oafc0000 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) Not just social workers, other agencies Victoria Climbie Baby P Ian Huntley Sarah Payne etc, etc.. too mnay to say the odd one slips through the net, it happens time and time again - lack of communication, shared information and funding too I dare say. I have to tackle this... You have come up with four things which are being stacked up against literally thousands upon thousands of other cases every year which they get right. I hear all the sound bites of even one child being a child to many. But in the real world, its impossible to stop this stuff completely and I am not for signing up for damning a whole system and network of people off the back of isolated cases. Learn from them and move on. It is not the social workers doing the bad things, that gets forgotten a lot I feel. -------- I am going to bow out of this discussion before it gets too heated. Its a very complex and emotive subject. I think its more complicated than just putting people down anyway. Edited November 13, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) For 14 year old shoplifters it seems a bit harsh. For unrepentant predatory paedophiles you can either lock them up for a few years, at great expense, then do what you can for the rest of their lives spending a load of cash monitoring them to reduce the chances of them re-offending, or you could tie a rope round their neck and drop them in a pit. No-brainer to me. ok fair enough.. For me its a matter of principle. I simply don't agree with state execution. Anyway like I said, going to leave it now as it going to get heated I would rather talk about the stadium I am sure we all agree its out of order and we would not want the guy next door... Its just natural to feel that... Edited November 13, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Damage Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I am going to bow out of this discussion before it gets too heated. Its a very complex and emotive subject. I think its more complicated than just putting people down. NO I would say putting them all down would make it very simple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Fair play to Alan Tupman and Clough Manor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Garcon I disagree as I believe peadophile is the same as a gay person. It is how they are and nothing will change them. You try saying you can be cured to a gay person!!! No of course I'm not. You're the one equating paedophiles and gays. I understand your main point. I just don't happen to agree that there is no chance of 'cure' and reintegration in every case. Often with the most serious, violent, predatory child abusers, if convicted they will be locked up indefinitely and will never satisfy the criteria for release, but for every one of those there are probably hundreds of people with paedophile tendencies who are able to control their urges and understand the difference between right and wrong. This is where I think the hysteria can become scary - "paedophile" seems to be a very broad brush that the alarmists use to put those whose worst crime may have been to look at a few images of child abuse on the internet (serious enough) in the very same category as serial child rapists and killers. That's more or less the same as saying every man who uses porn is a rapist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I'm not naive enough to dismiss that paedophiles are not amongst us in the community i'd rather not know, whilst retaining my cautiousness for the safety of my two kids but this makes me uneasy - especially as dad of a six year old girl. Gadd had to live somewhere but yet more bad publicity for the Borough and would you like him living near you? Your feelings now, may differ somewhat in 6 months or so when the little one arrives. At least he's not moving to Failsworth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Damage Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) I think we will have to agree to disagree. Porn on the internet if consenting adults is not the same as child porn where the child is not willfully consenting to anything and by viewing they are encouraging those who make the images. Please note I used the word IF on internet porn for consenting adults as I am aware alot of porn is not a consenting adult, but with children I would say non are consenting to it. Did anyone watch the documentry on the police peodophile section recently? Very disturbing to watch and almost all of those caught had no records and some of the abuse was extreme. Edited November 13, 2009 by Max Damage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) I think we will have to agree to disagree. Porn on the internet if consenting adults is not the same as child porn where the child is not willfully consenting to anything and by viewing they are encouraging those make the images. Please note I used the word IF on internet porn for consenting adults as I am aware alot of porn is not a consenting adult, but with children I would say non are consenting to it. I entirely agree with that. And that's why even viewing images of child abuse is such a serious crime in itself - and also why I refer to it as "images of child abuse" and not child porn. My point is, in part, not everyone who views such images is likely to go out and commit similar acts. Even if some of them cannot see that simply by viewing those images they are effectively aiding and abetting the abuse. It is a very complex and harrowing subject, one that the pitchfork mobs and print media sensationalists do very little to help. Edited November 13, 2009 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddogs Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 i thought saddleworth was part of yorkshire now,glitter is and will always be scum,i hope he burns in hell.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 At least he's not moving to Failsworth. Don't be so sure now that Saddleworth has rejected him. The FRAG will have to organise a petition now rather than wait until his intentions have been clarified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Hanging's too good for him. Scum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 NO I would say putting them all down would make it very simple Into the mind of a sexual deviant we go.... You've just molested a child. DNA is everywhere. Everywhere. You'll be killed if this is found out. Dead. Nothing to lose. Kill the kid and bury it. THAT is why there cannot be a death penalty in this scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Into the mind of a sexual deviant we go.... You've just molested a child. DNA is everywhere. Everywhere. You'll be killed if this is found out. Dead. Nothing to lose. Kill the kid and bury it. THAT is why there cannot be a death penalty in this scenario. Is it? What I do is hang the bastard, as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Is it? What I do is hang the bastard, as soon as possible. He does sound just like the sort of chap who could do with being offed at the first opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I am pretty sure the BNP are the only party offering this as a real policy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I am pretty sure the BNP are the only party offering this as a real policy... They need something to differentiate them from the Greens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 They need something to differentiate them from the Greens. You'd think so wouldn't you? Apparently the BNP have included into their manifesto a charter indicating that the executed will be turned into fertilizer for Norfolk farmers. It's the circle of life, you can't get greener than that. Not really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 A few things in response to a few posts- Glitter is not short of a few bob and he doesn't strike me as the type to shop at Tesco's. He won't be able to go out- he's Gary Glitter FFS a notorious paedo he's likely to get strung up. I would imagine he does a lot of his shopping online- so if he does move to Saddleworth- it would just be a matter of finding out when Waitrose/John Lewis's do their delivery in that area and following the van around eventually it will stop at Glitter's. Victorie Climibe and Baby P were a failing of all the services concerned- the docs should have spotted summat was wrong and when they told the social services to get involved and get them out they should have done so. However, the other thing they do have in common, both were in Harigney and that is quite a scummy part of London where a lot of people who work their in the NHS (and even the social services) would much rather be working somewhere else but weren't good enough. So the question is do you put the good doctors where they would much rather work but aren't needed (so a reward for being good) or do you let the bad ones work where they want so will do less harm (a much fairer way of treating everyone as opposed to those who have better access)? Paedophilia is currently in the ICD-10 so its technically an illness- homosexuality isn't (it was in the version before- ICD-9), but transvesitism is. The argument therefore is a very interesting one as technically doctors would be obligied to refer someone with paedophilia for treatment, if treatment was availible- there isn't really any. I'm not saying they aren't scum (they are) but it does put it in a difficult legal, social, and ethical perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Damage Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Paedophilia is currently in the ICD-10 so its technically an illness- homosexuality isn't (it was in the version before- ICD-9), but transvesitism is. The argument therefore is a very interesting one as technically doctors would be obligied to refer someone with paedophilia for treatment, if treatment was availible- there isn't really any. I'm not saying they aren't scum (they are) but it does put it in a difficult legal, social, and ethical perspective. As i said in my first post comparing into to gays. It is a state of mind. The difference is that this is an unacceptable state of mind and can only be dealt with via castration imho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I know a good treatment for paedophilia, a rope tossed over a beam... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boboafc Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Gary Glitter house-hunting in Saddleworth. From tonight's rarely wrong Chron. http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-fea...-in-saddleworth that;s what they should do to like him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I know a good treatment for paedophilia, a rope tossed over a beam... But what does that really achieve? Aside from the safety of hundreds of potential future victims, the saving of hundreds of millions that could be left for me to spend on beer and porn, and the death of the relevant nonce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 But what does that really achieve? It most certainly would achieve the deaths of many, many children. And more money to get beer tapped to every household, and porn delivered daily by non-striking postmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) It most certainly would achieve the deaths of many, many children. And more money to get beer tapped to every household, and porn delivered daily by non-striking postmen. Well, I could talk about executing taxmen, which would indirectly also solve the postal strike, but in this current climate that would be seen as, "extremist," in these days where Political Correctness goes Mad. I must say unusually for you though that your argument is :censored: IMO. You are talking about the specific case of a particular child rapist who has left his doings over his victim, and who is making a calculated decision about whether or nor to murder and bury him/her to facilitate his escape? Such a person isn't then likely to think, "phew, that was a close shave, better give this nonceing lark a knock on the head." They are also likely to be very capable and maybe likely to threaten the lives of more children in the future if they are so minded anyway. The next child might fight or try to get away. Most nonceing is of a lower level than rape/murder, but committed dozens or hundreds of times, with dozens of victims. If I was looking for a reason not to send them for a dance at the end of the Rope of Justice*, it would be that I understand that a large majority of sex offenders were themselves victims of it in their youth. If this cycle can be broken early enough and help for them works, I would be 100% behind it. There has to come a point though where if one wants to live in the free world then one accepts responsibility for ones actions - voluntary chemical castration could have a role here along with other forms of treatment. Paul Gadd's solution to his condition was to move to a country where he could bribe local officials to let him bugger pre-pubescent children until it all got rumbled and they had to deal with him, and I don't think he'll reform at the age of 68. Better if we'd just broken the sick :censored:er's neck and thrown him into an unmarked prison graveyard. It would have spared a few Vietnamese kids his attentions * Trademark: Help Shiny Edited November 13, 2009 by leeslover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I suspect that people aren't talking about executing someone who has wanked over a couple of pictures on the web. I would think they are on about child rapists. In that scenario I fail to see why anyone would let the child live and themselves potentially die after willingly inflicted such pain already. Future victims (if the bad man has been caught) could be dealt with by other means. Castration (screw the chemical aspect. Lop them off) for example. If not caught, he'll carry on murdering rather than raping. NB. You also have to ask the levels of this. Should Graham Rix for instance have been hung? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.