# A picture of Jon Venebles (Bulger Killer)poster on twitter



## sim667 (Feb 14, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-21455860

Could see another thread on this, but thought it might be of interest.



> The Attorney General is investigating after photographs said to show one of James Bulger's killers were allegedly posted on the internet.


 


> There is a worldwide ban on publishing anything revealing Venables' current identity.


 
Im not quite sure why there is a worldwide ban.... anyone?


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 14, 2013)

sim667 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-21455860
> 
> Could see another thread on this, but thought it might be of interest.
> 
> ...


I'm not quite sure they can enforce a worldwide ban. 

John Venables - big in North Korea?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2013)

> The images, which were later removed, purported to show an adult Venables posing with friends.


 
They're still on Twitter


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2013)

sim667 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-21455860
> 
> Could see another thread on this, but thought it might be of interest.
> 
> ...


 
Because of Twitter/Facebook and the like and it being shared in the UK and people going after him?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2013)

sim667 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-21455860
> 
> Could see another thread on this, but thought it might be of interest.
> 
> ...


 
Here's an example



> The Jon *Venables* story. Get it out there, spread the image and name. Let justice finally come.
> Retweeted 40 times


 
I deleted the links


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Worldwide injunction is the new sexy name for super-injunction. Or is it some state level over arching thing, given the long history of them.


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 14, 2013)

My first thought was...what if it's not actually him


----------



## miktheword (Feb 14, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> My first thought was...what if it's not actually him


 

the pitchfork brigade are doing this only 6 months after Scott Bradley hung himslf after months of being hounded due to people thinking he was one of them.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

maybe their pictures should be released, then there would be less chance of mistaken identity.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 14, 2013)

sim667 said:


> Im not quite sure why there is a worldwide ban.... anyone?


 
Because when they were released plenty of people made it perfectly clear they wanted him dead.  Releasing his pictures would place hin at risk.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> maybe their pictures should be released, then there would be less chance of mistaken identity.


 
That's not going to help people who look like them

People will kick the living shit out of you and and ask questions later


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 14, 2013)

so what purpose does the release of these pics serve ?


----------



## Voley (Feb 14, 2013)

not-bono-ever said:


> so what purpose does the release of these pics serve ?









Or, as The Sun would have it, 'Justice'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> maybe their pictures should be released, then there would be less chance of mistaken identity.


Surely that would increase the chance of mistaken identity?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2013)

not-bono-ever said:


> so what purpose does the release of these pics serve ?


 
They were apparently leaked 2 years ago as well and I think it's the 20th anniversary of their deaths


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> maybe their pictures should be released, then there would be less chance of mistaken identity.


Because then the state would be facilitating someone killing them unlawfully, and the received wisdom is that as a society we've chosen the rule of law.

In addition to #11 that is.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> That's not going to help people who look like them
> 
> People will kick the living shit out of you and and ask questions later





Orang Utan said:


> Surely that would increase the chance of mistaken identity?


hadn't thought of that. maybe addresses should be provided too.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

Adults who wish violence on the Bulger killers are the sick fucks who need locking up.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

maybe the people living next door to them should have a say what happens in their communities.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 14, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Here's an example
> 
> 
> 
> I deleted the links


Not very well!


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> maybe the people living next door to them should have a say what happens in their communities.


 
Do you think they're going to kill more children? Do you think their punishment was insufficient? Do you think they are incurable 'devil children'?


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> maybe the people living next door to them should have a say what happens in their communities.


What if they don't like black people, or teh gays?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> Do you think they're going to kill more children? Do you think they're punishment was insufficient? Do you think they are incurable 'devil children'?


He might think anyone of these things but


> maybe the people living next door to them should have a say what happens in their communities.


 
is correct whatever of your horror options he goes for. (Btw 50% hit rate on re-offending, do you like them odds?)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> What if they don't like black people, or teh gays?


Then they don't get a say or need to have information circulated about them moving in. Simple.

This sort of stuff really does bring out the pitchfork brigade doesn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Maybe Corax, people should NOT have a say about what happens in their communities, and it should be left to top-down specialists with no enduring interest in or understanding of the needs of those communities to decide for them?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2013)

The Parents can probably be forgiven wanting bloody vengence.
    Everybody else er no.
 They were 11 there is no justice to be had or vengence if you want to hang 11 year olds suggest you move to saudi or iran.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> What if they don't like black people, or teh gays?


_Everyone else is thick - leave it to us. We''l secretly house paedos on your estate and frankly, none of you need to know - what business is it of yours? This is our society._


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe Corax, people should not NOT have a say about what happens in their communities, and it should be left to top-down specialists with no enduring interest in or understanding of the needs of those communities to decide for them?


Simplify that for me.

ETA: You just have.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He might think anyone of these things but is correct whatever of your horror options he goes for.


 
For child molesters, sure. In the case of these two it would be more sensible to keep them in prison for life than to feed them to a braying mob. I think the sentence was right.




> (Btw 50% hit rate on re-offending, do you like them odds?)


 
Sorry, don't understand. If you're referring to the child pornography charge it's not re-offending because it's a different crime.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> Simplify that for me.


I think that's simple enough - even for you.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe Corax, people should not NOT have a say about what happens in their communities, and it should be left to top-down specialists with no enduring interest in or understanding of the needs of those communities to decide for them?


 

Not very good specialists then are they?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> For child molesters, sure. In the case of these two it would be more sensible to keep them in prison for life than to feed them to a braying mob. I think the sentence was right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Re-offending doesn't mean doing the same crime again, it means offending again. The 50% rate so far is solid.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _Everyone else is thick - leave it to us. We''l secretly house paedos on your estate and frankly, none of you need to know - what business is it of yours? This is our society._


 
Experts should be ignored because these are evil devil children and we know how to deal with them right?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 14, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Not very well!


 
Ooops!  Sorted


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _Everyone else is thick - leave it to us. We''l secretly house paedos on your estate and frankly, none of you need to know - what business is it of yours? This is our society._


So people should have a say in who lives next door to them, in what circumstances?  What's the list of things they're allowed to object to?


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Re-offending doesn't mean doing the same crime again, it means offending again. The 50% rate so far is solid.


 
It'll probably be 100% then because it's pretty hard to get through life without committing _any_ crimes.

If he'd been done for weed would you be claiming it as re-offending?


----------



## Glitter (Feb 14, 2013)

It's still there - you just need to search the name.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> What if they don't like black people, or teh gays?


if the black people or teh gays lived next door to me and had abducted a two year old boy, dropped him on his head, poured paint in his eye, stripped him, kicked and stamped on him, threw bricks and stones at him, shoved batteries in his mouth and possibly his anus, forcibly retracted his foreskin, dropped a twenty two pound steel plate on his head causing ten fractures to the skull and then left the body to be cut in half by a train and not discovered for days, causing unimaginable grief for the family, i'd like to know about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> Experts should be ignored because these are evil devil children and we know how to deal with them right?


Why must experts operate in secrecy from the people who have to put up with the results of their specialist deliberations? Why aren't they already part of those specialist deliberations? And give the strawmen a rest eh. This is a serious issue of how specialist agencies (and class society) relates to working class interests and how they translate them into exactly the language and ridicule that you've used here.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

Some people think that non-whites are more likely to commit crime.  Some people believe that gay men are more likely to abuse children.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> if the black people or teh gays lived next door to me and had abducted a two year old boy, dropped him on his head, poured paint in his eye, stripped him, kicked and stamped on him, threw bricks and stones at him, shoved batteries in his mouth and possibly his anus, forcibly retracted his foreskin, dropped a twenty two pound steel plate on his head causing ten fractures to the skull and then left the body to be cut in half by a train and not discovered for days, causing unimaginable grief for the family


 

I wonder how you can be an expert on that.

ETA: not you, I mean how can one be an expert on such a thing.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why must experts operate in secrecy from the people who have to put up with the results of their specialist deliberations? Why aren't they already part of those specialist deliberations? And give the strawmen a rest eh. This is a serious issue of how specialist agencies (and class society) relates to working class interests and how they translate them into exactly the language and ridicule that you've used here.


You've got strawmen coming out your arse with your paedo bollocks so you can fuck that off. I was just mirroring your comment.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

What we need, is a list of things that society agrees are unacceptable, and the punishments that they should be served with.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> So people should have a say in who lives next door to them, in what circumstances? What's the list of things they're allowed to object to?


What did the post that you replied to say? It said:



> maybe the people living next door to them should have a say what happens in their communities.


 
Which you have turned into a veto on who live next to who on racial grounds. Why did you do that?

Isn't people having a say what happens in their communities a thing to strive for? To work towards? And your equation of murdering paedos with black people in the minds of most people says rather more about you than these putative pichforkers.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> You've got strawmen coming out your arse with your paedo bollocks so you can fuck that off. I was just mirroring your comment.


Point to one.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

And for what it's worth I don't think it should be conducted in secrecy but I do think

a)once there's a sentence it should be stuck to

b)allowances should be made for crimes commited pre-puberty

and most importantly

c)people who wish violence on these two are the worst kind of sick fucks in society


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> It'll probably be 100% then because it's pretty hard to get through life without committing _any_ crimes.
> 
> If he'd been done for weed would you be claiming it as re-offending?


No, i wouldn't becauase the point isn't about re-offending. _You_ suggested that it was  - and got it wrong. It was about potential threat once released and the people who should have the info about that threat and who gets to decide it for who. All questions that i asked on this simply ignored.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Point to one.


Constantly referring to paedos. That's the strawman here.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

I said that "most people" thought like that did I?

You're on one tonight eh.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> and most importantly
> 
> c)people who wish violence on these two are the worst kind of sick fucks in society


 
I think there are worse kinds of sick fucks but they are certainly unpleasant fantasists.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

they never house these people in chipping norton, do they?


----------



## Onket (Feb 14, 2013)

Butchers 'being a cunt on internet' shocker!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> Constantly referring to paedos. That's the strawman here.


Where?


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

People should 'have a say' about what happens in their communities.  That's reasonable.

I doubt many communities would be happy about having a released child-killer in their community.
Some communities wouldn't be very happy about having certain ethnic groups in their community.

Are both allowed their choice?  If not, who draws the distinction?


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Where?


You in post 27 of this thread and a goodly proportion of the 110 posts that you've used that word previously.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> People should 'have a say' about what happens in their communities. That's reasonable.
> 
> I doubt many communities would be happy about having a released child-killer in their community.
> Some communities wouldn't be very happy about having certain ethnic groups in their community.
> ...


Can you spot the difference between people who might pose a danger and so should be a subject of community discussion and those who aren't?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> c)people who wish violence on these two are the worst kind of sick fucks in society


i'm not advocating violence but are you saying that those who do, are actually worse than someone who murders and mutilates a two year old?


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can you spot the difference between people who might pose a danger and so should be a subject of community discussion and those who aren't?


Care to answer the question?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> You in post 27 of this thread and a goodly proportion of the 110 posts that you've used that word previously.


So i used the word _once_ and in relation to a case in which the authorities housed paedos on an estate without the residents knowledge - it actually happened - and this is



> Constantly referring to paedos. That's the strawman here.


?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> Care to answer the question?


I did, you even quoted the answer.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i'm not advocating violence but are you saying that those who do, are actually worse than someone who murders and mutilates a two year old?


No. But in this case it's adults who are doing the former and children who did the latter and who have been punished for it.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> People should 'have a say' about what happens in their communities. That's reasonable.
> 
> I doubt many communities would be happy about having a released child-killer in their community.
> Some communities wouldn't be very happy about having certain ethnic groups in their community.
> ...


people should be given a choice as long as they can be trusted to make the right choice?


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So i used the word _once_ and in relation to a case in which the authorities housed paedos on an estate without the residents knowledge - it actually happened - and this is
> 
> ?


Yes


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So i used the word _once_ and in relation to a case in which the authorities housed paedos on an estate without the residents knowledge


 
Sorry? What case?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> Yes


No, me using the word once, and using it correctly is not me:

"Constantly referring to paedos. That's the strawman here."

you fucked it up.


----------



## dylans (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He might think anyone of these things but
> 
> 
> is correct whatever of your horror options he goes for. (Btw 50% hit rate on re-offending, do you like them odds?)


 
Do you have a source for that or are you just talking bollocks (as I suspect) To be clear. You are saying what. That 50 of murderers reoffend or that 50% of people who kill when they are themselves children reoffend or that 50 of people who kill kids reoffend?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> Sorry? What case?


Oh _now_ the penny drops, little bit late but well done. I was referring to  Paulsgrove.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, me using the word once, and using it correctly is not me:
> 
> "Constantly referring to paedos. That's the strawman here."
> 
> you fucked it up.


I retract the 'constantly' and replace it with 'immediately and without justification'.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i'm not advocating violence but are you saying that those who do, are actually worse than someone who murders and mutilates a two year old?


 
I don't think so, no. I think that violence is certainly understandable. But in this particular case, at the time the killers were also children. I'd hope there'd be the compassion to recognise that you must be quite a disturbed child to do that to a two year old and are in need of serious help and support.  And that who you are as a child is not necessarily who you are as an adult.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh _now_ the penny drops, little bit late but well done. I was referring to Paulsgrove.


 
Which has fuck all to do with this case. If you wanted to refer to Paulsgrove you should have done it directly. You can't hint at something in your initial post and then start blaming me cause I didn't know what the fuck you're on about.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> Do you have a source for that or are you just talking bollocks (as I suspect) To be clear. You are saying what. That 50 of murderers reoffend or that 50% of people who kill when they are themselves children reoffend or that 50 of people who kill kids reoffend?


It never ends does it. Of the two people convicted for Bulgers killing one of them went onto be convicted of offences related to abusing children. I made no claim about 50% re-offending rates as a whole.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> I retract the 'constantly' and replace it with 'immediately and without justification'.


Are you taking that one back too?


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> Do you have a source for that or are you just talking bollocks (as I suspect) To be clear. You are saying what. That 50 of murderers reoffend or that 50% of people who kill when they are themselves children reoffend or that 50 of people who kill kids reoffend?


He's saying that 50% of the Bulger killers have re-offended because one of them was found guilty of child pornography offences.


----------



## pogofish (Feb 14, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> My first thought was...what if it's not actually him


 
Yup - one of the pics bears a cursory resemblance to a guy I work with.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> people should be given a choice as long as they can be trusted to make the right choice?


Quite. So if that's the contention then someone decides what the 'right' choice is, right?


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you taking that one back too?


Nope. It was completely unjustified to use the term 'paedos' and then a page later reveal that you were talking about another case entirely. It's not an honest argument.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I did, you even quoted the answer.


The 'community' is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> Nope. It was completely unjustified to use the term 'paedos' and then a page later reveal that you were talking about another case entirely. It's not an honest argument.


I made no reference to this case, i made reference to specialists attitudes to where to house paedos ( the assumption that i meant these two was yours alone) and whose interests they need to consider - the use was entirely justified.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> The 'community' is it?


Have another go, this time have a look at the doubly horrible assumptions that led you to ask your question in that form. Then look at my answer given to you immediately.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I made no reference to this case, i made reference to specialists attitudes to where to house paedos and whose interests they need to consider - the use was entirely justified.


If that's what you think you posted in post #27 you're either fucking delusional or 75% of the post was in invisible ink.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have another go, this time have a look at the doubly horrible assumptions that led you to ask your question in that form. Then look at my answer given to you immediately.


Or you could stop posting in your characteristically cryptic manner and just state your position.

Your post:



butchersapron said:


> Can you spot the difference between people who might pose a danger and so should be a subject of community discussion and those who aren't?


 
Options:
a) 'you' (me)
b) 'people'
c) 'community'

And those 'assumptions' are something you've concocted in your febrile mind.  Try reading objectively.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> If that's what you think you posted in post #27 you're either fucking delusional or 75% of the post was in invisible ink.


It certainly was - and you note, no reference whatsoever to these two - so what's left of 



> "Constantly referring to paedos. That's the strawman here."


?

Meanwhile, we _are_ left with your own fantasy strawmen of what people who have posted on this thread think and what motivates them.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> I don't think so, no. I think that violence is certainly understandable. But in this particular case, at the time the killers were also children. I'd hope there'd be the compassion to recognise that you must be quite a disturbed child to do that to a two year old and are in need of serious help and support. And that who you are as a child is not necessarily who you are as an adult.


all that is certainly true.

is the british penal system set up to provide serious help and support to someone this disturbed? or anyone, for that matter?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> all that is certainly true.
> 
> is the british penal system set up to provide serious help and support to someone this disturbed? or anyone, for that matter?


 
Well if someone is found unfit to stand trial due to mental ill health or their crime was found to have been committed due to mental ill health, they'll be transferred under section 37 of the Mental Health Act to psychiatric hospital.  Whether that actually helps is debateable...


----------



## dylans (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It never ends does it. Of the two people convicted for Bulgers killing one of them went onto be convicted of offences related to abusing children. I made no claim about 50% re-offending rates as a whole.


Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that 20 years ago. instead of treating them like children, helping them understand what they had done and working to rebuild their lives, society instead chose to throw two terrified little kids to the wolves to satisfy the blood lust and outrage of a howling mob


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 14, 2013)

In response to discokermit:

I think the answer to that is no. Where would you even begin?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> maybe the people living next door to them should have a say what happens in their communities.


 
Funny how locals 'having a say in what happens in their communities' always seems to mean 'vigilante action by stupid bigots' innit.


----------



## coley (Feb 14, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> I don't think so, no. I think that violence is certainly understandable. But in this particular case, at the time the killers were also children. I'd hope there'd be the compassion to recognise that you must be quite a disturbed child to do that to a two year old and are in need of serious help and support.  And that who you are as a child is not necessarily who you are as an adult.



"Quite a disturbed child" is a massive understatement regarding what those two did.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Where would you even begin?


 
With giving a shit.


----------



## Kippa (Feb 14, 2013)

Just because they were children when they did those acts doesn't mean that they weren't evil.  Ifdisturbed I would class them as criminally insane.  Insane due to the fucked up nature of the acts that they did and criminal because they probably knew what they were doing was wrong.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> all that is certainly true.
> 
> is the british penal system set up to provide serious help and support to someone this disturbed? or anyone, for that matter?


 
I don't believe it is really.  I think some are a 'lucky' few and they get excellent psychological support, but most are chucked on the rubbish tip as far as I can tell.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> Or you could stop posting in your characteristically cryptic manner and just state your position.
> 
> Your post:
> 
> ...


As i said, your question is ridiculous and i told you why:



> People should 'have a say' about what happens in their communities. That's reasonable.
> 
> I doubt many communities would be happy about having a released child-killer in their community.
> Some communities wouldn't be very happy about having certain ethnic groups in their community.
> ...


 
Having an interest and a say in a community means having a say on things that might effect you: child molesters might, black people won't. Residents should not have any input as to whether black people can move in. They should have the info to participate in decisions about people who may offer a threat to them and their family due to their established record. Do you agree?

The assumption that everyone else is just a big old horrible racist and a thicko not to be trusted with such issues is the specialists, keep it secret, keep it top-down approach perfected.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2013)

If you are over 18 and behave like that I would not give a fuck if you got murdered by a mob tough.
  Children who do stuff like that are very rare so protect them.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It certainly was - and you note, no reference whatsoever to these two - so what's left of


Except that it was on a thread about these two, made no specific reference to any other case and could reasonably be assumed to be a post _on the subject of this thread_. Which it was, it was a strawman saying that giving new identities to the Bulger killers and trying to letthem reintegrate into society after their punishment is the same thing as housing known paedophiles on estates without letting residents know. Which in my opinion it isn't. Which answers this:




> Meanwhile, we _are_ left with your own fantasy strawmen of what people who have posted on this thread think and what motivates them.


 
Which doesn't really even make sense as a sentence. I apologise for misusing the word 'constantly' but it certainly feels like it's the same strawman (and it really is a strawman, I do know what it means unlike most people on here) that gets dragged out every time we have a thread on this subject.

I have a sullen looking wife asking me to open a bottle of wine and it is Valentine's Day. If you'd like me to provide specific examples of this strawman having been used before would you allow me to do it tomorrow morning?


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> I don't think so, no. I think that violence is certainly understandable. But in this particular case, at the time the killers were also children. I'd hope there'd be the compassion to recognise that you must be quite a disturbed child to do that to a two year old and are in need of serious help and support. And that who you are as a child is not necessarily who you are as an adult.


Although I'd add to that, that who someone is as an adult can be a result of what made them a disturbed child.


discokermit said:


> all that is certainly true.
> 
> is the british penal system set up to provide serious help and support to someone this disturbed? or anyone, for that matter?


I've never thought that 'punishment' and 'rehabilitation' make easy bedfellows.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Well if someone is found unfit to stand trial due to mental ill health or their crime was found to have been committed due to mental ill health, they'll be transferred under section 37 of the Mental Health Act to psychiatric hospital. Whether that actually helps is debateable...


that didn't happen in this case, did it?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> With giving a shit.


 
And then what? What kind of work do you think they'd need? Who do you think will provide this? Do you work in mental health services?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> that didn't happen in this case, did it?


 
dunno tbh


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe Corax, people should NOT have a say about what happens in their communities, and it should be left to top-down specialists with no enduring interest in or understanding of the needs of those communities to decide for them?


 
Or maybe the matter should be left in the hands of whichever gang of unscrupulous political opportunists can get it together fast enough to exacerbate and exploit parochial prejudices in the service of their own unstated larger agenda?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> And then what? What kind of work do you think they'd need? Who do you think will provide this? Do you work in mental health services?


 
Oh, you wanted the full rehabilitation plan did you?

You should have asked.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that 20 years ago. instead of treating them like children, helping them understand what they had done and working to rebuild their lives, society instead chose to throw two terrified little kids to the wolves to satisfy the blood lust and outrage of a howling mob


Maybe it is , but that's got not a lot to do with what you asked me about.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 14, 2013)

If Venables killed one of my children like he did to James Bulger, I would probably be happy to do time for kicking Venables to death. So would millions of others.

Therefore I am glad that his ID and that of other released lifers is kept secret. If he is a danger then he shouldn't be out.

If the State or the Tabloids wants to kill convicted killers, let them do it themselves rather than encouraging others to do it for them.

Who knows how many households, how many families, how many kids lives will be negatively affected by this shit in the next while.

Stirring up this level of malignant violent thought and fantasy and providing an avenue for all the self-righteous fury that people feel when reminded of this incident is dangerous, stupid and grossly irresponsible.

The smug hacks who write the inflammatory stories will no doubt switch off their own faux outrage at home time - having set the clock ticking for thousands of people who struggle to control their anger at the best of times.

The sort of base instincts this shit drags up are deeply disturbing and many of those who will be stamping their feet and looking for a mob to be part of have no way of turning it off.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 14, 2013)

Kippa said:


> Just because they were children when they did those acts doesn't mean that they weren't evil. Ifdisturbed I would class them as criminally insane. Insane due to the fucked up nature of the acts that they did and criminal because they probably knew what they were doing was wrong.


 
What does "evil" mean?  What does "criminally insane" mean?


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

coley said:


> "Quite a disturbed child" is a massive understatement regarding what those two did.


 
If you read about their family backgrounds and early childhoods you can see that nurture was definitely a bigger factor than nature. Of course, other children from equally tough circumstances don't go on to commit these sort of crimes but it makes it a whole lot more likely.

See also the case in South Yorkshire more recently. A similar attack from kids from similarly troubled backgrounds.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> Except that it was on a thread about these two, made no specific reference to any other case and could reasonably be assumed to be a post _on the subject of this thread_. Which it was, it was a strawman saying that giving new identities to the Bulger killers and trying to letthem reintegrate into society after their punishment is the same thing as housing known paedophiles on estates without letting residents know. Which in my opinion it isn't. Which answers this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Go for it.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> Oh, you wanted the full rehabilitation plan did you?
> 
> You should have asked.


 
Why are you talking to me like that?


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> As i said, your question is ridiculous and i told you why:
> 
> 
> 
> Having an interest and a say in a community means having a say on things that might effect you: child molesters might, black people won't.


You think that. I think that. Some people genuinely _believe_ differently. So who draws that line?

The society we have has the drawing of that line made by the legislature and judiciary. That same legislature and judiciary has said that once their sentences are served, communities do not need to be informed of convicted men and women moving in to live near them.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> If you read about their family backgrounds and early childhoods you can see that nurture was definitely a bigger factor than nature.


 
So they had loving parents and siblings and got turned bad by an unruly gang of bigger boys?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> Some people think that non-whites are more likely to commit crime.


 
And those people are entirely correct.

It's almost enough to make you question the very concept of "crime," n'est-ce pas?

A process of questioning which will be greatly hindered, if not rendered entirely impossible, by fools and bigots banging on about law'n'order all the time.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Why are you talking to me like that?


 
Sorry if my tone was off.  Was just saying that the general interest when they were arrested wasn't one of any consideration of the people they would be when they reached the end of their sentence.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> So they had loving parents and siblings and got turned bad by an unruly gang of bigger boys?


 
That isn't what Favelado was saying at all?


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> So they had loving parents and siblings and got turned bad by an unruly gang of bigger boys?


 
No. Not at all.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> That isn't what Favelado was saying at all?


 
I was just wondering how he managed to make such a statement about genetic influences on variation in behaviour vs. social influences from such a restricted sample size.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> I don't believe it is really. I think some are a 'lucky' few and they get excellent psychological support, but most are chucked on the rubbish tip as far as I can tell.


so, these kids, disturbed enough to commit this series of appalling act, are then chucked on the scrapheap, or what lord chief justice lord woolf described as a "corrosive atmosphere" of a young offenders institute, for eight years or so. do you think they would come out fairly well balanced?

or to put it another way, would you let them babysit your kids?


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> I was just wondering how he managed to make such a statement about genetic influences on variation in behaviour vs. social influences from such a restricted sample size.


 
No you weren't. You misunderstood what I was saying and made it even worse by building a strawman out of your misunderstanding.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> No you weren't. You misunderstood what I was saying and made it even worse by building a strawman out of your misunderstanding.


 
Ok, let's see what you said.



Favelado said:


> If you read about their family backgrounds and early childhoods you can see that nurture was definitely a bigger factor than nature.


 
Ok, let's take a closer look at that strawman...


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And those people are entirely correct.
> 
> It's almost enough to make you question the very concept of "crime," n'est-ce pas?
> 
> A process of questioning which will be greatly hindered, if not rendered entirely impossible, by fools and bigots banging on about law'n'order all the time.


It's not so much the facts that are the question though, but the rights of a community to self-determine based on whatever beliefs and prejudices they may or may not have.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> It's not so much the facts that are the question though, but the rights of a community to self-determine based on whatever beliefs and prejudices they may or may not have.


 
Interesting one.  Begs a lot more questions, that idea.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> Ok, let's see what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's take a closer look at that strawman...


 
You don't know what a strawman is. That was an honest representation of my feelings.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> You think that. I think that. Some people genuinely _believe_ differently. So who draws that line?
> 
> The society we have has the drawing of that line made by the legislature and judiciary. That same legislature and judiciary has said that once their sentences are served, communities do not need to be informed of convicted men and women moving in to live near them.


So the line is drawn by the specialists alone with no community participation. Never challenge your betters. The same legislature and judiciary that you routinely moan about. Shut up and swallow what they decide for you - after all, given half a chance you'd all be racist thugs. Jesus. And you say that you want wider participation - yet argue this model against it~?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> It's not so much the facts that are the question though, but the rights of a community to self-determine based on whatever beliefs and prejudices they may or may not have.


 
But those "beliefs and prejudices" mainly concern their idea of "crime" and "criminals," which often amount to little more than "criminals are bad people who should be expelled from the community."

That concept of "crime" cannot survive an analysis of the fact to which you allude, to wit:

A disproportionate amount of "crime" is committed by Afro-Caribbeans.

From that fact, one of two conclusions must inevitably follow:

EITHER

(a) there is something wrong with Afro-Caribbeans

OR

(b) there is something wrong with our concept of "crime"


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So the line is drawn by the specialists alone with no community participation. Never challenge your betters. The same legislature and judiciary that you routinely moan about. Shut up and swallow what they decide for you - after all, given half a chance you'd all be racist thugs. Jesus.


 
Wouldn't probation officers have a lot of local community understanding and participation?


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2013)

Glitter said:


> It's still there - you just need to search the name.


 
Why would you?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> after all, given half a chance you'd all be racist thugs. Jesus.


smashing up the surgeries of peadiatricians.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Really brings the proper conservatives out this one .


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Wouldn't probation officers have a lot of local community understanding and participation?


You would hope so. You would hope they wouldn't be the only one to get to decide on something that may effect others - those potentially effected for example.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> A disproportionate amount of "crime" is committed by Afro-Caribbeans.
> 
> From that fact, one of two conclusions must inevitably follow:
> 
> ...


or (c), afro caribbeans are disproportionately represented more towards the poorer end of the social scale.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> smashing up the surgeries of peadiatricians.


And this is people who see themselves as progressives. Shocking - and it's not a one-off either.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> You don't know what a strawman is. That was an honest representation of my feelings.


 
Firstly, I know perfectly well what a strawman is, try reading what I said again if you want to check.

Secondly, whatever your feelings, what you said is based on a flawed premise and even were it not, this is something which you cannot know based on the available information (they could for example, and to use some of the ludicrously simplistic reasoning often applied to this case, have both had a shitty homelife filled with abuse and _also_ been 'born evil'*).

I don't doubt that you made this massive oversimplification with your heart in the right place, but there have been plenty of people making very honest representations of their feelings with regard to this case and most of the time I think it has made things worse rather than better.

* - whatever that means


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

Erm, okay.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> or (c), afro caribbeans are disproportionately represented more towards the poorer end of the social scale.


 
In which case social deprivation, as opposed to personal evil, is the main cause of crime. In which case a punitive response to crime is both unjust and counter-productive.  In which case we must reconsider our entire concept of "crime," as I said.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And this is people who see themselves as progressives. Shocking - and it's not a one-off either.


 
Is your point that this never happened, or that this is an 'anti-working-class-trope-of-first-resort'?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And this is people who see themselves as progressives. Shocking - and it's not a one-off either.


fear of the mob. it's typical of the middle class. it's why they had to bring in all seater stadiums.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

The problem with trying to make this a straightforward issue about community participation and the failings of specialists is that this issue is not simply driven by community protection. There is no consensus in society about justice, rehabilitation and being given a second chance. Unless such concepts can be worked out, I do not see a foundation upon which meaningful community-level participation in regards to later practical steps can proceed in a workable way.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So the line is drawn by the specialists alone with no community participation. Never challenge your betters. The same legislature and judiciary that you routinely moan about. Shut up and swallow what they decide for you - after all, given half a chance you'd all be racist thugs. Jesus. And you say that you want wider participation - yet argue this model against it~?


Making a lot of assumptions again.  I've pointed out some flaws I perceive in the community self-determination model that I percieve, not claimed the status quo as the best answer.  I'd love to know what the best answer is if you have it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> Is your point that this never happened, or that this is an 'anti-working-class-trope-of-first-resort'?


It's both - and the idea that the former happened is a never ending source for the latter.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> fear of the mob. it's typical of the middle class. it's why they had to bring in all seater stadiums.


 
Is that why they brought them in? 

Couldn't they just have had a middle class section with some seating and some reassuringly passive-aggressive signs?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Erm, okay.


 
Sorry - I have a bit of a 'nature/nurture' allergy - sends me a bit funny.


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> smashing up the surgeries of peadiatricians.


 
That probably never happened, I like you thought it had but Captain Hurrah corrected me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm

sentiment isn''t wrong though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> Making a lot of assumptions again. I've pointed out some flaws I perceive in the community self-determination model that I percieve, not claimed the status quo as the best answer. I'd love to know what the best answer is if you have it.


No, you said whatever small steps towards community participation were offered as regards one single issue opened up the DANGER of a rampant racist working class. You didn't point out a single flaw in anything other your own mental model - you simply offered an unsustainable comparison. And then, you yes, you did argue that the status quo is the best and should be adhered to and respected - after all, they're the people who we have decided should decide.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

8ball said:


> Couldn't they just have had a middle class section with some seating and some reassuringly passive-aggressive signs?


that's what they had the boxes for. then they spread. when saturday comes, italia '90 and nick hornby all played their part.


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 14, 2013)

He's locked up for like ages and stuff now anit he?

I'm amazed how many people wish them dead at the age of 10


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

firky said:


> That probably never happened, I like you thought it had but Captain Hurrah corrected me.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm
> 
> sentiment isn''t wrong though.


i know it never happened, that was the point of me saying it.


----------



## Callie (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Wouldn't probation officers have a lot of local community understanding and participation?


errr

are you joking?

edit: i suppose some level of probation might be involved/thinking about it. maybe?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> fear of the mob. it's typical of the middle class. it's why they had to bring in all seater stadiums.


 
Fear of the "criminal."  It's the definitive characteristic of the petty bourgeoisie.  It's what makes them so ripe for exploitation by ambitious extremists.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, you said whatever small steps towards community participation were offered as regards one single issue opened up the DANGER of a rampant racist working class.


Where?


butchersapron said:


> You didn't point out a single flaw in anything other your own mental model - you simply offered an unsustainable comparison.


Where?


butchersapron said:


> And then, you yes, you did argue that the status quo is the best and should be adhered to and respected - after all, they're the people who we have decided should decide.


Where?

Actually, don't bother.  Football's on now, and you've already decided what you think I think anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> Where?
> 
> Where?
> 
> ...


Here:




			
				guess who said:
			
		

> People should 'have a say' about what happens in their communities. That's reasonable.
> 
> I doubt many communities would be happy about having a released child-killer in their community.
> Some communities wouldn't be very happy about having certain ethnic groups in their community.
> ...


 
if you can't back up your wooly thinking or deal with having people challenge the assumptions behind it, then you know what not to do.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> that's what they had the boxes for. then they spread. when saturday comes, italia '90 and nick hornby all played their part.


 
I only went to a football match once.  12 years and I still can't entirely wash off the smell of foccacia.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> if you can't back up your wooly thinking or deal with having people challenge the assumptions behind it, then you know what not to do.


 
Still 0-0. Bit dull so far, all a bit cautious.

What you've quoted is a question.

Maybe yours are all rhetorical. Not everyone's are.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Fear of the "criminal." It's the definitive characteristic of the petty bourgeoisie. It's what makes them so ripe for exploitation by ambitious extremists.


it's ratty, mole, badger and toad shitting it cos the stoats and weasels might get uppitty.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> Still 0-0. Bit dull so far, all a bit cautious.
> 
> What you've quoted is a question.
> 
> Maybe yours are all rhetorical. Not everyone's are.


Yes, and everything i said that you did is clearly demonstrated within that question. 

I've answered your non-rhetorical question twice now btw. To what response you ask? I'll tell you - my reply cut down to a single line and the rest, the substantive body, ignored. So thanks for that corax.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

"Wooly thinking"? Fuck me, the irony.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

How do you mean corax?


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> so, these kids, disturbed enough to commit this series of appalling act, are then chucked on the scrapheap, or what lord chief justice lord woolf described as a "corrosive atmosphere" of a young offenders institute, for eight years or so. do you think they would come out fairly well balanced?
> 
> or to put it another way, would you let them babysit your kids?


 
No, I wouldn't.

I agree with everything you're saying btw, it just makes me sad really, that we fail these people so much.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> No, I wouldn't.
> 
> I agree with everything you're saying btw, it just makes me sad really, that we fail these people so much.


me too.


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2013)

I haven't seen the photo (no desire to) but from what I have read it isn't just him in the photo, there's other people in the photo.

What a cluster fuck.

I Wonder if they've gone to the police or if the police has gone to them, or if they even knw? What do they do in that situation?


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 14, 2013)

£50 says someone will burn down the Pizza hut where he worked or something


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

Of vague interest is that this seems to be another one of those events where information has been lurking in corners of the internet for quite some time, but it was a combination of twitter and media reporting that drew attention to it.


----------



## Glitter (Feb 14, 2013)

firky said:


> Why would you?



I was looking to see if it was still there.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 14, 2013)

Can't be pleasant for Robert Thompson with all this going on. Must be stirring up all the memories.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, and everything i said that you did is clearly demonstrated within that question.
> 
> I've answered your non-rhetorical question twice now btw. To what response you ask? I'll tell you - my reply cut down to a single line and the rest, the substantive body, ignored. So thanks for that corax.


His response - he has now put me on ignore. Well done Dr Corax, well done.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

elbows said:


> The problem with trying to make this a straightforward issue about community participation and the failings of specialists is that this issue is not simply driven by community protection. There is no consensus in society about justice, rehabilitation and being given a second chance. Unless such concepts can be worked out, I do not see a foundation upon which meaningful community-level participation in regards to later practical steps can proceed in a workable way.


Does it need that sort of consensus to be understood as a key part of what should happen? To have community participation in at least info sharing rather than rehabilitation and other 'specialist' activities. Because they are not the same.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Does it need that sort of consensus to be understood as a key part of what should happen? To have community participation in at least info sharing rather than rehabilitation and other 'specialist' activities. Because they are not the same.


 
I just dont understand what practical use we are expecting it to be to share information with a community if a vocal and reactive section of that community never accepted the idea that these sorts of people should ever be released in the first place.

That doesnt mean I think its fine to just keep it hush hush and proceed regardless, potentially weakening safeguards against the risk of reoffending in the process. It may in fact mean that the entire concept of release and a second chance cannot proceed in the manner that has long been established in this country. But if thats so then I would rather have society be honest and debate it at this real sticking point than pretend society has gotten beyond that and have to lie and hide stuff in order to make the fudge work.

For example, lets take a paedophile example and the idea of telling a community if such people are being released to live among them. People would reasonably be expected to react to that information, and we may assume that a popular reaction would be 'no way!', either in general or in a NIMBY way. So we either need to deal with that sticking point properly, or continue with the current policy of hiding the reality and not informing people.

On a related note, whilst I am very far from being a member of the hang em and flog em brigade, there are a range of sentencing policies, especially in regard to sexual offenses, that I cannot pretend I have ever really understood. Its not enough to focus on the most rabid vigilante reactions and the press stirring the shit up, we have to explore more deeply the failings of the justice system to match the expectations of society, and I've seen precious little of that in my lifetime.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

I am sure the idiots defending this arseholes privacy would run a mile if they knew he lived next door to their toddlers.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Practical use? To who? Can you think of other ways of looking at it? Sort of democratic based stuff?

Whilst this stuff is done secretly, it's working class areas that get over-represented with paedos, with half-way houses and and with experiments. This has to stop. If they aren't welcome in the places the specialists think they are then maybe they're welcome in their areas?

Your example starts at _telling_ a community - i.e an already decided decision made by someone else, not of that community and not sharing that communities interests. _That's the sticking point_ - go back before the decision is made.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> I am sure the idiots defending this arseholes privacy would run a mile if they knew he lived next door to their toddlers.


And for any one of us, I expect if they'd killed our children then we'd want to see them dead.  I know I would.  Yet I don't support the death penalty.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> And for any one of us, I expect if they'd killed our children then we'd want to see them dead. I know I would. Yet I don't support the death penalty.


 
You are arguing from an extreme extrapolation. In reality poor areas have newly released paedo's dumped on them. It is not the kensingtons of London where paedo's are placed in flats but it is outer london boroughs where they are given flats unbeknowest to local residents and are often still highly damaged fuck ups.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

It is the warringtons of this world who have to cope with these fuck ups.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> And for any one of us, I expect if they'd killed our children then we'd want to see them dead. I know I would. Yet I don't support the death penalty.


So the state can dump paedos on poor areas with no warning to those communities of the heightened risk they now face because the states specialists say so - and any opposition is lumpen racism

(Also, _boo the police and the state they represent and all that they do_)


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

couldn't agree more butcher's


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Anyway I am not going to waste a valentine's night venting spleen on scum bags so have a good night you sad fucks.


I did note maomao said you were looking rather sullen.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> You are arguing from an extreme extrapolation. In reality poor areas have newly released paedo's dumped on them. It is not the kensingtons of London where paedo's are placed in flats but it is outer london boroughs where they are given flats unbeknowest to local residents and are often still highly damaged fuck ups.


 
I have an open mind on this but I'd like to see some evidence of that. Wouldn't the inner London boroughs have an equal amount of paedophiles released into the community? My gut feeling is they would but it sounds like you're coming from a position where you know more than I may do.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

we are talking about sick fucks who wank , by their own admission, multiple times a day fantasising about small children. The kind of people who have given their lives to abusing the weakest in society - and are quite proud of it.


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Anyway I am not going to waste a valentine's night venting spleen on scum bags so have a good night you sad fucks.


 




kenny g said:


> couldn't agree more butcher's


 

Is that a request for the boss to join you on this special evening?


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Practical use? To who? Can you think of other ways of looking at it? Sort of democratic based stuff?
> 
> Whilst this stuff is done secretly, it's working class areas that get over-represented with paedos, with half-way houses and and with experiments. This has to stop. If they aren't welcome in the places the specialists think they are then maybe they're welcome in their areas?
> 
> Your example starts at _telling_ a community - i.e an already decided decision made by someone else, not of that community and not sharing that communities interests. _That's the sticking point_ - go back before the decision is made.


 
No, my example is an attempt to be even more honest and go even further back than the sticking point you suggest. I am suggesting that the whole situation is flawed at an earlier point because the decision that causes the problem is not the one of whether to stick someone in a particular community and mention it to them only as an afterthought. It is whether to let them out at all. 

I am completely agreeing with what you are hinting at, that specialists may only favour the current options because they arent affected, its not their community that has to live with the experiment. The implications of this are profound and what you are suggesting exposes this, but does not solve it.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I have an open mind on this but I'd like to see some evidence of that. Wouldn't the inner London boroughs have an equal amount of paedophiles released into the community? My gut feeling is they would but it sounds like you're coming from a position where you know more than I may do.


 
Would be an interesting Freedom of Information request I suppose.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

elbows said:


> No, my example is an attempt to be even more honest and go even further back than the sticking point you suggest. I am suggesting that the whole situation is flawed at an earlier point because the decision that causes the problem is not the one of whether to stick someone in a particular community and mention it to them only as an afterthought. It is whether to let them out at all.
> 
> I am completely agreeing with what you are hinting at, that specialists may only favour the current options because they arent affected, its not their community that has to live with the experiment. The implications of this are profound and what you are suggesting exposes this, but does not solve it.


 
The letting them out at all - blimey, i wasn't thinking along those lines i must say.


True, but in the meantime the pressure must be kept up to expose this and to force the issue onto the state and into their specialists danger areas (and we can extend this to nightime nuclear transports and all sort of political stuff). There is no practical answer for those areas now being used for this outside of that.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> You are arguing from an extreme extrapolation. In reality poor areas have newly released paedo's dumped on them. It is not the kensingtons of London where paedo's are placed in flats but it is outer london boroughs where they are given flats unbeknowest to local residents and are often still highly damaged fuck ups.


I don't have a set view on what's the right or wrong thing to do with these the placement of offenders, my point was just that the reasoning you used doesn't work, for me.

I'll state quite clearly that I have no idea what the solution to this stuff is.  I'm surprised that so many on this thread feel they do tbh.
(That's a general statement, not at you specifically kenny)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> I don't have a set view on what's the right or wrong thing to do with these the placement of offenders, my point was just that the reasoning you used doesn't work, for me.
> 
> I'll state quite clearly that I have no idea what the solution to this stuff is. I'm surprised that so many on this thread feel they do tbh.
> (That's a general statement, not at you specifically kenny)


Name me one person who has offered a solution, given that you have so many to choose from.


----------



## Corax (Feb 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> we are talking about sick fucks who wank , by their own admission, multiple times a day fantasising about small children. The kind of people who have given their lives to abusing the weakest in society - and are quite proud of it.


Those people should still be segregated from society IMO.  There shouldn't be a question of which community they live in in the first place.  How you go about doing that in practice, if all they're doing is wanking rather than abusing children, is another thing I don't know though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> Those people should still be segregated from society IMO. There shouldn't be a question of which community they live in in the first place. How you go about doing that in practice, if all they're doing is wanking rather than abusing children, is another thing I don't know though.


The legislature and judiciary you said not an hour or so.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 14, 2013)

Where does that end though? For every halfway house for peadophiles, there's the clinic for drug addicts, or the rehabilitation flat for people with mental health problems, or the homeless shelter. Yes, there's obviously a big difference between sex offenders and addicts or the unwell, but in my experience, no one, from any community, particularly wants these places next door to them, yet unless we don't believe in supporting people, and we don't believe in second chances and rehabilitation these places have to exist - and invariably even in far more equal societies than our own that might involve the rights of individual communities being balanced against the societal choice to attempt to rehabilitate and care. That's a balance even a non capitalist society would have to wrestle with. If your issue is that you feel working class areas are disproportionately affected by these institutions, that's a valid argument, but I'm not sure how useful it is in discussing such an infamous and singular case as Venables or remotely relevant to whether people should be posting his picture all over the internet. Or is the argument that some, even at eleven are beyond rehabilitation?

ETA: I think Kenny G's assertions are bullshit frankly. I have never worked in that area exactly but have worked in jobs where you get to know where places are, but and in inner London, because of the current population mix, paedophiles and other sex offenders, and halfway houses, are placed in areas where both rich and poor people live because everyone lives within a few streets of one another, even in parts of Kensington. It's also not the case that everyone is placed in outer boroughs. In cities where the population don't live so cheek by jowl with different classes, it may differ though I would like to see some evidence, if any exists, about overall placement numbers.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

Corax said:


> Those people should still be segregated from society IMO. There shouldn't be a question of which community they live in in the first place. How you go about doing that in practice, if all they're doing is wanking rather than abusing children, is another thing I don't know though.


 
In reality they are visited regularly, they are quite open about their attitudes, behaviour and feelings, they are observed and then once they are seen approaching children and trying to build relationships i.e placing adverts as music tutors etc, their licence is removed and they are banged up again. It just seems a pretty horrific test bed having to use unknowing communities to prove that these guys are still raving paedo's.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Where does that end though? For every halfway house for peadophiles, there's the clinic for drug addicts, or the rehabilitation flat for people with mental health problems, or the homeless shelter. Yes, there's obviously a big difference between sex offenders and addicts or the unwell, but in my experience, no one, from any community, particularly wants these places next door to them, yet unless we don't believe in supporting people, and we don't believe in second chances and rehabilitation these places have to exist - and invariably even in far more equal societies than our own that might involve the rights of individual communities being balanced against the societal choice to attempt to rehabilitate and care. That's a balance even a non capitalist society would have to wrestle with. If your issue is that you feel working class areas are disproportionately affected by these institutions, that's a valid argument, but I'm not sure how useful it is in discussing such an infamous and singular case as Venables or remotely relevant to whether people should be posting his picture all over the internet. Or is the argument that some, even at eleven are beyond rehabilitation?


At paedos.

Or more properly - it doesn't end. It never starts. It never happens.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Where does that end though? For every halfway house for peadophiles, there's the clinic for drug addicts, or the rehabilitation flat for people with mental health problems, or the homeless shelter. Yes, there's obviously a big difference between sex offenders and addicts or the unwell, but in my experience, no one, from any community, particularly wants these places next door to them, yet unless we don't believe in supporting people, and we don't believe in second chances and rehabilitation these places have to exist - and invariably even in far more equal societies than our own that might involve the rights of individual communities being balanced against the societal choice to attempt to rehabilitate and care. That's a balance even a non capitalist society would have to wrestle with. If your issue is that you feel working class areas are disproportionately affected by these institutions, that's a valid argument, but I'm not sure how useful it is in discussing such an infamous and singular case as Venables or remotely relevant to whether people should be posting his picture all over the internet. Or is the argument that some, even at eleven are beyond rehabilitation?


 
Thin end of the wedge arguments just result in moral paralysis. Paedophilia is a completely different category of behaviour to drug addiction or NIMBY attitudes to care homes nearby.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Where does that end though? For every halfway house for peadophiles, there's the clinic for drug addicts, or the rehabilitation flat for people with mental health problems, or the homeless shelter. Yes, there's obviously a big difference between sex offenders and addicts or the unwell, but in my experience, no one, from any community, particularly wants these places next door to them, yet unless we don't believe in supporting people, and we don't believe in second chances and rehabilitation these places have to exist - and invariably even in far more equal societies than our own that might involve the rights of individual communities being balanced against the societal choice to attempt to rehabilitate and care. That's a balance even a non capitalist society would have to wrestle with. If your issue is that you feel working class areas are disproportionately affected by these institutions, that's a valid argument, but I'm not sure how useful it is in discussing such an infamous and singular case as Venables or remotely relevant to whether people should be posting his picture all over the internet. Or is the argument that some, even at eleven are beyond rehabilitation?


 -

Well, it's easy to make an argument that the failures of rehab on everything short of paedo stuff is easier for a community to bear - it#s wrong though. Let's turn this upside down - at what point can a community be allowed to take care of itself until the big hand has to come in and tell them they're doing it, no questions asked or brooked (or more likely behind their back).


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The letting them out at all - blimey, i wasn't thinking along those lines i must say.


 
Well thats what I meant when I started droning on about the practicalities. The only communities that would, given a free choice, accept certain kinds of offenders being allowed to live among them would be ones who had been convinced that the risk was very very small, or that adequate safeguards existed. Humans are not well equipped to make such risk-assessments when the stakes are real and meaningful to them, in part because as with vaccinations the risk is never going to be 0.0%. Throw in the talk of monsters, evil, and the desire that remains for retribution and to kill such people, and we start to get a picture resembling the one we see in this case. It's not acceptable to give up in the face of these issues, this isnt the dark ages, but the present fudge can be better understood with this stuff in mind rather than only looking at the arrogance and complacency that can come from specialisation and top-down decision making.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 14, 2013)

Ok, so I'm clear, you don't, kenny and butchers, believe you should ever release anyone who's committed any category of sexual offence against children?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

elbows said:


> Well thats what I meant when I started droning on about the practicalities. The only communities that would, given a free choice, accept certain kinds of offenders being allowed to live among them would be ones who had been convinced that the risk was very very small, or that adequate safeguards existed. Humans are not well equipped to make such risk-assessments when the stakes are real and meaningful to them, in part because as with vaccinations the risk is never going to be 0.0%. Throw in the talk of monsters, evil, and the desire that remains for retribution and to kill such people, and we start to get a picture resembling the one we see in this case. It's not acceptable to give up in the face of these issues, this isnt the dark ages, but the present fudge can be better understood with this stuff in mind rather than only looking at the arrogance and complacency that can come from specialisation.


In that case put them in rich areas that have the resources to look after them.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Ok, so I'm clear, you don't ever release anyone who's committed any category of sexual offence against children?


If you're talking to me, i said no such thing. You asked me what level of thing should community knowledge stop at - and i said paedos (and i said it in the way that your vauge non-directional post was - who were you talking to?). Not that anyone who's committed any category of sexual offence against children should never be released.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Ok, so I'm clear, you don't, kenny and butchers, believe you should ever release anyone who's committed any category of sexual offence against children?


Come on, don't do this.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> In that case put them in rich areas that have the resources to look after them.


 
Isn't that a cop out? What resources are you talking about? What about areas like mine which are social housing on one side of the street and Georgian town houses on the other? The risk is less to the community if the paedophile lives on the side with sash windows?

I think this is a terribly difficult question that has no easy answers - call that moral paralysis - elbows has stated some things more clearly that I have and I think there is likely always to have to be a balance struck between the rights of individual communities and individual offenders which will probably involve peole making decisions about how risky they are. Now we can argue who those people should be, who should appoint them and who they should be accountable to (maybe the local community!), and how to protect working class communities from being overly used as dumping grounds but I still don't see how that negates the more unpleasant stuff about community involvement.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If you're talking to me, i said no such thing. You asked me what level of thing should community knowledge stop at - and i said paedos (and i said it in the way that your vauge non-directional post was - who were you talking to?). Not that anyone who's committed any category of sexual offence against children should never be released.


 
Do you think any community is likely to accept paedophiles into their midst, even if they were judged very low risk, and if not, do you concede it might lead to de facto indefinite imprisonment for those who had been convicted of sexual crimes against children?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Isn't that a cop out? What resources are you talking about? What about areas like mine which are social housing on one side of the street and Georgian town houses on the other? The risk is less to the community if the paedophile lives on the side with sash windows?
> 
> I think this is a terribly difficult question that has no easy answers - call that moral paralysis - elbows has stated some things more clearly that I have and I think there is likely always to have to be a balance struck between the rights of individual communities and individual offenders which will probably involve peole making decisions about how risky they are. Now we can argue who those people should be, who should appoint them and who they should be accountable to (maybe the local community!), and how to protect working class communities from being overly used as dumping grounds but I still don't see how we can get round the morally more difficult stuff.


No it's not. What resources -  they can find them (or expect them to find them) when they are placed within totally working class areas, why can't they find them when they are in other areas?

I'll give you that their bare difficulties - what doesn't help is the screeching of corax and others that any suggestion that a measure of community involvement open the door on the KKK rather than being an opportunity to ask _why here, why not there? Whose needs are being prioritised here?_


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Do you think any community is likely to accept paedophiles into their midst, even if they were judged very low risk, and if not, do you concede it might lead to de facto indefinite imprisonment for those who had been convicted of sexual crimes against children?


If i answer no, and no, how does this effect the point that they are re-located on council estates with no knowledge of other residents? Does this have to happen? Of course it doesn't.

I'll answer the question designed to make me say they have to go somewhere - why not to half way houses in sneyd park? In Clifton? Why Paulsgrove?


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

The icing on the cake for me in terms of risk, management and community reaction and demands for information is how fucking stupid humans can be when it comes to having blind spots or lowering their guard in regards to people they know.

People easily become hyper-vigilant about the unknown or partially obscured threats, the stranger dangers, etc. But giving the benefit of doubt seems to come into play when it comes to people they actually know. This is one of the phenomenon at work when we hear of the dreadful institutional failings in regards to the now re-exposed historic child sex abuse allegations, triggered by Savile. People we know say 'no, dont worry, you know me, dont believe the hype, give me another chance' and we are more inclined to do so or to allow the situation and risk to continue because of doubt-related paralysis, conflicted loyalties etc. And this happens at every level of society, dont let the apparently more shocking scandal that ensues when it happens within an institution or realms of power or celebrity distract from this broader phenomenon.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

I can remember as a youngster there were a couple of known convicted paedo's in the town who were known about. People would point them out. When I worked in a pub there was a customer who was a convicted paedo. People knew them and they were just about accepted i.e weren't bottled in the street. By people knowing who they were it did act as a safeguard. At the end of the day in countries where there are public registers paedo's are still able to exist outside prison.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If i answer no, and no, how does this effect the point that they are re-located on council estates with no knowledge of other residents? Does this have to happen? Of course it doesn't.
> 
> I'll answer the question designed to make me say they have to go somewhere - why not to half way houses in sneyd park? In Clifton? Why Paulsgrove?


 
Well you'll have to excuse my ignorance of Bristol geography, but I haven't and don't have any problem with paedophiles being housed in affluent areas. Stick them wherever you like, I can even see an argument for disproportionate placement in retirement communities, but my issue is with the inherent difficulty balancing the right of communities, all communities, to be informed about who is living in their midst, and the right of the individual to leave prison and live (relatively) unharrassed and without fear of being lynched. That's where I see the real issue and problem.

There is a particular problem with such infamous cases as Venables and Thompson - either could be in Knightsbridge or Catford, I still think no community would have accepted them and that they would have been killed had their whereabouts been generally known. I don't beleieve that would have been the working class 'mob' of Guardian nightmares - but I still think it was likely.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

{Mother}

Do you think it's alright
To leave the boy with Uncle Ernie?
Do you think it's alright;
He's had a few too many tonight!
D'you think it's alright?

{Father}

I think it's alright, yes I think it's alright


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Well you'll have to excuse my ignorance of Bristol geography, but I haven't and don't have any problem with paedophiles being housed in affluent areas. Stick them wherever you like, I can even see an argument for disproportionate placement in retirement communities, but my issue is with the inherent difficulty balancing the right of communities, all communities, to be informed about who is living in their midst, and the right of the individual to leave prison and live (relatively) unharrassed and without fear of being lynched. That's where I see the real issue and problem.


 
Have little problem with paedo's living in fear of being lynched. Different to wanting them lynched though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Well you'll have to excuse my ignorance of Bristol geography, but I haven't and don't have any problem with paedophiles being housed in affluent areas. Stick them wherever you like, I can even see an argument for disproportionate placement in retirement communities, but my issue is with the inherent difficulty balancing the right of communities, all communities, to be informed about who is living in their midst, and the right of the individual to leave prison and live (relatively) unharrassed and without fear of being lynched. That's where I see the real issue and problem.


As i said, if it's problem no matter what _then house then in those rich areas_, buy/build the halfway houses there - and inform them. But, that's not the problem is it? It's the planned dumping on 'trash' areas where they expect little opposition from the populace (no bother for the council, the police, the MP) because they simply don't need to tell them they're doing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

We are supposed to be pro-working class aren't we? Not sort of be nice to everyone all the time sort of thing?


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

When it comes to dumping, they have picked on seaside towns in quite spectacular fashion.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Tell me about it. Councils also dump addicts on us (via the rehabs) and the dealers follow

(Get that corax, i hate people who use drugs too)


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> When it comes to dumping, they have picked on seaside towns in quite spectacular fashion.


 
Very true - there are most certainly clusters in the UK where ex-cons have been dumped and non-cons have been attracted. The number of convictions in my home town are quite simply shocking. We are talking about priests , teachers, council leaders etc etc. The town is certainly not deprived.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> i hate people who use drugs too


 
Yeh. Me too. Scum bags aren't they.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 14, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Because when they were released plenty of people made it perfectly clear they wanted him dead.  Releasing his pictures would place hin at risk.



Ah I see, I don't remember the original case.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Yeh. Me too. Scum bags aren't they.


I'm talking about social dumping not your slightly mad version. I know that you like your drugs, but addicts bring problems, addicts are dumped in towns by councils - dealers follow, thefts follow. That's a fine non bigoted thing to say


----------



## sim667 (Feb 14, 2013)

Just looked back through the thread.

Seems to have gone well :Ffs:


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Worldwide injunction is the new sexy name for super-injunction. Or is it some state level over arching thing, given the long history of them.


 
What is a 'super injunction'?


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> When it comes to dumping, they have picked on seaside towns in quite spectacular fashion.


 
This article nicely demonstrates the problems of dumping grounds but totally misses the points raised in this thread:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+drugs+capital+of+the+North+10+years+on.-a0136872716

Also ten years on from that article... well you can guess


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What is a 'super injunction'?


 
An injunction in which you are not even allowed to say that an injunction has been issued.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> As i said, if it's problem no matter what _then house then in those rich areas_, buy/build the halfway houses there - and inform them. But, that's not the problem is it? It's the planned dumping on 'trash' areas where they expect little opposition from the populace (no bother for the council, the police, the MP) because they simply don't need to tell them they're doing it.


 


butchersapron said:


> We are supposed to be pro-working class aren't we? Not sort of be nice to everyone all the time sort of thing?


 
Well I'm trying (naively possibly) to fathom if there's a way of placing people without a level of secrecy - I don't accept that makes me anti-working class, particularly as I live somewhere where it could never be as clear cut as "They're in Clapham, there's a Foxtons and a Waitrose, no worries" and also, presumably it's the kids most at risk and I don't consider them a class enemy until they start secondary school (only slightly unserious). Also, even a non capitalist society with the working class in charge would have to deal with this. I reckon that kenny is probably right that many child sex offenders already end up back in their old communities and somehow an accommodation does occur. It's the infamous cases that are particularly problematic.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What is a 'super injunction'?


 
Here we go thread. Prepare yourself


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Re-offending doesn't mean doing the same crime again, it means offending again. .


 
So if at a hearing for a charge of driving while intoxicated, if the prosecutor says 'He is a risk for reoffending', it  means that the accused might commit shoplifting?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Well I'm trying (naively possibly) to fathom if there's a way of placing people without a level of secrecy - I don't accept that makes me anti-working class, particularly as I live somewhere where it could never be as clear cut as "They're in Clapham, there's a Foxtons and a Waitrose, no worries" and also, presumably it's the kids most at risk and I don't consider them a class enemy until they start secondary school (only slightly unserious). I reckon that kenny is probably right that many child sex offenders already end up back in their old communities and somehow an accommodation does occur. It's the Venables cases that are particularly problematic.


Indeed, i can offer a case of accommodation on my own street - but they had to get a Alsatian and build a little community of outcasts. But, the question isn't if you can place them without secrecy, it's not an abstract question, _it's why they were and with secrecy. _When that ends then the debate or or discussion you talk about can happen. Not now. Not when they're doing this.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

maomao said:


> Experts should be ignored because these are evil devil children and we know how to deal with them right?


 
I don't know if they're devil children, but to my knowledge, there hasn't been a similar case since, in Canada, the US, or the UK, ie two children around age ten abducting, torturing then killing a two year old. The case seems to be fairly unique.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Jesus. Why.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> There is a particular problem with such infamous cases as Venables and Thompson - either could be in Knightsbridge or Catford, I still think no community would have accepted them and that they would have been killed had their whereabouts been generally known. I don't beleieve that would have been the working class 'mob' of Guardian nightmares - but I still think it was likely.


 
Why would they have been killed? There's zero evidence to back up this claim.

Let's bear in mind that they received a good education inside, both completed A-Levels, went on nice trips. They were both found work in an attempt to make them appear non-paedophile/non-murderers of Bulger. 
It's this (arguably misplaced) resentment at their lives they led after the murder/sexual molestation that sometimes get mixed in/convoluted/wilfully distorted with the 'execute all found guilty of sex crimes of children' approach that some seem to think most of the population have.

Also if someone is saying 'I wish they served a proper sentence' or 'I wish they just took their own worthless lives' it doesn't mean 'I wish someone murdered them'. I see no reason why they would have been killed, just watched and not allowed to be with children. Even with this privacy and rehabilitation, one of them still posed as a mother of daughters on a social networking site populated by children, as well as the distribution of rape images of children. That info only came out because he was sentenced in a court.

Right now, we have no power to impose where paedophiles are housed post-release but evening it up so richer boroughs take the burden seems logical. Poorer boroughs have enough nuclear family/capitalism related rubbish to have to deal with.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> An injunction in which you are not even allowed to say that an injunction has been issued.


 


I love it.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I love it.


 
Ah, sorry. You knew. That was the joke. I missed it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Ah, sorry. You knew. That was the joke. I missed it.


 
I didn't know.

I'm just sort of amazed at the repressiveness of such a thing.


----------



## dylans (Feb 14, 2013)

This whole narrative of "paedo's being dumped on communities" etc is hysterical bollocks and feeds into a bogey man narrative that is perpetuated by the likes of the News of the World with their Sarah's law campaigns.

The truth is communities are NOT under threat by strangers being dumped in their midsts. The facts demonstrate that the vast vast majority of sexual abuse occurs not because of strangers but in the home and, if there is any lesson from the recent child abuse scandals, in institution's where perpetrators hold power and victims are powerless.

By arguing this "communities have a right to know shtick you are actually feeding into an anti working class narrative that will actually increase the control of the state over peoples lives not the other way around because, in the name of "think of the children" all manners of ill-liberal legislation becomes permissable, (the routine use of crb checks and the revealing of all sorts of irrelevent information on people going back to childhood is a good example) and people will accept it because of an irrational and deliberately stoked paranoid fear stranger danger which is exactly what those who stoke such fears want.

This is where this line goes. It ends up with people claiming to defend the rights of working class communities actually siding with its enemies such as the News of the world and their hysterical fear mongering narrative which serves to undermine community by sowing suspicion of strangers and turning neighbours into potential threats and strangers into potential killers

It's like fucking hate week with "paedo's as the bogey man


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't know if they're devil children, but to my knowledge, there hasn't been a similar case since, in Canada, the US, or the UK, ie two children around age ten abducting, torturing then killing a two year old. The case seems to be fairly unique.


 
The youngest ever person executed was a 13 year old black kid who killed two white girls. Forget his name - google will porovide.

Mary Bell is probably the most famous after these two - AFAIK she's gone onto have a relatively normal life and now has children of her own.


----------



## Firky (Feb 14, 2013)

> Mary Flora Bell (born 26 May 1957) is a British woman who was convicted in December 1968 of the manslaughter of two boys, Martin Brown (aged four) and Brian Howe (aged three). Bell was 10 years old when she killed Brown and 11 when she killed Howe, making her one of Britain's most notorious child killers.[1]
> 
> ---8<---
> 
> ...


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, i can offer a case of accommodation on my own street - but they had to get a Alsatian and build a little community of outcasts. But, the question isn't if you can place them without secrecy, it's not an abstract question, _it's why they were and with secrecy. _When that ends then the debate or or discussion you talk about can happen. Not now. Not when they're doing this.


 
I'd agree with you on that - with the caveat that it still gets us nowhere when it comes to the Mary Bells, Thompsons and Venables of this world. I think some cases will likely always require some level of secrecy for the safety of the offender, no matter how distasteful that can feel.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> The truth is communities are NOT under threat by strangers being dumped in their midsts.


 
If it doesn't happen in Britain, you're lucky. It happens here to the point where the police have taken to issuing warnings to neighborhoods.
\
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...sk+pedophile+Edmonton+area/7926891/story.html

http://www.globaltvbc.com/calgary+p...+offender+released+from+jail/74049/story.html

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/11/20121114-114235.html


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> This whole narrative of "paedo's being dumped on communities" etc is hysterical bollocks and feeds into a bogey man narrative that is perpetuated by the likes of the News of the World with their Sarah's law campaigns.
> 
> The truth is communities are NOT under threat by strangers being dumped in their midsts. The facts demonstrate that the vast vast majority of sexual abuse occurs not because of strangers but in the home and, if there is any lesson from the recent child abuse scandals, in institution's where perpetrators hold power and victims are powerless.
> 
> ...


My god, way to read basic democratic demands and side with the state. This is not about whether communities ARE under threat but their involvement in how their community is run, what role they play in that and what role external agencies with their own interests play. You've just come down on the side of the working class are too thick to be trusted - they should have only state registered info from the state services that you regularly abuse for their incompetence and for their corruption - so you're the one throwing anti-w/c shit here.

That whole thing is amazing.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 14, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't know if they're devil children, but to my knowledge, there hasn't been a similar case since, in Canada, the US, or the UK, ie two children around age ten abducting, torturing then killing a two year old. The case seems to be fairly unique.


 
There was a similar case in South Yorkshire in 2009 where two children were left for dead but survived. Lessons have been learned from the Bulger case and I believe the culprits identities have been kept secret. Although god knows how you do that these days.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/22/edlington-brothers-jailed-torture-boys


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> I'd agree with you on that - with the caveat that it still gets us nowhere when it comes to the Mary Bells, Thompsons and Venables of this world. I think some cases will likely always require some level of secrecy for the safety of the offender, no matter how distasteful that can feel.


On that i agree 100% it's the dry day to day cases i'm talking about here.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why would they have been killed? There's zero evidence to back up this claim.
> 
> Also if someone is saying 'I wish they served a proper sentence' or 'I wish they just took their own worthless lives' it doesn't mean 'I wish someone murdered them'. I see no reason why they would have been killed, just watched and not allowed to be with children. Even with this privacy and rehabilitation, one of them still posed as a mother of daughters on a social networking site populated by children, as well as the distribution of rape images of children. That info only came out because he was sentenced in a court.
> .


 
I came to that opinion based on all the people stating explicitly that they should have been killed, and the people currently sharing Venables picture all over twitter in the hope that someone will recognise and kill him.


----------



## dylans (Feb 14, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If it doesn't happen in Britain, you're lucky. It happens here to the point where the police have taken to issuing warnings to neighborhoods.
> \
> http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Police warn about high risk pedophile Edmonton area/7926891/story.html
> 
> ...


Sorry but that's just ridiculous. They let someone out of prison and then issue warning about him being a danger? That's just fucking stupid. Clearly if someone is judged to be a continuing threat then they should stay in prison or hospital. If they are not a threat then there is no need for warnings.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 14, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't know if they're devil children, but to my knowledge, there hasn't been a similar case since, in Canada, the US, or the UK, ie two children around age ten abducting, torturing then killing a two year old. The case seems to be fairly unique.


 
There's a long history of child murderers (of other children outside the family) in the modern era from Jesse Pomeroy onwards.


----------



## elbows (Feb 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why would they have been killed? There's zero evidence to back up this claim.


 


> I see no reason why they would have been killed, just watched and not allowed to be with children.


 
There are quite a few people online wishing torture and death on them. I agree this isnt the same as there being a large pool of people ready to actually carry out such an attack, but the risk of such a thing happening cannot be ignored, especially in this case.

Having said that, I have at times been stunned by the disparity between what people say and what they are actually prepared to do. Merging this with concepts I've brought up in recent posts, I was struck by the amount of hard talk I've heard in my life about 'dealing with' wife beaters, compared to the non-existant levels of intervention I've seen when people actually discover or strongly suspect that someone they know is being routinely pummelled by their partner.



> Even with this privacy and rehabilitation, one of them still posed as a mother of daughters on a social networking site populated by children, as well as the distribution of rape images of children. That info only came out because he was sentenced in a court.
> 
> Right now, we have no power to impose where paedophiles are housed post-release but evening it up so richer boroughs take the burden seems logical. Poorer boroughs have enough nuclear family/capitalism related rubbish to have to deal with.


 
The internet angle points out the only partial role that the location a person lives in has on their capacity to cause harm to a community located elsewhere these days.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> Sorry but that's just ridiculous. They let someone out of prison and then issue warning about him being a danger? That's just fucking stupid. Clearly if someone is judged to be a continuing threat then they should stay in prison or hospital. If they are not a threat then there is no need for warnings.


 
That's the problem, though. The indicators are that pedophilia is fairly resistant to standard treatments like psychotherapy etc. So you can have someone who has served their time, but is still a threat.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> There's a long history of child murderers (of other children outside the family) in the modern era from Jesse Pomeroy onwards.


 
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it appears to be exceedingly rare.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> Sorry but that's just ridiculous. .


 
I suspect that you don't have any children.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 14, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If it doesn't happen in Britain, you're lucky. It happens here to the point where the police have taken to issuing warnings to neighborhoods.
> \
> http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Police warn about high risk pedophile Edmonton area/7926891/story.html
> 
> ...


 
How does this work out JC?  Do these guys ever get murdered or go underground?


----------



## dylans (Feb 14, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I suspect that you don't have any children.


 
No you are quite right. I have no children and I personally have no experience of ever losing someone to violent crime. I bow to your greater insight


----------



## UrbaneFox (Feb 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> It is not the kensingtons of London where paedo's are placed in flats but it is outer london boroughs where they are given flats


 
I have lived in a housing trust flat in one such area for about 25 years and I disagree.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

UrbaneFox said:


> Is that a fact, now, is that a fact?
> 
> I have lived in a housing trust flat in one such area for about 25 years and I disagree.


Er...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> No you are quite right. I have no children and I personally have no experience of ever losing someone to violent crime. I bow to your greater insight


 
I've never lost anyone to violent crime; but I have some understanding of how parents feel about these things. And those feelings are so intense that they could lead to vigilante action, if the police didn't do things like they do here, ie, release the whereabouts of high risk pedophiles.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

Belushi said:


> How does this work out JC? Do these guys ever get murdered or go underground?


 
They don't get murdered, so far as I know. They can't really go underground, as they're required to register with the police. Frankly, I don't know what happens to them. I'm sure they lead horrible lives full of threats and fear.

Our society doesn't take kindly to people who rape children.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 14, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I suspect that you don't have any children.


 
I suspect you don't pay much attention to what people post here JC.

Dylans is a dedicated single parent. The mother of his son was murdered some years ago. 

It is to his credit that he retains his humanity... and does not allow bitter personal experience to cloud his political/philosophical judgement.


----------



## dylans (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> My god, way to read basic democratic demands and side with the state. This is not about whether communities ARE under threat but their involvement in how their community is run, what role they play in that and what role external agencies with their own interests play. You've just come down on the side of the working class are too thick to be trusted - they should have only state registered info from the state services that you regularly abuse for their incompetence and for their corruption - so you're the one throwing anti-w/c shit here.
> 
> That whole thing is amazing.


No. You are the one siding with the state. You are advocating THE STATE release the names and addresses of released sex offenders in order to satisfy the hysteria and fear of the mob, a hysteria stoked by the enemies of the working class. Hysteria which is actually a diversion from the real causes of child sexual abuse. 

You are actually siding with Rebecca Brookes. Perhaps she will give you a badge


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

UrbaneFox said:


> I have lived in a housing trust flat in one such area for about 25 years and I disagree.


 
What such area? Kensington or an outer London borough? And what do you disagree about?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 14, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I suspect you don't pay much attention to what people post here JC.


 
I don't pay much attention to what _you_ say, but I wouldn't extrapolate too far from that.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Feb 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> What such area? Kensington or an outer London borough? And what do you disagree about?


 
Er, yes, a rich borough, and I don't think that paedophiles are generally dumped in poor areas. We have plenty here. Some I know of, some friends know of.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 14, 2013)

elbows said:


> There are quite a few people online wishing torture and death on them. I agree this isnt the same as there being a large pool of people ready to actually carry out such an attack, but the risk of such a thing happening cannot be ignored, especially in this case.
> 
> Having said that, I have at times been stunned by the disparity between what people say and what they are actually prepared to do. Merging this with concepts I've brought up in recent posts, I was struck by the amount of hard talk I've heard in my life about 'dealing with' wife beaters, compared to the non-existant levels of intervention I've seen when people actually discover or strongly suspect that someone they know is being routinely pummelled by their partner.


 
Yes, they are playing hardmen. Happens a lot, happened even when the murderer was ill then died, I had someone I knew say of Myra Hindley 'I wish someone'd killed her off sooner in prison'.

Also heard 'sex pests should have medicines tested on them to save the animals'. It's not smart but it's not really representative of what's genuinely intended.



> There are quite a few people online wishing torture and death on them. I agree this isnt the same as there being a large pool of people ready to actually carry out such an attack, but the risk of such a thing happening cannot be ignored, especially in this case.


At the end of the day, unless people are given information they will never mature from playing hardmen, being idiots which might lead one idiot to somehow do a roughing up. Actual murder I doubt it. This isn't like an IRA supergrass being released. Bulger's dad recently spoke for the first time in a decade to say again that he believed the tariff was too short but would never want to kill the murderers or for anyone else to do the same.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> No. You are the one siding with the state. You are advocating THE STATE release the names and addresses of released sex offenders in order to satisfy the hysteria and fear of the mob, a hysteria stoked by the enemies of the working class. Hysteria which is actually a diversion from the real causes of child sexual abuse.
> 
> You are actually siding with Rebecca Brookes. Perhaps she will give you a badge


 
So wishing the state to release information to the public is in fact siding with the state? 

And why is the public having access to information anything to do with hysteria unless you view the public as being hysterical , which is  a view that is constantly re-enforced by those who defend state power. The word hysteria does have quite interesting historical uses by the way when applied to dismissing the views of women. Aren't you doing the same with your attitudes towards the public?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 14, 2013)

I wasn't talking about me. 

In fairness I was adding the rest of my post when you were typing so now you could perhaps reconsider yours.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 14, 2013)

LiamO said:


> The sort of base instincts this shit drags up are deeply disturbing and many of those who will be stamping their feet and looking for a mob to be part of have no way of turning it off.


I have an address we can send them to...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> No. You are the one siding with the state. You are advocating THE STATE release the names and addresses of released sex offenders in order to satisfy the hysteria and fear of the mob, a hysteria stoked by the enemies of the working class. Hysteria which is actually a diversion from the real causes of child sexual abuse.
> 
> You are actually siding with Rebecca Brookes. Perhaps she will give you a badge


Am i? Where? I think this is what you would prefer i was suggesting happened, the easier to reel this cant off. Can you show me where i argued for any such thing?

And no, it's you with the usual, _the proles are not to be trusted stuff - after all, they will kill all the black people and eat all the bananas -_ they have no role to play nor can they have any role to play in the self-determination of their lifes and wider society, they must be given situations then learn to live with them. You  really need to catch a hold of yourself. You are an archaic abomination - hideous to behold.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Yes, they are playing hardmen. Happens a lot, ... blah
> 
> At the end of the day, unless people are given information they will never mature from playing hardmen, being idiots which might lead one idiot to somehow do a roughing up. Actual murder I doubt it.


 
 I once saw a man kicked within an inch of his life while 30 people sat within spitting distance and did nothing... because he had been labelled 'Nonce'. His life was only spared because the biggest psycho in the pub did the maths and decided he was 'not worth more than a five stretch'.

I discovered afterwards that most of those who did nothing knew he was no nonce-case... and that his _real_ crime was to have shagged the chief protagonists missus while he was in jail... and that one of his attackers was a convicted rapist.

If you do not believe in the madness of mob violence I suggest you have not actually seen very much.


----------



## dylans (Feb 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> So wishing the state to release information to the public is in fact siding with the state?
> 
> And why is the public having access to information anything to do with hysteria unless you view the public as being hysterical , which is a view that is constantly re-enforced by those who defend state power. The word hysteria does have quite interesting historical uses by the way when applied to dismissing the views of women. Aren't you doing the same with your attitudes towards the public?


Oh come off it. You have been a vocal advocate on here for "Sarah's Law" type legislation which would fundamentally undermine the right for prisoners to rehabilitation and you do so on the basis of an irrational fear mongering hysteria that sees the public as being under threat by strangers. When in fact such attacks are incredibly rare and have little to do with the real issue of child sexual abuse.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

dylans said:


> No. You are the one siding with the state. You are advocating THE STATE release the names and addresses of released sex offenders in order to satisfy the hysteria and fear of the mob, a hysteria stoked by the enemies of the working class. Hysteria which is actually a diversion from the real causes of child sexual abuse.
> 
> You are actually siding with Rebecca Brookes. Perhaps she will give you a badge


This from a socialist.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I once saw a man kicked within an inch of his life while 30 people sat within spitting distance and did nothing... because he had been labelled 'Nonce'. His life was only spared because the biggest psycho in the pub did the maths and decided he was 'not worth more than a five stretch'.
> 
> I discovered afterwards that most of those who did nothing knew he was no nonce-case... and that his _real_ crime was to have shagged the chief protagonists missus while he was in jail... and that one of his attackers was a convicted rapist.
> 
> If you do not believe in the madness of mob violence I suggest you have not actually seen very much.


He didn't suggest anything of the sort, He suggested the opposite - a way to undermine that. And you just backed it up.


----------



## dylans (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Am i? Where? I think this is what you would prefer i was suggesting happened, the easier to reel this cant off. Can you show me where i argued for any such thing?
> 
> And no, it's you with the usual, _the proles are not to be trusted stuff - after all, they will kill all the black people and eat all the bananas -_ they have no role to play nor can they have any role to play in the self-determination of their lifes and wider society, they must be given situations then learn to live with them. You really need to catch a hold of yourself. You are an archaic abomination - hideous to behold.


You are deliberately vague as to what you want to see happen. What precisely does your "community involvement" mean if it doesn't mean the state handing the names and addresses of released paedophiles to the neighbourhoods where they live. (this is Sarah's law) If you are not suggesting this then what are you suggesting. Come on, _be specific._


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He didn't suggest anything of the sort, He suggested the opposite - a way to undermine that. And you just backed it up.


 
Your speaking in tongues again so I don't really know what you are on about. but Sihhi posted this one... 


sihhi said:


> Why would they have been killed? There's zero evidence to back up this claim.


 
... and the other one I quoted that explicitly stated thathe thought there was little danger of these two getting killed.

I disagreed and offered a personal experience where the fella who was nearly killed was accused of far less than Venables and Thompson. 

I wish you would/could be a bit less cryptic and defensive. Once you are in a row, everyone gets it - regardless of what they are saying. You don't need to do this and would positively influence far more people if you stopped.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> You are deliberately vague as to what you want to see happen. What precisely does your "community involvement" mean if it doesn't mean the state handing the names and addresses of released paedophiles to the neighbourhoods where they live. (this is Sarah's law) If you are not suggesting this then what are you suggesting. Come on, _be specific._


Why - so you can hammer people round the head with do you believe in sarahs law/ or not, do you love murdoch/or not.

No, i won't play the game of making ongoing community engagement, the task of rebuilding communities and working class power and grassroots democracy a game of do i like _rupert murdoch if not then fuck off. _Your own overarching obsession blinds you to wider any wider questions - in fact there aren't any wider questions, you've decided for them, you're having these people. Like a fat old labour councillor. They're having them and that's it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Your speaking in tongues again so I don't really know what you are on about. but Sihhi posted this one...
> 
> 
> ... and the other one I quoted that explicitly stated thathe thought there was little danger of these two getting killed.
> ...


Sihhi said if full info was offered - you case was when it wasn't. Keep up ffs.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I once saw a man kicked within an inch of his life while 30 people sat within spitting distance and did nothing... because he had been labelled 'Nonce'. His life was only spared because the biggest psycho in the pub did the maths and decided he was 'not worth more than a five stretch'.


 
That calculation is exactly what I'm talking about. Your example is based around the team of the wronged party exerting revenge. I don't see it happening with the Bulgers.

I think the possible murder of either of the two is not enough reason to stop some level of local community knowledge when it comes to those guilty of _serious predatory offences_.

Violence yes, it might happen if their new names are released to any and all, but murder just because .

I've seen a few proper mental fights but it's not my scene any more.

Separate to them, I once got punched in the stomach on a night-bus by a one of a group of drinkers. Luckily I was with others and it didn't escalate.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 15, 2013)

Even if the released paedophiles are housed in half-way houses in 'rich areas', won't they eventually end up in 'poor areas' anyway, as people released from prison don't tend to get good jobs. (I don't know how long you stay in a halfway house, but I'm guessing it isn't forever.)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Your speaking in tongues again so I don't really know what you are on about. but Sihhi posted this one...
> 
> 
> ... and the other one I quoted that explicitly stated thathe thought there was little danger of these two getting killed.
> ...


Oh god, let me guess they all tried to deal with their demons and asked you to ask us not to write them off~?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Even if the released paedophiles are housed in half-way houses in 'rich areas', won't they eventually end up in 'poor areas' anyway, as people released from prison don't tend to get good jobs. (I don't know how long you stay in a halfway house, but I'm guessing it isn't forever.)


So you think it would be better to speed them in their way?


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why - so you can hammer people round the head with do you believe in sarahs law/ or not, do you love murdoch/or not.
> 
> No, i won't play the game of making ongoing community engagement, the task of rebuilding communities and working class power and grassroots democracy a game of do i like _rupert murdoch if not then fuck off. _Your own overarching obsession blinds you to wider any wider questions - in fact there aren't any wider questions, you've decided for them, you're having these people. Like a fat old labour councillor. They're having them and that's it.


I am "these people" dickhead. I live in the same "communities" that you are idealising and I know for a fact that of all the problems we face here, bogeymen peados moving into the estate isn't one of them.

This is my point. There is no paedo threat, not from strangers anyway. Its a fucking myth. A myth that it suits some to perpetuate and a myth that you buy into


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Even if the released paedophiles are housed in half-way houses in 'rich areas', won't they eventually end up in 'poor areas' anyway, as people released from prison don't tend to get good jobs. (I don't know how long you stay in a halfway house, but I'm guessing it isn't forever.)


There is no work in middle class areas - none at all~?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Your speaking in tongues again so I don't really know what you are on about. but Sihhi posted this one...
> 
> 
> ... and the other one I quoted that explicitly stated thathe thought there was little danger of these two getting killed.
> ...


 
OK there's zero evidence of this being enough of a probability to abandon basic respect to residents of the areas that house them/interact with them.

It might have needed some clarification.


----------



## coley (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I once saw a man kicked within an inch of his life while 30 people sat within spitting distance and did nothing... because he had been labelled 'Nonce'. His life was only spared because the biggest psycho in the pub did the maths and decided he was 'not worth more than a five stretch'.
> 
> I discovered afterwards that most of those who did nothing knew he was no nonce-case... and that his _real_ crime was to have shagged the chief protagonists missus while he was in jail... and that one of his attackers was a convicted rapist.
> 
> ...



Mob violence?once saw a bloke nearly driven to suicide because he was thought a "blackleg"  the violence, intimidation was horrifying, strangely he wasn't and those involved all went back to work before him, but "blacklegs, druggies, criminals etc" can offer evidence they are reformed, rehabilitated or are doing their best, can paedophiles do that? The MDT teams that are responsible for placing people with dodgy pasts are in most cases disbanded within weeks of that person being placed in the community, so when things go wrong there is a glaring lack of accountability and in most cases the community affected has to settle for .our policies have been revised" or the vomit inducing "lessons have been learned"


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is no work in middle class areas - none at all~?


 
It's not the location of the work, it's the housing their work enables them to afford. You have a point about speeding them on their way, though. There's no reason to put someone in a WC area just because they're statistically more likely to end up there.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> I am "these people" dickhead. I live in the same "communities" that you are idealising and I know for a fact that of all the problems we face here, bogeymen peados moving into the estate isn't one of them.


Indeed and it was nice of you to decide for them. Idealising  - where? A demand for some min democratic input to choices that effect people, yeah. Radical.

Being a socalist whilst thinking that the w/c is racist paedo bashing scum should take some doing. It doesn';rt matter what you personaly or collectively prioritise  (again nice of you to speak for everyone) but of a relation with the state and its specialists and what this says about how much weight you carry and so how society is organised.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> It's not the location of the work, it's the housing their work enables them to afford. You have a point about speeding them on their way, though. There's no reason to put someone in a WC area just because they're statistically more likely to end up there.


It's a reason to ensue measures to do the opposite,


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That calculation is exactly what I'm talking about. Your example is based around the team of the wronged party exerting revenge. I don't see it happening with the Bulgers.
> 
> I think the possible murder of either of the two is not enough reason to stop some level of local community knowledge when it comes to those guilty of _serious predatory offences_.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry. I will clarify.

This man was _not_ attacked by relatives or friends of the 'victim'.

(indeed according to the judge who stopped the trial; demanded wtf was the prosecution playing at in proceeding in the first place with no actual evidence; he said 'you leave this court with no stain upon your character' according to the lad who was sent by the locals to take notes)

He was attacked for something else entirely. Which did not stop a) some people (including the convicted rapist) from mob A joining in and b) members of the much-bigger Mob B from sitting it out (initially. They all got involved afterwards and the pub was wrecked).

I have seen lots of fairly extreme group violence - both at football  and (more often) at anti-fascist mobilisations. Nothing was anything like this surreal event. It frightened the shit out of me. Not cos of what happened ( I have seen many serious beatings) but precisely because of what _didn't_ happen (ie people stopping it) - and why.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> It's not the location of the work, it's the housing their work enables them to afford. You have a point about speeding them on their way, though. There's no reason to put someone in a WC area just because they're statistically more likely to end up there.


Are there no rich paedos?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> This is my point. There is no paedo threat, not from strangers anyway. Its a fucking myth. A myth that it suits some to perpetuate and a myth that you buy into


 
So does this mean if someone has abused their own nephews and nieces if those children are taken into care, they simply become "no threat"?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, let me guess they all tried to deal with their demons and asked you to ask us not to write them off~?


 
Another cheap shot. Why not save the low-blows for people who are looking for them? I am not being aggressive at all, yet you are acting the dick? Why? it just undermines your position tbh.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are there no rich paedos?


 
There clearly are, Langham/Glitter/Saville being the prime examples.

But working class people are more likely to be jailed/caught, I'd guess. And if the paedos are rich, then they can live where they want and not be stopped can't they? The people we're talking about here are not being forced to buy houses in working class areas, they're being put in social housing because they don't have homes of their own. Rich paedos would just buy a house where they wanted to live.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> So does this mean if someone has abused their own nephews and nieces if those children are taken into care, they simply become "no threat"?


 
This is just getting silly.

Dylan's point... and I'm sure you are perfectly capable of seeing it if you choose to... is that the stranger-danger thing is largely a myth. And that if you are gonna get nonced it is MUCH more likely to be by a person you know and trust implicitly - like a relative, teacher, priest etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

There is a threat from convicted paedos. Which is why the there is no threat myth dylans crowd are wrong. The killers of jason swift should not be rehoused on this estate without prior community knowledge. Or is i this too one to be left to the state?


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> So does this mean if someone has abused their own nephews and nieces if those children are taken into care, they simply become "no threat"?


Sorry did you miss the part where I said "strangers". Most sexual abuse occurs in the home and as we have seen recently, in situations of institutional power imbalance.
What is a myth is the bogey man image of the paedo in the bushes, the stranger, a myth perpetuated by the likes of the News of the World with their "Sarah's Law" campaigns so beloved of some here. Sarah's law type legislation would do nothing to stop abuse within the family and it would have done nothing to stop Saville.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Sorry. I will clarify.
> 
> This man was _not_ attacked by relatives or friends of the 'victim'.
> 
> ...


 
If you're extending to football or political group violence then yes people posting here have seen a lot.
And again, I'm lost on the point you're making with pub violence personal example. Many people instinctively back away from any fight/any altercation especially in pubs.

How do we balance the possible threat of harm of a convicted predator perhaps with violent or inappropriate fantasies against the right of parents to know about these people?


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Sorry did you miss the part where I said "strangers". Most sexual abuse occurs in the home and as we have seen recently, in situations of institutional power imbalance.
> What is a myth is the bogey man image of the paedo in the bushes, the stranger, a myth perpetuated by the likes of the News of the World with their "Sarah's Law" campaigns so beloved of some here. Sarah's law type legislation would do nothing to stop abuse within the family and it would have done nothing to stop Saville.


 
It's not a complete myth. About 20% of child sexual offences are strangers. And there is already a form of Sarah's Law in effect in this country. source


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is a threat from convicted paedos. Which is why the there is no threat myth dylans crowd are wrong. The killers of jason swift should not be rehoused on this estate without prior community knowledge. Or is i this too one to be left to the state?


Sidney Cooke clearly should never have been released at all and he never will be again as I am sure you are aware.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> This is just getting silly.
> 
> Dylan's point... and I'm sure you are perfectly capable of seeing it if you choose to... is that the stranger-danger thing is largely a myth. And that if you are gonna get nonced it is MUCH more likely to be by a person you know and trust implicitly - like a relative, teacher, priest etc.


Who the fucking hell has mentioned who is most likely to abuse who - they've talked about the right of communities to know if convicted paedos are in their area and that the denial of this right says something about both the structure of the state and the assumptions behind a lot of thinking on here. That you dad is more statistically likely to abuse you is  not an argument for denying w/c people full info and participation in what happens in their lives and their families lifes.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is a threat from convicted paedos. Which is why the there is no threat myth dylans crowd are wrong. The killers of jason swift should not be rehoused on this estate without prior community knowledge. Or is i this too one to be left to the state?


 
Again this is a case where I would not trust myself anywhere near these men (and at least they were adults rather than little kids).

But tbh the vast majority of sex offenders are not predatory rapists but socially inadequate losers.

Jason Swifts killers should never have been released IMO. They were and remain too dangerous.

E2a Just read Dylans' post and it seems the chief protagonist has not and will not be released.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> It's not a complete myth. About 20% of child sexual offences are strangers. And there is already a form of Sarah's Law in effect in this country. source


bollocks. Absolute and utter and complete bollocks. 20%? get real. You are making it up as you go along.  Given that most child sexual abuse is never even reported I would like to know how you came to that figure. A source would be nice
(but it will have to wait for tomorrow cus i have to go to bed)


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> bollocks. Absolute and utter and complete bollocks. 20% get real. Given that most child sexual abuse is never even reported I would like to know how you came to that figure. A source would be nice
> (but it will have to wait for tomorrow cus i have to go to bed)


 
you quoted the source


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Sidney Cooke clearly should never have been released at all and he never will be as I am sure you are aware.


So what? That was a great example of your thinking - but it's just a mistake that one. Those protesters  -Murdoch's dupes?


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> you quoted the source


I haven't quoted any source. What are you on about?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> If you're extending to football or political group violence then yes people posting here have seen a lot.
> And again, I'm lost on the point you're making with pub violence personal example. Many people instinctively back away from any fight/any altercation especially in pubs.


 
Again I will clarify. the people who sat there (til it was over) were not intimidated. They were by far the bigger and more scary firm. but nobody lifted a finger because of the nonce word.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> I haven't quoted any source. What are you on about?


 
The last word of my post is "source" and it is a link which is the source of my claims. You quoted that post.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How do we balance the possible threat of harm of a convicted predator perhaps with violent or inappropriate fantasies against the right of parents to know about these people?


 
 Now that is a proper question. but not one I have seen addressed here thus far and one that would require some more sensible discussion than that offered by Butchers tonight.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I wasn't talking about me.
> 
> In fairness I was adding the rest of my post when you were typing so now you could perhaps reconsider yours.


 
You mean you edited your post, a while after you just threw the first line out there. Like a trap.

I can't tell you the personal histories of the couple of hundred people who post here regularly, it's true. I don't make U75 my life. I don't read every thread. I also tend to remember ideas more than I remember who it was who posted them.

If I was wrong about dylans' circumstances and it is a concern to him, it was an honest mistake, and he is and was open to correct me.  Why you're getting yourself involved is beyond me.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> The last word of my post is "source" and it is a link which is the source of my claims. You quoted that post.


Oh ok.  I didn't notice it. I will look at it tomorrow cus i really have to go to bed.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Again this is a case where I would not trust myself anywhere near these men (and at least they were adults rather than little kids).
> 
> But tbh the vast majority of sex offenders are not predatory rapists but socially inadequate losers.
> 
> ...


So then we get the specialists deciding that they're ok - the law say that they are (thanks corax) and so by rights, any opposition to not not being informed, to not having any participation in his resettlement is just mob law incited by Murdoch. Not concerned parents doing their civic duty to look after their and their mates kids.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

What right did the sidney cooke protesters have to protest? The state had decided.

What grounds _could_ they argue on?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Who the fucking hell ... etc blah blah


 
You are an intelligent man. You do not need to be as belligerent to people who are not being hostile to you. You do yourself and your 'cause' considerable harm with your pissiness.

I know this because I do it myself all the time and it is sometimes hard to resist. i have tried to keep things reasonable but you are off on one. Again. So suck mah baws ya wee wank.

I am off to cuddle my kids and count my blessings.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> You are an intelligent man. You do not need to be as belligerent to people who are not being hostile to you. You do yourself and your 'cause' considerable harm with your pissiness.
> 
> I know this because I do it myself all the time and it is sometimes hard to resist. i have ried to keep things reasobale but you are off on one. Again. So suck mah baws ya wee wank.
> 
> I am off to cuddle my kids and count my blessings.


Give it a fucking rest woody. Not interested.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You mean you edited your post, a while after you just threw the first line out there. Like a trap.


 
No. I just added some expalnation. I hesitated to do so because I was aware of the sensitivity of the issue for Dylans



Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If I was wrong about dylans' circumstances and it is a concern to him, it was an honest mistake, and he is and was open to correct me. Why you're getting yourself involved is beyond me.


 
Because I am sure Dylans get tired of having to counter all that 'you obviously don't have kids' bollocks by telling the story again. It would potentially make him look as hysterical as some other posters when he is keen to remain rational.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Give it a fucking rest woody. Not interested.


 
Suck mah baws.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> . i have tried to keep things reasonable but you are off on one. Again. So suck mah baws ya wee wank.
> 
> .


 
But it's difficult for you to somehow disguise the fact that you're a prick. Just look at our most recent exchange.

When you saw the error in my comment about the poster, instead of replying with 'You're mistaken, the poster's circumstances are these', you respond with 'you don't pay much attention to what people post', and you make that line in a separate post, not quoting anything. As you suspected, I responded with a flippant comment.

Which set the stage for you to spring your information, ie use someone else's misfortune to score some cheap points.

Like I say, a reasonable person would simply correct the error. A prick would do what you did.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> blah blah Which set the stage for you to spring your information, ie use someone else's misfortune to score some cheap points. whinge, blah


 
Are you fuckin nuts?
I posted. Thought that needs more explanation and provided it. I also sent Dylans a message to check it was OK with him to mention his circumstances. That seemed reasonable to me. The rest of your post is pure projection.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Are you fuckin nuts?
> I posted. Thought that needs more explanation and provided it. I also sent Dylans a message to check it was OK with him to mention his circumstances. That seemed reasonable to me. The rest is pure projection.


 
No, you posted the first line. I responded. Then you went back and edited the post, after I'd responded to the original standalone line.

I always thought you were a prick, this just cements my opinion of you.

If Dylans chose not to mention his circumstances, why the fuck are you sticking your nose in, causing a bunch of bad feeling?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I know that you like your drugs, but addicts bring problems


 
Oh no, not _problems.  _

Well obviously we can't be doing with any of _that _mularkey in our spick'n'span Model Proletarian Villages.  If addicts bring problems, then the solution is obvious.  No addict = no problem.

What's your opinion of pre-marital sex, btw?  For myself I find it _brings problems.  _Yes, problems are what it brings alright.  Perhaps you can suggest a means by which we might rid ourselves of such problems?


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This from a socialist.


Yes. Because my socialism isn't predicated on uncritical cheerleading every opinion and attitude, reactionary or otherwise, held by working class people. The demand for law and order solutions to imaginery problems is one which arises from fear. The primal and understandable fear for the safety of our kids. This fear can be and is manipulated and exploited by the likes of Brookes (and the far right) to elicit support for reactionary legislation, legislation that will actually increase the states surveillance and control over their communities and their lives.

The job of socialists is to point out that when those fears are based on mirages, to point out that the solutions they are demanding are actually self defeating,to point to where the real threats to their kids come from and to point out the reasons why and how their fears are being manipulated, not to blindly cheer on any reactionary old bollocks simply because it is held by sections of the working class out of some deluded workerist idea that the working class can never be wrong.

Large sections of the working class think Muslim's are about to implement sharia law and want to ban Mosques, Niqab and Minarets. Large sections of the working class think immigrants are taking their jobs. Should we applaud such attitudes because they are held by working class people or should we point out that it is fear based, self defeating hysterical bollocks. You would choose the former, I would choose the latter. Your position walks you straight into the arms of the far right.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I always thought you were a prick, this just cements my opinion of you.


 
I really don't mind what you think of me.

You are however mistaken as to the series of events here and only your embarassment and bruised ego is preventing you from seeing that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I really don't mind what you think of me.
> 
> You are however mistaken as to the series of events here and only your embarassment and bruised ego is preventing you from seeing that.


 
Sorry, I'm not at all mistaken.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans I appreciate what you are saying about the level of risk involved, but I also understand why communities have grievances when they percieve that solutions are imposed upon them. I can think of ways of promoting greater community knowledge and involvement, people from the local area on placement panels, general information being given without specifics about individuals. I don't think the current system does much to reassure, and almost plays into the hands of the NOTW stranger danger nonsense. That said, I think we couldn't suddenly start disclosing full info without significant problems for justice and individual safety, and I don't think in certain cases information will ever be able to be given. 

I think there are two hugely important principles here - that of communities to be informed and that of the individual offender which I think could be better balanced, although it's not easy.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I did note maomao said you were looking rather sullen.


Go and fuck yourself you snide cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Yes. Because my socialism isn't predicated on uncritical cheerleading every opinion and attitude, reactionary or otherwise, held by working class people. The demand for law and order solutions to imaginery problems is one which arises from fear. The primal and understandable fear for the safety of our kids. This fear can be and is manipulated and exploited by the likes of Brookes (and the far right) to elicit support for reactionary legislation, legislation that will actually increase the states surveillance and control over their communities and their lives.
> 
> The job of socialists is to point out that when those fears are based on mirages, to point out that the solutions they are demanding are actually self defeating,to point to where the real threats to their kids come from and to point out the reasons why and how their fears are being manipulated, not to blindly cheer on any reactionary old bollocks simply because it is held by sections of the working class out of some deluded workerist idea that the working class can never be wrong.
> 
> Large sections of the working class think Muslim's are about to implement sharia law and want to ban Mosques, Niqab and Minarets. Large sections of the working class think immigrants are taking their jobs. Should we applaud such attitudes because they are held by working class people or should we point out that it is fear based, self defeating hysterical bollocks. You would choose the former, I would choose the latter. Your position walks you straight into the arms of the far right.


You haven't taken on board or dealt with a single thing that i've said - you simply trotted out a pre-manufactured one-size-fits-all rant that assumes that ii'm saying something about law-and-order and immigrants because_ that's what those guys do right,_ so need need to actually listen to what they are saying. So so revealing.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

And Butchers, I really can't be fucking arsed. You're not interested in honest debate, you're just interested in twisting everything around to an argument where you can accuse everyone of being anti working class then have a little circle jerk with your mates.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You haven't taken on board or dealt with a single thing that i've said - you simply trotted out a pre-manufactured one-size-fits-all rant that assumes that ii'm saying something about law-and-order and immigrants because_ that's what those guys do right,_ so need need to actually listen to what they are saying. So so revealing.


Well when you decide to stop hiding behind your usual cryptic riddles and vagueness and obfuscation and abstraction and (as I have already asked and you have already dismissed) specifically explain what you mean by community involvement and how your solution is any different to the mob justice proposed by the News of the World then we can discuss it. Let me know when you do but I won't hold my breathe


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

So we have corax putting me on ignore and maomao running away after making his series of errors last night - that leaves dylans who simply doesn't read what people say and Dr Liam doing whatever he thinks he's doing. Of course, the idea that what you said and how it was expressed (even in the strawmen that you chucked at me and had to backtrack on) say something.That the kneejerk assumption that everyone is on some kill the forever evil paedos trip is revealing - that you could hold hands with corax (smash the state/the state is the only body you can trust) whilst doing this is doubly revealing. Look, if anyone was making the sort of dumb cases that you threw at me and an dk then i think that you'd have something to say - that we didn't make those cases and that you insisted that we did was pretty piss poor. Now, put that on a wider social scale and with people who have social power (i,e the state and its specialists) and you'll go some way to explaining paulsgrove.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> And Butchers, I really can't be fucking arsed. You're not interested in honest debate, you're just interested in twisting everything around to an argument where you can accuse everyone of being anti working class then have a little circle jerk with your mates.


Sorry, did i miss the meeting where we agreed that we shouldn't tease out the any-w/c logic in certain positions or the assumptions behind them?


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

Look. Do you think the names and addresses of released sex offenders should be made available to the general public or not. 

YES OR NO?  No more riddles, no more abstractions. Yes or No?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Well when you decide to stop hiding behind your usual cryptic riddles and vagueness and obfuscation and abstraction and (as I have already asked and you have already dismissed) specifically explain what you mean by community involvement and how your solution is any different to the mob justice proposed by the News of the World then we can discuss it. Let me know when you do but I won't hold my breathe


You post this after that pre-formed rant that had nothing to do with anything that i said - and after me pointing out that your responses have nothing to do with anything that i have said?

Do you really  not think that there are any ways for specialists to engage in information sharing and social participation in problem solving with communities? That it's either top-down secrecy and the needs of those with the information being imposed on those communities (which is what actually leads to 'mob justice' as it goes) or lynch mobs. What does that say about your socialist faith in the capabilities of the w/c? You'e the oen singing the right-wing tune here. You're the one with the pitchfork.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Look. Do you think the names and addresses of released sex offenders should be made available to the general public or not.
> 
> YES OR NO? No more riddles, no more abstractions. Yes or No?


That's right dylans - that's the only model of community participation that there  - top down release by the specialists that you trust and spend all day slagging off on here on other issues.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Look. Do you think the names and addresses of released sex offenders should be made available to the general public or not.
> 
> YES OR NO? No more riddles, no more abstractions. Yes or No?


Yes, but pnly to nice people in nice areas


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So we have corax putting me on ignore and maomao running away after making his series of errors last night


 
I made one error last night in the use of the word constantly which I retracted. . The original discussion was about the Bulger killers. You responded with



> _Everyone else is thick - leave it to us. We''l secretly house paedos on your estate and frankly, none of you need to know - what business is it of yours? This is our society._




setting up a strawman so that anyone who claimed there was a case for anonymity for Venables and Thompson was automatically on the side of those who want to house convicted paedophiles on working class estates. Which is a different subject. Throw in some spurious re-offending nonsense dressed up as statistics and you've managed to make this discussion into the discussion you want it to be about where you can attack everyone (even those of us who are working class and live in working class areas) as anti working class.

In fact in post #230 you concede the point about the  Bulger killers anyway. So what is the fucking point?


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's right dylans - that's the only model of community participation that there - top down release by the specialists that you trust and spend all day slagging off on here on other issues.


Then explain exactly and precisely how "community involvement" in the release of hated and despised individuals who are in danger of being murdered and hounded out of their homes by lynch mobs is meant to work.

This is bollocks. Its no different to the demand that victims have a role in sentencing, its a recipe for emotion charged and subjective interference into the legal process. It may appeal to the sense of revenge and hatred felt by victims (something I know only about only too well) but it is not and cannot be the basis for any system of law.

If by community involvement, you mean that the legal system should be accountable and transparent then fine. I have no issue with that but you mean more than that. You mean that communites should have a direct say in the manner in which sex offenders who have served their sentences and been deemed fit for release should be integrated into society. This is a recipe for the lynch mob and would fatally undermine the very important and basic democratic principle of time served and rehabilitation of offenders.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Then explain exactly and precisely how "community involvement" in the release of hated and despised individuals who are in danger of being murdered and hounded out of their homes by lynch mobs is meant to work.
> 
> This is bollocks. Its no different to the demand that victims have a role in sentencing, its a recipe for emotion charged and subjective interference into the legal process. It may appeal to the sense of revenge and hatred felt by victims (something I know only too well) but it is not and cannot be the basis for any system of law.
> 
> If by community involvement, you mean that the legal system should be accountable and transparent then fine. I have no issue with that but you mean more than that. You mean that communites should have a direct say in the manner in which sex offenders who have served their sentences and been deemed fit for release should be integrated into society. This is a recipe for the lynch mob.


No, you explain to me how community involvement necessarily means 'mob justice' if you can't then your whole the w/c can't be trusted argument falls to pieces - as does your anti-socialist rhetoric, Socialism will be based on community involvement and the widest possible circulation of information, not specialists imposing their needs on wider communities.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> I made one error last night in the use of the word constantly which I retracted. . The original discussion was about the Bulger killers. You responded with
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No i didn't respond to the bulger issue in that manner, i responded to corax's suggestion that people should not ever have a say in what happens in their communities. I was making a a far wider political point that seems to have escaped both you and him. And no, the rest of that post is nonsense, you decided to make a factually incorrect point about re-offending to me (i wasn't even talking about it at the time). And frankly, this is both exactly what this is about and what your and corax's replies made it about.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> you decided to make a factually incorrect point about re-offending to me (i wasn't even talking about it at the time)


 
Nope. I asked Discokermit if he thought they would kill more children. You said there was a 50% re-offending rate so far. You started that one.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, you explain to me how community involvement necessarily means 'mob justice' if you can't then your whole the w/c can't be trusted argument falls to pieces - as does your anti-socialist rhetoric, Socialism will be based on community involvement and the widest possible circulation of information, not specialists imposing their needs on wider communities.


there is an awful lot of community involvement going on on twitter right now with alleged photos of John Venebles being retweeted by thousands of "concerned citizens"alongside a variety of suggestions for possible alternative sentencing arrangements. It in no way resembles lynch mob justice. Its just the "widest possible circulation of information. You must be very proud


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> Nope. I asked Discokermit if he thought they would kill more children. You said there was a 50% re-offending rate so far. You started that one.


I didn't say there was a 50% rate of killing again  i said re-offending. You said re-offending meant committing the same crime again. Don't get this one wrong twice.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> there is an awful lot of community involvement going on on twitter right now with alleged photos of John Venebles being retweeted by thousands of "concerned citizens"alongside a variety of suggestions for possible alternative sentencing arrangements. It is no way resembles lynch mob justice. Its just the "widest possible circulation of information. You must be very proud


So you can't explain it, you can't answer the question. Thanks.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So you can't explain it, you can't answer the question. Thanks.


There is an obvious and necessary reason for keeping the identities of some released offenders secret. This is so obvious to anyone with a fucking brain it doesn't need my spelling it out.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> There is an obvious and necessary reason for keeping the identities of some released offenders secret. This is so obvious to anyone with a fucking brain it doesn't need my spelling it out.


Of course there is - why are you insisting that i'm saying that there isn't? And i do note your concession of my entire point with your 'some' - well done, we're getting there. Maybe i can nudge you towards discussing what i have been - i.e where people are housed, with what resources and so on rather than the ranty-shouty you want mob-justice stuff now then?


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course there is - why are you insisting that i'm saying that there isn't? And i do note your concession of my entire point with your 'some' - well done, we're getting there. Maybe i can nudge you towards discussing what i have been - i.e where people are housed, with what resources and so on rather than the ranty-shouty you want mob-justice stuff now then?


Then please explain to me how you involve the "community" in deciding where a hated and despised offender will be housed without revealing their identity and without risking elements from that "community burning it down. Anonymity by definition requires secrecy and your attempt to claim that there is no risk to offenders because all working class people are nice and reasonable is absurd and flies in the face of repeated examples of suspected offenders (and people mistakenly identified as offenders) being hounded from their homes by lynch mobs. Do I really have to list them?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Then please explain to me how you involve the "community" in deciding where someone will be housed without revealing their identity and without risking elements from that "community burning it down. Anonymity by definition requires secrecy and your attempt to claim that there is no risk to offenders because all working class people are nice and reasonable is absurd and flies in the face of repeated examples of suspected offenders (and people mistakenly identified as offenders) being hounded from their homes. Do I really have to list them?


Ah so no you won't. Maybe you'll tell me something about the ones not covered in your 'some' whilst  you ignore my wider points as repeated in the second half of the last post (and many times last night). And thanks for the invention of what i said btw. That's really really helpful.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ah so no you won't. Maybe you'll tell me something about the ones not covered in your 'some' whilst you ignore my wider points as repeated in the second half of the last post (and many times last night). And thanks for the invention of what i said btw. That's really really helpful.


Tell it to Karen Meek. She knows all about "community involvement"


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

While your at it perhaps you can discuss your idea of community involvement with Suzette Kapp


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Then please explain to me how you involve the "community" in deciding where a hated and despised offender will be housed without revealing their identity and without risking elements from that "community burning it down. Anonymity by definition requires secrecy and your attempt to claim that there is no risk to offenders because all working class people are nice and reasonable is absurd and flies in the face of repeated examples of suspected offenders (and people mistakenly identified as offenders) being hounded from their homes by lynch mobs. Do I really have to list them?


Quite astonjishibg this - the flip side of _they are all racists and lynchers_ is the idea that people who reject such nonsense think that all w/c people are "are nice and reasonable". That you have to rely on such ridiculously crude generalistions demonstrates just how weak your case is.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

and don't forget to discuss it with  Diane Carraro


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Quite astonjishibg this - the flip side of _they are all racists and lynchers_ is the idea that people who reject such nonsense think that all w/c people are "are nice and reasonable". That you have to rely on such ridiculously crude generalistions demonstrates just how weak your case is.


How many people does it take to hound someone from their home?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> While your at it perhaps you can discuss your idea of community involvement with Suzette Kapp


Carry on, keep listing the victims of your favoured policy of state secrecy - the one that breeds such a poisonous atmosphere.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> How many people does it take to hound someone from their home?


All very revealing as noted earlier - firstly in how you think of people and secondly that you are forced back into such pathetic emotive arguing.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Carry on, keep listing the victims of your favoured policy of state secrecy - the one that breeds such a poisonous atmosphere.


You and your stoking of irrational fear of monsters in the closet breeds the poisonous atmosphere.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> You and your stoking of irrational fear of monsters in the closet breeds the poisonous atmosphere.


You're the one saying they need be kept in the closet, that the conditions needed to best breed such monsters be imposed.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't say there was a 50% rate of killing again i said re-offending. You said re-offending meant committing the same crime again. Don't get this one wrong twice.


 
Lol.

_I didn't say you said there was a 50% rate of killing again_

I also didn't say re-offending meant committing exactly the same crime again, I questioned what counted as re-offending.

Don't get this one wrong three times eh you disingenuous wanker.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> All very revealing as noted earlier - firstly in how you think of people and secondly that you are forced back into such pathetic emotive arguing.


Its not emotive at all. Its obvious. One doesn't have to think all working class people are a potential lynch mob to recognise that handing out the names and addresses of sex offenders to communities will inspire some people, however small a minority, to take the law into their own hands and for that reason keeping the identities of such offenders secret is necessary.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're the one saying they need be kept in the closet, that the conditions needed to best breed such monsters be imposed.


I'm saying the entire narrative of the evil paedo stranger is largely a myth. There is no monster in the closet and fear of that monster is largely a hysterical moral panic. Something that should be countered not pandered to


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> Lol.
> 
> _I didn't say you said there was a 50% rate of killing again_
> 
> ...


I didn't say that you had either - that was me explaining to you what i had said as you managed to mess it up a number of times last night.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Its not emotive at all. Its obvious. One doesn't have to think all working class people are a potential lynch mob to recognise that handing out the names and addresses of sex offenders to communities will inspire some people, however small a minority, to take the law into their own hands and for that reason keeping the identities of such offenders secret is necessary.


Of course it's emotive - the listing of names of the victims of your policy is designed to be emotive - that doesn't mean that you haven't put soem thought into it as well though.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't say that you had either - that was me explaining to you what i had said as you managed to mess it up a number of times last night.


So if I didn't say that you did say it why would you say that you didn't say it?


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

I have things to do. I will revisit the thread later


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> I'm saying the entire narrative of the evil paedo stranger is largely a myth. There is no monster in the closet and fear of that monster is largely a hysterical moral panic. Something that should be countered not pandered to


And of course, rather then deal with the issues raised throughout the discussion you fall back on an easily agreeable point then suggest that all who agree with it are on your side as regards those issues and against mine. Juvenile. Tell you what panders to that damaging myth though - telling people they have no right to know about any of it - that they can't be trusted such is their nature and the nature of the crimes, that it's the exclusive domain of a group of state specialists with their own needs and interests - that's pandering to and directly producing those names you so glibly pull out of your hat.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> So if I didn't say that you did say it why would you say that you didn't say it?


To explain to to you what happened and what i meant when i said 



> Btw 50% hit rate on re-offending, do you like them odds?)


 
to which you replied



> Sorry, don't understand. If you're referring to the child pornography charge it's not re-offending because it's a different crime.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> To explain to to you what happened and what i meant when i said
> 
> 
> 
> to which you replied


My comment may not have been as precise as you'd have liked but it was a lot less cryptic than the divisive nonsense you were coming out with.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Your position walks you straight into the arms of the far right.


 
And ain't that the muthafucking truth.

Superb posts on this thread Dylans.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2013)

The boss is right, more deprived areas are used as dumping grounds for problematic people, albeit drug dealers, sex offenders or whatever. You can spot the people who've never had any experience of places like Blyth.

But as ever... the people who live in the leafy suburbs and went to university know better than the people from these towns and estates.

Never trust a person from a council estate. That's the golden rule, eh?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 15, 2013)

Do they really dump many middle class paedos in working class estates? 

"Ere Shaz, you met that new bloke in number 69?"
"That Mr. Poncenby-Smyth, the single fella in his fifties who's always peeling a tangerine in his pocket?"
"Yer, I was thinking of asking him to babysit for the bairns this weekend. What do ya reckon?"
"That's reet neighbourly of you. I'm sure he'll be well up for it."

Can't really see that working out well.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2013)

Don't know about paedoes in particular but they do use areas to house problematic people. If people believe in the social cleansing and gentrification then surely by extension...


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Yes. Because my socialism isn't predicated on uncritical cheerleading every opinion and attitude, reactionary or otherwise, held by working class people. The demand for law and order solutions to imaginery problems is one which arises from fear. The primal and understandable fear for the safety of our kids. This fear can be and is manipulated and exploited by the likes of Brookes (and the far right) to elicit support for reactionary legislation, legislation that will actually increase the states surveillance and control over their communities and their lives.
> 
> The job of socialists is to point out that when those fears are based on mirages, to point out that the solutions they are demanding are actually self defeating,to point to where the real threats to their kids come from and to point out the reasons why and how their fears are being manipulated, not to blindly cheer on any reactionary old bollocks simply because it is held by sections of the working class out of some deluded workerist idea that the working class can never be wrong.
> 
> Large sections of the working class think Muslim's are about to implement sharia law and want to ban Mosques, Niqab and Minarets. Large sections of the working class think immigrants are taking their jobs. Should we applaud such attitudes because they are held by working class people or should we point out that it is fear based, self defeating hysterical bollocks. You would choose the former, I would choose the latter. Your position walks you straight into the arms of the far right.


 
1. This is quite a low blow. On what planet do large sections of the working-class want to ban mosques?
Why does race and immigration have to come into a discussion about sex offenders and "straight into the arms of the far right"

2. How is a demand for paedophiles to be housed and monitored in upper-class areas a call for "a law and order solution" and why does it need to be compared to Rebekah Brooks?
If anything 'leave it all to the police, judge, prison warder, professional criminologist and social worker' is the "a law and order solution". 

3. Why are you assuming this is a case of "cheering on", instead of a rational considered approach?

4. More generally in Wakefield Prison "the abuser in the family" Sheffield dad is now best (and indeed only) mate of Sidney Cook. A number of abusers simply see themselves as special extra friends of children doing no wrong hence the paedophile motto 'baby circumcision is the real crime, not child love' , hence they become friends of a child's family, slowly gaining trust and being nice so that they are able to abuse as a trusted adult friend. If someone is convicted, then those that are liable to have this happen to them have a right to know. 

5. People are hounded out of/forced to leave homes for many reasons. For taking action against anti-social behaviour, for taking action against a drug dealer, for being bolshy with a landlord or refusing to pay rent when repairs aren't done, for being disagreeable to the middle-class ambience of an area. 
It's the actions by idiots related to "that's Maxine Carr in her new alibi" that have been magnified.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

is he any relation to Terry?

/dc


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

the paulsgrove demonstrators were completely and utterly slandered by the bourgeois media and you still get those same myths being repeated years on, for example in criminology textbooks etc


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the paulsgrove demonstrators were completely and utterly slandered by the bourgeois media and you still get those same myths being repeated years on, for example in criminology textbooks etc


You're walking into the armns of the far right here. All people who take the concerns of w/c  women seriously are. Think on.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're walking into the armns of the far right here. All people who take the concerns of w/c women seriously are. Think on.


 
am i fuck. (not saying you're being serious btw). I wouldn't want to live near a paedophile if I had a kid and while I know they have got to be housed somewhere being opposed to them living near you does not make you a nazi, it just makes you normal.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

In the case of this particular case as they were so young when they killed etc I suspect that many people might have a more nuanced and sympathetic understanding of it were they to find out who venables and thompson were than say some nonce who had done his noncery recently and was unreprentant about it - at least a more sympathetic understanding than people give thme credit for


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> am i fuck. (not saying you're being serious btw). I wouldn't want to live near a paedophile if I had a kid and while I know they have got to be housed somewhere being opposed to them living near you does not make you a nazi, it just makes you normal.


 
no you don't understand - working class people should accept the right of the middle classes to put convicted nonces in the middle of our communities and hide the fact, and if a few working class kids get raped or murdered who cares right?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

we could export them all to the moon where there is a recording studio- after all theres been some great tunes put out by child violinists

/dc


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> we could export them all to the moon where there is a recording studio- after all theres been some great tunes put out by child violinists
> 
> /dc


 
get 'em all jobs at Cheatam


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Oh no, not _problems. _
> 
> Well obviously we can't be doing with any of _that _mularkey in our spick'n'span Model Proletarian Villages. If addicts bring problems, then the solution is obvious. No addict = no problem.
> 
> What's your opinion of pre-marital sex, btw? For myself I find it _brings problems. _Yes, problems are what it brings alright. Perhaps you can suggest a means by which we might rid ourselves of such problems?


 
1 Pre-marital sex doesn't necessarily bring problems. So it's a meaningless comparison.

2 The best away of ironing chauvinism around marriage is to abolish marriage (ultimately the nuclear family) by collectivising/socialising all childcare and care of elderly functions ie extending the family.
Obviously that needs mass social struggle to be effected. Given that you elsewhere posted on the lines that prostitution will always exist I don't the response is going to convince you but there we are.

3 Addiction springs from _social_ weakness (exacerbated by privatised social relations and their breakdown alongside the brutality of modern capitalism) not personal moral failure. It is however quite clearly a problem.
Are we to celebrate the Soviet Union's success in the 1980s at achieving economic growth, whilst ignoring the alcohol addicts it engendered at the bottom? If you don't regard addiction as a problem, that can mean you think 'it's their choice, nothing we can do'.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

It's a good question though, once they're released where do you put them?? its fucked up to put them in the middle of somebodys housing estate with no consultation with the locals, but where should they go? the only alternative i can think of to just locking them up forever in prison is some kind of sheltered accommodation. Or an island.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

Iona

/dc


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> am i fuck. (not saying you're being serious btw). I wouldn't want to live near a paedophile if I had a kid and while I know they have got to be housed somewhere being opposed to them living near you does not make you a nazi, it just makes you normal.


He's been sarcastic

Let's talk about Paulsgrove. There is a place near Paulsgrove called Portland Young Offenders Institution where inmates suffered 20 years of physical and mental abuse, child abuse by screws. What occurred there was called a "moral outrage". There have been to my knowledge no demonstrations outside that institution. No bricks through the windows, no howling mobs trying to burn the place to the ground etc  but then the banal and grubby abuse inside young offenders instutions don't elicit the same macho response that hysterical "paedo" witchunts do.

What happened in Paulsgrove was an utterly reactionary, hysterical witchhunt fueled by the News of the World who started the whole thing by outrageously printing the name of a resident alongside inlfamatory headlimes screaming "No mercy for Paedophiles" That witch hunt targeted not only the person named but a whole host of completely innocent people.




> However, protests quickly drove the man off the estate. That was only the start of what soon became a witch-hunt aimed at a wide range of targets. A series of other alleged paedophiles were targeted with little or no evidence. Parents behind the protests encouraged children to parade the streets calling for "perverts" to be hung or castrated.
> 
> It is hardly surprising that some of those children then began labelling anyone they saw as a bit weird or who had clashed with them as "one of them", a "paed". Some adults did the same. *The result was an atmosphere where anyone could become a target if they did not fit with what those behind the protests saw as normal.*
> 
> ...


https://www.socialistworker.co.uk/archive/1710/sw171010.htm


----------



## coley (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> and don't forget to discuss it with  Diane Carraro


 
And is it not possible that while people know there is a policy of dumping convicted sex offenders anonymously in the community that the chances of this being repeated are increased?


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

coley said:


> And is it not possible that while people know there is a policy of dumping convicted sex offenders anonymously in the community that the chances of this being repeated are increased?


The possibility of innocent people being labelled "paedos" and attacked exists while people continue to buy into the largely mythical idea that the principle danger to their children is from strangers and not from those closest to them.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Yes, this is all about the myths and nothing about wider politics Dylan, well done. 

DON'T BELIEVE THE MYTHS!

Now what? Oh that other stuff, the politics.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 15, 2013)

If middle class people love child abusers so much maybe they should open their spare rooms up to them?


----------



## coley (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> The possibility of innocent people being labelled "paedos" and attacked exists while people continue to buy into the largely mythical idea that the principle danger to their children is from strangers and not from those closest to them.


Not disagreeing with you, just asking, does the policy I mentioned not increase the risk to innocent "look a likes"  being targeted?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> He's been sarcastic
> 
> Let's talk about Paulsgrove. There is a place near Paulsgrove called Portland Young Offenders Institution where inmates suffered 20 years of physical and mental abuse, child abuse by screws. There have been to my knowledge no demonstrations outside that institution. No bricks through the windows but then the banal and grubby abuse inside young offenders instutions don't elicit the same macho response that hysterical "paedo" witchunts do.
> 
> ...


 
The socialist worker, that arbiter of the correct methods to deal with sexual abuse

(froggy posting)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

I suppose that i must do as no one else is - _the main danger to kids is stranger-danger types_ - it's def not families and thusly the community i live i should shut up and swallow what the state decides.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

I also think that most people are fully aware that there is abuse within the community and in the home, child abuse sadly isn't exactly an uncommon thing!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I also think that most people are fully aware that there is abuse within the community and in the home, child abuse sadly isn't exactly an uncommon thing!


How dare they. I bet they react in the wrong  too.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It's a good question though, once they're released where do you put them?? its fucked up to put them in the middle of somebodys housing estate with no consultation with the locals, but where should they go? the only alternative i can think of to just locking them up forever in prison is some kind of sheltered accommodation. Or an island.


 
In Long Island, they live in trailers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/n...-house-sex-offenders.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In Miami, under a bridge:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104150499

Like somebody said in the latter story, making released sex offenders homeless and angry is not an ideal solution.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How dare they.


 
Thing is if you don't know whether somebody's a nonce surely part of the worry is that you might unwittingly invite them into your house and put your children at risk? I find the whole idea that people don't know about child abuse really patronising, especially because as we have seen the state has been so inadequate in dealing with it in the case of Savile et al !


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

Yossarian said:


> In Long Island, they live in trailers:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/n...-house-sex-offenders.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> ...


its plainly not a good thing but i don't know where they should be housed?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It's a good question though, once they're released where do you put them?? its fucked up to put them in the middle of somebodys housing estate with no consultation with the locals, but where should they go? the only alternative i can think of to just locking them up forever in prison is some kind of sheltered accommodation. Or an island.


 
It's worth pointing out that not _all_ child sex offenders are peadophiles. However those that are - as tested by brain scans (or phallometry if they are males) need to have a community response against them. They need to be known so that people can keep an eye on them. 
I can't remember which psychiatrist it was, but one suggested these predatory paedophiles (unable to control fantasy) need constant monitoring or chaperoning. It gets harder and harder to solve the longer the abuse-centred thoughts or abusive behaviour goes on, because for these types of abusers their sexual impulses can not be turned into something adult and consensual, the sexual impulses as a whole must be completely eroded, which is not an easy thing to do. 
It makes it imperative to try and avoid any abuse, and stop the threat of abuse, because even "soft" 'adult sexual behaviour' inserted into childhood can allow the paedophilia to develop in the child.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Yossarian said:


> In Long Island, they live in trailers:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/n...-house-sex-offenders.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> ...


Give them social housing in rich areas then. Is this so hard to understand - no one is arguing they have to be denied the same rights as other people. _*It's not about them*_ - it's about the idea that state specialist get to decide what happens in communities that they don't live in and that they have their own needs about. Come on, how can you not see the political nature of this?


----------



## coley (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> its plainly not a good thing but i don't know where they should be housed?



In a galaxy far, far away.


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

firky said:


> The boss is right, more deprived areas are used as dumping grounds for problematic people, albeit drug dealers, sex offenders or whatever. You can spot the people who've never had any experience of places like Blyth.


I don't know Blyth.  Is it comparable to Devonport?

I mean Devonport before they demolished it and relocated most of the community that lived there, not "The recreation of Devonport as a distinct place in modern Plymouth" that it is now.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Give them social housing in rich areas then. Is this so hard to understand - no one is arguing they have to be denied the same rights as other people. _*It's not about them*_ - it's about the idea that state specialist get to decide what happens in communities that they don't live in and that they have their own needs about. Come on, how can you not see the political nature of this?


 
yep. would the people housing them choose to live next to them themselves if they had kids? they're not going to be the ones living next to them are they?


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Come on, how can you not see the political nature of this?


 
Who you talking to? The circle jerk is on baby.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> Who you talking to? The circle jerk is on baby.


Yossarian - clue above.

People disagreeing with you = circle jerk, how long till the monothught clique shows its head.

If you're not winning there is a reason maomao - isn't there? Is it that what you've said doesn't convince people? That you said it shit? What is it that means that you now have to say that you're being swarmed by people who disagree with you?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the paulsgrove demonstrators were completely and utterly slandered by the bourgeois media and you still get those same myths being repeated years on, for example in criminology textbooks etc


 
The middle class mob, motivated by a fear of the working class.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yossarian - clue above.
> 
> People disagreeing with you = circle jerk, how long till the monothught clique shows its head.
> 
> If you're not winning there is an reason maomao - isn't there?


 
I did win. You conceded the main point of the thread last night. I just think you're a dick especially cause you were rude about my mrs when you knew I wasn't here reading the thread.


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 15, 2013)

The abduction and murder of James Bulger was a heinous but rare crime. The sensationalism about protecting the identity of his killers can be traced back to the political interference and rhetoric at the time. Shadow Home secretary Tony Blair exploited events to describe the crime as indicative of a moral crisis in society and Prime Minister John Major replied that society should understand less and condem more. Michael Howard's decision to make examples of the two 10 year-old boys - punishing them "in a blaze of publicity" as if they were adults - "flew in the face of common sense and the penal code of every civilised society", said Edward Fitzgerald QC. 
I think the word 'civilised' is the key but I don't think that this case sheds much light on the wider issue of how we punish, rehabilitate and return thousands of sex offenders to society. The truth is we don't, we expect other people to do it for us and we (and the tabloids) go crazy when they get it wrong. There's been a lot of argument and discussion on this thread about dumping problem people in problem places but the real imperative is of professional monitoring, risk assessment, and joined up thinking. That's the same for impoverished as well as affluent communities but as with everything else the easiest solution is the cheapest. Maybe some community awareness would raise the bar?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> I did win. You conceded the main point of the thread last night. I just think you're a dick especially cause you were rude about my mrs when you knew I wasn't here reading the thread.


I didn't and i wasn't the only conceding on this thread has been dylan with his 'some' - but he ran away as soon as he saw the logic of it.

I was not rude about your 'mrs' - i made an off the cuff little joke that was not about either you or her - i'll happily take it back and apologise for any offence caused though.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> The middle class mob, motivated by a fear of the working class.


 
this is the thing - they're assuming from the outset that everyone will as soon as they learn who RT and JV are want to set about them and kill them. I don't necessarily think that's true given the kids were so young when it happened. I actually think a lot of people might be sympathetic, assuming they're not noncing kids today though.


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is the thing - they're assuming from the outset that everyone will as soon as they learn who RT and JV are want to set about them and kill them. I don't necessarily think that's true given the kids were so young when it happened.


It doesn't need a mob though.  It only takes one person.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> It doesn't need a mob though. It only takes one person.


 
nutters will always do nutter shit tho.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2013)

I note that in more recent pages there have been attempts to turn this thread towards the ever tricky area of testing to what extent people will stand by the principals of democratic self-determination. A test that it is pretty easy to get people with otherwise extremely sound politics to fail, simply by picking the trickiest and most extreme examples, and pumping up fears of what some people might do if they were given their fair share of power and control. A subject that goes some way towards explaining why we have top-down state decision making in the first place, why so many shy away from revolutionary change, and a whole new dimension of divide and conquer. A voyage with some sights sponsored by fears about the lowest common denominator, what people really think, and spectres ranging from re-education camps to maintaining the status quo. A topic that is cruelly restrained by the conditions under which peoples views have been formed to date, with everything from the gutter press to economic inequality as corrupting influences blamed for the unsavoury opinions, where fears about what babies will be thrown out with the bathwater should all things liberal be brought crashing to the ground are on display. A chance to witness peoples real feelings about humanity, ranging from the lowest, most misanthropic opinions of 'human nature' to the most utopian of expectations. An arena where some principals of freedom and choice can only be maintained in their purest form if we are willing to take great risks and accept the messy and imperfect, and at times potentially dangerous possibilities that are unlocked by genuine freedom, and the continual hard work at every moment and at every level that comes with it.


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> nutters will always do nutter shit tho.


Well exactly.  And JV & RT would be pretty likely targets for that nutter shit if their identities and locations were public.


----------



## coley (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> nutters will always do nutter shit tho.



ESP if they think it will make them a ."hero"


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> I did win. You conceded the main point of the thread last night. I just think you're a dick especially cause you were rude about my mrs when you knew I wasn't here reading the thread.


 
What was the main point of this thread, then, maomao?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> The abduction and murder of James Bulger was a heinous but rare crime. The sensationalism about protecting the identity of his killers can be traced back to the political interference and rhetoric at the time. Shadow Home secretary Tony Blair exploited events to describe the crime as indicative of a moral crisis in society and Prime Minister John Major replied that society should understand less and condem more. Michael Howard's decision to make examples of the two 10 year-old boys - punishing them "in a blaze of publicity" as if they were adults - "flew in the face of common sense and the penal code of every civilised society", said Edward Fitzgerald QC.
> I think the word 'civilised' is the key but I don't think that this case sheds much light on the wider issue of how we punish, rehabilitate and return thousands of sex offenders to society. The truth is we don't, we expect other people to do it for us and we (and the tabloids) go crazy when they get it wrong. There's been a lot of argument and discussion on this thread about dumping problem people in problem places but the real imperative is of professional monitoring, risk assessment, and joined up thinking. That's the same for impoverished as well as affluent communities but as with everything else the easiest solution is the cheapest. Maybe some community awareness would raise the bar?


Nope, it's the staus quo or lynch mobs. The experiences that lagtbd mentioned of means of community participation (if not perfect) mean nothing in this discourse. They are not players here.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is the thing - they're assuming from the outset that everyone will as soon as they learn who RT and JV are want to set about them and kill them. I don't necessarily think that's true given the kids were so young when it happened. I actually think a lot of people might be sympathetic, assuming they're not noncing kids today though.


 
But one of them has been downloading child porn while being an adult. So child killer and now a paedo.

What's interesting on this thread is the assumption that it's the WC who want to see them killed. There's plenty more middle class people on Twitter than WC so a lot of the threats and whatever could/probably are coming from them. And just because someone is housed in a nice area it doesn't make them immune from vigilantes.

To me the issue of housing released paedos and disclosure of identities to the community they're place into are two separate issues.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What was the main point of this thread, then, maomao?


It's in the title.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't and i wasn't the only conceding on this thread has been dylan with his 'some' - but he ran away as soon as he saw the logic of it.


 
post #230, you agree100%that '_it still gets us nowhere when it comes to the Mary Bells, Thompsons and Venables of this world. I think some cases will likely always require some level of secrecy for the safety of the offender, no matter how distasteful that can feel.'_



> I was not rude about your 'mrs' - i made an off the cuff little joke that was not about either you or her - i'll happily take it back and apologise for any offence caused though.


 
apology accepted, call me a cunt all day long if you want, don't talk shit about my family


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> It doesn't need a mob though. It only takes one person.


What other fields, as an anarchist, do you demand that the state has strict controls over in case on individual does something?


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> But one of them has been downloading child porn while being an adult. So child killer and now a paedo.
> 
> What's interesting on this thread is the assumption that it's the WC who want to see them killed.


I've not seen anyone distinguish WC communities as being more likely of this than any other community.  I know it was cited various posts, but I never saw anyone claim that in the first place so it looked a strawman to me.  I missed that post if it was there.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> Well exactly. And JV & RT would be pretty likely targets for that nutter shit if their identities and locations were public.


 
they might become targets anyway. or an innocent person people thought were them might.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> post #230, you agree100%that '_it still gets us nowhere when it comes to the Mary Bells, Thompsons and Venables of this world. I think some cases will likely always require some level of secrecy for the safety of the offender, no matter how distasteful that can feel.'_
> 
> 
> 
> apology accepted, call me a cunt all day long if you want, don't talk shit about my family


I  didn't. I  i babysat you remember, so i have no problem with your family.

I have no idea why you have posted that first bit - have you been reading some posts made up in your head or something?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What other fields, as an anarchist, do you demand that the state has strict controls over in case on individual does something?


Some one ask him that as he has bunged me on ignore, one of the circle jerk people preferably


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2013)

The PFWC are the root of all problems. They're the ones who diddle kids, get wrapped up in the media hyperbole (all PWFC read the red tops remember) and can not be trusted let alone allowed to have any control over their immediate local area. It takes someone from outside these areas (with a salary greater than the cost of a house in these communities) to make the decisions for them. 

Fucking hell.


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, it's the staus quo or lynch mobs. The experiences that lagtbd mentioned of means of community participation (if not perfect) mean nothing in this discourse. They are not players here.


 
I wasn't talking about lagtbd. What are you talking about?


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> they might become targets anyway. or an innocent person people thought were them might.


They might, but their identities/photos being public makes it a lot more likely doesn't it?  Same with someone who looks a bit like one of them.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> post #230, you agree100%that '_it still gets us nowhere when it comes to the Mary Bells, Thompsons and Venables of this world. I think some cases will likely always require some level of secrecy for the safety of the offender, no matter how distasteful that can feel.'_


 
The problem is if there is anonymity and security for those who are child-murderers _as children_ (Mary Bell, Thompson and Venables) then where is the line drawn? Is a teenage abuser-murderer of a child also to be deemed worthy of anonymity and security?
I do agree with the general idea that these given new identity murderers when released should be monitored in middle-class areas rather than ordinary ones.
I wish witness protection against those testify against drug dealers was as strong though.


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, it's the staus quo or lynch mobs. The experiences that lagtbd mentioned of means of community participation (if not perfect) mean nothing in this discourse. They are not players here.


 
Staus quo or lynch mobs?


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 15, 2013)

Even housing them in middle class areas is problematic.

Why should someone get to live in a nicer area than me because they've killed/raped someone and I don't have the means to live somewhere like that?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> I wasn't talking about lagtbd. What are you talking about?


Earlier in the thread s/he offered models of really existing  min top down community involvement  - as an the sort of example of joined-up-thinking that you talked about. I was using this to suggest the daft dichotomy introduced by dylans, corax etc (lynch mobs or total secrecy) is a wee bit fucking shit.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is the thing - they're assuming from the outset that everyone will as soon as they learn who RT and JV are want to set about them and kill them. I don't necessarily think that's true given the kids were so young when it happened. I actually think a lot of people might be sympathetic, assuming they're not noncing kids today though.


Given the fact that twitter right now is ablaze with people dreaming up the most imaginative tortures possible for those two I think you ae being optimistic but the history of Paulsgrove also points to the opposite of what you suggest. Within days of that residents name being printed in the NOTW he was driven out of his home despite the fact that he had lived quietly and without incident in that community for several years. Even if many people feel as you suggest, it only takes a small minority. The Paulsgrove demonstrations/witchhunt only involved a small minority of residents.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Given the fact that twitter right now is ablaze with people dreaming up the most imaginative tortures possible for those two I think you ae being optimistic but the history of Paulsgrove also points to the opposite of what you suggest. Within days of that residents name being printed in the NOTW he was driven out of his home despite the fact that he had lived quietly and without incident in that community for several years. Even if many people feel as you suggest, it only takes a small minority. The Paulsgrove demonstrations/witchhunt only involved a small minority of residents.


A victory for your methods. Well done.


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Earlier in the thread s/he offered models of really existing min top down community involvement - as an the sort of example of joined-up-thinking that you talked about. I was using this to suggest the daft dichotomy introduced by dylans, corax etc (lynch mobs or total secrecy) is a wee bit fucking shit.


 
Oh well you read me wrong. I meant 'community awareness' as raising the bar in the sense that 'See how fucking serious this is and do something about it.' It's all fucking top down at the moment.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2013)

Well if twitter is "ablaze" it must be true.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Even housing them in middle class areas is problematic.
> 
> Why should someone get to live in a nicer area than me because they've killed/raped someone and I don't have the means to live somewhere like that?


 
I agree, but the reverse is those people in your areas without your knowledge.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Oh well you read me wrong. I meant 'community awareness' as raising the bar in the sense that 'See how fucking serious this is and do something about it.' It's all fucking top down at the moment.


Nah, i get that! I was offering the idea that something exists between the ridiculous extremes offered - i was agreeing with you in short, and that this is a way to undermine those who offer the don't question your betters position.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Even housing them in middle class areas is problematic.
> 
> Why should someone get to live in a nicer area than me because they've killed/raped someone and I don't have the means to live somewhere like that?


Let's all go live in those areas. Evacuate the half-way house they didn't build and then insert someone in there. Plenty of empty houses.


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 15, 2013)

Well you've got a funny way of showing you agree with someone.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

The problem with anonymity in the case of Venebles was that it probably allowed him an aura of invincibility meaning he downloaded and distributed those images, as well as posed as a mother with daughters on a social networking site for children.

Twitter is full of this sort of indignation as well, not just blind 'kill, kill'



> Jamie ‏@MrMacColl
> Jon Venebles (a child murderer) was put BACK into jail for only 2 years after having child porn yet you can go to jail for 5 for pirating.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Well you've got a funny way of showing you agree with someone.


Just read it as if said _alongside_ yours rather than as a response - it works


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:
			
		

> Sorry did you miss the part where I said "strangers". Most sexual abuse occurs in the home and as we have seen recently, in situations of institutional power imbalance.
> What is a myth is the bogey man image of the paedo in the bushes, the stranger, a myth perpetuated by the likes of the News of the World with their "Sarah's Law" campaigns so beloved of some here. Sarah's law type legislation would do nothing to stop abuse within the family and it would have done nothing to stop Saville.



But people join families and friendship groups after having been placed in areas in which the other residents haven't been warned of the threat they pose.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> But people join families and friendship groups after having been placed in areas in which the other residents haven't been warned of the threat they pose.


Marching into the arms of the far right - you poor deluded child


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Just read it as if said _alongside_ yours rather than as a response - it works


 
Hah! But seriously, status quo or lynch mobs? No common sense, common people, common purpose inbetween?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Hah! But seriously, status quo or lynch mobs? No common sense, common people, common purpose inbetween?


Apparently not. At least to dylans, corax and others. Myself i see _nothing but_ people trying to fill that gap.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> its plainly not a good thing but i don't know where they should be housed?


 
They're human beings, they should be housed in communities (though I do agree that communities have a right to know who is living in their neighbourhoods). 

A large proportion of sex offenders reoffend because either they did not receive the right support while inside, do not receive the right support outside, or may well be beyond all help (naturally the trickiest group to deal with).

Circles of Accountability and Support provide a network of 12 volunteers who work with released sex offenders (each offender has a circle of 12).  They have weekly meetings with them, twice weekly phonecalls and can use them as support, get advice with housing, work etc.  The reoffending rates of those who use Circles is much lower.  So why doesn't every sex offender have the opportunity of a circle of support?


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Marching into the arms of the far right - you poor deluded child



Yes. Because the fact that the decisions about where to house nonces are made by people from the same class as those who benefit from those decisions is a pure coincidence. Which means that any attempt by working class communities to redress that injustice by taking some control over their own destinies can only be a front for the far right. After all, working class people are all members of racist lynch mobs.


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Apparently not. At least to dylans, corax and others. Myself i see _nothing but_ people trying to fill that gap.


 
But that's a good thing isn't it? Filling that gap?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> But that's a good thing isn't it? Filling that gap?


Yep, the possibility and the existence of this is what i've been on about since page one.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

I still disagree with the gist behind



> Adults who wish violence on the Bulger killers are the sick fucks who need locking up.


 
They are wrong, but they are not sick fucks who need locking up.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> The job of socialists is to point out that when those fears are based on mirages, to point out that the solutions they are demanding are actually self defeating,.


 

Isn't that the job of thinking people, whatever their politics?


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, the possibility and the existence of this is what i've been on about since page one.


 
Yes you have, fair play, you fucking nut-case.


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I still disagree with the gist behind
> 
> They are wrong, but they are not sick fucks who need locking up.


I agree with that.  The reaction's human, not 'sick'.

But we either have a society governed by those individual reactions, or one governed by consensus.  I'm on the side of consensus, for the same reasons (I expect) that you say that "they are wrong".  How that consensus is reached is a different question, and the way it's reached now doesn't work.  But facilitating those extreme responses by making their identities public, whilst claiming belief in the consensus model, would just be a disingenuous and hypocritical move by whoever governs that consensus IMO.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> I agree with that. The reaction's human, not 'sick'.
> 
> But we either have a society governed by those individual reactions, or one governed by consensus. I'm on the side of consensus, for the same reasons (I expect) that you say that "they are wrong". How that consensus is reached is a different question, and the way it's reached now doesn't work. But facilitating those extreme responses by making their identities public, whilst claiming belief in the consensus model, would just be a disingenuous and hypocritical move by whoever governs that consensus IMO.


 
Isn't it an extreme response to deny a community knowledge of predatory abusers amongst them, on the basis that one or two might abuse that knowledge?

I don't get what you're arguing any more.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 15, 2013)

coley said:


> In a galaxy far, far away.


 
I was always a bit suspicious of Threepio's intentions towards Artoo


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Isn't it an extreme response to deny a community knowledge of predatory abusers amongst them, on the basis that one or two might abuse that knowledge?
> 
> I don't get what you're arguing any more.


If we as a society believe that rehabilitation and the possibility of a new life when crimes have been paid for then we have an obligation to ensure the safety of those who we release. To reveal the names and locations of people who the legal process has decided are fit to rejoin society is to fundamentally undermine that principle.

If you seriously believe that former abusers are beyond redemption and remain a permanent ongoing risk to the community then at least be honest enough to oppose their release and support the right wing "lock em up and throw away the key" permanent incarceration mentality that follows such conclusions.

Despite the tortured attempts by some to claim otherwise, you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand support the rehabilitation and reintegration of sex offenders into society on the one hand and then advocate precisely the policies that will make such rehabilitation impossible on the other. Especially when the demand to "protect our children" is based on what is largely a mythical fear of threat.

See this is what is dishonest and disingenuous about the arguments of people like Butchers. He will respond to this post with his hands in the air "Oh I don't support releasing names and addresses of released offenders". I advocate something else, something in between, something that I can't quite put my finger on".

But its clear that this is precisly what people are advocating. Its what you are advocating here because what does "give a community information about an abuser living amongst them" mean if not releasing their names and addresses?


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Isn't it an extreme response to deny a community knowledge of predatory abusers amongst them, on the basis that one or two might abuse that knowledge?


If they're predatory abusers, then they should still be segregated from society.

Society, a collective of communities, stipulate when these people are no longer deemed a threat. At that point, they are put back in to society.

If that stipulation is wrong, then *that's* what needs to be amended, as well as the mechanism that resulted in it. 

Not releasing them into the wild, but with a cowardly caveat from whatever group makes that decision that they may have got it wrong and you'd better lock up your kids just in case.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2013)

The question of what is society, and what has it really decided in the past, fits nicely with my mostly ignored droning about the difficult tests for peoples sense of democracy, freedom, bottom up decision making and genuine community participation.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

As for the "put them in middle class areas argument. This is laughable. Where a sexual predator lives is irrelevant if they are determined to abuse or do you think they are incapable of getting on a fucking bus? The idea that your kids are safer because joe blogs paedo lives 2 blocks away instead of next door is ridiculous.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> As for the "put them in middle class areas argument. This is laughable. Where a sexual predator lives is irrelevant if they are determined to abuse or do you think they are incapable of getting on a fucking bus? The idea that your kids are safer because joe blogs paedo lives 2 blocks away instead of next door is ridiculous.


Previously, you were saying how it's not strangers who pose the danger to kids.  Doesn't that suggest that people are more likely to abuse kids within their communities, rather than get on a bus to find their prey?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> If they're predatory abusers, then they should still be segregated from society.
> 
> Society, a collective of communities, stipulate when these people are no longer deemed a threat. At that point, they are put back in to society.
> 
> If that stipulation is wrong, then *that's* what needs to be amended.


 
When? How? By who?


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2013)

I would hope that the point of the 'put them in a middle class area' comments was only to expose the extent to which 'the deciders' may be able to make extremely difficult decisions only because of a sense that it wont affect them. Because as a practical solution its bloody stupid.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> Previously, you were saying how it's not strangers who pose the danger to kids. Doesn't that suggest that people are more likely to abuse kids within their communities, rather than get on a bus to find their prey?


Abuse occurs most often in situations of unequal power relations, families, institutions etc Surely the Saville scandal has taught us that much


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2013)

elbows said:


> I would hope that the point of the 'put them in a middle class area' comments was only to expose the extent to which 'the deciders' may be able to make extremely difficult decisions only because of a sense that it wont affect them. Because as a practical solution its bloody stupid.


Surely it's just a question of the power of one class to impose it's decisions on another.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

elbows said:


> I would hope that the point of the 'put them in a middle class area' comments was only to expose the extent to which 'the deciders' may be able to make extremely difficult decisions only because of a sense that it wont affect them. Because as a practical solution its bloody stupid.


Openly said - ignored.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> Previously, you were saying how it's not strangers who pose the danger to kids. Doesn't that suggest that people are more likely to abuse kids within their communities, rather than get on a bus to find their prey?


 
Most abuse occurs within the family home, by people known and trusted by the victim.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Abuse occurs most often in situations of unequal power relations, families, institutions etc Surely the Saville scandal has taught us that much


 And these families, institutions etc are a bus ride away?


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Most abuse occurs within the family home, by people known and trusted by the victim.


 
Yeah.  And it's easier to gain someone's trust if they don't know you're a paedo.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> Abuse occurs most often in situations of unequal power relations, families, institutions etc Surely the Saville scandal has taught us that much


So let's impose a larger power on the smaller. The savile stuff has taught you nothing. Slogans, rhetoric.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> Surely it's just a question of the power of one class to impose it's decisions on another.


 
Thats entirely compatible with what I said, I'm just not very good at stating things using the language of class, I tend to beat around the bush and put stuff in my own geeky language, sometimes in an attempt not to let people run down well-worn belief/argument pathways too quickly. I'm a bit of a robot.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> If we as a society believe that rehabilitation and the possibility of a new life when crimes have been paid for then we have an obligation to ensure the safety of those who we release. To reveal the names and locations of people who the legal process has decided are fit to rejoin society is to fundamentally undermine that principle.
> 
> If you seriously believe that former abusers are beyond redemption and remain a permanent ongoing risk to the community then at least be honest enough to oppose their release and support the right wing "lock em up and throw away the key" permanent incarceration mentality that follows such conclusions.
> 
> ...


 
Your argument here seems to be there must be no such thing as probation.

The argument others have stated is that they believe it is important for society to mature (to avoid the idiotic twitter behaviour, whispers about someone who looks like the two etc) in how it handles sex crimes and extreme anti-social behaviour. That can only happen by being included in the process.

Because of this reason they desire probation to be under community or working-class control. That's not dishonest, it allows the targets of predatory paedophiles (supposedly rehabilitated under your model- A-Levels, complete anonymity, £1mil new identity, expert professionals - yet the central character re-offended in a very severe fashion) to be better guarded - that's the point of probation, not to effect some miracle story 'strength of the human spirit when left alone from the mob' version of 'pure rehabilitation'.

It's a completely uncontroversial point, it's not dishonest. Community control in probation as much as community control in engineering and community control in childcare. Just as people should control what gets built where, should control resources for children and playgroups, obviously with the input of experience/expertise but with those below taking control.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2013)

elbows said:


> Thats entirely compatible with what I said, I'm just not very good at stating things using the language of class, I tend to beat around the bush and put stuff in my own geeky language, sometimes in an attempt not to let people run down well-worn belief/argument pathways too quickly. I'm a bit of a robot.


 
Cool.  Though it seems to me that people on this thread have run off down some pretty crazy pathways.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So let's impose a larger power on the smaller. The savile stuff has taught you nothing. Slogans, rhetoric.


No. Lets focus on the structural conditions that facilitate abuse, situations of powerlessness and voicelessness and the bureaucratic and institutional facilitating of power, authority and  impunity instead of indulging the simplistic obsession with stranger abuse which appeals to peoples emotions but which is largely a distraction.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> If they're predatory abusers, then they should still be segregated from society.


 
Is Jon Venebles a predatory abuser?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> *You can't* on the one hand support the rehabilitation and reintegration of sex offenders into society on the one hand *and then* advocate precisely the policies that will make such rehabilitation impossible on the other. Especially when the demand to "protect our children" is based on what is largely a mythical fear of threat.


 
I think this is the nub of the issue right here.

The problem is not that people _can't_ do both of these... but that most of us _do_.

The dichotomy is mostly between what you might rationally/philosophically think is fair... and the gut reaction that says 'keep 'em locked up' or even 'let me at the nonce bastards'.

I discussed this with an old friend and political comrade who spent a number of years in Cat A jails. He was as conflicted on this issue as me. he always tried to dissuade fellow prisoners from attacking nonces in jail  - even though he had once taken quite definitive action against a convicted predatory nonce who came back to live on the same estate where the nonce had raped young boys.

In between all the handbags on here there is some good discussion and valid points.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Your argument here seems to be there must be no such thing as probation.
> 
> The argument others have stated is that they believe it is important for society to mature (to avoid the idiotic twitter behaviour, whispers about someone who looks like the two etc) in how it handles sex crimes and extreme anti-social behaviour. That can only happen by being included in the process.
> 
> ...


Spot on sihhi thanks for putting it better than i could/have


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Your argument here seems to be there must be no such thing as probation.
> 
> The argument others have stated is that they believe it is important for society to mature (to avoid the idiotic twitter behaviour, whispers about someone who looks like the two etc) in how it handles sex crimes and extreme anti-social behaviour. That can only happen by being included in the process.
> 
> ...


 
/thread


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> No. Lets focus on the structural conditions that facilitate abuse, situations of powerlessness and voicelessness and the bureaucratic and institutional facilitating of power, authority and impunity instead of indulging the simplistic obsession with stranger abuse which appeals to peoples emotions but which is largely a distraction.


You're missing the point. Undeclared nonces soon cease to be strangers. Then they abuse within the community upon which they have been imposed. Imposed by people from another class. A class which doesn't suffer such impositions. I can't believe that the idea that communities should have some say in these issues is a contentious one. Especially since the principal reason for the opposite position appears to be noting more than the contention that working class people cannot be trusted not to lynch people.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> Cool. Though it seems to me that people on this thread have run off down some pretty crazy pathways.


 
I've seen the debate go off in some directions that may not be much use, but I dont know as I've seen that much that I would call crazy. Plenty of it simply hints at the limits that some peoples sense of community participation, genuine democracy, freedom and consensus run into when presented with challenging and potentially dangerous scenarios. How to retain the number of decent and good things that some lofty, liberal and not very democratic thinking has given us over centuries, under a situation where we give communities and people the power they really deserve is an interest of mine. Its hard to even discuss sensibly without making dodgy assumptions about what well informed, empowered people would actually decide to do, especially when we are always likely to find some examples of people being hatefilled, unthinking knobs who may be used to justify control of one form or another.


----------



## dylans (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Your argument here seems to be there must be no such thing as probation.
> 
> The argument others have stated is that they believe it is important for society to mature (to avoid the idiotic twitter behaviour, whispers about someone who looks like the two etc) in how it handles sex crimes and extreme anti-social behaviour. That can only happen by being included in the process.
> 
> ...


No. I'm in favour of whatever supervision is necessary to protect the public. I am not however in favour of Sarah's law" type legislation that gives communities the right to know the identities of those who are released. This is a fundamental breach of the principle of rehabilitation


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

There is a case ongoing at the minute over here where a group of brothers gathered for a family party apparently learned that the (one-time family friend) nonce who had raped their kid brother was actually present in the new house he was (provocatively) building for himself and his new partner.

I don't know exactly what happened at the house but the nonce and his girlfriend ended up dead; the house burned to the ground; and the brothers in hospital, then jail, north and south of the border.

these are not kids either, They are middle-aged men with families and careers of their own. All now destroyed.


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Is Jon Venebles a predatory abuser?


Am I the person to answer that? I don't think so.

We have structures/procedures/groups/stuff in place to answer questions like that, and if predatory offenders are being released then they're failing, and a better way has to be found.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Spot on sihhi thanks for putting it better than i could/have


 
I was surprised you got stick for last night's postings. Especially given this is a left wing board (yeah!),


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> No. Lets focus on the structural conditions that facilitate abuse, situations of powerlessness and voicelessness and the bureaucratic and institutional facilitating of power, authority and impunity instead of indulging the simplistic obsession with stranger abuse which appeals to peoples emotions but which is largely a distraction.


Go for it. Make sure that you bother with the effects of that.


----------



## maomao (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I still disagree with the gist behind
> 
> 
> 
> They are wrong, but they are not sick fucks who need locking up.


It's fucking hyperbole you ignoramus. Hyperbole in response to having to deal with the great British public of all classes (though I myself am working class) on a daily basis. Even as the company lefty I'd get ripped to shit for saying that at work.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> You're missing the point. Undeclared nonces soon cease to be strangers. Then they abuse within the community upon which they have been imposed. Imposed by people from another class. A class which doesn't suffer such impositions. I can't believe that the idea that communities should have some say in these issues is a contentious one. Especially since the principal reason for the contention is essentially that working class people cannot be trusted not to lynch people.


 
Where are you getting this information from? Any sources for all these paedophiles being put on council estates? I thought it was all done secretly.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

firky said:


> I was surprised you got stick for last night's postings.


That's  how it goes. Stick is the thing that makes these things live.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> It's fucking hyperbole you ignoramus. Hyperbole in response to having to deal with the great British public of all classes (though I myself am working class) on a daily basis. Even as the company lefty I'd get ripped to shit for saying that at work.


Not the argumentation on here then?


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> . This is a fundamental breach of the principle of rehabilitation


 
Arbitrary principles set by who? Oh yeah. The same people who dump them in communities they've never even been to.


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2013)

firky said:


> I was surprised you got stick for last night's postings. Especially given this is a left wing board (yeah!),


 
I know the political compass concept isnt terribly popular round these parts, but being left-wing doesnt automatically inform us as to where a person lies on the authoritarian axis as opposed to the economic one. Even when labels relating to anarchism are thrown in we find contradictions in some peoples stances, scenarios which will expose peoples limits.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Where are you getting this information from? Any sources for all these paedophiles being put on council estates? I thought it was all done secretly.


You think there's much chance that those responsible for housing them are buying up prime real estate and putting nonces into nice middle class areas?  The sort of areas where they live?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

I've filled in political compass as rabidly authoritarian as possible and I still can't get up to the promised land of far far left and as authoritarian as uncle joe in a bad mood


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> If you seriously believe that former abusers are beyond redemption and remain a permanent ongoing risk to the community then at least be honest enough to oppose their release and support the right wing "lock em up and throw away the key" permanent incarceration mentality that follows such conclusions.
> 
> Despite the tortured attempts by some to claim otherwise, you can't have it both ways.


Pretty much where I am with this. I've no idea whether permanent incarceration is the right solution or not - my instincts are against it - but we can't claim one thing and do another.

There are potential compromises though. But those need to be done honestly as well. If the sentence for paedophilia is that you'll always be a nonce, and that you'll only ever be able to live in a community that chooses to accept you despite that, then that should be made explicit. It would be more honest, and if deterrents for that kind of crime have any effect it could only be a benefit in that respect as well.

I personally don't like the idea. I like to think that anyone can be rehabilitated.  Not everyone is though.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> You think there's much chance that those responsible for housing them are buying up prime real estate and putting nonces into nice middle class areas? The sort of areas where they live?


 
There might be some housed on the estate where I live in Hackney. Or they might be just up the road in the private rented houses in the middle class roads one minute from me. I have no idea. And neither do you.


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2013)

elbows said:


> I know the political compass concept isnt terribly popular round these parts, but being left-wing doesnt automatically inform us as to where a person lies on the authoritarian axis as opposed to the economic one. Even when labels relating to anarchism are thrown in we find contradictions in some peoples stances, scenarios which will expose peoples limits.


 
S'good thread for that reason.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

elbows said:


> I know the political compass concept isnt terribly popular round these parts, but being left-wing doesnt automatically inform us as to where a person lies on the authoritarian axis as opposed to the economic one. Even when labels relating to anarchism are thrown in we find contradictions in some peoples stances, scenarios which will expose peoples limits.


Yep -which is a reason why sat nights stuff is such a problem = i show over and over that this is not a we hate paki thing and they insist that it must be. Here is the gap between the party and the class writ small but as large as they are ever going to get.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> Pretty much where I am with this. I've no idea whether permanent incarceration is the right solution or not - my instincts are against it - but we can't claim one thing and do another.
> 
> There are potential compromises though. But those need to be done honestly as well. If the sentence for paedophilia is that you'll always be a nonce, and that you'll only ever be able to live in a community that chooses to accept you despite that, then that should be made explicit. It would be more honest, and if deterrents for that kind of crime have any effect it could only be a benefit in that respect as well.


Odd that it sounds different who says it. Before that same thing was mob justice.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 15, 2013)

Do people really think pedophiles are so beyond support and help that permanent incarceration is even considered an option?

Bloody hell.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 15, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Do people really think pedophiles are so beyond support and help that permanent incarceration is even considered an option?
> 
> Bloody hell.


 
Not quite. Just that they should wear a purple helmet, sewn onto their jackets at all times.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> There might be some housed on the estate where I live in Hackney. Or they might be just up the road in the private rented houses in the middle class roads one minute from me. I have no idea. And neither do you.


Of course, because they keep the locations secret I can't say for sure.  But, not being entirely naive about the way in which power is used in our society, I'd bet you a penny to a pinch of shit that working class areas have a disproportionately large number of nonce relocations.  Do you seriously doubt this?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Do people really think pedophiles are so beyond support and help that permanent incarceration is even considered an option?
> 
> Bloody hell.


Only in the mind that says that oh go oh so you.....dylans has done it about 4 times on this thread. Help me stop him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Do people really think pedophiles are so beyond support and help that permanent incarceration is even considered an option?
> 
> Bloody hell.


 
I've got an idea for a new name for the pub....


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Not quite. Just that they should wear a purple helmet, sewn onto their jackets at all times.


Back it up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> Of course, because they keep the locations secret I can't say for sure. But, not being entirely naive about the way in which power is used in our society, I'd bet you a penny to a pinch of shit that working class areas have a disproportionately large number of* nonce relocations*. Do you seriously doubt this?


 

Location, Location, WOAH FUCKING HELL


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> Of course, because they keep the locations secret I can't say for sure. But, not being entirely naive about the way in which power is used in our society, I'd bet you a penny to a pinch of shit that working class areas have a disproportionately large number of nonce relocations. Do you seriously doubt this?


 
I've no idea. I'd imagine they try to rehabilitate working class paedophiles in working class communities and middle class paedophiles in middle class communities. It wouldn't be very good rehabilitation otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> I've no idea. I'd imagine they try to rehabilitate working class paedophiles in working class communities and middle class paedophiles in middle class communities. It wouldn't be very good rehabilitation otherwise.


It's good that that you try


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> Of course, because they keep the locations secret I can't say for sure. But, not being entirely naive about the way in which power is used in our society, I'd bet you a penny to a pinch of shit that working class areas have a disproportionately large number of nonce relocations. Do you seriously doubt this?


 
I would not dispute this - and I certainly share your cynicism -  but surely this means only working class nonces... as posh ones can afford to live somewhere more leafy, no?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I would not dispute this - and I certainly share your cynicism - but surely this means only working class nonces... as posh ones can afford to live somewhere more leafy, no?


Think a bit more liam, you're nearly there


----------



## Firky (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I would not dispute this - and I certainly share your cynicism - but surely this means only working class nonces... as posh ones can afford to live somewhere more leafy, no?


 
Anecdotal and be taken as it is but a probation officer once told me (well the class) that sex offenders who are higher up the ladder are far less likely to be convicted or even reported. Which is all quite reminiscent of something that happened recently. (Pretty sure that is the same for domestic abuse too, it's less reported in MC families than it is in WC families)

Wish I could remember more - there was studies done which did show that 'social deviants' are re-located in poorer areas. In fact I am starting to wonder if it was social policy, but am unsure of how to go about googling it. I think social disorganisation theory was more of a yank thing, can't remember. It is late and I never thought I'd need to remember it.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Think a bit more liam, you're nearly there


 
kiss my cock, bitchers... you patronising little wretch.

You have been most responsible for driving the absolutist pissiness on this thread more than any other poster... and you continued it even when people were not even arguing with you.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

But nonces that come out of jail and get help with housing aren't gonna get help to get a deposit in a nice area are they? lets look at this logically, they're never going to pass a CRB check again are they so they're not going to be able to get a job that will let them live in a middle class area where the likes of the people deciding where they live are gonna live.

they need to be given some proper help tbh, i really don't know what the solution is. Help for ex offenders and i'd imagine especially of the sexual nature has been cut to fuck over the last few years.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

dylans said:


> No. I'm in favour of whatever supervision is necessary to protect the public. I am not however in favour of Sarah's law" type legislation that gives communities the right to know the identities of those who are released. This is a fundamental breach of the principle of rehabilitation


 
Seeing as you're talking about a Sarah's Law.

The "principle of rehabilitation" was breached in this case by Venables' own behaviour.


It was only in 2010 when he was sent down for distributing child pornography and adopting fake persona (other than the one he was given as his new identity) on internet child pornography forums (and other social networking sites, no evidence to convict here) that it even came out that he was involved in a street fight in 2008 and cautioned by police (presumably under the anonymous identity) in 2009 for cocaine possession.
Had his computer not been caught by chance by the probation professional in charge of him, none of this would have come out, the line would have been spun 'he's served his time, he's a reformed figure now'.

I think it should be up to the community to know something about the dangers of anti-social criminals, to plan on how to deal with these things. For the committed and non-parents of schoolkids to do something on the lines of Circles of Support and Accountability. 
Not the victim's parents (except as one voice in a larger pool of people) and not the justice system that doesn't house paedophiles where the judges (84% private school) live.

The more we hide behind the "principle of rehabilitation", the worse the situation is going to get. The overdone hysteria (hang them) gains its traction from people saying "I want to know if the man next door has been a sex offender, just so I know I'm not being paranoid".

Protecting convicted paedophiles' anonymity as an inviolable condition of probation actually means - in practice - the overprivatisation of children's lives (fear of them knocking doors of others (who are the adults?) collecting signatures, publicising a film, funds for clubs) and cutting off from contact with families with children, single middle-aged men. It's not some panacea. Atomisation even within 'happy' 'vibrant' estates is arguably exacerbated not reduced by the single-minded focus on "only the (professional) probationer must know".


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Nice one sihhi - that's a _political_ response. dylans does _position_ responses though.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

maomao said:


> It's fucking hyperbole you ignoramus. Hyperbole in response to having to deal with the great British public of all classes (though I myself am working class) on a daily basis. Even as the company lefty I'd get ripped to shit for saying that at work.


 
That's why I said "the gist". The public are being victimised in all this. The probation service gets the praise, the public _every single time_ the honour of 'paedo-basher mob'.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The more we hide behind the "principle of rehabilitation", the worse the situation is going to get. The overdone hysteria (hang them) gains its traction from people saying "I want to know if the man next door has been a sex offender, just so I know I'm not being paranoid".


 
good post


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Do people really think pedophiles are so beyond support and help that permanent incarceration is even considered an option?
> 
> Bloody hell.


 
I brought that up the other day only because I wanted to be honest about where the sticking-point lies for some people, and what the full range of implications are for giving communities the proper power to decide everything is. I make no assumptions about what percentage of people would like certain types of offenders to be locked up forever or killed are, but it seems amiss to ignore the existence of such opinions entirely. My persistent fascination with what progressive beliefs that have over the centuries initially come into play because they were thrust upon the masses by a well educated,liberal minority with real power, and how much has really taken root and would remain in place should the traditional power structures be smashed, is in large part down to the constant gulf I have witnessed between reality as presented on television, and that which I have come across in my own life. But too often such topics are neutered by instantly being turned into the sort of caricatured bullshit excuse to retain power structures that butchers sensibly screams about when he is accused of taking a stance that will unleash the forces of racism etc. This is one of the driving contradictions in some peoples ideas about freedom and power, they are forced into a form of elitism by virtue of low expectations about what sections of the great unwashed will do to their new-found powers. These concerns are not entirely without merit, but the most obvious and simplistic solutions are the wrong ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That's why I said "the gist". The public are being victimised in all this. The probation service gets the praise, the public _every single time_ the honour of 'paedo-basher mob'.


I could kiss you mate


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

elbows said:


> I brought that up the other day only because I wanted to be honest about where the sticking-point lies for some people, and what the full range of implications are for giving communities the proper power to decide everything is. I make no assumptions about what percentage of people would like certain types of offenders to be locked up forever or killed are, but it seems amiss to ignore the existence of such opinions entirely. My persistent fascination with what progressive beliefs that have over the centuries initially come into play because they were thrust upon the masses by a well educated,liberal minority with real power, and how much has really taken root and would remain in place should the traditional power structures be smashed, is in large part down to the constant gulf I have witnessed between reality as presented on television, and that which I have come across in my own life. But too often such topics are neutered by instantly being turned into the sort of caricatured bullshit excuse to retain power structures that butchers sensibly screams about when he is accused of taking a stance that will unleash the forces of racism etc. This is one of the driving contradictions in some peoples ideas about freedom and power, they are forced into a form of elitism by virtue of low expectations about what sections of the great unwashed will do to their new-found powers. These concerns are not entirely without merit, but the most obvious and simplistic solutions are the wrong ones.


Will edit for free.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I could kiss you mate


 
Why not learn from him instead? lots of clarity and humility in his posts.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

elbows said:


> I brought that up the other day only because I wanted to be honest about where the sticking-point lies for some people, and what the full range of implications are for giving communities the proper power to decide everything is. I make no assumptions about what percentage of people would like certain types of offenders to be locked up forever or killed are, but it seems amiss to ignore the existence of such opinions entirely. My persistent fascination with what progressive beliefs that have over the centuries initially come into play because they were thrust upon the masses by a well educated,liberal minority with real power, and how much has really taken root and would remain in place should the traditional power structures be smashed, is in large part down to the constant gulf I have witnessed between reality as presented on television, and that which I have come across in my own life. But too often such topics are neutered by instantly being turned into the sort of caricatured bullshit excuse to retain power structures that butchers sensibly screams about when he is accused of taking a stance that will unleash the forces of racism etc. This is one of the driving contradictions in some peoples ideas about freedom and power, they are forced into a form of elitism by virtue of low expectations about what sections of the great unwashed will do to their new-found powers. These concerns are not entirely without merit, but the most obvious and simplistic solutions are the wrong ones.


 
good post elbows but any chance of some white space?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Why not learn from him instead? lots of clarity and humility in his posts.


Get fucked pope fucking barton, get it right up there


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

firky said:


> Anecdotal and be taken as it is but a probation officer once told me (well the class) that sex offenders who are higher up the ladder are far less likely to be convicted or even reported.


I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case for offenders of _any_ sort.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> But nonces that come out of jail and get help with housing aren't gonna get help to get a deposit in a nice area are they? lets look at this logically, they're never going to pass a CRB check again are they so they're not going to be able to get a job that will let them live in a middle class area where the likes of the people deciding where they live are gonna live.
> 
> they need to be given some proper help tbh, i really don't know what the solution is. Help for ex offenders and i'd imagine especially of the sexual nature has been cut to fuck over the last few years.


 

everyone deserves a chance at redemption.I'll make a prod of you yet missis


----------



## elbows (Feb 15, 2013)

There are good reasons I describe myself as a droner, a woffler, a robot, etc. I doubt I can be rehabilitated, and I spend most of my time alone as a result.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 15, 2013)

Presenting / portraying the perpetrators of crimes such as rape, pedophilia, murder etc as faceless bogeyman is always extremely unhelpful.  It may seem like the easy option to try and forget they're human beings like you and me, but it's not really.  It's this portrayal that makes a lot of the ridiculous daily mail esque comments appear; stuff like castrating them etc.

Surely part of breaking that is involving the community in the rehabilitation process.  You cannot hope to 'humanise' if the community don't feel a part of that process.  And you cannot hope to properly rehabilitate somebody if they do not feel supported.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> everyone deserves a chance at redemption.I'll make a prod of you yet missis


 
Get fucked pope fucking barton, get it right up there... oh... wait


----------



## Corax (Feb 15, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Presenting / portraying the perpetrators of crimes such as rape, pedophilia, murder etc as faceless bogeyman is always extremely unhelpful. It may seem like the easy option to try and forget they're human beings like you and me, but it's not really. It's this portrayal that makes a lot of the ridiculous daily mail esque comments appear; stuff like castrating them etc.
> 
> Surely part of breaking that is involving the community in the rehabilitation process. You cannot hope to 'humanise' if the community don't feel a part of that process. And you cannot hope to properly rehabilitate somebody if they do not feel supported.


I like the sound of that.  But how do you achieve it, whilst simultaneously protecting them from rogue 'vigilantes'?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Why not learn from him instead? lots of clarity and humility in his posts.


As it goes sihhi is a mate, and i do have a lot to learn from him - range of sources, angle of attack, mastery of that stuff


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> I like the sound of that. But how do you achieve it, whilst simultaneously protecting them from rogue 'vigilantes'?


 

Quaker enclaves- the society of freinds can look after them


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I think it should be up to the community to know something about the dangers of anti-social criminals, to plan on how to deal with these things. For the committed and non-parents of schoolkids to do something on the lines of Circles of Support and Accountability.
> Not the victim's parents (except as one voice in a larger pool of people) and not the justice system that doesn't house paedophiles where the judges (84% private school) live.


 
Judge thy neighbour. Isn't life difficult enough without having to worry about all the spent criminal convictions of all your neighbours in a 500 yard radius?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> As it goes sihhi is a mate, and i do have a lot to learn from him - range of sources, angle of attack, mastery of that stuff


 
That's more or less what I said to you last night and you cunted me off for it


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

LiamO said:


> That's more or less what I said to you last night and you cunted me off for it


And did you learn anything from it?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 15, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Judge thy neighbour. Isn't life difficult enough without having to worry about all the spent criminal convictions of all your neighbours in a 500 yard radius?


 
But I reckon there's a difference between living next door to someone who did 6 weeks for a fight or not paying a fine after getting busted for gear, and someone who's looking over your garden fence at your kids playing.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 15, 2013)

Corax said:


> I like the sound of that. But how do you achieve it, whilst simultaneously protecting them from rogue 'vigilantes'?


 
There may always be 'rogue vigilantes'.  You don't remove the potential for majority involvement based on minority arseholism.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And did you learn anything from it?


 
Yes. That you (no more than myself) are far more effective as a debater when you are not lashing out at all around you.

And (also no more than myself) sometimes you can be a right cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> There may always be 'rogue vigilantes'. You don't remove the potential for majority involvement based on minority arseholism.


Bingo - you deal with it. You modify, you work.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2013)

S☼I said:


> But I reckon there's a difference between living next door to someone who did 6 weeks for a fight or not paying a fine after getting busted for gear, and someone who's looking over your garden fence at your kids playing.


 
Lock your kids up in a cupboard, just to be on the safe side.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Yes. That you (no more than myself) are far more effective as a debater when you are not lashing out at all around you.


Liam, i'm better at it than you - i have no crisis. Stop crying.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2013)

Brevity, brevity, my kingdumb for some brevity.


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2013)

elbows said:


> There are good reasons I describe myself as a droner, a woffler, a robot, etc. I doubt I can be rehabilitated, and I spend most of my time alone as a result.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Liam, i'm better at it than you - i have no crisis. Stop crying.


 
at what? Acting the cunt? I'm not crying. I am trying to help you on the road to your personal salvation, my son. God bless you.

BTW have you thought of applying for Benny's job? You have the right authoritarian arrogance.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

LiamO said:


> at what? Acting the cunt? I'm not crying. I am trying to help you on the road to your personal salvation, my son. God bless you.
> 
> BTW have you thought of applying for Benny's job? You have the right authoritarian arrogance.


what the fuck are you waffling on about now - i don't need to know, but you're waffiling somewhere to someone


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Lock your kids up in a cupboard, just to be on the safe side.


 
Don't be silly. That's not my point.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> what the fuck are you waffling on about now - i don't need to know, but you're waffiling somewhere to someone


 
There's a job going in Italy. You project an air of infallibility. You should go for it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2013)

S☼I said:


> Don't be silly. That's not my point.


 
Or make them wear Niqabs. Don't want people observing them in a sexual way.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 16, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Quaker enclaves- the society of freinds can look after them


 
Paedo Porridge?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

LiamO said:


> There's a job going in Italy. You project an air of infallibility. You should go for it.


Dr Liam, other people with their broken lifes, they leave cultural trails - you - nothing. A void. Fill the void.


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> There may always be 'rogue vigilantes'. You don't remove the potential for majority involvement based on minority arseholism.


So do you take the risk of minority arseholism - potentially with the released offenders' lives - and to some extent facilitate it by publicising their targets?

In case misunderstood - that's not posed rhetorically.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2013)

You can control where pedophiles live upon release anyway; if they're deemed high risk enough they will not be housed with children next door, even if that means shipping them off miles away from where they originally lived.

There are other restrictions too; must be x distance from playgrounds / schools / areas where children are likely to be gathered in groups, no loitering near these areas, limited computer / internet access, curfews, requirement to tell probation officer if wanting to leave the area / country, even for a short time.

These are often very restrictive, and difficult to live with.  Again, Circles and projects like that, which provide support can help pedophiles stick to their conditions better, because they feel less isolated. 

There's no reason why it can't be done on a bigger scale / the community can't provide support.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Paedo Porridge?


 

ReadyBreken lives


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Quaker enclaves- the society of freinds can look after them


Quakers rock.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Paedo Porridge?


 
Norman Stanley Felcher.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2013)

Corax said:


> So do you take the risk of minority arseholism - potentially with the released offenders' lives - and to some extent facilitate it by publicising their targets?
> 
> In case misunderstood - that's not posed rhetorically.


 
I'm not advocating you just publish their names in a letter shoved through the letterbox and leave it at that, though.  I'm advocating finding ways where the community as a whole can feel a part of the probation and rehabilitation process, which I think would automatically reduce the vigilanteism anyway as I think some of that is borne out of a feeling of impotence at not being in some sort of control of the area in which you live in.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> which I think would automatically reduce the vigilanteism anyway as I think some of that is borne out of a feeling of impotence at not being in some sort of control of the area in which you live in.


 
Short of getting a job as a prison guard, how are you going to control the area in which you live?


----------



## past caring (Feb 16, 2013)




----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> I'm not advocating you just publish their names in a letter shoved through the letterbox and leave it at that, though. I'm advocating finding ways where the community as a whole can feel a part of the probation and rehabilitation process, which I think would automatically reduce the vigilanteism anyway as I think some of that is borne out of a feeling of impotence at not being in some sort of control of the area in which you live in.


That sounds all good.  I'm at a loss how you'd achieve that in practice though, without also opening them up as a target to the minority arseholism element?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> everyone deserves a chance at redemption.I'll make a prod of you yet missis


 

aye once youve served your time then you deserve a second chance, but not around children or vulnerable adults though. and peopel like that are good at convincing people that they've changed when they haven't.

I think some of the quaker friendship groups and so on have been shown to have good results. Contact that involves building up appropriate boundaries and means that they don't just end up hanging around other nonces all the time because thats who will talk to them. I couldnt do it tho


----------



## LiamO (Feb 16, 2013)

some links to that case i mentioned earlier...

Sex Offenders: Murdered Archives: Blaze attack victim was a child *...*
http://on-murders.blogspot.com/2007/04/blaze-attack-victim-w...
19 Apr 2007 *...* *Thomas O'Hare*, 33, was in the bungalow in Keady on Monday night with his 
girlfriend, 21-year-old *Lisa McClatchey*, when four men burst in *...*
Brothers face extradition over 2006 double murder - RTÉ News
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1212/keady-*thomas*-o-hare-*lisa*-mc...
12 Dec 2012 *...* *Thomas O'Hare*, 33, and *Lisa McClatchey*, 21, both died from their injuries after 
being attacked at their home in Keady, Co Armagh, on 6 *...*
Gardaí arrest two men over double murder in NI six years ago
http://www.thejournal.ie/gardai-arrest-two-men-for-double-mu...
12 Dec 2012 *...* The couple, 33-year-old *Thomas O'Hare* and *Lisa McClatchey*, 21, were in their 
home on Foley Road, near Keady, Co Armagh on 6 November *...*
Murder of *Thomas O'Hare* and *Lisa McClatchey* | Police Service of *...*
http://www.psni.police.uk/murder_*thomas*_ohare_and_*lisa*_mccla...
Murder of *Thomas O'Hare* and *Lisa McClatchey*. 06 Nov 2006. Detectives 
investigating the murder of 33 year old *Thomas O'Hare* and 21 year old Lisa *...*
Brothers extradited to North in connection with *O'Hare*-*McClatchey* *...*
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/brothers-e...
7 Jan 2013 *...* *Thomas O'Hare*, 33, and his girlfriend *Lisa McClatchey*, 21, were beaten with 
hammers and doused in petrol by self-styled vigilantes before *...*
BBC News - Keady double murder: Brothers appear in court in *...*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20693303
12 Dec 2012 *...* *Thomas O'Hare* and *Lisa McClatchey* were killed in Tassagh, near Keady in 2006
. Police arrested the brothers, Niall and Martin Smith, *...*
BBC News - Keady murders: Brothers to be extradited to N Ireland
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20813593
21 Dec 2012 *...* *Thomas O'Hare* and *Lisa McClatchey* were killed in Tassagh, near Keady, in 
2006. Police arrested the brothers, Niall and Martin Smith, *...*
AUSSIE POLICE DETAIN ARMAGH MAN FOR PSNI OVER *...*
http://www.belfastdaily.co.uk/2013/01/24/aussie-police-detai...
24 Jan 2013 *...* Sex offender *Thomas O'Hare*, 33, and his 21-year-old partner *Lisa McClatchy* 
were doused in petrol and set on fire by a gang of men at their *...*
Police taking legal advice on extraditing murder suspects from *...*
http://sluggerotoole.com/2007/08/10/police-taking-legal-advi...
10 Aug 2007 *...* The Belfast Telegraph has an update on the murders of *Lisa McClatchey* and 
*Thomas O'Hare*, beaten and burned alive at their home near *...*
Brothers in court in connection with 2006 murders in Armagh - The *...*
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1213/122432...
13 Dec 2012 *...* The charge relates to arson and the murder of *Thomas O'Hare* (33) and *Lisa* 
*McClatchey* (21), who died from their injuries after a gang of up to *...*


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> aye once youve served your time then you deserve a second chance, but not around children or vulnerable adults though.


What happens if they conceive...?

Again, not rhetorical.  The principle's seems sound to me, but in practice, what if?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Or a black picket line, Fuck off scab.


----------



## past caring (Feb 16, 2013)

I am fucking serious Liam.

I would ship the cunts off to Taransay, then there's no chance of them re-offending. Pity there's no sharks in the Minch just to be on the safe side.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2013)

Corax said:


> What happens if they conceive...?
> 
> Again, not rhetorical.


 
They have to inform authorities and social services become involved.  That's what happens at the moment.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Or a black picket line, Fuck off scab.


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> They have to inform authorities and social services become involved. That's what happens at the moment.


Right. Thanks.  Do their partners get informed beforehand (ie when the relationship is in early stages)?  Last question - I ought to google this shit I guess.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 16, 2013)

past caring said:


> I am fucking serious Liam.
> 
> I would ship the cunts off to Taransay, then there's no chance of them re-offending. Pity there's no sharks in the Minch just to be on the safe side.


 
I don't doubt it... and I actually think a Nonce island... where they could live out their sad lives far from kids... is something that should be seriously considered


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I don't doubt it... and I actually think a Nonce island... where they could live out their sad lives far from kids... is something that should be seriously considered


 
Falklands. Even CR must agree with this compromise.


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I don't doubt it... and I actually think a Nonce island... where they could live out their sad lives far from kids... is something that should be seriously considered


Necessitates sterilisation I assume?


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2013)

Corax said:


> Right. Thanks. Do their partners get informed beforehand (ie when the relationship is in early stages)? Last question - I ought to google this shit I guess.


 
Yes, it is usually required that they inform any partners, as well as a requirement to inform authorities of any relationships they form. 

If they're released on license, failure to inform the partner / authorities can result in instant recall to prison.  Breaking release conditions can result in the same too. 

There are cases where somebody who already has children will be informed their new partner is a sex offender and their children are at risk of harm.  If the partner refuses to leave the sex offender children have been removed from the families in some cases.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I don't doubt it... and I actually think a Nonce island... where they could live out their sad lives far from kids... is something that should be seriously considered


 

we could have choppers deliver food once a month and then televise the resulting beast-on-beast fights. Shit pays for itself.  Imagine the advertising revenue, it's be like Running Man except better.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I don't doubt it... and I actually think a Nonce island... where they could live out their sad lives far from kids... is something that should be seriously considered


 
Yes that's right, let's totally give up on them and assume they are totally beyond help.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Falklands


 
Just before we hand it over to Buenos Aires


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> we could have choppers deliver food once a month and then televise the resulting beast-on-beast fights. Shit pays for itself. Imagine the advertising revenue, it's be like Running Man except better.


 
Occasionally drop some young junkies in there, just to liven things up.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Corax said:


> Necessitates sterilisation I assume?


Yes.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> aye once youve served your time then you deserve a second chance, but...


There's obvious reason for restricting a certain type of offenders' choices (bank robbers working in a bank, rapists in a women's refuge, yada yada) but a full integration into society should at least be a professed goal, if not considered a realistic outcome. These crimes are committed by a minority of society for a myriad of complex impulses. Those of a child killing a child are probably beyond anyone to fathom.

I'm sure many people are aware of Venables and are quite happily waiting and watching, hoping they can get him back to jail for ever. I don't have a problem with that, it's up to him. He doesn't need my judgement or anyone else's, his life comes down to his own actions more than any of us.

I have pity, that's not to condone or to attempt understanding.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> There's obvious reason for restricting a certain type of offenders' choices (bank robbers working in a bank, rapists in a women's refuge, yada yada) but a full integration into society should at least be a professed goal, if not considered a realistic outcome. These crimes are committed by a minority of society for a myriad of complex impulses. Those of a child killing a child are probably beyond anyone to fathom.
> 
> I'm sure many people are aware of Venables and are quite happily waiting and watching, hoping they can get him back to jail for ever. I don't have a problem with that, it's up to him. He doesn't need my judgement or anyone else's, his life comes down to his own actions more than any of us.
> 
> I have pity, that's not to condone or to attempt understanding.


nice to know


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

OMG i'M so complex!!!!!!! Two dif things at the same TIME!!!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

This shit is what you pay me for. #drrobert


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Occasionally drop some young junkies in there, just to liven things up.


 

also any dogs that have mauled a child. That way they can join their natural masters on Beastland.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> OMG i'M so complex!!!!!!! Two dif things at the same TIME!!!!!!


Like a  tory thug  who  uses a quote generator! Yeah.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Occasionally drop some young junkies in there, just to liven things up.


Why?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why?


 
Blancmange sandwich, #uncleBulgaria


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Blancmange sandwich, #uncleBulgaria


Always a good poster, missed. See you then. Thingy.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> If we as a society believe that rehabilitation and the possibility of a new life when crimes have been paid for then we have an obligation to ensure the safety of those who we release.


 
Yes. We also have an obligation to ensure the safety of children on the street.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yes. We also have an obligation to ensure the safety of children on the street.


 
Ban cars.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> You can't on the one hand support the rehabilitation and reintegration of sex offenders into society on the one hand and then advocate precisely the policies that will make such rehabilitation impossible on the other


 
If you read the links I posted to the high risk pedophiles who were identified by police here in Canada, you'll find that they usually have multiple offences, numbering not five or ten; but dozens.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

That's great. Thanks. (could you also fuck right off you ill informed clown)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If you read the links I posted to the high risk pedophiles who were identified by police here in Canada, you'll find that they usually have multiple offences, numbering not five or ten; but dozens.


Dozens!!!!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Dozens!!!!


 
Yeah, dozens of children sexually assaulted by one person.

Do you find that humorous or worthy of your disdain?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2013)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

You rotter.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You rotter.


 
Tell you what: you leave off the juvenile namecalling etc, and I'll play nice too.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Yes, because here comes the mighty sensible sword. Are you really just going to ignore the thread? Here he comes, looking good in his pointless b52 style.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

O god,


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Really


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

this is it


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, because here comes the mighty sensible sword. Are you really just going to ignore the thread?


 
Your constant abuse is boring and frustrating. Luckily I suppose, there's only a few of you like this. With most others, it's possible to simply have a discussion.

Do you want to get back to the thread? Explain your post of 'Dozens!!!' after I explained that some of these canadian sex offenders had abused dozens of children.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Your constant abuse is boring and frustrating. Luckily I suppose, there's only a few of you like this. With most others, it's possible to simply have a discussion.
> 
> Do you want to get back to the thread? Explain your post of 'Dozens!!!' after I explained that some of these canadian sex offenders had abused dozens of children.


That was nice of you. Why did you mention this?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Your constant abuse is boring and frustrating. Luckily I suppose, there's only a few of you like this. With most others, it's possible to simply have a discussion.
> 
> Do you want to get back to the thread? Explain your post of 'Dozens!!!' after I explained that some of these canadian sex offenders had abused dozens of children.


Constant abuse - where? Not on here and not on this thread. Why say that?


----------



## N_igma (Feb 16, 2013)

Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along now.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 16, 2013)

past caring said:


> I am fucking serious Liam.
> 
> I would ship the cunts off to Taransay, then there's no chance of them re-offending. Pity there's no sharks in the Minch just to be on the safe side.


 
How masculine of you, most impressive.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Constant abuse - where? Not on here and not on this thread. Why say that?


 
Because in the occasional moment when my guard is down, the pointless namecalling bothers me.



 Saying so probably means that I lose at Internets... but there it is.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 16, 2013)

Corax said:


> Necessitates sterilisation I assume?


 
dont be silly.

I think an enclosed community - where people who cannot trust themselves and whom cannot be trusted - could live out their lives in safety and a little dignity is worthy of consideration.

Saying silly things like this is not really _consideration_, is it?


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

LiamO said:


> dont be silly.
> 
> I think an enclosed community - where people who cannot trust themselves and whom cannot be trusted - could live out their lives in safety and a little dignity is worthy of consideration.
> 
> Saying silly things like this is not really _consideration_, is it?


Don't be a willy Liam - I'm pointing out a genuine problem with your paedo island idea, not 'being silly'.

If they're not sterilised, then they'll be able to procreate. Which would kinda defeat the object. I assume then that you're suggesting we have _two_ nonce islands, one for women, one for men.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 16, 2013)

Why on earth would we want to sterilise them?


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Why on earth would we want to sterilise them?


Quite - AFAIK that which makes nonces (be they people who killed children, those who committed murder at a very young age, paedophiles, rapists, other sex offenders etc) isn't genetic.

Remove any children (for their own presumed safety) if you must, but sterilisation isn't necessary.


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Why on earth would we want to sterilise them?


Because having an island rammed to the gills full of paedophiles, and allowing them to have children - well, I foresee problems there....





Greebo said:


> Quite - AFAIK that which makes nonces (be they people who killed children, those who committed murder at a very young age, paedophiles, rapists, other sex offenders etc) isn't genetic.
> 
> Remove any children (for their own presumed safety) if you must, but sterilisation isn't necessary.


Is taking their children away actually any more humane?  Also not exactly a comfortable conversation to have with those kids when they ask where they came from.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> So they had loving parents and siblings and got turned bad by an unruly gang of bigger boys?


 
I don't know about Venables, but I recall Robert Thompson's mother being interviewed not long after the sentence and she clearly wasn't coping at the time the crime was committed. Her marriage had broken down, she was short of money and took to the bottle. Apparently she became known for getting into fights in her local pub as well.

She said, "They always blame the parents, but it is a very difficult situation when you are getting no support and you face the world alone".


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> <snip>I recall Robert Thompson's mother being interviewed not long after the sentence and she clearly wasn't coping at the time the crime was committed. Her marriage had broken down, she was short of money and took to the bottle. Apparently she became known for getting into fights in her local pub as well.
> 
> She said, "They always blame the parents, but it is a very difficult situation when you are getting no support and you face the world alone".


AFAIK it's more or less impossible, even now, for a parent who knows they're struggling to actually get any practical or support whatsoever before something has gone very badly wrong.


----------



## Athos (Feb 16, 2013)

Greebo said:


> AFAIK it's more or less impossible, even now, for a parent who knows they're struggling to actually get any practical or support whatsoever before something has gone very badly wrong.


Even now?  Especially now, you mean.  Despite all being it it together.


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

Greebo said:


> AFAIK it's more or less impossible, even now, for a parent who knows they're struggling to actually get any practical or support whatsoever before something has gone very badly wrong.


That's probably a fair observation across the board, not just for parents.  Mental health provision, for example, is pretty much non-existent until after the breaking point has been reached.  It's still quite crap after that tbh.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2013)

Athos said:


> Even now? Especially now, you mean. Despite all being it it together.


I said what I meant.  Why do you think there are so many children with one or more serious disabilities who need long term fostering or adoption?  It's because while they're in care, all the careworkers and other necessary support are adequately funded and provided.  

Fast forward to when that child finds foster parents or is adopted...  Social services etc more or less bugger off and respite evaporates, because it stands to reason that love is always enough.  Thus leaving the new parents in the same situation which led the original parents to very reluctantly throw in the towel.



Corax said:


> That's probably a fair observation across the board, not just for parents. Mental health provision, for example, is pretty much non-existent until after the breaking point has been reached. It's still quite crap after that tbh.


Under-fucking-statement of the year.


----------



## Looby (Feb 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is the thing - they're assuming from the outset that everyone will as soon as they learn who RT and JV are want to set about them and kill them. I don't necessarily think that's true given the kids were so young when it happened. I actually think a lot of people might be sympathetic, assuming they're not noncing kids today though.



When they were released I remember the police saying that there was a significant threat to their safety.

The family of James Bulger had apparently made threats at the time and there have been reports that people have still been actively looking for the killers in recent years.

Even if the dickheads sharing these pictures and baying for blood don't do anything, I'm fairly convinced there are people that will. 

When I've tried to have conversations with people about the Bulger case IRL and online I've been told that I'm an apologist for child killers and that I'm no better than them. 

I don't believe there will be much sympathy out there at all.


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

sparklefish said:


> When I've tried to have conversations with people about the Bulger case IRL and online I've been told that I'm an apologist for child killers and that I'm no better than them.


As with many things, it's those with extreme views that are loudest and most vocal. There's certainly also a 'chilling effect', where those that don't hold the pseudopopulist line stay quiet for fear of being accused in the same way that you've been. And 'kill all nonces' _has_ become a pseudopopulist line in recent times, for a variety of reasons.



sparklefish said:


> When they were released I remember the police saying that there was a significant threat to their safety.
> 
> The family of James Bulger had apparently made threats at the time and there have been reports that people have still been actively looking for the killers in recent years.
> 
> ...


I think there are plenty of people who would like to see them supported and rehabilitated in the most appropriate way, without being either attacked or having to live in fear of violence.

But those people don't balance out those that want to torture and kill them. One hundred people _not_ assaulting them doesn't cancel out even one person who does, iyswim.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 16, 2013)

Sorry for the long post:



sparklefish said:


> When they were released I remember the police saying that there was a significant threat to their safety.
> 
> The family of James Bulger had apparently made threats at the time and there have been reports that people have still been actively looking for the killers in recent years.


 
Those threats by Ralph Bulger were vague 'I'll go crazy and god help the consequences' ones were made in the context of the early release of the murderers for good behaviour. However as a recent interview with him (the only one in over a decade) shows: "I felt terrible that I had these feelings inside me towards two ten-year-old boys, and I found these emotions so hard to deal with. But my responses were primal. Having these thoughts in my head does not mean that I will ever spill over into being a killer myself." http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qmrlk

The Bulgers do not want the murderers to be killed.



> Even if the dickheads sharing these pictures and baying for blood don't do anything, I'm fairly convinced there are people that will.


 
So what, what does this mean? I'm fairly convinced that sooner or later while people laugh about rival gang figures it will mean another knife attack by someone serious from within alienated, truant youth circles. So?



> When I've tried to have conversations with people about the Bulger case IRL and online I've been told that I'm an apologist for child killers and that I'm no better than them.


 
I fail to see the relevance. Many here have been told they are apologists for mass murderers like Stalin and that they're no better than them. Sometimes people have been at spat at by these same people.



> I don't believe there will be much sympathy out there at all.


 
Sympathy is a fairly meaningless feeling in this case. Neither sympathy for Denise Bulger, the grief-struck mother nor sympathy for the murderers(!?) shed a light on how to deal with a recidivist serious offender such as Venebles.



Corax said:


> As with many things, it's those with extreme views that are loudest and most vocal. There's certainly also a 'chilling effect', where those that don't hold the pseudopopulist line stay quiet for fear of being accused in the same way that you've been. And 'kill all nonces' _has_ become a pseudopopulist line in recent times, for a variety of reasons.


 
It has become a "pseudopopulist line", but that doesn't mean it's necessarily popular.
One reason it has become popular in this particular case is from the wider feeling that those in YOIs are accorded better treatment than their own children.

If you saw Raphael Rowe's Panorama in about 2005 interviewed in Feltham YOI the members of a steaming gang who managed to end up killing one of their victims, there two of them openly say inside has been better for learning how to read and doing an auto-repair course. If you look in the outside world car repair courses are all over-subscribed, all rigorously apply strict criteria as part of an initial assessment etc.


The two murderers - though we don't know the full details - were apparently released on a programme of social services support with employment arranged. Rightly or wrongly, people believe the resources for them have outstripped resources for other non-murderers.



> I think there are plenty of people who would like to see them supported and rehabilitated in the most appropriate way, without being either attacked or having to live in fear of violence.
> But those people don't balance out those that want to torture and kill them. One hundred people _not_ assaulting them doesn't cancel out even one person who does, iyswim.


 
Listen to yourself here:
I think there are plenty of teenagers who like to be out on the streets at night to escape from a cramped, suffocating tiny room or home. But those people don't balance out those that want to crow around and throw eggs or stones at elderly residents' homes. One hundred people _not _behaving like anti-social hooligans doesn't cancel out even one person who does.

It's like wilfully holding back the right of women to access birth control pills on the grounds that one in a hundred will be thoughtless and have pregnancy-free (but unprotected) sex spreading killer STIs.

Why does the potential for one wayward act override the benefits of community-controlled probation for released sex offenders?
The justice system treats the wider working-class as a dangerous collective beast, the status quo you defend in this case is a product of these assumptions.

The longer that status quo goes on, the harder it is to realise something like community probation quickly, smoothly and effectively, because the deeper the well of resentment (to hell with their like, can't wait for someone to do them in) grows - the opposite of attitudes needed for community engagement.

It's the same with foreign economic relations or development aid - currently handled by experts, heavily trained rigorously educated via a class-tilted hidden and open curriculum. Because there is absolutely zero genuine chance for the public to mould or direct these things there is great disinterest and false assertions so you get the inevitable "end all foreign aid for good" and/or "British support for British firms only" (not without merit but not sound pro-working-class policies because of the likely chauvinist reaction in response that would emerge from abroad). However it's meaningless to blame this feeling on the victims of state policy.

Blaming parts of the public for certain regressive ideas over post-release paedophilia - holding this as the key determinant in any discussion - is absurd.

Paedophilia (as distinct from other episodic child abusers) is a dangerous paraphilia. It is almost wholly a male paraphilia:

"Studies of child molesters have reported that only 1% to 6% of perpetrators are female. Co-occurring disorders, such as personality disorders or mood disorders, are common in people with pedophilic tendencies. And about 50% to 70% of people with pedophilic tendencies are also diagnosed with another paraphilia, such as exhibitionism, voyeurism, or sadism."

And up to or around 50% post-release paedophiles reoffend (those who begin behaviour likely to lead to reoffending is higher) in spite of heavy assistance during detention and professional probation.

"Estimates of recidivism vary because studies define this term in different ways. One review found recidivism rates of 10% to 50% among pedophiles previously convicted of sexual abuse, although this could include anything from an arrest for any offense to reconviction on a crime against a child. One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children."

Importantly, the paraphilia is associated with other dangerous paraphilias:
"And about 50% to 70% of people with pedophilic tendencies are also diagnosed with another paraphilia, such as exhibitionism, voyeurism, or sadism."
All quotes from Harvard Medical School Mental Health Letter, 2010
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsl...h_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

The basic point is:-

"Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change. The goal of treatment, therefore, is to prevent someone from acting on pedophile urges — either by decreasing sexual arousal around children or increasing the ability to manage that arousal. But neither is as effective for reducing harm as preventing access to children, or providing close supervision."

Which one will provide _*close*_ supervision? A visit to a professional elsewhere once a month, or neighbours knowing of and participating in that supervision, in an agreed and controlled fashion with the input of those experts but directed from below?

As explained by others, it's OK to demand middle-class areas with greater resources should take on the burden of dealing with these problems, and it's not surprising that some like to boast hang paedophiles.

People asked about sterilisation.
Sterilisation is the side-effect of neutralising their sexual desire (using high doses of leupropeline to wipe out all testosterone). Testosterone is necessary for sperm production, no sperm means no chance for natural reproduction ie sterility. Even without testosterone (ie when sterile), apparently around 15% of paedophiles still reoffend.


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Listen to yourself here:
> I think there are plenty of teenagers who like to be out on the streets at night to escape from a cramped, suffocating tiny room or home. But those people don't balance out those that want to crow around and throw eggs or stones at elderly residents' homes. One hundred people _not _behaving like anti-social hooligans doesn't cancel out even one person who does.


Yes - that's what I said. 

ETA: Interesting post btw.


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> One reason it has become popular in this particular case is from the wider feeling that those in YOIs are accorded better treatment than their own children.


That again comes back to the question of whether sentences are for rehabilitation, or punishment.  If they're for rehabilitation then allocating them disproportionate resources is an entirely reasonable thing to do, with the aim of making them 'productive functioning members of society'.  But people don't like the idea of that, because they simultaneously want to see them 'punished'.

For a number of reasons I don't believe you can effectively punish and rehabilitate at the same time.  That, IMO, is one of the problems with the current justice system.  Personally I'd like to see the focus on rehabilitation rather than vengeance, but either way it has to be one or the other.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 16, 2013)

Corax said:


> Yes - that's what I said.


 
But it makes no sense  - you're against night-time curfews for young people yet you want maintain the  curfew on any knowledge about neighbour paedophiles on working-class estates (sadly where they are inevitably housed).


----------



## sihhi (Feb 16, 2013)

Corax said:


> That again comes back to the question of whether sentences are for rehabilitation, or punishment. If they're for rehabilitation then allocating them disproportionate resources is an entirely reasonable thing to do, with the aim of making them 'productive functioning members of society'. But people don't like the idea of that, because they simultaneously want to see them 'punished'.
> 
> For a number of reasons I don't believe you can effectively punish and rehabilitate at the same time. That, IMO, is one of the problems with the current justice system. Personally I'd like to see the focus on rehabilitation rather than vengeance, but either way it has to be one or the other.


 
OK sure but in this situation the criminal justice estimate was £1million

The problem is many working-class people are not given a chance to be 'productive functioning members of society' either, they are kept in an open air prison desperate for some peace, for real social productive functions to be realised for their families. But they see extra resources going to those who are the most anti-social from their areas who are in prison or YOI. 
Unsurprisingly, some, a small minority think 'I wish them two had been done in/committed suicide, there might be something left for us'. Unsurprisingly the feeling is 'being rewarded for crime'.

The professionalised rehabilitative criminal justice system clearly is not working, unless one of its hidden real functions is to drive wedges within the working-class, (as well as set half of the working-class against the liberal wing of the middle-class that would rather endorse the status quo rather than overcome their fears of what _might_ happen with community control from below).


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But it makes no sense - you're against night-time curfews for young people yet you want maintain the curfew on any knowledge about neighbour paedophiles on working-class estates (sadly where they are inevitably housed).


I really don't see that as a direct parallel, despite the linguistic flourish.  You could just as easily say that I'm against a curfew on the offenders' privacy.


----------



## Corax (Feb 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> OK sure but in this situation the criminal justice estimate was £1million
> 
> The problem is many working-class people are not given a chance to be 'productive functioning members of society' either, they are kept in an open air prison desperate for some peace, for real social productive functions to be realised for their families. But they see extra resources going to those who are the most anti-social from their areas who are in prison or YOI.
> Unsurprisingly, some, a small minority think 'I wish them two had been done in/committed suicide, there might be something left for us'. Unsurprisingly the feeling is 'being rewarded for crime'.


Absolutely. The most effective crime reduction measure (leaving aside fraud etc) the state could take would be to raise the minimum standard of living, particularly in terms of housing/lived environment, education & training, and employment opportunities.  Before anyone jumps down my throat for an imagined subtext, that's not because of anything unique to working class communities, it's because people - all people - are far more likely to decide to stick two fingers up to 'the rules' if you drive them to desperation and treat them like shit.

Greed is also a motivation of course, but IMO that's more a factor in the types of criminal that went to Eton.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But it makes no sense - you're against night-time curfews for young people yet you want maintain the curfew on any knowledge about neighbour paedophiles on working-class estates (sadly where they are inevitably housed).


 
I usually really like your posts but who are these millions of people? If they had money before they went into prison, they'll still have it when they come out (contrary to what you're implying, sex crimes against children aren't only committed by people with no money). I suspect you're falling victim to the bogey-paedophile myth which just isn't true. I think you're barking completely up the wrong tree here as are some other people.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 16, 2013)

Also I think this discussion is largely unrelated to the OP and conflating the two is a big mistake.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 16, 2013)

Corax said:


> I really don't see that as a direct parallel, despite the linguistic flourish. You could just as easily say that I'm against a curfew on the offenders' privacy.


 
But parents (especially women onto whom responsibility for "the children" is often dumped) in working-class estates who live near sheltered housing and are worried about the threat of paedophiles have no real privacy in the current system either.

Take this example of another paraphilia, there's much less reporting of addresses and cases of extreme child abuse in local presses because of police advice after Paulsgrove etc. (don't tell the public, can lead to problems) so any examples that do filter into the press can only be indicative of something else larger going on.







Note he reoffends in October 2010 nothing is done until he reoffends again in April 2012.

The paraphilia is intensified in enclosed spaces - hence specifically seeking out the inside of a tube train with preparation (cut out pockets for ease and speed). But it can operate in the open air.

Finsbury Park Avenue is a long road in the middle of a low-rise estate. It has sheltered blocks and one or two four-storey small family blocks and larger family semi-detached homes full of cul-de-sacs inside but bounded on one side by a huge railway line, another side by a huge metal fence on the edge of the Haringey Superstores site (no access to the supermarket 20m from you a huge detour is required), another side against the back line of warehouses and barely functioning units Arena Business Centre and Crusade Industrial Estate the final side is a large road Hermitage Road.

If you don't feel safe letting your children out in this territory because there are people you don't know but who live right next door to you on the sex offenders register, it is a very long walk to take them somewhere else.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 16, 2013)

8115 said:


> I usually really like your posts but who are these millions of people? If they had money before they went into prison, they'll still have it when they come out (contrary to what you're implying, sex crimes against children aren't only committed by people with no money). I suspect you're falling victim to the bogey-paedophile myth which just isn't true. I think you're barking completely up the wrong tree here as are some other people.


 
Can you explain the bogey-paedophile myth?

Who mentioned millions?

We don't know the size of the situation, of people on the sex offenders register in special housing association homes or in sheltered housing, on the doorstep of working-class (often families) people in the same estates. That's exactly the problem - *we don't know.* 
And it's because our betters won't tell.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Can you explain the bogey-paedophile myth?


 
An unloved sequel by Raymond Briggs


----------



## 8115 (Feb 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Can you explain the bogey-paedophile myth?
> 
> Who mentioned millions?
> 
> ...


 
For me, the myth is kind of a myth of the other, sex crimes being committed by people who aren't like us, men in dirty macs.  And actually, most of the time as people well know, it's a family member or person known to a child.  I'm pretty sure this is accurate.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems, the situation you described where people are afraid to use the only available park, that's obviously not ideal.  But, when otherwise rational adults are discussing island solutions, that kind of thing does hamper dialogue.

Would a well worded FOI question not give an answer to your question?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 16, 2013)

sparklefish said:


> When they were released I remember the police saying that there was a significant threat to their safety.
> 
> The family of James Bulger had apparently made threats at the time and there have been reports that people have still been actively looking for the killers in recent years.
> 
> ...


 

You're telling me. From one of the biggest Irish forums:

_"Scum, should have been taken into a field and just shot, like they'd do in China."_

_"ah yeah, bleeding heart liberal, they gave up their rights as innocent 10 year olds the moment they did this - society would be better off without them."_

_"Those scum deserve to be exposed and kicked up and down Britain"_

_"I say sickos sickos sickos. horrible disgusting half humans who do not deserve to be on this earth whether they were kids or not."_

_"You'd know by the head on venables that he was a paedo, even in his pictures as a child."_


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2013)

yes but boards.ie is notoriously home to a collection of fucking freaks who you wouldn't trust to run a bath.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Can you explain the bogey-paedophile myth?
> 
> Who mentioned millions?
> 
> ...


 
You're starting to sound a bit like jazzz.


----------



## DRINK? (Feb 16, 2013)

Seems a real curse of the working classes this sentencing by social media, that and posting questionable 'facts' about immigration, benefits and continual comparison to soldiers


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 16, 2013)

DRINK? said:


> Seems a real curse of the working classes this sentencing by social media, that and posting questionable 'facts' about immigration, benefits and continual comparison to soldiers


 
lol!

I've never read stuff on the internet typed out by smug faced middle class liberal scum talking about "the lower classes"


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 16, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> yes but boards.ie is notoriously home to a collection of fucking freaks who you wouldn't trust to run a bath.


 
It is however, extremely widely read though. Popular opinion in the UK and in Ireland seems to be of the "hang 'em high brigade"


----------



## IC3D (Feb 16, 2013)

Some people on this thread seem to be saying that nonces are put on to working class estates, is this anything more than an assumption? incidentallly I was in the park a couple of months ago talking to the mother of a kid playing with my son and she stony faced warned me about an attempted abduction in a nearby park and to be on my guard, turned out it was three years ago. This incident kind of reflects my belief about the public and its monothought functioning in relation to sex offenders. I've also known two families affected by child abuse and both times it was the biological dad.


----------



## coley (Feb 16, 2013)

_"ah yeah, bleeding heart liberal, *they gave up their rights as innocent 10 year olds the moment they did this - society would be better off without them."*_

In honesty, I feel a certain degree of sympathy with the sentiments I have highlighted, whatever the reasons they had for becoming what they were/are. At the time of the murder they were obviously two very callous and evil characters and society would probably be better off without them. the problem is, given we are supposedly,a civilised soci_e_ty how do we achieve this? not just for these two but all who pose an unacceptable risk to society_*.*_


----------



## sihhi (Feb 16, 2013)

8115 said:


> For me, the myth is kind of a myth of the other, sex crimes being committed by people who aren't like us, men in dirty macs. And actually, most of the time as people well know, it's a family member or person known to a child. I'm pretty sure this is accurate.


 
I haven't ever suggested that the family is not the central site of abuse. Instead you've assumed that's what I said with zero evidence. My posts were in response to a post on a Sarah's Law being undesirable because - paraphrasing - rehabilitation matters - end of.

However the issue is complicated not a clear cut stranger vs someone closer.

Sometimes people who are not known become known by being friends and doing friendly things with adults first then and only then children, then slowly, carefully enacting or cajoling specific behaviours. Are they known or unknown?

When/If there are paedophiles housed on estates, mothers (again it falls to them to most childcare)
are left in a position of wondering whether to block any contact with single men, particularly as only 1-2% of people with this paraphilia are women. However it's also known that those with the paraphilia (as the summary of the Harvard Medical School notes) can retain a diminished sexual desire for sex with an adult, so perhaps fear of every male on the estate who didn't grow up there is in order?
Increasingly there is higher turnover in tenancies and removals and new entrants by housing associations, private-owned and sub-letting complicate the picture as well.

What are we advising those parents to do? I don't know. Keep a tab on people close to you or keep a tab on no one? Allow people to be close to you or not? The more close males you have around, the worse it is, the more people you have to keep a tab on. If there are fewer people close to your children then the chance of preventing the abuse is higher.

Given that you can see a long (years, decades) time period (across the whole lifespan) between one sexual offence (imprisonment etc) and then another - it's the case that sometimes they are willing to build a relationship over many years with a family. Should males forming close relationships with your family be resisted?

Sometimes those with a certain paraphilia (not other abusers) engage in sex abuse both within their own family and beyond.





> I'm not saying that there aren't problems, the situation you described where people are afraid to use the only available park, that's obviously not ideal.


 
No, yet this non-ideal situation seems to be concentrated on estates in marginal areas.
It's not concentrated in the Southern market towns or the nice parts of major cities.
Hence the reason you get people discussing islands as a solution. It's not just some nonsense

If you actually look at the reality of the sex offender's register system, it can be fairly loose. It means a released offender has to notify the authorities of any foreign travel, notify where they are staying that is different from their release address, notify if where they are staying for any period has a child under the age of 18, notify all credit card details to avoid internet child pornography forum membership, notify any change in the passport or official documents. It doesn't necessarily mean people monitoring them or looking after them.

It's not a sustainable system.


> Would a well worded FOI question not give an answer to your question?


 
Which question? To who? £25 is the per hour rate of accessing, retrieving and compiling information requested. Beyond a limit, it's deemed disproportionate and rejected.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 16, 2013)

Are you sure the system doesn't work?  It sounds like you're looking for a solution with no reoffending.  Ever.  And that's the priority.  For me that's not realistic.  I get in cars knowing they sometimes crash.  If I had kids I would let a male (known to me, whether since way before having children, or not, maybe the father) be alone with them once I trusted them (that could be after a long time).  But I accept that there are always risks.  And I'd rather live in a society where a child of mine (or me) always had another chance, rather than a society with incredibly harsh justice.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 16, 2013)

I'm not expressing this very well and I appreciate that it's not really an issue that effects me except in as much as it effects most people, but people's attitudes do upset me over this.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2013)

Corax said:


> <snip>For a number of reasons I don't believe you can effectively punish and rehabilitate at the same time. That, IMO, is one of the problems with the current justice system. Personally I'd like to see the focus on rehabilitation rather than vengeance, but either way it has to be one or the other.


Sometimes you can do both at the same time.  I give you Grendon Prison's treatment/course for sex offenders.  It's not compulsory, but those who opt for it have their sentences shortened.  

Those who take part say it's very far from a soft option because, instead of continuing to think that they're helpless victims of their urges or that there's nothing wrong in what they did, their beliefs are repeatedly challenged until they become able to take in the full horror of their offences.  There isn't a 100% success rate, but there's a lower recidivism rate than for the same type of offenders who didn't take the course.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


>


 
Why only the Piccadilly line?


----------



## IC3D (Feb 16, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Why only the Piccadilly line?


I think cos of its depth it is very hot.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 16, 2013)

The discussion now is so far removed from the OP, but sticking with it:

Paedophiles are not guaranteed anonymity no matter where they are housed. I mentioned it earlier, but there is the Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme which means anyone who has children or looks after children can have checks done on any adult who comes in contact with their kids to see if they are a sex offender.

A sex offender who is on the Sex Offenders Register would be required to notify the police where they live, and the police would do a risk assessment in terms of are there any kids living nearby. If those kids matched the profile of the likely victim of such an offender, a disclosure would take place. The same for employers, partners and friends. The days of a sex offender moving in on single parents with young kids, or presenting themselves as normal in a community to get at kids are long gone, IMO.

As well as that, there's the very real statistic that these sex offenders are not the ones we should be _most_ worried about. For one, they're less likely to get the kind of access to children they got the first time around, and access to children that are known to the offender is the main source of abuse. I'm not saying this is a 0% risk, of course, but it's much reduced.

To add to this, there's the massive (again IMO) mistake of lumping all sex offenders in the same category. Someone who rapes and kills a child should not be treated the same way as someone who flashes to an old lady. This is covered in some ways by the length of time that someone is on the Sex Offender's Register, but not in the way they are treated by society. If they've served their time, and they're no longer on the Sex Offender's Register, should they be treated differently to anyone else?

There was a lot of talk about probation earlier, whether that be state or community, and that's something a lot of people don't take into account. A sentence for sexual offences isn't just prison then release. It's prison, then probation, then time on the sex offender's register, then freedom. Some people are never removed from the register (depending on their sentence length, I think?) so there's no such thing as rehabilitation for all offenders already.

It's a complicated subject, and emotive, and yes, all these solutions are top down, state led, anti-community. But I'm not sure what the alternative is.


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I haven't ever suggested that the family is not the central site of abuse. Instead you've assumed that's what I said with zero evidence. My posts were in response to a post on a Sarah's Law being undesirable because - paraphrasing - rehabilitation matters - end of.
> 
> However the issue is complicated not a clear cut stranger vs someone closer.
> 
> ...


There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.



> Sometimes people who are not known become known by being friends and doing friendly things with adults first then and only then children, then slowly, carefully enacting or cajoling specific behaviours. Are they known or unknown?


 

First your entire narrative is based on the assumption that abuse occurs, even within the family, as the result of the long term cunning and planning of evil strangers who become known to victims in order to abuse. This is utter crap and feeds directly into the bogeyman myth mentioned earlier. If this were correct how do you explain abuse by daddy? Or by Uncle bob or by granddad. Presumably dad became a father in order to abuse? Granddad was even more cunning and had a child in order to wait for decades until she had a child so he could abuse her. Uncle Bob was even cleverer. He cunningly arranged for his sister to get married and have a kid so he could abuse. This is clearly ridiculous.

Rather, abuse occurs within familiar structures for much the same reasons that it occurs within institutions. Because such structures create situations where abuse can occur with relative impunity. It is opportunistic, not the result of decades of careful planning by the evil stranger who deliberately creates a family to abuse. Abuse occurs because such structures themselves create situations of powerlessness for victims and creates positions of power which when presented to potential abusers themselves encourage abuse.

In other words, rather than familiar abuse being the successful result of years of careful arrangements by cunning abusers as you imply, those structures themselves facilitate abuse by people who are known to victims. Abusers who may never have considered such actions before being presented with the opportunities created themselves by those structures and their place within them




> When/If there are paedophiles housed on estates, mothers (again it falls to them to most childcare)
> are left in a position of wondering whether to block any contact with single men, particularly as only 1-2% of people with this paraphilia are women. However it's also known that those with the paraphilia (as the summary of the Harvard Medical School notes) can retain a diminished sexual desire for sex with an adult, so perhaps fear of every male on the estate who didn't grow up there is in order?


 
Yes because they buy into the myth that you yourself are perpetuating. A myth that is encouraged by the tabloid press and its narrative of "paedos in the park". Don't you see how such myths serve a purpose, they serve to undermine community and trust between neighbours by encouraging communities to fear their neighbour, fear the stranger, treat the stranger like a threat instead of a neighbour and instead of someone to stand in solidarity withThe result is the further undermining of the ethics of community and the strengthening of the atomisation of communities and the isolation of individuals with them. Until "fear of every male on the estate you didn't grow up in" becomes normal and you begin to live your life with the following paranoid nonsense running around your head



> What are we advising those parents to do? I don't know. Keep a tab on people close to you or keep a tab on no one? Allow people to be close to you or not? The more close males you have around, the worse it is, the more people you have to keep a tab on. If there are fewer people close to your children then the chance of preventing the abuse is higher.
> 
> Given that you can see a long (years, decades) time period (across the whole lifespan) between one sexual offence (imprisonment etc) and then another - it's the case that sometimes they are willing to build a relationship over many years with a family. Should males forming close relationships with your family be resisted?


 
There we have it. The logic of the narrative of stranger danger. We become so afraid, we buy the myth so well that we now fear new relationships, we resist introducing new men into our lives or our children's lives and while we are worrying about the stranger we ignore the potential abuse that may be happening right under our noses because we have bought into the bullshit that abuse is caused by strangers.




> No, yet this non-ideal situation seems to be concentrated on estates in marginal areas.
> It's not concentrated in the Southern market towns or the nice parts of major cities.
> Hence the reason you get people discussing islands as a solution. It's not just some nonsense


 
No it is just some nonsense. Dangerous nonsense because what you are effectively saying here is that abuse doesn't take place amongst middle class communities.This is absolute rubbish. If it appears that such abuse concentrated on estates it is because people accept the myth not because the myth is real.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Why are you going to such lengths to dismiss something that only exists in your head?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 16, 2013)

> Paedophiles are not guaranteed anonymity no matter where they are housed. I mentioned it earlier, but there is the Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme which means anyone who has children or looks after children can have checks done on any adult who comes in contact with their kids to see if they are a sex offender.


 
It's an improvement sure, and it was a response to the kind of protests in Paulsgrove and concern from below. However it is a state-controlled scheme that allows authorities to handle enquiries on their own terms with a 45 day timeframe between request and answer.
Most dangerously it is a risky scheme because if the knowledge of X being a sex offender gets out and is deemed by the police to have come from you (even though it probably hasn't) you are responsible and can be prosecuted. It hasn't happened yet, because the scheme is only 18 months old, but a clash of interests is inevitable. 
Going back to the OP, why is Venebles exempted from this system via the worldwide super-injunction.




> A sex offender who is on the Sex Offenders Register would be required to notify the police where they live, and the police would do a risk assessment in terms of are there any kids living nearby. If those kids matched the profile of the likely victim of such an offender, a disclosure would take place. The same for employers, partners and friends. The days of a sex offender moving in on single parents with young kids, or presenting themselves as normal in a community to get at kids are long gone, IMO.


 
Who determines who the disclosure is to? On what grounds? Who judges the risks? Those who live on the estate or those who don't.




> As well as that, there's the very real statistic that these sex offenders are not the ones we should be _most_ worried about. For one, they're less likely to get the kind of access to children they got the first time around, and access to children that are known to the offender is the main source of abuse. I'm not saying this is a 0% risk, of course, but it's much reduced.


 
Yet the (detected) re-offence rate for paedophiles stands at up to 50% without anti-testosterone  treatment and 15% even with. 

A crucial line from the Harvard Medical summary is: "One challenge in the scientific literature is that most of the studies on pedophilia have involved men convicted of crimes against children, and experts estimate that only one in 20 cases of child sexual abuse is reported." 

95% cases not reported, obviously they're not all the victims of paedophiles but include other forms of predation whether family members or others extorting sexual acts or whatever. Nonetheless there's a large number of sex abuse cases that are not recognised as such by the victims, until much later after a life time of anguish.



> To add to this, there's the massive (again IMO) mistake of lumping all sex offenders in the same category. Someone who rapes and kills a child should not be treated the same way as someone who flashes to an old lady. This is covered in some ways by the length of time that someone is on the Sex Offender's Register, but not in the way they are treated by society. If they've served their time, and they're no longer on the Sex Offender's Register, should they be treated differently to anyone else?


 
Because 



> There was a lot of talk about probation earlier, whether that be state or community, and that's something a lot of people don't take into account. A sentence for sexual offences isn't just prison then release. It's prison, then probation, then time on the sex offender's register, then freedom. Some people are never removed from the register (depending on their sentence length, I think?) so there's no such thing as rehabilitation for all offenders already.


 
Yet those on the SOR on an indefinite basis can as of the September 2012 decision by the Supreme Court can overturn their indefinite SOR status.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/01/sex-offenders-register-appeal-right

More importantly the SOR is simply a register, no contact with a social worker or anyone else. Only if X informs of a change and police act on that basis, is the specialist called in.




> It's a complicated subject, and emotive, and yes, all these solutions are top down, state led, anti-community. But I'm not sure what the alternative is.


 
The alternatives are things that are bottom up, not state led but determined by the community on the basis of evidence from those with experience ie experts.


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you going to such lengths to dismiss something that only exists in your head?


Unfortunately it isn't in my head. It exists in the head of every person demanding detailed state background checks on every guy who asks them out on a date.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 16, 2013)

I can't spend all night with this apologies, but just on this: 



> No it is just some nonsense. Dangerous nonsense because what you are effectively saying here is that abuse doesn't take place amongst middle class communities.This is absolute rubbish. If it appears that such abuse concentrated on estates it is because people accept the myth not because the myth is real.


 
I am referring to where sheltered housing and ex-prisoner (including maybe a sex offender) housing association units are based. They are often part within wider housing schemes.

How do we tackle abuse within the family? I don't know.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> Unfortunately it isn't in my head. It exists in the head of every person demanding detailed state background checks on every guy who asks them out on a date.


This also is in your pitchfork head.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

_They're coming dylans they're coming !!!_


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This also is in your pitchfork head.


You're the one waving pitchforks at imaginery "paedos"


----------



## kenny g (Feb 16, 2013)

So, Dylan's, are you trying to suggest that paedo's aren't attracted to building realationships with single mums in order to get access to their children?


----------



## 8115 (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you going to such lengths to dismiss something that only exists in your head?


 
It seems like there's quite a big debate (which I wasn't aware of but which seems to have existed substantially before this thread) in power/ class terms about this kind of thing.  And s/he was just pointing out some of the assumptions that seem to underly this notion that there's a class based wrongdoing specifically being done here and that they could be wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

There's a massive network of people peddling myths - they all believe it and are part of the network. They're everywhere. Break free from  myths!


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

kenny g said:


> So, Dylan's, are you trying to suggest that paedo's aren't attracted to building realationships with single mums in order to get access to their children?


Only in your head


----------



## kenny g (Feb 16, 2013)

If I was a single mum and a "late thirties male who lives with his mother" started staying over at my house I may well become worried that he had some interest in my children that was not healthy, especially if other flags started flying, such as a passion for photography. I can't see anything wrong or unreasonable in these circumstances to ask for a police check.


----------



## maomao (Feb 16, 2013)

I think the anarchists cream their pants over Paulsgrove because it was an example of the kind of community action in a real working class area on a scale that they can only dream about. So it _must_ be justified.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> Only in your head


 
What is only in my head? You do seem to suggest that don't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

8115 said:


> It seems like there's quite a big debate (which I wasn't aware of but which seems to have existed substantially before this thread) in power/ class terms about this kind of thing. And s/he was just pointing out some of the assumptions that seem to underly this notion that there's a class based wrongdoing specifically being done here and that they could be wrong.


Well thanks 8115. I was suggesting that his repeated assertions of _it's all in your mind_ might be better served if used closer to home (ignoring his wildy inaccurate posts, who they are aimed at and what they really say)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

maomao said:


> I think the anarchists cream their pants over Paulsgrove because it was an example of the kind of community action in a real working class area on a scale that they can only dream about. So it _must_ be justified.


Maomao's new angle "the anarchists" - you shameless cunt.


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There's a massive network of people peddling myths - they all believe it and are part of the network. They're everywhere. Break free from myths!


I will leave you with Stan Cohen Folk Devils and Moral Panics. It was written about mods and rockers and the moral panic that surrounded them but it still serves as a brilliant account of the moral panic surrounding stranger danger and "paedos"




> Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. *A*
> *condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat*
> *to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical*
> *fashion by the mass media;* the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops,
> ...


----------



## maomao (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maomao's new angle "the anarchists" - you shameless cunt.


You're not an anarchist now?


----------



## Athos (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There's a massive network of people peddling myths - they all believe it and are part of the network. They're everywhere. Break free from myths!


 
Myths put them at the centaur of the network.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

maomao said:


> I think the anarchists cream their pants over Paulsgrove because it was an example of the kind of community action in a real working class area on a scale that they can only dream about. So it _must_ be justified.


Where are your examples of anarchists or anyone creamig their pants over paulsgrove? Two will do.

What has been said is that your model produces paulsgrove.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> I will leave you with Stan Cohen Folk Devils and Moral Panics. It was written about mods and rockers and the moral panic that surrounded them but it still serves as a brilliant account of the moral panic surrounding stranger danger and "paedos"


No you won't - unless you are running away from the debate because you can only do it when you argue that other people are saying exactly what you want them to say?


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

kenny g said:


> If I was a single mum and a "late thirties male who lives with his mother" started staying over at my house I may well become worried that he had some interest in my children that was not healthy, especially if other flags started flying, such as a passion for photography. I can't see anything wrong or unreasonable in these circumstances to ask for a police check.


Yeah watch out for them photographers. Wrong uns they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

maomao said:


> You're not an anarchist now?


I am. Produce me creaming over paulsgrove. Or fuck it up again. You are a tryer. i'll give you that.


----------



## maomao (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Where are your examples of anarchists or anyone creamig their pants over paulsgrove? Two will do.
> 
> What has been said is that your model produces paulsgrove.


You and Sihhi, on this thread. I'm off to bed. Some of us working class people work Sundays you know.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> Yeah watch out for them photographers. Wrong uns they are.


Everyone else is a lyncher, they're everywhere. I can sense them out the corner of my eye, creeping up on me.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

maomao said:


> You and Sihhi, on this thread. I'm off to bed. Some of us working class people work Sundays you know.


sihhi is not an anarchist  and you have no examples. Ta.


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Everyone else is a peado, they're everywhere. I can sense them out the corner of my eye, creeping up on me.


 
edited for you


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

lynchers thousands of them, everywhere


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> paedos. thousands of them, everywhere


 
edited for you


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> edited for you


Uh huh, well done dylans - _agree with me or  you want to lynch paedos. _Your own febrile paranioa (lynchers round each corner - i hear them on the stairs) not mentioned.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> edited for you


Edited _for you. _Well done.

Thousands of people not agreeing with me - they must be lynchers. What other reasons could they have?


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Uh huh, well done Butchers - _agree with me or you want to call all working class people lynchers. _Your own febrile paranioa (paedos round each corner - i hear them on the stairs) not mentioned.


and again


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> edited for you


You are so paranoid  - how could a person like you play a role in something like this?


----------



## Athos (Feb 16, 2013)

This is a bit "I know you are but what am I?"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> and again


Seriously? Embarrassing.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 16, 2013)

Athos said:


> This is a bit "I know you are but what am I?"


 
I know.  Call it a wild guess but I'm sensing pre-existing issues.


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2013)

maomao said:


> I think the anarchists cream their pants over Paulsgrove because it was an example of the kind of community action in a real working class area on a scale that they can only dream about. So it _must_ be justified.


 
I am sure you do think that, maomao.


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You are so paranoid - how could a person like you play a role in something like this?


Oh the irony. "_Paranoid"_ from the guy who thinks there are paedophiles hiding in the bushes.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> Yeah watch out for them photographers. Wrong uns they are.


Especially the ones with stealth black cameras taking grab shots...


----------



## Athos (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> Oh the irony. "_Paranoid"_ from the guy who thinks there are paedophiles hiding in the bushes.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> Oh the irony. "_Paranoid"_ from the guy who thinks there are paedophiles hiding in the bushes.


Of course, you will be able to show one single post suggesting this. Won't you? (No, of course, you'll ignore it and move onto the next lie, then when called on that one move onto another).

The arrogance of _if they disagree with ME they must think this_ laid pretty bare here. dylans here, in his excellent posts, is the specailist that he demands people obey. A dishonest open liar prepared to bend facts to achieve own interests and ends. Each post a hammer into his own argument.


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> Oh the irony. "_Paranoid"_ from the guy who thinks there are paedophiles hiding in the bushes.


 
I don't get why you're having a go at boss, sihhi or anyone else. All is being said is people should have some say in their area, what's wrong with that? And if you think some sink estates and towns aren't used as areas to house problematic people you're barking.

What is paranoid about that? Where's the paedophile in the bush?


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course, you will be able to show one single post suggesting this.
> 
> The arrogance of _if they disagree with ME they must think this_ laid pretty bare here. dylans here, in his excellent posts, is the specailist that he demands people obey. A dishonest open liar prepared to bend facts to achieve own interests and ends. Each post a hammer into his own argument.


and you Butchersapron are the biggest most obnoxious bully on these boards. You are the single reason why many people avoid the politics forum altogether.  Well done. You are the king of nothing. The king of fucking dirt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> I will leave you with Stan Cohen Folk Devils and Moral Panics. It was written about mods and rockers and the moral panic that surrounded them but it still serves as a brilliant account of the moral panic surrounding stranger danger and "paedos"


Misuse of cohen's work btw  It didn't and never meant that a folk-devil was simply something that you agreed with - in your embattled paranoia.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> and you Butchersapron are the biggest most obnoxious bully on these boards. You are the single reason why many people avoid the politics forum altogether. Well done. You are the king of nothing. The king of fucking dirt.


I had a  37 break as well last night.


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> and you Butchersapron are the biggest most obnoxious bully on these boards. You are the single reason why many people avoid the politics forum altogether. Well done. You are the king of nothing. The king of fucking dirt.


 
Is this is what it is really about, a grudge with the boss? It has nothing to do with what you're saying it's all about you trying to knock the chair from underhim isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

dylans said:


> and you Butchersapron are the biggest most obnoxious bully on these boards. You are the single reason why many people avoid the politics forum altogether. Well done. You are the king of nothing. The king of fucking dirt.


Def not becauase they associate politics with shouty-student-types and think they'll get shouted at by you/people like you, that they'll get shears pointed straight in the chest. Of course, expand the argument - the problem that the working class has with the left is that they don't like them. This must end!!!


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2013)

firky said:


> Is this is what it is really about, a grudge with the boss? It has nothing to do with what you're saying it's all about you trying to knock the chair from underhim isn't it?


Oh please. You're pathetic attempt to ingratiate yourself with him is embarrassing. The boss? ffs. He's not the boss of anything. He's just a miserable rude obnoxious twat with an inflated sense of his own importance. Get a fucking room.

As for the rest of your point. I have posted fairly extensively on here and expressed myself pretty clearly I hope. I will let my posts and my argument answer for themselves.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 16, 2013)

firky said:


> I don't get why you're having a go at boss, sihhi or anyone else. All is being said is people should have some say in their area, what's wrong with that? And if you think some sink estates and towns aren't used as areas to house problematic people you're barking.
> 
> What is paranoid about that? Where's the paedophile in the bush?



You're sure about this? That "problematic people" disproportionately go back into working class communities? Or that working class people who have committed this type of crime are that much more visible because they aren't able to provide themselves with better chances post prison, whatever. That music teacher guy who was found guilty last week, he'll be on a hostel in a sink estate when/ if he's released. I doubt it.

Of all the battles to fight, this just strikes me as a funny one. And the whole island thing, I know to a degree it's hypothetical but just as the death penalty is massively classist and racist I reckon that solution would be too.


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2013)

Before he was the boss he was Ironside. Don't know when you registered but old habits die hard. I am neck, he's the boss. We're not friends nor do we really get along on here. Wrong again, dylans.

Your posts do speak for themselves, thanks for clarifying your position.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 16, 2013)

I mean, I don't want to have a massive go, and I did go back and read some stuff again and think well yeah there's a point therebut I do think it's a funny battle to choose. You never see people get so het up or have such well thought out arguments about access to fruit and vegetables.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2013)

kenny g said:


> If I was a single mum and a "late thirties male who lives with his mother" started staying over at my house I may well become worried that he had some interest in my children that was not healthy, especially if other flags started flying, such as a passion for photography. I can't see anything wrong or unreasonable in these circumstances to ask for a police check.


 
Oh thats just fucking great, not only do I have to contend with crippling financial and self-esteem issues that cause me to still be living with my mum at that age, but also apparently the suspicion that I might be a paedo as a result.

Fuck you.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 16, 2013)

I propose we have a network of informers that gets the information on all criminals in the community and follows them around reporting anything erroneous they find to the state so they can be sent back to gaol for anything suspicious ..or just leave the state to it and stop posting crap on facebook and getting in a flap cos the bins got kicked over in the night


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2013)

8115 said:


> You're sure about this? That "problematic people" disproportionately go back into working class communities?


 
I swear on whatever you want it is. "Social deviants" housed in deprived areas, I am not making this up to side with the boss, sihhi or anyone else. It's what I was taught (and as I said I wish I could remember more, and if I was at home I'd look at some commentators of social policy which mention it - but I dunno theire names *rolleyes at self* ), it's what people from such areas have told me and experiences first hand and it was pretty much known as the problem why a lot of the clients I worked for would get intro drugs again.

I am not arsed if you don't believe me but as I said a couple of pages back, people accept social cleansing goes on but can't seem to think that there's similar forces at work when it comes to housing "problematic people".

Not talking about sex offenders BTW.



> Or that working class people who have committed this type of crime are that much more visible because they aren't able to provide themselves with better chances post prison, whatever.


 
Who said that?


----------



## 8115 (Feb 16, 2013)

I was saying that.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2013)

elbows said:


> Oh thats just fucking great, not only do I have to contend with crippling financial and self-esteem issues that cause me to still be living with my mum at that age, but also apparently the suspicion that I might be a paedo as a result.
> 
> Fuck you.


 
I suspect that it won't just be paedos living with their mums these days given the fact that disco wants us all to move back with our parents. In a recession and even before that plenty of people could not move out of their parents houses, it's not necessarily THE MARK OF THE BEAST is it ffs


----------



## IC3D (Feb 16, 2013)

elbows said:


> Oh thats just fucking great, not only do I have to contend with crippling financial and self-esteem issues that cause me to still be living with my mum at that age, but also apparently the suspicion that I might be a paedo as a result.
> 
> Fuck you.


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2013)

Timothy.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

elbows said:


> Oh thats just fucking great, not only do I have to contend with crippling financial and self-esteem issues that cause me to still be living with my mum at that age, but also apparently the suspicion that I might be a paedo as a result.
> 
> Fuck you.


That was an awful post by kenny - but it may help bring the issues out somewhat - and should make it clear that it's not about who is or isn't a peado. That's not what i'm taking about here, i'm talking about something far more political, something far more dangerous than that, i think that you got that earlier, that stuff has been buried under dylans lynch mob paranoia though.


----------



## elbows (Feb 16, 2013)

If my mum was like that I think I'd be living in a box instead.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2013)

I lived with my old dear for ages, everyone assumed that I was a massive be-registered menace but luckily Iproved them wrong by going out with a girl four years younger than me

Someone, somewhere is still summoning the general on me







/dc


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2013)

Spends all day on forums.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I suspect that it won't just be paedos living with their mums these days given the fact that disco wants us all to move back with our parents. In a recession and even before that plenty of people could not move out of their parents houses, it's not necessarily THE MARK OF THE BEAST is it ffs


They have to compete with dylans shouting lyncher at them if they do.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I lived with my old dear for ages, everyone assumed that I was a massive be-registered menace but luckily Iproved them wrong by going out with a girl four years younger than me
> 
> Someone, somewhere is still summoning the general on me
> 
> ...


Someone in a a party not too far from you is talking about lynchers as well.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2013)

firky said:


> Spends all day on forums.


 

we are all beasts 

/dc


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Someone in a a party not too far from you is talking about lynchers as well.


(froggy posting)
The prof and his lynch mobs? They dont really have a leg to stand on when it comes to anything to do with sexual abuse tbf.

The whole paedo thing is described as a moral panic, seems to me that there are only a few people panicking and they aren't the onesthe panic is about


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2013)

What's he building in there?
What the hell is he building
In there?
He has subscriptions to those
Magazines... He never
Waves when he goes by
He's hiding something from
The rest of us... He's all
To himself... I think I know
Why... He took down the
Tire swing from the Peppertree
He has no children of his
Own you see... He has no dog
And he has no friends and
His lawn is dying... and
What about all those packages
He sends. What's he building in there?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> (froggy posting)
> The prof and his lynch mobs? They dont really have a leg to stand on when it comes to anything to do with sexual abuse tbf.
> 
> The whole paedo thing is described as a moral panic, seems to me that there are only a few people panicking and they aren't the onesthe panic is about


I mean the socialist attitude as repped her by dylans. Disagree and you are a lyncher, lynchers under the bed hiding behind the sofa, jumping out the fridge.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I mean the socialist attitude as repped her by dylans. Disagree and you are a lyncher, lynchers under the bed hiding behind the sofa, jumping out the fridge.


 

SOCIALISM (in capitals)


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I mean the socialist attitude as repped her by dylans. Disagree and you are a lyncher, lynchers under the bed hiding behind the sofa, jumping out the fridge.


 

They seek him here, they seek him for a while
that damn'd elusive peadphile

/dc


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Being kept back by LYNCHERS. That and the P&P forum.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

> an inflated sense of his own importance.


 
Marvellous.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> They seek him here, they seek him for a while
> that damn'd elusive peadphile
> 
> /dc


You need to turn that upside down so the paranoia that _other people_ are fixated on the secret omni-paedos comes through.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> What's he building in there?
> What the hell is he building
> In there?
> *He has subscriptions to those*
> ...


 

these days it's 'he has credit card receipts showing his membership of _those_ internet sites

/dc


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, you need to turn that upside down so the paranoia that _other people_ are fixated on the secret omni-paedos comes through.


 


(froggy posting lol)

the protocols of the elders of paulsgrove


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

I'm sure I saw a pyramid in his pants.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2013)

topped by a single eye


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> (froggy posting)
> .
> 
> The whole paedo thing is described as a moral panic, seems to me that there are only a few people panicking and they aren't the onesthe panic is about


 
. A moral panic is an exaggerated social reaction to a perceived threat, one where fantasy becomes translated in many peoples minds into reality and then acted upon as though it were reality. Even a brief look at the way that fear of stranger danger has taken hold in the popular imagination shows it conforms to every feature of a moral panic as identified by Cohen

1. It is media led. Since the late 80s the tabloid media have featured almost daily stories about paedophiles almost always simplistic and almost always exaggerated and implying that sexual crimes against children were rising (they aren't) and that there was a clear identifiable enemy (there isn't) and that action should be taken against that identified threat. This is a classic feature of moral panics.

2. It is exaggerated and stereotypical and the steretypes follow a pattern. Likewise with the paedophile panic, we have seen waves from claims of satanic abuse, to claims of paedophile gangs or rings, online paedophiles etc and in all these cases they were and are presented as though either a new phenomenon is being discovered or an old phenomenon is increasing. Neither is the case.

3. They focus on an outside enemy. This is a feature of all moral panics from witches in the middle ages to teddy boys or mods and rockers in contemporary times to paedophile strangers today. The enemy is identified and campaigns for the destruction of that enemy and the belief that the problem will be solved with the destruction of that enemy is claimed.

4 Us and them. In all cases of moral panics, the idea of the outsider being opposed to community is proposed. The paedo is the filthy outsider violating the purity and health of the community which must stand together against the other. The enemy is never one of us. Its is never the father or the uncle, no that would make it our problem. Instead it is the outsider. The witch. The deviant teenager, gay people spreading AIDS, black muggers, the welfare cheat, the single mom having babies to get a council house, the foriegner taking our jobs, the the released paedophile living amongst us. (Sound familiar)

5. Convergence. Moral panics often link different situations or activities together and their relationships make for an amplification of the panic. Student hooligans for example. Black muggers, single mothers and housing, strangers and paedophilia, child murderers.

All of these factors can converge at certain times to create a climate in which moral panics take hold and the result is the emergence of fantasies which become, in the popular imagination, real. The idea that our kids are at a rising risk from strangers now more than in the past is one such myth.

Now the issue is what do we do in the face of such myths. Do we say that those who hold such views have a point and engage in debates based on such myths such as where released sex offenders should live or whether we should have enhanced background checks on people in our lives or do we recognise them for what they are, myths and counter them with facts and the facts are that our children are not in any particular danger from strangers and that the vast majority of sexual abuse occurs in the home.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

> A moral panic is an exaggerated social reaction to a perceived threat one where fantasy becomes translated in many peoples minds into reality


They're everywhere these lynchers!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

Also that's the crudest reading of Cohen et al,i've ever seen.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Also that's the crudest reading of Cohen et al,i've ever seen.


Do feel free to present an alternative analysis. Presuming you have actually read it (which I doubt) and presuming you can string a coherent fucking sentence together.(which I doubt even more)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Do feel free to present an alternative analysis. Presuming you have actually read it and presuming you can string a coherent fucking sentence together.


Not sure that i need to really. I think your post above and the fears it demonstrates are enough. Moral panic? Stop panicking dylans. Fold devils? Yep, but this time it's everyone else. Socialism.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

Not only is everyone else a lyncher they _also_ can't string a coherent fucking sentence together - despite doing so over and over on this thread, driving you you to this this nonsense.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not only is *everyone else* a lyncher *they* _also_ can't string a coherent fucking sentence together - despite doing so over and over on this thread, driving you you to this this nonsense.


No. Just you


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

A thread that demonstrates your thesis. Well done  dylans.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A thread that demonstrates your thesis. Well done dylans.


I'm sure that makes sense in your head but to me its just another example of your cryptic babble. Keep it up


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

Reply after reply to someone who can't string a coherent fucking sentence together. All oppostion is gfrom lynchers and people  who can't string a coherent fucking sentence together.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> I'm sure that makes sense in your head but to me its just another example of your cryptic babble. Keep it up


Cryptic? I've told you to your face post after post what i think - you translate that into odd lyncher talk as you can't deal with the issue. You only have one move - oh so you want to lynch people? The issues, you bottle them. Over and over. I try to force you to deal with them, no not interested, just oh so you want to lynch people nonsense. Worthless bottling.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 17, 2013)

These threads are more fun if you don't read every post.

'Lynchers': people who want to know if a habitually offending pedophile has moved in next door?


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans you have picked the wrong era to poor scorn on the concept of paedophile rings. You did it in an otherwise excellent post on the high level paedo thread too. It's fine and important to draw attention to the horrible grubby techniques of sections of the media, and moral panic, but there is no need to pretend that there are no gangs or rings. We've seen a gang or two get sent down, and evidence of some higher level rings has steadily been taking shape.

Those of us who decided to pay a lot of attention and do our own internet-based digging on this subject have had to wade through some pretty grubby websites in the process, some of which have dodgy agendas and scant regard for quality of evidence and careful dot joining. But I couldnt just dismiss them out of hand, because sometimes they were onto something, they had a different set of blind-spots to the 'sensible, completely unbigoted' types. With that in mind as well as the point butchers has been hammering you with in this thread, I have to say your stance isnt perfect, it dismisses things to an extent that creates a risk, an opportunity that can be exploited. Not on the scale the gutter press drool about, but all the same it should be taken into consideration.

I'm sure you wouldnt take kindly to being accused of recklessly ignoring peoples legitimate concerns, but even the best of intentions can lead to that if there is too much posturing and overcompensating for certain kinds of shit in society & the press.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> that they'll get shears pointed straight in the chest.


 
Or that time moves slow when you count it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 17, 2013)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1774436.stm


----------



## kenny g (Feb 17, 2013)

see the comments for loads of "its all a media panic" ostriches talking out of their arses:-

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9940324.Mum_s_anger_over_paedophile_in_Brighton_park/

the actual paedo scum the mother was complaining about:-

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...n-back-on-streets-and-ogling-little-girl.html


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 17, 2013)

kenny g said:


> the actual paedo scum the mother was complaining about:-
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...n-back-on-streets-and-ogling-little-girl.html


 


> But a Sun investigation helped track them to the small French town of Quillan in the foothills of the Pyrenees.The pair were arrested by French cops and returned to Britain.


 
It was the Sun wot brought him back!


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 17, 2013)

Corax said:


> Because having an island rammed to the gills full of paedophiles, and allowing them to have children - well, I foresee problems there....
> Is taking their children away actually any more humane? Also not exactly a comfortable conversation to have with those kids when they ask where they came from.


 

But why would we put them on an island?  I can't think of a more awful thing to do.  

And sterilising people against their will is called eugenics.  Why on earth anybody would be advocating that is beyond me.  It's stupid anyway, it's not a genetic condition. 

Well lots of children are taken away from their parents all the time, sadly.  The reasons are explained to them in an age appropriate way, and they have access to their own files under the DPA, so can ask at any time to view their case history.  It is an unfortunate fact of life that some people don't love their children, some actually take pleasure in abusing their children.  

But it will depend on a case by case basis, because an offender's own children may not be at direct risk, so do not need to be removed.  A lot is taken into account when deciding these issues.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

elbows said:


> dylans you have picked the wrong era to poor scorn on the concept of paedophile rings. You did it in an otherwise excellent post on the high level paedo thread too. It's fine and important to draw attention to the horrible grubby techniques of sections of the media, and moral panic, but there is no need to pretend that there are no gangs or rings. We've seen a gang or two get sent down, and evidence of some higher level rings has steadily been taking shape.
> 
> Those of us who decided to pay a lot of attention and do our own internet-based digging on this subject have had to wade through some pretty grubby websites in the process, some of which have dodgy agendas and scant regard for quality of evidence and careful dot joining. But I couldnt just dismiss them out of hand, because sometimes they were onto something, they had a different set of blind-spots to the 'sensible, completely unbigoted' types. With that in mind as well as the point butchers has been hammering you with in this thread, I have to say your stance isnt perfect, it dismisses things to an extent that creates a risk, an opportunity that can be exploited. Not on the scale the gutter press drool about, but all the same it should be taken into consideration.
> 
> I'm sure you wouldnt take kindly to being accused of recklessly ignoring peoples legitimate concerns, but even the best of intentions can lead to that if there is too much posturing and overcompensating for certain kinds of shit in society & the press.


Elbows you miss the point about moral panics which is that they often start from a very real incident or event which itself is simplified and exaggerated and given a stereotypical form by the media, a form which itself then settles into a normative reality which then justifies itself. The mugger scare of the 1970s for example was set off by real examples of street crime which were siezed upon by the media and associated with a particular stereotype (black people) This in turn then created its own dynamic because the police then increased stop and search of black people and black communities which in turn not surprisingly led to more arrests and increased the black crime rate which in turn was used to justify the moral panic and as evidence that the moral panic was real

In the case of the recent cases of institutional abuse that I referred to in the post you mentioned, we have examples of historic abuse going back decades which have been revealed by a series of unique events as taking place within institutions but instead of being seen for what they are, examples of the kind of impunity created by bureaucratic institution's and the relationships of power and powerlessness within them, they are being portrayed as cunning conspiracies, rings and gangs.

Those rings or gangs may well exist at some level but the danger in focussing solely on these incidents in terms of conspiracy is that we ignore the structural causes of such abuse and in doing so we leave those very structures which facilitate abuse intact and unchanged meaning that such events can occur again.We arrest a few people, perhaps uncover a few gangs or historical conspiracies, the press has a field day reporting the salacious details and we take a deep breathe and rest on our laurels thinking we have solved the problem when in reality the structures that facilitate such abuses are left intact

Likewise, to say that stranger danger is a moral panic doesn't mean that no one can point to cases of such things happening or to cases of child murder or child abduction by strangers etc, obviously we can all point to such tragedies. However they are a tiny minority of cases of abuse and in reality the risk to our children from strangers is vanishingly small. What they are however are very sensational and dramatic events that fit into a very simplistic narrative, narratives which are seized on and shaped by the media and which capture the public imagination in a way that the much more threatening and much more common abuse inside the family doesn't.

One reason that moral panics can sieze hold of the public imagination is that they emphasise belonging as opposed to exclusion. The community against the stranger, the paedo as shadow threat or as disease threatening to infect from outside. Opposition to this threat then becomes a statement of belonging. By shouting kill the paedo we are also shouting that we are not strangers, we belong we are of, we are included and because belonging or inclusion is associated with health or purity we are also stating our societal health.

And the louder we shout the more we demonstrate that we belong. This is where the dangerous spiral to violence because opposition to the stranger or outsider becomes a symbolic statement of belonging. "Look how much I belong" I really hate paedos". "I belong more". I hate paedos more than you." "Burn the witch burn the witch". The result of such spirals of symbolic intent is obvious.

The obvious danger of such panics is that, like the empahasis on rings or gangs in the cases of institutional abuse, they miss the targets because by focusing on strangers and by excluding the possibility of abuse from within such simplistic narratives leave the causes of real abuse untouched.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Elbows you miss the point about moral panics which is that they often start from a very real incident or event which itself is simplified and exaggerated and given a stereotypical form by the media, a form which itself then settles into a normative reality which then justifies itself. The mugger scare of the 1970s for example was set off by real examples of street crime which were siezed upon by the media and associated with a particular stereotype (black people) This in turn then created its own dynamic because the police then increased stop and search of black people which in turn increased the black crime rate which in turn was used to justify the moral panic.
> 
> In the case of the recent cases of institutional abuse that I referred to in the post you mentioned, we have examples of historic abuse going back decades which have been revealed as taking place within institutions but instead of being seen for what they are, examples of the kind of impunity created by bureaucratic institution's and the relationships of power and powerlessness within them, they are being portrayed as cunning conspiracies, rings and gangs.
> 
> ...


 
You keep talking about strangers. You seem to ignore the fact that people who join communities can quickly cease to become strangers. This is particularly true when the state - which, in the situations we're discussing, places them there - conceals the risk they pose to children, surely an example of what you describe as 'those very structures which facilitate abuse '. That working class communities should resist those structures, and seek to exercise some control over their own communities seems to be a reasonable position to everyone except those who have such a low opinion of the working class as to suggest we are nothing more than a lynch mob. A strange position to be taken by anyone interested in working class politics.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

kenny g said:


> see the comments for loads of "its all a media panic" ostriches talking out of their arses:-
> 
> http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9940324.Mum_s_anger_over_paedophile_in_Brighton_park/
> 
> ...


Thanks for that. You have given us a classic example of a media led non story which could have read " i took my kid to the park and nothing happened to her". Ridiculous paranoid sensationalist media drivel.

At least many of the comments under that article demonstrate that not everyone buys into this ridiculous moral panic


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

> By shouting kill the paedo


 
What about people not shouting kill the paedo? Any space for them in your paranoid world?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 17, 2013)

moral panic
non story
paedogeddon


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i'm not advocating violence but are you saying that those who do, are actually worse than someone who murders and mutilates a two year old?


I would think so yes if they are adults. This man was 11 when he did this. The bulger case continues to bring the worst out in some people.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

Athos said:


> You keep talking about strangers. You seem to ignore the fact that people who join communities can quickly cease to become strangers. This is particularly true when the state - which, in the situations we're discussing, places them there - conceals the risk they pose to children, surely an example of what you describe as 'those very structures which facilitate abuse '. That working class communities should resist those structures, and seek to exercise some control over their own communities seems to be a reasonable position to everyone except those who have such a low opinion of the working class as to suggest we are nothing more than a lynch mob. A strange position to be taken by anyone interested in working class politics.


You are still buying into this myth of the stranger infecting the wholesome community from outside. "People Joining communities" implying the threat comes in from outside. "people cease to become strangers" implies some kind of conspiracy or cunning plan by evil outsiders to infiltrate the community and to "cease being strangers". This is on its head. Its paranoid nonsense. The stats are quite clear, 90% of reported abuse cases are by family members.(which given that a huge proportion of familiar abuse is not reported, is probably much higher) The danger is, while you continue to perpetuate this idea of the stranger threat you are ignoring the real basis for abuse which is all around us and often by those most trusted by victims. .


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

Your relentless insistence that everyone else is thinking and saying exactly what you need them to say and think is remarkable dylans. It speaks of decades of experience of not listening to what people are actually saying.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> You are still buying into this myth of the stranger infecting the wholesome community from outside. "People Joining communities" implying the threat comes in from outside. "people cease to become strangers" implies some kind of conspiracy or cunning plan by evil outsiders to infiltrate the community and to "cease being strangers". This is on its head. Its paranoid nonsense. The stats are quite clear, 90% of reported abuse cases are by family members.(which given that a huge proportion of familiar abuse is not reported, is probably much higher) The danger is, while you continue to perpetuate this idea of the stranger threat you are ignoring the real basis for abuse which is all around us and often by those most trusted by victims. .


 
there does not have to be any conspiracy involved, its common sense that if you get to know somebody (ie if they're your neighbour, friend etc) they stop being a stranger! do you think people living in these communities don't have any experience of sexual abuse, sometimes from close family members?everyone was a stranger to everoyne else once!

Also the fact that there have been high level paedo rings uncovered and they show that part of the reason they were able to operate for so long with impunity is because nobody took the concerns seriously, everyone thought it was just "the way it was" with jimmy savile etc, shows that we should not trust the state and that parents are quite entitled to wish to know about convicted sex offenders. how far does it stretch this desire to prevent a witch hunt? should schools be denied access to this information if somebody applies for a job (and the staff would obviously tell other people etc)

btw sorry for being a dick last night butchers elbows etc we havent seen each other for quite a while and got a bit silly


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there does not have to be any conspiracy involved, its common sense that if you get to know somebody (ie if they're your neighbour, friend etc) they stop being a stranger! do you think people living in these communities don't have any experience of sexual abuse, sometimes from close family members?everyone was a stranger to everoyne else once!
> 
> Also the fact that there have been high level paedo rings uncovered and they show that part of the reason they were able to operate for so long with impunity is because nobody took the concerns seriously, everyone thought it was just "the way it was" with jimmy savile etc, shows that we should not trust the state and that parents are quite entitled to wish to know about convicted sex offenders. how far does it stretch this desire to prevent a witch hunt? should schools be denied access to this information if somebody applies for a job (and the staff would obviously tell other people etc)
> 
> btw sorry for being a dick last night butchers elbows etc we havent seen each other for quite a while and got a bit silly


No worries, not a problem 

( Such open displays of happiness must not be tolerated!)


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

how far does it stretch this desire to avoid a moral panic? if somebody applies for a job at a school and they are a paedo, should the staff looking at this information not reveal it and ask them for an interview anyway? should they then not tell other staff members etc at the school that this happened if the results of the CRB check come through?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> how far does it stretch this desire to prevent a witch hunt? should schools be denied access to this information if somebody applies for a job (and the staff would obviously tell other people etc)


If you're still talking about people convicted of sex offences, I doubt many people think they should be allowed to work in any job that involves contact with children. I think not being allowed to work with children is very different from not being allowed to live in a house next door to a family with children, though.

But it's going to depend on the individual, and if they are thought of as a danger, well, why are they being released in the first place? At the very least, there should be half-way houses they can live in.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there does not have to be any conspiracy involved, its common sense that if you get to know somebody (ie if they're your neighbour, friend etc) they stop being a stranger! do you think people living in these communities don't have any experience of sexual abuse, sometimes from close family members?everyone was a stranger to everoyne else once!
> 
> Also the fact that there have been high level paedo rings uncovered and they show that part of the reason they were able to operate for so long with impunity is because nobody took the concerns seriously, everyone thought it was just "the way it was" with jimmy savile etc, shows that we should not trust the state and that parents are quite entitled to wish to know about convicted sex offenders. how far does it stretch this desire to prevent a witch hunt? should schools be denied access to this information if somebody applies for a job (and the staff would obviously tell other people etc)
> 
> btw sorry for being a dick last night butchers elbows etc we havent seen each other for quite a while and got a bit silly


But that stretches the meaning of stranger to be meaningless. Was a father who abuses his child a stranger once? A grandfather or uncle? Well yes before the child existed I suppose so but it seems to me that this stretches the meaning of the term stranger to breaking point. What we have here is the claim that there is a threat to communities from outside, specifically from released sex offenders and that communities should be made aware of the existance of such people (which in reality means releasing their names and addresses) in order to counter the imagined threat. By pointing out that over 90% of abuse occurs within the family I am merely stating the obvious point that the real danger comes not from outside the community but from within.

On your second point I have no issue with released sex offenders being denied certain positions or roles such as teachers or scout masters etc. This seems a sensible and reasonable condition of release. I am however opposed to the use of enhanced CRB checks which as we have seen recently are used to reveal all and every offence carried out in a persons life regardless of triviality.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

It strikes me that a higher level of community involvement would help counter the stranger danger myth and underline the truth - sex offenders come from our communities, and ultimately it's up to us, as a community to support their rehabilitation and to keep ourselves safe, no matter how distasteful that might initially seem. The more I read this thread the more I think that the public are infantalized on this issue then we're disturbed and shocked that many people's responses to sex offenders are quite infantile.


----------



## Corax (Feb 17, 2013)

purenarcotic said:
			
		

> But why would we put them on an island?



I don't bleedin know, ask Liam! I think it's an abhorrent idea, as is forced sterilisation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> It strikes me that a higher level of community involvement would help counter the stranger danger myth and underline the truth - sex offenders come from our communities, and ultimately it's up to us, as a community to support their rehabilitation and to keep ourselves safe, no matter how distasteful that might initially seem. The more I read this thread the more I think that the public are infantalized on this issue then we're disturbed and shocked that many people's responses to sex offenders are quite infantile.


Yes, that's a fair point. In the case of Venables, though, I do think he deserves anonymity. I doubt he would ever be able to live somewhere openly and not find trouble.

Also, the 'community' isn't just one voice. I would have no problem with him moving into the flat upstairs, and I wouldn't demand to know. I don't know how many people are like me, but I'm guessing that we're far less vocal than many of those with the opposite opinion.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> It strikes me that a higher level of community involvement would help counter the stranger danger myth and underline the truth - sex offenders come from our communities, and ultimately it's up to us, as a community to support their rehabilitation and to keep ourselves safe, no matter how distasteful that might initially seem. The more I read this thread the more I think that the public are infantalized on this issue then we're disturbed and shocked that many people's responses to sex offenders are quite infantile.


That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> It strikes me that a higher level of community involvement would help counter the stranger danger myth and underline the truth - sex offenders come from our communities, and ultimately it's up to us, as a community to support their rehabilitation and to keep ourselves safe, no matter how distasteful that might initially seem. The more I read this thread the more I think that the public are infantalized on this issue then we're disturbed and shocked that many people's responses to sex offenders are quite infantile.


I'm a little bored of this euphemism "community involvement" When we all know that what you actually mean is the release of the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders. If you mean release the names and address of sex offenders then say so and stop hiding behind this mealy mouthed bullshit of "community involvement"

You want to release the personal information and names and addresses of despised, demonised and hated individuals on request to anyone who wants it knowing full well what the results of releasing such information will be.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

_I demand that you say kill the paedos!_


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:
			
		

> You are still buying into this myth of the stranger infecting the wholesome community from outside. "People Joining communities" implying the threat comes in from outside. "people cease to become strangers" implies some kind of conspiracy or cunning plan by evil outsiders to infiltrate the community and to "cease being strangers". This is on its head. Its paranoid nonsense. The stats are quite clear, 90% of reported abuse cases are by family members.(which given that a huge proportion of familiar abuse is not reported, is probably much higher) The danger is, while you continue to perpetuate this idea of the stranger threat you are ignoring the real basis for abuse which is all around us and often by those most trusted by victims. .



I can't tell whether you're really missing my point, or whether your gross caricature of what I'm saying is a dishonest ruse to facilitate your ongoing battles with strawmen

People can join families, and get access to step-kids, nieces and nephews etc. This is made easier when the risk they pose is hidden from their targets, by the state. Do you at least accept that proposition?

And do you accept that working class communities are likely to be disproportionately affected by the relocation of sex offenders, by the state? 

If so, then do you accept that attempts by working class communities to seek to know of the risks the state imposes on them are reasonable? And to make decisions about social issues within communities? 

If so, is it your position that those reasonable attempts by working class families should be blocked by the state? And that your rationale for that is that working class people are likely to lynch nonces?

Do you see any reason why those involved in working class politics might object to a position which supports the state's right to expose working class communities to risk (based on the rights of nonces) borne out of nothing but a low opinion of the working class as a bunch of lynchers?


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> I'm a little bored of this euphemism "community involvement" When we all know that what you actually mean is the release of the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders. If you mean release the names and address of sex offenders then say so and stop hiding behind this mealy mouthed bullshit of "community involvement"
> 
> You want to release the personal information and names and addresses of despised, demonised and hated individuals knowing full well what the results of releasing such information will be.



Frankly go fuck your assumptions. I've talked about what I mean earlier in the thread. I, and others, have also said that for certain individuals, such as Venables, full anonymity will always be required. Anyway, as you're so keen on reminding us cases like that are very rare. I don't see why community panels and support circles couldn't be tried for the vast majority of cases.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

He is doing "the job of a socialist" it is moral duty to socialism to point out the error of the ways to the hoi polloi who can't be trusted to run their own streets let alone to read the red tops without going on a hysterical rampage. It takes a socialist vanguard to show us the error of our ways. Someone like dylans.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2013)

Double post.


----------



## co-op (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> It strikes me that a higher level of community involvement would help counter the stranger danger myth and underline the truth - sex offenders come from our communities, and ultimately it's up to us, as a community to support their rehabilitation and to keep ourselves safe, no matter how distasteful that might initially seem. The more I read this thread the more I think that the public are infantalized on this issue then we're disturbed and shocked that many people's responses to sex offenders are quite infantile.


 
It all gets a bit political a bit quickly though - if Dylans is right that over 90% of child abuse takes place in the family then it's not surprising that right wing politicians aren't exactly rushing to look at the data and prefer to whip up moral storms about evil outsiders. Likewise if paedophile rings can operate with impunity for decades because of the power/wealth/fame of the perpetrators then again it's better for the right to scream about weirdo outsiders on estates rather than look at why gross power inequalities lead to gross power abuses.

Getting community buy-in at this stage looks pretty unlikely to me - even though I've read that isolating offenders and forcing them underground is one of the best predictors of re-offending since they have no (honest) external life to anchor themselves with and they end up with no society but the internet, their own fantasies or other abusers. The whole obsession with nonces being the lowest of the low and evil scum should be boiled alive etc etc is just too strong now I think. And that itself looks to me like a function of a deeply divided society where those at the bottom are forced to create a rung below, just to life themselves out of the shit by one degree. They may be poor/on benefits/publically treated with contempt daily/live on the shit estate no one else wants etc etc  - but they're not fucking nonces.

So top and bottom are locked into this one; if you don't hate nonces "enough" you probably are one. Meanwhile children go on getting raped every day and everyone's looking in the other direction. Depressing shit.


----------



## Looby (Feb 17, 2013)

ETA- Not sure what happened there. : D


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

co-op said:


> It all gets a bit political a bit quickly though - if Dylans is right that over 90% of child abuse takes place in the family.


 
He's not wrong - a lot of abuse is carried out by people who are well known to a family. I don't know if you can put a % on it as most abuse goes unreported. My ex PE teacher is a convicted sex offender, he raped several girls after he gained the families trust. They'd (family) even invited him skiing to teach the kids to ski and left him alone - such was the level of trust. I don't think anyone is denying that but dylans is constantly bringing it up because it is the only thing in his ideology that is correct.

Besides which it has nothing to do with the point.

This is all really to do with dylans trying to save face and calling butchers a member of his invented hysterial mob who see's paedophiles in bushes and is drunk on NOTW blood.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

Athos said:


> People can join families, and get access to step-kids, nieces and nephews etc. This is made easier when the risk they pose is hidden from their targets, by the state. Do you at least accept that proposition?


 
But this goes back to the point that if the state considers the person to be a risk, why are they being allowed back into the community in the first place?

I do think lagtbd's point is a good one - that telling people that their neighbours are convicted sex offenders may eventually make it easier for people to accept the idea of living next door to a sex offender.

But what level of sex offence? Do they get to be removed from the list after a certain number of years, or does their punishment continue indefinitely? Because I find it hard to see how having your name, address and offence published isn't a continuation of your punishment. One point of view is that this is empowering communities, but another is that it is the state continuing to control the lives of offenders long after they have finished their sentence. And being hounded from town to town, in some cases.


----------



## co-op (Feb 17, 2013)

Athos said:


> Do you see any reason why those involved in working class politics might object to a position which supports the state's right to expose working class communities to risk *(based on the rights of nonces)* borne out of nothing but a low opinion of the working class as a bunch of lynchers?


 
You're talking about the "rights of nonces" like they don't have any - is that what you mean? Because if you do then that's exactly why they have to be kept secret. "The state" just wants a cheap solution to a really marginalised and hated subset of the post-prison population and doesn't give shit about the w/c (no news there).

And you might think the 'lynch mob' stuff is just indicating a low opinion of the working classes but I have got to be honest I wouldn't be an ex-(child-abuser)-offender on an estate and be known - are you kidding? You'd be fucking dead meat. You wouldn't be able to go to the shops on a quiet afternoon from what I see and hear.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

@coop I don't doubt it's difficult and requires a more adult politics, but isn't the true socialist job to point out better ways of doing things.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

The true Socialist stands on misty mountain tops and sees through the fog.


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> In the case of the recent cases of institutional abuse that I referred to in the post you mentioned, we have examples of historic abuse going back decades which have been revealed by a series of unique events as taking place within institutions but instead of being seen for what they are, examples of the kind of impunity created by bureaucratic institution's and the relationships of power and powerlessness within them, they are being portrayed as cunning conspiracies, rings and gangs.
> 
> Those rings or gangs may well exist at some level but the danger in focussing solely on these incidents in terms of conspiracy is that we ignore the structural causes of such abuse and in doing so we leave those very structures which facilitate abuse intact and unchanged meaning that such events can occur again.We arrest a few people, perhaps uncover a few gangs or historical conspiracies, the press has a field day reporting the salacious details and we take a deep breathe and rest on our laurels thinking we have solved the problem when in reality the structures that facilitate such abuses are left intact


 
Who said anything about focussing solely on that aspect of those incidents? I'm simply interested in why you think we need to downplay the ring aspect, as if doing that will automatically lead to proper institutional analysis. It doesnt, the press etc can still focus on the 'evil' individuals. Indeed if rings were allowed to operate, surely this is an important indicator of the very institutional failings and structures of abuse which you say should be our focus. Nor do we need to eradicate all talk of conspiracy, instead we simply need to dig deeper into it, and reveal why coverups and conspiracies of silence take place. Eg that if the state and politicians covered up the crimes of a minority of MPs, why they felt the need to do this. Only by exploring it honestly can we reveal that it was not a conspiracy caused by 'all of them being at it', but for other reasons.

I would be very careful about what attempts to prevent moral panic from spreading out of control are tried. Attempts to smother it prematurely are one excuse for coverup, which can lead to levels of cynicism that make sensible discourse less likely much later on when more truth breaks free. Panic is not always a totally destructive and unproductive force, sometimes it is necessary in order to set a new tone, clear out stuff that has been festering, and demonstrate what the full implications of evolved attitudes towards abuse should actually mean for institutions and perpetrators. And attempts to stomp on peoples legitimate concerns, even if those concerns are excessive or expressed in potentially dangerous or bigoted ways, are not on. Not even if they done with well meaning posturing or by evoking sound principals. And certainly not by attempting to counter one section of societies bogeyman with spectres of your own. Fight fear with fear, no!

The historic institutional child abuse stuff is interesting because despite a focus on hunting for guilty individuals at the time, the number of people who slipped through the net or were protected, and the failure of various investigations and inquiries to get to the bottom of things, we did actually see some institutional reform quietly take place. Namely that on some levels there was surely a recognition of the institutional problems because the sort of large institutional facilities for vulnerable people, whether they be the young or the mentally ill or those with learning disabilities, went out of fashion. They were not closed down only as part of a cost-cutting agenda, and whilst aspects of this stuff lingers on, structures and attitudes have moved on to at least a certain extent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> @coop I don't doubt it's difficult and requires a more adult politics, but isn't the true socialist job to point out better ways of doing things.


You've got to be realistic, though. Also, your use of the phrase 'rights of nonces' was kind of indicative of the problem. It's not very adult, imo, to use emotive language in that way to dismiss the idea that sex offenders who have been released should have their wellbeing considered.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> This is all really to do with dylans trying to save face and calling butchers a member of his invented hysterial mob who see's paedophiles in bushes and is drunk on NOTW blood.


 
If you don't agree with me that's fine but to reduce the fairly substantial and political point I am making to some kind of crass and petty grudge with Butchersapron is both insulting and pathetic. It is no secret that I dislike the guy, but that has nothing to do with my argument here. It is he that wants to reduce my argument to "you are a lynch mob" not me


----------



## co-op (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Besides which it has nothing to do with the point.
> 
> This is all really to do with dylans trying to save face and calling butchers a member of his invented hysterial mob who see's paedophiles in bushes and is drunk on NOTW blood.


 
OK thanks for the context. I'm dancing around this because this thread has gone from 0 - 25 pages in no time and I haven't got time to read them all, what I've seen is Dylans making a fair point about nonce-pointing as fulfilling a social need to ignore what makes people behave in fucked up ways and how to deal with it. I wouldn't have ba down as a NOTW type on the whole  (yes that is a joke, better be clear here) - but he's got pretty hot on crime before - remember the Bicycle Theives ba?


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've got to be realistic, though. Also, your use of the phrase 'rights of nonces' was kind of indicative of the problem. It's not very adult, imo, to use emotive language in that way to dismiss the idea that sex offenders who have been released should have their wellbeing considered.



Absolutely. I didn't use that phrase, though, did I that was Athos. And to be more serious, there's no reason for people not to start advocating a more sensible approach, only their belief that it won't be successful is stopping them


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Absolutely. I didn't use that phrase, though, did I. And to be more serious, there's no reason for people not to start advocating a more sensible approach, only their belief that it won't be successful is stopping them


Apologies. Mistaken identity. It was Athos.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

co-op said:


> OK thanks for the context. I'm dancing around this because this thread has gone from 0 - 25 pages in no time and I haven't got time to read them all, what I've seen is Dylans making a fair point about nonce-pointing as fulfilling a social need to ignore what makes people behave in fucked up ways and how to deal with it. I wouldn't have ba down as a NOTW type on the whole  (yes that is a joke, better be clear here) - but he's got pretty hot on crime before - remember the Bicycle Theives ba?


Its not context its a smear and a caracature acted out out of some pathetic attempt to ingratiate himself with his mate.

I don't believe BT is inspired by the NOTW neither do I think he's part of a lynch mob.That's in his head not mine. I do think that his workerist politics lead him to believe that all actions by working class people are automatically progressive and that criticising reactionary ideologies held by some sections of the population are inherantly elitist and middle class which is a fucking joke seeing that I live in poverty as a single parent in a high rise block of flats


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Its not context its a smear and a caracature acted out out of some pathetic attempt to ingratiate himself with his mate


 
A ring of people are out to get you, causing a moral panic that is entirely unrelated to any sound and legitimate concerns


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

co-op said:


> OK thanks for the context. I'm dancing around this because this thread has gone from 0 - 25 pages in no time and I haven't got time to read them all, what I've seen is Dylans making a fair point about nonce-pointing as fulfilling a social need to ignore what makes people behave in fucked up ways and how to deal with it. I wouldn't have ba down as a NOTW type on the whole  (yes that is a joke, better be clear here) - but he's got pretty hot on crime before - remember the Bicycle Theives ba?


I remember your unique take on it yes


----------



## co-op (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I remember your unique take on it yes


 


Fucksake man! Mine is the bog standard reading. You were all over the shop.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 17, 2013)

One of those rare urban threads that has changed my thinking on something.  Some excellent posts on both sidea of the debate, but especially from sihhi.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Its not context its a smear and a caracature acted out out of some pathetic attempt to ingratiate himself with his mate.
> 
> I don't believe BT is inspired by the NOTW neither do I think he's part of a lynch mob.That's in his head not mine. I do think that his workerist politics lead him to believe that all actions by working class people are automatically progressive and that criticising reactionary ideologies held by some sections of the population are inherantly elitist and middle class which is a fucking joke seeing that I live in poverty as a single parent in a high rise block of flats


 
If butchers was my mate why would I ingratiate myself with him, is everyone hear who agrees with him doing the same? You're talking shite and you know it.

All your frothing at the mouth about the NOTW whipping up hysteria amongst the WC is all there a few pages back.

You could live in a fucking shoe and still have stuck up middle class attitudes. Again this is not about you, dylans.


----------



## co-op (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Its not context its a smear and a caracature acted out out of some pathetic attempt to ingratiate himself with his mate.


 
Seriously I can't get involved here because I just haven't read the thread. But I have crossed swords with ba on here and sometimes I am completely baffled by what he is on about, that's probably mutual.



dylans said:


> I don't believe BT is inspired by the NOTW neither do I think he's part of a lynch mob. I do think that his workerist politics lead him to believe that all actions by working class people are automatically progressive and that criticising reactionary ideologies held by some sections of the population are inherantly elitist and middle class which is a fucking joke seeing that I live in poverty in a high rise block of flats


 
Has anyone gone for this line explicitly? At the time it all looked very reactionary to me - led by the press, ended with people attacking randoms. What I remember most tbh was just how fucking heated every discussion about this got. I ended up thinking just stay out of this one it goes no where.

And here I am...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

Belushi said:


> One of those rare urban threads that has changed my thinking on something. Some excellent posts on both sidea of the debate, but especially from sihhi.


I should go back and read the whole thread really. 

Has anyone spoken about experiences elsewhere where they do name sex offenders? I believe they do this in some parts of the US. My reference for this is mostly Jesus from The Big Lebowski, mind you.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

It's not just limited to NOTW. Twitter is ablaze with people saying they'd kick JV up and down the country. Imagine that! On twitter? People never post brain farts onto twitter. Clearly a serious threat.

Worrying times.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2013)

co-op said:
			
		

> You're talking about the "rights of nonces" like they don't have any - is that what you mean? Because if you do then that's exactly why they have to be kept secret. "The state" just wants a cheap solution to a really marginalised and hated subset of the post-prison population and doesn't give shit about the w/c (no news there).
> 
> And you might think the 'lynch mob' stuff is just indicating a low opinion of the working classes but I have got to be honest I wouldn't be an ex-(child-abuser)-offender on an estate and be known - are you kidding? You'd be fucking dead meat. You wouldn't be able to go to the shops on a quiet afternoon from what I see and hear.



You're right. The terminology was crude. I certainly don't mean that sex offenders should have no rights. They should; albeit balanced against the rights of others. 

If they're at such risk in working class areas, where does that lead?


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

I've just posted this on the high level paedo thread, but as it deals with where he was living till the press tracked him down I suppose it fits some of the themes in this thread:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vip-child-abuse-ring-cops-1713969


> Napier was living an idyllic country lifestyle in Sherborne, Dorset, until the Sunday People exposed his past last November.
> He was known as a respected retired teacher and as a theatre director who gave lectures at the town’s literary festival.
> Napier even acted alongside youngsters involved in his theatre group.
> But our revelations brought his criminal past to light, forcing him to give up his community role.
> A production of Shakespeare’s A Winter’s Tale, directed by Napier, was shelved.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I should go back and read the whole thread really.
> 
> Has anyone spoken about experiences elsewhere where they do name sex offenders? I believe they do this in some parts of the US. My reference for this is mostly Jesus from The Big Lebowski, mind you.


"Megan's law" in the US has been in effect for some time and has been studied quite intensively. Two effects are obvious. The first is that many sex offenders go underground, skip licence and probation and are therefore more of a threat to communities because they are then totally unregulated. The second is vigilante attacks on offenders such as the following




> Two men who knew that a recently paroled sex offender was living here because of the community notification provision in "Megan's Law" have been charged with assault in a case that prosecutors are calling the first instance of vigilantism under the new law.
> 
> The two men, a father and son, broke into the house where the parolee, Michael Groff, 25, was asleep on a living room floor at 2:47 A.M. Sunday, Warren County authorities said. But several people were staying at the house, at 318 Lincoln Street, and one of the intruders began beating a man he mistook for Mr. Groff, said John J. O'Reilly, the County Prosecutor.
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/11/n...ew-jersey-is-linked-to-sex-offenders-law.html


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> It's not just limited to NOTW. Twitter is ablaze with people saying they'd kick JV up and down the country. Imagine that! On twitter? People never post brain farts onto twitter. Clearly a serious threat.
> 
> Worrying times.


You don't think he'd be in danger? I do. The Bulger case produced a horrible reaction from many people when it happened. And I feel sorry for JV. He stood no chance of growing up well once he was taken into custody - he was raised in an institution, basically, and a nasty institution at that.


----------



## co-op (Feb 17, 2013)

Athos said:


> You're right. The terminology was crude. I certainly don't mean that sex offenders should have no rights. They should; albeit balanced against the rights of others.
> 
> If they're at such risk in working class areas, where does that lead?


 
Fair enough, it just sounded a bit like one of those ranty anti-human-rights things.

The thing is from what I know (nb and that's not much) they weren't being placed just in "working class areas" but in areas with particularly marginalised parts of the w/c (that's where you can still find a few vacant council houses) - and people there then saw themselves being reduced to the status of nonces. So it wasn't really about child safety itself - no one I know on the estates I've lived on really let their kids play out unsupervised much anyway. It was about the social insult - you're so shit you won't care if we stick the nonces in with you. They had to show some fight at that point.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans do you honestly think that those that disagree with you think that the current 'majority' opinion towards paedophiles is progressive? I see people arguing that it's understandable, and unlikely to be changed by top down decision making, but I don't see anyone arguing that it's laudable. People are vehemently disagreeing with you because they believe your approach will lead to more of the same.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> "Megan's law" in the US has been in effect for some time and has been studied quite intensively. Two effects are obvious. The first is that many sex offenders go underground, skip licence and probation and are therefore more of a threat to communities because they are then totally unregulated. The second is vigilante attacks on offenders such as the followingl


Not really surprising. Making law on the basis of one horrible, but exceptional case is never a good idea. We saw it here after the Huntley case. Yes it was terrible, he should never have been in that position and the system failed. Now we have very restrictive laws to prevent it from happening again, and no doubt they will stop that particular thing from happening again, but they won't stop other, slightly different, but equally horrible, crimes.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't think he'd be in danger? I do. The Bulger case produced a horrible reaction from many people when it happened. And I feel sorry for JV. He stood no chance of growing up well once he was taken into custody - he was raised in an institution, basically, and a nasty institution at that.


Jesus. Feel sorry for him?
Altho I don't think their names and faces should have been public when they were kids, now he's an adult and that's different. What's weird about this case is his identity is protected now as an adult.
Horrible reaction? I'd say it was definitely human.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> dylans do you honestly think that those that disagree with you think that the current 'majority' opinion towards paedophiles is progressive? I see people arguing that it's understandable, and unlikely to be changed by top down decision making, but I don't see anyone arguing that it's laudable. People are vehemently disagreeing with you because they believe your approach will lead to more of the same.


No but I think they accept the narrative that stranger danger is a legitimate threat and by doing so buy into the myth when they should be countering it. The "solutions" which are then suggested, "community involvement" etc (which really just means Sarah's law type legislation),flow from the acceptance of this myth.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> dylans do you honestly think that those that disagree with you think that the current 'majority' opinion towards paedophiles is progressive? I see people arguing that it's understandable, and unlikely to be changed by top down decision making, but I don't see anyone arguing that it's laudable. People are vehemently disagreeing with you because they believe your approach will lead to more of the same.


More of the same what, though? If you really want to tackle child abuse, something else is needed, no? Something that involves talking to offenders and trying to understand how they became what they became. And then seeing what can perhaps be done about stopping _that_ from happening. Beyond what others have said, which is that a general improvement in living conditions for everyone is the best way to tackle nearly all forms of crime.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Jesus. Feel sorry for him?
> Altho I don't think their names and faces should have been public when they were kids, now he's an adult and that's different. What's weird about this case is his identity is protected now as an adult.
> Horrible reaction? I'd say it was definitely human.


Why? If he's still at risk?

And yes, I certainly feel sorry for him. He's had a rotten failure of a life, and not all of that is his own fault. He did one terrible thing when he was 11 and he will be paying for it for the rest of his life.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why? If he's still at risk?
> 
> And yes, I certainly feel sorry for him. He's had a rotten failure of a life, and not all of that is his own fault. He did one terrible thing when he was 11 and he will be paying for it for the rest of his life.


I can think of better people to feel sorry for.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> No but I think they accept the narrative that stranger danger is a legitimate threat and by doing so buy into the myth when they should be countering it. The "solutions" which follows "community involvement" etc (which really just means Sarah's law type legislation) flows from the acceptance of this myth.



So you've ignored where I've suggested other forms of involvement and where people have explicitly said that current practice perpetuates the stranger danger myth?


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> I can think of better people to feel sorry for.


 
Didnt realise it was a resource that needs to be rationed and prioritised.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

I can understand it in the case of Robert Thompson who has not done anything wrong since his release, but not Venables who's actually been caught downloading child porn.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> I can think of better people to feel sorry for.



He's a deeply disturbed, sad man who is doomed to lead an absolutely shit existence. I feel sorry for him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I can understand it in the case of Robert Thompson who has not done anything wrong since his release, but not Venables who's actually been caught downloading child porn.


Man brought up in secure institutions from the age of 11 develops an unhealthy sexuality. No real surprise.

It's a leap to go from downloading child porn to posing a physical danger to anybody, though.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Man brought up in secure institutions from the age of 11 develops an unhealthy sexuality. No real surprise.
> 
> It's a leap to go from downloading child porn to posing a physical danger to anybody, though.


It's not much of a leap considering what he's done really, no.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> So you've ignored where I've suggested other forms of involvement and where people have explicitly said that current practice perpetuates the stranger danger myth?


I am not advocating the status quo. I am however strongly opposed to any legislative solution that involves the denial of anonymity of those individuals deemed at risk from attack and I think the dismissal of this risk by many on here is disingenuous.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> It's not much of a leap considering what he's done really, no.


This is the bit I didn't get at the time. They were 11. It's natural to feel horrified by what they did and indeed by them. But I don't think it's healthy to feel no compassion towards 11-year-old children no matter what horrible thing they've done. That's us failing as adults, surely.

And the state is in part responsible for who he is now, given that the state has been bringing him up from age 11. As we all know, even at the best of times, the state is an appalling parent.


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> I am not advocating the status quo. I am however strongly opposed to any legislative solution that involves the denial of anonymity of those individuals deemed at risk from attack and I think the dismissal of this risk by many on here is disingenuous.


 
The risk should not be dismissed. But I dont think it should be used to dismiss other fears out of hand either. I have no easy answers, and when faced with this earlier in the thread I took it a step further back and started going on about one of the underlying issues - that a portion of society does not support some aspects of how the justice system decided to treat offenders. ie people who want to kill him now probably believe he should have faced death for the original crime in the first place.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

elbows said:


> The risk should not be dismissed. But I dont think it should be used to dismiss other fears out of hand either. I have no easy answers, and when faced with this earlier in the thread I took it a step further back and started going on about one of the underlying issues - that a portion of society does not support some aspects of how the justice system decided to treat offenders. ie people who want to kill him now probably believe he should have faced death for the original crime in the first place.


tbh I despair of people who feel compelled to rant and rave about something like this when they weren't personally involved. They seem to feel the need to display their outrage. I don't quite understand why.

And in this case, shame on them. 11 isn't even borderline adolescent. They weren't 13 or 14. They were just 11.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2013)

well remember the fall-out at the time. Public rage was so high they ended up banning a swathe of violent films including Childs Play 3 which is alleged to have influenced the boys. The childs play films are gruesome horror-comedy but banworthy?


I also reall people who had seemed liberal sorts calling for blood- actual blood. from an 11 year old pair. I'm no 'free the peados' sort but that was way off-beam


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't think he'd be in danger? I do. The Bulger case produced a horrible reaction from many people when it happened. And I feel sorry for JV. He stood no chance of growing up well once he was taken into custody - he was raised in an institution, basically, and a nasty institution at that.


 
I don't think JV would be safe anywhere - I wasn't really thinking of people like JV but people like my teacher who I mentioned previously (Joseph Kinear, Northumberland if you want to google) who served his time and was released back into the same community. There's been no threats to him, he's still there and you sometimes see him. If anything he is ignored and the social isolation and alienation from him is the overwhelming response.

JV is an extreme example - the gruesome details of that case are probably the most abhorrent things a kid has ever done. Even in death they took amusement from the body by placing it across railway lines. I really don't know what you do with someone like that. There's a derelict oil rig in the north sea... but obviously that's stupid and not the answer.

Long term detention with a long leash and a GPS tag and the support purenarcotic mentions. Support from the community that dylans doesn't trust,


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh I despair of people who feel compelled to rant and rave about something like this when they weren't personally involved. They seem to feel the need to display their outrage. I don't quite understand why.



Since having my daughter I've been quite surprised by how regularly complete strangers feel moved to tell me how they don't understand how people can hurt and kill children. I'm tempted to thank them because previously to them saying that I had them pegged as an abuser, but I'm too polite and they clearly mean well. 

Odd impulse though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Since having my daughter I've been quite surprised by how regularly complete strangers feel moved to tell me how they don't understand how people can hurt and kill children. I'm tempted to thank them because previously to them saying that I had them pegged as an abuser, but I'm too polite and they clearly mean well.
> 
> Odd impulse though.


I find I can instantly put nervous parents at their ease by declaring loud and clear as I shake their hands, 'I'm not a paedophile, you know. There's no problem there.'


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He stood no chance of growing up well once he was taken into custody - he was raised in an institution, basically, and a nasty institution at that.


 
That is entirely true.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> I am not advocating the status quo. I am however strongly opposed to any legislative solution that involves the denial of anonymity of those individuals deemed at risk from attack and I think the dismissal of this risk by many on here is disingenuous.



But by drawing that line I think you preserve the status quo in aspic. I would rather work towards a more adult accommodation of sex offenders which would ultimately involve communities making their own decisions on an individual basis. Venables is an anomaly, an extreme case. I do think that with work, most sex offenders would be better off accommodated openly in their own communities. That happens informally anyway. I don't think that could be imposed by itself top down without significant problems.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> But by drawing that line I think you preserve the status quo in aspic. I would rather work towards a more adult accommodation of sex offenders which would ultimately involve communities making their own decisions on an individual basis. Venables is an anomaly, an extreme case. I do think that with work, most sex offenders would be better off accommodated openly in their own communities. That happens informally anyway. I don't think that could be imposed by itself top down without significant problems.


So just to be clear. By openly you mean their names and addresses and crimes should be publically available to anyone who requests them right? That I can think there is something a bit dodgy about that bloke who lives alone at number 10 and I can go to the police station and ask if he is a sex offender and get his information?

This is what you are suggesting when you say "accomodated openly in their own communities"


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> So just to be clear. By openly you mean their names and addresses and crimes should be publically available to anyone who requests them right? That I can think there is something a bit dodgy about that bloke who lives alone at number 10 and I can go to the police station and ask if he is a sex offender and get his information?
> 
> This is what you are suggesting when you say "accomodated openly in their own communities"


 
Jesus wept.

Come on, dylans, you've got more insight and brains than this.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Jesus wept.


Its just a request for clarification.  If he doesn't mean this then fair enough but I would like to know what it actually means


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Jesus wept.
> 
> Come on, dylans, you've got more insight and brains than this.


That is effectively what we're talking about here, though, isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Its just a request for clarification.


No, it's a demand that people say _kill the paedos._


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> JV is an extreme example - the gruesome details of that case are probably the most abhorrent things a kid has ever done.


 
I doubt it. 

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/wor...-risk-of-recruitment-for-soldiers-319952.html


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is effectively what we're talking about here, though, isn't it?


Yes but they don't have the courage to spell it out. They prefer euphemisms and abstractions. "community involvement" Living openly in their communities" etc but when asked to explain what those terms mean they are silent


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> This is what you are suggesting when you say "accomodated openly in their own communities"



I give up. Have you read any of the rest of my posts or just skipped to the bits you can get irate about. I think I've been very clear but no matter, I'm obviously just obfuscating my desire to lynch sex offenders.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Yes but they don't have the courage to spell it out. They prefer euphemisms and abstractions. "community involvement" Living openly in their communities" etc but when asked to explain what those terms mean they are silent


Why need these wretches speak when you can do it for them? _Kill the paedos_ is all they are capable of saying.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> I give up. Have you read any of the rest of my posts or just skipped to the bits you can get irate about. I think I've been very clear but no matter, I'm obviously just obfuscating my desire to lynch sex offenders.


 
The right to know line is precisely what Dylans outlines, though. And I believe this is what they have in parts of the US now. Surely if their details aren't publicly available, then we simply have what we have now? How else would you do it? Genuine question.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The right to know line is precisely what Dylans outlines, though. And I believe this is what they have in parts of the US now. Surely if their details aren't publicly available, then we simply have what we have now?


When you said that you think that you needed to re-read the thread were you just talking?


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> I give up. Have you read any of the rest of my posts or just skipped to the bits you can get irate about. I think I've been very clear but no matter, I'm obviously just obfuscating my desire to lynch sex offenders.


I don't think that at all. I don't think those who advocate Sarah's law want to lynch sex offenders either (well some do)I think most advocates for such legislation are genuinely afraid for their children and think it is a legislative solution.  Rather I am making a genuine request for you to explain what those abstract terms actually mean. Here is your opportunity to spell it out because my contention is that when you crack open those nice sounding terms what you are actually left with is erm...releasing the names and addresses of sex offenders to communities.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

It's muckle sunny out, am going to make the most of it.

No time for integration with imaginary friends this afternoon. TTFN


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> When you said that you think that you needed to re-read the thread were you just talking?


You answer then, seeing as you've intervened. Either the details of the whereabouts of sex offenders are made available to the people they live near or they're not. Is there a third option that I'm missing?


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Yes but they don't have the courage to spell it out. They prefer euphemisms and abstractions. "community involvement" Living openly in their communities" etc but when asked to explain what those terms mean they are silent



What utter bullshit. I think currently it clearly couldn't mean that but that with a change in attitude and decision making some communities in some cases might decide to identify people publicly - there are lots of other forms of accommodation that I've mentioned that I think are far more likely, certainly in the short term such as community panels and support circles that you ignore over and over again because it doesn't fit what you have decided I think and want. Ultimately though, it would be up to the community itself to decide, that's kind of the point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> What utter bullshit. I think currently it clearly couldn't mean that but that with a change in attitude and decision making some communities in some cases might decide to identify people publicly - there are lots of other forms of accommodation that I've mentioned that I think are far more likely, certainly in the short term such as community panels and support circles that you ignore over and over again because it doesn't fit what you have decided I think and want. Ultimately though, it would be up to the community itself to decide, that's kind of the point.


And if the 'community' decides to identify people, those people have no option but to be identified? Is that how it would work?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You answer then, seeing as you've intervened. Either the details of the whereabouts of sex offenders are made available to the people they live near or they're not. Is there a third option that I'm missing?


Intervened? Ok, this, of course, has been done throughout the thread - lagtbd in particular has answered the question already, to only find that the points made were ignored and spat back in his/her face as_ oh so you want to kill all paedos?_


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And if the 'community' decides to identify people, those people have no option but to be identified? Is that how it would work?


Let's be clear here then, do your reject _any_ moves away from the current status quo?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Intervened? Ok, this, of course, has been done throughout the thread - lagtbd in particular has answered the question already, to only find that the points made were ignored and spat back in his/her face as_ oh so you want to kill all paedos?_


Nah, you're making up that last bit. I'm simply trying to work out what these proposals mean. And it still appears to me that whatever form the proposals take, they still involve an option being given to communities to forcibly identify convicted sex offenders in their area.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah, you're making up that last bit. I'm simply trying to work out what these proposals mean. And it still appears to me that whatever form the proposals take, they still involve an option being given to communities to forcibly identify convicted sex offenders in their area.


I'm not making anything up at all. That is what dylans has done for relentless page after page. I'm not lying. Thanks for the suggestion though. And I didn't suggest that you had engaged in the same rubbish as dylans.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And if the 'community' decides to identify people, those people have no option but to be identified? Is that how it would work?



As I have said, over and over again, I think at the moment that couldn't work for obvious reasons, however, I can envisage a time in the future where, given a more enlightened attitude and a genuine level of community involvement and commitment to support and rehabilitation that that decision might occasionally be made. I don't advocate a system like Dylans describes, and I don't advocate that starting tomorrow. I think a good starting point would be to have a community panel where people in an area are involved in the decisions about register conditions in their area and develop from there. Now can Dylans now explain in detail how his do nothing approach will alter the status quo?


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> What utter bullshit. I think currently it clearly couldn't mean that but that with a change in attitude and decision making some communities in some cases might decide to identify people publicly - there are lots of other forms of accommodation that I've mentioned that I think are far more likely, certainly in the short term such as community panels and support circles that you ignore over and over again because it doesn't fit what you have decided I think and want. Ultimately though, it would be up to the community itself to decide, that's kind of the point.


 
Who would make up these community panels and support circles. I presume these panels and circles would all know the identities of the offenders. On what basis would they be chosen and on what basis would they agree to uphold or release anonymous details to friends and family, neighbours etc? 

It seems to me that such panels would be just as elitist and unaccountable as the present system that you presently oppose which after all is made up of prison officials, social workers, psychiatrists, parole officers, law enforcement etc. All of whom are empowered to make exactly the kinds of decisions you wish for your community panels but who you dismiss as "middle class professionals"  If you are suggesting that these structures are class biased and don't involve enough working class professionals then I entirely agree with you . However the solution to this is not to dissolve them in favour of some kind of town hall alternative but to alter the class bias in all our professions by training more local working class professionals.

Your first point is actually just meaningless abstraction that no one could disagree with. It amounts to maybe, one day, if attitudes change, in some cases,perhaps some communities, might, maybe, perhaps one day decide to release the names of ex offenders if the situation arises where such decisions are possible and if it is deemed safe to do so,  perhaps.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> As I have said, over and over again, I think at the moment that *couldn't work for obvious reasons,* however, I can envisage a time in the future where, given a more enlightened attitude and a genuine level of community involvement and commitment to support and rehabilitation that that decision might occasionally be made. I don't advocate a system like Dylans describes, and I don't advocate that starting tomorrow. I think a good starting point would be to have a community panel where people in an area are involved in the decisions about register conditions in their area and develop from there. Now can Dylans now explain in detail how his do nothing approach will alter the status quo?


I have no disagreement with your suggestion and hope one day in the future such structures will be possible.

I'm glad that you agree with me that such measures are not possible today and that the reasons for that are "obvious" I couldn't agree more.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> I have no disagreement with your suggestion.


Why do you want to _kill all paedos_ then dylans?


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why do you want to _kill all paedos_ then dylans?


Oh go away you stupid cunt


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

Maybe if you read my first twenty posts I was less vague. I also haven't produced a hundred page document on every eventuality either. Maybe there could be a meeting annually to decide with a proviso that whoever stood had to live locally and not be otherwise elected - so no councillors etc You really remind me of the people who rubbish all revolutionary politics because you can't describe in detail how the recycling will get collected. 
Again how's doing nothing going to magically improve things.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Let's be clear here then, do your reject _any_ moves away from the current status quo?


Hmmm. You're not very forthcoming with your answers, are you?

I would first want to see what kind of problem this is. How many people are we talking about, and how many reoffenses happen that would probably have been prevented by this measure. Sex offenders simply taking the option of dropping off the radar altogether is a real problem with anything like this. I'm also not easy about it generally - I'm not keen on the idea of my neighbours being allowed to force me to prove myself to them. I don't see that as empowering communities so much as the state allowing other people to intrude on my business. I would also see a danger in the 'pick on the weirdo' syndrome. I would suspect that this kind of measure would do nothing to promote trust between neighbours.

'Community' is an overused word, sadly. Most of the places I've lived have had very weak or fractured community ties. That's not a good thing, and it's a hard thing to change. But increased involvement of people with their local area is going to decrease the chances of someone's child being abused by a stranger anyway. I'm in favour of that to a degree, although I've never liked neighbourhood watch.

Community involvement should be voluntary, in any case. If you want to be left alone, you should be allowed to be left alone wherever it's reasonable to do so, imo.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> I have no disagreement with your suggestion and hope one day in the future such structures will be possible.
> 
> I'm glad that you agree with me that such measures are not possible today and that the reasons for that are "obvious" I couldn't agree more.



But you've drawn a line that anyone who advocates any openness ever is somehow cheering on lynch mobs.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Maybe if you read my first twenty posts I was less vague. I also haven't produced a hundred page document on every eventuality either. Maybe there could be a meeting annually to decide with a proviso that whoever stood had to live locally and not be otherwise elected - so no councillors etc


The issues I have repeatedly argued on here are (a) the importance of rehabilitation as a principle of our justice system (b) the need for anonymity for those we deem fit for rehabilitation (c) the mythical and media led panic behind much of the public demand for "protection and legislation regarding released sex offenders and the self defeating nature of legislation based on such moral outrages and (d) the importance of countering such narratives and not pandering to them and to the fallacious assumptions behind them. 
If your suggestions are not in contrast to those points that I have argued then we have no real substantive disagreement.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

This idea of the community vs the paedos is bugging me. The paedos, rapists, violent abusers of women and kids ARE the community. The vast majority are completely immune to any state sanctions until their victims appeal for it if indeed they do at all because they don't want to stigmatised. The various 'kids name' laws came about because of the media who not a shit gave about it a decade or two ago when it was no less prevalent. There is no reason following the logic that we let the media dictate our cultures monsters that we shouldn't know where the mentally ill who pose a threat live, or convicted rapists, wife abusers, drug dealers or muslamic rayguns for that matter. This is another example of hysterical bullshit imported from the land of the free like big macs and should resolutely swerved if you ask me.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. You're not very forthcoming with your answers, are you?
> 
> I would first want to see what kind of problem this is. How many people are we talking about, and how many reoffenses happen that would probably have been prevented by this measure. Sex offenders simply taking the option of dropping off the radar altogether is a real problem with anything like this. I'm also not easy about it generally - I'm not keen on the idea of my neighbours being allowed to force me to prove myself to them. I don't see that as empowering communities so much as the state allowing other people to intrude on my business. I would also see a danger in the 'pick on the weirdo' syndrome. I would suspect that this kind of measure would do nothing to promote trust between neighbours.
> 
> ...


The answers come after, we need to clear the ground first. Is that a yes or no to the question i asked?



> Let's be clear here then, do your reject any moves away from the current status quo?


 
You've identified above any such moves as essential being what dylans said - some form of naming them and then the inevitable. I think that's wrong and betrays a whole world of fear about other people that fits more into the top-down folk devil and moral panic stuff mentioned earlier. But to get into that the question needs answering.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> But you've drawn a line that anyone who advocates any openness ever is somehow cheering on lynch mobs.


openness" You mean releasing the names and addresses of sex offenders? Yes I draw a line at that. I thought you agreed with me in your post above when you said 



> I think at the moment that couldn't work for obvious reasons,


 
Make your mind up. Jesus.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> openness" You mean releasing the names and addresses of sex offenders? Yes I draw a line at that. I thought you agreed with me in your post above when you said
> 
> 
> 
> Make your mind up. Jesus.



Don't selectively quote. It makes it look like you're doing it in order to look like you're not backtracking having completely misread and ignored posts and arguments.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

You need to identify what specific parts of the status quo are involved. I don't favour moves towards giving people the 'right to know' about sex offenders in their neighbourhood. I understand lagtbd's argument. It's just about the best case possible for giving people the right to ask for the right to know. I can't help feeling that it wouldn't stop any abuse, though. And the US already shows us evidence that the response of many sex offenders is to drop out of the system altogether.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> This idea of the community vs the paedos is bugging me. The paedos, rapists, violent abusers of women and kids ARE the community. The vast majority are completely immune to any state sanctions until their victims appeal for it if indeed they do at all because they don't want to stigmatised. The various 'kids name' laws came about because of the media who not a shit gave about it a decade or two ago when it was no less prevalent. There is no reason following the logic that we let the media dictate our cultures monsters that we shouldn't know where the mentally ill who pose threat live, or convicted rapists, wife abusers, drug dealers or muslamic rayguns for that matter. This is another example of hyserical bullshit imported from the land of the free like big macs and should resolutely swerved if you ask me.


This is exactly right. This idea of the paedo as outsider, infecting the wholesome community is a narrative that is based on fear, Sex abusers, like all criminals are not outside the communities they live they ARE the community. The idea that communities are under threat from these shadows moving in perpetuates the idea of us vs them and makes it all the easier to ignore the very real abuse taking place amongst us.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You need to identify what specific parts of the status quo are involved. I don't favour moves towards giving people the 'right to know' about sex offenders in their neighbourhood. I understand lagtbd's argument. It's just about the best case possible for giving people the right to ask for the right to know. I can't help feeling that it wouldn't stop any abuse, though. And the US already shows us evidence that the response of many sex offenders is to drop out of the system altogether.


Not sure that i do need to do that as it goes. And you're question begging here anyway - you're assuming that changes mean 'right to know'.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Don't selectively quote. It makes it look like you're doing it in order to look like you're not backtracking having completely misread and ignored posts and arguments.


I thought we were getting someone based on clarity but you are reverting to your old slippery trick of hiding behind abstraction. I am not in favour of the personal information of any released offender, no matter what his crime, being released to the public. I think it is a fundamental breach of the rights of privacy of citizens and a betrayal of the principle of rehabilitation.

Now you can agree with that in which case we agree or you can disagree in which case we don't. You can't have it both ways


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> This is exactly right. This idea of the paedo as outsider, infecting the wholesome community is a narrative that is based on fear, Sex abusers, like all criminals are not outside the communities they live they ARE the community. The idea that communities are under threat from these shadows moving in perpetuates the idea of us vs them and makes it all the easier to ignore the very real abuse taking place amongst us.


So stop arguing in support of a) the conditions that produce such fears and b) seeing it everywhere


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure that i do need to do that as it goes. And you're question begging here anyway - you're assuming that changes mean 'right to know'.


Nobody has yet outlined a potential change that doesn't boil down to the establishment of a 'right to know'. It may be up to each community (or their self-appointed leaders), it may be that it can only be done after consultation, but in the end, the result is compulsory disclosure. You give me an option that doesn't involve compulsory disclosure somewhere along the line.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody has yet outlined a potential change that doesn't boil down to the establishment of a 'right to know'. It may be up to each community (or their self-appointed leaders), it may be that it can only be done after consultation, but in the end, the result is compulsory disclosure. You give me an option that doesn't involve compulsory disclosure somewhere along the line.


The question was :



> Let's be clear here then, do your reject any moves away from the current status quo?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody has yet outlined a potential change that doesn't boil down to the establishment of a 'right to know'. It may be up to each community (or their self-appointed leaders), it may be that it can only be done after consultation, but in the end, the result is compulsory disclosure. You give me an option that doesn't involve compulsory disclosure somewhere along the line.


Er..lagtbd did over and over.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

I'm tired of that, butchers. Your question is not clear to me. You need to tell me what bits of the status quo you are referring to. I would like all kinds of moves away from the status quo, but not moves towards making sex offenders publish their addresses.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Er..lagtbd did over and over.


This is going nowhere. They didn't really. They simply stressed that it should be up to each individual community to decide. Now that's an improvement on the idea that you could just go to a cop shop and demand your neighbour's records. But it still involves compulsory disclosure in the end, if that is what is decided on.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm tired of that, butchers. Your question is not clear to me. You need to tell me what bits of the status quo you are referring to. I would like all kinds of moves away from the status quo, but not moves towards making sex offenders publish their addresses.


In that case, patrician tiredness or not you can answer the question:



> Let's be clear here then, do your reject any moves away from the current status quo?


 
Just say it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> I thought we were getting someone based on clarity but you are reverting to your old slippery trick of hiding behind abstraction. I am not in favour of the personal information of any released offender, no matter what his crime, being released to the public. I think it is a fundamental breach of the rights of privacy of citizens and a betrayal of the principle of rehabilitation.
> 
> Now you can agree with that in which case we agree or you can disagree in which case we don't. You can't have it both ways


 
Then, in the interests of clarity, would you answer the series of questions I put to you a while ago, please:



> I can't tell whether you're really missing my point, or whether your gross caricature of what I'm saying is a dishonest ruse to facilitate your ongoing battles with strawmen
> 
> People can join families, and get access to step-kids, nieces and nephews etc. This is made easier when the risk they pose is hidden from their targets, by the state. Do you at least accept that proposition?
> 
> ...


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Now you can agree with that in which case we agree or you can disagree in which case we don't. You can't have it both ways



Righto. Go back and read my posts and you'll realise we disagree but for entirely different reasons to what I think you think this is about! Swansea have kicked off so I'm bowing out for a while.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is going nowhere. They didn't really. They simply stressed that it should be up to each individual community to decide. Now that's an improvement on the idea that you could just go to a cop shop and demand your neighbour's records. But it still involves compulsory disclosure in the end, if that is what is decided on.


You _really_ do need to read this thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Righto. Go back and read my posts and you'll realise we disagree but for entirely different reasons to what I think you think this is about! Swansea have kicked off so I'm bowing out for a while.


All empathy and solidarity now gone


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> So just to be clear. By openly you mean their names and addresses and crimes should be publically available to anyone who requests them right? That I can think there is something a bit dodgy about that bloke who lives alone at number 10 and I can go to the police station and ask if he is a sex offender and get his information?
> 
> This is what you are suggesting when you say "accomodated openly in their own communities"


Yes - (eta) or maybe to anyone with a genuine reason for knowing the information for child protection purposes - their kids, or others they are responsible for.

And maybe the exact address isn't needed, but confirmed identities of actual convicted pedophiles who'd acted on their urges who are either living or working in an area to those with a good reason to want to know (I'm not so sure about those only convicted of possession of child porn who've not actually proven themselves to be incapable of containing their urges).

Why should they have the right to live in amongst communities with kids around with nobody being any the wiser.

TBH I'd probably post their pictures up on a noticeboard next to the kids playground with a request to inform the police if any of them were seen hanging around in the vicinity - I'd certainly ensure that everyone working with kids in the area had their photos so that they could inform the police if any of them were seen around any kids they were working with.

A few years ago I was running quite a big community festival with lots of families, kids etc, and was initially a bit shocked to find the copper in charge of monitoring the local child molesters attending the festival off duty in his own time to keep an eye out for known offenders. He unofficially showed me pictures of the key people he was looking out for, but said he was actually breaking the law in doing this, and wouldn't allow me to show the picture to our security or stewards teams so we could properly keep an eye out for them. Later that day we actually did have someone actually attempt to snatch a kid from the park, as in they were spotted leading a distressed kid off by the hand from the edge of the park then legged it when one of the security guards we'd specifically positioned at the park boundary to prevent this challenged them, and was then chased through the city centre until he disappeared.

Why should the protection of convicted pedophiles anonymity take precedence in these situations over societies ability to protect kids from them? The police certainly don't have the manpower to properly keep track of their activities by themselves.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> A few years ago I was running quite a big community festival with lots of families, kids etc, and was initially a bit shocked to find the copper in charge of monitoring the local child molesters attending the festival off duty in his own time to keep an eye out for known offenders. He unofficially showed me pictures of the key people he was looking out for, but said he was actually breaking the law in doing this, and wouldn't allow me to show the picture to our security or stewards teams so we could properly keep an eye out for them. Later that day we actually did have someone actually attempt to snatch a kid from the park, as in they were spotted leading a distressed kid off by the hand from the edge of the park then legged it when one of the security guards we'd specifically positioned at the park boundary to prevent this challenged them, and was then chased through the city centre until he disappeared.
> .


That's horrible.  And it points to wider failings in the system, tbh. Repeat offenders may need to be kept away from the rest of us more or less permanently. If the system didn't lock up so many people who are no danger to others, it would be able to concentrate its resources on those who are a danger.

I would guess one way of enforcing a disclosure system would be to make it a condition of probation. That would only apply to repeat offenders, I would think, and it would have to be part of a much wider programme designed to stop them from reoffending.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

> Yes - (eta) or maybe to anyone with a genuine reason for knowing the information for child protection purposes - their kids, or others they are responsible for.


 
Ok thanks for being clear. So you support Sarah's law legislation. Legislation that in the US has led to the violent attacks against several offenders and is responsible for numerous offenders disappearing entirely and going underground where they now live with no registration or supervision or parole conditions. This is an abvious and blatant intrusion by the state into the private lives of citizens a violation of human rights and of the basic democratic principles of rehabilitation and most importantly it does nothing to protect children


> Why should they have the right to live in amongst communities with kids around with nobody being any the wiser.


 
I have news for you. "They" do already, they are all around you. They are our parents, uncles, grandfathers, teachers, priests, MPs the idea that there is a clearly identified threat called a paedo who we can protect ourselves against just plays into the myth of the other.



> TBH I'd probably post their pictures up on a noticeboard next to the kids playground with a request to inform the police if any of them were seen hanging around in the vicinity - I'd certainly ensure that everyone working with kids in the area had their photos so that they could inform the police if any of them were seen around any kids they were working with.


 
If an offender is deemed of such a risk to the public that there is a need to put up posters warning the public of them then they shouldn't be released. If they are deemed to be of no risk then there is no need for such campaigns which again only play into the idea that we can protect our kids against identifiable monsters. How many times do you need to be told that 90% of abusers are known and trusted by their victims not strangers.



> A few years ago I was running quite a big community festival with lots of families, kids etc, and was initially a bit shocked to find the copper in charge of monitoring the local child molesters attending the festival off duty in his own time to keep an eye out for known offenders. He unofficially showed me pictures of the key people he was looking out for, but said he was actually breaking the law in doing this,


 
The first part seems eminently reasonable and sensible part of any process of supervision. the second part is not and he should lose his job.



> Later that day we actually did have someone actually attempt to snatch a kid from the park, as in they were spotted leading a distressed kid off by the hand from the edge of the park then legged it when one of the security guards we'd specifically positioned at the park boundary to prevent this challenged them, and was then chased through the city centre until he disappeared.


 
No you didn't. This is just an anecdote and like all such anacdotes it's bollocks. Child abduction is incredibly rare occurrence and I find it hard to believe that you would be the one to just by coincidence happen to witness one.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's horrible.  And it points to wider failings in the system, tbh. Repeat offenders may need to be kept away from the rest of us more or less permanently. If the system didn't lock up so many people who are no danger to others, it would be able to concentrate its resources on those who are a danger.


this is the sort of crap situation that Dylans viewpoint perpetuates.

We were left trying to protect kids in a crowd of 12,000 people without our security team being allowed to know what any of the people we'd be warned about actually looked like.

At the very least, anyone involved in work that involved responsibility for the protection of children should be armed with the knowledge of those in the community who have proven themselves to pose a danger to children.

Personally I'd extend that right to parents as well.

ps I'd have to point out that I'm not up to date with the current situation, so things may have moved on since then.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> The first part seems eminently reasonable and sensible part of any process of supervision. the second part is not and he should lose his job.


go fuck yourself


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

Was it a guy of the list then?

Personally the last thing I'd want to be doing on a day out with my kids is scanning the crowds for convicted nonces. I assume the cop felt you were a responsible person given the situation.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

SWho (apart from you, dylan) is talking about putting up posters? You've made stuff up throughout this thread. When faced with Home Office figures from Fez you called it bullshit and then when you realised your mistake you said you were off to bed and would look at it in the morning. You've gone from making reasonable objections to lying and using emotive language and hysteria to reinforce your flimsy argument.

FOS.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Who (apart from you, dylan) is talking about putting up posters?


free spirit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> If an offender is deemed of such a risk to the public that there is a need to put up posters warning the public of them then they shouldn't be released. If they are deemed to be of no risk then there is no need for such campaigns which again only play into the idea that we can protect our kids against identifiable monsters. How many times do you need to be told that 90% of abusers are known and trusted by their victims not strangers.


 
It's not as simple as that, though, is it. Many child molesters want to stop but say that they can't control the urge - even to the extent of handing themselves in to the police sometimes. I would think that fact makes it hard to tell who will offend again - two men may both sincerely declare that they understand the damage they are doing and won't do it again, but one may succumb to the urge.

I do think there is a case for 'some risk' being allowed back in the community in a controlled way.




dylans said:


> The first part seems eminently reasonable and sensible part of any process of supervision. the second part is not and *he should lose his job*.


Really?


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> free spirit


 
Did he? I will go and read his post again because I must have missed it.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Who (apart from you, dylan) is talking about putting up posters?


me, for those who're banned from playgrounds and the like as part of their parole, as most playground have no police patrols, I think the community should be given the tools needed to aid that enforcement.

Though that's at the far end of things, maybe it should just be that park officials with responsibility for the parks are given access to up to date photos of those considered most as a risk by the teams monitoring them.


----------



## Looby (Feb 17, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> I can think of better people to feel sorry for.



I feel sorry for both of them too. From the limited stuff I've read, they'd had pretty shit lives up to the day they took Jamie Bulger and were clearly very fucked up little boys.

And that's what they were, children.

I was fostered with a little boy the age of Venables and Thompson.
He was a pain in the fucking arse if I'm honest. Stealing stuff, pissing and shitting in shampoo bottles and clothes. He was then caught with his hands down his little sisters pants in the back of a taxi on a contact day out. 

Last I heard he was in his teens and in a secure unit, he never stood a chance that kid.

Turns out, he was sexually and physically abused by his step-father and neglected by both parents as were all his siblings. Every time they removed a child, his mother had another.

In his first long term foster home, he was then abused by an older boy there. Apparently this older boy had also been dragged up, beaten, neglected and abused. 

Now, were either of these boys evil or did they deserve sympathy and support?

Watching that kid and the pain and anger in his face, it terrified me what he could be capable of if he didn't get proper help. 

What happened that day was horrific and disgusting but that doesn't mean I can't feel sympathy for those boys too.

Sorry, that's all a bit over emotional I guess but there we are.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> me, for those who're banned from playgrounds and the like as part of their parole, as most playground have no police patrols, I think the community should be given the tools needed to aid that enforcement.
> 
> Though that's at the far end of things, maybe it should just be that park officials with responsibility for the parks are given access to up to date photos of those considered most as a risk by the teams monitoring them.


 
Doh 

Yeah, I just saw your notice board comment. I missed it but it's not exactly the same as a poster campaign is it? It's more of a singular information source.

Not quite sure I agree with it, mind. I think there's better ways than that. 

You know what my mum did, FS, you can guess what her opinion is - and what that opinion is built upon.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> Was it a guy of the list then?
> 
> Personally the last thing I'd want to be doing on a day out with my kids is scanning the crowds for convicted nonces. I assume the cop felt you were a responsible person given the situation.


Don't know, as we didn't catch the fucker.

I don't see why you or any other parent should need to be on the look out either at a properly organised event with a full stewarding team, and SIA security team on site, plus a few coppers. I bet you'd expect that the police would have the ability to alert those security and stewards teams to the identities of any known pedophiles they suspect are likely to be targeting the event though, so that they could actually do their jobs and protect the kids attending the festival.

If I remember right, he did spot a couple of them in the area and warned them off. Utterly nuts that he still wasn't able to actually give our security team the identity of these people, just warn us to be on alert for anyone acting suspiciously with a kid. In the end this actually worked, but it didn't exactly help us out - it's akin to asking us to do a job but to do it with an arm and leg tied together.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

This is all so fucking hysterical, should we just show our kids pictures of paedos then it would save all the adults the bother and for that matter maybe tell them that all their close male relatives might try and rape them.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

Athos said:


> Then, in the interests of clarity, would you answer the series of questions I put to you a while ago, please:


 


> People can join families, and get access to step-kids, nieces and nephews etc. This is made easier when the risk they pose is hidden from their targets, by the state. Do you at least accept that proposition?


 
your question is based on a mindset that insists child abuse is caused by strangers. You wish to hold on to this narrative so much you have to twist reality into the claim that even people who are not strangers are strangers really. Its absurd. All the evidence demonstrates that most abusers are known and trusted by their victims. Now you can't accept that because it demolishes your worldview of the evil stranger so you have to astonishingly pretend that even those we know and love are really just strangers who have infiltrated the home.

You imagine the cunning paedo plotting over decades to "join families" to "get access" Whereas the reality is much more mundane and banal like all evil. The reality is that when faced with the structures of heirarchical power and authority presented by such structures as the family, the extended family, instititutions etc, those with a predisposed tendency to abuse may take advantage of those situation in the knowledge that they can enjoy a degree of impunity. Its not a case of an abuser seeking a family to join in order to abuse but rather an abuser taking advantage of his position of trust within a family in order to act on abuse. 



> And do you accept that working class communities are likely to be disproportionately affected by the relocation of sex offenders, by the state?


 
I would like to see figures but It seems a reasonable assumption. I would however question your use of the term "affected" it assumes that working class communities are somehow at greater risk of abuse because of the housing of ex offenders in their communities and, for the reasons i give above, I don't believe that to be the case. 



> If so, then do you accept that attempts by working class communities to seek to know of the risks the state imposes on them are reasonable? And to make decisions about social issues within communities?


The answers to that are well known. The risk of abuse by strangers is vanishingly small especially when compared to the very real risk within the family. I would suggest people concerned by abuse look to those areas in order to protect their children. The real tragedy of all this is while people are fretting and worrying about ex offenders, the real abuse all around them goes un noticed


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

Conditions of the convicted paedophile who was my teacher:



> Now Kinnear has been released from jail. Having completed just over half his sentence, he was allowed to apply for early release and, at the first opportunity, convinced a parole board he could safely be freed, subject to the conditions of a licence.
> 
> He will be supervised by officers from Northumbria Probation Trust, working with Northumbria Police.
> 
> ...


 
Not the community.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> This is all so fucking hysterical, should we just show our kids pictures of paedos then it would save all the adults the bother and for that matter maybe tell them that all their close male relatives might try and rape them.


I agree that we need a sense of proportion. The rate of abductions of kids by strangers has stayed more or less the same for decades. But parents are much more concerned about it now than they were, and often more restrictive over their kids, which isn't a good thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Conditions of the convicted paedophile who was my teacher:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the community.


Those conditions are enough, no?


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> SWho (apart from you, dylan) is talking about putting up posters? You've made stuff up throughout this thread. When faced with Home Office figures from Fez you called it bullshit and then when you realised your mistake you said you were off to bed and would look at it in the morning. *You've gone from making reasonable objections to lying* and using emotive language and hysteria to reinforce your flimsy argument.
> 
> FOS.


No I'm not
Free spirit said this



> TBH I'd probably post their pictures up on a noticeboard next to the kids playground with a request to inform the police if any of them were seen hanging around in the vicinity - I'd certainly ensure that everyone working with kids in the area had their photos so that they could inform the police if any of them were seen around any kids they were working with.


 
An apology would be nice


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree that we need a sense of proportion. The rate of abductions of kids by strangers has stayed more or less the same for decades. But parents are much more concerned about it now than they were, and often more restrictive over their kids, which isn't a good thing.


and I wonder how that animosity and fear taught to our kids helps our 'communities' when they grow up.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Those conditions are enough, no?


 

In this instance yes, because everyone knows who he is. And as I said earlier everyone knows who he is, where he lives, who his family is - what he looks like and worst of all, what he did to girls under the age of 14. Were there lynch mobs and other miscreants of dylans' imagination? No.

I don't remember very much from 2012 - entire year is a bit of a blur - but I think he ended up back in court. I don't k now if they were new offences or perhaps more victims coming forwards following the appeal of one his victims for more women to come forwards and report abuse (of any kind).


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> This is all so fucking hysterical, should we just show our kids pictures of paedos then it would save all the adults the bother and for that matter maybe tell them that all their close male relatives might try and rape them.


Any law that prevents the sharing of information on the identities of known confirmed predatory pedophiles with those who're legally responsible for the protection of children is a law that both puts those children at risk, makes those people's jobs harder, and also spreads the sort of wild accusations and suspicion of anyone new moving in to the area that actually would rightly be referred to as hysteria.

Hysteria on this issue is caused by the lack of knowledge and disempowering of communities by the authorities, it stands to reason that the hysteria will sort itself out once this situation is resolved to the point where those who need to know the information are granted access to that information.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> In this instance yes, because everyone knows who he is. And as I said earlier everyone knows who he is, where he lives, who his family is - what he looks like and worst of all, what he did to girls under the age of 14. Were there lynch mobs and other miscreants of dylans' imagination? No.
> 
> I don't remember very much from 2012 - entire year is a bit of a blur - but I think he ended up back in court. I don't k now if they were new offences or perhaps more victims coming forwards following the appeal of one his victims for more women to come forwards and report abuse (of any kind).


Fair enough. I can see how everyone knowing who he is can be a help, and how that then allows for a reasonable amount of risk to be taken in releasing people. It could even have helped his probation cause that he was moving back somewhere where he was known. Where I don't agree with dylans is that it is possible to judge someone as no risk. There's always going to be a risk of reoffending - it's a case of managing that risk.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> This is all so fucking hysterical, should we just show our kids pictures of paedos then it would save all the adults the bother and for that matter maybe tell them that all their close male relatives might try and rape them.


 
It's an understandably emotive topic, I wouldn't have a go at anyone for feeling as strongly as people do on this thread. But when you say things like giving pictures of the paedophiles to kids, well that is a bit hysterical 

I can't help but think the American response to this would be to arm our kids.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> Any law that prevents the sharing of information on the identities of known confirmed predatory pedophiles with those who're legally responsible for the protection of children is a law that both puts those children at risk, makes those people's jobs harder, and also spreads the sort of wild accusations and suspicion of anyone new moving in to the area that actually would rightly be referred to as hysteria.
> 
> Hysteria on this issue is caused by the lack of knowledge and disempowering of communities by the authorities, it stands to reason that the hysteria will sort itself out once this situation is resolved to the point where those who need to know the information are granted access to that information.


Sorry I completely disagree, the hysteria is entirely created by the media. If people get into hysterics baselessly about new people moving to an area they are thick frankly. I've worked in a school and I'm a parent and I haven't been asked to look at mugshots. Maybe I missed them in the maternity ward though


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

tbh I'm not necessarily totally against the voluntary agreement to be chemically castrated. If it's a choice between that and staying in prison, I would think it's an option some would want to have.


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

It might be easier to wholeheartedly support the 'rehabilitation and release' approach if they didnt half-ass it so badly so much of the time. Its not something that tends to be done properly and with sufficient resources and genuine energy across pretty much the entire justice system, let alone for paedophiles.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fair enough. I can see how everyone knowing who he is can be a help, and how that then allows for a reasonable amount of risk to be taken in releasing people. It could even have helped his probation cause that he was moving back somewhere where he was known. Where I don't agree with dylans is that it is possible to judge someone as no risk. There's always going to be a risk of reoffending - it's a case of managing that risk.


 
Absolutely, it is possible to have this debate without going to some of the polar opposites and stupid comparisons like the racism ones mentioned earlier in the thread. purenarcotic makes a similar point to you, that probation is helped by moving back to an area where they're known and don't feel so isolated. That is community involvement, support and rehab' but as far as I can gather "we" are not capable of that because we read NOTW and if you want proof look at something questionable that happened nearly 15 years ago in Portsmouth.

It's a load of condescending shite to say that certain parts of society can not be trusted with such information.


----------



## coley (Feb 17, 2013)

Long term detention with a long leash and a GPS tag and the support purenarcotic mentions. Support from the community that dylans doesn't trust

That would be a major step in the right direction but would always fail every time the "care package" costs came up for review


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> Don't know, as we didn't catch the fucker.
> 
> I don't see why you or any other parent should need to be on the look out either at a properly organised event with a full stewarding team, and SIA security team on site, plus a few coppers. I bet you'd expect that the police would have the ability to alert those security and stewards teams to the identities of any known pedophiles they suspect are likely to be targeting the event though, so that they could actually do their jobs and protect the kids attending the festival.
> 
> If I remember right, he did spot a couple of them in the area and warned them off. Utterly nuts that he still wasn't able to actually give our security team the identity of these people, just warn us to be on alert for anyone acting suspiciously with a kid. In the end this actually worked, but it didn't exactly help us out - it's akin to asking us to do a job but to do it with an arm and leg tied together.


hysterical bollocks. "Spotted a couple of em"  You're mad


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> and I wonder how that animosity and fear taught to our kids helps our 'communities' when they grow up.



Half time and we're playing shite. 

One of the reasons I dislike the current approach is that it completely makes child sex offenders the other - evil monsters hidden from view that have to be anonymous as their crimes are so singularly heinous they would be torn limb from limb should we know about them. And frankly, while not wishing to minimise their crimes or the hideous impact of them, we need to grow up. Sex offenders live in our communities and are people we know and otherwise like. The rare predatory paedophile is a unusual occurance, most are deeply pitiful sad and damaged individuals. Do we really think the current combination of social ostracization and anonymity helps with their long term rehabilitation? Really? I think a balance can be struck between posters everywhere approach FS seems to advocate, although in the case of repeated offenders they might prefer having everyone know to indefinite detention, and the current anonymity approach, and doesn't have to be unsupportive of the offender.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

coley said:


> Long term detention with a long leash and a GPS tag and the support purenarcotic mentions. Support from the community that dylans doesn't trust


Oh here we go again. Please define what your Orwellian "support from the community" actually means


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

elbows said:


> It might be easier to wholeheartedly support the 'rehabilitation and release' approach if they didnt half-ass it so badly so much of the time. Its not something that tends to be done properly and with sufficient resources and genuine energy across pretty much the entire justice system, let alone for paedophiles.


Yep. A prison governor was interviewed on the radio a while back, and he was disarmingly forthright in his opinion of prison - it doesn't improve anyone, it doesn't rehabilitate, it harms everyone who experiences it, it is something to be survived, nothing more, and having survived, the ex-cons come back out into the world with terrible prospects and worse off in every regard than they were before they went to prison. It really should be kept only for those who are a danger to the rest of us.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

coley said:


> *Long term detention with a long leash and a GPS tag and the support purenarcotic mentions. Support from the community that dylans doesn't trust*
> 
> That would be a major step in the right direction but would always fail every time the "care package" costs came up for review


 
Is that me you're quoting? 

The costs are cheaper than incarceration and more beneficial to the convict I'd have guessed.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> The risk of abuse by strangers is vanishingly small especially when compared to the very real risk within the family. I would suggest people concerned by abuse look to those areas in order to protect their children. The real tragedy of all this is while people are fretting and worrying about ex offenders, the real abuse all around them goes un noticed


tell me, do you support the right of convicted child abusers to work with children?

if not why not?

I mean if the chances of them reoffending are so small that there's no reason for anyone else in the community, not even those with child protection responsibilities (professional or as a parent) to have the right to know about them, then why should employers have the duty imposed on them to carry out CRB checks on their staff?

ps I now see that Sarah's Law has already been brought in to the UK, I thought I remembered something about that happening, but was a bit confused by the argument on this thread that seemed to be running as if nothing had changed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Is that me you're quoting?
> 
> The costs are cheaper than incarceration and more beneficial to the convict I'd have guessed.


It's political. Politicians don't want to be seen as soft on crime. Gordon Brown used to boast about how many more prisoners there were under Labour.  Even someone like Kenneth Clarke, who despite being a total cunt is also a genuine advocate of prison reform, couldn't stop the prison population from rising. He wasn't allowed to.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> Sorry I completely disagree, the hysteria is entirely created by the media. If people get into hysterics baselessly about new people moving to an area they are thick frankly. I've worked in a school and I'm a parent and I haven't been asked to look at mugshots. Maybe I missed them in the maternity ward though


well of course you haven't been asked to look at mugshots.


----------



## coley (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Is that me you're quoting?
> 
> The costs are cheaper than incarceration and more beneficial to the convict I'd have guessed.



Aye, not up to CPing on this, costs are cheaper, much cheaper, but as soon as a few months had passed "problem free" the pressure would be on to cut costs and reduce supervision, trust me,been there.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Half time and we're playing shite.
> 
> One of the reasons I dislike the current approach is that it completely makes child sex offenders the other - evil monsters hidden from view that have to be anonymous as their crimes are so singularly heinous they would be torn limb from limb should we know about them. And frankly, while not wishing to minimise their crimes or the hideous impact of them, we need to grow up. Sex offenders live in our communities and are people we know and otherwise like. The rare predatory paedophile is a unusual occurance, most are deeply pitiful sad and damaged individuals. Do we really think the current combination of social ostracization and anonymity helps with their long term rehabilitation? Really? I think a balance can be struck between posters everywhere and the imho completely OTT approach FS seems to advocate, and the current anonymity approach, and doesn't have to be unsupportive of the offender.


Fair enough. Good post.

I can see how agreements between offenders and the community could work - you come to live here on these conditions...


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Half time and we're playing shite.
> 
> One of the reasons I dislike the current approach is that it completely makes child sex offenders the other - evil monsters hidden from view that have to be anonymous as their crimes are so singularly heinous they would be torn limb from limb should we know about them. And frankly, while not wishing to minimise their crimes or the hideous impact of them, we need to grow up. Sex offenders live in our communities and are people we know and otherwise like. The rare predatory paedophile is a unusual occurance, most are deeply pitiful sad and damaged individuals. Do we really think the current combination of social ostracization and anonymity helps with their long term rehabilitation? Really? I think a balance can be struck between posters everywhere and having no one but police officers know, and doesn't have to be unsupportive of the offender.


Unless you can state what that is its not really helpful, I'm not sure about the social ostricisation bit if know one knows about them. I think some people like women enquiring about new partners, teachers and the like should have some access to this information but nothing that doesn't already exist.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> hysterical bollocks. "Spotted a couple of em"  You're mad


yes, the police officer with responsibility for monitoring the activities of convicted pedophiles released into the community in the area spotted either 1 or 2 (it was 8 years ago so I forget the specifics) of those on his list attending a family orientated community event they had no business attending.

fuck off with your hysterical bollocks shite, this is reality calling.

eta - if I remember right, one was actually arrested for breaching his parole conditions, the other wasn't because the police didn't have the resources to take 2 more coppers off site for the time it would have taken to process and charge him etc. so he was warned off instead.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> Unless you can state what that is its not really helpful, I'm not sure about the social ostricisation bit if know one knows about them. I think some people like women enquiring about new partners, teachers and the like should have some access to this information but nothing that doesn't already exist.


I can think of one way. An offender is released to live in a particular place after coming to an agreement with the people there. So not a 'right to know' at all, but simply part of the reintegration process - in the best interests of everyone.


----------



## coley (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Oh here we go again. Please define what your Orwellian "support from the community" actually means



Watching them, monitoring their actions and where possible involving the community who aren't all vigilante lynch mobs or would you prefer to trust them and allow them the chance to prove they can be responsible members of the community without monitoring or support?


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's political. Politicians don't want to be seen as soft on crime. Gordon Brown used to boast about how many more prisoners there were under Labour.  Even someone like Kenneth Clarke, who despite being a total cunt is also a genuine advocate of prison reform, couldn't stop the prison population from rising. He wasn't allowed to.


 
Oh well, at least the prison places were not needed for political prisoners or we'd be looking at this sort of rehab:


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> tell me, do you support the right of convicted child abusers to work with children?
> 
> if not why not?
> 
> ...


No. I am in favour of reasonable conditions on release for all ex offenders. I am opposed to the routine use of enhanced CRB checks however because they are used to reveal trivial and irrelevant information about prospective job applicants


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> No. I am in favour of reasonable conditions on release for all ex offenders. I am opposed to the routine use of enhanced CRB checks however because they are used to reveal trivial and irrelevant information about prospective job applicants





dylans said:


> No. I am in favour of reasonable conditions on release for all ex offenders. I am opposed to the routine use of enhanced CRB checks however because they are used to reveal trivial and irrelevant information about prospective job applicants


so you presumably must agree that they are at greater risk of reoffending than the rest of the population are at risk of first time offending?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> No. I am in favour of reasonable conditions on release for all ex offenders. I am opposed to the routine use of enhanced CRB checks however because they are used to reveal trivial and irrelevant information about prospective job applicants


In favour of reasonableness. Thanks. Do you alos oppose evil? Are the two whatever you decide?


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> your question is based on a mindset that insists child abuse is caused by strangers. You wish to hold on to this narrative so much you have to twist reality into the claim that even people who are not strangers are strangers really. Its absurd. All the evidence demonstrates that most abusers are known and trusted by their victims. Now you can't accept that because it demolishes your worldview of the evil stranger so you have to astonishingly pretend that even those we know and love are really just strangers who have infiltrated the home.
> 
> You imagine the cunning paedo plotting over decades to "join families" to "get access" Whereas the reality is much more mundane and banal like all evil. The reality is that when faced with the structures of heirarchical power and authority presented by such structures as the family, the extended family, instititutions etc, those with a predisposed tendency to abuse may take advantage of those situation in the knowledge that they can enjoy a degree of impunity. Its not a case of an abuser seeking a family to join in order to abuse but rather an abuser taking advantage of his position of trust within a family in order to act on abuse.


 
This is dishonest.  I am clearly not denying that abuse is perpetuated by those who are known to and trusted by their victims' families.  Nor am I suggesting that there's hordes of predatory peadophiles seeking families to join.  I agree with you that what they do is often opportunistic.  But an opportunist needs an opportunity.  My point is that fewer such opportunities would present themselves if the communities around paedophiles knew of the risks they pose.  Would you at least agree with that?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Absolutely, it is possible to have this debate without going to some of the polar opposites and stupid comparisons like the racism ones mentioned earlier in the thread. purenarcotic makes a similar point to you, that probation is helped by moving back to an area where they're known and don't feel so isolated. That is community involvement, support and rehab' but as far as I can gather "we" are not capable of that because we read NOTW and if you want proof look at something questionable that happened nearly 15 years ago in Portsmouth.
> 
> It's a load of condescending shite to say that certain parts of society can not be trusted with such information.


exactly.

Why does Dylans assume that all communities would respond to this knowledge by immediately burning them out or something?


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

coley said:


> Watching them, monitoring their actions and where possible involving the community who aren't all vigilante lynch mobs or would you prefer to trust them and allow them the chance to prove they can be responsible members of the community without monitoring or support?


Ex offenders are monitored right now and are released unde probationary conditions and supervision, control of movement, registration with local authorites, police etc. How does your proposal differ to what happens now?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

elbows said:


> Oh well, at least the prison places were not needed for political prisoners or we'd be looking at this sort of rehab:


 
Good example - the more it was banned the more the more the  myth grew about it, people used to go on coaches to amsterdam to watch it. And when it was finally on wide release...nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> exactly.
> 
> Why does Dylans assume that all communities would respond to this knowledge by immediately burning them out or something?


Because he's a socialist.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> so you presumably must agree that they are at greater risk of reoffending than the rest of the population are at risk of first time offending?


No. I recognise that part of the process of ensuring that they are not at risk of reoffending are certain reasonable conditions on their release.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Ex offenders are monitored right now and are released unde probationary conditions and supervision, control of movement, registration with local authorites, police etc. How does your proposal differ to what happens now?


I would have thought that involving the community might be both possible and useful where the offender is moving back to the same area they lived in while offending. As firky has said, they'll be known there anyway, so there's no anonymity to protect, and given that they're known, that community might be more willing to have him there than other places would.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

Reasonable - again. It means: _stuff i agree with. I get to decide who can call things reasonable too._


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> No. I recognise that part of the process of ensuring that they are not at risk of reoffending are certain reasonable conditions on their release.


seriously?

You're seriously saying that you don't agree that convicted sex offenders are proportionally more likely to go on to commit further offenses than the wider population of the UK?

and you call me nuts.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> Unless you can state what that is its not really helpful, I'm not sure about the social ostricisation bit if know one knows about them. I think some people like women enquiring about new partners, teachers and the like should have some access to this information but nothing that doesn't already exist.


Social ostracism? Try and get help and support if you're struggling with urges to have sex with children - there's a fierce ostracism going on even if you're not known to the community. I have, ad nauseum come out with alternative suggestions on this thread, another minor one, rather than having posters up at the school gates the community might decide that the school crossing patrol are some of the people with the information, and the offender might be given numbers of people who live locally they can call out of hours if they are struggling. I'm sure other people could think up even better ones.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would have thought that involving the community might be both possible and useful where the offender is moving back to the same area they lived in while offending. As firky has said, they'll be known there anyway, so there's no anonymity to protect, and given that they're known, that community might be more willing to have him there than other places would.


I could see that working but presumably it would be with the willing participation of the offender. This is a different issue though because as you say there is no anonymity to protect.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Reasonable - again. It means: _stuff i agree with. I get to decide who can call things reasonable too._


yep, good job we could have someone as sensible as Dylans to decide what would be reasonable for the rest of us proles to know or not know.


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Good example - the more it was banned the more the more the myth grew about it, people used to go on coaches to amsterdam to watch it. And when it was finally on wide release...nothing.


 
I wonder if it was actually banned because of moral panic about its violence, or whether it was the variety of interesting political themes & his mates who became pigs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Social ostracism? Try and get help and support if you're struggling with urges to have sex with children - there's a fierce ostracism going on even if you're not known to the community. I have, ad nauseum come out with alternative suggestions on this thread, another minor one, rather than having posters up at the school gates the community might decide that the school crossing patrol are some of the people with the information, and the offender might be given numbers of people who live locally they can call out of hours if they are struggling. I'm sure other people could think up even better ones.


Yeah, there's no need to involve everyone. The key is that it's being done for everyone's benefit - to protect kids but also to look after the offender when he comes out. I can certainly go along with that kind of agreement being made when an offender is released. It's exactly the kind of thing that will minimise the chances of repeat offences, and it would be done with the agreement of the offender himself - perhaps even the enthusiastic agreement, given that many paedophiles do have a large part of them that wants to stop.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

elbows said:


> I wonder if it was actually banned because of moral panic about its violence, or whether it was the variety of interesting political themes & his mates who became pigs.


Banned here by Kubrick himself in response to copy-cat violence when it first came out, irrc.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> seriously?
> 
> You're seriously saying that you don't agree that convicted sex offenders are proportionally more likely to go on to commit further offenses than the wider population of the UK?
> 
> and you call me nuts.


The recidivist rate for released sex offenders is quite low around 10 to 14% which is a 90% success rate. Clearly there is still a risk from a small minority which is why conditions on release are important. This is not in dispute by anyone I don't think. I am not arguing for an end to probationary conditions.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, there's no need to involve everyone. The key is that it's being done for everyone's benefit...


 
Not really any need for anyone's involvement really.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Social ostracism? Try and get help and support if you're struggling with urges to have sex with children - there's a fierce ostracism going on even if you're not known to the community. I have, ad nauseum come out with alternative suggestions on this thread, another minor one, rather than having posters up at the school gates the community might decide that the school crossing patrol are some of the people with the information, and the offender might be given numbers of people who live locally they can call out of hours if they are struggling. I'm sure other people could think up even better ones.


please note that I specifically didn't suggest school gates for posters, I only suggested it for unsupervised playgrounds, where there is nobody official to be in a position to act in this way.

If there are people who're responsible for the childrens protection eg at a school etc then I think that they should have access to the information that would allow them to do their job better. I suspect that sarah's law should have improved this situation, but I'm not sure if it still allows the police to voluntarily share the information unless it's specifically requested on a specific person.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not really any need for anyone's involvement really.


Not sure what merited that sarcasm. I can see the merit in a low-key approach. It wouldn't be a secret that he was moving back, but there might not be a need for everyone to have a letter about it either. No 'right to know', but involvement from the community to ensure that measures are followed to avoid the kind of thing free spirit outlined earlier about the festival.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure what merited that sarcasm. I can see the merit in a low-key approach. It wouldn't be a secret that he was moving back, but there might not be a need for everyone to have a letter about it either. No 'right to know', but involvement from the community to ensure that measures are followed to avoid the kind of thing free spirit outlined earlier about the festival.


The post that i replied to merited it. And of course you wouldn't have posted it if you thought that it merited it. Look at what i says - look what it openly says and loom at what is latent. It doesn't matter who is in involved as long as it's a good chap with the right idea. The idea that involvement is how good idea come about is just ignored - it's already the top-down nonsense that has lead us to here, today.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The post that i replied to merited it. And of course you wouldn't have posted it if you thought that it merited it. Look at what i says - look what it openly says and loom at what is latent. It doesn't matter who is in involved as long as it's a good chap with the right idea. The idea that involvement is how good idea come about is just ignored - it's already the top-down nonsense that has lead us to here, today.


 
You're such a superior fuck sometimes. It's top-down only in so far as it starts from the offender, not the community. It is looking to ensure that the offender has the system in place to stop them from reoffending, which of course is to the benefit of everyone. And lagtdb has suggested community forums that could discuss and agree such things. Involving everyone who wants to be involved, but not involving _everyone_.


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Banned here by Kubrick himself in response to copy-cat violence when it first came out, irrc.


 
In response to the press going wibble, attempts to describe unrelated violence as being copy-cat, etc, rather than any violent acts themselves I would have thought. Maybe he shouldnt have left out the final chapter of the book.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> The recidivist rate for released sex offenders is quite low around 10 to 14% which is a 90% success rate. Clearly there is still a risk from a small minority which is why conditions on release are important. This is not in dispute by anyone I don't think. I am not arguing for an end to probationary conditions.


so when you started your previous response with the word 'no' you actually meant something different.

This home office study found 21% combined reconviction, reoffending and recidivism rates, and 19% had gone missing.

I'd suggest this is statistically a hell of a lot higher than for the general population, particularly so if you took the offences of these reoffenders out of the statistics for the general population.

I know what you're saying about the total numbers of offences being much higher for family members etc. than for child abuse from strangers, but it remains a fact that those with convictions are statistically far more likely to re-offend than any individuals partner, and that any parent should be seriously concerned if a convicted Pedophile is in any way putting themselves in a position to potentially befriend or directly attack their kids. If they're keeping themselves to themselves, and not having any real contact with kids then fair enough.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 17, 2013)

People who are really against the current approach, would you be more ok with it if the police, courts, probation etc were more representative of the population?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

you said:
			
		

> Yeah, there's no need to involve everyone. The key is that it's being done for everyone's benefit...






			
				you said:
			
		

> It's top-down only in so far as it starts from the offender, not the community


I genuinely don't know what you think that you mean if you can post both of these within 30 minutes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

elbows said:


> In response to the press going wibble, attempts to describe unrelated violence as being copy-cat, etc, rather than any violent acts themselves I would have thought.


 
Yes, you're right.



> To try and fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me to put the case the wrong way around. Art consists of reshaping life, but it does not create life, nor cause life. Furthermore, to attribute powerful suggestive qualities to a film is at odds with the scientifically accepted view that, even after deep hypnosis in a posthypnotic state, people cannot be made to do things which are at odds with their natures


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I genuinely don't know what you think that you mean if you can post both of these within 30 minutes.


If it involves a community forum, it involves representatives of everyone. Strikes me as reasonable. You're picking a fight for the sake of it. I'm not saying quite what you think I'm saying - that it's another 'we know best' scenario. For instance, if this is being done as a condition of probation, it may be that a certain set of people, at the school or wherever, need to be on board for it to work. And if they are on board, then that's sufficient for the parole conditions to be met. Should the rest of the community be asked? Not necessarily. Should they have the right to veto it? Not necessarily. This man has to live somewhere when he comes out, so somebody will have to take him. And yes, that smacks of top-down, but while community autonomy and rights are important, it is also important, imo, that individuals within those smaller communities should have guarantees from the wider state against arbitrary use of power within the community. And that might mean insisting that a convicted child molester should be allowed back to his home under the right circumstances.

People can need the help and protection of their local community. But they can also need protection from their local community. There's always going to be an unresolved tension between the two considerations - imo, neither all top down nor all bottom up are desirable. That's why I don't call myself an anarchist any more.

In this case, I can see the potential value of a low-key operation if it's thought that something higher-key might cause trouble. And yes, that's clearly a top-down judgement, but it's the top-down power's job to protect the offender. They have an obligation towards him. And that's why I'm opposed to the idea of a right to know. I'm all for community involvement - I'm sold on that. But not framed in terms of the right of everyone to know about every sex offender in their midst.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

8115 said:


> People who are really against the current approach, would you be more ok with it if the police, courts, probation etc were more representative of the population?


who is this aimed at?

Dylans appears to be against the Sarah's law situation that is the current approach in addition to CRB etc.

I had serious problems with the previous situation, but don't really know enough about the current situation to know if it's resolved my concerns or not. I suspect it entirely depends on how it's being employed in each area, with some officers being a lot more proactive than others.

But no, my position had nothing to do with the representation of the courts, police or probation, it comes from the physical impossibility of their task when left to carry it out alone without any support from others either in professional capacities in the wider community, or the community at large.


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

Since I am presently reading about the Cooke gang as a result of developments in the 'high level paedo' stuff, I find plenty of absurdities in regard to how the system used to work. eg this from 1998:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/65029.stm




> Police and the probation service are demanding a change in the law to help deal with six dangerous paedophiles, due for release from prison.
> The men fall through loopholes in the law as they are considered so dangerous, they are denied parole - which would mean their release under supervision.
> 
> Also, because they were jailed before the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, no powers exist to order supervision once they have served their terms.





> The warning comes as detectives revealed how they struggled to cope with the release last September of child killer Robert Oliver, one of a gang which abducted, raped and killed 14-year-old rent boy Jason Swift.
> 
> Oliver and his accomplices were initially charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter. They are suspected of at least two other paedophile murders.
> Police mounted round-the-clock surveillance on Oliver after his release, observing him visit a children's library and watching youngsters in Brighton amusement arcades - lawful activities they were powerless to prevent.
> ...






> East Sussex chief probation officer, Penny Buller, says she spent four months trying to find somewhere to put Oliver after he asked for protection.





> Finally, in February, a bed was found for him at a private medium-secure unit for mentally disordered offenders in Milton Keynes.


----------



## coley (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Ex offenders are monitored right now and are released unde probationary conditions and supervision, control of movement, registration with local authorites, police etc. How does your proposal differ to what happens now?


Given the proportion that disappears, I would suggest tags and a much longer period of supervision and a lay panel who would be consulted before any relaxation of conditions imposed.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Reasonable - again. It means: _stuff i agree with. I get to decide who can call things reasonable too._


 
Rubberstamped with the dylans socialism seal of approval. Because he is better than the rest.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Rubberstamped with the dylans socialism seal of approval. Because he is better than the rest.


I certainly can't think of anyone better qualified for the task.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Rubberstamped with the dylans socialism seal of approval. Because he is better than the rest.


So says bts loyal little lap dog


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> So says bts loyal little lap dog


you're well wide of the mark there. As you would be if you applied that comment to me.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I certainly can't think of anyone better qualified for the task.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I certainly can't think of anyone better qualified for the task.


oh no they are all ganging up on me. How very scary. How intimidating.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> oh no they are all ganging up on me. How very scary. How intimidating.


talk shite about an emotive subject, and being called on it by multiple posters really do go hand in hand.

It's not like anyone actually has to conspire to call you on it, we've reached the same conclusions individually based on the evidence of your posts.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> oh no they are all ganging up on me. How very scary. How intimidating.


 
You're imagination is running wild again. You're seeing gangs and mobs.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> You're imagination is running wild again. You're seeing gangs and mobs.


should I light the pitchfork?


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> should I light the pitchfork?


No just put up some more posters in playgrounds


----------



## cdg (Feb 17, 2013)

Where could one see this picture? Just curiously.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> No just put up some more posters in playgrounds


can't, I don't have access to the required information even if I wanted to.

I think I'll just have to resort to attacking you with burning pitchforks instead just in case.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> talk shite about an emotive subject, and being called on it by multiple posters really do go hand in hand.
> 
> It's not like anyone actually has to conspire to call you on it, we've reached the same conclusions individually based on the evidence of your posts.


Lol being accused of talking shit by a thick cunt like you is a compliment. Your posts are so inane, so fucking absurd that your own buddies accused me of lying when I mentioned them. You're like the little kid in the gang who desperately wants to be included in the game unaware that no one actually wants you around because you are so fucking embarrassing.Jumping up and down with his hand in the air "shouting "me, me, can I av a go, can I, can I"

It may have missed your attention but noone actually claims to agree with your suggestions for posters of paedophiles, Sarah's law type legislation and the release of names of ex offenders and with your ridiculous and unbelievable fantasy anecdotes about paedos in the park, politce mugshots and little girls with lucky escapes. In fact they have been at pains to accuse me of misrepresentation for suggesting they hold the same views that you are quite honest about.

So, rather than seeking comfort with your new mates perhaps you should take a look at what you say and what they say and then may notice that you are the fucking embarrassment who NO ONE except the most rabid hysteric actually agrees with

Now get out of my face and fuck off.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> [Nothing.]


 
Any chance of a reply to this?



> This is dishonest. I am clearly not denying that abuse is perpetuated by those who are known to and trusted by their victims' families. Nor am I suggesting that there's hordes of predatory peadophiles seeking families to join. I agree with you that what they do is often opportunistic. But an opportunist needs an opportunity. My point is that fewer such opportunities would present themselves if the communities around paedophiles knew of the risks they pose. Would you at least agree with that?


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Lol being accused of talking shit by a thick cunt like you is a compliment. Your posts are so inane, so fucking absurd that your own buddies accused me of lying when I mentioned them. You're like the little kid in the gang who desperately wants to be included in the game unaware that no one actually wants you around because you are so fucking embarrassing.Jumping up and down with his hand in the air "shouting "me, me, can I av a go, can I, can I"
> 
> It may have missed your attention but noone actually claims to agree with your suggestions for posters of paedophiles, Sarah's law type legislation and the release of names of ex offenders and with your ridiculous and unbelievable fantasy anecdotes about paedos in the park, politce mugshots and little girls with lucky escapes. In fact they have been at pains to accuse me of misrepresentation for suggesting they hold the same views that you are quite honest about.
> 
> ...


 
Do you have any coherent argument for your opinions or are you just going to mouth off like an overgrown adolescent and call everyone names?

You call yourself a socialist but you act like a scorned child. If you can't particpate in this thread without geting as hysterical as the people you imagine then it is you who really needs to leave and let the grown ups talk.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Do you have any coherent argument for your opinions or are you just going to mouth off like an overgrown adolescent and call everyone names?
> 
> You call yourself a socialist but you act like a scorned child.


Sorry but aren't you the guy who actually got permanently banned from this site for abusive behaviour and had to grovel to the mods to be allowed back?

You have just spent the past several pages laying into me in collaboration with your mates, posting stupid cartoons, attacking my integrity etc and you accuse me of acting like an adolescent?. Fuck you and your passive aggressive bullshit.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

I got banned for something else, baby dylans. 

(I am so perma banned that you are replying to me :facepalm)


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 17, 2013)

Just seen this, quite fit isn't he


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Sorry but aren't you the guy who actually got permanently banned from this site for abusive behaviour and had to grovel to the mods to be allowed back?
> 
> You have just spent the past several pages laying into me in collaboration with your mates, posting stupid cartoons etc and you accuse me of acting like an adolescent?. Fuck you.


Firky abusive? Think u mixed him up with someone else


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Lol being accused of talking shit by a thick cunt like you is a compliment. Your posts are so inane, so fucking absurd that your own buddies accused me of lying when I mentioned them. You're like the little kid in the gang who desperately wants to be included in the game unaware that no one actually wants you around because you are so fucking embarrassing.Jumping up and down with his hand in the air "shouting "me, me, can I av a go, can I, can I"
> 
> It may have missed your attention but noone actually claims to agree with your suggestions for posters of paedophiles, Sarah's law type legislation and the release of names of ex offenders and with your ridiculous and unbelievable fantasy anecdotes about paedos in the park, politce mugshots and little girls with lucky escapes. In fact they have been at pains to accuse me of misrepresentation for suggesting they hold the same views that you are quite honest about.
> 
> ...


tbh, I don't give a toss what you think, a while ago maybe, but not for quite a long time.

I just thought I'd post up some counter points to your bullshit. I'll leave others to decide for themselves.

I've in no way made anything up I've posted about, the incidents at the festival happened as stated, and as safety officer of the festival, in charge of all the stewarding and security on the site, I would have been in a position to know this. If you know anything about me you'd know not to accuse me of lying on this point at least.

Also, on posters in parks... that was at the extreme end of my suggestions, prefaced with a 'probably', so not something I've made my mind up on one way or another.

My main point being that those charged with the protection of children in their care should have access to the pictures, and certainly that serving police officers charged with monitoring these convicted pedophiles on release should have the discretionary right to proactively share these pictures with those they deem ought to have them so that they can properly carry out their child protection roles, and those in those roles should have the right to ask for and receive that information.

I'd then move on to the wider community, and tbh I just can't see a good reason why parents shouldn't be trusted with having access to this information if they want it.


----------



## thriller (Feb 17, 2013)

where is this pic, then? Google imaged it and one came up with a digitall aged version which has to be total shite


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Firky abusive? Think u mixed him up with someone else


 


tribal_princess said:


> quite fit isn't he


 
Banned for beauty.

When my friend saaam died I asked if I could say a few words on his thread and was allowed to do so. So something else you imagined, dylan.

The crazy world of baby dylan.


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> where is this pic, then? Google imaged it and one came up with a digitall aged version which has to be total shite


Twitter


----------



## Corax (Feb 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Sometimes you can do both at the same time. I give you Grendon Prison's treatment/course for sex offenders. It's not compulsory, but those who opt for it have their sentences shortened.
> 
> Those who take part say it's very far from a soft option because, instead of continuing to think that they're helpless victims of their urges or that there's nothing wrong in what they did, their beliefs are repeatedly challenged until they become able to take in the full horror of their offences. There isn't a 100% success rate, but there's a lower recidivism rate than for the same type of offenders who didn't take the course.


I see what you mean, but what you're describing isn't 'punishment' at all (IMO). It's 100% rehabilitation.

What I mean as "punishment" is something that's done *in order* to punish. What you're describing isn't motivated by a desire to make them suffer, but to get them to change their behaviour. It may not be a 'soft option', but it's less likely to generate resentment and hatred than something that has no motivation other than punishment itself.  That resentment that 'punishment' can be expected to produce works counter to the aims of rehabilitation IMO.


----------



## thriller (Feb 17, 2013)

tribal_princess said:


> Twitter


 
doesn't narrow it down, tbh. Surely the pic wont still be up


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> where is this pic, then? Google imaged it and one came up with a digitall aged version which has to be total shite


I saw it when a mate posted it on FB.
There has been an amusing chain of events since the break in at her house that started with posting neighbourhood watch bulletins, then crime watch mugshots and finally paedos. Its a slippery slope people.


----------



## thriller (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> I saw it when a mate posted it on FB.
> There has been an amusing chain of events since the break in at her house that started with posting neighbourhood watch bulletins, then crime watch mugshots and finally paedos. Its a slippery slope people.


 
is he handsome as tribal thinks?


----------



## joustmaster (Feb 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> doesn't narrow it down, tbh. Surely the pic wont still be up


go to twitter
search his name
click on the links


----------



## cdg (Feb 17, 2013)

Its still on twitter.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> is he handsome as tribal thinks?


I presume she means the other one on the picture that's not Jon Venables, he had a rugged charm that might appeal to an uncomplicated lady.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

Artists to be replaced socialists. A poster that I would endorse.


----------



## thriller (Feb 17, 2013)

joustmaster said:


> go to twitter
> search his name
> click on the links


 
fink i found it. goatee man....


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> and with your ridiculous and unbelievable fantasy anecdotes about paedos in the park, politce mugshots and little girls with lucky escapes.


You know, it says a lot about you and your understanding of this subject that you assume that I must have been lying about this situation.

When the facts presented don't match your opinion, assume your opponent must be lying... A great way of ignoring anything that doesn't support your position I suppose.

FYI this isn't an isolated incident, I was also involved in running a semi official outdoor rave on a park in Newcastle after the official love parade had been cancelled, where unfortunately a girl ended up being grabbed into the bushes while walking away from the event and raped.[chronicle article]

These things actually have happened to actual real people in real life, at actual events that I had actual responsibility for managing. I can't supply a web link to a newspaper article for the attempted child snatch because we prevented it, so it didn't make the papers.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 17, 2013)

coley said:


> _"ah yeah, bleeding heart liberal, *they gave up their rights as innocent 10 year olds the moment they did this - society would be better off without them."*_
> 
> In honesty, I feel a certain degree of sympathy with the sentiments I have highlighted, whatever the reasons they had for becoming what they were/are.* At the time of the murder they were obviously two very callous and evil characters* and society would probably be better off without them. the problem is, given we are supposedly,a civilised soci_e_ty how do we achieve this? not just for these two but all who pose an unacceptable risk to society_*.*_


 
What causes kids of that age to be callous and evil, though?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Your relentless insistence that everyone else is thinking and saying exactly what you need them to say and think is remarkable dylans. It speaks of decades of experience of not listening to what people are actually saying.


 
Tell us what they're actually saying.


----------



## coley (Feb 17, 2013)

krtek a houby said:


> What causes kids of that age to be callous and evil, though?



Back to the nature V nurture debate, but I know many around here who had absolutely crap upbringings who grew up into pretty decent individuals and others who had a decent upbringing but went on to be evil shytes, so it's hard to have a definite opinion?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 17, 2013)

coley said:


> Back to the nature V nurture debate, but I know many around here who had absolutely crap upbringings who grew up into pretty decent individuals and others who had a decent upbringing but went on to be evil shytes, so it's hard to have a definite opinion?


 
Obviously upbringing can't be used to excuse such horrific acts but at the same time, I believe it shouldn't be entirely dismissed, either.


----------



## coley (Feb 17, 2013)

krtek a houby said:


> Obviously upbringing can't be used to excuse such horrific acts but at the same time, I believe it shouldn't be entirely dismissed, either.



Wouldn't dismiss it at all, in hindsight it could be considered a "mitigating circumstance" but at the time,I think I was guilty of the "lock em up and hoy the key away" mindset


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

ive seen two sets of pictures doing the rounds and its a different bloke in each one they could be anyone could be photoshopped i suppose there must be a considerable amount of people who know who they are


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 17, 2013)

coley said:


> Wouldn't dismiss it at all, in hindsight it could be considered a "mitigating circumstance" but at the time,I think I was guilty of the "lock em up and hoy the key away" mindset


 
Which is the common response for emotive crimes like this. But, as you know, it's just a knee jerk short term response to something that needs a lot of delving into. Saying the kids are evil is just too black and white, IMHO.


----------



## cdg (Feb 17, 2013)

Ffs if we had just sentenced them to hang by the neck until dead when they were 11 years old there wouldn't be such a big hoo haa now.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

Where's the big hoo haa? It has hardly been in the papers because of the injunction. It wasn't even in the headlines on Feb' 14th.


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 17, 2013)

cdg said:


> Ffs if we had just sentenced them to hang by the neck until dead when they were 11 years old there wouldn't be such a big hoo haa now.


 
Everyone says that, hands up who would do it?


----------



## cdg (Feb 17, 2013)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Everyone says that, hands up who would do it?


 
Nobody I hope.


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

im as liberal as they come but i can still remember like it was yesterday the pictures of them taking that young lad away from that shopping centre maybe it was the one who influenced the other or whatever but i think their age proves its nature not nurture but im no expert


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 17, 2013)

So many pages for dylans to miss the point/s being made.  Or ignore them.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 17, 2013)

Apologies for the long post once again.



dylans said:


> First your entire narrative is based on the assumption that abuse occurs, even within the family, as the result of the long term cunning and planning of evil strangers who become known to victims in order to abuse. This is utter crap and feeds directly into the bogeyman myth mentioned earlier. If this were correct how do you explain abuse by daddy? Or by Uncle bob or by granddad. Presumably dad became a father in order to abuse? Granddad was even more cunning and had a child in order to wait for decades until she had a child so he could abuse her. Uncle Bob was even cleverer. He cunningly arranged for his sister to get married and have a kid so he could abuse. This is clearly ridiculous.


 

You create your own nonsense to knock it down. It means nothing. The "narrative" is not intended as a narrative at all, but a summary of a psychological and physical reality taken from Harvard Medical School about ONE SPECIFIC SUBSET of people on the sex offenders' register. This has been explained to you before.



> Rather, abuse occurs within familiar structures for much the same reasons that it occurs within institutions. Because such structures create situations where abuse can occur with relative impunity. It is opportunistic, not the result of decades of careful planning by the evil stranger who deliberately creates a family to abuse. Abuse occurs because such structures themselves create situations of powerlessness for victims and creates positions of power which when presented to potential abusers themselves encourage abuse.


 

If you accept opportunistic abuse can occur, then with 50% reoffence rates for sex offenders without anti-testosterone treatment and 15% with, abuse by released sex offenders that are paedophiles is a concern. They are presumably able to effect opportunistic abuse. It is a concern best tackled by community probation - not the infantilisation of the public.

Sex abuse within the family is not always as a result of a paraphilia. It can occur as a symptom of a pattern of physical abuse, in order to intimidate and overpower into silence, from striking on the bottom, to the anus to insertion etc. It can also occur as part of a pattern to obtain sexual servicing from whoever will be silent, can be unpaid, doesn't complain etc etc - ie male supremacism in its raw state. In these situations and many, many others there is no specific paraphilia.



> In other words, rather than familiar abuse being the successful result of years of careful arrangements by cunning abusers as you imply, those structures themselves facilitate abuse by people who are known to victims. Abusers who may never have considered such actions before being presented with the opportunities created themselves by those structures and their place within them


 

I agree with you if you mean that the nuclear family must be expanded and/or replaced with something wider and more sensible more suited to working-class needs, ultimately to overcome class division. I can't see it happening whilst the concerns of some people/families non-abusing ones are dismissed part of a "folk devil and moral panic" campaign by other people/families.

I'd like people on estates to be able to create childcare pools with the participation of single men as babysitters and trainers of new participants to overcome the burden on females. However, in certain estates in particular, this is unlikely because of the anti-community-involved approach in probation of male sex offenders. We can't welcome community engagement in childcare that might form the basis of a non-socially privatised sphere, whilst at the same time opposing community involvement in probation.



> Yes because they buy into the myth that you yourself are perpetuating. A myth that is encouraged by the tabloid press and its narrative of "paedos in the park". Don't you see how such myths serve a purpose, they serve to undermine community and trust between neighbours by encouraging communities to fear their neighbour, fear the stranger, treat the stranger like a threat instead of a neighbour and instead of someone to stand in solidarity with


 

Yes atomisation is there. I'm _not_ building it up by keeping to facts about predatory paedophilia, and making a non-controversial demand for community probation over them as much as for released drug dealers.

That estate is in a bad way, its play bit is very small. It was not included as part of the Playbuilder scheme, which Gove then cut in 2010-11, but it is difficult for solidarity to develop when people will not want their children knocking doors to collect signatures over the cuts to Playbuilder scheme. Why? Because, in part, they are suspicious over the sex offenders' register man in one of the blocks.

People don't treat their estate like a middle-class street, because, in part, they can find out (in the local paper only due to the heroics of a tube-worker) or _not find out_ that one among them (hard to be certain exactly who) has a paraphilia targetted at young women and girls and is on the sex offenders register for that reason.



> There we have it. The logic of the narrative of stranger danger. We become so afraid, we buy the myth so well that we now fear new relationships, we resist introducing new men into our lives or our children's lives and while we are worrying about the stranger we ignore the potential abuse that may be happening right under our noses because we have bought into the bullshit that abuse is caused by strangers.


 

You're _once again_ putting together things I haven't said. _Nowhere_ have I said people should be unconcerned about abuse by male relatives or dads (or figures of authority in the classroom or police station for that matter).



> No it is just some nonsense. Dangerous nonsense because what you are effectively saying here is that abuse doesn't take place amongst middle class communities.This is absolute rubbish. If it appears that such abuse concentrated on estates it is because people accept the myth not because the myth is real.


 


You keep saying what people are "effectively saying here" without actually listening to what people's experiences are. People here have experienced atomised estates/parts of larger estates, exacerbated by a fear of convicted sex offenders. They are _not_ saying middle-class communities are exempt from abuse. It's an unbelievably low blow to have you suggest it.

It's only rarely that the fears explode in violence. Many estates see no explosion of violence or stones through windows, but the presence of the possible sex offender(s) is a further cause of atomisation and inward retreat.

It's not as much as the fear of drug dealing or the fear of 'anti-social youths' in the stairwells or the other hundred and one fears of falling behind in payments, but it _is _there in some particular housing schemes.

What are you saying is a myth? That infill space close to or on estate sites since the 1970s has been the recourse of sheltered housing and housing associations that carry released sex offenders.

Housing associations given contracts by local councils choose the poor pockets of a borough rather than the rich ones for ex-offender units, because the land is cheaper. The major private housebuilders (Bovis, Barratt, Taylor Wimpey etc) don't do sheltered housing at all. Housebuilders store and organise their landbanks to build private high-profit houses in certain areas and sell off the unprofitable parts when necessary. Being near ex-offender units or council estates (particularly if there is a primary school with catchment in and beyond an estate) drops house prices and profitability.


----------



## coley (Feb 17, 2013)

krtek a houby said:


> Which is the common response for emotive crimes like this. But, as you know, it's just a knee jerk short term response to something that needs a lot of delving into. Saying the kids are evil is just too black and white, IMHO.



20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, looking back the whole issue was terribly badly handled but at the time I don't think many we're thinking with their heads, decisions were being made in response to the public baying for blood.
And what they did was evil but only those who have had access to them and have had the opportunity to analyse what was going on in their heads can say if it is their nature or just a horrible consequence of their upbringing .


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

coley said:


> 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, looking back the whole issue was terribly badly handled but at the time I don't think many we're thinking with their heads, decisions were being made in response to the public baying for blood.
> And what they did was evil but only those who have had access to them and have had the opportunity to analyse what was going on in their heads can say if it is their nature or just a horrible consequence of their upbringing .


 i would normaly agree with you but theres just something about that case just so pre meditated and heartless


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

coley said:


> 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, looking back the whole issue was terribly badly handled but at the time I don't think many we're thinking with their heads, decisions were being made in response to the public baying for blood.
> And what they did was evil but only those who have had access to them and have had the opportunity to analyse what was going on in their heads can say if it is their nature or just a horrible consequence of their upbringing .


You can't separate the terms like that. We are all the product of nature that has been nurtured through time. And nurture goes all the way back to the womb.

More to the point, for me, is that they were still kids. They were still developing. Who have they become now? Because I wouldn't like to be judged for the rest of my life on the basis of what I understood when I was 11. I was just a child. I have changed considerably.

Also, I don't think we should think that just because the act was so wicked, the people doing it must have been extraordinarily wicked, too. They themselves may not understand why they did it. And any understanding they would have would be the understanding of a damaged 11 year old anyway.

As for the public baying for blood, well yes, some were. It saddened and rather disgusted me at the time.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> More to the point, for me, is that they were still kids. They were still developing. Who have they become now? Because I wouldn't like to be judged for the rest of my life on the basis of what I understood when I was 11. I was just a child. I have changed considerably.


 
Venebles is being judged on the basis of what he did as a child and as an adult.

He was one of a duo that interfered whilst alive with the victim's penis and inserted batteries into his mouth. After over a million in anonymity costs alone, support for job allocation, expert re-education and psychological assistance he downloaded and distributed child pornography, posed as a mother offering to provide abuse pictures of her two children.

Hence the majority of people find it tricksy, to say the least, that police are investigating the leak of his picture but not allowing those who are living near him any right to know that they are living near him.

You mentioned in an earlier post: Why do people care about Venebles in anger if they were not personally affected? It's in part to do with the resentment on what has been offered to him compared to other non-murderers.


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

what sort of individuals would you imagine them to be now then ?


----------



## 8115 (Feb 17, 2013)

Why does it cost so much to give him a life post prison? Because of the tabloids and associated hysteria. Bad things happen. Rarely, children do very bad things. That would be the end of it for me, if it weren't for the tabloid created industry around this.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> So many pages for dylans to miss the point/s being made. Or ignore them.


 
About 30. Including some brilliant insight into the mind of a teenage socialist.





dylans said:


> Lol being accused of talking shit by a thick cunt like you is a compliment. Your posts are so inane, so fucking absurd that your own buddies accused me of lying when I mentioned them. You're like the little kid in the gang who desperately wants to be included in the game unaware that no one actually wants you around because you are so fucking embarrassing.Jumping up and down with his hand in the air "shouting "me, me, can I av a go, can I, can I"
> 
> It may have missed your attention but noone actually claims to agree with your suggestions for posters of paedophiles, Sarah's law type legislation and the release of names of ex offenders and with your ridiculous and unbelievable fantasy anecdotes about paedos in the park, politce mugshots and little girls with lucky escapes. In fact they have been at pains to accuse me of misrepresentation for suggesting they hold the same views that you are quite honest about.
> 
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

Extreme fuck-ups are expensive, sure.

Personally I'm very glad that extreme fuck-ups are given the treatment they need, whatever the expense. Although I can't really comment on the quality of the care they received.

I don't get the idea of resentment, though. Nobody is envious of either boy for their lives after the murder. They've broken their lives in a way that can never be fixed at age just 11.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2013)

tribal_princess said:


> Just seen this, quite fit isn't he


 

you are too old for him


----------



## Corax (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> Absolutely, it is possible to have this debate without going to some of the polar opposites and stupid comparisons like the racism ones mentioned earlier in the thread.


The question was nothing to do with racism itself. It was that if you have people determining who lives near them, then _*who*_ decides on what grounds they're 'allowed' to object? It was asking how far that policy goes. Substitute something else if you don't like the illustration used. There are plenty of people that think all drug users are scum. They believe that drug users 'fund their habit' with muggings and burglaries. If they have teenagers, they may be worried that a drug user will 'try to get them hooked on smack'. Why are 'the authorities' allowed to place drug users near them, without the people there knowing about it and being able to take precautionary measures to protect themselves and their families? What about people with convictions for housebreaking? Having one of them placed in your neighbourhood, without being told and having the opportunity to beef up your locks and install security lights - is that on?  There are plenty of people that think that gay people are all secretly paedophiles.  There are plenty who think that muslims are intent on subjugating women and waging war on non-muslims.  I think these people are full of shit.  I expect you think those people are full of shit.  But who are you and I to make that decision for them?

The race thing (and the above) are reductio ad absurdum (ish) illustrations, but the question stands. If the principle is that communities should get to make these decisions themselves, then why is it still okay to tell these communities which things they're allowed to be worried about and which they're not?

FTR (as it was a strawman created by a poster around this earlier) that question is also fuck all to do with working class communities particularly.  IME there's _at least_ as much paranoia about drug users, muslims, paedophiles, etc etc etc in leafy suburbs, and probably more.  If a Sarah's law was brought in, I'd not be surprised to see some of the most extreme reactions in middle class areas.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2013)

jelavicroad said:


> i would normaly agree with you but theres just something about that case just so pre meditated and heartless


 

all pre-meditated murder is heartless.  crimes of violence are nearly always sickening and shocking. This one was not special or shocking because of the premeditation or the extremity really, it was horrifying because it was children doing it to a child. imo etc


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

Corax said:


> The question was nothing to do with racism itself. It was that if you have people determining who lives near them, then _*who*_ decides on what grounds they're 'allowed' to object?


 
I don't know who brought it up but bringing that up: on a thread about the relocation / rehabilitation of sex offenders is more than a bit irrelevant and frivolous. It's the endless 'what if' game.


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> all pre-meditated murder is heartless. crimes of violence are nearly always sickening and shocking. This one was not special or shocking because of the premeditation or the extremity really, it was horrifying because it was children doing it to a child. imo etc


 agreed yeah its just the fact it was two eleven year olds getting away from secuirity cameras picking a secluded spot etc i dont buy that they were just two troubled kids


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

Did they know they were going to kill him? I don't believe that has been established. Certainly they killed him on purpose, but I don't think there's any evidence that they'd set out to kill him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

jelavicroad said:


> agreed yeah its just the fact it was two eleven year olds getting away from secuirity cameras picking a secluded spot etc i dont buy that they were just two troubled kids


What were they, then?


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

jelavicroad said:


> agreed yeah its just the fact it was two eleven year olds getting away from secuirity cameras picking a secluded spot etc i dont buy that they were just two troubled kids


 
*sigh*


----------



## sihhi (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> People can need the help and protection of their local community. But they can also need protection from their local community.


 
You've already assumed there that the only way to enforce that protection is by anonymity and refusal to allow community participation.

But in reality the standard professionalised justice system works better at protecting paedophiles from young hoodlum attack or whatever than it does in protecting U16 children from their poorly-probationed activities.

Many more young victims commit suicide as a result of a sex offence than released sex offenders being harmed. One could argue a case for an overblown perception (some might say panic  ) of 'sex offenders maybe being lynched by an un-educated mob' determining assumptions and attitudes from those who make decisions instead of objective considerations.



> In this case, I can see the potential value of a low-key operation if it's thought that something higher-key might cause trouble. And yes, that's clearly a top-down judgement, but it's the top-down power's job to protect the offender. They have an obligation towards him. And that's why I'm opposed to the idea of a right to know. I'm all for community involvement - I'm sold on that. But not framed in terms of the right of everyone to know about every sex offender in their midst.


 
I don't know what high-key and low-key actually mean. BUT the only way to iron out these various minor issues you're alluding to is to actually allow people to be told what's going on.


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did they know they were going to kill him? I don't believe that has been established. Certainly they killed him on purpose, but I don't think there's any evidence that they'd set out to kill him.


 ok a valid point obviously i cant answer that


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I don't know what high-key and low-key actually mean. BUT the only way to iron out these various minor issues you're alluding to is to actually allow people to be told what's going on.


 
How can you be so confident? There have been vigilante beatings in the US since their right to know came in. That post was a response to butchersapron nit-picking me because I had said that everyone need not be involved - and that only depending on the case. I'm very uneasy about the idea that everyone should get a leaflet through their door whenever a sex offender moves in nearby. At most it should be an issue to be considered case by case. And those in full possession of the facts of the case need to make an initial judgement about how to handle it. I think in principle that a community parole that is an agreement between all parties is a very good idea. But only when it's possible. The place they move to needs to be considered carefully - not opposite a school, etc. But I don't think people should automatically have a right to know. Depends on the circumstances.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 17, 2013)

jelavicroad said:


> im as liberal as they come but i can still remember like it was yesterday the pictures of them taking that young lad away from that shopping centre maybe it was the one who influenced the other or whatever but i think their age proves its nature not nurture but im no expert


 
No it doesn't, they had very disturbed childhoods.  Obviously not all children who have disturbed childhoods do what they did, so there is arguably something genetic going on, but their upbringing undoubtably played a big factor.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> No it doesn't, they had very disturbed childhoods. Obviously not all children who have disturbed childhoods do what they did, so there is arguably something genetic going on, but their upbringing undoubtably played a big factor.


There was some consideration about whether they could tell the difference between right and wrong. And it came down on the side that they could. But that's only a small part of the story. They knew what they had done was wrong - kidnapping a kid - which may have been why they killed him. Expecting normal children to have a good idea about why they acted as they did is hard enough. Even harder with troubled children. Also, they had a children's understanding of right and wrong. Our morality is far from developed at that age - even in healthy kids.

They did a terrible thing, but I think it's a mistake to go searching for an evil gene that can explain it all away.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't get the idea of resentment, though. Nobody is envious of either boy for their lives after the murder. They've broken their lives in a way that can never be fixed at age just 11.


 
Resentment and envy are not the same things.
It comes from people who knowing that they are not murderers and nor are their kids. But that if there were some way for their children to not be anti-social criminals but to receive what those in YOI receive that they would want that. Want to be completely physically separate from their children with them in an institution somewhere to give them a better life.

These aren't particularly helpful things or feelings but they are inavoidable in the conditions of the present day.

Once I had two people openly, and presumably honestly, explain about how happy they were to read in the paper that Myra Hindley had a host of physical ailments when she died in prison, because at least it meant life in prison without parole had a purpose.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2013)

I normally find Dylans' posts interesting and informative even when I disagree. But I must say I think he's behaved disgracefully on this thread. Jesus Christ - just dismissing peoples concerns like that, calling anyone who relates experiences that don't fit your dogmatic outlook on this issue 'liars' and ranting like someone who's seriously unhinged when questioned. Then, when people who disagree don't make the kind of easy to knock down arguments this dogma was built in opposition to just claiming that's what they _really _mean anyway.

It's bollocks and dangerous bollocks - no, 'stranger danger' isn't as widespread a problem as child abuse by family friends etc. So what though? I'm less likely to get struck by lightening than I am to be electricuted by a 13 amp socket - doesn't mean I'm going to start flying kites in thunder storms though. Anyone who thinks a convincted paedophile living nextdoor to you doesn't represent a threat to your kids isn't to be taken seriously - what are the re-offending rates again? 10%? 14%? Something like that - now I'm no expert on this but I don't think that proportion of the general population commits acts of child abuse. And so anyone with even the most strained relationship with logic has to accept that they pose a threat to child safety.

And the crap about anyone thinking some degree of community engagement (I'd be up for panels of people from the community, elected by the community on an annual basis or something like that being given details and a say in the way these people are dealt with and those willing to being facilitated in providing them with rehab assistance) is arguing for pitchforks is pretty insulting too.

Phil's talking his usual academic bubble bollocks here too - the idea that drug addiction 'isn't a problem' is one that can only be held by someone who's not felt its consequences. I'd take a similar community panel approach to convicted dealers and some addicts who've committed serious crimes to fuel their habits. The pitch fork stuff definitely doesn't apply to drug users anyway - I make a point of telling people about my drug past and I've never had any negative consequences from doing so, other than the odd bit of patronising crap about how well I've done anyway - which is very irritating but it's not lynch mobs and it's nothing you can't handle.

I actually think that a lot of the hang 'em and flog 'em stuff arises directly out of the kind of attitude Dylans is displaying here. First, the dismissal of genuine concerns ends up with people being abandoned to the predatory instincts of the far right and the right wing tabloid media - they're the only ones who talk about what concerns us and they're advocating Sarah's law/castration/hanging or whatever - why listen to the lefties who make out we're lying and just want to dump them nextdoor to us with no warning, call us hysterical or say we just can't be trusted to deal with serious issues? It's just the fucking same as when liberal left UAF type twats deny that economic immigration can have a negative impact on employment prospects - it's denied because people daren't face up to the real issues. And so they're left to the 'close the door' lot rather than entering into a dialog that might lead to progressive solutions (union rates of pay etc.)

And before I get the 'you're just sucking up to your mates' bollocks I'll just point out that I don't know any of the people Dylans is arguing with here. And I'm not an anarchist either - though if the arguments Dylans is making are socialist ones then I don't think I'm a socialist either. My socialism is all about the working class liberation, not this managerial fabian sneering crap, dismissing our concerns and treating us like children whose only understanding of justice involves torches and pitchforks.


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> No it doesn't, they had very disturbed childhoods. Obviously not all children who have disturbed childhoods do what they did, so there is arguably something genetic going on, but their upbringing undoubtably played a big factor.


 again i cant claim to have psycholigical insight but i would guess atleast one of the two planned it and is a predatory peadophile i could be wrong


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

They grew up in an unloving institution, sihhi. How could anyone wish that on their child?

And I do think that people who are made happy by the suffering of others (with whom they have no direct connection) need to have a long hard look at themselves.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

How is thompson doing then? As far as I know he's not committed any crime? If he's just keeping his head down and is getting on with life then fair enough, there probably is no reason to reveal his identity.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How can you be so confident? There have been vigilante beatings in the US since their right to know came in. That post was a response to butchersapron nit-picking me because I had said that everyone need not be involved - and that only depending on the case. I'm very uneasy about the idea that everyone should get a leaflet through their door whenever a sex offender moves in nearby. At most it should be an issue to be considered case by case. And those in full possession of the facts of the case need to make an initial judgement about how to handle it. I think in principle that a community parole that is an agreement between all parties is a very good idea. But only when it's possible. The place they move to needs to be considered carefully - not opposite a school, etc. But I don't think people should automatically have a right to know. Depends on the circumstances.


What about for example, community coppers giving briefings to council ward meetings etc alongside their other reports on policing issues that impact on the local community?

Having attended many of those meetings, I reckon this would pretty much instantly take the sting out of the entire issue, as very few actually bother to attend, the meetings are so mind numbingly dull mostly that by the time it got round to that part of the meeting it'd be hard for anyone to have the energy to get worked up about it, and it could be discussed fairly rationally chaired by local councillors, with the police able to explain the situation, the risks, measures in place etc etc. and the public who're seriously interested able to attend and ask questions if they wanted to.


----------



## mentalchik (Feb 17, 2013)

the one and  only time i've ever had a proper row with someone at work was after i stupidly (and against my workplace principles) got sucked into a discussion about this case............

it caused massive suprise that i didn't support the death penalty and when it was proposed (by someone who appears quite reasonable and ok the rest of the time) that they should have been taken somewhere and beaten to death i lost my rag.......

i just can't get my head round this mindset...........yes it was a bloody awful thing and i can't imagine how i would feel if it were my child.............


----------



## thriller (Feb 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How is thompson doing then?


 
that is a question I often ask myself when Venables turns up on the news.


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I normally find Dylans' posts interesting and informative even when I disagree. But I must say I think he's behaved disgracefully on this thread. Jesus Christ - just dismissing peoples concerns like that, calling anyone who relates experiences that don't fit your dogmatic outlook on this issue 'liars' and ranting like someone who's seriously unhinged when questioned. Then, when people who disagree don't make the kind of easy to knock down arguments this dogma was built in opposition to just claiming that's what they _really _mean anyway.
> .


 
Oh fuck off. I have just had pages and pages of relentless abuse thrown at me for days now by crptoapron and his fawning acolytes. I have been insulted, sworn at, sneered at, laughed at, I have had my personal integrity questioned. I have had snarky cartoons, for post after post even when I have deliberately stepped away from the thread the posts continued.Then finally,  when, after being pushed and insulted and misrepresented for 2 fucking days I respond I am behaving disgracefully> Fuck you. Really fuck off


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2013)

I think in this particular case, with the sensationalism in the media at the time it happened and the unique nature of the crime means that the identity of neither should be revealed. I don't know about Thompson - but I do wonder whether, for his own safety as well as that of children, Venables should always remain under supervision - whether that means incarceration or some kind of intensive surveylance I don't know. I mean, assuming that photo is of him he must be shitting himself and not able to do anything - he's not in prison, sure, but in a sense he'd probably have more freedom if he was.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There was some consideration about whether they could tell the difference between right and wrong.


 
They were trialled in an adult court. (CR is set at 10 years)/.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> that is a question I often ask myself when Venables turns up on the news.


 
Last I heard he was running the UK branch of the Oscar Pistorius fan club. Poor sod.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> What about for example, community coppers giving briefings to council ward meetings etc alongside their other reports on policing issues that impact on the local community?
> 
> Having attended many of those meetings, I reckon this would pretty much instantly take the sting out of the entire issue, as very few actually bother to attend, the meetings are so mind numbingly dull mostly that by the time it got round to that part of the meeting it'd be hard for anyone to have the energy to get worked up about it, and it could be discussed fairly rationally chaired by local councillors, with the police able to explain the situation, the risks, measures in place etc etc. and the public who're seriously interested able to attend and ask questions if they wanted to.


Yes, that sounds sensible - for people coming out of prison. I don't like the idea that this should happen to sex offenders for the rest of their lives. I do think that they should be given the chance to prove themselves and that the supervision and informing of neighbours should ease over time.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Oh fuck off. I have just had pages and pages of relentless abuse thrown at me for days now by crptoapron and his fawning acolytes. I have been insulted, sworn at, sneered at, laughed at, I have had my personal integrity questioned. I have had snarky cartoons, for post after post even when I have deliberately stepped away from the thread the posts continued.


 
You brought all of that upon yourself, Terry.


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> that is a question I often ask myself when Venables turns up on the news.


theres too many people who have to be in loop for his identity to stay secret saing that mary bell as far as i know managed it


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> You brought all of that upon yourself.


Yes by disagreeing with cryptoapron and his pathetic fawning acolytes. Have your thread cunt. I'm out of here


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

jelavicroad said:


> theres too many people who have to be in loop for his identity to stay secret saing that mary bell as far as i know managed it


 
yeah i'd have guessed that a lot of people around him would know, and hopefully he's got some support networks in place.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

jelavicroad said:


> theres too many people who have to be in loop for his identity to stay secret saing that mary bell as far as i know managed it


 
What loop?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Oh fuck off. I have just had pages and pages of relentless abuse thrown at me for days now by crptoapron and his fawning acolytes. I have been insulted, sworn at, sneered at, laughed at, I have had my personal integrity questioned. I have had snarky cartoons, for post after post even when I have deliberately stepped away from the thread the posts continued.Then finally, when, after being pushed and insulted and misrepresented for 2 fucking days I respond I am behaving disgracefully> Fuck you. Really fuck off


 
Here, have another cartoon:







And of course you've not questioned anyone's integrity have you? You've not sworn. You've not sneered 'you're just perpetuating a moral panic' etc. Like when you called FS a liar and a fantasist when he was, quite patiently, relating an experience with sex offenders at a festival. And you weren't questioning anyone's integrity when you've claimed that others _really did_ mean pitchforks and torches but just didn't want to admit it. That's disgraceful behaviour and it's that more than your potty mouthed hissy fit I was referring to. But then again I guess when you do it it's not insulting - you're just telling the stupid proles what they really think in their tiny little minds because they just don't have the same level of understanding as you.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> What loop?


 
I suppose probation officers, psychotherapists etc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> They were trialled in an adult court. (CR is set at 10 years)/.


They still had expert opinion on both of them regarding their conception of right and wrong. Not all 11  year olds are equal, clearly.


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> yeah i'd have guessed that a lot of people around him would know, and hopefully he's got some support networks in place.


 yeah your talking about coppers probation officers family members and people he was banged up with and thats before he starts making friends possibly a gf he confides in the list just gos on


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> What loop?


 cyber bully


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)




----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, that sounds sensible - for people coming out of prison. I don't like the idea that this should happen to sex offenders for the rest of their lives. I do think that they should be given the chance to prove themselves and that the supervision and informing of neighbours should ease over time.


I'd tend to agree, depending on the nature of the crime - I'd probably only even suggest this for anyone who had actually molested someone or worse, or I suppose maybe multiple flashers. I don't know if it'd be appropriate for fixed time limits to apply though either, but maybe there's sufficient evidence about the rate of reoffending dropping off beyond a certain point.

TBH I'd leave the specifics to those who're experts in the field, but this would be the sort of mechanism I'd think could be used best to inform the community without whipping up too much hysteria, as long as there wasn't anything to get hysterical about. I'd then give the community themselves broad discretion to determine other measures that they felt appropriate to further inform the wider community not attending the meetings.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

I think the mistake that everyone is making is child abuse affects people from all backgrounds and is not remotely a class issue. The vast majority isn't even being touched on here and political positions are being shoehorned left right and centre. Dylan's position is pretty simple, criminals who have served their sentences have a right to get on with their lives and the tiny percent of re offending stranger danger child abusers (assuming 10% of total and then 10% of that after conviction from what I've read here) are amongst them. That's the impression I've got anyway and I'm none the wiser what these community justice councils would consist of.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They grew up in an unloving institution, sihhi. How could anyone wish that on their child?


 
Because they think their children would have ended up with better economic security/prospects.

It's not atypical: families from some war-torn areas putting all savings to pay for a child to be lorried into Europe as an unaccompanied asylum seeker, middle-class families who insist upon boarding schools against their child's wishes.



> And I do think that people who are made happy by the suffering of others (with whom they have no direct connection) need to have a long hard look at themselves.


 
I agree being happy at the suffering of people is meaningless. However there is a feeling that the suicide of certain people would be an honourable thing for them to do - that's different. Some have it over the likes of Harold Shipman and Venebles - based on the frequency of murder and the severity and pain endured as part of the murder.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 17, 2013)

jelavicroad said:


> again i cant claim to have psycholigical insight but i would guess atleast one of the two planned it and is a predatory peadophile i could be wrong


 
Planning it does not equate to naturally being born evil.  I think perhaps you should do some reading on the whole issue of environmental impact on crime and serious crime tbh.  Nor is predatory pedophilia a genetic condition.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Oh fuck off. I have just had pages and pages of relentless abuse thrown at me for days now by crptoapron and his fawning acolytes. I have been insulted, sworn at, sneered at, laughed at, I have had my personal integrity questioned. I have had snarky cartoons, for post after post even when I have deliberately stepped away from the thread the posts continued.Then finally, when, after being pushed and insulted and misrepresented for 2 fucking days I respond I am behaving disgracefully> Fuck you. Really fuck off


 
And I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid sending me abusive PMs. As it happens I'm not really offended - I've never denied being a wanker - we all are if we're honest - and so the subject title of your PM is fairly accurate and not all that insulting really. And since I've also engaged in acts of fornication in my time I guess the label fucking wanker, which formed the entire body of the message, is reasonably accurate too.

I'll give you 1/10 for effort though.


----------



## jelavicroad (Feb 17, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Planning it does not equate to naturally being born evil. I think perhaps you should do some reading on the whole issue of environmental impact on crime and serious crime tbh. Nor is predatory pedophilia a genetic condition.


i wouldnt mind doing some reading on it tbh so your saying 100 per cent its not genetic


----------



## Corax (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> I don't know who brought it up but bringing that up: on a thread about the relocation / rehabilitation of sex offenders is more than a bit irrelevant and frivolous. It's the endless 'what if' game.


It's where such policies have the_ potential_ to lead. I don't think that's an irrelevancy in a discussion of those policies.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid sending me abusive PMs. As it happens I'm not really offended - I've never denied being a wanker - we all are if we're honest - and so the subject title of your PM is fairly accurate and not all that insulting really. And since I've also engaged in acts of fornication in my time I guess the label fucking wanker, which formed the entire body of the message, is reasonably accurate too.
> 
> I'll give you 1/10 for effort though.


 rattles well and truly out of pram then.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

I haven't had any PMs of support or abusive PMs for years, jammy bastard.

Lets have a look


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

one pm of support is not enough though, it has to be _countless_ PMs of support.


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

dylans said:


> Oh fuck off. I have just had pages and pages of relentless abuse thrown at me for days now by crptoapron and his fawning acolytes. I have been insulted, sworn at, sneered at, laughed at, I have had my personal integrity questioned. I have had snarky cartoons, for post after post even when I have deliberately stepped away from the thread the posts continued.Then finally, when, after being pushed and insulted and misrepresented for 2 fucking days I respond I am behaving disgracefully> Fuck you. Really fuck off


 
You demonstrated in the past that you are unable to take sustained criticism of your stances without treating it as a deeply personal attack and flying into a massive rage about it. This stuff about acolytes, gangs, fawning mates and stuff is utter bullshit.

I was sad when you left for ages after a few of us criticising your stance over Libya or something lead to a similar reaction, but since I couldnt shield you from the realities of heated debate and ego clashes on forums even if I wanted to, I dont think I will spend any further time being sad about it again. Its no good being excellent at clearly stating your principled stances on any number of topics if you are unable to debate the details without taking it so personally and resorting to pathetic accusations about people kicking you as part of some group bonding ritual. By all means tell people to fuck off when they bother you, I know I do, but try to resist arse gravy about monothought cliques eh, it makes you sound like a tool and distracts from the points you sought to make.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2013)

elbows said:


> You demonstrated in the past that you are unable to take sustained criticism of your stances without treating it as a deeply personal attack and flying into a massive rage about it. This stuff about acolytes, gangs, fawning mates and stuff is utter bullshit.
> 
> I was sad when you left for ages after a few of us criticising your stance over Libya or something lead to a similar reaction, but since I couldnt shield you from the realities of heated debate and ego clashes on forums even if I wanted to, I dont think I will spend any further time being sad about it again. Its no good being excellent at clearly stating your principled stances on any number of topics if you are unable to debate the details without taking it so personally and resorting to pathetic accusations about people kicking you as part of some group bonding ritual. By all means tell people to fuck off when they bother you, I know I do, but try to resist arse gravy about monothought cliques eh, it makes you sound like a tool and distracts from the points you sought to make.


 
Especially as I probably agree with Dylans on a lot of stuff he disagrees with BA about. I took issue with what I saw to be a quite dangerously dismissive attitude towards genuine concerns and a dishonest debating style.

The funny thing is I don't think I've ever had a row with Dylans on anything before whereas me and BA have had a few 'robust debates' in the past.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

Its been an interesting discussion but I think the community paedo committees need some celebrity endorsement


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 17, 2013)

I must admit I was slightly aroused by the abusive PM. Which makes me a deviant paedo so I should probably attack myself with a pitchfork or something.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Especially as I probably agree with Dylans on a lot of stuff he disagrees with BA about. I took issue with what I saw to be a quite dangerously dismissive attitude towards genuine concerns and a dishonest debating style.
> 
> The funny thing is I don't think I've ever had a row with Dylans on anything before whereas me and BA have had a few 'robust debates' in the past.


likewise. Actually, maybe I did disagree with him on Libya, I can't entirely remember now.

I've certainly not got any long running beef going with him that I'm aware of, so was a bit surprised to find him jumping in and calling me a liar in the first post I'd made on the thread. Personally I think my immediate response to that was pretty fair.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> <snip>
> 
> I actually think that a lot of the hang 'em and flog 'em stuff arises directly out of the kind of attitude Dylans is displaying here.
> 
> <snip>


Top post Spiney (and sihhi's post have been as good as usual), I agree with pretty much all of it but especially the bit quoted.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

You gotta be pretty fucking sad to go to the bother of sending someone abusive PMs. I've had some right fights on here that have lasted months across multiple threads but I don't think I ever felt the need to tell dubversion of what I thought of him in a PM. Pathetic and forever undermines you.

I CANT ACTUALLY HIT YOU OR THROW THINGS ABOUT SO I WILL SEND YOU A PM INSTEAD, WANKER, WANKER, WANKER, WANKER


----------



## elbows (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I've certainly not got any long running beef going with him that I'm aware of, so was a bit surprised to find him jumping in and calling me a liar in the first post I'd made on the thread. Personally I think my immediate response to that was pretty fair.


 
I wouldnt take it too personally if I were you. It's most likely that it was a combination of some points you made, and the state he had already gotten himself into before you arrived. I suspect ba's goading gets right under his skin in a big way, and makes him raw and hyper-sensitive to the comments of a few others. I dont have a crystal clear memory of the Libya thing but it was probably similar, perhaps me & ba making more than a few comments which ended up stamping repeatedly on some raw nerves.

Of course it may be the detail of the comments that really counts, eg suggestions that he is somehow preaching from on-high or in some way doing a disservice to the aspirations of the everyman. This is bound to offend anyone who fancies that their politics are all about seeing the right thing done by people, with an emphasis on the more vulnerable or disadvantaged members of society. Some have thick skin to protect them from accusations on that front, I guess he doesn't. I dont know how easy it is to grow some in that area, or to modify your posturing to avoid such accusations from happening very often. Most of those who can make a political career out of such posturing seem relatively immune to such criticism, or close their ears to it and stick to attacking their natural political opposites, but those who arent doing it as a career may not feel the need to have developed that particular shield. I would say that they should be all the better for it, except it can lead to meltdowns which only make it harder to come back to earth with dignity.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

I like dylans and have a lot of time for his posts even when i disagree with him (which is most of the time) but he got it badly wrong on this thread to say the least.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron was stirring this afternoon. He was angling for a fight and not being very helpful. He's got to me in the past by doing that. Very fond of pointing out the personal, intellectual or posting-style failings of other posters as he sees them, is ba, and inferring some negative character trait from it. He only does it to certain posters, and it made dylans rather crack today. Pity, as it polarises debate unnecessarily.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> You gotta be pretty fucking sad to go to the bother of sending someone abusive PMs. I've had some right fights on here that have lasted months across multiple threads but I don't think I ever felt the need to tell dubversion of what I thought of him in a PM. Pathetic and forever undermines you.
> 
> I CANT ACTUALLY HIT YOU OR THROW THINGS ABOUT SO I WILL SEND YOU A PM INSTEAD, WANKER, WANKER, WANKER, WANKER


 
On my first day Garfield Le Chat implied that if I came to a forthcoming Urban 75 meet, he would physically attack me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> butchersapron was stirring this afternoon. He was angling for a fight and not being very helpful. He's got to me in the past by doing that. Very fond of pointing out the personal, intellectual or posting-style failings of other posters as he sees them, is ba, and* inferring some negative character trait from it*. He only does it to certain posters, and it made dylans rather crack today. Pity, as it polarises debate unnecessarily.


 

I've never seen it done as an inference: it's usually just an out and out character attack.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I've never seen it done as an inference: it's usually just an out and out character attack.


Yes, that's true enough. 'Stating' rather than 'inferring'.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

I have said it before about butchers, he could start a fight in an empty room. 



Favelado said:


> On my first day Garfield Le Chat implied that if I came to a forthcoming Urban 75 meet, he would physically attack me.


 
"Is there something wrong with you I should know about?"


----------



## 8115 (Feb 17, 2013)

This thread needs it's own wiki so I can see who hates who.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 17, 2013)

I despise everyone who has posted on this thread, including myself. In fact, I'm going to send myself an abusive pm.


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

Wiki would say:

Some people don't like some people on here but they can put that aside and agree on some things.

*vomit*


----------



## sihhi (Feb 17, 2013)

IC3D said:


> I think the mistake that everyone is making is child abuse affects people from all backgrounds and is not remotely a class issue. The vast majority isn't even being touched on here and political positions are being shoehorned left right and centre. Dylan's position is pretty simple, criminals who have served their sentences have a right to get on with their lives and the tiny percent of re offending stranger danger child abusers (assuming 10% of total and then 10% of that after conviction from what I've read here) are amongst them. That's the impression I've got anyway and I'm none the wiser what these community justice councils would consist of.


 
I don't where the idea comes from that non-family abusers are somehow a meaningless speck in reality:
NSPCC major survey in 2000 largest of its random sampling kind:



> When the answers were combined into a measure of abuse, the group reporting consensual activity with a person 5 or more years older were divided at age 12. Those who were 12 or under at the time of the sexual activity were included, together with those who had not consented to the activity, in the ‘abuse’ group. Those who were aged 13 - 15 years when the consensual activity took place were included as a borderline ‘at risk’ group. Using these definitions, 1% of the sample had been abused by parents/carers, almost all of this abuse involving physical contact, and 3% had been abused by other relatives, with 2% contact and 1% non contact. Abuse by other known people was the most common, and 11% of the sample had this experience, 8% involving physical contact and 3% non contact. Abuse by strangers or someone just met had affected 4% of the sample, 2% contact and 2% non contact.


 
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/publ...ldmaltreatmentintheukexecsummary_wdf48006.pdf

The older the children are the more likely the sex abuse is to have been someone 'non-family'.

"11% of children aged under 16 experienced sexual abuse during childhood by people known but unrelated to them"
"5% of children aged under 16 experienced sexual abuse during childhood by an adult stranger or someone they had just met."
"1% of children aged under 16 experienced sexual abuse by a parent or carer, and a further 3% by another relative during childhood."
From the NSPCC's summary of its _Child maltreatment in the United Kingdom: a study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect _pages 85-86.

That's 5% children experiencing abuse by someone who is a stranger or someone they've just met, suggesting 6% on top of that experiencing abuse by someone who was once a stranger (since they are unrelated) but has since become known.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/findings/childmaltreatmentintheunitedkingdom_wda48252.html

The opportunities for sexual abuse of working-class children is higher for working-class children as the revelations of the Rochdale activities have again proved. The weakest parts within the working-class are at risk from physical and sometimes sexual abuse from the other parts of the working-class. 

Each victim of sexual abuse is liable to suicide or to developing a paraphilia themselves hence the so-called "cycle of abuse". If you read the output of PIE again in the news today, the biography of their spokespeople all focus on how they were treated to "loving" relationships with their teachers at boarding school.

Child abuse is a feminist issue and a class issue, NSPCC summarised police statistics in 2012:



> In 2010/11 the police in England and Wales recorded:
> 
> 5,115 offences of rape of a female child under 16
> 
> ...


 
Many young girls are being raped by those above the age of 16. Vigilance is needed against these people, at the same time as trying to overcome the wider power imbalances that mean many rapes are not recorded at all and social structures - family, professional justice system, education system are unable to stop the abuse. That includes abuse by strangers and the non-related who have been released.

NSPCC FOI request in November as summarised:




> Among those convicted of sex crimes against children, 941 have reoffended since they were subject to registration requirements, according to figures obtained under freedom of information laws.
> The figures, obtained by the children's charity NSPCC from the National Police Improvement Agency, showed that out of a total of 61,397 sex offenders, 29,837 were for crimes against children.
> The charity called for the Government to provide an annual breakdown of the number of paedophiles placed under registration requirements, how many go on to reoffend, and how many cannot be traced in each geographical area.


 
Those who are simply cautioned for offences and get off the register after 12 months are NOT included in these figures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...edophiles-reoffend-while-being-monitored.html

So even whilst on the sex offenders register - only really properly operational since 1999 but started in 1997 - recorded reoffending happens, plus now they after 15 years they are able to wipe the slate clean after the judgement referred to earlier.

Again we should remind ourselves that about a third of people who are abused in childhood never tell anyone until they are well into adult years meaning convictions are very difficult as the Frances Andrade case tragically suggests.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

Favelado said:


> On my first day Garfield Le Chat implied that if I came to a forthcoming Urban 75 meet, he would physically attack me.


I find that extremely unlikely.

I reckon Garf would usually just come straight out with it rather than implying any threat.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 17, 2013)

firky said:


> "Is there something wrong with you I should know about?"


oh really, was that Favelado?

fair play


----------



## Firky (Feb 17, 2013)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/poetry-competition.284089/page-27#post-11424228

it's garf, it could mean fucking anything.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 17, 2013)

jelavicroad said:


> i wouldnt mind doing some reading on it tbh so your saying 100 per cent its not genetic


 
No, I am suggesting that while there may be a genetic component, the impact of the environment and upbringing is a hugely important factor.  It is never one or the other, the two work in combination with one another. 

Genetics may be relevant because not everybody who goes through a similar experience (say sexual abuse) will behave in the same way.  Some cope better than others and this may be down to their genetic makeup.  But it could equally be down to having strong attachments in early childhood meaning levels of resilience are better.  It's probably a bit of both.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 17, 2013)

cdg said:


> Where could one see this picture? Just curiously.


 
In the brave new world of internet law I reckon people should do their own googling if they have to.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I don't where the idea comes from that non-family abusers are somehow a meaningless speck in reality:
> NSPCC major survey in 2000 largest of its random sampling kind:


 
All I can digest from that big chunk of data at this time of night is that around 3% of child abusing sex offenders are convicted re offenders. The criteria seems also to be vary broad based. Assuming these were the ones the community could be aware of it seems a bit pointless to mobilise them.



> _Among those convicted of sex crimes against children, 941 have reoffended since they were subject to registration requirements, according to figures obtained under freedom of information laws._
> _The figures, obtained by the children's charity NSPCC from the National Police Improvement Agency, showed that out of a total of 61,397 sex offenders, 29,837 were for crimes against children._


----------



## coley (Feb 17, 2013)

free spirit said:


> What about for example, community coppers giving briefings to council ward meetings etc alongside their other reports on policing issues that impact on the local community?
> 
> Having attended many of those meetings, I reckon this would pretty much instantly take the sting out of the entire issue, as very few actually bother to attend, the meetings are so mind numbingly dull mostly that by the time it got round to that part of the meeting it'd be hard for anyone to have the energy to get worked up about it, and it could be discussed fairly rationally chaired by local councillors, with the police able to explain the situation, the risks, measures in place etc etc. and the public who're seriously interested able to attend and ask questions if they wanted to.



But they are public meetings, there is no obligation of confidentiality involved, however if you take your idea further and release the information to a closed meeting of parish councillors then you have the basis of an idea that could possibly be workable.


----------



## coley (Feb 17, 2013)

jelavicroad said:


> theres too many people who have to be in loop for his identity to stay secret saing that mary bell as far as i know managed it


Nope, she didn't, lived 3 miles from me, and most around here knew it.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 17, 2013)

Corax said:


> What about people with convictions for housebreaking? Having one of them placed in your neighbourhood, without being told and having the opportunity to beef up your locks and install security lights - is that on? There are plenty of people that think that gay people are all secretly paedophiles. There are plenty who think that muslims are intent on subjugating women and waging war on non-muslims. I think these people are full of shit. I expect you think those people are full of shit. But who are you and I to make that decision for them?


 

Unless we start trusting people with probation and rehabilitation then the infantile attitudes that are expressed above will continue. Those with experience - the experts the probationers and social workers should become more based around facilitating community rehabilitation rather than professional super-whizzes.
 

Most working-class or sound middle-class social workers would agree that they are managing people's decline before and after they leave prison. The system must change. There's only so far the culture of confidentiality will go, it's not working the further you get from the liberal assumption world of everyone has a secure job, a secure home and car and a reliable pension once they 'rehabilitate' and transform themselves. That's all lies. 
 

The focus in probation is on the individual - 'you can do this, course you can' or the personal relationship or family 'do it for your children/ no one will want you if you are using drugs'. It's meaningless, the community (or the class if you like) is what everyone criminal background and non-criminal background must fight for - to secure those things. So the community should be involved in rehabilitation.

Those questions you highlight about drug users seem perfectly legitimate ones. The working-class case is to ensure that all crimes - insurance fraud, workplace death, pollution, meat negligence etc are punished and deterred _alongside_ tackling the scourge of drug sales and drug abuse. We can't focus on one lot and leave the others up to professionals alone. 

I don't understand the references to Muslims and gay people. Muslims are not a category of crimes that can gain a conviction nor is consensual gay sex. 
 


> The race thing (and the above) are reductio ad absurdum (ish) illustrations, but the question stands. If the principle is that communities should get to make these decisions themselves, then why is it still okay to tell these communities which things they're allowed to be worried about and which they're not?


 
I don't understand the question here but:


The basic point is that paedophiles are treated as a force to be excluded for understandable reasons that are exacerbated by today's mixed system of justice and probation.  On the one hand you have leaflets from the government saying be worried about boyfriends of your kids if they seem really eager to babysit grandchildren; on the other if we suspect you've leaked information that X has a sexual offence conviction we'll prosecute you with utmost severity. The best way as a paedophile to gain most anonymity/most social work protection is to do abuse of several victims; sentencing is up to the whim of the 'expert' judges.

More generally we have confidentiality matters crucially in rehabilitating offenders, neighbours must not know what they've done; but employers that's OK they must know on application forms what's been done with the crudest of systems, try and wriggle out and you face re-imprisonment. 

Your race question is a red herring. Middle-class people already do racially choose where they will house themselves they have the money to escape from working-class immigrant areas, there's zero outrage here, only a hypothetical 'working-class whites will enforce whites only areas if community probation is struggled for/won'. WTF is that?

Burglary is something not particularly dependent on where people live. Homes are broken into by people living elsewhere not just those on your doorstep. A working-class demand might be for security in working-class homes - for lights and for locks and fully paid concierges/caretakers. 
The rehabilitation aspect on burglarisers, again I can't see what the barriers are that you are suggesting. There's no good reason against this stuff. Except for working-class people having the confidence to take charge of their own affairs beyond their one own rabbit hole. That must be suppressed and likened to a mob at all costs.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2013)

IC3D said:


> All I can digest from that big chunk of data at this time of night is that around 3% of child abusing sex offenders are convicted re offenders. The criteria seems also to be vary broad based. Assuming these were the ones the community could be aware of it seems a bit pointless to mobilise them.


I had to just check that, but the criteria for going on that list is pretty broad, basically including any conviction of any sexual related offence including possession of child porn images. I'd suspect a significant proportion of those on the list would be in the child porn list rather than actually having been convicted of directly molesting kids themselves, if you think about the huge sweeps that went on in the period from the credit card info seized from child porn websites etc that's got to be a lot of that figure.

ie that total is much bigger than the number of offenders I, and I suspect most others would be referring to.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

IC3D said:


> All I can digest from that big chunk of data at this time of night is that around 3% of child abusing sex offenders are convicted re offenders. The criteria seems also to be _*vary broad based*_. Assuming these were the ones the community could be aware of it seems a bit pointless to mobilise them.


 
Very broad based means what? It is including all types of sexual abuse not simply genital contact abuse. Hence contact and non-contact.

What point are you making? 61,397 convicted sex offenders of which 29,837 feature children as victims.  
Your conclusion: it is pointless to mobilise the community, leave it in the hands of the professionals. What?


----------



## 8115 (Feb 18, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I had to just check that, but the criteria for going on that list is pretty broad, basically including any conviction of any sexual related offence including possession of child porn images. I'd suspect a significant proportion of those on the list would be in the child porn list rather than actually having been convicted of directly molesting kids themselves, if you think about the huge sweeps that went on in the period from the credit card info seized from child porn websites etc that's got to be a lot of that figure.
> 
> ie that total is much bigger than the number of offenders I, and I suspect most others would be referring to.


 
Using child porn is ok then?  I know that's not exactly what you mean but the impliation is there.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2013)

coley said:


> But they are public meetings, there is no obligation of confidentiality involved, however if you take your idea further and release the information to a closed meeting of parish councillors then you have the basis of an idea that could possibly be workable.


what makes you think that I think this information should be kept confidential?

I don't.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2013)

8115 said:


> Using child porn is ok then?


no, but from what little I know on the subject, I believe there are a lot of people convicted for child porn possession who have no convictions for actual molestation of children directly themselves or accusations of it.

So if we're talking about communities protecting themselves from known predatory pedophiles, then they'd not fit into that category.

Not that they should be allowed to work by themselves with kids or something, but if a line had to be drawn for who the community really deserves to be told about, vs those the authorities should be keeping an eye on and not letting work with kids, then IMO they'd be on the other side of that line.


----------



## coley (Feb 18, 2013)

elbows said:


> I wouldnt take it too personally if I were you. It's most likely that it was a combination of some points you made, and the state he had already gotten himself into before you arrived. I suspect ba's goading gets right under his skin in a big way, and makes him raw and hyper-sensitive to the comments of a few others. I dont have a crystal clear memory of the Libya thing but it was probably similar, perhaps me & ba making more than a few comments which ended up stamping repeatedly on some raw nerves.
> 
> Of course it may be the detail of the comments that really counts, eg suggestions that he is somehow preaching from on-high or in some way doing a disservice to the aspirations of the everyman. This is bound to offend anyone who fancies that their politics are all about seeing the right thing done by people, with an emphasis on the more vulnerable or disadvantaged members of society. Some have thick skin to protect them from accusations on that front, I guess he doesn't. I dont know how easy it is to grow some in that area, or to modify your posturing to avoid such accusations from happening very often. Most of those who can make a political career out of such posturing seem relatively immune to such criticism, or close their ears to it and stick to attacking their natural political opposites, but those who arent doing it as a career may not feel the need to have developed that particular shield. I would say that they should be all the better for it, except it can lead to meltdowns which only make it harder to come back to earth with dignity.



Hate to drift away from the subject, but have to admire the use of the stiletto as opposed to the blunt cavalry sabre.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Very broad based means what? It is including all types of sexual abuse not simply genital contact abuse. Hence contact and non-contact.
> 
> What point are you making? 61,397 convicted sex offenders of which 29,837 feature children as victims.
> Your conclusion: it is pointless to mobilise the community, leave it in the hands of the professionals. What?


This


free spirit said:


> I had to just check that, but the criteria for going on that list is pretty broad, basically including any conviction of any sexual related offence including possession of child porn images. I'd suspect a significant proportion of those on the list would be in the child porn list rather than actually having been convicted of directly molesting kids themselves, if you think about the huge sweeps that went on in the period from the credit card info seized from child porn websites etc that's got to be a lot of that figure.
> 
> ie that total is much bigger than the number of offenders I, and I suspect most others would be referring to.


I don't think we according to YOUR stats if I've interpreted it correctly need to inform the 'community' about the 1000 odd reoffending nonces or for that matter all the convicted rapists, drug dealers... Its hysteria driven by the capitalist media I suggest people get over it as it is damaging to our society frankly


----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2013)

IC3D said:


> This
> 
> I don't think we according to YOUR stats if I've interpreted it correctly need to inform the 'community' about the 1000 odd reoffending nonces or for that matter all the convicted rapists, drug dealers... Its hysteria driven by the capitalist media I suggest people get over it as it is damaging to our society frankly


OK, well if you don't think that protecting at least 1000 kids from abuse is worthwhile, then I think you and I have very different priorities.


----------



## coley (Feb 18, 2013)

free spirit said:


> what makes you think that I think this information should be kept confidential?
> 
> I don't.



Sorry, obviously I have misinterpreted your comments, possibly confused them with others, on what is a long and complicated  issue, but to clarify, all sex offenders, irrespective of their crimes should have their details notified to the community into which they are to be resettled?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

IC3D said:


> I don't think we according to YOUR stats if I've interpreted it correctly need to inform the 'community' about the 1000 odd reoffending nonces or for that matter all the convicted rapists, drug dealers... Its hysteria driven by the capitalist media I suggest people get over it as it is damaging to our society frankly


 
They're NSPCC statistics and as much as can be gleaned from a NSPCC FOI request. The numbers of reoffenders are higher, those are only convicted offences whilst on the Sex Offenders Register. As explained those on the Register for a short period of time but who later re-offend are not included.
These are those reoffending whilst on the second part of their punishment.

Presumably, the child sex offender disclosure scheme as it exists now is a result of "hysteria" as well. 
You're saying if the number of caught and convicted post-release reoffenders was higher community probation would be necessary, but as it stands it's too small to justify.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2013)

presumably the jimmy savile investigations are also the result of hysteria.


----------



## elbows (Feb 18, 2013)

Tune in tomorrow when we divide the amount of money Savile made for charity by the number of victims and decide whether it was a price worth paying.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2013)

given the lengths taken by the bourgeois media to cover up/apologise for child sex scandals i would suggest that it is not necessarily a "capitalist" thing to be worried about child safety!


----------



## IC3D (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> They're NSPCC statistics and as much as can be gleaned from a NSPCC FOI request. *The numbers of reoffenders are higher, those are only convicted offences whilst on the Sex Offenders Register*. As explained those on the Register for a short period of time but who later re-offend are not included.
> These are those reoffending whilst on the second part of their punishment.
> 
> Presumably, the child sex offender disclosure scheme as it exists now is a result of "hysteria" as well.
> You're saying if the number of caught and convicted post-release reoffenders was higher community probation would be necessary, but as it stands it's too small to justify.


 
Clearly all re offenders will be on the register. What did those on it only for a short time actually do? looking at kiddie porn. Is community probation something real? I don't want to publish convicted criminals identities as a human right issue. That is my position. No the child sex offender disclosure scheme as it exists now is not a result of "hysteria" it seems reasonable 

Do you think other convicted criminals should be exposed in this way?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2013)

coley said:


> Sorry, obviously I have misinterpreted your comments, possibly confused them with others, on what is a long and complicated issue, but to clarify, all sex offenders, irrespective of their crimes should have their details notified to the community into which they are to be resettled?


no.



free spirit said:


> I'd tend to agree, depending on the nature of the crime - I'd probably only even suggest this for anyone who had actually molested someone or worse, or I suppose maybe multiple flashers. I don't know if it'd be appropriate for fixed time limits to apply though either, but maybe there's sufficient evidence about the rate of reoffending dropping off beyond a certain point.
> 
> TBH I'd leave the specifics to those who're experts in the field, but this would be the sort of mechanism I'd think could be used best to inform the community without whipping up too much hysteria, as long as there wasn't anything to get hysterical about. I'd then give the community themselves broad discretion to determine other measures that they felt appropriate to further inform the wider community not attending the meetings.


it was only 2 pages back, not far below the post you quoted.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

free spirit said:


> OK, well if you don't think that protecting at least 1000 kids from abuse is worthwhile, then I think you and I have very different priorities.


 
It's 941 _*convicted re-offenders*_, not simply those who breached the SOR conditions. That can well mean more children as many of the re-offenders are those who are more exhibitionist or more risky and hence
liable to be caught. Again let's bear in mind that many who are abused don't come forward until much later usually adulthood, when they begin to come to terms with what's happened to them, by which time a conviction is harder to secure. 

The sexual abuse can also have knock on effects beyond the single victim, one is sometimes the victim carrying out abuse-type behaviour on other younger siblings especially those of the same sex. This is particularly high if there is no physical abuse associated with the sexual abuse - often the case with the paraphilia. So the confirmed 941 do serious damage. If strong community schemes were taken on, the chances can only be improvement.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2013)

IC3D said:


> Do you think other convicted criminals should be exposed in this way?


do you think that children should be treated as being in some way more vulnerable than adults, and therefore being something of a special case?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's 941 _*convicted re-offenders*_, not simply those who breached the SOR conditions. That can well mean more children as many of the re-offenders are those who are more exhibitionist or more risky and hence liable to be caught. Again let's bear in mind that many who are abused don't come forward until much later usually adulthood, when they begin to come to terms with what's happened to them, by which time a conviction is harder to secure.


I realise that, which is why I prefaced it with 'at least'.


> The sexual abuse can also have knock on effects beyond the single victim, one is sometimes the victim carrying out abuse-type behaviour on other younger siblings especially those of the same sex. This is particularly high if there is no physical abuse associated with the sexual abuse - often the case with the paraphilia. So the confirmed 941 do serious damage. If strong community schemes were taken on, the chances can only be improvement.


agreed.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 18, 2013)

elbows said:


> Tune in tomorrow when we divide the amount of money Savile made for charity by the number of victims and decide whether it was a price worth paying.


He was never on a sex register though was he


----------



## free spirit (Feb 18, 2013)

after all the revelations of the last few months, does that Brass Eye episode not seem a little inappropriate? Maybe a bit like Chris Morris misjudged the situation?

or do you still think it's all a hysterical fuss about nothing?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

IC3D said:


> Clearly all re offenders will be on the register. What did those on it only for a short time actually do? looking at kiddie porn. Is community probation something real? I don't want to publish convicted criminals identities as a human right issue. That is my position. No the child sex offender disclosure scheme as it exists now is not a result of "hysteria" it seems reasonable


 
Exhibitionism, pornography, grooming but no abuse beyond sexual discussion, are all usually seen by courts as lesser crimes. A prison sentence of up to 2.5 years is up to 10 years on the register. A prison sentence of 6 months or under is 7 years years. Thick of It guy Chris Langham served 3.5 months on appeal rescinding the original 6 month sentence meaning iirc that he will be on it for 2 years.

Community probation is 'real' but can only be enacted by pressure and organisation from below to cut the ground away from the backlash 'Hang All Paedophile Scum'(BNP sticker) line. 
It's one way forward where half-way houses/sheltered housing/ex-offender housing are on estates and accepting released sex offenders, although of course familiarisation and contact can happen anywhere.
Another is to demand sex offenders in middle class boroughs only (that have the council tax and resources and less heavy pressures on their social work teams). I understand this feeling - basically 'paedophiles out' but it could lead to area vs area division within a wider working-class.

The child sex offender disclosure scheme came out of pressure from below, albeit via Sara Payne's campaign in large parts yes hysteria - not just The Sun, the Daily Mirror lead editorial had of the Payne murderer that he should “spend his life dodging razor blades in his food, needing an armed guard when he takes a shower and fearing his throat being slashed every night. Hanging these bastards really is too good for them”. In 2002 a con serving life for a murder did attempt a slashing, leading to an extra 6 year sentence for him.

However the groundswell of opinion particularly after the Ian Huntley's string of rapes before the Soham murders and then the ongoing saga of Operation Ore in Britain 2003 onwards - 1,837 convictions and 710 cautions - meant that John Reid announced plans for a pilot scheme to begin in 2008 and the pilot happened and then it began nationwide in 2011.

It is done by police fiat who balance the applicant's request against their own criteria and the question of going after disclosure comes with a warning in advance that any other people having information will mean they are liable under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act. Importantly it means that telling someone without children to keep tabs on help to remove paraphiliac impulses from that offender is essentially forbidden. The information can't leave the guardian (usually the mother and father) of the child who is coming into close contact with the suspected released sex offender. Another danger some have identified is possible use by the released sex offender of an alias/different person's identity whilst gaining access to people with children.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid sending me abusive PMs. As it happens I'm not really offended - I've never denied being a wanker - we all are if we're honest - and so the subject title of your PM is fairly accurate and not all that insulting really. And since I've also engaged in acts of fornication in my time I guess the label fucking wanker, which formed the entire body of the message, is reasonably accurate too.
> 
> I'll give you 1/10 for effort though.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 18, 2013)

free spirit said:


> after all the revelations of the last few months, does that Brass Eye episode not seem a little inappropriate? Maybe a bit like Chris Morris misjudged the situation?


 
It's timeless. You do realise he's mocking the media.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 18, 2013)

I really haven't got time to post and am away until Friday, but this is a really thought provoking thread. Especially sihhi. Great posts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The rehabilitation aspect on burglarisers, again I can't see what the barriers are that you are suggesting. There's no good reason against this stuff. Except for working-class people having the confidence to take charge of their own affairs beyond their one own rabbit hole. *That must be suppressed and likened to a mob at all costs.*


Nobody is saying this, though. Dylans was accused of saying it, but he wasn't.

I don't think it's helpful to keep polarising positions unnecessarily like this, tbh. There has been a fair bit of agreement on this thread with people willing to reconsider their positions.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 18, 2013)

8115 said:


> This thread needs it's own wiki so I can see who hates who.


 
This thread has restored my faith in humanity.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody is saying this, though. Dylans was accused of saying it, but he wasn't.
> 
> I don't think it's helpful to keep polarising positions unnecessarily like this, tbh. There has been a fair bit of agreement on this thread with people willing to reconsider their positions.


 
I'm assuming you've not got around to reading the thread yet then - because that's precisely what he _was _arguing, or strongly implying at the very least.

A couple of posts chosen at random - there's plenty more I could have chosen instead:



dylans said:


> So just to be clear. By openly you mean their names and addresses and crimes should be publically available to anyone who requests them right? That I can think there is something a bit dodgy about that bloke who lives alone at number 10 and I can go to the police station and ask if he is a sex offender and get his information?
> 
> This is what you are suggesting when you say "accomodated openly in their own communities"


 


dylans said:


> Yes but they don't have the courage to spell it out. They prefer euphemisms and abstractions. "community involvement" Living openly in their communities" etc but when asked to explain what those terms mean they are silent


 
Despite the fact that several people had patiently explained this _wasn't _what they were talking about. And the reason is simple - the dogmatic, dismissive position he's taken has been formed in opposition to those who _do _advocate lynch mob style solutions and when he comes up against those who disagree with him but _don't _advocate those things he doesn't know what to say. So he has to make out _that's what they really mean, they're just too cowardly to say it. _

So might I respectfully suggest those criticisms are leveled at the person on this thread most guilty of the 'crimes' you're ascribing to those who disagreed with him?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

Characterising his argument as one that sees people as mobs is simply not backed up by what he said - and in particular the idea that he has some kind of mistrust of the working class is really not backed up by anything he said. Yes, he got it wrong at first about what others were talking about. I did too. When I started to understand what others were putting forward, I started to see sense in it. Difficult questions where both sides of the argument have a point. And neither side of the argument is served well by caricaturing and misrepresenting what others are saying.

This ought to be an obvious point, but you don't need a mob for such naming of people to lead to trouble. You just need one or two idiots. As the vigilante action reported in the US as quoted by dylans illustrates.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 18, 2013)

He did keep, over and over again, wilfully ignoring what I was saying and insisting that he knew what I really meant, got really quite aggressive with me quite rapidly when I challenged that and then seemed to imply I was an acolyte of someone I started off arguing with in the thread! He did this with other people too.

That said, how this differs from your average thread, or many other posters on here I'm not really sure . I get that sometimes it's important to remove yourself from the internets if it all starts to get a bit too serious - and I've not really been around on urban very long so there may be stuff I don't know about going on - but I still think this thread has had some excellent contributions and has really helped me, for one, clarify my thinking on this.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Characterising his argument as one that sees people as mobs is simply not backed up by what he said - and in particular the idea that he has some kind of mistrust of the working class is really not backed up by anything he said. Yes, he got it wrong at first about what others were talking about. I did too. When I started to understand what others were putting forward, I started to see sense in it. Difficult questions where both sides of the argument have a point. And neither side of the argument is served well by caricaturing and misrepresenting what others are saying.
> 
> This ought to be an obvious point, but you don't need a mob for such naming of people to lead to trouble. You just need one or two idiots. As the vigilante action reported in the US as quoted by dylans illustrates.


 
Yes, this thread has very much been characterised by people talking past each other at cross purposes and it descending into a pointless flame war as a result. Credit to Sihhi though for his very robust and reasoned arguments.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> He did keep, over and over again, wilfully ignoring what I was saying and insisting that he knew what I really meant, got really quite aggressive with me quite rapidly when I challenged that and then seemed to imply I was an acolyte of someone I started off arguing with in the thread! He did this with other people too.
> 
> That said, how this differs from your average thread, or many other posters on here I'm not really sure . I get that sometimes it's important to remove yourself from the internets if it all starts to get a bit too serious - and I've not really been around on urban very long so there may be stuff I don't know about going on - but I still think this thread has had some excellent contributions and has really helped me, for one, clarify my thinking on this.


 
He made a fool of himself. And yes, he did misunderstand you at first. And he did become aggressive. But that was not helped by the shit-stirring that was winding him up. And it isn't helped now by misrepresenting him as someone who has revealed that he has contempt for working class people (not saying you're doing that). I simply don't see that anywhere in his posts.



> Yes, this thread has very much been characterised by people talking past each other at cross purposes and it descending into a pointless flame war as a result. Credit to Sihhi though for his very robust and reasoned arguments.


 
I actually think people were talking past each other but were then starting to talk to each other. I think that is what happened with me at least. This thread has made me question my own position and think in new ways about certain things. Problem when you jump on someone you disagree with is that you can often back them into a corner and polarise debate where they might have taken on board what you think if you hadn't been so confrontational. (general point, not aimed at any one person in particular)


----------



## Firky (Feb 18, 2013)

dylans said and behaved like a nob on this thread but I don't think it's exactly fair to derail the thread into a discussion about what a prick he was. Was an interesting thread - his shite aside.


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 18, 2013)

@sim677 's best thread EVER if you ask me.


----------



## sim667 (Feb 18, 2013)

My neighbour has always been better than me 

Well, next door but 4


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

Don't have time to post properly but



littlebabyjesus said:


> *Nobody is saying this*, though. Dylans was accused of saying it, but he wasn't.
> 
> I don't think it's helpful to keep polarising positions unnecessarily like this, tbh. There has been a fair bit of agreement on this thread with people willing to reconsider their positions.


 
That is where opposition to community control comes from.
It's couched in the language of human rights (some might say liberal nonsense on stilts) but it's not about stopping violence. In the real world violence against children from paedophiles in fact far outstrips any violence against paedophiles.

It's based on assumptions that working-class communities would be incapable of behaving appropriately when faced with known paedophiles as part of community probationary schemes. properly resourced system controlled from below.
What's often unspoken (not your posts necessarily) is that communities composed of _the right sort of people (the educated and nonviolent) _would be OK. 

My _suspicion_ is if someone made demands such as 'no police raids on estates without telling neighbours of the charges, where they're being taken etc' or 'only elected working-class people answering to others on an estate to do policing in a rotating fashion' they would be met with the similar responses. Your line - 'one or two idiots would ruin it', Corax's "what about teh gays", someone else's 'sounds like Dr Jazzz saying there is a conspiracy'  etc. Someone else would pipe up -  Prove me wrong. I'm not aiming to be "unhelpful".

We don't hold back human progress on the basis of what one or two idiots _might_ do. I know LLETSA didn't agree with there being 'random' violence towards disabled people, but sadly, these kind of soft target attacks do happen.

Is the response to say disabled people returning home at night alone are in significant danger, let's separate them from estates with young people. Similarly recovering mental health inpatients and the like - they are a target for macho behaviour. The woman who says a combination of the same story every morning to her neighbour, she might also be a target. We should tell these people not to talk to anyone when they leave hospital. The more anonymous they are the better? 

If people do attack then we try community probation with them as well. We could explain to them that
any such attacks (which are liable to hit the wrong mark) would be seriously dividing and atomising the community. That the more such attacks occur, those potentially dangerous paraphiliacs who are not (re)offending but trying to cope with restricting all sexual behaviour - the more it allows other paedophiles to consider themselves a nonviolent persecuted minority who can't be doing much harm if clothes stay on.

More importantly community probation is precisely about explaining to the public the nature of the released offender, what will - in the expert psychologist's expertise be more likely to work to stop reoffending. Not keeping it a secret. All professionals have a responsibility to dissipate 'professional' power or give power downwards whilst building up their expertise or experience. 

So yes there are attacks against paedophiles, however these can be best dealt with by 1. fixing the problem of insufficiently/inappropriately monitored released child sex offenders and 2. placing the  dealing with/decisions about anti-social and chauvinistic behaviour into the hands of the people with appropriate resources etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> (some might say liberal nonsense on stilts)


 
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people on this thread advocated allowing paedos to walk around on stilts even though it would give them clear eyeball access to kid's bedrooms.


----------



## Corax (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I don't understand the references to Muslims and gay people. Muslims are not a category of crimes that can gain a conviction nor is consensual gay sex.


 
So the limit to the community making decisions or otherwise influencing matters, is crimes as determined by statute/common law, rather than a free choice of those things that the people there are concerned about (whether rightly or wrongly). The state/authorities/whatever still get to set the boundaries, but at a different point in the process, a more 'macro' level. Okay, that's what I was trying to establish. The pitch is marked out by the state, but the community get the ball.

Please don't read that as hostile, it's not - though I can imagine it taken like that if read with the wrong tone. My questions aren't loaded with any preformed agenda, I'm just exploring the issue and how far the principle of community self-determination extends. My personal view on the whole thing is fairly fluid at the moment, but as it goes I think your position has sounded fairly reasonable. The questions I've been asking may be perceived as picking at possible weaknesses in the ideas, but that's simply because that's a natural way to go about testing a concept IMO. I agree with LBJ's observation on the tendency towards polarising all discussion on U75 threads - although I'd not lay that at your door especially, nor feel that I've personally been on the receiving end of it much on this thread.

In cases short of public naming (eg community panels) I'd still be concerned about the potential for abuse of confidential information, but that may not be an insurmountable obstacle. After all, the potential for that already exists with the information being accessible to social workers, cops, etc.


----------



## Firky (Feb 18, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people on this thread advocated allowing paedos to walk around on stilts even though it would give them clear eyeball access to kid's bedrooms.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> So the limit to the community making decisions or otherwise influencing matters, is crimes as determined by statute/common law, rather than a free choice of those things that the people there are concerned about (whether rightly or wrongly). The state/authorities/whatever still get to set the boundaries, but at a different point in the process, a more 'macro' level. Okay, that's what I was trying to establish. The pitch is marked out by the state, but the community get the ball.
> 
> Please don't read that as hostile, it's not - though I can imagine it taken like that if read with the wrong tone. My questions aren't loaded with any preformed agenda, I'm just exploring the issue and how far the principle of community self-determination extends. My personal view on the whole thing is fairly fluid at the moment, but as it goes I think your position has sounded fairly reasonable. The questions I've been asking may be perceived as picking at possible weaknesses in the ideas, but that's simply because that's a natural way to go about testing a concept IMO. I agree with LBJ's observation on the tendency towards polarising all discussion on U75 threads - although I'd not lay that at your door especially, nor feel that I've personally been on the receiving end of it much on this thread.
> 
> In cases short of public naming (eg community panels) I'd still be concerned about the potential for abuse of confidential information, but that may not be an insurmountable obstacle. After all, the potential for that already exists with the information being accessible to social workers, cops, etc.


 
Yes on some level the pitch is marked by the state, we live under it, it's impossible to escape it. 
Ideally it would be anything that's destructive of working-class people and their social bonds - the lot. However sex abuse of children is a significant destructive fact that was being discussed. By ratio/proportion working-class children are more likely to be victims than middle-class children, and the effects in the real world are that it holds back, debilitates or turns destructive working-class children even more sharply than middle-class children.

Ideally, we need to overcome or replace with a better model the 'privatised household' (no longer nuclear but trying to ape the nuclear) family, because that is the central site of abuse. My perception is that working-class women due to insurmountable financial pressures after one relationship and singlehood feel pressure to couple once again, and that there is a reality of 'boyfriends as abusers'. 
Backlash, rightist arguments of course seek to discourage divorce so that one single marriage and the nuclear family remains more financially rewarded than other forms of child-rearing. Hence the constant wail 'Too many divorces, too many separations'. 

I still don't see the relevance of Muslims and gay people in the discussion of child sex abuse. Are we saying that many working-class people do consider them more prone to child sex abuse and hence needing more tabs on them? It might have been true of perceptions of gay people in the past. On perceptions of Muslims I'm not the best person to judge. Even if it is the case then surely the best way to overcome these ideas is to open up the expertise of those who professionally deal with convicted sex abusers more directly via community probation - hence overcoming the negative interference of newspaper reporting that skews and distorts realities.


----------



## Corax (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I still don't see the relevance of Muslims and gay people in the discussion of child sex abuse. Are we saying that many working-class people do consider them more prone to child sex abuse and hence needing more tabs on them? It might have been true of perceptions of gay people in the past. On perceptions of Muslims I'm not the best person to judge. Even if it is the case then surely the best way to overcome these ideas is to open up the expertise of those who professionally deal with convicted sex abusers more directly via community probation - hence overcoming the negative interference of newspaper reporting that skews and distorts realities.


It's not relevant any more, as you've clarified that the boundaries of community influence in this are 'crimes'.  Before that, I was using it as an example of other things that some communities may want to have control over.  *Not* working class communities, just _communities_.  It's not a likely scenario either - just a hypothetical, but conceivable, possibility.  As I said above, testing the concept.


----------



## Corax (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> My perception is that working-class women due to insurmountable financial pressures after one relationship and singlehood feel pressure to couple once again, and that there is a reality of 'boyfriends as abusers'.


IME that sounds pretty accurate.


sihhi said:


> Ideally, we need to overcome or replace with a better model the 'privatised household' (no longer nuclear but trying to ape the nuclear) family, because that is the central site of abuse.


I'm not sure about this - but then I'm not entirely sure what you mean to be honest. I think a functioning, loving, nurturing and supportive nuclear family (or similar) is a wonderful environment for a child to grow up in. It's not the *only* good environment for a child to grow up in, but it's certainly *a* good one. It should go without saying however that a dysfunctional, cold, abusive and critical nuclear family is as bad a place (or more) to grow up in as the opposite is good.

I guess I agree that the nuclear family (or isotopes of it) shouldn't be held up as the _only_ ideal, as that generates exactly the counter-productive pressures and decisions that I think you're referring to. I'd be loathe to see it dismissed as being entirely without value though. I However, the emphasis certainly should be on the adjectives above (functioning etc), rather than the structure itself.

I'm acutely aware that my own upbringing is almost certainly colouring my views on that and makes real objectivity very difficult.


sihhi said:


> Backlash, rightist arguments of course seek to discourage divorce so that one single marriage and the nuclear family remains more financially rewarded than other forms of child-rearing. Hence the constant wail 'Too many divorces, too many separations'.


Bit of a tangent here, but one thing I'd like to see that would help in a small but significant way is reform of divorce laws. The present situation is that divorces need to be on particular grounds, and amicable agreement that it just ain't going to work isn't one of them. Couples can and are (in some circumstances) be essentially forced to slag each other off, which doesn't set the ground well for a cooperative and amicable relationship after it's all over.  It's barbaric, archaic, and more crap than it needs to be for any children involved.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> I'm not sure about this - but then I'm not entirely sure what you mean to be honest. I think a functioning, loving, nurturing and supportive nuclear family (or similar) is a wonderful environment for a child to grow up in. It's not the *only* good environment for a child to grow up in, but it's certainly *a* good one. It should go without saying however that a dysfunctional, cold, abusive and critical nuclear family is as bad a place (or more) to grow up in as the opposite is good.


 
"Ideally" was what I was talking about ie developing from the conditions of wider struggle. It can happen to some extent in the course of even limited struggles outside the home - childcare is more communalised, non-relations take on the task of parenting other children - to enable strikers to hold out for longer, to release people for struggle instead of childcare etc. Dublin 1913 is a key example on these islands. It all had to beaten back into the old structures, once it was lost.



> I guess I agree that the nuclear family (or isotopes of it) shouldn't be held up as the _only_ ideal, as that generates exactly the counter-productive pressures and decisions that I think you're referring to. I'd be loathe to see it dismissed as being entirely without value though. I However, the emphasis certainly should be on the adjectives above (functioning etc), rather than the structure itself.


 
Of course it's not entirely without value, the old feudal ultimately clan-based extended family had more problems. Abuse of girls via early marriage imposed from the elder generation to sustain the extended family has been a norm in certain societies or certain periods. 



> I'm acutely aware that my own upbringing is almost certainly colouring my views on that and makes real objectivity very difficult.


 
I suppose my own experience is probably colouring mine too.

But basically the head of household in a nuclear family makes decisions on the basis of _his_ judgement of the interests of _his_ family, against or ignoring the interests of other families, and against the wishes of the weaker members within the families. 




> Bit of a tangent here, but one thing I'd like to see that would help in a small but significant way is reform of divorce laws. The present situation is that divorces need to be on particular grounds, and amicable agreement that it just ain't going to work isn't one of them. Couples can and are (in some circumstances) be essentially forced to slag each other off, which doesn't set the ground well for a cooperative and amicable relationship after it's all over. It's barbaric, archaic, and more crap than it needs to be for any children involved.


 
That's exactly why marriage should be abolished alongside divorce. Civil partnerships that can be entered into and ended more simply cuts down on the aggravation.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 18, 2013)

firky said:


>


 
The matey who does Family Guy should do a remake


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That is where opposition to community control comes from.
> It's couched in the language of human rights (some might say liberal nonsense on stilts) but it's not about stopping violence. In the real world violence against children from paedophiles in fact far outstrips any violence against paedophiles.
> 
> It's based on assumptions that working-class communities would be incapable of behaving appropriately when faced with known paedophiles as part of community probationary schemes. properly resourced system controlled from below.
> What's often unspoken (not your posts necessarily) is that communities composed of _the right sort of people (the educated and nonviolent) _would be OK.


That's a very good post, sihhi. In fact the rest of the post that I haven't quoted is extremely eloquent and I agree wholeheartedly with it.

I also agree that a lot of the language of human rights is liberal nonsense on stilts. It deals in the right not to have certain actions carried out on you by strangers. But it has little to say about the right to be a part of a collective to which you can contribute and from which you can expect support.

The US is probably the best example of the kind of society that this produces. A right to free speech and to bear arms, but no right to food or shelter or health care. However, certain positive things have been achieved in the US through its system of individual rights, overcoming stiff opposition from many smaller communities - the civil rights movement and the right to abortion as two examples.

While the solidarity of the estate is good and important, it can also be potentially stifling and indeed abusive. I do see a place for certain guarantees for individuals, which can only come from a larger top-down power. And I don't think it necessarily follows that opposition to community control has to arise from the assumptions you speak of. I don't oppose the ideas outlined in the rest of your post. But I can also see the danger that such measures, if carried out neglectfully - ie ignoring the bit where the offender gets the help he needs - could be very counterproductive. If carried out, in other words, in the kind of society that is dominated by the language of human rights, where such a thing is called a 'right to know'.

The debacle of 'care in the community' is a case in point of this kind of thing happening. Closing institutions was potentially a good idea, but only if the support was in place in the community and for the community - so the actual result was a situation that was worse than the institutions it replaced.

He's not here, but I do feel the need to mention dylans just once more. I suspect that he would agree pretty much with what I've just written. He misunderstood and misjudged some others on this thread, but he was also himself misunderstood and misjudged.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 18, 2013)

got a lot of time for dylans but he was wrong on this imo. hopefully he'll be back soon.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 18, 2013)

Saying that marriage should be abolished because some people divorce is denying the experience of those of us who have entered into consensual life-long commitments to one another.  For many, many people, marriage adds value to their lives.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 18, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Saying that marriage should be abolished because some people divorce is denying the experience of those of us who have entered into consensual life-long commitments to one another.  For many, many people, marriage adds value to their lives.



Aren't they two separate things? I doubt very much that you would feel any less love or meaning were you to be in a civil partnership or just living with your partner. The marriage is about your relation to the state, not your commitment to each other, no?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Aren't they two separate things? I doubt very much that you would feel any less love or meaning were you to be in a civil partnership or just living with your partner. The marriage is about your relation to the state, not your commitment to each other, no?


A civil partnership is about your relationship to the state as well. It's declaring to the rest of the world that you are together and that you are to be treated as such by others.

tbh I don't really understand the difference between a civil partnership and marriage. They just seem like two words for the same thing to me. But when gay marriage is legalised, I suspect that there won't be too many civil partnership ceremonies going on any more. Just have one thing, open to all, and on the same terms for all who enter into it, and call it marriage, imo. tbh I can't really see why that couldn't be extended to polyamorous arrangements as well.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A civil partnership is about your relationship to the state as well. It's declaring to the rest of the world that you are together and that you are to be treated as such by others.


 
That's kind of what I meant - sihhi had posted about a different form of civil partnership that was easier to enter and end and I thought that for most people it's the public commitment to one another, not the specifics of their relation to the state that is the heart of the meaning of their union. I should have said that really


----------



## Corax (Feb 18, 2013)

The difference the state bit makes (IMO) is in making that 'commitment' binding. It's not _totally_ binding, and can be undone, but not on a whim. It's akin to getting each others' names tattooed I guess.  It's deliberately making a leap of faith with each other.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> The difference the state bit makes (IMO) is in making that 'commitment' binding. It's not _totally_ binding, and can be undone, but not on a whim. It's akin to getting each others' names tattooed I guess. It's deliberately making a leap of faith with each other.


That's part of it, yeah. There are also the legal bits - it makes you legally each other's next of kin. It's a declaration that you are now each other's family, which you can want to do both just as a celebration and as something that you wish to be formally recognised.


----------



## Corax (Feb 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A civil partnership is about your relationship to the state as well. It's declaring to the rest of the world that you are together and that you are to be treated as such by others.
> 
> tbh I don't really understand the difference between a civil partnership and marriage. They just seem like two words for the same thing to me. But when gay marriage is legalised, I suspect that there won't be too many civil partnership ceremonies going on any more. Just have one thing, open to all, and on the same terms for all who enter into it, and call it marriage, imo. tbh I can't really see why that couldn't be extended to polyamorous arrangements as well.


I agree with your post, but your last sentence prompted a very cynical lol.  Not because I object to the idea - I'm just imagining what the 'national debate' would be like.  If we thought the gay marriage one was bad, well...!  //


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> I agree with your post, but your last sentence prompted a very cynical lol. Not because I object to the idea - I'm just imagining what the 'national debate' would be like. If we thought the gay marriage one was bad, well...! //


I almost added a bit saying that I think that perhaps society isn't ready for that yet.

I guess that there is a practical legal question to do with next of kin, though. Having two people as next of kin may not work - they might not agree with each other about what to do when you have an accident, say.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 18, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Aren't they two separate things? I doubt very much that you would feel any less love or meaning were you to be in a civil partnership or just living with your partner. The marriage is about your relation to the state, not your commitment to each other, no?


 
If it was purely about our relationship to the state I wouldn't be married. It is about a commitment to one another and formalising that commitment with one another's friends and family. It's not something I feel very comfortable preaching about because I think it has different meanings and experiences for different people but it does seem false to read someone else claiming to know what my marriage is when they seem to have completely missed the point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Ideally, we need to overcome or replace with a better model the 'privatised household' (no longer nuclear but trying to ape the nuclear) family, because that is the central site of abuse. My perception is that working-class women due to insurmountable financial pressures after one relationship and singlehood feel pressure to couple once again, and that there is a reality of 'boyfriends as abusers'..


 
I'd love to be a part of a better model than the privatised household. I can think of several forms of community that I'd like over that. But while it is the central site of abuse, it is also the central site of support. This works both ways, and larger communal arrangements are the same - both the central site of support and of abuse.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 18, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people on this thread advocated allowing paedos to walk around on stilts even though it would give them clear eyeball access to kid's bedrooms.


 
See for me, a lot of this thread is about people saying, don't let "them" have stilts, they'll only want to look in kid's bedrooms.

Or is that what you were saying anyway?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 18, 2013)

8115 said:


> See for me, a lot of this thread is about people saying, don't let "them" have stilts, they'll only want to look in kid's bedrooms.
> 
> Or is that what you were saying anyway?


 
I'm a glass half full kind of a guy


----------



## Corax (Feb 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's part of it, yeah. There are also the legal bits - it makes you legally each other's next of kin. It's a declaration that you are now each other's family, which you can want to do both just as a celebration and as something that you wish to be formally recognised.


I agree, but I can easily envisage present-day alternatives to the celebration & formal recognition bits. They could be achieved in a multitude of ways, which would be particularly effective if all done together - a community party in recognition of the union, postering, even via social media stuff etc. Admittedly, this wouldn't currently be taken 'as seriously' by people in general as marriage is, but that would change as it became custom. The one bit that I _can't_ see a current alternative option to is the legal binding. To take that leap of faith, it needs to be enforceable in some way.

I know that people can just move apart etc and the state doesn't in reality 'enforce' the union in any real terms. But it _*is*_ an item of serious work to undo it officially - that's what I mean by 'enforceable' in this instance. Willingly walking in to a marriage with that knowledge is the leap of faith. With the alternatives I've mentioned - 'official' community recognition etc - the parties could at any point just fuck it off if they liked, job done. The more that community recognition came to be seen as of personal and social consequence, the less likely that would be. But at the same time, it would just be becoming a mirror of the current state function, which seems a bit pointless.

I have a foetal* thought in my head that getting married in the first place ought to be made more difficult.  It's just a question with a lot of question marks around it at the moment though.  It may be a _terrible_ idea, I've not thought it through at all.

*There's a better adjective here on the tip of my brain and I can't grasp it. It's bugging the hell out of me.  I'll probably wake up at three in the morning with it.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> I have a foetal* thought in my head that getting married in the first place ought to be made more difficult. It's just a question with a lot of question marks around it at the moment though. It may be a _terrible_ idea, I've not thought it through at all.
> 
> *There's a better adjective here on the tip of my brain and I can't grasp it. It's bugging the hell out of me. I'll probably wake up at three in the morning with it.


 
Embryonic


----------



## Corax (Feb 18, 2013)

8115 said:


> Embryonic


That's the fucker! 

Ta.  

ETA: Gin's fault.


----------



## thriller (Feb 18, 2013)

nope. aint reading 37 pages. no fucking chance.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

I used not to see the point in marriage, much to the chagrin of my then girlfriend. You are with someone because you want to be and for as long as you want to be, and that's that. But then I completely changed my mind when I met someone who I wanted to be my family. For me that was what getting married was - the founding of a new family. It all went wrong, but that was my feeling at the time, my reason for doing it - and there was not even the tiniest doubt in my mind that it was what I wanted to do. And I've even changed my mind a bit about the ending of a marriage. Both parties mutually agree, fine - end it, no fault, no need to give a reason even. But it should be more difficult for just one party to walk away, I think - that's a part of what marriage is. Like I say, this is very different from what I thought 10 years ago.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a very good post, sihhi. In fact the rest of the post that I haven't quoted is extremely eloquent and I agree wholeheartedly with it.
> 
> I also agree that a lot of the language of human rights is liberal nonsense on stilts. It deals in the right not to have certain actions carried out on you by strangers. But it has little to say about the right to be a part of a collective to which you can contribute and from which you can expect support.
> 
> The US is probably the best example of the kind of society that this produces. A right to free speech and to bear arms, but no right to food or shelter or health care. However, certain positive things have been achieved in the US through its system of individual rights, overcoming stiff opposition from many smaller communities - the civil rights movement and the right to abortion as two examples.


 
Actually it often doesn't deal in things like "the right not to have certain actions carried out on you by strangers" when it comes to cumulative effects - pollution and exhaust fumes, or repeated classroom bullying etc. Everything depends on the interpretation of the liberal humane judge (84% private school).

You're trying to paint some kind of picture of human progress advancing via the benevolent capitalist state. and it's just not accurate. 

The critical mould-breaking 'hard' part of the civil rights movement that wrung out the concessions was predicated upon _going beyond_ US individual liberalism. The failure of the form of civil rights that ultimately triumphed - state-mandated and top-down - to effect any social transformation is evident. As is the collapse of even those nominal civil rights - significant electoral fraud against black communities in swing areas, felon disenfranchisement for even nonviolent offences as well as mass imprisonment.

There is no right to abortion - there is a piece of paper in a room saying it's not illegal to open an abortion clinic under carefully organised terms. In practice whole states have under half a dozen facilities, some under one.

In general, America's liberalism is not something to be trumpeted in this case. Its best exponent is the ACLU - committed to all rights for all. It defended NAMBLA, defended paedophile publications (essentially sexualised fantasy stories about children). (Part and parcel of its uglier history alongside National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, its millions against feminists opposed to degrading, racist pornography etc). Of course it also defended civil rights and the right to abortion.



> While the solidarity of the estate is good and important, it can also be potentially stifling and indeed abusive. I do see a place for certain guarantees for individuals, which can only come from a larger top-down power. And I don't think it necessarily follows that opposition to community control has to arise from the assumptions you speak of. I don't oppose the ideas outlined in the rest of your post. But I can also see the danger that such measures, if carried out neglectfully - ie ignoring the bit where the offender gets the help he needs - could be very counterproductive. If carried out, in other words, in the kind of society that is dominated by the language of human rights, where such a thing is called a 'right to know'.


 
Such measures - in the case of released sex offenders - are already being carried out neglectfully and fitfully. They offer no collective way out for the mother who requests information on an individual. 
In these cases of paraphiliac released offenders the help needed is _distraction from_ their sexual thoughts, and . Another help needed is testosterone-removing drugs - are you in favour of this? It does mean that sperm production is thwarted and natural fertility declines/ends, but it does mean that re-offending is not insignificantly reduced. Currently it's voluntary in Britain.

As it stands the system is counterproductive (producing doubt, alienation, atomisation and ignorance) and ineffective (allowing paraphiliac sex abuse to continue). You've said an alternative might be counterproductive which it might, but you've yet to make any case why it would be from the point of the view of working-class people (children, adults, close to and far from sheltered housing alike) more counterproductive.




> The debacle of 'care in the community' is a case in point of this kind of thing happening. Closing institutions was potentially a good idea, but only if the support was in place in the community and for the community - so the actual result was a situation that was worse than the institutions it replaced.


 
Actually Care in the Community is nothing like what me or others have been talking about. That was actually a system of using the independent charity sector (and private sector residential homes) instead of NHS facilities, whatwas given over to the Department of Social Services was to register and inspect those sites, replacing the NHS as the department for care.
Only one part of the programme was the de-institutionalisation appraoch, where those who suffered schizophrenia were to remain in their own homes despite being under the Mental Health Acts ie to declared of unsound mind, to be treated by the state. What happened most noticeably was a string of violent attacks by the minority of schizophrenics who had previously been in psychiatric hospitals. It had precious little to do with community involvement. It was local authority social workers trying to deal with mental health patients in their own homes (rather than paying for beds, cleaning, facilities somewhere else) by asking for the help of NHS visitors, instead of NHS professionals.
You are saying there is a good case against working-class taking over probation and dealing with this kind of crime. A good case which comes out of sympathy (at least) with the working-class - yet you fail to make the case and say that you wouldn't want to make the case because you disagree with it (I disagree with it too, so we agree on a lot) but that it's there. 
You never say what place you do see for top down activities as a protector of the individual. Make your case. You imply the state defends and supports the ex-prisoner now - when in fact it fails to do so, particularly in the case of lesser crimes, neither on an individual level or on a wider level of their relationship with others.
As for the truism that an estate can be "potentially stifling and indeed abusive" - that's the fault of those who impose and administer the terms of a housing scheme, who restrict and then harangue its residents.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd love to be a part of a better model than the privatised household. I can think of several forms of community that I'd like over that. But while it is the central site of abuse, it is also the central site of support. This works both ways, and larger communal arrangements are the same - both the central site of support and of abuse.


 
If it is the _central_ site of support, it's doing a terrible job in the current circumstances. Support for what, why, where? It's great at giving support for middle-class children hell even when they get divorced they still win, not so good for working-class children.

Let me be clear. Communal arrangements that _come out_ of the _experience of struggle_ are less abusive.

Set up a commune composed of a dozen families with kids now where there is defeat after defeat and you will offer opportunities for abuse - no doubt about it. You might merge interests to some degree amongst adults but the potential for sexual abuse is there just as it is with the single small family.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Such measures - in the case of released sex offenders - are already being carried out neglectfully and fitfully. They offer no collective way out for the mother who requests information on an individual.
> In these cases of paraphiliac released offenders the help needed is _distraction from_ their sexual thoughts, and . Another help needed is testosterone-removing drugs - are you in favour of this? It does mean that sperm production is thwarted and natural fertility declines/ends, but it does mean that re-offending is not insignificantly reduced. Currently it's voluntary in Britain.
> 
> As it stands the system is counterproductive (producing doubt, alienation, atomisation and ignorance) and ineffective (allowing paraphiliac sex abuse to continue). You've said an alternative might be counterproductive which it might, but you've yet to make any case why it would be from the point of the view of working-class people (children, adults, close to and far from sheltered housing alike) more counterproductive.
> ...


Do I favour compulsory drug treatment? No. Voluntary, yes, but even then it's a reluctant yes. The use of chemical castration has an awful history in this country, leading to numerous suicides of gay men in the 50s - Alan Turing, for one.

As for why it might be counterproductive, I am not quite sure what the 'point of view of working-class people' means in this case. Badly done, it might lead to more threats of violence against him, leading to higher levels of dropping out of the system and potentially higher levels of abuse. That's from the point of view of every fucking one. And that could be the result of an underfinanced, underthought-out system where services previously provided by the state such as probation are axed in favour of a new system of 'community probation'. Sorry, but I do see big parallels between that and 'care in the community'. If the system that replaces the old system of state-provided probation is badly done, under-resourced and under-thought, it could easily be worse than the state system it replaces.

You are attributing some things to me that I did not intend to imply, and that I don't think I did imply. Citing certain successes of the rights movement in the US does not mean that I trumpet it. I thought I was very clear about that. I simply see a more nuanced picture than you, I think.

This bit



> As for the truism that an estate can be "potentially stifling and indeed abusive" - that's the fault of those who impose and administer the terms of a housing scheme, who restrict and then harangue its residents.


 
I simply don't agree with, as the various abuses that have taken place in communes across the world have shown. I think you're idealising a bit here to think that the fault of an abusive situation must be found outside that situation.

I see a place for the large-scale organisation. Indeed, I see the ability to form such organisations as potentially a positive and an achievement. Yes, in many ways our cognitive abilities have evolved to deal with smaller social situations, but the intellectual possibilities opened up by the formation of macro-structures are huge and potentially very rewarding. A part of that is the exchange of ideas and a part of that is that any given member of a smaller group has access to ideas from without their group. This is very different from the situation of a hunter-gatherer tribe, say. And I think it's implication may be and perhaps should be that large-scale agreements should be striven for.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Both parties mutually agree, fine - end it, no fault, no need to give a reason even. But it should be more difficult for just one party to walk away, I think - that's a part of what marriage is.


 
Wow.

It should be much easier for women to leave marriages and retain financial security.




Corax said:


> getting married in the first place ought to be made more difficult. It's just a question with a lot of question marks around it at the moment though. It may be a _terrible_ idea, I've not thought it through at all.


What barriers do you propose?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Wow.


 
Why wow? Or are you inferring a whole load of stuff from that that I haven't actually said again?

Of course I support all the help a person can get to walk away from an abusive relationship. But not all failed marriages are abusive. And again, that works both ways - a person may need protection financial or otherwise from the consequences of someone walking away from them.


----------



## Corax (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Wow.
> 
> It should be much easier for women to leave marriages and retain financial security.
> 
> ...


No idea.

Love poetry maybe.  Or knitting each other a dozen cute bears with things like "I wuv you" stitched on their tummies.

Maybe just a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 18, 2013)

Venables seems to get the attention, probably justifiably wrt that child porn but Robert Thompson seems to be being rehabilitated ok.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do I favour compulsory drug treatment? No. Voluntary, yes, but even then it's a reluctant yes. The use of chemical castration has an awful history in this country, leading to numerous suicides of gay men in the 50s - Alan Turing, for one.


 
Drug treatment reduces a prisoner's tariffs though - is that OK?

More generally
1. The drug treatment now is more advanced than in the 1950s. For a start Turing was given female hormones to replace his testosterone, lupron is different it's used in male testicular cancer treatment, it doesn't have as far as I know any such tendencies. 
2. I think in total 39 paedophiles committed suicide as a result of Operation Ore, on being found out that they were part of the global market for pay-per-view child pornography films. It's better for treatment to avoid them having to deal with this kind of situation, to avoid their having these urges come out later. It's to stop suicides later on that earlier action is better.

3. Many dozens of children commit suicide as a result of unknown abuse, it's often simply recorded as an inexplicable accident at play.




> As for why it might be counterproductive, I am not quite sure what the 'point of view of working-class people' means in this case. Badly done, it might lead to more threats of violence against him, leading to higher levels of dropping out of the system and potentially higher levels of abuse. That's from the point of view of every fucking one. And that could be the result of an underfinanced, underthought-out system where services previously provided by the state such as probation are axed in favour of a new system of 'community probation'. Sorry, but I do see big parallels between that and 'care in the community'. If the system that replaces the old system of state-provided probation is badly done, under-resourced and under-thought, it could easily be worse than the state system it replaces.


 
It's not replacing state probation officers. It's not to cut budgets from probation services.
It's in addition to, in improvement of ....

If people can drop out of the system to commit more abuse, why are they released in the first place?




> You are attributing some things to me that I did not intend to imply, and that I don't think I did imply. Citing certain successes of the rights movement in the US does not mean that I trumpet it. I thought I was very clear about that. I simply see a more nuanced picture than you, I think.


 
What are its successes that are relevant here? Genuine question.




> This bit
> 
> I simply don't agree with, as the various abuses that have taken place in communes across the world have shown. I think you're idealising a bit here to think that the fault of an abusive situation must be found outside that situation.


 
You jump from my comment about estates to something about communes in general - "communes across the world". And I don't even know what  the "abusive situation" situation is or what "the fault" is, you wanted to stress the "potentially stifling and abusive" council estates. What's the deal with that line, so we can clear it up?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> No idea.
> 
> Love poetry maybe. Or knitting each other a dozen cute bears with things like "I wuv you" stitched on their tummies.
> 
> Maybe just a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy.


 
Hmm. Enough from me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Drug treatment reduces a prisoner's tariffs though - is that OK?


Don't know. Turing took drugs as an alternative to prison. It's not really voluntary if it's offered as an alternative to prison. That's the best I can do on that - I can see arguments in both directions and I don't know.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> you wanted to stress the "potentially stifling and abusive" council estates. What's the deal with that line, so we can clear it up?


It's not council estates in particular. It's your immediate local community in general. It's the reason many people flee the small town they grew up in to move to a big city as soon as they can. People like me and many others like me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> If it is the _central_ site of support, it's doing a terrible job in the current circumstances. Support for what, why, where? It's great at giving support for middle-class children hell even when they get divorced they still win, not so good for working-class children.


You overstate your case here. Of course the kids of richer parents do better than the kids of poorer parents. But the central site of support for the majority of children of whatever class is their parents.

And to be clear, I'm not saying that as some kind of statement of support for the nuclear family as an institution. It's a simple statement of fact.


----------



## Corax (Feb 18, 2013)

I suspect we're all talking from personal perspectives more than we'd like to believe.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2013)

Corax said:


> I suspect we're all talking from personal perspectives more than we'd like to believe.


Perhaps. I'm trying not to overgeneralise. I think the situation is far too complex for that. And I also think that there are conflicting interests at play here for which the solutions are difficult. Room for dissent. Room to be different. Room not to be like other people. Room to be left alone when I want it. All those things are important to me. But solidarity, community, bottom-up empowerment, the sense of belonging to something bigger than me are also important to me. There are conflicting interests just within me too.


----------



## mod (Feb 18, 2013)

Kippa said:


> Just because they were children when they did those acts doesn't mean that they weren't evil. Ifdisturbed I would class them as criminally insane. Insane due to the fucked up nature of the acts that they did and criminal because they probably knew what they were doing was wrong.


 
Where they evil?'. A very interesting question. Both Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were brought up in broken homes. Violence was particularly prevalent in the Venables household were Robert was subjected to beatings from his mother and older bothers on a very regular basis. He bunked school on such a regular basis the authorities gave up on him. Exposure to horror films definitely influenced the boys. A painting by Thompson was discovered at his dad's flat dated 2 week before the murder depicting scenes from the movie Halloween with knives chopping flesh and bloody gore along with disturbing messages. This kid had major psychological problems and was being ignored by teachers, social workers and parents. Evil? I don't think so but very disturbed. 

When I was a similar age I found an injured bird. Instead of trying to save its life i dragged it through a puddle and dropped a brick on it. Something that still haunts me to this day. Don't know why I done it but I know that now, as an adult, I would never do such a cruel thing. 

These boys were not calculated killers. They took James on a two mile walk along a main / busy roads where they encountered and spoke with many people along the way, pretending James was either their brother or they were taking him to the police. When they got very close to home they had to get rid of him and the railway track was the only place they could go. They didn't carry any weapons with murder in mind. They killed James with objects close to hand near the railway track. Bricks, a metal bar and their feet. All murder weapons were left by the baby and they covered his head with stones after laying him across the railway track. AA Batteries were found around the body leading police to believe the boys thought the batteries would bring the baby back to life. Ridiculous of course but disturbingly familiar to the movie Childs Play 3 (where the spirit of a murderer enters a childs doll and slaughters all in his wake) which both Robert and Jon were fans of.

Of course Jon Venables and Robert Thompson deserved to be punished. They deliberately set out to abduct and harm and child that day. They actually attempted, and failed, to snatch another baby minutes before they lured James away (one of three crimes they were eventually convicted for). What form of punishment they should have received I don't know but simply saying they should have been left to rot in prison ignores the core cause of this terrible crime and leaves the possibility of it happening again all too real.

I highly recommend Blake Morrison's book on the subject if you really want to learn about this case. Link below...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...072933/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/026-1266935-4157243


----------



## coley (Feb 19, 2013)

Aye, Dylan's got his, but not, as a result of being a rimmer, misplaced convictions and honest bigotry are, IMHO, greatly preferable to brown nosing and hypocrisy, just a tipsy thought afore bed))


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2013)

> Communal arrangements that _come out_ of the _experience of struggle_ are less abusive.


This is communist nonsense on stilts.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is communist nonsense on stilts.


 
That's in response to the "potentially abusive" comment you made.

I think the history record says otherwise. If you disagree, then explain where abuse does come from then, which structures produce/reproduce it.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You overstate your case here. Of course the kids of richer parents do better than the kids of poorer parents. But the central site of support for the majority of children of whatever class is their parents.
> 
> And to be clear, I'm not saying that as some kind of statement of support for the nuclear family as an institution. It's a simple statement of fact.


 
OK, it is a fact, but that's only because working-class children more likely have nowhere else to turn to. They are less likely to have nice sympathetic teachers and headteachers, anything outside school that costs any money, sympathetic friends who they get to go on holidays with, clubs and activities and all that. 

Basically the aid the nuclear family system gives to the middle class is far above what it offers working class. You have pressure but no resources to meet that pressure unless you sell your soul.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not council estates in particular. It's your immediate local community in general. It's the reason many people flee the small town they grew up in to move to a big city as soon as they can. People like me and many others like me.


 
But did you experience the small town as "potentially abusive"?

As you're going on personal experience, having had to be through two big cities, one in one country, one in another a big city can also stifle. So some might want to move to a small town. Does this change the reality of what goes on somewhere? I don't know.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You overstate your case here. Of course the kids of richer parents do better than the kids of poorer parents. But the central site of support for the majority of children of whatever class is their parents.
> 
> And to be clear, I'm not saying that as some kind of statement of support for the nuclear family as an institution. It's a simple statement of fact.


 
More generally I am not sure how you can perfectly rightly argue that the family set up is the central site of abuse, but want divorce - one way of that/ or to escape from that before it materialises - to become easier.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do I favour compulsory drug treatment? No. Voluntary, yes, but even then it's a reluctant yes. The use of chemical castration has an awful history in this country, leading to numerous suicides of gay men in the 50s - Alan Turing, for one.


 
It's interesting to consider that if these obsessed freaks had their way Turing would have been strung up from the nearest lampost before he ever got near a computer. And so the world would be a very different place.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 19, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It's interesting to consider that if these obsessed freaks had their way Turing would have been strung up from the nearest lampost before he ever got near a computer. And so the world would be a very different place.


 
Well go on... Explain it fully.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Well go on... Explain it fully.


 
Turing was driven to suicide by the British legal system's punitive attitude to underage sex.  Many weird people on this board appear to share that attitude.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 19, 2013)

It was because he was gay though. When homosexuality was legalised the age of consent was 21.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It was because he was gay though. When homosexuality was legalised the age of consent was 21.


 
His alleged predisposition towards underage boys was a major element in the public and legal opprobrium heaped upon him though.

He was in short an early victim of the kind of hysteria we regularly see revealed in so unedifying a fashion on these pages.

As was Oscar Wilde.

Why do you think no-one is jumping up and down shouting nasty words at them?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 19, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> His alleged predisposition towards underage boys was a major element in the public and legal opprobrium heaped upon him though.
> 
> He was in short an early victim of the kind of hysteria we regularly see revealed in so unedifying a fashion on these pages.


 
Underage meaning what though? Anyone under 21 was underage!


----------



## sihhi (Feb 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It was because he was gay though. When homosexuality was legalised the age of consent was 21.


 
At the time of course homosexuality as a whole was illegal. He was particularly heavily treated as a result of the ongoing Korean War, and the early Cold War assumption that homosexuals in classified/intelligence work were liable to be blackmailed or turned into aiding the enemy.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Underage meaning what though? Anyone under 21 was underage!


 
That is precisely my point.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> At the time of course homosexuality as a whole was illegal. He was particularly heavily treated as a result of the ongoing Korean War, and the early Cold War assumption that homosexuals in classified/intelligence work were liable to be blackmailed or turned into aiding the enemy.


 
An assumption which is true only as long as homosexuals are the victims of social or legal discrimination.
Discrimination which is perpetuated by prohibiting homosexuals from participating in intelligence work.  Prohibition which in any case bolts the door after the horse.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 19, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>He was in short an early victim of the kind of hysteria we regularly see revealed in so unedifying a fashion on these pages.
> 
> As was Oscar Wilde.<snip>


Prosecuted for (among other things) having sex in a public place ie. a hotel bedroom.  Strange how many married or at least straight couples weren't prosecuted for that one at the time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That's in response to the "potentially abusive" comment you made.
> 
> I think the history record says otherwise. If you disagree, then explain where abuse does come from then, which structures produce/reproduce it.


A collective struggle against tyranny can overcome that tyranny. But that doesn't guarantee anything at all about what replaces it. I can think of many examples from history of struggles from below overthrowing tyrannies that have resulted in abusive arrangements. The slave revolt in Haiti, the Russian Revolution. All kinds of factors are at play in producing abuse. Internal, external, communal, individual. I don't think it is possible to generalise.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A collective struggle against tyranny can overcome that tyranny. But that doesn't guarantee anything at all about what replaces it. I can think of many examples from history of struggles from below overthrowing tyrannies that have resulted in abusive arrangements. The slave revolt in Haiti, the Russian Revolution. All kinds of factors are at play in producing abuse. Internal, external, communal, individual. I don't think it is possible to generalise.


 
The Haitian and Russian revolutions both produced arrangements that *were* less "abusive".
Acting against/Fighting an external (class or landowner elite, in the examples you mention) changes priorities and behaviour and vigilence against this kind of thing.

Some social realities reproduce abuse more, whilst others do it less. We can make observations about that, whilst of course maintaining vigilence in the here and now and in any future.
The Cuban revolution for instance overturned child abuse of the women in the prostitution sector almost overnight. The reforms spearheaded by women again helped reduce abuse in or springing from traditional macho families.

What does internal mean there in that list? Not having a dig. Also, where should the social struggle be to stop the factors coming into play that help reproduce abuse?
We, as non-abusers, can't do anything about the internal side, we are part of the external and communal or social side. I don't know the answers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The Haitian and Russian revolutions both produced arrangements that *were* less "abusive".
> .


Less abusive than what? What came before, or what might have been produced by other forms of change from what came before? Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but I took you to mean that the fact that communal arrangements arise from struggle means that they are less abusive. That's the bit that I absolutely reject. 

It's tempting to cherry-pick from the Cuban revolution. But it did nothing at all to end the persecution of homosexuals for a long time, and by the early 70s, that persecution was harder than ever.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Less abusive than what? What came before, or what might have been produced by other forms of change from what came before? Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but I took you to mean that the fact that communal arrangements arise from struggle means that they are less abusive. That's the bit that I absolutely reject.


 
What came before - the pre-social struggle forms of family life. 

A commune set up by people without struggle is different to those within struggle - the features that participants mould in them mitigate against abuse.
Communalised systems set up from above after/in the wake of struggle are different of course, there people are not taking control themselves. It depends on what it is communalised, how strong the role of women is - women fighting alongside men gaining collective confidence, how the struggle impacts the education system, how focused the adult participants are on tackling an external class enemy instead of tendencies that lead to abuse within etc.

I don't know which particular fact is most important or critical, but the conclusion is inescapable severe social struggle that involves reorganising patterns of working-class life cuts the reproduction of child abuse, aswell as male partner violence etc.




> It's tempting to cherry-pick from the Cuban revolution. But it did nothing at all to end the persecution of homosexuals for a long time, and by the early 70s, that persecution was harder than ever.


It wasn't harder than _ever_. It was the women's movement which had confronted abuse and tackled prostitution that began to take on the anti-homosexual culture and tendencies.
Obviously there have been reverses since, especially with the 1990s with the return of prostitution etc etc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It wasn't harder than _ever_.


It was harder than immediately before the revolution. At least that's the opinion of gay men who lived through it such as Reinaldo Arenas.



> [T]he decade of the sixties ... was precisely when all the new laws against homosexuals came into being, when the persecution started and concentration camps were opened, when the sexual act became taboo while the 'new man' was being proclaimed and masculinity exalted.


 
Before the revolution, homosexuality had been illegal but largely tolerated.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 19, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was harder than immediately before the revolution. At least that's the opinion of gay men who lived through it such as Reinaldo Arenas.


 
There's a case there. But those camps the "military units to aid production" lasted only 3 years, 1965-1968. The reason the repression against homosexuals under the public ostentation law enacted in the 1930s eased off in the late 1950s immediately before the revolution was that security forces were fixated on repressing the mass strikes and the guerrilla threat and its support and radio network in the cities- ie the revolutionary forces allowed that easing to happen.
The earlier repression meant homosexuals either brutalised in jails or part of a small number of sometimes restricted, sometimes tolerated gay or transvestite brothels.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 25, 2013)

> *BBC Breaking News* ‏@*BBCBreaking*
> UK's Attorney General to take action against people who posted photos online purporting to be Bulger killers Jon Venables & Robert Thompson
> Retweeted by *BBC News (UK)*
> *  Collapse*
> ...


----------



## yardbird (Feb 25, 2013)

Contempt innit


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 25, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Contempt innit


 
Surprised it took them so long though.  There must be people on Twitter furiously deleting posts


----------



## yardbird (Feb 25, 2013)

Probably too late to delete - the evidence will have been collected already


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 25, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Probably too late to delete - the evidence will have been collected already


 


The one I found is still up


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 25, 2013)

Assume as far as twitter goes it's people who posted it first not the re tweeters. (not that i care i didn't tweet or re-tweet it im not a fucking idiot etc)


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 25, 2013)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Assume as far as twitter goes it's people who posted it first not the re tweeters. (not that i care i didn't tweet or re-tweet it im not a fucking idiot etc)


 
I think McAlpine went after retweeters as well didn't he?


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 25, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I think McAlpine went after retweeters as well didn't he?


 
could take some time then, i think he said come forward we know who you are or the like.


----------



## elbows (Feb 25, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I think McAlpine went after retweeters as well didn't he?


 
After putting on the frighteners, and then going on about people making a donation to charity, I believe he only went after Sally Bercow in the end.


----------



## ChrisD (Feb 25, 2013)

elbows said:


> After putting on the frighteners, and then going on about people making a donation to charity, I believe he only went after Sally Bercow in the end.


that may have been pragmatism after checking his legal costs.  Presumably the Attorney General is less concerned about the legal costs racking up.


----------



## gunneradt (Feb 25, 2013)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Assume as far as twitter goes it's people who posted it first not the re tweeters. (not that i care i didn't tweet or re-tweet it im not a fucking idiot etc)


 
those tweeting the pics originally are going to be impossible to track down and the retweeters were too numerous


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 25, 2013)

gunneradt said:


> those tweeting the pics originally are going to be impossible to track down and the retweeters were too numerous


 
There's a whole website page with their pictures


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2013)

gunneradt said:


> those tweeting the pics originally are going to be impossible to track down and the retweeters were too numerous


Fuck off racist prick.


----------



## gunneradt (Feb 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck off racist prick.


 
how's the job hunting going?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 25, 2013)

Should the justice system should prosecute the retweeters? 

The very same day The Mirror has dug up this:

'Police lose 138 convicted paedophiles and many may have fled the country
They all disappeared after signing the sex offenders’ register'

"The Home Office said there are 62,852 known sex offenders in the UK and, of those, 30,495 have a conviction for sexually abusing a child. One of the 138 missing is Stephen Clare, who was jailed for sexually assaulting a girl of five and taking indecent photos of children. After serving 18 months, Clare signed the register and was monitored by police. However, the authorities lost him and he has not been seen since 2002. He is on the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre’s “most wanted” list. 
In 2009, despite being on the register, Peter Chapman was free to murder Ashleigh Hall, 17, who he met on Facebook. He disappeared from the Merseyside unit monitoring him in 2008 and was not found until arrested for Ashleigh’s murder, in Co Durham."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-lose-138-convicted-paedophiles-1729585


----------



## sihhi (Feb 26, 2013)

dylans said:


> Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that 20 years ago. instead of treating them like children, helping them understand what they had done and working to rebuild their lives, society instead chose to throw two terrified little kids to the wolves to satisfy the blood lust and outrage of a howling mob


 
They weren't thrown to the wolves. They were housed in one of probably Britain's best - lowest  staff:children ratio - children's homes, Vardy House, home to 8 in a spacious environment. They never faced any form of prisons in the sense of having cells and lock-downs , they never faced a young offenders institute, and received far more than other child victims of physical or mental abuse, including the trips to theatres and football matches, games consoles that became a backlash focus.

They were given frequent assistance to understand what they had done, and were trained and individually-tutored, passing A-Levels, then an extensive readjustment programme began towards the end of their terms, back into society alongside probationers, social workers and psychologists.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 26, 2013)

dylans said:


> No. You are the one siding with the state. You are advocating THE STATE release the names and addresses of released sex offenders in order to satisfy the hysteria and fear of the mob, a hysteria stoked by the enemies of the working class. Hysteria which is actually a diversion from the real causes of child sexual abuse.
> 
> You are actually siding with Rebecca Brookes. Perhaps she will give you a badge


 
What are the real causes of child sexual abuse? What should be tackled so that child sexual abuse doesn't happen?


----------



## elbows (Feb 26, 2013)

Dont hold your breath for a reply, he hasnt posted since losing it in this thread. Not the first time. Always surprises me that someone prepared to spend plenty of time writing lengthy, coherent posts, is so easily driven away. All it seems to take is heckling on certain fronts from more than one person. I was sad about it last time, not so much this time. I dont know how anyone can think, in 2013, that u75 is a good place to repeatedly proclaim your principals and stances on a myriad of issues without being subject to both reasonable and unreasonable testing of your stances. If you dont want to be picked at or have your attitudes tested to destruction and the full implications of your posturing explored then either learn to let criticism bounce off you or leave. Thats my twatty forum take on tough text love these days anyway, dont go into battle here if your ego shield is floppy.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

Esp if you're going to take a hardline. The shit comes with it. I'm an anarchist, the other lads some sort of trot, expect questions - you've got to have some way of talking to people beyond _i'm right, fuck off_. That's how you _learn_ how to say stuff politically - through other people, not through agreeing with yourself. You must be able to think on your feet or at least you know...make it not a lecture.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 26, 2013)

dylans said:


> I will leave you with Stan Cohen Folk Devils and Moral Panics. It was written about mods and rockers and the moral panic that surrounded them but it still serves as a brilliant account of the moral panic surrounding stranger danger and "paedos"


 
In case anyone has read the thread from start to end.
The 'moral panic' doesn't make sense in this case.
When Cohen argues, he doesn't deny that young mods and rockers did fight, there was something going on with youths fighting en masse - something that had been largely absent in towns like Margate for several decades.

In the case of Venebles (particularly after the child pornography conviction and pretending to be a mother that can supply pictures of her children abused) there's a potentially dangerous figure at the heart of the situation.
The moral panic related to the "Liverpool 39" or the "guilty 39" - ordinary Liverpool people who said nothing as Bulger was being led around the streets, suggesting the collapse in moral values since the 1960s had led to a "walk-on-by" society where no one could trust anyone with anything. The moral panic also related to 'video nasties', the "Chucky" films in particular that these films be outright banned even for those older than 18.
With Paulsgrove, there were people whose behaviour had aroused suspicion, who were paedophiles, in particular Victor Burnett.

The moral panic, (danger from below/ evidence of 'moral decline') was the idea of working-class people unable to identify what justice is, estates without the mental capacity to understand innocent until proven guilty, estates fixated by revenge bloodlust to purposefully finger social adversaries as paedophiles.

In fact, Residents Against Paedophilia tried for a week to get some information before the first protest was held in early August. Far from being ostracised and isolated, Victor Burnett was friendly with residents who welcomed him and some allowed him to spend time with their children, hence .

Dr Andy Williams' series of articles in the Police Journal - Vigilance or vigilantes: the Paulsgrove riots and policing paedophiles in the community after detailed research stated in 2004:
"Contrary to what the press asserted no one, paedophiles or 'innocent residents', was personally attacked."

What happened was an act of property violence - by angry young people enfuriated by the police behaviour against the protests. It happened to Victor Burnett's home _after_ he vacated that site early in the morning even though he had survived several earlier protests i.e. when there was no danger to anyone.
The News of the World campaign was a touchpaper to the whole thing the suspicious behaviour in had been noticed earlier in Paulsgrove. Burnett had been living there for 2 years and after the first year suspicions were evident.

There were a few left liberal voices against the moral panic about working-class knowlegde of paedophiles. One of them was Yvonne Roberts, part of the News on Sunday leftie tabloid effort, former pupil of E P Thompson, less leftist more liberal than before, but her article in the New Statesman is still there, worth reading:

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/138377

"Yet if the campaign for Sarah's Law has exacted a high price, it is a price worth paying if it succeeds in reversing decades of neglect, disbelief, under-resourcing, appalling Establishment cover-ups and political unwillingness to face up to the extent of paedophile activity and the difficult dilemmas it presents.
According to Home Office figures, 120,000 British men over the age of 20 have a conviction for a sexual offence against a child; one in five will be convicted again. Academics say that this is only a fraction of those who offend. In the US in the 1980s, 539 paedophiles were given a certificate of confidentiality ensuring that they would not be prosecuted. They confessed to a staggering 243,000 crimes. Some men (and a few women) may offend only once or twice. But many others will molest, rape, bugger, masturbate and control a child for years by a mixture of guilt and fear. I've interviewed many survivors over the past 20 years; too many have expected nothing from life except continuing proof that they are worthless, dirty and to blame.
Convictions remain rare - fewer than 10 per cent of prosecutions. In 1997, for instance, there were 582 prosecutions for rape of girls under 16, but these resulted in only 198 convictions. The whole system requires a drastic overhaul recognising that sexual abuse is a unique crime with specific difficulties because of the age of the victims. One child in three receives no support or preparation for court. Sentencing is erratic. Last year, Robert Oliver was released after serving only eight years of a 15-year sentence for the manslaughter of Jason Swift, a young boy suffocated during a paedophile orgy. Small wonder that the public have lost faith."

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/138377


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

> The moral panic, the danger from below that was the moral decline was the idea of working-class people unable to identify what justice is, estates without the mental capacity to understand innocent until proven guilty, estates fixated by revenge bloodlust to purposefully finger social adversaries as paedophiles.


Fantastic fantastic post sihhi.


----------



## elbows (Feb 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Esp if you're going to take a hardline. The shit comes with it. I'm an anarchist, the other lads some sort of trot, expert questions - you've got to have some way of talking to people beyond _i'm right, fuck off_. That's how you _learn_ how to say stuff politically - through other people, not through agreeing with yourself. You must be able to think on your feet or at least you know...make it not a lecture.


 
Yeah on the political front I dont take it as a good sign. Even the sort of shits who actually make it into power these days know how to at least robustly defend their positions without melting. And they usually manage to pay lipservice to the idea of being accountable in at least a vague sense, even if its only before they are actually tested by getting into power.

To respect someone and not be afraid of their politics I do not require perfection. I'd actually far rather place my trust in people who freely admit that they dont have all the answers, or that there are some flaws or contradictions in their stances, or that real life is messy and cannot always involve utterly uncompromising stances on every single front all of the time. If humans are to work together with respect and well spread power then we somehow have to deal with the realities of compromise without the wrong things being compromised.

But we hardly ever get to see this put to test because on the rare occasions that such opportunities present themselves it goes wrong almost immediately, as political forces seek to consolidate power and eliminate the sort of questioning that should actually form the basis of any sane system. I think this ought to be one of the lessons from the 'alternatives' that got their chance at times in the 20th century, and are now discredited in the eyes of all but the diehard believers and apologists.

If you dont like being questioned then dont be surprised if people want to smear your licence to be a decider with shit.


----------



## elbows (Feb 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fantastic fantastic post sihhi.


 
Yep.

Politics that involves a fixation with the worst potential of people, rather than the best, is doomed and ugly in my book.

Even, as was occasionally the case in Libya, when there is actual evidence of some unpleasant human traits at work, this cannot be used as an excuse to dismiss a section of society as dangerous and requiring of high-and-mighty proclamations from above. Stern father scolding his silly children when they err, oh what horror stems from this. Misanthropic, deaf and blind dictators in the making, with all the self-righteous justification to back up their enforced decisions, whether they be liberal, socialist or something else in flavour.


----------



## elbows (Feb 26, 2013)

I'll stop using dylans to make my point soon, but one last thing. I dont think it's a co-incidence that he predicted imminent doom for people & movements in Egypt on a number of occasions, predictions that went wrong almost as soon as they were spoken. Perhaps I am oversimplifying his politics, but I see a connection to this and the 'assume the worst in people' that I mentioned in my last post and I believe informed his stance in this thread and got him straight into trouble. The status quo thrives on this stuff, so its really not what we need from anyone seeking to change things in a useful way.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

Good series of posts as well elbows.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

You're thoughtful like that


----------



## sihhi (Feb 26, 2013)

dylans said:


> . A moral panic is an exaggerated social reaction to a perceived threat, one where fantasy becomes translated in many peoples minds into reality and then acted upon as though it were reality. Even a brief look at the way that fear of stranger danger has taken hold in the popular imagination shows it conforms to every feature of a moral panic as identified by Cohen


 
I disagree with this analysis, stranger danger needs to be explained in a more sensible way *alongside lessons at school about the family*. Many in primary schools would agree there is little in primary schools about 'tell your teacher if your dad or uncle is doing X'.

On the moral panic again. Out of 35 charged with offences, none are charged with any form of violence against people other than on police officers. Several are charged with interfering with police videoing of protestors and making petrol bombs. The idea of lynch mob as the Bishop of Oxford described it, of a Salem witch trial as the Tory MP suggested saying he feared he would be next on the list - was pure demagogue behaviour similar to the creation of a further moral panic about non-gentrified mass housing schemes.

It is true that 2 paedophiles commit suicide in the aftermath of the NOTW campaign, receiving protests/unwelcome attention but can this can not be considered the fault of any protesters.

The majority of protests completely non-violent, such as this one in Manchester, were largely ignored.






Only when there was "violence" and a smashed police vehicle to photograph did the media become particularly interested. Hence Paulsgrove became the central focus, not other places with similar experiences. And when Paulsgrove was the centre of attention all kinds of fantasies were played out on the protestors: being reckless by protests going through small roads, encouraging youth vandalism by not policing older children who weren't on the march, damaging children's sleep, enjoying the exposure of children to dangerous/frightening concepts, encouraging child neglect by having protests outside of homes.
The liberal "analysis" was ultimately fixated upon the behaviour and "lifestyles" of morally deficient estate people - as opposed to morally sound (harder-working) private sector tenants or mortgage home-owners. Not about the reality of male child sex abuse. A complex set of events in Paulsgrove was reduced to mindless behaviour. Broadly, the larger the estate the bigger the threat - these places need 'mixed communities' and balanced tenure for their own good. Otherwise they will mobilise the lynch-mob fairly easily.


> 5. Convergence. Moral panics often link different situations or activities together and their relationships make for an amplification of the panic. Student hooligans for example. Black muggers, single mothers and housing, *strangers and paedophilia, child murderers*.


 
I am not sure what you are suggesting here. That paedophilia and child murders don't go together? 
Of course child murder can happen within family, but the link is there and should not be dismissed. Marc Dutroux was released after the rape of a teenager for good behaviour in prison and went on to abduct and repeatedly rape six young women and girls - two teenagers, four pre-teens , only 2 survived.


----------



## Firky (Feb 26, 2013)

elbows said:


> 'assume the worst in people'


 
Only a certain kind of people or class if you prefer.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Poster warns of paedophile living in Knowle, Bristol




> Posters were taped to lampposts in Knowle this week near the home of Stephen Hooper, who was sentenced to a supervision order and ordered to attend a sex offender treatment programme at Bristol Crown Court last month after admitting 20 charges relating to indecent images of children.
> ​
> They detailed Hooper's full address, directed residents to The Post's report of his sentencing hearing, and said: "Please warn your family and friends of this paedophile."


----------



## Athos (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Poster warns of paedophile living in Knowle, Bristol


 
I'd be interested to know exactly which offence the police are deciding whether to charge the culprit with (if they ever identify him or her).


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 21, 2013)

Athos said:


> I'd be interested to know exactly which offence the police are deciding whether to charge the culprit with (if they ever identify him or her).


 
Lynch-mob-paedo-murder crime.

But others in the area disagreed.
One man said: "He probably needs help. Doing this has put him in a dangerous situation although I don't think anyone round here would do anything to harm him."
His friend added: "I can understand parents being worried and feeling they have a right to know.
"But at the same time, acts like this can cause unnecessary worry and lead to vigilante attacks."


----------



## sim667 (Apr 29, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22310412



> Two men who published photographs on Twitter and Facebook said to show the killers of James Bulger have received suspended jail sentences.
> 
> Neil Harkins, of East Yorkshire, and Dean Liddle, of Sunderland, received nine-month sentences, suspended for 15 months, for being in contempt of court.


----------



## Favelado (Nov 27, 2013)

With regards to today's news about this case, I assume that the photos only have to "purport" to show Venables or Thompson and it's irrelevant whether they actually do or not.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2013)

Favelado said:


> With regards to today's news about this case, I assume that the photos only have to "purport" to show Venables or Thompson and it's irrelevant whether they actually do or not.


Sounds like it.


----------

