Rename the British Isles, the paedoph-isles? - Page 3

Alien · 27-11-2006, 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

sadly i dont think he's joking. lets not stop at HIV though eh - pink triangles too maybe alie?

Don't be so ridiculous, being homosexual is not contagious, nor does it present a danger to others. Why do you think I suggested the tattoo be put in the genital region? So as to warn those [potential partners] of the risk [to themelves in the case of HIV/AIDS carriers, & to their children in the case of sex offenders], but to be hidden from everyone else.

Oh, & just to confound your assumptions further, whilst I am straight, I approved of the AOC law being changed to make it the same for all, regardless of orientation.

TheNorm · 27-11-2006, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alien

Simple answer - mandatory tattoo on or near the genital area. ...

But by the time the child saw the tattoo, wouldn't it be a bit late...?

TheDaddy · 27-11-2006, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

But by the time the child saw the tattoo, wouldn't it be a bit late...?

I don't think the child is the one the tattoo is intended for, it would be for the mothers benefit

Alien · 27-11-2006, 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I don't think the child is the one the tattoo is intended for, it would be for the mothers benefit

Exactly.

Pia · 27-11-2006, 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alien

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.

Now that is a brilliant idea!

TheNorm · 27-11-2006, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I don't think the child is the one the tattoo is intended for, it would be for the mothers benefit

Well, that assumes that the mother has observed the genitalia of the stranger. I can think of many situations where that might not occur...

Pia · 27-11-2006, 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Well, that assumes that the mother has observed the genitalia of the stranger. I can think of many situations where that might not occur...

Not just that though, it warns any future partners in general, not necessarily if they have kids or whatever.

I know i wouldn't want to be with someone who'd done that, i'd rather know.

TheDaddy · 27-11-2006, 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Well, that assumes that the mother has observed the genitalia of the stranger. I can think of many situations where that might not occur...

The original point was about mothers vetting new partners, one way was police checks another was tattooing offenders

TheNorm · 27-11-2006, 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The original point was about mothers vetting new partners, one way was police checks another was tattooing offenders

Fair enough, but what about uncles, brothers-in-law, best friends, etc. Anyway, if you had a tattoo that would be recognised, wouldn't you take steps to make sure no-one saw it (switch off the lights, darling).

TheDaddy · 27-11-2006, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Fair enough, but what about uncles, brothers-in-law, best friends, etc. Anyway, if you had a tattoo that would be recognised, wouldn't you take steps to make sure no-one saw it (switch off the lights, darling).

Switching the light of wouldn't protect them from a police check

, as for friends and family, where do you draw the line with this proposal, I have already stated my concerns with the idea (post 18).

hatedbythemail · 27-11-2006, 22:49

i hope these offenders arent members of bupa

http://www.bupahospitals.co.uk/asp/c...oo_removal.asp

TheDaddy · 27-11-2006, 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

i hope these offenders arent members of bupa

http://www.bupahospitals.co.uk/asp/c...oo_removal.asp

I suspect that they wouldn't be happy about removing these type of tattoo's, however to be on the safe side, perhaps they should be branded instead

Alien · 28-11-2006, 00:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I suspect that they wouldn't be happy about removing these type of tattoo's, however to be on the safe side, perhaps they should be branded instead

One would assume that if such a measure [tattoos] became law, then the removal of same would become an offense. "Aiding & abetting a sex offender" perhaps, & a tattoo of their own to accompany any other punishment [e.g. prison time]. I reckon that would be a good enough deterrent to anyone who might otherwise consider removing it for them. I doubt someone who isn't that way inclined would want to be "tarred with the same brush".

lostandconfused · 28-11-2006, 03:51

personally i think chemical castration is the way forward for convicted peadophiles, locking them up for the rest of thier life is a massive burden on society, cant see the death penalty being brought back in, so seems like a good compromise

Vlad_Dracul · 28-11-2006, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I don't think the child is the one the tattoo is intended for, it would be for the mothers benefit

And what about female sex offenders? should it be tattooed around their "ravioli" (!) so that the guy (or female!) could see it more moving onto anything more involved or should it be on the female genitalia also?

Would it be necessary to clip hair away (a bit like the scene in the Omen) in order to reveal the dreaded truth?

Surely this is cave man culture and it is exactly the reason why we have a structured system of law enforcement in this country-so that the baser instincts of the mob do not previal.