ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That's not an accurate definition, is it?
Of course, if you gave an accurate definition, it'd show your point up as the shite it is.
Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth
- Thread starter PlanX
- Start date
That's not an accurate definition, is it?
Of course, if you gave an accurate definition, it'd show your point up as the shite it is.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It has to be taken through Parliament as a bill and then legislated into an act to have legal force. Just calling it "regulations" is meaningless.
Lucky Vladimir Nabokov is dead then, eh? He'd be up before the beak if he ever set foot on British soil!
You're proposing a database freely accessible from any computer with an internet connection.
So what you really want out of this isn't "law" or "regulations", it's for somebody more ignorant and/or perhaps less cowardly than you to do your dirty work and harm or kill the offender.
Way to go to create an entire underground of registered sex offenders!!
Lovely.
Do you want them to wear striped pajamas too? Perhaps a little field cap?
Surely a convict "uniform" would follow your logic?
That's truly pathetic.
Local authorities have no powers to make non-civil law, you schmuck, and they can't be granted them either. Punishment conditions fall under that.
On all parties, or just those you choose to be given rights, kenny?
I never cease to be amazed by how poorly people understand their own constitutional position, and how they don't realise that under a legal system that uses precedent as one of the measures for whether legislation is apposite, any procedure that abrogates a right for one group may go on to be used to abrogate the rights of all groups.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Who are you to speak for "people who have been on the receiving end of child abusers" (poor choice of words, by the way, you fucking muppet!
)?
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Thank you for your helpful suggestions.
forgot to mention, this would be in accordance with a to be published EC directive under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972.
If you think that it would be too far fetched to obtain an EC Directive I would suggest that we amend the Childrens, and Young Persons Act 1933 by a short Children, and Young Persons (amendment) Act 2010 to enable the Secretary of State to introduce relevant regulations.
Interesting point. However, you have missed the subtleties of regulation 15. The Local Authority places conditions on a persons admission to the register. When a person is not on the register they will be in breach of the Regulations and therefore committing offences under regulation 8.
Look at the licensing Act 2003 and the use of licensing conditions and you will see similarities. i.e LA places conditions of their choosingon a licence , conditions are broken, license is revoked by LA, if licensable activities continue on the premises there is a breach of the criminal law.
The , first they came for the child abuser's argument. Fortunately we have something called the Human Rights Act which ensures that legislation such as this has to remain proportionate. I believe that it does.
The Regulations would, of course, have powers of inspection and entry of registered addresses, and all addresses not used only as dwellings, for Constables and Local Authority Authorised Officers. In addition, I envisage powers to inspect business records etc to ensure no breaches of regulation 9 have taken place.
forgot to mention, this would be in accordance with a to be published EC directive under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972.
If you think that it would be too far fetched to obtain an EC Directive I would suggest that we amend the Childrens, and Young Persons Act 1933 by a short Children, and Young Persons (amendment) Act 2010 to enable the Secretary of State to introduce relevant regulations.
Interesting point. However, you have missed the subtleties of regulation 15. The Local Authority places conditions on a persons admission to the register. When a person is not on the register they will be in breach of the Regulations and therefore committing offences under regulation 8.
Look at the licensing Act 2003 and the use of licensing conditions and you will see similarities. i.e LA places conditions of their choosingon a licence , conditions are broken, license is revoked by LA, if licensable activities continue on the premises there is a breach of the criminal law.
The , first they came for the child abuser's argument. Fortunately we have something called the Human Rights Act which ensures that legislation such as this has to remain proportionate. I believe that it does.
The Regulations would, of course, have powers of inspection and entry of registered addresses, and all addresses not used only as dwellings, for Constables and Local Authority Authorised Officers. In addition, I envisage powers to inspect business records etc to ensure no breaches of regulation 9 have taken place.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
No, that would be disproportionate and unnecessary, and therefore a breach of their human rights.
I would love to know why such hostility has arisen to my attempts to outline proportionate legislation that would address the rights and interests of victims, perpetrators and the wider community.
I have the terrible suspicion that you are not seriously looking for any kind of solution. Unfortunately poor attempts at humour are not the best means to tackle this.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Both the Acts you cite have been superceded by newer legislation, the Children and Young Persons Act 8 or 9 times since 1933, so I'd re-rehearse my arguments in light of the updated legislation included in the newer acts, if I were you.
Oy vey!
You specifically mention in regulation 15 that local authorities will have the power to "place conditions" on the convicted offender. "Conditions" are a matter of criminal, not civil law, and therefore local authorities are not competent bodies to do so. Only the courts (local or otherwise) are.
The licencing Act covers the statutory obligations of a licensee to a licencer. What you're proposing allocates the power of establishing the obligations of an offender from the courts to a local authority.
If you think there's any similarity between the two, your train is on the wrong track.
What you choose to believe is irrelevant.
What is relevant is law which conforms (not, you should note, "is believed to conform") to the standards set forth for such law, such as conformity to the HRA.
As for paraphrasing Pastor Niemoller, piss off, there's a good boy.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
No more sick imagery concerning children's TV characters if you don't mind.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
As would be stigmatising them by legislatively forcing them to adopt a certain look.
Because your "proportionate legislation" is based not on your knowledge of the extant legislation, but on your perception of how it can be bent to suit your desires.
You're interested in serving your own needs and your perceptions of the needs of victims, not "the wider community".
Don't pontificate at me, there's a good chap.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
If that's kenny, doesn't he look like he's got his arm round someone who looks like she's under 16?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
If people appear hostile it's because the legislation you propose is neither necessary nor proportionate but is, rather, the rantings of a paranoid lunatic who sees "pedo beasts" everywhere he looks. Neither would the legislation you propose benefit the children you claim to care about so much. Their interests are not served by hysterical authoritarian legislation pulled straight out of the pages of the News of the World.
I'm not hostile Kenny. I love you. You are keeping me amused on a rainy saturday afternoon. Keep it up. I need the photoshop practice
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Wow, that pretty much sums up the quality of your post. If you are saying that both Acts are no longer in force then you are wrong. Numerous Regulations are made under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 by virtue of EC Directives.
The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is still in force and routinely used. It has been amended numerous times which may be the source of your confusion.
Of course there are differences between the Licensing Act 2003 and what I propose. However, regulation 15 is not a legal impossibility in the way that you first suggested.
Whether or not any legislation conforms to the HRA is, of course, for a Court to decide.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Purely to prevent the growth of beards or hair to stop identification, as has been done by known paedophiles mentioned previously in this thread.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Referenced through the amendments (2003 and 2007 are the latest).
Again, any use is referenced through those amendments rather than through the act as it stood.
Not if you want to cede legal powers to local authorities that they have no right to, no infrastructure to police, and no wish to hold.
Great precedent to set, too!
You're sharp, aren't you?
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I mean the suicide one just shows kenny g to be a grade a* cunt, but this is just funny.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Wrong again. Are you aware of the Local Government Act 2000? http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/pdf/ukpga_20000022_en.pdf
2.—(1) Every local authority are to have power to do anything which
they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following well-being.
objects—
(a) the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of
their area,
(b) the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their
area, and
(c) the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being
of their area.
You must have missed my earlier post,
Powers could be given to Authorised Officers under the Regulations or section 103 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 could be
re-introduced if you feel that the existance of a Local Authority Chief Inspector would be most appropriate.
The infrastructure for inspection would be straightforward with rights of entry to registered child abusers premises as previously outlined. Obviously, not providing reasonable assistance or obstruction of Authorised Officers would be an offence.
On the contrary. Effective enforcement of a child abuse registry would help Local Authorities take a pro-active stance in child abuse prevention alongside work done by social services. It would help to raise public trust and confidence in Local Authorities role in these matters.
The precedence was set in 1933 with the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
And, by the way, I am interested in your view that all legislation should be referred to by the amending legislation. Do you have any reference or guidance for that position?
My only concern is Regulations such as the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which make direct reference to the 1972 Act. Have they been drafted incorrectly in your opinion?
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
When exactly that amendment is being suggested for those suffering terminal illnesses why couldn't it be applied for those who wish to die and who are registered child abusers?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I was wondering about that one too. So if a Greggs bakery sells a sex offender a chicken pie and a can of coke will they get nicked or should we just torch the place to be sure?
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
You think the two things are similar?.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
That would be completely unreasonable. The legislation provides for such cases in regulation 10.
Regulation 9 is a strict liability offence. It puts the onus on us all to take precautions so that we don't provide assistance to convicted child abusers who are not registered.
There is legal precedence for such strict liability offence as to what constitutes reasonable precautions and due diligence, and , guess what, they are pretty reasonable.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Well what reasonable precautions should the likes of Greggs make to not fall foul of the law? Perhaps they should refuse to sell chicken pies to strange looking men with beards and wearing Tie dye Tshirts and fisherman's pants?
Or perhaps those of us who are not convicted sex offenders should carry a "I am not a pedo beast" card that we can show on request. A bit like the "are you under 21? Prove it" rule that some supermarkets enforce these days. They could have a "are you a sick depraved pedo monster? No? prove it." rule. After all if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear do we?
I for one am perfectly happy to give up all my privacy and personal details such as DNA and fingerprints etc to the police if it helps to protect our children. Who wouldn't? (ha we know who wouldn't don't we Kenny?)
Or perhaps those of us who are not convicted sex offenders should carry a "I am not a pedo beast" card that we can show on request. A bit like the "are you under 21? Prove it" rule that some supermarkets enforce these days. They could have a "are you a sick depraved pedo monster? No? prove it." rule. After all if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear do we?
I for one am perfectly happy to give up all my privacy and personal details such as DNA and fingerprints etc to the police if it helps to protect our children. Who wouldn't? (ha we know who wouldn't don't we Kenny?)
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Have a wanted list behind the counter with the number of the relevant Local Authority team, alongside appropriate staff training so that staff are aware of the need to not sell food to convicted child abusers who are not registered.
Persons on wanted list would be those convicted but not registered.
If people want to grow beards etc they will, of course, be subject to heightened observation by shop staff. That is their choice.
Once a person is convicted all DNA photos etc will be taken. It will not be a matter of choice.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Yes. That sounds completely reasonable to me. Those of us who don't want to be suspected of being vile pedo scum just have to shave. Those who grow beards have only themselves to blame. Kenny, you have convinced me. I agree with you 100%.
What about moustaches?
One other thing. Do you think it would be possible to provide a kind of ID card to those of us who aren't pedo's. A kind of enhanced CRB check so we don't cause unnecessary suspicion by wearing Tie dye Tshirts or beards etc It could state "The bearer is officially not a pedo beast, please ignore the weird clothing and facial hair and provide him with all legal services" or something like that. What do you think?
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Interesting idea. Another approach would be to require that all registered child abusers use a registered persons payment card for all retail transactions.
When a bank gave you a payment card they would have to check that you were not a convicted child abuser.If you were concerned that your facial hair was raising suspicions you could use of a standard payment card to assuage them. It would be a more subtle equivalent to the slightly obtrusive approach you have suggested.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
What purpose would this solve when a peado, known or unknown is shopping in greggs?
