Parents get new sex crime checks

[WHISTLED]

I dont think most

You see I wouldnt, but to counter your statement I provided my personal view.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by downquark1

What stops someone from phoning up with a list of everyone on their street?

Nothing and I can confirm that you're OK

[greencreeper]

Originally Posted by Derek S

The easiest way to control it would be having the current disclosure people running the show for any checks on specific crimes.

That would be the CRB:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5001624.stm

And they've not improved over the years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/6982104.stm

Which is why I refuse requests for CRB checks.

Originally Posted by downquark1

What stops someone from phoning up with a list of everyone on their street?

Nothing - I can't see how a single female (or male) would be able to prove they're about to start a relationship and want to check their potential partner. Hell - it's hard enough to prove you are in a relationship.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Its like going for a job interview, they have to check you out

Well no they don't - only for certain jobs. That said, we are fast approaching a time where those with a criminal record will automatically be denied employment and a stable life, which means more crime. But no doubt we'll introduce hanging to resolve that problem

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Just to clarify something, before this thread, becomes all out war between members, concerning a freephone number, you would place your postcode in the computor, and the answer would be the person and the street, BUT not the actual number, as in some areas, of the UK we have houses, that many occupy, and some residents know that they are there.

In fact, if l am not wrong, this happens in USA, and it has strong support, except for this country.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Just to clarify something, before this thread, becomes all out war between members, concerning a freephone number, you would place your postcode in the computor, and the answer would be the person and the street, BUT not the actual number, as in some areas, of the UK we have houses, that many occupy, and some residents know that they are there.

In fact, if l am not wrong, this happens in USA, and it has strong support, except for this country.

Several points:

Some streets only have a few houses. While in a street containing hundreds of houses/flats, it would be difficult to ascertain where the person lives, if the street has less than 20 houses/flats (as a lot do), it would be easier. Combine that with the fact that a lot of people are ready to believe someone is a sex offender just because they look a bit different, and you have a recipe for potential victimisation of innocent people.

At the moment, sex offenders have to register where they live, so, the authorities do know where at least most of them are. If they feel they are going to suffer attacks, they are more likely to just move to an area without notifying anyone. I read (a while ago, but can't find the link now) that there is evidence that "Megan's Law" caused up to 40% of paedophiles in the US to move and not register their new addresses.

My question is: Are we safer not knowing where the Peadophiles live, but with the authorites knowing, or are we safer when we are given possibly incorrect information on where they live by the Authorities, and the authorities actually having no idea where they live? It is important that the authorities know where they live as that way, any treatment given can be monitored.

Also, according to http://www.appa-net.org/resources/pu...itingmegan.pdf , there is some evidence that Megan's law may have caused some apparently reformed sex offenders to re-offend. There is evidence of a link between sexual/violent offences and stress in some kinds of people. Putting this into practice may cause some of these people to re-offend.

Admittedly, Megans law is not a direct comparison, as the authorities seem to actively advertise the presence of sex offenders, and our government doesn't appear to be promoting that, but what would prevent the papers phoning such a line, giving random postcodes, getting the names of paedophiles in each area and publishing them?

While I am not defending the rights of sex offenders of any kind, I am uncomfortable with the idea because of the possibility of innocent people being victimised, and I feel we should not be actively encouring borderline re-offenders to re-offend.

[WHISTLED]

Lets not forget the gusy who got OWNED on the NSX forum - Good times!

[greencreeper]

Stuart is correct in that America's system of monitoring is failing - compliance is much lower than that of the UK system. I think you also have to remember that "stranger danger" whereby some random person attacks a child, is actually quite rare. The perpetrator is more likely to be known - a family member or friend. Also likely to have never offended before. Name the family member and crime, and you name the victim, and you name the family...

Sometimes when we want something, or imagine something, it helps make it more real if we have proof. I think we look for protection not because we need protecting, but because the protection is proof that we need protecting - so we can say we were right all along. It justifies our fears.

As a single gay guy living alone, it would have been the likes of me, years ago, that the villagers would have driven out of the village - for being different. Much like elderly single ladies were suspected of witchcraft. It's worrying.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by WHISTLED

Since when can you speak for most men? I dont think most reasonable mature men would be insulted about a woman putting her child first - which is what we are talking about.

A parent taking measures to ensure she/he doesnt expose her child to someone dangerous.

Would you suggest people checking eachother out before getting married and starting a family for example? Paedophiles come in both sexes and aren't only single.

Originally Posted by Osem

Would you suggest people checking eachother out before getting married and starting a family for example? Paedophiles come in both sexes and aren't only single.

Is it any worse that insisting on a prenuptial agreement?

[WHISTLED]

Would you suggest people checking eachother out before getting married and starting a family for example?

I wouldnt suggest anything, thats a personal choice.. In reality I think few would do so if you plan to get married you would belive you knew your partner.

In reality there are probably several women that have married known sex offenders that wish they had the option.

I don't believe convicted sex offenders should be in a position to be in contact with children at all. It depends on the offence though, these days there are sex offenders and sex offenders. I think mothers (and fathers) need to think very carefully about who they get involved with and not rely on the state to make character judgements on their behalf.

I believe if they are told someone may be a risk to their children, they are not allowed to pass the information on to anyone else. That's a secret that I think most would find very hard to keep.

[Xaccers]

Is it worth mentioning that due to the Pausgrove riots after Sarah was murdered (I really cannot remember if any sex offence took place or if he had previous, so was he only a child killer? Do recal Megan's or now Sarah's law wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference), most of the paedophiles in the area disappeared so the police had no idea where they were, an innocent family was driven by the mob from their home, and several cars were torched.