Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Paedos'' etc[]
Quote by JTS
From midnight tonight, it will become an offence - punishable by up to 30 years in prison - to walk a dog in a public place. The Home Secretary said it was a well-known tactic of predators to use a puppy as a pretence for abducting children for the purposes of the vilest forms of sexual gratification. Better to keep all dog-walkers off the streets than risk a repeat of what happened to Sarah and Maddie
I think, sometimes I do, that many need to read and understand the above QUOTE.
Please do not LAUGH at it, and neither should you laugh at .
The QUOTE is intended to be sardonic, but covers the wilful and intentional removal of personal freedom. Although not mentioned, the removal of a males personal freedom to walk in a park/public place (with or without a dog).
The removal of freedom is to protect children from predatory attention .
I inserted the URL of the site purely to point attention TO the site, which often says things the press does not say, maybe because of cowardice but more likely because of complicity.
Humour, sardonic or sarcastic, frequently enable a debate to start where reason has long given-up.
I see from the previous 5 pages that reason has given-up.
Sad.
Most, in fact the majority of children, are assaulted in their homes. By people they trust. The ones assaulted outside their own homes also feature, in many cases, an element of trust.
The stranger assaulting children is the one consistent fact in stories in the press. That "fact" is being used by various elements, many of which are government (local and national), to propose, and institute, limits on personal freedom to protect children. All well and good. But. When Mr Bloggs has to have his own personal "minder" to protect children from him when he goes to walk his dog, and that does not halt child abuse, what is the next stage going to be ?
Answers, on a large ream of A4 ?
Then ask yourself what effect the (large) amount of films featuring had on the problem. Like the Death Wish series. I know, it had a "message". But it was buried in the garish detail. I hated the first, and stopped the tape and threw it away.
I'm all for protecting children, but do you not think that child protection is now being manipulated to mean protection by imprisoning them, and others ?
Quote by JTS
From midnight tonight, it will become an offence - punishable by up to 30 years in prison - to walk a dog in a public place. The Home Secretary said it was a well-known tactic of predators to use a puppy as a pretence for abducting children for the purposes of the vilest forms of sexual gratification. Better to keep all dog-walkers off the streets than risk a repeat of what happened to Sarah and Maddie
I think, sometimes I do, that many need to read and understand the above QUOTE.
Please do not LAUGH at it, and neither should you laugh at .
The QUOTE is intended to be sardonic, but covers the wilful and intentional removal of personal freedom. Although not mentioned, the removal of a males personal freedom to walk in a park/public place (with or without a dog).
The removal of freedom is to protect children from predatory attention .
I inserted the URL of the site purely to point attention TO the site, which often says things the press does not say, maybe because of cowardice but more likely because of complicity.
Humour, sardonic or sarcastic, frequently enable a debate to start where reason has long given-up.
I see from the previous 5 pages that reason has given-up.
Sad.
Most, in fact the majority of children, are assaulted in their homes. By people they trust. The ones assaulted outside their own homes also feature, in many cases, an element of trust.
The stranger assaulting children is the one consistent fact in stories in the press. That "fact" is being used by various elements, many of which are government (local and national), to propose, and institute, limits on personal freedom to protect children. All well and good. But. When Mr Bloggs has to have his own personal "minder" to protect children from him when he goes to walk his dog, and that does not halt child abuse, what is the next stage going to be ?
Answers, on a large ream of A4 ?
Then ask yourself what effect the (large) amount of films featuring had on the problem. Like the Death Wish series. I know, it had a "message". But it was buried in the garish detail. I hated the first, and stopped the tape and threw it away.
I'm all for protecting children, but do you not think that child protection is ow being manipulated to mean protection by imprisoning them, and others ?
Quote by JTS
Most, in fact the majority of children, are assaulted in their homes. By people they trust. The ones assaulted outside their own homes also feature, in many cases, an element of trust.
The stranger assaulting children is the one consistent fact in stories in the press. That "fact" is being used by various elements, many of which are government (local and national), to propose, and institute, limits on personal freedom to protect children.
And this is the crux of it for me.
Two questions;
Why does one victim matter than another one?
How will hysterically treating every male as a potential suspect not result in treating every child as a potential victim?
Some more thoughts and questions;
Peadophilia ruins lives, some victims do recover, some never do. All of it's victims should matter equally, not just the high profile cases that enable media hysteria and stupid so called 'protective' measures to be enabled.
Take 'sarah's law' for example, any guesses how well Roy Whiting knew Sarah Payne?
So how will enabling checks by mothers on potential partners stop what happened to her happening again?
Any thoughts given the track record on data accuracy and security in this country how many perfectly innocent people are potentially going to have their lives ruined?
Any thoughts on how many convicted offenders are going to fall off the map, thus decreasing supervision and knowledge of their whereabouts and making them far more of a threat to children than before.
Go figure.....does'nt look like it will make that much of a difference after all.
Reminds me of a quote,
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. "
Benjamin Franklin.
If Mr Whiting had received, and served, the prison term he so richly deserved in a previous case, Sarah would be alive today. He didn't. As in SO many cases the system let her down, along with many others. And let us down as well. To cover their own gross incompetence the system, via the government, proposes that everyone else pays the price for their problems. But mainly men. Every man.
Not only that, but the system itself is responsible for glaring cases of child abuse on a massive scale:
Or maybe the "they'll get over it" statement covers it ?
The problem is not people, the problem is the government. In all its departments. From social workers, who wouldn't know work if it smacked them, to the legal system that (even after hard police work) refuses to hand-down real sentences for real crimes.
Not only that, but the system itself is responsible for glaring cases of child abuse on a massive scale:
Or maybe the "they'll get over it" statement covers it ?
The problem is not people, the problem is the government. In all its departments. From social workers, who wouldn't know work if it smacked them, to the legal system that (even after hard police work) refuses to hand-down real sentences for real crimes.
Quote by JTS
The problem is not people, the problem is the government. In all its departments. From social workers, who wouldn't know work if it smacked them, to the legal system that (even after hard police work) refuses to hand-down real sentences for real crimes.
Got to agree in principle, but then again it could be said that the system also lets down it's own protective agencies, social workers struggling under massive case loads, police the same, both agencies handcuffed by massive amounts of paperwork and administration. The court system restrained by edicts from above called 'sentencing guidelines'
However I don't agree that people are not part of the problem, you only have to look at the problems the NOTW 'name and shame' campaign caused to see why sometimes society needs to be protected from itself before any other consideration is taken. Protests, arson attacks, phsyical attacks, children taken along screaming words and phrases they couldn't possibly understand and peadeatricians being attacked were some of the less savoury things that came out of that farce. The scariest thing to come out of it is simply not knowing how many offenders have gone underground, changed their names, moved areas or moved abroad. Campaigns like that do not help to protect children, they put them more at risk from the very thing the papers love to emblazon across the front page, some coincidence that is eh?
How many people bought those papers just hoping to see someone they knew?
Our society is simply not grown up enough to be trusted with information of that importance.
Until we are, without sensationalising it, without using it for revenge attacks, the risk to children is going to increase because of it not inspite of it.
Quote by JTS
If Mr Whiting had received, and served, the prison term he so richly deserved in a previous case, Sarah would be alive today. He didn't. As in SO many cases the system let her down, along with many others. And let us down as well. To cover their own gross incompetence the system, via the government, proposes that everyone else pays the price for their problems. But mainly men. Every man.
Not only that, but the system itself is responsible for glaring cases of child abuse on a massive scale:
Or maybe the "they'll get over it" statement covers it ?
The problem is not people, the problem is the government. In all its departments. From social workers, who wouldn't know work if it smacked them, to the legal system that (even after hard police work) refuses to hand-down real sentences for real crimes.
False allegations wreck lives. They are bandied about far too freely and I for one feel dreadfully sorry for anyone who's been on the receiving end. When adults knowingly make them, they should be locked up imo- but maybe that's for another thread.
Totally agree that the "system" is full of arseholes employed to protect other, incompetent arseholes too. :thumbup:
Quote by Bbw4umen
I'm utterly baffled. No-one was joking about anyway. The reaction of the local authority involved, however, is lamentable, if not laughable.
They're only doing what they think is right to protect our kids... it maybe OTT but I can't help but admire their intent
We as parents have the responsibility to protect our own children.
I believe if the government bring in new laws this could lead some parents to become complacent in our own responsibilities.
Quote by Hibernian
I beg to differ hibernian. The issue is that some people can see when a joke is a joke. Irony, sarcasm whatever it is wanted to be called. Other's who don't wish to see that it isn't their humour and butt out of the thread are taking it all personally.
Some may have good reason to take it personally.
And others who have good reason can also see the humour.
FFS is that the best you can do??...a few emoticons??
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I'm utterly baffled. No-one was joking about anyway. The reaction of the local authority involved, however, is lamentable, if not laughable.
They're only doing what they think is right to protect our kids... it maybe OTT but I can't help but admire their intent
We as parents have the responsibility to protect our own children.
I believe if the government bring in new laws this could lead some parents to become complacent in our own responsibilities.
Which new laws ?
There are now over 3000 extra laws since this gov took "power"
There does not seem to be a subsequent reduction in law-breaking.
Are we to have new laws now that limit where people can be, at any time, based upon the possible risk to various sections of the community ?
No males between 18-70 near childrens play areas from 0730z to 2100z ?
To be rapidly amended when an assault takes place by a 16 year-old offender ?
Or maybe, using the exception rules of the sex discrimination laws, we can ban all males from areas where children can reasonably be expected to be, at any time ?
How far is this ridiculous obsession with new laws going to go (yes, it is ridiculous. Because the definition of a criminal explains it precisely).
Sentencing guidelines do not say anywhere that a person convisted of sex abuse should receive a community service sentence.
Sexual activity with a child (section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) 14 years
The above is what the sentencing guidelines say as a maximum.
I repeat, the work has been done. The conviction has been obtained. Then, the bleeding-hearts take over and attempt to mitigate the un-mitigateable. The courts fail miserably.
Quote by JTS
I'm utterly baffled. No-one was joking about anyway. The reaction of the local authority involved, however, is lamentable, if not laughable.
They're only doing what they think is right to protect our kids... it maybe OTT but I can't help but admire their intent
We as parents have the responsibility to protect our own children.
I believe if the government bring in new laws this could lead some parents to become complacent in our own responsibilities.
Which new laws ?
There are now over 3000 extra laws since this gov took "power"
There does not seem to be a subsequent reduction in law-breaking.
Are we to have new laws now that limit where people can be, at any time, based upon the possible risk to various sections of the community ?
No males between 18-70 near childrens play areas from 0730z to 2100z ?
To be rapidly amended when an assault takes place by a 16 year-old offender ?
Or maybe, using the exception rules of the sex discrimination laws, we can ban all males from areas where children can reasonably be expected to be, at any time ?
How far is this ridiculous obsession with new laws going to go (yes, it is ridiculous. Because the definition of a criminal explains it precisely).
Sentencing guidelines do not say anywhere that a person convisted of sex abuse should receive a community service sentence.
Sexual activity with a child (section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) 14 years
The above is what the sentencing guidelines say as a maximum.
I repeat, the work has been done. The conviction has been obtained. Then, the bleeding-hearts take over and attempt to mitigate the un-mitigateable. The courts fail miserably.
I agree with you if the 3000 new laws in place at the moment are not enough, what will another 3000 do?
I believe nothing it is all so absurd, well thats my opinion.
Quote by Hibernian
I beg to differ hibernian. The issue is that some people can see when a joke is a joke. Irony, sarcasm whatever it is wanted to be called. Other's who don't wish to see that it isn't their humour and butt out of the thread are taking it all personally.
Some may have good reason to take it personally.
And others who have good reason can also see the humour.
FFS is that the best you can do??...a few emoticons?? :sleeping:
You are really boring me now!!
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I'm utterly baffled. No-one was joking about anyway. The reaction of the local authority involved, however, is lamentable, if not laughable.
They're only doing what they think is right to protect our kids... it maybe OTT but I can't help but admire their intent
We as parents have the responsibility to protect our own children.
I believe if the government bring in new laws this could lead some parents to become complacent in our own responsibilities.
Are most not already then?
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
I'm utterly baffled. No-one was joking about anyway. The reaction of the local authority involved, however, is lamentable, if not laughable.
They're only doing what they think is right to protect our kids... it maybe OTT but I can't help but admire their intent
We as parents have the responsibility to protect our own children.
I believe if the government bring in new laws this could lead some parents to become complacent in our own responsibilities.
Are most not already then?
Good point 777 :thumbup:
Quote by Lost
I'm utterly baffled. No-one was joking about anyway. The reaction of the local authority involved, however, is lamentable, if not laughable.
They're only doing what they think is right to protect our kids... it maybe OTT but I can't help but admire their intent
We as parents have the responsibility to protect our own children.
I believe if the government bring in new laws this could lead some parents to become complacent in our own responsibilities.
Are most not already then?
Good point 777 :thumbup:
I believe they are yes!
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I'm utterly baffled. No-one was joking about anyway. The reaction of the local authority involved, however, is lamentable, if not laughable.
They're only doing what they think is right to protect our kids... it maybe OTT but I can't help but admire their intent
We as parents have the responsibility to protect our own children.
I believe if the government bring in new laws this could lead some parents to become complacent in our own responsibilities.
Are most not already then?
Good point 777 :thumbup:
I believe they are yes!
Your opinion Minxy, sorry but not quite mine.
xx Quote by kentswingers777
I'm utterly baffled. No-one was joking about anyway. The reaction of the local authority involved, however, is lamentable, if not laughable.
They're only doing what they think is right to protect our kids... it maybe OTT but I can't help but admire their intent
We as parents have the responsibility to protect our own children.
I believe if the government bring in new laws this could lead some parents to become complacent in our own responsibilities.
Are most not already then?
Good point 777 :thumbup:
I believe they are yes!
Your opinion Minxy, sorry but not quite mine.
xxI think you misunderstood me I know it is rare but I agree with you....you fool! :lol:
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I'm utterly baffled. No-one was joking about anyway. The reaction of the local authority involved, however, is lamentable, if not laughable.
They're only doing what they think is right to protect our kids... it maybe OTT but I can't help but admire their intent
We as parents have the responsibility to protect our own children.
I believe if the government bring in new laws this could lead some parents to become complacent in our own responsibilities.
Are most not already then?
Good point 777 :thumbup:
I believe they are yes!
Your opinion Minxy, sorry but not quite mine.
xxI think you misunderstood me I know it is rare but I agree with you....you fool! :lol:
Sorry minxy..... :upset:
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:Quote by keeno
Didn't think paedophiles were a thing to joke about
two paedophiles sitting on a beach. A attractive nubilke 17 year old walks past. One turns to the other and says "I bet she was a looker in her day"
Well fuck my boots, there is humour to be found in after all.
And no I hadn't heard that one, and yes I tittered.
Casanova
OK well I am a Blonde and my name is Dizzy so 
ops: :oops: :roll: silly me!
ops: :oops: :roll: silly me! Quote by Hibernian
It's a sick joke saying they found her more sexually attractive as a child!
of course its a sick joke...buts it was funny!
and thats the point of wether its a "your sense of humour" thing or not!
you have the choice to laugh at it all not!
I'm not sure what irritates me more, your comments or your sick...I mean Sig'
so our sense of humour differs...big deal!!
:P
The subject of this thread seems to have become a "freedom of speech" issue ie "can we make jokes about paedophiles and morally get away with it?"
My answer is most definitely FUCK YEAH! We've had so many of the freedoms of speech in the form of jokes that we've had taken away from us by those who can legally fight back - minorities, the disabled and mothers-in-law to name but a few. Victims of paedophiles, yes - I feel sorry for you blah-di blah-di blah, but please don't take away yet another outlet for the sick humour that is so British. Paedophiles deserve the harshest punishments possible - public derision could be included.
My answer is most definitely FUCK YEAH! We've had so many of the freedoms of speech in the form of jokes that we've had taken away from us by those who can legally fight back - minorities, the disabled and mothers-in-law to name but a few. Victims of paedophiles, yes - I feel sorry for you blah-di blah-di blah, but please don't take away yet another outlet for the sick humour that is so British. Paedophiles deserve the harshest punishments possible - public derision could be included.
