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
Join CF
You are here: 
