Opinions on the Sex Offenders Register [Archive]

emmwalker

26-08-2005, 09:47

hows about not panicking.
then contacting the local community police force and having a quiet civilised chat with a local police officer.
then a) if he is a aknown paedophile he will get a bollocking etc and they will keep a closer eye on his activities,
b) if the police officer becomes suspicous of the gentleman during the informal chat, the police can keep a closer watch on his activities
or c) if he is comletely harmless and innocent, the police officer can suggest that his behaviour is causing alarm amongst the local community and then they can keep an eye on him to protect him from loacl vigilante groups...
sounds like a better idea than sitting at home, doing nothing other than curtain twitching anf gissiping and causing more panic?

depoix

26-08-2005, 10:20

JoeP

26-08-2005, 10:22

At the risk of sounding boring, perhaps if your sister is really concerned she should contact the local Police and just express concern about the number of children she has seen going to this house.

Note that - the ones she has seen. Otherwise it's hearsay. Or if someone else has seen lots of kids going in - get them to make the enquiry.

Mob rule is NOT a pleasant way to run things. If this individual is in breach of any laws then the police can act. If his behaviour is likely to cause a breach of the peace, again they can act.

If your sister ends up with a rapaging mob running this person out of town on a rail, then the police will again act - against her and her neighbours.

And in the meantime - reinforce to her children that they :

Mustn't go with strangers, no matter what.
That they mustn't go to a stranger's house.
That if a grownup wants them to keep a secret, they should ALWAYS tell mum or dad.
If anyone asks them to touch the other person, come home and tell mum or dad.

And, of course, keep a watchful but not over-anxious eye on things.

Joe

ianbrownfan

26-08-2005, 10:33

I think they have a mental illness that needs to be cured rather than locked up in jail. Don't get me wrong they need to be isolated, but need mental treatment.

It discusts me to hear what they do etc but they really do need something to help cure them.

TimmyR

26-08-2005, 10:41

sugarnspice

26-08-2005, 10:46

I cannot really give any details on here but if you are quite certain that something is happening then the police are happy to hear your concerns.

I had a similar issue which I can't go into but it seems that I was right about my fears & did have very very good reason to believe a neighbour was doing these things. Though I would not have phoned unless I was quite sure. It got to the point where I felt too guilty not doing anything about it.

I also have young children and I wasn't exactly worried for their safety as they're never out of my sight. But I was worried about other children.

Cyclone

26-08-2005, 10:55

Originally posted by emmwalker
hows about not panicking.
then contacting the local community police force and having a quiet civilised chat with a local police officer.
then a) if he is a aknown paedophile he will get a bollocking etc and they will keep a closer eye on his activities,
b) if the police officer becomes suspicous of the gentleman during the informal chat, the police can keep a closer watch on his activities
or c) if he is comletely harmless and innocent, the police officer can suggest that his behaviour is causing alarm amongst the local community and then they can keep an eye on him to protect him from loacl vigilante groups...
sounds like a better idea than sitting at home, doing nothing other than curtain twitching anf gissiping and causing more panic?

in the case of c) maybe the community officer should tell all the busy bodies to mind their own business and not jump to conclusions.

the_rudeboy

26-08-2005, 11:16

alchresearch

26-08-2005, 12:02

Why not ring the News of the World. They'll dig up enough dirt on him, even if it's not true and they don't need to apologise if they get it wrong.

Berberis

26-08-2005, 12:04

His name isn't Mr Jackson is it?

roughy101

26-08-2005, 12:24

TimmyR

26-08-2005, 12:31

Originally posted by roughy101
i think you have hit the nail on the head with the word ISOLATED,that is exactly what should happen wether it be in jail or some other form of detention,i wouldnt like to think i had oneliving next door to me or my grandkids.

As sick as it may be, there is no excuse for running round in hysterical mobs attacking innocent people as happened when that list of paedophiles came out.

All are innocent until proven guilty.

poppins

26-08-2005, 12:32

In the US you are able to check out if there's any paedophiles in your area on the internet. they have to register.

but i don't think i fully agree with this, even being as nosey as I am i cannot bring myself to look them up on the internet.

Sidla

26-08-2005, 12:37

Has it not occured to you that he may be running Piano lessons or something similar?

depoix

26-08-2005, 12:56

Originally posted by Sidla
Has it not occured to you that he may be running Piano lessons or something similar? true,or he could be a fiddler

slimsid2000

26-08-2005, 13:11

This is a tricky subject.

One the one hand it would be useful for parents and children to know which people to avoid. On the other, I would have very real fears that a lot of totally innocent men would be wrongly suspected just because of the way they either look or act.

These men are already some of the vulnerable members of our society and to wrongly accuse them of such a serious crime would further harm them.

Saifa

26-08-2005, 13:15

Originally posted by slimsid2000
This is a tricky subject.

One the one hand it would be useful for parents and children to know which people to avoid. On the other, I would have very real fears that a lot of totally innocent men would be wrongly suspected just because of the way they either look or act.

These men are already some of the vulnerable members of our society and to wrongly accuse them of such a serious crime would further harm them.

Lot of sense there Sid. Knew you could do it :thumbsup:

I agree simply inform the local coppers and if they have anything on him I'm sure they will be paying him a visit.

No excuse for hounding what could be an innocent man on hearsay and conjecture.

spyro2000

26-08-2005, 13:15

Originally posted by depoix
true,or he could be a fiddler

possible.

Anyway, where are the parents when these kids are going into the house and how old are they?

banesmabes

26-08-2005, 13:26

Originally posted by Dragon
My sister has several very young children and believes there is a paedophile just moved in near her home - very near. However, she does not know for sure. This person has children going into his home, and is known to have lost his previous home after threats made because he flashed children.

Apparently my sister has no rights to know if this man is a paedophile, which is great when she has such young children. So - how does the law stand? Is there anything she can do to find out? If not - why not? And why can the authorities - be it the police or anyone else - not do something about this state of affairs?

Dragon

How is it 'known' that he lost his previous house because of threat after flashing at children? And has your sister not considered that even if he did lose his home this way the allegations may not have been true, and were just the result of paranoid neighbours? It's amazing how inaccurate chinese whispers can be. Even if she did have the right to know whether this man is a convicted paedophile, what exactly would she do about it? Take the law into her own hands? If he is a paedophile then the police will be aware and will be keeping a discreet eye on him. In the meantime just get your sister to tell her kids not to go near him.

The problem with people having a 'right' to know if a paedophile in their neighbourhood is that no one wants them living near them. They will therefore be constantly hounded until they disappear from the authorities view and live under an assumed name somewhere else. This is when things become really worrying. Allowing the general public access to this kind of information will actually mean their children are LESS safe, because even the police won't know where these people are.

nick2

26-08-2005, 13:31

These days it's more likely the kids are robbing him.

depoix

26-08-2005, 13:38

Originally posted by banesmabes
How is it 'known' that he lost his previous house because of threat after flashing at children? And has your sister not considered that even if he did lose his home this way the allegations may not have been true, and were just the result of paranoid neighbours? It's amazing how inaccurate chinese whispers can be. Even if she did have the right to know whether this man is a convicted paedophile, what exactly would she do about it? Take the law into her own hands? If he is a paedophile then the police will be aware and will be keeping a discreet eye on him. In the meantime just get your sister to tell her kids not to go near him.

The problem with people having a 'right' to know if a paedophile in their neighbourhood is that no one wants them living near them. They will therefore be constantly hounded until they disappear from the authorities view and live under an assumed name somewhere else. This is when things become really worrying. Allowing the general public access to this kind of information will actually mean their children are LESS safe, because even the police won't know where these people are. dont fully agree,the police can find him by his social security number,if he is receiving any benefit,or if hes working he would have to pack up his job to go "underground" unless he has loads of money he will have to surface eventually

banesmabes

26-08-2005, 13:41

Originally posted by depoix
dont fully agree,the police can find him by his social security number,if he is receiving any benefit,or if hes working he would have to pack up his job to go "underground" unless he has loads of money he will have to surface eventually

You'll be surprised how many companies/individuals are willing to pay people cash in hand - it saves the employer as well as the employee a lot of money.

wolfman

26-08-2005, 13:43

My personal view is that we should bring back executions.
These people cant be cured, and I think its more inhumane to incarcerate them for life.
We dont inflict that level of cruelty (incarceration) on our pets, so we shouldn't do that towards human beings (however depraved they may be)

Wolfman

slimsid2000

26-08-2005, 13:44

I'm not quite sure why children would willingly go into his house if he were a peodophile. i would have thought they would avaoid him like the plague if this were the case.

Maybe there is a more innocent explanation. Perhaps he is seperated and they are his children. How many children have actually been seen going into his house anyway?

depoix

26-08-2005, 13:52

Originally posted by banesmabes
You'll be surprised how many companies/individuals are willing to pay people cash in hand - it saves the employer as well as the employee a lot of money. yes thats true,but he will draw attention to himself again,its inevitable,we had one near us,very smartly dressed,worked etc. did charity work in his spare time,only in his early forties, turned up out of the blue one day,said he had just left the army.

it was the little things we began to notice first,no interest at all in women, was first up to volunteer his services for camping trips if kids were bored,asking how to blue screen his pc, etc.eventually it was a couple of local kids that turned him in, he was on the run for similar things in darby, he was charged with 24 offences against children and given 6 years in prison

slimsid2000

26-08-2005, 13:55

depoix

26-08-2005, 14:06

Originally posted by slimsid2000
That's exactly the type of prejudice I meant. Just because a man can't get a girlfriend doesn't make him a child molester nor should it even be considered. If someone is behaving odly around children then that is different but just to suspect a man bercause he is unatached and or has social skills problems is just wrong. nothing to do with not getting a girlfriend at all..he had several women asking him for dates but would always be too busy,one of his young friends was so well groomed by him he defended him when he went missing for two weeks bye saying his mum was seriously ill in leicster,all the time he was on remand in doncaster nick, i know because he was seen in there,when the case came to court the lad told us he had been lying for him, so you see,its not predjudice, its cold hard facts, most of them move on when they come out of prison the police told us,but they usually get caught again,unless they have never been caught before then obviously the police have no record of them

banesmabes

26-08-2005, 14:09

Originally posted by depoix
yes thats true,but he will draw attention to himself again,its inevitable,we had one near us,very smartly dressed,worked etc. did charity work in his spare time,only in his early forties, turned up out of the blue one day,said he had just left the army.

it was the little things we began to notice first,no interest at all in women, was first up to volunteer his services for camping trips if kids were bored,asking how to blue screen his pc, etc.eventually it was a couple of local kids that turned him in, he was on the run for similar things in darby, he was charged with 24 offences against children and given 6 years in prison

But they will still find this is preferable to having angry mobs camped at the door day and night. If they go underground they can start anew time and time again in a different town each time, moving on when the heat is on. They can go on for years in this vein, putting more and more children at risk all the time. Surely you have to agree that it is preferably that the police know where they are? Allowing parents to know a paedophile is in their neighbourhood achieves nothing but mob-rule and paranoia.

Additionally it is now much harder to get even voluntary work with children - and is impossible if you have this kind of conviction because organisations must run CRB checks on anyone wanting to work with children (voluntary or otherwise).

depoix

26-08-2005, 14:20

Originally posted by banesmabes
But they will still find this is preferable to having angry mobs camped at the door day and night. If they go underground they can start anew time and time again in a different town each time, moving on when the heat is on. They can go on for years in this vein, putting more and more children at risk all the time. Surely you have to agree that it is preferably that the police know where they are? Allowing parents to know a paedophile is in their neighbourhood achieves nothing but mob-rule and paranoia.

Additionally it is now much harder to get even voluntary work with children - and is impossible if you have this kind of conviction because organisations must run CRB checks on anyone wanting to work with children (voluntary or otherwise). once again sorry, we took the kids from a local carers group to climb mount snowdon,this was paid for by the social services and the church group,we all had police checks £ 10 for each check, the fault lay that the results were returned to the address of the person who was bieng checked,i and others handed ours in,he,scanned and altered his,giving it to the church group,they had probably never seen a check paper before so didnt question it,three of the lads involved in the court case were on that trip,though he was never seen to be over friendly with them,slept in his own tent etc.

it was later found that he had altered his application name by placing an s instead of a c in his surname,in an attempt to evade the police checker,

TimmyR

26-08-2005, 14:22

Just look at gary glitter, perfectly normal social behaviour there...

banesmabes

26-08-2005, 14:39

Originally posted by depoix
once again sorry, we took the kids from a local carers group to climb mount snowdon,this was paid for by the social services and the church group,we all had police checks £ 10 for each check, the fault lay that the results were returned to the address of the person who was bieng checked,i and others handed ours in,he,scanned and altered his,giving it to the church group,they had probably never seen a check paper before so didnt question it,three of the lads involved in the court case were on that trip,though he was never seen to be over friendly with them,slept in his own tent etc.

it was later found that he had altered his application name by placing an s instead of a c in his surname,in an attempt to evade the police checker,

I am actually a countersignatory for the CRB and this is not at all how it works. Volunteers first of all do not need to pay for a CRB check - they are done for free. The CRB send out two copies of the check - one to the countersignatory (representing the organisation) and one to the individual who the check is on. The applicant therefore does not have to 'hand' their own certificate in, they keep it. Anyone applying for a CRB check also has to give a certain number of original ID documents to the countersignatory, who checks that the name, date of birth and address all match up to the application form.

If indeed he changed the spelling of the name then the countersignatory obviously did not check his ID properly. Additionally the church should not have accepted his copy of the CRB certificate because they would have been sent their own copy directly by the CRB. If they didn't receive one then they should have contacted the CRB who would issue them with a copy.

As long as the process is carried out correctly by the countersignatory (who has to have a through police check done on them, and be working for an organisation that is also registered with the CRB) then there is no way that someone with child sex convictions can be employed or volunteer to work with children. If the faults above are true then the people concerned should be sacked.

depoix

26-08-2005, 14:46

Originally posted by banesmabes
I am actually a countersignatory for the CRB and this is not at all how it works. Volunteers first of all do not need to pay for a CRB check - they are done for free. The CRB send out two copies of the check - one to the countersignatory (representing the organisation) and one to the individual who the check is on. The applicant therefore does not have to 'hand' their own certificate in, they keep it. Anyone applying for a CRB check also has to give a certain number of original ID documents to the countersignatory, who checks that the name, date of birth and address all match up to the application form.

If indeed he changed the spelling of the name then the countersignatory obviously did not check his ID properly. Additionally the church should not have accepted his copy of the CRB certificate because they would have been sent their own copy directly by the CRB. If they didn't receive one then they should have contacted the CRB who would issue them with a copy.

As long as the process is carried out correctly by the countersignatory (who has to have a through police check done on them, and be working for an organisation that is also registered with the CRB) then there is no way that someone with child sex convictions can be employed or volunteer to work with children. If the faults above are true then the people concerned should be sacked. please,do not infer i am lying,this is what happened in the case i am on about,if things have changed over the last 5 years then they have changed because of the mistakes that were made at the time by the checking authority,if you need to go into more detail please pm me,as i said this was a local case,there are people im sure on here who may remember it happening in the netherthorpe area

poppins

26-08-2005, 14:48

Originally posted by wolfman
My personal view is that we should bring back executions.
These people cant be cured, and I think its more inhumane to incarcerate them for life.
We dont inflict that level of cruelty (incarceration) on our pets, so we shouldn't do that towards human beings (however depraved they may be)

Wolfman

Only trouble with the death penalty for these sort of criminals is that they'll kill there victims after, why take a chance on them staying alive knowing they'll get death either way .

Cyclone

26-08-2005, 14:50

we've gone completely off the point though.
The suggestion about being a piano teacher earlier is a pretty good one. Chances are that this person has nothing to hide and would be extremely upset to have allegations made against them on the basis of rumour and busy bodying.

banesmabes

26-08-2005, 14:51

Originally posted by depoix
please,do not infer i am lying,this is what happened in the case i am on about,if things have changed over the last 5 years then they have changed because of the mistakes that were made at the time by the checking authority,if you need to go into more detail please pm me,as i said this was a local case,there are people im sure on here who may remember it happening in the netherthorpe area

You never mentioned that the incident took place 5 years ago! You gave no time frame whatsoever so I was led to believe this was a fairly recent incident. Certainly things were VERY different five years ago - the CRB didn't even exist! But today this sort of thing certainly could not happen!

I was only pointing out that an incident like this is highly unlikely to happen under the current CRB checking system because it just doesn't work the way you described it!

poppins

26-08-2005, 14:54

depoix

26-08-2005, 14:58

Originally posted by banesmabes
You never mentioned that the incident took place 5 years ago! You gave no time frame whatsoever so I was led to believe this was a fairly recent incident. Certainly things were VERY different five years ago - the CRB didn't even exist! But today this sort of thing certainly could not happen!

I was only pointing out that an incident like this is highly unlikely to happen under the current CRB checking system because it just doesn't work the way you described it! no one aked for a time frame,it grew from previouse posts about going underground, checks etc, even by todays standards no system is so secure as to believe a person may not slip through, as i said if you are interested pm me and ill give you more details

nick2

26-08-2005, 15:06

Originally posted by Cyclone
Chances are that this person has nothing to hide and would be extremely upset to have allegations made against them on the basis of rumour and busy bodying.

and more than likely sue you for defamation of character or something.

banesmabes

26-08-2005, 16:35

Originally posted by depoix
no one aked for a time frame,it grew from previouse posts about going underground, checks etc, even by todays standards no system is so secure as to believe a person may not slip through, as i said if you are interested pm me and ill give you more details

You are right, no system is fool proof. But the chances of a convicted paedophile being able to 'cheat' a CRB police check is incredibly slim indeed. Hence I believe our children are a lot safer today than they were before the CRB system came along (around 4 years ago).

Therefore if a paedophile is forced underground by the rampaging mob then he will be very stupid to then try and gain access to children through volunteering etc because they would have to undergo a police check (with all the endless checking of ID that it now entails). They will therefore be more likely to gain access to children in exactly the way that parents fear the most, by luring them into their house on false pretences, or through abduction. At least if the police know where they are then can keep an eye on them - this is impossible if they are forced underground because they are hounded out of every neighbourhood they are moved to.

DragonofAna

26-08-2005, 17:11

Who said anything about hounding or singling anyone out? The question is simple if some of you get off your righteous platforms.

If a parent asks if there are any paedophiles in their location - like immediate street or neighbourhood - then should they not be given the right to an answer. It is easy - no fingers pointed - just yes there is or no there isn't.

No-one is asking for his history or his name or to hound him - just if there is one there.

Dragon

Internetowl

26-08-2005, 17:33

as a parent I think I'd want to know - as it stands my daughter is pretty much sensible but you never know. If I did know - then I'd probably be more paranoid than I am currently.

There is no easy answer and you just have to hope that the authorities have got their eyes out just in case...

banesmabes

26-08-2005, 18:21

Originally posted by Dragon
Who said anything about hounding or singling anyone out? The question is simple if some of you get off your righteous platforms.

If a parent asks if there are any paedophiles in their location - like immediate street or neighbourhood - then should they not be given the right to an answer. It is easy - no fingers pointed - just yes there is or no there isn't.

No-one is asking for his history or his name or to hound him - just if there is one there.

Dragon

But this is clearly unworkable in the situation described at the start of this thread. Even if the public are not told that this particular man is a paedophile, but are simply told there is one living in the area, do you really think that people will not decide for themselves that this must be the man the police mean (they have already decided he is paedophile by the sounds of things) and decide to single them out anyway? After all this happened to a paediatrician!! I think it is very niave to think that you can just tell people there is a paedophile in the area and then expect no consequences for men who have already had whispering campaigns against them.

poppins

26-08-2005, 18:28

Moms should just assume there are paedophiles all over, just like doctors and nurses have to assume every one has aids.

banesmabes

26-08-2005, 18:41

I think JoeP's advice earlier was key - about teaching your kids not to go anywhere with a stranger and to always tell a parent if they are asked to keep as secret etc.

You have to remember the world is not full of paedophiles. I'm sure we all played outside as children without parental supervision and came out the otherside completely unscathed. People don't let their kids go out anymore. I'm not sure there are more paedophiles around now as there used to be, I think it's just a case of it now receiving much more publicity.

The fact is that a child is most likely to be abused by someone they know (usually a parent), and if not a parent, someone the parent trusts, not by a stranger living in the area.

alchresearch

26-08-2005, 18:51

To lighten the mood a little:

http://www.citybrat.com/images/megan.jpg

tulip

26-08-2005, 19:09

Originally posted by roughy101
i dont think she is wanting to look at his records,she justs wants to know if he is a kiddy feeler or not,which imo her and all the other parents have a right to know, forewarned is forearmed. Also his sister would probably not care less if someone asked to see her records because I doubt she has ever been in trouble for molesting kids, therefore she wouldn't have any records to look at:confused:

tulip

26-08-2005, 19:16

Originally posted by Cyclone
we've gone completely off the point though.
The suggestion about being a piano teacher earlier is a pretty good one. Chances are that this person has nothing to hide and would be extremely upset to have allegations made against them on the basis of rumour and busy bodying. I had to have checks done on me to see if I have a history of molesting children, for immigration purposes everyone is checked out and it didn't bother me one bit because I don't molest children so I had nothing to hide.

A US citizen who is a registered sex offender has their driving license marked in some states. that way people know where the problem abusers are.

Cyclone

26-08-2005, 20:37

Originally posted by tulip
I had to have checks done on me to see if I have a history of molesting children, for immigration purposes everyone is checked out and it didn't bother me one bit because I don't molest children so I had nothing to hide.

A US citizen who is a registered sex offender has their driving license marked in some states. that way people know where the problem abusers are.

there's a difference between getting a CRB check for a reason, and having your records (whatever they are or aren't) gone over everytime the street busy body notices that a child went into your house.

DragonofAna

26-08-2005, 21:36

Well string me up for being concerned about the children when I should really be respecting the rights of the abuser. Silly me.

Point - there could be twenty paedophiles in one area so asking if there is one nearby or not is not infringement of a persons privacy. This man HAS been in trouble for flashing his privates at youngsters. He IS having youngsters brought to his home and they are definitely not in need of medical attention of any sort.

But forgive me - I just hope you never have to suffer the torment of having an abused child just because you could not keep an eye on them 24-7. In fact - lets hopew you have the time to take them to school until they are at least 13 or 14, and collect them from school each day. Lets hope you have the time to watch them every second they are playing in your garden, or that you are happy with the thought of keeping them locked up in the house whileever they are at home.

As long as the paedophile is not publically named we should all be happy.

Sigh

Dragon

metalman

26-08-2005, 21:41

Originally posted by Dragon
He IS having youngsters brought to his home and they are definitely not in need of medical attention of any sort.

I don't understand - who's bringing them then?

DragonofAna

26-08-2005, 21:45

Is that naivette or do you really live in a rosy world? Offer some kids heroin or money and they will sell their souls. Trouble is - few people seem to care these days. Too many people thinking about the guilty person and not enough thought for the victims or possible victoms.

But at least your conscience is clear. I wonder how different things would be if a paedophile was hanging around outside your childs school or worse.

Dragon

Fishpole

26-08-2005, 21:47

Originally posted by metalman
I don't understand - who's bringing them then?

I think that was a response to the suggestion that paedophiles and paediatrians could be confused.

In today’s society any single man who quite innocently but openly welcomes children into their home is being very naïve and leaving themselves wide open to speculation and wild accusations. Michael Jackson’s situation is a reflection of that. The jury found him not guilty on all charges and I would love to agree with them but the fact is the whole world, public, grand jury is still undecided. However innocent a relationship between children and a single adult man may seem, it’s not unreasonable for any parent to be suspicious these days. It’s very sad.

Being complacent just isn’t an option when you’re a parent trying to encourage a child to be independent. Sometimes there is a fine line to be crossed between protection of an offender and protection of a child. I know which side of the fence I’d fall if I had to sit on it.

metalman

26-08-2005, 21:55

Obviously I don't move in the right paedophile drug dealing circles - it was an innocent question.

And yes, my conscience is clear. Hopefully yours will still be once you've incited an angry mob to go round to this bloke's house and commit some form of physical violence on him.

All I can see so far is that you've made unsubstantiated accusations against someone and demand that something be done about it. If this man has committed a crime and you have some evidence of it or someone to make an actual complaint to the police, then fair enough - go ahead and contact them. But at the moment all you have is rumour, innuendo and suspicion.

tulip

26-08-2005, 22:09

Originally posted by Dragon
Well string me up for being concerned about the children when I should really be respecting the rights of the abuser. Silly me.

Point - there could be twenty paedophiles in one area so asking if there is one nearby or not is not infringement of a persons privacy. This man HAS been in trouble for flashing his privates at youngsters. He IS having youngsters brought to his home and they are definitely not in need of medical attention of any sort.

But forgive me - I just hope you never have to suffer the torment of having an abused child just because you could not keep an eye on them 24-7. In fact - lets hopew you have the time to take them to school until they are at least 13 or 14, and collect them from school each day. Lets hope you have the time to watch them every second they are playing in your garden, or that you are happy with the thought of keeping them locked up in the house whileever they are at home.

As long as the paedophile is not publically named we should all be happy.

Sigh

Dragon What is the standing on paedophiles? I like the title, 'standing on paedophiles by sumo wrestlers' springs to mind. I don't think your sister could be classified as a busybody for looking out for her kids.

Could we set up an area where only paedophiles and people who think they should be given special treatment and treated with respect can live?:clap:

DragonofAna

26-08-2005, 22:10

It is not jsut rumour. This man is known to have a conviction for reveralling himself to children of between 5 and 8 years of age. Sorry about the rumour being an actual conviction.

But this does not only apply to the individual in question - this applies to where ever there are children running around and paedophiles are near. Most paedophiles reoffend.

Glad your conscience is clear. Having had experience of the pain and problems such abuse causes in children I will never be happy while known paedophiles are allowed to hide behind the barriers set up by do gooders who respect the rights of the guilty above the rights of the innocent. How much experience do you have I wonder? Rhetorical question.

But you are entitled to your opinion just as I am so no problems there.

Dragon

tulip

26-08-2005, 22:16

Originally posted by Dragon
It is not jsut rumour. This man is known to have a conviction for reveralling himself to children of between 5 and 8 years of age. Sorry about the rumour being an actual conviction.

But this does not only apply to the individual in question - this applies to where ever there are children running around and paedophiles are near. Most paedophiles reoffend.

Glad your conscience is clear. Having had experience of the pain and problems such abuse causes in children I will never be happy while known paedophiles are allowed to hide behind the barriers set up by do gooders who respect the rights of the guilty above the rights of the innocent. How much experience do you have I wonder? Rhetorical question.

But you are entitled to your opinion just as I am so no problems there.

Dragon Everyone is entitled to an opinion, absolutely. Anyone who wants to show sympathy for a man who exposes himself to children is quite welcome to have them living nextdoor to them, I don't have a problem with that. Would they keep an eye on them just in case they decide to re-offend though, or is that an invasion of privacy?

Cyclone

26-08-2005, 22:17

Originally posted by Dragon
Well string me up for being concerned about the children when I should really be respecting the rights of the abuser. Silly me.

Point - there could be twenty paedophiles in one area so asking if there is one nearby or not is not infringement of a persons privacy. This man HAS been in trouble for flashing his privates at youngsters. He IS having youngsters brought to his home and they are definitely not in need of medical attention of any sort.

But forgive me - I just hope you never have to suffer the torment of having an abused child just because you could not keep an eye on them 24-7. In fact - lets hopew you have the time to take them to school until they are at least 13 or 14, and collect them from school each day. Lets hope you have the time to watch them every second they are playing in your garden, or that you are happy with the thought of keeping them locked up in the house whileever they are at home.

As long as the paedophile is not publically named we should all be happy.

Sigh

Dragon

Oh those are facts now. Go and get the burning brands and hanging rope.
Or check back... Facts... I see no mention of fact, just rumour and hearsay.
And check back again, we weren't talking about asking if there were any paedophiles in the area. The OP wanted to check if this man was a paedophile. If that's not an invasion of privacy and grounds for taking someone to court when it's proven to be untrue then I don't know what is.

Why the hell would I want to take my (future theoretical) children to school, watch them in the garden and keep them in the house.
They (if they ever exist) can go out and play just like millions of children have done over the years.

As I have said numerous times before, there is NO increased risk from paedophiles now than there was when you or I were young and out of our parents site for hours at a time.
All there is is paranoia fuelled by the media and all too easily swallowed, by you and the OP at least.

Cyclone

26-08-2005, 22:19

Originally posted by Dragon
It is not jsut rumour. This man is known to have a conviction for reveralling himself to children of between 5 and 8 years of age. Sorry about the rumour being an actual conviction.

But this does not only apply to the individual in question - this applies to where ever there are children running around and paedophiles are near. Most paedophiles reoffend.

Glad your conscience is clear. Having had experience of the pain and problems such abuse causes in children I will never be happy while known paedophiles are allowed to hide behind the barriers set up by do gooders who respect the rights of the guilty above the rights of the innocent. How much experience do you have I wonder? Rhetorical question.

But you are entitled to your opinion just as I am so no problems there.

Dragon

Is that another fact.
You should check a little more closely. Approx 10% of paedophiles reoffend. Hardly most. And something like 80% or higher are adults known to the family or indeed part of the family.
So this rampant paranoia will achieve nothing to increase child safety, unless you intend to stop your children being alone with any male relative (most paedophiles are male).

Cyclone

26-08-2005, 22:22

Originally posted by Dragon
Is that naivette or do you really live in a rosy world? Offer some kids heroin or money and they will sell their souls. Trouble is - few people seem to care these days. Too many people thinking about the guilty person and not enough thought for the victims or possible victoms.

But at least your conscience is clear. I wonder how different things would be if a paedophile was hanging around outside your childs school or worse.

Dragon

so now we've gone from somebody seeing some children entering his house. To him paying some children (or giving them heroin!!!) to bring other children to his house.

My god, how do you actually get through life. Surely you see monsters behind every bush and disaster lurking all the time.

tulip

26-08-2005, 22:25

Originally posted by Cyclone
Is that another fact.
You should check a little more closely. Approx 10% of paedophiles reoffend. Hardly most. And something like 80% or higher are adults known to the family or indeed part of the family.
So this rampant paranoia will achieve nothing to increase child safety, unless you intend to stop your children being alone with any male relative (most paedophiles are male). Why does it make a difference if they are known to/part of the family? It does matter one iota. Where do you get this ' Approx 10% of paedophiles reoffend' from?

tulip

26-08-2005, 22:27

Originally posted by Cyclone
so now we've gone from somebody seeing some children entering his house. To him paying some children (or giving them heroin!!!) to bring other children to his house.

My god, how do you actually get through life. Surely you see monsters behind every bush and disaster lurking all the time. You haven't been reading the posts again! You'd better look at the earlier posts I think:thumbsup:

metalman

26-08-2005, 22:27

But what you haven't said yet is HOW you know this man already has a conviction for exposing himself to children. All you've said is "it is known that" or some other such phrase. How much of a fact is it? And even if it is, he's presumably been punished for that already, and served whatever sentence the court imposed. Presumably he'll also be on the sex offenders register too. So if you have any evidence of crimes that he is committing now, that's the time to act. As I understand it though, you haven't.

You're probably the first person ever to call me a do-gooder, though. Maybe I'm mellowing in my old age!

How many burglars, murderers, car thieves, GBH offenders etc. are there in your district? Lots of them re-offend too you know. Aren't you worried about them too?

Cyclone

26-08-2005, 22:28

Originally posted by tulip
Why does it make a difference if they are known to/part of the family? It does matter one iota. Where do you get this ' Approx 10% of paedophiles reoffend' from?

from studies. Actually a meta study of previous studies.

I posted the details including links in the other thread about whether paedophiles should be named and shamed.

And the difference it makes is that stopping your children playing out will not protect them from a member of your family.
Generally family members are trusted, the random stranger is not the normal abuser, so how do you protect your child from your brother-in-law, father-in-law, or worse, brother or father?

Cyclone

26-08-2005, 22:30

Originally posted by tulip
You haven't been reading the posts again! You'd better look at the earlier posts I think:thumbsup:

how so?

in response to the question "Who is brining these children to his house?"
By deavon
Offer some kids heroin or money and they will sell their souls.

So what is it? Are these kids all smack addicts and he's their dealer, or does he pay other kids to bring him kids?
Or is it all a complete load of nonesense and he's a maths tutor or violinist.

susa41981

26-08-2005, 22:32

In my opinion, they should bring back the death sentence. Wasting money keeping an eye on them while there in the community or in prison is a waste of money.

Cyclone

26-08-2005, 22:34

Originally posted by susa41981
In my opinion, they should bring back the death sentence. Wasting money keeping an eye on them while there in the community or in prison is a waste of money.

why not go find the death penalty thread and contribute there then.

susa41981

26-08-2005, 22:47

Its called freedom of speech cyclone

I take it you're one of those people who think this evil scum can be 'rehabilitated'. Dont make me laugh.

SHsheff

26-08-2005, 23:04

Originally posted by Cyclone
how so?

in response to the question "Who is brining these children to his house?"

So what is it? Are these kids all smack addicts and he's their dealer, or does he pay other kids to bring him kids?
Or is it all a complete load of nonesense and he's a maths tutor or violinist.

I'm struggling to understand why we're talking about this tbh.

Dragon - you say your sister believes that a paedophile has moved in nearby and that 'this person has children going into his home'.

Is this true? If it is, please don't post a thread on a forum to chat about it, but contact the police or the NSPCC helpline for advice immediately.

There is no good reason for children to be going to a man's house. If there was a legit reason (eg piano lessons) then the parents would be bringing/collecting. You make it sound like unaccompanied kids are wandering in off the street. If this is the case, how come no-one on the street has seen fit to do anything so far to protect those kids and stop it happening?

Chatting on a forum about how unfair the legal system is is not helping those 'at risk' kids, Dragon.

As one NSPCC slogan went, 'Abused children can't speak up.'

If they're not being abused, but the chap's their granddad or whatever, your and your sister's minds can be at rest, and you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you actually took some action rather than just writing about it.

:thumbsup:

metalman

26-08-2005, 23:18

And if he is their granddad, just think of the nice warm feeling he'll get knowing that he's been reported to the police and the NSPCC as a paedophile by his new neighbours. Im sure it'll help him settle into his new house and make him feel really welcome.

Especially if he reads comments like...

Originally posted by SHsheff

There is no good reason for children to be going to a man's house.

Sorry, I'm just playing devil's advocate here to some extent. Dragon, as I said before, if you have some actual evidence of any wrongdoing, then call in the authorities, but it doesn't sound as though you do.

Don_Kiddick

26-08-2005, 23:28

Originally posted by metalman
And if he is their granddad, just think of the nice warm feeling he'll get knowing that he's been reported to the police and the NSPCC as a paedophile by his new neighbours. Im sure it'll help him settle into his new house and make him feel really welcome.

Especially if he reads comments like...

Sorry, I'm just playing devil's advocate here to some extent. Dragon, as I said before, if you have some actual evidence of any wrongdoing, then call in the authorities, but it doesn't sound as though you do.

When I was a kid I'd nip accross the road to the shop for an elderly neighbour.
He wasn't so good on his legs and the road was a challenge.
We'd call him uncle but he wasn't.
He'd always give us some sweet money for the errands.
Glad no one ever reported him to the police - it would have killed him.

But at least us kids would have been safe eh? :roll:

tulip

26-08-2005, 23:30

Originally posted by Cyclone
from studies. Actually a meta study of previous studies.

I posted the details including links in the other thread about whether paedophiles should be named and shamed.

And the difference it makes is that stopping your children playing out will not protect them from a member of your family.
Generally family members are trusted, the random stranger is not the normal abuser, so how do you protect your child from your brother-in-law, father-in-law, or worse, brother or father? I know what to look out for, that's how I'd stop a family member! I don't think children should be kept indoors but if a person knows there is a sex offender near by why on earth would they take the risk? Even if you were right about 10% re-offending that doesn't mean the other 80% don't by any stretch of the imagination.

metalman

26-08-2005, 23:32

Originally posted by tulip
Even if you were right about 10% re-offending that doesn't mean the other 80% don't by any stretch of the imagination.

Maths not your strongest subject then? :)

Don_Kiddick

26-08-2005, 23:34

Originally posted by metalman
Maths not your strongest subject then? :)
there's 3 types of people in this world matey!
Them thats good at maths n them that int! :D

tulip

26-08-2005, 23:37

Originally posted by metalman
And if he is their granddad, just think of the nice warm feeling he'll get knowing that he's been reported to the police and the NSPCC as a paedophile by his new neighbours. Im sure it'll help him settle into his new house and make him feel really welcome.

Especially if he reads comments like...

Sorry, I'm just playing devil's advocate here to some extent. Dragon, as I said before, if you have some actual evidence of any wrongdoing, then call in the authorities, but it doesn't sound as though you do. If he's their granddad he would have nothing to worry about and be happy that someone is keeping an eye out for the neighbourhood kids! The police wouldn't storm into his house and arrest him, they'd ask a few polite questions first:)

tulip

26-08-2005, 23:41

Originally posted by metalman
Maths not your strongest subject then? :) Well no I'm not great at maths but my brain tells me, 10% get caught re-offending, some don't get caught, some move abroad (gary glitter is a good example) others are in institutions molesting other patients. So I'm not good at maths, but I can add up!

DragonofAna

27-08-2005, 08:20

Paedophile supporters are missing the point surely - that if the man is a not a paedophile then the police would say - no, there are no paedophiles in the area. End of problem.

Now they may say yes, but be referring to the quiet old man living several doors away from the suspect. Is an angry mob going to go burn the suspects house down? No. That does not always happen and is over melodramatic. What it means is that people will be more wary of him.

The rubbish about paedophiles reoffending being only 10% is a pile of rubbish. Perhaps only that number are caught or prosecuted a second time, but if you watch documentaries about paedophiles they themselves admit to reoffending and not being caught.

It does not strike anyone as odd that this man is having many young children visit his home? Fair enough. Nor does it strike people as odd that this person has indeed been in trouble for exposing himself to children in the past - for which we would need to know the people involved in bringing about the prosecution.

The police have been notified of these visits and have responded with they are keeping an eye on the situation but cannot do more at the moment due to lack of firm proof. Fair enough.

Sorry but I do not class burglars and car thieves in the same way as paedophiles. You can nick my car or burgle my house, but you rape my kids and I will get you. That's the difference. How can anyone class a car thief the same as a paedophile?

Dragon

Cyclone

27-08-2005, 09:42

is that what you say of any statistics you don't like?

Anyway, I hope the chap reads this thread and sues you for lible.
You are presenting as fact something that you apparently have no evidence to back up.

And you continually ignore the fact that the question was whether the police could be questioned about THIS individual, not about any in the area.

banesmabes

27-08-2005, 09:53

I object to the phrase 'paedolphile supporter'.. NOBODY supports paedophiles or what they do. To suggest that in this phrase is incredibly insulting. What myself and others are trying to do is inject some logic, rationality and facts into an argument that is too often taken over by scare-mongering.

The fact is the people most likely to abuse children are their own parents, or someone trusted by their parents - not a stranger living round the corner.

It is incredibly niave to believe that if the police inform the community that there is a convicted paedophile living in the area that there will not then be an element of that community who decide exactly who that person is and decide to take their own direct action. (This may not be a mob, but a small, discreet hate campaign can be just as effective). Especially in a case such as that described, where the local community seems to have already decided that this man is a paedophile - they just need that one last trigger. I don't believe for a second that it will simply make parents more cautious. If this is the case, then you don't need to know whether there is a paedophile in the area - you just teach your kids to be cautious of any stranger!

Any parent who keeps their child indoors in the fear that they will be abducted by a paedophile is usually doing their child more harm than good. They are being protected from an almost non-existent threat. In return the children are losing the opportunity to learn many important social skills from interacting with other children outside of school.

Why are we suddenly so obsessed with paedophiles? As Cyclone said, there are no more of them about now as there were when we were all young! Just as there are around the same number of children killed by strangers each year now as there were 50 years ago. The problem is the perception of that risk - the media whip this up into a frenzy and scare all parents into thinking there are paedophiles and murderers behind every corner.

And the fact is that since the advent of the CRB, and the legal requirement that anyone wanting to work or volunteer with children must be CRB checked, our children have never been safer.

SHsheff

27-08-2005, 16:02

Originally posted by banesmabes
Why are we suddenly so obsessed with paedophiles? As Cyclone said, there are no more of them about now as there were when we were all young!
.

Reckon this is true? I'd have thought that with the advent of the internet and modern technology (inc mobile phones) and planes to far-off lands where maybe the law is more lenients, it is on the increase, and what's more, significantly so.

On what do you base the assertion that there are no more about than when we were young? Mind, suppose it depends on when exactly you were young! :)

SHsheff

27-08-2005, 16:14

Originally posted by SHsheff
There is no good reason for children to be going to a man's house.

Badly worded post! I did go on to put the sentence into a context however... :)

Frankly, if the chap is merely a lovable ol' chap who is harmlessly rewarding children with sweeties for running errands on his behalf, then maybe it isn't such a bad thing for him to receive a friendly word from the local constabulary to remind him that his behaviour could, sadly, be construed as suspicious in today's climate. So, either way, I'm for the 'doing something' approach, rather than turning a blind eye in case I'm wrong. In this instance, I think it warrants a proactive approach IN CASE there is a child protection issue. Better to be wrong than be a (by-standing) party to child abuse.

However, on a more personal note, I feel the need to admit to those forummers with more savy than I that I have (finally) realised the implications of Don_Kiddick's unusual surname. Not that I'm slow or anything.

I'll get mi coat and sit in the corner with the remedial maths class....

:D

lara83

27-08-2005, 16:57

All paedophiles should be tattoo'd on their forehead on being found guilty. That way no innocent person will be attacked accidently and there will be no whispering behind an innocent persons backs etc.

banesmabes

27-08-2005, 17:23

Originally posted by SHsheff
Reckon this is true? I'd have thought that with the advent of the internet and modern technology (inc mobile phones) and planes to far-off lands where maybe the law is more lenients, it is on the increase, and what's more, significantly so.

On what do you base the assertion that there are no more about than when we were young? Mind, suppose it depends on when exactly you were young! :)

The advent of the internet and travel merely present new opportunities to paedophiles that didn't exist 50 years ago - it does not mean there are more paedophiles around than there used to be. There is also much greater understanding by the police and prosecuting authorities regarding these kind of crimes, so they are much more likely to be reported than they used to be - hence why we feel that the incidence has increased. It is actually very difficult to measure because of the taboo nature and the shame the victims feel - but there is no real evidence to suggest it is on the increase.

SHsheff

27-08-2005, 17:23

Originally posted by lara83
All paedophiles should be tattoo'd on their forehead on being found guilty. That way no innocent person will be attacked accidently and there will be no whispering behind an innocent persons backs etc.

No space here for rehabilitation or repentence, is there?

With nothing to lose anymore, there would be no incentive to not re-offend.

metalman

27-08-2005, 18:26

Originally posted by Dragon

Sorry but I do not class burglars and car thieves in the same way as paedophiles. You can nick my car or burgle my house, but you rape my kids and I will get you. That's the difference. How can anyone class a car thief the same as a paedophile?

Dragon

Well the law does, in that they are both criminals, but again you're over-dramatising: there's no suggestion that this man has raped anybody's kids, or even touched one in any way. And incidentally I object to the phrase 'paedophile supporter' too - I'm just trying to be rational rather than hysterical about it.

And you still haven't answered the question about how you know he has a previous conviction for indecent exposure - certainly I have no idea at all what previous convictions the people in my neighbourhood have got, nor would I have any idea how to set about discovering that information. Perhaps that's just as well, I might have to move!

melthebell

27-08-2005, 18:51

Originally posted by nick2
And that old woman across the street, with the ginger cat, she's probably selling crack to the milkman, better have her checked out too.

checking an old womans ginger pussy for crack? hmmmmm whatever next?

lee79

27-08-2005, 19:12

Perhaps we should not give them the chance to re-offend.

It's no good putting these people back into society wondering if they will or will not re-offend. They have committed a disgusting crime and the innocence of children should not be put at risk again just to satisfy the few people that believe they should be given another chance.

What chance have the victim's (and no, I'm not referring to paedophiles as so many people seem confused recently at the difference between victim and criminal) to put behind them what has happened.

banesmabes

27-08-2005, 19:44

Personally I have voiced no opinion on here on whether I believe paedophiles should be allowed back into the community or not. And I have certainly not referred to paedophiles as victims or belittled the immense suffering of their victims. All I have done is comment on why I believe there should not be a right for everyone to know where they are living, as I strongly believe it will actually have the reverse effect that it is intended to have, and actually make things less safe for children. I am simply commenting on the way things work at the moment, I have not said either way whether I am happy with the punishments handed to paedophiles (which incidentially, I am most certainly NOT happy with!).

It is possible to abhore what paedophiles do and believe in stronger punishments, without becoming hysterical and insisting everyone know where these people are without thinking of the consequences.

ANGELUS

27-08-2005, 23:32

Paeodophiles... should be shot.. many many times.. over and over- and then maybe set on fire and ran over too.. by the parents of the kids they hurt.

And if the parents cant do it- I will be glad to help.

DragonofAna

28-08-2005, 01:06

Metalman - you know if a person has been convicted if you have been involved in the case. That is one example of how fact and rumour are different things.

As for liable - do you know who I am talking about? I have given no names, no locations, no descriptions or anything else that can connect anyone to being this person, and I thought you was attempting to be sensible.

So - I take it that apart from those people with children, the answer is clear - to let paedophiles do as they will until they are caught out by the police who just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Fair enough. Question answered, and thankyou - especially you Cyclone.

Dragon

mojoworking

28-08-2005, 02:16

Originally posted by ANGELUS
Paeodophiles... should be shot.. many many times.. over and over- and then maybe set on fire and ran over too.. by the parents of the kids they hurt.

And if the parents cant do it- I will be glad to help.

Would you really, though? Many of us (myself included) SAY we'd like to do these horrific things to the kiddie fiddlers, but if the chance were there, how many of us would really carry them out?

If our kids were the victims, maybe (just maybe) we would, but I seriously doubt we'd kill or maim someone in connection with a crime we had no emotional involvement with.

To do something like that is not a normal human reaction and shows psychopathic tendencies (yes, just like the paedophiles, funnily enough).

We'd probably be quite happy for someone else to do it, mind you ;)

buck

28-08-2005, 03:46

I hate paedophiles as much as the next man. But what I seem to be reading here is a lot of vigilante justice. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.
Has this suspected paedo been convicted? You might be the next one accused of it and be perfectly innocent.
There have been several highly publicised cases in the United States of men being accused of sexually abusing teenage girl students, often by their school principal, and have beeen found to have been targetted by the girls in retaliation for some disciplinary actions to these girls. Though proven innocent, nonetheless the stigma has attached to these poor guys.
We have very strict control in this country on known convicted paedos. Failing to notify a change of address by a convicted paedo is a federal offence and will send them back to jail.
Still, it's the responsibility of parents to make sure as much as they can that their kids are kept an eye on. To become a convicted paedo you first have to abuse some kid. Make sure that kid isn't yours or mine.
My little granddaughters are covered by Smith and Wesson.

tulip

28-08-2005, 04:48

Originally posted by banesmabes
The advent of the internet and travel merely present new opportunities to paedophiles that didn't exist 50 years ago - it does not mean there are more paedophiles around than there used to be. There is also much greater understanding by the police and prosecuting authorities regarding these kind of crimes, so they are much more likely to be reported than they used to be - hence why we feel that the incidence has increased. It is actually very difficult to measure because of the taboo nature and the shame the victims feel - but there is no real evidence to suggest it is on the increase. There has been a population increase for a start. There is less community spirit were neighbours keep an eye out for odd behaviour (those that question the odd behaviour get told they are gossip mongers) and most importantly children are more likely to tell someone that someones behaviour is inappropriate towards them, especially if it is a family member that is abusing them. There is more help for kids these days so abuse is easier to report. All these things and as SHsheff said the internet means there will have been an increase in child abusers.

Cyclone

28-08-2005, 09:02

Originally posted by tulip
There has been a population increase for a start. There is less community spirit were neighbours keep an eye out for odd behaviour (those that question the odd behaviour get told they are gossip mongers) and most importantly children are more likely to tell someone that someones behaviour is inappropriate towards them, especially if it is a family member that is abusing them. There is more help for kids these days so abuse is easier to report. All these things and as SHsheff said the internet means there will have been an increase in child abusers.

ermm, was there supposed to have been some logic in there?

An increase in population. Increase in paedophiles, increase in potential victims. Overall change, none whatsoever, the risk is still the same.

You then say that children are more likely to report it. Good, although I don't think that increases the number of paedophiles around.

The internet. How on earth does that increase the number of paedophiles, that's just thinking so wooly you might start going baaah and we'd mistake you for a sheep.

banesmabes

28-08-2005, 09:07

You read my mind Cyclone. an increase in reporting only means our perception of the risk increases - it doesn't mean that there are more paedophiles around.

And to say there is less community spirit and less people willing to point out odd behaviour - well the start of this post was about a woman pointing out the odd behaviour of someone in her community was it not? And I would have thought there is now more reporting of 'odd' behaviour to the authorities. For instance examples of where parents have been reported by photo developers for having completely innocent naked pictures of their children developed. In fact social services in this country has never been more on the look out for signs of abuse.

metalman

28-08-2005, 11:37

Originally posted by Dragon
Metalman - you know if a person has been convicted if you have been involved in the case. That is one example of how fact and rumour are different things.

As for liable - do you know who I am talking about? I have given no names, no locations, no descriptions or anything else that can connect anyone to being this person, and I thought you was attempting to be sensible.

So - I take it that apart from those people with children, the answer is clear - to let paedophiles do as they will until they are caught out by the police who just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Fair enough. Question answered, and thankyou - especially you Cyclone.

Dragon

Actually it wasn't me who said anything about libel. As for this man's previous conviction, then fair enough - as long as you're sure that's the case and it isn't just a rumour, then that is indeed a fact. I accept that. In which case then... what was the point of your original post? If you're that sure of it, then surely there's no point asking the police whether there are any paedophiles living in the district because you already know the answer?

tulip

28-08-2005, 13:56

Originally posted by metalman
Actually it wasn't me who said anything about libel. As for this man's previous conviction, then fair enough - as long as you're sure that's the case and it isn't just a rumour, then that is indeed a fact. I accept that. In which case then... what was the point of your original post? If you're that sure of it, then surely there's no point asking the police whether there are any paedophiles living in the district because you already know the answer? I don't think paedophiles and flashers are in the same category. Some mentally ill people get into trouble for exposing themselves but even though this would unpleasant for a child, it wouldn't necessarily mean this man was a child molester.

DragonofAna

28-08-2005, 18:11

I know it wasn't you metalman. The first paragraph only was in reference to your comment.

It is not my area - it is my sisters and as she lives a considerable distance from me I do not get to visit and have no idea who has moved into the area or what.

She asked the police about paedophiles and reported the man for having youngsters in his home. The rest was thrown open to the general for comments on the rights of parents to know if paedophiles were nearby and not in refereence to this specific case. Perhaps my wording could have been better.

I also said the man was in trouble for flashing children but do not know if this constitutes being a paedophile - hence the uncertainty.

Sorry for the confusion.

Dragon

tulip

29-08-2005, 01:30

Originally posted by Dragon
I know it wasn't you metalman. The first paragraph only was in reference to your comment.

It is not my area - it is my sisters and as she lives a considerable distance from me I do not get to visit and have no idea who has moved into the area or what.

She asked the police about paedophiles and reported the man for having youngsters in his home. The rest was thrown open to the general for comments on the rights of parents to know if paedophiles were nearby and not in refereence to this specific case. Perhaps my wording could have been better.

I also said the man was in trouble for flashing children but do not know if this constitutes being a paedophile - hence the uncertainty.

Sorry for the confusion.

Dragon I don't think it was confusing, just your sister showing concern for her kids welfare. It's natural:clap:

Funke88

29-08-2005, 01:50

Originally posted by poppins
In the US you are able to check out if there's any paedophiles in your area on the internet. they have to register.

but i don't think i fully agree with this, even being as nosey as I am i cannot bring myself to look them up on the internet.
I did. I don't have kids but I was curious. So I checked them out on the local county felony records website. I found out there are two living right on our street and loads more in our county. There are pictures too. Now that changed my outlook on my neighbour who's only a few doors down. If they have done their time and have been rehabilitated it shouldn't make a difference right. They have the right to a normal life. Just not on my street thanks. If I had kids I'd be terrified to let them out and play with the neighbours. Things have changed since I was a kid! Wouldn't you want to know?

SHsheff

29-08-2005, 08:36

Originally posted by Cyclone

The internet. How on earth does that increase the number of paedophiles, that's just thinking so wooly you might start going baaah and we'd mistake you for a sheep.

Are you in denial about this subject, Cyclone? You're usually so rational and well-informed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3254382.stm

"Exposure to child pornography increases the likelihood of people becoming riskier around children. It is likely to reinforce images, attitudes and disposition and leak out into the way they conduct themselves in real time.

"It is in the nature of human sexuality to indulge in increasingly risky behaviour and "push at boundaries".... For paedophiles, this means seeking out ever more extreme material and, eventually, turning their sexual fantasies into reality."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2492193.stm

"For many paedophiles, the internet has become the means not just to find pornographic images, but also potential victims...

"The risk of children being lured into sexual abuse via the internet is now very real. The rapid increase in online "grooming" has alarmed police and child protection agencies."

http://www.crime-research.org/news/2004/01/Mess1303.html

LONDON: Child pornography crime has rocketed in Britain over the past 13 years, largely due to computers and the Internet which allow paedophiles to prey on children and trade images of them, a study said yesterday.

Children’s charity NCH said 549 child porn offenders were either cautioned or charged in 2001, compared with only 35 in 1988 — a rise of 1,500 per cent.

NCH also warned in its study — entitled Child Pornography, Child Abuse and the Internet — that new technology such as third-generation Internet mobile phones with video streaming could make the problem even worse.

"The Internet is about to go mobile, and that could make many things more difficult to prevent or detect,” said John Carr, author of the study. “The scale of the problem has changed beyond recognition in just over a decade.”

“The increased demand has made child pornography into big business and the consequences for children in all parts of the world are horrifying.”

The report said the Internet had allowed a huge increase in the volume of child abuse images being viewed and collected and said such images acted as a “crucial trigger for some men to sexually abuse children”.

It also said online child pornography was now big business and warned that the involvement of organised crime in producing and distributing child porn on the web meant yet more children would be abused in the future.

Carr urged the Internet industry to improve technical tools to prevent access to child abuse images.

He also called for a “unified international approach” to child porn and urged the United States in particular — where many Internet child porn images originate — to dedicate more resources to tackling the problem.

.........................

Just an example, Cyclone. :thumbsup:

Cyclone

29-08-2005, 10:05

So that report says that more paedophiles have been caught. That's not necessarily a sign that there are more of them.
And that existing paedophiles use the internet.
And that it can be used for grooming.

Fine, don't disagree with any of that.

the only bit that might support the internet increasing the number of paedophiles is this

"Exposure to child pornography increases the likelihood of people becoming riskier around children"

But of course someone would need to be already sick in order to search out such images.
It might be a factor though that pushes 'latent' paedophiles beyond that... Might is as far as I'll go, without a study this is just conjecture.

There is also the chain of thought that says that if someone is sick and wants to look at pictures of children, allowing them to do so on the internet means that the aren't hanging around in parks. I don't agree with it as the images have to come from somewhere in the first place.

The vast rise in prosecutions though is generally down to the police catching these "latent" paedophiles who in the past wouldn't have ever done anything, but who found the internet an easy resource.

DragonofAna

29-08-2005, 10:13

Or maybe it is just possible there are more paedophiles around after all? Just like there are more people turning to other forms of crime.

You do not have to search out pictures of children on the net. The ar**h*les who decide to subject people to this form of porn do not always label the pictures as child porn. You could download fifty pictures of clip art and find two or three unwanted pictures in among them. So it is a case of the innocent being branded sick for accidentally downloading pictures? Yet perhaps this accident tips the possible paedophile over the edge?

It all gets a bit off topic though, doesn't it?

The point surely is that if you have young children then you should have the right to know if there is a paedophile living next door or across the street. Maybe not. That's the question, and we know your answer cyclone.

Dragon

Cyclone

29-08-2005, 10:18

Originally posted by Dragon
Or maybe it is just possible there are more paedophiles around after all? Just like there are more people turning to other forms of crime.

You do not have to search out pictures of children on the net. The ar**h*les who decide to subject people to this form of porn do not always label the pictures as child porn. You could download fifty pictures of clip art and find two or three unwanted pictures in among them. So it is a case of the innocent being branded sick for accidentally downloading pictures? Yet perhaps this accident tips the possible paedophile over the edge?

It all gets a bit off topic though, doesn't it?

The point surely is that if you have young children then you should have the right to know if there is a paedophile living next door or across the street. Maybe not. That's the question, and we know your answer cyclone.

Dragon

ah, crime, latest reports, overall crime has fallen. Yes, so maybe it's just the same.
Yes you do know my answer, and we also know yours.

DragonofAna

29-08-2005, 10:23

You want to check that again about the crime figures?

If this is the case - which I sincerely doubt - then perhaps it is just the number of crimes being reported that has fallen. What is the point in reporting a crime when you know nothing will come of it?

I suppose it depends whose figures you read anyhow as last I heard - crime figures were up. Maybe this is the same calculation they use for unemployment figures.

I am anti-paedophile and make no disguise of the fact. Children are our future. They should be protected as much as we are able to protect them. Anyone who would so harm a child, as far as I am concerned, gives up the right to be considered human.

Dragon

Cyclone

29-08-2005, 13:55

Originally posted by Dragon
You want to check that again about the crime figures?

If this is the case - which I sincerely doubt - then perhaps it is just the number of crimes being reported that has fallen. What is the point in reporting a crime when you know nothing will come of it?

I suppose it depends whose figures you read anyhow as last I heard - crime figures were up. Maybe this is the same calculation they use for unemployment figures.

I am anti-paedophile and make no disguise of the fact. Children are our future. They should be protected as much as we are able to protect them. Anyone who would so harm a child, as far as I am concerned, gives up the right to be considered human.

Dragon

Both the latest police figures (reported crimes) and the independant survey (random sample of 40k people, asking about actual experience, not just reported crimes) show that overall crime fell. They both showed a rise in violent crime though.

I am also anti-paedophile, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, serve their sentence, and if deemed safe released under supervision. If they are not deemed safe they should be section under the mental health act and treated as required.
There is no requirement nor benefit to inform the public when they have been released on license and are being monitored, as has been said, they will either be targetted by vigilantes, or they will disappear off the radar and be a greater danger as they will no longer be monitored.

DragonofAna

29-08-2005, 14:00

If deemed safe .... how many reports of people being released after serving their sentence and then going out and murdering again? Deemed fit? But someone stated they must be sick in the first place to look at paedophile porn on the net. Maybe electro therapy solved that little problem.

Sorry about my lack of information but all the reports I have been seeing point to an increase in crime. A burglary ever 6 seconds? A car theft ever 3 seconds? Someone stabbed or assaulted every second? Something like that.

But now the crime figures are so low we can all feel safe again. Phew. I was worried then - especially as my car was broken into a short time ago. That must have been my imagination - or one of those rare statistics, along with my home being burgled and my shop broken into, and countless crimes suffered by my neighbours.

Glad you are against paedophiles. Pity you still cling to the oficial bumf about reoffenders. Again - just my personal opinion of course.

Dragon

Cyclone

29-08-2005, 14:05

Is this another case where the facts and figures don't matter to you? You've made up your mind based on your own experience (which clearly isn't going to be representative of the country as a whole).

Here

Crime in England and Wales has fallen by 11%, according to the latest figures from the British Crime Survey, published today.
The survey - which is regarded by the government and many analysts as the most authoritative study - is based on thousands of interviews asking about people's experiences of crime. Its findings also indicated there had been a 10% fall in the kind of offences it records as violent crime.

from here (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1465050,00.html). I'm sure the people surveyed must have just been lucky though, and that your experience is more relevant than that of the 40,000 people survey'd.

If you'd like to read the full report it's available on the home offices web pages here. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0405.html)

DragonofAna

29-08-2005, 14:11

Tell you what Cyclone - I will start saving my newspapers and cutting out all the stories just so I can lay them before you.

Now I am the first to admit I do not have all the facts. I simply go on what is happening around me and to the people I know, and those I hear about. I do not survey 40 000 people and say this must be true of the other 60 million people who live in the UK. My mistake.

And for every set of facts you dig up if I could be bothered I believe I could dig up an alternate set of facts. Crime is defined in a number of ways and unreported crimes are on the increase as people do not see the point in reporting them. We also have a change in what we class as a crime so when I was younger it was a crime to lob a brick through a window and this would be reported to the police. These days people do not bother - its just a broken window.

Facts and statistics can be altered to suit whatever people want them to suit. Just watch the figures at the next election.

Maybe the number of paedophiles and child abusers has not increased and only things like the child help line make us think they have. Statistics are statistics, and people are people.

Dragon

Fareast

29-08-2005, 14:29

Cyclone ,

I , for one , don't dispute the figures you actually quoted , but you haven't given a time element . Is that a reduction from 1 year ago or what ?
The reason I ask is that most people , when they talk about an increase in violent crime or sexual crime , are usually , I think , thinking of a longer time -frame . In other words they are saying that there has been a tendency for crimes of all kinds to increase over the years , although there may be , "dips " in between individual years.
Also , since on this thread , they are concerned with sexual crimes , does , "all violent crime " include , "violent sexual crime " too , or indeed any kind of sexual crime ?
I do agree with you strongly on your point about the , "paranoia " of parents. Every indication is that most sexual crimes involving children take place in the home. I would hazard a guess that this has increased , in reality , as families have become less stable and thus , more fragmented. Probably the type of crime where an attacker leaps out of the bushes ......etc.....has remained the same but parents can hardly be blamed for being more irrational about that type of sexual attack as it usually leaves the child victim more traumatised ......or worse ...... as we've seen with the many recent cases.
Statistically , a child would be safer playing in the woods than staying at home , perhaps [!] but parents tend not to think , statistically , when it comes to their kids .

Cyclone

29-08-2005, 14:57

I presume it's the year on year change. I wouldn't dispute that crime is higher now than it was 40 years ago.
I don't know exactly what violent crime includes, but I expect violent sexual offences are included. I wouldn't know if all rapes are included as violent though.

Dragon - You didn't read the link did you. This isn't a survey of reported crime, it's a survey of actual crime. Ie they phone people up and ask them if they've suffered from any crime in the last year, and if so, what exactly.
Statistics can be manipulated yes, but if you always assume that they are worthless then we have nothing to base any opinion on. Certainly I accept that what I see is in no way representative, i'm only one person and I don't see enough of anything personally to form a bigger picture.

banesmabes

29-08-2005, 18:03

Originally posted by Fareast
Cyclone ,

I do agree with you strongly on your point about the , "paranoia " of parents. Every indication is that most sexual crimes involving children take place in the home. I would hazard a guess that this has increased , in reality , as families have become less stable and thus , more fragmented. Probably the type of crime where an attacker leaps out of the bushes ......etc.....has remained the same but parents can hardly be blamed for being more irrational about that type of sexual attack as it usually leaves the child victim more traumatised ......or worse ...... as we've seen with the many recent cases.
Statistically , a child would be safer playing in the woods than staying at home , perhaps [!] but parents tend not to think , statistically , when it comes to their kids .

I'm not sure I would agree that a child would be more traumatised by being abused by a stranger than by a parent or other trusted adult. I think they would probably present two equally bad, but different kinds of trauma. Imagine your parent abusing you (the most common abuse around) - the person you trusted the most in the world. Who can you tell about it? If it is parental abuse it is much more likley to go on for a long period of time. And even if the child tells the other parent eventually they are often met with disbelief - the parent usually believes their partner above the child.

A colleague of mine found out that her daughter was being sexually abused by her husband (the girl's father) and had been for 3 years. She went straight to the police who were frankly stunned that she had even reported it, as either the child is simply not believed by the non-abusive parent, and/or the whole episode is covered up within the family to avoid public humiliation. It leads you to wonder exactly how much abuse occurs within seemingly normal family homes.

The girl concerned became suicidal eventually and spent several years in a psychiatric hospital, and still today, as an adult, sees a psychaitrist once a week. And the father? Well he's not even on the sex offenders list. The police didn't prosecute in the end because of 'lack of evidence' (the father looked as if he would prove to be a very strong witness, the daughter, because of her emotional state, would be quite the opposite).

nightrider

29-08-2005, 18:15

Martin Dust

29-08-2005, 18:21

For someone called Dragon and who is into the occult, thought you'd know the history of witch-hunts...How would you feel if you was on the other end of this?

tulip

29-08-2005, 18:25

Originally posted by Cyclone
I presume it's the year on year change. I wouldn't dispute that crime is higher now than it was 40 years ago.
I don't know exactly what violent crime includes, but I expect violent sexual offences are included. I wouldn't know if all rapes are included as violent though.

Dragon - You didn't read the link did you. This isn't a survey of reported crime, it's a survey of actual crime. Ie they phone people up and ask them if they've suffered from any crime in the last year, and if so, what exactly.
Statistics can be manipulated yes, but if you always assume that they are worthless then we have nothing to base any opinion on. Certainly I accept that what I see is in no way representative, i'm only one person and I don't see enough of anything personally to form a bigger picture. You must realize that statisics are manipulated to suit the government? Thats why 'bean counters' have their jobs.

I want to ask you a couple of very blunt questions Cyclone. Why do you think that parents are over reacting to the possibility of a paedophile living nearby? How can a parent show too much concern for their child safety when there are child molesters placed in their neighbourhood?

There are a lot of paedophiles out there you know. It is a lot more common than you seem to think or maybe you don't want to believe it, thats understandable. I would rather live in a world where sex offenders were nonexistent but I don't and if there is one living near me I want to know about it. I wouldn't get a vigilante mob together but I would make sure the kids stayed away from the paedophile.:|

Cyclone

29-08-2005, 18:32

Originally posted by tulip
You must realize that statisics are manipulated to suit the government? Thats why 'bean counters' have their jobs.

I want to ask you a couple of very blunt questions Cyclone. Why do you think that parents are over reacting to the possibility of a paedophile living nearby? How can a parent show too much concern for their child safety when there are child molesters placed in their neighbourhood?

There are a lot of paedophiles out there you know. It is a lot more common than you seem to think or maybe you don't want to believe it, thats understandable. I would rather live in a world where sex offenders were nonexistent but I don't and if there is one living near me I want to know about it. I wouldn't get a vigilante mob together but I would make sure the kids stayed away from the paedophile.:|

fortunately lots of these studies aren't done by the state, but by universities, the researchers have no axe to grind and so no reason to misrepresent the results.
I don't think they are overreacting to that, I think that they are paranoid and believe that the risk of anything happening to their children is far higher than it really is. The reason for that being the media.
How is it that you know that? How many is lots? Where does your information come from?

You might not, but someone would.

DragonofAna

29-08-2005, 19:14

Ah MArtin Dust. Fortunately I do know the history of the witch hunts. Unfortunately it appears you do not. Do a little research.

Witch hunt - yeah! I would not mind being a witch during the witch hunts as they probably managed to find at most one or two. You was more likely to get hung than me.

Try to catch a witch. LOL

Dragon

Martin Dust

29-08-2005, 19:22

Originally posted by Dragon
Ah MArtin Dust. Fortunately I do know the history of the witch hunts. Unfortunately it appears you do not. Do a little research.

Witch hunt - yeah! I would not mind being a witch during the witch hunts as they probably managed to find at most one or two. You was more likely to get hung than me.

Try to catch a witch. LOL

Dragon

I know the history very well, so don't hit me up with some face saving clap-trap. The point being that they killed lots of innocent people, it would seem that are you are unable to understand even this...

I mean, to me - going on a public forum would be the last thing I'd do and I'd have to question why someone would, maybe you should ask yourself this question. It wasn't long ago that all people involved in the occult where accused of child abuse, or maybe you've forgotten this fact.

DragonofAna

29-08-2005, 19:31

If you know the history very well then why did you bring it up - especially as you have said that many innocent people were hanged just for being accused of being witches. As I could definitely be classed as one I would have nothing to fear.

And are you saying that paedophiles are to be viewed as innocent unfortunates?

As to going to a public forum - does it matter? The whole question is - do parents have a right to know if there is a paedophile living in the same area as them and their families? Is that too difficult a question to answer? Seems like it should be a simple - "Yes they should be allowed to know" or "No, they shouldn't"

You proud defenders of the guilty so make me laugh. Look after your children and do what is best for them. Simple as that.

Dragon

Martin Dust

29-08-2005, 19:37

Because you of all people should understand what it's like to be accused of something that isn't true, it would seem not.

All you are going on is what your sister believes, does that make it true - if I believe the world is flat, it doesn't make it so and you of all people should understand the power of belief systems, seems you don't.

I'm not defending anyone, just questioning your rationale, or rather lack of one...Call the police or just shut up - simple as that...

Cyclone

29-08-2005, 19:38

I think it was a reference to the fact that innocent people were killed, just like the paedetrician was attacked when the daily mail started naming and shaming paedophiles.
People are generally pretty dumb, and the iq of a group is inversely proportional to it's size.
It would only be a matter of time before someone started a rumour about someone and they turned up dead a few days later.

It could still happen now, but at least since there is no policy of naming and shaming, there can be no lie about it being official information when someone spreads a rumour.

depoix

29-08-2005, 22:17

Originally posted by banesmabes
I object to the phrase 'paedolphile supporter'.. NOBODY supports paedophiles or what they do. To suggest that in this phrase is incredibly insulting. What myself and others are trying to do is inject some logic, rationality and facts into an argument that is too often taken over by scare-mongering.

The fact is the people most likely to abuse children are their own parents, or someone trusted by their parents - not a stranger living round the corner.

It is incredibly niave to believe that if the police inform the community that there is a convicted paedophile living in the area that there will not then be an element of that community who decide exactly who that person is and decide to take their own direct action. (This may not be a mob, but a small, discreet hate campaign can be just as effective). Especially in a case such as that described, where the local community seems to have already decided that this man is a paedophile - they just need that one last trigger. I don't believe for a second that it will simply make parents more cautious. If this is the case, then you don't need to know whether there is a paedophile in the area - you just teach your kids to be cautious of any stranger!

Any parent who keeps their child indoors in the fear that they will be abducted by a paedophile is usually doing their child more harm than good. They are being protected from an almost non-existent threat. In return the children are losing the opportunity to learn many important social skills from interacting with other children outside of school.

Why are we suddenly so obsessed with paedophiles? As Cyclone said, there are no more of them about now as there were when we were all young! Just as there are around the same number of children killed by strangers each year now as there were 50 years ago. The problem is the perception of that risk - the media whip this up into a frenzy and scare all parents into thinking there are paedophiles and murderers behind every corner.

And the fact is that since the advent of the CRB, and the legal requirement that anyone wanting to work or volunteer with children must be CRB checked, our children have never been safer. i hae noticed you keep referring to your work in the crb,all this does is to try to cut the numbers of pevs working with children,it doesnt take into account the ones who are out there,not wanting to work with children as they know they have a better chance of getting away with their vile crimes if they work in other theatres,such as social work, charities or the judiciary,its a case of to little to late,the ones established over the last decade are so firmly entrenched they would not have to have a check,for example i suggest that if one of them was to be in a managerial position in your area of work it would be easier for him/her to corrupt any checks,nothing is infalable it is a sad fact of life that itis who you know, not what you know that gets you on in life, be it legal or not,you assume that all paedos want to work with children,this is not the case, as you yourself have mentioned before,a lot of the offenders are members of the victims family the creation of the crb is a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted

depoix

29-08-2005, 22:29

Originally posted by Fareast
Cyclone ,

I , for one , don't dispute the figures you actually quoted , but you haven't given a time element . Is that a reduction from 1 year ago or what ?
The reason I ask is that most people , when they talk about an increase in violent crime or sexual crime , are usually , I think , thinking of a longer time -frame . In other words they are saying that there has been a tendency for crimes of all kinds to increase over the years , although there may be , "dips " in between individual years.
Also , since on this thread , they are concerned with sexual crimes , does , "all violent crime " include , "violent sexual crime " too , or indeed any kind of sexual crime ?
I do agree with you strongly on your point about the , "paranoia " of parents. Every indication is that most sexual crimes involving children take place in the home. I would hazard a guess that this has increased , in reality , as families have become less stable and thus , more fragmented. Probably the type of crime where an attacker leaps out of the bushes ......etc.....has remained the same but parents can hardly be blamed for being more irrational about that type of sexual attack as it usually leaves the child victim more traumatised ......or worse ...... as we've seen with the many recent cases.
Statistically , a child would be safer playing in the woods than staying at home , perhaps [!] but parents tend not to think , statistically , when it comes to their kids . sod the statistics, paperwork, polls etc,the fact is its happening,and people who like yourself appear to defend this crime with facts and figures rather than preventative jail sentences are not helping matters,decent people will want these scum off the streets,there is no if why or maybe it is a vile crime perpetrated by vile people who have no place in a moral society

redrobbo

30-08-2005, 06:28

Originally posted by ianbrownfan
I think they have a mental illness that needs to be cured rather than locked up in jail. Don't get me wrong they need to be isolated, but need mental treatment.

It discusts me to hear what they do etc but they really do need something to help cure them.

Originally posted by Cyclone

I am also anti-paedophile, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, serve their sentence, and if deemed safe released under supervision. If they are not deemed safe they should be section under the mental health act and treated as required.

I am approved to undertake sections under the Mental Health Act 1983. Paedophiles per se are not mentally ill persons, and do not come under the scope of the mental health legislation. Thus they could not be sectioned and receive compulsory treatment under mental health legislation.

Paedophiles are criminals. Do not excuse their behaviour by referring to them as mentally ill.

Originally posted by Dragon
If deemed safe .... how many reports of people being released after serving their sentence and then going out and murdering again? Deemed fit? But someone stated they must be sick in the first place to look at paedophile porn on the net. Maybe electro therapy solved that little problem.

Electro-convulsive therapy is used mainly to treat cases of enduring severe depression. Paedophiles are not sick in the sense that they have a mental illness. Their offences are sickening and disgusting, but I repeat - they are not mentally ill; they are criminals. The full force of the law should be brought to bear upon them for their criminal activities.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think it was a reference to the fact that innocent people were killed, just like the paedetrician was attacked when the daily mail started naming and shaming paedophiles.

It was the News of the World, not the Daily Mail.

Originally posted by depoix
sod the statistics, paperwork, polls etc,the fact is its happening,and people who like yourself appear to defend this crime with facts and figures rather than preventative jail sentences are not helping matters,decent people will want these scum off the streets,there is no if why or maybe it is a vile crime perpetrated by vile people who have no place in a moral society

It would assist rationale debate depoix if you stopped accusing people on this thread of defending paedophiles. You have no evidence to support this contention. This is a debate about naming and shaming paedophile offenders. You may disagreee with the current policy, but that does not give you the right to accuse anyone of being a defender of paedophiles just because they hold a contrary view to your own.

willman

30-08-2005, 06:45

name all of them , then u can keep our kids away from them. this will protest your kids & the innocent neighbor who's just a bit weird.
in my personal experience offenders are people in trust of the family , not just known by. i.e swimming club coaches, scout leaders, church officials. i won't be specific but i know one of the above that was commiting offences unchecked for years.

banesmabes

30-08-2005, 07:39

Originally posted by depoix
i hae noticed you keep referring to your work in the crb,all this does is to try to cut the numbers of pevs working with children,it doesnt take into account the ones who are out there,not wanting to work with children as they know they have a better chance of getting away with their vile crimes if they work in other theatres,such as social work, charities or the judiciary,its a case of to little to late,the ones established over the last decade are so firmly entrenched they would not have to have a check,for example i suggest that if one of them was to be in a managerial position in your area of work it would be easier for him/her to corrupt any checks,nothing is infalable it is a sad fact of life that itis who you know, not what you know that gets you on in life, be it legal or not,you assume that all paedos want to work with children,this is not the case, as you yourself have mentioned before,a lot of the offenders are members of the victims family the creation of the crb is a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted

I used the example of more stringent police checks in response to a post which suggested it was relatively easy for peadophiles to work with children by 'conning' police checks. Nowhere have I stated that all paedophiles attempt to gain access to children this way, or that all paedophiles want to work with children. I have also never stated that CRB checks help to reduce the number of peadophiles, so I would appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth.

My argument about CRB checks was that they are so much better than the old police check system, and as a result our children are safer. You say it is easier to gain access to children through charities etc, however it is a legal requirement of any job (paid or voluntary) where there is access to children for the postholder/volunteer to hold a police check.

Again I will re-iterate that, although no system is foolproof, it is very hard to 'corrupt' the checks. Someone in a position of management couldn't 'corrupt' the checks easily. The countersignatory is the last person to see the CRB form before being sent off for the check, so as long as they perform all the checks they should then the check can't be 'corrupted'. To become a countersignatory you have to have a police check done yourself (again with all documents checked by someone already registered with the CRB), and people with relevant convictions would not be approved as a countersignatory.

DragonofAna

30-08-2005, 08:23

The electric shock therapy I was thinking of was about 50000 volts applied until the person would definitely not offend again. It was not a case of using actual therapy.

It does appear that a number of people here have more respect for the paedophile than fot the victims. Would be nice for these people who think paedophiles should have the same rights as everyone else to speak to the victims and their families. Maybe then they would change their mind.

If you suspect a person is a paedophile then more problems arise than if you know someone is a paedophile. Telling the parents of young children that one has moved into the immediate area would serve a purpose - if only to keep the children safe.

It seems most people here cannot even guess how a paedophile may work - and the threats that can be made to terrify a child into remaining silent and later on to blame themselves for whatever took place. This is not just a crime against children but against life as these scars are carried for the rest of a persons life.

While the convicted and then released paedophile goes about his or her business, the victim lives a life filled with distrust, depression, guilt, and more.

But paedophiles should be allowed anonymity? Nah! Take your facts and figures and put them in the rubbish. Take the children who have been abused and think - this child could have been mine.

Dragon

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 08:32

now answer the point about naming and shaming driving them underground and increasing the risk.
You constantly ignore it because you can't answer it and that's not convenient for your argument.

willman

30-08-2005, 08:34

Originally posted by Cyclone
now answer the point about naming and shaming driving them underground and increasing the risk.
You constantly ignore it because you can't answer it and that's not convenient for your argument.

this is a valid point.
however if i'd named & shamed i would have protected dozens of victims over many years, these were guarnateed until his tenure was revoked.
if the knowledge was common place people wopuld have removed there children from harm immediately.

DragonofAna

30-08-2005, 08:52

Sorry for not answering that point Cyclone. Just happens that I missed it and I do appologise.

Making the paedophiles life more difficult by driving them underground? What do you think is happening? You think paedophiles are walking around with badges on saying "I am a paedophile"?

It is already underground. Naming and Shaming will make little difference in that respect. Increase risk? Nah! Those paedophiles will know they will be so named and shamed and just may think twice or three times before committing an actual crime against children. Call it a deterant if you like.

So there you go - I ignored it because I did not see it. And now you have raised the point I want you to tell me how far underground these people can go more than they are already?

Dragon

depoix

30-08-2005, 08:53

Originally posted by redrobbo
I am approved to undertake sections under the Mental Health Act 1983. Paedophiles per se are not mentally ill persons, and do not come under the scope of the mental health legislation. Thus they could not be sectioned and receive compulsory treatment under mental health legislation.

Paedophiles are criminals. Do not excuse their behaviour by referring to them as mentally ill.

Electro-convulsive therapy is used mainly to treat cases of enduring severe depression. Paedophiles are not sick in the sense that they have a mental illness. Their offences are sickening and disgusting, but I repeat - they are not mentally ill; they are criminals. The full force of the law should be brought to bear upon them for their criminal activities.

It was the News of the World, not the Daily Mail.

It would assist rationale debate depoix if you stopped accusing people on this thread of defending paedophiles. You have no evidence to support this contention. This is a debate about naming and shaming paedophile offenders. You may disagreee with the current policy, but that does not give you the right to accuse anyone of being a defender of paedophiles just because they hold a contrary view to your own. i note with some alarm that the man who was accused of murdering roryblackhall was known to the authorities,he was on bail and faced 11 charges concerning sex charges, the local residents are demanding to know why he was free to live amongst them as some of the attacks against children took place in 1993, what else is there to say,he was allowed his freedom at the cost of a childs life, and i would add that i do not accuse cyclone of condoning these people,my referance was to his defence of them through the use of statistics, as i said at the time they are still here,statistics or not

banesmabes

30-08-2005, 08:58

Originally posted by willman
if the knowledge was common place people wopuld have removed there children from harm immediately.

This only works if people only take precautions to protect their children, and don't take the law into their own hands and stage a hate campaign to get the person out of the area. Unfortunately human nature (en masse) is not this rational and generally the paedophile will be driven underground, assume a new identity and then no one would know where he is - not even the police.

It is not about the paedophile's right to anonimity (as far as I'm concerned they don't deserve any rights), it's about looking at the long-term consequences of naming and shaming. To say that people like myself are protecting the rights of the paedophile above the victims is completely misunderstanding the matter (I know you didn't say this Willman, but somebody else did).

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 09:00

DragonofAna

30-08-2005, 09:02

Yet again this comment about driving them underground. I refer to my previous post. It is a pretty lame argument in my honest opinion - to say that naming them will drive them underground. It will do a lot more than that.

And the person changing their name still lives with the knowledge someone who knows them may see them. But we all know how easy it is to set up a new identity without help. Best not give a step by step on that one.

Cyclone - the police do not check or monitor them with the frequency you believe they do - hence reoffenders.

Dragon

banesmabes

30-08-2005, 09:06

Originally posted by Dragon
Sorry for not answering that point Cyclone. Just happens that I missed it and I do appologise.

Making the paedophiles life more difficult by driving them underground? What do you think is happening? You think paedophiles are walking around with badges on saying "I am a paedophile"?

It is already underground. Naming and Shaming will make little difference in that respect. Increase risk? Nah! Those paedophiles will know they will be so named and shamed and just may think twice or three times before committing an actual crime against children. Call it a deterant if you like.

So there you go - I ignored it because I did not see it. And now you have raised the point I want you to tell me how far underground these people can go more than they are already?

Dragon

You seem to completely misunderstand by what we mean by underground. Yes their activities are always 'underground', but at the moment they do not need to be completely underground (identity wise) because the general public does not have access to their conviction history. The point is at the moment the police know where these people are. If they are driven underground (and by underground we mean, assuming a new identity) then even the police do not know where they are. The above response completely misses this point. The increased risk comes from having a paedophile in the area who is living under an assumed name. He will not come up in the naming and shaming that has caused him to be there using that name in the first place, and more worrying, the police will not be aware he is there either.

So Dragon, if we do have naming and shaming, and your area comes up as being paedophile free, then I wouldn't bet on it - there may well be a convicted paedophile living right next door, who the police are not even keeping an eye on, because he has taken on a new identity after being driven out of a community elsewhere by exactly the policy you are advocating.

DragonofAna

30-08-2005, 09:11

Maybe it is just me but are people missing every other post that I make?

If the police are so good at keeping an eye on paedophiles then why do we have reoffenders? Surely they would catch the paedo before he reoffended? So letting them be monitored hardly seems to protect the children either does it?

How many convicted paedophiles do you think there are? And how big is our police force? And is watching paedophiles their only job?

Do you really think it is that easy to set up a completely new identity? And if someone is named and shamed then there are pictures of the person so he/she will be recognised even with the name change. So lets not keep going to extremes. There are already paedophiles amongst us who have not been caught yet and are thus underground - carrying out their perversions without anyone but the victim knowing about it. Like I said - deterant.

Dragon

willman

30-08-2005, 09:12

police monitoring only comes into effect when someone has been found guilty.perhaps public debate could be beneficial in addressing the suspicions of the neighbourhood.
i have categaoric proof of an offender but because he was in a position of trust with a vulnerable group of children his offences went un reported & unpunished.
as far as i'm aware he's still out there doing heavens knows what. potential victims need protection.

IMO to further this discussion i do think that other serial criminals should also be named & shamed. repeat offenders for burglary,car theft etc.
do you really know who your children are associated with?

banesmabes

30-08-2005, 09:18

Originally posted by Dragon
Maybe it is just me but are people missing every other post that I make?

If the police are so good at keeping an eye on paedophiles then why do we have reoffenders? Surely they would catch the paedo before he reoffended? So letting them be monitored hardly seems to protect the children either does it?

How many convicted paedophiles do you think there are? And how big is our police force? And is watching paedophiles their only job?

Do you really think it is that easy to set up a completely new identity? And if someone is named and shamed then there are pictures of the person so he/she will be recognised even with the name change. So lets not keep going to extremes. There are already paedophiles amongst us who have not been caught yet and are thus underground - carrying out their perversions without anyone but the victim knowing about it. Like I said - deterant.

Dragon

So in that case naming and shaming will have little effect. It will protect children in the very short-term until that person assumes a new identity (which incidentally you can pick up for a few hundred pounds from the right people), moves to a different area and continues offending there. Only this time if an offence is reported the police will not know that a convicted paedophile is living in the area, so they will not be able to immediately identify a prime suspect - giving the perpetrator time to target more children or move on to yet another area.

And do you really think that everyone will look at the names and pictures of every named paedophile and then be able to remember what all of them look like, so that when they turn up in a town 100 miles away from where they were last known to be living someone will immediately recognise them? Now THIS is taking it to extremes.

depoix

30-08-2005, 09:27

if every library were to have a public access file with these persons picture and profile then they would not be able to go underground as they could be recognised by the people in the area

they do not deserve anonymity for their crimes,even if they have served their time in prison ,the file would at least give people a chance to know who is who, perhaps they may not remember faces but theres always a chance they will

Fareast

30-08-2005, 09:28

Depoix ,

I think it's time you started to read the posts accurately , instead of commenting on what you THINK they mean.
In my post , I haven't mentioned anything at all about sentencing or defending or being soft on child attackers.
In fact , I was saying that even if the , "jumping out of the bushes " attacks HADN'T increased , parents were still more fearful of these kinds of attacks as they tended to be more serious than the , "in the home " attacks.
I said that it was , perhaps not surprising if the domestic type offences HAD increased , since families were more fragmented and less tradionally structured these days.
My comments , were , in fact , trying to understand what Cyclone meant when he quoted his info. about the statistics , trying to get clarification , that's all.
The conclusion I came to , was that IF offences , "in the street " , were about the same as they always have been and IF offences in the home were increasing , then a child was safer playing out than staying in but I did add that the , "outside" offences were what worried parents most.

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 09:29

Originally posted by depoix
i note with some alarm that the man who was accused of murdering roryblackhall was known to the authorities,he was on bail and faced 11 charges concerning sex charges, the local residents are demanding to know why he was free to live amongst them as some of the attacks against children took place in 1993, what else is there to say,he was allowed his freedom at the cost of a childs life, and i would add that i do not accuse cyclone of condoning these people,my referance was to his defence of them through the use of statistics, as i said at the time they are still here,statistics or not

if he was on bail and being charged then he had not been found guilty, nor was he on the sex offenders register.
We are in this country inoccent until proven guilty, that's the way it works for all crimes, and is still the right way to do things.

banesmabes

30-08-2005, 09:34

Originally posted by depoix
if every library were to have a public access file with these persons picture and profile then they would not be able to go underground as they could be recognised by the people in the area

they do not deserve anonymity for their crimes,even if they have served their time in prison

Again, do you really think everyone will take the trouble to go to the library and look at all the pictures of every paedophile in the country and be able to remember what they all look like in case one turns up in their community under an assumed name and 100 miles from where they were last reported to be living?

This is not about whether paedophiles deserve anonimity, it is about the consequences of naming and shaming.

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 09:43

Originally posted by depoix
if every library were to have a public access file with these persons picture and profile then they would not be able to go underground as they could be recognised by the people in the area

they do not deserve anonymity for their crimes,even if they have served their time in prison ,the file would at least give people a chance to know who is who, perhaps they may not remember faces but theres always a chance they will

because they couldn't change their hair, grow a mustache, shave off the beard or do anything else to make it impossible to identify them from a vague recollection of a single photo.

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 09:45

Originally posted by willman
police monitoring only comes into effect when someone has been found guilty.perhaps public debate could be beneficial in addressing the suspicions of the neighbourhood.
i have categaoric proof of an offender but because he was in a position of trust with a vulnerable group of children his offences went un reported & unpunished.
as far as i'm aware he's still out there doing heavens knows what. potential victims need protection.

IMO to further this discussion i do think that other serial criminals should also be named & shamed. repeat offenders for burglary,car theft etc.
do you really know who your children are associated with?

If you have categoric proof why haven't you gone to the police with it?

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 09:48

depoix

30-08-2005, 10:25

Originally posted by Cyclone
because they couldn't change their hair, grow a mustache, shave off the beard or do anything else to make it impossible to identify them from a vague recollection of a single photo. true,if they were a man, but there are other ways to pick up on people,a stanger in the area,a different regional dialect, traits and habits that are with a person their whole life are hard to disguise, the very fact that a stranger comes in to the area to live could be the incentive to have another look at the file, not every stranger is guilty but i myself would have no objection to any one checking me out if ever i moved house

such a file i believe would give parents more confidence in the authorities, they would see that at least an effort had been made by them to try to protect the children, instead of maintaining a wall of silence that could be used as the start of rumours and suspicions

banesmabes

30-08-2005, 10:32

Originally posted by depoix

such a file i believe would give parents more confidence in the authorities, they would see that at least an effort had been made by them to try to protect the children, instead of maintaining a wall of silence that could be used as the start of rumours and suspicions

And of course these rumours and suspicians would not start if people have access to a register and start suspecting anyone new to the area who looks slightly like one of the men on the register! By using this method and having to assume that the man may be living under an assumed name, then you can eliminate virtually no one!

depoix

30-08-2005, 10:49

Originally posted by banesmabes
And of course these rumours and suspicians would not start if people have access to a register and start suspecting anyone new to the area who looks slightly like one of the men on the register! By using this method and having to assume that the man may be living under an assumed name, then you can eliminate virtually no one! so you dont agree something positive must be done to protect children? it would be a start yesterday a man approached my 12 year old daughter out side my house," you are very pretty" he said,an innocent enough remark, she came straight in and told me,but he had gone by the time i got out of the door.

this in itself was enough for me to bring her inside, innocent or not why did he feel he had to tell my daughter she was pretty?

how come he vanished so quickly?

paranoia on my part?no...just a parents protective instinct coming out

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 10:54

Originally posted by depoix
true,if they were a man, but there are other ways to pick up on people,a stanger in the area,a different regional dialect, traits and habits that are with a person their whole life are hard to disguise, the very fact that a stranger comes in to the area to live could be the incentive to have another look at the file, not every stranger is guilty but i myself would have no objection to any one checking me out if ever i moved house

such a file i believe would give parents more confidence in the authorities, they would see that at least an effort had been made by them to try to protect the children, instead of maintaining a wall of silence that could be used as the start of rumours and suspicions

most paedophiles are, so lets make that assumption to make things easier.
Most areas now have people moving in and out all the time, and it's rare to know neighbours even a few houses away, never mind everyone on your road.
So basically there's no way to keep track of who is "a stranger" simply because most people are.
The rest of it, dialect, habits etc... is of no use to you in identifying someone based on a picture and maybe a few words that you glanced through in the library.
Such a file would be useless for protecting your children, but used to target and hound out the released paedophiles who had done their time and hadn't hidden away.
They would then be forced to change their appearance, move without notifying the authorities and try to hide.

willman

30-08-2005, 10:57

Originally posted by Cyclone
If you have categoric proof why haven't you gone to the police with it?

for the reasons stated in the post. upstanding adult, trusted ,well liked, in a position of power & responsibility,
deprived & vulnerable children.
at the time there was no child line & stuff to report them too, and scout leaders like priests were above reproach. (not that all scout leaders or priests are pervs)

banesmabes

30-08-2005, 10:59

Originally posted by depoix
so you dont agree something positive must be done to protect children? it would be a start yesterday a man approached my 12 year old daughter out side my house," you are very pretty" he said,an innocent enough remark, she came straight in and told me,but he had gone by the time i got out of the door.

this in itself was enough for me to bring her inside, innocent or not why did he feel he had to tell my daughter she was pretty?

how come he vanished so quickly?

paranoia on my part?no...just a parents protective instinct coming out

Yes I do agree that something positive should be done to protect our children - but I don't agree that naming and shaming is positive. It is negative because it drives people underground.

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 11:01

Originally posted by willman
for the reasons stated in the post. upstanding adult, trusted ,well liked, in a position of power & responsibility,
deprived & vulnerable children.
at the time there was no child line & stuff to report them too, and scout leaders like priests were above reproach. (not that all scout leaders or priests are pervs)

categoric proof sounds like it should be enough even to get through that level of disbelief.

depoix

30-08-2005, 11:02

Originally posted by Cyclone
most paedophiles are, so lets make that assumption to make things easier.
Most areas now have people moving in and out all the time, and it's rare to know neighbours even a few houses away, never mind everyone on your road.
So basically there's no way to keep track of who is "a stranger" simply because most people are.
The rest of it, dialect, habits etc... is of no use to you in identifying someone based on a picture and maybe a few words that you glanced through in the library.
Such a file would be useless for protecting your children, but used to target and hound out the released paedophiles who had done their time and hadn't hidden away.
They would then be forced to change their appearance, move without notifying the authorities and try to hide. i live in an area where i am pleased to say i could and often do recognise strangers,having lived here for over twenty years i know and speak to almost all my neighbours,i suppose i am lucky in a way,this is what a comunity is about,knowing and often helping each other,hence when i say a stranger could be recognised this is what i was refering to

willman

30-08-2005, 11:03

when i say categoric i mean my word against his, i found several years after that there were others but at the time everytime every just hid the shame.

depoix

30-08-2005, 11:06

Originally posted by Cyclone
if he was on bail and being charged then he had not been found guilty, nor was he on the sex offenders register.
We are in this country inoccent until proven guilty, that's the way it works for all crimes, and is still the right way to do things. then why did he hang himself when the police arrived at his home?

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 11:08

Originally posted by depoix
then why did he hang himself when the police arrived at his home?

I didn't say that he wasn't guilty.
I said that he hadn't been found guilty.

You do have a problem with seeing the nuances sometimes. Is the world all black and white to you?

depoix

30-08-2005, 11:14

Originally posted by Cyclone
I didn't say that he wasn't guilty.
I said that he hadn't been found guilty.

You do have a problem with seeing the nuances sometimes. Is the world all black and white to you? im afraid it is,
right or wrong no sitting on the wall,no middle of the road

a thing is either right or it is wrong

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 11:16

Originally posted by depoix
im afraid it is,
right or wrong no sitting on the wall,no middle of the road

a thing is either right or it is wrong

that's probably why we keep disagreeing then. The world is made up of shades of grey, very rarely is an issue black or white. Trying to simpify everything into those terms leads to misunderstanding and to making bad decisions.

depoix

30-08-2005, 11:27

tulip

30-08-2005, 20:43

Originally posted by Cyclone
fortunately lots of these studies aren't done by the state, but by universities, the researchers have no axe to grind and so no reason to misrepresent the results.
I don't think they are overreacting to that, I think that they are paranoid and believe that the risk of anything happening to their children is far higher than it really is. The reason for that being the media.
How is it that you know that? How many is lots? Where does your information come from?

You might not, but someone would. The agencies that do 'independent research' in many cases funded by the government. They juggle the figures. Statistics can be altered to suit whoever is doing the survey. You could offer up a poll done on SF as valid statistics but would you say it was a good representation of what the population of Sheffield really thought?

Parents are not being paranoid. Extreme cases offered by the News of The World comic of groups of people running amok burning peoples houses down and attacking paediatricians is not the norm!

tulip

30-08-2005, 20:50

Originally posted by Cyclone
that's probably why we keep disagreeing then. The world is made up of shades of grey, very rarely is an issue black or white. Trying to simpify everything into those terms leads to misunderstanding and to making bad decisions. Somethings are either right or wrong! Its all very well telling depoix that he thinks everything is black and white when you think everything is shades of grey.

I think everyone would agree paedophilia is wrong, wouldn't they? I would be interested to see if anyone can bring out a case when sexually abusing a child might not be totally wrong?

Cyclone

30-08-2005, 22:02

Originally posted by tulip
The agencies that do 'independent research' in many cases funded by the government. They juggle the figures. Statistics can be altered to suit whoever is doing the survey. You could offer up a poll done on SF as valid statistics but would you say it was a good representation of what the population of Sheffield really thought?

Parents are not being paranoid. Extreme cases offered by the News of The World comic of groups of people running amok burning peoples houses down and attacking paediatricians is not the norm!

no you couldn't. A serious study starts with a random cross section and then normalises the results for other influencing factos. It's not the work of some MORI pollster.

tulip - shades of grey doesn't disallow black. Saying that you only see black and white does disallow shades though.
Naming released offenders is not a black and white issue.

DragonofAna

31-08-2005, 08:00

So - did anyone actually answer the point about paedophiles being monitored and reoffending without some invalid claim that only a small number reoffend? If they are being monitored so well then none should reoffend, and I thouoght they were released when they were no longer considered a danger?

Cyclone - you keep answering every question with the same rhetoric, and then when argument fails you turn to the silly polls that ask 100 people which shampoo they prefer and then state it is the most liked shampoo across the country (with the figures in small print).

Of course there are shades of grey in most matters, but paedophiles???? It does not matter if the guilty person is a member of the family, a priest, a judge, or the old man who lives in the house down the road - the parents of children living nearby should be informed of the presence of the paedophile. Not for some weird vigilante burning their home reason - probably the result of too much television - but to be able to safeguard their children better.

If not naming and shaming then there needs to be an alternative.

And I do not believe the hypothesis that taking on a new identity will help the named and shamed unless plastic surgery is involved. Not long ago I was approached by someone I have not seen since infant school who recognised me even though I could not at first remember them. Did not take long to remember who the person was. No matter where you go - there is always the chance you will be recognised by someone you do not recognise first. And I do not mean you personally.

Dragon

Cyclone

31-08-2005, 08:06

it must be nice to be able to dismiss as 'invalid' any statistics you don't like. Makes it much easier to argue a point.
Unfortunately (for your argument anyway) they aren't invalid.

And as I already said, being monitored is not a 24 hr affair, so it does not guarantee that they will not reoffend.
And apparently it's not considered a mental illness, so they are released once their sentence has been completed. This is something that I would change.

And you of course don't keep using the same rhetoric and when that fails dismiss all evidence contrary to your view as 'invalid'.

DragonofAna

31-08-2005, 08:18

Nah! You are right Cyclone. After all - statistics are never wrong are they? Er!!!!

That aside - the point is - other than keeping watch over our children every minute of the day from birth to them being 16 years of age, how do we protect them from these people?

Must uphold the rights of the paedophile to anonymity. But tell you what - I read in the Sheffield Star about people being prosecuted and fined for drunken driving, theft, fraud, and so on, and I read about people forced to go bankrupt, about people getting evicted for not being able to pay their bills, about men hanging themselves while dressed in female clothing, and murderers being named and so on, and I wonder - why do we treat paedophiles differently?

Shouldn't need to wonder should I as the statistics and yourself tell me why they are a special case.

Well - you are right and those figures mean nothing to me. You are right and I ignore those statistics in this thread and in other threads, because even though I cannot be bothered I know you could find conflicting statistics if you took the other point of view.

Maybe one day - just maybe mind - you will have some consideration for those children who have been abused by these perverts. Have you ever spoken to an adult who has suffered at the hands of one of these people?

Never mind. Stick to your defence of them. I am quite happy to stick with my personal opinion regardless of your supposed facts.

Dragon

Cyclone

31-08-2005, 09:09

I don't think you've actually understood anything that's been said in this thread.

Yes people get prosecuted for those things, and at no point has anyone suggested that paedophiles shouldn't be prosecuted and serve a lengthy jail sentence.
What doesn't happen in those other cases is anyone being informed when they are released. For all you know people on your street may have served time for murder, the fact is that you don't have a right to know and you won't be told.
Fortunately I'm in the position of arguing for the way things already stand, so clearly the people making the laws agree with my arguments, even if you don't.
Obviously you not being bothered to find any statistics makes your argument a lot stronger, why not go a step further and not bother to discuss it at all, afterall you're not really interested in a discussion.

cgksheff

31-08-2005, 09:15

Originally posted by Dragon

Must uphold the rights of the paedophile to anonymity. But tell you what - I read in the Sheffield Star about people being prosecuted and fined for drunken driving, theft, fraud, and so on, and I read about people forced to go bankrupt, about people getting evicted for not being able to pay their bills, about men hanging themselves while dressed in female clothing, and murderers being named and so on, and I wonder - why do we treat paedophiles differently?

I can't comment on the editorial policy of the Sheffield Star, but the identity of paedophiles convicted in court is a matter of public record. Along with the identities of those convicted of other crimes.

depoix

31-08-2005, 13:10

Originally posted by cgksheff
I can't comment on the editorial policy of the Sheffield Star, but the identity of paedophiles convicted in court is a matter of public record. Along with the identities of those convicted of other crimes. thats very true,but the news papers do not allways report the names, i know of one case for definate wher no reporting was done,even though reporters were present in court

Tony

31-08-2005, 13:23

That is done for the benefit of the victim, not the perpetrator.

cgksheff

31-08-2005, 14:21

My point is that whether the papers print any names or not, you are at liberty to see the court records for yourself.
It is not secret.

banesmabes

31-08-2005, 14:38

As far as I am aware it is only instances where identifying the abuser would lead to the identification of the victim that the person convicted is not named to the general public.

depoix

31-08-2005, 18:40

Originally posted by Tony
That is done for the benefit of the victim, not the perpetrator. true, but not in the case i mention,he was not mentioned because at one time he worked in the intelligence section of his regiment, they spent time in northern ireland, his identity could have proved detremental to others who may still be serving

willman

07-09-2005, 13:58

i think i remarked on a post about the high number of offenders in Sheffield & surprise was shown by forummers.
today sstar indicates a minimum of 720 sex offenders in SY,and as the largest city i would think sheff would get the highest %. some of these will have to be watched at all times.

perhaps i dont talk crap all the time after all.

banesmabes

07-09-2005, 15:09

Is there any comparison to elsewhere though? How do we know that 720 is high if we don't compare it to other areas of a similar population?

willman

07-09-2005, 15:21

Originally posted by banesmabes
Is there any comparison to elsewhere though? How do we know that 720 is high if we don't compare it to other areas of a similar population?

does it matter what any one else has, 720's still high enough iMO.
perhaps you would like more moving here so that all cities could be on an even per capita basis.

banesmabes

07-09-2005, 15:33

Originally posted by willman
does it matter what any one else has, 720's still high enough iMO.
perhaps you would like more moving here so that all cities could be on an even per capita basis.

Yes it does matter. How can you make a judgement just on how large a single figue sounds with nothing to compare against? It’s like saying 326 children got at least one grade A in their GCSEs in Sheffield this year – we don’t know if that’s any better or worse than anywhere else just from a raw figure, or whether that is a good or bad record. It may be the case that we do have more than other areas, but it may be that we are lucky and have less.

How many people live in South Yorkshire – approx 2 million? So 720 sounds actually quite low when you think of it like that. We are never going to have no sex offenders in the area as much as we’d all like to.

willman

07-09-2005, 15:43

i think it was once publicised when the Huntley saga was under way that sheffield had more sex offenders registered than any other city except London.it was a survey i think in the mail or the express,but not sure.

i understand your idea re: the figures. but 2 million, 51% are women thats 980k,30% will be children another 50% outside the profile ages (tends to be 40-60). so the figure becomes 720 out of 190k. it is still a large number i admit.but technically that equates roughly to 1-2 male customers per day @ any mcdonalds could be a sex offender.

Internetowl

07-09-2005, 17:05

Sheffield and South Yorkshire are being swamped with registered sex offenders and paedophiles..

Just short of 1000 registered in the area - enough is enough!

:rant:

KookyKoo

07-09-2005, 17:07

this is what tourist information won't tell you- cheapest place in the country to buy heroin and this statistic from Internetowl- visit Sheffield! LOL

willman

07-09-2005, 17:11

yep i posted another paedo post earlier. i had reported that sheffield held a large number of offenders a while ago but i think people disregarded my remarks at the time.
(What is the standing on paedophiles?)

t020

07-09-2005, 17:12

Originally posted by willman
yep i posted another paedo post earlier. i had reported that sheffield held a large number of offenders a while ago but i think people disregarded my remarks at the time.
(What is the standing on paedophiles?)

Standing on them could be a good way to start... :hihi:

banesmabes

07-09-2005, 17:18

I can understand that most sex offenders will be men, so this cuts the population in half, and then the adjustment for children, but why aged 40 - 60 only?

It'd be interesting to know what proportion of the male population are sex offenders and how that compares across the country.

Either way I think it is still a relatively small figure and it's not worth ruling your life around them. You can't go through life thinking that every man is a potential rapist.

It would also be interesting (for this thread) to see how many of the number mentioned in the Star are paedophiles or have been convicted for viewing child pornography etc.

willman

07-09-2005, 17:22

it just states registered sex offenders, i dont know if viewing puts you on the register so i can't comment.
the profile for 95% of sex offenders is white,male and the ages vary from mid 30's to late 50's but that is a generalisation i'm afraid.
to be honest i couldn' care less who they were 'cos it wouldn't affect me or mine anyway, but when you crunch the numbers the guy in front of you in the sandwich shop could be a sex offender.

banesmabes

07-09-2005, 17:28

You can think that however many sex offenders there are - even if there were just one you wouldn't neccessarily know if he was standing next to you. I don't think there's anything to be gained from making people paranoid about a relatively small number of people.

I think you do get put on the sex offenders list if you view illegal pornnography. I briefly read the Star tonight and they highlighted the case of a man who had been convicted of having child porn images on his PC, and he was on the register.

willman

07-09-2005, 17:32

i bet 20% of sheffield are clearing their hard drives at the minute then.(lol)

bigredbox

07-09-2005, 17:49

Yeah, agree totally,

Seems my daughter knows them all personally, which is the subject of my post regarding social services ignoring the issue.

If I had my way, I'd round em all up, hang em up by the knackers, and make em suffer very slowly.
Mind you, the sicko's would probably enjoy this.:rant:

Social services would probably protect them too, which gets me even more mad.

Siân

07-09-2005, 18:20

What bothers me more, personally, are the offenders who've never been caught & prosecuted & who aren't, therefore, being monitored.

The registered ones are the tip of the iceberg, surely. Without being able to measure the percentage of of 'unregistered' paedophiles we can't work out if children here are more at risk. If different areas of the country tend to have the same overall percentage of paedophiles then you could argue that Sheffield is safer because a greater number here are registered & at least being monitored.

metalman

07-09-2005, 18:58

Think you're a bit confused here though... the Star article just says 920 people on the sex offenders register, not how many of them are paedophiles. Internetowls original post was worded so as it looks as though all 1000 of them are.

joyphil

07-09-2005, 19:19

Blimey, Sheffield is doing well, isn't it? Awash with nonces, a veritable Poundsaver for junkies and gifted with the most awful roads in the land. Oh, and one of the most disinterested. easily-bought city councils this side of Doncaster.

The solution is simple really. Simply put all the kiddie fiddlers, junkies, heroin, syringes and councillors in a big grinder. Make a nice paste out of it and mix with tar. Then spread smoothly on the roads. lovely.

Siân

07-09-2005, 19:22

Originally posted by joyphil
Blimey, Sheffield is doing well, isn't it? Awash with nonces, a veritable Poundsaver for junkies and gifted with the most awful roads in the land. Oh, and one of the most disinterested. easily-bought city councils this side of Doncaster.

The solution is simple really. Simply put all the kiddie fiddlers, junkies, heroin, syringes and councillors in a big grinder. Make a nice paste out of it and mix with tar. Then spread smoothly on the roads. lovely.

joyphil for PM! :clap: A class solution :P

irenewilde

07-09-2005, 20:54

joyphil

07-09-2005, 21:17

Good lord, ladies and gentlemen, I didn't actually mean it. How disturbing... I'd be up there on the same podium as Roy James if I did, which wouldn't do at all.

Mind you, the roads really are in a shocking state.

Siân

07-09-2005, 21:36

Originally posted by joyphil
Good lord, ladies and gentlemen, I didn't actually mean it. How disturbing... I'd be up there on the same podium as Roy James if I did, which wouldn't do at all.

Didn't think you did hence the :clap: & the use of a strategically placed :P :D

tulip

07-09-2005, 23:17

Originally posted by banesmabes
I can understand that most sex offenders will be men, so this cuts the population in half, and then the adjustment for children, but why aged 40 - 60 only?

It'd be interesting to know what proportion of the male population are sex offenders and how that compares across the country.

Either way I think it is still a relatively small figure and it's not worth ruling your life around them. You can't go through life thinking that every man is a potential rapist.

It would also be interesting (for this thread) to see how many of the number mentioned in the Star are paedophiles or have been convicted for viewing child pornography etc. 720 is 720 too many! That's only the ones who are registered, they will be a lot more of them lurking.

You can't even imagine what affect child molesters have on kids.

If they are viewing child pornography then the children in the pictures are being abused and they are contributing to the abuse of children.

Alicia

07-09-2005, 23:24

Pedophiles are bad people. They're gross sick perverts. But sometimes they change... but you never know. I'd still suspect them even if they have changed. You never know.

Cyclone

07-09-2005, 23:28

Originally posted by tulip
720 is 720 too many! That's only the ones who are registered, they will be a lot more of them lurking.

You can't even imagine what affect child molesters have on kids.

If they are viewing child pornography then the children in the pictures are being abused and they are contributing to the abuse of children.

I think maybe you are confused, not everyone on the sex offenders register is a paedophile.

redrobbo

07-09-2005, 23:33

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think maybe you are confused, not everyone on the sex offenders register is a paedophile.

True. But all convicted paedophiles are on the sex offenders register, as is anyone convicted of a sexual offence against children under the Children & Young Persons Act 1933.

tulip

07-09-2005, 23:35

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think maybe you are confused, not everyone on the sex offenders register is a paedophile. I don't remember saying that everyone on the sex offenders list was a paedophile:confused:

redrobbo

07-09-2005, 23:38

Originally posted by willman
i think i remarked on a post about the high number of offenders in Sheffield & surprise was shown by forummers.
today sstar indicates a minimum of 720 sex offenders in SY,and as the largest city i would think sheff would get the highest %. some of these will have to be watched at all times.

perhaps i dont talk crap all the time after all.

The Star article also quoted the police, who explained why they were dead set against identifying to the public where sex offenders resided. The police explained their reasoning, i.e., it would drive sex offenders underground, making the task of monitoring these offenders impossible - as they would simply disappear. This would increase the risk of convicted sex offenders re-offending.

These are precisely the points that Cyclone, I and other posters have been making on this and other related threads.

sw9wj

08-09-2005, 01:24

The world seems to be obsessed with paedophiles now. I doubt that there are any more or less of them than there were when we were growing up and I doubt that Sheffield has an excessive amount. What is differerent is the obsession of the media with such issues. Sells papers though.

BrainThrust

08-09-2005, 01:35

this is what is so weird about the term sex offender's register, it automatically makes people think paedophile.

My friend is on the register, he is not a paedo, nor is he a weirdo or any form of 'loony'. He's just a 17 year old kid who was a shoulder to cry on for someone who lied to him about their age, and then a series of events happened that I won't go into for his sake that resulted in him getting an written caution and his name on the sex offenders list for 2 years.

This is not the point of this thread though, just trying to inject some reason that sex offender can mean some horrible things but it can also be something fairly innocent that happens to flare up.

Wilf

Cyclone

08-09-2005, 06:23

Originally posted by tulip
I don't remember saying that everyone on the sex offenders list was a paedophile:confused:

Maybe you should be more clear what relation your sentences hold then.

720 is 720 too many! That's only the ones who are registered, they will be a lot more of them lurking.

You can't even imagine what affect child molesters have on kids.

That seems to imply that all 720 are child molesters, otherwise the 2nd sentence is just random.

Internetowl

08-09-2005, 06:35

if she / he was underage then he's a paedo....

no matter how nice he is , still a paedo!

willman

08-09-2005, 07:06

Originally posted by Cyclone
Maybe you should be more clear what relation your sentences hold then.

That seems to imply that all 720 are child molesters, otherwise the 2nd sentence is just random.

to be honest i didn'd associate sentence1 with 2.
i just thought sentence 2 was a statement of opinion, or rhetorical questioning. sorry.

gribz

08-09-2005, 07:14

Originally posted by Internetowl
if she / he was underage then he's a paedo....

no matter how nice he is , still a paedo!

How harsh and wrong, thats just the kind of Knee Jerk reaction that Chris Morris was aiming at, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile

When so called sane and reasonable adults start reacting like this and the "BURN THEM ALL" bridgade starts their chanting I wonder, would killing them all make us any better than them? Does an Eye for an Eye really work?

I don't think so and I think it'd take an utter miracle to talk and deal with this matter in a sensible and adult manner, as witnessed by some of the posts above.

Just my two pence.

SHsheff

08-09-2005, 07:25

Originally posted by Internetowl
if she / he was underage then he's a paedo....

no matter how nice he is , still a paedo!

But technically (ie according to the law) if a sixteen-year-old boy and a fifteen-year-old girl have sex, because she's a minor (ie under 16) he could be charged and prosecuted. You're saying that would make him a 'paedo'?

(In practice, it would be highly unlikely to happen because the police and the CPS would hesitate to become involved unless there were other aspects to the case.)

SHsheff

08-09-2005, 07:29

PS Internetowl - ever thought about a career writing headlines for the more, ahem, 'popular' tabloids?

I've just flicked back onto 'View New Posts' and yup, your thread leapt out at me again, "Sheffield - Paedo City of 2005'

Great attention grabber, not so strong on accuracy m8e!

:heyhey:

willman

08-09-2005, 07:31

however the definition is a person attracted to children, usually prepubescent.
so are people who have underage sex paedo's?.

Internetowl

08-09-2005, 08:27

Originally posted by SHsheff
PS Internetowl - ever thought about a career writing headlines for the more, ahem, 'popular' tabloids?

I've just flicked back onto 'View New Posts' and yup, your thread leapt out at me again, "Sheffield - Paedo City of 2005'

Great attention grabber, not so strong on accuracy m8e!

:heyhey:

I do try my best and looking at some of the responses I get both on the board and via PM - I have a captive audience :)
:clap: :suspect: :thumbsup:

SHsheff

08-09-2005, 08:33

I'm hanging on your every utterance, m8e!

:banana:

Internetowl

08-09-2005, 08:38

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think maybe you are confused, not everyone on the sex offenders register is a paedophile.

but some of them are....and 1 paedophile is too many. In my view (and its held by many) we are too easy on sex offenders of all types and that more draconian measures should be taken to protect the vunerable. Try tattooing their foreheads with 'Rapist' or 'Fiddler' or 'Labour MP' - that way people would know and be able to take their own retribution.

:thumbsup: Its a real vote winner Mr Blair!

Internetowl

08-09-2005, 08:45

and he's still a paedophile....no matter what left wing, wishing washy liberal excuse you give for it....she needed support and he took advantage of her, full stop!

SHsheff

08-09-2005, 08:49

Originally posted by Internetowl
Try tattooing their foreheads with 'Rapist' or 'Fiddler' or 'Labour MP' .

:thumbsup: Its a real vote winner Mr Blair!

'Fiddler'? Would you have to be so specific? Wouldn't a more general 'Musician' be enough?

:confused:

Internetowl

08-09-2005, 08:50

thats not what I meant and you know it ;)

Dj_Shadowman

08-09-2005, 08:51

So what if you go to a nightclub, meet someone, sleep with them and then you find out they are only 15 ?

Does that class as being a nonce ? If so there are a hell of a lot more of them than 920 in Sheffield...

Internetowl

08-09-2005, 08:52

as this thread as died a bit - too much psychobabble perhaps you should suggest a new topic?

Go on, you know you want to....

kirky

08-09-2005, 08:57

Originally posted by Dj_Shadowman
So what if you go to a nightclub, meet someone, sleep with them and then you find out they are only 15 ?

Does that class as being a nonce ? If so there are a hell of a lot more of them than 920 in Sheffield...

nice to see you.ve finally paid the phone bill mate..welcome back:D :thumbsup:

Greenback

08-09-2005, 08:59

Originally posted by Internetowl
and he's still a paedophile....no matter what left wing, wishing washy liberal excuse you give for it....she needed support and he took advantage of her, full stop!

So you don't differentiate between a mature 15-year-old girl sleeping with an 18 year-old guy to whom she lied about her age, and a middle-aged saddo sexually abusing children under the age of, say, 10? Maybe it makes me a wishy-washy liberal, but to me that seems to be plain stupid.

willman

08-09-2005, 09:12

what about if you meet a girl have sex underage, get married l8r & stay together forever.
although underage sex is unlawful you're not actually classed as paedo only a sex offender - like George Michael .
paedo's have a distinct attraction to prepubescent children - modus operandi is long term predatory abuse, not one night stands in the multi storey car park.

banesmabes

08-09-2005, 09:17

Again I would re-iterate what I have said on the other thread regarding paedophiles – you cannot make a judgement on whether South Yorkshire has a lot of sex offenders based on just a raw figure – we need something to compare it against. How do we compare to other areas of a similar population?

The figure may sound like a lot in just a raw state, but there are over 495,000 men over the age of 15 living in South Yorkshire. This means that approximately 0.2% of the male poulation of South Yorkshire is a registered sex offender, and an even smaller proportion has been convicted for sex crimes relating to children.

I would also like to add my voice to emphasising that the figure mentioned in the Star is for sex offenders, not just paedophiles. The article did not mention how many of these offenders were convicted for crimes relating to children.

To say that South Yorkshire is being swamped with sex offenders and paedophiles is irresponsible and scare-mongering and achieves absolutely nothing other than increasing the fear of crime. Unfortunately the Star has reported on this issue in the same irresponsible way that most tabloids do, with absolutely no attempt made to compare these figures to anything that you can then make a judgement on.

banesmabes

08-09-2005, 09:28

Originally posted by Internetowl
but some of them are....and 1 paedophile is too many. In my view (and its held by many) we are too easy on sex offenders of all types and that more draconian measures should be taken to protect the vunerable. Try tattooing their foreheads with 'Rapist' or 'Fiddler' or 'Labour MP' - that way people would know and be able to take their own retribution.

:thumbsup: Its a real vote winner Mr Blair!

Yes, one paedophile is one too many. But I think we just need to get this into some proportion. I’ve done a little research from the census website now, and there are approximately 495,000 men over the age of 15 living in South Yorkshire. This means that about 0.2% of men in this area are registered sex offenders. There were no figures given in the star to say how many of those registered were convicted for crimes involving children so we can in no way infer from the raw figure exactly how many paedophiles there are living in this area – but it will be less than 0.2% of men (and probably significantly so).

No one is denying that the effects of child abuse are horrific beyond belief – but inject some rationality here. Are you really going to run your kids life, deny them the chance of a proper childhood of being able to learn some independence by playing out alone etc, because of less than 0.2% of the adult male population (and therefore an even lower percentage of the overall population)?

willman

08-09-2005, 09:38

Originally posted by banesmabes
Yes, one paedophile is one too many. But I think we just need to get this into some proportion. I’ve done a little research from the census website now, and there are approximately 495,000 men over the age of 15 living in South Yorkshire. This means that about 0.2% of men in this area are registered sex offenders. There were no figures given in the star to say how many of those registered were convicted for crimes involving children so we can in no way infer from the raw figure exactly how many paedophiles there are living in this area – but it will be less than 0.2% of men (and probably significantly so).

No one is denying that the effects of child abuse are horrific beyond belief – but inject some rationality here. Are you really going to run your kids life, deny them the chance of a proper childhood of being able to learn some independence by playing out alone etc, because of less than 0.2% of the adult male population (and therefore an even lower percentage of the overall population)?

i agree the risk is relatively low, but if you take profiling of convicted white males the numers are higher than 0.2% - if we mean peados & not sex offenders.the number of non white offenders in this category is smaller as is the proportion of teen peados.
it is obvious however that the inclusion or absence of sex offenders v peado's does make a determinable difference in the relative category of risk to people.

banesmabes

08-09-2005, 10:26

Again without any numbers for how many registered paedophiles there are in South Yorkshire we can't begin to work out what proportion of the population are paedophiles.

I can understand what you are saying about looking at the porportion of white middle aged men who are paedophiles, as these are the most likely offenders. However, I don't see what purpose it would serve in evaluating risk. It merely serves to massage the figures and make the percentage of paedophiles sound bigger than it actually is.

AtticusFinch

08-09-2005, 11:01

Originally posted by sw9wj
The world seems to be obsessed with paedophiles now. I doubt that there are any more or less of them than there were when we were growing up and I doubt that Sheffield has an excessive amount. What is differerent is the obsession of the media with such issues. Sells papers though.

I completely agree. Insidious FDU papers like the Mail and S*n consistently create new bad guys to terrorise the population with. In the 1980s it was football hooligans, in the late 90s it was paedophiles, the last 4 years have been asylum seekers, and now it's antisocial behaviour.

Chris Morris' Brasseye paedophile special is the best satirical program of recent times because it embarrassed these poisonous manipulative b*stards for the transparent fools that they really are.

wibbles

08-09-2005, 11:43

You will find that this is one of many ill informed, misguided views expressed by the original poster. You'll get used to it..just do what I do when I read them and laugh at the stupidity of it. :loopy:

SHsheff

08-09-2005, 11:48

Originally posted by wibbles
You will find that this is one of many ill informed, misguided views expressed by said poster. You'll get used to it..just do what I do when I read them and laugh at the stupidity of it. :loopy:

What's misguided and ill-informed about Greenback indicating that there's a difference between consenting sex between two teenagers and a much older person preying on a ten-year-old?

Are you sure you've read (or understood) the post properly?

:confused:

wibbles

08-09-2005, 11:54

Originally posted by SHsheff
What's misguided and ill-informed about Greenback indicating that there's a difference between consenting sex between two teenagers and a much older person preying on a ten-year-old?

Are you sure you've read (or understood) the post properly?

:confused:
Yes I did..I was merely quoting him in support of his post. My point was aimed at the originator of the thread...

alchresearch

08-09-2005, 11:59

Originally posted by Dj_Shadowman
So what if you go to a nightclub, meet someone, sleep with them and then you find out they are only 15 ?

Does that class as being a nonce ? If so there are a hell of a lot more of them than 920 in Sheffield...

I had a friend who slept with a girl who was 15 - she told him she was 17. The fear of repercussions got to him so much he tried to commit suicide.

tulip

08-09-2005, 23:55

Originally posted by Cyclone
Maybe you should be more clear what relation your sentences hold then.

That seems to imply that all 720 are child molesters, otherwise the 2nd sentence is just random. Well, for people who don't take paragraphs into account I suppose you are right:thumbsup:

New paragraph.
I can't imagine why a 17 year old would be on the register for sleeping with a consenting 15 year old. It isn't usually so easy to get on the sex offenders register and different factors are taken into account but mistakes are made within any system. It is aimed at rapists, paedophiles, adults with responsibilty for youngster etc not consenting teenagers

I don't understand the lynch mob mentality unless the lynch mob happen to be the family of an abused child.