# Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth



## PlanX (Feb 5, 2010)

Did anybody hear about or go to this demo last weekend?

http://www.theratbook.com/Articles/Article/a_paedophile_protest_in_dorset

Theres a video at the bottom...turnout doesnt look great!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2010)

I didnt. Because I am in another country.


----------



## TheDave (Feb 5, 2010)

PlanX said:


> Did anybody hear about or go to this demo last weekend?
> 
> http://www.theratbook.com/Articles/Article/a_paedophile_protest_in_dorset
> 
> Theres a video at the bottom...turnout doesnt look great!



No, but I was at the counter-protest. Free the Paedos!


----------



## subversplat (Feb 5, 2010)

What are they hoping to do, get underage sex banned?


----------



## Random One (Feb 5, 2010)

i'll be attending the Anti-People Being Cunts demo whenever that happens


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 5, 2010)

TheDave said:


> No, but I was at the counter-protest. Free the Paedos!



You were in fact the leader of the gang.


----------



## tar1984 (Feb 5, 2010)

All the people on the demo were blatantly closet peados.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 5, 2010)

I think this is a spam.


----------



## cybertect (Feb 5, 2010)

Paedofinders General said:
			
		

> The general consensus amongst those who attended the demonstration was that, if enough people made their voices heard, then something would be done.



That strategy really worked well in March 2003, didn't it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 5, 2010)

You have to love the incoherent rage here. 'what do we want doing'!


'something!'


----------



## Yetman (Feb 5, 2010)

I'm going to the anti murder demo next week in Strathamchesterton. Should be good. We'll get this plague on our people wiped out once and for all! If there's enough of us standing there chanting then hell, those murderers cant really not listen can they?


----------



## xes (Feb 5, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> All the people on the demo were blatantly closet peados.



It was a tarp!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

cybertect said:


> That strategy really worked well in March 2003, didn't it?



Why, what happened?


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

From the link:







Have they all been hitting the colloidal silver a bit hard?


----------



## cybertect (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why, what happened?


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

Jesus, look at their "entertainment" page.

Includes an insane flash animation that stigmatises victims of child abuse, and also has games with names like "Punish the Criminal" (the comments are simultaneously hilarious and depressing).


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

> Frying people (animals) like the list you have here. Was a pleasure. When will you have the other games ready. I hope and pray that you can keep The Rat Book going. It is so important that company's like you provide this service for the honest hard working people of the UK.



.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

You mean February then cybertect.


----------



## tar1984 (Feb 5, 2010)

Incidentally, I just noticed a facebook group called "stop child abuse today".  I mean, I'll try...


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> Incidentally, I just noticed a facebook group called "stop child abuse today".



"If twenty-thousand people join this group, I'll stop noncing my son"


----------



## tar1984 (Feb 5, 2010)

fogbat said:


> "If twenty-thousand people join this group, I'll stop noncing my son"



 I almost joined so I could wind them up a bit, but thought the better of it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 5, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> Incidentally, I just noticed a facebook group called "stop child abuse today".  I mean, I'll try...



well, it's only a day, you can carry on tomorrow


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Jesus, look at their "entertainment" page.
> 
> Includes an insane flash animation that stigmatises victims of child abuse, and also has games with names like "Punish the Criminal" (the comments are simultaneously hilarious and depressing).



I don't want to click on the link because I'm at work. but describe the animation? xx


----------



## cybertect (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You mean February then cybertect.



Yeah, but if I'd said February I'd have had people pointing out that we went to war in March and that there were other demos right up to that point.


----------



## tar1984 (Feb 5, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> well, it's only a day, you can carry on tomorrow



I dunno man, I tend to get the shakes if I leave it more than 12 hours.


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I don't want to click on the link because I'm at work. but describe the animation? xx



"_Once upon a time, not so long ago, there lived an ugly old paedophile.

He was very afraid of grown up women, but he couldn't resist little girls and boys._"

We see a repeating cycle of a deformed, bald man cuddling a small child, who then grows up to become a deformed, bald man. Via the medium of bizarre Ren and Stimpy style animation.

I'm very glad to learn that all paedophiles are ugly loners, though. It'll make it a lot easier to tell whose house needs burning down.

Oh, and all victims of child abuse will become abusers, apparently.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2010)

fogbat said:


> "_Once upon a time, not so long ago, there lived an ugly old paedophile.
> 
> He was very afraid of grown up women, but he couldn't resist little girls and boys._"
> 
> ...



jesus, that bad? 

that's really fucking creepy.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 5, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Jesus, look at their "entertainment" page.
> 
> Includes an insane flash animation that stigmatises victims of child abuse, and also has games with names like "Punish the Criminal" (the comments are simultaneously hilarious and depressing).



There's something very wrong about that 'entertainment'.

Putting Gary Glitter on the electric chair and pressing the button until he dies as quickly as possible! Try to beat your time! You can execute Chris Langhan and Jonathan King as well


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 5, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> There's something very wrong about that 'entertainment'.
> 
> Putting Gary Glitter on the electric chair and pressing the button until he dies as quickly as possible! Try to beat your time! You can execute Chris Langhan and Jonathan King as well



I'm sorry but that is fucking hilarious.

Chris Morris couldn't make it up.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2010)

wtf.


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

This isn't a site produced by one lone nutter, by the way. This is organised, and looks like it had a fair bit of cash behind it.

My money's on Noel Edmonds.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2010)

I've heard about it recently on facebook I think. What's the site purpose, is it generally just a an anti-paedophile hate site, or do they include names and photos of people etc?


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

They have names and locations (region, rather than full address), often with a photo as well. Nothing you couldn't get from a newspaper, but gathered together in one nutty-vigilante-friendly site. You can browse by location, so you can find monsters near you. Or by crime, so if, say, you're not too bothered about nonces, but really hate those who beat up the elderly, you can find the right people with just a few clicks of the mouse.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 5, 2010)

fogbat said:


> This isn't a site produced by one lone nutter, by the way. This is organised, and looks like it had a fair bit of cash behind it.
> 
> My money's on Noel Edmonds.



The whole site is well organised.

Lists all the criminals living or convicted in my area....bizzare.

Ronnie Barker's son is listed.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I've heard about it recently on facebook I think. What's the site purpose, is it generally just a an anti-paedophile hate site, or do they include names and photos of people etc?



It's all crims...not just peados.


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

> If you have a story you wish to contribute to The Rat Book, please fill out the form below.
> 
> Please reference your story with a valid web link to a media article where possible.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2010)

All crims? even people with speeding tickets and the like?


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

You can search under the following categories:

Animal Cruelty
Britains Most Wanted
Child Abuse
Domestic Abuse
Elderly Abuse
Missing Persons
Murderers
Northern Ireland Terrorists
Paedophiles
Perverts
Rapists
Sexual Assaults
Social Services
Terrorists


----------



## argenteum (Feb 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> All crims? even people with speeding tickets and the like?



    *  Animal cruelty
    * Child abuse
    * Disabilities
    * Domestic abuse
    * Drug offences
    * Elderly abuse
    * Kidnapping
    * Murderer
    * Paedophile
    * Pervert
    * Rapist
    * Sexual assault
    * Social services
    * Terrorist
    * Theft
    * Violent crime


At first I was just  but after looking at it this kind of website is really disturbing - especially the 'paedophile inheritance' bollocks.


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

On the plus side, they have a forum, so that's my weekend's entertainment sorted.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2010)

But I thought this sort of thing was illegal? Whats the law regarding it? 

Whats the difference between sex offenders and "perverts" btw? 

Btw I wouldn't surprise me if some of the people behind this had convictions for violent crime...


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 5, 2010)

The forum is full of loony tunes.

Also - this is not good - this person is a victim, yet appears in the criminal search, and is presented the same way as criminals:

http://www.theratbook.com/Articles/...ed_jail_over_hammer_attack_on_drunken_husband


----------



## tar1984 (Feb 5, 2010)

Burn down their houses
Hang the blessed peados...

Hang the peados, hang the peados, hang the peados
Hang the peados, hang the peados, hang the peados
Hang the peados, hang the peados, hang the peados
Hang the peados! hang the peados!


----------



## subversplat (Feb 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> All crims? even people with speeding tickets and the like?


Just the stuff worthy of being printed in the paper, it's a user submission site.


----------



## dylans (Feb 5, 2010)

Oh dear oh dear.



> The journey from childhood innocence to sick paedophilia is documented here in our flash animation. A young boy is offered a sweet from a stranger, but this stranger is a paedophile, and he crushes the childs innocence, leaving him scarred for life



Sweets from strangers. Lol. 

 Be afraid of your neighbour, don't trust anyone. Google your boyfriend, Don't let your children play outside.  Hate Hate Hate, Fear Fear Fear. If you have nothing to hide etc etc etc. 

 Idiots, most child abuse is in the family.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 5, 2010)

The people behind sites like this are worse than the paedophiles themselves.  At least the paedophiles are driven by a compulsion beyond their control.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 5, 2010)

Flasher had served kebab to woman

http://www.theratbook.com/Articles/Article/flasher_had_served_kebab_to_woman

That's one way of describing it, I suppose?!


----------



## dylans (Feb 5, 2010)

This would be funny if it wasn't so scary.



> The general consensus amongst those who attended the demonstration was that, if enough people made their voices heard, then something would be done. *What that something must be remains to be seen*



I noticed they have a "drug offences" list on that site too. Nasty stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

dylans said:


> This would be funny if it wasn't so scary.
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed they have a "drug offences" list on that site too. Nasty stuff.



Scary as in betraying a belief in the state and local authorities to deal with w/c problems, to stop dumping and to inform w/c communities about convicted sex offenders in their areas, then yes i agree - also scary if they believe whoever set this stuff up is on their side. Totally not scary, people being interested enough in their communities to try and do something to better them.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Totally not scary, people being interested enough in their communities to try and do something to better them.



That rather depends on what sort of people we're talking about.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

dylans said:


> This would be funny if it wasn't so scary.
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed they have a "drug offences" list on that site too. Nasty stuff.



Here's the full quote dylans - not so lynchy when you do that:



> The general consensus amongst those who attended the demonstration was that, if enough people made their voices heard, then something would be done. What that something must be remains to be seen. We know that the public want paedophiles out; we know they don’t want to live alongside the violent criminals, the rapists, and the perverts, but the big question is where? Where should these criminals go? Is there anything we can do to ensure that a paedophile will not re-offend? How can we stop a violent criminal from being violent? Is it ever possible to ensure that criminals won’t offend again? If not, then is the prison system really working as it should? What alternatives are there? These are questions which must be addressed by our government, because they are questions that are being asked by the public


----------



## cybertect (Feb 5, 2010)

argenteum said:


> *  Animal cruelty
> * Child abuse
> * Disabilities
> * Domestic abuse
> ...



They missed one.

Corrected now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> That rather depends on what sort of people we're talking about.



...and if it's mothers on council estates on which there's a dumping policy and victims of abuse? Are these the wrong sort of people. (And i tell you, wrong topic to pick phil).


----------



## gamma globulins (Feb 5, 2010)

Disabilities?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 5, 2010)

gamma globulins said:


> Disabilities?



Crimes committed against those with....


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 5, 2010)

Not much of it makes for any happy reading really.

Some very sad stories on there.


----------



## dylans (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Scary as in betraying a belief in the state and local authorities to deal with w/c problems, to stop dumping and to inform w/c communities about convicted sex offenders in their areas, then yes i agree - also scary if they believe whoever set this stuff up is on their side. Totally not scary, people being interested enough in their communities to try and do something to better them.



No,  scary as in the belief that threats to our kids come from mysterious strangers handing out sweeties.  Or the belief that where convicted criminals live on their release is an issue of concern at all.

 Scary as in this pernicious fear that seems to be clouding everyone's judgement ,so more and more we find ourselves living  in a society of CRBs and police checks where we fear our neighbours and immediately distrust everyone around us. Where our kids no longer play in the streets or spend time in their friends houses, where we no longer trust the next door neighbour to "watch Johnny" while we pop to Tescos. 

Child abuse is very real but it's not the new neighbour who has moved in down the road. The threat of child abuse is much closer to home.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

None of which was in your bold or what it implied (or has anything at all to do with what i posted in fact) - and let's be 100% clear, you tried to imply that it means some kind of mob justice. None of the above  was broached in that post, please don't try and pretend that it was (it got worse on looking at the full non cut off quote)


----------



## ovaltina (Feb 5, 2010)

Small town and tiny minds (i know weymouth far too well) :-(


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

ovaltina said:


> Small town and tiny minds (i know weymouth far too well) :-(



What's small minded about being concerned about their kids and community - not all people start off perfectly formed with the exact right approach. Maybe you could reach out to these concerned morons?


----------



## ovaltina (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What's small minded about being concerned about their kids and community - not all people start off perfectly formed with the exact right approach. Maybe you could reach out to these concerned morons?



I understand the concern and yes if you h had kids id voice an opinion on it too but - i think this is a knee jerk reaction from what is a very sheltered town to something the people there dont understand. I dunno the ins and outs of the story, to  be honest im a bit yankered, but lets say it does not surprise me that this is coming from weymouth.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What's small minded about being concerned about their kids and community - not all people start off perfectly formed with the exact right approach.



No they most certainly don't.  The BNP are concerned about their kids and the community too.  I've no sympathy for hysterical vigilantes, they're too easily manipulated.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

...and if it's mothers on council estates on which there's a dumping policy and victims of abuse? Are these the wrong sort of people.


----------



## dylans (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> None of which was in your bold or what it implied (or has anything at all to do with what i posted in fact) - and let's be 100% clear, you tried to imply that it means some kind of mob justice. None of the above  was broached in that post, please don't try and pretend that it was (it got worse on looking at the full non cut off quote)



I can see how you interpreted it as that. It really wasn't my intention to portray it as such. Rather it was my intention to portray the absurdity of demonstrating that SOMETHING must be done but "we don't know what". 

I have no reason to think that particular demonstration was advocating mob vengeance. I don't think it was incidentally. I think it had more to do with the "not in our back yard" mentality that was so common to the middle class in past decades. The "we don''t want the young offenders centre or the city dump cus it lowers house prices" so beloved of the middle class has become a "we don't want demonised monsters" crusade that resonates with a section of sun reading " pedo" hysterical working class communities. 

It is a motivation made from fear and for this reason I find it scary because it is through fear that our most precious liberties are handed over to the state, "Do something!, is the rallying cry of fear as we hand over our freedoms to a more and more authoritarian state.  After all "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

I live in a council estate and I know for a fact that there are terrible parents here.I see it all the time. Parents that do nothing but scream at their kids from morning till night. Parents that show no love to their kids at all. But this lumpen dysfunctional kind of abuse isn't the subject of these peoples concerns. Rather it is the mysterious and largely mythical monster handing out sweeties in the shadows. It's a hysterical red herring stoked by the tabloid press.. Out if fear  we end up begging for more disclosures, more CRB type regulations and before we know it we end up in 1984. fuck that.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...and if it's mothers on council estates on which there's a dumping policy and victims of abuse? Are these the wrong sort of people.



Whoever is behind that web site is very much the wrong sort of person.  Anyone who went on that demo is very much the wrong sort of person.  Hang 'em high law'n'order fanatics.  Ripe pickings for fascists of all sorts.


----------



## ovaltina (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...and if it's mothers on council estates on which there's a dumping policy and victims of abuse? Are these the wrong sort of people.



Wtf do council estates have to do with anything?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2010)

Domain Name: THERATBOOK.COM
   Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
   Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
   Name Server: NS45.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
   Name Server: NS46.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
   Status: clientDeleteProhibited
   Status: clientRenewProhibited
   Status: clientTransferProhibited
   Status: clientUpdateProhibited
   Updated Date: 14-sep-2009
   Creation Date: 27-jun-2008
   Expiration Date: 27-jun-2012


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

ovaltina said:


> Wtf do council estates have to do with anything?



I'm making a reference to the paulsgrove (and later somerset) protests.


----------



## ovaltina (Feb 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm making a reference to the paulsgrove (and later somerset) protests.



Sorry, i should do more research before posting! I was living on an estate in north london when one of the neighbours, who was care in the community, stabbed a pregnant woman for no reason. We also had a schizophrenia heroin addict in the flat next door who used to run out in the street and punch passing cars. I understand not wanting to be near people with dangerous personality disorders and disabilities but they-re part of our world and they have to in somewhere


----------



## a_chap (Feb 5, 2010)

argenteum said:


> *  Animal cruelty
> * Child abuse
> * Disabilities
> * Domestic abuse
> ...



When did working for Social Services become criminalised?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 5, 2010)

a_chap said:


> When did working for Social Services become criminalised?



About the same time as paediatricians.


----------



## a_chap (Feb 5, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> About the same time as paediatricians.



Hang paediatricians! Sick fuckers.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 5, 2010)

ovaltina said:


> I understand the concern and yes if you h had kids id voice an opinion on it too but - i think this is a knee jerk reaction from what is a very sheltered town to something the people there dont understand. I dunno the ins and outs of the story, to  be honest im a bit yankered, but lets say it does not surprise me that this is coming from weymouth.



i dont really see how its different from the Reclaim the Night marches

ratbook on the other hand is concerning


----------



## smokedout (Feb 5, 2010)

after an hour of googling/whois-ing all ive found is this facebook page from someone who appears to be involved with ratbook

http://www.facebook.com/people/Davine-Francois/100000138574733#!/profile.php?id=100000138574733


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 5, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> The forum is full of loony tunes.
> 
> Also - this is not good - this person is a victim, yet appears in the criminal search, and is presented the same way as criminals:
> 
> http://www.theratbook.com/Articles/...ed_jail_over_hammer_attack_on_drunken_husband



Yeah that's terrible.


----------



## fogbat (Feb 5, 2010)

smokedout said:


> after an hour of googling/whois-ing all ive found is this facebook page from someone who appears to be involved with ratbook
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/people/Davine-Francois/100000138574733#!/profile.php?id=100000138574733



Yeah, it's weird that an organisation that's so keen to share information with everyone seems to be so secretive about who they are.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 5, 2010)

I approve of paedos being known to their community as the re-offending rate is extremely high. My home town had a very high number of the sick fuckers and the fact that they were known to the locals went some way to protecting us as children. The fact that many of them have since been convicted of child porn offences goes to showtheir level of depravity.


If you have any doubt look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_O'Carroll , . The local priest was a paedo and had to serve time, for some reason the town seemed to attract the sick fuckers. I can imagine being a seaside town Weymouth attracts its own fair share.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 5, 2010)

The fact that many of them have since been convicted of child porn offences doesn't show anything beyond that; there's evidence that a more permissive attitude to porn reduces the amount of rape, for example.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> But I thought this sort of thing was illegal? Whats the law regarding it?
> 
> Whats the difference between sex offenders and "perverts" btw?
> 
> Btw I wouldn't surprise me if some of the people behind this had convictions for violent crime...


Oh, this one's easy! Perverts do things that the new normative sexuality hasn't yet criminalised.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 5, 2010)

Jonti said:


> The fact that many of them have since been convicted of child porn offences doesn't show anything beyond that; there's evidence that a more permissive attitude to porn reduces the amount of rape, for example.



Since most child porn is a direct product of abuse I would be fascinated to hear how your theory applies.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 5, 2010)

Child porn is _defined_ as abuse, so that's a truism, right?

And a truism is compatible with any theory at all, so you haven't actually managed to say anything, yet


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

Just what was needed, a big brained apologist. Child porn _is_ abuse.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 5, 2010)

smokedout said:


> after an hour of googling/whois-ing all ive found is this facebook page from someone who appears to be involved with ratbook
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/people/Davine-Francois/100000138574733#!/profile.php?id=100000138574733





fogbat said:


> Yeah, it's weird that an organisation that's so keen to share information with everyone seems to be so secretive about who they are.


I smell a rat!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 5, 2010)

veritably, by definition!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

So where's your problem? And where your answer to Kenny's post? I emphasize answer.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 5, 2010)

It's a fucking tautology!

How dense are you?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

Yes you posted that a tautology is a tautology. Well done. Now, if you'd like to address your bulging brain yourself to the first part of Kenny's post - who _produces_ child porn, not it's definition.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 5, 2010)

> I approve of paedos being known to their community as the re-offending rate is extremely high.


This? 

Oh, and fuck off, grumpy gills.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

No, have another go - here's a clue:



> Since most child porn is a direct product of abuse...



or is there only ever allowed to be one amount of child porn ever?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 5, 2010)

> is there only ever allowed to be one amount of child porn ever


I would've thought not, myself.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

So, now where does your tautology leave you?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 5, 2010)

Exactly where one started!

The rest is sound and fury, signifying nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

prat


----------



## Jonti (Feb 5, 2010)

fogbat said:


> "_Once upon a time, not so long ago, there lived an ugly old paedophile.
> 
> He was very afraid of grown up women, but he couldn't resist little girls and boys._"
> 
> ...


The authentic voice of the community? 

I think almost everyone knows (they ought to know!) that most child abuse takes place within the family.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2010)

Your family maybe.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 5, 2010)

Jonti said:


> The fact that many of them have since been convicted of child porn offences doesn't show anything beyond that; there's evidence that a more permissive attitude to porn reduces the amount of rape, for example.



As most child porn is a direct consequence of abuse, a more permissive attitude to child porn would not reduce the amount of abuse. 

Pretty simple isn't it? 

And by the way, I don't accept that adult porn and images of child abuse are in the same category.

That is leaving aside the questionable claim that porn reduces rape.

By the way, plenty of locals were also convicted of child abuse. Or do you just consider that a lifestyle choice?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

Yes, there's a vast amount of it, mostly mediated through the family, not at all like the stranger danger as depicted by the "anti-paedophile" site.

We could talk about that.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

> most child abuse takes place within the family.





butchersapron said:


> Your family maybe.


You what?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 6, 2010)

Prefer not to when you have responded to a simple point with an attempt at smarse arse shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2010)

You're south African aren't you? Have i  made a terrible mistake?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

Crossed wires, and cross people, are to be expected in this territory


----------



## JHE (Feb 6, 2010)

fogbat said:


> You can search under the following categories:
> 
> Animal Cruelty
> Britains Most Wanted
> ...





a_chap said:


> When did working for Social Services become criminalised?



That bit, as you may have anticipated, seems to be about Social Workers' _failures._

The bit I like is about 'animal cruelty'.  Apparently, there is some brute who forgot to feed his goldfish all week.  For people like that... pfff... hanging's too good for them.


----------



## grogwilton (Feb 6, 2010)

I love the distinction between Northern Ireland and regular terrorists!

To be honest you can't really blame the people of Weymouth for being wary of strangers. It was strangers who brought the greatest disaster in european history to England through Weymouth.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> The fact that many of them have since b
> een convicted of child porn offences doesn't show anything beyond that; there's evidence that a more permissive attitude to porn reduces the amount of rape, for example.



I'm sure the children abused and raped in such "porn" - the violation exacerbated long after the event by the knowledge that paedophiles are continuing to gain gratification from that abuse - are so sanguine. 

You fucking prick.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

For my part, I'm sure it's people like you, that are the real problem. Folks like you who have decided it's certain that someone who looks at  porn will go on to rape.

Better fling everyone who's ever looked at porn into a jail cell, just to be on the safe side, eh?

Twit.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

Let me say it again: there's no evidence that a more punitive attitude to porn and sex reduces the amount of rape and delinquent sexuality.

It would be odd if it did, if one thinks about it.  Sexual violence and coercion is not really compatible  with sexual liberation and openness.  It seems to be more the case that sexual repression breeds violence and delinquency in sexual relations. 

The gentle reader knows this perfectly well, I suspect.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2010)

Why do you try and write like a shit claire rayner? "Gentle reader" - fucking hell.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Let me say it again: there's no evidence that a more punitive attitude to porn and sex reduces the amount of rape and delinquent sexuality.
> 
> It would be odd if it did, if one thinks about it.  Sexual violence and coercion is not really compatible  with sexual liberation and openness.  It seems to be more the case that sexual repression breeds violence and delinquency in sexual relations.
> 
> The gentle reader knows this perfectly well, I suspect.



The point is that to make most child porn children are abused. It is that simple, and you have not responded to that point.

You have also tried to equate anti-paedo attitudes to obsessions about stranger danger. But, if you look at the site in question it reports on at home paedo scum as much as people attacking children they don't know.

What I find strange is why you have such a knee jerk reaction to people suggesting that child porn and paedophilia are wrong.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why do you try and write like a shit claire rayner? "Gentle reader" - fucking hell.


Obviously that doesn't apply to the "Your dad was a paedo" brigade.

Great leadership there, butchers.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

kenny g said:


> The point is that to make most child porn children are abused. It is that simple, and you have not responded to that point.
> 
> You have also tried to equate anti-paedo attitudes to obsessions about stranger danger. But, if you look at the site in question it reports on at home paedo scum as much as people attacking children they don't know.
> 
> What I find strange is why you have such a knee jerk reaction to people suggesting that child porn and paedophilia are wrong.


I don't.

Silly boy!


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2010)

TheDave said:


> No, but I was at the counter-protest. Free the Paedos!


You and Workers Power


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Let me say it again: there's no evidence that a more punitive attitude to porn and sex reduces the amount of rape and delinquent sexuality.
> 
> It would be odd if it did, if one thinks about it.  Sexual violence and coercion is not really compatible  with sexual liberation and openness.  It seems to be more the case that sexual repression breeds violence and delinquency in sexual relations.


Even accepting that your dubious claims about porn featuring adults are true (and I don't), it doesn't change the fact that the production of child pornography necessarily involves the sexual abuse of a child.  It's really very simple and trying to make it more complicated doesn't make you look as clever as you seem to think it does.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2010)

cybertect said:


> That strategy really worked well in March 2003, didn't it?


The government never listens to anyone.
Look at the anti war demos.

Don't see Peadophiles being 'located' in Rich parts of Hampstead, or other residential areas where upper middle or rulling class live so why drop these people in less affluent areas?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

kenny g said:


> The point is that to make most child porn children are abused. It is that simple, and you have not responded to that point.


I have, actually; the view that "child porn is child abuse" was my response.  

It's not always true of course; there have been cases where people have been accused of possessing "child porn" which turned out to be the kind of images any parent may take*.  And a cartoon, which does not depict any particular child, may be called "child pornography" in some jurisdictions, even if no-one ever sees the cartoon apart from its creator.



> You have also tried to equate anti-paedo attitudes to obsessions about stranger danger. But, if you look at the site in question it reports on at home paedo scum as much as people attacking children they don't know.


I was commenting on the video described above by fogbat.

But anyway, stranger danger is minute and easily guarded against, compared to the familial abuse.  _You should know this._

ETA: * this is not always as illogical as it might seem at first sight.  Having a photo of oneself in the family album is quite different from having it in the public domain!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

In Bloom said:


> Even accepting that your dubious claims about porn featuring adults are true (and I don't), it doesn't change the fact that the production of child pornography necessarily involves the sexual abuse of a child.  It's really very simple and trying to make it more complicated doesn't make you look as clever as you seem to think it does.


It should be true, I agree that "the production of child pornography necessarily involves the sexual abuse of a child".  However, it is not true, not in many jurisdictions, and certainly not in England and Wales.

I'm not trying to look clever here, but you could help in that, if you were careful to look less ignorant.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2010)

Thought this might have been similar to R#dw*tche's n*ncewatch but has far right 'terrorists on its list likre Allen Boyce.

Might be quite an interesting movement to watch. With the knee jerk reaction from many leftists and liberals may push many campaigns and people concerned  involved or sympathetic to such campaigns as this into the hands of BNP/UKIP and alike.

Obviously there are some dodgy views involved in this growing movement but patronising & condescending people about this issue is stupid and could have devastating effect on trying to build progressive working class movements.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 6, 2010)

Nigel said:


> Obviously there are some dodgy views involved in this growing movement but patronising & condescending people about this issue is stupid and could have devastating effect on trying to build progressive working class movements.



but we dont know whether this (ratbook) is a progressive working class movement

its got money behind it, thats for sure, my bet would be some ukip/FA/fringe tory types

whoever it is they dont want to say


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2010)

smokedout said:


> but we dont know whether this (ratbook) is a progressive working class movement
> 
> its got money behind it, thats for sure, my bet would be some ukip/FA/fringe tory types
> 
> whoever it is they dont want to say



Not sure I 100% agree with you on this one.
Looked through Br*t Democr@cy F0rum, UK C0ll+m et al; the usual place where people of that ilk post and nothing there.

If they were involved these predominately eccentric ego maniacs usually close to suicidal for self publicity would have posted somewhere.

Same argument was put for the EDL.
Think you are putting the Kart Before The Horse on this one!


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Let me say it again: there's no evidence that a more punitive attitude to porn and sex reduces the amount of rape and delinquent sexuality.
> 
> It would be odd if it did, if one thinks about it.  Sexual violence and coercion is not really compatible  with sexual liberation and openness.  It seems to be more the case that sexual repression breeds violence and delinquency in sexual relations.
> 
> The gentle reader knows this perfectly well, I suspect.



Why not read what you wrote?  Your post looks likes it's defending child porn.  Is it?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

So you say, but that's just your projection; it's not what I said at all.


> there's no evidence that a more punitive attitude to porn and sex reduces the amount of rape and delinquent sexuality.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

smokedout said:


> but we dont know whether this (ratbook) is a progressive working class movement
> 
> its got money behind it, thats for sure, my bet would be some ukip/FA/fringe tory types
> 
> whoever it is they dont want to say


No, they don't do they, and that is odd, given we are to believe this is a public spirited bunch of working class folk.

The paymasters, whoever they are, seem unconcerned with hate attacks against gays and lesbians, let alone hate attacks against blacks or jews or muslims. Also an odd omission, one might have thought.

Except that to question this site is dangerous; if one did so, some fools might even accuse one of defending paedophilia.


----------



## a_chap (Feb 6, 2010)

ZZZzzz...


----------



## Sgt Howie (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Let me say it again: there's no evidence that a more punitive attitude to porn and sex reduces the amount of rape and delinquent sexuality.



This isn't about a "punitive attitude to porn and sex". It's about a punitive attitude to images depicting child abuse and images which themselves constitute child abuse.

I'm new to this board so it's not really my place but I'm astonished that this supercillious cunt is tolerated here.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> The paymasters, whoever they are, seem unconcerned with hate attacks against gays and lesbians, let alone hate attacks against blacks or jews or muslims. Also an odd omission, one might have thought.
> 
> Except that to question this site is dangerous; if one did so, some fools might even accuse one of defending paedophilia.



funnily enough no-one seems to be accusing me of defending child porn

wonder why that is


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> ...
> I'm new to this board so it's not really my place but I'm astonished that this supercillious cunt is tolerated here.


It may well be that you could find a board more welcoming to self-appointed paedohunters.

You fucking prick.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

smokedout said:


> funnily enough no-one seems to be accusing me of defending child porn
> 
> wonder why that is


It's just the usual suspects, to be fair.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 6, 2010)

Nigel said:


> Not sure I 100% agree with you on this one.
> Looked through Br*t Democr@cy F0rum, UK C0ll+m et al; the usual place where people of that ilk post and nothing there.
> 
> If they were involved these predominately eccentric ego maniacs usually close to suicidal for self publicity would have posted somewhere.
> ...



fair enough, its pure speculation, but those flash games have got adertising agency written all over them and ad agencies dont come cheap

which suggests either a wealthy funder or venture capital, it doesnt suggest a grass roots working class movement

and even if it was cooked up in a dudley chip shop the whole premise of it is flawed and it comes across as reactionary rather than progressive

for the reasons mentioned on this thread there may be a case for communities organising and making each other aware that serious sex offenders are being housed locally but thats a long way from people needing to be informed of the naked ramblers location (described as a pervert) or the fact your social worker neighbour has appeared before a disciplinary hearing


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> So you say, but that's just your projection; it's not what I said at all.



I'm wondering what you mean by this then



Jonti said:


> The fact that many of them have since been convicted of child porn offences doesn't show anything beyond that; there's evidence that a more permissive attitude to porn reduces the amount of rape, for example.



Why the semicolon?  It implies that you think child porn is OK because it reduces the incidences of child rape.  If you didn't mean that, then think more carefully about what you write.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

Perhaps you need to think more carefully what is meant?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Perhaps you need to think more carefully what is meant?



Seeing as several people think you are defending child porn, I think it's you that needs to choose your words and punctuation more carefully.  Unless you were defending child porn of course.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

Of course. Good to plant the suggestion in people's minds, eh, Blagsta?

Thing is, I'm sure it's people like you, that are the real problem. Folks like you who have decided it is certain that someone who looks at porn will go on to rape.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I'm sure it's people like you, that are the real problem. Folks like you who have decided it's certain that someone who looks at porn will go on to rape.



And you resort to your usual straw man smearing tactics.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

Oh, that made me laugh out loud!

It's not really funny I know; but for those who don't get the humour, Blagsta has a habit of siding with folks who like to sling around accusations like "rapist" and "paedophile". And the second-hand bully even tries to look moral and superior while he does it.

'Tis very amusing!


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 6, 2010)

Yet more of it.  What a shit you are.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

It's true I won't put up with you.

But I have no interest in you, so you could just leave me alone.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 6, 2010)

fuck off jonti you piece of shit


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

No, I won't.

Does that mean you will redouble your efforts to brand me as some sort of supporter of child rape?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 6, 2010)

I haven't done that you lying smearing piece of shit.  What I have done is to question something you wrote (and I'm not the only one).  As I said, maybe you need to think more carefully about how you phrase things.

Now fuck off.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

> Unless you were defending child porn of course.


Of course you have done that.  

Perhaps my reading is mistaken, but it does look as if you meant to, and now you've been called on it you're resorting to foul-mouthed abuse.

Take a holiday!


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Of course.



Were you?  I'm guessing you just phrased something badly.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 6, 2010)

_Note to self: Blagsta doesn't do irony._

I'm glad we cleared that up 

No need for future "confusions" from you about what I'm saying then?


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2010)

*Warts And All*



smokedout said:


> fair enough, its pure speculation, but those flash games have got adertising agency written all over them and ad agencies dont come cheap
> 
> which suggests either a wealthy funder or venture capital, it doesnt suggest a grass roots working class movement
> 
> ...


Not to be supportive of genuine concerns could & more than likely will give advantage to fringe right and other reactionary elements.


----------



## smokedout (Feb 6, 2010)

Nigel said:


> Not to be supportive of genuine concerns could & more than likely will give advantage to fringe right and other reactionary elements.



ive argued for that, but this site has the potential to go way beyond what could be considered reasonable

id propse a counter-site which could feature info on nonces, but also scabs, bent coppers, screws, bailiffs and cunt landlords

if i had the time that is


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2010)

Its not just about posting stuff on the internet.
Being involved in such action is far more important.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 6, 2010)

Jonti said:


> _Note to self: Blagsta doesn't do irony._
> 
> I'm glad we cleared that up
> 
> No need for future "confusions" from you about what I'm saying then?



Everyone can see what a lying shit you are.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2010)

You fucking reek jonti


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You fucking reek jonti



You smell of death.


----------



## Awen (Feb 7, 2010)

> The general consensus amongst those who attended the demonstration was that, if enough people made their voices heard, then something would be done. What that something must be remains to be seen.


I think they should decide upon a set of realistic targets/policies/changes to be made rather than just turn up and try to look righteous.

Otherwise, I don't really see how the demonstration is going to make a difference.

ETA: Wow, this site is a hub of targets for thugs.


----------



## dylans (Feb 7, 2010)

Awen said:


> I think they should decide upon a set of realistic targets/policies/changes to be made rather than just turn up and try to look righteous.
> 
> Otherwise, I don't really see how the demonstration is going to make a difference.
> 
> ETA: Wow, this site is a hub of targets for thugs.



But that's the whole point, there are no "realistc policies" because it is a demonstration based on fear of mythical demons. The paedo in the park with a bag of sweets. Of course the abuse all around them, the very real issue of domestic abuse is completely ignored in favour of a tabloid inspired fear of strangers. The abuse isn't in the home.No, its out there, it's mysterious pedos surfing the web and hanging around the parks. Lets demand more CRBs. Lets demand something be done.

 I'm not only talking about domestic sexual and physical abuse (which is where the vast majority of child abuse takes place)  but also the mundane neglect of loveless relationships where children grow up feeling they are an unwanted burden.

I've lost count of the times I've collected my kid from school and passed miserable parents yelling at their kids to "get down, stop it, come ere, don't do that" Not the abuse that gets reported in the sun but miserable loveless lives nonetheless.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 7, 2010)

dylans said:


> But that's the whole point, there are no "realistc policies" because it is a demonstration based on fear of mythical demons. The paedo in the park with a bag of sweets. Of course the abuse all around them, the very real issue of domestic abuse is completely ignored in favour of a tabloid inspired fear of strangers. The abuse isn't in the home.No, its out there, it's mysterious pedos surfing the web and hanging around the parks. Lets demand more CRBs. Lets demand something be done.
> 
> I'm not only talking about domestic sexual and physical abuse (which is where the vast majority of child abuse takes place)  but also the mundane neglect of loveless relationships where children grow up feeling they are an unwanted burden.



Well hmm, I'm fairly sure that I'm not a paedophile, so am I allowed to care where sex offenders may be housed if they are near me, or not ??




> I've lost count of the times I've collected my kid from school and passed miserable parents yelling at their kids to "get down, stop it, come ere, don't do that" Not the abuse that gets reported in the sun but miserable loveless lives nonetheless.



Is that abuse??


----------



## Spion (Feb 7, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Well hmm, I'm fairly sure that I'm not a paedophile, so am I allowed to care where sex offenders may be housed if they are near me, or not ??


What would you do about it if you knew?

Do you want to know all the convictions of all the people that live nearby?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 7, 2010)

Spion said:


> What would you do about it if you knew?
> 
> Do you want to know all the convictions of all the people that live nearby?



Did you disagree with the addresses of BNP members being published?


----------



## Spion (Feb 7, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Did you disagree with the addresses of BNP members being published?


you answer my questions and I'll answer yours


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 7, 2010)

Spion said:


> you answer my questions and I'll answer yours



I'd go around with a flame torched mob and burn their house down, obviously.


----------



## argenteum (Feb 7, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Is that abuse??



Neglect is apparently the hardest form of abuse for a kid to recover from.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 7, 2010)

argenteum said:


> Neglect is apparently the hardest form of abuse for a kid to recover from.



Is it neglect? Calling to your kid?? What exactly was supposed to have been done?


----------



## argenteum (Feb 7, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Is it neglect? Calling to your kid?? What exactly was supposed to have been done?



Simply shouting at kids or getting angry at them, no. 

Letting them know full well that they're an unwanted burden, yes.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 7, 2010)

argenteum said:


> Simply shouting at kids or getting angry at them, no.
> 
> Letting them know full well that they're an unwanted burden, yes.



It just seems a bit odd, to decide that some random parents on the street are committing neglect to their kids, then moralising to everyone about how they have no rights to know about persons who have actually been convicted of a crime.


----------



## Zaskar (Feb 7, 2010)

Anti peedo demo? - fuckwits - hopeless morons - a mob.
Pro peedo demo - even worse....


----------



## dylans (Feb 7, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> It just seems a bit odd, to decide that some random parents on the street are committing neglect to their kids, then moralising to everyone about how they have no rights to know about persons who have actually been convicted of a crime.



My point is simply that these hysterical "anti pedo" demonstrations are wrong on two levels. First because they are built on an irrational fear of strangers, a kind of modern day Frankenstein witch hunt for mythical monsters where none really exist and by doing so they feed into a tabloid led tendency to distrust everyone. To approach all relationships, be they neighbours, school professionals, new boyfriends, friends etc, from the onset  as potential abusers of our kids. 

In doing so we destroy all sense of community, all sense of neighbourliness and all society. We end up fearing everyone and everything and throwing ourselves on the all wise all seeing mercy of the state to save us from ourselves. So more regulation, more disclosure legislation, more CRBs more CCTV cameras more interferance in our lives. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to hide cliche becomes the norm. I don't want to live like that.. 

Second because by indulging in this monster hunt they divert attention from the real abuse and neglect that is all around us.. There is no doubt that the vast vast majority of abuse and neglect is hiidden behind the net curtains.

Yes, I think the kind of low level neglect and bored resentment I mentioned earlier is abuse. Not one as easily tangible as the pedo with the bag of sweets image but abuse nevertheless. By focusing on monsters we ignore the reality of the abuse that is all around us.


----------



## dylans (Feb 7, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Well hmm, I'm fairly sure that I'm not a paedophile, so am I allowed to care where sex offenders may be housed if they are near me, or not ?



Your children really aren't in much danger from sex offenders living nearby. They really aren't. They are much more in danger from someone you know. So no, you don't need to know and you really shouldn't worry about it. Nobody is waiting in the park to fuck our kids.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 7, 2010)

dylans said:


> My point is simply that these hysterical "anti pedo" demonstrations are wrong on two levels. First because they are built on an irrational fear of strangers, a kind of modern day Frankenstein witch hunt for mythical monsters where none really exist and by doing so they feed into a tabloid led tendency to distrust everyone. To approach all relationships, be they neighbours, school professionals, new boyfriends, friends etc, from the onset  as potential abusers of our kids.
> 
> In doing so we destroy all sense of community, all sense of neighbourliness and all society. We end up fearing everyone and everything and throwing ourselves on the all wise all seeing mercy of the state to save us from ourselves. So more regulation, more disclosure legislation, more CRBs more CCTV cameras more interferance in our lives. The "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to hide cliche becomes the norm. I don't want to live like that..


 Not talking about the demonstrations, but wanting to know where sex offenders live - why not? Surely it will help dispell rumours and wrongful accusations against innocent people? Which can and do already happen.



> Second because by indulging in this monster hunt they divert attention from the real abuse and neglect that is all around us.. There is no doubt that the vast vast majority of abuse and neglect is hiidden behind the net curtains.
> 
> Yes, I think the kind of low level neglect and bored resentment I mentioned earlier is abuse. Not one as easily tangible as the pedo with the bag of sweets image but abuse nevertheless. By focusing on monsters we ignore the reality of the abuse that is all around us.



But you are jumping to a huge moral conclusion of 'neglect' based on nothing more than an observation + your imagination. This is the kind of thing you are criticising in others when it comes to accusing or suspicions of paedophiles.

Maybe people do have a right to know if someone convicted of abuse is coming to live near them, I think -- this does indeed happen, it seems as if you're actually trying to suggest this does not occur. Just because abuse happens inside the family does not mean they do not also occur outside it, too. 

By the way, newspapers regularly publish the details of people caught shopifting and the like, how is this different??

The only thing that would worry me would be people who had been wrongly convicted -- but that is a problem in itself -- no way should accusations that have not resulted in a successful prosecution be made public though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 7, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Not talking about the demonstrations, but wanting to know where sex offenders live - why not? Surely it will help dispell rumours and wrongful accusations against innocent people? Which can and do already happen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Shoplifters don't usually arouse murderous rage in people.

Usually. I'm no fan of the judiciary, but if we are to have one then according to it's own logic it has to be the only punisher. If that means protecting a beast from lynch mobs then that is what must happen.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 7, 2010)

Which 'lynch' mobs?As opposed to a demonstration?

And if they do occur already, how would having the facts- rather than second hand gossip/ hearsay actually make things worse?


----------



## dylans (Feb 7, 2010)

> you are jumping to a huge moral conclusion of 'neglect' based on nothing more than an observation + your imagination. This is the kind of thing you are criticising in others when it comes to accusing or suspicions of paedophiles.



My point is simply that most abuse and neglect isn't spectacular. It isn't tabloid worthy and it is overlooked by almost everyone. It is the low level misery and loveless childhoods that is inflicted on an untold number of kids all around us but noone gives it a second thought. I think if you raise your kids without a word of encouragement and crush all forms of self expression you give kids miserable lives. If all your kid ever hears is "stop it" they grow up with the message that they are an unwanted burden. I see and hear this all the time, it's not a moral judgement its an observation. . 



> Not talking about the demonstrations, but wanting to know where sex offenders live - why not? Surely it will help dispell rumours and wrongful accusations against innocent people? Which can and do already happen.



Sorry but that is bollocks. You and I know exactly what it would lead to. It would lead to a lynch mob. 



> Is it neglect? Calling to your kid?? What exactly was supposed to have been done?



How about letting the kid play? 

I'm not talking about frustrated parents occasionally yelling at their kids, I'm talking about parents who do nothing but. I'm talking about kids who grow up hearing nothing but the message that they are a burden.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 7, 2010)

I don't understand you here. Not having a pop, but could you rephrase in a manner that might get through to my soggy brain?
@angel


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 7, 2010)

?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 7, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Is that abuse??



People shouting at their kids agressively is abuse, yes.  I see far too much of it in Brum.  "Put that down you little shit" being a lovely example, shouted to a 3 year old boy at a bus stop when he picked his chocolate off the floor after dropping it.  All too common unfortunately.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> People shouting at their kids agressively is abuse, yes.  I see far too much of it in Brum.  "Put that down you little shit" being a lovely example, shouted to a 3 year old boy at a bus stop when he picked his chocolate off the floor after dropping it.  All too common unfortunately.



That wasn't what was posted in the original post, though, that's why I questioned it.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 7, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> That wasn't what was posted in the original post, though, that's why I questioned it.



I think yelling at kids all the time to "not do that" and to "come here" is verging on the abusive, yes.  Would you talk like that to an adult?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 7, 2010)

dylans said:


> Sorry but that is bollocks. You and I know exactly what it would lead to. It would lead to a lynch mob.


Actually, it's already the case in parts of the US that the details (including full names, addresses and photographs) of convicted sex offenders are easily available to anybody who wants to know, look up "Megan's Law" if you don't believe me.  I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea, but I've yet to hear of large numbers of lynching of paedophiles in the US.

Frankly, I think it shows a disturbingly misanthropic and elitist view of the world that so many people on here think that the second people know that a sex offender lives in their area they're going to break out the pitchforks and burning torches.


----------



## dylans (Feb 7, 2010)

In Bloom said:


> Actually, it's already the case in parts of the US that the details (including full names, addresses and photographs) of convicted sex offenders are easily available to anybody who wants to know, look up "Megan's Law" if you don't believe me.  I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea, but I've yet to hear of large numbers of lynching of paedophiles in the US.
> 
> Frankly, I think it shows a disturbingly misanthropic and elitist view of the world that so many people on here think that the second people know that a sex offender lives in their area they're going to break out the pitchforks and burning torches.



You are very optimistic about the character of some people. I suggest you watch Nick Broomfield's excellent documentary "being Maxine Carr" about attacks on completely innocent women who were mistaken for Maxine Carr. It's a chilling account of where the blind witchhunt mentality can lead. 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/being-maxine-carr/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1



> Since Maxine Carr, the former girlfriend of Soham murderer Ian Huntley, left jail and started life with a new identity in 2004, more than a dozen women around Britain have been mistaken for her and hunted from their homes, despite having no resemblance to Carr and being able to prove their real identity.
> 
> For the vicious whispering campaigns that swept their towns such details became irrelevant, driven by an unfulfilled vengeance against Maxine Carr.
> 
> This documentary meets three innocent women whose lives took surreal and horrific turns when they moved to new towns. To some of their neighbours they were unquestionably Maxine Carr, and each woman's protests fell on deaf ears.





Hysteria has it's own dynamic and it's clear where the logic of aimless "anti pedo" demonstrations leads.



> *Blagsta*
> People shouting at their kids agressively is abuse, yes. I see far too much of it in Brum. "Put that down you little shit" being a lovely example, shouted to a 3 year old boy at a bus stop when he picked his chocolate off the floor after dropping it. All too common unfortunately.



It's not often I find myself agreeing with Blagsta but he is spot on here. 

I wait with my son at the bus stop every afternoon when I pick him up from school and I swear I have never heard a good word from some parents towards their kids. It's a torrent of "_come here NOW", "get down", "get off that", "be quiet", "how many times have I told you" "I will give you a good hiding," "Shut up._" Never so much as a single good word.  It's so bad that my 10 year old actually looks at me and rolls his eyes. He even commented that he was so glad he didn't have them for parents. Worse than that, when I  play with my son, and run around and play tig or encourage him to climb walls and trees, they look at me like i'm nuts. 

This is a form of abuse yes. A low level demoralising soul destroying form of abuse that is accepted and ignored. I certainly don't see any of the people demonstrating against "pedos" addressing the issue.

And I am supposed to worry about mythical monsters in the bushes?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2010)

Paedophilia is a disease.  But these days it provides an opportunity for sadists and law-and-order fetishists to vent their hatred.  You can say anything you like about a "paedo," you can unload all your darkest emotions on them, and be fairly sure that you won´t get criticized for it.  People who obsessively rant and rage against paedophiles are just as perverted as the paedophiles themselves.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 7, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Paedophilia is a disease.



Maybe, and the most humane cure is suicide.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 7, 2010)

dylans said:


> You are very optimistic about the character of some people. I suggest you watch Nick Broomfield's excellent documentary "being Maxine Carr" about attacks on completely innocent women who were mistaken for Maxine Carr. It's a chilling account of where the blind witchhunt mentality can lead.
> 
> http://www.channel4.com/programmes/being-maxine-carr/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1
> 
> Hysteria has it's own dynamic and it's clear where the logic of aimless "anti pedo" demonstrations leads.


Well as far as I can see, there's no actual connection between the Maxine Carr stuff and the sort of demonstration mentioned in the OP.  There's also no link between that and what I was actually talking about (laws allowing people to access details about convicted sex offenders in their area).  I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong but as far as I know there is no serious problem with vigilante attacks against paedophiles in states in America with some version of "Megan's law".

Basically, you're lumping things together that don't really belong.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2010)

In Bloom said:


> Well as far as I can see, there's no actual connection between the Maxine Carr stuff and the sort of demonstration mentioned in the OP.  There's also no link between that and what I was actually talking about (laws allowing people to access details about convicted sex offenders in their area).  I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong but as far as I know there is no serious problem with vigilante attacks against paedophiles in states in America with some version of "Megan's law".



You don´t know very far then.  There are many such attacks.  Well tbh I don¨t have any statistics, but they are often reported in the media.


----------



## TheDave (Feb 7, 2010)

In Bloom said:


> Well as far as I can see, there's no actual connection between the Maxine Carr stuff and the sort of demonstration mentioned in the OP.  There's also no link between that and what I was actually talking about (laws allowing people to access details about convicted sex offenders in their area).  I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong but as far as I know there is no serious problem with vigilante attacks against paedophiles in states in America with some version of "Megan's law".
> 
> Basically, you're lumping things together that don't really belong.



I think the point is if that people are willing to act in such ways as assault and harassing a woman who is rumoured to be Maxine Carr, a person only sentenced for lying to the police essentially then the reaction of those who had access to information on the whereabouts of actual sex offenders would be a million times worse.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 7, 2010)

If people knew where the real Maxine Carr was then the innocent would have nothing to worry about. 

"Only lying to the Police" to protect a paedophile who had killed two young girls is hardly a minor matter.

The problem with comparing forms of neglect and shouting etc with paedophilia is that it can encourage paedos into thinking that their behaviour is in some way socially acceptable. At least, they say, they aren't as bad as those parents who shout and scream at their kids or hit their kids, the paedo believes that he has real , valuable relationships with children. The paedo teacher or priest believes he has a special bond with his pupils that has helped them pass exams and go on in life. In a way he has saved them from loveless lives etc etc. The paedo wishes to believe that he is not  bad, but merely misunderstood by an irrational world. 

The paedo who is restricted to devoting itself to the consumption of images of children will justify these actions by rationalising that by doing so he is preventing himself from taking actions far worse.

The paedo who does not use brute force but believes that he builds relationships with those he abuses will justify his actions by his self perceived gentleness.

The paedo who uses brute force but does not kill will similarly try to explain how moral his actions are.

At the end of the day this is about adults abusing children. As the state has obviously failed in protecting them by repeatedly placing paedo scum in close proximity, by providing minor penalties for people who access paedo material, schools have covered up paedo teachers, and churches have tried to hush up the presence of abusive priests, it is apparent that children,  parents, and the wider community should be able to know the identity of convicted paedos.

 If paedos believe they have an incurable disease, I would highly recommend they read the  book Final Exit, by Derek Humphry, ISBN 0-3853365-3-5.  It is available online and provides a relatively pain free, effective and permanent cure for those afflicted.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2010)

kenny g said:


> It is apparent that some paedos believe they have an incurable disease. If this is the case then I would highly recommend they read the  book Final Exit, by Derek Humphry, ISBN 0-3853365-3-5  it is available online and provides a relatively pain free, effective and permanent cure for those afflicted.



The vast majority of paedophiles never act on their impulses.  Do you think they should kill themselves too?


----------



## dylans (Feb 7, 2010)

In Bloom said:


> Well as far as I can see, there's no actual connection between the Maxine Carr stuff and the sort of demonstration mentioned in the OP.
> 
> Basically, you're lumping things together that don't really belong.



Don't be so naive. Of course there is a direct connection. 

Reported in the independant. August 2000. 


> Housing officials and social workers will today start knocking on the doors of *15 people named on a hit list of suspected child sex offenders, which provoked nightly disorder and demonstrations on the streets of the Portsmouth estate.
> *
> Yesterday, the home that Mrs Adams, a 44-year-old shop assistant, shared with her husband, Lee, and teenage son, Matt, lay empty as it emerged that the family were one of five who have *been wrongly driven from Paulsgrove by anti-paedophile vigilantes.*


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rt-after-vigilante-attack-on-home-710776.html

BBC on the same story 


> Police say the public reaction has been hysterical and that innocent people are suffering.



And where does the hysteria come from? Oh what a surprise. 


> The trouble began when the News of the World started its naming and shaming of paedophiles campaign. The paper has now stopped that policy but the protests are continuing.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/872436.stm

Yeah but there is no connection with this kind of hysteria and peaceful protests of course.


> P*rotests have escalated from peaceful demonstrations into riots* with police coming under fire, cars being burned and windows smashed.


Yeah but Pedo's innit?


----------



## dylans (Feb 7, 2010)

> *Kenny G*
> If people knew where the real Maxine Carr was then the innocent would have nothing to worry about.



Yeah then the vigilantes could lynch her in peace. If you are too dumb to see the ugly ignorant animalism behind the attacks on Maxine Carr lookalikes,  then I really can't be bothered to explain it to you


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 7, 2010)

kenny g said:


> If people knew where the real Maxine Carr was then the innocent would have nothing to worry about.



Can you be clear about what you¨re saying here, please?  

Are you saying that you think Maxine Carr should be physically attacked?


----------



## dylans (Feb 8, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Can you be clear about what you¨re saying here, please?
> 
> Are you saying that you think Maxine Carr should be physically attacked?



He's saying that and more. He is saying that attacks on innocent people are justifiable because the real Maxine Carr can't be found and lynched. What a twat.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 8, 2010)

dylans said:


> He's saying that and more. He is saying that attacks on innocent people are justifiable because the real Maxine Carr can't be found and lynched. What a twat.



I¨m not sure what he¨s saying.  

I am sure that hysterical, irrational and obsessive denunciations of "paedos" conceal a hidden agenda.


----------



## dylans (Feb 8, 2010)

> *Kenny G*
> The problem with comparing forms of neglect and shouting etc with paedophilia is that it can encourage paedos into thinking that their behaviour is in some way socially acceptable.



You have this on it's head. The opposite is the case. When people demonstrate against "pedo's" They are unconsciously saying. Look at us. We don't abuse. We are normal. Abusers are people out there. they are identifiable strangers brought in to our communities by outsiders, by do-gooders. Communities which are otherwise moral and pure. All we need to do is drive out the monsters and everything will be ok. 

 It is a red herring and distracts from the reality which is that abuse is overwhelmingly domestic at all levels.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 8, 2010)

dylans said:


> Don't be so naive. Of course there is a direct connection.
> 
> Reported in the independant. August 2000.
> 
> ...


Sorry, what the fuck does any of this have to do with Maxine Carr?  Or public access to details about _convicted_ sex offenders?

I'm not saying that violence against people mistakenly thought to be sex offenders doesn't happen.  But you've made some fairly specific claims about these demonstrations and US style laws allowing people to know about paedophiles living in their community, which you've not really backed up so much as waved in the general direction of tangentally related incidents.




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> You don´t know very far then. There are many such attacks. Well tbh I don¨t have any statistics, but they are often reported in the media.


Media reports of isolated incidents being, of course, the best way to get an accurate picture of wider social issues.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I think yelling at kids all the time to "not do that" and to "come here" is verging on the abusive, yes.  Would you talk like that to an adult?



No that's a stupid comparison. If it is *all* the time it is a shit way to bring up kids. If it is to stop them running into traffic etc there's a reason for it. Either way not comparable with rape or murder.


----------



## dylans (Feb 8, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> No that's a stupid comparison. If it is *all* the time it is a shit way to bring up kids. If it is to stop them running into traffic etc there's a reason for it. Either way not comparable with rape or murder.



I will assume you are willfully ignoring the point and you are not just stupid. No one is comparing it to rape and murder. I am merely pointing out that by focusing on bogeymen and monsters and other non existant threats to our kids. We blindly ignore the low level abuse that is all around us.

 More than that, such demonstrations actually risk increasing such abuse because they label the problem as the other, the outsider, the stranger, the "pedo" instead of looking at ourselves and our own communities. They say. Look at us. We are better than the evil stranger. We can demonstrate against the "pedo" because we are pure and good. Abuse is something that is brought into our communities by outsiders. It doesn't exist without them. The solution is simple. Move the "pedo" and everything will be rosy. 

You are aware that the overwhelming majority of sexual and physical abuse occurs in the home?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 8, 2010)

dylans said:


> I will assume you are willfully ignoring the point and you are not just stupid. No one is comparing it to rape and murder. I am merely pointing out that by focusing on bogeymen and monsters and other non existant threats to our kids. We blindly ignore the low level abuse that is all around us.
> 
> More than that, such demonstrations actually risk increasing such abuse because they label the problem as the other, the outsider, the stranger, the "pedo" instead of looking at ourselves and our own communities. They say. Look at us. We are better than the evil stranger. We can demonstrate against the "pedo" because we are pure and good. Abuse is something that is brought into our communities by outsiders. It doesn't exist without them. The solution is simple. Move the "pedo" and everything will be rosy.
> 
> You are aware that the overwhelming majority of sexual and physical abuse occurs in the home?




WOW! Quite a lot of patronising there.

Banging on and on again and again about "abuse happening in the home" (I do know, thanks) does not actually mean that parents are wrong to be concerned about sex offenders being housed in their communities. It is not a "myth" at all as it does happen.

I am well aware, thankyou, of the risk being "low" but it does not mean someone is wrong for being worried about it when and if sex offenders are being placed in close proximity to them.

Why is there always a "you can't be worried about x because y also happens" attitude on here??

By the way -- actually someone on this thread has a) defined shouting at your kids as abuse and neglect and someone has also b) gone on to define neglect as the "worst kind of abuse". So actually the argument seemed to be saying that shouting at your kids = the worst kind of abuse. Can you really judge someone that well by just passing them on the street?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 8, 2010)

dylans said:


> You are very optimistic about the character of some people. I suggest you watch Nick Broomfield's excellent documentary "being Maxine Carr" about attacks on completely innocent women who were mistaken for Maxine Carr. It's a chilling account of where the blind witchhunt mentality can lead.



She is not a sex offender.

Her address has not been made public.

How on earth would a proposed change in the law have made this situation worse??


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 8, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> No that's a stupid comparison. If it is *all* the time it is a shit way to bring up kids. If it is to stop them running into traffic etc there's a reason for it. Either way not comparable with rape or murder.



If it's all the time, it's abuse.  Just as damaging as sexual abuse.


----------



## Sadken (Feb 8, 2010)

Me and my pals from Paedo4UK are going to be marching through Chessington World of Adventures this weekend.


----------



## dylans (Feb 8, 2010)

> *angel*
> She is not a sex offender.
> Her address has not been made public.
> How on earth would a proposed change in the law have made this situation worse??


Are you that dense?

In August 2000 the News Of the World published the names and photos of people it said were convicted sex offenders. The result was a string of vigilante attacks on suspected "pedo's" including several people who were completely innocent. A direct result of these names being published. 

And you think this isn't relevent to the argument that making the addresses of sex offenders public leads to vigilante attacks? It did, it does and it will. 



> Last night, more than 150 people rioted outside the Portsmouth flat of convicted paedophile Victor Burnett, who was also named in the newspaper's campaign. During the three hours of violence which left a policeman in hospital, Mr Burnett's flat was stoned, a car outside was overturned and set on fire, and a brick was thrown into the face of a policeman


.
1. This is a recipe for vigilantism. It has been shown to be exactly that. 

2. It is a red herring which distracts from the reality of child abuse.

No, Maxine Carr is not a sex offender. She is however a hate figure, a tabloid inspired bogeyman . Imagine what would happen if her address _was_ known


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 8, 2010)

Are YOU that dense?

Why on earth do you think I agree with the News of the World publishing people's addresses.. and especially of 'suspected' paedophiles.

If the police - _not_ the tabloid press- made information, not speculation available to local communities -- ie NOT for press release, then that would actually be information that was correct being passed on to local communities.

That would be the opposite of a tabloid hysteria campaign based on half truths and vagueness.

Maxine Carr's address (again - not a paedohphile) and identity is being protected simply because our media did indeed instigate a hate campaign against her. Totally not what I agree with being done (the hate campaign)

If people were given a bit of respect in the first place to deal with these issues, maybe the tabloids wouldn't be able to exploit the very fact that they have no power or no say over what goes on in their local communities by doing something as irresponsible as publishing addresses of people.


----------



## dylans (Feb 8, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Are YOU that dense?
> 
> Why on earth do you think I agree with the News of the World publishing people's addresses.. and especially of 'suspected' paedophiles.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry maybe I am dense so please clarify for me. Are you in favour of Megans law type legislation in the UK? Are you in favour of the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders being given to parents who request them? Who exactly is *"local communities?"* Because that is exactly what the demonstrators in the OP are demanding.


> The concerned residents of Weymouth demanded the introduction of ‘Sarah’s law’, a law which would allow them to know more about the convicted offenders in their area.


Of course, such information is going to remain very secure and private isn't it? A parent who is given such information isn't going to tell her neighbours is she? 
Of course the Megan's law disclosure legislation in the US hasn't led to vigilante attacks has it? 


> As part of the Megan's Law system, a number of states list offenders' details on the internet, allowing parents to enter their zip code (post code) or a name, to check if anyone on the register has moved in nearby.
> 
> Mr Grange said this year alone in the US *five people had been murdered "by people who have accessed the sex offenders register, gone to their houses and killed them*."


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 8, 2010)

dylans said:


> I will assume you are willfully ignoring the point and you are not just stupid. No one is comparing it to rape and murder. I am merely pointing out that by focusing on bogeymen and monsters and other non existant threats to our kids. We blindly ignore the low level abuse that is all around us.
> 
> * Non existent threats. Sorry thats nonsense..Exaggerated maybe but real enough. And to jump from that to saying " We blindly ignore the low level abuse is all around us"  you seem to be suffering from some kind of delusion of compassionate intelligence superiority*
> 
> ...



*Its bloody sad how people can come out with shit like " You are aware that the overwhelming majority of sexual and physical abuse occurs in the home"   It might make you feel superior but most people strangely enough worry about things they feel they have less control of. 
You do know that the amount of people who abuse children is very small don't you......Wot a load of shit.....

*


----------



## dylans (Feb 8, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> *Its bloody sad how people can come out with shit like " You are aware that the overwhelming majority of sexual and physical abuse occurs in the home"   It might make you feel superior but most people strangely enough worry about things they feel they have less control of.
> You do know that the amount of people who abuse children is very small don't you......Wot a load of shit.....
> 
> *



Erm why are you quoting someone elses words under my name. the stuff in bold here 


> *Non existent threats. Sorry thats nonsense..Exaggerated maybe but real enough. And to jump from that to saying " We blindly ignore the low level abuse is all around us" you seem to be suffering from some kind of delusion of compassionate intelligence superiority*



is not my quote. Please edit it to make that clear.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 8, 2010)

I do not see why a few people seem to want to hark on about abuse being more common in the home as if this stops the need to publicise convicted paedos. When at home paedos are caught   they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home. 

Aren't the residents of the communities where these people are dumped allowed to know what is being placed amongst them? Shouldn't potential partners be able to know that the man who wants to move in on the family is a convicted paedo? Shouldn't children have the right to know who the convicted men they should cross the street to avoid are? In fact knowing who these people are will stop them being unknown bogeymen. It will increase safety and improve communities.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 8, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I do not see why a few people seem to want to hark on about abuse being more common in the home as if this stops the need to publicise convicted paedos. When at home paedos are caught   they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home.
> 
> Aren't the residents of the communities where these people are dumped allowed to know what is being placed amongst them? Shouldn't potential partners be able to know that the man who wants to move in on the family is a convicted paedo? Shouldn't children have the right to know who the convicted men they should cross the street to avoid are? In fact knowing who these people are will stop them being unknown bogeymen. It will increase safety and improve communities.



I don't know quite what the difference is either between these two groups of people, or why the majority of sane and rational people are being treated like a hysterical mob- just because there are some idiots out there, who already break the law, despite the fact there's no local official knowledge of paedophiles whereabouts.

Wishing to know whether there's a sex attacker on your street isn't the same thing as burning their house down 

I don't think that local residents associations and local primary school governors and staff are likely to be leading a pitchfork assault on someone.

All I would say is that information should not include unconvicted people.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 8, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> The vast majority of paedophiles never act on their impulses.



What leads you to make that assertion?


----------



## dylans (Feb 8, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I do not see why a few people seem to want to hark on about abuse being more common in the home as if this stops the need to publicise convicted paedos. When at home paedos are caught   they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home.
> 
> Aren't the residents of the communities where these people are dumped allowed to know what is being placed amongst them? Shouldn't potential partners be able to know that the man who wants to move in on the family is a convicted paedo? Shouldn't children have the right to know who the convicted men they should cross the street to avoid are? In fact knowing who these people are will stop them being unknown bogeymen. It will increase safety and improve communities.



No


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 8, 2010)

kenny g said:


> What leads you to make that assertion?



It's only an estimate, I admit.  Based on the literature of the past, when paedophilia was not stigmatized, and where we find very frequent expressions of desire for people who would today be underage, and comparing that evidence with the rate of detected paedophilia today.  

It also seems like common sense to me.  Assuming that most people are basically decent, I'd guess that most of those who are unfortunate enough to feel sexual desire for children would repress it as best they could.

Out of interest, what is your attitude towards paedophilia in past societies.  Do you consider people like Socrates, Oscar Wilde or Mohammed to be vile disgusting scumbags etc .  )Can't find the question mark on my Mexican keyboard).  Genuinely interested.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2010)

To be honest if I had kids I could see myself wanting to know whether nonces lived near by, even though I agree it's a bad idea in principle. I already feel slightly nauseous at the thought of a member of the BNP teaching children and if I had children wouldn't want them teaching my kids, even tho its not the same thing. So I guess I would want to know about it tbh. 

This isn't my opinion on whether it's right or not btw, it's just a gut feeling. Theoretically I agree it's the wrong idea to have a Megan's Law type thing, I don't agree that it should be right that paedophiles have to put signs up on their lawns and the like. I'm just talking about my emotional reactions and what I think they'd be if I had any kids. 

I've always had quite a "law and order" type mindset though in some respects I guess


----------



## dylans (Feb 8, 2010)

I do have a kid and it's precisely because I do that I am so adamantly against this idea. I refuse to raise my child in fear. I refuse to raise my child to approach every person in his life as a potential threat. That is exactly what this stuff does. It destroys trust and it undermines community. Do we really want to live in a world where we CRB everyone in our lives. Where every relationship is seen from the outset as a risk. Where my son can't walk home from school or play outdoors or where I can't drop him off with a neighbour while I pop out to Tesco's? Where I can't start a new relationship without having to prove i'm not a child abuser. Where my son can't invite his friends around to the house to play? 

  Do we really want to live in a world where privacy no longer exists. Where I have a state given right to know the past of the bloke who has moved down the road. I don't want to know. It's none of my business. I do expect the probation service and whoever is tasked with the rehabilitation of sex offenders to put in place proper procedures to protect the community. 

Besides, the idea that all potential abusers are quantifiable and that we are somehow safer because we know the identities of those convicted is a false security. A  Megan's law wouldn't have prevented Ian Huntley from committing his murders. He was never previously convicted of any crime. 

I refuse to live in fear and I refuse to raise my child to live in fear especially because of a hysterical fear of strangers and a threat that doesn't really exist.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2010)

I'm describing my feelings on the issue, I'm not saying whether I think anything's wrong or right.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 8, 2010)

dylans said:


> A  Megan's law wouldn't have prevented Ian Huntley from committing his murders. He was never previously convicted of any crime.



He was accused of a lot. And in today's climate one hopes he would have been put in front of a court a lot earlier. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3313501.stm



dylans said:


> I refuse to live in fear and I refuse to raise my child to live in fear especially because of a hysterical fear of strangers and* a threat that doesn't really exist. *



So Ian Huntley didn't exist? Ian Brady didn't exist? 

My children don't live in fear and I don't mind them talking to strangers etc etc. But then I don't know of anyone on the sex offenders register in my town.

When I was a child I lived in a town where the priest was later locked up, the head of the local boys rugby club was locked up, the head master of the nearby grammar school was locked up, and the former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange was living. For some reason the town attracts paedo's like flies. I even saw that the local teacher of the year was locked up a couple of years back, when he was released he set up a nationwide schools internet resource for primary schools, was then found with more child abuse pictures and has been locked up again. 

When I go back home I am a little wary, and I believe it is justified.

In London I know of areas where peado's are let loose after release. They are watched and monitored but at the end of the day it is unacceptable that decent family areas should be subjected to these people in concentration without the community being informed.

It is probably the same in Weymouth. I can imagine paedo's are attracted to the place due to the large transient population and they feel that they can network in relative obscurity.

Just because people are aware of who the paedo is doesn't mean they have anything to fear. I would have thought it meant they had less. It is, however, what the paedo fears the most because he craves respectability.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2010)

One of the schools I went to almost certainly has its share of paedos (most of them women) with one paedo being convicted in the last few years for incidents 20years ago - and I believe that there are going to be some scandals in the next few years regarding it. If someone ever gets it together to complain about it.


----------



## JimW (Feb 8, 2010)

dylans said:


> I do have a kid and it's precisely because I do that I am so adamantly against this idea. I refuse to raise my child in fear. I refuse to raise my child to approach every person in his life as a potential threat. That is exactly what this stuff does. It destroys trust and it undermines community. Do we really want to live in a world where we CRB everyone in our lives. Where every relationship is seen from the outset as a risk. Where my son can't walk home from school or play outdoors or where I can't drop him off with a neighbour while I pop out to Tesco's? Where I can't start a new relationship without having to prove i'm not a child abuser. Where my son can't invite his friends around to the house to play?
> 
> Do we really want to live in a world where privacy no longer exists. Where I have a state given right to know the past of the bloke who has moved down the road. I don't want to know. It's none of my business. I do expect the probation service and whoever is tasked with the rehabilitation of sex offenders to put in place proper procedures to protect the community.
> 
> ...



This is full of false dichotomies; why can trust only be built in ignorance, and is it real or healthy if it is? It is in fact true that there is risk in much of what your child will do out in the world, and they can be aware of that without being in constant excessive fear - recall that's how I was brought up - warned about the dangers of the world but let out to play in it anyway.
As for privacy, it's a very recent entry into human social life - most people in the world have very little and even in the West families and communities knew a lot more about each other's business than we seem to think is normal today. I quite like having some, but it's a bit over the top to pretend that a world without it is some unimaginable horror. The genuinely disturbing thing you do mention, the intrusion of the modern state, actually arose hand in hand with the atomised life of individual secrecy combined with a disempowered community. While I don't deny there's serious issues at stake, you don't help this dystopian situation when you scare-monger about ordinary people as merely a lynch mob waiting to form.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2010)

It's a lynch mob against "lynch mobs".


----------



## JimW (Feb 8, 2010)

Who'll get their hanging in first?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 8, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I do not see why a few people seem to want to hark on about abuse being more common in the home as if this stops the need to publicise convicted paedos. *When at home paedos are caught   they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home. *
> 
> Aren't the residents of the communities where these people are dumped allowed to know what is being placed amongst them? Shouldn't potential partners be able to know that the man who wants to move in on the family is a convicted paedo? Shouldn't children have the right to know who the convicted men they should cross the street to avoid are? In fact knowing who these people are will stop them being unknown bogeymen. It will increase safety and improve communities.



Most family members who abuse kids never get prosecuted.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Most family members who abuse kids never get prosecuted.



It is going in circles



> *When* at home paedos are caught they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home. /QUOTE]
> 
> Change "when" to "if" if it makes you feel better.
> 
> It doesn't really matter a toss either way to the original point.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 8, 2010)

kenny g said:


> It is going in circles
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Point being that what you are on about is actually quite rare.


----------



## dylans (Feb 8, 2010)

> *Kenny g,*
> When at home paedos are caught they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home.
> 
> Change "when" to "if" if it makes you feel better.
> ...



Most family members who abuse kids never get caught or prosecuted. That means your precious Megan's law won't do jack shit to stop them or protect those kids.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Most family members who abuse kids never get caught or prosecuted. That means your precious Megan's law won't do jack shit to stop them or protect those kids.



Crikey aernt you clever......You know a lot of child abuse is from family members....Should we all join your fan club?
The thing is though that interesting and oh so impressive that is....it is not an arguement against megans law or protecting children from abuse from other sources is it?

Child abuse is an issue that not suprisingly makes people emotional angry and worried....Most people are not going to be worried about members of their own family abusing children because most will know the people in the family wont do that.....( I think a point you keep missing here in your educated stupidity is that they know them as people not statistics)
But they do worry about people they dont know.
And that doesnt make them hysterical it just makes them concerned. Yeah and maybe some do get over concerned but to be honest i find attitudes like yours a lot more worrying.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Crikey aernt you clever......You know a lot of child abuse is from family members....Should we all join your fan club?
> The thing is though that interesting and oh so impressive that is....it is not an arguement against megans law or protecting children from abuse from other sources is it?
> 
> Child abuse is an issue that not suprisingly makes people emotional angry and worried....Most people are not going to be worried about members of their own family abusing children because *most will know the people in the family wont do that...*..( I think a point you keep missing here in your educated stupidity is that they know them as people not statistics)
> ...



Yeah they just KNOW the people in the family won't do that.

 Instead let's demonstrate against.......against.......against......something. Lets search for bogeymen.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Crikey aernt you clever.



Well, I'm clever enough to spell "aren't" properly you ignorant grunt.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Most family members who abuse kids never get caught or prosecuted. That means your precious Megan's law won't do jack shit to stop them or protect those kids.



What you're saying makes no sense... most family members don't get caught so therefore there's no point in trying to take any action against the people who _do _get caught?

And, funnily enough, despite banging on "abuse happens in the home!! It's the same thing as what these people are worried about occurring by strangers!! " you are now actually falling into the trap of seeing stranger-abuse as completely different from the abuse that occurs within the home. The same thing you are attempting to criticise other people for.

What is worse, you seem to be trying to turn cases of child abuse by strangers into something that doesn't really happen and is only imagined by stupid people. It is thankfully rare, but it does occur.

Either way, the distinction is academic, when a family member/ trusted person has been exposed, they may well find themselves re-housed somewhere else after prosecution and therefore be classed as a "stranger danger" to that community around them.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> What you're saying makes no sense... most family members don't get caught so therefore there's no point in trying to take any action against the people who _do _get caught?
> 
> And, funnily enough, despite banging on "abuse happens in the home!! It's the same thing as what these people are worried about occurring by strangers!! " you are now actually falling into the trap of seeing stranger-abuse as completely different from the abuse that occurs within the home. The same thing you are attempting to criticise other people for.
> 
> ...



That's because it doesn't really occur. It's a red herring which distracts from the very real issue of domestic abuse.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> That's because it doesn't really occur. It's a red herring which distracts from the very real issue of domestic abuse.



How on earth can you say it's a "red herring"?

Doesn't "really occur"? It either does or it doesn't. And like you said, most of those convicted WILL be people who were in some way known to their victims. They then go on to be housed in areas where they will be new and unknown, but can still then get to know local children and once again, become a trusted person abusing children.

Why are you making such a distinction between "known" and "strange" abusers?


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Well, I'm clever enough to spell "aren't" properly you ignorant grunt.



Showing your true colours there.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Yeah they just KNOW the people in the family won't do that.
> 
> Instead let's demonstrate against.......against.......against......something. Lets search for bogeymen.



Its you who seems to be obsessed with bogeymen.....Maybe your struggling with your bigotry...All credit to you i suppose for doing it so publically.


----------



## Spion (Feb 9, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Its you who seems to be obsessed with bogeymen.....Maybe your struggling with your bigotry...All credit to you i suppose for doing it so publically.


LOL


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> How on earth can you say it's a "red herring"?



Because it is. These demonstrations and demands for new legislation are driven by a moral panic which itself is fuelled by tabloid hysteria. 

Lets look at the facts a moment. Is child abuse a growing problem ? 

Well studies from the USA show that it is actually decreasing. 






Are the parks full of armies of pedos waiting to fuck our kids? 







> The amazing and sad statistic that is so often overlooked and rarely discussed is that 95% of Child Abuse and Sexual Abuse is perpetrated by family members. 79% of perpetrators are parents. Other relatives accounted for 7% and unmarried partners of parents and “other” accounted for 4% and 5% of abuse.
> 
> If we want to decrease child and sexual abuse, our efforts would be far more effective if we focused our attention on the families of our students rather than the few sensationalized online incidents that the media trumpets so loudly.



http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=18080


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 9, 2010)

That quote dylans is just plain moronic....Very sad.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> That quote dylans is just plain moronic....Very sad.



What is sad is that morons like you so willingly join the ranks of those who follow hysterical moral panics. We have seen it again and again and you never learn. 

Skunk deaths. Video nasties, swine flu, satanic abuse, trafficking, rottweilers, muggers, knife crime, Jazz music, mods and rockers, and now "pedos" the list goes on and on. Hysterical scare mongering by sensationalist tabloids. Never short of idiots like you to join in.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 9, 2010)

You sound more hysterical than them tbh.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> You sound more hysterical than them tbh.



Yawn


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 9, 2010)

Can you provide us with an acceptable list of things to be concerned about? Or as you charmingly put it in a "moral panic" altho I don't see anyone on here panicking.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Can you provide us with an acceptable list of things to be concerned about? Or *as you charmingly put it in a "moral panic" *altho I don't see anyone on here panicking.



It's not my term. 
It's a sociological term, first coined by Stanley Cohen in the 1970s to describe a disproportionate social response to a perceived problem.  An incident brings an issue to the public's attention, the media blow it up out of all proportion and it is then seen as a new or growing menace to be countered. Demands are made for "something to be done" and it often results in ill thought out and counter-productive legislation such as we see with Megans Law or the Amber Alert,in the US or Sarah's law here in the UK. The demonstrations and demands for Sarah's law legislation are a classic example of a moral panic in action. 



> In order to qualify as a moral panic, the perceived danger must outweigh the realistic degree of danger.
> 
> First, despite the publicity warnings over rampant sexual molestation and abduction,* both crimes have been decreasing in the past years *
> 
> Second,* the reported frequency of stranger child abduction has been exaggerated and does not align with the facts.*.... The constant media attention surrounding the ‘stranger danger’ of abduction in the 1980s and early 1990s no longer holds sway when the rates are examined. Rather, *the media cultivates a panic by ‘exaggerating claims.*



Kristen M. Zgoba. The moral panic behind child safety legislation. 
http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/REU/pdf/Moral_Panic.pdf


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

The requirement for a law where communities are informed of dangerous residents who have been convicted of a crime with such a high recidivism rate as child abuse and accessing abusive images is a sound one.

The fact that it may have received publicity from tabloid newspapers does not negate that fact. 

Throwing a couple of quotes from sociology papers does not an argument make.
Just because some people have chosen to describe a sensible idea as being part of a moral panic does not stop it being a sensible idea.

Your attempts to dismiss the idea seem to centre on two fallacies.

1. There is no stranger danger.

2. The rate of stranger danger is in decline.

Point one is obviously a wad of shit.

Point two is based on US statistics which have been collated since laws have been introduced state by state to allow residents to obtain information about paedos.

AND We are not only talking about stranger danger. We are talking about people being able to identify convicted paedos who are no longer strangers but have become step fathers/mothers , fathers, uncles, mothers, aunts, teachers. etc etc. 

This is hardly a momentary moral panic it is a longstanding demand of communities across the country.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

> *Kenny G* The requirement for a law where communities are informed of dangerous residents who have been convicted of a crime with such a high recidivism rate as child abuse and accessing abusive images is a sound one.



http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html


> It is noteworthy that recidivism rates f*or sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population*



But hey,don't let facts stop you from hunting your bogeymen Kenny. 



> *Kenny G* Your attempts to dismiss the idea seem to centre on two fallacies.
> 
> 1. There is no stranger danger.
> 
> 2. The rate of stranger danger is in decline.



I have quoted you fact after fact to show that there is no realistic danger to our children from strangers. Certainly not enough to warrant the kind of knee jerk, intrusive and self defeating legislation you are advocating.  

Show me a single  reliable statistic that contradicts the facts I have laid out on this thread.  And no,  News of the World headlines don't count.

Finally, your attempt to credit Amber and Megans law for the decline in the rate of child sexual abuse by strangers, is incorrect. Both pieces of legislation were responses to fallacious media inspired claims that stranger sexual abuse was rising, ie to moral panics. 



> The legislation....exhibits the classic signs of panic legislation, namely, poor conception and drafting, overly broad scope, and inadequate consideration of the likely side effects’ (Jenkins, 1998, p. 6). *Having been designed amid a state of panic,* both forms of legislation can be described as underdeveloped and ill conceived (Fox, 2002). The conciliatory legislation affords the public a sense of security often believed to be superficial because the possibility of offenders avoiding detection is reasonably high, and there is the likelihood that the most egregious offenders will not be targeted. As previously stated, the majority of abductions and child molestations are committed by an individual known to the victim, namely a family member (Greenfeld, 1997; Jenkins, 1998; Jones & Finkelhor, 2001). Alerting victims to ‘stranger danger’ or targeting stranger abductions may be misdirected and unknowingly place many victims in harm’s way (Palermo & Farkas, 2001).


http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/REU/pdf/Moral_Panic.pdf


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

In fact your linked article seems to clearly suggest that moral panics help to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse. ( apologies for the cut and paste but they help to make my point)

p.396 





> concern
> over children and sexual crimes was at its lowest when the country had a high level of
> tolerance for sexual experimentation, namely the 1920s and 1960s (Jenkins, 1998).



which according to what follows was the time when there was a peak of child sexual abuse. It is once concerns started being raised that reported incidents decreased.



> sexual freedom disappeared around the 1980s with the advent of sexually transmitted
> disease and AIDS, and as agents of social control again began establishing
> their presence






page 395: 





> Reported incidence of sexually molested children
> Given the private nature of sexual crimes and the limited forum provided for children to speak about sex crimes, it is a commonly accepted belief that reports of child sexual victimization are under-counted (Prentky, Knight, & Lee, 1997). While it is impossible to determine the true extent of child molestation, official reports and offender and victim surveys provide some insight into the frequency. A national Criminal Justice Studies 395
> estimate provided by Jones and Finkelhor (2001) reports 103,600 cases of substantiated child sexual abuse for the year 1998, a 31 percent decrease from the 149,800 cases in 1992. This decline did not display a regional pattern, with a decrease of substantiated cases in 36 of the 47 states that provided complete data. In addition, the number of reported, yet unsubstantiated, cases of child sexual abuse decreased
> from an estimated 429,000 cases in 1991 to 315,400 cases in 1998, a decrease of 26 percent (Jones & Finkelhor, 2001). Furthermore, despite the increasing rates of child maltreatment during the 1980s and 1990s, *the rate of child sexual abuse has
> ...



So, increased media interest, the introduction of megan laws etc, seems to result in decreased offending rates. 

And you appear  to argue that they are just "moral panic" and therefore not worth consideration.

And how about having policies of increased sentencing? How effective are they? It appears that in the past when attitudes were rehabilitative, offending rates were highest.

Do you want to go back to these kinds of attitudes, pre "moral panic"?
 p.396 


> In a similar vein, the fluctuating concern over child protection has also been intricately
> linked to the prevailing ideology of the criminal justice system (APA, 1999;
> Jenkins, 1998; Palermo & Farkas, 2001). *Early legislation *was rehabilitative in nature,
> concentrating on the treatment of offenders (APA, 1999; Pratt, 2000). *Little blame was
> ...





p.392 





> For example,
> since 1980 the annual growth in prison populations for individuals convicted of sexual
> offenses, other than rape, was 15 percent, which is nearly twice the increase in the overall
> prison population (Greenfeld, 1997; Palermo & Farkas, 2001). This number
> ...



So, increased prison terms, harsher attitudes towards paedo's, less blame on the victim, reduced rates of offence. 

Bring on the moral panics!


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Finally, your attempt to credit Amber and Megans law for the decline in the rate of child sexual abuse by strangers, is incorrect. Both pieces of legislation were responses to fallacious media inspired claims that stranger sexual abuse was rising, ie to moral panics.



Doesn't make sense. You are confusing cause and effect.

The effect of something is different to what caused it to happen. 

1. Amber and Megans law caused a decline in child sex abuse by strangers. ( and non strangers)

2. Amber and Megans law was caused by little green men from beetlejuice.

2 doesn't negate 1.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

You have it on it's head. The paper is arguing that the panics occurred because of an erroneous belief that stranger danger was widespread and rising, despite the fact that the opposite was and is the case. 


> *
> Kenny G
> Bring on the moral panics*


Good idea, let's encourage irrational and hysterical fear of monsters.  What could possibly go wrong.?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/872436.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/849098.stm


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> You have it on it's head. The paper is arguing that the panics occurred because of an erroneous belief that stranger danger was widespread and rising, despite the fact that the opposite was and is the case.



The paper may be arguing that, and the emotive passages you quote try to make that claim BUT the evidence within the paper suggests otherwise. There was a decline, there was concern and a change in attitudes, there was a greater decline. Now there is continued concern and a continued decline.

That all seems to suggest that a heightened level of concern and enforcement has a positive effect in reducing the incidences of abuse.

To quote a few instances of mistaken identity that occurred as a result of  a tabloid campaign does not prove that a sensible, well organised, and rigorous identification of convicted paedophiles in communities would not have a positive effect in improving community safety and trust.

At least you have moved away from suggesting there is no stranger danger purely because there has been heightened concern, or "moral panic" regarding the matter. It does seem a bit of logic has been allowed to overcome your hysterical reaction to the possibility that an issue taken up by the mass media might have some legitimacy.

You have not proved your case, and linking to a sociology paper that is little more than loaded comments around figures is hardly helping you.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

Sorry Kenny that is disingenuous bollocks. The evidence shows a decline in sexual abuse of children throughout the 1990s, long before Megans Law was implemented. Megans law was enacted in 1996, and it was enacted on the back of a false claim that such incidents were rising. 








> Kenny G
> To quote *a few instances* of mistaken identity that occurred as a result of a tabloid campaign does not prove that a sensible, well organised, and rigorous identification of convicted paedophiles in communities would not have *a positive effect* in improving community safety and trust.



A few instances? 


> *Lynch-mob attacks and firebombings have occurred in 11 communities *in England and Scotland since the campaign began two weeks ago, *the majority of them at homes of people wrongly identified as suspected pedophiles or who look like people pictured in the newspaper or have similar names.* *A rioting crowd of 150 *-- many carrying signs with the emotive News of the World headline -- overturned vehicles, smashed windows and threw stones and rocks at the police


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/07/w...e-of-anti-pedophile-attacks.html?pagewanted=1

Positive effect my arse. If you think that is "a few instances,"  I'd like to know how you define serious attacks.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

A decline of 30,000 a year  obviously means nothing to you 

That is 30,000 less victims, but as you are talking about reported instances it is probably a lot more. 

A few instances as a result  of a tabloid campaign does not mean that as soon as people know who the local paedos are they will all be lynched.

The fact is that paedos are identified day after day in their local papers. Look at the website that is the OP of this thread. It is full of news reports. 

All that I am suggesting is that the information be put on a statutory footing to help people identify those who are more likely to be a danger.

*You* are coming across as the one in a tabloid frenzy here. When I was talking about positive effects I was talking about more than a New York Times headline of regurgitated press cuttings which is the only evidence you are able to supply beyond 3 bbc links which include two reports of the same fucking case!

Try better, *B--* shit for  brains


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

> *Kenny G* All that I am suggesting is that the information be put on a statutory footing to help people identify those who are more likely to be a danger.



To be accessed by whom? Fred blogs and his badly spelled placard and can of lighter fuel? 



> A decline of 30,000 a year obviously measn nothing to you
> 
> That is 30,000 less victims, but as you are talking about reported instances it is probably a lot more.



A decline that was occurring before Megan's Law.  A decline that was denied by the proponents of that law at the time and now claimed as evidence for it's success.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> To be accessed by whom? Fred blogs and his badly spelled placard and can of lighter fuel?



No, to be accessed by anyone. Just because there was a council estate in plymouth where people went off the rails does not mean that no one else has the right to access a comprehensive database of their local convicted paedos 





dylans said:


> decline that was occurring before Megan's Law.  A decline that was denied by the proponents of that law at the time and now claimed as evidence for it's success.



The 30,000 figure was from 1996 to 2000, after Megan's law was introduced. 

There was a decline occurring beforehand as social attitudes changed,* as described in the very report you linked to*, and that decline continued, rather than plateauing, after the law was introduced.

Whatever was claimed by proponents of the law at the time does not effect the validity of the law itself in terms of the consequences of its enactment. Anything else  is pure 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> It's not my term.
> It's a sociological term, first coined by Stanley Cohen in the 1970s to describe a disproportionate social response to a perceived problem.



Yep.  Cohen´s example was Mods and Rockers, but there have been many subsequent studies on other instances.  My favorite book on the subject is Eric Goode's _The Social Construction of Deviance._  Phillip Jenkins has written on the specific issue of paedophilia as moral panic here:

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Panic-Changing-Concepts-Molester/dp/0300073879

The strange thing is, no matter how much the phenomena is analysed, there are always enough idiots to support the next one.  I guess the world will never run short of suckers.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

> *Kenny G*
> No, *to be accessed by anyone*. Just because there was a council estate in plymouth where people went off the rails does not mean that no one else has the right to access a comprehensive database of their local convicted paedos



People like this?


> The mother of William Elliott insists her son was 19 and his girlfriend just two weeks shy of her 16th birthday when the couple had sex - behaviour about which people may have differing opinions, but which in the state of Maine was enough to earn him a conviction for statutory rape.
> 
> The information about the couple's ages was not available when a vigilante, Stephen Marshall, went online to search for registered sex offenders to kill. Instead, he simply read that in 2002 Elliott pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual abuse of a minor and had served four months in jail. Marshall was also able to access his complete address.
> 
> ...



Oh well, just because there was a vigilante in the USA who accessed the registry to kill doesn't mean we shouldn't have a useless law inspired by the News of The World and populist pressure.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-the-bitter-legacy-of-megans-law-405254.html


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 9, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Bring on the moral panics!



I've seen some daft statements on these boards, but that takes the biscuit.

Are you by any chance a tabloid journalist?  If so, then your living depends on fostering moral panics, so I guess it's understandable.  If not, you're nuts.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> People like this?
> 
> 
> Oh well, just because there was a vigilante in the USA who accessed the registry to kill doesn't mean we shouldn't have a useless law inspired by the News of The World and populist pressure.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-the-bitter-legacy-of-megans-law-405254.html



All that is an argument for is that details of the offence should be available.

 Many  laws in the states appear to have a pigs ear made of them. That isn't a sufficient argument for not having a law. 

But, we are now discussing the finer details of the implementation of the register, which is an improvement over your earlier position, no?? 

You have come a long way from complete denial that this is a serious issue. 

And your own evidence seems to suggest that this would not be a useless law so I do not know why you are still suggesting that it is.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

And apart from everything else. It doesn't even work!



> For the past 15 years the public has been left with a false sense of security. *A federally funded study has determined that Megan's Law does not work.*
> Conducted by independent psychologists along with staff from the state Department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning, this comprehensive study looked at 21 years of sex offense rates. It confirms in New Jersey what other studies have found elsewhere. Megan's Law "has no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses."
> Megan's Law struck out on every important area related to protecting the community from sexual offenders. Not only is there no evidence that it reduces sexual re-offenses, Megan's Law fails to positively impact sex offender re-arrest rates, fails to change the type of re-offenses or first time offenses that occur and fails to reduce the number of victims involved in sexualoffenses.


http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/02/megans_law_doesnt_work_now_wha.html

It doesn't work.


> The American law sounds sensible - but the big question is, has it made a difference? Sadly, not a jot, it would seem. Compliance and co-operation with the authorities has actually fallen to 80 per cent as the offenders have simply gone underground. This compares with a compliance of 97 per cent for the paedophile register in Britain.
> 
> The evidence shows that Megan's Law has failed to prevent offenders repeating their crimes and it has been described as "ineffective" by criminal lawyers in the US. Only vigilante attacks, usually on the wrong people, have been the beneficiaries.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...snt-work-there-and-wont-work-here-697095.html

Unless that is you're a vigilante. Then it works just fine.


> PHILLIPSBURG, N.J., Jan. 10— 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.


http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/11/n...linked-to-sex-offenders-law.html?pagewanted=1

Or an arsonist


> Stoking opponents' fears of the potentially violent consequences of Megan's Law, authorities reported Thursday that a van owned by a convicted child molester was firebombed last weekend in an apparent vigilante attack--just days after neighbors learned his identity as a result of a new public database.
> 
> Los Angeles County sheriff's investigators believe that an arsonist destroyed a van owned by Willie Lee McAlister as it sat in front of his home in unincorporated Covina on Saturday morning--days after one of McAlister's neighbors verified his identity in the CD-ROM database made available to the public by Megan's Law.


http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/11/local/me-11789


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Are you by any chance a tabloid journalist?  If so, then your living depends on fostering moral panics, so I guess it's understandable.  If not, you're nuts.



Neither, I am just a concerned person who thinks he should have access to information on the identity of convicted paedo scum for my family and community's safety. I know it is not fool proof but it would go some way to help.

Fortunately, I pretty much know that in my current small town there are only a couple of convicted paedos, both for online porn offences, one a former councillor. In my children's grandparent's town, my home town,  there are fucking loads and I would like to be able to identify them in time in order to cross the street when the next beast meanders past with his hands in his pockets playing billiards behind dark glasses and wearing a cap. 

As mentioned previously, these scum choose to gather in certain towns. They get convicted, meet each other in prison wings, and then hear that certain places have lots of bedsits, potential victims, transient populations, and networks already in place, and then they scurry to them on release. You get pockets of these filth, and my home town was unfortunately one of them. I expect Weymouth and Bournmouth are two others. 

A poor London Borough police station  I know has a steady stream of paedo scum coming in through the doors all day to sign the offenders register. The Borough is a dumping ground for London's paedo filth who are given social housing next to decent families. Those families have a right to know what kind of twisted social engineering is taking place as the quiet well spoken man who is good with computers  is moved in next door.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

> Kenny G All that is an argument for is that details of the offence should be available.



Yeah right. So then the vigilantes can lynch the right people.

You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Yeah right. So then the vigilantes can lynch the right people.
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.



Took the words right out of my keyboard.  Kenny G, can you post your address so that we can dish out the "justice" you deserve?

No, I thought not.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Yeah right. So then the vigilantes can lynch the right people.
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.



You quote a distressing tale of a 19 year old being shot dead for having sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend. I then suggest that as  it wouldn't have taken place if the shooter had known the facts of the case those facts should have been publicised. You call me a fucking idiot based on a completely unfounded claim that I want vigilantes to shoot people. 

And *you* are call me a fucking idiot? Sorry, son, but you should stop digging because the top of the hole isn't getting any  nearer.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You quote a distressing tale of a 19 year old being shot dead for having sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend. I then suggest that as  it wouldn't have taken place if the shooter had known the facts of the case those facts should have been publicised. You call me a fucking idiot based on a completely unfounded claim that I want vigilantes to shoot people.
> 
> And *you* are call me a fucking idiot? Sorry, son, but you should stop digging because the top of the hole isn't getting any  nearer.



Oh do fuck off. You know damn well what you are implying. You have proved yourself to be a knuckle dragging thug nothing more and you have been completely destroyed on this thread so give it up.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

Struwwelpeter said:


> Kenny G, can you post your address so that we can dish out the "justice" you deserve?



Sure  http://doiop.com/my-address


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Oh do fuck off. You know damn well what you are implying. You have proved yourself to be a knuckle dragging thug nothing more and you have been completely destroyed on this thread so give it up.



OK, where did I imply  that I wanted vigilantes to kill people? 

As you appear to be on a witchfinder mission perhaps you could try and justify your assertion? Or perhaps you can't because I haven't implied it anywhere. 

You have been fighting straw men all the way through this thread purely because a couple of shitty sociology papers have sparked a "moral panic" synapse in your brain which have convinced you that all reasoned positions on this matter are part of a tabloid driven knuckle dragging agenda.


----------



## dylans (Feb 9, 2010)

kenny g said:


> OK, where did I imply  that I wanted vigilantes to kill people?
> 
> As you appear to be on a witchfinder mission perhaps you could try and justify your assertion? Or perhaps you can't because I haven't implied it anywhere.
> 
> You have been fighting straw men all the way through this thread purely because a couple of shitty sociology papers have sparked a "moral panic" synapse in your brain which have convinced you that all reasoned positions on this matter are part of a tabloid driven knuckle dragging agenda.



Ok I will spell it out. 

You insist that if the details of offences were publicly available alongside the names and addresses of offenders then the killer in that case may not have targeted William Elliott. He would have had the information to target a more "suitable" target instead. 
Given that the killer also targeted and killed another person from the register that night, it is safe to say that is exactly what he would have done. (or he may have gone ahead and killed Elliot anyway)

Why else would you suggest putting the details of offences on the register?

What you cannot admit is the obvious. That putting the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders leads to vigilante attacks.. The evidence is right before you're eyes.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Why else would you suggest putting the details of offences on the register?



So that people know the nature of the offences in order to know who to avoid. That should be obvious. 

The 19 year old  you mention would be someone you might not want sharing his passion for photography with your  fourteen year old daughter, for example, especially in a couple of years when it might seem that his preferences have not changed with his age.

 It doesn't mean that I want people to get shot. 

Basically, all that would be brought in by this law would be the equilivant of the information people have obtained for generations from friends and acquaintances in a community about who to avoid and who to watch out for, and who to not leave alone with the pigs.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 9, 2010)

I seem to have missed where anyone suggested wanting to lynch anyone.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 9, 2010)

kenny g said:


> ...paedo scum ... beast ... these scum ... these filth... paedo scum ... London's paedo filth ...



Sorry to say it, but you strike me as a seriously disturbed individual.  I wouldn't want you living next door to me.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Feb 10, 2010)

It might sound good taking the strongest possible line against abusers. However, I don't know any victims of abuse that want their abuser dead.

I think the current setup is relatively successful.


----------



## dylans (Feb 10, 2010)

kenny g said:


> So that people know the nature of the offences in order to know who to avoid. That should be obvious.
> 
> The 19 year old  you mention would be someone you might not want sharing his passion for photography with your  fourteen year old daughter, for example, especially in a couple of years when it might seem that his preferences have not changed with his age.
> 
> ...



I have given you example after example after example of vigilante attacks based specifically on information supplied by the sex offenders register. You choose to ignore them because they don't fit your agenda. Your argument flies in the face of the evidence. Information in the register has been accessed by vigilantes. FACT. People have been attacked. FACT. 

Youre argument is finished but hey keep denying reality if it suits your agenda


----------



## dylans (Feb 10, 2010)

kenny g said:


> The 19 year old  you mention would be someone you might not want sharing his passion for photography with your  fourteen year old daughter, for example, *especially in a couple of years when it might seem that his preferences have not changed with his age.*
> .



Well you don't need to worry do you . BECAUSE HE'S DEAD!


----------



## kenny g (Feb 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Well you don't need to worry do you . BECAUSE HE'S DEAD!



Have you ever been tested for aspergers by the way?


----------



## dylans (Feb 10, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Have you ever been tested for aspergers by the way?



That's right, throw your rattle out of the pram because you''ve lost the argument.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 10, 2010)

No, it is just that you only seem to be able to take things extremely literally. So, for example, when I used your example of a 19 year old who had had a relationship with a fifteen year old, rather than understanding the metaphorical substance of my point you seemed to be limited to the literal consequences of your account.

This shows either:

You are very limited in one area of cognitive ability or/

You are just a dick who will never try to engage in  a normal discussion. 

Either way. Enjoy.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 10, 2010)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> It might sound good taking the strongest possible line against abusers. However, I don't know any victims of abuse that want their abuser dead.
> 
> I think the current setup is relatively successful.



I'm not sure that it is. Unfortunately people with these histories (of abuse) have a very high re-offending rate.

Also, I don't think this would render the abuser dead, any more likely than any publicity surrounding the conviction and jailing would already ensure.

However, if people deemed a danger to the public were kept in jail until they were no longer a danger, there'd be no need for any of this.


----------



## dylans (Feb 10, 2010)

kenny g said:


> No, it is just that you only seem to be able to take things extremely literally. So, for example, when I used your example of a 19 year old who had had a relationshipt ewith a fifteen year old, rather than understanding the metaphorical substance of my point you seemed to be limited to the literal consequences of your account.
> 
> This shows either:
> 
> ...



Metaphorical substance of your point?. A guy accessed the kids details from the sex register went to his house and blew his brains out. He then went to another guy's house,  whose details he obtained from the register,  and killed him too.  That's a fact, yet you want to make names addresses and details of sex offenders accessible to the anyone who chooses to look ffs? 

If you want to argue that then fine, at least have the balls to accept the inevitable consequences of doing that.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 11, 2010)

I thought the idea was to make details known of offenders living locally to groups like local schools and residents associations/ neighbourhood watches. Not any Tom Dick or Harry off the street.
I don't think we should "copy America" or start putting the 16YO who slept with a 15 YO gf on the list -- altho in this country they would hardly be prosecuted in the first place.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> What is sad is that morons like you so willingly join the ranks of those who follow hysterical moral panics. We have seen it again and again and you never learn.
> 
> Skunk deaths. Video nasties, swine flu, satanic abuse, trafficking, rottweilers, muggers, knife crime, Jazz music, mods and rockers, and now "pedos" the list goes on and on. Hysterical scare mongering by sensationalist tabloids. Never short of idiots like you to join in.



Your imagination runs away with you. You seriously imagine that anyone who disagrees with you does so only because they are being whipped up by the evil media hysteria.
You come across as a hysterical egotistical twat.
People can be concerned about child molesters without being whipped up by the media. And they can also be concerned without carrying dylans book of handy facts about everything.
I wonder if you have any real experience of the subject?


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

> * Angel.* I thought the idea was to make details known of offenders living locally to groups like local schools and residents associations/ neighbourhood watches. Not any Tom Dick or Harry off the street.



 You want to trust this kind of information to some dickhead  little Hitler in the neighbour hood watch scheme.? And of course they aren't going to tell anyone are they? Oh no of course not. There is a sex offender in the street and they are going to keep that information to themselves, yeah right.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> I wonder if you have any real experience of the subject?



If you have to stoop that low then you have already conceded the argument. It's as absurd for you to speculate on my experiences as it is for me to speculate on yours. So let's just stick to the issue.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

> *tbaldwin*
> You come across as a hysterical egotistical twat.


And you come across as a knuckle dragging moron with contempt for evidence and facts.



> Your imagination runs away with you. You seriously imagine that anyone who disagrees with you does so only because they are being whipped up by the evil media hysteria.



I think that those who are moved to demonstrate against imaginary bogeymen are completely whipped up by media led moral panics yeah. The News of the World name and shame campaign is a classic example.


> *tbaldwin*
> And they can also be concerned without carrying dylans book of handy facts about everything.



Better than carrying Tbaldwins crayon scrawled placard and half house brick.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> You want to trust this kind of information to some dickhead  little Hitler in the neighbour hood watch scheme.? And of course they aren't going to tell anyone are they? Oh no of course not. There is a sex offender in the street and they are going to keep that information to themselves, yeah right.




You seem to have a  trust problem of people in general then?

Oh! You think anyone who cares about whether there's a sex offender living across the road is also a knuckle dragging racist too, really nice.


----------



## JimW (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> If you have to stoop that low then you have already conceded the argument...


You've had to drag in irrelevant cases from gun-owning America to bolster your case. Don't see you winning any arguments at all. Otherwise you're equating a few unfortunate incidents of minor vandalism with the actions of convicted sex offenders - on the one hand you want to diminish the threat from the latter with some statistical juggling to claim it's so rare as to be not worth bothering about; then on the other you want to make the very few instances of harassment out to be evidence of a widespread lynch mob mentality. Self-serving bollocks.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> You seem to have a  trust problem of people in general then?
> 
> Oh! You think anyone who cares about whether there's a sex offender living across the road is also a knuckle dragging racist too, really nice.



It's not rocket science to see that making the names and addresses of hated and despised people available to the public will lead.

If the experience of Megans law in the USA was of no vigilante attacks you would be the first to site it as a success. "Look," you would say. "The names and addresses of sex offenders have been available to the public for 4 years now and there have been no vigilante attacks." 
But you can't say that can you? Because there have been attacks, many of them, and people have been murdered..So what do you do? You ignore the evidence. It's pathetic.

Instead you rely on scare mongering images ( _think of the poor children! _) and outright falsehoods and you are forced to do that  because all the available evidence shows that this kind of legislation simply does not work. 
For example, earlier in this thread you state (with absolutely no evidence to back up your claim) that 


> Unfortunately people with these histories (of abuse) have a *very high re-offending rate*.


This is completely untrue. 


> Sex offenders, thought to reoffend compulsively, have in fact *the lowest recidivism rate of any class of criminal.* In 2004, the Solicitor General of Canada measured the recidivism rate for child molestation at 12.7%; the US Bureau of Justice Statistics recently found that three years after release, the recidivism rate for all sex offenders averaged 5.3%.


http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=BF0FA813-7607-4666-B1F081D6A6C701CC

Now I agree that one case is too many but I see no reason for panic inspired new legislation for a tiny problem that is being dealt with perfectly well by the present set up. You can't site a single piece of evidence that the Megan law experience has increased the security of children. I see no reason why a similar law here would either. 

There is no increased threat from sex offenders.. There is no new threat that demands new legislation. The present legal set up is perfectly adequate without bringing in News of the World inspired laws that don't even work.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

> JimWSelf-serving bollocks.



In what way is my argument self serving?


----------



## JimW (Feb 11, 2010)

In that you're having it both ways with the significance of a few outlying instances of extreme behaviour, though I confess self-serving might not be the right term for that.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

Ok. A simple question. What is it about the present system that you find inadequate? 
Correct me if I am wrong but at present, convicted sex offenders have to register with the police within 72 hours of their release from jail. They face immediate jail terms if they fail to register. So the details of sex offenders are held by the people who should be holding them, the cops. The police can apply for a community protection order barring individuals from designated areas for up to 5 years.  Head teachers, doctors, youth leaders, sports club managers and others are notified on a confidential basis of the existence of a local sex offender. 

What is it about the present legislation that is so inadequate that you feel new legislation is necessary? 

Have sex offences risen?  No
Has the present system shown itself to be deficient? No
Have sex offenders slipped under the radar? No, in fact it is far more successful than Megan. 97% of convicted sex offenders are registered under this legislation as opposed to an over 80% avoidance rate by sex offenders in the USA.

Hey don't take my word for it. Even Police chiefs, ACPO and probation officers say that a Sarah's law here would drive sex offenders underground.


> The head of Sussex CID, the force whose work led to Whiting's conviction, warned that such a law would drive sex offenders underground and make them impossible to monitor. The Association of Chief Police Officers and probation officers agree that it would be impossible to control access to information about paedophiles. They warned that vigilante attacks would likely drive sex offenders underground.


 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36065317585  (btw- the link is to a _pro_ Sarah's law facebook group)


----------



## JimW (Feb 11, 2010)

I've not weighed in on the details of the present system or any proposed changes - tbh not a debate I've followed much beyond this thread - I'm just bothered by the way you're dismissing the concerns seen in some communities and characterising people as purely hysterical or a vigilante mob waiting to happen. It might be that wider social changes and consequent community breakdown mean people are less secure even if it's true about overall level of sex offending (and given the political nature of figures and other factors in the way crime is reported I'd want to see more studies before taking that as given). It might be something else. Either way, the idea that people showing concern for community welfare are somehow the most worrisome part of it strikes me a wrong-headed and contemptuous of your fellow citizens.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 11, 2010)

JimW said:


> I've not weighed in on the details of the present system or any proposed changes - tbh not a debate I've followed much beyond this thread -* I'm just bothered by the way you're dismissing the concerns seen in some communities and characterising people as purely hysterical or a vigilante mob waiting to happen*. It might be that wider social changes and consequent community breakdown mean people are less secure even if it's true about overall level of sex offending (and given the political nature of figures and other factors in the way crime is reported I'd want to see more studies before taking that as given). It might be something else. Either way, the idea that people showing concern for community welfare are somehow the most worrisome part of it strikes me a wrong-headed and contemptuous of your fellow citizens.




Same here. That cartoon was just plain nasty by the way - a horrible bit of smearing demonising anyone who might be interested in what goes on in their street as a) racist b) thugs and c) thick underclass.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

JimW said:


> I've not weighed in on the details of the present system or any proposed changes - tbh not a debate I've followed much beyond this thread - I'm just bothered by the way you're dismissing the concerns seen in some communities and characterising people as purely hysterical or a vigilante mob waiting to happen. It might be that wider social changes and consequent community breakdown mean people are less secure even if it's true about overall level of sex offending (and given the political nature of figures and other factors in the way crime is reported I'd want to see more studies before taking that as given). It might be something else. Either way, the idea that people showing concern for community welfare are somehow the most worrisome part of it strikes me a wrong-headed and contemptuous of your fellow citizens.



Don't you see that blind demands that "something be done" is the politics of fear not concern. I am concerned for my community. I have a 10 year old son who I love very much. My concern drives me to find out what the real situation is and to look at the facts. 

"Anti pedophile" demonstrations, belief in tabloid spread mis-information ( sex offences are rising, recidivism is higher for sex offenders than other criminals etc), demands for new legislation,  etc are based on fear and it is a fear born of ignorance and fanned by the tabloid press. 

You think it is contemptuous of me to point this out but it is an old game and one that has been played out time and time before. An incident creates concern, that concern is fanned into panic by the press, populist politicians jump on the band wagon and knee jerk legislation is passed. It's exactly what was done after the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks when we ended up with some of the most authoritarian legislation this country has ever seen, and it is exactly what is happening now.

Don't take my word for it. This is also the opinion of Chief Constable Terry Grange child protection spokesman for ACPO (hardly a radical) who said 


> the Home Office has "surrendered" power over policy to the News of the World.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5097102.stm


----------



## JimW (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> Don't you see that blind demands that "something be done" is the politics of fear not concern. I am concerned for my community. I have a 10 year old son who I love very much. My concern drives me to find out what the real situation is and to look at the facts.
> 
> "Anti pedophile" demonstrations, belief in tabloid spread mis-information ( sex offences are rising, recidivism is higher for sex offenders than other criminals etc), demands for new legislation,  etc are based on fear and it is a fear born of ignorance and fanned by the tabloid press.
> 
> ...



It's contemptuous when you reckon that's all it is and all it might possibly be. The tabloids push a whole number of lines and some catch on and some don't; when they do it's often because they've tapped into an existing underlying concern. I can accept well enough they may well be distorting crime figures for some other end or plain sensationalism and re-directing popular anxieties to some extent, but I'd deal with that by engaging with people as having genuine motivations - by and large people don't take action over nothing and they're not mindless puppets having their strings pulled by Murdoch, even if his stable of papers is lying. The same people who turn out for these demos are the ones who turn out to search when a kid goes missing and so on and I take it mostly as a positive sign that people want to defend community even when there's all sorts of forces working to break it down.
So my main issue is that you're dismissing and brow-beating people en masse when you could just make your case to them.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Same here. That cartoon was just plain nasty by the way - a horrible bit of smearing demonising anyone who might be interested in what goes on in their street as a) racist b) thugs and c) thick underclass.



You don't have a monopoly on being concerned for your community. This idea that only those who insist on knee jerk legislation or who demonstrate against "pedo's" are concerned for what happens on their streets I find contemptuous and insulting.

 As is the thinly veiled insinuations that those of us who oppose new legislation are in some way apologists for paedophiles. I am just as concerned for the welfare and well being of children as you are.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> You don't have a monopoly on being concerned for your community. This idea that only those who insist on knee jerk legislation or who demonstrate against "pedo's" are concerned for what happens on their streets I find contemptuous and insulting.



So who has said "only those who insist on knee jerk legislation or who demonstrate against pedos are concerned for what happens on their streets"

Its an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

I dont want to see knee jerk legislation as you put it. But i hate to see bigots like you dismissing the concerns of people you look down upon.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> So who has said "only those who insist on knee jerk legislation or who demonstrate against pedos are concerned for what happens on their streets"
> 
> Its an utterly ridiculous thing to say.
> 
> I dont want to see knee jerk legislation as you put it. But i hate to see bigots like you dismissing the concerns of people you look down upon.



You're a fucking coward. A dishonest coward at that. 
 You snipe at me for being contemptuous of these demonstrators (and you're right, I am. I think they are utterly reactionary) but you refuse to put your own cards on the table. You're as slippery as an eel. You say "I don't want to see knee jerk legislation as you put it,"  but your own contribution to this thread is to argue for exactly that.  So put up or shut up asshole. Spell out your own position on this or fuck off. Do you agree with the demand for Sarah's law type legislation in the UK or not?


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> You're a fucking coward. A dishonest coward at that.
> You snipe at me for being contemptuous of these demonstrators (and you're right, I am. I think they are utterly reactionary) but you refuse to put your own cards on the table. You're as slippery as an eel. You say "I don't want to see knee jerk legislation as you put it,"  but your own contribution to this thread is to argue for exactly that.  So put up or shut up asshole. Spell out your own position on this or fuck off. Do you agree with the demand for Sarah's law type legislation in the UK or not?



Your a hysterical idiot.

Where exactly have i argued on this thread for knee jerk legislation?????????

My own position is that i think child molesters should generally get longer sentences than they seem to do now.
That not enough rapes end up in succesful prosecutions and that laws need to be changed to make it easier to succesfully prosecute rapists and child molesters.
I think its of interest that somebody like Huntley was accused on numerous occasions of rape and yet none ended up in prosecutions.
That the bloke who murdered Sarah Payne had previously been convicted of abducting a little girl and got less than 3 years in prison....
I am in favour of replacing an unelected judiciary with elected judges.

I can understand the frustration and fears of people who have read about stuff like that and also those with some direct experience of the issue.

I think nearly all your posts show you to be somebody who looks down on others in a bigoted way.

And no i dont agree with a Sarahs law. I read the guardian not the news of the world...I hate racism sexism and homophobia  ( but not racists,sexists or homophobes)and i also hate what i think you suffer from extreme bigotry of the "im so much more clever and compassionate" than they are type.....


----------



## kenny g (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> You're a fucking coward.


 etc. etc.

Please re-read the thread, go into a dark room and think about your level of debate in this thread because I can't believe that anyone would really want to engage in such a prolonged bout of irrational and offensive claims to rationality unless they had lost all sense of perspective.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

kenny g said:


> etc. etc.
> 
> Please re-read the thread, go into a dark room and think about your level of debate in this thread because I can't believe that anyone would really want to engage in such a prolonged bout of irrational and offensive claims to rationality unless they had lost all sense of perspective.



Coming from a guy that says this



> Bring on the moral panics!



and peppers his posts with stuff like this


> paedo scum ... beast ... these scum ... these filth... paedo scum ... London's paedo filth .



And you want to lecture me on the level of debate?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 11, 2010)

kenny g said:


> etc. etc.
> 
> Please re-read the thread, go into a dark room and think about your level of debate in this thread because I can't believe that anyone would really want to engage in such a prolonged bout of irrational and offensive claims to rationality unless they had lost all sense of perspective.



Coming from someone whose posts on this thread consist mainly of "peado scum.. paedo filth.. paedo pigs... vile paedos... disgusting paedo animals..."  etc etc ad nauseum, that really is rather rich.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> Coming from a guy that says this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Beat me to it.  I guess it was a fairly obvious riposte.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Beat me to it.  I guess it was a fairly obvious riposte.



Yeah but It's good to see someone else shares my concern for the mental health of the guy.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> Yeah but It's good to see someone else shares my concern for the mental health of the guy.



He said it was a bit rich.    Nothing about mental health.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> You don't have a monopoly on being concerned for your community. This idea that only those who insist on knee jerk legislation or who demonstrate against "pedo's" are concerned for what happens on their streets I find contemptuous and insulting.
> 
> As is the thinly veiled insinuations that those of us who oppose new legislation are in some way apologists for paedophiles. I am just as concerned for the welfare and well being of children as you are.



Where did I say you were an apologist for a paedo? Nowhere. However you have been jumping to conclusions about the people concerned about sex offenders and smeared them as "hysterical" and "knee jerk".


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Where did I say you were an apologist for a paedo? Nowhere. However you have been jumping to conclusions about the people concerned about sex offenders and smeared them as "hysterical" and "knee jerk".



Why do you assume I am referring to you specifically. Bit egotistical aren't you? 

I am arguing with 3 separate people here all with different positions. 

You are in favour of further legislation. Although  you haven't answered my earlier question as to why you consider the present legislation inadequate. 

Tbaldwin has said he isn't in favour of Sarah's law type legislation but he thinks the demonstrators "concerns" should be considered and is in favour of harsher sentences. 

KennyG is just a hysterical "lynch pedo filth" type idiot who has absolutely no political point to make at all and is an embarrassment to your argument frankly. 

But to answer your point. References to me having a "self serving" agenda for example, are clearly cheap smears aimed at questioning my motives for opposing this kind of legislation. 
As for me smearing people as hysterical, (an accusation that has been thrown freely at me throughout this thread)  I think demands for further legislation are hysterical yes, because they are based on the myth that the present legislation is not protecting children. Knee jerk? absolutely, because they see this type of legislation as solving a problem despite the overwhelming evidence that it does the opposite.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> KennyG is just a hysterical "lynch pedo filth" type idiot who has absolutely no political point to make at all and is an embarrassment to your argument frankly.



Look son.

I have repeatedly stated that I think a register of convicted paedophiles with full details of the offences they have been convicted of would help increase community safety, feelings of community trust and help to prevent offences from occurring.

Your attempts to prove otherwise based on US statistics have been shown to be ill-conceived  as there has been a continued decline in offending since some legislation requiring disclosure was introduced.

This is accepting the limitations of the evidence you have presented. Including  the fact that child abuse image related offences do not appear to be included in your abuse stats.

Your denial that I have any rational point to make, when I have repeatedly answered you point by point, suggests that you prefer to pigeon hole people then enter into a rational discourse.

In effect, you have tried to dismiss a perfectly rational position, shared by the broad mass of the public, that they would like to have access to the names and addresses of convicted paedophiles in order to protect the safety and well being of their families and communities. That is a political position which I fail to see why you dismiss so lightly unless you believe that:

1.  Community safety and well being is less important than the very minor risk of attack on paedophiles, which may well happen notwithstanding there being no  public register in place.

2. There is no "stranger danger" as it is a concept of a mass panic and therefore does not exist. Consequently,  there is no increase in community safety arising from people knowing the identity of convicted paedo scum/ filth.

3. "At home" paedo filth would not be identified by new partners / church members etc if there was a public paedo-scum register. It would therefore serve no purpose as nearly all paedo beasts are in this category.

4. The request for a public register is part of a tabloid driven agenda and is therefore in itself illegitimate.

All 4 points above seem to me clearly wrong headed and illogical. In many ways they are contradictory, but they appear to be at the heart of your position.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> Why do you assume I am referring to you specifically. Bit egotistical aren't you?
> 
> I am arguing with 3 separate people here all with different positions.


You quoted my post



> You are in favour of further legislation. Although  you haven't answered my earlier question as to why you consider the present legislation inadequate.
> 
> Tbaldwin has said he isn't in favour of Sarah's law type legislation but he thinks the demonstrators "concerns" should be considered and is in favour of harsher sentences.
> 
> ...




I don't think anyone on here is going on about lynching paedo filth like you smeared kenny with saying, so no wonder people are calling you hysterical because it's so obviously untrue what you're trying to say.





> But to answer your point. References to me having a "self serving" agenda for example, are clearly cheap smears aimed at questioning my motives for opposing this kind of legislation.



Pardon? Where did I say anything about you being "self serving"? It does sound like you are replying to me here.

And present legislation would only protect children if people who aren't a danger were not being released from prison, ultimately this should not be happening anyway, then there'd be no need for anything else.


----------



## JimW (Feb 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> ...
> But to answer your point. References to me having a "self serving" agenda for example, are clearly cheap smears aimed at questioning my motives for opposing this kind of legislation.
> ...


Hang on; I'm the one who wrote that and as I clarified later when you asked, it was a reference to your style of arguing. Twisting words like this only a few posts down from that clarification isn't making your position look much stronger.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

> Look son.



Please stop calling me son. It's a bit, erm..creepy



> *KennyG*
> I have repeatedly stated that I think a register of convicted paedophiles with full details of the offences they have been convicted of would help increase community safety, feelings of community trust and help to prevent offences from occurring.



That's because you are a fucking idiot. I have shown you case after case, example after example of vigilante attacks that have followed the posting of such registers. I have shown you quotes from  ACPO,  childrens charities, academics, The Centre for Sex Offender Management. I have shown you reports from the State Department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning.I have shown you statements by the US Public Defender. All of which say the same thing. Megan's Law doesn't work and is counterproductive. 

I have given you example after example of vigilante attacks both in this country and in the US,  and you have dismissed them all.And why?  Because they don't fit your agenda. Rant and rave about "pedo filth, all you want, it doesn't change the fact. Megan's law has been a failure on every count.



> For the past 15 years the public has been left with a false sense of security. *A federally funded study has determined that Megan's Law does not work.*
> Conducted by independent psychologists along with staff from the state Department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning, this comprehensive study looked at 21 years of sex offense rates. It confirms in New Jersey what other studies have found elsewhere. *Megan's Law "has no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses."*
> Megan's Law struck out on every important area related to protecting the community from sexual offenders. Not only is there no evidence that it reduces sexual re-offenses, Megan's Law fails to positively impact sex offender re-arrest rates, fails to change the type of re-offenses or first time offenses that occur and fails to reduce the number of victims involved in sexual offenses.


http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/02/megans_law_doesnt_work_now_wha.html


> *KennyG *Your denial that I have any rational point to make, when I have repeatedly answered you point by point, suggests that you prefer to pigeon hole people then enter into a rational discourse.



Show me a single example from anywhere that shows that Megan works in the US? Show me a single reliable study that shows Megan has had any positive effect on sex offender re-offences or saved a single child from attack. One, just one. Do that and I may take you seriously, until then you are just another hysterical "do something" idiot.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

KennyG. I have only just seen your re-edit. I will reply in a bit.


----------



## dylans (Feb 11, 2010)

> *Angel.* And present legislation would only protect children if people who aren't a danger were not being released from prison, ultimately this should not be happening anyway, then there'd be no need for anything else



This is simply nonsense. Compliance with authorities in the US has fallen by a staggering 80%. That's 80% of sex offenders driven underground by this legislation. Compare this to the UK where the paedophile register has a 97 compliance rate.  
What this law does do is ensure people lose their jobs, their homes, and are driven underground. Hardly an enlightened policy if we are serious about ensuring the best chance of either the regulation or the rehabilitation of these people is it? Simply saying that people shouldn't be released from prison does nothing to answer the question. What advantage has Megan had over the present legislation in the UK?



> *KennyG* unless you believe that public safety and well being is less important than the very minor risk of attack on paedophiles, which may well happen notwithstanding there being no public register in place.



This is disengenuous and presents a completely false dichotomy. The Megan law has had no positive effect on the safety of children. In fact it has been counter productive. 


> What is equally remarkable is that other research cited by the New Jersey study, as well as our own experience, shows that Megan's Law can be "counterproductive." Notification laws have been found to isolate offenders from normal relationships, undercut their opportunities for housing and employment, and subject offenders to threats and assaults.
> In some instances, the willingness to obtain treatment can be negatively impacted. As a result of these factors, the study's researchers determined *the unintended consequences of Megan's Law may be to increase the risks of recidivism rather than to protect the community*.


http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/02/megans_law_doesnt_work_now_wha.html

How does driving these people underground help protect children?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 12, 2010)

I don't know if you are actually responding to my point, I said nothing else should be necessary if people deemed a risk were not freed from prison in the first place.

I'm not the one that has mentioned Megan's Law, or the United States as a way of doing things, by the way.


----------



## dylans (Feb 12, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> I don't know if you are actually responding to my point, I said nothing else should be necessary if people deemed a risk were not freed from prison in the first place.
> 
> I'm not the one that has mentioned Megan's Law, or the United States as a way of doing things, by the way.



You have said that  you are in favour of Sarah's law type legislation. That information should be given to resident's associations and neighbourhood watch groups. If you keep ducking the issue there really is no point in debating with you. The Megans law experience is the only example we have of the type of legislation you are advocating being used in practice it is therefore necessary to look at the experience if we plan to bring in similar legislation here and it has been an unmitigated disaster.

Simply saying, "lock them up" says nothing at all because you have already stated that you are in favour of Sarah's law type legislation here. 
So again I ask the question, what is it about the present legislation that you feel is inadequate and why do you think replacing it with Sarah's law type legislation will improve the situation?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 12, 2010)

You simply keep saying things that I've "said" that I have not. I am not the one looking to America and expecting to copy everything they've done, which is usually OTT.


----------



## dylans (Feb 12, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> I don't know if you are actually responding to my point, I said nothing else should be necessary if people deemed a risk were not freed from prison in the first place.
> .



More knee jerk nonsense. People deemed at risk of reoffending are NOT released from prison. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is not higher than other crimes (in fact it is far less).  The recidivism rate for sex offenders after 3 years is around 3% (despite what the Sun says)


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> More knee jerk nonsense. People deemed at risk of reoffending are NOT released from prison. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is not higher than other crimes (in fact it is far less).  The recidivism rate for sex offenders after 3 years is around 3% (despite what the Sun says)



Oh do fuck off with your patronising attitude.

People at risk of offending are released all the time because the prison system cannot impose longer sentences on people than the courts already have done.

I don't read the Sun.


----------



## dylans (Feb 12, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> You simply keep saying things that I've "said" that I have not. I am not the one looking to America and expecting to copy everything they've done, which is usually OTT.



Ok then enlighten me. ( because I don't feel like mooching through this thread to find your posts) . Are you in favour of the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders being made available to members of the public or not? 

Yes or no?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 12, 2010)

I don't think I will bother because you've consistently misrepresented me and others on this thread and dismissed anything that has been said as "nonsense" and other insults.

For example being in favour of some community groups having access to details of offenders living _in their area_, has been portrayed by you as wanting to publish the addresses of every sex offender in the News of the World. So there is no point in trying to engage with you.


----------



## dylans (Feb 12, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> I don't think I will bother because you've consistently misrepresented me and others on this thread and dismissed anything that has been said as "nonsense" and other insults.
> 
> For example being in favour of some community groups having access to details of offenders living _in their area_, has been portrayed by you as wanting to publish the addresses of every sex offender in the News of the World. So there is no point in trying to engage with you.



Because your argument has been destroyed. It would be nice if you had the courage to admit it.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Because your argument has been destroyed. It would be nice if you had the courage to admit it.



Excuse me, but you are trying to say that I basically called you a paedophile a few posts ago, because you can't argue rationally without misrepresenting other people's opinions.

You lie about other people's positions and then arrogantly dismiss their opinions.


----------



## dylans (Feb 12, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Excuse me, but you are trying to say that I basically called you a paedophile a few posts ago, because you can't argue rationally without misrepresenting other people's opinions.
> 
> You lie about other people's positions and then arrogantly dismiss their opinions.



I have provided you with substantial evidence of the negative consequences of making the names and addresses of offenders known to the public. You haven't answered that, because there is no answer. All the evidence shows that it leads to vigilantism, it drives sex offenders underground, it has a negative effect on rehabilitation and indeed makes reoffending more likely. 

Because you are incapable of answering that you are now throwing your rattle out of the pram.

( btw- my comment about smears wasn't aimed at you, as has been said, so stop dodging the issue)
But you are right, this is no longer a debate about issues, it is rapidly becoming a childish flame war, so unless you wish to address the issue I guess the argument is over)


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> I have provided you with substantial evidence of the negative consequences of making the names and addresses of offenders known to the public. You haven't answered that, because there is no answer. All the evidence shows that it leads to vigilantism, it drives sex offenders underground, it has a negative effect on rehabilitation and indeed makes reoffending more likely.
> 
> Because you are incapable of answering that you are now throwing your rattle out of the pram.



Do you think you could admit you mixed me up with another poster when you tried to accuse me of saying I thought you were a paedo apologist?

You're the only one on this thread getting this aeriated and putting words into people's mouths.


----------



## dylans (Feb 12, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Do you think you could admit you mixed me up with another poster when you tried to accuse me of saying I thought you were a paedo apologist?
> 
> You're the only one on this thread getting this aeriated and putting words into people's mouths.



Yes I can admit that. I mixed you up with another poster.I apologise.  I am big enough to do that.

 Now can you admit that you have no substantive reply to the case I make that changing legislation to bring in some variant of Sarah's law would be counter productive.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 12, 2010)

Thank you.

I am not basing anything on "megan's law" because I don't know enough about it but the bit I do know sounds extreme. I don't also know exactly what is proposed by Sarah's Law, but I don't think it's a bad thing for local areas to be put in charge of information about what goes on in their communities.
Information is just that, not a green light for some kind of vigilante activity which is what you are envisaging.

Of course there are going to be some bastards in any community, but you can't let a few idiots mean not treating the rest of the population as grown ups.

I would have thought sensitive information being passed on of this nature would also go hand in hand with increased police protection for individuals deemed to be at any risk.

Unfortunately tho I think "monitoring" of these people in the community by "professionals" is shaky at best because they are over stretched. Letting parents and neighbourhood's be aware of what is going on is often more helpful.


----------



## dylans (Feb 12, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I am not basing anything on "megan's law" because I don't know enough about it but the bit I do know sounds extreme. I don't also know exactly what is proposed by Sarah's Law, but I don't think it's a bad thing for local areas to be put in charge of information about what goes on in their communities.
> Information is just that, not a green light for some kind of vigilante activity which is what you are envisaging.
> ...



This is my whole point. The present legislation does a bloody good job of monitoring convicted sex offenders. 97% compliance is a pretty good figure (especially compared to the wholeful compliance rate for Megan) 

Demands for a change in legislation. That "something must be done" are based on an erroneous view of the present situation. The idea that there is a problem that is not being addressed and the belief that new legislation is necessary to address this problem
But the facts say the opposite. There is no rise in sex offences.In fact they have fallen.  No increase in rates of recidivism. No higher levels of recidivism for sex offenders as opposed to other crimes.  No crisis to be resolved and certainly no problem that a change in legislation would solve. 
It's a moral panic. There is no problem to be solved.


----------



## JimW (Feb 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> ...
> 
> But the facts say the opposite. There is no rise in sex offences.In fact they have fallen.  No increase in rates of recidivism. No higher levels of recidivism for sex offenders as opposed to other crimes.  No crisis to be resolved and certainly no problem that a change in legislation would solve.
> It's a moral panic. There is no problem to be solved.



This is the bit you've not convinced me on - partly because your 'facts' are pulled in from all over the shop, hopping back and forward across the Atlantic as suits, partly because it smacks of New Labour figure juggling to paint a picture. I admit as I said above that I've not looked into this issue in any depth, but sound bites like 'low recidivism' are I believe the case for most major crimes as opposed to, say, shop lifting, but that's not comparing like with like, plus also there's the different consequences if someone returns to kiddy fiddling as against going back to nicking socks from Primark.
Then you're conflating these two: 'no crisis' and 'no problem legislation can resolve' - my suspicion is these demos etc are part of a larger crisis in community breakdown. I'd agree that legislation scapegoating a few offenders, however despicable their crimes, won't actually address that bigger picture, but then nor will just telling people who are responding to the crisis that it's all just a moral panic and they should go home, lock their doors and let the authorities deal with things. That's why I say I've not been impressed with the tone of your contribution - starting off from the notion that people concerned about their community are as much or more part of the problem as the anti-social criminals and establishment that's presided over the breakdown. In effect, you seem happy to let the Murdoch rags and various other agenda pushers be the only ones to respond to this general sense that something's up with working class communities with anything other than outright dismissal.


----------



## dylans (Feb 12, 2010)

JimW said:


> This is the bit you've not convinced me on - partly because your 'facts' are pulled in from all over the shop, hopping back and forward across the Atlantic as suits, partly because it smacks of New Labour figure juggling to paint a picture. I admit as I said above that I've not looked into this issue in any depth, but sound bites like 'low recidivism' are I believe the case for most major crimes as opposed to, say, shop lifting, but that's not comparing like with like, plus also there's the different consequences if someone returns to kiddy fiddling as against going back to nicking socks from Primark.
> Then you're conflating these two: 'no crisis' and 'no problem legislation can resolve' - my suspicion is these demos etc are part of a larger crisis in community breakdown. I'd agree that legislation scapegoating a few offenders, however despicable their crimes, won't actually address that bigger picture, but then nor will just telling people who are responding to the crisis that it's all just a moral panic and they should go home, lock their doors and let the authorities deal with things. That's why I say I've not been impressed with the tone of your contribution - starting off from the notion that people concerned about their community are as much or more part of the problem as the anti-social criminals and establishment that's presided over the breakdown. In effect, you seem happy to let the Murdoch rags and various other agenda pushers be the only ones to respond to this general sense that something's up with working class communities with anything other than outright dismissal.



Let's put this into context. We are not talking about outraged communites mobilising around a real issue that affects their neighbourhoods. We are talking about a 50 strong demonstration in dorset. Look at the footage. They are carrying a banner from that disgusting vigilante site Ratbook. It seems the vicious fuckers have supplied the Tshirts too. 

These 50 people do not represent any significant community. They are a bunch of tabloid inspired idiots supported by one of the vilest websites on the internet.  I find it incredible that you give them any credence frankly.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Show me a single example from anywhere that shows that Megan works in the US? Show me a single reliable study that shows Megan has had any positive effect on sex offender re-offences or saved a single child from attack. One, just one. Do that and I may take you seriously, until then you are just another hysterical "do something" idiot.





 Your position is based on a fallacy.

 You could use the same argument against the imprisonment of Ian Brady by requesting that you are shown one child who was saved by his imprisonment. 

The fact that I have not got a "study" to hand proves nothing.The dross you linked to earlier and keep on quoting at length is just an irrelevant mishmash of US statistics plagued with subjective comments and  references to other dross. It  proves nothing, which has been shown by the FACT that I easily built a counter position using the very same report that you linked to. Your response? Oh but that isn't what the study says! When all the study says is a wittering between cut and pastes.

Your posts have been utter horse crap. They have the integrity of a tabloid hack, but with the pretentiousness of a failed academic. 

You have built a series of disingenuous straw men which you have then proceeded to insult and misunderstand. You are everything that you claim to hate.


----------



## dylans (Feb 12, 2010)

I have said everything I want to on this thread so I will leave you to chase your bogeymen Kenny. People can read the thread for themselves and decide who is full of it and who isn't. Have a nice evening.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> I have said everything I want to on this thread so I will leave you to chase your bogeymen Kenny. People can read the thread for themselves and decide who is full of it and who isn't. Have a nice evening.



You too, have a nice one. Thank you for your tenacity in the face of defeat.


----------



## dylans (Feb 13, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You too, have a nice one. Thank you for your tenacity in the face of defeat.








"If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the mor'ning. Hammer in the eve' ning", etc etc


----------



## Louloubelle (Feb 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> More knee jerk nonsense. People deemed at risk of reoffending are NOT released from prison. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is not higher than other crimes (in fact it is far less).  The recidivism rate for sex offenders after 3 years is around 3% (despite what the Sun says)



I used to know 2 psychotherapists who worked in prisons with predatory sex offenders for years 

They did not share your view and were highly doubtful that the people they worked with could actually change 

I would be genuinely interested to read any credible literature  that validates your claim of a 3% recidivism rate


----------



## dylans (Feb 13, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> I used to know 2 psychotherapists who worked in prisons with predatory sex offenders for years
> 
> They did not share your view and were highly doubtful that the people they worked with could actually change
> 
> I would be genuinely interested to read any credible literature  that validates your claim of a 3% recidivism rate





> Sex offenders, thought to reoffend compulsively, have in fact the lowest recidivism rate of any class of criminal. In 2004, the Solicitor General of Canada measured the recidivism rate for child molestation at 12.7%; the US Bureau of Justice Statistics recently found that three years after release, the recidivism rate for all sex offenders averaged 5.3%.



Source . http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=BF0FA813-7607-4666-B1F081D6A6C701CC

Other studies have put the rate at around 11%. Either way, the actual figures give the lie to the often repeated claim that recidivism is extra ordinarily high for sex offenders. It isn't. 



> Additionally, studies examining recidivism rates of sexual offenders within particular institutions have found low recidivism rates for sexual offenders, approximately 11 percent recidivism, as well as more comprehensive meta-analytical reviews reporting 12 percent recidivism among released sexual offenders (Hanson, Gordon,Harris, Marques, Murphy, Quinsey, & Seto, 2002; Nicholaichuk et al., 2000; Zgoba etal., 2003). Interestingly though, these low recidivism rates do not result in a re-formulation of legislation or a change in the perception of the media, politicians or the concerned public. For the most part, child offenders are viewed as predators solely prevented from re-offending by way of the current legislation, including both Megan’s Law and the Amber Alert. The propagated theories of highly recidivating child predators pave the way for child safety legislation, but may also create the counter productive result of misleading the public and misdirecting funds (Simon, 1997). The public is led to believe they are safe with this legislation in place, but the research *illustrates that the majority of sexual offenders are not re-offending*


http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/REU/pdf/Moral_Panic.pdf


----------



## Louloubelle (Feb 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> Source . http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=BF0FA813-7607-4666-B1F081D6A6C701CC



sorry

just to clarify

i was asking for _credible literature _

research by professionals working in the field and published published in reputable journals


----------



## smokedout (Feb 13, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> i was asking for _credible literature _
> 
> research by professionals working in the field and published published in reputable journals



as opposed to i used to know someone who worked in that field which is all you provided


----------



## dylans (Feb 13, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> sorry
> 
> just to clarify
> 
> ...



Not online but by By writing to the *National Criminal Justice Reference Center, *P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, Maryland 20849-6000, you can obtain the following reports.



> NCJ-163392 (February 7, 1997), Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault, finds the recidivism rate of 2,214 convicted rapists released from prison was 7.7% after three years. The only category of crimes with a lower recidivism rate are those persons convicted of murder (6.8%).





> NCJ-193427 (June, 2002), Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, finds the recidivism rate of 3,138 convicted rapists released from prison was 2.5% after three years. The only category of crimes with a lower recidivism rate are those persons convicted of murder (1.2%).



In addition the paper I did quote earlier is from Criminal Justice Studies,
Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2004, pp. 385–404. 
Source here. http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/REU/pdf/Moral_Panic.pdf

Are they credible enough for you? 

Here are some more. 

*Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up of 1989 Sex Offenders*
Releases, Office of Policy, Bureau of Planning and Evaluation, Paul Konicek, Principle Researcher



> The recidivism rate of 879 sex offenders released from Ohio’s prisons in 1989, after ten (10) years, was found to be 8% for new sex offenses.



The ODRC study finds its results as typical, citing to:



> 1) Gibbons, Soothill, and Way, found in Furby, Weinrott &
> Blackshaw, 1989. (Twelve year study finding sex offender recidivism
> rate of 4%).
> 
> ...



These studies are cited on page 11 of the ODRC report here

http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf
On page 15 of the report the findings are summarised thus.
"





> Contrary to the popular idea that sex offenders are repeatedly returning to prison for further sex crimes, in this population a sex offender recidivating for a new sex offense within 10 years of release was a relatively rare occurrence


.

The idea that sex offenders have a higher recidivism rate than other criminals is a lie and a lie that is repeated endlessly regardless of the facts.  It has been repeated on this thread. The high risk of reoffending was one of the principle arguments for Megan and Amber  and it is one of the main arguments used by those who advocate for Sarah's law type legislation here. The evidence however says differently.


----------



## Louloubelle (Feb 13, 2010)

Thanks dylans

That is more like the kind of material I was thinking of

I will take a good look at it when I have a few hours to spare, possibly next week 

My understanding is that the category of sex offenders is a very broad one and that sexual offenders fall into a variety of categories and some just cannot stop themselves, whereas some might be more likely to be able to.

Also the type of offending is on a scale from molesting women by groping them in the street (including bottom pinching) through to crimes that are much more serious for example the kidnapping and rape of young children. 

I'm genuinely interested in the subject and would like to do the subject justice by informing myself properly


----------



## dylans (Feb 13, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> Thanks dylans
> 
> That is more like the kind of material I was thinking of
> 
> ...



Yes and  one of the criticisms of broad sweep laws like Megans law type disclosure legislation is that it include everything from public urination (public indecency) through to child abduction, rape, and murder in it's definition of sexual offences. Regardless of the seriousness of offence, they all end up on the public register.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> Yes and  one of the criticisms of broad sweep laws like Megans law type disclosure legislation is that it include everything from public urination (public indecency) through to child abduction, rape, and murder in it's definition of sexual offences. Regardless of the seriousness of offence, they all end up on the public register.



Yes and that is _exactly_ why I've stated such a thing is a bad idea. Lumping in prostitutes, blokes caught weeing and the 16 year old boy sleeping with a 15 year old girl is NOT what is needed.

You really are the only person talking about 'Megan's Law'!


----------



## dylans (Feb 13, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Yes and that is _exactly_ why I've stated such a thing is a bad idea. Lumping in prostitutes, blokes caught weeing and the 16 year old boy sleeping with a 15 year old girl is NOT what is needed.
> 
> You really are the only person talking about 'Megan's Law'!



You have said time and time again that you want a change in legislation to allow members of the public access to information about sex offenders.(yeah I know, only leaders of neighbourhood watch schemes and residents associations) . 
I have given you literally reams of evidence as to why that's a bad idea, you have ignored them all because they don't fit your "do something agenda. 
 You have given me no good reason (except old wives tales about bogeymen and lies about high recidivism rates) why the present legislation needs changing.

There really isn't any point in my discussing with you any more because facts and evidence mean nothing to you or to the 50 or so idiots who marched through  Weymouth waving Ratbook placards and screaming "pedos out." 

So I won't.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> You have said time and time again that you want a change in legislation to allow members of the public access to information about sex offenders.(yeah I know, only leaders of neighbourhood watch schemes and residents associations) .
> I have given you literally reams of evidence as to why that's a bad idea, you have ignored them all because they don't fit your "do something agenda.
> You have given me no good reason (*except old wives tales about bogeymen *and lies about high recidivism rates) why the present legislation needs changing.
> 
> ...




You're putting words in my mouth now.

Other people have been discussing wider issues than this march, but you seem unable to focus on anything other than "idiots marching with placards screaming"


----------



## Zaskar (Feb 13, 2010)

YAWN - anyone who goes on a PEEEDDOOOO demo is a divver.


----------



## dylans (Feb 13, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> You're putting words in my mouth now.



No I'm not. I'm quoting you. 



> *Angel* Unfortunately people with these histories (of abuse) have a very high re-offending rate.



This is a tabloid myth and completely untrue. I have posted reams of evidence to show this. 



> Other people have been discussing wider issues than this march, but you seem unable to focus on anything other than "idiots marching with placards screaming"



Throughout this thread I have been told that I am contemptous of the people in the OP. I look down on them. I have no respect for their "concerns" (All of which is true I am, I do and I don't) I mention the demonstrators because I want to question this groundswell of concern you claim exists. I don't see ordinary communities mobilising around a genuine concern. I don't see a crisis.

 I see 50 idiots marching through  the streets of Weymouth wearing Tshirts from one of the nastiest vigilante websites on the internet and spouting ill informed hysterical bollocks straight from the pages of the daily mail.


----------



## Zaskar (Feb 13, 2010)

Seconded.
Nasty angry poor idiots that have been provoked by nasty manipulative rich idiots.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 13, 2010)

Zaskar said:


> Seconded.
> Nasty angry poor idiots that have been provoked by nasty manipulative rich idiots.



Isn't that a tad patronising? 

Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are manipulated.

It could be the other way around. Or perhaps you are wrong to posit nastiness on either side. Surely being concerned about community safety is a positive attribute?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> No I'm not. I'm quoting you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes but we've all moved on to talking about broader issues than the demonstration and that website. You actually would be helping dispel myths if there were actual facts allowed to people and no one is advocating tabloids printing names and addresses of anyone. You appear to be creating a false argument for anyone who disagrees with you.


----------



## sabatical (Feb 14, 2010)

Baby P's stepfather badly scalded as boiling water is thrown over him by another inmate

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250715/Baby-Ps-stepfather-scalded-napalm-attack.html

Amazing how many comments at end of story....


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Feb 14, 2010)

I could well believe it's a 'grass roots' thing, however contrived (and albeit by evangelical types).

It seems like they're simulating community order, since it obviously does not exist in reality.


----------



## sabatical (Feb 16, 2010)

What's these about  ?


http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2010/02/justice-secretary-linked-to-lord.html

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Justice Secretary linked to Lord Advocate's lawyers after Police arrest journalist over reporting of Aberdeen Paedophile gang claims 

---

http://www.ukcolumn.org/2010/02/11/angiolini-covering-for-paedophilia/

Angiolini: Covering for Paedophilia?
Article by Mike Robinson    Feb 11th 2010


----------



## dylans (Feb 16, 2010)

sabatical said:


> What's these about  ?
> 
> 
> http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2010/02/justice-secretary-linked-to-lord.html
> ...



Conspiraloon nonsense. 
The police investigated her 30 year old claims of high ranking paedophile rings (which supposedly included politicians and judges and cops )and found no evidence. Not happy with this,  Loony journo Robert Green started handing out libellous flyers naming innocent people and accusing them of involvement and accusing high ranking police officers and the judiciary of covering up the story and was arrested for breach of the peace. 
. Green claims there is a state cover up which includes the police, the judiciary, politicians  and now even the BBC. He's a loon. This is a new spin on the old Satanic pedo gangs story.



> If you want to really get to the paedophiles you should look at Westminster”. The implications of this statement are frightening – a paedophile ring amongst our political leaders – the political elite which has control of education and Social Services? The general public needs to open its eyes and confront this evil – and fast.


 blah blah blah


----------



## kenny g (Feb 16, 2010)

Pretty mad blogs are linked to.

How about this?


http://stolenkids-hollie.blogspot.com/2009/07/shocking-story-of-hollie-greig.html

http://gross-art.blogspot.com/


----------



## dylans (Feb 17, 2010)

This is what happens when we start looking for monsters "out there" We posit an evil. a pedo, a trafficker, a groomer, a stranger, out there. Then whenever a tragedy occurs and some cunt does hurt a kid it confirms our worst fears and we start to see a crisis where none exists. There is no pedo crisis that needs to be addressed. Sexual offences against children are not increasing. But that doesn't fit with the narrative and so is ignored.
Instead fear drives people to seek out the monster and that fear is amplified by the media. Demands for new legislation are made by the tabloid press. They hit a populist note and amplify it further. Finally populist politicians pick up the ball and give it a respectable authority. This further amplifies the fears as people see the issue being aired by politicians, The media raise the volume and demand new legislation. The government, afraid of being seen as soft on crime pass new legislation. The cycle is complete until a  new tragedy occurs and round we go again


----------



## kenny g (Feb 18, 2010)

dylans said:


> This is what happens when we start looking for monsters "out there" We posit an evil. a pedo, a trafficker, a groomer, a stranger, out there. Then whenever a tragedy occurs and some cunt does hurt a kid it confirms our worst fears and we start to see a crisis where none exists. There is no pedo crisis that needs to be addressed. Sexual offences against children are not increasing. But that doesn't fit with the narrative and so is ignored.
> Instead fear drives people to seek out the monster and that fear is amplified by the media. Demands for new legislation are made by the tabloid press. They hit a populist note and amplify it further. Finally populist politicians pick up the ball and give it a respectable authority. This further amplifies the fears as people see the issue being aired by politicians, The media raise the volume and demand new legislation. The government, afraid of being seen as soft on crime pass new legislation. The cycle is complete until a  new tragedy occurs and round we go again



OK, it is a nice theory but the fact is that even if there is a cycle, somewhere in that cycle there is a reality, which is that children are abused and hurt by paedophile beasts. Whatever the role of the meejah there is still something that needs to be tackled. A public register of convicted paedophiles would help to tackle that and reduce fear. It would identify the bogeymen and by doing so would stop them being bogeymen, they would become known individuals for children and parents to avoid.

Your argument is like someone denying that pit bull terriors are a problem just because the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed as a result of a summer media frenzy. Dangerous dogs are still an issue whatever has been said about them in the meejah.


----------



## dylans (Feb 18, 2010)

The issue becomes a moral panic when the response is disproportionate to the threat. Dangerous dogs act is a good example of a pointless and unnecessary law enacted on the back of a moral panic. Demands for more child abuse legislation are another. 

There was no need for the dangerous dogs act and there is no need for Sarah's law.

Oh and er..pit bulls aren't really a problem either


----------



## kenny g (Feb 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> Oh and er..pit bulls aren't really a problem either



Yeh, er right:

picture of child scalped by pitbull

your position kind of proves my point.


----------



## dylans (Feb 20, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Yeh, er right:
> 
> picture of child scalped by pitbull
> 
> your position kind of proves my point.



I'm sure I could find pictures of people injured by rusty nails on google if I tried. Doesn't mean we need legislation to deal with the growing rusty nail crisis does it?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 20, 2010)

dylans said:


> I'm sure I could find pictures of people injured by rusty nails on google if I tried. Doesn't mean we need legislation to deal with the growing rusty nail crisis does it?



Not a very convincing argument. Google pitbull injuries and you will find stacks of horrific injuries. Rusty nails, nothing, this is despite tetanus.

Are you denying that pitbulls attack children. Or is it all a media scare and therefore untrue?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 20, 2010)

If legislation was already used properly (ie dogs roaming being taken more seriously) prob there wouldn't have been a need for any more of it however, some dogs are more dangerous than others, altho I can think of plenty that are dangerous beside just pitbulls.

(And this is a separate thread but "moral" panic?? I actually do tend to panic when I see one of those dogs yep)


----------



## kenny g (Feb 20, 2010)

little dogs tend to bite more often statistically but the point is that their bites are considerably less effective than the banned breeds.


----------



## dylans (Feb 20, 2010)

I'm starting a campaign for Dylans law. Yesterday I scratched my foot badly on a rusty nail.  This has to stop. ENOUGH! It is obvious that the incidents of rusty nail scratches has been growing unchecked for a long time and do gooding Governments have done NOTHING. Well we at the CDL (Campaign for Dylans Law) Demand something be done. We demand

*A public register of all rusty nail cases to be accessed by the public.

*The registration of all nail sales and the public shaming of those irresponsible hardware stores that sell to the under 21s

*Mandatory prison sentences to those sellers in the event of Rusty nail tragedies.

Join us now. Write to your MP and ask them what they are doing about the rusty nail crisis and demand they support Dylans law now

*DYLANS LAW. TOGETHER WE CAN NAIL IT! *


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 20, 2010)

yuck,

that made me feel all queazy.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 20, 2010)

You remind me of Jean Baudrillard, the French philosopher who argues that the 1991 Iraq war did not take place because it was a media event.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IGswfqekMuQC&dq=The+Gulf+War+Did+Not+Take+Place+(Paperback)&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=W0eAS9zXCY2OjAel0fjMBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

To quote the introduction from page 6



> "They occasionally force the facts to fit their own rhetorical oppositions"



Pretty much sums up your tactics.


----------



## dylans (Feb 20, 2010)

You.  Kenny G. Will you support my campaign against the evils of Rusty Nails or not? What say you? Join me in this heroic campaign against the evil of Rusty Nails that is sweeping the nation. Together we can end this rising tragedy. 

* Support Dylan's Law!  *


----------



## kenny g (Feb 20, 2010)

You may mock, but some may find the denying of, and then the ridiculing of, the plight of maimed and abused children somewhat distasteful.


----------



## dylans (Feb 20, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You may mock, but some may find the denying of, and then the ridiculing of, the plight of maimed and abused children somewhat distasteful.



I'm not mocking. I'm setting up a facebook group. Do you have any idea how many people are injured by rusty nails every day. Well, er, neither do I but I'm sure its loads. And SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. We urgently need new legislation to deal with this scourge and shame the do gooder politicians into action. 






Kenny. Comrade. Join me in this crusade. We urgently need your erudite and intelligent contribution to the cause. What do you say? 
TOGETHER WE CAN NAIL IT.


----------



## dylans (Feb 20, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You remind me of Jean Baudrillard, the French philosopher who argues that the 1991 Iraq war did not take place because it was a media event.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well I will take that as a compliment because Baudrillard's 3 essays are a brilliant analysis of the way that war was packaged and presented. 

You have actually read those essays right? Because if you have you would realise that Baudrillard is not saying that conflict didn't actually take place, rather he questions the reality of events compared to the way those events were presented to us. the way the war was presented as entertainment and branded by the news networks. The high tech images of smart bombs falling, the embedded journalists etc, all created a situation in which the reality of what we were watching on our TV screens bore little relation to the reality on the ground. 

When he says the war didn't happen, he is saying that the one sided nature of the conflict makes us question whether it should be called a "war" at all. Perhaps the word "slaughter" is more appropriate given that casualties were almost entirely Iraqi.( 100.000 Iraqi casualties compared to 213 Allied troops-and most of those killed by their own side)

 I think his analysis can be applied very appropriately to the way that modern media inspired moral panics present hyper reality versions of events and spin them into distorted versions of reality for our consumption. A child murder or similar tragedy becomes cause for a panic about "rising tides of pedophiles" when the reality is it is an isolated tragedy. A single animal attack becomes a panic over "killer dogs savaging the public" where the reality is that dog attacks haven't significantly risen etc. 



> "a masquerade of information: branded faces delivered over to the prostitution of the image, the image of an unintelligible distress" (Baudrillard 2001, 40)


. 

The pedo in the park or the vicious animal fit this idea of the image of what is real being presented as the real but is not real. Rather, what is presented is a media spectacle in place of reality. A packaged and ideologically spun image of reality that we accept and believe. 

To be honest. Given the way you present Baudrillard's essays as claiming that the conflict didn't occur (not his position at all) I have to think you haven't actually read him have you? 

But we digress. Have you any opinions on my rusty nail panic.( er I mean urgent campaign) I have considered contacting the sun.What do you think of my latest flyer? 







> *Kenny G* Google pitbull injuries and you will find stacks of horrific injuries. *Rusty nails, nothing,* this is despite tetanus



You callous bastard. You vicious rusty nail loving scum. Denying the reality of the rusty nail crisis. Kids will have nails in their feet tonight because of YOU. I hope you can sleep at night Kenny.  It's because of people like you that the rusty nail filth continue to maim and and, well, maim and maim OUR CHILDREN. Think of the children Kenny. Please, think of the children. SUPPORT DYLAN'S LAW


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

> A single animal attack becomes a panic over "killer dogs savaging the public" where the reality is that dog attacks haven't significantly risen etc.





> A child murder or similar tragedy becomes cause for a panic about "rising tides of pedophiles" when the reality is it is an isolated tragedy.



But they aren't isolated attacks, that is the whole point. You are letting your theory cloud your vision.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

Well, I'm glad the packs of dogs running around my old estate were all in my imagination!


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> But they aren't isolated attacks, that is the whole point. You are letting your theory cloud your vision.



But rusty nail accidents aren't isolated incidents either. Despite your refusal to recognise the seriousness of the rusty nail crisis, THEY ARE REAL. 






You see. I can take incidents of accidents such as this and spin a crisis out of it. Examples of rusty nail incidents are undoubtedly real and I can find lots if I look hard enough. What isn't real is my attempt to make it a campaign issue. This is exactly what the media have done over recent years over pedohiles, dangerous dogs, knife crime, ecstacy, methadrone, etc. 

My mockery isn't of the victims of incidents related to these issues. They are undoubtedly real. The mockery is of the spin that is given to them and the way the response is disproportionate to the threat.

So are you going to support my campaign for Dylan's Law or not Kenny? What about you Angel. Are you going to stand up for the children who are maimed by rusty nails? Are you going to join me and demand that something be done? SUPPORT DYLAN'S LAW NOW!

*Ban the sale of nails to under 21s

*Demand the public registration of all nail sales and the licencing of all hardware stores who stock this dangerous product. 

*Enforce mandatory prison sentences for the sellers of nails that lead to accidents.

* Criminalise the irresponsible use and  casual discarding of rusty nails. 

* Public naming and shaming of rusty nail offenders.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> The mockery is of the spin that is given to them and the way the response is disproportionate to the threat.



The position that I have repeatedly offered is that the publishing of the identities of convicted paedophiles along with details of the offence for which they have been convicted would not be disproportionate to the threat. 

You originally stated that there was no threat from strangers.

You have now moved on from that position to claiming that the threat is a product of a mass panic, and that by engineering a mass panic the media is able to make anything appear suitable for regulatory control.

Well, your sick satire rather proves my point. It is absurd and the reason it is absurd is because it is completely disproportionate to the threat.

There is ample evidence that children are attacked by paedophiles. Identifying them to help improve community safety is a proportionate act.

Similarly, ensuring that large, strong dogs bred for fighting are muzzled and neutered is proportionate when you consider what they are capable of, and the horrific injuries that have taken place. 

You have denied both threats which is what is really absurd about your position.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

> It is absurd and the reason it is absurd is because it is completely disproportionate to the threat.



Yes it is. Just like Sarah's law legislation. I rest my case.



> the threat is a product of a mass panic, and that by engineering a mass panic the media is able to make anything appear suitable for regulatory control.


You took the words right out of my mouth

(So I guess you aren't going to join my campaign for Dylan's law then?)


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

> You have now moved on from that position to claiming that the threat is a product of a mass panic, and that by engineering a mass panic the media is able to make anything appear suitable for regulatory control.



was what I said. I do not think that the media can make the absurd appear reasonable to the degree that you appear to. As with your rusty nail example, it still appears absurd whatever the gloss because it is completely disproportionate.

Requiring that the public be able to know about convicted paedophiles living in their communities is not disproportionate.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

> ]*kenny g* I do not think that the media can make the absurd appear reasonable to the degree that you appear to.



Really? Did you see this in the drug forum?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/8519550.stm



> A former user told the BBC he was funding his £200 a day habit through selling everything he had, then stealing and ended up sleeping in a public toilet.


Now the claim that someone has a £200 a day Meph habit is blatantly absurd. That's nearly 30 grams a day! An impossible amount. This is an absolutely absurd story. 

But because of reporting like this and similar scare stories about ecstacy and skunk we have the making of a moral panic. The clamoring to make or keep these drugs illegal, harsher sentences etc.. The facts (that ecstacy is far far safer than alcohol for example) are distorted and hidden in favour of the panic. Facts go out the window in favour of sensation. Swine Flu, the black death, terrorists, online sex traffickers, knife crime, dangerous dogs, head bangers, it is an old old story. 

 Here is an example of a scare story about hoodies.





Makes my rusty nail campaign seem almost reasonable.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

Do you believe there is no substance to anything the media report? How about the Haiti earthquake?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

I don't believe the wealthy filth who control and work in the media give us a true or useful picture of the world.

It's almost routine for anyone who's been involved in a news story to read the newspapers' accounts of events with incredulity. And often with resentment and anger as well.

Remember this ... 





> After Hillsborough, the tabloid newspaper the Sun published its infamous front page headlined ‘The Truth’, which claimed that drunken Liverpool fans had robbed the dead, urinated on corpses, attacked emergency service rescuers and all the rest of it. The paper is still understandably vilified for printing such lies. As one fan who was trapped at Hillsborough wrote to other papers at the time, he had indeed been pissed and vomited on in that cage – by crushed people in their death throes.rpool fans had robbed the dead, urinated on corpses, attacked emergency service rescuers and all the rest of it. The paper is still understandably vilified for printing such lies. As one fan who was trapped at Hillsborough wrote to other papers at the time, he had indeed been pissed and vomited on in that cage – by crushed people in their death throes.
> 
> source


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

Just because tabloids print shit -yes they do - does not mean a) everyone reads it and b) everyone takes it seriously

It also doesn't follow that everything they print is automatically wrong every time either.

Broadsheets are also capable of manipulating the facts to suit their argument, too.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Do you believe there is no substance to anything the media report? How about the Haiti earthquake?



Good example. Charlie Brooker on Newswipe did a brilliant expose of the awful way the Haiti tragedy was reported. Stories of looting where none occurred. Stories that ignored the incredible community solidarity amongst people in favour of reports of unrest and violence  Reporters siezing on isolated examples of violence in order to smear the Haitian people etc. 

He shows an example of people collecting cardboard boxes and throwing them around in a clearly playful manner, an attempt at   a little fun in the midst of all the horror. The report of the incident painted the participants as fighting over card boxes as though they were desperate animals. A close look at the footage showed clearly that the reported story was a complete distortion,

It's not that there is no substance to it, rather it is spun and packaged to suit an agenda and thrown back on itself as an image of reality that often bears little resemblence to real events


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Just because tabloids print shit -yes they do - does not mean a) everyone reads it and b) everyone takes it seriously
> 
> It also doesn't follow that everything they print is automatically wrong every time either.
> 
> Broadsheets are also capable of manipulating the facts to suit their argument, too.



Oh yes. I have no particular bias against tabloids as opposed to broadsheets or TV media, the game is played all across the board


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> But that's the whole point, there are no "realistc policies" because it is a demonstration based on fear of mythical demons. The paedo in the park with a bag of sweets. Of course the abuse all around them, the very real issue of domestic abuse is completely ignored in favour of a tabloid inspired fear of strangers. The abuse isn't in the home.No, its out there, it's mysterious pedos surfing the web and hanging around the parks. Lets demand more CRBs. Lets demand something be done.
> 
> I'm not only talking about domestic sexual and physical abuse (which is where the vast majority of child abuse takes place)  but also the mundane neglect of loveless relationships where children grow up feeling they are an unwanted burden.
> 
> I've lost count of the times I've collected my kid from school and passed miserable parents yelling at their kids to "get down, stop it, come ere, don't do that" Not the abuse that gets reported in the sun but miserable loveless lives nonetheless.



Abuse (sexual as well as physical and emotional) *can* come from home.
That, however, doesn't mean it doesn't emanate from other sites such as schools or from strangers.
I'm always annoyed by arguments that it must be _A_ *or* _B_, because it is obvious that abuse can come from _A_ *and* _B_.

BTW, surely surmising from the example of children being shouted at that they have "miserable loveless lives" is a bit of a stab in the dark?

I


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Not a very convincing argument. Google pitbull injuries and you will find stacks of horrific injuries. Rusty nails, nothing, this is despite tetanus.
> 
> Are you denying that pitbulls attack children. Or is it all a media scare and therefore untrue?


You know, what really. REALLY depresses me about the world and humanity is that sloppy, lazy thinking like this isn't even exceptional. It's so obviously and self-evidently wrong, but a) enough people think like that to create a kind of de facto majority ("so we're therefore right - we must be because there's more of us"), and b) a critical feature of such thinking is a total inability to step outside from within its own frame of reference, and see the flaws in it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Shoplifters don't usually arouse murderous rage in people.



They do on Urban.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

existentialist said:


> You know, what really. REALLY depresses me about the world and humanity is that sloppy, lazy thinking like this isn't even exceptional. It's so obviously and self-evidently wrong, but a) enough people think like that to create a kind of de facto majority ("so we're therefore right - we must be because there's more of us"), and b) a critical feature of such thinking is a total inability to step outside from within its own frame of reference, and see the flaws in it.



"I am so more intelligent than all of you" LOL!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Maybe, and the most humane cure is suicide.



That's hardly a cure, more of a "solution".


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Abuse (sexual as well as physical and emotional) *can* come from home.
> That, however, doesn't mean it doesn't emanate from other sites such as schools or from strangers.
> I'm always annoyed by arguments that it must be _A_ *or* _B_, because it is obvious that abuse can come from _A_ *and* _B_.
> 
> ...



Abuse (sexual as well as physical and emotional abuse not only _*can*_ come from home but *usually does*. There is no doubt that the overwhelming cases of child abuse are domestic. I am surprised you are even questioning this. 
Of course I am not saying that sexual abuse from strangers never happens (that would be silly) only that the threat of "stranger danger is vastly overblown and has become akin to a moral panic. 
I think if kids entire lives are spent being shouted at and made to feel unwanted burdens the chances of them being miserable is pretty high. I don't want to over emphasise this point.  I simple used the example to demonstrate that while the "pedo makes a convenient hate figure, most abuse is more mundane.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm just pissed off that no one wants to join my rusty nail campaign for Dylans law. I suspect you are not taking this issue seriously


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> What leads you to make that assertion?



Quite a few large-scale surveys over the last 50-60 years from Kinsey onward back phil's position, IIRC (although we need to bear in mind that even though such surveys tend to be anonymous, there may be "reporter bias" taking place).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> I'm not sure that it is. Unfortunately people with these histories (of abuse) have a very high re-offending rate.
> 
> Also, I don't think this would render the abuser dead, any more likely than any publicity surrounding the conviction and jailing would already ensure.
> 
> However, if people deemed a danger to the public were kept in jail until they were no longer a danger, there'd be no need for any of this.



Unfortunately, we've got a pisspoor custodial treatment system for even those paedophiles who seek help. Most prisons offer SOTPs (sex offender treatment programmes), but they're mostly box-ticking exercises where inmates (often by rote) recite their crimes and profess to have seen the error of their ways. The only treatment programme that has any degree of success is the one in place at HMP Grendon, and Grendon is disliked by the establishment because it shows that with intensive (and costly) treatment, many repeat sexual offenders, including paedophiles, can be educated out of re-offending. They may never lose the urge to offend, but a fair amount do learn self-control and coping techniques.

It's the usual problem: Government won't commit to widening programmes like the one at Grendon. Not just because of the cost, but because it could be played in the media as the government being "soft on paedos", so warehousing them is all that will be done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> I used to know 2 psychotherapists who worked in prisons with predatory sex offenders for years
> 
> They did not share your view and were highly doubtful that the people they worked with could actually change.


Yep. The half-dozen I knew through my work pretty much treated their work for the Prison Service as either the foundation (via specific "clients") for an interesting paper, or a CV filler to show you had stamina and weren't easily nauseated.


> I would be genuinely interested to read any credible literature  that validates your claim of a 3% recidivism rate


Same here. I've found very no criminological literature that bears out such a figure, although it has occasionally been referred to anecdotally.
Perhaps I've been searching the wrong databases!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Source . http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=BF0FA813-7607-4666-B1F081D6A6C701CC
> 
> Other studies have put the rate at around 11%. Either way, the actual figures give the lie to the often repeated claim that recidivism is extra ordinarily high for sex offenders. It isn't.



Recidivism rates are, it needs to be borne in mind, based on re-apprehension, so they're not necessarily the be-all and end-all in terms of re-offending.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Abuse (sexual as well as physical and emotional abuse not only _*can*_ come from home but *usually does*. There is no doubt that the overwhelming cases of child abuse are domestic. I am surprised you are even questioning this.


I'm surprised you think I *am* questioning it, when what I'm *actually* saying is that YOU need to acknowledge that the home is not the *only* site. I've made no comment whatsoever about prevalence per site.


> Of course I am not saying that sexual abuse from strangers never happens (that would be silly)


Yet what you've written over the last 15 pages does, in effect, make the point that abuse by strangers or away from the home doesn't matter in comparison to abuse at home. 


> only that the threat of "stranger danger" is vastly overblown and has become akin to a moral panic.


For which you're primarily blaming "the people" rather than the real culprits (the press, before you get on a high horse about me stigmatising paedophiles).


> I think if kids entire lives are spent being shouted at and made to feel unwanted burdens the chances of them being miserable is pretty high.


Based on...?
I hate to be an old fart about asking for substantive support for claims, but sometimes anecdote isn't enough.


> I don't want to over emphasise this point.  I simple used the example to demonstrate that while the "pedo makes a convenient hate figure, most abuse is more mundane.


Of course it is, and possibly more insidious in some cases.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

It's not that it doesn't matter, VP. No-one has said that.

It's more that the huge fuss made about "danger stranger" (which is relatively easy to guard against) serves to obscure the real extent of child abuse in the family.

That's why folks who bang the drum for stranger danger are either being disingenuous, or manipulated.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

> I'm surprised you think I am questioning it, when what I'm actually saying is that YOU need to acknowledge that the home is not the only site. I've made no comment whatsoever about prevalence per site.



Fair enough. I do acknowledge that. 



> For which you're primarily blaming "the people" rather than the real culprits (the press, before you get on a high horse about me stigmatising paedophiles).


Hardly, seeing that I have just spent the past 5 pages pointiing to the media manipulation of events. I do think that the idiots who marched in the Weymouth demo are being manipulated. They are still idiots. 



> Of course it is, and possibly more insidious in some cases.


Well on this we can agree.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> You callous bastard. You vicious rusty nail loving scum. Denying the reality of the rusty nail crisis. Kids will have nails in their feet tonight because of YOU. I hope you can sleep at night Kenny.  It's because of people like you that the rusty nail filth continue to maim and and, well, maim and maim OUR CHILDREN. Think of the children Kenny. Please, think of the children. SUPPORT DYLAN'S LAW



ICWYDT


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> "I am so more intelligent than all of you" LOL!



Who said anything about "intelligence"? I think you may have betrayed a little subjective bias, there


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yet what you've written over the last 15 pages does, in effect, make the point that abuse by strangers or away from the home doesn't matter in comparison to abuse at home.


TBF, what I think dylans has been doing here was to present the other side of the argument - we've had plenty enough of the "child murderers, hanging around our parks" folk devil, and what I took from dylans' posts was that stereotype isn't representative of the vast majority of abuse that takes place.

Depending on whose figures you look at, abuse of children is perpetrated somewhere between 75% and 85% by someone the child knows and trusts. But the tabloid picture is of "stranger danger", which is unrepresentative, misleading, and dangerous - because we're all looking the wrong way while the abuse goes on.

It's also a well-rehearsed point that demonising sexual abusers in the way that is invariably done by these populist outbursts makes it HARDER for victims of abuse to report the offence, and harder for them to come to terms with what has happened to them.

About the only people it does anything for are those looking for a useful stooge for their righteous anger.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

existentialist said:


> ICWYDT



Are you suggesting that my campaign for Dylan's law and against the ravages of rusty nails is less than serious my good man?


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Are you suggesting that my campaign for Dylan's law and against the ravages of rusty nails is less than serious my good man?


Heh, no, I thought it was in the grand tradition of debating lunacy with parody. It seems to be working well.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Heh, no, I thought it was in the grand tradition of debating lunacy with parody. It seems to be working well.



Well I hope you will join me in my righteous campaign to end the filth, the vile scourge of rusty nails once and for all.  Cynics and  naysayers like Kenny and Angel may turn a blind eye to this tragedy but we, together, can nail it once and for all and put an end to the rusty nail crisis that is spreading across the nation.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> The issue becomes a moral panic when the response is disproportionate to the threat. Dangerous dogs act is a good example of a pointless and unnecessary law enacted on the back of a moral panic. Demands for more child abuse legislation are another.
> 
> There was no need for the dangerous dogs act and there is no need for Sarah's law.
> 
> Oh and er..pit bulls aren't really a problem either



Ignorance and arrogance a bad combination.

You talk arrogantly of moral panics. Like you know best its just the other less clever people being led by forces they dont understand.
Ignorant because you seem to ignore the fact that pitbulls and child molesters have a very real effect on too many lives.
Pit bull attacks maybe relativelly rare so are rapes. In fact if you look at the figures Pitbulls are more likely to bite someone than a man is to rape someone.
So perhaps we should all stop worrying about rape. Perhaps we are all being manipulated eh.......You stooopid stooopid ignorant twat.

People worry about things for a variety of reasons...and yes of course the media has an influence.......
But arrogant ignorant people like who dismiss so easily the concerns of others can spout of all you like but never influence anyone apart from the usual know it all brigade.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Ignorance and arrogance a bad combination.
> 
> You talk arrogantly of moral panics. Like you know best its just the other less clever people being led by forces they dont understand.
> Ignorant because you seem to ignore the fact that pitbulls and child molesters have a very real effect on too many lives.
> ...



Yeah. So what about those rusty nails?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

You know Dylan's it's not even what you're saying, but the way you're saying it that is doing no favours at all to your argument.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> You know Dylan's it's not even what you're saying, but the way you're saying it that is doing no favours at all to your argument.



I know. Do you think I should swear more?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

I think that's unfair. 

I don't think there was much evidence of people thinking seriously about the Government's sexual legislation (and the way operatives like Jacqui Smith have sought to drive it forward with disinformation and and manufactured moral panics), until a few of us decided enough was enough.

Not many have the stomach to be called rapists, for defending the rights of prostitutes, or to have our families called abusive, and our fathers called nonces, just because we point to abuse in the home as being vastly more significant than stranger danger.

That these things happen here, still, is not down to dylans.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 21, 2010)

you're delusional jonti


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

These things happen, and you take it on yourself to pretend otherwise.  Whether this is because you are deluded or dishonest, I do not pretend to know.

I do know you need a holiday!


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

> So perhaps we should all stop worrying about rape. Perhaps we are all being manipulated eh



You're right. We definitely shouldn't stop worrying about rape. In fact we should panic. Perhaps we should have a demonstration. Perhaps Ratbook will make us some nice Tshirts. We could hold it in Weymouth and shout "Rapoes out" and "something must be done". Maybe we will get 50 idiots, er I mean, concerned citizens, to join us. We could demand a change in legislation or, er, something. Because we all know that something must be done.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> These things happen, and you take it on yourself to pretend otherwise.  Whether this is because you are deluded or dishonest, I do not pretend to know.
> 
> I do know you need a holiday!


mental


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 21, 2010)

fwiw i mostly agree with dylans here. Media stories about paedophiles have the hallmarks of a moral panic and divert attention from the issue of child abuse within families


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

You "diagnosed" SAS as suffering from senile dementia (Alzeimer's) didn't you?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> You "diagnosed" SAS as suffering from senile dementia (Alzeimer's) didn't you?



oh dear


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> fwiw i mostly agree with dylans here. Media stories about paedophiles have the hallmarks of a moral panic and divert attention from the issue of child abuse within families


Me too. You mostly agree with me on this issue as well.

It's not always easy to feel that support from you, you do know that?


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> fwiw i mostly agree with dylans here. Media stories about paedophiles have the hallmarks of a moral panic and divert attention from the issue of child abuse within families



Yes, I think we have pretty much been in agreement on this thread. A first I think since I joined this site 

(group hug?)


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Me too. You mostly agree with me on this issue as well.
> 
> It's not always easy to feel that support from you, you do know that?


Fuck off


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

Why not take a holiday? I think you need it.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Fuck off



Oh well. I guess the group hug is off then


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

I came on to this thread with my own personal direct experiences of growing up in a town which had  a cluster  of paedophile scum. You responded by providing various media links to a couple of incidents of attacks on suspected paedophiles. 

You then  provided a couple of academic "papers" to back up your position. The main "paper" seemed to be a cut and paste job of US statistics.

You are now providing a parody as original as anything shat out by Mark Thomas on a bad day. 

It is you whose opinions seem to be clouded by the media. It is you who have resorted to a broadsheet media scare about the effects of a tabloid media scare when responding to a perfectly reasonable proposal.

Now you seem to be suggesting that if people are concerned about rape they are just products of the media.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> You know Dylan's it's not even what you're saying, but the way you're saying it that is doing no favours at all to your argument.



I beg to differ. I think dylans' parody of the moral panic about paedophiles is a very elegant way of making the point. Obviously, it won't persuade those who are truly wedded to their moral panics and folk devils, but I think it highlights the  flaws in the argument rather nicely.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I beg to differ. I think dylans' parody of the moral panic about paedophiles is a very elegant way of making the point. Obviously, it won't persuade those who are truly wedded to their moral panics and folk devils, but I think it highlights the  flaws in the argument rather nicely.



It is a straw man argument. He has pushed his moral panic agenda onto the thread when no-one was engaged in a moral panic. He just believes that anyone who has an opinion on how to tackle paedos that is different to his own is subject to a media induced hysteria.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> It is a straw man argument. He has pushed his moral panic agenda onto the thread when no-one was engaged in a moral panic. He just believes that anyone who has an opinion on how to tackle paedos that is different to his own is subject to a media induced hysteria.


Oh, come on. The entire thread is about a particularly numbskulled bit of misinformed moral panic. This thread couldn't be a better example of the idiocy of this hysterical rabble-rousing that the "paedophile question" always descends to. With anyone advocating anything short of flaming torches being personally attacked and shouted down, as ever.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

There's a lot of it about!

I'd suggest that the crude abuse that comes dylans way (and not just dylans) is sufficient evidence of that!


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

> *Kenny G* I came on to this thread with my own personal direct experiences of growing up in a town which had a cluster of paedophile scum. You responded by providing various media links to a couple of incidents of attacks on suspected paedophiles.


Oh dear, we are back to shouting "scum" again 



> *Kenny G* You then provided a couple of academic "papers" to back up your position. The main "paper" seemed to be a cut and paste job of US statistics.


Those damn facts and figures, them always get in the way of a good lynch mob don't they?



> You are now providing a parody as original as anything shat out by Mark Thomas on a bad day.


Well thank you for the compliment. I wish I was nearly as funny as Mark Thomas but did you like my posters? I can be hired for all moral panic campaigns. PM me for rates. 



> Now you seem to be suggesting that if people are concerned about rape they are just products of the media.


No. I'm suggesting that if people were to believe there is a growing "rape" problem and started demanding "something be done" and marching around Weymouth screaming "rapoes out" on the basis of sensational tabloid scare stories, they are being manipulated by the media.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Oh, come on. The entire thread is about a particularly numbskulled bit of misinformed moral panic. This thread couldn't be a better example of the idiocy of this hysterical rabble-rousing that the "paedophile question" always descends to. With anyone advocating anything short of flaming torches being personally attacked and shouted down, as ever.



YOU are the one whose vision has been distorted. Show me one place where I have argued for paedo beasts to be hurt or killed.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Those damn facts and figures, them always get in the way of a good lynch mob don't they?



Where have I argued for lynching? You are doing yourself a dis-service by resorting to this level of argument. It is you who is resorting to tabloid land by positing anyone who opposes you to being a Viz like stereotype. It is demeaning to your own abilities. AND you are making a lot of assumptions about a few people from a photograph. Probably assumptions that are media fed.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

> paedo beasts



LOL You crack me up Kenny. Bless you mate



> It is you who is resorting to tabloid land by positing anyone who opposes you to being a Viz like stereotype.


If the cap fits Kenny. 



> AND you are making a lot of assumptions about *a few* people from a photograph.



And a video, don't forget the video. Glad you recognise it is a few people though. So much for community concern. 50 idiots and a Ratbook banner LOL


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> YOU are the one whose vision has been distorted. Show me one place where I have argued for paedo beasts to be hurt or killed.


I never said anything about you arguing for "paedo beasts" to be hurt or killed.

But your posts - and the emotive and dehumanising terminology you use - are perfect examples of the crude techniques that those clinging to that kind of agenda use to paint the situation in dramatic, colourful terms.

Terms which grossly misrepresent the actual situation, and which do nothing to make life easier for the majority of sexually abused children to whom your cartoonish stereotypes of "paedo beasts" means nothing, given that their abuser may well have been a trusted, or admired family member or other connection, and who fear that their own disclosures will result in the same hate and fury being directed at their abuser.

You can quibble about the numbers all you like, but you will conspicuously fail to produce any number which show other than that all but a small part of the abuse committed against children is carried out by people unrecognisable from your crude stereotypes.

But, hey, why let's bother about facts when we've got invective instead?


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I never said anything about you arguing for "paedo beasts" to be hurt or killed.
> 
> But your posts - and the emotive and dehumanising terminology you use - are perfect examples of the crude techniques that those clinging to that kind of agenda use to paint the situation in dramatic, colourful terms.
> 
> ...



This sums it up in a nutshell.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I beg to differ. I think dylans' parody of the moral panic about paedophiles is a very elegant way of making the point. Obviously, it won't persuade those who are truly wedded to their moral panics and folk devils, but I think it highlights the  flaws in the argument rather nicely.



fine if you want to look like a know it all hammering home a point in a very obvious fashion.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I never said anything about you arguing for "paedo beasts" to be hurt or killed.





> With anyone advocating anything short of flaming torches being personally attacked and shouted down, as ever.



What does that mean then?

And yes, I make no apologies for calling evil beasts evil beasts. What would you call them?


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> What does that mean then?
> 
> And yes, I make no apologies for calling evil beasts evil beasts. What would you call them?



Criminals


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> fine if you want to look like a know it all hammering home a point in a very obvious fashion.



More celebrating ignorance. This anti intellectualism you are so fond of is incredibly tedious. Thinking isn't bad.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

Are "flaming torches" "lynch mobs" and "pitchforks" are to this argument, as to what "Jeremy Kyle" and "plasma screen tvs" are to lazy right wingers who think they're being hilarious about the "whey faced chavs" on council estates.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> More celebrating ignorance. This anti intellectualism you are so fond of is incredibly tedious. Thinking isn't bad.



Celebrating ignorance -- where?????
Or is that simply disagreeing with you, how incredibly arrogant.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Are "flaming torches" "lynch mobs" and "pitchforks" are to this argument, as to what "Jeremy Kyle" and "plasma screen tvs" are to lazy right wingers who think they're being hilarious about the "whey faced chavs" on council estates.



And what "pedo beasts" in the park handing out bags of sweets are to those blinded by moral panics


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> And what "pedo beasts" in the park handing out bags of sweets are to those blinded by moral panics



I believe "handing out bags of sweets" and "blinded by moral panics" are two more of yours.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

Outright sexual and physical abuse within the family is difficult to tackle, and it dwarfs the peril of stranger-danger, which is easily guarded against.

But more important and significant in terms of numbers even than that familial abuse is _neglect_.  Far more kids are neglected, than are actively abused.  But in either case, the result is youngsters wanting to get way from home, and ill equipped to do so.  Those that do are vulnerable to sexual predators.  And that may seem preferable than being returned home.

The kids have rights here.  They have a right to come home from school to a warm house and a responsible adult.  No-one seems to support that; the government is all for getting carers back into work when their child is as young as twelve. They intend to back this up with benefit cuts.

That's not going to help tackle the national disgrace of neglect and abuse of children. That would be expensive. It's far cheaper to distract from the real issues of child poverty and neglect by banging the drum about stranger-danger!


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> I believe "handing out bags of sweets" and "blinded by moral panics" are two more of yours.



Well I will take credit for the sweets image but the term "blinded by moral panic" alas isn't mine. (wish it was)


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

> *Jonti *But more important and significant in terms of numbers even than that familial abuse is neglect. Far more kids are neglected, than are actively abused. But in either case, the result is youngsters wanting to get way from home, and ill equipped to do so. Those that do are vulnerable to sexual predators. And that may seem preferable than being returned home.
> 
> The kids have rights here. They have a right to come home from school to a warm house and a responsible adult. No-one seems to support that; the government is all for getting carers back into work when their child is as young as twelve. They intend to back this up with benefit cuts.
> 
> That's not going to help tackle the national disgrace of neglect and abuse of children. That would be expensive. It's far cheaper to distract from the real issues of child poverty and neglext by banging the drum about stranger-danger!



Absolutely. A point I made earlier. I will believe that the issue of child abuse is being addressed when there are demonstrations against single parents being forced to work in poundland while their kids come to home to an empty house.

 I'm a single dad with a 10 year old kid who I love very much. I am in despair at the dilemma I am being faced with, having to choose between taking care of my son and taking some shitty minimum wage job.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> fine if you want to look like a know it all hammering home a point in a very obvious fashion.


Since we're getting all personal here, you're really quite hung up on this issue about other people's intelligence.

I suppose I could take it as flattery, but I'm getting a sneaky feeling it isn't intended that way. Does the sight of a reasonably well-deployed logical argument bring you out in a rash, or something?


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Since we're getting all personal here, you're really quite hung up on this issue about other people's intelligence.
> 
> I suppose I could take it as flattery, but I'm getting a sneaky feeling it isn't intended that way. Does the sight of a reasonably well-deployed logical argument bring you out in a rash, or something?



Angels anti intellectualism is pretty obvious isn't it?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

> *I will believe that the issue of child abuse is being addressed when there are demonstrations against single parents being forced to work in poundland while their kids come to home to an empty house*.


* applauds


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Absolutely. A point I made earlier. I will believe that the issue of child abuse is being addressed when there are demonstrations against single parents being forced to work in poundland while their kids come to home to an empty house.
> 
> I'm a single dad with a 10 year old kid who I love very much. I am in despair at the dilemma I am being faced with, having to choose between taking care of my son and taking some shitty minimum wage job.



I think forcing lone parents into work if they don't have the childcare is shit there is not, however, a monopoly on only being able to care about one thing!

And as you said, it could be construed as potential neglect, however, the finger will inevitably get pointed back at the parent, not the state forcing them into that position.

But once again, why can someone only care about one thing.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> I think forcing lone parents into work if they don't have the childcare is shit there is not, however, a monopoly on only being able to care about one thing!
> 
> And as you said, it could be construed as potential neglect, however, the finger will inevitably get pointed back at the parent, not the state forcing them into that position.
> 
> But once again, why can someone only care about one thing.



Angel be careful, we almost agree on something. 

The point is while we are distracted by the bogeymen in the park this mundane neglect is being forced upon us. That's the purpose of distractions.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Angels anti intellectualism is pretty obvious isn't it?



Are you and your mate on some kind of competition for the most condescending attitude in one post?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Angel be careful, we almost agree on something.
> 
> The point is while we are distracted by the bogeymen in the park this mundane neglect is being forced upon us. That's the purpose of distractions.



Sadly, I don't think it is a distraction. Unfortunately no one cares about lone parents unless they work.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

> But once again, why can someone only care about one thing.


How dare you imply your correspondents do not care about the rape of children! Is there to be no end to these slanders?

Again: the moral hysteria distracts from the real issues.  The propaganda serves a purpose, and its purpose is not to make life better and safer for kids. 

You are not making life better and safer for kids if you allow yourself to get taken in.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Angels anti intellectualism is pretty obvious isn't it?





dylans said:


> More celebrating ignorance. This anti intellectualism you are so fond of is incredibly tedious. Thinking isn't bad.



Sadly your arrogance stops you from having a real discussion. Instead you seem to want to dismiss anyone who disagrees you as part of what you see as some frenzied ignorant media influenced mob.
You have made the point several times about the real danger being not stranger danger but within the family home. But what have you got to say about that? How do you think that should be tackled?
Why do you assume that people worried about stranger danger as you put it are not worried about kids abused by family members and friends etc?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

My guess: Because one has to endlessly challenge sensationalist headlines, government "initiatives", and outright deceitful manipulation of information.

That, and the fact that when one does challenge these things, one then has to endure endless slanders which may well seek to paint one as a sexual criminal, or at least an apologist for abuse, and one's parents as nonces. 

And all this even in the more "progressive" parts of the country, like here


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> My guess: Because one has to endlessly challenge sensationalist headlines, government "initiatives", and outright deceitful manipulation of information.



and knee jerk populist legislation


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> and knee jerk populist legislation



Proposals have been put forward in this thread for registered details of convicted paedos to be published which you have only responded to by accusing those putting them forward as being part of a media moral panic. That is kneejerk.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> and knee jerk populist legislation



"knee jerk" is another one!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

Such a measure makes it look as if the government is Doing Something.

But they are not.  It is exactly the neglected and abused children who are at risk.  Functional families have no trouble protecting their children from the sexual predations of strangers.  It is easy to guard against stranger-danger; the existence of a register doesn't change that.

What it does, however, is to criminalise a large number of people as "paedophiles" who are no such thing, not in any proper understanding of the term.  One clear example is a married couple under the age of eighteen who may not possess a nude photograph of each other, for fear of being prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders register.

Yes, it's insane.  But that's moral panics for you.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> "knee jerk" is another one!



Dylansisms


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

I do think I said about a million times, no way should someone who is 17 with a 15 yo etc be a) prosecuted nevermind b) put on a sex offenders _public _list anywhere. Mostly people in that category you mentioned wouldn't be prosecuted in this country however.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

> "Don't worry what the law says, they won't apply it"


You think?


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Proposals have been put forward in this thread for registered details of convicted paedos to be published which you have only responded to by accusing those putting them forward as being part of a media moral panic. That is kneejerk.



The demand for legislation to tackle a problem that doesn't need tackling solely on the basis of crude stereotypes and salacious tabloid scare stories is knee jerk.

Legislation that is ill thought out and enacted soley to satisfy the populist demands of the News of the World (which is exactly the case with Sarah's Law) is knee jerk

Legislation that is enacted despite the evidence that not only does it not work but actually may make the situation worse but is enacted despite this because of a need to be seen to "do something" is knee jerk.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Angels anti intellectualism is pretty obvious isn't it?


I'm going in for Tactful Understatement. For all the good it'll do me


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

The way I see it, it is just not a good idea to have laws that criminalise married children taking a nude photo of their partner (or "making child pornography" as it would now be called).

Such stupidity should not be tolerated for a moment, let alone waved away as inconsequential (oh! they'll never actually prosecute anyone for that).


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Why do you assume that people worried about stranger danger as you put it are not worried about kids abused by family members and friends etc?



Well, because they're barely ever mentioned, for a start? It's all "paedo beasts" and scary old men offering kids a show of their puppies outside the park. As ever, the mundane routine-ness of it all isn't nearly interesting enough for the papers, so they whip up their stories - as ever - about the behaviours on the extreme margins, and quietly ignore the main body of activity (in this case familial abuse).

And then well-meaning but otherwise rather dull people see this terrible scourge of our children - "won't someone think of the children?" - and get all up in arms, and pitchforks, about it. And then they come on here and rant about it. Further reinforcing the unrepresentative stereotypes.

You want to do something about "paedo scum"? Start working out how to protect kids from it happening to THEM. And that's best achieved with education (of kids and other family members to spot when something is going off), decent rehabilitation and treatment as appropriate, and some reasonable follow-up care for the victims.

Marching down the street shouting slogans only makes it worse.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)




----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> The way I see it, it is just not a good idea to have laws that criminalise married children taking a nude photo of their partner (or "making child pornography" as it would now be called).
> 
> Such stupidity should not be tolerated for a moment, let alone waved away as inconsequential (oh! they'll never actually prosecute anyone for that).



That is not what is being suggested though. (Except by you)


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

Oh, you didn't know?

That is the present legal position.  A married couple under the age of eighteen who take nude photos of each other may be prosecuted for making child pornography, and registered as sex offenders.

It seems you don't realise just how easy it is to end up on the sex-offenders' register.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Oh, you didn't know?
> 
> That is the present legal position.  A married couple under the age of eighteen who take nude photos of each other may be prosecuted for making child pornography.



Once again, and for about the millionth and oneth time, I don't think that is the kind of information that would be important or useful to any local community.
Does this mean we should not know about someone who raped a child under ten though?

And yes I did, which is why, again, I said information like that should be not about prostitutes etc or anyone who doesn't constitute a danger to children.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Once again, and for about the millionth and oneth time, I don't think that is the kind of information that would be important or useful to any local community.
> Does this mean we should not know about someone who raped a child under ten though?
> 
> And yes I did, which is why, again, I said information like that should be not about prostitutes etc or anyone who doesn't constitute a danger to children.



For the reasons that have been outlined again and again and again. There is no useful reason for the names of convicted sex offenders to be made available to the general lynch mob, sorry I meant population. (typo)


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

The question is, how it is actually being applied and used, and what abuses it could lead to.  How you or I think it should be used is immaterial.

Is it appropriate to treat sexual offenders in a different way to other anti-social types?  Frankly, I'm sceptical.  It strikes me as similar to treating terrorists as different to other criminals.  The delinquencies are almost invariably dealt with under other laws, so the provision of "special measures" is really just window dressing.

Deceptive window dressing to comfort the feeble minded that Something is Being Done, while folks' ability to look after their own families is systematically eroded.  By those very window dressers themselves.

Interesting, eh?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/

explains why the law is actually pretty reasonable when judging what is legal and not.

 And no, a married couple taking photos of each other for personal use would not be done for being paedos. If they were selling the photos to paedos they might get in trouble, which seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

Kenny, you have no say in who gets prosecuted.

What matters is the words of the statute.  

When push comes to shove, that's what matters.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

This bit is interesting.





> It is possible to convict a person of making a pseudo-photograph where the dominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child, notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult.


It is often said that child pornography is child abuse.   But, no, it's not, not always.  There may be no child involved at all.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/
> 
> explains why the law is actually pretty reasonable when judging what is legal and not.
> 
> And no, a married couple taking photos of each other for personal use would not be done for being paedos. If they were selling the photos to paedos they might get in trouble, which seems reasonable to me.


If a married couple, both aged 17 do take "indecent" photos of each other, they may be prosecuted for "making child pornography".  

Yes, if they sold those images, they could also be prosecuted for distributing the material -- but only because those images fall foul of the law in the first place.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

You know these days loads of kids have mobile phones with built in cameras, right? Imagine how many kids take naughty pics of themselves and share them with a few friends.

Those kids can be prosecuted and put on the sex-offenders register.  As makers and distributors of child pornography.

This isn't child protection. It is child abuse.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> You know these days loads of kids have mobile phones with built in cameras, right? Imagine how many kids take naughty pics of themselves and share them with a few friends.
> 
> Those kids can be prosecuted and put on the sex-offenders register.  As makers and distributors of child pornography.
> 
> This isn't child protection. It is child abuse.



Have you read the fucking link? Do you actually understand how the decision to prosecute is made? Stop talking utter shite based on reading the law like a twat.

 How many children in the UK have been prosecuted for taking photographs of each other with mobile phones? I am not talking about children who have been found with piles of paedo distribution and are part of pervert networks but "innocent" stuff like you refer to. 

Do you think children who distribute pornographic pictures of class mates to adults they know are using them for sexual purposes should not be dealt with?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

I love the way you feel able to lecture me in your patronising arsehole way about how the CPS makes its decisions. Idiot.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

> pervert networks


LOL you really have swallowed it all haven;t you?

I bet you say things like "Traffickers" and "groomers" and "internet predators" don't you? That's when you aren't ranting about "beasts" and filth" and "scum." Your entire vocabulary is written by the daily mail and the sun


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

Would you prefer puppy lovers? The mind boggles.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Dylansisms



What is the Dylanist position on race attacks? Is it that as Black people are more likely to be murdered by other Black people that people concerned about Black people being killed in racist attacks are all knee jerk media inspired bad people? And perhaps gay people are far more likely to be attacked by other gay people,so maybe the whole thingf of hate crimes needs to be reviewed.
And more Iraqis have been killed by fellow Iraqis etc etc...

Could you expand on the dylanist philosophy....


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

> How many children in the UK have been prosecuted for taking photographs of each other with mobile phones?


How many children know they could be?

What do you think?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I love the way you feel able to lecture me in your patronising arsehole way about how the CPS makes its decisions. Idiot.


If you calm down and read what I wrote (instead of imagining what I meant) you will discover I did no such thing


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Would you prefer puppy lovers? The mind boggles.


Animal lovers, I believe they like to be called.  Not to be confused with furries.  You'll be able to find a chatroom somewhere where you can talk to them and find out more


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Kenny, you have no say in who gets prosecuted.
> 
> What matters is the words of the statute.
> 
> When push comes to shove, that's what matters.



Is what I am talking about. 

Complete ignorance of the prosecution code used by the CPS. A completely ignorant literal reading of the law. 

And no, your knowledge of internet sick internet chatrooms does not impress, nor is it  surprising.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> The question is, how it is actually being applied and used, and what abuses it could lead to.  How you or I think it should be used is immaterial.




Actually what "you or I think" isn't immaterial. What the problem with this argument is putting words in my mouth, 'if you want x you have to have y and z with it', well, we don't do we?
This is a discussion about what we think should happen, surely?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Do you think children who distribute pornographic pictures of class mates to adults they know are using them for sexual purposes should not be dealt with?


This is contrived; it would be easier for a child with that intent to use images of his or herself.

But you make an interesting point.  Should child pornography produced by children be treated the same way as material obtained by coercive adults?  Thinking about it, that hardly seems justifiable.


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> What is the Dylanist position on race attacks? Is it that as Black people are more likely to be murdered by other Black people that people concerned about Black people being killed in racist attacks are all knee jerk media inspired bad people? And perhaps gay people are far more likely to be attacked by other gay people,so maybe the whole thingf of hate crimes needs to be reviewed.
> And more Iraqis have been killed by fellow Iraqis etc etc...
> 
> Could you expand on the dylanist philosophy....



No. I see no moral panics over racist or homophobic hate crimes, not surprising given that these crimes, by their nature, affect, minority groups. Minority groups that are often the target of tabloid stereotyping and scapegoating themselves. 

 In fact given that most of our press is pretty racist and homophobic, the only examples of moral panics I can think of over race or sexuality have been racist and homophobic in nature.

 For example the panic over muggings in the 1970s or anti gay moral panics inspired by the early days of HIV and media led "gay plague"stories.These could be considered moral panics but TBH this is off the top of my head and I haven't researched the subject. 

 In the early 80s there was a bit of a scare about "gay lifestyles" been taught in schools. That led to the Tories introducing the dreadful section 28 law. I guess they could be considered moral panics and in the case of section 28 led directly to reactionary legislation. 

In those cases racial and sexual minority groups were the _victims_ of moral panics. Perhaps you refer to them? 
Or perhaps you refer to the "muslim =terrorist smear that is so popular in the press these days? These have some of the characteristics of tabloid led moral panics IMO. Although as I say this is not a subject I have really researched.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Actually what "you or I think" isn't immaterial. What the problem with this argument is putting words in my mouth, 'if you want x you have to have y and z with it', well, we don't do we?
> This is a discussion about what we think should happen, surely?


It would be good to have a discussion about what we think should happen, at least in terms of decriminalising normal teenage sexual activity.

It's absurd to have such laws on the statute book!


----------



## dylans (Feb 21, 2010)

> nd no, your knowledge of internet sick internet chatrooms does not impress, nor is it surprising.


Now now. Play nice Kenny. This has been a good thread with some good humoured debate, don't drag it into the gutter please


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> It would be good to have a discussion about what we think should happen, at least in terms of decriminalising normal teenage sexual activity.
> 
> It's absurd to have such laws on the statute book!



Start a thread about it if you want. Why the desperate need to get away from a completely reasonable proposal to publish the details of local paedo beasts for the reasons previously outlined?


----------



## existentialist (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Start a thread about it if you want. Why the desperate need to get away from a completely reasonable proposal to publish the details of local paedo beasts for the reasons previously outlined?


Comprehension fail.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Animal lovers, I believe they like to be called.  Not to be confused with furries.  You'll be able to find a chatroom somewhere where you can talk to them and find out more



Took us into the gutter.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

> How many children in the UK have been prosecuted for taking photographs of each other with mobile phones?


How many children know they could be?

What do you think?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Took us into the gutter.


I take it you are angry that some people have sex with their pet dogs?

kenny, people are weird; but it's not so weird to want to check out just how weird they are.  The really weird thing is, how, well, just how ordinary they are.  Nice, even. It's a funny old world, alright.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I take it you are angry that some people have sex with their pet dogs?
> 
> kenny, people are weird; but it's not so weird to want to check out just how weird they are.  The really weird thing is, how, well, just how ordinary they are.  Nice, even. It's a funny old world, alright.



I will let their victims be the judge of that.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 21, 2010)

> You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
> So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel


Oh, the dogs don't mind.


----------



## dylans (Feb 22, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Are you and your mate on some kind of competition for the most condescending attitude in one post?



Who won?


----------



## existentialist (Feb 22, 2010)

dylans said:


> Who won?



It's no challenge, really. I wasn't even trying to be condescending, and _angel_ seems to have felt condescended to. Maybe today I'll have a competition with someone to see whether I can breathe at someone more than them.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 22, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Animal lovers, I believe they like to be called.  Not to be confused with furries.  You'll be able to find a chatroom somewhere where you can talk to them and find out more



there should be a register for furries

*shakes fist*


----------



## dylans (Feb 22, 2010)

existentialist said:


> It's no challenge, really. I wasn't even trying to be condescending, and _angel_ seems to have felt condescended to. Maybe today I'll have a competition with someone to see whether I can breathe at someone more than them.



some people are just ...erm....insecure about their intellectual abilities.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 22, 2010)

dylans said:


> some people are just ...erm....insecure about their intellectual abilities.



Yeah, it's weird. Like, maybe I like getting involved in intellectual debates, but that doesn't mean I expect everyone else to want to. But the feedback coming from that direction seems to be saying "how dare you want to use logic and reason to argue here, when I am trying to do it all with appeals to emotion, invective, and stamping of my tiny foot!".

*shrug*


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 22, 2010)

Can you tell me where I've "stamped my tiny foot" please, or used emotion?!

The only hysteria I see is coming from the two of you screaming "kneejerk!!" every two minutes!


----------



## dylans (Feb 22, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Can you tell me where I've "stamped my tiny foot" please, or used emotion?!
> 
> The only hysteria I see is coming from the two of you screaming "kneejerk!!" every two minutes!


----------



## existentialist (Feb 22, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Can you tell me where I've "stamped my tiny foot" please, or used emotion?!
> 
> The only hysteria I see is coming from the two of you screaming "kneejerk!!" every two minutes!


You might be mistakenly assuming that I was writing solely about you.


----------



## dylans (Feb 22, 2010)

Deleted cus it was mean


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2010)

dylans said:


> LOL you really have swallowed it all haven;t you?
> 
> I bet you say things like "Traffickers" and "groomers" and "internet predators" don't you? That's when you aren't ranting about "beasts" and filth" and "scum." Your entire vocabulary is written by the daily mail and the sun



Well, to be fair, the legends around organisations such as the Paedophile Information Exchange pre-date the interest of most tabloids in "pervert networks", so it isn't merely a case of "swallowing it (ooh errr, missus!).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Animal lovers, I believe they like to be called.  Not to be confused with furries.  You'll be able to find a chatroom somewhere where you can talk to them and find out more



Zoophiles.
People who have sexual relations with animals or Friends of Chessington Zoo? You decide!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2010)

Jonti said:


> It would be good to have a discussion about what we think should happen, at least in terms of decriminalising normal teenage sexual activity.
> 
> It's absurd to have such laws on the statute book!



Unfortunately, even the most closely scrutinised and engineered legislation will generally have unintentional loopholes in it, and you can bet that specifically legislating the decriminalisation of normal teenage sexual activity is a minefield our legislators aren't willing to touch with a bargepole, for that very reason.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, even the most closely scrutinised and engineered legislation will generally have unintentional loopholes in it, and you can bet that specifically legislating the decriminalisation of normal teenage sexual activity is a minefield our legislators aren't willing to touch with a bargepole, for that very reason.



OTOH, our legislators then have to accept - which they undoubtedly will not - that the law will quite often be an ass.

We see enough of this with the "mission creep" around all kinds of other legislation - anti-terrorist laws that are suddenly being used to justify snooping on people trying to get their kids into certain schools, for example, and there's plenty more where that came from.

So the prospect of a police force using a piece of legislation in a spirit it was never intended to be used isn't rare or unusual.

Sure, we need laws to protect people from exploitation, sexually or otherwise, and they will - like most laws - be somewhat broad-brush and ambiguous in the boundary cases. The difference here is that laws around sexual activity around the boundary of age of consent are all wrapped up with ludicrous layers of hysteria and media-fuelled hype about it all, coupled with inaccurate stereotypes and unrepresentative claims which are then taken as representative.

And that's what this thread's really about - the stupidity and wilful ignorance that underpins not only the way we make our new laws (Sarah's Law, FFS ) but the way we implement the ones we've already got.


----------



## Louloubelle (Feb 22, 2010)

My opinion FWIW

The debate regarding the prevalence of predatory child abusers, like the debate regarding the prevalence of human trafficking for the purposes of forced / coerced prostitution, easily becomes polarised in such a way that intelligent debate and attempts at thinking often degenerate into emotive name calling people clinging on to their respective entrenched positions.

I'll just say a little bit about myself, here.  I was abused as a child, not as terribly as some children were abused, but abused nonetheless.  I do not want to go into details, but the issue of abuse divided my family, basically my brother and I were clear that we had been abused (and were were abused more than my sisters) whereas my 2 sisters decided that what happened was sort of abusive but not to the extent that my bro and I experienced it. 

Obviously over the years people's perspectives changed a little, one of my sisters now acknowledges that we were abused, but my other sister refuses to think about the issue and starts to cry and get angry if anyone so much as tries to discuss the issue.  Obviously it is cruel to try to make someone think about something that they cannot cope with so the subject is effectively off limits. 

Now, my brother and me, we have an ability to sense / notice abuse to the point that it's frankly a bit of a burden.  

If something nasty is happening somewhere I detect it almost instinctively, same with my brother.  He is a senior social worker and one of the first things he achieved when he first started work as a social worker working with vulnerable street drinkers, was to expose an undercover ring of predatory child abusers in positions of authority who had been abusing children for decades.

My sister on the other hand, frankly people could be getting shot / kidnapped / raped under her very nose and she would remain cheerfully oblivious to what was going on.  Her attention would be fixated on the beautiful blue of the sky or the prettiness of a bird in a tree.  Everything is "lovely" in her world. 

The point I want to make when talking about my family is that although we had the same parents, we all subjectively had different parents.  Also, the effects of the abuse and how we all dealt with it left 2 of us being very aware of abuse, possibly to the point (in my case) of hyper-vigilance, one sister in a state of confusion and one sister maintaining that everything was lovely. 

As an adult I have worked with various charities and community groups all working with adults who had been abused as children. 

One thing that is incredibly frustrating for anyone working in the field is that, over time, you become familiar with countless testimonies of people who were abused as children, under the noses of teachers, doctors and social workers and somehow, over the years, nobody ever noticed. 

The other thing that becomes apparent is that there is no shortage of predatory child abusers.  It is probably true that there are more abusers abusing within their own families than "stranger" abusers, however some of the "stranger" abusers are horrifically prolific in their abuse.  

IME most people who work professionally with either abused children or adults who were abused as children inevitably are burdened with a loneliness arising from the knowledge of understanding that there is a hidden epidemic of abuse that many people would rather not be aware of. 

Then we have a vile and hypocritical gutter press here in the UK that reports on child abuses cases in a sensationalist and salacious manner, avoiding any analysis of the complex and difficult issues involved and instead simply firing up mob hatred for "them" (child abusers / social workers / any other overworked stressed professional who can be scapegoated for a collective inability to think about the issue). 

If you work in the field you soon start to feel as if a sizable minority of adults are involved in the sexual abuse of children. 

The proclamations, from some quarters, that there is a media created panic about paedophiles and that the "stranger danger" message is an exaggerated response to a fictional problem, feels hurtful, insulting and misinformed. 

The horrible truth is that is is impossible to accurately determine the prevalence of child abuse and child sexual abuse simply because;

it is hidden
children / adults abused as children find it difficult to talk about the abuse
children who do tell are sometimes disbelieved
it is difficult to comprehend and think about
professionals dealing with it are often inadequately trained / supported 
some academics / clinicians (e.g. Valerie Sinason) are so attached to their own bizarre theories that they effectively bring their professions into disrepute, thus creating further impediments to victims of real abuse being believed. 
sensationalist, salacious and completely insensitive press reporting 
boundaries between abuse in the family and abuse by strangers are not always clear (e.g. some abusers pimp out their own children).
adult survivors of child abuse often make for unreliable witnesses
memory is not an exact thing and memories change over time


probably lots of other reasons too....

It seems to me that we can never know the prevalence of children sexually abused by people who are not members of their immediate family.  We will never know, for example, the percentage of children abused by strangers as opposed to by members of their immediate families. 

Is the subject one that generates immense salacious media excitement?  Undoubtedly. 

However it is unhelpful and very hurtful to people engaged in the difficult work of dealing with this stuff, to suggest that there is "exaggerated concern" or that the media response has been blown out of proportion. 

As someone who was abused as a young child, I then went on to be targeted by flashers, perverts and child abusers throughout my childhood and into my adult life.  

I know that this is not unusual.  Once someone has been abused they can give off some kind of vibe that other abusers can detect and exploit.  It is not uncommon for people who were abused sexually as kids by a parent, for example, to go on to be targeted by other abusers unrelated to that parent.  

For many people who have had that kind of experience, the world seems to be teeming with predatory paedophiles and, in their world, it is. 

Arguing about the prevalence of predatory paedophiles seems to be to be a pointless pursuit as nobody will ever have accurate data on the subject and our own subjective perspective will be coloured by our own experiences in life.

The most we can achieve is to accept that there are countless impediments to accurate research re this issue but to all do our best to think about the difficulties, to try to ensure that professionals in the field are adequately supported so they can do their jobs properly and to be sensitive to the fact that this is a horrific issue that needs to be handled with maturity and sensitivity.

I wonder whether the wish to reduce everything to quantifiable terms is a wish to be able to "know where the edges are" regarding a subject that is hard to quantify and "get a grip on"?


----------



## fogbat (Feb 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Zoophiles.
> People who have sexual relations with animals or Friends of Chessington Zoo? You decide!



Those are not two mutually exclusive groups of people...


----------



## dylans (Feb 22, 2010)

Louloubelle  of all the people on this site, you are probably the poster I respect the most. For that reason I take anything you post very seriously. Also for the same reason,  I find the prospect of debating with you the most daunting. Nevertheless there are points you make above that I do disagree with and it would be cowardly of me not to mention  them.

You are right to point out that debate on this issue, as with the issue of trafficking, tends to polarise positions and I accept that I am as guilty of that as anyone. However. The issue here is whether the kind of public response to "stranger danger" that we have seen in Weymouth and the related demands for new legislation of the kind that newspapers such as the sun and News of the World have campaigned for,  are based on a realistic and appropriate examination of the dangers of predatory sex criminals or are based on a simplistic "do something" message that is disproportionate to the actual threat. I take the view that it is the latter. 

Noone, certainly not myself, is saying that there is no threat to children from strangers. I have said on this thread many times that that would be silly and irresponsible. What I am saying is that there is no increased or new threat that merits the introduction of new legislation or that can not be dealt with by the legislation now in place. 

To this end then yes, calls for Sarah's law type legislation are knee jerk. They are based on an erroneous view that there is an increasing danger or threat "out there" that is somehow not being addressed by present legislation. I simply don't see that this is the case. Despite the claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that child abuse by strangers is increasing (in fact all the evidence suggests it is declining) There is no evidence that convicted sex offenders are re-offending in numbers that demand new legislation, in fact as I have shown, the evidence suggests that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than other criminals. 
Finally there is absolutely no evidence that the introduction of the kind of public access to information legislation that is being advocated by those who support Sarah's law legislation, does anything to make our children safer. In fact the evidence suggests that it has a detremental effect as it drives sex offenders underground.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2010)

existentialist said:


> OTOH, our legislators then have to accept - which they undoubtedly will not - that the law will quite often be an ass.


Absolutely.


> We see enough of this with the "mission creep" around all kinds of other legislation - anti-terrorist laws that are suddenly being used to justify snooping on people trying to get their kids into certain schools, for example, and there's plenty more where that came from.
> 
> So the prospect of a police force using a piece of legislation in a spirit it was never intended to be used isn't rare or unusual.


But still doesn't appear to occur to people that it'll happen until their nose gets rubbed in it. 


> Sure, we need laws to protect people from exploitation, sexually or otherwise, and they will - like most laws - be somewhat broad-brush and ambiguous in the boundary cases. The difference here is that laws around sexual activity around the boundary of age of consent are all wrapped up with ludicrous layers of hysteria and media-fuelled hype about it all, coupled with inaccurate stereotypes and unrepresentative claims which are then taken as representative.


You forgot "perceptions of normative morality which don't usually bear much relation to reality". 


> And that's what this thread's really about - the stupidity and wilful ignorance that underpins not only the way we make our new laws (Sarah's Law, FFS ) but the way we implement the ones we've already got.


We've got a clusterfuck of a criminal justice system, and one that has become far too infiltrated by politics and the (transitory IMO) needs and wishes of politicians to be able to reach even an approximation of "blind justice".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> My opinion FWIW
> 
> The debate regarding the prevalence of predatory child abusers, like the debate regarding the prevalence of human trafficking for the purposes of forced / coerced prostitution, easily becomes polarised in such a way that intelligent debate and attempts at thinking often degenerate into emotive name calling people clinging on to their respective entrenched positions.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that rather excellent and moving post.


----------



## Louloubelle (Feb 22, 2010)

dylans

The respect is mutual and I always take your posts seriously.

I cannot comment on Sarah's law as I do not understand all the implications and lack time to research the issue with the rigour it deserves if I am to post from a position of knowing what I'm talking about. 

I do feel, from my limited experience, that under our current situation many child abusers know how to "play the system" and continue to groom and abuse children even though they are supposedly the subject of supervision and monitoring while living in the community. 

I do believe that the current situation should change, but am not advocating Sarah's Law.   I suspect that I would share your concerns regarding vigilante attacks and general mob violence.

I just wanted to say something about the counterproductive nature of trying to argue a position based on statistics and research relating to prevalence as I think it is a serious distraction given that such research will only ever be provisional and incomplete.


----------



## dylans (Feb 22, 2010)

> *Louloubelle* I do believe that the current situation should change, but am not advocating Sarah's Law. I suspect that I would share your concerns regarding vigilante attacks and general mob violence.



I would be surprised if you were. Perhaps you could explain what exactly it is about present legislation that you think is lacking and what changes you think are needed. 



> I just wanted to say something about the counterproductive nature of trying to argue a position based on statistics and research relating to prevalence as I think it is a serious distraction given that such research will only ever be provisional and incomplete.


Ok fair enough but that just begs the question because statistics and research is all we have to base rational legislation on. Given the hysterical  reaction that this issue continues to cause, the alternative is a position based on emotion and fear and that is no basis for any kind of legislation at all.  If the awful experience of Megans law in the US has taught us anything it is that.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 22, 2010)

Outdated  US statistics are no more relevant than people's personal accounts. Bunging up cod statistics because they are the only evidence you are prepared to accept,  and then rejecting the validity of people's personal experiences as hysterical knee jerks, as you have done repeatedly in this thread, is not going to get you anywhere.

Louloubelle answered this point 



> Perhaps you could explain what exactly it is about present legislation that you think is lacking and what changes you think are needed.




when she said 



> I do feel, from my limited experience, that under our current situation many child abusers know how to "play the system" and continue to groom and abuse children even though they are supposedly the subject of supervision and monitoring while living in the community.



Are you just going to pore over another stack of stats from the US to answer that point, or just reject it out of hand because it isn't in a numerical form? You claim to be engaged in a rational argument but the only evidence you will accept is irrelevant or unobtainable.

And whoever rejected the existence of networks of paedos as being a construct of a media panic was talking nonsense. As stated, the Paedo Information Exchange and the American Man Boy Love Association predates any tabloid campaigns.


----------



## dylans (Feb 22, 2010)

> *Outdated* US statistics are no more relevant than people's personal accounts. Bunging up cod statistics because they are the only evidence you are prepared to accept,


That's simply not the case. I am prepared to look at any relevant evidence you wish to post. Unfortunately you haven;t posted a scrap. 

 In addition I don't think you, as someone who is in favour of public information disclosure legislation, can quite so simply dismiss the overwhelming evidence from the Megan's law experience that shows without any doubt that that legislation has made the situation worse not better.

 For example what do you say to the fact that the present pedophile register has a 97% compliance rate compared to over 80% absconding from Megan?  Of course you can simply dismiss that evidence but to do so is to dismiss the testimony of almost everyone concerned with the administration of that law. 



> Conducted by independent psychologists along with *staff from the state Department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning*, this comprehensive study looked at 21 years of sex offense rates. It confirms in New Jersey what other studies have found elsewhere. Megan's Law *"has no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses."*
> Megan's Law struck out on every important area related to protecting the community from sexual offenders. Not only is there no evidence that it reduces sexual re-offenses, Megan's Law fails to positively impact sex offender re-arrest rates, fails to change the type of re-offenses or first time offenses that occur and fails to reduce the number of victims involved in sexual offenses.



Now you can't dismiss that report (2009 by the way) as either out of date or as "cod statistics" (whatever that means)  The fact remains the department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning, the body tasked with running the law, is saying it doesn't work.

Oh can you please explain what is out of date about that report? 
http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/02/megans_law_doesnt_work_now_wha.html


----------



## existentialist (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> That's simply not the case. I am prepared to look at any relevant evidence you wish to post. Unfortunately you haven;t posted a scrap.
> 
> In addition I don't think you, as someone who is in favour of public information disclosure legislation, can quite so simply dismiss the overwhelming evidence from the Megan's law experience that shows without any doubt that that legislation has made the situation worse not better.
> 
> For example what do you say to the fact that the present pedophile register has a 97% compliance rate compared to over 80% absconding from Megan?  Of course you can simply dismiss that evidence but to do so is to dismiss the testimony of almost everyone concerned with the administration of that law.



In many cases, I can see that it makes sense to reject US figures as irrelevant to us here in the UK. But in a case where someone's arguing for the introduction of a law so similar to one which has already been introduced in recent memory, even if it was in the US, it seems idiotic not to look at the lessons learned in that earlier example, at least to see whether they might also apply here.

I might also introduce a third example - the "circles" experiments in Canada, which were, if anything, the opposite of the punitive, oppressive register-based approaches used in the US and proposed (by lowest-common-denominator tabloid newspapers) here. That experiment has yielded significant improvements, not only in reoffending rates, but in the perceived level of society's distress at abuse and its perpetrators.

We will continue to tie ourselves in moralistic knots no matter how tightly - and ineffectually -we ratchet up the pressure on abusers, because we actually appear to have quite a lot invested in the problem going on. The NoTW doesn't have campaigns against paedophiles for any reason other than to continue selling newspapers - why on earth would it want to promote measures that might actually solve the problem, when it can achieve so much more by using such ideas? And their ludicrous impracticability (sorry, _angel_,  seven syllables there ) means that, since they're guaranteed to fail, as they are in the US, there's plenty of opportunity for a "use a bigger hammer" followup campaign in a few years.

This all seems so obvious that I struggle to understand how people who presumably consider themselves capable of rational thought can look at the facts (ah, perhaps that's where I'm going wrong) and believe that these populist, knee jerk ideas are really going to solve anything other than the redtops' projected sales figures.




dylans said:


> Now you can't dismiss that report (2009 by the way) as either out of date or as "cod statistics" (whatever that means)  The fact remains the department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning, the body tasked with running the law, is saying it doesn't work.
> 
> Oh can you please explain what is out of date about that report?
> http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/02/megans_law_doesnt_work_now_wha.html


I think you're confusing real facts with KennyFacts(tm) - "The Ones You Make Yourself"...


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

It's almost as if the folks shouting loudest about the "problem" are interested only in the vilification of sexual dysfunction and delinquency.  They are certainly not interested in helping such folks, and nor do they have any real concern for the children (most likely already suffering abuse and neglect in the family) that get entrapped.

They would not for a moment allow laws that make normal teenage sexual activity illegal, if they were sane, and if they cared at all about children.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> It's almost as if the folks shouting loudest about the "problem" are interested only in the vilification of sexual dysfunction and delinquency.  They are certainly not interested in helping such folks, and nor do they have any real concern for the children (most likely already suffering abuse and neglect in the family) that get entrapped.
> 
> They would not for a moment allow laws that make normal teenage sexual activity illegal, if they were sane, and if they cared at all about children.


Careful now - three of us thinking similarly and agreeing on one thread...it can only be a matter of time before we're being accused of "ganging up" and "bullying"....


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

I'd rather hope it's only a matter of time before the "left" stops taking its lead on sexual politics from the Daily Mail.

Their complicity in these moral panics (including the "trafficking and prostitution" panic) has disgusted me.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 23, 2010)

"moral panic" 34 results
"knee jerk" 27 results


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

It's actually rather easy to show that the misleading legal definitions (of "trafficking" and of "child pornography") written into UK law lead directly to hysterical pronouncements by politicians, and that these in turn ratchet up public anxiety.

That in turn paves the way for more oppression; this is what is meant by the term "moral panic" in this context.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You remind me of Jean Baudrillard, the French philosopher who argues that the 1991 Iraq war did not take place because it was a media event.



No he does not, you are once again spouting utter bollocks that you have picked up from the utter bollocks factory.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> No he does not, you are once again spouting utter bollocks that you have picked up from the utter bollocks factory.



I made an extensive post on this earlier. It's interesting that our Kenny conveniently ignored it when it became apparent he had never actually read the essays in question. (although I must admit to feeling flattered that I remind our Kenny of Baudrillard. I only wish. )

Don't judge a book by it's cover Kenny


----------



## Louloubelle (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> I would be surprised if you were. Perhaps you could explain what exactly it is about present legislation that you think is lacking and what changes you think are needed.



Some more about me

Back in the 1980s I worked as a counsellor in an NHS service delivering health care to sex workers. 

While I only worked with female sex workers I attended a lot of meetings and conferences with all kinds of health care professionals and social workers. 

I knew a couple of very caring gay men who were working at a children's home in Islington where they were extremely concerned about children being lured into the sex industry by pimps.  

I should say that they also passed on to me, and the police, concerns about various staff in Islington children's homes and one man running a project for child sex workers (this man, now deceased, was considered a champion for the rights of abused young men), who my friends believed to be child abusers. 

They asked me to visit the children's home to try to intervene in some way because some of the female children were being lured away by pimps.  

I so wanted to help but did not have any magic answer.  I visited and was able to access the children to health care and counselling services, but I could not compete with the pimps, who gave the girls money, drugs and mobile phones, all the things that the girls wanted. 

It was at a time in history when children who sold sex were effectively criminalised and the men who used them for sex just got away with it. 

The staff were besides themselves with anxiety and didn't know what to do. 

It felt like we were in a situation where, no matter what was reported to the police, the police continued to arrest children as criminals whilst ignoring the abuse committed by adults in positions of trust. 

Then, one day I got a phone call from one of my friends, he was crying his eyes out, as one the children they knew and had worked with, a young lad called Jason Swift, had been tortured to death by paedophile ring. 

Sidney Cooke and his associates were tried and found guilty of manslaughter

You can read about it here 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465986.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Cooke

IMO people like Sidney Cooke, people who abduct and sexually torture children (or adults) should not be released from prison.  

Cooke was released and he went on to ruin countless more lives before finally, far too late, he was imprisoned again.  I hope he is never released. 

I do not have the time to research the minutiae of legislation regarding this issue, however it seems to me completely insane that predatory sexual abusers who kidnap and sadistically sexually torture their victims (whether their victims are children or adults) are released from prison and then go on to sadistically assault more people.  Predators who abduct and torture other people for their own sexual gratification are far too dangerous to be released.

edited to add

on a bit of a tangent I know

Last night I watched an incredibly gripping and depressing documentary that I would recommend to others to see

You can watch it here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r06j5

I don't want to say too much about the subject matter, you just have to watch it and let it take you on a horrible journey. 

The documentary is set in the US and Canada and I'm not recommending it because of any issues relating to specific legislation as their legal systems are different.

I'm recommending it because there are 2 people in the film, the baby's grandparents, who I realise that I completely relate to, simply in relation to that agonising feeling of helplessness that happens when you repeatedly try to go by the book, alert the proper authorities, try your best to protect the vulnerable and the innocent, and yet, the system lets you down so terribly that you consider committing atrocious acts as they are all that is left to do if the innocent are to be protected. 

Just for clarification I am not seriously considering committing any atrocious acts, but I can relate completely to those kinds of thoughts as you consider all the options in an insane situation.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 23, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> I knew a couple of very caring gay men who were working at a children's home in Islington where they were extremely concerned about children being lured into the sex industry by pimps.
> 
> I should say that they also passed on to me, and the police, concerns about various staff in Islington children's homes and one man running a project for child sex workers (this man, now deceased, was considered a champion for the rights of abused young men), who my friends believed to be child abusers.
> 
> ...



The sentences handed down to dangerous paedophiles needs to change.
But it hasnt despite all the shite that comes out from the tabloids and also the people obsessed in saying its all media hype. Nothing much changes. 
Some Sex offenders are truly prolific in their abuse and stiffer sentnences and new laws are needed. Ian Huntley should have been stopped years before the Soham murders accused by multiple women of raping them....When that happens the chance of it being mere co-incidence is far from likely. He should have been in prison at the time of the murder. There needs to be a law especially for sex offenders to be tried  based on balance of probabilties.

Abuse in the home is a problem, but if people feel thats a problem that needs addressing it doesnt mean ignoring the problems of stranger danger.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

> Abuse in the home is a problem, but _*if*_ people feel thats a problem that needs addressing it doesnt mean ignoring the problems of stranger danger.


eh? Do _you_ feel it's a problem that needs addressing? 

It's not one or the other, so it is dishonest of you to try to make out that properly nurturing children means ignoring  the problems of stranger danger.  It is the abused and neglected kids who are most likely to fall victim to sexual predators.

The chorus of sadists and law-and-order fetishists venting hatred does nothing at all to help those kids.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 23, 2010)

About Ian Huntley, I am not sure what actually could be done to prevent him, apart from actually managing to secure convictions for rape easier - he wasn't convicted was he??


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 23, 2010)

Of course i feel itsa a problem that needs addressing. Accusation of dishonesty is a bit off the wall...
Sadists and law and order fetishishts are shite but then what do you expect? 
Do you think people like Sidney Cooke,Ian Huntley and Sarah Paynes murderers should have been in prison at the times the murders were committted? I do and thats why i would like to see much longer sentences for violent sex offenders.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 23, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> About Ian Huntley, I am not sure what actually could be done to prevent him, apart from actually managing to secure convictions for rape easier - he wasn't convicted was he??



I think about 6 women had accused him of rape. Not women who knew each other. Now i guess one could be lying exaggeratting but when multiple women make a accusastion of rape the balance of probabilities is overwhelmingly that he was a dangerous sex offender.
But the law in this country is a joke and he never went to court let alone prison. The soham murders would never have happened if he had been stopped and he should have been.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 23, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> I think about 6 women had accused him of rape. Not women who knew each other. Now i guess one could be lying exaggeratting but when multiple women make a accusastion of rape the balance of probabilities is overwhelmingly that he was a dangerous sex offender.
> But the law in this country is a joke and he never went to court let alone prison. The soham murders would never have happened if he had been stopped and he should have been.



The levels of convictions for rape are a joke, but I don't think you can do about unproven accusations. It has to start with rape cases being more likely to succeed in prosecution - which is a tricky one because it is essentially one person's word against another so often.


----------



## gunneradt (Feb 23, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> The levels of convictions for rape are a joke, but I don't think you can do about unproven accusations. It has to start with rape cases being more likely to succeed in prosecution - which is a tricky one because it is essentially one person's word against another so often.



this is a problem.  I would find it very difficult, sitting on a jury, to find someone guilty when it's one person's word against another.  I think I would send a 'not guilty' down 99 times out of a 100


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

That's right, the sex offender's register and all the rest of it would not have stopped Ian Huntley.

Even when one quarter of the population is on the database of potential nonces, sorry, I mean the Governments's "Child Protection Database", guys like Huntley will still exist, unregistered.

My feeling is that the main difference will be to increase the isolation of children. 

"If you see one cross to other side of street, do not look in case you are seen looking, do not talk if you see one, do not help if you see one that needs help".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> The sentences handed down to dangerous paedophiles needs to change.


Surely you mean "to paedophiles who are convicted in a court of law"?


> But it hasnt despite all the shite that comes out from the tabloids and also the people obsessed in saying its all media hype. Nothing much changes.


Tariff has increased twice during the last 10 years, which might be considered a step in the right direction.


> Some Sex offenders are truly prolific in their abuse and stiffer sentnences and new laws are needed. Ian Huntley should have been stopped years before the Soham murders accused by multiple women of raping them....When that happens the chance of it being mere co-incidence is far from likely. He should have been in prison at the time of the murder. There needs to be a law especially for sex offenders to be tried  based on balance of probabilties.


Shifting the burden of proof from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "on the balance of probabilities" for *ANY* crime opens the door to governments riding roughshod over judicial discretion, which isn't something anyone sane should want, as well as setting a precedent for structural changes that could very easily deprive non-criminals of basic rights.


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 23, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Shifting the burden of proof from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "on the balance of probabilities" for *ANY* crime opens the door to governments riding roughshod over judicial discretion, which isn't something anyone sane should want, as well as setting a precedent for structural changes that could very easily deprive non-criminals of basic rights.



OK you might have a point there...Just for once you slippery toad!

But even on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt" Huntley should have gone to court and all the evidence from various women should have been put to a jury. But that didnt happen the CJS is too weak and doesnt do enough to stop people like him. And in a way muych as i hate to admit it dylans does sort of have a point. If you look at all the time and money wasted on crb checks its dealing hysterically with problems in a real cack handed way.
The point i am trying to make proably almost as badly as dylans is that yes the amount of violent sex offenders is limited but much much more could and should be done to target them and stop their activities.
The amount of misery and fear they create has to be addressed and just blaming it all on the media is a very dangerous cop out in my view.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 23, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> "moral panic" 34 results
> "knee jerk" 27 results


I presume you're counting the appearances of these terms in this thread?

Is that really the best you can do for an argument - count the appearance of two terms which admirably describe exactly what is going on here?


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

> And in a way much as i hate to admit it dylans does sort of have a point.



I just choked on my digestive biscuit.



> The point i am trying to make proably almost as badly as dylans


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> I just choked on my digestive biscuit.



Please carry on dont let me stop you.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Please carry on dont let me stop you.



You love me really. admit it. You fucking love me


----------



## Azrael (Feb 23, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> But even on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt" Huntley should have gone to court and all the evidence from various women should have been put to a jury. But that didnt happen the CJS is too weak and doesnt do enough to stop people like him.


Specifically, the Crown Prosecution Service drops charges if they think a conviction is improbable, or if a prosecution isn't "in the public interest". [1] Huntley had at least one rape charge against him dropped by the CPS. [2] Even if a victim launches a private prosecution, the CPS can take it over, and drop it! [3]

Instead of nasty databases that catalogue presumptively innocent people alongside convicts, abolish the CPS tests, and prosecute if there's a _prima facie_ case. Labour have, to my knowledge, never even considered ditching the CPS tests, even in serious cases. If they genuinely cared about protecting the public from dangerous men, they would. If public safety was a pretext to boost their power, they wouldn't. 

Authoritarianism: less free, less safe.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Azrael said:


> abolish the CPS tests, and prosecute if there's a _prima facie_ case.
> 
> Authoritarianism: less free, less safe.



The CPS require in part a realistic prospect of conviction. Unless you want resources pissed away on lawyers on cases that are going to fail once they hit the Court  that is a pretty sensible stance to take. The real challenge is gathering the evidence to make the chance of conviction realistic. It requires resources and the correct attitude, commitment,  from the Police. Detection o f crime is not a straightforward, easy results process with many of these offences. 

Huntley would not pass a modern enhanced crb check based on what had occurred previously. His case is one of the reasons enhanced CRB's were introduced.

Rapes are notoriously difficult to prove, even if forensic evidence is gathered it is difficult to convince a jury that the sex was non-consensual. 

There are no such problems in most paedo crimes. Where photographs are on beasts PC's they can easily be proven to be in breach of the law. If victims are willing to speak out, they are, for the most part, believed. 

Being someone who has been subjected to an enhanced CRB check I know of the difficulties that it can cause. I have a very old caution for cannabis on my record that I have to mention every time I apply for a job due to the nature of what I do. When the police stop me it is something that shows up on their radios. But I am quite happy to accept this inconvenience if it stops one Huntley, or one Sidney Cooke from being able to make contact and gain a position of trust in order to kill or abuse one child. 

And if a sick user of child pornography is identified in public, causing him some problems in the local community I feel that that is a price well worth paying if it protects a child from possible abuse.

Crime statistics from a country the size of the US with the gun laws and culture that they have can not be transposed to the UK. It is absurd. All I know is that when I grew up we were aware of a few paedo filth and to stay well clear of them because of the size of the town. It turned out there were even more than we knew of, but that gave us some modicum of safety. We still went out and played despite the knowledge that there were some monsters to avoid.

 Children should be able to speak confidently with adults, sure of the knowledge  that if paedo scum are caught they will be imprisoned for life, or fully identified to their communities. 

I was  in Canterbury a few weeks ago with my family and a man was behind me taking photographs. I looked over and he started saying, "Oh, its just for a project, I am taking pictures of shadows, shadows." I couldn't give a toss what he was doing but he then said to my wife , "look, look it is just of shadows," and he showed us what was on his camera. He then took a photo of my children's shadows. I had said absolutely nothing to him that I was suspicious of his behaviour but he seemed to assume that I thought he was a beast. He had a strange scraggly beard, and was wearing some fucking hippy rainbow coloured clothes. Anyway, because of his weird behaviour I googled Canterbury and Paedophile when I got home and found out that it is another cluster for these filth. Not surprisingly as it has a large tourist flow and they can hide amongst the crowds.

My point is that if there was a register of convicted paedo scum I would have been able to check whether this character was as innocent as he probably is or whether he was building a shadow portfolio to use to build a sick photoshop library. If he was a convicted paedo then I could contact his local Police and let them know that the beast was up to his old tricks. Alternatively, I could rest in the knowledge that he is exactly as he I treated him, an innocent man with a strange habit and a regrettable taste in facial hair and clothes.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

> I was in Canterbury a few weeks ago with my family and a man was behind me taking photographs. I looked over and he started saying, "Oh, its just for a project, I am taking pictures of shadows, shadows." I couldn't give a toss what he was doing but he then said to my wife , "look, look it is just of shadows," and he showed us what was on his camera. He then took a photo of my children's shadows. I had said absolutely nothing to him that I was suspicious of his behaviour but he seemed to assume that I thought he was a beast. H*e had a strange scraggly beard, and was wearing some fucking hippy rainbow coloured clothes. *Anyway, because of his weird behaviour I googled Canterbury and Paedophile when I got home and found out that it is another cluster for these filth. Not surprisingly as it has a large tourist flow and they can hide amongst the crowds.



What a load of paranoid loonery. You are the perfect argument why public disclosure legislation is a bad idea. Hippy rainbow coloured clothes FFS

Incidentally, I just googled Canterbury and paedophilia and could find nothing that suggested it was a "cluster for filth" could you show us the relevant links that point to this. Or, as I suspect did you just make that up?


----------



## existentialist (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I was  in Canterbury a few weeks ago with my family and a man was behind me taking photographs. I looked over and he started saying, "Oh, its just for a project, I am taking pictures of shadows, shadows." I couldn't give a toss what he was doing but he then said to my wife , "look, look it is just of shadows," and he showed us what was on his camera. He then took a photo of my children's shadows. I had said absolutely nothing to him that I was suspicious of his behaviour but he seemed to assume that I thought he was a beast. He had a strange scraggly beard, and was wearing some fucking hippy rainbow coloured clothes. Anyway, because of his weird behaviour I googled Canterbury and Paedophile when I got home and found out that it is another cluster for these filth. Not surprisingly as it has a large tourist flow and they can hide amongst the crowds.
> 
> My point is that if there was a register of convicted paedo scum I would have been able to check whether this character was as innocent as he probably is or whether he was building a shadow portfolio to use to build a sick photoshop library. If he was a convicted paedo then I could contact his local Police and let them know that the beast was up to his old tricks. Alternatively, I could rest in the knowledge that he is exactly as he I treated him, an innocent man with a strange habit and a regrettable taste in facial hair and clothes.


Now I *know* you're trolling! 

ETA: dylans, I think he's just trumped your "ban rusty nails" campaign. Get to it!


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> What a load of paranoid loonery. You are the perfect argument why public disclosure legislation is a bad idea. Hippy rainbow coloured clothes FFS



If there was public disclosure then my doubts would be laid to rest you idiot. I am 99% sure he is an innocent wierdo, but why did he get so defensive when I had said nothing to him? If there was full disclosure then I would know who the real filth are, and be able to identify them.

You can keep your head in the sand but there are real paedos out there. Distorted and rancid beasts, men and women, who dream of abusing and killing children. That is a fact that belies any figures you may choose to pluck out of the US.

And I notice that you have failed to respond to any of my substantive points.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> The CPS require in part a realistic prospect of conviction. Unless you want resources pissed away on lawyers on cases that are going to fail once they hit the Court  that is a pretty sensible stance to take.


Check the link I posted. ([1], above.) It's not just a "realistic prospect of conviction", it's "conviction probable". If the CPS decides that conviction is probable, they can still toss the case on the nebulous grounds of "in the public interest". Absurd cases like this slip through the CPS net, while serious assaults and rapes are junked. Their tests are inconsistent, bordering on the arbitrary.  

The CPS test could, at least, be removed for serious indictable crimes like GBH, child abuse, rape, and murder. The right of the CPS to Shanghai private prosecutions should definitely be removed. If people want to use their own resources in seeking justice, they should be allowed to get on with it. 

Someone who wants "beasts" brought to book should surely support some more risks being taken in prosecuting them.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> if there was public disclosure then my doubts would be laid to rest you idiot. I am 99% sure he is an innocent wierdo, but why did he get so defensive when i had said nothing to him? If there was full disclosure then i would know who the real filth are, and be able to identify them.
> 
> You can keep your head in the sand but there are real paedos out there. Distorted and rancid beasts, men and women, who dream of abusing and killing children. That is a fact that belies any figures you may choose to pluck out of the us.
> 
> And i notice that you have failed to respond to any of my substantive points.



Can i have the google links that you claim show canterbury to be a "nest of beasts" please?


----------



## existentialist (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> If there was public disclosure then my doubts would be laid to rest you idiot. I am 99% sure he is an innocent wierdo, but why did he get so defensive when I had said nothing to him? If there was full disclosure then I would know who the real filth are, and be able to identify them.


No you wouldn't, you twit, you'd just know who'd been *convicted*. And who, for that matter, had decided to co-operate with the system and report their various changes of address (which, with public disclosure, are likely to become ever-more-frequent).

In fact, your public disclosure idea probably wouldn't have previously convicted offenders *electing* to not update their whereabouts, they'd probably get to the point, after they're hounded off their tenth housing estate, where it would be their only option to stand a chance of living in any kind of peace and quiet.

If you can't even get the supposed benefits right of this scheme you're claiming to be all in favour of, why on earth should the rest of your argument be worth listening to?


----------



## Azrael (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You can keep your head in the sand but there are real paedos out there.


No one's said otherwise. What's being questioned is a correlation between "beasts", scraggly beards, and rainbow attire.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 23, 2010)

Denizen of Canterbury. I have my suspicions.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> If there was public disclosure then my doubts would be laid to rest you idiot. I am 99% sure he is an innocent wierdo, but why did he get so defensive when I had said nothing to him? If there was full disclosure then I would know who the real filth are, and be able to identify them.


Why did you freak him out? Blimey that's a tough one alright ... let me have a think ...

Ah! Could it be there's something ... odd about you? Something that gives folks the impression you may be some kind of weirdo sadist and law-and-order fetishist? Perhaps the sort of creep who seeks out "different" looking people to victimise?

Just a thought, like


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Azrael said:


> The right of the CPS to Shanghai private prosecutions should definitely be removed. If people want to use their own resources in seeking justice, they should be allowed to get on with it.



Couldn't agree more, what has been happening with FACT private prosecutions being taken over by the CPS is crazy.





Azrael said:


> who wants "beasts" brought to book should surely support some more risks being taken in prosecuting them.



I agree to some extent but think that the real emphasis should be placed on improving the quality of investigations so that solid cases are presented to the CPS for consideration. There are some factors that could be streamlined. Requirements for continuity of evidence have become absurd as a result of miscarriages of justice. Rather than the Officers concerned being subjected to  
hefty penalties immense amounts of unnecessary paperwork have been placed on any complex investigation. All too often short cuts are taken which can mean that cases are thrown out by the CPS at the last stage on a technicality.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Can i have the google links that you claim show canterbury to be a "nest of beasts" please?



type in canterbury paedophile in to google and you will find some pretty sickening "criminals"


----------



## existentialist (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> type in canterbury paedophile in to google and you will find some pretty sickening "criminals"


Why the scare quotes around "criminals" - aren't people convicted of sexual offences against children criminals, or have you got your Daily Mail Invective Injector turned up to 11 again?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Why did you freak him out? Blimey that's a tough one alright ... let me have a think ...
> 
> Ah! Could it be there's something ... odd about you? Something that gives folks the impression you may be some kind of weirdo sadist and law-and-order fetishist? Perhaps the sort of creep who seeks out "different" looking people to victimise?
> 
> Just a thought, like



Absolutely absurd. Anyone who knew me would know that was the case. You are casting aspersions based purely on prejudice due to the fact that my views differ from your own. You are the one who is narrow minded.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Why the scare quotes around "criminals" - aren't people convicted of sexual offences against children criminals, or have you got your Daily Mail Invective Injector turned up to 11 again?



Dylan objected to the use of the word beasts to describe people who kill and abuse children and instead said that I should refer to them as criminals.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

It was just a suggestion, based on the impression you've made on a number of posters here!

What's your theory then?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Dylan objected to the use of the word beasts to describe people who kill and abuse children and instead said that I should refer to them as criminals.


Actually, you asked what dylans would call a paedophile (rather than "beast") and dylans said he calls such people criminals.

So why the scare quotes?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

existentialist said:


> No you wouldn't, you twit, you'd just know who'd been *convicted*. And who, for that matter, had decided to co-operate with the system and report their various changes of address (which, with public disclosure, are likely to become ever-more-frequent).
> 
> In fact, your public disclosure idea probably wouldn't have previously convicted offenders *electing* to not update their whereabouts, they'd probably get to the point, after they're hounded off their tenth housing estate, where it would be their only option to stand a chance of living in any kind of peace and quiet.
> 
> If you can't even get the supposed benefits right of this scheme you're claiming to be all in favour of, why on earth should the rest of your argument be worth listening to?



If they do not sign on they will be sent back to prison immediately, have any personal possessions confiscated and if not caught have a bounty placed on them from the funds seized from other paedo criminals.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I was  in Canterbury a few weeks ago with my family and a man was behind me taking photographs. I looked over and he started saying, "Oh, its just for a project, I am taking pictures of shadows, shadows." I couldn't give a toss what he was doing but he then said to my wife , "look, look it is just of shadows," and he showed us what was on his camera. He then took a photo of my children's shadows. I had said absolutely nothing to him that I was suspicious of his behaviour but he seemed to assume that I thought he was a beast. He had a strange scraggly beard, and was wearing some fucking hippy rainbow coloured clothes. Anyway, because of his weird behaviour I googled Canterbury and Paedophile when I got home and found out that it is another cluster for these filth. Not surprisingly as it has a large tourist flow and they can hide amongst the crowds.
> 
> My point is that if there was a register of convicted paedo scum I would have been able to check whether this character was as innocent as he probably is or whether he was building a shadow portfolio to use to build a sick photoshop library. If he was a convicted paedo then I could contact his local Police and let them know that the beast was up to his old tricks. Alternatively, I could rest in the knowledge that he is exactly as he I treated him, an innocent man with a strange habit and a regrettable taste in facial hair and clothes.



Fuck's sake! 

If you checked out every weirdly dressed beardy cunt in Canterbury for possible paedo-noncery you'd never get anything else done, and that'd just be at the fucking cathedral, you spoon!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

And why does kenny think he can lie so transparently about things said on this thread? 

Something is not right here


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Actually, you asked what dylans would call a paedophile (rather than "beast") and dylans said he calls such people criminals.
> 
> So why the scare quotes?



Because I consider their criminality to be the least of their wrongs. It is not the fact that they have broken the law but what they have done that I object to. These filth are far worse than criminals.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> All too often short cuts are taken which can mean that cases are thrown out by the CPS at the last stage on a technicality.


Removing CPS tests is, of course, no cure-all. It'd have to be combined with streamlining across the board. Easier said than done when problems often come from lack of communication between the police and the CPS. Too many cases fall down that gap. 

I also agree that miscarriages of justice are better deterred by hanging every officer involved out to dry. Imposing an ever-increasing pile of bureaucracy is no answer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Can i have the google links that you claim show canterbury to be a "nest of beasts" please?



Oh come on, it's obvious, isn't it?

Personally I blame that Aussie cunt Daevid Allen and his velvet loons!


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

Ok for the second time I just googled Canterbury paedophiles. nothing. I googled Paedophiles Canterbury. Again nothing. 

Kenny mate I'm sorry but I have to conclude that you are indeed a paranoid loony. ( no offence like)

Please prove me wrong and show me what I am missing. Where is the evidence that Canterbury is paedophile central HQ? 

Or perhaps you should just admit that you made that up. You did didn't you? Just like you pretended to have read Jean Baudrillard when you only read the cover.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2010)

Azrael said:


> No one's said otherwise. What's being questioned is a correlation between "beasts", scraggly beards, and rainbow attire.



Blind Faith.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> If they do not sign on they will be sent back to prison immediately, have any personal possessions confiscated and if not caught have a bounty placed on them from the funds seized from other paedo criminals.


Bounty? That can only lead to one thing! 







Yeeehaw. 

I thought you wanted a decrease in suspicious beardy blokes?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Because I consider their criminality to be the least of their wrongs. It is not the fact that they have broken the law but what they have done that I object to. These filth are far worse than criminals.


That's daft. They are still criminals, not "criminals"

I think you are not a very good troll


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> And why does kenny think he can lie so transparently about things said on this thread?
> 
> Something is not right here



You are a fucking time waster. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny g  


And yes, I make no apologies for calling evil beasts evil beasts. What would you call them?





dylans said:


> Criminals


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You are a fucking time waster.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by kenny g
> ...



lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Absolutely absurd. Anyone who knew me would know that was the case.


Not true. Your friends tell me you're a frightfully weird-looking cove, and somewhat charmless too.


> You are casting aspersions based purely on prejudice due to the fact that my views differ from your own. You are the one who is narrow minded.



All paedophiles and hebephiles are odd-looking, aren't they?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

If I waste your time, it may well prevent you trailing around after folks wearing beads, just in case they're paedos.

It's a kind of public service!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> If they do not sign on they will be sent back to prison immediately, have any personal possessions confiscated and if not caught have a bounty placed on them from the funds seized from other paedo criminals.


Meanwhile in the real world where asset seizure from non-acquisitive crimes is illegal, and likely to stay that way indefinitely...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You are a fucking time waster.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by kenny g
> ...



What interests me is that you're using slang that mostly only ever gets used in nicks.
Cowboy or Indian, or are you just someone giving it large?


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

Oh I take it back. I googled Canterbury and found a really weird looking bloke with a beard and a purple dress. Definitely dodgy






Banged to fucking rights. 

(Hey guys. I know where he lives too)


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Ok for the second time I just googled Canterbury paedophiles. nothing. I googled Paedophiles Canterbury. Again nothing.
> 
> Kenny mate I'm sorry but I have to conclude that you are indeed a paranoid loony. ( no offence like)
> 
> ...




Google Canterbury Paedophile and you will find a series of news articles which list a quite remarkable number of sickening paedos for a town of that size. I can post up a list of all of them if it is necessary but you can just as easily scroll down, ignore the one from New Zealand, and you will find plenty.

I never suggested that there was a "paedo's in canterbury" site or I would have linked to it. You are claiming that i said there was something which there is not and then saying I have made it up. Pretty much sums up your behaviour in this thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Oh I take it back. I googled Canterbury and found a really weird looking bloke with a beard and a purple dress. Definitely dodgy
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hah, I already did that joke on the previous page!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Google Canterbury Paedophile and you will find a series of news articles which list a quite remarkable number of sickening paedos for a town of that size. I can post up a list of all of them if it is necessary but you can just as easily scroll down, ignore the one from New Zealand, and you will find plenty.
> 
> I never suggested that there was a "paedo's in canterbury" site or I would have linked to it. You are claiming that i said there was something which there is not and then saying I have made it up. Pretty much sums up your behaviour in this thread.



He didn't claim anything of the sort.

You're a bit paranoid, when all's said and done, aren't you?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> What interests me is that you're using slang that mostly only ever gets used in nicks.
> 
> Cowboy or Indian, or are you just someone giving it large?


My guess: Cowboy


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Ok for the second time I just googled Canterbury paedophiles. nothing. I googled Paedophiles Canterbury. Again nothing.
> 
> K....... Where is the evidence that Canterbury is paedophile central HQ?
> 
> .



I never said there was evidence that canterbury is paedophile central HQ. That is made up. If you google as I suggested there are plenty of news reports of peadophiles in canterbury.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

> *Kenny G *I never suggested that there was a *"paedo's in canterbury*" *site* or I would have linked to it. You are claiming that i said there was something which there is not and then saying I have made it up. Pretty much sums up your behaviour in this thread.



Maybe you should set one up. To warn people about blokes in beards and hippy pants taking photos of shadows.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> He didn't claim anything of the sort.
> 
> You're a bit paranoid, when all's said and done, aren't you?



No. Very easygoing and relaxed. I just want a public register to be kept of convicted paedophiles. An opinion shared by a MAJORITY of the public.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Maybe you should set one up. To warn people about blokes in beards and hippy pants taking photos of shadows.



So do you accept that you misunderstood what I was saying and that there are a quantity of convicted paedophiles associated with canterbury and news reports concerning them accessable through a simple google search?


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> No. Very easygoing and relaxed. I just want a public register to be kept of convicted paedophiles. An opinion shared by a MAJORITY of the public.



A majority of the public would probably vote to have them publicly burnt in the market square before being torn limb by limb and dragged through the town. Doesn't make it a rational basis for legislation however


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> So do you accept that you misunderstood what I was saying and that there are a quantity of convicted paedophiles associated with canterbury and news reports concerning them accessable through a simple google search?



try googling Stoke paedophile, there's loads there too!  And Birmingham! And Hull!  They're everywhere!

*hides*


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> as I suggested there are plenty of news reports of peadophiles in canterbury.



worse up norf though full of mushypeadophiles.......ooops sorry.....


----------



## Azrael (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> A majority of the public would probably vote to have them publicly burnt in the market square before being torn limb by limb and dragged through the town.


Bloody liberals. 

If a public register drives convicted abusers underground, it's counter-productive in the extreme.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> So do you accept that you misunderstood what I was saying and that there are a quantity of convicted paedophiles associated with canterbury and news reports concerning them accessable through a simple google search?



Er no. I saw no evidence that Canterbury has a higher proportion of sex offenders than anywhere else. But I'm sure you did. That's because you are mad.

Kenny. Tell us more about Jean Baudrillard.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Maybe you should set one up. To warn people about blokes in beards and hippy pants taking photos of shadows.





> He had a strange scraggly beard, and was wearing some fucking hippy rainbow coloured clothes.



I clearly stated that I was 99% certain that he is innocent but that due to the fact that there is not a public register people like him feel the need to explain themselves as there is the possibility anyone is a paedophile at the moment because a large quantity of convicted beasts are able to walk our streets unidentified. 

Once paedos are on a public register they are more likely to be identified by the public and immediately lifted by the Police if they start to engage in otherwise innocent activities such as photographing street scenes etc.

Of course, once the convicted ones are identified there will still be the possibility that other people will be unconvicted paedos but the likelihood that a stranger like him is a paedo would be reduced once I had checked the register to see if he matches.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> try googling Stoke paedophile, there's loads there too!  And Birmingham! And Hull!  They're everywhere!
> 
> *hides*



Stoke, Hull and Birmingham are considerably bigger than Canterbury. 

There are certainly some towns with a shocking preponderance of paedos.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Stoke, Hull and Birmingham are considerably bigger than Canterbury.
> 
> There are certainly soem towns with a shocking preponderance of paedos.



There's one behind you Kenny!  Quick, hide!


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Er no. I saw no evidence that Canterbury has a higher proportion of sex offenders than anywhere else.



Well, we know that for you the only thing that counts as evidence is a shit sociology paper and a stack of statistics from a completely different criminal justice environment.

You far prefer to discount peoples real life experiences in favour of some crap from the states.

Do you at least now accept that there is such a thing as a stranger danger?


----------



## Azrael (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Once paedos are on a public register they are more likely to be identified by the public and immediately lifted by the Police if they start to engage in otherwise innocent activities such as photographing street scenes etc.


Or we get a string of mistaken identity cases, with a fair number of vigilante beatings. If it's down to Labour, you can be sure the register won't stay restricted to convicts. Be the victim of a false allegation, have your house visited by this fellow.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

> I clearly stated that I was 99% certain that he is innocent but that due to the fact that there is not a public register *people like him feel the need to explain themselves *as there is the possibility anyone is a paedophile at the moment because a large quantity of convicted beasts are able to walk our streets unidentified.



He probably felt the need to explain himself because of the culture of paranoia that has descended on us all. I feel guilty taking photos of my kid on the swings these days.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

It is vitally important that perverts engaging in otherwise innocent activities be harassed by the police!






I think it would be smart to encourage such perverts to take up innocent activities myself.  I lack kenny's enthusiasm for the hunt, it seems


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> There's one behind you Kenny!  Quick, hide!



re-read my original post about Canterbury and you will realise how absurd your mis-representation of my position is. I had no fear of the strangely garbed bearded fellow with a camera. It was him who introduced himself to me and my wife and started babbling about his project. I let him take another photo and we continued with our pleasant visit to the town. 

These attempts to paint me as a paranoid obsessive are desperate and ill judged.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> It is vitally important that perverts engaging in otherwise innocent activities be harassed by the police!



It would not be innocent if he was a pervert.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Well, we know that for you the only thing that counts as evidence is a shit sociology paper and a stack of statistics from a completely different criminal justice environment.
> 
> You far prefer to discount peoples real life experiences in favour of some crap from the states.
> 
> Do you at least now accept that there is such a thing as a stranger danger?



Kenny do you feel that posting in big red letters makes your ridiculous argument more convincing?

I have never denied that there are some strangers who will always want to hurt children. I just think that demands for the kind of legislation you advocate is ill thought out and in response to fear not reason. I also think that the legislation you advocate will do nothing to make our children safer.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> re-read my original post about Canterbury and you will realise how absurd your mis-representation of my position is. I had no fear of the strangely garbed bearded fellow with a camera. It was him who introduced himself to me and my wife and started babbling about his project. I let him take another photo and we continued with our pleasant visit to the town.
> 
> These attempts to paint me as a paranoid obsessive are desperate and ill judged.



You're painting yourself as one kenny.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny they were your own words, you silly billy.

I quoted you ... from here


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

Do you know this place, kenny?


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

> re-read my original post about Canterbury and you will realise how absurd your mis-representation of my position is. I had no fear of the strangely garbed bearded fellow with a camera. It was him who introduced himself to me and my wife and started babbling about his project. I let him take another photo and we continued with our pleasant visit to the town.


Then rushed home and googled Canterbury paedophiles. 

Sorry Kenny but I have never done that. I have never rushed home after a day out with my kid to google the town where I was picnicking to find out if it is a nest of paedophiles. In fact the only time I have ever ever googled a town name and the word paedophile was tonight in response to your post. It made me a little uncomfortable TBH. Do you do this a lot?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Once paedos are on a public register they are more likely to be identified by the public and immediately lifted by the Police if they start to engage in *otherwise innocent activities* such as photographing street scenes etc.



If they are a pervert taking photos of street scenes or shadows would stop being innocent.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You're painting yourself as one kenny.



You really are Kenny. Sorry.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> If they are a pervert taking photos of street scenes or shadows would stop being innocent.



I can no longer sit back and allow pervert infiltration, pervert indoctrination, pervert subversion and the international pervert conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> If they are a pervert taking photos of street scenes or shadows would stop being innocent.


"It is not possible for a pervert to be innocent"


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Then rushed home and googled Canterbury paedophiles.
> 
> Sorry Kenny but I have never done that. I have never rushed home after a day out with my kid to google the town where I was picnicking to find out if it is a nest of paedophiles. In fact the only time I have ever ever googled a town name and the word paedophile was tonight in response to your post. It made me a little uncomfortable TBH. Do you do this a lot?



First and only time apart from when I moved to my current town, and found only one listed, and the town I grew up in after the national news had yet another paedo being caught in the town and I couldn't believe it.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> If they are a pervert taking photos of street scenes or shadows would stop being innocent.



Yeah. they might be building up their collection of sick shadow porn


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> "It is not possible for a pervert to be innocent"



You misrepresent. I do not think photographing street scenes with children present is a fitting hobby for a convicted paedophile.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

> first and only time apart from when i moved to my current town,



LOL


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 23, 2010)

This is a very strange thread.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You misrepresent. I do not think photographing street scenes with children present is a fitting hobby for a convicted paedophile.


How about breathing?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Yeah. they might be building up their collection of sick shadow porn



 You may find the idea amusing. Millions wouldn't.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

Kenny. Tell us about Baudrillard.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> How about breathing?



That is their choice. I do not believe in the death penalty.

However, for the  Sidney Cookes of this world or those who propagate paedophilia, I do think that suicide may be the most honourable option.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Kenny. Tell us about Baudrillard.



Tell us about your "evidence" that a UK register of convicted sex offenders would lead to no decrease on attacks on children.

Oh wait, you haven't got any.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

Doubtless.

But you should know you have very little chance of meeting anyone like Sidney Cooke. Unlike the daily grind of familial abuse and neglect that drives kids from their homes, his kind is very rare, and hard to find, even wearing beads and rainbow coloured clothes in Canterbury.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Tell us about your "evidence" that a UK register of convicted sex offenders would lead to no decrease on attacks on children.
> 
> Oh wait, you haven't got any.



All the evidence shows this. In fact all the evidence shows that a public register would make things worse.  All of it. Oh but you don't do evidence do you?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Doubtless.
> 
> But you should know you have very little chance of meeting anyone like Sidney Cooke. Unlike the daily grind of familial abuse and neglect that drives kids from their homes, his kind is very rare, and hard to find, even wearing beads and rainbow coloured clothes in Canterbury.



He did have a beard though.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Tell us about your "evidence" that a UK register of convicted sex offenders would lead to no decrease on attacks on children.
> 
> Oh wait, you haven't got any.


It was posted earlier. A study from the States showing "Megan's Law" has been worse than useless.

You don't care about that, because, I suspect, you don't actually care about children.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> All the evidence shows this. In fact all the evidence shows that a public register would make things worse.  All of it. Oh but you don't do evidence do you?



But you haven't got any evidence regarding the UK have you you silly man? You just have some cod statistics from New Jersey. And THAT is IT.


----------



## dylans (Feb 23, 2010)

Tell us about Baudrillard Kenny. Come on. You brought him up. Admit it. You only read the cover didn't you?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

kenny g said:


> He did have a beard though.


Not like Sidney Cooke, then.

Gosh, I bet you were relieved when you realised that!


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> It was posted earlier. A study from the States showing "Megan's Law" has been worse than useless.
> 
> You don't care about that, because, I suspect, you don't actually care about children.



Re-read my point. I want evidence for the UK. Not from a completely different criminal justice environment.

If someone started talking about murder based on US stats they would be laughed at, why is it any different when talking about tackling paedos?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 23, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Not like Sidney Cooke, then.
> 
> Gosh, I bet you were relieved when you realised that!



He must have grown a beard since you are referring to

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...iled-paedophile-sidney-cooke-115875-21042049/


----------



## Azrael (Feb 23, 2010)

How are people meant to produce British evidence for a policy that Britain has yet to implement?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 23, 2010)

I think you are not used to having to reason things through.

Gun ownership in the States results in the high murder rate.  But why shouldn't we learn from the failure of Megan's Law?
Why should that be different?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 24, 2010)

A lack of evidence does not mean that there is evidence against as is being suggested by Dylans.


----------



## dylans (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> But you haven't got any evidence regarding the UK have you you silly man? You just have some cod statistics from New Jersey. And THAT is IT.



Give  your ridiculous Sarah's law a few years Kenny and  you will have reams of it. I'm sure you will ignore that too.

You want to dismiss a major report by The State Department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning referring to exactly the type of law you wish to implement here. Exactly the type of public disclosure legislation that you wish to bring in to the UK. And it say's very clearly that it does not work. In fact it goes further and says that it makes things worse. This is important. You are blindly running with a piece of legislation that very possibly may become a reality here and you are choosing to ignore the evidence that it makes attacks on children more likely not less. Think about that.  

The fact that you choose to ignore that report shows that you are prepared to ignore evidence that doesn't suit your agenda. 

Face it,  you have been annihilated on this thread. You have made yourself look like a paranoid lunatic. The sad thing is you haven't got the guts to recognise that.
Did you actually read that report?  I ask because not reading things is a bit of a habit with you isn't it?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2010)

OK, so the guy had a beard, as does Sidney Cooke now.

I hope you decked the bearded bastard! And took his beads.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 24, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Gun ownership in the States results in the high murder rate.


Stay clear of the badlands of Vermont!


----------



## kenny g (Feb 24, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I think you are not used to having to reason things through.
> 
> Gun ownership in the States results in the high murder rate.  But why shouldn't we learn from the failure of Megan's Law?
> Why should that be different?



Because of a high murder rate and gun ownership for one. 

It is hardly surprising if paedos are more likely to go on the run if their identities are known when they are facing a high murder rate and high gun ownership.

A very different situation statistically from the UK. The risk for a paedo of getting caught by the Police for being on the run would be considerably higher than that of being murdered by a gun toting vigilante.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 24, 2010)

Jonti said:


> OK, so the guy had a beard, as does Sidney Cooke now.
> 
> I hope you decked the bearded bastard! And took his beads.



He wasn't wearing beads, just a beard and some shitty coloured clothes. 

I was adding a bit of colour to my description, it is you who is making something out of it.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2010)

> A lack of evidence does not mean that there is evidence against ...


Oh yes it does!

A lack of evidence means a lack of evidence. Either way.

OK, lets start counting ...
1) impaired reasoning
2) irrational suspicions
3) violent punishment fantasies


----------



## Azrael (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> The risk for a paedo of getting caught by the Police for being on the run would be considerably higher than that of being murdered by a gun toting vigilante.


Vigilantes don't need a gun to indulge in their vigilantism. (Although if they're in the mood, there's always that shifty guy who "knows some squaddies" down the local.) Many exciting pointy objects are on open and legal sale. (Or maybe they'll get medieval on their prey and tool up with crossbows.)


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> He wasn't wearing beads, just a beard and some shitty coloured clothes.
> 
> I was adding a bit of colour to my description, it is you who is making something out of it.


Your account was fabricated!

4) Fantasist


----------



## kenny g (Feb 24, 2010)

dylans said:


> You want to dismiss a major report by The State Department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning referring to exactly the type of law you wish to implement here. Exactly the type of public disclosure legislation that you wish to bring in to the UK. And it say's very clearly that it does not work. In fact it goes further and says that it makes things worse. This is important. You are blindly running with a piece of legislation that very possibly may become a reality here and you are choosing to ignore the evidence that it makes attacks on children more likely not less. Think about that.



You are a pompous idiot. You can not transpose a report, major or otherwise from the US to the UK and claim it is evidence of what would occur in the UK.

It relates to a completely different environment.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2010)

> You are blindly running with a piece of legislation that very possibly may become a reality here and you are choosing to ignore the evidence that it makes attacks on children more likely not less.



5) Sadist by proxy a la Munchausen


----------



## dylans (Feb 24, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Oh yes it does!
> 
> A lack of evidence means a lack of evidence. Either way.
> 
> ...



6 Salacious dehumanising language
7) paranoic web trawling


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You are a pompous idiot. You can not transpose a report, major or otherwise from the US to the UK and claim it is evidence of what would occur in the UK.
> 
> It relates to a completely different environment.


It's like, another planet there maaaaan.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 24, 2010)

Jonti said:


> 3) violent punishment fantasies


*Pk* had this down to an art. Any nonce he caught in the act of noncing would be subjected to summary castration, or gouging, as the mood took him. Presumably the unfortunate victim would be dispatched to the authorities first. 

Was never explained how he'd catch the nonce _in flagrante noncery_, or how he'd keep the authorities from finding the nonce while the victim was taken in, but my, such passion!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2010)

OK make that 

6) Sadist by proxy a la Munchausen


----------



## kenny g (Feb 24, 2010)

Anyway, as the circle continues I will let you rest in your lost reliance on US stats sure with the knowledge that a completely reasonable suggestion to allow communities access to a register of paedophiles is shared by the vast majority of the UK and vilified by a few characters on the outer reaches of urban 75.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 24, 2010)

P&P is the outer reaches of Urban? Always thought that was the philosophy forum.


----------



## dylans (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You are a pompous idiot. You can not transpose a report, major or otherwise from the US to the UK and claim it is evidence of what would occur in the UK.
> 
> It relates to a completely different environment.



No you can't transpose it but you can learn lessons from it. Particularly when it is the inspiration for legislation you wish to implement here

. When a piece of legislation that you wish to copy here so clearly fails it would be wise to reconsider that legislation. It would be criminally irresponsible to ignore those lessons because they don't suit your agenda


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2010)

Azrael said:


> *Pk* had this down to an art. Any nonce he caught in the act of noncing would be subjected to summary castration, or gouging, as the mood took him. Presumably the unfortunate victim would be dispatched to the authorities first.
> 
> Was never explained how he'd catch the nonce _in flagrante noncery_, or how he'd keep the authorities from finding the nonce while the victim was taken in, but my, such passion!


For some reason, PK's appallingly violent fantasy life never disturbed me much, although I know it seriously upset many others.  I guess it's because he had other interests, and was witty and engaging as well.  

This guy seems rather narrow and single minded.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 24, 2010)

You could at least try things more likely to succeed, like better supervision of abusers post-release, and better psychiatric intervention inside, before you uncorked the Paedo-Finder General.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 24, 2010)

Jonti said:


> For some reason, PK's appallingly violent fantasy life never disturbed me much, although I know it seriously upset many others.  I guess it's because he had other interests, and was witty and engaging as well.


It had the gory artfulness of Jacobean drama, when he got going. 


> This guy seems rather narrow and single minded.


Pk would never have gone for anything so tawdry as beards and rainbow weskits, that's for sure.


----------



## dylans (Feb 24, 2010)

Azrael said:


> You could at least try things more likely to succeed, like better supervision of abusers post-release, and better psychiatric intervention inside, before you uncorked the Paedo-Finder General.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 24, 2010)

Call that a mob, mate? Tsk!


----------



## existentialist (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Re-read my point. I want evidence for the UK. Not from a completely different criminal justice environment.
> 
> If someone started talking about murder based on US stats they would be laughed at, why is it any different when talking about tackling paedos?


Complete bollocks.

One wouldn't want to infer too much from the US system, but I don't think dylan's point that a Megan's Law type law would have broadly similar effects on co-operation rates is so inapplicable here that you can rule it out quite so easily.

It certainly, thin as it might be, represents better evidence than the whole lot of nothing you've produced in support of whatever it is you're believing in from post to post.

You seem to be one of those people who insist that the more firmly held the view, and the more potent the invective, the more weight your argument carries. Either that, or you really *are* trolling us


----------



## existentialist (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> A very different situation statistically from the UK. The risk for a paedo of getting caught by the Police for being on the run would be considerably higher than that of being murdered by a gun toting vigilante.



Have you ever actually _been_ to the US?

Or do you get all your information about the place from B-movies and late-night cop thrillaz?


----------



## Louloubelle (Feb 24, 2010)

I would be extremely interested in the results of some proper research using ibogaine as part of a therapeutic treatment for some sex offenders 

I have never taken it myself, but from the accounts of people who have taken it it seems to create a subjective experience of inhabiting the minds of people they have hurt over the years.

Whether people actually feel the hurt and pain they inflicted on others or whether they just have a fantasy of this is unclear, but the drug does seem to induce feelings of guilt and a powerful wish to make amends. 

It seems to facilitate what Melanie Klein called "the depressive position"

It also allows the user to relive painful and traumatic memories that they had buried in their unconscious. 

I am not suggesting that the drug is a magic bullet, but it does seem to have immense therapeutic potential that is not being researched.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> No. Very easygoing and relaxed. I just want a public register to be kept of convicted paedophiles. An opinion shared by a MAJORITY of the public.



No, it's an opinion shared by a majority of those surveyed (do I need to explain that "cold" street and phone surveys are notoriously unreliable?), and a majority of people who responded to the phone lines set up by a couple of red-tops.
Show me a referendum that supports it and I'll agree with it. Until then, I don't fancy the legislation that we have to live under being dictated by hysterics any more than it already is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2010)

dylans said:


> A majority of the public would probably vote to have them publicly burnt in the market square before being torn limb by limb and dragged through the town. Doesn't make it a rational basis for legislation however



They probably wouldn't, because when you're faced with a referendum or even a bill for something like what kenny is proposing, people tend to sit down and think about the ramifications, and just how easy it'd be for someone, say a friend or relative, to be falsely accused.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> These attempts to paint me as a paranoid obsessive are desperate and ill judged.



Stop making them, then!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> If they are a pervert taking photos of street scenes or shadows would stop being innocent.



Define "pervert".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Anyway, as the circle continues I will let you rest in your lost reliance on US stats sure with the knowledge that a completely reasonable suggestion to allow communities access to a register of paedophiles is shared by the vast majority of the UK and vilified by a few characters on the outer reaches of urban 75.



Please provide support for your contentions.

Thanks.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 26, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Define "pervert".



Someone who takes sexual pleasure out of photos of shadows of children.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

Child Abuser Registration Regulations 2010

1. All persons over 18 years of age convicted of a crime of a sexual nature concerning persons, or representations of persons, whether in image, sound or literary form, apparently under the age of 18 shall be designated as registered child abusers. 

2. Registered child abusers shall be photographed and their photos placed in a register of child abusers which will be made available to the public for viewing at  no charge at the offices of the registered child abuser's Local Authority. A copy of the register shall  be kept by the Local Authority in a searchable internet accessible electronic form accessible to the public for no charge. 

3.The required details to be placed in the register are to be;

i. The registered child abuser's full  photograph, face photograph and side photograph.

ii. The registered permanent address of the registered child abuser and any other  place he may reside.

iii. Description and registration numbers of any vehicles that the registered child abuser has any financial interest in.

iv. Offences for which the registered child abuser has been convicted.


4.The registered child abuser shall, at his own expense, have his photographs as required in section 3. i) taken at yearly intervals from the time of conviction.

5. The registered child abuser shall stay between the hours of 11pm and 6 a.m at no place other than the registered permanent address without notifying the register and the register being updated accordingly.

6. The registered child abuser shall drive no  car other than one registered under section 3 iii. This expressly excludes hire cars and company cars. There shall be no more than three cars registered at any one time.


7. To ease identification registered child abusers shall be restricted to facial hairgrowth of no more than 2mm in length and no other head hair shall be allowed to grow beyond 10mm in length. 

8. It shall be an offence to commit a breach of, or be a party to any breach of, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. 

9. It shall be an offence to knowingly or unknowingly, provide shelter, food or sustinance to any person who is in breach of section 8.

10. It shall be a defence to an offence under section 9 to show that all reasonable precautions and due diligence have been taken to avoid the commissioning of an offence. 

11. Where a person has committed an offence under section 8 he may on summary conviction be liable for a £20,000 fine and six months imprisonment for each offence.On indictment he may be liable for a fine and imprisonment as seen fit.

12. Where a person, including the officers of a company, has committed an offence under section 9, he may on summary conviction be liable for a £20,000 fine and six months imprisonment for each offence.On indictment he may be liable for a fine and imprisonment as determined.

13. In addition to the penalties outlined in section 11 a person convicted of an offence under section 8 shall be liable to forfeiture of all properties, whether financial, movable or immovable as to be determined by the Court. 

14. Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 shall be abrogated where the suicide concerns a registered sex offender.

15. The Local Authority may, as it sees fit, place conditions on the registered child abuser's admittance to the register. In the event that the conditions are breached, the registered child abuser shall be in breach of section 8.

16.  No conditions shall be in place which are in breach of obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

> Registered child abusers shall be photographed and their photos placed in a register of child abusers which will be made available to the public for viewing at no charge at the offices of the registered child abuser's Local Authority. A copy of the register shall be kept by the Local Authority in a searchable internet accessible electronic form accessible to the public for no charge.
> Flaming torches, broken bottles and half house bricks shall be supplied by the public at their own cost as will badly spelled placards bearing the logo "pedo scum" and "kill filth" Costs of fire damage and other breakages to offenders home's shall be borne by the responsible vigilante's



Sounds great.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Child Abuser Registration Regulations 2010


*pisses self laughing*


----------



## existentialist (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> 16.  No conditions shall be in place which are in breach of obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998.



Oh, and incidentally, pretty much everything you propose would be a breach under the HRA. Either stop lying to yourself and acknowledge that your proposed restrictions *are* oppressive, or stop taking the rest of us for a bunch of twits.

Either way, though, thanks for the laugh - nothing like a good ironic bellylaugh at half past nine on a Saturday.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

You obviously do not understand the HRA act or the proposed legislation. The legislation is proportionate to what it is designed to protect, the right to  life, and the right to privacy, i.e children's, and the right to a family life etc etc. 

The mention of the HRA in regulation 16 is there as an added reminder to Local Authorities not to impose additional conditions on registered child abusers which are in breach.

Dylan's hysterical mention of ill written placards and burning torches shows that he is not even willing to consider perfectly reasonable legislation which attempts to overcome some of the problems that he claimed to have identified in US legislation regarding child abusers going missing. Regulation 9, in particular, places the burden on any member of the public who feeds a registered child abuser who is in breach of the regulations. As such it increases community involvement in helping to protect children and will improve social confidence and well being.

The ill judged reaction proves my point that Dylan's is not approaching this rationally, nor is he looking for realistic solutions, rather he prefers to engage in kneejerk rejections based on his own social prejudice.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You obviously do not understand the HRA act or the proposed legislation. The legislation is proportionate to what it is designed to protect, the right to  life, and the right to privacy, i.e children's, and the right to a family life etc etc.


How lucky we are, then, to have someone with such a uniquely incisive insight into it, and who is so articulately able to convey the subtleties to we lesser mortals in such a concise and persuasive way.

Clearly, you have won this thread, and it is over save for your victory lap.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

existentialist said:


> How lucky we are, then, to have someone with such a uniquely incisive insight into it, and who is so articulately able to convey the subtleties to we lesser mortals in such a concise and persuasive way.
> 
> Clearly, you have won this thread, and it is over save for your victory lap.



I have not seen this thread as a competition, rather, it has been a useful exercise which I feel has helped to lead towards a piece of rough draft legislation which has great potential. Any constructive comments you may have are, of course, welcome.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I have not seen this thread as a competition, rather, it has been a useful exercise which I feel has helped to lead towards a piece of rough draft legislation which has great potential. Any constructive comments you may have are, of course, welcome.


I'm guessing that you get to be the one who decides what counts as "constructive", then?

*chuckles*


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

Differences of opinion are constructive. I am not sure what purpose your previous comment



> How lucky we are, then, to have someone with such a uniquely incisive insight into it, and who is so articulately able to convey the subtleties to we lesser mortals in such a concise and persuasive way.
> 
> Clearly, you have won this thread, and it is over save for your victory lap.



serves, however, apart from apparently displaying your own regrettable attitudes towards this thread.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

> Regulation 9, in particular, places the burden on any member of the public who feeds a registered child abuser


I think you  have a point here. Perhaps we could make signs to hang out side their houses.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Regulation 9, in particular, places the burden on any member of the public who feeds a registered child abuser *who is in breach of the regulations. *



You really are desperate aren't you? For someone who claims to be capable of a rational discussion, why do you continue to choose to selectively quote and misrepresent the position you oppose?


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

Dylan's Law.  Rusty Nail offender Registration Regulations 2010

1. All persons over 18 years of age convicted of a crime involving the sale or use of  oxidised pin fastening nature. Concerning person shall be designated as registered rusty nail offenders. 

2 Rusty nails shall be defined as any pin fastening made of hard alloys that have been allowed by neglect or accident to oxidise by the deliberate or accidental reaction of iron and oxygen in the presence of water or moisture

2. Registered rusty nail offenders shall be photographed and their photos placed in a register of rusty nail offenders which will be made available to the public for viewing at no charge at the offices of the registered rusty nail offenders Local Authority. A copy of the register shall be kept by the Local Authority in a searchable internet accessible electronic form accessible to the public for no charge. 



3.The required details to be placed in the register are to be;

i. The registered rusty nail offenders full photograph, face photograph and side photograph.

ii. The registered permanent address of the registered rusty nail offender and any other place he may reside.

iii. Description and registration numbers of any tools that the registered rusty nail offender has any financial interest in.These include hammers, picture frames, decorative items or garden furnishings etc.

iv. Offences for which the registered rusty nail offender has been convicted.


4.The registered rusty nail offender shall, at his own expense, have his photographs as required in section 3. i) taken at yearly intervals from the time of conviction.

5. The registered rusty nail offender shall stay between the hours of 11pm and 6 a.m at no place other than the registered permanent address without notifying the register and the register being updated accordingly.

6. The registered rusty nail offender shall use no tools  other than those registered under section 3 iii. This expressly excludes automatic nail guns or claw or ball hammers. There shall be no more than three tools registered at any one time.


7. To ease identification registered rusty nail offenders shall be restricted to clothing not normally associated with handy man or carpentry  type work. Overralls and other uniforms associated with the use of metalic fastening shall be expressly forbidden as will tool belts, little nail boxes and tool kits with assorted pockets etc 

8. It shall be an offence to commit a breach of, or be a party to any breach of, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. 

9. It shall be an offence to knowingly or unknowingly, provide hammers, pliers, picture frames or other tools, to any person who is in breach of section 8.

10. It shall be a defence to an offence under section 9 to show that all reasonable precautions and due diligence have been taken to avoid the commissioning of a rusty nail offence. 

11. Where a person has committed an offence under section 8 he may on summary conviction be liable for a £20,000 fine and six months imprisonment for each offence. On indictment he may be liable for a fine and imprisonment as seen fit.

12. Where a person, including the officers of a company, has committed an offence under section 9, he may on summary conviction be liable for a £20,000 fine and six months imprisonment for each offence.On indictment he may be liable for a fine and imprisonment as determined.

13. In addition to the penalties outlined in section 11 a person convicted of an offence under section 8 shall be liable to forfeiture of all nailed properties, whether financial, movable or immovable as to be determined by the Court. Exception shall be made for self fastening and self assembly furniture that does not make use of pin shaped sharpened objects. 

14. Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 shall be abrogated where the suicide concerns a registered rusty nail offender.

15. The Local Authority may, as it sees fit, place conditions on the registered rusty nail offenders admittance to the register. In the event that the conditions are breached, the registered rusty nail offender shall be in breach of section 8.

16. No conditions shall be in place which are in breach of obligations under the Human Rights or Health and Safety at work  Act 1998.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

I am sure people who have been on the receiving end of child abusers find your levity towards the matter as sickening as I do.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I am sure people who have been on the receiving end of child abusers find your levity towards the matter as sickening as I do.



The lunacy of your position deserves nothing less Kenny.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I am sure people who have been on the receiving end of child abusers find your levity towards the matter as sickening as I do.



I find your flippancy in the face of the growing rusty nail tragedy quite shocking Kenny  you heartless oxidisation lover. 

Do you know the damage caused by rusty nails? Do you know about the Mianus River Bridge? 


> The Mianus River Bridge on Interstate 95 in the Cos Cob section of Greenwich, Connecticut had a 100-foot (30.5 m) section of its deck of its northbound span collapse on June 28, 1983. Three people were killed when their vehicles fell with the bridge into the Mianus River 70 feet (21.3 m) below, and three were seriously injured.[1]
> The collapse was caused by the failure of two pin and hanger assemblies that held the deck in place on the outer side of the bridge. The hanger on the inside part of the expansion joint at the southeast corner was forced from the pin that was holding it, and the load was shifted to the only other pin in the joint. *The problem was caused by rust formation *within the bearing on the pin, exerting a tremendous force on the hanger.








And you choose to ignore this. You heartless rust lover you


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

You are doing it again, even though I have never accused you of being a paedo lover, in an attempt to be ironic you accuse me of being a rust lover. 

You are building straw men and then parodying something that is not there.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> You are building straw men and then parodying something that is not there.



Am I? hmmm. I wonder why that sounds familiar?


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

> you accuse me of being a rust lover.



Evil oxidising rust loving scum filth. Actually


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

dylans said:


> Am I? hmmm. I wonder why that sounds familiar?



So are you still arguing  that the danger presented to children by paedophiles  is so minor that it is equivalent to that posed by rusty nails?

In which case you must be on the happy pills.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> So are you still arguing  that the danger presented to children by paedophiles  is so minor that it is equivalent to that posed by rusty nails?
> 
> In which case you must be on the happy pills.



I'm arguing that the insane legislation you propose is as lunatic as laws outlawing rusty nail sales. I am demonstrating that it is possible to manufacture a crisis and a legislative response from anything and that there will always be paranoid idiots like yourself around to accept ill thought out authoritarian legislation such as you propose on the basis of fear and misinformation. 

Finally I am demonstrating that you have no sense of humour or of irony or satire 

Rust lover


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Someone who takes sexual pleasure out of photos of shadows of children.



That's not an accurate definition, is it?
Of course, if you gave an accurate definition, it'd show your point up as the shite it is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Child Abuser Registration Regulations 2010


It has to be taken through Parliament as a bill and then legislated into an act to have legal force. Just calling it "regulations" is meaningless.


> 1. All persons over 18 years of age convicted of a crime of a sexual nature concerning persons, or representations of persons, whether in image, sound or literary form, apparently under the age of 18 shall be designated as registered child abusers.


Lucky Vladimir Nabokov is dead then, eh? He'd be up before the beak if he ever set foot on British soil!


> 2. Registered child abusers shall be photographed and their photos placed in a register of child abusers which will be made available to the public for viewing at  no charge at the offices of the registered child abuser's Local Authority. A copy of the register shall  be kept by the Local Authority in a searchable internet accessible electronic form accessible to the public for no charge.


You're proposing a database freely accessible from *any* computer with an internet connection.
So what you *really* want out of this isn't "law" or "regulations", it's for somebody more ignorant and/or perhaps less cowardly than you to do your dirty work and harm or kill the offender. 


> 3.The required details to be placed in the register are to be;
> 
> i. The registered child abuser's full  photograph, face photograph and side photograph.
> 
> ...


Way to go to create an entire underground of registered sex offenders!!



> 4.The registered child abuser shall, at his own expense, have his photographs as required in section 3. i) taken at yearly intervals from the time of conviction.
> 
> 5. The registered child abuser shall stay between the hours of 11pm and 6 a.m at no place other than the registered permanent address without notifying the register and the register being updated accordingly.
> 
> ...


Lovely.
Do you want them to wear striped pajamas too? Perhaps a little field cap?
Surely a convict "uniform" would follow your logic?


> 8. It shall be an offence to commit a breach of, or be a party to any breach of, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7.
> 
> 9. It shall be an offence to knowingly or unknowingly, provide shelter, food or sustinance to any person who is in breach of section 8.
> 
> ...


That's truly pathetic.


> 15. The Local Authority may, as it sees fit, place conditions on the registered child abuser's admittance to the register. In the event that the conditions are breached, the registered child abuser shall be in breach of section 8.


Local authorities have no powers to make non-civil law, you _schmuck_, and they can't be granted them either. Punishment conditions fall under that.


> 16.  No conditions shall be in place which are in breach of obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998.


On all parties, or just those you choose to be given rights, kenny?

I never cease to be amazed by how poorly people understand their own constitutional position, and how they don't realise that under a legal system that uses precedent as one of the measures for whether legislation is apposite, any procedure that abrogates a right for one group may go on to be used to abrogate the rights of all groups.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I am sure people who have been on the receiving end of child abusers find your levity towards the matter as sickening as I do.


Who are you to speak for "people who have been on the receiving end of child abusers" (poor choice of words, by the way, you fucking muppet! )?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

Thank you for your helpful suggestions.



ViolentPanda said:


> It has to be taken through Parliament as a bill and then legislated into an act to have legal force. Just calling it "regulations" is meaningless.



forgot to mention, this would be  in accordance with a to be published  EC directive   under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972.

If you think that it would be too far fetched to obtain an EC Directive I would suggest that we amend the Childrens, and Young Persons Act 1933 by a short Children, and Young Persons (amendment) Act 2010 to enable the Secretary of State to introduce relevant regulations.






ViolentPanda said:


> authorities have no powers to make non-civil law, you _schmuck_, and they can't be granted them either. Punishment conditions fall under that.



Interesting point. However, you have missed the subtleties of regulation 15. The Local Authority places conditions on a persons admission to the register. When a person is not on the register they will be in breach of the Regulations and therefore committing offences under regulation 8. 

Look at the licensing Act 2003 and the use of licensing conditions and you will see similarities. i.e LA places conditions of their choosingon a licence , conditions are broken, license is revoked by LA,  if  licensable activities continue on the premises there is a breach of the criminal law.





ViolentPanda said:


> never cease to be amazed by how poorly people understand their own constitutional position, and how they don't realise that under a legal system that uses precedent as one of the measures for whether legislation is apposite, any procedure that abrogates a right for one group may go on to be used to abrogate the rights of all groups.



The , first they came for the child abuser's argument. Fortunately we have something called the  Human Rights Act which ensures that legislation such as this has to remain proportionate. I believe that it does.

The Regulations would, of course, have powers of inspection and entry of registered addresses, and all addresses not used only as dwellings, for Constables and  Local Authority Authorised Officers. In addition, I envisage powers to inspect business records etc to ensure no breaches of regulation 9 have taken place.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)




----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

> Lovely.
> Do you want them to wear striped pajamas too? Perhaps a little field cap?
> Surely a convict "uniform" would follow your logic?



No, that would be disproportionate and unnecessary, and therefore a breach of their human rights.

I would love to know why such hostility has arisen to my attempts to outline  proportionate legislation that would address the rights and interests of victims, perpetrators and the wider community. 

I have the terrible suspicion that you are not seriously looking for any kind of solution. Unfortunately poor attempts at humour are not the best means to tackle this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Thank you for your helpful suggestions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both the Acts you cite have been superceded by newer legislation, the Children and Young Persons Act 8 or 9 times since 1933, so I'd re-rehearse my arguments in light of the updated legislation included in the newer acts, if I were you.
_Oy vey!_





> Interesting point. However, you have missed the subtleties of regulation 15. The Local Authority places conditions on a persons admission to the register. When a person is not on the register they will be in breach of the Regulations and therefore committing offences under regulation 8.


You specifically mention in regulation 15 that local authorities will have the power to "place conditions" on the convicted offender. "Conditions" are a matter of criminal, *not* civil law, and therefore local authorities are *not* competent bodies to do so. Only the courts (local or otherwise) are.


> Look at the licensing Act 2003 and the use of licensing conditions and you will see similarities. i.e LA places conditions on a licence of their choosing, conditions are broken, premises are not licensed, if it continues licensable activities there is a breach of the criminal law.


The licencing Act covers the statutory obligations of a licensee to a licencer. What you're proposing allocates the power of establishing the obligations of an offender *from* the courts *to* a local authority.  
If you think there's any similarity between the two, your train is on the wrong track. 






> The , first they came for the child abuser's argument. Fortunately we have something called the  Human Rights Act which ensures that legislation such as this has to remain proportionate. I believe that it does.


What you choose to believe is irrelevant.
What *is* relevant is law which conforms (*not*, you should note, "is believed to conform") to the standards set forth for such law, such as conformity to the HRA.

As for paraphrasing Pastor Niemoller, piss off, there's a good boy.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> you fucking muppet!



No more sick imagery concerning children's TV characters if you don't mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> No, that would be disproportionate and unnecessary, and therefore a breach of their human rights.


As would be stigmatising them by legislatively forcing them to adopt a certain look.


> I would love to know why such hostility has arisen to my attempts to outline  proportionate legislation that would address the rights and interests of victims, perpetrators and the wider community.


Because your "proportionate legislation" is based not on your *knowledge* of the extant legislation, but on your perception of how it can be bent to suit your desires.
You're interested in serving your own needs and your perceptions of the needs of victims, not "the wider community".


> I have the terrible suspicion that you are not seriously looking for any kind of solution. Unfortunately poor attempts at humour are not the best means to tackle this.


Don't pontificate at me, there's a good chap.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> No more sick imagery concerning children's TV characters if you don't mind.


You're right.

You're far too much of a fucking tosser to be a muppet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

dylans said:


>



If that's kenny, doesn't he look like he's got his arm round someone who looks like she's under 16?


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

> I would love to know why such hostility has arisen to my attempts to outline proportionate legislation that would address the rights and interests of victims, perpetrators and the wider community.



 If people appear hostile it's because the legislation you propose is neither necessary nor proportionate but is, rather, the rantings of a paranoid lunatic who sees "pedo beasts" everywhere he looks.  Neither would the legislation you propose benefit the children you claim to care about so much. Their interests are not served by hysterical authoritarian legislation pulled straight out of the pages of the News of the World.

I'm not hostile Kenny. I love you. You are keeping me amused on a rainy saturday afternoon. Keep it up. I need the photoshop practice


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Both the Acts you cite have been superceded by newer legislation, the Children and Young Persons Act 8 or 9 times since 1933, so I'd re-rehearse my arguments in light of the updated legislation included in the newer acts, if I were you.
> _Oy vey!_



Wow, that pretty much sums up the quality of your post. If  you are saying that both Acts are no longer in force then you are wrong. Numerous Regulations are made under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 by virtue of  EC Directives.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is still in force and routinely used. It has been amended numerous times which may be the source of your confusion.

Of course there are differences between the Licensing Act 2003 and what I propose. However, regulation 15  is not a legal impossibility in the way that you first suggested.

Whether or not any legislation conforms to the HRA is, of course, for a Court to decide.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> As would be stigmatising them by legislatively forcing them to adopt a certain look.



Purely to prevent the growth of beards or hair to stop identification, as has been done by known paedophiles mentioned previously in this thread.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

> 14. Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 shall be abrogated where the suicide concerns a registered child abuser.



I am suprised more attention hasn't been paid to regulation 14 which would provide a satisfactory outcome in many cases.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

> No more sick imagery concerning children's TV characters if you don't mind.



I think you see "sick imagery everywhere Kenny. you worry me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Wow, that pretty much sums up the quality of your post. If  you are saying that both Acts are no longer in force then you are wrong. Numerous Regulations are made under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 by virtue of  EC Directives.


Referenced *through* the amendments (2003 and 2007 are the latest).


> The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is still in force and routinely used. It has been amended numerous times which may be the source of your confusion.


Again, any use is referenced through those amendments rather than through the act as it stood.


> Of course there are differences between the Licensing Act 2003 and what I propose. However, regulation 15  is not a legal impossibility in the way that you first suggested.


Not if you want to cede legal powers to local authorities that they have no right to, no infrastructure to police, and no wish to hold.
Great precedent to set, too!


> Whether or not any legislation conforms to the HRA is, of course, for a Court to decide.


You're sharp, aren't you?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 27, 2010)

> 8. It shall be an offence to commit a breach of, or be a party to any breach of, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7.
> 
> 9. It shall be an offence to *knowingly or unknowingly*, provide shelter, food or sustinance to any person who is in breach of section 8.



I mean the suicide one just shows kenny g to be a grade a* cunt, but this is just funny.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not if you want to cede legal powers to local authorities that they have no right to,



Wrong again. Are you aware of the Local Government Act 2000? http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/pdf/ukpga_20000022_en.pdf 

2.—(1) Every local authority are to have power to do anything which 
they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following well-being.
objects—
(a) the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of
their area,
(b) the *promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their
area*, and
(c) the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being
of their area.



ViolentPanda said:


> no infrastructure to police,



You must have missed my earlier post,



> The Regulations would, of course, have powers of inspection and entry of registered addresses, and all addresses not used only as dwellings, for Constables and Local Authority Authorised Officers. In addition, I envisage powers to inspect business records etc to ensure no breaches of regulation 9 have taken place.



 Powers could be given to Authorised Officers under the Regulations or  section 103 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 could be  
re-introduced if you feel that the existance of a Local Authority Chief Inspector would be most appropriate.

The infrastructure for inspection would be straightforward with rights of entry to registered child abusers premises as previously outlined. Obviously, not providing reasonable assistance or obstruction of Authorised Officers would be an offence.



> and no wish to hold.



On the contrary. Effective enforcement of a  child abuse registry would help Local Authorities take a pro-active stance in child abuse prevention alongside work done by social services. It would help to raise public trust and confidence in Local Authorities role in these matters.



> Great precedent to set, too!



The precedence was set in 1933 with the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

And, by the way, I am interested in your view that all legislation should be referred to by the amending legislation. Do you have any reference or guidance for that position?

My only concern is Regulations such as the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which make direct reference to the 1972 Act. Have they been drafted incorrectly in your opinion?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> I mean the suicide one just shows kenny g to be a grade a* cunt, .



When exactly that amendment is being suggested for those suffering terminal illnesses why couldn't it be applied for those who wish to die and who are registered child abusers?


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

> 9. It shall be an offence to knowingly or unknowingly, provide shelter, food or sustinance to any person who is in breach of section 8.





sleaterkinney said:


> I mean the suicide one just shows kenny g to be a grade a* cunt, but this is just funny.



I was wondering about that one too. So if a Greggs bakery sells a sex offender a chicken pie and a can of coke will they get nicked or should we just torch the place to be sure?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> When exactly that amendment is being suggested for those suffering terminal illnesses why couldn't it be applied for those who wish to die and who are registered child abusers?



You think the two things are similar?.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

dylans said:


> I was wondering about that one too. So if a Greggs bakery sells a sex offender a chicken pie and a can of coke will they get nicked or should we just torch the place to be sure?



That would be completely unreasonable. The legislation provides for such cases in regulation 10. 

Regulation 9 is a strict liability offence. It puts the onus on us all to  take precautions so that we don't  provide assistance to convicted child abusers who are not registered.

There is legal precedence for  such strict liability offence as to what constitutes reasonable precautions and due diligence, and , guess what, they are pretty reasonable.




> 8. It shall be an offence to commit a breach of, or be a party to any breach of, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7.
> 
> 9. It shall be an offence to knowingly or unknowingly, provide shelter, food or sustinance to any person who is in breach of section 8.
> 
> 10. It shall be a defence to an offence under section 9 to show that all reasonable precautions and due diligence have been taken to avoid the commissioning of an offence.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

Well what reasonable precautions should the likes of Greggs make to not fall foul of the law?  Perhaps they should refuse to sell chicken pies to strange looking men with beards and wearing Tie dye Tshirts and fisherman's pants?

Or perhaps those of us who are not convicted sex offenders should carry a  "I am not a pedo beast" card that we can show on request. A bit like the "are you under 21? Prove it" rule that some supermarkets enforce these days. They could have a "are you a sick depraved pedo monster? No? prove it." rule. After all if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear do we?

I for one am perfectly happy to give  up all my privacy and personal details such as DNA and fingerprints etc to the police if it helps to protect our children. Who wouldn't?  (ha we know who wouldn't don't we Kenny?)


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

dylans said:


> Well what reasonable precautions should the likes of Greggs make to not fall foul of the law?  Perhaps they should refuse to sell chicken pies to strange looking men with beards and wearing Tie dye Tshirts and fisherman's pants?



Have a wanted list behind the counter with the number of the relevant Local Authority team, alongside  appropriate staff training so that staff are aware of the need to not sell food to convicted child abusers who are not registered.

Persons on wanted list would be those convicted but not registered.

If people want to grow beards etc they will, of course, be subject to heightened observation by shop staff. That is their choice.

Once a person is convicted all DNA photos etc will be taken. It will not be a matter of choice.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

> If people want to grow beards etc they will, of course, be subject to heightened observation by shop staff. That is their choice



Yes. That sounds completely reasonable to me. Those of us who don't want to be suspected of being vile pedo scum just have to shave. Those who grow beards have only themselves to blame. Kenny, you have convinced me. I agree with you 100%. 

What about moustaches?

One other thing. Do you think it would be possible to provide a kind of ID card to those of us who aren't pedo's. A kind of enhanced CRB check so we don't cause unnecessary suspicion by wearing Tie dye Tshirts or beards etc It could state "The bearer is officially not a pedo beast, please ignore the weird clothing and facial hair and provide him with all legal services" or something like that. What do you think?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

dylans said:


> Yes. That sounds completely reasonable to me. Those of us who don't want to be suspected of being vile pedo scum just have to shave. Those who grow beards have only themselves to blame. Kenny, you have convinced me. I agree with you 100%.
> 
> What about moustaches?
> 
> One other thing. Do you think it would be possible to provide a kind of ID card to those of us who aren't pedo's. A kind of enhanced CRB check so we don't cause unnecessary suspicion by wearing Tie dye Tshirts or beards etc It could state "The bearer is officially not a pedo beast, please ignore the weird clothing and facial hair and provide him with all legal services" or something like that. What do you think?



Interesting idea. Another approach would be to require that all registered child abusers use a registered persons payment card for all retail transactions. 

When a bank gave you a payment card they would have to check that you were not a convicted child abuser.If you were concerned that your facial hair was raising suspicions you could  use of a standard payment card to assuage them. It would be a more subtle equivalent to the slightly obtrusive approach you have suggested.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Have a wanted list behind the counter with the number of the relevant Local Authority team, alongside  appropriate staff training so that staff are aware of the need to not sell food to convicted child abusers who are not registered.
> 
> Persons on wanted list would be those convicted but not registered.
> 
> ...


What purpose would this solve when a peado, known or unknown is shopping in greggs?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

Anyway, I am pleased that you are on board with this. Although it is a bit rough around the edges, the legislation is, at last, beginning to take shape!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2010)

you show signs of trolling now and again, you know that?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> What purpose would this solve when a peado, known or unknown is shopping in greggs?



It would mean that they were not served food, and the Local Authority and Police were informed so that the person could be arrested by a Police Constable for breach of regulation 8.

In effect, convicted child abusers who were in breach of the registration requirements would not be fed or provided accommodation.

I think this would help ensure that they chose to register and get around one of the objections raised by Dylan's earlier.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2010)

But you don't think! You don't seem to know how.

That makes you something of a shit troll too


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2010)

my guess: bored cowboy realises he's completely lost the exchange, and plays the fool to the crowd


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Interesting idea. Another approach would be to require that all registered child abusers use a registered persons payment card for all retail transactions.
> 
> When a bank gave you a payment card they would have to check that you were not a convicted child abuser.If you were concerned that your facial hair was raising suspicions you could  use of a standard payment card to assuage them. It would be a more subtle equivalent to the *slightly obtrusive approach you have suggested.*



So CRB checks for banking. Sounds reasonable. Maybe hairdressers too, so a cunning pedo couldn't secretly change his hairstyle.

How about a tattoo, Maybe on the forehead?  Or a brand of some type? Something that couldn't be removed. 

Or a ball and chain for the convicted. In this day and age I'm sure something could be made that gives a loud warning whenever a pedo approaches anyone under 18. "WARNING WARNING PEDO APPROACHING" something like that. Also pedo's car horns could be altered so instead of a "beep beep" like most cars they would emit a "peee dooo peee doooo" sound when honked.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Anyway, I am pleased that you are on board with this. Although it is a bit rough around the edges, the legislation is, at last, beginning to take shape!



Yes. I'm glad  you have convinced me of the reasonableness of your argument. 

(but we can still secretly lynch them when noone is watching right?)


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2010)

> Also pedo's car horns could be altered so instead of a "beep beep" like most cars they would emit a "peee dooo peee doooo" sound when honked.


It is thinking like this that blazes a new path in empowering children to live safely in today's complex, dangerous and oversexualised society!


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

Now about my Rusty nail campaign.................


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

Jonti said:


> It is thinking like this that blazes a new path in empowering children to live safely in today's complex, dangerous and oversexualised society!



Well thank you Jonti. I have seen the error of my liberal ways. Kenny's erudite and intelligent contribution to this debate has convinced me to think of the children. 
(Now where did I put that half house brick)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> It would mean that they were not served food, and the Local Authority and Police were informed so that the person could be arrested by a Police Constable for breach of regulation 8.
> 
> In effect, convicted child abusers who were in breach of the registration requirements would not be fed or provided accommodation.
> 
> I think this would help ensure that they chose to register and get around one of the objections raised by Dylan's earlier.


So, a stasi state in affect.
 What's so special about paedos for you that you would have these measures?


----------



## aylee (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Child Abuser Registration Regulations 2010
> 
> 1. All persons over 18 years of age convicted of a crime of a sexual nature concerning persons, or representations of persons, whether in image, sound or literary form, apparently under the age of 18 shall be designated as registered child abusers.
> 
> ...



LOL .... please tell me you're not a Parliamentary draftsman?

Actually, if you were, it would explain the abominable drafting of some of the legislation that I've been called upon to interpret for clients over the last sixteen and a bit years of my life.

Stick to playing rubbish soprano sax, mate.


----------



## aylee (Feb 27, 2010)

shitesaxophonist said:
			
		

> 9. It shall be an offence to knowingly or unknowingly, provide shelter, food or sustinance to any person who is in breach of section 8.





sleaterkinney said:


> I mean the suicide one just shows kenny g to be a grade a* cunt, but this is just funny.



Actually, the government has of course just passed legislation in a similar form to criminalise men who unknowingly use prostitutes who are being forced to work against their will, even if there is no reason for them to believe that to be the case.

At least one can put a case for such legislation .... what Kenny G is doing is to criminalise the little old lady who finds a homeless person sleeping in the doorway of a church, shows him a little kindness and doesn't know that he is registrable under Kenny's nonsensical legislation.

So basically Kenny G is even madder than Harriet Harman.  Which is an achievement and a half.


----------



## aylee (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Regulation 9 is a strict liability offence. It puts the onus on us all to  take precautions so that we don't  provide assistance to convicted child abusers who are not registered.
> 
> There is legal precedence for  such strict liability offence as to what constitutes reasonable precautions and due diligence, and , guess what, they are pretty reasonable.



You really have no clue at all, do you?

The point about strict liability offences is that liability arises merely by virtue of the existence of a factual situation.  You do not have a defence by showing that you did everything you could to comply or to avoid the situation that is criminalised.

An offence containing a defence for taking reasonable precautions or for showing that you undertook due diligence is not a strict liability offence.

Quadruple facepalm for Kenny ....


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

Not so. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968, Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Licensing Act 2003, Food Safety Act 1990 and a host of regulatory offences contain due diligence defences but are commonly described as strict liability.

To quote page 12 of Butterworths Trading and Consumer Law/Division 1A Unfair Commercial Practices/Unfair Commercial Practices/Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008



> If a trader engages in a commercial practice which is a misleading omission under reg 6 then the trader can be prosecuted for a strict liability criminal offence under reg 10.



look at the 2008 Regulations http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ukdsi_9780110811574_en_3#pt3-l1g13



> 17.—(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under regulation 9, 10, 11 or 12 it is a defence for that person to prove—
> (a)that the commission of the offence was due to—
> (i)a mistake;
> (ii)reliance on information supplied to him by another person;
> ...



I can go on if you wish. With regard to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968:



> Strict liability
> 
> The scheme of the Act is to impose strict liability (except with regard to false statements as to services under s 14). The offender is liable without proof of mens rea provided the defendant had knowledge that a trade description is applied Cottee v Douglas Seaton (Used Cars) Ltd [1972] 3 All ER 750, [1972] 1 WLR 1408 (see para [1] above). See, for confirmatory statements to this effect, Alec Norman Engineering Co Ltd v Phillips (1984) 148 JP 741 and Chilvers v Rayner [1984] 1 All ER 843, [1984] 1 WLR 328, QBD:
> 'I am satisfied that s 1(1) of the 1973 [Hallmarking] Act is, like the offence created by s 1(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, an absolute offence (per Robert Goff LJ).'
> ...


 Butterworths Trading and Consumer Law



> While many consumer protection measures impose strict criminal liability the truly innocent offender will often be able to escape liability where he can show that one of the statutory defences provided for in most consumer protection legislation applies in his case. By far the most important of these is the defence that the person charged has taken all reasonable precautions and has acted with due diligence in order to avoid the commission if the offence charged. ( Weights and Measures Act 1985 s. 34 (1); Consumer Protection Act 1987 s.39(1), Food safety Act s.21(1); Property misdescriptions Act 1991, s.2(1) )


 Oughton, David, Textbook on Consumer Law, 2nd Edition, 2000 p.416

In fact, a whole host of  strict liability offences  have statutory defences such as the ones outlined.

All that my proposed legislation would do is enshrine in law the need for persons to ensure that they do not harbour convicted child abusers who are not in compliance with registration requirements.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

aylee said:


> You really have no clue at all, do you?
> 
> The point about strict liability offences is that liability arises merely by virtue of the existence of a factual situation.  You do not have a defence by showing that you did everything you could to comply or to avoid the situation that is criminalised.
> 
> ...



as I thought, you appear to be confusing absolute offences and strict liability ones, as Lord Justice Goff did in the Hallmarking case, Chilvers v Rayner [1984] 1 All ER 843, [1984] 1 WLR 328, QBD:


> 'I am satisfied that s 1(1) of the 1973 [Hallmarking] Act is, like the offence created by s 1(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, an absolute offence (per Robert Goff LJ).



The Hallmarking Act contains an absolute offence as it has no statutory defence. Where there is a statutory defence, such as one of due diligence and reasonable precautions, (as is the case with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968) but no mens rea element, then  the offence is one of strict liability:



> In his text Criminal Law, Peter Gillies explains strict liability as follows:
> “Some Courts in recent years have undertaken a threefold classification of
> offences by reference to the notion of culpability: (a) offences of mens rea;
> (b) offences of strict liability, in respect of which the prosecution does not
> ...



SUBMISSION TO THE AUSTRALIAN SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF BILLS INQUIRY INTO ABSOLUTE AND STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCES
February 2002 paragraph 2.5  http://tinyurl.com/yd7dqop


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Wrong again. Are you aware of the Local Government Act 2000? http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/pdf/ukpga_20000022_en.pdf
> 
> 2.—(1) Every local authority are to have power to do anything which
> they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following well-being.
> ...



You're choosing to believe that the law says something that it doesn't.
Want to know what it pertains to?
Specifically the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, empowering local authorities to work together with other statutory and voluntary agencies toward "community crime prevention" programmes and other concomitants to "regenerating" areas by ghettoising the working classes.



> You must have missed my earlier post,


Nope.


> Powers could be given to Authorised Officers under the Regulations or  section 103 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 could be
> re-introduced if you feel that the existance of a Local Authority Chief Inspector would be most appropriate.
> 
> The infrastructure for inspection would be straightforward with rights of entry to registered child abusers premises as previously outlined. Obviously, not providing reasonable assistance or obstruction of Authorised Officers would be an offence.


So you're saying "let's create a new department in every local authority to deal with this issue, and while we're at it, let's allocate it powers outside of the remit of a local authority, 'cos then we can keep the paedos under surveillance".
Feh!




> On the contrary. Effective enforcement of a  child abuse registry would help Local Authorities take a pro-active stance in child abuse prevention alongside work done by social services. It would help to raise public trust and confidence in Local Authorities role in these matters.


Says who?
Whoops, forgot. In kenny g land, what you say is reality, isn't it?
In spite, of course, of the fact that most local authorities have a hard job functioning as things are, without being constantly being tasked with new statutory responsibilities.




> The precedence was set in 1933 with the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
> 
> And, by the way, I am interested in your view that all legislation should be referred to by the amending legislation. Do you have any reference or guidance for that position?


Only the fact that unless you refer to the original legislation through later amendments you don't get the whole picture (because provisos can be added, new points of law establish new interpretations etc). Amendments to acts are the bane of anyone who has to deal with them, as you'll know if you actually have a clue what you're talking about.


> My only concern is Regulations such as the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which make direct reference to the 1972 Act. Have they been drafted incorrectly in your opinion?


Irrelevant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

Oh, and stop searching westlaw, it's crap.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

I haven't got westlaw.

Anyway, thank you for clarifying that your point that referring the the Childrens and Young Persons Act 1933 is incorrect due to it having been amended is baseless.

And  that the fact the European Communities Act 1972 has been amended is irrelevant to the fact that rafts of Regulations continue to be  made under it.

So, your original point was completely wrong, wasn't it?


Your understanding  of the reach of the Local Government Act *2000* is similarly woeful. It encompasses far more than the Crime and Disorder Act *1998*. As you don't understand this your later point misses the mark.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I am sure people who have been on the receiving end of child abusers find your levity towards the matter as sickening as I do.


I have been on the receiving end of child abusers.

I find your posturing and patronising prissiness (sorry about the alliteration, it wasn't deliberate) far more offensive than people parodying your ridiculous position in an attempt to demonstrate its idiocy.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

existentialist said:


> posturing and patronising prissiness



No need to be personal.


----------



## dylans (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> No need to be personal.



Kenny. Stand strong against those do gooding liberals. We know that together we can make the world a safer place for lynch mobs, er.. I mean children.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I haven't got westlaw.


Yeah, right.


> Anyway, thank you for clarifying that your point that referring the the Childrens and Young Persons Act 1933 is incorrect due to it having been amended is baseless.


I see you're choosing to interpret answers in your own special way, kenny.


> And  that the fact the European Communities Act 1972 has been amended is irrelevant to the fact that rafts of Regulations continue to be  made under it.
> 
> So, your original point was completely wrong, wasn't it?


And again..
The original acts *have* to be viewed through subsequent amendments. If they're not, legislators run a risk of misapplying the law.



> Your understanding  of the reach of the Local Government Act *2000* is similarly woeful. It encompasses far more than the Crime and Disorder Act *1998*. As you don't understand this your later point misses the mark.



Dear dufus,
I said that the points you referred to encompassed the execution of statutory duties under CDA98, not the entirety of LGA2000.
Don't misrepresent me, there's a good boy.


----------



## aylee (Feb 27, 2010)

kenny g said:


> as I thought, you appear to be confusing absolute offences and strict liability ones, as Lord Justice Goff did in the Hallmarking case, Chilvers v Rayner [1984] 1 All ER 843, [1984] 1 WLR 328, QBD:
> 
> 
> The Hallmarking Act contains an absolute offence as it has no statutory defence. Where there is a statutory defence, such as one of due diligence and reasonable precautions, (as is the case with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968) but no mens rea element, then  the offence is one of strict liability:
> ...




The standard practitioners' textbook on criminal law, _Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice_, treats "absolute" offence and "strict liability" offence as synonymous in para 17.15 of the 2006 edition (the latest one I have here at home).

Maybe the terminology's different in Australia, but as for UK law I'll go with the standard textbook, thanks.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

aylee said:


> The standard practitioners' textbook on criminal law, _Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice_, treats "absolute" offence and "strict liability" offence as synonymous in para 17.15 of the 2006 edition (the latest one I have here at home).
> 
> Maybe the terminology's different in Australia, but as for UK law I'll go with the standard textbook, thanks.



Relying on a Criminal law text such as Archbold's when considering regulatory offences is understandable, but wrong headed. Butterworth's Trading and Consumer Law contains numerous references to strict liability offences with statutory defences. 

And Goff LJ, in Chilvers v Rayner [1984] 1 All ER 843, [1984] 1 WLR 328, QBD expressly states that Trade Descriptions Act 1968 s.1 (1) offences are absolute.  There is a s.24 statutory defence in the 1968 Act. 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1968/PDF/ukpga_19680029_en.pdf


----------



## kenny g (Feb 27, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> .
> The original acts *have* to be viewed through subsequent amendments. If they're not, legislators run a risk of misapplying the law.



No shit Sherlock. But it is standard to refer to the original, unamended Act when it is still in force. That is why rafts of Regulations are made under the European Communities Act 1972, it is why people still refer to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 even though it has had umpteen amendments.



> I said that the points you referred to encompassed the execution of statutory duties under CDA98, not the entirety of LGA2000.



I never referred to the entirety of LGA2000, I referred specifically to s. 2(1) (b) as you well know.

And no, I don't have access to Westlaw. Your view that I must do so just goes to show your own limitations.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2010)

kenny g said:


> No need to be personal.


I think it's entirely understandable that a survivor of abuse would treat you with unbridled contempt. Your nostrums are emotional and selfish. They are driven by your own psychopathology, and not a concern to empower children.

Your posturing and patronising prissiness grates.  It is deeply offensive to folks -- like survivors -- who are serious about the issues.

Sort it out, kenny!


----------



## existentialist (Feb 28, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I think it's entirely understandable that a survivor of abuse would treat you with unbridled contempt. Your nostrums are emotional and selfish. They are driven by your own psychopathology, and not a concern to empower children.
> 
> Your posturing and patronising prissiness grates.  It is deeply offensive to folks -- like survivors -- who are serious about the issues.
> 
> Sort it out, kenny!



Any unbridled contempt in my words was unconscious, but it is definitely true to say that anyone for whom the question of child sexual abuse is a real thing, rather than a handy cause by which to indulge in a bit of righteous anger, would find the way kenny is hijacking this issue at the very least distasteful.

What kenny clearly fails to realise is that survivors of abuse - apparently unlike him - usually succeed in moving through the stage of being angry at their abusers, and reach a point where finding some kind of understanding and insight into what happened to them is far more important.

Kenny still seems stuck at the anger stage, and seems to insist that it is his right to deny anyone else - even those with the most intimate and first-hand experience of what he's maundering on about - the right to express their views in any way that's different from his.

Which says quite a lot about him.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 28, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Kenny still seems stuck at the anger stage, and seems to insist that it is his right to deny anyone else - even those with the most intimate and first-hand experience of what he's maundering on about - the right to express their views in any way that's different from his.
> 
> Which says quite a lot about him.




Far from it. I have not denied anyone else the right to express anything on this thread. I have objected to US statistics being used in an attempt to deny any suggestion that a register would be appropriate. In fact, I said that people's own direct experiences were more valuable then the use of US sociology papers.

It is you who has  launched an attack based on the prissiness of my posting style.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 28, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Far from it. I have not denied anyone else the right to express anything on this thread.


You've not been shy to resort to some pretty dismissive language about people whose opinions you don't agree with. You have hectored and browbeaten the entire thread - the impression does rather come across that, instead of presenting counter-arguments to what others have said, you'd much rather undermine them, personally.



kenny g said:


> I have objected to US statistics being used in an attempt to deny any suggestion that a register would be appropriate. In fact, I said that people's own direct experiences were more valuable then the use of US sociology papers.
> 
> It is you who has  launched an attack based on the prissiness of my posting style.


Do you see what you're doing here?

Feel that lovely warm feeling of victimhood? Good, isn't it? I often find that this rush to feel victimised is often a handy and comfortable way of avoiding any kind of responsibility. So, in this case, it's not "I have repellent views that have clearly offended loads of people", but "People are attacking me personally for daring to speak the truth". Convenient, but bollocks nonetheless.

I attacked the prissiness of your VIEWS. I did not attack you personally. I was, it must be said, a little irritated that, 30-odd pages in, someone who clearly has little knowledge and even less experience in the field of child sexual abuse should presume to try and speak on behalf of people who've been abused. That irritation was largely thanks to the way in which you seem to feel entitled to roar around the thread using intemperate language - "paedo beasts" - but the moment anyone engages you on the same terms, it's shrinking violet time - that willing victimhood again, I expect.

It is patronising for you to assume that you know a) how anyone who has been abused might feel about it, and b) that you are in any position to gainsay any one of quite a number of clearly well-informed people on here. As for whatever all that nonsense quoting from legal databases is about, well, I'm quietly ignoring it - it just looks like a bit of posturing to me.

Hawk your ignorant prejudices around all you like - nobody's going to stop you doing that. But don't expect to be able to do so, and be quite so wrong so often, and not find yourself being held to account by people who disagree with you.

And whining about people accusing you of being "prissy", well, it's a bit of a QED moment, isn't it?


----------



## dylans (Feb 28, 2010)

> As for whatever all that nonsense quoting from legal databases is about, well, I'm quietly ignoring it



Me too. What that jibberish was all about and what point it served is beyond me ( except for making the thread interminably dull and tedious)


----------



## existentialist (Feb 28, 2010)

dylans said:


> Me too. What that jibberish was all about and what point it served is beyond me ( except for making the thread interminably dull and tedious)


I still think he's just fucking about/trolling.

Which rather gives the lie to his pious protestations about the feelings of people who've been abused.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2010)

kenny g said:


> No shit Sherlock. But it is standard to refer to the original, unamended Act when it is still in force. That is why rafts of Regulations are made under the European Communities Act 1972, it is why people still refer to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 even though it has had umpteen amendments.


Yes, and how do ou refer to it?
usually paragraph, section, Act, relevant (if any) amendment, as I recall (I may be wrong about the order, it's been a while since I've done any legislative work).




> I never referred to the entirety of LGA2000, I referred specifically to s. 2(1) (b) as you well know.


May I suggest that you learn how to read?


> And no, I don't have access to Westlaw. Your view that I must do so just goes to show your own limitations.



My view that you do proceeds from my opinion that it contains quite a bit of shite, as do you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I think it's entirely understandable that a survivor of abuse would treat you with unbridled contempt. Your nostrums are emotional and selfish. They are driven by your own psychopathology, and not a concern to empower children.
> 
> Your posturing and patronising prissiness grates.  It is deeply offensive to folks -- like survivors -- who are serious about the issues.
> 
> Sort it out, kenny!



You're assuming he gives a toss about anything except his own need to be "right".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I still think he's just fucking about/trolling.
> 
> Which rather gives the lie to his pious protestations about the feelings of people who've been abused.



And draws my attention (because I'm not a particularly nice person who doesn't really care about propriety) to why he'd feel the need to "troll", and if he isn't "trolling", why he needs to project such anger.
I'm reminded of when I played rugby, and how the most verbally homophobic players were the ones who indulged most in "changing room culture"-type "horseplay", and in standing around naked for far longer than anyone else.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 28, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, and stop searching westlaw, it's crap.


*slips VP's cheque in the mail*


----------



## aylee (Mar 1, 2010)

Thread over. 

Thank you, existentialist!


----------



## audiotech (Mar 1, 2010)

Not quite.

Here's a disturbing documentary revealing a nationwide child abuse and pedophilia ring that leads to the highest levels of government in the US and the details of the cover up that followed.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 1, 2010)

MC5 said:


> Not quite.
> 
> Here's a disturbing documentary revealing a nationwide child abuse and pedophilia ring that leads to the highest levels of government in the US and the details of the cover up that followed.


From that website: "For a concise summary of CIA mind control with links to declassified documents, click here"

So not exactly from the most unbiased of sources...and I can't help wondering if child abuse is just being used as a Trojan Horse here to peddle a rather less significant agenda. I notice the same tagline occurs on other websites where it is clearly an attempt to link CIA mind control with these child sexual abuse allegations.

The whole "ritual abuse" thing was pretty well demolished two decades ago.

I haven't watched the video, and I may well be wrong, in which case I apologise for my scepticism. But right now several of my alarm bells are ringing...


----------



## existentialist (Mar 1, 2010)

kenny g's gone awfully quiet...?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 1, 2010)

It was produced by Yorkshire TV and the Discovery Channel who were apparently pressurised to pull it. This site is just hosting it. It's not about "ritual abuse". I suggest you watch it and make your own mind up about its content.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 1, 2010)

MC5 said:


> It was produced by Yorkshire TV and the Discovery Channel who were apparently pressurised to pull it. This site is just hosting it. It's not about "ritual abuse". I suggest you watch it and make your own mind up about its content.


I can't remember the last time I followed an instruction like that and felt the exercise was remotely worth it. If the material is summarised textually, I'm much more likely to give it a look...


----------



## audiotech (Mar 1, 2010)

The documentary film covers the failure of the Franklin Community Credit Union in November 1988, with allegations that money from the union had been used to finance child prostitution. It features an interview with a former CIA director, numerous members of the Nebraska state legislature and alleged victims, all of whom confirm the validity of the Franklin child prostitution ring, including the ring's connection to high-powered Washington politicians.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 2, 2010)

MC5 said:


> The documentary film covers the failure of the Franklin Community Credit Union in November 1988, with allegations that money from the union had been used to finance child prostitution. It features an interview with a former CIA director, numerous members of the Nebraska state legislature and alleged victims, all of whom confirm the validity of the Franklin child prostitution ring, including the ring's connection to high-powered Washington politicians.



Thank you! I must say, having googled "Franklin Community Credit Union", the subject has certainly attracted a fair degree of hysterical attention, but I'm sure I can cut my way through all that.


----------



## Louloubelle (Mar 2, 2010)

MC5 said:


> Not quite.
> 
> Here's a disturbing documentary revealing a nationwide child abuse and pedophilia ring that leads to the highest levels of government in the US and the details of the cover up that followed.



I have not seen the documentary (will try to make time to do so soon) but some of the supporting documentation looks pretty incredible 

For example this 1st person account seems not right

http://www.wanttoknow.info/nationbetrayed10pg


It's not that I doubt the existence of covert experiments regarding mind control and it's not that I doubt that government can sometimes do terrible things, but this account does not seem to come from a credible witness.

She is saying that she was abused by her father and grandfather since she was "in diapers".  She may have been, the abuse of very young children does happen, but the memories of very young children are highly unreliable as their capacity for temporal and spatial understanding is limited and affected by primitive infant phantasies. 

She talks about experiences to induce dissociative states that would create "alters"(seperate personalities within the same person, each with its own memories and abilities). 

I do not doubt the existence of dissociative states, they are familiar to anyone who has experienced or studies serious emotional trauma, however the idea of "alters" is a creation of a completely discredited branch of psychotherapy. 

Reading such 1st person accounts is difficult because the subject matter is so distressing and horrific and because you feel for the person writing it who is obviously very troubled, but given the fantastical elements of the account it is really difficult to know what is true and what is not.


----------



## dylans (Mar 2, 2010)

Louloubelle said:


> I have not seen the documentary (will try to make time to do so soon) but some of the supporting documentation looks pretty incredible
> 
> For example this 1st person account seems not right
> 
> ...



This reminds me of Cathy O brien's fantastical tale of CIA mind control sex slavery in her book Trans Formations of America. O Brien claimed she was a mind control sex slave to Dick Cheney, George Bush, Bob Hope and Bill and Hillary Clinton ( who she also supplied with Coke) 

I find this kind of conspiraloon abuse porn offensive frankly. It trivialises an important issue and diverts attention from the real issues and causes the kind of witch hunts we saw in the Satanic abuse madness of last decade.


----------



## JimW (Mar 2, 2010)

You tip the other way into knee-jerk denial. You only have to think of cases like the Haut de la Garenne orphanage in Jersey or the Kincora Boy's Home in Belfast to know that conspiracies to abuse take place.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 2, 2010)

JimW said:


> You tip the other way into knee-jerk denial..



Really? That never happens on here...


----------



## dylans (Mar 2, 2010)

JimW said:


> You tip the other way into knee-jerk denial. You only have to think of cases like the Haut de la Garenne orphanage in Jersey or the Kincora Boy's Home in Belfast to know that conspiracies to abuse take place.



Incredible claims like CIA mind control sex slaves were supplied to Bob Hope etc, require solid evidence. Links to sites that claim 9/11 were an inside job etc are not evidence.


----------



## Louloubelle (Mar 2, 2010)

dylans said:


> This reminds me of Cathy O brien's fantastical tale of CIA mind control sex slavery in her book Trans Formations of America. O Brien claimed she was a mind control sex slave to Dick Cheney, George Bush, Bob Hope and Bill and Hillary Clinton ( who she also supplied with Coke)
> 
> I find this kind of conspiraloon abuse porn offensive frankly. It trivialises an important issue and diverts attention from the real issues and causes the kind of witch hunts we saw in the Satanic abuse madness of last decade.



I struggle with it because I worry that we may throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

I have no idea if these women were abused as children and just because their discourses and testimonies sound crazy and are incredible on many levels does not mean that there are no truthful elements in them.

One of my personal bugbears is that you should not dismiss abuse victim's witness testimonies just because they sound outlandish; simply because truth _is_ sometimes stranger than fiction. 

I have no doubt that, for example, ritual abuse does happen and is happening at this very moment.  I just don't buy into the satanic panic of the 80s and 90ps upon which Valerie Sinason et al have carved out their dubious careers. 

The unfortunate consequence of the hysterical discourse surrounding the "satanic panic" is that people are far less likely to believe traumatised victims who do come forward having been abused in a ritual setting.

In fact a cunning, manipulative abuser might dress up their abuse in ritual robes with all kinds of outrageous and outlandish trappings simply because the testimony of victims abused in such ways sounds incredible and is less likely to be believed than someone who was abused in a less dramatic way. 

Staying thinking while remaining alert to all possibilities is the challenge IMO.


----------



## JimW (Mar 2, 2010)

I agree that there's some looney-tunes stories out there, but at the same time there are also genuine cases of ongoing and systematic abuse with attendant cover-ups etc. that amount to what you could call a conspiracy.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 2, 2010)

The panicky nutcases really do a lot of harm ~ remember the Cleveland Satanic Abuse scandal!

They do a lot of harm directly to the families they falsely accuse, and because they obscure the fact that there are indeed real conspiracies like Haut de la Garenne, and Kincora.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 2, 2010)

Jonti said:


> The panicky nutcases really do a lot of harm ~ remember the Cleveland Satanic Abuse scandal!
> 
> They do a lot of harm directly to the families they falsely accuse, and because they obscure the fact that there are indeed real conspiracies like Haut de la Garenne, and Kincora.


Furthermore, they focus attention onto the grand and shocking examples which represent the tip of an iceberg, while encouraging us to look away from the real problem in child abuse, which is the not-so-exotic case most of the time - the rest of the iceberg, whose scale dwarfs these celebrated and exciting examples that sell newspapers and TV documentaries.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 2, 2010)

Jonti said:


> The panicky nutcases really do a lot of harm ~ remember the Cleveland Satanic Abuse scandal!



If memory serves me right I don't recall the Cleveland Child Abuse Report having any "satanic" references?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2010)

JimW said:


> You tip the other way into knee-jerk denial. You only have to think of cases like the Haut de la Garenne orphanage in Jersey or the Kincora Boy's Home in Belfast to know that conspiracies to abuse take place.



To be fair, there's a rather large difference between isolated cases of institutionalised abuse at establishments, and an over-arching international conspiracy of abuse.


----------



## JimW (Mar 2, 2010)

I know, but you do see evidence in a fair few of these cases of careful planning/cover-ups etc to allow the abuse to continue and even iirc of offering children to other abusers. So not some massive all-pervading web, but not entirely random one-offs either is me point.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 2, 2010)

MC5 said:


> If memory serves me right I don't recall the Cleveland Child Abuse Report having any "satanic" references?


My bad!  There was no allegation of satanism in the Cleveland panic.





> the anthropologist Jean La Fontaine ... like Bea Campbell ... had emerged during the early 1990s as an influential defender of the social workers and paediatricans who had been involved in the Cleveland crisis. Here, during the summer of 1987, more than a hundred children had been diagnosed as having been sexually abused on the basis of an ‘anal dilatation test’ which would subsequently be medically discredited.
> 
> source


If I'd googled I'd've realised I was confusing the Cleveland panic with the Rochdale Satanic Ritual Abuse panic.

The effect of each of these panics was similar ~ they were both themselves abusive of children and their families.


----------

