Forums The Vibe Chat please sign this it means a lot….

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 53 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1039218
    quietRIOT
    Participant

    1114691139_s.jpg Mark Scott’s A Song For Sarah Payne & Sarah’s Law’

    clear.gif
    Date:12 Sep 2006 07:03 SubjectPLEASE SIGN PETITION FOR SARAH’S LAW PLEASE REPOSTBody:


    Bulletin Message


    From: leanne
    Date: Sep 12, 2006 1:48 PM

    SHOCK STATISTICS

    Each year in England and Wales up to 5 – 9 children are abducted and killed.

    Every day there are on average, 15 sex attacks on children in the UK.

    64 convicted paedophiles re-offend 5 or more years after their first conviction.

    30 offenders have had at least 10 child victims.

    Home office figures show us there are 110,000 convicted paedophiles that live in Britain (experts would put the figure at more like 230,000) and only 5,000 are on the sex offender ‘ s register. That means 95,000 live in communities and we don’t have the right to know who or where they are.

    Sarah Payne ‘ s killer convicted paedophile Roy Whiting was allowed to live in a community totally unsupervised. The police knew where he was but he was not monitored, hence able to strike again, this time with fatal consequences.
    Plainly the current controls on paedophiles are not strong enough.

    Infants under 12 months are four times more likely to be homicide victims than the rest of the population.

    A total of 110,000 adults in the UK have been convicted of sex offences against children.

    Nelson Mandela once wrote, Children are our most vulnerable citizens in our society – and our greatest treasures.

    Body:
    “If you’ve worked with sex offenders – people who have committed these offences again and again and again – you know that we do not in psychiatry and psychology have a way to change sexual orientation. People who molest kids, for example, they’ve done it and they’ve done it and they’ve done it and they haven’t been caught for a fraction of what they’ve done. To turn these people back into the community knowing that we have nothing to offer that is going to ensure the safety of kids is unconscionable.”
    (Dr Stanton E Samenow, author of Inside the Criminal Mind and Straight Talk about Criminals
    quoted in Obsession by former FIB agent and profiler John Douglas and Mark Olshaker)

    Statistics show that between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 girls will be molested during childhood and between 1 in 5 and 1 in 6 boys will be molested. Often the trauma caused by childhood sexual abuse blights a person for life and can lead to suicide. The UK has the highest suicide rate in Europe with 5000 deaths a year. Suicide is the number one cause of death for boys aged 18-25.

    A four-year 13 million investigation into sexual abuse at children’s homes in north Wales during the 1970s reveals that up to 750 youngsters – some as young as seven – were subjected to “an obscene and random catalogue of violence and cruelty”. At least 12 suicides have resulted. Child abusers work in networks and children from the homes were fed to police officers, civil servants and businessmen over a period of 20 years. Up to 150 adults were involved but only a dozen or so have been jailed.

    February 2000 saw the launch of the Moira Anderson Foundation. Funded by profits from the sale of Sandra Brown’s excellent book Where there is evil, the Foundation has been created in memory of an 11-year-old girl who disappeared in Coatbridge, near Glasgow, Scotland, in February 1957. Where there is evil (Macmillan, 1998) tells the inspirational story of one woman’s attempts to bring the murderer to justice over 30 years later.

    Research by the UK Home Office published this week (18 February 2000) suggests that the 6,000 rapes and 18,000 indecent assaults reported to the police in 1996 plus the third of sex assaults reported to the police which are not recorded by them as crimes represent probably only one tenth of the actual number of sex attacks. This suggests that the true figure for UK sex crimes is between 118,000 and 295,000 a year.

    Simon CowellAmerican Idol and X-Factor judge, “I
    totally endorse this campaign. This is something that should be made
    law. I back Sarah’s Law 100 per cent.”

    Louis Walsh – X-Factor judge, “I think Sarah’s Law
    is a brilliant idea to protect our children from predatory
    paedophiles and I back the News of the World’s campaign and Sara
    Payne 100 per cent. These people are sick, they don’t change, and
    parents should have the right to know where they are so they can
    protect their children.


    1114685510_l.gif
    inbox.gif
    noFriendRequestsIcon.gif
    deleted.gif

    Thanks for the add please help and add us to your top friends

    (Sarah’ Law)

    799218136_m.jpg

    1034552025_l.gif
    #1089500
    quietRIOT
    Participant

    hope you ll read an sign this …x thanks

    #1089514
    Angel
    Moderator

    signed:love:

    #1089533
    OUTCAST
    Participant

    Signed and sent to friends:horay: :horay: :rant: :rant:

    #1089483
    General Lighting
    Moderator

    signed…

    #1089525
    Agent Subby
    Participant

    It’s been proven that Megan’s Law works in the States so yes I agree with this proposal. Signed.

    #1089499
    titch
    Participant

    Signed

    #1089532
    Insanity
    Participant

    Done and done.

    #1089482
    Anonymous

    blah

    #1089496
    globalloon
    Participant

    i’m glad that despite this article being a Sun product it at least recognises that most peadophiles abuse children due to their sexual orientation

    while the actions of these people are monstrous, these people are not ‘monsters’

    they need to be protected from themselves, IMO

    #1089510
    Pisces
    Participant

    Oh dear.

    :you_crazy

    #1089497
    globalloon
    Participant

    oh dear what?

    paedophilia is no different to hetro or homo sexuality (in the majority of cases)

    except that the recipients are vulnerable children, who need protecting

    the best way to do this IMO is to protect paedophiles from themselves, by locking them away

    but treating them as monsters doesn’t make society a safer place, it drives others further underground

    some level of acceptance of the reality of this ‘orientation’ may even help those who have this orientation to come forward for help before they become a danger to children

    #1089521
    sexy_biatch19
    Participant

    signed

    #1089526
    Agent Subby
    Participant

    “Infants under 12 months are four times more likely to be homicide victims than the rest of the population.”

    Actually you can tell it’s a News Of The World/Sun product because WTF as the above statement got to do with paedophilia? Someone please enlighten me!

    #1089522
    Shit Robot
    Participant

    Signed

    #1089501
    quietRIOT
    Participant

    thanx for those who have signed…x hope more will sign it too xxxx

    #1089511
    Pisces
    Participant
    globalloon wrote:
    oh dear what?

    paedophilia is no different to hetro or homo sexuality (in the majority of cases)

    except that the recipients are vulnerable children, who need protecting

    the best way to do this IMO is to protect paedophiles from themselves, by locking them away

    but treating them as monsters doesn’t make society a safer place, it drives others further underground

    some level of acceptance of the reality of this ‘orientation’ may even help those who have this orientation to come forward for help before they become a danger to children

    Sorry Globaloon, that post wasn’t directed at you (I agree with what you say), but at this petition and the people who have signed it. Read the petition, and it contains not a single fact or shred of evidence to support ‘Sarah’s law’ in itself. It’s just a scaremongering list of dubious ‘statistics’ and spurious links, designed to invoke the typical, emotive ‘paedophiles are bad’ response. I don’t think this law is a good idea. Does anyone remember the protests outside paedophile’s houses in Portsmouth/Southmpton (or somewhere round there) sometime a few years ago? I personally don’t think that society as a whole (or certain elements of it) is responsible enough to deal with the information that this law makes available. And as Globaloon states, it will just drive these people further underground. This campaign is typical of the mass tabloid hysteria and sensationalism surrounding this issue at the moment. If you were to believe what you read, you’d think that there was a paedophile on every street corner in the country. This simply isn’t true, and is counter-productive. I work with a guy who’s wife won’t even let her 4 year old daughter into their own high-fenced, locked-gated garden to play. What sort of life is that child going to have as it grows up with that level of ‘protection’? And how do you think those parents would react if they actually knew for a fact there was a sex-offender living round the corner? The solution lies in proper monitoring by the authorites. I personaly don’t agree with making this kind of information available to the type of people that think it’s a good idea to firebomb local mosques after Islam related terror attacks. I apologise for the lack of paragraphs, but I’m using a proxy server from work which doesn’t seem to recognise them.

    #1089484
    General Lighting
    Moderator

    I was sceptical initially about signing it but Megans law hasn’t actually led to gangs of Yank vigilantes taking out any old man living on his own with high-powered rifles and I consider American society to be far more violent than that in the USA.

    At least with such a law it actually means the cops have to monitor the nonces better in order to protect them from the vigilantes, as angry youths will use it as an excuse to target older men in particular. It also means the authorities may consider actually giving these people real prison sentences; instead of just releasing them into the community…

    Bear in mind the bulk of people on here if not the majority are otherwise progressive and liberal in their views; they are only responding because the fear of crime has gone away from the offender and been taken to the people.

    I agree that the campaign is badly written and the statistics have been talked up – the homicide and suicide statistics also include deaths from child neglect and teenage suicides due to exam stress but most activist groups spin the statistics anyway as do governments.

    TBH I expect the home office and cops aren’t going to completely cave in to activists any more than they usually do though but they may beef up the monitoring of individuals. By signing the petition you at least show you are not tolerating the status quo…

    I don’t think there is a middle aged or elderly paedophile on every street corner – but I think plenty have got away with it for too long particularly those in positions of power (especially in the public school networks)

    There are also increasingly dangerous and predatory younger individuals about (from their pre-teens to mid 20s) who do need to be watched. TBH I think the old offenders are merely the younger ones who got away with it..

    As it stands the people who want to go and burn out some old mans house because they think he may be a “nonce” would do it anyway; and often they are just doing it because they were winding it up and he stood up to them.

    #1089527
    Agent Subby
    Participant
    Pisces wrote:
    Sorry Globaloon, that post wasn’t directed at you (I agree with what you say), but at this petition and the people who have signed it. Read the petition, and it contains not a single fact or shred of evidence to support ‘Sarah’s law’ in itself. It’s just a scaremongering list of dubious ‘statistics’ and spurious links, designed to invoke the typical, emotive ‘paedophiles are bad’ response. I don’t think this law is a good idea. Does anyone remember the protests outside paedophile’s houses in Portsmouth/Southmpton (or somewhere round there) sometime a few years ago? I personally don’t think that society as a whole (or certain elements of it) is responsible enough to deal with the information that this law makes available. And as Globaloon states, it will just drive these people further underground. This campaign is typical of the mass tabloid hysteria and sensationalism surrounding this issue at the moment. If you were to believe what you read, you’d think that there was a paedophile on every street corner in the country. This simply isn’t true, and is counter-productive. I work with a guy who’s wife won’t even let her 4 year old daughter into their own high-fenced, locked-gated garden to play. What sort of life is that child going to have as it grows up with that level of ‘protection’? And how do you think those parents would react if they actually knew for a fact there was a sex-offender living round the corner? The solution lies in proper monitoring by the authorites. I personaly don’t agree with making this kind of information available to the type of people that think it’s a good idea to firebomb local mosques after Islam related terror attacks. I apologise for the lack of paragraphs, but I’m using a proxy server from work which doesn’t seem to recognise them.

    It just goes to show that scaremongering does work because in a ‘knee jerk reaction’ I signed it but after giving it further consideration I wish I hadn’t had done so. Totally agree with yourself and Globaloon.

    #1089485
    General Lighting
    Moderator
    Agent Subby wrote:
    It just goes to show that scaremongering does work because in a ‘knee jerk reaction’ I signed it but after giving it further consideration I wish I hadn’t had done so. Totally agree with yourself and Globaloon.

    I only reluctantly signed it because a few weeks ago I had read an article about the law in the Guardian which showed it had led to increased and more efficient monitoring of offenders and less vigilante reprisals than feared – even in a country with 4 guns to every citizen…

    BTW Internet petitions from pressure groups are often disregarded by Civil Service Departments or treated as one voice from the media outlet that sparked them rather than the number of signatures. Whitehall isn’t that daft!

    #1089515
    Angel
    Moderator

    I’m thinking that you guys who dont want to sign or have signed and changed your mind..

    You dont have kids,do you ??

    When you do have kids you will do anything possible to keep them safe..

    #1089486
    General Lighting
    Moderator
    angel wrote:
    I’m thinking that you guys who dont want to sign or have signed and changed your mind..

    You dont have kids,do you ??

    When you do have kids you will do anything possible to keep them safe..

    I don’t have kids, still signed the petition (knowing the campaigns faults) and do not regret doing so.

    As we are all aware the Internet is blamed for giving a platform and a network to many kinds of extremists and criminals, and the “free/permissive/liberal society is under attack”

    There is a big lobby to clamp down on the social networks of the internet because “children are in danger”; and because of the lack of regulation in some parts there is some increased danger not so much to small children but to older kids and young teenagers.

    So either society limits the freedom of criminals by monitoring them or society limits everyones freedom. which is it to be?

    #1089512
    Pisces
    Participant
    General Lighting wrote:
    I was sceptical initially about signing it but Megans law hasn’t actually led to gangs of Yank vigilantes taking out any old man living on his own with high-powered rifles and I consider American society to be far more violent than that in the USA.

    That’s fair enough, but does the US suffer from the same mass hysteria that we’ve been having to endure here for the last few years? (That’s a genuine question, not a rhetorical one, as I don’t know). And in terms of violence our society seems to be heading more that way every day. And surely the example of what happened in Portsmouth/Southampton has to serve as a bit of a warning as to what could potentially happen?

    General Lighting wrote:
    At least with such a law it actually means the cops have to monitor the nonces better in order to protect them from the vigilantes, as angry youths will use it as an excuse to target older men in particular. .

    In terms of police time and resources isn’t it going to be easier just to monitor the nonces effectively (tag them or something), rather than provide them with protection and then have to follow up and investigate any attacks on them? Or would they turn a blind eye to a bit of nonce bashing?

    General Lighting wrote:
    I don’t think there is a middle aged or elderly paedophile on every street corner – but I think plenty have got away with it for too long particularly those in positions of power (especially in the public school networks)

    There are also increasingly dangerous and predatory younger individuals about (from their pre-teens to mid 20s) who do need to be watched. TBH I think the old offenders are merely the younger ones who got away with it…..

    Here I agree with you. I’m sure the everyday danger to kids now is not much more than it was 50 years ago. But the advent of the internet (which has allowed for organisation and for the everyday person to stumble across the material) and this mass tabloid hysteria has made it seem so. To me the example of my work colleague’s daughter is as damaging as anything. If that level of ‘protection’ is widespread across our society then it is a very sad situation for modern children, and something that the media has to answer for.

    General Lighting wrote:
    As it stands the people who want to go and burn out some old mans house because they think he may be a “nonce” would do it anyway; and often they are just doing it because they were winding it up and he stood up to them.

    It doesn’t matter, as they’d get targeted anyway? Sorry, but that’s not an arguement to me. Groups are unlikely to target these people based purely on suspicion. But give them a rock hard fact, ‘Mr X at number 12 is a convicted nonce’, and I think you’ll see a bit more of a reaction. I wouldn’t underestimate the fierce protective nature of parents and mob culture (even if it’s just in terms of keeping information from the police) also potentially driving more everyday ‘straight’ people to act than just the usual suspects you suggest.

    General Lighting wrote:
    TBH I expect the home office and cops aren’t going to completely cave in to activists any more than they usually do though but they may beef up the monitoring of individuals. By signing the petition you at least show you are not tolerating the status quo…

    Again, to me that’s not a reason to sign it. I prefer the status quo to the idea of this law. Would you vote BNP just because you think Labour are unacceptable to prove a point? Because what happens then when they actually get in?

    General Lighting wrote:
    Bear in mind the bulk of people on here if not the majority are otherwise progressive and liberal in their views; they are only responding because the fear of crime has gone away from the offender and been taken to the people.

    I understand the liberal and progressive nature of most of the people on here. However, from my experience of the free party ‘scene’, and here and SJ, there are a few people who live in a slightly simplified and ‘fluffy’ version of reality. ‘Paedophiles are hideous monsters, children are lovely and cute’ type of thing, and that’s as far as they see. When in reality the issues are usually much more complicated than that.

    #1089487
    General Lighting
    Moderator
    Pisces wrote:
    That’s fair enough, but does the US suffer from the same mass hysteria that we’ve been having to endure here for the last few years? (That’s a genuine question, not a rhetorical one, as I don’t know).

    it does if not more so. There is total hysteria over stuff like myspace, facebook etc and in the land of the free they are now selling internet censorship at ISP level so families can protect their kids (you can get it in Britain now as well).

    Quote:
    And in terms of violence our society seems to be heading more that way every day. And surely the example of what happened in Portsmouth/Southampton has to serve as a bit of a warning as to what could potentially happen?

    indeed – but if people take matters into their own hands in the street (even by taking over someones elses land for a rave!) the riot cops come out and deal with it. thats what they are ultimately there for.

    Quote:
    In terms of police time and resources isn’t it going to be easier just to monitor the nonces effectively (tag them or something), rather than provide them with protection and then have to follow up and investigate any attacks on them? Or would they turn a blind eye to a bit of nonce bashing?

    TBH I think the people who form the mobs (as you have said yourself) are just violent people looking for an enemy rather than being genuine victims. Cops would have to deal with it as it would start off with attacking sex offenders and then carry on to driving out other criminals.

    Also its a curious paradox that a lot of people who are vigilantes have often committed the same crime themselves!

    Bear in mind as it stands anyway there is nothing stopping a mob going and attacking a convicted drug dealer or any other criminal (their names go in the papers) and this sometimes happens, but either the person fights back and/or the cops get called out to deal with it.

    OK criminals may be driven underground but even underground networks can be cracked. People can carry out their own surveillance operations (especially with the amount of technology available)

    In the case of the BNP, of course I wouldn’t vote for them (especially as I am Asian! ) but if people do its their own free choice. If they do get in (as they have done in some areas) then what happens is the tension kicks off, deprivation increases as rich ethnic communities withdraw their investments, violence increases in the street and people either have to find a consensus solution or live in civil warfare until they reach a consensus. I note that the BNP councillors haven’t lasted too long in many areas…

    These petitions may seem extreme but its a standard negotiation practice – activist groups take up an extreme position and negotiate until something acceptable to the majority is found, (perhaps even after some amount of civil conflict) such as better monitoring and perhaps waking up to the fact that there are dangers to children and youths.

    I think the level of protection against sex offenders is extreme but kids do also need to be protected from themselves because of bullying and a lot of parents get paranoid because of a multitude of threats and feeling powerless.

    IMO not just paedophiles but any violent criminal (from age 10 upwards!) should be monitored and made to have appropriate treatment, and the very effective force of the surveillance society should be turned towards those who hurt others rather than merely anyone who just bucks the system.

    #1089513
    Pisces
    Participant
    General Lighting wrote:
    indeed – but if people take matters into their own hands in the street (even by taking over someones elses land for a rave!) the riot cops come out and deal with it. thats what they are ultimately there for..

    Safe.

    They can get there just in time to see the corpse hanging from the lampost then.

    General Lighting wrote:
    OK criminals may be driven underground but even underground networks can be cracked. People can carry out their own surveillance operations (especially with the amount of technology available)..

    True, you can infiltrate them, but it’ll be harder work, more resource intensive and probably provide you with less reliable information.

    General Lighting wrote:
    Bear in mind as it stands anyway there is nothing stopping a mob going and attacking a convicted drug dealer or any other criminal (their names go in the papers) and this sometimes happens, but either the person fights back and/or the cops get called out to deal with it…

    True again, but there’s a huge difference in society’s general perception of of a drug dealer and a paedophile.

    Imagine walking into a pub full of people and announcing ‘I’m a drug dealer’. Mumblings, nasty looks, that’s probably all you’d get. But would you fancy walking into the same pub and announcing ‘Hey, I nonce up kids on a fairly regular basis’? I certainly wouldn’t, and I daresay you’d get slightly stronger reaction.

    Endless times I’ve heard someone say ‘leave me alone in a room with that nonce for an hour, then he wouldn’t feel so big’, when they don’t even know the victim or family. I’ve never heard anyone get that fussed about a drug dealer. It’s simple, Paedophilia evokes probably the strongest reactions of any crime at the moment.

    This is the central point of my whole arguement against this law. Forgetting those people spoiling for a fight anyway for a moment, every parent currently feels their kids are under threat from this menace of marauding paedos. And as Angel herself says…

    Angel wrote:
    When you do have kids you will do anything possible to keep them safe.

    Now I’m not seriously suggesting that Angel is about to go off Paedo bashing, but her comment demonstrates the strength of feeling that parents have about their kids.

    That, and the perceived direct threat to their own children (greatly exaggerated by the media), is what will push parents close to that line of actually taking action themselves. And I’d argue they’d be much closer to this line where a nonce is concerned than a drug dealer.

    Therefore I’d suggest it’s just simply best not to provide the information on the wherabouts of these people in the first place. Then of course you have to aforementioned people spoiling for a fight, and again I’d just suggest surely it’s better not give them any more reasons to cause problems than they already have. As I said before they’re far more likely to act on fact than suspicion.

    Basically this campaign is nothing but a copy-selling bandwagon for these papers to jump on, capitalising on strong public opinion and the climate of fear, which has itself been whipped up by the tabloid reporting and sensationalism. And this is what I find both disturbing and dangerous.

    I understand your point about this campaign being an extreme viewpoint, and eventual negotiation leading to a middle ground. But I think I’d rather just campaign for the middle ground now. And perhaps if ridiculous campaigns like this weren’t around maybe the middle ground would be heard and not drowned out.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 53 total)
  • The topic ‘please sign this it means a lot….’ is closed to new replies.

Forums The Vibe Chat please sign this it means a lot….