Paedophiles named and shamed online

[sheddy]

I do fail to understand how those details have got into the public domain though. There was a court case today which I am aware of because we are connected with the person concerned. The "accused" is married (now separated) with three kids, his home was raided by the plod early one morning and his computer was taken as evidence. On that computer are thousands of images of children and his credit card statements confirm that he was paying to download those images.

If you look at the results listings on the HMCS website, there are no details on there about the case as he has pleaded not guilty. All there is is a line of asterix's where his name and offence should be, the rest of the listings are as normal. There are also reporting restrictions in place due to the nature of the charges.

So how does that website get details of the cases and the offenders if they are not guilty? (genuine question)

 

[Kaouthia]

So how does that website get details of the cases and the offenders if they are not guilty? (genuine question)

They try to appeal to people in situations similar to yours where you know more than the "official" report to submit the data.

The court case today, was it concluded? I'm sure the details would be released once a guilty verdict has been reached.

 

[sheddy]

It's was a referral hearing today. The defendant enters his plea of guilty/not guilty and then it gets referred on for either sentencing or trial by jury. By doing it this way the Crown Court has a better idea of how much time the case will take, hearings just for sentencing are very quick.

 

[Kaouthia]

That's why they haven't released details yet. Last I checked we were still innocent until proven guilty (unless you're a photographer ), so they hide the names to prevent details ending up on sites like the one noted in this topic.

 

[Vic]

So how does that website get details of the cases and the offenders if they are not guilty? (genuine question)

There is name on their based on an article in The Sun. No charge just an investigation from one persons claim, then someone has called the newsdesk. :shake:

 

[sheddy]

If it were up to me I would have all sex offenders kept away from the public full stop or even let the victims deal with them, but as it stands they are being let into society and we have to respect the law and relevant authorities to deal with them. >>>>>

I think that is where my support for vigilante's comes from. I have neither respect nor trust for the Law or the Authorities in these cases. I do not think the authorities go far enough in punishing these people and I don't think the Law does enough to protect our children from their further offences.

 

[sheddy]

That's why they haven't released details yet. Last I checked we were still innocent until proven guilty (unless you're a photographer or motorist), so they hide the names to prevent details ending up on sites like the one noted in this topic.

Thats better!

 

[Vic]

I think that is where my support for vigilante's comes from. I have neither respect nor trust for the Law or the Authorities in these cases. I do not think the authorities go far enough in punishing these people and I don't think the Law does enough to protect our children from their further offences.

I agree but it is the law. And until that changes, vigilantism is illegal and dangerous.

 

[Treesie]

I agree with alot of what has been said in this thread...mainly that if people believed the justice system was working, then there would;

A) Be no need for this type of website to be launched in the first place
and
B) No risk of vigilantism

Out of curiosity, did any of you take to the streets over the weekend and hunt down your nearest paedophile? The reason I ask, I spoke to a friend over the weekend who said to me that he believes that the vigilante threat is nere non-existant...merely old wives tales created by the media to back-up their protection of paedophiles and perverts. Its a little bit "out there", smells of conspiracy theory, but curious all the same!

Totally agree with you on this however I don't agree with its source of information. I am however in full support of Sarahs Law which I believe is to be rolled out in a further 4 counties. Families have the right to know if they are living near such a risk.

 

[Markegee]

The point is that this website is listing people who may or may not be paedophiles based upon rumour and hearsay from neighbours or co-workers who think they look a bit dodgy, with no convictions, history or basis of fact.

What are you basing that assumption on? From what I can see (ive spent a good few hours on there cross-referencing between this and Googling other sources), everybody listed on this website is either charged or convicted.

 

[Kaouthia]

What are you basing that assumption on?

There is name on their based on an article in The Sun. No charge just an investigation from one persons claim, then someone has called the newsdesk. :shake:

Everybody knows that the tabloids won't let silly things like the truth or a conviction get in the way of a good story.

I haven't spent several hours on there cross-referencing articles as I've more productive things to do with my time.

Edit : 30 seconds on the site I found this..

http://www.theratbook.com/Articles/Article/man_in_court_accused_of_having_indecent_images

Accused. Not convicted, and they even put the guy's address there. Charged doesn't mean guilty.