Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

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

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

The problem is that the papers (and to a large extent, the rest of the media) think that bad news sells. They also think that if they can campaign for something, this will sell well as well. Think back to the News of the World and their "Sarah's Law", where they (offensively, IMO) cashed in on the plight of Sarah Payne, and even roped in her parents with some vague promise that it might help them grieve.

Sarah's Law was (IIRC) based up what became known as "Megan's Law" in the US. Basically, the US Government published the names and addresses of thousands of known Paedophiles. This backfired massively. Somewhere around 60% of those Paedophiles went AWOL, therefore making the situation worse, not better. At least here, the Authorities have a vague idea of where they are, and can therefore go some way to helping the Paedophile control their tendancies.

Not forgetting that there were probably hundreds of mobs formed that couldn't spell, and therefore went for anything beginning with "ped" (I know of at least one Pediatrician who was attacked by a mob for this reason).

Now, I am not against those who commit secual offences (of any kind) being punished. Far from it. However, they should be punished within the system. Not by a mob.

Thankfully, sex crime against children seems to actually be quite rare, but the papers seem to have a view of the world that is heavily distorted.

Our Government isn't helping because they are desperate to appear to be winning the fight against crime, without actually devoting any real resources to the fight.

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

isn't it right that most child sex offencers are commited by people known to the victim, often within the family? tend to agree with stuart's analysis. this looks like a be-seen-to-be-doing-something-for-the-press thing which bears little or no relation to actually preventing the crime.

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

I agree, I often wonder though, was the attack on the paediatrician real and reported or was it an urban legend ??

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

i think it was real enough - was widely reported at the time though possibly not in the news of the screws ;)

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

Indeed,, for instance, how many parents connive and assist whether knowlingly or otherwise, by not policing their childrens use of the computer/internet? It is often the case that parents house their pc in a bedroom or spare room ,simply becuase it is out of site, doesnt make the place untidy and acts as a childminder for them. They then rant and rave about how the internet should be shut down/policed simply becuase they fail to care for the welfare of their children.

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/stor...361031,00.html
but this suggests over-reporting
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

I agree, This is a terrible idea.

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

That's one thing I'd never do.. Most parents wouldn't let their child run free in a town or city, because that would place the child in danger. Yet, they allow the child to freely roam the internet, and let the child possibly expose themselves to all sorts of nasty things (sex sites, peadophiles etc).

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

My best froend lets his 6 year old girl use the net totally unsupervised. He's not got any protection on his pc as to what sites she can visit. He loves the fact that he has soem peace and quiet while she's online, but its totally unresponsible parenting if you ask me.

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

That's one thing that has always surprised me. Most parents would be horrified (rightly so) if their child managed to get into a sex shop, but don't seem interested in the fact that some of the stuff online is far worse than any kind of item that can legally be sold in this country.

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 ----------


Well, I did say "probably". Maybe I should downgrade that to "possibly"?

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

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.

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm

Mostly legend.

Anyway they have to report to the authorities and have certain restriction placed on them as part of the original sentence. If they don't comply with those restrictions it's no different (IMO) than not complying with the original sentence.

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

hey, i already posted that ;) :)

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------

ps. what if the paediatrician had been home?

Re: Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles?
 

I am known at work for being a bit of a PC/networking guru. I'm not really, ive just been playing with computers and PCs for a long time and kinda picked it up as i went along.

Anyway, I have had three friends PCs in my room here for repair becuase they were knackered due to virus/other issues. On two occasions i had the same laptop in which was virus ridden. First time i restarted and reloaded it,got it going perfect,set up separate user accounts,secured it,explained the issues to the owner. A few months later it came back in the same state. All ££Ã ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚£ for me. On both occasions it was clear that his two young lads had been surfing various porn sites-curiousity you see. Same with the other PC. Parents need to upskill or put the PC where they can see it.