Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal1 min ago
Peado's in Schools
Can we actually find out whether any Peadophile scum are working in which school? Is there a list on any website or something...like the sex offenders register...is that on the internet as well?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by :Ace:. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No. Convicted sex offenders who serve their sentence and rejoin society should not have their living arrangements bandied around. We have to trust the police and prison system to not allow dangerous people back into society. You need careful monitoring and integration programmes and whilst this is an emotive issue, you cannot allow a situation where thugs and vigilantes to dish out their own version of 'justice'.
No we shouldn't have access to them. What we should have is a better criminal system and harsher sentencing laws. So how about starting your own campaign to have them locked away for good. And maybe just maybe you can actually change something. Instead of whining in here and getting absolutely nowhere instead of maybe alienating yourself or getting the thread locked.
S.
Anyone who thinks that paedophiles like Robert Oliver and Sidney Cooke should have anonimity simply has absolutely no grasp of the situation.
Cooke has been sodomizing little boys for about fifty years, and Robert Oliver is even worse a criminal than Cooke, do you want them living in your street with full anonimity as to what they are?
Cooke has been sodomizing little boys for about fifty years, and Robert Oliver is even worse a criminal than Cooke, do you want them living in your street with full anonimity as to what they are?
Supernick-'We have to trust the police and prison service not to allow dangerous people back into society'
Please forgive me ,but your naivete beggars belief.Dangerous,indeed deadly,people are regularly allowed back into society,with the calamitous and horrific results we see in the news, almost on a daily basis.
By the way-the police have no say whatsoever re.early release of offenders.
In the not too distant future,decent,law-abiding people will have no option other than to defend themselves against the murderous/violent/paedohile/burglarising etc.etc. scum who are currently making our lives a misery.
Why?--because the government and judiciary haven't got the bottle to act.
-- answer removed --
Danger to children is the bottom line. Anything else is irrelevant.
If you recall when the News of the World controvertially published the names and addresses of paedophiles in Aug 2000, there were a large number of experts in the field (both here and in the USA, where 'Megans Law', on which the proposed UK 'Sarah's Law' was based, had long been established) who were convinced that the NOTW's campaign would drive paedophiles underground and actually *increase* the danger to children.
As seen in Portsmouth, lynch mobs quickly formed. In Wales another mob forced a paediatrician from her home after mispelling the graphitti'd crime of which they thought she guilty across the front of her house. Several people with names similar or identical to those on the register were targetted. People who lived near the addresses given by the NOTW and looked a bit similar found themselves attacked by mobs. Far from increasing justice, the NOTW actually caused many people to take the law into their own hands and commit public order offences.
It has also given rise to many people believing that predatory child molesters are the primary danger to children. This is manifestly untrue. The Sidney Cookes of this world are actually very rare. What isn't rare, but which is rarely publicised (because it's not as newsworthy as a 'monster'?) is that fact that most child abuse takes place within the family, and parents would be far better advised to ensure the safety of their children with people they know than with those they don't but which are sensationalised. Home office figures show that 80% of all child abuse takes place within the home by a relative.
All of which tends to suggest that the safety of children is best served by not allowing the general public access to the whereabouts of sex offenders. The only debate, therefore, is as JustSia suggests, is why and whether such people can be rehabilitated in society or should be kept locked up.
If you recall when the News of the World controvertially published the names and addresses of paedophiles in Aug 2000, there were a large number of experts in the field (both here and in the USA, where 'Megans Law', on which the proposed UK 'Sarah's Law' was based, had long been established) who were convinced that the NOTW's campaign would drive paedophiles underground and actually *increase* the danger to children.
As seen in Portsmouth, lynch mobs quickly formed. In Wales another mob forced a paediatrician from her home after mispelling the graphitti'd crime of which they thought she guilty across the front of her house. Several people with names similar or identical to those on the register were targetted. People who lived near the addresses given by the NOTW and looked a bit similar found themselves attacked by mobs. Far from increasing justice, the NOTW actually caused many people to take the law into their own hands and commit public order offences.
It has also given rise to many people believing that predatory child molesters are the primary danger to children. This is manifestly untrue. The Sidney Cookes of this world are actually very rare. What isn't rare, but which is rarely publicised (because it's not as newsworthy as a 'monster'?) is that fact that most child abuse takes place within the family, and parents would be far better advised to ensure the safety of their children with people they know than with those they don't but which are sensationalised. Home office figures show that 80% of all child abuse takes place within the home by a relative.
All of which tends to suggest that the safety of children is best served by not allowing the general public access to the whereabouts of sex offenders. The only debate, therefore, is as JustSia suggests, is why and whether such people can be rehabilitated in society or should be kept locked up.
No, it shouldn't be made common knowledge because as people have (much more eloquently than I can) said, there have been too many instances of, it has to be said, thick people turning into a braying mob.
An example if I may - a number of years ago, before I had a child, I had this very argument with a friend and his Mrs: they had just had a child so I accept their outlook had changed somewhat. Thier argument was that if they knew somebody was a convicted molester and was living in their street they would hound them out.
My argument was pretty much was has already been said on this thread.
Now at the time I had a couple of dogs - now sadly dead - and their response to me, and to this day I am still amazed that she actually said this - was 'how would I feel if there were vivisectionists living next door to me' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alas, all the time we have skewed thinking such as this, and all the time we have idiots confusing kiddie fiddlers with kiddie doctors, allowing the public know where these people are living is just simply wrong.
Again, well said WaldoMcFrood.
I certainly don't want to live in a country of lynch mob rule. Please put your obvious energies into improving the legal system with tougher sentencing for these offenders, and please remember that not all 'sex offenders' are paedeofiles. For example, a young acquaintance of mine recently gave himself up to the police after realising that a girl he had had a sexual relationship with (not intercourse) was only 12. She looked 17. She had not made a complaint, but he was devastated. He was given a suspended gaol sentence and the judge actually commended him for going to the police and he was not put on the sex offenders register. There are plenty of cases where people like this have acted incorrectly but quite innocently. They are on the sex offenders list - some people might want to lynch them!!!
Our legal system might not be perfect but it is one of the best in the world. Do we really want to go backwards?
As someone has mentioned on this thread the vast majority of child abuse takes place within the family and close friends.
Searchme - I accept your point. The way I phrased it does make it sound like a very naive statement. We need very strict monitoring of anyone deemed suitable for release. When I say trust them, I menat that we have to allow the information about the whereabouts of paedophiles to reside solely with a responsible body, as the public could never be trusted with that kind of information.
gessoo - classic case in point: Graham Rix - 15 year old went happily to his hotel room. As I understand it, he was led to believe she was older than she actually was and indeed looked older.
Under the circumstances, I certainly wouldn't describe him as a sex offender and I feel his jail term and being put on the sex offenders list was complete overkill.
Should he be hounded? No, of course not.
flip-flop Trouble is that people don't think things through. That lad could have so easily been any of our sons! Noone should be complacent that being 'branded' could not happen to them or someone close to them.
The gutter press have so much to answer for when it comes to stirring up lynch mob mentality.
You cant trust the police not to let them back into society,cos what do you think i have living next door to me?We also live 10 seconds away from a primary school where my daughter attends,He has been on the receiving end of my hubbys temper more than once for staring at the little kids walking to school,I swear next time someone will kill him!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.