Anti-paedophile demos..

What justice system??

The one that also allows burglars to sue the person they were robbing from if they trip and hurt themselves whilst stealing everything from their house??

Etc, etc, etc ............ (just one example from a huge list where most entries are much worse)
 
[ QUOTE ]

The one that also allows burglars to sue the person they were robbing from if they trip and hurt themselves whilst stealing everything from their house??

[/ QUOTE ]

Which justice system is that because I've never heard of this before?

Whatever the shortcomings of the justice system by-passing it and taking matters in one's one hands to be judge, jury and executioner in one is NOT a move in the direction of more justice and fairness.
 
Well in all honesty as a mother if I have a child molester living in my neighbourhood I would like to know. Not to mob the person but to let my children to avoid that person whatever what.

Tricky subject but they did the crime as far as I am concerned they have to live with the negative opinions even when they have served their time. I do not believe a stint in jail will change the way their heads work, especially if sick enough to hurt children in the first place. The Jamie Bulger case still haunts me and what the boys ended up getting.

Not much sympathy and no I do not trust any government to keep us safe all of the time, too many times have we all been let down in one way or another sadly :-(
 
have we lost faith in justice system - YES!

Am I concerned about mob attitude? - NO! its about time people got up and did something, this country is going to the dogs big time.

I take it you dont have children??
 
I disagree, If they are a child molester then the should be locked in a secure mental unit for life, I also think they should be Chemically castrated, but letting the general public at them is sick and wrong, No i dont have kids but i do have a 2 year old niece and another one due next month. The laws in this country suck but vigalantieism (sp) is not the way to go, want to attack someone then attack the government and force them to get off there Lazy Fat Arses and sort it out!
 
i have children. i also work in the world of child protection, and deal with some horrible things...

however, i don't care if there is a paedophile living in my area... why? because:

-they are unliely to be a risk to my children. the actual number of paedophiles who snatch random children from the street is minimal. most people on the sex offenders register present very little risk to the general public
- my children are not allowed out without me knowing where they are
-i wouldn't allow my children to befriend any adult (which is the way most children become victims, through a long long grooming process)
-my children are spoken to about these sorts of things, according to their age and understanding. and accordingly, they wouldn't get into the car/accept treats etc from a stranger


i'd prefer to know if there was a serial burglar/arsonist living down the street because my family is at far greater risk from them...

our justice system is meant to support people, and enable offenders to reintegrate into society. i don't think it's right that paedophiles are treated so differently from other criminals.

i am NOT saying i think paedophilia is ok. i am NOT saying it is not serious. but, i am saying that it is something that people/newspapers get very hysterical about. people think 'paedophile' and automatically think of someone that abducts, rapes and murders children... when, actually, that is only one end of the spectrum.

what DOES need to be addressed is the whole CRB (criminal record check) process. this still has many flaws even after the Ian Huntley malarky... because parents can protect children from people that live down the road... it is far harder to protect them from teachers/trusted adults...
 
[ QUOTE ]
I take it you dont have children??

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please lets not go down this route. I don't have children, but I do have empathy. I suspect I'm not the only childless woman who can understand that a healthy sane and normal mother (or father) will do everything in their power to protect their children, which will sometimes include behaving in a way that is not otherwise appropriate for our culture.

Although I am concerned about the fact that we don't seem to have an answer which is humane and acceptable to all, I don't feel that housing convicted paedophiles who have served their sentences in the community with anonymity is the answer. Taking mob culture to the point where innocent people are mistakenly accused of being paedophiles and subsequently taunted/put in danger isn't the answer either. I don't know what is.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I take it you dont have children??

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you are right, I don't have children and as a result I don't really care if other people's children are abused, neglected, tortured or killed...I usually eat one or two children for lunch
wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
What justice system??

The one that also allows burglars to sue the person they were robbing from if they trip and hurt themselves whilst stealing everything from their house??

Etc, etc, etc ............ (just one example from a huge list where most entries are much worse)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh THAT law.

Yeah, it was reported on Sky News and in the Daily Mail. So it MUST be true.


Fail.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well said Clipcloppop x

[/ QUOTE ]

And from me well said.

And no I don't have children either, however I do have two nieces who were abused when younger by a now registered and currently in prison paedophile. Do I think that public location / identification of paedophile's in their area would have helped them not be abused ?

No.

They were abused by their stepfather so knowing that so and so down the street had been locked up wouldn't have done them any good.

Sex abusers either groom their victims over a period of time or are known to them. Vigilantism doesn't stop this.

Forcing the law to change might stop sex abusers being let out into society again.
 
Well said! The vast majority of children are abused by a close family friend or even a family member. I have two children and I don't want to raise them to be distrustful of every person around them. A good relationship with your children, where they feel you will believe them and support them if they tell you something bad about some one you like protects them far better than beating up child abusers. The police have pointed out, many times, that vigilante action actually puts children at risk by driving these people underground.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The one that also allows burglars to sue the person they were robbing from if they trip and hurt themselves whilst stealing everything from their house??

[/ QUOTE ]

Which justice system is that because I've never heard of this before?

[/ QUOTE ]

We recently had the police doing house calls in our street. All the houses in our road back on to a field and then woodland, and there have been several break-ins where the burgling b*st*rds got in over the back fence. The police were advising all residents that if we use carpet tacks on the tops of our fences (as we do
smile.gif
) to deter thieves, we could be liable for prosecution if the poor darling hurt themselves. They then gave us plastic ones to replace them with.......................
 
Well said clipcloppop, zandp and indiat!!!

I'd just like to speak up in support of the English Justice system (it is english as scottish law is different).

In general our system works very well and is indeed one of the best in the world most of the things cited by people who think it sucks and is falling apart are woefully misconceived "facts" gleaned from the pages of the tabaloid press and repeated time and again with ever more exaggeration.

Generally speaking one of the best things about our judicial system is actually judicial discretion which enables a sensible well considered verdict to be reached in even unusual and exceptional cases. In fact I think some of the most perverse results are found when a headline grabbing government interferes with judicial discretion.

Personally I have discussed home owners rights to defend their property with people and most right thinking individuals when they have the state of the current law explained to them properly without bias agree with the current situation and do not think that things should be changed. This is often not what they thought before they spoke to a lawyer about it and were basing their opinions on what the daily mail had to say.

Indeed most of the things people get so agitated about (political correctness for example) are more due to the irresposible and hysterical reporting of the media than the actual state of the country!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The one that also allows burglars to sue the person they were robbing from if they trip and hurt themselves whilst stealing everything from their house??

[/ QUOTE ]

Which justice system is that because I've never heard of this before?

[/ QUOTE ]

We recently had the police doing house calls in our street. All the houses in our road back on to a field and then woodland, and there have been several break-ins where the burgling b*st*rds got in over the back fence. The police were advising all residents that if we use carpet tacks on the tops of our fences (as we do
smile.gif
) to deter thieves, we could be liable for prosecution if the poor darling hurt themselves. They then gave us plastic ones to replace them with.......................

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be because it is a deliberate trap designed to hurt someone.

You would be most unlikely to be prosecuted though, more likely to be a civil claim against you. There are in fact duties on occupiers not to endanger people that come onn to their property. The duty differs depending upon whether ther person is invited or not, but just because someone isn't invited doesn't give you the right to cause them deliberate harm.

In English law there is a principle that human life is more important than property, hence it is not ok to shoot a burglar when you find him in your house rummaging through the draws, but it is ok to shoot him when he advances upon you with a gun.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i have children. i also work in the world of child protection, and deal with some horrible things...

however, i don't care if there is a paedophile living in my area... why? because:

-they are unliely to be a risk to my children. the actual number of paedophiles who snatch random children from the street is minimal. most people on the sex offenders register present very little risk to the general public
- my children are not allowed out without me knowing where they are
-i wouldn't allow my children to befriend any adult (which is the way most children become victims, through a long long grooming process)
-my children are spoken to about these sorts of things, according to their age and understanding. and accordingly, they wouldn't get into the car/accept treats etc from a stranger


i'd prefer to know if there was a serial burglar/arsonist living down the street because my family is at far greater risk from them...

our justice system is meant to support people, and enable offenders to reintegrate into society. i don't think it's right that paedophiles are treated so differently from other criminals.

i am NOT saying i think paedophilia is ok. i am NOT saying it is not serious. but, i am saying that it is something that people/newspapers get very hysterical about. people think 'paedophile' and automatically think of someone that abducts, rapes and murders children... when, actually, that is only one end of the spectrum.

what DOES need to be addressed is the whole CRB (criminal record check) process. this still has many flaws even after the Ian Huntley malarky... because parents can protect children from people that live down the road... it is far harder to protect them from teachers/trusted adults...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said! This is the most sensible thing I've read on here for a long time.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have children. i also work in the world of child protection, and deal with some horrible things...

however, i don't care if there is a paedophile living in my area... why? because:

-they are unliely to be a risk to my children. the actual number of paedophiles who snatch random children from the street is minimal. most people on the sex offenders register present very little risk to the general public
- my children are not allowed out without me knowing where they are
-i wouldn't allow my children to befriend any adult (which is the way most children become victims, through a long long grooming process)
-my children are spoken to about these sorts of things, according to their age and understanding. and accordingly, they wouldn't get into the car/accept treats etc from a stranger


i'd prefer to know if there was a serial burglar/arsonist living down the street because my family is at far greater risk from them...

our justice system is meant to support people, and enable offenders to reintegrate into society. i don't think it's right that paedophiles are treated so differently from other criminals.

i am NOT saying i think paedophilia is ok. i am NOT saying it is not serious. but, i am saying that it is something that people/newspapers get very hysterical about. people think 'paedophile' and automatically think of someone that abducts, rapes and murders children... when, actually, that is only one end of the spectrum.

what DOES need to be addressed is the whole CRB (criminal record check) process. this still has many flaws even after the Ian Huntley malarky... because parents can protect children from people that live down the road... it is far harder to protect them from teachers/trusted adults...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said! This is the most sensible thing I've read on here for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

why... thank you
grin.gif


*feels smug*
 
Very good post clipcloppop, I work for the prison service & the vast majority of paedophiles target family members or close friends.
If these protesters want to protect their children from paedophiles the sad truth is they need to protect them from their own friends & family.
 
I seem to remember a few years ago a mob near the south coast somewhere were targeting the house belonging to a paediatrician because they were too pig ignorant and stupid to know the difference.

On a lighter note, my favourite comedian Frankie Boyle said “Why do so many paedophiles have beards and glasses? What is it about that look children find so sexy?"

On the burglar front, anyone who breaks in to my house is my property to be used for target practice, recreation, food, fuel or fertiliser as I see fit!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What justice system??

The one that also allows burglars to sue the person they were robbing from if they trip and hurt themselves whilst stealing everything from their house??

Etc, etc, etc ............ (just one example from a huge list where most entries are much worse)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh THAT law.

Yeah, it was reported on Sky News and in the Daily Mail. So it MUST be true.


Fail.
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

grin.gif
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What justice system??

The one that also allows burglars to sue the person they were robbing from if they trip and hurt themselves whilst stealing everything from their house??

Etc, etc, etc ............ (just one example from a huge list where most entries are much worse)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh THAT law.

Yeah, it was reported on Sky News and in the Daily Mail. So it MUST be true.


Fail.
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

grin.gif
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Ther mood I'm in I'm not even going to start, other than to say, castration at the kneck is the best way forward.
 
I too do not have children, but have an adopted daughter, who is my child, if that makes any sense at all! I also work with adults who were abused as children and have gone on to have serious mental health problems. While some have been abused by strangers as well as trusted family members or family friends, the strangers to the children have been given 'permission' to abuse by the family member who is the principle abuser. No amount of naming and shaming would have made a jot of difference. Also chemical castration is no deterent and does not stop abuse. The way to prevent your children being abused is to be aware of the facts about abuse (which includes the fact that women also sexually abuse children, both boys and girls)
 
we have one on our street. \the only reason we know is that a family member who had a grudge against him, posted letters thro out the letter boxes of all the other houses on the street. Apparently it wsa for the absue of young children and quite nasty stuff and he served time for it. It gave us the opportunity to keep our children out of that part of teh street. we probably anren't any omre at risk than before we knew to be honest. I am not in aggreement with the vigilante type thing. there was an elderly man in a local village who was wrongly accused of abuse. someone shot and killed him. it was all a pack of lies and a lovely man lost his life over it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The one that also allows burglars to sue the person they were robbing from if they trip and hurt themselves whilst stealing everything from their house??

[/ QUOTE ]

Which justice system is that because I've never heard of this before?

[/ QUOTE ]

We recently had the police doing house calls in our street. All the houses in our road back on to a field and then woodland, and there have been several break-ins where the burgling b*st*rds got in over the back fence. The police were advising all residents that if we use carpet tacks on the tops of our fences (as we do
smile.gif
) to deter thieves, we could be liable for prosecution if the poor darling hurt themselves. They then gave us plastic ones to replace them with.......................

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be because it is a deliberate trap designed to hurt someone.

You would be most unlikely to be prosecuted though, more likely to be a civil claim against you. There are in fact duties on occupiers not to endanger people that come onn to their property. The duty differs depending upon whether ther person is invited or not, but just because someone isn't invited doesn't give you the right to cause them deliberate harm.

In English law there is a principle that human life is more important than property, hence it is not ok to shoot a burglar when you find him in your house rummaging through the draws, but it is ok to shoot him when he advances upon you with a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to agree with Kat here.

Original example suggested liability for an accident, whereas the fence example is liability for setting out to harm someone - two different things.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone up to no good gets whats comeing as far as am concerened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly!! I'm singing form the same sheet as you, pedantic!

And for what its worth, to anyone who cares,I made my original statement because a friend was the victim of burglary, and was taken to court because said criminal hurt HIMSELF whilst on the premises. He said he couldn't work because of the injury to his ankle and the judge allowed him to sue.

If he wasn't somewhere he shouldn't have been he wouldn't have got hurt!!!
 
Oh yeah, and recently I found it was against the law to put up new barbed wire fencing where the public might be able to touch it. (It might help keep those who shouldn't be there out, but some stupid idiot might cut themselves on it.) But its ok for the thieving B******* erm, people, to take all my stuff and chase my horses because they're known to police and they don't want to go in and get it back and bring them to justice!!!!!

I guess it might infringe their human rights!!

But then, they'd have to be human ..........

Rant over, I don't care any more!!!!!!!!!!!
grin.gif


Ps I have the greatest respect for the police and am sorry that their hands are tied by beaurocracy (sp).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top