REPUGNANT - The End!!

ST4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: or just shoot them in the face (although behind the ear gives a better certainty of a kill ;) )
 
I understand that eventually children have to be trusted, but the same trust should be earned.

I know plenty of people...good people...whose 8, 9, 10 year olds have facebook accounts.
With the minimum sign up age being (I think) 13.

I personally don't see why a prepubescent child requires absolute privacy during internet access.
Smart phones can still be smart but not have data allowance whilst kids are so young.

No, like moose i don't have kids, but I see more and more parents trying harder to be "cool mum and dad", rather than concentrating on simply being mum and dad.
 
viv1969 said:
I understand that eventually children have to be trusted, but the same trust should be earned.

I know plenty of people...good people...whose 8, 9, 10 year olds have facebook accounts.
With the minimum sign up age being (I think) 13.

I personally don't see why a prepubescent child requires absolute privacy during internet access.
Smart phones can still be smart but not have data allowance whilst kids are so young.

No, like moose i don't have kids, but I see more and more parents trying harder to be "cool mum and dad", rather than concentrating on simply being mum and dad.
Click to expand...

Thats part of the problem,i can be quite tough or uncool, does not always go down well,but i can live with that :)
 
Thing is a 12 year old is likely to be talking to their freinds about stuff they don't want mum and dad to know - so if you stand over them you just enforce the idea that you don't trust them and thus they can't trust you either

If you read the plymouth herald article on of the young boys rooney was talking to was coming out as gay , and rooney was saying stuff like " I understand how hard it is" " it was just like that for me at your age" " I can help you" .... if the boy concerned had been able to have that conversation with his parents the chances are good he wouldnt have been so vulnerable to predators like Rooney

I agree that its a sliding scale and an 8 year old doesnt need to same privacy a 12 year old does , but at the end of the day if a kid wants to get on line privately they will, so surely its better that they know how to handle themselves online if/when they do

( I mean for example take the smart phone with no data allowance - how much does a PAYGsim cost £10 or so , so whats to stop them saving up their cash and then swapping the sim out without telling you )
 
big soft moose said:
Thing is a 12 year old is likely to be talking to their freinds about stuff they don't want mum and dad to know - so if you stand over them you just enforce the idea that you don't trust them and thus they can't trust you either

If you read the plymouth herald article on of the young boys rooney was talking to was coming out as gay , and rooney was saying stuff like " I understand how hard it is" " it was just like that for me at your age" " I can help you" .... if the boy concerned had been able to have that conversation with his parents the chances are good he wouldnt have been so vulnerable to predators like Rooney

I agree that its a sliding scale and an 8 year old doesnt need to same privacy a 12 year old does , but at the end of the day if a kid wants to get on line privately they will, so surely its better that they know how to handle themselves online if/when they do

( I mean for example take the smart phone with no data allowance - how much does a PAYGsim cost £10 or so , so whats to stop them saving up their cash and then swapping the sim out without telling you )
Click to expand...

If you say so. I shall bow to your clearly superior knowledge.
I grew tired of bitchfighting with you a long time ago.
I stand by my posts.
 
Slightly unfair really, his attitude hasn't been great from the start
Click to expand...

No, my attitude has been fine, I just don't agree with your shrill hysteria, based on rumor and no evidence. We don't all get our information from the Daily Mail, some of us prefer evidence.

Moving on, BSM is correct, I do know where the report button is, and frankly your ramblings are no where near hitting anything soft.

Neil. Thanks. I fully accept I am blunt, comes of years of giving evidence, ie fact based and not including emotion or feelings in it. But I make no appology for that, I'd prefer things blunt than shrill rhetoric with no substance.

So moving on,

Brash. No of course we don't know how many reoffend and are never caught. Just as we don't know how many are re-convicted wrongly on the basis of assumption and memory of previous cases. As we are talking here about evidence based conclusions, not the sort fueled by the press and assumptions, we can only work with whats known. The facts are thats the numbers in the UK.

Equally, we have seen people quote 'majority' and 'large number'. But no facts propping those comments up.

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...
Click to expand...

You can get a third off most sentences, but in his case I doubt he will. Although he would have already served a portion of his sentence while on remand, so 8 is a rough experience based guess. In theory it could be down to about 4.5/5 years from conviction taking into account his time on remand. But he has to convince a parole board and Social Services. Thats not something I'd expect him to be able to do first, or second time. Of course if he shows no remorse, doesn't respond to treatment, he'll do the full 14.

And no, to remove the idea from the heads of some, he probably wont find himself impaled on something in the showers. He'll be on rule 43, segregation. In the past that might not have been an obstacle, but these days, is it worth the prison officer loosing his job over?

Simon

The topic of sentencing in general is another subject. What it should be and what it is are 2 different things., Sentencing is far less harsh than it used to be. Blame the Government, it saves them money on prison places. Blame the EU as well, while we are part of that we cannot have a death penalty. If we ever did have one again, it would actually be to our detriment. Europe would not extradite anyone who may be executed to us, so all Mr Murderer needs to do is leg it to France, and he's scot free.


Viv

So you can make valid points?

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...

All I can do is say what it says, that there were 941 re convictions, make of that what you will.

Of course, you can't have what you asked for in your last point. The Sex Offender register hasn't been going for long enough. You'd need it to run for around 90 years for that I'm afraid.

The raw data probably is there, buried in the vaults of the Home Office, but based simply on convictions. Getting it might be a major event and take years though.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
I understand that eventually children have to be trusted, but the same trust should be earned.

I know plenty of people...good people...whose 8, 9, 10 year olds have facebook accounts.
With the minimum sign up age being (I think) 13.

I personally don't see why a prepubescent child requires absolute privacy during internet access.
Smart phones can still be smart but not have data allowance whilst kids are so young.

No, like moose i don't have kids, but I see more and more parents trying harder to be "cool mum and dad", rather than concentrating on simply being mum and dad.
Click to expand...
Amazing how you don't have children, yet you feel qualified accuse others of trying hard to be cool mum and dad. You know what, it is bloody hard work, we make lots of mistakes, and do the best we can. Definitely don't require a know it all standing on the sideline sniping how bad a job other parents are doing...Totally ignoring all those glorious moments when the vast majority of us are there for them at every turn and step in their lives, balancing that independence and need to explore with not wanting them to get hurt....Man you woman don't come across like half bitter....And then have the audacity to be of the opinion that anyone able to leave the emotion out of the original topic has some severe mental problem....Oh dear or dear ...

Yeah yeah I know you said 'I personally' and 'In my opinion' blah blah...
 
dejongj said:
Amazing how you don't have children, yet you feel qualified accuse others of trying hard to be cool mum and dad. You know what, it is bloody hard work, we make lots of mistakes, and do the best we can. Definitely don't require a know it all standing on the sideline sniping how bad a job other parents are doing...Totally ignoring all those glorious moments when the vast majority of us are there for them at every turn and step in their lives, balancing that independence and need to explore with not wanting them to get hurt....Man you woman don't come across like half bitter....And then have the audacity to be of the opinion that anyone able to leave the emotion out of the original topic has some severe mental problem....Oh dear or dear ...

Yeah yeah I know you said 'I personally' and 'In my opinion' blah blah...
Click to expand...

Wow. ..I accused no one of anything.
Such an extreme reaction from you speaks volumes though.
I know it's hard work, most do a grand job.
Some don't.
 
dejongj said:
Amazing how you don't have children, yet you feel qualified accuse others of trying hard to be cool mum and dad. You know what, it is bloody hard work, we make lots of mistakes, and do the best we can. Definitely don't require a know it all standing on the sideline sniping how bad a job other parents are doing...Totally ignoring all those glorious moments when the vast majority of us are there for them at every turn and step in their lives, balancing that independence and need to explore with not wanting them to get hurt....Man you woman don't come across like half bitter....And then have the audacity to be of the opinion that anyone able to leave the emotion out of the original topic has some severe mental problem....Oh dear or dear ...

Yeah yeah I know you said 'I personally' and 'In my opinion' blah blah...
Click to expand...

To be fair to Ruth (and that isnt something you'll hear me say often) I don't have kids either - although I do have some experience with neices and nephews and such.

That said I agree with the bulk of your post - anyone who thinks children can be monitored 24/7 doesnt have much experience of children.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
All I can do is say what it says, that there were 941 re convictions, make of that what you will.

.
Click to expand...

so 941 children (or more if some of those were multiple cases) were mollested by people already in the system ? - okay so thats not many as expressed as a percentage, but as a number its still far too many, and to me still says that those sick bastards should never have been released to reoffend.

On the other point I'm sure you are right that he won't actually get shanked - more's the pity
 
ST4 said:
Quoted. For all eternity :)

For heinous, depraved crime it should be a death sentence .
Click to expand...

I'm quite disturbed that in the course of this thread Ive found myself agreeing heartily with both you and brash... I shall have to seek treatment before i find myself traviling at mach 3 on the A30 ;)
 
Bernie174 said:
No, my attitude has been fine, I just don't agree with your shrill hysteria, based on rumor and no evidence. We don't all get our information from the Daily Mail, some of us prefer evidence.

Moving on, BSM is correct, I do know where the report button is, and frankly your ramblings are no where near hitting anything soft.

Neil. Thanks. I fully accept I am blunt, comes of years of giving evidence, ie fact based and not including emotion or feelings in it. But I make no appology for that, I'd prefer things blunt than shrill rhetoric with no substance.

So moving on,

Brash. No of course we don't know how many reoffend and are never caught. Just as we don't know how many are re-convicted wrongly on the basis of assumption and memory of previous cases. As we are talking here about evidence based conclusions, not the sort fueled by the press and assumptions, we can only work with whats known. The facts are thats the numbers in the UK.

Equally, we have seen people quote 'majority' and 'large number'. But no facts propping those comments up.



You can get a third off most sentences, but in his case I doubt he will. Although he would have already served a portion of his sentence while on remand, so 8 is a rough experience based guess. In theory it could be down to about 4.5/5 years from conviction taking into account his time on remand. But he has to convince a parole board and Social Services. Thats not something I'd expect him to be able to do first, or second time. Of course if he shows no remorse, doesn't respond to treatment, he'll do the full 14.

And no, to remove the idea from the heads of some, he probably wont find himself impaled on something in the showers. He'll be on rule 43, segregation. In the past that might not have been an obstacle, but these days, is it worth the prison officer loosing his job over?

Simon

The topic of sentencing in general is another subject. What it should be and what it is are 2 different things., Sentencing is far less harsh than it used to be. Blame the Government, it saves them money on prison places. Blame the EU as well, while we are part of that we cannot have a death penalty. If we ever did have one again, it would actually be to our detriment. Europe would not extradite anyone who may be executed to us, so all Mr Murderer needs to do is leg it to France, and he's scot free.


Viv

So you can make valid points?



All I can do is say what it says, that there were 941 re convictions, make of that what you will.

Of course, you can't have what you asked for in your last point. The Sex Offender register hasn't been going for long enough. You'd need it to run for around 90 years for that I'm afraid.

The raw data probably is there, buried in the vaults of the Home Office, but based simply on convictions. Getting it might be a major event and take years though.
Click to expand...

Bernie

I dont read the daily mail etc,i make my judgement from my own experience,what you seem hard to except is that others may have experience as well but do not always agree with your point of view.
 
viv1969 said:
For starters, what's she doing with an account, and why do parents allow their children such unfettered access to it?
Click to expand...

pick one or more:
technophobe
ignorant
lazy

but no, some (I'll conceed that there are many good parents) parents are shouting "wont someone think of the children" and ISP are making adult content an opt in feature instead. its nothing more than censorship on behalf of the list above (and slightly ironic as some ISP offer TV channels offering such content) when existing parental controls are readily available.

(went slightly off on a tangent there :D )
 
ST4 said:
Mach 3. My personal best is only 132mph on that road....
Click to expand...
Weren't you trying? M25 - Portsmouth 35min max speed 175 through tunnel - sounded awesome but eyes popped real bad
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top