View Full Version : Sex offender moves to Thurso
Turquoise
29-Jun-10, 17:32
Was reading in the Press and Journal on Friday that this person, and his parents, have moved to the area...
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1737243
John Little
29-Jun-10, 18:05
Interesting.
Thing is - such people have to live somewhere.
But where?
Turquoise
29-Jun-10, 18:14
Unfortunately, John, they are all around us and authorities often land up housing them very near schools [disgust]
teenybash
29-Jun-10, 18:31
I must be missing something but I did not see any mention of this person moving to Thurso.................:confused
Interesting.
Thing is - such people have to live somewhere. But where?
Portgower?
philupmaboug
29-Jun-10, 18:34
I missed it too! am I reading it wrong?
Turquoise
29-Jun-10, 18:35
I must be missing something but I did not see any mention of this person moving to Thurso.................:confused
No, Teenybash, you weren't missing anything, the link I posted was to an earlier article on the P&J site. In Friday's P&J, it stated that he moved to Thurso, but the article isn't available online yet, I presume.
Turquoise
29-Jun-10, 18:47
The family of a man involoved in viewing child pornography had been forced to move home because of the "considerable embarrassment" the court case had caused, a sheriff at Fort William was told yesterday (24/06/10).
George Drysdale, 39, and his parents had moved from their Grampian View home at Aviemore to Thurso, said his solicitor, Willie Young.
Yesterday, Drysdale, who Mr Young described as a "lonely individual with low self-esteem", was placed on the sex offenders' register for three years. He was also given three years' probation and ordered to attend the joint sex offenders' programme.
Drysdale admitted two charges involving child pornography at an earlier hearing and sentence was deferred until yesterday for background reports.
He had pleaded guilty to possessing 121 indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. His not guilty plea to taking or permitting the taking of or making of such photographs was accepted by the Crown. The offences occurred between 01/01/2003 and 15/09/2006 at Grampian View.
Fiscal Alison Wyllie said the 121 images were "mostly youngish children and teenage girls" and "catalogue type images" that were not of a sexual nature and had been seen in other similar cases.
Mrs Bucket
29-Jun-10, 19:50
In this case Im a nimby at any cost. wheres the guy that says hang em hang em hang em well I think its a guy
Agree with you Mrs Bucket. Our children should be protected at all costs; never mind the civil liberties of pervs.
ShelleyCowie
29-Jun-10, 19:57
In this case Im a nimby at any cost. wheres the guy that says hang em hang em hang em well I think its a guy
Riggerboy will be here....he will sense you need a hangin done! ;)
Im not really going to say much on the matter of the thread, i would like to read the latest first. But still rather disturbing to know.
Turquoise
29-Jun-10, 20:03
In this case Im a nimby at any cost. wheres the guy that says hang em hang em hang em well I think its a guy
Agree with you Mrs Bucket. Our children should be protected at all costs; never mind the civil liberties of pervs.
I would castrate the lot of them. Then toss them in jail with the general masses instead of giving them their own prison wings.
Too many darn civil liberties :roll:
John Little
29-Jun-10, 20:13
Now that's the bit I find interesting.
You can't castrate them.
We don't do that.
We are civilised.
You say take away their civil liberties. To a degree we do by imprisoning them.
But having served their time they are then out in society at large.
And it seems to me that society at large has no idea whatsoever what to do with them.
Peoples' violent instincts are aroused.
People want to protect their kids and that is totally legitimate and understandable.
Even after serving time a paedophile is still a paedophile.
The one category of offender for whom redemption seems impossible.
So - seriously, short of castration, hanging or just attacking them - which most of you being decent people would not do anyway- what do we do with them?
Does our society actually have an answer?
This is nothing but a disgrace, to house this creature anywhere near kids, whether it be thurso or not. Just disgusted.......
No John, we don't. The recidivism rate amongst paedophiles is very high. I think they have chemical castration in Sweden? Not sure, maybe someone can tell us but what we currently do does not and will never, work. That is not counting the thousands of paedophiles in predatory rings, who are never caught. In fact, the thousands of these types of crimes that are not reported, or are reported to an adult who dismisses them. It makes your blood run cold what the actual numbers must be, particularly in light of the recent cases that have come to light.
Would be a reason to go back and un-invent the internet, as it's made it easier and faster for these groups to connect with one another and plan their dreadful activities.
John Little
29-Jun-10, 20:35
The chemical castration idea would seem to be an answer logically- but we are a Liberal society and I cannot see it ever being made compulsory.
But as a voluntary route towards redemption and social acceptance as a "repented sinner" I can see it would make sense.
They would lose their 'right' to a sex life and further children of their own because they would in effect be eunuchs.
But then again there would be no need for a sex offenders' register save for those who did not accept the idea of chemical castration and people need not be afraid for their kids ref those who had accepted it.
Is that the way to go?
Turquoise
29-Jun-10, 20:44
Well yes...but just because they've lost their tackle doesn't mean that they are unable to abuse. Abuse is physical and mental.
Excellent post BTW, Glaikit!
Well yes...but just because they've lost their tackle doesn't mean that they are unable to abuse. Abuse is physical and mental.
Excellent post BTW, Glaikit!
That's what I was thinking you would have to amputate hands also...
You say take away their civil liberties. To a degree we do by imprisoning them.
Seeing as we're touching on their civil rights anyway, might as well go all the way to removing their civil liberties and have them castrated.
I'd give them a lift to the vets to have it done!
telfordstar
29-Jun-10, 22:13
Unfortuatly these low lifes have to go somewhere and worse for us is that its up here. They most probably think they can come up here and remain unknown. Worst case is that they re offend up here as well!
Sara Jevo
29-Jun-10, 22:20
Oh dear . . . why am I getting a bad feeling reading this thread?
Perhaps you've not been on the receiving end of this type of behaviour. Or maybe you don't know anyone who has. I do.
A solution to this horrendous problem in our society has to be found or are these children to be seen as collateral damage for a failing judicial system?
I can not understand the mentality as to why the councils re-home these vermin up here as us Caithness folk know EVERYBODY and we all know what every one else is doing u cannot hide these vermin up here .They tried it with the vermin Maxine Carr and she had to be removed .
Did they really try to relocate Maxine Carr in caithness?
Unfortuatly these low lifes have to go somewhere and worse for us is that its up here. They most probably think they can come up here and remain unknown. Worst case is that they re offend up here as well!
Exactly, it is bad enough having to keep our own scumbags without having to look after scum from elsewhere.
Did they really try to relocate Maxine Carr in caithness?
Yeah i would like to know the same question. :eek:
Yeah i would like to know the same question. :eek:
I remember the racket about it but believe that it was some poor girl who looked very similar to Maxine Carr. I could be wrong though!
I remember the racket about it but believe that it was some poor girl who looked very similar to Maxine Carr. I could be wrong though!
If you believe every story she was living in a thousand towns.
Metalattakk
29-Jun-10, 23:28
The family of a man involoved in viewing child pornography had been forced to move home because of the "considerable embarrassment" the court case had caused, a sheriff at Fort William was told yesterday (24/06/10).
George Drysdale, 39, and his parents had moved from their Grampian View home at Aviemore to Thurso, said his solicitor, Willie Young.
Yesterday, Drysdale, who Mr Young described as a "lonely individual with low self-esteem", was placed on the sex offenders' register for three years. He was also given three years' probation and ordered to attend the joint sex offenders' programme.
Drysdale admitted two charges involving child pornography at an earlier hearing and sentence was deferred until yesterday for background reports.
He had pleaded guilty to possessing 121 indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. His not guilty plea to taking or permitting the taking of or making of such photographs was accepted by the Crown. The offences occurred between 01/01/2003 and 15/09/2006 at Grampian View.
Fiscal Alison Wyllie said the 121 images were "mostly youngish children and teenage girls" and "catalogue type images" that were not of a sexual nature and had been seen in other similar cases.
I have a couple of questions:
1: What is a "pseudo-photograph"?
2: What do they mean by ""catalogue type images" that were not of a sexual nature"?
All of a sudden, people here are classing him as a paedophile. Has he been charged with paedophilia? Or is he just as bad as a paedophile?
There's more to this than meets the eye, I reckon.
changilass
29-Jun-10, 23:37
Whilst you may not like the idea of him moving up here, there have also been a few from up here moved elsewhere - guess their new neighbours are saying exactly the same.
Turquoise
29-Jun-10, 23:46
I have a couple of questions:
1: What is a "pseudo-photograph"?
2: What do they mean by ""catalogue type images" that were not of a sexual nature"?
All of a sudden, people here are classing him as a paedophile. Has he been charged with paedophilia? Or is he just as bad as a paedophile?
There's more to this than meets the eye, I reckon.
I think the fact that he has been placed on the sex offenders' register for viewing child pornography answers this. Anyone sitting with this amount of images of children is liable to progress to much worse.
I think the fact that he has been placed on the sex offenders' register for viewing child pornography answers this. Anyone sitting with this amount of images of children is liable to progress to much worse.
Evidence please ma lud.
Turquoise
29-Jun-10, 23:52
Evidence please ma lud.
Evidence of what?
Metalattakk
29-Jun-10, 23:55
I think the fact that he has been placed on the sex offenders' register for viewing child pornography answers this. Anyone sitting with this amount of images of children is liable to progress to much worse.
I don't get it though. Where's the 'pornography'? Catalogue images don't count, surely, or we'd all be on the register.
The wife's got loads of catalogues lying about the house. Does that make her a prospective paedophile?
Anyone sitting with this amount of images of children is liable to progress to much worse.
of that statement.
Turquoise
30-Jun-10, 00:03
I don't get it though. Where's the 'pornography'? Catalogue images don't count, surely, or we'd all be on the register.
The wife's got loads of catalogues lying about the house. Does that make her a prospective paedophile?
of that statement.
I have lifted directly from the newspaper, which stated he has downloaded what the court considers to be child pornography, hence why he is on trial.
Sweetpea, I just think anyone sitting with creepy pictures of kids on their computer, is capable of much worse than just viewing images.
That doesn't always correlate.
Are you not aware that there are quite a few sex offenders etc living in Caithness.
I would think that this type of behaviour is an indicator that things will escalate and is probably a precursor to other behaviours. Don't know the statistical evidence for this but I'm interested in the wider debate about what happens to convicted paedophiles and how we as a society, can deal effectively and humanely with a horrific problem, rather than focussing on this individual.
Metalattakk
30-Jun-10, 00:19
Define:
creepy pictures of kids
Creepy in your mind? Or perfectly innocent (like the pictures of young kids in their rocket-ship underpants in the wife's mail order catalogue)?
I have a couple of questions:
1: What is a "pseudo-photograph"?
A "pseudo-photograph" is a Photograph that is not a real Photograph, ie a Hard Copy that you can hold. A "pseudo-photograph" can be a Image on a CD, Flash Drive or a HD of a Computer.
Although the term pseudo-photograph can be applied regardless of what it depicts, in law its meaning is especially relevant regarding Child Pornography.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059
Metalattakk
30-Jun-10, 00:52
A "pseudo-photograph" is a Photograph that is not a real Photograph, ie a Hard Copy that yopu can hold. A "pseudo-photograph" can be a Image on a CD, Flash Drive or a HD of a Computer.
Although the term pseudo-photograph can be applied regardless of what it depicts, in law its meaning is especially relevant regarding Child Pornography.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=1502057&ActiveTextDocId=1502059
Thanks for the info, Kodiak. :)
I think its disguting, and what makes me laugh is he gets a house swap for being a paedophile, In this country it seems to be reward the bad and penalise the good.
People like this should be locked up they dont deserve to have a life!!
riggerboy
30-Jun-10, 08:55
bloody ell my arms are sore with all the hammering i`ve been doing, must get a set of the pop up gallows the old wooden ones are hard to erect, anyway been reading with some great interest and i think we should put the hanging off until sunday as i awfully busy with the england team at the moment, but i will get round to the kiddy fiddler make me sick they do, bring him to the gallows on sunday after a day in the market square with the good patrons of caithness have had their fill of rotten fruit throwing,
hang him hang him hang him
hang him hang him hang him
hang him hang him hang him high and long,
slow death requires short drop with the knot to the back
a choking for the molester, no quick death here,
all welcome tea/coffe and sandwiches will be on sale for a small donation """ need a new rope"""
Hmm, what's the easiest way sum up this thread, um...
Outrage!
Ignorance!
Strawman!
Absurdum!
Heart!
By your powers combined I am Captain Derpadurp!
That is all.
John Little
30-Jun-10, 09:50
Our society tends to follow a policy of 'inclusion' these days.
So we closed all the great hospitals and asylums of the past, and those who were once secluded there were put into the community under a label of 'community care'.
Probably this was right, given advances in medication - but some tragedies have occured through people being placed into the community who should not have been.
In education, instead of having large numbers of special schools for children with learning and behavioural difficulties, we now have 'inclusive' schools where such children have their own 'Individual Learning programme' and, supposedly a team of specialists to meet their needs.
I have always viewed some of this with suspicion - care in the community sounds good as an idea, is often dodgy in practice, and, ultimately can be seen as a cost cutting exercise.
So how about this then; in view of the manifest fact that most of the community does not want them living in mainstream society, how about a revival of an asylum system
Maybe that would be seen as a backward step, but in view of the apparent attitudes of most people, the impracticality of more draconian solutions, society needs to look closely at this for an answer.
It seems to me that closed and secure communities might not be a bad idea.
Thoughts?
NickInTheNorth
30-Jun-10, 10:18
Well shock horror, the guy has been looking at "catalogue" images.
How many teenage boys have done that I wonder?
Reading the details of this I suspect he is just a sad inadequate individual, and probably no real threat to society.
I have 2 teenage girls, and 2 wee boys, and it would not worry me in the least to have this guy living next to me.
The fact that he is only on the register for 3 years speaks loudly to me.
Far more worrying to me is the case reported here (http://www.caithness.org/police/index.htm) but I don't remember seeing any condemnation of this on the org at the time it was reported (but I may be wrong!).
John Little
30-Jun-10, 10:33
Hm- are there degrees of severity here?
The guy has been convicted of looking at pornographic images of children.
I do not believe that I looked at any catalogue images of children when I was a teenager.
As I recall it was women ......
You also say 'probably' no real threat which may or may not be true.
You are admirably Liberal in your views here - I wonder how widely they reflect what society at large thinks?
You are making a distinction between deed and act, which treads a very thin line in our society. In a liberal society we are free to think as we wish....
yet to think of children in this context is unacceptable.
A free society has its lines too which people must not cross.
Given the heightened emotions which this topic raises in people, and the implications for violence I am strongly inclining to some form of exclusion from mainstream society. It seems to solve a lot of problems.
The subject of this thread is terrible. But as someone did mention they have to live somewhere?
I do believe the courts go rather easy on some people these days....
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1758896
Ok so the guy is a registered Sex Offender, and yes, I'd rather he was not living nearby, but yes as stated he does have to live somewhere. There is nowhere in this country that the guy can live that is totally away from children. The man in this case was convicted for viewing images on the net. That can be done from anywhere...where he lives is pretty irrelevant.
DeHaviLand
30-Jun-10, 13:50
I can not understand the mentality as to why the councils re-home these vermin up here as us Caithness folk know EVERYBODY and we all know what every one else is doing u cannot hide these vermin up here .They tried it with the vermin Maxine Carr and she had to be removed .
I think its disguting, and what makes me laugh is he gets a house swap for being a paedophile, In this country it seems to be reward the bad and penalise the good.
People like this should be locked up they dont deserve to have a life!!
I dont recall seeing anything to say that the council re-homed this family, or that they had been given a house-swap. Typical of what happens here on the Org that rather than establish the truth, there are people who want to embellish the story to suit their own agenda.
I await with interest to see the front page article in the Sun once the vigilante mob has been formed and driven these people from their home!
Abhorrent though these crimes may be, we would be wise to remember that the dispensing of justice is a matter for the courts and not the public at large.
Oh aye, I remember the outrage over Maxine Carr moving to Caithness:roll:, just a whole bunch of sad people, making up a sad story and passing it on to whichever sad person was willing to listen. Caithnessians, dontcha just love em?
onecalledk
30-Jun-10, 14:00
I think that parents have a right to know who is housed in their communities. If they dont then more children will be hurt or killed by those sex offenders who are housed in said communities.
Why house them next to schools? They are and always will be a danger to those children around them .....
K
macbreeza
30-Jun-10, 14:17
How does anyone know they are not living next door to a paedo right now?
There are evil individuals everywhere and potentially evil individuals everywhere look at Derek Bird.......no one knew what he was about to do.
All i am trying to say is there is potential for awful things to happen regardless who you live next door to or which town you live in, we are human and have emotions and some of us behave different to others until you can mind read you wont ever be free of the risk.
know where your kids are and what they are up to and who they are with.
http://www.kidscape.org.uk/parents/paedophiles.shtml
66% of paedophiles are known to the child, 34% are strangers.
Sara Jevo
30-Jun-10, 17:39
Some of the posts here reminded me of what happened down south a few years ago.
A peadiatrician moved into an area, some oaf thought this meant the person was a child molester and soon the person's home was attacked.
Whispering Game (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm) - BBC
I don't suppose the proportion of convicted paedophiles living in Caithness is any less or greater than any other part of the country already
I've no idea how many, but why are people reserving their anger for this particular individual rather than, say, those already living and working amongst you, and whose offences may be more heinous than collecting obscene pictures?
Leave justice in the hands of the courts, however reprehensible the crimes may have been.
John Little
30-Jun-10, 17:55
I believe that you may be slightly missing the point- especially when you say 'more heinous than collecting obscene pictures'
These are not just obscene pictures - they are pictures of children. Many people - probably the majority, have a visceral fear when it comes to protecting their children from danger.
And it is not an unreasonable assumption that if one is looking at obscene images of children, then one is harbouring thoughts which may well not bode well for childrens' welfare....
Their fear is not imho to be dismissed lightly, for it is a very legitimate concern and not one born out of ignorance.
Nor does it really add dignity to the debate to imply that some of us do not know the difference between paediatricians and paedophiles- because some of us do.
A debate is a debate is a debate.
This issue is of concern in our society and to dismiss suggestions as to how to tackle it may be - well... illiberal.
It needs to be aired, talked over, discussed and not swept under the carpet.
The courts do not solve the problem of what to do with these individuals once they are out of prison or courts
porshiepoo
30-Jun-10, 17:56
I have the answer!!!!!
All child molesters, rapists, flashers etc etc should be housed on an island. Said Island should then be bombed once it has reached full capacity and the inmates should know that's what will happen but not when it'll happen.
The next generation of inmates to another island should be made to do the body cleanup after bombing!
Failing that, Castration with two house bricks should see a permanent solution and for all those who's deeds are not considered as serious as a molester or those mentioned above should have a tattoo on their forehead declaring their sins.
Oops, I know where some of you will go with that one but hey ho, if it works!!!
If you believe every story she was living in a thousand towns.
Oooo I hope so. :)
Sara Jevo
30-Jun-10, 18:25
I believe that you may be slightly missing the point- especially when you say 'more heinous than collecting obscene pictures'
These are not just obscene pictures - they are pictures of children. Many people - probably the majority, have a visceral fear when it comes to protecting their children from danger.
And it is not an unreasonable assumption that if one is looking at obscene images of children, then one is harbouring thoughts which may well not bode well for childrens' welfare....
Their fear is not imho to be dismissed lightly, for it is a very legitimate concern and not one born out of ignorance.
Nor does it really add dignity to the debate to imply that some of us do not know the difference between paediatricians and paedophiles- because some of us do.
A debate is a debate is a debate.
This issue is of concern in our society and to dismiss suggestions as to how to tackle it may be - well... illiberal.
It needs to be aired, talked over, discussed and not swept under the carpet.
The courts do not solve the problem of what to do with these individuals once they are out of prison or courts
I understand the point you are making, neither am I seeking to defend anyone convicted of offences against children.
But it is very dangerous step to presume someone must be guilty of more serious offences because they have been convicted of lesser ones.
I understand your point about what happens to these people once they discharged the punishment handed down by the court.
This will not be a popular thing to say, but someone should not be punished twice - once by the courts, then by the mob.
The sentencing powers of the court are set by us, society, through the parliamentarians we elect to draw up legislation. If those powers are inadequate, then let's change them by all means. Let's make sure these people are punished within a legal framework. If you choose to punish people outwith that legal framework, they become the victims and you become the criminal.
I don't expect you to agree with that and I know it won't be popular to say. But it's an important principle at stake. Once the rule of the mob takes hold, it knows no bounds.
John Little
30-Jun-10, 18:36
I am not speaking of punishment. I am quite happy to let the courts and the judiciary do their job.
But afterwards - what then?
These people are in rather a special category and their proclivities do not just disappear. To many people they represent a threat and they wish to be aware of that threat - not so that they can go and lynch them, ( though I do not doubt that this is some peoples' knee-jerk reaction) but so they can be sure that their kids are safe to play out.
My question is what does society do with them since although some people obviously do not mind them as neighbours, the vast majority, for whatever reason would not want them. I assume that you would not contest that last point?
How do you normalise such people when they come out of prison?
Where do they live and work?
In secrecy?
But that means disregarding the quite legitimate concerns of parents in the area
The current situation is not satisfactory. And society has not addressed it.
We are seeing some extreme views here it is true - and I fancy they are fairly representative.
So what do we do - got any ideas?
Sara Jevo
30-Jun-10, 18:48
I don't have the answer to the issues raised by the resettlement of these people, no.
I imagine there will be all sorts of things to weigh up.
I have children and I would not wish them to be in the vicinity of any child sex offenders
But I am realistic enough to realise they probably already are.
There will be convicted child sex offenders already living in our community and I've no doubt there will many more whose actions - past and present - are invisible to the police.
As a parent you just hope and pray you have done enough to instill in them an awareness of risk and that not everyone may be what they seem to be.
I'm not suggesting for a minute you are getting your pitchfork out. But equally, there will be many who would latch onto this discussion and do just that.
It will take cleverer people than me to find a solution that assuages people's understandable anxiety around this issue. My worry is that tattooing someone with "child sex offender", metaphorically speaking, may serve only to drive them underground and beyond what monitoring or police awareness may be possible.
Of course, one way to ensure they do not enter our communities is to keep them locked up for longer periods of time. But that only addresses the ones we know about.
aburns2409
30-Jun-10, 20:41
This will not be a popular thing to say, but someone should not be punished twice - once by the courts, then by the mob.
I think you would feel differently if it was your child or someone you knew who was the victim - i most certainly wouldn't feel that the victim has been punished enough by the court if it was one of my children that was the victim!! All i have to say on the matter xx
This will not be a popular thing to say, but someone should not be punished twice - once by the courts, then by the mob.
I think you would feel differently if it was your child or someone you knew who was the victim - i most certainly wouldn't feel that the victim has been punished enough by the court if it was one of my children that was the victim!! All i have to say on the matter xx
Thats the trouble though, half the time the punishment isnt enough in the first place.
aburns2409
30-Jun-10, 20:47
without a doubt - no punishment is enough for CHILD ABUSE - on ANY level!!! xx
without a doubt - no punishment is enough for CHILD ABUSE - on ANY level!!! xx
If there were suitable deterrents for crimes of EVERY description instead of the current softly softly approach, perhaps the perpetrators would be less inclined to offend in the first place. Chemically castrate them or lock them up indefinitely and don't let them loose to prey on our young in ANY capacity.
Kevin Milkins
30-Jun-10, 23:19
If this person has moved to the area and joined the org, he would have pooed his pants by now.:eek:
without a doubt - no punishment is enough for CHILD ABUSE - on ANY level!!! xx
I agree.
But where was the guy charged with abuse?
The story is too vague to know what it's all about.
Why mention 'catalogue images' in the courts if the photos were pornography? The papers normally get straight to the dirt!
I remember years ago, in Thurso, a teenager 'mooned' a pensioner with whom his family had a long running domestic dispute. Because the pensioner had her grandchild with her, the teenager was found guilty of 'exposing himself' in front of a child and placed on the sex offenders register.
Is he a paedophile?
The judge in question sounded fairly level-headed. Perhaps you need to examine your basic presumptions about human sexuality. You might also try a little piece of forgiveness for this wretched individual whose crimes seem to be of a minor nature. Give the guy's particulars to the local constabulary and then get on with your lives!
Aaldtimer
01-Jul-10, 04:35
This will not be a popular thing to say, but someone should not be punished twice - once by the courts, then by the mob.
I think you would feel differently if it was your child or someone you knew who was the victim - i most certainly wouldn't feel that the victim has been punished enough by the court if it was one of my children that was the victim!! All i have to say on the matter xx
Something a wee bit wrong in your post, I think you mean the Perp!:confused
This man is going where he is going and that is the end of it.
No matter how much you/we complain about the situation, in all likelyhood it will not change.
Thus I feel that the people in the area should be aware of the situation, as the Police should, and be vigilant.....
Honestly, that is all one can do.
Just some friendly advice!
And Porshiepo....take a look at what you sayeth!!! Seems a bit juvenile!
This man is going where he is going and that is the end of it.
No matter how much you/we complain about the situation, in all likelyhood it will not change.
Thus I feel that the people in the area should be aware of the situation, as the Police should, and be vigilant.....
Honestly, that is all one can do.
Just some friendly advice!
And Porshiepo....take a look at what you sayeth!!! Seems a bit juvenile!
Well Said...
Also I think I may have misunderstood this case, did he actually abuse a child or was he viewing images of child pornography online?
If he was looking at images online it doesn't neccessarily mean he's going to commit a physical crime? He could have mental problems and with a bit of counselling he could be put on the right tracks?
As has already been said there are far worse offenders living here already.
I believe that you may be slightly missing the point- especially when you say 'more heinous than collecting obscene pictures'
These are not just obscene pictures - they are pictures of children. Many people - probably the majority, have a visceral fear when it comes to protecting their children from danger.
And it is not an unreasonable assumption that if one is looking at obscene images of children, then one is harbouring thoughts which may well not bode well for childrens' welfare....
Their fear is not imho to be dismissed lightly, for it is a very legitimate concern and not one born out of ignorance.
Nor does it really add dignity to the debate to imply that some of us do not know the difference between paediatricians and paedophiles- because some of us do.
A debate is a debate is a debate.
This issue is of concern in our society and to dismiss suggestions as to how to tackle it may be - well... illiberal.
It needs to be aired, talked over, discussed and not swept under the carpet.
The courts do not solve the problem of what to do with these individuals once they are out of prison or courts
I watch violent movies and TV shows, read violent books, play violent games. I'm not a violent person. I've even been known to laugh when people die on screen. I'm a very non-violent person, I have moments when I feel like being violent but that's the reptile brain and I don't act upon it.
By that argument 40 year old women shouldn't dress up as schoolgirls at certain theme nights because it encourages paedophilia. Parents should stop children buying certain clothes et al until they reach the age of consent because they could be encouraging paedophilia.
Perhaps there are legitimate concerns but fantasy is fantasy and does not necessarily translate into action.
As for the people who say they have a right to know who lives in their area, no you don't. I'll refrain from various analogies I could throw that illustrate my point specially against the types of people I don't like.
EDIT: *Sigh* Judging by the tone and content of some of the replies here, I expect us to mob up, go out and lynch a paeditrician any moment now.
I think you would feel differently if it was your child or someone you knew who was the victim - i most certainly wouldn't feel that the victim has been punished enough by the court if it was one of my children that was the victim!! All i have to say on the matter xx
I understand what you mean, but this is a different issue. Punishments given by the court may well be too lenient in a lot of peoples views however the idea of justice is that people serve their time and move on. The prison system, overcrowding etc needs looked at so that adequate punishments can be doled out and perhaps more importantly rehabilitation to try and prevent most offenders reoffending (or as insinuatedi n this thread to be likely in these kind of crimes, crims moving onto worse crimes).
The Drunken Duck
01-Jul-10, 12:24
How about this disgusting pervert .. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicester/10465457.stm
"Fell Down" .. yeah right. Where are all the irate illiterate Jeremy Kyle fans now ??, where are those willing to stand up for the kiddies against this sort of menace ??
Get those torches lit people, he should be burned out of house and home. Should'nt he ??
John Little
01-Jul-10, 12:38
RecQuery;
"I watch violent movies and TV shows, read violent books, play violent games. I'm not a violent person. I've even been known to laugh when people die on screen. I'm a very non-violent person."
You open up another debate here as it's worth a thread. I do not know how old you are but I know full well that society in general was far less violent when I was a kid. What effect films, Television, video-games etc have had over the last 50 years is an interesting topic- some argue that they have extended the bounds of what people see as possible - in positive and negative ways. You are non-violent - which I am glad of- but you are an educated and moral person. (I read your posts) I wonder if there are others on whom the effects are rather different?
"By that argument 40 year old women shouldn't dress up as schoolgirls at certain theme nights because it encourages paedophilia. Parents should stop children buying certain clothes et al until they reach the age of consent because they could be encouraging paedophilia."
Well yes - I agree and I suppose it depends on where you draw the line. Now you open another debate on sexuality - for what is it that turns some people on when 40 year old women dress up as schoolgirls? Is it also down to the individual or does it draw on dark impulses which cross the line into illegality?
As to kids and clothes - yes I think some parents need to take a good hard look at what their kids wear. The sexualisation of young girls at an early age by the fashion industry, and particularly in those gross beauty contests they have in the states and elsewhere robs them of childhood and mimicks adults who are at the age of sexual activity.
"Perhaps there are legitimate concerns but fantasy is fantasy and does not necessarily translate into action."
That is true - but sometimes it does.
The dog, so the owner says, is not dangerous, even if it is a bull-terrier - but they can, and do bite.....
"As for the people who say they have a right to know who lives in their area, no you don't. I'll refrain from various analogies I could throw that illustrate my point specially against the types of people I don't like. "
As a generality that is true.
But not universally - as Megan's law illustrates.
Rights, as I keep saying in other threads, are socially conferred. Our legislators may give us whatever rights we press for. If they choose to give us the right to know then we would have it - and that is what the sex-offenders' register is about.
My my!
You have thrown this wide open!!
How about this disgusting pervert .. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicester/10465457.stm
"Fell Down" .. yeah right. Where are all the irate illiterate Jeremy Kyle fans now ??, where are those willing to stand up for the kiddies against this sort of menace ??
Get those torches lit people, he should be burned out of house and home. Should'nt he ??
Having been the victim of more than one "trouser malfunction" I have nothing but sympathy for this poor chap. :lol:
The Drunken Duck
01-Jul-10, 13:17
Having been the victim of more than one "trouser malfunction" I have nothing but sympathy for this poor chap. :lol:
One can be forgiven. More than one is a habit forming .. :D
One was on a motorcycle trackday and resulted in the mother of all wedgies and a Gravel Enema!
Wiki: Gravel Enema-12 pounds of gravel crammed up your jacksy at 80 MPH :eek:
onecalledk
01-Jul-10, 15:37
Well Said...
Also I think I may have misunderstood this case, did he actually abuse a child or was he viewing images of child pornography online?
If he was looking at images online it doesn't neccessarily mean he's going to commit a physical crime? He could have mental problems and with a bit of counselling he could be put on the right tracks?
you seem to be missing the point here, the fact he was VIEWING the images is illegal. Somebody made the images, the fact that these images were viewed by ANYONE again is more abuse of the child in the photograph!
I find it hard to believe that someone could actually think there is much difference between VIEWING and PHYSICALLY ABUSING. To view the images is to further abuse the person in the images !!!
A HIGH percentage of those viewing go on to abuse......
K
[quote=onecalledk;730321]you seem to be missing the point here, the fact he was VIEWING the images is illegal. Somebody made the images, the fact that these images were viewed by ANYONE again is more abuse of the child in the photograph!
I find it hard to believe that someone could actually think there is much difference between VIEWING and PHYSICALLY ABUSING. To view the images is to further abuse the person in the images !!!
A HIGH percentage of those viewing go on to abuse......
I now you mean well, BUT that is a pretty WILD statement to make.....Somewhere on here 'Facts' must be dealt with!
onecalledk
01-Jul-10, 16:04
sorry I dont follow how it is a wild statement to make. It is fact that a high majority of people who view pornographic material online do so first of all then at some point will "act out" what they are watching. That is a fact.
Are you trying to say that viewing child pornograph is somehow less of a crime than the person who goes out grabs a child and molests them? The abuse of the child is continue EVERY TIME that image is viewed by another.
If people like the guy we are talking about didnt view the images then no one would MAKE the images. There is a demand therefore there is a supply.
So for all the people out there that are making some sort of allowance as the guy "only" viewed please think again. Why is this vile stuff made? because it has an audience.......
K
John Little
01-Jul-10, 16:17
Facts are things we get hung up on aren't they?
As with many questions it depends what and where you read. All one has to do with it is google.
K is not wrong according to http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
The graph seems to indicate, if I am reading it correctly a 52% recidivist rate in this case. Less in some areas and more in others.
Metalattakk
01-Jul-10, 16:45
It is fact that a high majority of people who view pornographic material online do so first of all then at some point will "act out" what they are watching. That is a fact.
No it isn't.
I watched Paris Hilton's "One Night in Paris" video (it was pretty foosum, by the way). When will it be my turn to "act it out"?
DeHaviLand
01-Jul-10, 16:54
No it isn't.
I watched Paris Hilton's "One Night in Paris" video (it was pretty foosum, by the way). When will it be my turn to "act it out"?
You have to go to the end of a rather long queue:D
John Little
01-Jul-10, 19:46
I do not believe K's statements about acting out to be wholly invalid. She may not have the statistics to back up, though I have no doubt that they could be found if one had the time or energy; and to stretch it to the majority of people who watch things 'acting them out' is probably taking things a little far.
Nonetheless I have observed over a number of years that people act in ways that would once have seemed unthinkable. The influence of the media on the way we dress, behave, live, interact etc is undeniable. In fact I would go further - that anyone who thought it not so would be denying the spirit of our age. Things that we see in films are acted out daily in our newspapers, playgrounds, roads and so so.
This is probably thread drift but I can think of a number of unspeakable acts - or what would once have been thought unspeakable, which I have seen on films which have been acted out by people.
The one that sticks in my mind most is where the man us fed through the shredder in 'Fargo"....
That was acted out next door to me in South London a few years ago where an industrial sized mincer was used....
Fsir enough, civilised and educated minds looking at things that are outrageous on film or video games can regard them as harmless catharsis, or role play, and would never act them out in real life.
But can you say that for everyone?
I think not, so K's kernel has some truth in it.
sorry I dont follow how it is a wild statement to make. It is fact that a high majority of people who view pornographic material online do so first of all then at some point will "act out" what they are watching. That is a fact.
I can't agree with that at all. The following section is from an article published on Digital Journal website just over four years ago:-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Digital Journal — Britain has officially become the fastest growing pornography market in the world, after a study shows a record number of men and women are downloading smut.
In the first definitive study of the country’s consumption of pornography, research by Nielsen NetRatings showed more than nine million men (almost 40 per cent of the male population) visited porn websites last year.
The Nielsen survey also showed that British women are among the rapidly expanding population who go online for pornography (in the past 12 months alone, the number has increased 30 per cent to 1.4 million users) and more than half of all children (seven million) have encountered pornography on the internet “while looking for something else.”
According to the study, British Internet surfers also look up the word "porn" more than anyone in the English-speaking world.
The extent to which Brits go online for pornography has never been accurately measured. Analysts suggest the online surge mirrors the boom in people buying hardcore sex movies which have become more readily available over the past few years. In the U.K., film censors passed more hardcore sex movies than 18-rated flicks last year."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am assuming that, four years on, yet more people have access to the internet and that the figure of 9 million British men visiting porn sites has risen since then. Given your statement that the vast majority will go on to "act out" what they are watching, I would think we would be looking at some 8 million plus having acted out whatever their particular penchant was by now, and our prison population for males would be dramatically larger than its current figure of 80,689 (HM Prison Service Bulletin 25th June 2010) this figure is, of course, for ALL crimes, not just sexual offences.
My own feeling is that actual viewing figures for British males is probably higher, with a general reluctance to confess to such an activity. I am sure many know the old "95% do and the other 5% are liars" adage that accompanies a related male activity.
Although figures are much lower, women also indulge in viewing pornography and some couples will view together. There are problems associated with the use of pornography but it is not a new phenomenon, it is simply far more accessible and mainstream than ever before. It cannot be argued that it is big business, based on the figures above and I think the saving grace must surely be that the vast majority can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. The sheer weight of evidence provided by the statistics must speak for that.
I can't agree with that at all. The following section is from an article published on Digital Journal website just over four years ago:-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nine million men (almost 40 per cent of the male population) visited porn websites last year
Thank God for that, I thought it was just me.
sorry I dont follow how it is a wild statement to make. It is fact that a high majority of people who view pornographic material online do so first of all then at some point will "act out" what they are watching. That is a fact.
So according to Scorries post 5 million men acted out what they watched. Youre having a laugh arent you.
BillyEspie
01-Jul-10, 23:12
instead of hanging the people i do see a point in castrating them thought and then dropping the people off on a desterted island then just give them a weekly food parcel to last a week and keep doing that everyweek< but what really really does get me is that when i watch tv and i see adverts for childrens napppies on the tv i have to turn the channel to something else cause no matter what way you look at it when they show the nappy adverts they are showing naked babies which in my mind is still child porn! they still show the babies semi naked which in all fairness gives me god reason to turn the channel over to somethng else while the adverts are on cause i dont want to se semi naked children on the tv let alone see any naked children anywhere else
Metalattakk
02-Jul-10, 00:17
</snip>but what really really does get me is that when i watch tv and i see adverts for childrens napppies on the tv i have to turn the channel to something else cause no matter what way you look at it when they show the nappy adverts they are showing naked babies which in my mind is still child porn! they still show the babies semi naked which in all fairness gives me god reason to turn the channel over to somethng else while the adverts are on cause i dont want to se semi naked children on the tv let alone see any naked children anywhere else
:eek:
I think you've got serious, serious problems.
but what really really does get me is that when i watch tv and i see adverts for childrens napppies on the tv i have to turn the channel to something else cause no matter what way you look at it when they show the nappy adverts they are showing naked babies which in my mind is still child porn! they still show the babies semi naked which in all fairness gives me god reason to turn the channel over to somethng else while the adverts are on cause i dont want to se semi naked children on the tv let alone see any naked children anywhere else
a semi-naked baby is a beautiful sight to behold. (especially if it's a pudgy one)
whatever your reasons for having to look away from this is a bit weird.
please clarify Billy.
but what really really does get me is that when i watch tv and i see adverts for childrens napppies on the tv i have to turn the channel to something else cause no matter what way you look at it when they show the nappy adverts they are showing naked babies which in my mind is still child porn! they still show the babies semi naked which in all fairness gives me god reason to turn the channel over to somethng else while the adverts are on cause i dont want to se semi naked children on the tv let alone see any naked children anywhere else
Billy, if seeing a child in a semi naked state doing something like having a nappie changed or swimming, and you feel that is in someway has some kind of sexual connotation, then that is a connotation made in your mind. There is no sexualization of children in nappie adverts. Unlike, for example, when whichever supermarket it was was selling padded bikinis for 6 year olds, where the sexualzation of children is obvious.
Kricky! Following your train of thought, Ultimos adverts, formula one races' umbrella girls and even children walking down the road on a hot sunny day in shorts would be pornografic. That would be widening the definition of pornografic to muslim proportions. I am sorry, but your way of thinking bothers me. Baby adverts do not.
onecalledk
02-Jul-10, 10:02
So according to Scorries post 5 million men acted out what they watched. Youre having a laugh arent you.
It is a fact that more and more teenagers are being influenced by the pornography industry. Teenage boys are being hugely influenced by what they watch in relation to pornography and expect their girlfriends to provide what they are watching .This has been researched and the other side of the coin is that the girlfriends are trying to live up to what is "fantasy". A teenage boy will have a bit of difficulty due to the fact he would not have much "experience" of the opposite sex defining what is normal and what is not. So take a 17yr old boy who watches hard core pornography. He gets a girlfriend and then expects her to do what he sees the women doing in the films he is watching. There is lots of research done amongst teenagers that show that what they are watching is what they are expecting.
The danger of this is that a teenage boy is not viewing a girl as a loving companion but as a sex object.
I am not saying that EVERYBODY who watches porn will go on to act out. You all miss the point when you pull me up on this. If you are a sexual deviant (I take it you all agree a paedophile is) then there is a high chance YOU will act it out. Do not compare sexual deviants to the average person in the street.
The guy who kept his girlfriends body in the lock up for months and went back to have sex with it over and over again watched necrophilia videos and access necrophilia sites for ages before ACTING IT OUT........
Whilst your average guy may sit and watch a porn movie and have a bit of a laugh there is the not so average guy who is watching very sick stuff who is waiting to become the next news headline......
K
It is a fact that more and more teenagers are being influenced by the pornography industry. Teenage boys are being hugely influenced by what they watch in relation to pornography and expect their girlfriends to provide what they are watching .This has been researched and the other side of the coin is that the girlfriends are trying to live up to what is "fantasy". A teenage boy will have a bit of difficulty due to the fact he would not have much "experience" of the opposite sex defining what is normal and what is not. So take a 17yr old boy who watches hard core pornography. He gets a girlfriend and then expects her to do what he sees the women doing in the films he is watching. There is lots of research done amongst teenagers that show that what they are watching is what they are expecting.
The danger of this is that a teenage boy is not viewing a girl as a loving companion but as a sex object.
I am not saying that EVERYBODY who watches porn will go on to act out. You all miss the point when you pull me up on this. If you are a sexual deviant (I take it you all agree a paedophile is) then there is a high chance YOU will act it out. Do not compare sexual deviants to the average person in the street.
The guy who kept his girlfriends body in the lock up for months and went back to have sex with it over and over again watched necrophilia videos and access necrophilia sites for ages before ACTING IT OUT........
Whilst your average guy may sit and watch a porn movie and have a bit of a laugh there is the not so average guy who is watching very sick stuff who is waiting to become the next news headline......
K
Okay first of all (and all you science people say it with me) CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. For example; big cities have a lot of crime and a lot of churches therefore churches cause crime. 90% of those incarcerated in the US are professed Christians, therefore spirituality/Christianity causes crime.
Secondly that's a very rocky argument, in the same vain as those used by extreme feminists who also try and equate porn with rape.
Next, unless you're retarded you don't believe what you see on what is essentially a fictional TV show.
By that argument romantic comedies, "chick flicks" and stuff like Twilight are to blame at the other end of the spectrum for setting unrealistic expectations.
John Little
02-Jul-10, 10:44
Okay first of all (and all you science people say it with me) CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. For example; big cities have a lot of crime and a lot of churches therefore churches cause crime. 90% of those incarcerated in the US are professed Christians, therefore spirituality/Christianity causes crime.
Sorry - I know your remarks are not addressed at me and I have no doubt K will get back to you but I simply cannot resist a juicy discussion....
Correlation does not imply causation - true. But it can be a useful indicator for further research. It can lead up blind alleys, such as with the MMR scare- but on the other hand it can prove fruitful. John Snow's closing the Broad street pump and determining the cause of local cholera is an example of that. So correlation cannot be entirely dismissed.
"Secondly that's a very rocky argument, in the same vain as those used by extreme feminists who also try and equate porn with rape."
I think the extreme feminists made the mistake of applying the idea of porn and rape as a meta-principle. It is not.
However, your next point highlights the exceptions very well.
"Next, unless you're retarded you don't believe what you see on what is essentially a fictional TV show."
Now that is very interesting. What is 'retarded?
As a rule we are moral beings, but as psychologists tell us, there are different components of morality and many people are more morally developed than others.
You would find the idea of acting out violent fantasies as non-sequitur.
But it does not follow that someone with less moral development than you would feel the same way. Morality is a product of upbringing, socialisation and education - and I have no doubt a number of other factors such as available cash etc.
In my life I have met many people whose personal morality was not very well developed- nature of my job. I have no doubt that you have too.
I think that whilst people with well developed moral components are unlikely to be affected by porn, violence etc, there are many people to whom exposure to such things would be a reinforcement to what they already thought.
In other words people do not act abhorrent things out unless the impulse to do so already exists, for whatever reason.
So I see no point in reinforcing their tendencies by making them seem widely acceptable in the media...
By that argument romantic comedies, "chick flicks" and stuff like Twilight are to blame at the other end of the spectrum for setting unrealistic expectations.
In this last point I agree with you.
I have, over the years, met legions of people whose expectations have been utterly unrealistic - and I do think that this is reinforced in our popular culture. You want examples- I can give them, but they are personal to me- I'm sure you have many you can think of too.
There was a programme last year on Channel 4, I think, about sex education for teenagers.
One week, they asked the teenage girls and boys to view naked breasts and choose which ones they thought were the most perfect. The majority chose the surgically enhanced breasts, which was highly disturbing, as without surgery to look like a Barbie, they are never going to look like that/come across females like that. A lot of them wanted to be like Jordan, God help us.
The media most definitely has an effect on young people and I think women are generally exploited and dehumanised by some of the stuff that goes on. Everything's a product now.
The consumer society, you can keep it.
I am not saying that EVERYBODY who watches porn will go on to act out.
You stated earlier:-
"It is fact that a high majority of people who view pornographic material online do so first of all then at some point will "act out" what they are watching."
I consider that the term "high majority" is similar to "everybody", certainly for the purpose of the argument in question.
If you are talking solely of more serious offences such as Paedophilia, Bestiality etc, then I think you should make this clear. You would need to present statistics for these offenders to prove that viewing of such activities causes more offences to be carried out. This might well be hard to obtain. Even if one could obtain figures, I feel that such offenders are likely to blame the material for their actions, rather than simply admit to having always had such urges anyway. Everybody loves a scapegoat.
I have had it put to me that Pornography always corrupts those who view it. This cannot be true, or those who have to view Pornography to censor it, or to categorise the very worst types, would also become corrupted by it.
onecalledk
03-Jul-10, 08:47
I have had it put to me that Pornography always corrupts those who view it. This cannot be true, or those who have to view Pornography to censor it, or to categorise the very worst types, would also become corrupted by it.[/quote]
What makes you think that any of the pornography is at all censored ? I think that people in general dont realise the extent of the pornography available out there. What was seen as pornography say 20 yrs ago is nothing compared to what is viewed as "normal" pornography today. What would have been hard core pornography is considered just normal stuff. Its getting worse. There is also a view taken by a lot of people that the people who "star" in these films do so out of choice. That is also not usually the case. Human trafficking, prostitution, pornography, all very closely connected......
K
Tubthumper
03-Jul-10, 09:01
I think that people in general dont realise the extent of the pornography available out there. What was seen as pornography say 20 yrs ago is nothing compared to what is viewed as "normal" pornography today. What would have been hard core pornography is considered just normal stuff. Its getting worse.
Without meaning to be picky, that statement implies that you yourself have been studying pornography at all levels for some time. How else could you know it's getting worse?
By the way, has anyone come across data relating to prosecutions for child abuse/ paedophilia from years gone by? I can imagine that the prosecutions have gone through the roof recently, but I don't think that shows it's a new problem - the catholic church revelations give the lie to that. So let's stay away from 'everything used to be better' and concentrate on our witch-hunt.
John Little
03-Jul-10, 09:11
'Witch hunt' is a bit of a misnomer here though ain't it?
I mean there are no witches casting spells and turning people into frogs - and there never were. People in the past would hunt a with as they did not want one living in the area because they were afraid of them. They were also anathematised in the bible.
But paedophiles exist - those who view children as sexual objects and those who abuse children are real unlike witches.
And it is still a concern to parents who know that such a person is in the area - even if they have done their time.
So what- realistically- does society do about it?
Sara Jevo
03-Jul-10, 09:26
So what- realistically- does society do about it?
I guess the same argument also applies to murderers, rapists etc who are free to take up their place in society again once their time is served.
If I perceive someone to be a threat. sexually, to my children, do I take the law into my own hands? Or do I report those worries to the police?
Am I entitled to find out what my neighbour may or may not have been convicted of, perhaps many years after the offence and their sentence has been served?
Tattooing their foreheads with "child sex offender" isn't the answer.
I thought the sex offenders register was designed to bridge the gap between society's legitimate worries and the legal system. It is meant to allow the authorities to keep tabs on someone's whereabouts, while keeping the lynch mob at bay.
John Little
03-Jul-10, 10:52
Good questions.
I would feel rather uneasy near a murderer and many women I imagine would feel uncomfortable near a convicted rapist. I knew a rapist a few years ago whom the judge at the Old Bailey described as 'the worst brute beast I have ever met'. Then he sentenced him to 7 years.
When he came out Southwark Council rehoused him opposite his victim - who was not amused - so after a fuss in the paper they moved him a mile down the road
There is a difference here in that paedophiles look at- and prey on children who are far less able to defend themselves- especially very small ones.
I did not say anything about taking the law into one's own hands.
I repeat - it is a question of what to do after the law has taken its course. As to reporting it to the police - they will do nothing unless a crime is committed.
You are equivocal.
I am not.
To me the default here is not to consider the paedophile as meriting equal consideration when weighing concerns with those of concerned parents- or of children.
That is taking Liberalism too far.
Society treads a fine line on human rights but again I repeat that rights are socially conferred. If someone has abused children or harbours thoughts of doing so, then to me that person, although entitled to the protection of the law, has forfeited the right to live un-noticed in society- and for life.
They are, in the phrase 'a clear and present danger'.
That is the purpose of the sex-offenders' register.
And your suggestion that murderers and rapists might also be put on a register is, to me, worthy of consideration too.
If there were a lasting stigma attached to crime then maybe there would not be so much of it.
And I do wish you would stop speaking of a 'lynch mob'.
It is a dismissive sound bite which attempts to negate a perfectly legitimate concern.
If you refer to the lynch mob as people wanting to bomb paedophiles on an island, then I tell you plain that the people expressing these points of view would not hurt a fly. They are letting off steam to show the height of their worry and concern - and that is all.
Those of us who have come across child abuse tend to see sharks cruising about among shoals of ordinary fish.
It is legitimate that the fish see the sharks.
But not to lynch them.
But the shark will never be accepted as living among the ordinary fish if they see it.
Dilemma huh?
Tubthumper
03-Jul-10, 11:25
Bearing in mind our local tendency to screech for vengeance on those who offend our community and come from elsewhere, while at the same time making no comment about 'locals' who do exactly the same maybe the issue is about relocation rather than the offence itself.
According to recent threads on here, we're happy to live with thieves, rogues, drug-dealers, wife-beaters, destroyers of property, vandals, harrassers, wielders of swords and clubs, users of fists, alcoholic roarers, disturbers of the peace, routine noisy-party hosts and general ne'er-do-wells, provided they are local. Why should we consider viewers of child porn any differently?
He's from somewhere else - let him stay there! We have enough low-lives in our community without importing them!
Sara Jevo
03-Jul-10, 12:26
Good questions.
To me the default here is not to consider the paedophile as meriting equal consideration when weighing concerns with those of concerned parents- or of children.
Emotionally, of course that is true.
But legally, once someone has served the punishment dished out by society, they are free to rejoin it and reassume their equal rights and responsibilities, unless . . .
You alter the status of those individuals, to restrain their liberty beyond completion of the sentence.
That's what I thought the sex offenders register was about. Someone may be sentenced to 12 months in gaol and 10 years on the sex offenders register, which means society has an element of control over them beyond their release from prison.
Either that or you lock them up for longer, I suspect.
I not inclined to dismiss the lynch mob in this argument.
It's because of the understandable emotional reaction of some people to the presence of an undesirable in their midst that the sex offenders register isn't a public register.
John Little
03-Jul-10, 12:29
I am aware that it is not public and why that is so.
It does not de-legitimise parents' fears though.
Does it?
Sara Jevo
03-Jul-10, 12:32
I am aware that it is not public and why that is so.
It does not de-legitimise parents' fears though.
Does it?
Not at all. Those fears are genuine. It's about finding a way to deal with these people in a way that is fair to all and, above all IMO, doesn't increase the risk to children.
John Little
03-Jul-10, 12:43
Then we are agreed.
The problem is world wide too.
The South Korean parliament voted for chemical castration of paedophiles this week.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTIkQBUKp_iBzfQ_KvljUBUlZhjgD9GL4PB00
It allows the paedophile to live anonymously in mainstream society for they are considered no longer a threat.
You will find that I am the last person in the world to understate on this matter, and for good reason too - though I was never a victim.
Well that's one solution.
Are there others?
What makes you think that any of the pornography is at all censored ? I think that people in general dont realise the extent of the pornography available out there. What was seen as pornography say 20 yrs ago is nothing compared to what is viewed as "normal" pornography today. What would have been hard core pornography is considered just normal stuff. Its getting worse. There is also a view taken by a lot of people that the people who "star" in these films do so out of choice. That is also not usually the case. Human trafficking, prostitution, pornography, all very closely connected......
K
Gee whiz, there is a board who view hardcore movies in the UK and they order cuts as they see fit. This is a fact beyond dispute. More serious material is watched so that offences can be quantified before charges are brought on offenders. That is also a fact beyond dispute.
Different levels of pornography have always existed. There is nothing worse being made today than there was 20 years ago. What HAS changed is the law on what is legal in the UK today. Other countries, such as Denmark and Holland have always had a more relaxed attitude to pornography than the British.
Hardcore pornography is still defined from softcore by the same guidelines and it is not illegal for British citizens to possess hardcore material for their own personal use.
There is a huge industry in the USA churning out pornographic films, often on big budgets. At the other end of the scale there is a guy with a camcorder and a couple of drug addicts earning their next "fix". Different levels of willingness to participate will exist but any depiction of rape is generally illegal, certainly Wikipedia states that this is true in Scotland and Germany.
I do not agree that pornography is getting worse, it is simply more available that ever before and is tolerated to a greater extend by the authorities.
onecalledk
03-Jul-10, 18:17
Without meaning to be picky, that statement implies that you yourself have been studying pornography at all levels for some time. How else could you know it's getting worse?
By the way, has anyone come across data relating to prosecutions for child abuse/ paedophilia from years gone by? I can imagine that the prosecutions have gone through the roof recently, but I don't think that shows it's a new problem - the catholic church revelations give the lie to that. So let's stay away from 'everything used to be better' and concentrate on our witch-hunt.
I havent been studying pornography what I have had though is lots of information about violence against women. Having been a violence against women trainer I have sat in various seminars and had various information/statitics/studies and training workshops from various agencies covering the whole topic. I have attended seminars and sat and listened to speakers from across the board on the this topic and its eye opening stuff.
Its the way that it is slowly creeping into society and being accepted that is so frightening. We accept things are the "norm" that we would not have even 10yrs ago.
K
Sara Jevo
03-Jul-10, 18:18
Scorrie's post reminded of the famous quotation by Justice Potter about the definition of hard-core pornography in a 1964 court case in the USA:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.