REPUGNANT - The End!!

Bernie174 said:
BSM

To save you the trouble of going and looking.

In 2012 there were 29,837 pedophiles on the sex offenders register. All those with a conviction are automatically placed on it.

Of those 941 re offended, thats 3.1%. Far less than sex offenders in general.

So, it seems that your guessing doesn't hold any water.

The figures come from the NSPCC.
Click to expand...

Genuine questions: Does that mean that of the 29,837 peadophiles registered in 2012, 941 of them re-offendid IN 2012??
Are there any numbers for how many of them ever re-offended before their deaths?
 
Bernie174 said:
BSM


In 2012 there were 29,837 pedophiles on the sex offenders register. All those with a conviction are automatically placed on it.

Of those 941 re offended, thats 3.1%. Far less than sex offenders in general.
Click to expand...
Crystal ball?? You have absolutely no idea how many re-offended, only those who were re-convicted.
 
well that was a delightful read.. and yes it a disgusting crime and personally i think the sentances aren't strong enough.

i have to say though, bernie is getting a lot of unwarranted grief for pointing out facts from a position of his experience of the law. rather than defending anything that has been done.

several necks could do with being wound in a peg. im surprised a mod hasnt said that already.
 
viv1969 said:
Genuine questions: Does that mean that of the 29,837 peadophiles registered in 2012, 941 of them re-offendid IN 2012??
Are there any numbers for how many of them ever re-offended before their deaths?
Click to expand...

Good point

and also 941 were caught reoffending - how many got away with it (unanswerable I know)

Also how are we defineing paedophile ? - does that 29,837 include only those who actually assaulted prepubecsent children ? (if so we can only assume that 2012 was a particularly 'good' year for perverts) or is it actually everyone who got placed on the sex offenders register for any offence including sub 18 year olds (thus including 17 year olds with 15 year old girl freinds, people caught in possession of porn etc) ?

According to this link http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-paedophiles-britain/18522 Studies from the Uk, US and Canada suggest that about 40% of child molesters go on to reoffend, with those who target boys outside their own family being most likely to continue to do so

Regardless of whether the rate is 3% or 40% however - don't you think that that is too many ? In fact isn't one reoffence too many ? - Keeping the dirty bastards in jail would cut the level of recidivism to 0%
 
neil_g said:
well that was a delightful read.. and yes it a disgusting crime and personally i think the sentances aren't strong enough.

i have to say though, bernie is getting a lot of unwarranted grief for pointing out facts from a position of his experience of the law. rather than defending anything that has been done.

several necks could do with being wound in a peg. im surprised a mod hasnt said that already.
Click to expand...

Slightly unfair really, his attitude hasn't been great from the start
 
I would prefer misunderstood. Those truly in the know couldn't post a balanced counter view.
 
Bernie174 said:
You suspect? Not know? You've produced no evidence supporting your view, so it's in your view only. Come back with some supporting evidence please.


Simon

Sentences are not tough any more. For murder you'll be lucky to do 14 years, let alone life. You can't though assume, because that is all that you, and to be fair others (albeit your assumption you have at least explained!) are doing.

You cannot know what someone will be like in the future. You might be right, he may still be depraved enough to want to try again. He may not. The same could be said for any other offence as well, yet we don't bang up muggers for life, and it's a dead cert most of them will re offend.. We don't bang rapists (of an adult) up for life either. But again, we are back at the same point, you, we don't know the full circumstances and this is being judged on dubious sources of information. The person who had all of the information needed to make a rational and reasoned decision is the Judge. He has, so who are we to second guess him without that?
Click to expand...

Bernie
I worked once as an Barrister clerk so i do no the in and out of how our legal system works,and yes i do believe some murders & rapists should do whole life sentences.

Plus there has been a bad knock on effect,as i saw from the Angry white & thick thread,where extreme group our getting support by using theses cases to their cause,also some extreme women groups also our using for their agenda.

If we go back to tough sentences for some of theses case i:e the rape of a baby,most of the population would support it,and can anybody 100% g/tee this man won't do it again if he let out,no there can't so to me that risk is to high.in this case and others.
 
I'm sure bernie is a big enough boy to hit RTM if he feels anyone is being nasty to him
 
neil_g said:
well that was a delightful read.. and yes it a disgusting crime and personally i think the sentances aren't strong enough.

i have to say though, bernie is getting a lot of unwarranted grief for pointing out facts from a position of his experience of the law. rather than defending anything that has been done.

several necks could do with being wound in a peg. im surprised a mod hasnt said that already.
Click to expand...

I also have experience of the law :)
 
big soft moose said:
Regardless of whether the rate is 3% or 40% however - don't you think that that is too many ? In fact isn't one reoffence too many ? - Keeping the dirty bastards in jail would cut the level of recidivism to 0%
Click to expand...

Such as for example the roy whiting case http://www.standard.co.uk/news/whiting-played-the-system-then-killed-6335129.htm

Arrested for assaulting a 9 year old, but some absolute **** psychartrist testified that he wasnt a paedophile, the court believed him (because experts are allways right, right ?), and Whiting got just 4 years and was out in just over two - he went on to abduct, assault and murder Sarah Payne

edit : that was supposed to be an edit not a quote :(
 
dejongj said:
It is not about that, really.
Click to expand...

Sure it is.
I'm sure there's a few members with their fingers poised almost permanently over the RTM button because they feel as if they or even someone else, has been wronged. :-)
 
without wishing to sound stupid, how on earth does a grown man manage to be in the company of a 6 month old baby long enough to rape it, im thinking the only possibility is the baby was a family member
 
Right, how about we all calm down a little and be a little more objective about postings, posting about the issue and not the poster. Bear in mind this wouldn't be much of a 'discussion' if the other side of fence wasn't heard, it would just read more like the comments section on a page of the Sun. So, regardless of where you are coming from with your point of view, please try and remain civil to each other or we know where the thread will end up.
 
Gary Coyle said:
without wishing to sound stupid, how on earth does a grown man manage to be in the company of a 6 month old baby long enough to rape it, im thinking the only possibility is the baby was a family member
Click to expand...

IIRC it was a girlfreinds child - these sick bastards quite frequently groom vulnerable mothers in order to get access to their children "sure i'll look after him/her /it while you go out with the girls, no worries "
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Taking this vile offender as the subject then I would imagine he is highly unlikely to be deterred by a max 14 years in prison.
He was convicted of 2 or poss 3 offences (not totally clear on that) but he was grooming a young lad who he never got to meet and he did ask
the man who's wife reported him to bring his children along to meet him ! Who knows how many more that weren't found
Does that really sound like someone who won't do it again, not to me. Next time he will probably just be more cautious with whom
he shares, his vile experiences
 
big soft moose said:
IIRC it was a girlfreinds child - these sick bastards quite frequently groom vulnerable mothers in order to get access to their children "sure i'll look after him/her /it while you go out with the girls, no worries "
Click to expand...

Can we replace vulnerable though?
Was does qualify as "vulnerable" these days? When did gullible and stupid stop being good words?

Not just in this case either btw..."vulnerable" girls and boys "groomed" online etc.....
 
viv1969 said:
Can we replace vulnerable though?
Was does qualify as "vulnerable" these days? When did gullible and stupid stop being good words?

Not just in this case either btw..."vulnerable" girls and boys "groomed" online etc.....
Click to expand...

Vulnerable in the fact that there are some people out there that just cannot cope on their own, be it male or female.
You can call them gullible or stupid but then the predators types find them easy prey and can be very convincing liars
to get to what they want, be it money or children.
From what I have read this guy was also gay, so he must have convinced the women otherwise for them to get
involved with him, or did he just change his supposed preferences to get what he wanted
 
As per my post I'm not just talking about this case.
Take as imaginary (but not uncommon) example of a 12 year old girl groomed by social media.
For starters, what's she doing with an account, and why do parents allow their children such unfettered access to it?
 
viv1969 said:
As per my post I'm not just talking about this case.
Take as imaginary (but not uncommon) example of a 12 year old girl groomed by social media.
For starters, what's she doing with an account, and why do parents allow their children such unfettered access to it?
Click to expand...

Its alway a hard one,i have seen some otherwise very good parents be completely fools by their kids when it come to what they get up to online :(
 
Nor was I if you read what I said.

You can't tie your kids down 24/7. they will rebel.
You have to find a happy medium and develop trust with them, allow them some freedom but
be there for them to confide in.
Most 12yo are very internet savvy and could probably quite easily hide things from parents, especially in these days of
tablet pc's and smartphones etc.
If they really want to they will find a way to hide things, all you can do is educate them about such things
I feel very lucky to have raised 2 daughters without any major mishaps along the way, had very close relationships
with them both and always offered them support when needed
Did they keep secrets, I'm sure they did, but hopefully nothing as serious as what happened here and I do feel sure
if they hadn't said at the time they would now
 
Who buys them the tablets laptops and smartphones?

Computers can be kept in a place in the home where the child Iisn't isolated.
Phones don't have to be smart ones...or have data allowances.
 
school computers ?
Libaraies ?
Internet cafes ?
phones/computers belonging to friends ? Etc

That aside I didnt mean vulnerable in that sense - talking about the girl freind(s) he duped - I more meant people who were vulnerable to his predation , e.g that they were decieved by his demeanour and conduct, it doesnt make them stupid or gullible necessarily.
 
viv1969 said:
As per my post I'm not just talking about this case.
Take as imaginary (but not uncommon) example of a 12 year old girl groomed by social media.
For starters, what's she doing with an account, and why do parents allow their children such unfettered access to it?
Click to expand...
It is a tough one. Someone would argue that they have more chance of getting killed by a car. Whilst it is wide spread it is a very small group amongst th billions of Internet users.

They will use it, their friends will use it. It is best to not stick the head in the sand. CEOP in cooperation with the Lea's are providing excellent education in school.

We've gone together with my children over their settings, ensure that it is friends only. And talk regularly about that true friends are not a sign of how many likes you get. Also to watch out for are friends of friends as many don't take their security and safety serious

We then do together some mystery shopping as well and take on another persona ourself and demonstrate how easy it is to do that. Likewise we've gone over hacking techniques and made comparisons to the physical world around us.

I'm convinced we won't get it right, and that they will have secrets. It is perfectly normal and will have to learn to grow up. I just hope that they remember we will always be there for them.
 
They're not sitting in schools, libraries internet cafes and friends into the wee small hours, and again, if they are...why?
 
viv1969 said:
They're not sitting in schools, libraries internet cafes and friends into the wee small hours, and again, if they are...why?
Click to expand...

but what makes you think the grooming takes place in the wee small hours ?

Tbh though shutting them off from the net is the worst thing you can do - you'd be better accepting that they are going to get online and teaching them about online safety.

If you wrap them in cotton wool when they are 12 and don't teach them how to recognise an online liar , how are they going to know how to stay safe when they are 16, 18, 21 or whatever.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
As per my post I'm not just talking about this case.
Take as imaginary (but not uncommon) example of a 12 year old girl groomed by social media.
For starters, what's she doing with an account, and why do parents allow their children such unfettered access to it?
Click to expand...

Indeed, but is it not sad when (and I do not have kids) you have to lock them away from the internet to keep the safe from 43yr old perv with his trousers round his ankles, posing as a 12yo. No, the fact is you shouldn't have too. Moose has earlier said about teaching online safety etc, and he is right. Parents cannot wrap kids in cotton wool for ever but slowly and careful manage their release into the real world. The internet is a part of that.

As Moose and others have intimated, these people (the nonces) are just NOT right. I believe that people are born evil and will die evil. People like this are evil. The law, in my opinion, is very weak at dealing with evil people.

The cases of randy 17yo's and 15/14yo's, thats not evil. Thats biology and natural. Law has to be an arbitrary thing with things like age of consent/age to hold a drivers licence, it cannot count for individual maturity and circumstance in its application but it can in sentencing. The law needs to have, or rather, sentencing guidlines, need to have something that can lock someone away for life/kill them for acts of obsene depravity. A man doing that to a baby is just that, depravity.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
but what makes you think the grooming takes place in the wee small hours ?

Tbh though shutting them off from the net is the worst thing you can do - you'd be better accepting that they are going to get online and teaching them about online safety.
Click to expand...

I never said cutting them off from the internet.
I'm talking about monitoring...not allowing isolation.
Taking parental responsibility.
 
We as parents can only do our best to educate our kids as to the dangers that lurk out there, we can set up parental controls on the internet
but what we can't do is tie them to us 24/7, as dejongj and BSM have said, you have to allow them to grow up and learn for themselves
just do your best to keep them safe.
If you don't show them any trust or allow any freedom that can do far more damage
 
big soft moose said:
14 years isnt anywhere enough imo - but that aside thers also the issue that 14 years means out in 7 or less , which definitely isnt enough.

I still lean to hoping that an ODC shanks him in year1 - yes this is retribution not rehabiilitation but tbh you can't rehabilitate someone who thinks raping children is olkay
Click to expand...

I maybe wrong, and not arguing,.. I thought if sentence was over something like 4 or 6 yrs yuo did not get the "automatic" 50% off tariff if were a good boy/girl.

Personally, I hope several very bad things happen to him whilst inside. Most of which if I type on here would get me a short to long holiday, but use your imaginations!
 
I dunno for sure either - it was Bernie who originally said in reply to traci that he could be out in as little as 8 years if his rehabilitation worked...
 
viv1969 said:
I never said cutting them off from the internet.
I'm talking about monitoring...not allowing isolation.
Taking parental responsibility.
Click to expand...

not allowing them smart phones, and no unsupervised access to the internet is pretty much cutting them off

I'm all for taking parental responsibility but you can't be there 24/7 and even if you're in the same room you can't watch them like a hawk for every minuite of the time - part of parental responsibility is teaching them to look out for themselves and then trusting them and being there if they need you. They'll be a lot more inclined to come to you for help if something bothers them if they think you trust them.

Its like with the stranger danger thing in offline life - do you keep them under lock and key until the age of majority, or do you teach them ground rules then let them go to the shops on their own etc

Helicopter parenting is not the answer imo
 
Last edited:
funnily enough a meme thing just popped up on my Facebook... An old one but relevant, "If a dog Attacks s child it is put down..... So shouldn't the same apply to paedophiles"

although not condoned by all and I am not really a nasty person ( some may disagree ) I still stand by my original though that they should suffer and suffer badly
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
You also have to take into consideration quite often it's family members or friends of the family
 
Cg_Girl said:
funnily enough a meme thing just popped up on my Facebook... An old one but relevant, "If a dog Attacks s child it is put down..... So shouldn't the same apply to paedophiles"
Click to expand...

Gets my vote
 
Cg_Girl said:
funnily enough a meme thing just popped up on my Facebook... An old one but relevant, "If a dog Attacks s child it is put down..... So shouldn't the same apply to paedophiles"

although not condoned by all and I am not really a nasty person ( some may disagree ) I still stand by my original though that they should suffer and suffer badly
Click to expand...

Any deliberate act of violence/sexual crime should be treated in a hard way ie where the intent was to harm/sexually abuse then lock 'em away and never let them see daylight. And the laws etc are there already.
 
Gremlin said:
We as parents can only do our best to educate our kids as to the dangers that lurk out there, we can set up parental controls on the internet
but what we can't do is tie them to us 24/7, as dejongj and BSM have said, you have to allow them to grow up and learn for themselves
just do your best to keep them safe.
If you don't show them any trust or allow any freedom that can do far more damage
Click to expand...

Indeed - not least that a child who feels that its parents don't trust him/her , and are 'always watching everything they do" is actually far more vulnerable to a paedophile groomer pretending to be their freind and giving them the 'trust' they don't get at home. They are also far more easily persuaded to keep the grooming a secret , because "hey your parents don't trust you so you don't want to tell them about this they won't understand ..." :bat:

On the other hand a child who feels trusted and that their privacy is respected is more likely to be confident, and thus less likely to be groomed in the first place , more likely to spot the grooming and tell the sick b*****d to go f*** himself , and far more likely to tell mum and dad about the weirdo on line because they know they won't be blamed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top