I know of a family that as recently had, to call the police and social services over an issue concerning a loved one that was abused sexually by a young man... this issue went through it's course arrests, interviews all the horrible stuff looking for evidence.. to get to the end and find out this man would not be prosecuted due to his word against hers now this was a man and a child.. so nothing was done... let loose sorry to girl that was hurt but not enough evidence.. ok thanks..
yeah.. then this man... goes free to perhaps do it again... but then cause it asn't reached to court prosecution stage no one knows..... scot free..

i personally think this is disgusting, so then you befriend this man,, and he does it to your child.. don't forget these abuses are as normal looking as all of us. don't have sticker on forhead saying watch your children...

does anyone think that this is unfair... i know again that,, innocent until proven guilty .. but... what about the kids rights...they give evidence as it is and no nothing off the law, nothing of what should be said and what shouldn't.. where is the justice for these children

what does everyone else think......

well i know what i think & i know what i would like to see done .

YEAH it ought to be like america we SHOULD know.....

YEAH it ought to be like america we SHOULD know.....

YEAH, we should know about anyone who has been investigated by the police for anything and then let off, then we can go and duff em up if they move near us.

As a dad my views cant be considered impartial but i think they should just hang from the nearest tree if convicted.
But he wasnt so in the eyes of the law hes an innocent man so why make it easy for him by making HIM the victim?
Just hope hes not looking when crossing the road, nice and accidental like.

YEAH, we should know about anyone who has been investigated by the police for anything and then let off, then we can go and duff em up if they move near us.

You see the problem is,, being an ex foster parent, most of them don't get convicted on their first offence, I know that to be true, some other poor child as to go through it too for anything to be looked at again, by then it's too late for the child...

unfair justice, the thing is no justice for kids they are too young to know..

As a dad my views cant be considered impartial but i think they should just hang from the nearest tree if convicted.
But he wasnt so in the eyes of the law hes an innocent man so why make it easy for him by making HIM the victim?
Just hope hes not looking when crossing the road, nice and accidental like.

Yeah and this man acts like the victim, but I know beyond anybodies innocent or not guilty that this man is a paedophile and i hate it....

The law sometimes is an ass,,

Yeah and this man acts like the victim, but I know beyond anybodies innocent or not guilty that this man is a paedophile and i hate it....

The law sometimes is an ass,,

If you know beyond any doubt that he is guilty then this should be enough for a death penalty, no need to waste money on trials and stuff.

Another Brasseye thread.

It's not a sensible idea to bring a 'Megan's Law' style legislation to this country. If the whereabouts of sexual offenders become common knowledge those people are highly likely to 'dissapear' in order to avoid the inevitable vigilante mobs. This means they are going to without the supervision of the probation and/or mental health services and consequently may well present as a higher risk to children.
Also worth remembering that vigilantism is a bad thing as the paediatrician who was targeted by angry dimwits would probably agree.

Not sure about it being a good thing ....Having kids myself I'm afraid I couldn't be sure of my actions towards them .....and may eventually find myself in a lot of trouble :(

It makes me sick to my stomach and I don't believe in re-habilitation of these monsters - I feel it's like a disease of the mind that can never go away no matter how much therapy we pump into them....:loopy:

I know of a family that as recently had, to call the police and social services over an issue concerning a loved one that was abused sexually by a young man... this issue went through it's course arrests, interviews all the horrible stuff looking for evidence.. to get to the end and find out this man would not be prosecuted due to his word against hers now this was a man and a child.. so nothing was done... let loose sorry to girl that was hurt but not enough evidence.. ok thanks..
yeah.. then this man... goes free to perhaps do it again... but then cause it asn't reached to court prosecution stage no one knows..... scot free..

i personally think this is disgusting, so then you befriend this man,, and he does it to your child.. don't forget these abuses are as normal looking as all of us. don't have sticker on forhead saying watch your children...

does anyone think that this is unfair... i know again that,, innocent until proven guilty .. but... what about the kids rights...they give evidence as it is and no nothing off the law, nothing of what should be said and what shouldn't.. where is the justice for these children

what does everyone else think......

I think the man may have been Let off with a caution which i believe means he will be on the Sex offenders register. Not the ideal I know, but at least he is now known to the police and they will keep an eye on him, we hope.

How about painting a cross on the doors of all suspected paedophiles? That way, when the local vigilante squad will know exactly who to drag out of their front rooms and burn on their front lawns.

How about painting a cross on the doors of all suspected paedophiles? That way, when the local vigilante squad will know exactly who to drag out of their front rooms and burn on their front lawns.


Go Hecate!

Seriously - I think we have a right to know. I also think they should all be locked in a room and beaten by people who have been given big sticks with nails driven through them.

Go Hecate!

Seriously - I think we have a right to know. I also think they should all be locked in a room and beaten by people who have been given big sticks with nails driven through them.

How about painting a cross on the doors of all suspected paedophiles? That way, when the local vigilante squad will know exactly who to drag out of their front rooms and burn on their front lawns.

What I said!!!

Another Brasseye thread.

How about painting a cross on the doors of all suspected paedophiles? That way, when the local vigilante squad will know exactly who to drag out of their front rooms and burn on their front lawns.

Then who's going to do my bunions?

i say yes HOWEVER
as like whats on the news lately you have to be careful of daily mirror reading inbreds that take matters into their own hands.
such as the learning disabillities house thats being targetted cos stupid people see house full of strange people and think...............peodos :(

i would say yes,after reading article 3 on this link.http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

How about painting a cross on the doors of all suspected paedophiles? That way, when the local vigilante squad will know exactly who to drag out of their front rooms and burn on their front lawns.
and a couple painted are wrong and someone has beef with someone so paints their door too. and for a prank people paint many other doors too, INCLUDING YOURS.
Not really a good idea is it?
Give them a proper punishment through the courts, if it is a disease it can be bred out through castration and paedophiles could be isolated from normal society in order to stop them re offending, rather than have some innocent person hurt.
regards burning them on the lawns, its a bit brutal, it would be more humane to slit their throats but only if you were 100% certain

they shouldn,t be allowed to roam free they are predetors

and a couple painted are wrong and someone has beef with someone so paints their door too. and for a prank people paint many other doors too, INCLUDING YOURS.
Not really a good idea is it?
Give them a proper punishment through the courts, if it is a disease it can be bred out through castration and paedophiles could be isolated from normal society in order to stop them re offending, rather than have some innocent person hurt.
regards burning them on the lawns, its a bit brutal, it would be more humane to slit their throats but only if you were 100% certain


I don't think Hecate was being serious.....?

I think the man may have been Let off with a caution which i believe means he will be on the Sex offenders register. Not the ideal I know, but at least he is now known to the police and they will keep an eye on him, we hope.

How do you work this out? The OP stated that there wasnt enough evidence to prosecute. An offence is only cautionable if fully admitted. Most sex offences have too high a gravity score for cautions anyway.

I don't think Hecate was being serious.....?

I agree. Hang the witch!!!

I don't think Hecate was being serious.....?
I agree. Hang the witch!!!
Busted! :hihi:

I thought the sarcasm was transparent enough to miss out the :roll: ...

I thought the sarcasm was transparent enough to miss out the :roll: ...

Me too....! :hihi:

It's not a sensible idea to bring a 'Megan's Law' style legislation to this country. If the whereabouts of sexual offenders become common knowledge those people are highly likely to 'dissapear' in order to avoid the inevitable vigilante mobs. This means they are going to without the supervision of the probation and/or mental health services and consequently may well present as a higher risk to children.
Also worth remembering that vigilantism is a bad thing as the paediatrician who was targeted by angry dimwits would probably agree.

Would you go with surgical castration or chemical castration then?

To negate the risk so to speak.

Busted! :hihi:

I thought the sarcasm was transparent enough to miss out the :roll: ...

I think he may be being funny as well TBH.
The problem still remains, what is to be done with them?
When it comes to these situations we are all NIMBIES.
These are a section of people who deserve no sympathy at all.
You cannot compare it to societies where the age of consent is lower, as that is normal behaviour in those areas.
The paedophiles sate their perverted lust on the innocence of the children. This cannot be punished out of them, so really the only way to stop them being a problem is to do away with them.
They will always be a threat to our children, cannot be 'cured' and cost a fortune to keep alive.
We are better off without them among us.

I think he may be being funny as well TBH. ...
I must admit to only reading the first bit of the post; the bit responding to mine.

The whole hanging, flogging, castrating brigade will no doubt be out in full force on this thread soon, and to be honest the subject's been done to death far too many times already for anything new to appear.

Seems to me that some people would like to know, even if it does put their children in more danger. Seems odd.

and to be honest the subject's been done to death far too many times already for anything new to appear.

Oh right, you might as well close it then.

Oh right, you might as well close it then.
If all serious discussion threads on here were closed because they fail to cover new ground, then they'd be pretty scarce on the ground. Besides, the venting opportunity this thread will provide probably serves a purpose in itself.

If all serious discussion threads on here were closed because they fail to cover new ground, then they'd be pretty scarce on the ground. Besides, the venting opportunity this thread will provide probably serves a purpose in itself.

If you dont keep going over old ground, there would not be much left to argue about.
Where would we be without Relgion, Politics, and Sexual Deviancy.
All that would be left would be kiddywinkies talking about who they fell in love with the night before. :D

How about painting a cross on the doors of all suspected paedophiles? That way, when the local vigilante squad will know exactly who to drag out of their front rooms and burn on their front lawns.

I'm sure you meant that firmly tongue in cheek ........

Quick answer: Yep we need to know where the pervs are.

Busted! :hihi:

I thought the sarcasm was transparent enough to miss out the :roll: ...

You would have thought so .......

How about painting a cross on the doors of all suspected paedophiles? That way, when the local vigilante squad will know exactly who to drag out of their front rooms and burn on their front lawns.

First good idea you've had in a long while hecate - congrats.

I have to ask though, because I'm just dying to know your viewpoint on peadophiles and the like:

Would you personally not want to know if one was living next door to you- or on your same road?

I think the man may have been Let off with a caution which i believe means he will be on the Sex offenders register. Not the ideal I know, but at least he is now known to the police and they will keep an eye on him, we hope.

Nope apparently not... will not go on sex offenders register cause.. he wasn't convicted....

How do you work this out? The OP stated that there wasnt enough evidence to prosecute. An offence is only cautionable if fully admitted. Most sex offences have too high a gravity score for cautions anyway.

Well no sex offender is ever going to sit there and say YES i did it.... so what they literally do is put the child through grueling interviews and examinations.. the problem is this child.. had gone through it a couple of years ago and only just got the nerve to speak up after he threatened her he was going to do it again...she panicked and told someone.
so there was no evidence as such. as a couple of years lapsed... she only spoke up through fear.... she got asked why didn't you say so before.. as we all know most offenders threaten their victims... with something or another... this was put against her and plus they said no other victims came forward.. well there not exactly gunna put it on front page of the f... star are they..

If all serious discussion threads on here were closed because they fail to cover new ground, then they'd be pretty scarce on the ground. Besides, the venting opportunity this thread will provide probably serves a purpose in itself.

Totally agree.. I only put this on cause i am appauled that one of my loved ones as been hurt like this.. it's close to my heart and feel totally ashamed that i myself cannot do anything about it cause it's against the law... i didn't realise this as been covered before as i have only just recently joined sheffield forum...

on here it's like voicing your anger.... i needed to perhaps voice this for my own piece of mind...

Quick answer: Yep we need to know where the pervs are.

Even if it increases the risk to our children?

Would you go with surgical castration or chemical castration then?

To negate the risk so to speak.

Chemical castration possibly, yes. I think there's some grounds for believing that can be very useful.
Surgical, no as it doesn't neccessarily reduce risk behaviour.

...I have to ask though, because I'm just dying to know your viewpoint on peadophiles and the like...
Let's just assume that whatever your view is, mine is the opposite, eh? It'll save the folk on this thread having to wade through more of your pompous postings.

When the majority of the population can distinguish between paedophiles and paediatricians there may just be a tiny argument in favour - I think we are a long way away from that.

ok then .... having watched this topic ..... look at it from another angle .... if it was made public where a sex offender (MALE OR FEMALE) was living ..... it could be next door to YOU ..... would you want vigilante mobs arriving causing mayhem / noise/ graffiti / damage & other unpleasantness on your doorstep ...... me thinx i already know the ans to that !!!! it would devalue your property enormously etc , scare ur children to the extreme if u have kids ........ ok these offenders are not welcome in any community but are the risks of public knowledge worth taking , maybe its better to (if you know that a new neighbour) is on the sex offender list etc to personaly voice ur opinion & concerns to him/her once only in a firm manner & completely ignore them & warn them of any consequences that may occur should the person step out of line regarding issues with you & ur family .....fact no matter what people have done , crimes etc they are sooner or later released back into the community fact

we all have to get on with our lives .... even the most vile scum you can think of .... leave them .... ignore them ....... ignorance can hurt people much more than physical violence

if a M/F sex perv moved next door to me i would certainly let them know of my disapproval but woud not render myself liable to prosecution just because of what he/she had done in the past

& thats talking sense

I was once in the situation where I knew of a person with a history of sexual offending against children who was living a hundred yards or so away from me.
I was aware that this person was subject to supervision by healthcare workers and didn't feel the need to 'do' anything about it. Come to think of it I said hello a time or two.

Totally agree.. I only put this on cause i am appauled that one of my loved ones as been hurt like this.. it's close to my heart and feel totally ashamed that i myself cannot do anything about it cause it's against the law... i didn't realise this as been covered before as i have only just recently joined sheffield forum...

on here it's like voicing your anger.... i needed to perhaps voice this for my own piece of mind...

That's fair enough, and venting a spleen in cyberspace can often be easier than anywhere else, but can I just point out one or two things ...... and this is coming from someone who has had personal, painful, experience on the victim's side. I won't say 'survivor', as it seems to me to be a term to make things black and white; that is to say, to say you're a 'survivor' means the pain ends. It never does.

This person, however, wasn't convicted of a crime. I know it's horrendously difficult to prove such things, but the weight of the law couldn't do anything. Even if you know something happened, it amounts to hearsay. There will already have been plenty of that round where s/he lives as it is.

It is possible that a crime never took place. You can't make public "So and so's a kiddy fiddler.", via the authorities, because an accusation was made, and then no evidence found.

Liberal wooly lefty that I am, I have some pretty strong views on what should happen to people who are convicted without doubt, not beyond reasonable doubt, of these sorts of crimes (there'd be a few less lab rats for a start), but according to law, this person's innocent.

By the same token, if someone has been convicted of this sort of stuff, the law places its penalty. When that penalty is paid, they should be left free to start their life again (grudgingly).

The law allows us nothing else.

I was once in the situation where I knew of a person with a history of sexual offending against children who was living a hundred yards or so away from me.
I was aware that this person was subject to supervision by healthcare workers and didn't feel the need to 'do' anything about it. Come to think of it I said hello a time or two.

I have also been in at least one situation where a person who had got a Schedule 1 offence against his/her name (with the appropriate descriptors) had been looking for jobs in 'wholly inappropriate' areas. S/he was quite amiable, but I had to rather forcefully say that other lines of work would be 'more achievable' for him/her (given that s/he wasn't allowed to work in certain areas or locations).

The person in question is now working, and as far as I'm aware hasn't re-offended.

The example I gave there was the most serious, but by no means the only one.

Nope apparently not... will not go on sex offenders register cause.. he wasn't convicted....
Sorry you might be wrong on that
http://www.yrtk.org/2006/article-make-the-sex-offenders-register-public/

Quote "Many people, such as R****s, are on the list even though they have not been charged or found guilty of any crime." Unquote


http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/privacy/spent-convictions-and-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders/sex-offenders-register.shtml

Quote"The Sex Offenders Act 1997, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 (SOA 1997), imposed a requirement on people convicted or cautioned in respect of sex offences, or found not guilty by reason of insanity," Unquote

So you do not have to be found Guilty to go on the sex offenders register which is what i said.

Let's just assume that whatever your view is, mine is the opposite, eh? It'll save the folk on this thread having to wade through more of your pompous postings.

Why can't you answer the question?



Would you personally not want to know if one was living next door to you- or on your same road?

When the majority of the population can distinguish between paedophiles and paediatricians there may just be a tiny argument in favour - I think we are a long way away from that.

I heard somewhere that the paediatrician story was a hoax. Anyone know?

they shouldn,t be allowed to roam free they are predetors

So lets say you were accused by a teenage girl of touching her. you would be OK about not being allowed to roam free?

This area is a minefield with all sorts of possibilities. Innocent until proven guilty must remain paramount although Blair is doing his best to undermine that. There are several cases a year of malicious accusations which unfortunately may prevent many convictions for rape and sexual assualt because defence lawyers can use this to defend their clients who may actually have done it.

There are degrees of sexual abuse for example a fifteen year old boy could be classed a sex offender for the rest of his life for having sex with his girlfriend who's the same age. The same label as a predatory paedophile . Not really comparable are they.

What evidence is there that Megan's Law would prevent a single child from being sexually abused? Don't forget that the prevalence of stranger abuse is tiny. Around 95% of all sexual abuse is by people known to the victim.

I was once in the situation where I knew of a person with a history of sexual offending against children who was living a hundred yards or so away from me.
I was aware that this person was subject to supervision by healthcare workers and didn't feel the need to 'do' anything about it. Come to think of it I said hello a time or two.

so you obviously don't have kids of your own then? or do you actually sympathise with these excuse for human beings.do gooders like yourself need to get in touch with the real world:loopy:

so you obviously don't have kids of your own then? or do you actually sympathise with these excuse for human beings.do gooders like yourself need to get in touch with the real world:loopy:

Well you're wrong then - and don't accuse me of not living in the real world - you don't know the first thing about me. Do - gooder? I like to do good things when the opportunity arises, yes, don't you? Or are you a do - evil er?

The person in question, as I hinted in my previous post was previously known to me professionally. I knew about the circumstances of the offending and I knew about the nature of the risks. I made a reasoned judgement that there wasn't a significant risk to my children and thus that there was no need to 'do' anything.

What would you do? Go around and string him up?

Even if it increases the risk to our children?

Even that baffled me - even coming from your usual tripe.
WHY would it increase the risk to our children if we know where they were?

Eh.....

Surely, my fishy friend :D, if we knew where they were - parents could keep an eye on them, remember the old saying - 'forewarned is forearmed'

Let's just assume that whatever your view is, mine is the opposite, eh? It'll save the folk on this thread having to wade through more of your pompous postings.

Well, well, well - hecate dropping out of an argument - I am shocked.
For once, you dont have an opinion on the matter to cancel out mine eh :D

I'd just like to know what you think on the subject is all - its not a bad request, and I certainly wont get all pompous and high and mighty on you like you have done to me in the past :)

Freedom of speech and all eh :D

A chap I used to work with was arrested and subsequently jailed for possessing child porn on his computer. While he was inside, word got round about where he lived and his girlfriend (who knew nothing about the porn and was living in the house alone at the time) was threatened, the windows smashed in and she was forced to move away, despite being a completely innocent party.

The sort of people who demand to know where the sex pests live are exactly the type of people who lack the intelligence to use this knowledge for anything other than violent purposes.

Why can't you answer the question?

Thankyou for that :D
I think its a reasonable request, dont you, for me to ask Hecate?

so you obviously don't have kids of your own then? or do you actually sympathise with these excuse for human beings.do gooders like yourself need to get in touch with the real world:loopy:

TOTALLY and utterly agreed with you on this...
Do-gooders need to step out into the real world for a change, because its a totally different world to what is going on in their tiny minds.

Even that baffled me - even coming from your usual tripe.
WHY would it increase the risk to our children if we know where they were?

Eh.....

Surely, my fishy friend :D, if we knew where they were - parents could keep an eye on them, remember the old saying - 'forewarned is forearmed'

Because your 'parents could keep an eye on them' isn't likely to mean that is it? It's likely to mean dog **** put through letter boxes, windows put through, threats of violence, verbal abuse and worse.
An offender living with that kind of situation is likely to do a midnight flit and disengage from the services that are monitoring them. Result - offender living elsewhere, unsupervised and unlikely to contact the authorities to advise them of their new location.
Another thought; supposing the whereabouts of the offender are publicly known - what about the impact on the innocent members of that persons family? Is it right or fair that a sex offenders children (who may already have been subject to his attentions) then have to endure forever being known as the pervert's son or daughter? That his mother would be subject to stares and whispers and people crossing the road to avoid them?

A chap I used to work with was arrested and subsequently jailed for possessing child porn on his computer. While he was inside, word got round about where he lived and his girlfriend (who knew nothing about the porn and was living in the house alone at the time) was threatened, the windows smashed in and she was forced to move away, despite being a completely innocent party.

The sort of people who demand to know where the sex pests live are exactly the type of people who lack the intelligence to use this knowledge for anything other than violent purposes.

And I deplore violence to be honest, but then again, I would rather know where perverts and their like hide - if people want to go the vigilante route, thats their look out - but I do feel sorry for the woman in question though who is an innocent party in all of this it seems.

And I deplore violence to be honest, but then again, I would rather know where perverts and their like hide - if people want to go the vigilante route, thats their look out - but I do feel sorry for the woman in question though who is an innocent party in all of this it seems.

So can you not see that to make the adresses of offenders public exposes innocent parties to this kind of abuse and as per my previous post means that it's more likely that the offender will disengage from the services monitoring their case, with the result that more children will be at risk.

How about painting a cross on the doors of all suspected paedophiles? That way, when the local vigilante squad will know exactly who to drag out of their front rooms and burn on their front lawns.

Indeed, and then you get your own door painted ;)

I'm inclined to wonder where were the parents of this young person who was allegedly abused?

Have to say I totally agree with Halibut on this one.

The only justification someone can have for demanding to know the whearabouts of an offender is safety of their children, or those in the local community.

As someone pointed out earlier with the case of the innocent woman who had her windows smashed;

The sort of people who demand to know where the sex pests live are exactly the type of people who lack the intelligence to use this knowledge for anything other than violent purposes

Safety ceases to be the top priority, and vengance takes over.

And then, as Halibut pointed out, the said offender will be driven underground where the police will be unable to moniter them, leading to a less safe environment for the communities children, because nobody will know where they are, not even the police!

a man who took part in a gang rape on a young boy, there was a number of men who raped this child & then killed him this person is now free .he shouldn,t be allowed to roam in fact he shouldnt be out of prison , just imagine what that child went through sodomised by a number of men abused then killed for their sick gratifacation , locking up he wants stringing up ,would you like people who are capable of this vile crime living near you

a man who took part in a gang rape on a young boy, there was a number of men who raped this child & then killed him this person is now free .he shouldn,t be allowed to roam in fact he shouldnt be out of prison , just imagine what that child went through sodomised by a number of men abused then killed for their sick gratifacation , locking up he wants stringing up ,would you like people who are capable of this vile crime living near you


So what would you do if you found out this guy was living near you?

offer him tea & biscuits ,what would you do

I've seen CCTV footage of a paedophile here in Sheffield disguising himself as a school. He's been getting away with it for years. We need to catch this man, he really is a s***.

offer him tea & biscuits ,what would you do

Accept that, whatever my own personal opinion, the guy had served the sentence deemed necessary as punishment for his crime, and leave him alone to start a new life.

I've seen CCTV footage of a paedophile here in Sheffield disguising himself as a school. He's been getting away with it for years. We need to catch this man, he really is a s***.


and then we'll get some lefty moron saying he needs help..they don't need help they need their nuts chopping off that way theres no chance of reoffending.if someone drinks and drives they loose their licence,if a pervert assaults kids he should loose his nads..end of.


i'd sooner see them hang but thats never goona happen in our nanby pamby society

Accept that, whatever my own personal opinion, the guy had served the sentence deemed necessary as punishment for his crime, and leave him alone to start a new life.

what of the life he snatched away this man is evil to the core, if they are going to lock them up then keep em locked up ,but some people have different opinions & thats your right to do so ,me id sooner top the sick b****** then his fellow perverts who took part in the rape & murder of a young boy,& further more i wouldn,t lose a nights sleep over it.but thats my view

what of the life he snatched away this man is evil to the core, if they are going to lock them up then keep em locked up ,but some people have different opinions & thats your right to do so ,me id sooner top the sick b****** then his fellow perverts who took part in the rape & murder of a young boy,& further more i wouldn,t lose a nights sleep over it.but thats my view


and my view also,i would gladly do time for anyone that harmed one of my kids

and then we'll get some lefty moron saying he needs help..they don't need help they need their nuts chopping off that way theres no chance of reoffending.if someone drinks and drives they loose their licence,if a pervert assaults kids he should loose his nads..end of.


i'd sooner see them hang but thats never goona happen in our nanby pamby society

You're just plain wrong; 'chopping their nuts off' doesn't eliminate the chance of reoffending.

You're just plain wrong; 'chopping their nuts off' doesn't eliminate the chance of reoffending.

hasn't been tried yet so you never know. :hihi:

what of the life he snatched away this man is evil to the core, if they are going to lock them up then keep em locked up ,but some people have different opinions & thats your right to do so ,me id sooner top the sick b****** then his fellow perverts who took part in the rape & murder of a young boy,& further more i wouldn,t lose a nights sleep over it.but thats my view


No you're right you wouldn't lose a nights sleep over it, and neither to be honest would I. However, you would lose your freedom by going to jail for a very long time. Whether he deserves it or not, its still murder in the eyes of the law. And yes the law is an ass because he shouldn't be free after what he's done.
Perhaps vigilanties need protecting from themselves?

I've seen CCTV footage of a paedophile here in Sheffield disguising himself as a school. He's been getting away with it for years. We need to catch this man, he really is a s***.

That's my mindset on the matter too.... :hihi:

and then we'll get some lefty moron saying he needs help..they don't need help they need their nuts chopping off that way theres no chance of reoffending.if someone drinks and drives they loose their licence,if a pervert assaults kids he should loose his nads..end of.


i'd sooner see them hang but thats never goona happen in our nanby pamby society

:o :o :o :o :o

Yes i agree all sex pests shouldn't be allowed to live normal lives, we should be told where they are for the safty of children. Let all the estate know about them & make their lifes hell 'HANG THE SCUM'!!!!

Yes i agree all sex pests shouldn't be allowed to live normal lives, we should be told where they are for the safty of children. Let all the estate know about them & make their lifes hell 'HANG THE SCUM'!!!!

If that's a parody of the views of the archetypal estate-dwelling, tabloid-reading moron, it's very accurate - well done!

If however you really think that, you've just proved why the answer to the title of this thread should be "no".

You're just plain wrong; 'chopping their nuts off' doesn't eliminate the chance of reoffending.

It would if you choked them with them.

You're just plain wrong; 'chopping their nuts off' doesn't eliminate the chance of reoffending.

In that case execute them. Sexual deviancy cannot be cured, so get rid of them, we dont want them among us or anywhere near us.

In that case execute them. Sexual deviancy cannot be cured, so get rid of them, we dont want them among us or anywhere near us.

well said mate:thumbsup:

In that case execute them. Sexual deviancy cannot be cured, so get rid of them, we dont want them among us or anywhere near us.

In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have capital punishment here, so that's a fairly futile suggestion.

In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have capital punishment here, so that's a fairly futile suggestion.

mores the pity (couldnt resist it halibut)

In that case execute them. Sexual deviancy cannot be cured, so get rid of them, we dont want them among us or anywhere near us.

agree 100%

agree 100%

Post no 83.

i agree with the concept i know it isn't a possibilty though Halibut in Britain.

In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have capital punishment here, so that's a fairly futile suggestion.

do you make a habbit of siding with disgusting misfits that don't deserve to live amongst decent people..or are you infact one of them? you seem to make alot of noise when it comes to defending this filth.

i agree with the concept i know it isn't a possibilty though Halibut in Britain.

Would you not agree with me that there's a risk that if an offender is aware that he might face execution that he would be more likely to kill his victims to avoid being identified?

do you make a habbit of siding with disgusting misfits that don't deserve to live amongst decent people..or are you infact one of them? you seem to make alot of noise when it comes to defending this filth.

Point out one instance where I've defended paedophiles or sought to condone their behaviour. You can't, because their aren't any.
And leave out the cheap shots - it makes you look stupid.

do you make a habbit of siding with disgusting misfits that don't deserve to live amongst decent people..or are you infact one of them? you seem to make alot of noise when it comes to defending this filth.
Where has Halibut done anything approaching defending paedophiles? He's countered the 'arguments' of the name and shame brigade. You might want to reconsider making such offensive, unwarranted and ridiculous comments about someone on a public forum.

In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have capital punishment here, so that's a fairly futile suggestion.

What do you do then?
Fair enough in a handful of cases it may have been an abberation (and that is inexcusable), but most are hardened deviants solely intent on warped sexual satisfaction.

Dont forget, their victims are children, even infants and babies.
We righly detest and loathe men who rape adult women, that crime is magnified 10 fold in the case of children.
There is no reason or excuse for it, and you, as the father of children must agree.

Would you not agree with me that there's a risk that if an offender is aware that he might face execution that he would be more likely to kill his victims to avoid being identified?

They usually kill them any way, don't they?
Micheal Stone, Ian Huntley, Ian Brady, etc, etc, it is all part of their disgusting carry on.
Don't for Gods sake go defending them, they do not deserve even your all encompassing heart rending sympathy.

They usually kill them any way, don't they?
Micheal Stone, Ian Huntley, Ian Brady, etc, etc, it is all part of their disgusting carry on.
Don't for Gods sake go defending them, they do not deserve even your all encompassing heart rending sympathy.

apparently he doesn't defend them mate,he just says good morning to them:rolleyes:

Please lay off the personal comments towards other Forum members.

Any more and I'll dish out some Forum Holidays. Thanks.

They usually kill them any way, don't they?
Micheal Stone, Ian Huntley, Ian Brady, etc, etc, it is all part of their disgusting carry on.
Don't for Gods sake go defending them, they do not deserve even your all encompassing heart rending sympathy.

They don't usually kill them, no - fortunately the cases you mention are extremely rare.
Please stop repeating the absurd notion that I am defending anyone or provide some evidence that I am.

i personally think that having the knowledge would be a double edged sword.
reading some of the comments on here aimed at paedo's and at people with a more balanced opinion, i don't think the streets would be safe.

some of the comments make jade goody look intelligent.

do you make a habbit of siding with disgusting misfits that don't deserve to live amongst decent people..or are you infact one of them? you seem to make alot of noise when it comes to defending this filth.

specify disgusting misfits...

mine would include drunk drivers,alco's, druggies, convicted paedo's(proper ones),drug dealers, people guilty of gbh and abh.

not all sex offenders are worse than any of the above.(by the way i know loads of people guilty of underage sex which is a sex offence)

What do you do then?
Fair enough in a handful of cases it may have been an abberation (and that is inexcusable), but most are hardened deviants solely intent on warped sexual satisfaction.

We apply the law and charge, try and imprison them. There are those who no amount of supervision, therapy or chemical intervention can change - these people, if they remain a high risk, should remain inside.
There are interventions which can reduce the risk of reoffending; we should use them where possible and devote time and money into looking at what steps can be taken to reduce the risk in people who have a capacity to change.

They don't usually kill them, no - fortunately the cases you mention are extremely rare.
Please stop repeating the absurd notion that I am defending anyone or provide some evidence that I am.

I withdraw the innuendo that you were defending them, but you sometimes give dubious people too much benefit of the doubt (except me)

I've seen CCTV footage of a paedophile here in Sheffield disguising himself as a school. He's been getting away with it for years. We need to catch this man, he really is a s***.

:hihi: At last some levity :hihi:

specify disgusting misfits...

not all sex offenders are worse than any of the above.(by the way i know loads of people guilty of underage sex which is a sex offence)

You should change the company you keep pronto.

What do you do then?
Fair enough in a handful of cases it may have been an abberation (and that is inexcusable), but most are hardened deviants solely intent on warped sexual satisfaction.

Dont forget, their victims are children, even infants and babies.
We righly detest and loathe men who rape adult women, that crime is magnified 10 fold in the case of children.
There is no reason or excuse for it, and you, as the father of children must agree.


What about people who are on the Sex Offenders Register who aren't 'hardened deviants'? A 16 year old lad who has had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend could find himself on there. Convicted prostitutes can find themselves on there. Are you saying that all and sundry are to know that they're 'officially' sex offenders?

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly a fan of the real deviants; as I said before there'd be fewer lab rats if I had my way.

What about people who are on the Sex Offenders Register who aren't 'hardened deviants'? A 16 year old lad who has had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend could find himself on there. Convicted prostitutes can find themselves on there. Are you saying that all and sundry are to know that they're 'officially' sex offenders?

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly a fan of the real deviants; as I said before there'd be fewer lab rats if I had my way.

You know very well what I mean, I dont mean young adolescents experimenting among themselves, or we would all be locked up.
In what way is a prostitue a paedophile?, a nuisance perhaps.
I mean the hardcore who are uncontrollable.
The same should apply to those who attack children physically as well.
There was a case in the paper the other day, a 2 year old boy's' mothers 'lover' had stamped on the child after a litany of cruelty.
His intestines and liver were ruptured, ribs broken, and they did nothing to help the poor child.
I have a two year old granddaughter, to look at her surrounded by love, and to think of that poor little boy, surrounded by evil makes my blood run cold.

Anyone who ill treats children, in any fashion, is not fit to be a member of the human race.

Anyone who ill treats children, in any fashion, is not fit to be a member of the human race.

Do you include shouting at them, smacking them or being over-protective in that definition?

Do you include shouting at them, smacking them or being over-protective in that definition?

I can tell you for a fact my old pal, that neither my children or grandchildren have ever been smacked at all, they have obviously heard raised voices, it would be strange if they had not.
Children, especially the young ones need love and encouragement to prosper. In fact I think my granddaughter is a candidate for Cambridge or Oxford :thumbsup:

You know very well what I mean, I dont mean young adolescents experimenting among themselves, or we would all be locked up.
In what way is a prostitue a paedophile?, a nuisance perhaps.
I mean the hardcore who are uncontrollable.

And you know what I mean too. The simple fact is that experimenting teenagers (convicted of underage sexual activity) and convicted prostitutes CAN and DO end up on the Sex Offenders Register.

If the SOR is the basis for the 'name and shame' brigade, it's entirely possible that the facts will not be correctly represented and they would suffer at the hands of the vigilantes.

I can tell you for a fact my old pal, that neither my children or grandchildren have ever been smacked at all, they have obviously heard raised voices, it would be strange if they had not.
Children, especially the young ones need love and encouragement to prosper. In fact I think my granddaughter is a candidate for Cambridge or Oxford :thumbsup:

Good man, and good luck to her :thumbsup:

Do you include shouting at them, smacking them or being over-protective in that definition?how can bieng protective of a child be abuse ?

You should change the company you keep pronto.


so you didn't go to school with anyone who had sex before they were 16.
which school was it, a convent or monastry?

So can you not see that to make the adresses of offenders public exposes innocent parties to this kind of abuse and as per my previous post means that it's more likely that the offender will disengage from the services monitoring their case, with the result that more children will be at risk.

It is a risk I agree, however, the perverted acts against children over shadow that, and of course the partner of the perv could move away - I would think it best to be honest.

If we all knew where the perverts were though, how would the offender be able to get away with anything when the eyes of almost every parent be on them to make sure they are not up to anything?

offer him tea & biscuits ,what would you do

Thats one of the best comebacks I've seen on here.
Good show mate :D

so you didn't go to school with anyone who had sex before they were 16.
which school was it, a convent or monastry?

The girls usually went to convents, such as St Maries, and the boys to De la Salle yes.

It is a risk I agree, however, the perverted acts against children over shadow that, and of course the partner of the perv could move away - I would think it best to be honest.

If we all knew where the perverts were though, how would the offender be able to get away with anything when the eyes of almost every parent be on them to make sure they are not up to anything?

Let's start with the FACT that most child abusers (paedophile comes from the Greek for 'child lover' - hardly appropriate) are known to the victim. The astonishingly rare cases of stranger abduction are so rare that they will always (rightly so) make headlines.

As I said before, how can you reconcile the differences between a predatory sex offender, convicted prostitute, or experimental teenager? The SOR will list them all.

Finally, as a parent of three wonderful girls, my duty as a father is to protect them against ANYONE. Some nasty people have never had a conviction, you know ........

Not possible to define legislation so that no-one ever slips through the net. Not possible to define it so that some people who are *relatively* harmless accidentally get named and shamed.

You have to draw the line somewhere but isn't it time that someone actually started drawing one?

Not possible to define legislation so that no-one ever slips through the net. Not possible to define it so that some people who are *relatively* harmless accidentally get named and shamed.

You have to draw the line somewhere but isn't it time that someone actually started drawing one?

There is one. It's called the law, and the sentence if convicted.

I'm not to sure on the whole idea of the Sex Offenders Register being made public for a number of reasons, however, I would be all for a 'High Risk Sex Offenders Register' being made public. If someone has accidently downloaded child porn on their computer, had sex before they reached 16 with a consenting 15 year old or been falsely accused for a sexual offense then they could well end up on the SOR as a caution leads to a one year SOR time.

Having a High Risk SOR would allow for parents to know of the convicted most likely to be a threat to their children without unfairly publishing the details of people convicted or cautioned for minor offenses.

However, you do have the issue that 'angry mobs' will likely involve innocent third parties in their actions, which is in no way justifiable.

how can bieng protective of a child be abuse ?

Re-read. I said 'over-protective'. Agreed, not as damaging as physical or sexual abuse, but over protective parenting can and does damage childrens development.

problems arise when these known sex offenders are not being watched they are turned loose on to unsuspecting neighberhoods many to re-offend,it goes without saying children need protecting from these sort of people

92% of sex offenders walk through the front door of the child's house.


Sorry if the facts don't fit the paranoia.

Let's start with the FACT that most child abusers (paedophile comes from the Greek for 'child lover' - hardly appropriate) are known to the victim. The astonishingly rare cases of stranger abduction are so rare that they will always (rightly so) make headlines.

As I said before, how can you reconcile the differences between a predatory sex offender, convicted prostitute, or experimental teenager? The SOR will list them all.

Finally, as a parent of three wonderful girls, my duty as a father is to protect them against ANYONE. Some nasty people have never had a conviction, you know ........

Agreed that in most cases- its a family friend or even family themselves committing the abuse - but all cases should be treated the same, they are an act of abuse against a child - and they are perverts.. simple as that.

Sex offenders should be on the list - prostitutes and experimental teens should not UNLESS the teen has been suspected of being a child abuser/paedo before.

I have nothing against prostitutes- they are people wanting to make some cash at the end of the day, its only the fools who use them I question :)

Best wishes to you and your family by the way as I'm sure your doing a good job of bringing them up.

92% of sex offenders walk through the front door of the child's house.


Sorry if the facts don't fit the paranoia.

be that as may, the point is they are still paedophiles & if caught want removing & not just moved anywhere onto unsuspecting neighbourhoods.

I absolutely agree with you pk014b7161, but I don't think that is the job of the man in the street, or any other common or garden vigilantes, publicity seeker or copy-hungry news whorehound.

This has been all over the news today. Starting trials in 5 towns very soon.

I agree with it but not sure they have thought it through properly.

They say people will have a right to know if a sex offender lives on your street. This sounds like a good idea but what happens if you are 1 of 3 single males living on a street with 15 houses?

I think they should revise the plan and allow people to know if a sex offender lives within a certain postcode.

They should also stipulate the offence the person was charged with. People will automaticly assume the offender is a peadophile when he could quite simply be a flasher or something.

yes we should know, and we should have the right to do with the information as we wish. no second chances for the scum

Haven't read all the posts, but yes in the US we can find the sex offenders in our area through the internet and the police depts, for some reason I have no interest to read that stuff...not so far anyhow.

also some boys have been listed as sex offenders for having sex with their younger girlfriends that they've been dateing for a long time...example, she gets mad when he wants to break up, so reports him to get back at him, his life is ruined from then on, it's happend onmany occasions too.

Then on the other hand, the horror strories you hear, makes you think twice.

Meggans law has been very successful, I read a few years back that you had it over there now as your PC Dept came over here to see how it worked.

Just heard on the news that our version of Megans Law will not be happening.

It's not a sensible idea to bring a 'Megan's Law' style legislation to this country. If the whereabouts of sexual offenders become common knowledge those people are highly likely to 'dissapear' in order to avoid the inevitable vigilante mobs. This means they are going to without the supervision of the probation and/or mental health services and consequently may well present as a higher risk to children.
Also worth remembering that vigilantism is a bad thing as the paediatrician who was targeted by angry dimwits would probably agree.
people can not dissapear or go underground,we live on an island,they need shelter and food,they either work or claim benefits so they have to surface at some point,the news of the world ran a piece on sunday saying sarah,s law would be tried out in three cities in britain this year,one in somerset has a population of over 100 thousand

the article said that parents would be told if any paedos were in their immediate area,no names or addresses would be given out,but a threat level would be given,the area covered would be the street the person asking for information lives on and the route their child takes to school

personally i think they should have a micro chip surgicaly inserted and be made to report to a named police station twice a week,failure to do so resulting in a minimum of five years in prison,this would at least monitor them a lot better than the probation service can hope to do as their whereabouts can be detected and filed 24/7,putting them at the scene of any future crime or giving them an alibi

Just heard on the news that our version of Megans Law will not be happening.

I wonder why :confused: I would love to know.

perhaps some one with a high profile job wouldnt like it to be public knowledge

we had a paedophile who lived nearly opposite, he seemed to drive up and down in a large white van. He was in prison for eight years and then came back to the house, but there were complaints to the police and he moved.

We found out later that our landline phone was a shared line with his house, but this was after we had had it disconnected for other reasons

I wonder why :confused: I would love to know.

An MP "getting ahead of himself" apparently (http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,,2054228,00.html)

Good job too, as this ridiculous idea would put probably children at more risk. Plus stranger abuse is incredibly rare and around 95% of abuse is by family members or others already known to the child.

What possible use would it be to tell people the number of offenders living on a street?

Would just have the torch and pitchfork brigade hazarding guesses at who it might be with hilarious consequences, no doubt.

An MP "getting ahead of himself" apparently (http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,,2054228,00.html)...
It was cynical vote-getting tactics, according to that:
There were also complaints about the way the initiative was floated in the News of the World, which has been campaigning for the names and addresses of all sex offenders to be published, at a time when local election rules forbid government departments making controversial policy announcements until after polling day.
That the scheme was welcomed by the News of the World (they of the 'Name and Shame' campaign) and soundly criticised by the appropriate authorites, speaks volumes:
The newspaper described the decision to run three pilot schemes for three to six months as "a historic victory".

But the decision was criticised by police, probation, children's charities and social services chiefs. ...

we had a paedophile who lived nearly opposite, he seemed to drive up and down in a large white van. He was in prison for eight years and then came back to the house, but there were complaints to the police and he moved.

We found out later that our landline phone was a shared line with his house, but this was after we had had it disconnected for other reasons

Aye, you need to be careful with those phonelines - paedo's can reach their thin arms through the wire and fumble with your kids.......

Aye, you need to be careful with those phonelines - paedo's can reach their thin arms through the wire and fumble with your kids.......

eww!!!what a horrible thought

An interesting point was made by someone from the NSPCC regarding this issue and pointed out that more times than any, the predator and the victim are often related or have close links. As much as these vile scum don't deserve the air we breathe I don't agree with handing out their details to joe public as that would only result in lynch mobs going round and harming/killing people. There are better ways of keeping tabs on paedophiles.

As most of these attacks are usually performed by somebody that knows the child or the family, If they have a prior conviction surely you should already know.

As for letting everyone in an area know if a sex pest is present then I don't think that we should. I think that we all live in to much fear and our children don't have nearly as much freedom as they should because the press give us too much information already. The likelyhood of your child being a victim of a sexual predator is practically nothing and as I said before, it is usually somebody that knows the child or family that does it.

As most of these attacks are usually performed by somebody that knows the child or the family, If they have a prior conviction surely you should already know.

As for letting everyone in an area know if a sex pest is present then I don't think that we should. I think that we all live in to much fear and our children don't have nearly as much freedom as they should because the press give us too much information already. The likelyhood of your child being a victim of a sexual predator is practically nothing and as I said before, it is usually somebody that knows the child or family that does it.

Good points there mojo1. Nice posting!

Aye, you need to be careful with those phonelines - paedo's can reach their thin arms through the wire and fumble with your kids.......

Are you trying to be offensive :loopy:

I wonder why :confused: I would love to know.

My guess is they've been reading some of the posts on here!

An interesting point was made by someone from the NSPCC regarding this issue and pointed out that more times than any, the predator and the victim are often related or have close links. As much as these vile scum don't deserve the air we breathe I don't agree with handing out their details to joe public as that would only result in lynch mobs going round and harming/killing people. There are better ways of keeping tabs on paedophiles.

Wholeheartedly agree DD. Something like 90% of the victims know their abuser or are related to them, making the whole idea of releasing details pointless. It's not that I disagree that these people are a waste of skin and air, but I do think there must be better ways of keeping tabs. I still believe the internet is really just facilitating these crimes, and that a lot more could be done to stop this.

We should not know, we should know that dangerous persons are segregated from normal persons. If someone raped a young child once was punished, released and does it again they should get a one way ticket to 8ft by 6ft till death. "Paedo prison" - communal area for convicts, and cells. Don't let them anywhere else, why bother they should be placed in there to die. If they have done it once, then again after punishment there should be two strikes your out - they have proved they can't be trusted.

If you knew a paedo was in your area, you might attack them, i suppose if they have been "rehabilitated" youve got to give them a chance. If they do reoffened they shouldn't be given another chance.
I have no problems with any parent/sibling who takes revenge on a paedophile whom has abused their relative, but otherwise it's a bit unfair.
I'd agree with organised corporal punisment for paedos along with prison, but giving out such information to possible violent/mad individuals is only likely to make them offend, which in turn might make them madder/more violent

yes, i think the government should let us know, the amount of pedaphiles in sheffield alone are quite high according to the newspaper last year, very scary indeed:(

I know of a family that as recently had, to call the police and social services over an issue concerning a loved one that was abused sexually by a young man... this issue went through it's course arrests, interviews all the horrible stuff looking for evidence.. to get to the end and find out this man would not be prosecuted due to his word against hers now this was a man and a child.. so nothing was done... let loose sorry to girl that was hurt but not enough evidence.. ok thanks..
yeah.. then this man... goes free to perhaps do it again... but then cause it asn't reached to court prosecution stage no one knows..... scot free..

i personally think this is disgusting, so then you befriend this man,, and he does it to your child.. don't forget these abuses are as normal looking as all of us. don't have sticker on forhead saying watch your children...

does anyone think that this is unfair... i know again that,, innocent until proven guilty .. but... what about the kids rights...they give evidence as it is and no nothing off the law, nothing of what should be said and what shouldn't.. where is the justice for these children

what does everyone else think......

This has got to be more widespread than any of us can imagine. A sex offender, maybe within a family, is accused of abuse by a family member but isnt charged. They dont go on the sex offenders register.

There's one over-riding issue that no-one seems to have mentioned yet, but which I believe is the most pertinent point of all in real-life terms. Several people have mentioned the fact that the vast majority of abusers are family or familiars. But what people are ignoring is how sex offenders end up on the register in the first place.

There is not a pre-packed job lot of paedophiles. For someone to be convicted, it takes a child to pluck up the courage to speak out about their abuse. It's actually easy to point to the weirdo stranger and say "he touched me". What is far more complex is how to get children to open up about their dad, uncle, step-brother, mum's best friend, etc. THAT is where abuse mostly comes from, and the barriers preventing children opening up in such situations are much more formidable.

Even when the familial abuse is extreme and horrific, family bonds make the child terrified to rock the boat or split the family, or get someone they love into trouble (because many victims still feel bonded to their abuser). The more that the law becomes vengeful and fire-and-brimstone, the less likely it is that children will feel comfortable reporting their abusers. Few enough come to light as it is. Why make it even harder for children to speak up?

There's one over-riding issue that no-one seems to have mentioned yet, but which I believe is the most pertinent point of all in real-life terms. Several people have mentioned the fact that the vast majority of abusers are family or familiars. But what people are ignoring is how sex offenders end up on the register in the first place.

There is not a pre-packed job lot of paedophiles. For someone to be convicted, it takes a child to pluck up the courage to speak out about their abuse. It's actually easy to point to the weirdo stranger and say "he touched me". What is far more complex is how to get children to open up about their dad, uncle, step-brother, mum's best friend, etc. THAT is where abuse mostly comes from, and the barriers preventing children opening up in such situations are much more formidable.

Even when the familial abuse is extreme and horrific, family bonds make the child terrified to rock the boat or split the family, or get someone they love into trouble (because many victims still feel bonded to their abuser). The more that the law becomes vengeful and fire-and-brimstone, the less likely it is that children will feel comfortable reporting their abusers. Few enough come to light as it is. Why make it even harder for children to speak up?

Good point, and this is what would have worried me about the 'no names and addresses' thing. How many parents, brothers and sisters, uncles, aunties, family friends, might live on the same road, or school route as the quiet shift worker, who watches Sky, and keeps himself to himself?

And who's the biggest suspect if someone says 'ooh look, there's a weirdo near you'? Not the most statistically likely people, that's for sure. I saw a lot of hassle when I was a kid, but none from those who would have been stereotyped an offender by the tabloids.

Linked to what you say purdy, is the fact that the people who have done these evil things have no convictions because the kids can't, or in my case can't and didn't speak up.

They'll never be on the SOR because of that. Knowing that someone who has been convicted of soliciting, and therefore on the SOR, is in your vicinity isn't the same as what I suffered. The two types of convictions aren't even close to being comparable.

So if a wo/man, convicted of soliciting, or gross indecency (you know what I'm on about) lived on your road, and as a result was on the SOR, would you NEED the right to know? And if you got it, would the fe/male prostitute get hassle?

Doubt it, but the rumours would start ............. one person near to where I used to live, is, a little odd. Certainly his social skills were lacking, to say the very least. Another up the road was a quiet man, who was approachable, and kids liked.

One feared by kids - never seen him near a kid; one liked, always with them.

Neither one as far as I know a fiddler, but which one had his walls daubed? The one where kids never went to.

Funny how the human mind works.