Posted October 29, 200618 yr politicians propose to give parents the legal right to know if predatory paedophiles lurk in their neighbourhood. This major breakthough comes in a top-level Home Office review and will be welcomed by families throughout the land. In future parents will be able to ask police or other agencies if there are dangerous sex offenders in their area. And, for the first time, cops will be forced to disclose that information. Sara Payne—mother of murdered eight-year-old Sarah, who inspired our crusade—declared yesterday: "These proposals are a positive step in the right direction to protect our children better." The changes mean: SINGLE MUMS can ask if a new boyfriend has a sex-crime record. PARENTS will be able to find out if the streets their kids play in are really safe. COMMUNITIES will be told of sex offenders at government hostels in their area, the risks they pose and how they are being managed. LOCAL people will be appointed to hostels' management boards to check how they are run. PERVERTS freed from jail will be securely tagged and tracked, using new technology to monitor their precise whereabouts 24 hours a day. THE INTERNET will be used to give better information to parents who fear kids are being groomed. The government review, being carried out by Home Office minister Gerry Sutcliffe, is now exploring how to deliver the reforms. Officials say early findings of his report, to be handed to Home Secretary John Reid after Christmas, conclude a massive shake-up is essential. Some reforms may even be included in the National Offender Management Bill, expected to be in the November Queen's Speech. The Home Office still opposes demands for responsible parents to know names and addresses of dangerous paedophiles in the area. But they will be able to learn how many there are and the risk they pose. A senior source told us: "The challenge now is to determine how we do that." Parents may get specific warnings about people in their family circle, such as a mum's new boyfriend. Last night MPs from both sides of Parliament backed the moves. Senior Tory Edward Leigh said: "I hope they are fully implemented. There's nothing more important than protecting children." Communities minister Phil Woolas told us: "I signed up to the principles of Sarah's Law and welcome this proposed extension of the law."
October 29, 200618 yr I fully support this law, the protection of kids is far more important than the protection and privacy of anyone who is a danger to them
October 29, 200618 yr Author I fully support this law, the protection of kids is far more important than the protection and privacy of anyone who is a danger to them yep totally agree
October 29, 200618 yr I would like to see this extended to include abusers of adults too though so that women can see if their new partner has a rape conviction or if there is any convicted rapists in the area etc, the protection of children is majorly important but I think that should be extended to adults too
October 29, 200618 yr I would actually support this if I thought that people could be trusted not to act in a totally vigilante-esque manner, thus wasting even more police time when they're called out to break up disruptions and mayhem caused by these bloody "have a go" idiots... <_< I also remember the time when the News of the World printed photos of "paedophiles" (a great many were actually nothing of the sort..) in their paper a few years back. The instances of innocent people being mistaken for the people in the badly reproduced photos in that crummy rag were fukkin' legion.... The problem with all this is that the "Sex Offenders" register actually covers a great deal of ancillary offences as well.. Did you know that if you take a pish in the streets you could potentially be put on the sex offenders register for supposedly "exposing yourself"...?
October 29, 200618 yr I would actually support this if I thought that people could be trusted not to act in a totally vigilante-esque manner, thus wasting even more police time when they're called out to break up disruptions and mayhem caused by these bloody "have a go" idiots... <_< I also remember the time when the News of the World printed photos of "paedophiles" (a great many were actually nothing of the sort..) in their paper a few years back. The instances of innocent people being mistaken for the people in the badly reproduced photos in that crummy rag were fukkin' legion.... The problem with all this is that the "Sex Offenders" register actually covers a great deal of ancillary offences as well.. Did you know that if you take a pish in the streets you could potentially be put on the sex offenders register for supposedly "exposing yourself"...? I can see where you are coming from in principle and think this law should only apply to convicted sex offenders and downloaders of child porn, if a few of them get beaten up or even killed then $h!t happens but as long as the law is handled properly then I think it would help a lot in terms of child protection
October 29, 200618 yr I would actually support this if I thought that people could be trusted not to act in a totally vigilante-esque manner, thus wasting even more police time when they're called out to break up disruptions and mayhem caused by these bloody "have a go" idiots... <_< I also remember the time when the News of the World printed photos of "paedophiles" (a great many were actually nothing of the sort..) in their paper a few years back. The instances of innocent people being mistaken for the people in the badly reproduced photos in that crummy rag were fukkin' legion.... The problem with all this is that the "Sex Offenders" register actually covers a great deal of ancillary offences as well.. Did you know that if you take a pish in the streets you could potentially be put on the sex offenders register for supposedly "exposing yourself"...? i share your concerns scott... an innocent man got beat to death because some 'heros' thought he was a p****... whilst child abuse is the most repugnant of crimes, vigilanties arnt much better, crime is crime.
October 29, 200618 yr Author Recently in Falkirk Scotland a p**** moved in to the neighbourhood,right next to a nursery school, and the local police told them to build better security fences to keep the guy out. They wouldn't move the guy on or name him but the nursery had to incur costs,this is ridiculous. Why do the innocent have to suffer from the sick minority?
October 29, 200618 yr Recently in Falkirk Scotland a p**** moved in to the neighbourhood,right next to a nursery school, and the local police told them to build better security fences to keep the guy out. They wouldn't move the guy on or name him but the nursery had to incur costs,this is ridiculous. Why do the innocent have to suffer from the sick minority? although im against violence, if a p**** is actively being predatory and attacking kids then he is fair game for a kicking...
October 29, 200618 yr Better an innocent man get a beating than an innocent child be abducted/raped/killed
October 29, 200618 yr Better an innocent man get a beating than an innocent child be abducted/raped/killed ........ as long as its not YOU eh craig?... the fuss you kick up when you are accused of being a p****. murder is murder, there is NO justification for killing anyone, especially and innocent man.. unless a kids life is directly affected.
October 29, 200618 yr ........ as long as its not YOU eh craig?... the fuss you kick up when you are accused of being a p****. murder is murder, there is NO justification for killing anyone, especially and innocent man.. unless a kids life is directly affected. Would like to see them try :lol: No one said anything about killing, if any vigilante kills they should rightly face the full force of the law and be charged with murder but like I said higher in the thread Sarah's Law if properly constructed would prevent innocents being targeted and attacked whereas no one would surely give a $h!t if a convicted child abuser/rapist/killer got the hiding of his life
October 29, 200618 yr Author the problem with current laws is they protect the identity of the guilty,and the innocent is left to fend for themselves,but since they are young children this isn't fair. Yes a few innocent adults might get targeted initially, but in the long term it will settle down. We have to protect our children at all costs.
October 29, 200618 yr Would like to see them try :lol: No one said anything about killing, if any vigilante kills they should rightly face the full force of the law and be charged with murder but like I said higher in the thread Sarah's Law if properly constructed would prevent innocents being targeted and attacked whereas no one would surely give a $h!t if a convicted child abuser/rapist/killer got the hiding of his life i did.... the example i gave told of an innocent man being wrongly identified by the mob and beaten to death..... thats 1 death too many. i dispise molesters as much as anyone, truth is i have more reason then most for hating them. but i do not condone vigilantes taking the law into their own hands, it is wrong. this aint the wild west, or the dark ages, we must uphold the law or change it.
October 29, 200618 yr i did.... the example i gave told of an innocent man being wrongly identified by the mob and beaten to death..... thats 1 death too many. i dispise molesters as much as anyone, truth is i have more reason then most for hating them. but i do not condone vigilantes taking the law into their own hands, it is wrong. this aint the wild west, or the dark ages, we must uphold the law or change it. If Sarah's Law is constructed properly then there is no reason why there should be people falsely attacked, if parents are given a list of convicted sex offenders living within say 1 mile of them and given their addresses as opposed to say "David Jones lives 2 streets away" then as opposed to every David Jones in a 1 mile radius being at risk of attack then the convicted David Jones is the one at risk and who would surely have sympathy with him ?? Child protection is more important than criminal protection
October 29, 200618 yr by 'outing' peados then you will push them underground, they will abscond for fear of their safety and not be traced..that is far worse, especially as 99% of offenders are just sad pathetic men who are very unlikely to re-offend. theres a big difference between saddos viewing any porn and unhinged men who would kill. im thinking that by treating ALL offenders like the worst case predatory peados, you will not help the situation but make it worse by the more 'unserious' types being made to defend themselves (by absconding) which in their case would be an over-reaction. im against this law, i cant see what use it would be, so what if a p**** lives 2 streets away... HES THE ONE THAT WAS CAUGHT, WHAT ABOUT THE ONES THAT HAVNT BEEN CAUGHT? the best form of protection for kids is proper supervision and an awareness that anyone could be a potential threat. parents have to be more vigilant.
October 29, 200618 yr Author I think that if your caught once, you should be locked up for your natural life. It will make it safer for kids and act as a proper deterent to any would be attackers. Therefore no need for the law as no chance of getting released. Society can do without these perverts.
October 29, 200618 yr Depends on the offence brian As Rob said someone can go on the sex offenders register for p***ing in the street, I don't think he should be locked up for life simply because he took a leak in a shop doorway Downloaders of child porn and convicted abusers/rapists/killers yes
October 29, 200618 yr peadophilla may be the most abhorent of crimes, no doubt about it, but imho vigilante groups come a close second...
Create an account or sign in to comment