Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34160396)

Can I just say that kids in certain areas know that if they label someone who's stood up to them a "peedo" then the adults in that area will not only turn a blind eye to any attacks on that person's property, but will actually egg them on or even join in. They don't care if there's not an ounce of truth to the allegations, it's an excuse to vent their aggression.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail (Post 34160307)

theres a balance to be struck though. if most child sex offences are carried out by friends and family then the chances of being attacked by a strager are further reduced. we have to give children some freedom and the chance to enjoy childhood, rather than keep them locked away because of the bogeyman. lets face it theyre more likely to get run over than sexually assualted.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34160997)

As was discussed on Any Questions tonight on Radio 4, I tend to agree with the thinking that if a woman had sufficient reason to suspect her partner was a paedophile she'd be doing more than just asking the police for confirmation, she'd be making a complaint, and for women who didn't suspect anything untoward was going on, then they wouldn't have sufficient reason to suspect so wouldn't ask the police anyway.
Gets good headlines in the tabloids though don't you think?

Originally Posted by dooper786 (Post 34162208)

Indeed, but lets have some equality shall we? woman can commit sex crimes also you know..!

Originally Posted by Incognitas (Post 34162236)

Agreed but they are few in number.We should warn our children not to go with any stranger male or female.

Originally Posted by dooper786 (Post 34162725)

I note that you are "always in the wrong". That cannot be as you are female.

Originally Posted by Incognitas (Post 34162754)

No,it's just a me thing...:D

Originally Posted by dooper786 (Post 34160208)

Hi all,
I was just listeneing to the wireless whilst trying to force down some toast and marmalade when i heard a news report about some Government website on which is to be published the pictures and descriptions of sex offenders who have failed to comply with their reporting restrictions.

For those interested, the information is here
http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/ceop/

Now I am not a hand wringing liberal type. I am all in favour of the perpetrators of crime being brought to justice, dealt with and rehabilitated as necessary.

However in this case we are talking about people who have committed crimes ,those crimes have been detected, they have been arrested, been to court,sentenced,served their sentence and presumably been given some kind of help to try and modift their tendancies and then been released as free men. The only thing they have failed to do is to continue to report to the authorities as necessary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6156712.stm

The media seems to continually stoke the fires of venom and hatred with regard to child sex offenders. Dont get me wrong, it would be better if such crimes did not occur, but then it would be much better if lots of other crimes didnt occur.

I beleive that it is irresponsible of a Government agency to publish the details of these people on a website. All they are doing is fuelling the public feeding frenzy and obsession that this country has with paedophiles. Even the popular name "paeadophile" is suitably rounded and shaped so that it is the kind of word that can be spat out with a degree of venom and disgust,it looks suitably nasty when sprayed in vivid colour by a teenage yob on a gable end and is enough to get the British Blood running when splashed across the front pages of the Daily Mail or the Sun.

I am just skimming through Blackstones Police Manual volume 1, crime 2006 and I am having great difficulty spotting any reference to paedophiles. The actual offences we are referring to are detailed as Child sex offences,,


just to quote:

The Sexual offences act 2003 section 9 states:

(1) A person(A) aged 18 or over commits an offence if
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B)
(b) the touching is sexual and
(c) either--
(1) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably beleive that B is 16 or over or
(2) B is under 13

So then, if a scroat on some crummy estate bangs up a 13 year old and he can proved that he reasonably beleived that she was 16 or over he is home and clear. How many times does that happen i wonder? Plenty of times I'll wager.

Strangely though, in certain countries of the world (not too far away!!), any adult could have sex quite legally with a 13 year old.

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

So then, the offence is sexual activity with a child broadly as detailed as above. The offence is NOT being a paedophile. That word is reserved for media rebel rousers.

Moving on, having had a brief look at the British Crime survey
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.html

A weighty document, it would appear to suggest that actual recorded offences are below what public perception and media hype would have us believe.

Any foreign visitor to these shores who took the trouble to read our papers, would think that the UK was infested with child sex offenders when in fact the reality is quite different. The Government would seem to be finally relenting and doing its old trick of listening to the loudest voices, the same ones that scream for an American style Sarahs law.


But lets look at the reality of the situation;

(1) Such crimes, whilst serious, are only a tiny proportion of reported crime

(2) Some parents connive and facilitate such crimes by act or ommission

(3)There are other types of crime which have a greater impact on a greater proportion of the population and which remain largely unaddressed


If we are to name and shame then I'd much rather see details by region of

Antisocial louts who make all our lives a misery

People who assault and beat of pensioners

Street robbers

In short, name and shame all or non at all. Why name and shame a few people in a particular position simply to throw a bit of bloody meat to the baying mobs in the Arena? I guess it keeps them quiet and stops them thinking of other things doesnt it? Who was it who said .." keep them in the pubs and out of the libraries " ...?



Incidentally, i presume that these men will be charged with

Failure to comply with notification requirements-sexual offences Act 2003 section 91

max penalties- five years in prisonment or max six months and a fine,,

of course a defence would be that they had a reasonable excuse for not reporting.

Perhaps that reasonable excuse would be that they feared for their life if they went outside due to the baying mob?


Now all you out there, dont even think of accusing me of supporting these crimes becuase i dont. I just seek to take a more balanced view and I dont read the Sun.

Remember, these guys are tried,convicted,served sentence. Could you reasonably justify a situation whereby becuase of this Government agencies actions, a baying mob turned up at someones house and publically slaughtered them? Is that where we are at now here in paranoid Britain? If so , i dont want it and if so then i really do suggest that

We rename the British Isles> The Paedoph-iles

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34160983)

I did hear a news piece on the radio yesterday morning saying that the government was considering giving mothers the chance to 'vet' new partners to see if they were sex offenders, at the time I thought it was quite a reasonable proposal, however since I have given it more thought and knowing how this government likes to know everything about us, I wonder how long it would be before such checks became compulsory, making it criminal offence to date someone without the relevant checks being done.

Originally Posted by Alien (Post 34167753)

Simple answer - mandatory tattoo on or near the genital area. Same goes for anyone diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. That way it wouldn't be openly on show, so as to avoid creating an insta-mob, or raising people's fears of people being victimised, but that way potential partners would know.