another abuser caught

[Ramrod]

As far as predatory pedophiles go, there is atm, no cure (according to the two child protection social workers that I treat)
In the case of the 'family man' type who abuses his kids, there is apparently some stuff that can be done to change their behaviour.
Also...if pedophiles can be caught young enough (in teens or earlier) they can also be treated with more success.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Pierre
This likening of other paedophiles to other criminals is irrelevant and detracting away from my particular point that paedophiles cannot be "cured".


You can, of course, prove that?

You can, of course disprove it?

Pierre, mis-representing what I have said and putting your own "spin" on it is *not* a way to conduct a reasoned debate.

pot kettle black calling...

Ah, now we have Pierre playing the Political Correctness card, except that Political Correctness is something which which I will have no truck whatsoever

Just because you dismiss the point because of your own reasons/feelings makes the point no less valid.

Another wonderfully "political" quote...

Thank you.

Yes, and some are willing to lynch them or castrate them or even murder them. Of course if you end up with the occasional Paediatrician getting hurt in the cross-fire, I'm sure you can accept that as being regrettable, but acceptable as part of the "greater good" too...

Not sure what you mean there, but if you are referring to an "innocent" person being wrongly accused and convicted of a crime, then that is matter for the courts.

Oh by the way talking of Spin on quotes etc. I dont think you'll find that I have anywhere mentioned castration or lynching. I have only talked about jail terms. Again Pot kettle black etc........

[Pierre]

As far as predatory pedophiles go, there is atm, no cure (according to the two child protection social workers that I treat)
In the case of the 'family man' type who abuses his kids, there is apparently some stuff that can be done to change their behaviour.
Also...if pedophiles can be caught young enough (in teens or earlier) they can also be treated with more success.

I will conceed that in "some" cases paedophiles my be able to "supress" their feelings but they will never be "cured"

As I have mentioned earlier it would be like trying to turn a Gay man into Straight man.

Originally Posted by Pierre

You can, of course disprove it?

No, you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Pierre, mis-representing what I have said and putting your own "spin" on it is *not* a way to conduct a reasoned debate.

And now you can prove that one too...

Just because you dismiss the point because of your own reasons/feelings makes the point no less valid.

What?!

You introduced "PC" into this discussion, yet what was being discussed was nothing to *do* with so-called Political Correctness, it is to do with *human rights*.

Yes, and some are willing to lynch them or castrate them or even murder them. Of course if you end up with the occasional Paediatrician getting hurt in the cross-fire, I'm sure you can accept that as being regrettable, but acceptable as part of the "greater good" too...

No, I am talking about cases such as that of Dr Yvette Cloete, a specialist registrar in paediatric medicine at the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport, who was forced to flee her house after vandals daubed it with graffiti in the middle of the night because they didn't know the difference between "paediatrician" and "paedophile".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/stor...361031,00.html

Of course, that is a matter for the courts. Those responsible for this act should be locked up!

Oh by the way talking of Spin on quotes etc. I dont think you'll find that I have anywhere mentioned castration or lynching. I have only talked about jail terms. Again Pot kettle black etc........

Let me quote your words:

"[...] sometimes we have make tough decisions for the greater good. If that means that people that violate children [snip emotive stuff] lose their human rights. Then that is something I am willing to accept."

You are talking about it being *ACCEPTABLE* for people to "lose their human rights" and those who advocate castration or lynching etc would most certainly agree with you.

Pots? Kettles? Not around here...

Originally Posted by Pierre

I will conceed that in "some" cases paedophiles my be able to "supress" their feelings but they will never be "cured"

As I have mentioned earlier it would be like trying to turn a Gay man into Straight man.

Unfortunately you appear to be making the mistake of assuming that a gay man is *only* interested in men, instead of, as many are, being bisexual.

In the same way, just because someone may have paedophiliac *inclinations* (and remember the word only means "attracted to", not "child molester") does *not* mean that a) they can *only* get sexual gratification from children, nor that they *will* try to get sexual gratification from children.

There are gay men who, due to embarassment, shame, prejudice, society's influences, whatever *do * suppress their attraction to other men and go on to form relationships with women and *never* touch a man at all.

This may not be the case with *all* gay men, but I'm certain that it's not the case with all paedophiles either.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I will conceed that in "some" cases paedophiles my be able to "supress" their feelings but they will never be "cured"

As I have mentioned earlier it would be like trying to turn a Gay man into Straight man.

My feelings exactly

[Pierre]

No, you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1917451.stm

A quote from said article "He acknowledges that his sexual disorder cannot be cured but can be treated, cannot be eliminated but can be controlled."

http://www.innocenceindanger.org/inn.../news_shay.htm

A quote from said article "But Fr Shay believes that most sick perverts cannot be cured from their twisted crimes.

"Judges can send paedophiles into clinics all they like but most will stay the same. Statistics show that only two or three percent will becompletely rehabilitated and not re-offend."

Below is taken from the reading of the sex offenders bill in the House of Lords on the 14th March 1997.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/70314-01.htm

Baroness Blatch "Paedophiles are markedly different from other criminals. They tend to be highly manipulative and clever, and their offending behaviour often intensifies with the passage of time. One of the problems of dealing with hardened paedophiles is that they do not consider their behaviour to be wrong--rather the opposite, they do not always understand or accept efforts to stop their activities. This makes them especially dangerous.""

Lord Thomas of Gresford "The point I wish to make is that although I lived in the community not a hint of misconduct was ever heard about what was happening there. It demonstrates the highly manipulative nature of sex offenders of this type to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred in her opening remarks. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie referred to the fact that paedophiles cannot be cured, only controlled. That took my memory back to a man whom I represented many years ago who conceded that his whole life had been made miserable by his compulsive obsession with young boys. I recall that he told me that aversion therapy made no difference to him. He had undergone voluntarily a scheme whereby photographs of young boys were shown to him and then he was injected to make him sick. He said that his compulsions were not changed at all. He would still walk across the road to pass by a young boy even though he did not even speak to him. He recognised that his obsession was a source of great trouble to him. Since I was involved defending him your Lordships will appreciate that he had failed to control that obsession and he was in trouble once again."


http://www.polfed.org/magazine/08_20...paedophile.htm

Quote from above journal.
"In the case of dangerous and persistent paedophiles, where there is considerable evidence from DNA and other sources, no release from incarceration should ever be contemplated, unless sexual offences have been admitted to and treatment has led to virtual one hundred percent rehabilitation. Great care must be taken before releasing individuals who claim to be cured.

They are quite capable of deceiving the authorities as to their rehabilitation in order to be released. Only long-term observation and monitoring of their behaviour can lead to evidence that true rehabilitation has occurred. There will be some among them who will never be rehabilitated. These should not be allowed to leave the prison system as it would not be fair to society and potential victims or to themselves."

I could post many other articles on here, I'm sure there are many articles to the contrary.

No, I am talking about cases such as that of Dr Yvette Cloete, a specialist registrar in paediatric medicine at the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport, who was forced to flee her house after vandals daubed it with graffiti in the middle of the night because they didn't know the difference between "paediatrician" and "paedophile".

you what?????.......

What has the fact that some of the countrys thuggery underclass can't read got to do with it?

"[...] sometimes we have make tough decisions for the greater good. If that means that people that violate children [snip emotive stuff] lose their human rights. Then that is something I am willing to accept."

You are talking about it being *ACCEPTABLE* for people to "lose their human rights" and those who advocate castration or lynching etc would most certainly agree with you.

Pots? Kettles? Not around here...

Yes lets see what I said.....

You choose to snip out the fact that children are violated as emotive. Yes it may be IN YOUR OPINION emotive, it is also a fact. Or do you not agree that children are violated??

You accuse me of taking away a paedophiles human rights. Well tough, what about the childs human rights. What about Sarah Paynes human rights after being killed by a freed convicted paedophile and she is not the only one.

Now you have pinned your colours to the mast I can see who is the most important in your world.

Let us protect the paedophiles and make sure they are well cared for.

Oh sorry, am I spinning again?

[paul11974]

chop there tackle off

and there fingers

and put em back into society

full stop

Originally Posted by Pierre

A quote from said article "He acknowledges that his sexual disorder cannot be cured but can be treated, cannot be eliminated but can be controlled."

So a paedophile is an expert on his own condition?

A quote from said article "But Fr Shay believes that most sick perverts cannot be cured from their twisted crimes.

"Believes that..." And that's a quote from a Priest. And it's a quote from an article in the News of the Screws, that bastion of journalistic integrity...

"Judges can send paedophiles into clinics all they like but most will stay the same. Statistics show that only two or three percent will becompletely rehabilitated and not re-offend."

Which statistics? Who researched and published them? Cites?

Below is taken from the reading of the sex offenders bill in the House of Lords on the 14th March 1997.

Baroness Blatch

The Minister of State from the Home Office ie someone who can most likely be expected to follow the government's line.

"Paedophiles are markedly different from other criminals. They tend to be highly manipulative and clever, and their offending behaviour often intensifies with the passage of time.

"Other criminals", being whom, exactly? Your common or garden thug/ burglar/ mugger/ car thief/ whatever? Unlike, say, White Collar criminals who are also highly manipulative and clever and who, if they've managed to scam a few people out of their life savings etc, will often go on to do it again to even more people?

Lord Thomas of Gresford [...] a man whom I represented many years ago who conceded that his whole life had been made miserable by his compulsive obsession with young boys. I recall that he told me that aversion therapy made no difference to him.

PETER TATCHELL recalls his 1972 protest against Prof. Hans Eysenckââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s advocacy of aversion therapy as a "cure" for homosexuality.

"Professor Eysenck began by emphasising that there was "no relationship between aversion therapy and punishment....it does not involve sadistic motivations.....Neither does aversion therapy seek to act as a deterrent. The fact is that aversion therapy is used for the patientsââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ own good.

Challenging his statement that aversion therapy was used "for the patientsââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ own good", I interrupted the lecture, citing cases of people who, since undergoing aversion therapy, have become chronic depressives."

http://www.petertatchell.net/psychiatry/dentist.htm

"In the case of dangerous and persistent paedophiles [...] no release from incarceration should ever be contemplated, unless sexual offences have been admitted to and treatment has led to virtual one hundred percent rehabilitation. Great care must be taken before releasing individuals who claim to be cured. [...] There will be some among them who will never be rehabilitated. These should not be allowed to leave the prison system as it would not be fair to society and potential victims or to themselves."

I have never *SAID* that they should all be released. I agree that great care should be taken to ensure that they don't re-offend. I don't deny that there are some who may be capable of deceiving psyciatrists.

However this should *NOT* be used as an excuse to "lock them all up for life and throw away the key"!

I could post many other articles on here, I'm sure there are many articles to the contrary.

I have no doubt.

What has the fact that some of the countrys thuggery underclass can't read got to do with it?

Let me quote your words "if you are referring to an "innocent" person being wrongly accused and convicted of a crime, then that is matter for the courts."

I am talking about an innocent person being hounded and attacked by a group of people who cannot look beyond the media hype. And who said anything about them being "some of the countrys thuggery underclass"?

"Scottish police have charged a man with murdering a former school teacher who spent time in jail for abusing teenage boys.

"The death follows police concern in recent weeks over a possible rise in vigilantism after addresses of paedophiles were published on the Internet."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040217/325/em7mm.html

I'm sure at least *some* of those vigilantes are "ordinary decent people", just like the "ordinary decent people" who post messages on here or write letters to newspapers saying that paedophiles should be executed/ castrated/ locked in a room with a few good people...!

Yes lets see what I said.....

You choose to snip out the fact that children are violated as emotive. Yes it may be IN YOUR OPINION emotive, it is also a fact. Or do you not agree that children are violated??

Don't be ridiculous, and don't try to distract from the subject. The words I snipped were "(and let's not forget that point, these people hurt children in ways I'm sure most of us could only try, and fail, to imagine)", now whilst it may be, to some extent, factual, it is *also* emotive and serves only to try to bolster your arguments with the fallacy of "Appeal to Emotion", eg "how can you argue against this when it's so terrible?"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html

You accuse me of taking away a paedophiles human rights. Well tough, what about the childs human rights. What about Sarah Paynes human rights after being killed by a freed convicted paedophile and she is not the only one.

And, once again you go for the Appeal to Emotion.

Now you have pinned your colours to the mast I can see who is the most important in your world.

Oh dear, now you're verging on Ad Hominem.

Let us protect the paedophiles and make sure they are well cared for.

Oh sorry, am I spinning again?

Yes, you are, and it gives your arguments less credibility, not more.

[Pierre]

No, you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

You ask me to supply proof. I, like you, obviously is not a subject matter expert but I do supply many articles that show I am not alone in my thinking. You try to discredit this but offer nothing of your own.

I am talking about an innocent person being hounded and attacked by a group of people who cannot look beyond the media hype. And who said anything about them being "some of the countrys thuggery underclass"?

And a group of people that don't know the difference between a doctor and an offender, they're obviously not very intelligent. It was me that called them the thuggery underclass, as I would imagine that it was not lawyers, stokebrokers, accountants or any person of reasonable intelligence that were beating a path to their door.

I'm sure at least *some* of those vigilantes are "ordinary decent people", just like the "ordinary decent people" who post messages on here or write letters to newspapers saying that paedophiles should be executed/ castrated/ locked in a room with a few good people...!

I dont deny that "ordinary" people may do extraordinary things. Hey I've got an idea. As it was my point that Paedophiles should not be released for our childrens safety, maybe they shouldn't be released for their safety also??

"Appeal to Emotion",

Sometimes it is right to appeal to emotion. to take away the emotional and damaging affects of these crimes, lessens the severity of the crime.

Quote:
You accuse me of taking away a paedophiles human rights. Well tough, what about the childs human rights. What about Sarah Paynes human rights after being killed by a freed convicted paedophile and she is not the only one.


And, once again you go for the Appeal to Emotion.

Maybe - but the point is valid. You champion the human rights of the paedophile. But here is an example of where a convicted paedophile was released back into the community. He was not a relative of Sarah Payne, he did not groom Sarah Payne over time. He was an opportunist that abducted her. It could have been any child at any time.

This is the scenario that frightens the public, now you may argue that not all paedophiles are like this, and I would agree to a point.

But from what I have read there is no evidence to support or deny that just maybe on one occasion a paedophile of any description might not give into his (or her) urges if an opportunist situation arose.

And that is the uncertainty of human nature.

Originally Posted by Pierre

You ask me to supply proof. I, like you, obviously is not a subject matter expert but I do supply many articles that show I am not alone in my thinking. You try to discredit this but offer nothing of your own.

And once again you attack *me*...

If you wish to debate in a reasonable manner, please try to distinguish between *facts* and *opinions*.

And a group of people that don't know the difference between a doctor and an offender, they're obviously not very intelligent. It was me that called them the thuggery underclass, as I would imagine that it was not lawyers, stokebrokers, accountants or any person of reasonable intelligence that were beating a path to their door.

"Thy're obviously not very intelligent". You would "imagine". You assume.

Once again you mistake opinion for fact.

I dont deny that "ordinary" people may do extraordinary things. Hey I've got an idea. As it was my point that Paedophiles should not be released for our childrens safety, maybe they shouldn't be released for their safety also??

What a wonderful idea. The fact that it goes against the entire nature of the Justice system in this country is merely an insignificant detail.

Once a person has been convicted of a crime, they are sent to jail/ fined etc and, once that sentence is concluded, they are deemed to have "paid their debt to society" and are released to get on with their lives.

You, however, seem to think it's acceptable to have a system where someone has to not only *go on* paying that debt, but also cannot expect the protection of the law that everyone else who is free to walk the streets of this country is *entitled* to and, seemingly, should be "fair game" to anyone who wishes to exact vigilante justice!

Sometimes it is right to appeal to emotion. to take away the emotional and damaging affects of these crimes, lessens the severity of the crime.

Rubbish!

Appealing to emotion *distracts* from the relevant issues being discussed. It is the sort of tactic used by Tabloid Newspapers and people losing arguments.

And, once again you go for the Appeal to Emotion

There is no "maybe" about it.

but the point is valid.

No, it is not...

You champion the human rights of the paedophile. But here is an example of where a convicted paedophile was released back into the community. He was not a relative of Sarah Payne, he did not groom Sarah Payne over time. He was an opportunist that abducted her. It could have been any child at any time.

This is the scenario that frightens the public,

*EXACTLY*!! It is the scenario that *FRIGHTENS* the public, it appeals to their *EMOTIONS*, not rational thought!

Yes, the Sarah Payne case is a tragedy, I don't deny it. But to claim it as *representative* is a mistake. A child is more likely to be abused by a family member/ close friend than a "random abuser". A child is *MUCH* more likely to be knocked down by a car or be injured or killed in a household accident, yet, because cases like Sarah Payne get the big media coverage, because it taps into an emotional fear, people lose sight of the *real* dangers in this world and, instead, focus on tragic, but *rare* cases instead.

now you may argue that not all paedophiles are like this, and I would agree to a point.

Yes, except that I would argue that the *VAST MAJORITY* of paedophiles are not like this!

But from what I have read there is no evidence to support or deny that just maybe on one occasion a paedophile of any description might not give into his (or her) urges if an opportunist situation arose.

And that is the uncertainty of human nature.

There is no evidence to support or deny that maybe, were I to meet you in person, I wouldn't haul off and try to punch your lights out. That is *also* the uncertainly of human nature.

However the legal system in this country *does* rely on *evidence*...!

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by paul11974

chop there tackle off

and there fingers

and put em back into society

full stop

[SOSAGES]

any women get done for pedophilia ? also whats the law have to say about ages of the children involved? does it stop being pedophilia after a certain age or is it dependant on the age of the pedophile? (i doubt)

[Pierre]

And once again you attack *me*...

Bit over the top *attack* being a bit emotional there.

"Thy're obviously not very intelligent". You would "imagine". You assume.

Once again you mistake opinion for fact.

No, I don't know them personally, but I think it is a safe assumption.

Rubbish!

Appealing to emotion *distracts* from the relevant issues being discussed. It is the sort of tactic used by Tabloid Newspapers and people losing arguments.

Rubbish yourself.

Highlighting the emotional impact of an issue can help bring more people in to discuss the relevant issues, thereby making for a healthier debate.

"losing argumets" don't flatter yourself.

No, it is not...

Yes it is....

Yes, the Sarah Payne case is a tragedy, I don't deny it. But to claim it as *representative* is a mistake

I was not making it representative of all paedophiles you have jumped to that conlusion yourself. I was merely highlighting it as scenario that can,has and could happen.

A child is *MUCH* more likely to be knocked down by a car or be injured or killed in a household accident,

I've never heard of a Ford Capri raping a child??

because cases like Sarah Payne get the big media coverage, because it taps into an emotional fear, people lose sight of the *real* dangers in this world and, instead, focus on tragic, but *rare* cases instead.

Just because a child is more likely to be killed by a car/whatever does not detract from the argument and is quite quite frankly a very weak point.

There is no evidence to support or deny that maybe, were I to meet you in person, I wouldn't haul off and try to punch your lights out. That is *also* the uncertainly of human nature.

I know who my money would be on.

However the legal system in this country *does* rely on *evidence*...!

And I don't dispute that. The shame is that before you have the "evidence" that a Paedophile is a re-offender a child must either be raped or killed.

Not a good state of affairs when once when he was caught the first time he was off the streets and a danger to no-one.

[Stuartbe]

Are we forgeting something here people... We are debating about the human rights of the ofender.. Should he be castrated / should he get a nice cushy cell then 24hour police protection !!!

Can I just point out the obvios ---- SOD HIM --- What about the child ???? The child is the person who has to live with what happened for the rest of there lives. They can get let out early !!!

" What about the criminal - how is he going to cope ect "is all we ever hear these days... Sod him... He lost the right to respect when he violated a child.... Sod his human rights - what about the childs ?

Is it any wonder that in this country we have 20+ organisations set up to protect the criminal and 1 to support the victim !!