Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth

[kenny g]

What purpose would this solve when a peado, known or unknown is shopping in greggs?

It would mean that they were not served food, and the Local Authority and Police were informed so that the person could be arrested by a Police Constable for breach of regulation 8.

In effect, convicted child abusers who were in breach of the registration requirements would not be fed or provided accommodation.

I think this would help ensure that they chose to register and get around one of the objections raised by Dylan's earlier.

 

[Jonti]

But you don't think! You don't seem to know how.

That makes you something of a shit troll too

 

[Jonti]

my guess: bored cowboy realises he's completely lost the exchange, and plays the fool to the crowd

 

[dylans]

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.

So CRB checks for banking. Sounds reasonable. Maybe hairdressers too, so a cunning pedo couldn't secretly change his hairstyle.

How about a tattoo, Maybe on the forehead? Or a brand of some type? Something that couldn't be removed.

Or a ball and chain for the convicted. In this day and age I'm sure something could be made that gives a loud warning whenever a pedo approaches anyone under 18. "WARNING WARNING PEDO APPROACHING" something like that. Also pedo's car horns could be altered so instead of a "beep beep" like most cars they would emit a "peee dooo peee doooo" sound when honked.

 

[dylans]

Anyway, I am pleased that you are on board with this. Although it is a bit rough around the edges, the legislation is, at last, beginning to take shape!

Yes. I'm glad you have convinced me of the reasonableness of your argument.

(but we can still secretly lynch them when noone is watching right?)

 

[Jonti]

Also pedo's car horns could be altered so instead of a "beep beep" like most cars they would emit a "peee dooo peee doooo" sound when honked.

It is thinking like this that blazes a new path in empowering children to live safely in today's complex, dangerous and oversexualised society!

 

[dylans]

Now about my Rusty nail campaign.................

 

[dylans]

It is thinking like this that blazes a new path in empowering children to live safely in today's complex, dangerous and oversexualised society!

Well thank you Jonti. I have seen the error of my liberal ways. Kenny's erudite and intelligent contribution to this debate has convinced me to think of the children.
(Now where did I put that half house brick)

 

[sleaterkinney]

It would mean that they were not served food, and the Local Authority and Police were informed so that the person could be arrested by a Police Constable for breach of regulation 8.

In effect, convicted child abusers who were in breach of the registration requirements would not be fed or provided accommodation.

I think this would help ensure that they chose to register and get around one of the objections raised by Dylan's earlier.

So, a stasi state in affect.
What's so special about paedos for you that you would have these measures?

 

[aylee]

Child Abuser Registration Regulations 2010

1. All persons over 18 years of age convicted of a crime of a sexual nature concerning persons, or representations of persons, whether in image, sound or literary form, apparently under the age of 18 shall be designated as registered child abusers.

2. Registered child abusers shall be photographed and their photos placed in a register of child abusers which will be made available to the public for viewing at no charge at the offices of the registered child abuser's Local Authority. A copy of the register shall be kept by the Local Authority in a searchable internet accessible electronic form accessible to the public for no charge.

3.The required details to be placed in the register are to be;

i. The registered child abuser's full photograph, face photograph and side photograph.

ii. The registered permanent address of the registered child abuser and any other place he may reside.

iii. Description and registration numbers of any vehicles that the registered child abuser has any financial interest in.

iv. Offences for which the registered child abuser has been convicted.


4.The registered child abuser shall, at his own expense, have his photographs as required in section 3. i) taken at yearly intervals from the time of conviction.

5. The registered child abuser shall stay between the hours of 11pm and 6 a.m at no place other than the registered permanent address without notifying the register and the register being updated accordingly.

6. The registered child abuser shall drive no car other than one registered under section 3 iii. This expressly excludes hire cars and company cars. There shall be no more than three cars registered at any one time.


7. To ease identification registered child abusers shall be restricted to facial hairgrowth of no more than 2mm in length and no other head hair shall be allowed to grow beyond 10mm in length.

8. It shall be an offence to commit a breach of, or be a party to any breach of, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7.

9. It shall be an offence to knowingly or unknowingly, provide shelter, food or sustinance to any person who is in breach of section 8.

10. It shall be a defence to an offence under section 9 to show that all reasonable precautions and due diligence have been taken to avoid the commissioning of an offence.

11. Where a person has committed an offence under section 8 he may on summary conviction be liable for a £20,000 fine and six months imprisonment for each offence.On indictment he may be liable for a fine and imprisonment as seen fit.

12. Where a person, including the officers of a company, has committed an offence under section 9, he may on summary conviction be liable for a £20,000 fine and six months imprisonment for each offence.On indictment he may be liable for a fine and imprisonment as determined.

13. In addition to the penalties outlined in section 11 a person convicted of an offence under section 8 shall be liable to forfeiture of all properties, whether financial, movable or immovable as to be determined by the Court.

14. Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 shall be abrogated where the suicide concerns a registered sex offender.

15. The Local Authority may, as it sees fit, place conditions on the registered child abuser's admittance to the register. In the event that the conditions are breached, the registered child abuser shall be in breach of section 8.

16. No conditions shall be in place which are in breach of obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998.

LOL .... please tell me you're not a Parliamentary draftsman?

Actually, if you were, it would explain the abominable drafting of some of the legislation that I've been called upon to interpret for clients over the last sixteen and a bit years of my life.

Stick to playing rubbish soprano sax, mate.

 

[aylee]

9. It shall be an offence to knowingly or unknowingly, provide shelter, food or sustinance to any person who is in breach of section 8.

I mean the suicide one just shows kenny g to be a grade a* cunt, but this is just funny.

Actually, the government has of course just passed legislation in a similar form to criminalise men who unknowingly use prostitutes who are being forced to work against their will, even if there is no reason for them to believe that to be the case.

At least one can put a case for such legislation .... what Kenny G is doing is to criminalise the little old lady who finds a homeless person sleeping in the doorway of a church, shows him a little kindness and doesn't know that he is registrable under Kenny's nonsensical legislation.

So basically Kenny G is even madder than Harriet Harman. Which is an achievement and a half.

 

[aylee]

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.

You really have no clue at all, do you?

The point about strict liability offences is that liability arises merely by virtue of the existence of a factual situation. You do not have a defence by showing that you did everything you could to comply or to avoid the situation that is criminalised.

An offence containing a defence for taking reasonable precautions or for showing that you undertook due diligence is not a strict liability offence.

Quadruple facepalm for Kenny ....

 

[kenny g]

Not so. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968, Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Licensing Act 2003, Food Safety Act 1990 and a host of regulatory offences contain due diligence defences but are commonly described as strict liability.

To quote page 12 of Butterworths Trading and Consumer Law/Division 1A Unfair Commercial Practices/Unfair Commercial Practices/Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

If a trader engages in a commercial practice which is a misleading omission under reg 6 then the trader can be prosecuted for a strict liability criminal offence under reg 10.

look at the 2008 Regulations http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ukdsi_9780110811574_en_3#pt3-l1g13

17.—(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under regulation 9, 10, 11 or 12 it is a defence for that person to prove—
(a)that the commission of the offence was due to—
(i)a mistake;
(ii)reliance on information supplied to him by another person;
(iii)the act or default of another person;
(iv)an accident; or
(v)another cause beyond his control; and
(b)that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.

I can go on if you wish. With regard to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968:

Strict liability

The scheme of the Act is to impose strict liability (except with regard to false statements as to services under s 14). The offender is liable without proof of mens rea provided the defendant had knowledge that a trade description is applied Cottee v Douglas Seaton (Used Cars) Ltd [1972] 3 All ER 750, [1972] 1 WLR 1408 (see para [1] above). See, for confirmatory statements to this effect, Alec Norman Engineering Co Ltd v Phillips (1984) 148 JP 741 and Chilvers v Rayner [1984] 1 All ER 843, [1984] 1 WLR 328, QBD:
'I am satisfied that s 1(1) of the 1973 [Hallmarking] Act is, like the offence created by s 1(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, an absolute offence (per Robert Goff LJ).'


The scheme balances this imposition of strict liability by making available statutory defences, particularly under s 24.

Butterworths Trading and Consumer Law

While many consumer protection measures impose strict criminal liability the truly innocent offender will often be able to escape liability where he can show that one of the statutory defences provided for in most consumer protection legislation applies in his case. By far the most important of these is the defence that the person charged has taken all reasonable precautions and has acted with due diligence in order to avoid the commission if the offence charged. ( Weights and Measures Act 1985 s. 34 (1); Consumer Protection Act 1987 s.39(1), Food safety Act s.21(1); Property misdescriptions Act 1991, s.2(1) )

Oughton, David, Textbook on Consumer Law, 2nd Edition, 2000 p.416

In fact, a whole host of strict liability offences have statutory defences such as the ones outlined.

All that my proposed legislation would do is enshrine in law the need for persons to ensure that they do not harbour convicted child abusers who are not in compliance with registration requirements.

 

[kenny g]

You really have no clue at all, do you?

The point about strict liability offences is that liability arises merely by virtue of the existence of a factual situation. You do not have a defence by showing that you did everything you could to comply or to avoid the situation that is criminalised.

An offence containing a defence for taking reasonable precautions or for showing that you undertook due diligence is not a strict liability offence.

Quadruple facepalm for Kenny ....

as I thought, you appear to be confusing absolute offences and strict liability ones, as Lord Justice Goff did in the Hallmarking case, Chilvers v Rayner [1984] 1 All ER 843, [1984] 1 WLR 328, QBD:

'I am satisfied that s 1(1) of the 1973 [Hallmarking] Act is, like the offence created by s 1(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, an absolute offence (per Robert Goff LJ).

The Hallmarking Act contains an absolute offence as it has no statutory defence. Where there is a statutory defence, such as one of due diligence and reasonable precautions, (as is the case with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968) but no mens rea element, then the offence is one of strict liability:

In his text Criminal Law, Peter Gillies explains strict liability as follows:
“Some Courts in recent years have undertaken a threefold classification of
offences by reference to the notion of culpability: (a) offences of mens rea;
(b) offences of strict liability, in respect of which the prosecution does not
have to prove fault – although it is open to D to exculpate herself or
himself by adducing evidence of reasonable care, in which case the
prosecution must negative this matter; and (c) offences of absolute
liability, in respect of which the prosecution does not have to prove fault
and D is precluded from exculpating herself or himself by pointing to
evidence of care. Both of the latter two categories require proof, then,
only of the prohibited act, viz, they are offences consisting only of actus
reus….It should be noted at the outset that the common law requires
mens rea. It follows that offences of strict and absolute liability will be
statutory ones, with the legislation (as construed by the courts) providing
expressly or (more commonly) by implication, that mens rea is not
required to be proven, viz, is not an element of the offence.”

SUBMISSION TO THE AUSTRALIAN SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF BILLS INQUIRY INTO ABSOLUTE AND STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCES
February 2002 paragraph 2.5 http://tinyurl.com/yd7dqop

 

[ViolentPanda]

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're choosing to believe that the law says something that it doesn't.
Want to know what it pertains to?
Specifically the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, empowering local authorities to work together with other statutory and voluntary agencies toward "community crime prevention" programmes and other concomitants to "regenerating" areas by ghettoising the working classes.

You must have missed my earlier post,

Nope.

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.

So you're saying "let's create a new department in every local authority to deal with this issue, and while we're at it, let's allocate it powers outside of the remit of a local authority, 'cos then we can keep the paedos under surveillance".
Feh!

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.

Says who?
Whoops, forgot. In kenny g land, what you say is reality, isn't it?
In spite, of course, of the fact that most local authorities have a hard job functioning as things are, without being constantly being tasked with new statutory responsibilities.

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?

Only the fact that unless you refer to the original legislation through later amendments you don't get the whole picture (because provisos can be added, new points of law establish new interpretations etc). Amendments to acts are the bane of anyone who has to deal with them, as you'll know if you actually have a clue what you're talking about.

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?

Irrelevant.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh, and stop searching westlaw, it's crap.

 

[kenny g]

I haven't got westlaw.

Anyway, thank you for clarifying that your point that referring the the Childrens and Young Persons Act 1933 is incorrect due to it having been amended is baseless.

And that the fact the European Communities Act 1972 has been amended is irrelevant to the fact that rafts of Regulations continue to be made under it.

So, your original point was completely wrong, wasn't it?


Your understanding of the reach of the Local Government Act 2000 is similarly woeful. It encompasses far more than the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. As you don't understand this your later point misses the mark.

 

[existentialist]

I am sure people who have been on the receiving end of child abusers find your levity towards the matter as sickening as I do.

I have been on the receiving end of child abusers.

I find your posturing and patronising prissiness (sorry about the alliteration, it wasn't deliberate) far more offensive than people parodying your ridiculous position in an attempt to demonstrate its idiocy.

 

[kenny g]

posturing and patronising prissiness

No need to be personal.

 

[dylans]

No need to be personal.

Kenny. Stand strong against those do gooding liberals. We know that together we can make the world a safer place for lynch mobs, er.. I mean children.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I haven't got westlaw.

Yeah, right.

Anyway, thank you for clarifying that your point that referring the the Childrens and Young Persons Act 1933 is incorrect due to it having been amended is baseless.

I see you're choosing to interpret answers in your own special way, kenny.

And that the fact the European Communities Act 1972 has been amended is irrelevant to the fact that rafts of Regulations continue to be made under it.

So, your original point was completely wrong, wasn't it?

And again..
The original acts have to be viewed through subsequent amendments. If they're not, legislators run a risk of misapplying the law.

Your understanding of the reach of the Local Government Act 2000 is similarly woeful. It encompasses far more than the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. As you don't understand this your later point misses the mark.

Dear dufus,
I said that the points you referred to encompassed the execution of statutory duties under CDA98, not the entirety of LGA2000.
Don't misrepresent me, there's a good boy.

 

[aylee]

as I thought, you appear to be confusing absolute offences and strict liability ones, as Lord Justice Goff did in the Hallmarking case, Chilvers v Rayner [1984] 1 All ER 843, [1984] 1 WLR 328, QBD:


The Hallmarking Act contains an absolute offence as it has no statutory defence. Where there is a statutory defence, such as one of due diligence and reasonable precautions, (as is the case with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968) but no mens rea element, then the offence is one of strict liability:



SUBMISSION TO THE AUSTRALIAN SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF BILLS INQUIRY INTO ABSOLUTE AND STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCES
February 2002 paragraph 2.5 http://tinyurl.com/yd7dqop

The standard practitioners' textbook on criminal law, Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, treats "absolute" offence and "strict liability" offence as synonymous in para 17.15 of the 2006 edition (the latest one I have here at home).

Maybe the terminology's different in Australia, but as for UK law I'll go with the standard textbook, thanks.

 

[kenny g]

The standard practitioners' textbook on criminal law, Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, treats "absolute" offence and "strict liability" offence as synonymous in para 17.15 of the 2006 edition (the latest one I have here at home).

Maybe the terminology's different in Australia, but as for UK law I'll go with the standard textbook, thanks.

Relying on a Criminal law text such as Archbold's when considering regulatory offences is understandable, but wrong headed. Butterworth's Trading and Consumer Law contains numerous references to strict liability offences with statutory defences.

And Goff LJ, in Chilvers v Rayner [1984] 1 All ER 843, [1984] 1 WLR 328, QBD expressly states that Trade Descriptions Act 1968 s.1 (1) offences are absolute. There is a s.24 statutory defence in the 1968 Act.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1968/PDF/ukpga_19680029_en.pdf

 

[kenny g]

.
The original acts have to be viewed through subsequent amendments. If they're not, legislators run a risk of misapplying the law.

No shit Sherlock. But it is standard to refer to the original, unamended Act when it is still in force. That is why rafts of Regulations are made under the European Communities Act 1972, it is why people still refer to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 even though it has had umpteen amendments.

I said that the points you referred to encompassed the execution of statutory duties under CDA98, not the entirety of LGA2000.

I never referred to the entirety of LGA2000, I referred specifically to s. 2(1) (b) as you well know.

And no, I don't have access to Westlaw. Your view that I must do so just goes to show your own limitations.

 

[Jonti]

No need to be personal.

I think it's entirely understandable that a survivor of abuse would treat you with unbridled contempt. Your nostrums are emotional and selfish. They are driven by your own psychopathology, and not a concern to empower children.

Your posturing and patronising prissiness grates. It is deeply offensive to folks -- like survivors -- who are serious about the issues.

Sort it out, kenny!

 

[existentialist]

I think it's entirely understandable that a survivor of abuse would treat you with unbridled contempt. Your nostrums are emotional and selfish. They are driven by your own psychopathology, and not a concern to empower children.

Your posturing and patronising prissiness grates. It is deeply offensive to folks -- like survivors -- who are serious about the issues.

Sort it out, kenny!

Any unbridled contempt in my words was unconscious, but it is definitely true to say that anyone for whom the question of child sexual abuse is a real thing, rather than a handy cause by which to indulge in a bit of righteous anger, would find the way kenny is hijacking this issue at the very least distasteful.

What kenny clearly fails to realise is that survivors of abuse - apparently unlike him - usually succeed in moving through the stage of being angry at their abusers, and reach a point where finding some kind of understanding and insight into what happened to them is far more important.

Kenny still seems stuck at the anger stage, and seems to insist that it is his right to deny anyone else - even those with the most intimate and first-hand experience of what he's maundering on about - the right to express their views in any way that's different from his.

Which says quite a lot about him.

 

[kenny g]

Kenny still seems stuck at the anger stage, and seems to insist that it is his right to deny anyone else - even those with the most intimate and first-hand experience of what he's maundering on about - the right to express their views in any way that's different from his.

Which says quite a lot about him.

Far from it. I have not denied anyone else the right to express anything on this thread. I have objected to US statistics being used in an attempt to deny any suggestion that a register would be appropriate. In fact, I said that people's own direct experiences were more valuable then the use of US sociology papers.

It is you who has launched an attack based on the prissiness of my posting style.

 

[existentialist]

Far from it. I have not denied anyone else the right to express anything on this thread.

You've not been shy to resort to some pretty dismissive language about people whose opinions you don't agree with. You have hectored and browbeaten the entire thread - the impression does rather come across that, instead of presenting counter-arguments to what others have said, you'd much rather undermine them, personally.

I have objected to US statistics being used in an attempt to deny any suggestion that a register would be appropriate. In fact, I said that people's own direct experiences were more valuable then the use of US sociology papers.

It is you who has launched an attack based on the prissiness of my posting style.

Do you see what you're doing here?

Feel that lovely warm feeling of victimhood? Good, isn't it? I often find that this rush to feel victimised is often a handy and comfortable way of avoiding any kind of responsibility. So, in this case, it's not "I have repellent views that have clearly offended loads of people", but "People are attacking me personally for daring to speak the truth". Convenient, but bollocks nonetheless.

I attacked the prissiness of your VIEWS. I did not attack you personally. I was, it must be said, a little irritated that, 30-odd pages in, someone who clearly has little knowledge and even less experience in the field of child sexual abuse should presume to try and speak on behalf of people who've been abused. That irritation was largely thanks to the way in which you seem to feel entitled to roar around the thread using intemperate language - "paedo beasts" - but the moment anyone engages you on the same terms, it's shrinking violet time - that willing victimhood again, I expect.

It is patronising for you to assume that you know a) how anyone who has been abused might feel about it, and b) that you are in any position to gainsay any one of quite a number of clearly well-informed people on here. As for whatever all that nonsense quoting from legal databases is about, well, I'm quietly ignoring it - it just looks like a bit of posturing to me.

Hawk your ignorant prejudices around all you like - nobody's going to stop you doing that. But don't expect to be able to do so, and be quite so wrong so often, and not find yourself being held to account by people who disagree with you.

And whining about people accusing you of being "prissy", well, it's a bit of a QED moment, isn't it?

 

[dylans]

As for whatever all that nonsense quoting from legal databases is about, well, I'm quietly ignoring it

Me too. What that jibberish was all about and what point it served is beyond me ( except for making the thread interminably dull and tedious)

 

[existentialist]

Me too. What that jibberish was all about and what point it served is beyond me ( except for making the thread interminably dull and tedious)

I still think he's just fucking about/trolling.

Which rather gives the lie to his pious protestations about the feelings of people who've been abused.