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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
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
BTW, my tone might seem attacking, but it's not. Simply explaining.
nobody grabs a dictionary when that term is used.
they associate it with only one thing.
i can't read the whole thread. but the question is 'are paedos evil' not is our understanding of the word correct and what do we think of them.
i don't mean to sound aggressive either. but...
You could move into a new area and get friendly with the people next door and one day leave your kids with your new neighbours while you go out and that man/woman ends up fiddling with them. If you had done a check first and that person was on the SOR you could of prevented ruin a child's life.
It would be useful for many things such as checking out baby sitters, people who reside in your local community, check to see if there is any beasts near schools or nursery's etc.
I can honestly empathise with your gut reaction. But with the toughest of subjects often come the most interesting insights, and no one is disputing the terrible nature of a paedophile's inclinations. That said, it's such an emotive subject I can imagine why you don't want to read such opinions. That's fair enough.
However, I guess what is up for discussion and debate are the factors that possibly contribute to a person having those inclinations. That does include "what we think of them" and all the inherent questions that come with sharing those thoughts. Whether some people believe they are born with those desires, and some others believe the way they are is sometimes [also or entirely] a result of things that have happened in their life.
No one can answer that.
Are murderers evil?
If someone sexually abuses a child, firstly they are a criminal and need to be tried for the offence and locked up for a number of years. When they get into prison then it should be investigated why they have commited that crime and possibly help them if they can be helped.
We can't be reactive though.
The real question is how can we protect our children better from any sort of abuse including sexual abuse.
How many times do you see a mum in a supermarket smacking a kid and shouting at them? Is that abuse? I bet you the kid will remember it.
If we were more proactive in protecting kids, we wouldn't spend so much time labelling and judging.
the other 'problem' in this country is that our education system means that almost every area has a school nearby, so unless you want them carted off into the middle of nowhere, or milton keynes your kind of stuck
if you aren't going to lock them up indefinetly, you release them when they're longer a threat - isolating them makes them more likely to reoffend than if you
frankly the public in this country can't be trusted with such delicate information, remember what happened last time a tabloid published the names of released paedophiles :rolleyes:
also in this country, virtually every released paedophile williningly tells police and probation people when they move - in america it's only like 80% as opposed to 97% here, this has been attributed to their publishing of paedophiles names/addresses
and if you're really that concerned , you would be pushing for more help for abused children, so they don't become inable to form adult relationships in the future and you'd focus less on the 'stranger danger' and on catching people who abuse members of their family and family friends
Very interesting indeed. Kind of goes to reinforce my point that the vast majority are not 'evil creatures' or 'sub-human scum' and should be helped as their perception of what they're doing seems perfectly right to them. Sadly I guess perception and point of view and what we ourselved perceive to be right and things like that won't hold up in court.
After all if a serial killer is driven to kill a large group of people, are the courts supposed to give them a lesser sentence than they would to someone who killed someone accidentally?
(Apologies if this has already been discussed, I'm supposed to be working so haven't waded through all 7 pages.)
ETA: I now have read all 7 pages (procrastination is an art form) and the link is constantly repeated. I do understand the point that's being made but I'd appreciate it if it weren't done that way.