Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth
- Thread starter PlanX
- Start date
Can you be clear about what you¨re saying here, please?
Are you saying that you think Maxine Carr should be physically attacked?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
He's saying that and more. He is saying that attacks on innocent people are justifiable because the real Maxine Carr can't be found and lynched. What a twat.
He's saying that and more. He is saying that attacks on innocent people are justifiable because the real Maxine Carr can't be found and lynched. What a twat.
I¨m not sure what he¨s saying.
I am sure that hysterical, irrational and obsessive denunciations of "paedos" conceal a hidden agenda.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
You have this on it's head. The opposite is the case. When people demonstrate against "pedo's" They are unconsciously saying. Look at us. We don't abuse. We are normal. Abusers are people out there. they are identifiable strangers brought in to our communities by outsiders, by do-gooders. Communities which are otherwise moral and pure. All we need to do is drive out the monsters and everything will be ok.
It is a red herring and distracts from the reality which is that abuse is overwhelmingly domestic at all levels.
Sorry, what the fuck does any of this have to do with Maxine Carr? Or public access to details about convicted sex offenders?
I'm not saying that violence against people mistakenly thought to be sex offenders doesn't happen. But you've made some fairly specific claims about these demonstrations and US style laws allowing people to know about paedophiles living in their community, which you've not really backed up so much as waved in the general direction of tangentally related incidents.
Media reports of isolated incidents being, of course, the best way to get an accurate picture of wider social issues.phildwyer said:
_angel_
.
No that's a stupid comparison. If it is *all* the time it is a shit way to bring up kids. If it is to stop them running into traffic etc there's a reason for it. Either way not comparable with rape or murder.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I will assume you are willfully ignoring the point and you are not just stupid. No one is comparing it to rape and murder. I am merely pointing out that by focusing on bogeymen and monsters and other non existant threats to our kids. We blindly ignore the low level abuse that is all around us.
More than that, such demonstrations actually risk increasing such abuse because they label the problem as the other, the outsider, the stranger, the "pedo" instead of looking at ourselves and our own communities. They say. Look at us. We are better than the evil stranger. We can demonstrate against the "pedo" because we are pure and good. Abuse is something that is brought into our communities by outsiders. It doesn't exist without them. The solution is simple. Move the "pedo" and everything will be rosy.
You are aware that the overwhelming majority of sexual and physical abuse occurs in the home?
_angel_
.
WOW! Quite a lot of patronising there.
Banging on and on again and again about "abuse happening in the home" (I do know, thanks) does not actually mean that parents are wrong to be concerned about sex offenders being housed in their communities. It is not a "myth" at all as it does happen.
I am well aware, thankyou, of the risk being "low" but it does not mean someone is wrong for being worried about it when and if sex offenders are being placed in close proximity to them.
Why is there always a "you can't be worried about x because y also happens" attitude on here??
By the way -- actually someone on this thread has a) defined shouting at your kids as abuse and neglect and someone has also b) gone on to define neglect as the "worst kind of abuse". So actually the argument seemed to be saying that shouting at your kids = the worst kind of abuse. Can you really judge someone that well by just passing them on the street?
_angel_
.
She is not a sex offender.
Her address has not been made public.
How on earth would a proposed change in the law have made this situation worse??
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
If it's all the time, it's abuse. Just as damaging as sexual abuse.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Are you that dense?
In August 2000 the News Of the World published the names and photos of people it said were convicted sex offenders. The result was a string of vigilante attacks on suspected "pedo's" including several people who were completely innocent. A direct result of these names being published.
And you think this isn't relevent to the argument that making the addresses of sex offenders public leads to vigilante attacks? It did, it does and it will.
.
1. This is a recipe for vigilantism. It has been shown to be exactly that.
2. It is a red herring which distracts from the reality of child abuse.
No, Maxine Carr is not a sex offender. She is however a hate figure, a tabloid inspired bogeyman . Imagine what would happen if her address was known
_angel_
.
Are YOU that dense?
Why on earth do you think I agree with the News of the World publishing people's addresses.. and especially of 'suspected' paedophiles.
If the police - not the tabloid press- made information, not speculation available to local communities -- ie NOT for press release, then that would actually be information that was correct being passed on to local communities.
That would be the opposite of a tabloid hysteria campaign based on half truths and vagueness.
Maxine Carr's address (again - not a paedohphile) and identity is being protected simply because our media did indeed instigate a hate campaign against her. Totally not what I agree with being done (the hate campaign)
If people were given a bit of respect in the first place to deal with these issues, maybe the tabloids wouldn't be able to exploit the very fact that they have no power or no say over what goes on in their local communities by doing something as irresponsible as publishing addresses of people.
Why on earth do you think I agree with the News of the World publishing people's addresses.. and especially of 'suspected' paedophiles.
If the police - not the tabloid press- made information, not speculation available to local communities -- ie NOT for press release, then that would actually be information that was correct being passed on to local communities.
That would be the opposite of a tabloid hysteria campaign based on half truths and vagueness.
Maxine Carr's address (again - not a paedohphile) and identity is being protected simply because our media did indeed instigate a hate campaign against her. Totally not what I agree with being done (the hate campaign)
If people were given a bit of respect in the first place to deal with these issues, maybe the tabloids wouldn't be able to exploit the very fact that they have no power or no say over what goes on in their local communities by doing something as irresponsible as publishing addresses of people.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I'm sorry maybe I am dense so please clarify for me. Are you in favour of Megans law type legislation in the UK? Are you in favour of the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders being given to parents who request them? Who exactly is "local communities?" Because that is exactly what the demonstrators in the OP are demanding.
Of course, such information is going to remain very secure and private isn't it? A parent who is given such information isn't going to tell her neighbours is she?
Of course the Megan's law disclosure legislation in the US hasn't led to vigilante attacks has it?
Its bloody sad how people can come out with shit like " You are aware that the overwhelming majority of sexual and physical abuse occurs in the home" It might make you feel superior but most people strangely enough worry about things they feel they have less control of.
You do know that the amount of people who abuse children is very small don't you......Wot a load of shit.....
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Erm why are you quoting someone elses words under my name. the stuff in bold here
is not my quote. Please edit it to make that clear.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
I do not see why a few people seem to want to hark on about abuse being more common in the home as if this stops the need to publicise convicted paedos. When at home paedos are caught they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home.
Aren't the residents of the communities where these people are dumped allowed to know what is being placed amongst them? Shouldn't potential partners be able to know that the man who wants to move in on the family is a convicted paedo? Shouldn't children have the right to know who the convicted men they should cross the street to avoid are? In fact knowing who these people are will stop them being unknown bogeymen. It will increase safety and improve communities.
Aren't the residents of the communities where these people are dumped allowed to know what is being placed amongst them? Shouldn't potential partners be able to know that the man who wants to move in on the family is a convicted paedo? Shouldn't children have the right to know who the convicted men they should cross the street to avoid are? In fact knowing who these people are will stop them being unknown bogeymen. It will increase safety and improve communities.
_angel_
.
I don't know quite what the difference is either between these two groups of people, or why the majority of sane and rational people are being treated like a hysterical mob- just because there are some idiots out there, who already break the law, despite the fact there's no local official knowledge of paedophiles whereabouts.
Wishing to know whether there's a sex attacker on your street isn't the same thing as burning their house down
I don't think that local residents associations and local primary school governors and staff are likely to be leading a pitchfork assault on someone.
All I would say is that information should not include unconvicted people.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
What leads you to make that assertion?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
It's only an estimate, I admit. Based on the literature of the past, when paedophilia was not stigmatized, and where we find very frequent expressions of desire for people who would today be underage, and comparing that evidence with the rate of detected paedophilia today.
It also seems like common sense to me. Assuming that most people are basically decent, I'd guess that most of those who are unfortunate enough to feel sexual desire for children would repress it as best they could.
Out of interest, what is your attitude towards paedophilia in past societies. Do you consider people like Socrates, Oscar Wilde or Mohammed to be vile disgusting scumbags etc . )Can't find the question mark on my Mexican keyboard). Genuinely interested.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
To be honest if I had kids I could see myself wanting to know whether nonces lived near by, even though I agree it's a bad idea in principle. I already feel slightly nauseous at the thought of a member of the BNP teaching children and if I had children wouldn't want them teaching my kids, even tho its not the same thing. So I guess I would want to know about it tbh.
This isn't my opinion on whether it's right or not btw, it's just a gut feeling. Theoretically I agree it's the wrong idea to have a Megan's Law type thing, I don't agree that it should be right that paedophiles have to put signs up on their lawns and the like. I'm just talking about my emotional reactions and what I think they'd be if I had any kids.
I've always had quite a "law and order" type mindset though in some respects I guess
This isn't my opinion on whether it's right or not btw, it's just a gut feeling. Theoretically I agree it's the wrong idea to have a Megan's Law type thing, I don't agree that it should be right that paedophiles have to put signs up on their lawns and the like. I'm just talking about my emotional reactions and what I think they'd be if I had any kids.
I've always had quite a "law and order" type mindset though in some respects I guess
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I do have a kid and it's precisely because I do that I am so adamantly against this idea. I refuse to raise my child in fear. I refuse to raise my child to approach every person in his life as a potential threat. That is exactly what this stuff does. It destroys trust and it undermines community. Do we really want to live in a world where we CRB everyone in our lives. Where every relationship is seen from the outset as a risk. Where my son can't walk home from school or play outdoors or where I can't drop him off with a neighbour while I pop out to Tesco's? Where I can't start a new relationship without having to prove i'm not a child abuser. Where my son can't invite his friends around to the house to play?
Do we really want to live in a world where privacy no longer exists. Where I have a state given right to know the past of the bloke who has moved down the road. I don't want to know. It's none of my business. I do expect the probation service and whoever is tasked with the rehabilitation of sex offenders to put in place proper procedures to protect the community.
Besides, the idea that all potential abusers are quantifiable and that we are somehow safer because we know the identities of those convicted is a false security. A Megan's law wouldn't have prevented Ian Huntley from committing his murders. He was never previously convicted of any crime.
I refuse to live in fear and I refuse to raise my child to live in fear especially because of a hysterical fear of strangers and a threat that doesn't really exist.
Do we really want to live in a world where privacy no longer exists. Where I have a state given right to know the past of the bloke who has moved down the road. I don't want to know. It's none of my business. I do expect the probation service and whoever is tasked with the rehabilitation of sex offenders to put in place proper procedures to protect the community.
Besides, the idea that all potential abusers are quantifiable and that we are somehow safer because we know the identities of those convicted is a false security. A Megan's law wouldn't have prevented Ian Huntley from committing his murders. He was never previously convicted of any crime.
I refuse to live in fear and I refuse to raise my child to live in fear especially because of a hysterical fear of strangers and a threat that doesn't really exist.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
He was accused of a lot. And in today's climate one hopes he would have been put in front of a court a lot earlier.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3313501.stm
So Ian Huntley didn't exist? Ian Brady didn't exist?
My children don't live in fear and I don't mind them talking to strangers etc etc. But then I don't know of anyone on the sex offenders register in my town.
When I was a child I lived in a town where the priest was later locked up, the head of the local boys rugby club was locked up, the head master of the nearby grammar school was locked up, and the former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange was living. For some reason the town attracts paedo's like flies. I even saw that the local teacher of the year was locked up a couple of years back, when he was released he set up a nationwide schools internet resource for primary schools, was then found with more child abuse pictures and has been locked up again.
When I go back home I am a little wary, and I believe it is justified.
In London I know of areas where peado's are let loose after release. They are watched and monitored but at the end of the day it is unacceptable that decent family areas should be subjected to these people in concentration without the community being informed.
It is probably the same in Weymouth. I can imagine paedo's are attracted to the place due to the large transient population and they feel that they can network in relative obscurity.
Just because people are aware of who the paedo is doesn't mean they have anything to fear. I would have thought it meant they had less. It is, however, what the paedo fears the most because he craves respectability.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
One of the schools I went to almost certainly has its share of paedos (most of them women) with one paedo being convicted in the last few years for incidents 20years ago - and I believe that there are going to be some scandals in the next few years regarding it. If someone ever gets it together to complain about it.
JimW
支那暗杀团
This is full of false dichotomies; why can trust only be built in ignorance, and is it real or healthy if it is? It is in fact true that there is risk in much of what your child will do out in the world, and they can be aware of that without being in constant excessive fear - recall that's how I was brought up - warned about the dangers of the world but let out to play in it anyway.
As for privacy, it's a very recent entry into human social life - most people in the world have very little and even in the West families and communities knew a lot more about each other's business than we seem to think is normal today. I quite like having some, but it's a bit over the top to pretend that a world without it is some unimaginable horror. The genuinely disturbing thing you do mention, the intrusion of the modern state, actually arose hand in hand with the atomised life of individual secrecy combined with a disempowered community. While I don't deny there's serious issues at stake, you don't help this dystopian situation when you scare-monger about ordinary people as merely a lynch mob waiting to form.
