If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The Stupidity Displayed by The News of the World
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I bought the paper today, old Sunday habit I'm finding hard to quit.
They are determined to bring in this "Sarah's Law" which will allow a public register of paedophiles so that we can all know if our neighbours have been convicted or not.
Personally, I think this is bloody stupid. They are creating hysteria and stirring up things which should be left alone.
My reasoning?
A list of convicted paedophiles would do nothing but cause violent attacks on people who have done their time, and may be trying to live out their lives quietly. Many of them will not re-offend. All of them will be watched by the police, and if anything were to happen in the area, they would be the first port of call.
There is also the issue of lynch mobs targetting totally innocent people. However much a list is updated there will be instances when people move, and innocent people may be targetted because of where they live, not who they are.
Finally, the recent case of Holly and Jessica which has stirred it all up again is totally irrelevent. The man accused has not been convicted of sexual offences against children, there has as yet been no suggestion that the murders were sexually motivated and we still do not know the full details of the case.
It is an emotive issue, and this is the very reason that there should, in my opinion, not be a publically available register of convicted paedophiles. It will not stop random cases like that of Holly and Jessica. A register is useless against those not already convicted. How often do you read of cases where people have been convicted and released and re-offended. Not often. I was told by a friend working for social services that there were at least 30 convicted paedophiles living in my area. Not once in the 16 years I've lived here have I heard of any cases of any offences of that nature. They have done their time, and have been released based upon the judgement of psychologists and psychiatrists, and we should trust that. We should also remember that the majority of child abuse is committed in the family home and / or in the homes of family friends. Random attacks on children are rare.
The News of the World are promoting mass hysteria and I believe they are very wrong.
Anybody agree with me?
They are determined to bring in this "Sarah's Law" which will allow a public register of paedophiles so that we can all know if our neighbours have been convicted or not.
Personally, I think this is bloody stupid. They are creating hysteria and stirring up things which should be left alone.
My reasoning?
A list of convicted paedophiles would do nothing but cause violent attacks on people who have done their time, and may be trying to live out their lives quietly. Many of them will not re-offend. All of them will be watched by the police, and if anything were to happen in the area, they would be the first port of call.
There is also the issue of lynch mobs targetting totally innocent people. However much a list is updated there will be instances when people move, and innocent people may be targetted because of where they live, not who they are.
Finally, the recent case of Holly and Jessica which has stirred it all up again is totally irrelevent. The man accused has not been convicted of sexual offences against children, there has as yet been no suggestion that the murders were sexually motivated and we still do not know the full details of the case.
It is an emotive issue, and this is the very reason that there should, in my opinion, not be a publically available register of convicted paedophiles. It will not stop random cases like that of Holly and Jessica. A register is useless against those not already convicted. How often do you read of cases where people have been convicted and released and re-offended. Not often. I was told by a friend working for social services that there were at least 30 convicted paedophiles living in my area. Not once in the 16 years I've lived here have I heard of any cases of any offences of that nature. They have done their time, and have been released based upon the judgement of psychologists and psychiatrists, and we should trust that. We should also remember that the majority of child abuse is committed in the family home and / or in the homes of family friends. Random attacks on children are rare.
The News of the World are promoting mass hysteria and I believe they are very wrong.
Anybody agree with me?
0
Comments
When they are lynched, and hung they might realise a fraction of the pain and suffering they caused themselves.:mad:
People make mistakes occasionally.
They do what they do because they enjoy it, because they enjoy it they will recommit their crime and hurt society again and again.
Any vigiliantes who are caught, having beaten, or killed someone who they deem as unacceptable should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and put in prison for a long time.
If people dont like the way the law works with regard to releasing sex offenders then they should campaign to change the laws. They should not get a cricket bat and give the released offender a good beating.
Sarahs law is quite possibly the most stupid thing ive ever heard of. Why cant the people who support it realise what a self defeating measure it really is. As Fifa said, at the moment the police know where these people are and they are the first port of call in all dodgy enguiries. Should Sarahs law be introduced then the moment some dickhead NOTW reader decides to administer his own brand of justice to some released sex offender, then the rest of them are gonna get spooked and just disappear. Then we will have the situation whereby neither the people or the police know where these people are.
Nowt we can do about it.
Bit fucking late isn't it, as another child is lying face down in a ditch somehwere, if these people wish to live quiet lives they shouldn't offend in the first place, if they insist on doing so I've little intrest in whats best for them and what makes their life easier, my intrest is in protecting the innocent children who can no longer walk the streets safely.
Whilst you could possibly argue that a list of offenders may protect kids from people known peadophiles, it would not prevent unknown paedophiles from doing anything, and it would not prevent the ridiculous vigilante attacks on innocent people who just happen to have similar names, or have moved into a house long after a paedophile moved on.
It's not worth it, and the public has no reason to have such a list.
Whilst there should be no public register, for all the reasons stated above, there should be no need for one in the first place: a sex crime should lead to automatic life sentence. When it's as serious as paedophelia, rape, even attempted rape, they shouldn't be allowed out. Simple.
EXCEPT REFUSE TO BUY IT!! :-)
Easy to say....unfortunately the kind of people who buy it arent the sort of people who would boycott it because of its stance on this.
You're quite right, they're targetting a known audience who will be prone to getting hysterical about these kind of issues.
Also there are people who buy it just to see what kind of crap they're giving to people who believe everything they read. In order to teach about the media, I need to be familiar with all aspects of it and this means the occasional glance at the tabloids , because guaranteed when I ask the kids to look out for newspaper articles to bring in for our lessons, most of them will be from the tabloid press.
You're quite right, they're targetting a known audience who will be prone to getting hysterical about these kind of issues.
Your saying this like you're refering to a group of people that are some-place a long way away... Scary fact, they're not.
I'm debating whether or not to point out that "sarah's law" would mean some really nasty stuff happening to innocent peadophilles, but i think i've done enough posts defending that particular group recently, and i don't care for the insinuations that get thrown after them....
I'm well aware of that, which is the most frightening thing about it, particularly judging by the huge pile of them that appear in my local newsagents every week - and are sold out by lunchtime.
I did put some of those issues into my original post on this thread, I agree with you. The insinuations you get are probably from brainwashed News of the World readers...
Where to start?
Firstly with Whowhere's "hand 'em high" cruscade. Main problem there is the human rights law, of which the UK is a signatory. Basically this outlaws capital punishment. So that's a non-starter. Secondly, perhaps you should read the words of Mrs Payne, who said this week that she didn't support the death penalty. She pointed out that she would have to live with Whitings crime for the rest of her life. Why the hell should he get an easy out?
Now for the relevant law...
Has anyone ever explained to you how this propsal would actually protect anyone?
Let's imagine that the law is in place. And then when I look at my local area I find that there is no-one registered. Does this make my children safe?
Forget the unregistered people, yet to be convicted - afterall there has to be a first victim, doesn't there? Couldn't a paedophile from another area get into his car and drive to my area, of get on a bus/train?
Okay, now assume that there is someone in my area. Does this make my children safe? Will it stop the person from striking again? Will I take any more precautions, do people actually think that I don't watch out for my children already anyway?
Now assuming that someone does attack a child in my area, will the law come to their aid? Will it beat off the offending paedophile with its leather binding? Of course not.
Vigilance, not vigilantism is the answer...
Innocent paedophiles ?
Being a paedophile is not a crime.
I dont want to see a register, or to know where they live. As far as I'm concerned they should either be dead or locked away for the rest of their lives.
As long as they get pleasure from doing what they do, you'll never rehabilitate them.
Bearing in mind that a large percentage of people who abuse children have been abused themselves, surely they need help? Some of them don't know any different. The reason it's always a heated debate is because it's an emotive issue, however, there are some offenders that do it because of terrible abuse inflicted upon them when THEY were children, and they don't want to be that way, and want to be helped to overcome it. The chances are that the majority of those who have been convicted, and subsequently released into society have been rehabilitated and are able to live normal lives without ever re-offending.
Obviously there are some people who are purely sick and evil, and I agree, they should be locked up and the key thrown away. However there are many more offenders who need, and want help and they deserve to be given it. It's bad enough having a shitty childhood surely without being locked up throughout your entire adult life because of a mistake you made, due to your upbringing?
There is no excuse for abusing children. A former abused child knows more than anyone the pain and scarring he/she is about to inflict. That only makes the act even worse than it would be anyway.
Stop making excuses for people, doing that it what creates many of our problems to date.
"Oh it isn't his fault its because...", and suddenly the abuser is made out to be the victim. Sorry but that dog just won't hunt.
Personal responsibilty - everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Did we not have that argument/discussion between you and me about a year ago?
And now you are using my words? :eek:
My...
You HAVE grown.
Are you a piss-take of yourself or something, you utter fucking moron?
Lynch mobs dont get the right fucking person, you spazz...if your way was allowed wed have paediatricians and pedicurists strung up from every street corner. I shudder to think what youll be like when youre 60...Hitler maybe.
I said nothing about mobs going on the rampage. I said what I want to happen to them when they have been found guilty. I want them to suffer.
I said nothing about rampaging mobs seeking out innocent people, but simply being told what they can do with the guilty.
Thats what that fucking animal Huntley is enjoying at present :mad:
Perhaps you'd care to give us your definition of the word "lynched" then
What he's actually "enjoying" (not that that word is at all appropriate) at the moment is apparently severe mental illness. One cannot be sectioned under section two without being diagnosed as extremely ill.
I doubt he's been watching too many videos.
As for Maxine Carr, who I remind you has not been charged with either the kidnap or murder, only attempting to pervert the course of justice (through giving false information to the police), I doubt she even knew about it. I have deep sympathy for the poor woman.
Trial ? From what I read thats unlikey, you see he's too ill, the same man who until a month ago was pretty much your avergae bloke, able to get jobs, have a girlfriend, move to another part of the country, but now he's too confused to understand the difference between right and wrong
This country is a fucking mess, he's sat in hospital now, he'll probably never face trial, the parents will never really know what happened, nobody will ever get charged and all because he's suddenly a nutter, becoming one when he was caught by the looks of things
I agree to an extent, she is suffering her from her blokes actions, I wouldn't like to point the finger until I know to what extent she decieved the police, however if this man is extremely ill then what was she doing all along, did she not notice ?????? If she knew he was a few tools short of a set then when this happened she must of seen something in his behaviour
We spend too much time concerning ourselves over people who commit crimes these days, he should face trial regardless of how mad he's suddenly become and if she decieved the police badly she should go down for a number of years.