All should be named & shamed. Sarah's Law .
It is down to him that he is a famous actor.
It is down to him that he looked at child porn material.
No Topic!!! Page 8
Quote: Charley @ September 18, 2007, 9:30 PMAll should be named & shamed. Sarah's Law.
That would just drive people underground. It's a completely ridiculous idea. The country would be overrun by mob gangs attacking paediatricians; gangs of people driven by emotion rather than common sense, intelligence, or anything remotely resembling, or close to, logic. Even if only as a society rather than a case-by-case basis, we have far more to lose than we have to gain.
The parents & victims dont think so. If I still had young children I would want to know if a pedo moved to the area.
Maybe if that had been about Huntley would have been banned from working in a school & Jessica & Holly would be alive & well.
I cant think of a single parent that WOULD NOT want to know if there was a pedo amongst them.
Let them go underground. They are easier to kill there.
The rest of the criminal fraternity would hunt them out.
I dont understand why peadatricians would be attacked. I have no idea where you get that from.
That hasn't happened under "Sarah's law" in the US, has it? I forget the exact figures, but the authorities have lost quite a number of paedophiles, as they are forced into changing their identities and moving out of the area in an attempt to escape the relentless baying mob. Would you rather the police knew and could at least have a chance of keeping an eye on convicted paedophiles, or that no one knew and they went around completely undetected?
Quote: Charley @ September 18, 2007, 10:08 PMI dont understand why peadatricians would be attacked. I have no idea where you get that from.
Because - and here's a revelation - people are stupid. They buy into whatever they hear in the pub or read in the paper as gospel, and are too dim-witted to know the difference between paedophiles and paediatricians. I guess it doesn't help that they're rather helpfully referred to as just paedos, but that's no excuse. It's happened both here and in the US, and not just once or twice. Start being more vocal about paedophiles' identities, and it'll happen more often. Nevermind mistaken identity of the otherwise totally uninvolved.
Quote: Aaron @ September 18, 2007, 8:15 PMEh? Not quite sure I follow. Would women in the same position be afforded anonymity?
Well considering women can't rape anyone they generally aren't put on trial for sexual offences but I see your point. I meant trials for sexual offences in general the accused is not allowed anonymity but the victim is even though the majority of jurys, rightly or wrongly, find in favour of the accused. This was the case in the Langham trial as the underage victim was allowed to keep her identity hidden while Langham wasn't.
Ah right, I see. Yes, fair enough. I'd just like to point out though, it is possible - just far less easy and less common, as it'd probably really need a gang of females rather than the one.
Strange but true legally a woman can't rape a man cos rape involves a penis and virgina just like God intended 
Quote: Charley @ September 18, 2007, 10:08 PMI dont understand why peadatricians would be attacked. I have no idea where you get that from.
Didn't that happen in Portsmouth?
Well i suppose it would there
The main difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is the more we've become civilised the more we can accept homosexuality but abhor paedophilia.
Of course a woman can rape a man!
I've done it loooads of....
Never mind.
But really, that's silly. If say a 30 year old woman forced a 12 year old boy to have sex with her, don't you think that's a rape?
AJP explained this to me before. Apparently that would be classed as assault, not rape. AJP will explain it better I am sure.
IT IS RIDICULOUS THOUGH I AGREE!!!!
A woman would still be classed as a pedo though & placed on the register.
Madness!
Quote: zooo @ September 18, 2007, 11:52 PMMadness!
One Step Beyond! (I love saying that)
Convicted male paedophiles should be castrated thus removing their sexual urges and also protecting both future victims and themselves. I don't think we should waste our time trying to rehabilitate paedophiles. It should be 'one strike and you're out'.
I think people who are over-liberal in their views about criminals are stupid. Criminals laugh at the 'softly-softly' approach and victims suffer when criminals who are released (often early) offend again, which is simply outrageous.
And if it's found they were wrongly convicted we'll sew their bits and pieces back on, having kept them in the deep freeze.
Excellent idea. 