Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth

[phildwyer]

It's not my term.
It's a sociological term, first coined by Stanley Cohen in the 1970s to describe a disproportionate social response to a perceived problem.

Yep. Cohen´s example was Mods and Rockers, but there have been many subsequent studies on other instances. My favorite book on the subject is Eric Goode's The Social Construction of Deviance. Phillip Jenkins has written on the specific issue of paedophilia as moral panic here:

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Panic-Changing-Concepts-Molester/dp/0300073879

The strange thing is, no matter how much the phenomena is analysed, there are always enough idiots to support the next one. I guess the world will never run short of suckers.

 

[dylans]

Kenny G
No, to be accessed by anyone. Just because there was a council estate in plymouth where people went off the rails does not mean that no one else has the right to access a comprehensive database of their local convicted paedos

People like this?

The mother of William Elliott insists her son was 19 and his girlfriend just two weeks shy of her 16th birthday when the couple had sex - behaviour about which people may have differing opinions, but which in the state of Maine was enough to earn him a conviction for statutory rape.

The information about the couple's ages was not available when a vigilante, Stephen Marshall, went online to search for registered sex offenders to kill. Instead, he simply read that in 2002 Elliott pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual abuse of a minor and had served four months in jail. Marshall was also able to access his complete address.

In the early hours of 16 April this year, armed with that information and two handguns, Marshall drove to Elliott's home in the small town of Corinth and shot him dead. The same night, he visited the house of 57-year-old Joseph Gray - also registered on the sex offenders list - and killed him as his petrified wife stood helplessly by.

"My son was not a paedophile," Elliott's mother, Shirley Turner, said. "He shouldn't have been labelled like that. All he wanted to do was to love that girl and make a family. [Without the registry] he'd still be alive today. I'd still have him."

Oh well, just because there was a vigilante in the USA who accessed the registry to kill doesn't mean we shouldn't have a useless law inspired by the News of The World and populist pressure.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-the-bitter-legacy-of-megans-law-405254.html

 

[phildwyer]

Bring on the moral panics!

I've seen some daft statements on these boards, but that takes the biscuit.

Are you by any chance a tabloid journalist? If so, then your living depends on fostering moral panics, so I guess it's understandable. If not, you're nuts.

 

[kenny g]

People like this?


Oh well, just because there was a vigilante in the USA who accessed the registry to kill doesn't mean we shouldn't have a useless law inspired by the News of The World and populist pressure.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-the-bitter-legacy-of-megans-law-405254.html

All that is an argument for is that details of the offence should be available.

Many laws in the states appear to have a pigs ear made of them. That isn't a sufficient argument for not having a law.

But, we are now discussing the finer details of the implementation of the register, which is an improvement over your earlier position, no??

You have come a long way from complete denial that this is a serious issue.

And your own evidence seems to suggest that this would not be a useless law so I do not know why you are still suggesting that it is.

 

[dylans]

And apart from everything else. It doesn't even work!

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 sexualoffenses.

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

It doesn't work.

The American law sounds sensible - but the big question is, has it made a difference? Sadly, not a jot, it would seem. Compliance and co-operation with the authorities has actually fallen to 80 per cent as the offenders have simply gone underground. This compares with a compliance of 97 per cent for the paedophile register in Britain.

The evidence shows that Megan's Law has failed to prevent offenders repeating their crimes and it has been described as "ineffective" by criminal lawyers in the US. Only vigilante attacks, usually on the wrong people, have been the beneficiaries.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...snt-work-there-and-wont-work-here-697095.html

Unless that is you're a vigilante. Then it works just fine.

PHILLIPSBURG, N.J., Jan. 10— Two men who knew that a recently paroled sex offender was living here because of the community notification provision in "Megan's Law" have been charged with assault in a case that prosecutors are calling the first instance of vigilantism under the new law.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/11/n...linked-to-sex-offenders-law.html?pagewanted=1

Or an arsonist

Stoking opponents' fears of the potentially violent consequences of Megan's Law, authorities reported Thursday that a van owned by a convicted child molester was firebombed last weekend in an apparent vigilante attack--just days after neighbors learned his identity as a result of a new public database.

Los Angeles County sheriff's investigators believe that an arsonist destroyed a van owned by Willie Lee McAlister as it sat in front of his home in unincorporated Covina on Saturday morning--days after one of McAlister's neighbors verified his identity in the CD-ROM database made available to the public by Megan's Law.

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/11/local/me-11789

 

[kenny g]

Are you by any chance a tabloid journalist? If so, then your living depends on fostering moral panics, so I guess it's understandable. If not, you're nuts.

Neither, I am just a concerned person who thinks he should have access to information on the identity of convicted paedo scum for my family and community's safety. I know it is not fool proof but it would go some way to help.

Fortunately, I pretty much know that in my current small town there are only a couple of convicted paedos, both for online porn offences, one a former councillor. In my children's grandparent's town, my home town, there are fucking loads and I would like to be able to identify them in time in order to cross the street when the next beast meanders past with his hands in his pockets playing billiards behind dark glasses and wearing a cap.

As mentioned previously, these scum choose to gather in certain towns. They get convicted, meet each other in prison wings, and then hear that certain places have lots of bedsits, potential victims, transient populations, and networks already in place, and then they scurry to them on release. You get pockets of these filth, and my home town was unfortunately one of them. I expect Weymouth and Bournmouth are two others.

A poor London Borough police station I know has a steady stream of paedo scum coming in through the doors all day to sign the offenders register. The Borough is a dumping ground for London's paedo filth who are given social housing next to decent families. Those families have a right to know what kind of twisted social engineering is taking place as the quiet well spoken man who is good with computers is moved in next door.

 

[dylans]

Kenny G All that is an argument for is that details of the offence should be available.

Yeah right. So then the vigilantes can lynch the right people.

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Struwwelpeter]

Yeah right. So then the vigilantes can lynch the right people.

You're a fucking idiot.

Took the words right out of my keyboard. Kenny G, can you post your address so that we can dish out the "justice" you deserve?

No, I thought not.

 

[kenny g]

Yeah right. So then the vigilantes can lynch the right people.

You're a fucking idiot.

You quote a distressing tale of a 19 year old being shot dead for having sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend. I then suggest that as it wouldn't have taken place if the shooter had known the facts of the case those facts should have been publicised. You call me a fucking idiot based on a completely unfounded claim that I want vigilantes to shoot people.

And you are call me a fucking idiot? Sorry, son, but you should stop digging because the top of the hole isn't getting any nearer.

 

[dylans]

You quote a distressing tale of a 19 year old being shot dead for having sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend. I then suggest that as it wouldn't have taken place if the shooter had known the facts of the case those facts should have been publicised. You call me a fucking idiot based on a completely unfounded claim that I want vigilantes to shoot people.

And you are call me a fucking idiot? Sorry, son, but you should stop digging because the top of the hole isn't getting any nearer.

Oh do fuck off. You know damn well what you are implying. You have proved yourself to be a knuckle dragging thug nothing more and you have been completely destroyed on this thread so give it up.

 

[kenny g]

Kenny G, can you post your address so that we can dish out the "justice" you deserve?

Sure http://doiop.com/my-address

 

[kenny g]

Oh do fuck off. You know damn well what you are implying. You have proved yourself to be a knuckle dragging thug nothing more and you have been completely destroyed on this thread so give it up.

OK, where did I imply that I wanted vigilantes to kill people?

As you appear to be on a witchfinder mission perhaps you could try and justify your assertion? Or perhaps you can't because I haven't implied it anywhere.

You have been fighting straw men all the way through this thread purely because a couple of shitty sociology papers have sparked a "moral panic" synapse in your brain which have convinced you that all reasoned positions on this matter are part of a tabloid driven knuckle dragging agenda.

 

[dylans]

OK, where did I imply that I wanted vigilantes to kill people?

As you appear to be on a witchfinder mission perhaps you could try and justify your assertion? Or perhaps you can't because I haven't implied it anywhere.

You have been fighting straw men all the way through this thread purely because a couple of shitty sociology papers have sparked a "moral panic" synapse in your brain which have convinced you that all reasoned positions on this matter are part of a tabloid driven knuckle dragging agenda.

Ok I will spell it out.

You insist that if the details of offences were publicly available alongside the names and addresses of offenders then the killer in that case may not have targeted William Elliott. He would have had the information to target a more "suitable" target instead.
Given that the killer also targeted and killed another person from the register that night, it is safe to say that is exactly what he would have done. (or he may have gone ahead and killed Elliot anyway)

Why else would you suggest putting the details of offences on the register?

What you cannot admit is the obvious. That putting the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders leads to vigilante attacks.. The evidence is right before you're eyes.

 

[kenny g]

Why else would you suggest putting the details of offences on the register?

So that people know the nature of the offences in order to know who to avoid. That should be obvious.

The 19 year old you mention would be someone you might not want sharing his passion for photography with your fourteen year old daughter, for example, especially in a couple of years when it might seem that his preferences have not changed with his age.

It doesn't mean that I want people to get shot.

Basically, all that would be brought in by this law would be the equilivant of the information people have obtained for generations from friends and acquaintances in a community about who to avoid and who to watch out for, and who to not leave alone with the pigs.

 

[_angel_]

I seem to have missed where anyone suggested wanting to lynch anyone.

 

[phildwyer]

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

Sorry to say it, but you strike me as a seriously disturbed individual. I wouldn't want you living next door to me.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

It might sound good taking the strongest possible line against abusers. However, I don't know any victims of abuse that want their abuser dead.

I think the current setup is relatively successful.

 

[dylans]

So that people know the nature of the offences in order to know who to avoid. That should be obvious.

The 19 year old you mention would be someone you might not want sharing his passion for photography with your fourteen year old daughter, for example, especially in a couple of years when it might seem that his preferences have not changed with his age.

It doesn't mean that I want people to get shot.

Basically, all that would be brought in by this law would be the equilivant of the information people have obtained for generations from friends and acquaintances in a community about who to avoid and who to watch out for, and who to not leave alone with the pigs.

I have given you example after example after example of vigilante attacks based specifically on information supplied by the sex offenders register. You choose to ignore them because they don't fit your agenda. Your argument flies in the face of the evidence. Information in the register has been accessed by vigilantes. FACT. People have been attacked. FACT.

Youre argument is finished but hey keep denying reality if it suits your agenda

 

[dylans]

The 19 year old you mention would be someone you might not want sharing his passion for photography with your fourteen year old daughter, for example, especially in a couple of years when it might seem that his preferences have not changed with his age.
.

Well you don't need to worry do you . BECAUSE HE'S DEAD!

 

[kenny g]

Well you don't need to worry do you . BECAUSE HE'S DEAD!

Have you ever been tested for aspergers by the way?

 

[dylans]

Have you ever been tested for aspergers by the way?

That's right, throw your rattle out of the pram because you''ve lost the argument.

 

[kenny g]

No, it is just that you only seem to be able to take things extremely literally. So, for example, when I used your example of a 19 year old who had had a relationship with a fifteen year old, rather than understanding the metaphorical substance of my point you seemed to be limited to the literal consequences of your account.

This shows either:

You are very limited in one area of cognitive ability or/

You are just a dick who will never try to engage in a normal discussion.

Either way. Enjoy.

 

[_angel_]

It might sound good taking the strongest possible line against abusers. However, I don't know any victims of abuse that want their abuser dead.

I think the current setup is relatively successful.

I'm not sure that it is. Unfortunately people with these histories (of abuse) have a very high re-offending rate.

Also, I don't think this would render the abuser dead, any more likely than any publicity surrounding the conviction and jailing would already ensure.

However, if people deemed a danger to the public were kept in jail until they were no longer a danger, there'd be no need for any of this.

 

[dylans]

No, it is just that you only seem to be able to take things extremely literally. So, for example, when I used your example of a 19 year old who had had a relationshipt ewith a fifteen year old, rather than understanding the metaphorical substance of my point you seemed to be limited to the literal consequences of your account.

This shows either:

You are very limited in one area of cognitive ability or/

You are just a dick who will never try to engage in a normal discussion.

Either way. Enjoy.

Metaphorical substance of your point?. A guy accessed the kids details from the sex register went to his house and blew his brains out. He then went to another guy's house, whose details he obtained from the register, and killed him too. That's a fact, yet you want to make names addresses and details of sex offenders accessible to the anyone who chooses to look ffs?

If you want to argue that then fine, at least have the balls to accept the inevitable consequences of doing that.

 

[_angel_]

I thought the idea was to make details known of offenders living locally to groups like local schools and residents associations/ neighbourhood watches. Not any Tom Dick or Harry off the street.
I don't think we should "copy America" or start putting the 16YO who slept with a 15 YO gf on the list -- altho in this country they would hardly be prosecuted in the first place.

 

[tbaldwin]

What is sad is that morons like you so willingly join the ranks of those who follow hysterical moral panics. We have seen it again and again and you never learn.

Skunk deaths. Video nasties, swine flu, satanic abuse, trafficking, rottweilers, muggers, knife crime, Jazz music, mods and rockers, and now "pedos" the list goes on and on. Hysterical scare mongering by sensationalist tabloids. Never short of idiots like you to join in.

Your imagination runs away with you. You seriously imagine that anyone who disagrees with you does so only because they are being whipped up by the evil media hysteria.
You come across as a hysterical egotistical twat.
People can be concerned about child molesters without being whipped up by the media. And they can also be concerned without carrying dylans book of handy facts about everything.
I wonder if you have any real experience of the subject?

 

[dylans]

Angel. I thought the idea was to make details known of offenders living locally to groups like local schools and residents associations/ neighbourhood watches. Not any Tom Dick or Harry off the street.

You want to trust this kind of information to some dickhead little Hitler in the neighbour hood watch scheme.? And of course they aren't going to tell anyone are they? Oh no of course not. There is a sex offender in the street and they are going to keep that information to themselves, yeah right.

 

[dylans]

I wonder if you have any real experience of the subject?

If you have to stoop that low then you have already conceded the argument. It's as absurd for you to speculate on my experiences as it is for me to speculate on yours. So let's just stick to the issue.

 

[dylans]

tbaldwin
You come across as a hysterical egotistical twat.

And you come across as a knuckle dragging moron with contempt for evidence and facts.

Your imagination runs away with you. You seriously imagine that anyone who disagrees with you does so only because they are being whipped up by the evil media hysteria.

I think that those who are moved to demonstrate against imaginary bogeymen are completely whipped up by media led moral panics yeah. The News of the World name and shame campaign is a classic example.

tbaldwin
And they can also be concerned without carrying dylans book of handy facts about everything.

Better than carrying Tbaldwins crayon scrawled placard and half house brick.

 

[_angel_]

You want to trust this kind of information to some dickhead little Hitler in the neighbour hood watch scheme.? And of course they aren't going to tell anyone are they? Oh no of course not. There is a sex offender in the street and they are going to keep that information to themselves, yeah right.

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.