ans Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I would prefer them to create a 'Running Man' or 'Battle Royale' type TV show where they fight to the death and the last man standing is left the winner. And then we shoot them in the face. Let's not tell them about the last part though. Seriously though, it's a very difficult thing to police. We tend to take a much more violent stand when the harm is inflicted on children, which is just natural protection, but serial rapists, domestic abuse and psychological terror can be equally as damaging. Do you not also have the right to know that a convicted rapist lives down the road? Should we demand that people carry huge billboard outside their houses to inform everyone around them of their crimes? Where would that line be drawn between which offences are considered worthy of public informationand which not? To me, Rog is both wrong and right. Yes, they are criminals, but it's something they don't make a conscious decision about before they commit their act. Comparing it to the difficulties smokers have quitting, alcoholics have staying on the wagon and heroin addicts fighting the urge to shoot up might seem trite, but the principle of difficulty remains the same. There is no perfect solution, and until they find a way to chemically inhibit this kind of behaviour, there never will be. Unless anyone wants to help me put together a pitch to Channel 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I remember watching a documentary following a sex offender, who did actually show remorse for what he had done but felt that the system (ie incarceration) had done nothing to help him stop re-offending as the urges are still there, no matter how long you're banged up. In the end he went abroad and found a surgeon that would castrate him (as such a proceedure would be against medical guidelines in the UK apparently). He claimed the urge to fiddle kiddies had completely diminished with the removal of his nads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-Drift.com Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Minnie, just ask rape victims, or women married to sadists how they feel about themselves. My wife was a victim of repeated beatings in her previous marriage, some of the things she allowed me to know just made me want to get a gun..... You're allowing morality to creep into the argument here I agree with Big Dave's treatment, a paedophile is driven by sexual urges, these are the strongest feelings we have, so removal of the offending organs is a good way to stop him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 Reads to me more like a young lad who tried to have sex with another young lad who was under the age of consent but still near to his own age. This lad is only 22 now, and assaulted a teenager. Young lads over 16 often have sexual relationships with girls under 16 - it is illegal obviously, but it doesn't make the lad a "paedophile"... Obviously it makes sense for the police to have powers to stop known child molesters from hanging around schools/parks etc - but if this case is the worst example they've got it hardly seems like a big problem. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can see what you're saying with some of your comments, particularly the point about teenage girls. The comment I have a problem with is where you say ".........This lad is only 22 now, and assaulted a teenager". He may "only" be 22, but in the eyes of the law he is an adult who has commited a crime against a child. This teenager may only be 13, hardly near his own age. I know it's generalising, but who's to say he won't target a younger child next time? He may not come in the same category and be as big a problem as paedophiles we read about in the national press or hear about on the news, but if he targetted my child I would see it as a major problem, as I'm sure would be the case for any other parent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 And who can forget the illiterate vigilantes Bloody hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 ".........This lad is only 22 now, and assaulted a teenager". He may "only" be 22, but in the eyes of the law he is an adult who has commited a crime against a child. This teenager may only be 13, hardly near his own age. How old was the lad when he assaulted the other person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 How old was the lad when he assaulted the other person? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's not a lad, he's a man. I wouldn't know how old he was when the indecent assault happened and I fail to see what bearing that has on the discussion anyway. There is a convicted sex offender who could pose a serious risk to children/teenagers and is clearly known to be frequenting parks with the intention of approaching boys.........as far as I'm concerned that's all that matters here, whether the incident happened 6 years ago or 6 weeks ago he is obviously a threat to children/teenagers at present. If anyone has read the full article in the Manx Independent it also mentions another sex offender who is free to hang around schools and although the police can order him to move on they cannot do anything to prevent him from returning the next day. What sort of protection is that for our children? These people are free to associate with and be around children, our children, whilst parents are none the wiser to the serious risks posed. In reference to comments made earlier, I'm by no means undermining or belittling the seriousness of rape, domestic abuse, muggings nor the feelings of the victims, and of course morality is going to creep into a discussion such as this one. But in my opinion crimes against innocent, defenceless children are of the most heinous you can get. I seriously don't believe enough is done within the law to protect children from the perverts that unfortunately live in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silky Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Is this lad really a "paedophile" though? Reads to me more like a young lad who tried to have sex with another young lad who was under the age of consent but still near to his own age. This lad is only 22 now, and assaulted a teenager. True paedophiles target pre-pubescent children - not teenagers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly. I am not condoning in any way what this guy may or may not have done but we are all far too quick to label people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I am not condoning in any way what this guy may or may not have done but we are all far too quick to label people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Paedophile, sex offender.........whichever way you look at it he was a male adult who indecently assaulted a teenage boy, an adult targeting a child. Who's to say it won't be a younger child next time? As a parent this has worried me greatly with regards the safety of my eldest boy, and the fact that parents are given such a small amount of information about these people just adds to the worry. Fair enough the police have issued a warning via the newspaper and say they are monitoring this man but they can't police him 24 hours a day and for that reason no parent can be 100% sure over the safety of their children. These perverts have more protection than a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Do we actually know the ages of those concerned when the initial offense hapepned? I how of several instances of 16 year old "adult" males having intercourse with 15 year old "girls", which is statutorty rape. Should they be on the sex offenders list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 That was my point Old Git - for all we know the offender could have been 16 or 17 at the time and the victim 15. Or of course it coud be a 13 yr old assaulted by a 22 year old, but either way he is not a "paedophile". As he wasn't even jailed for the offence it seems unlikely to be the latter, and unlikely he poses a risk to the general public. I am not condoning his actions either, but all this is is pure scaremongering by the local rag - and by the looks of reactions like Minnie's - it's worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I really fail to see what age has to do with this. The point is that this man is now 22 years old, an adult, and he is known to be frequenting parks with the intention of approaching boys. Are you saying parents are stupid to be worried about this? Sure this man may have been 17 when he committed the offence but he's now 22 and possibly going to commit a similar offence. I'm pretty sure my "reaction" is not unlike many other parents whose children play in the local parks.......and as for my "reaction", I'm not quite sure what you mean. My reaction is not an angry "let's name, shame and burn all sex offenders at the stake"one, it is a natural worry for the safety of my children, if that makes me stupid in your eyes then hey I'm stupid, a stupid mother who cares greatly for the well-being of her children when they are out playing. I'm pretty sure if a pervert approached and tried to harm your child, whether the child be 5 or 15, you'd be pretty angry and upset. Also, I wouldn't call it scaremongering exactly, it's sending out a warning to parents to be vigilant with regards their child's safety. I'm not calling for this person to be named, but I do think parents could be given more information ie which parks has this person been visiting, is there a particular time of day he visits the parks, information like that. There's nothing wrong or stupid in wanting to protect your child as much as you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Minnie - I think what they're getting at is that the guy may well not have been a particular threat to children based solely on that previous thing, i.e. you could have a lad on his 16th birthday that has it off with a girl a day younger than him and technically he's then a 'sex offender' but this kind of thing happens plenty and they perfectly normal youngsters that have not really done too much wrong even though they know they should wait. I totally agree with you though Minnie that even if that was the case as you say he is now 22 and is known to be trying to shark around to pick up boys which makes it altogether a more sinister thing. If I had kids I'm sure I would be as concerned as well and it is a bit sad that the law (not the police as such) allows him to be able to do this when the odds are he's up to no good and they know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 The point is that this man is now 22 years old, an adult, and he is known to be frequenting parks with the intention of approaching boys. No he's not. He is reported to have been seen in parks and "open spaces" (shock horror). He may have taken a short cut through Noble's Park one day or a walk on the beach, or he may not even have been seen at all. All I'm saying is he is unlikely to represent a threat - he is not a "paedophile", he is more likely a young lad who tried to sleep with another young lad. He wasn't jailed so it wasn't an "attack" as such, and judging from what's been written it seems very unlikely he represents any sort of risk. If you want to worry about it and see risks that aren't there that's up to you, but what I see is a newspaper scaremongering and exaggerating. I don't see how you can "fail to see what his age has to do with it" - if he was a 16/17 yr old teen who felt up another teenager of 15 it's hardly the crime of the century - and as I said before - if the teen had been a girl we probably wouldn't have heard a word about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I find making light of it very offensive. If he was placed on the sexual offenders register you can guarantee it was not a 'boy meets boy but unfortunately just fell short of the statutory legal age' type scenario. If the police have felt the need to release a statement warning parents to be aware of their childrens whereabouts and stated that this person is frequenting parks etc, then I would say that it is probably a very real risk. Why the big focus on age exactly??? We are not talking about a little underage sexual activity, we are talking about sexual attack and there is a vast amount of difference between the two. A person in their late teens early twenties is capable of committing an attack that is just as violent and disturbing as a person in their forties, or other socially accepted adult age. I think we are all a little hung up on the typical dirty old paedophile image often portrayed and are not seeing the true picture. I'm sorry but I'm with Minnie on this 100%. So if your teenage son, lets say 15, came home from Nobles Skatepark and described how some young 22 year old had followed him into the toilet and tried to touch him up and bugger him, you would think that was ok because there wasn't much of an age difference and the young lad only fancied him???? Get real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.