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
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
When you can tag someone to prevent them comitting a first offence then fine, I would agree. No-one seems to have covered the issue of first time offenders. If a person doesn't have a criminal record, how can you warn parents that they are around, how can you identify them to allow tagging.
All you would do is drive these people underground and we don't want them there. We want them where we can find them.
Of course, it's worth noting that, speeding still happens even in areas with speed humps, cameras etc...
Thats because he didnt rape anyone.
Does that only apply sexually, or are children killed by drunk-drivers, for instance, not as valuable?
Exactly. Its interesting to note that, as the clamour for killing paedos has gone up, children who are streetwise have gone down.
The dictionary definition of paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, normally pre-pubescent children. Its tough whether youd class a 14-year-old girl as a child, physically at least, certainly in the dictionary sense.
I actually said he didnt RAPE the girl, as was asserted by others. Its a moot point, but he took photogrpahs of her, he did not interfere with her, otehrwise his convictions would have been for indecent assault at the very least, ratehr than making indecent images of a minor.
Most paedophiles dont though- I read that over 80% of all sexual abuses against minors are actually comitted in the home. Most paedophiles dont intend to kill their victims, just have sex with them. Cases such as Sarah Payne hit the news because they are so rare.
Child.
I dont see more concern for him, I see a man who has been murdered in cold blood just because he took some dirty pictures. I doubt thered be any sympathy if hed raped and killed scores of little girls, but he hadnt, and I doubt hed have had any sympathy if people had just hounded him out of his house, because thats an understandable reaction by any community.
But are you seriously telling me that a man deserved to be beaten to death for taking pictures of a girl which would have been legal in less than 24 months?
The girl is still a minor and should not be forced to pose for pictures and, yes, he did abuse her.
Not just raped and killed, but had any sexual activity. Yes, it is understandable when people don't want predators living around them.
That's a misunderstanding and I probably didn't make myself clear. I said I have no sympathy for the pervert. I also said I don't like vigilantiism. The people who took this on themselves should be dealt with, but not any more harshly than other murderers. Perhaps extenuating circumstances should be considered?
I dont recall saying they should be treated more harshly than other murderers, but just because he took pictures of a minor it doesnt mean he was a legitimate target or that the murderes should be afforded any extenuating circumstances (the only exception to this being if the girl herself killed him).
Though as the local community has closed ranks I think thsi may well become a moot point.
That said, I still don't feel sorry for the pervert.
That's not good. This needs to be resolved legally.