Milford

Because it's poorly supported. It's just a load of empty tents. It looks an absolute mess, that main tent is an eyesore.

So it's these girls fault and their families fault that they were attacked because they were 'vulnerable and discarded'? And what does vulnerable and discarded mean? White girls might be more rebellious but this is often because they don't have as much to fear at home as Muslims girls do, they know they're not going to get beaten, attacked forced into an arranged marriage if their parents find out they've been consorting with men. If making women wonder around in burkhas, not allowed out without male relatives, not allowed to drive, forced into marriage, not allowed to work is your idea of protected and cherished I would rather be vulnerable and discarded thank you very much. You say "are you saying the inability of men to groom and sexually abuse Muslim girls is a bad thing" well yes, if that inability comes about because of threats and fear and curtailing of Muslim girls freedom that is a bad thing. You shouldn't have to prevent crimes like this by curtailing the freedom of victims and it's only acceptable to suggest that when it's a crime against women. If asian men were being racially attacked in Oldham would it be acceptable to say that it doesn't matter because they went out at night? No it wouldn't be. In the first instance when the men approach these girls it's in the street, they're doing nothing wrong and parents shouldn't have to worry about their daughters being vulnerable to this and lock them up to stop it happening.

I thought it was quite good, especially the things she said about communities and the need to work together which thinks will happen because of the Olympics. But I think there are going to be quite a lot of people foaming at the mouth about her talk about Christianity and 'belonging to a group'. Far too uninclusive. Anybody else have any thoughts?

Oh, okay, well last time I heard 'we' referred to more than one person and therefore didn't indicate a personal opinion.

So you feel that you speak for every person in the UK? That anybody who doesn't attend church every Sunday automatically agrees with you? You're deluding yourself.

Well that's just an excuse really isn't it? If the EDL demonstrate then they are driving people to extremist islam. But if you burn poppies or call for beheadings does anybody ever complain about them driving British people into the arms of extremisn when their numbers aren't much more than the EDF? I don't agree with either of their messages but that is just making excuses for people who become extreme.

I'm going back to bed in a sec but when I re get up later we're going to have a nice fried breakfast. Then we open one present. Then we start the lunch, having beef with goosefat potatoes and the OH is having some kind of nut roast. After that's on we'll open another present. Watch telly for a bit, have lunch and then open our last few presents.

I don't think it was, the dog has been being reported for aggression and damage to the fence of the adjoining properties multiple times by the neighbours so if it was being abused I'm sure they would have grassed them up pronto as they wanted rid. I know Wally well and what I can't understand is why somebody would think it's acceptable to keep this kind of dog in that kind of house. The gardens are normally only slightly larger than that of your terraced house in Sheffield. Dogs that big need plenty of space and exercise otherwise they'll go nuts as this case shows. Also the neighbours said that the dog was kept in the garden at all times. What'st the point of that? What's the point of having a pet dog if you don't want to interact with it?

If you look back I didn't respond to the idea that the police should inform specific people, I responded to the idea that someone (a member of the public) should take it on themselves to tell all and sundry and it was originally about them not being convicted, but just being charged. But since you want to challenge me to find publicised paedophiles who've either gone on the run or been harassed, I suppose you'll be willing to find released ones who've gone on to abuse someone again? And where having told the parents in the immediate vicinity would have avoided it. Okiki. Here's an example: This was in 2005 so not that long ago.

What is your logic here? I can't see any coherent way it makes sense, why would it make victims more likely to be killed?

It's already been pointed out it's a typo. Stop patronising people.

Are you taking the ****? Putting a photo on CV is one of the worst faux pas ever. OP, what kind of job are you applying for?

Labour lite would have been so much better.

Well considering that it what I've been saying all the way through the thread take a wild guess? You have said 'Oh but there have been some incidents in the US' but in the US their names are put on websites so even I in Sheffield can search and find them, their exact address, they are forced to go round to peoples houses and tell them face to face that they're paedophiles. That is not what anybody is asking for in this country. The vast majority of stories in England about attacks on paedophiles are scaremongering, as detailed in the story above. A spate of a few attacks happened ten years ago in the wake of a horrific murder, stirred up by the press and nobody was really hurt in those incidents. If information is given to people who need to know in the local area, as illustrated by the recent Sexual Offenders Disclosure schemes NOT ONE SINGLE RECORDED ATTACK HAS HAPPENED. Can you not get that actual evidence base through your head rather than parrotting one innaccurate distorted story and claiming that it shows proof of pitchfork waving mobs? Also can you give any example of a UK paedophile who has gone on to commit offences because they've 'gone underground' because of harrassment despite the fact that people do often know when someone is a convicted molester and there are times now when controlled information on offenders is given. Virtually no people would become vigilantes or engage in mob justice.

Nothing is wrong with that apart from the fact that Sexual Offences Prevention orders which ban them are usually put in place for a finite period of time and are extremely difficult to enforce. If a child lives next door to a convicted sex offender it's extremely hard for a no contact rule to be enforced plus a probabtion officer visiting even as often as once a week would have trouble discerning whether or not contact was taking place. In cases like that the responsiblility for a childs safety should not be with a probation officer who visits every so often, it should be with their parents. But if their parents are unaware of the risk they will be unable to protect them properly unless they make the assumption all adults are paedophiles and behave accordingly. Protection from someone who is with you supervising you most of the the time is going to be a lot more effective than being protected by a probabtion officer who oly visits once a week or month. Also because their identities are generally fairly well hidden how are probabtion officers going to know if they're breaching the order? People won't realise that their behaviour is worth reporting until it's too late so it's doubtful they would even hear about it until it was too late.