Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
18 February 2011
11:4593139#1
what are forumites views on the co olitions surprize move on the people who may no longer need to go on the sex offenders register?
the police have concerns over these moves
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
18 February 2011
11:4993140#2
Keef
I think offenders will have the right to have an appeal to have their named removed from the s o r after 15 years of no further crimes. Democracy must prevail and if thats the ruling we have to like it or lump it.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
18 February 2011
11:5393141#3
marek
this is where we probably slightly differ.
like it or lump it?
i'm afraid if i disagree i will say so and im sure others will to
public opinion is important
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
18 February 2011
12:0493142#4
Yes...Keef..its not my favourite piece of legislation and altho' we may not agree with or like the ruling we must abide by it or work towards it being changed.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
18 February 2011
12:0893143#5
yep, thats better marek
now i agree with you
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 February 2011
13:0693157#6
Keith - do you really not understand the issue or are you deliberately trying to somehow politically spin a Human Rights Court finding into attacking the government?
DC is enraged by this further example of wooly head thinking by the court over so called Human Rights. That is why he has said a British Bill of Rights is needed to replace the ECHR. See my blog (at least until I change it tonight....)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
18 February 2011
13:0893160#7
barryw
im just hightlighting the issue
i dont care who it is that wants these changes i dont agree with them
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
18 February 2011
17:2893185#8
barryw,how many wooly hats have you got,
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
18 February 2011
18:5593197#9
Marek, if you think the ECHR judges have anything todo with democracy, I am afraid we must agree to disagree.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
18 February 2011
20:3293215#10
when i first heard of this i thought this was just another scheme by ken clarke to put more criminals on the street.
the appeal can only be heard 15 years after the last offence and even then after stringent checks.
best not to forget also that if an 18 year old has consenting sex with a 15 year old, then the former goes onto the sex offender register, hardly gary glitter stuff.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
19 February 2011
07:5193259#11
But it's the bad sex-crimes for people who serve over 4 years (I think) that only go on the register for life.
You can't "cure" a paedophile, they are that way for life; they should never come off the register if they have commtted a serious sexual offence - I don't consider an 18 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl to be a serious offence - the girl probably looked much older than him anyway;nowadays it is very difficult to tell the ages of these young "made-up" girls.
Why pay a criminal compensation for anything they have done ? - burglar, murderer, sex-offender, whatever, if they have been convicted that's it. They pay the consequence of their actions, no one forced them to commit that crime, they did it because they wanted to.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
19 February 2011
08:2993262#12
wow roger thats a sweeping statement
i hope iv misunderstood your posting.
in the main i agree with you on sex offenders, but you end up saying
it's ok for an 18 year old to have unlawful sex with a minor
just because she may have dressed to look older
blimey roger i'm afraid i can't go along with that one
ps
dropped you an e mail roger ta
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
19 February 2011
08:4493267#13
What I said Keith was "I don't consider an 18 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl to be a serious offence - the girl probably looked much older than him anyway;nowadays it is very difficult to tell the ages of these young "made-up" girls".
What you have said I said, is different to what I actually said. It is a less serious offence, much less serious offence than rape and other sexual offences we read about every day.
I wasn't condoning sex with under-age children, you know that, why infer I was ?
If you're are trying to stir up trouble and stop me posting, you're going the right way about it
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
19 February 2011
08:4793268#14
roger
i apologise if i infered that and please dont stop posting
just trying to clarify
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
19 February 2011
10:0893283#15
Sadly mud sticks
So even if the "offender" gets their name removed the stigma will follow them around for an awfully long time
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
19 February 2011
10:4493286#16
Keith, in your younger, better-looking days(
), did you ever ask a girl for ID before going behind the bike shed?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
19 February 2011
11:5393295#17
Howard speaks sense in post #10. It isn't a straightforward name-off-the-register after a set time, and let's hope that the people making the decisions will have some sense and insight. I am firmly of the opinion, having worked with a huge variety of broken and damaged people for a long long time, that a paedophile will not lose those urges, he might just about manage to control them with the right consistent and targeted support for life. A predatory manipulative paedophile is totally different to a young guy and girl who simply forgot their ages and did a natural and understandable thing as part of their growing up. Criminalising the young for succumbing to nature is not helpful. Saying this does not mean I am condoning rape or paedophilia!!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
19 February 2011
12:4093303#18
peter
bike sheds???
we couldnt afford a black board lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
19 February 2011
12:4393304#19
But when the lead is in the pencil you have to write the page...................
Sorry - that was really tacky.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
19 February 2011
13:5493309#20
Perhaps judges should be obliged at time of sentencing to set a period after which an application to come off the register can be made.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson