many are living in amongst us. South Yorkshire has 90 very high risk sex offenders. Derbyshire has 27. Should we have information as to where they live, or do they have the right to remain hidden.
owdlad.

Here's a link to all the information
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1194896,00.html

No, We shouldn't need any personal info about sex offenders.

I don't want to know that a nonce is living at the end of the street I want to know that the nonce isn't living at the end of the street.

Those convicted of such offences should be detained indefinitely even for 'minor sexual offences'.

How do we find out if there is a sex offender living on our road. Cos I for one would like to know who to protect my children from.

you don't, you assume that this is not the case and leave the police to deal with the issue

if you somehow do find out there is a sex offender living on your street you report them to the police and let them investigate, and that is all you do, after all you may be wrong

"Sex offender" - no.

Bobo11 - Already pointed out, "sex offender" is not the same as "paedophile"

It includes,for example, boys who are younger than the girl they have sex with, but somehow in a mutually agreed act only the male is guilty of an offence.

Here we go

I think Bobo wants to sharper his pitchfork!!!

"Sex offender" - no.

Already pointed out, "sex offender" is not the same as "paedophile"


But paedophiles are sex offenders. Just because a sex offender was not convicted of a paedophile offense, doesn't mean they're not a threat to children.

But paedophiles are sex offenders. Just because a sex offender was not convicted of a paedophile offense, doesn't mean they're not a threat to children.

It doesn't mean they are a threat to children either.

And by that logic, I would assume you have not been convicted of a paedophile offence, but you must still be a threat to children....

It doesn't mean they are a threat to children either.

It does mean that they are a threat to those that they are disposed to offend against does it not?

It doesn't mean they are a threat to children either.

And by that logic, I would assume you have not been convicted of a paedophile offence, but you must still be a threat to children....

But I am not a convicted sex offender so why would you assume that?

Are you saying you would trust a convicted sex offender with a child?

Lets not forget that sex attacks are about one person exerting their power and dominance over another with violence. A child will not be immune from their nature just because they were not convicted of an offence against a child.

Here we go

I think Bobo wants to sharper his pitchfork!!!

Why are you attacking me? I just want to keep my children safe. As a parent I think I have the right to know if there is a sex offender living on my road. I have never once said anything about harming anyone. I want to keep my children safe, if that makes me wrong then there is something wrong with the world

Oh i just love these arguments, usually invovling people who had good intelligence and those who would rather just use a pitchfork and torch!

So are you saying that parents don't have the right to be able to keep their children safe and anyone that wants to is an uneducated vigelante

So are you saying that parents don't have the right to be able to keep their children safe and anyone that wants to is an uneducated vigelante


The is keeping your child safe and running around the streets with placards saying "pedofile out.

Normally its the latter when you find out someone with that kinda of conviction is living near by

How do we find out if there is a sex offender living on our road. Cos I for one would like to know who to protect my children from.

Yeah, right!

Those bloody sex offenders!

Like that woman in Gwent (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm). They showed her, didn't they?

When they found who was living there, they daubed her house with 'Paedo' in bright red paint!

Don't need that kind living here!

Well, they were nearly right. Paediatrician doesn't have an 'o' in it however.

The News of the World ran a campaign to 'name and shame paedophiles in the community.'

Both Gwent Police and Dr Cloete believe the only explanation is the "extraordinary ignorance" of the people who carried out the vandal attack.

Pity the News of the World didn't do a follow up article on thick people.

Should the people in that community be named and shamed?

everyone wants to keep children safe, that's why we leave it to the authorities to deal with these matters

I agree it doesn't always work and the consequences are tragic when it doesn't

but it's better than the alternative

ok you just want to warn your kids to stay away from a particular person you think is a bit suspicious, they tell their friends at school, their friends tell their parents, their parents may not be as level headed as yourself plus they've got the chinese whisper effect from the playground and then take the law into their own hands

later you find out this person is completely innocent of any wrongdoing, however the other parents have already dispensed what they think is justice

if you have any suspicions then report them to the authorities and let them deal with it

everyone wants to keep children safe, that's why we leave it to the authorities to deal with these matters

I agree it doesn't always work and the consequences are tragic when it doesn't

but it's better than the alternative

ok you just want to warn your kids to stay away from a particular person you think is a bit suspicious, they tell their friends at school, their friends tell their parents, their parents may not be as level headed as yourself plus they've got the chinese whisper effect from the playground and then take the law into their own hands

later you find out this person is completely innocent of any wrongdoing, however the other parents have already dispensed what they think is justice

if you have any suspicions then report them to the authorities and let them deal with it

Yes that is indeed the problem.

"Sex offender" - no.

Bobo11 - Already pointed out, "sex offender" is not the same as "paedophile"

It includes,for example, boys who are younger than the girl they have sex with, but somehow in a mutually agreed act only the male is guilty of an offence.

But paedophiles are sex offenders. Just because a sex offender was not convicted of a paedophile offense, doesn't mean they're not a threat to children.

MJ, (and bobo) that's the "All dogs" argument.

All dalmatians are dogs therefore all dogs are Dalmations...

No. All paedophiles are sex offenders, but not all sex offenders are paedophiles.

I kind of like the implant idea that JoeP suggested, way back six years ago when this thread was fresh. If the person was like the paedophile we were discussing the other day, who is forbidden from approaching/ contacting under eighteen-year-olds, then that would be great.

But I am not a convicted sex offender so why would you assume that?

Are you saying you would trust a convicted sex offender with a child?

Lets not forget that sex attacks are about one person exerting their power and dominance over another with violence. A child will not be immune from their nature just because they were not convicted of an offence against a child.

Well ok, how is a serial rapist that attacks brown haired women aged 25-35 a threat to children?

Sex Offender =/= threat to children

As I already pointed out, there are also sex "offenders" who have only committed an offence in law.

I am not saying (because it is not part of the argument the OP posted) that you have no right to know about paedophiles in your area (not that i think you do either, but as i say that is not the argument here), the question is however about sex offenders and one would assume by extension the sex offenders register. The sex offender registry has many problems, chief among which is that it lumps together serious offenders together with people that you and me would find hard pressed to find anything wrong with what they did (well ok, anything worthy of having their name available to all as a sex offender)

The is keeping your child safe and running around the streets with placards saying "pedofile out.

Normally its the latter when you find out someone with that kinda of conviction is living near by

So I ask you again where have I said that I would take the law into my own hands or are you speaking from personal experience????

I want to keep my children safe, if that makes me wrong then there is something wrong with the world

But wouldn't you keep them 'safe' anyway Bobo? What aspects of their behaviour or your supervision of them would you change with that knowledge?

I do have some sympathy with what you say, discovering there's a convicted paedophile living next door might be a disconcerting discovery, but they're probably unlikely to poo on their own doorstep.

But as others have pointed out, they're there already, most of them behaving themselves, so I'll put my trust in the police and probation service who are responsible for monitoring them and reducing the risk to a minimum, it's knowledge that wouldn't help me and I'd end up worrying about something that might never happen.

Another issue with the idea of outing sex offenders is where do you draw the line because surely we should also include murderers in this and burglars car thieves, people convicted of violent crime the list is endless.
Maybe we should have a online database into which we type our address and up pops a list of the various types of convicted criminals living in our neighbourhood that'll help us sleep better :loopy:, we'd all end up living in detached houses in the country with guard dogs and electric fences and we'd all need to have guns to defend ourselves against criminal pensioners living a couple of miles away.
No what we need to do is continue as we are if we know of anything happening let the police know and they can handle it as they should.

I kind of like the implant idea that JoeP suggested, way back six years ago when this thread was fresh. I suspect the implant BP might have in mind would be a hollow point bullet ;)

Another issue with the idea of outing sex offenders is where do you draw the line because surely we should also include murderers in this and burglars car thieves, people convicted of violent crime the list is endless.
Maybe we should have a online database into which we type our address and up pops a list of the various types of convicted criminals living in our neighbourhood that'll help us sleep better :loopy:, we'd all end up living in detached houses in the country with guard dogs and electric fences and we'd all need to have guns to defend ourselves against criminal pensioners living a couple of miles away.
No what we need to do is continue as we are if we know of anything happening let the police know and they can handle it as they should.


What they said :thumbsup:

But wouldn't public availability of seeing the register get rid of mistaken identity and ppl starting rumours. I'm not saying being able to see all areas but just the area that concerns your postcode as stated in the production of I.d

But wouldn't public availability of seeing the register get rid of mistaken identity and ppl starting rumours. I'm not saying being able to see all areas but just the area that concerns your postcode as stated in the production of I.d

I don't think it would, no. It's prbably more likely to propagate rumours than stop them.

As an aside, supposing you were to learn that someone on the register lived a few doors down from you, what would you actually do that was any different?
Walk on the other side of the street? Or what?

But wouldn't you keep them 'safe' anyway Bobo? What aspects of their behaviour or your supervision of them would you change with that knowledge?

I do have some sympathy with what you say, discovering there's a convicted paedophile living next door might be a disconcerting discovery, but they're probably unlikely to poo on their own doorstep.

But as others have pointed out, they're there already, most of them behaving themselves, so I'll put my trust in the police and probation service who are responsible for monitoring them and reducing the risk to a minimum, it's knowledge that wouldn't help me and I'd end up worrying about something that might never happen.

I do keep my childrensafe. They don't play out , they don't go to the shops alone. But sometime or other you have to let them make their own way to school. The bit about not doing it on their own doorstep, have you heard the saying we covert wot we see everyday

I do keep my childrensafe. They don't play out , they don't go to the shops alone. But sometime or other you have to let them make their own way to school. The bit about not doing it on their own doorstep, have you heard the saying we covert wot we see everyday

Can I ask how old they are?

But wouldn't public availability of seeing the register get rid of mistaken identity and ppl starting rumours. I'm not saying being able to see all areas but just the area that concerns your postcode as stated in the production of I.d

no because to many uneducated people around

and what if there is a mistake in such a register ?

suppose someone put an address on there as something or other street instead of something or other road and you happen to be the one it identifies

ok you could go and clear it up with the authorities but how do you stop the people who will have already seen the incorrect entry thinking the worst

once this information is published it's impossible to correct

now I'm not saying that you would be the victim of such a mistake, but if one person is a victim of such a mistake then that's one person too many

on the other hand if such a register were available to the authorities, as is the current case, then innocent people would have no reason to fear vigilantism from such mistakes

Thanks for the help guys you've made me realise wot a fool I am for wanting to keep my kids safe. I've sure learnt my lesson and from now on will be letting my children roam and do wot they want and just hope that no harm comes to them

now you are being facetious, you look after your kids to the best of your ability

but if you have any suspicions about people you do not act on them yourself, you tell the police, that's what they are there for

I do keep my childrensafe. They don't play out , they don't go to the shops alone. But sometime or other you have to let them make their own way to school. I agree, it's a difficult time deciding when they become responsible enough to become more independent, in my own case, I repeatedly gave my children the message that strangers were generally nice people, but they shouldn't talk to them, other than the usual pleasantries or be led away by them.


The bit about not doing it on their own doorstep, have you heard the saying we covert wot we see everyday

They can covet owt they want provided they dont act on it :)

now you are being facetious, you look after your kids to the best of your ability

but if you have any suspicions about people you do not act on them yourself, you tell the police, that's what they are there for

I have never said I would act on any information. I simply believe that a parent should have the right to access the register and all I seem to get is replies on how dangerous that would be. I would put any persons rights to protect their loved ones above the rights of a sex offender any day and if that makes me a bad person then so be it

But wouldn't public availability of seeing the register get rid of mistaken identity and ppl starting rumours. I'm not saying being able to see all areas but just the area that concerns your postcode as stated in the production of I.d

Nope, and it would probably ensure that these people are driven further into the shadows, further away from the authorities, further into the rings whence they possibly came in the first place, and probably more likely to re-offend as a result.

Equally, as has been pointed out, not everyone who is on the Violent and Sex Offenders Register is necessarily a predatory sexual deviant.

I have never said I would act on any information. I simply believe that a parent should have the right to access the register and all I seem to get is replies on how dangerous that would be. I would put any persons rights to protect their loved ones above the rights of a sex offender any day and if that makes me a bad person then so be it

and I have given you reasons, which you have not responded to, why the general population should not have access to such a register

just to recap they are

vigilantism - not necessarily by yourself

and

errors in the register incriminating the innocent

Thanks for the help guys you've made me realise wot a fool I am for wanting to keep my kids safe. I've sure learnt my lesson and from now on will be letting my children roam and do wot they want and just hope that no harm comes to them

Well worked when my parents let me grow up as a kid, there was no man in a green mac offering sweets lurking in the bushes

I have never said I would act on any information. I simply believe that a parent should have the right to access the register and all I seem to get is replies on how dangerous that would be. I would put any persons rights to protect their loved ones above the rights of a sex offender any day and if that makes me a bad person then so be it

OK. Let's put it another way. Do you have a reason to suspect anybody in your vicinity of being a threat to your, or anyone else's kids?

I do keep my childrensafe. They don't play out , they don't go to the shops alone. But sometime or other you have to let them make their own way to school. The bit about not doing it on their own doorstep, have you heard the saying we covert wot we see everyday

Thanks for the help guys you've made me realise wot a fool I am for wanting to keep my kids safe. I've sure learnt my lesson and from now on will be letting my children roam and do wot they want and just hope that no harm comes to them

no, Bobo. I would far prefer that you'd seen yourself for a fool in wanting to cotton wool your children.

I'd much prefer that your children not turn out to be agoraphobic suspicious adults, and unable to take pleasure in the simple things in life that are a child's right:- to run about, get grubby, to graze the occasional knee, to poke about in a pond with just a stick, a piece of string, and a bent pin. To explore, to keep that sense of wonder about the beautiful world we live in.

How is their Uncle Bob, by the way?

Thanks for the help guys you've made me realise wot a fool I am for wanting to keep my kids safe. I've sure learnt my lesson and from now on will be letting my children roam and do wot they want and just hope that no harm comes to them

Depends how old they are and where you live i have lived near a fairly small town most of my life "high wycombe" and i have been on the prowl here and abouts since i was 8 with little or no supervision, because my parents realised that hoping your child is safe is about as much influence as you can have if you want them to grow up to be well adjusted independent social members of society.
Keeping your children in a bubble is fine for your piece of mind but does nothing for your children.

Far to many people read news of the world and believe all it spouts

i think you are right we should know who lives in our strret there could be one next door to your child

i think you are right we should know who lives in our strret there could be one next door to your child

same arguments for you as well

how do you prevent vigilantism ?

and

how do you prevent mistakes that harm the innocent ?

i think you are right we should know who lives in our strret there could be one next door to your child


and what would you do then?

I don't really care if ppl wandered or still wander round the streets cos my children are all under secondary school age and I think if more parents knew where their children were at night the better the world would be but that's a different story. Wot I'm saying is I heard a rumour yes a rumour and wot I'm saying is I would rather be able to find out the truth than listen to rumours or spend time worrying. As fir other ppl being vigilantes I don't care about that either. I am not a vigelante but I would not lose sleep if something happened to a proven sex offender. Sexual deprevation is not a life choice it is a way of life as is being gay or straight therefore it can not be cured or solved by rehabilitation. No matter how responsible your child is it would be no match fir the power and strength of an adult who wanted to snatch that child. So in my view prevention is better than a cure. That is my final word cos I'm bored of all the do gooders with their offenders have rights too attitudes. Thankyou and good night

ok, :wave: bye

I don't really care if ppl wandered or still wander round the streets cos my children are all under secondary school age and I think if more parents knew where their children were at night the better the world would be but that's a different story. Wot I'm saying is I heard a rumour yes a rumour and wot I'm saying is I would rather be able to find out the truth than listen to rumours or spend time worrying. As fir other ppl being vigilantes I don't care about that either. I am not a vigelante but I would not lose sleep if something happened to a proven sex offender. Sexual deprevation is not a life choice it is a way of life as is being gay or straight therefore it can not be cured or solved by rehabilitation. No matter how responsible your child is it would be no match fir the power and strength of an adult who wanted to snatch that child. So in my view prevention is better than a cure. That is my final word cos I'm bored of all the do gooders with their offenders have rights too attitudes. Thankyou and good night

No parent in they're right mind would have their children out at night without knowing where they are, if they do then they aren't much of a parent.

So you aren't a vigilante but you condone vigilantism, at least we cleared that up.

So bobo.

Now we know that you like vigilantism against sex offenders and such like, where do you draw the line?

Oh and what was the rumour you hear?

I have never said I would act on any information. I simply believe that a parent should have the right to access the register and all I seem to get is replies on how dangerous that would be. I would put any persons rights to protect their loved ones above the rights of a sex offender any day and if that makes me a bad person then so be it

Stop being so dramatic, you've not been accused of being bad. You have opinions and your opinions are as valid as the next person...the next person may not agree with you but that doesn't make your opinion any less, or theirs.
You are not unique...most parents want to protect their children. By giving out the information not only puts children at risk (forcing perps underground) but it also puts you at risk as an adult. Because of the way you feel I guess you would be screaming against your proposal if you were the target of mistaken identity. Yes you may be innocent but poo sticks especially to those that probably don't give a damn about kids but would use it to go on the rampage just for the kick of it. Names are similar, Street names are similar, as people we are similar. The knuckledragger doesn't need any of the above excuses to get his/her kicks...so why make it easier?
In all honesty your time would be better served by educating/informing your children. As a parent I do but you have to strike a balance between informing them and scaring the crap out of them.

Well ok, how is a serial rapist that attacks brown haired women aged 25-35 a threat to children?

Sex Offender =/= threat to children

Would you leave a child in the care of a serial rapist then? Just yes or no please?

Can you explain why all sex offenders are barred from working with children? If they really are no threat, surely the experts would allow sex offenders to work with children, unless they were convicted of offences against children.

Would you leave a child in the care of a serial rapist then? Just yes or no please?

Can you explain why all sex offenders are barred from working with children? If they really are no threat, surely the experts would allow sex offenders to work with children, unless they were convicted of offences against children.

MJ, that comment is on a par with the question "When did you stop beating your wife".

MJ, (and bobo) that's the "All dogs" argument.

All dalmatians are dogs therefore all dogs are Dalmations...

No. All paedophiles are sex offenders, but not all sex offenders are paedophiles.

I do not accept your trivialisation of the issue by making a faux comparison with dogs.

MJ, that comment is on a par with the question "When did you stop beating your wife".

It is a perfectly apt question.

I would consider any sex offender a threat to children, that is why all sex offenders are barred from working with children AND vulnerable adults, do you disagree?

If you are going to argue that some sex offenders (a serial rapist was the example given) are perfectly safe for children to be around, you should be prepared to answer whether you would leave a child with them, or even want them in contact in school, or be happy with them living next door if you have kids.

I don't really care if ppl wandered or still wander round the streets cos my children are all under secondary school age and I think if more parents knew where their children were at night the better the world would be but that's a different story. Wot I'm saying is I heard a rumour yes a rumour and wot I'm saying is I would rather be able to find out the truth than listen to rumours or spend time worrying. As fir other ppl being vigilantes I don't care about that either. I am not a vigelante but I would not lose sleep if something happened to a proven sex offender. Sexual deprevation is not a life choice it is a way of life as is being gay or straight therefore it can not be cured or solved by rehabilitation. No matter how responsible your child is it would be no match fir the power and strength of an adult who wanted to snatch that child. So in my view prevention is better than a cure. That is my final word cos I'm bored of all the do gooders with their offenders have rights too attitudes. Thankyou and good night

I'm saying if they are offenders they should be punished but that is not your job it's the authorities job.

I'm saying what if the rumour is wrong ? what if someone with a grudge started a rumour against an innocent person, how can you tell ?

I'm saying you don't follow up on a rumour yourself but if it really worries you you tell the authorities and if nothing happens then you stop worrying because the authorities will have investigated and found nothing.

Almost all child abuse happens within the family, so rather than worrying about random strangers you should be more worried about what uncle jim is up too.

I do not accept your trivialisation of the issue by making a faux comparison with dogs.

No, MJ... I'm trying to point out the illogic within that particular argument.

It is a perfectly apt question.

I would consider any sex offender a threat to children, that is why all sex offenders are barred from working with children AND vulnerable adults, do you disagree?

If you are going to argue that some sex offenders (a serial rapist was the example given) are perfectly safe for children to be around, you should be prepared to answer whether you would leave a child with them, or even want them in contact in school, or be happy with them living next door if you have kids.

again, no, that's not my argument.

My argument is as I and many others have pointed out in this thread (and in others) a child is far more in danger from his/ her "Uncle Bob" than from some random chap-in-a-raincoat in the street.

see Andyofborg's comment, here:-

Almost all child abuse happens within the family, so rather than worrying about random strangers you should be more worried about what uncle jim is up too.

I do not accept your trivialisation of the issue by making a faux comparison with dogs.

It's the magnification of the matter which is the problem when it comes to discussing it.

It is a perfectly apt question.

I would consider any sex offender a threat to children

A kerb crawler?

just to put things straight. i do not condone vigilantism there is a difference between condoning it and not losing sleep over it. the arguments about sex offenders being the same as other criminals is idiotic as other criminals can be rehabilitated where as its a proven fact that sex offenders can't. labeling kerb crawlers as sex offenders is a weak attempt at proving a point as kerb crawlers are not commiting a crime against the person the crime is against the state which is why they dont go on the sex offenders register. the prostitute is a willing participant and in most cases is not forced into it. its funny how ppl can not answer the simple question of would you leave your child alone if you knew a sex offender was present because it would defeat their own argument. all i am saying is that as a parent i believe i have the right to know if there is a sex offender living in my area!!!!!!!!!!!! pain and simple. it is true that some sex offences are committed by relatives but i think you'll find that most are committed by strangers. innocent ppl are harrassed and sometimes attacked because of rumours so wouldn't be better if ppl could look and prove their innocence. finally the authorities would only act if there was evidence of a new crime but that does not mean that the person would never attack again just look at at the evidence most child killers have attacked before and been caught wich is why they kill to try and protect themselves. sorry for the essay but i think things need to be addressed

Would you leave a child in the care of a serial rapist then? Just yes or no please?

Can you explain why all sex offenders are barred from working with children? If they really are no threat, surely the experts would allow sex offenders to work with children, unless they were convicted of offences against children.

You don't get to decide how i answer, fortunately, especially when the question you asked is irrelevant. The question is about living in the same area as them, not leaving your children with them.

As to your second question - that is the point, they are all lumped together for no apparent reason.

it is true that some sex offences are committed by relatives but i think you'll find that most are committed by strangers.

According to a report in the Telegraph in 80% of offences the offender knew the victim..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7069034/60-sex-offences-against-children-every-day.html

just to put things straight. i do not condone vigilantism there is a difference between condoning it and not losing sleep over it. the arguments about sex offenders being the same as other criminals is idiotic as other criminals can be rehabilitated where as its a proven fact that sex offenders can't. labeling kerb crawlers as sex offenders is a weak attempt at proving a point as kerb crawlers are not commiting a crime against the person the crime is against the state which is why they dont go on the sex offenders register. the prostitute is a willing participant and in most cases is not forced into it. its funny how ppl can not answer the simple question of would you leave your child alone if you knew a sex offender was present because it would defeat their own argument. all i am saying is that as a parent i believe i have the right to know if there is a sex offender living in my area!!!!!!!!!!!! pain and simple. it is true that some sex offences are committed by relatives but i think you'll find that most are committed by strangers. innocent ppl are harrassed and sometimes attacked because of rumours so wouldn't be better if ppl could look and prove their innocence. finally the authorities would only act if there was evidence of a new crime but that does not mean that the person would never attack again just look at at the evidence most child killers have attacked before and been caught wich is why they kill to try and protect themselves. sorry for the essay but i think things need to be addressed

Funny thing - the reason no-one will answer that is because it has nothing to do with the question at hand. We are talking about whether you should have more information about sex offenders living in your area, unless you are claiming that leaving your kids with strangers at all is ok then there is no reasonable point to the question you want answered.

To put it another way, would you leave your kids with strangers WHETHER OR NOT they are sex offenders?

I have never said I would act on any information. I simply believe that a parent should have the right to access the register and all I seem to get is replies on how dangerous that would be. I would put any persons rights to protect their loved ones above the rights of a sex offender any day and if that makes me a bad person then so be it

Funny thing - the reason no-one will answer that is because it has nothing to do with the question at hand. We are talking about whether you should have more information about sex offenders living in your area, unless you are claiming that leaving your kids with strangers at all is ok then there is no reasonable point to the question you want answered.

To put it another way, would you leave your kids with strangers WHETHER OR NOT they are sex offenders?

I suggest you take the time to read the bit that you have highlighted. You will see that I never said leave your children alone WITH a stranger I said leave your children alone. So before you try to come back with a clever question read the content properly please. The question of wether you would leave your children alone is completely relevant, fact is if you knew a sex offender was living in your area you would think twice about letting your children out alone. Wouldn't you?????

I suggest you take the time to read the bit that you have highlighted. You will see that I never said leave your children alone WITH a stranger I said leave your children alone. So before you try to come back with a clever question read the content properly please. The question of wether you would leave your children alone is completely relevant, fact is if you knew a sex offender was living in your area you would think twice about letting your children out alone. Wouldn't you?????

You said would you leave your child alone if you knew a sex offender was present

Aside from not making sense (you can't leave someone alone if someone else is present), you then say you said nothing about leaving your child alone, despite that being what you have written - so are we talking about leaving your child alone knowing there is a sex offender in the area, or leaving them alone with a sex offender?

As to letting my children out if i knew there was a sex offender in my area, of course i would. I would let them out without that information, so how does having that information change anything? Which is the question that people who believe what you do have failed to answer from back in the thread - what change in your behaviour would having the information make? You realise the likelihood is that there is a sex offender somewhere in your general area, right? (If you live in a city anyway).

Even if i were to say that i might not let them out, in that case it would depend entirely on why they were on the list.

Ok question for you - if it became apparent that someone used to be on the register and had been removed as it was now spent, how would you now regard them?

The question of wether you would leave your children alone is completely relevant, fact is if you knew a sex offender was living in your area you would think twice about letting your children out alone. Wouldn't you????? Not necessarily, because I can guarantee that there's someone on the Sex Offenders Register who lives in your locality, as I'm sure there is in mine, but without that knowledge you or I are unlikely to adjust our behaviour because experience tells us that the risk is not a great one. All the knowledge does for us is create a heightened state of suspicion and perhaps paranoia that isn't warranted.

I would let them out without that information, so how does having that information change anything? Which is the question that people who believe what you do have failed to answer from back in the thread - what change in your behaviour would having the information make? You realise the likelihood is that there is a sex offender somewhere in your general area, right? (If you live in a city anyway)

Doing that simultaneous posting style thing again auto ;)

Ps: in so far as folks will believe we're the same hombre :hihi:

You don't get to decide how i answer, fortunately, especially when the question you asked is irrelevant. The question is about living in the same area as them, not leaving your children with them.

As to your second question - that is the point, they are all lumped together for no apparent reason.

The question is about whether sex offenders in the community, with their convictions were against children or not, pose a risk to children.

Your arguments revolves around the question of whether their crime was committed against a child - if it wasn't comitted against a child then that must mean they pose no threat to children. I disagree with that assessment.

My argument is that they may or do pose a threat, not because in every case they have always offended against children (their crime may have been against an adult), but because of the violent nature of many sex crimes.

Sex offenders are barred from working with children (& vulnerable adults), whether they committed their crime against a child or not. People much more qualified than you or I formulated that policy. They would not have done this unless they felt there was an element of risk to children & vulnerable adults.

again, no, that's not my argument.

My argument is as I and many others have pointed out in this thread (and in others) a child is far more in danger from his/ her "Uncle Bob" than from some random chap-in-a-raincoat in the street.

see Andyofborg's comment, here:-

Fully accept that most crimes against children come from within the family. My only contention is the notion that sex offenders do not pose a risk to children just because their crime may have been against an adult.

Fully accept that most crimes against children come from within the family. My only contention is the notion that sex offenders do not pose a risk to children just because their crime may have been against an adult.

I'm going to agree with you on this point scuba. The reality is that I wouldn't have knowingly placed my kids under the supervision of someone I knew was a sex offender. Perhaps it's a justified position, or maybe it's an irrational one.

The problem is I believe if we were told the details of criminals living in our communities the information would be overwhelming, yet we wouldn't be in a position to do anything about it, other than be more vigilant than we already are.

The OP has already said they don't allow their children to play outside, I respect their decision, but what experience is it based on? If they were told there was a paedophile who lived on the same road would that increase their vigilance?

What if they lived 2 roads away? Would that vigilance be relaxed or would they simply fret more if their children were temporarily out of their sight..it could almost become a compulsive disorder.

A register of people who are likely to commit sex offences may be highly desirable, but I don't see why it should be available to everybody. No doubt the Police and Intelligence services are in possession of all sorts of very valuable information - but I doubt you're going to see it published too often.

There is a risk that sex offender' registers could be misused - or that people could find their names on a sex offenders' register. From the US:

"A decade ago, (Although his crime was not in any way sexual in nature, Smith’s photo was posted in an online registry. He also faced restrictions in some parts of the state on how close he can live to schools, parks and other places where children commonly gather. Last month, the highest court in Wisconsin held that Smith does, in fact, belong on the sex-offender registry. Just days earlier, the Supreme Court of Georgia came to the same conclusion in another case in which a man named Jake Rainer had been convicted on the same charge as Smith. The crime of false imprisonment, both courts found, counts as a sex offense under state law, even if nothing sexual happened.)when James Smith was 17, he and an accomplice forced another 17-year-old into a car with them near Green Bay, Wisconsin. The two wanted to collect drug money from a friend of the boy, and they forced him go along for the ride, making clear to him that if he didn’t, “he is going to get what is coming to him,” according to the criminal complaint in the case. After the incident, Smith was convicted of a crime called “false imprisonment.”

No one disputes that Smith was guilty of the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison. What Smith and many others watching his case found surprising was that the state of Wisconsin ordered him to register as a sex offender.

Although his crime was not in any way sexual in nature, Smith’s photo was posted in an online registry. He also faced restrictions in some parts of the state on how close he can live to schools, parks and other places where children commonly gather.

Last month, the highest court in Wisconsin held that Smith does, in fact, belong on the sex-offender registry. Just days earlier, the Supreme Court of Georgia came to the same conclusion in another case in which a man named Jake Rainer had been convicted on the same charge as Smith. The crime of false imprisonment, both courts found, counts as a sex offense under state law, even if nothing sexual happened.

That couldn't happen in the UK, could it?

If an individual gets drunk and pees on a war memorial, he is likely to find his name splattered all over the newspapers. Could his name end up on a sex offenders' list?

If an individual (who is not drunk) gets 'caught short', goes down a back alley, gets caught relieving himself and is prosecuted, could his name end up on a sex offenders' register? Is he a threat to children?

If an individual gets drunk and pees on a war memorial, he is likely to find his name splattered all over the newspapers. Could his name end up on a sex offenders' list?

If an individual (who is not drunk) gets 'caught short', goes down a back alley, gets caught relieving himself and is prosecuted, could his name end up on a sex offenders' register? Is he a threat to children?

That's very true, a man relieving himself, depending on when and where he does it, could be convicted of outraging public decency, which could result in an entry on the register.

Here's another example-the girls were investigated and charged, but the case was later dropped, as it wasn't deemed in the public interest:

"Earlier this summer, two 21-year old women were prosecuted for the crime of outraging public decency after they performed a deliberate “wardrobe malfunction”. Abbi-Louise Maple and Rachel Marchant lifted their tops and flashed their bare chests at a CCTV camera before collapsing in giggles on the beach at Worthing, West Sussex. The CCTV operator called the police and minutes later the two girls were arrested, interrogated and then charged."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article2492018.ece

Fully accept that most crimes against children come from within the family. My only contention is the notion that sex offenders do not pose a risk to children just because their crime may have been against an adult.

Their crime could be pinching someone's backside in a club. Sexual assault according to the letter of the law.
If everyone who ever pinched a backside is a threat to children then the human race is doomed.

The question is about whether sex offenders in the community, with their convictions were against children or not, pose a risk to children.

Your arguments revolves around the question of whether their crime was committed against a child - if it wasn't comitted against a child then that must mean they pose no threat to children. I disagree with that assessment.

My argument is that they may or do pose a threat, not because in every case they have always offended against children (their crime may have been against an adult), but because of the violent nature of many sex crimes.

Sex offenders are barred from working with children (& vulnerable adults), whether they committed their crime against a child or not. People much more qualified than you or I formulated that policy. They would not have done this unless they felt there was an element of risk to children & vulnerable adults.

They MAY be a threat to a child, as any person MAY be, but the mere fact of having a conviction for a sexual offence makes them no more or less likely to be a threat to children than anyone else (assuming it wasn't an offence against a child of course). And i very much doubt the policy was formulated by experts, more likely mandarins and politicians.

it is true that some sex offences are committed by relatives but i think you'll find that most are committed by strangers.

According to a report in the Telegraph in 80% of offences the offender knew the victim..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7069034/60-sex-offences-against-children-every-day.html

truman! How could you interfere in this thread by bringing the TRUTH into the equation, damn you!

just to put things straight. i do not condone vigilantism there is a difference between condoning it and not losing sleep over it.so although you aren't a vigilante you see nothing wrong with others indulging in vigilantism.

so if you knew someone was a vigilante you would do nothing ?
the arguments about sex offenders being the same as other criminals is idiotic as other criminals can be rehabilitated where as its a proven fact that sex offenders can't.oddly enough I agree with this labeling kerb crawlers as sex offenders is a weak attempt at proving a point as kerb crawlers are not commiting a crime against the person the crime is against the state which is why they dont go on the sex offenders register. the prostitute is a willing participant and in most cases is not forced into it.really ? you have evidence of this ? I would be very interested to see this evidenceits funny how ppl can not answer the simple question of would you leave your child alone if you knew a sex offender was present because it would defeat their own argument.no it doesn't, we do our best not to leave our children alone anyway whether we know there is a sex offender present or not, they are children and we are responsible for their safety, however different parents look after their children in different ways, so this would be a different discussionall i am saying is that as a parent i believe i have the right to know if there is a sex offender living in my area!!!!!!!!!!!! pain and simple.I disagree for the reasons I have already givenit is true that some sex offences are committed by relatives but i think you'll find that most are committed by strangers.this is incorrect as Mr Truman pointed out (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6435356&postcount=70)innocent ppl are harrassed and sometimes attacked because of rumours so wouldn't be better if ppl could look and prove their innocence.ok, suppose someone harasses you telling the world you are a sex offender, you show them a bit of paper that doesn't have your name on it they turn round and say "well that just means you haven't been caught yet" and they carry on

if someone showed you a bit of paper however official looking would you immediately change your mind, apologise and go round telling everyone you told about them that you were wrong ? or would there be a suspicion that perhaps they knocked it up on their computer ?

if someone is convinced of your guilt but has no evidence that you can refute then it is pretty much impossible to change their mind

the law says you have to prove someone's guilt, not that the accused has to prove their innocence, and if you can't prove someone's guilt then you leave them alone, you don't say anything and you certainly don't do anything

and if you do have proof you take it to the authorities

finally, what if there's a mistake on the register that brings a rampaging mob to their door, will the mob listen while they explain that there's a mistake on the register.finally the authorities would only act if there was evidence of a new crime but that does not mean that the person would never attack again just look at at the evidence most child killers have attacked before and been caught wich is why they kill to try and protect themselves. sorry for the essay but i think things need to be addressedbut the authorities know where these people are and monitor them regularly you have no need or right to know this, but if you have suspicions or evidence then you take it to the authorities and let them deal with it, they get paid to do this, you don't, they have authority to investigate, you haven't

I have never in my life read such drivel. You people talk as if you can justify these sick evil creatures. There shouldn't be any debate about where they are living cos they should be locked up for 10 years to make sure there's no mistakes them they should be strung up for the world to see that this is not acceptable. Before anyone jumps on me saying wot about kern crawlers or ppl who urinate in the streets I'd be very surprised if they would be put on the sec register for such a trivial thing.

They MAY be a threat to a child, as any person MAY be, but the mere fact of having a conviction for a sexual offence makes them no more or less likely to be a threat to children than anyone else (assuming it wasn't an offence against a child of course). And i very much doubt the policy was formulated by experts, more likely mandarins and politicians.

So by this remark are you saying that you are as much a risk to children as a sexual offender. Cos I sure as he'll know that I'm not

I have never in my life read such drivel. You people talk as if you can justify these sick evil creatures. There shouldn't be any debate about where they are living cos they should be locked up for 10 years to make sure there's no mistakes them they should be strung up for the world to see that this is not acceptable. Before anyone jumps on me saying wot about kern crawlers or ppl who urinate in the streets I'd be very surprised if they would be put on the sec register for such a trivial thing.


As much as you'd like it we are not governed by what goes on in your head...that's a debate for psycho analysis. The debate in hand is about the legalities of freedom of information. When the law says ALL offenders should be locked up but still roam free, then you may have a point.

Oh yeah...Hello newbie.

Almost all child abuse happens within the family, so rather than worrying about random strangers you should be more worried about what uncle jim is up too.

Does this statement mean that your children are safe as long ad they are not related to the peado down the road.

I have never in my life read such drivel. You people talk as if you can justify these sick evil creatures. There shouldn't be any debate about where they are living cos they should be locked up for 10 years to make sure there's no mistakes them they should be strung up for the world to see that this is not acceptable. Before anyone jumps on me saying wot about kern crawlers or ppl who urinate in the streets I'd be very surprised if they would be put on the sec register for such a trivial thing.

Back at you. In spades. (1)

No one is justifying paedophilia, or paedophiles.

They are simply saying that vigilante justice is not the answer.

(2) and you imagine that in 10 years, they'd be rehabilitated? Please, dream on.

However hanging is not the answer, even after 10 years.

It took 16 years, to free Stefan Kiszko, when it was discovered that he wasn't the person who raped and murdered Lesley Molseed. it took 30 + years to find the true culprit, Ronald Castree.

How do you give an executed innocent their life back, when it's found that they were wrongly convicted?

So by this remark are you saying that you are as much a risk to children as a sexual offender. Cos I sure as he'll know that I'm not

and in English? He'll know what?

Does this statement mean that your children are safe as long ad they are not related to the peado down the road.

no, OFL...

It is simply confirming that you cannot hear the danger that your kid is more likely to be in, from his/ her Uncle Bob/Uncle Jim, than from the man in the greasy mac, for the deafening sound of your knee jerking.

As much as you'd like it we are not governed by what goes on in your head...that's a debate for psycho analysis. The debate in hand is about the legalities of freedom of information. When the law says ALL offenders should be locked up but still roam free, then you may have a point.

Oh yeah...Hello newbie.

Please explain in my head. I have an opinion just like everyone else or am I not allowed to state it because I'm new. My friend told me about this thread and after reading it I can't believe people are saying these people have a right to protection or anonimity then you've got people saying "well it depends wot they've done or if it's spent. That's ridiculous if they've committed a sexual crime against a child, woman or even a man we should have a right to know who these people are

As much as you'd like it we are not governed by what goes on in your head...that's a debate for psycho analysis. The debate in hand is about the legalities of freedom of information. When the law says ALL offenders should be locked up but still roam free, then you may have a point.

Oh yeah...Hello newbie.

Please explain in my head. I have an opinion just like everyone else or am I not allowed to state it because I'm new. My friend told me about this thread and after reading it I can't believe people are saying these people have a right to protection or anonimity then you've got people saying "well it depends wot they've done or if it's spent. That's ridiculous if they've committed a sexual crime against a child, woman or even a man we should have a right to know who these people are

Why? How will knowing about it change anything?

I have never in my life read such drivel. You people talk as if you can justify these sick evil creatures. There shouldn't be any debate about where they are living cos they should be locked up for 10 years to make sure there's no mistakes them they should be strung up for the world to see that this is not acceptable. Before anyone jumps on me saying wot about kern crawlers or ppl who urinate in the streets I'd be very surprised if they would be put on the sec register for such a trivial thing.

As much as you'd like it we are not governed by what goes on in your head...that's a debate for psycho analysis. The debate in hand is about the legalities of freedom of information. When the law says ALL offenders should be locked up but still roam free, then you may have a point.

Oh yeah...Hello newbie.

Please explain in my head. I have an opinion just like everyone else or am I not allowed to state it because I'm new. My friend told me about this thread and after reading it I can't believe people are saying these people have a right to protection or anonimity then you've got people saying "well it depends wot they've done or if it's spent. That's ridiculous if they've committed a sexual crime against a child, woman or even a man we should have a right to know who these people are


There shouldn't be debate but you have an opinion? Any chance you could tell us who's going to listen to your opinion if you scream no debate?

No one has said they have a right to protection because they have sympathies with paedophiles..you made that up.

As much as you'd like it we are not governed by what goes on in your head...that's a debate for psycho analysis. The debate in hand is about the legalities of freedom of information. When the law says ALL offenders should be locked up but still roam free, then you may have a point.

Oh yeah...Hello newbie.

Please explain in my head. I have an opinion just like everyone else or am I not allowed to state it because I'm new. My friend told me about this thread and after reading it I can't believe people are saying these people have a right to protection or anonimity then you've got people saying "well it depends wot they've done or if it's spent. That's ridiculous if they've committed a sexual crime against a child, woman or even a man we should have a right to know who these people are

Of course you are entitled to have an opinion:- it's just that you need to think those opinions out, and reason them out with sensible arguments, be they pro- or anti- the theory that is being argued about..

just for the record I have no sympathy for child molesters

back in 1983, my brother died, a year or so later my sister in law got a new boyfriend and shortly after my niece was beaten to death, among other things, at the tender age of eight

I repeat I have no sympathy for child molesters

however I still maintain that vigilantism is not the answer nor is the publication of the addresses of sex offenders as mistakes cannot be undone

if you have suspicions or evidence, you give it to the authorities and let them deal with it

truman! How could you interfere in this thread by bringing the TRUTH into the equation, damn you!

I know,I'm just an old spoil sport aren't I.. :)

I know,I'm just an old spoil sport aren't I.. :)

Yes. Yes, you are.

We can't possibly allow the truth and common sense to come into the equation!

Given that HMG will henceforth be offering asylum to the Globe's poor huddled masses of gays (courtesy of the Supreme Court) how long before they extend asylum to the Globe's paedophiles on similar grounds.

I have never in my life read such drivel. You people talk as if you can justify these sick evil creatures. There shouldn't be any debate about where they are living cos they should be locked up for 10 years to make sure there's no mistakes them they should be strung up for the world to see that this is not acceptable. Before anyone jumps on me saying wot about kern crawlers or ppl who urinate in the streets I'd be very surprised if they would be put on the sec register for such a trivial thing.

Go and have a read in the papers then, google the sex offenders register and prepare yourself to be very surprised. Then come back and apologise for accusing people of writing drivel when you can't even be bothered to check if they're correct.

Given that HMG will henceforth be offering asylum to the Globe's poor huddled masses of gays (courtesy of the Supreme Court) how long before they extend asylum to the Globe's paedophiles on similar grounds.

Don't be ridiculous.

Being gay is not a crime, being a paedophile is. A fairly well cut distinction that you seem to have missed. :loopy:

They are simply saying that vigilante justice is not the answer.



Argueing the right to know what threats are in your local neighbourhood does not equal calling for vigilante justice either. That is misrepresenting the argument.

Don't be ridiculous.

Being gay is not a crime,

Not any more, it isn't - it wasn't always like that.

being a paedophile is. A fairly well cut distinction that you seem to have missed. :loopy:

Some countries have different definitions of paedophilia. I understand that child brides are acceptable in some societies.

We aren't talking about the past though. Being gay is not a crime in the UK.
Being a paedophile is a crime, so the comparison between offering asylum to people who may be persecuted because they are homosexual in no way implies that we would or will offer asylum to paedophiles. Which is what BritPat suggested, presumably in an attempt to equate or associate the two things.

Perhaps we should do an asylum swap. Let in gay asylum seekers from places like Yemen, and our paedos can apply for asylum there where they can go and marry their child victims. :|

It's strange that some of these places persecute grown adults for being gay, yet allow paedophilia (by what we would call paedophilia - obviously in those places having sex with your 10 year old newly wed bride is the norm so don't call it paedophilia so I'm sure to the liberatti that means it's not paedophilia).


----

Perhaps we should do an asylum swap. Let in gay asylum seekers from places like Yemen, and our paedos can apply for asylum there where they can go and marry their child victims. :|

It's strange that some of these places persecute grown adults for being gay, yet allow paedophilia (by what we would call paedophilia - obviously in those places having sex with your 10 year old newly wed bride is the norm).

The word actually refers to "before puberty" and is illegal in saudi too. They just don't use the same definition, they use what is actually the correct definition (there was for example a recent case where they beheaded a man for sex with a 4 y-o). Nature-wise of course, once you have gone through puberty you are of child producing age.

The word actually refers to "before puberty" and is illegal in saudi too. They just don't use the same definition, they use what is actually the correct definition (there was for example a recent case where they beheaded a man for sex with a 4 y-o). Nature-wise of course, once you have gone through puberty you are of child producing age.

They got that bit right.

Being gay is not a crime

Alan Carr
Graham Norton
Julian Clary

It should be. :)

I was going to copy and paste a full page of information on this subject but firstly it isn't the subject matter of the thread and also I'm in a good mood today so don't feel the need to debate. But I don't agree with earlier comments about gays being linked with peado's.

Mod Note

Describing sexual acts is against the site rules, specifically it's not "family friendly", do so again and this thread may be closed and/or the perpetrator(s) may be banned

The offending posts have been deleted.

Please read the site rules (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/terms) if you are unsure

Mod Note

Describing sexual acts is against the site rules, specifically it's not "family friendly", do so again and this thread may be closed and/or the perpetrator(s) may be banned

The offending posts have been deleted.

Please read the site rules (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/terms) if you are unsure

Oops sorry

Don't be ridiculous.

Being gay is not a crime, being a paedophile is. A fairly well cut distinction that you seem to have missed. :loopy:


Laws change, gross indecency laws in this country effectively made being gay a crime in this country until they were changed.


Being gay is a crime in the countries that the asylum seekers in question are seeking asylum from.

Oops sorry

..but I'd love to know what you were describing :hihi:

..but I'd love to know what you were describing :hihi:

Ha ha it wasn't anything exciting lol

But anyway back to my original question. Is there anyway I can get to view the sex offenders register

the only info we should get on sex offenders is the time and date of their execusion along with simular info on people who think theese scumbags have human rights

But anyway back to my original question. Is there anyway I can get to view the sex offenders register

The short answer is 'no'.

the only info we should get on sex offenders is the time and date of their execusion along with simular info on people who think theese scumbags have human rights

and the time their execution is live on TV .

and the time their execution is live on TV .


I expect Mr Moat would agree, you share his blood lust.

the only info we should get on sex offenders is the time and date of their execusion along with simular info on people who think theese scumbags have human rights

You want to execute people for (example) taking a p*ss in public.
And everyone who believes that human rights apply to humans.

You've got some issues, I wonder if you're really safe to be amongst the public.

Laws change, gross indecency laws in this country effectively made being gay a crime in this country until they were changed.


Being gay is a crime in the countries that the asylum seekers in question are seeking asylum from.

True. So are you going to stop being ridiculous and stop attempting to equate being gay with abusing children?