Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth

[JimW]

If you have to stoop that low then you have already conceded the argument...

You've had to drag in irrelevant cases from gun-owning America to bolster your case. Don't see you winning any arguments at all. Otherwise you're equating a few unfortunate incidents of minor vandalism with the actions of convicted sex offenders - on the one hand you want to diminish the threat from the latter with some statistical juggling to claim it's so rare as to be not worth bothering about; then on the other you want to make the very few instances of harassment out to be evidence of a widespread lynch mob mentality. Self-serving bollocks.

 

[dylans]

You seem to have a trust problem of people in general then?

Oh! You think anyone who cares about whether there's a sex offender living across the road is also a knuckle dragging racist too, really nice.

It's not rocket science to see that making the names and addresses of hated and despised people available to the public will lead.

If the experience of Megans law in the USA was of no vigilante attacks you would be the first to site it as a success. "Look," you would say. "The names and addresses of sex offenders have been available to the public for 4 years now and there have been no vigilante attacks."
But you can't say that can you? Because there have been attacks, many of them, and people have been murdered..So what do you do? You ignore the evidence. It's pathetic.

Instead you rely on scare mongering images ( think of the poor children! ) and outright falsehoods and you are forced to do that because all the available evidence shows that this kind of legislation simply does not work.
For example, earlier in this thread you state (with absolutely no evidence to back up your claim) that

Unfortunately people with these histories (of abuse) have a very high re-offending rate.

This is completely untrue.

Sex offenders, thought to reoffend compulsively, have in fact the lowest recidivism rate of any class of criminal. In 2004, the Solicitor General of Canada measured the recidivism rate for child molestation at 12.7%; the US Bureau of Justice Statistics recently found that three years after release, the recidivism rate for all sex offenders averaged 5.3%.

http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=BF0FA813-7607-4666-B1F081D6A6C701CC

Now I agree that one case is too many but I see no reason for panic inspired new legislation for a tiny problem that is being dealt with perfectly well by the present set up. You can't site a single piece of evidence that the Megan law experience has increased the security of children. I see no reason why a similar law here would either.

There is no increased threat from sex offenders.. There is no new threat that demands new legislation. The present legal set up is perfectly adequate without bringing in News of the World inspired laws that don't even work.

 

[dylans]

JimWSelf-serving bollocks.

In what way is my argument self serving?

 

[JimW]

In that you're having it both ways with the significance of a few outlying instances of extreme behaviour, though I confess self-serving might not be the right term for that.

 

[dylans]

Ok. A simple question. What is it about the present system that you find inadequate?
Correct me if I am wrong but at present, convicted sex offenders have to register with the police within 72 hours of their release from jail. They face immediate jail terms if they fail to register. So the details of sex offenders are held by the people who should be holding them, the cops. The police can apply for a community protection order barring individuals from designated areas for up to 5 years. Head teachers, doctors, youth leaders, sports club managers and others are notified on a confidential basis of the existence of a local sex offender.

What is it about the present legislation that is so inadequate that you feel new legislation is necessary?

Have sex offences risen? No
Has the present system shown itself to be deficient? No
Have sex offenders slipped under the radar? No, in fact it is far more successful than Megan. 97% of convicted sex offenders are registered under this legislation as opposed to an over 80% avoidance rate by sex offenders in the USA.

Hey don't take my word for it. Even Police chiefs, ACPO and probation officers say that a Sarah's law here would drive sex offenders underground.

The head of Sussex CID, the force whose work led to Whiting's conviction, warned that such a law would drive sex offenders underground and make them impossible to monitor. The Association of Chief Police Officers and probation officers agree that it would be impossible to control access to information about paedophiles. They warned that vigilante attacks would likely drive sex offenders underground.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36065317585 (btw- the link is to a pro Sarah's law facebook group)

 

[JimW]

I've not weighed in on the details of the present system or any proposed changes - tbh not a debate I've followed much beyond this thread - I'm just bothered by the way you're dismissing the concerns seen in some communities and characterising people as purely hysterical or a vigilante mob waiting to happen. It might be that wider social changes and consequent community breakdown mean people are less secure even if it's true about overall level of sex offending (and given the political nature of figures and other factors in the way crime is reported I'd want to see more studies before taking that as given). It might be something else. Either way, the idea that people showing concern for community welfare are somehow the most worrisome part of it strikes me a wrong-headed and contemptuous of your fellow citizens.

 

[_angel_]

I've not weighed in on the details of the present system or any proposed changes - tbh not a debate I've followed much beyond this thread - I'm just bothered by the way you're dismissing the concerns seen in some communities and characterising people as purely hysterical or a vigilante mob waiting to happen. It might be that wider social changes and consequent community breakdown mean people are less secure even if it's true about overall level of sex offending (and given the political nature of figures and other factors in the way crime is reported I'd want to see more studies before taking that as given). It might be something else. Either way, the idea that people showing concern for community welfare are somehow the most worrisome part of it strikes me a wrong-headed and contemptuous of your fellow citizens.

Same here. That cartoon was just plain nasty by the way - a horrible bit of smearing demonising anyone who might be interested in what goes on in their street as a) racist b) thugs and c) thick underclass.

 

[dylans]

I've not weighed in on the details of the present system or any proposed changes - tbh not a debate I've followed much beyond this thread - I'm just bothered by the way you're dismissing the concerns seen in some communities and characterising people as purely hysterical or a vigilante mob waiting to happen. It might be that wider social changes and consequent community breakdown mean people are less secure even if it's true about overall level of sex offending (and given the political nature of figures and other factors in the way crime is reported I'd want to see more studies before taking that as given). It might be something else. Either way, the idea that people showing concern for community welfare are somehow the most worrisome part of it strikes me a wrong-headed and contemptuous of your fellow citizens.

Don't you see that blind demands that "something be done" is the politics of fear not concern. I am concerned for my community. I have a 10 year old son who I love very much. My concern drives me to find out what the real situation is and to look at the facts.

"Anti pedophile" demonstrations, belief in tabloid spread mis-information ( sex offences are rising, recidivism is higher for sex offenders than other criminals etc), demands for new legislation, etc are based on fear and it is a fear born of ignorance and fanned by the tabloid press.

You think it is contemptuous of me to point this out but it is an old game and one that has been played out time and time before. An incident creates concern, that concern is fanned into panic by the press, populist politicians jump on the band wagon and knee jerk legislation is passed. It's exactly what was done after the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks when we ended up with some of the most authoritarian legislation this country has ever seen, and it is exactly what is happening now.

Don't take my word for it. This is also the opinion of Chief Constable Terry Grange child protection spokesman for ACPO (hardly a radical) who said

the Home Office has "surrendered" power over policy to the News of the World.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5097102.stm

 

[JimW]

Don't you see that blind demands that "something be done" is the politics of fear not concern. I am concerned for my community. I have a 10 year old son who I love very much. My concern drives me to find out what the real situation is and to look at the facts.

"Anti pedophile" demonstrations, belief in tabloid spread mis-information ( sex offences are rising, recidivism is higher for sex offenders than other criminals etc), demands for new legislation, etc are based on fear and it is a fear born of ignorance and fanned by the tabloid press.

You think it is contemptuous of me to point this out but it is an old game and one that has been played out time and time before. An incident creates concern, that concern is fanned into panic by the press, populist politicians jump on the band wagon and knee jerk legislation is passed. It's exactly what was done after the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks when we ended up with some of the most authoritarian legislation this country has ever seen, and it is exactly what is happening now.

Don't take my word for it. This is also the opinion of Chief Constable Terry Grange child protection spokesman for ACPO (hardly a radical) who said


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5097102.stm

It's contemptuous when you reckon that's all it is and all it might possibly be. The tabloids push a whole number of lines and some catch on and some don't; when they do it's often because they've tapped into an existing underlying concern. I can accept well enough they may well be distorting crime figures for some other end or plain sensationalism and re-directing popular anxieties to some extent, but I'd deal with that by engaging with people as having genuine motivations - by and large people don't take action over nothing and they're not mindless puppets having their strings pulled by Murdoch, even if his stable of papers is lying. The same people who turn out for these demos are the ones who turn out to search when a kid goes missing and so on and I take it mostly as a positive sign that people want to defend community even when there's all sorts of forces working to break it down.
So my main issue is that you're dismissing and brow-beating people en masse when you could just make your case to them.

 

[dylans]

Same here. That cartoon was just plain nasty by the way - a horrible bit of smearing demonising anyone who might be interested in what goes on in their street as a) racist b) thugs and c) thick underclass.

You don't have a monopoly on being concerned for your community. This idea that only those who insist on knee jerk legislation or who demonstrate against "pedo's" are concerned for what happens on their streets I find contemptuous and insulting.

As is the thinly veiled insinuations that those of us who oppose new legislation are in some way apologists for paedophiles. I am just as concerned for the welfare and well being of children as you are.

 

[tbaldwin]

You don't have a monopoly on being concerned for your community. This idea that only those who insist on knee jerk legislation or who demonstrate against "pedo's" are concerned for what happens on their streets I find contemptuous and insulting.

So who has said "only those who insist on knee jerk legislation or who demonstrate against pedos are concerned for what happens on their streets"

Its an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

I dont want to see knee jerk legislation as you put it. But i hate to see bigots like you dismissing the concerns of people you look down upon.

 

[dylans]

So who has said "only those who insist on knee jerk legislation or who demonstrate against pedos are concerned for what happens on their streets"

Its an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

I dont want to see knee jerk legislation as you put it. But i hate to see bigots like you dismissing the concerns of people you look down upon.

You're a fucking coward. A dishonest coward at that.
You snipe at me for being contemptuous of these demonstrators (and you're right, I am. I think they are utterly reactionary) but you refuse to put your own cards on the table. You're as slippery as an eel. You say "I don't want to see knee jerk legislation as you put it," but your own contribution to this thread is to argue for exactly that. So put up or shut up asshole. Spell out your own position on this or fuck off. Do you agree with the demand for Sarah's law type legislation in the UK or not?

 

[tbaldwin]

You're a fucking coward. A dishonest coward at that.
You snipe at me for being contemptuous of these demonstrators (and you're right, I am. I think they are utterly reactionary) but you refuse to put your own cards on the table. You're as slippery as an eel. You say "I don't want to see knee jerk legislation as you put it," but your own contribution to this thread is to argue for exactly that. So put up or shut up asshole. Spell out your own position on this or fuck off. Do you agree with the demand for Sarah's law type legislation in the UK or not?

Your a hysterical idiot.

Where exactly have i argued on this thread for knee jerk legislation?????????

My own position is that i think child molesters should generally get longer sentences than they seem to do now.
That not enough rapes end up in succesful prosecutions and that laws need to be changed to make it easier to succesfully prosecute rapists and child molesters.
I think its of interest that somebody like Huntley was accused on numerous occasions of rape and yet none ended up in prosecutions.
That the bloke who murdered Sarah Payne had previously been convicted of abducting a little girl and got less than 3 years in prison....
I am in favour of replacing an unelected judiciary with elected judges.

I can understand the frustration and fears of people who have read about stuff like that and also those with some direct experience of the issue.

I think nearly all your posts show you to be somebody who looks down on others in a bigoted way.

And no i dont agree with a Sarahs law. I read the guardian not the news of the world...I hate racism sexism and homophobia ( but not racists,sexists or homophobes)and i also hate what i think you suffer from extreme bigotry of the "im so much more clever and compassionate" than they are type.....

 

[kenny g]

You're a fucking coward.

etc. etc.

Please re-read the thread, go into a dark room and think about your level of debate in this thread because I can't believe that anyone would really want to engage in such a prolonged bout of irrational and offensive claims to rationality unless they had lost all sense of perspective.

 

[dylans]

etc. etc.

Please re-read the thread, go into a dark room and think about your level of debate in this thread because I can't believe that anyone would really want to engage in such a prolonged bout of irrational and offensive claims to rationality unless they had lost all sense of perspective.

Coming from a guy that says this

Bring on the moral panics!

and peppers his posts with stuff like this

paedo scum ... beast ... these scum ... these filth... paedo scum ... London's paedo filth .

And you want to lecture me on the level of debate?

 

[phildwyer]

etc. etc.

Please re-read the thread, go into a dark room and think about your level of debate in this thread because I can't believe that anyone would really want to engage in such a prolonged bout of irrational and offensive claims to rationality unless they had lost all sense of perspective.

Coming from someone whose posts on this thread consist mainly of "peado scum.. paedo filth.. paedo pigs... vile paedos... disgusting paedo animals..." etc etc ad nauseum, that really is rather rich.

 

[phildwyer]

Coming from a guy that says this



and peppers his posts with stuff like this


And you want to lecture me on the level of debate?

Beat me to it. I guess it was a fairly obvious riposte.

 

[dylans]

Beat me to it. I guess it was a fairly obvious riposte.

Yeah but It's good to see someone else shares my concern for the mental health of the guy.

 

[kenny g]

Yeah but It's good to see someone else shares my concern for the mental health of the guy.

He said it was a bit rich. Nothing about mental health.

 

[_angel_]

You don't have a monopoly on being concerned for your community. This idea that only those who insist on knee jerk legislation or who demonstrate against "pedo's" are concerned for what happens on their streets I find contemptuous and insulting.

As is the thinly veiled insinuations that those of us who oppose new legislation are in some way apologists for paedophiles. I am just as concerned for the welfare and well being of children as you are.

Where did I say you were an apologist for a paedo? Nowhere. However you have been jumping to conclusions about the people concerned about sex offenders and smeared them as "hysterical" and "knee jerk".

 

[dylans]

Where did I say you were an apologist for a paedo? Nowhere. However you have been jumping to conclusions about the people concerned about sex offenders and smeared them as "hysterical" and "knee jerk".

Why do you assume I am referring to you specifically. Bit egotistical aren't you?

I am arguing with 3 separate people here all with different positions.

You are in favour of further legislation. Although you haven't answered my earlier question as to why you consider the present legislation inadequate.

Tbaldwin has said he isn't in favour of Sarah's law type legislation but he thinks the demonstrators "concerns" should be considered and is in favour of harsher sentences.

KennyG is just a hysterical "lynch pedo filth" type idiot who has absolutely no political point to make at all and is an embarrassment to your argument frankly.

But to answer your point. References to me having a "self serving" agenda for example, are clearly cheap smears aimed at questioning my motives for opposing this kind of legislation.
As for me smearing people as hysterical, (an accusation that has been thrown freely at me throughout this thread) I think demands for further legislation are hysterical yes, because they are based on the myth that the present legislation is not protecting children. Knee jerk? absolutely, because they see this type of legislation as solving a problem despite the overwhelming evidence that it does the opposite.

 

[kenny g]

KennyG is just a hysterical "lynch pedo filth" type idiot who has absolutely no political point to make at all and is an embarrassment to your argument frankly.

Look son.

I have repeatedly stated that I think a register of convicted paedophiles with full details of the offences they have been convicted of would help increase community safety, feelings of community trust and help to prevent offences from occurring.

Your attempts to prove otherwise based on US statistics have been shown to be ill-conceived as there has been a continued decline in offending since some legislation requiring disclosure was introduced.

This is accepting the limitations of the evidence you have presented. Including the fact that child abuse image related offences do not appear to be included in your abuse stats.

Your denial that I have any rational point to make, when I have repeatedly answered you point by point, suggests that you prefer to pigeon hole people then enter into a rational discourse.

In effect, you have tried to dismiss a perfectly rational position, shared by the broad mass of the public, that they would like to have access to the names and addresses of convicted paedophiles in order to protect the safety and well being of their families and communities. That is a political position which I fail to see why you dismiss so lightly unless you believe that:

1. Community safety and well being is less important than the very minor risk of attack on paedophiles, which may well happen notwithstanding there being no public register in place.

2. There is no "stranger danger" as it is a concept of a mass panic and therefore does not exist. Consequently, there is no increase in community safety arising from people knowing the identity of convicted paedo scum/ filth.

3. "At home" paedo filth would not be identified by new partners / church members etc if there was a public paedo-scum register. It would therefore serve no purpose as nearly all paedo beasts are in this category.

4. The request for a public register is part of a tabloid driven agenda and is therefore in itself illegitimate.

All 4 points above seem to me clearly wrong headed and illogical. In many ways they are contradictory, but they appear to be at the heart of your position.

 

[_angel_]

Why do you assume I am referring to you specifically. Bit egotistical aren't you?

I am arguing with 3 separate people here all with different positions.

You quoted my post

You are in favour of further legislation. Although you haven't answered my earlier question as to why you consider the present legislation inadequate.

Tbaldwin has said he isn't in favour of Sarah's law type legislation but he thinks the demonstrators "concerns" should be considered and is in favour of harsher sentences.

KennyG is just a hysterical "lynch pedo filth" type idiot who has absolutely no political point to make at all and is an embarrassment to your argument frankly.

But to answer your point. References to me having a "self serving" agenda for example, are clearly cheap smears aimed at questioning my motives for opposing this kind of legislation.
As for me smearing people as hysterical, (an accusation that has been thrown freely at me throughout this thread) I think demands for further legislation are hysterical yes, because they are based on the myth that the present legislation is not protecting children. Knee jerk? absolutely, because they see this type of legislation as solving a problem despite the overwhelming evidence that it does the opposite.

I don't think anyone on here is going on about lynching paedo filth like you smeared kenny with saying, so no wonder people are calling you hysterical because it's so obviously untrue what you're trying to say.

But to answer your point. References to me having a "self serving" agenda for example, are clearly cheap smears aimed at questioning my motives for opposing this kind of legislation.

Pardon? Where did I say anything about you being "self serving"? It does sound like you are replying to me here.

And present legislation would only protect children if people who aren't a danger were not being released from prison, ultimately this should not be happening anyway, then there'd be no need for anything else.

 

[JimW]

...
But to answer your point. References to me having a "self serving" agenda for example, are clearly cheap smears aimed at questioning my motives for opposing this kind of legislation.
...

Hang on; I'm the one who wrote that and as I clarified later when you asked, it was a reference to your style of arguing. Twisting words like this only a few posts down from that clarification isn't making your position look much stronger.

 

[dylans]

Look son.

Please stop calling me son. It's a bit, erm..creepy

KennyG
I have repeatedly stated that I think a register of convicted paedophiles with full details of the offences they have been convicted of would help increase community safety, feelings of community trust and help to prevent offences from occurring.

That's because you are a fucking idiot. I have shown you case after case, example after example of vigilante attacks that have followed the posting of such registers. I have shown you quotes from ACPO, childrens charities, academics, The Centre for Sex Offender Management. I have shown you reports from the State Department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning.I have shown you statements by the US Public Defender. All of which say the same thing. Megan's Law doesn't work and is counterproductive.

I have given you example after example of vigilante attacks both in this country and in the US, and you have dismissed them all.And why? Because they don't fit your agenda. Rant and rave about "pedo filth, all you want, it doesn't change the fact. Megan's law has been a failure on every count.

For the past 15 years the public has been left with a false sense of security. A federally funded study has determined that Megan's Law does not work.
Conducted by independent psychologists along with staff from the state Department of Corrections' Office of Policy and Planning, this comprehensive study looked at 21 years of sex offense rates. It confirms in New Jersey what other studies have found elsewhere. Megan's Law "has no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses."
Megan's Law struck out on every important area related to protecting the community from sexual offenders. Not only is there no evidence that it reduces sexual re-offenses, Megan's Law fails to positively impact sex offender re-arrest rates, fails to change the type of re-offenses or first time offenses that occur and fails to reduce the number of victims involved in sexual offenses.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/02/megans_law_doesnt_work_now_wha.html

KennyG Your denial that I have any rational point to make, when I have repeatedly answered you point by point, suggests that you prefer to pigeon hole people then enter into a rational discourse.

Show me a single example from anywhere that shows that Megan works in the US? Show me a single reliable study that shows Megan has had any positive effect on sex offender re-offences or saved a single child from attack. One, just one. Do that and I may take you seriously, until then you are just another hysterical "do something" idiot.

 

[dylans]

KennyG. I have only just seen your re-edit. I will reply in a bit.

 

[dylans]

Angel. And present legislation would only protect children if people who aren't a danger were not being released from prison, ultimately this should not be happening anyway, then there'd be no need for anything else

This is simply nonsense. Compliance with authorities in the US has fallen by a staggering 80%. That's 80% of sex offenders driven underground by this legislation. Compare this to the UK where the paedophile register has a 97 compliance rate.
What this law does do is ensure people lose their jobs, their homes, and are driven underground. Hardly an enlightened policy if we are serious about ensuring the best chance of either the regulation or the rehabilitation of these people is it? Simply saying that people shouldn't be released from prison does nothing to answer the question. What advantage has Megan had over the present legislation in the UK?

KennyG unless you believe that public safety and well being is less important than the very minor risk of attack on paedophiles, which may well happen notwithstanding there being no public register in place.

This is disengenuous and presents a completely false dichotomy. The Megan law has had no positive effect on the safety of children. In fact it has been counter productive.

What is equally remarkable is that other research cited by the New Jersey study, as well as our own experience, shows that Megan's Law can be "counterproductive." Notification laws have been found to isolate offenders from normal relationships, undercut their opportunities for housing and employment, and subject offenders to threats and assaults.
In some instances, the willingness to obtain treatment can be negatively impacted. As a result of these factors, the study's researchers determined the unintended consequences of Megan's Law may be to increase the risks of recidivism rather than to protect the community.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/02/megans_law_doesnt_work_now_wha.html

How does driving these people underground help protect children?

 

[_angel_]

I don't know if you are actually responding to my point, I said nothing else should be necessary if people deemed a risk were not freed from prison in the first place.

I'm not the one that has mentioned Megan's Law, or the United States as a way of doing things, by the way.

 

[dylans]

I don't know if you are actually responding to my point, I said nothing else should be necessary if people deemed a risk were not freed from prison in the first place.

I'm not the one that has mentioned Megan's Law, or the United States as a way of doing things, by the way.

You have said that you are in favour of Sarah's law type legislation. That information should be given to resident's associations and neighbourhood watch groups. If you keep ducking the issue there really is no point in debating with you. The Megans law experience is the only example we have of the type of legislation you are advocating being used in practice it is therefore necessary to look at the experience if we plan to bring in similar legislation here and it has been an unmitigated disaster.

Simply saying, "lock them up" says nothing at all because you have already stated that you are in favour of Sarah's law type legislation here.
So again I ask the question, what is it about the present legislation that you feel is inadequate and why do you think replacing it with Sarah's law type legislation will improve the situation?

 

[_angel_]

You simply keep saying things that I've "said" that I have not. I am not the one looking to America and expecting to copy everything they've done, which is usually OTT.