It's Paedogeddon! (Is Paedophilia Increasing?)

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
32,749
Reaction score
40,396
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
But if it's not OK to touch the bouncer's face without permission, why is it OK to kiss a child's without asking?

Answer - because the bouncer can say 'no' and the kid can't. Simple as that. That's all there is to it. ;)
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
32,757
Reaction score
40,596
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
escargot1 said:
But if it's not OK to touch the bouncer's face without permission, why is it OK to kiss a child's without asking?

Answer - because the bouncer can say 'no' and the kid can't. Simple as that. That's all there is to it. ;)
A bouncer (probably) isn't keen on the gesture as he's reached an age where he as acquired fixed ideas about physical intimacy, sexual activity, and social ettiquette.

A child has not and hence (probably) wouldn't mind. If they seemed to find such contact upsetting then of course it should be avoided but many kids love physical contact from cuddles to horseplay. The obsessions of a minority are depriving them of natural interactions.
 

_Lizard23_

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 23, 2001
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
20
Points
69
Indeed.
I loathe little kids but am occasionally molested (in an entirely non-sexual way, natch) by them (I think the same mechanism drives them to me as that which makes your cig smoke drift over towards the virrulent anti-smoker at the table) and have even had to kiss a fair few of them at their own and/or their parents' insistance as well as have them clamber about all over me, grab various 'inappropriate' parts of my anatomy, muck about with my possessions and make horrendously personal comments and other such behaviour that is so far down the 'not respecting my personal space' route that it would get them a fat lip if they were adults.

They do things like touching and kissing in an entirely different, utterly innocent, instinctive way.
As do adults towards children, unless they are screwed-up old curmudgeons like me, or paedophiles, both of which groups are, fortunately, in the minority.
 

BaronHardacre

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
679
Points
144
Location
Leeds, Uk
escargot1 said:
By 'treating children like children', do you mean believing that they can be touched without their consent? Is it OK to produce that 'urgh' reaction? .
I never gave the "nit nurse" consent to touch my head when I was a kid, nor did I like it when people ruffled my hair. However, neither of those actions damaged me, and neither will a peck on the cheek from a vicar to that girl.
People are far too sensitive these days, and they need to grow up and realise that the more they push (well intentioned) affection away from kids, the more the generations to come are going to be emotionally stunted.
 

Quake42

Warrior Princess
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
9,310
Reaction score
3,797
Points
219
I have to say it all sounds quite innocent to me. In any case, a lot of people, (even in the UK although less often than on the continent!), kiss friends and acquaintances on the cheek when meeting or when saying goodbye. I'm not a massive fan of it myself but I don't violently object if someone does it to me. There certainly isn't anything remotely sexual about it.
 

WhistlingJack

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
3,564
Reaction score
38
Points
69
The Sunday Times, July 16, 2006

Police call for tracker chips in paedophiles

David Leppard

BRITAIN’S most senior policeman is proposing that electronic chips should be surgically implanted into convicted paedophiles and dangerous sex offenders so they can be more easily tracked.

Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said the implants would be tracked by satellite, enabling authorities to set up “zones” from which sex offenders would be barred. These could include schools, playgrounds and former victims’ homes. Any attempt by the offender to enter the zones would trigger alarms in a monitoring centre, enabling police to act.

Jones, whose association represents all 43 chief constables in England and Wales, said the scheme would help to reassure the public at a time of mounting concern about the government’s handling of sex offenders.

“If we are prepared to track cars, why don’t we track people? You could put surgical chips into those of the most dangerous sex offenders who are are willing to be controlled,” he said.

His comments follow the announcement last month by John Reid, the home secretary, of a review of the way paedophiles and other sex offenders are treated on their release.

Another option being considered is the so-called “Megan’s law” operated in America, which allows parents to find out if paedophiles are living near their homes. Ministers have previously ruled out transplanting the law to Britain because of fears that paedophiles could be attacked by vigilantes.

Jones said the Home Office review had given police and ministers “a great opportunity” to consider a wide range of options.

He said he was aware that civil liberties groups would object to the idea of a “Big Brother” monitoring system but emphasised that the chips would be implanted only with the agreement of sex offenders and would be targeted at those guilty of the most serious crimes.

“You could have a pilot scheme for the people who represent the highest risk and who would voluntarily want to go into this. You’d be surprised how many would be willing to submit to that kind of control,” he said.

The chips — inserted beneath the skin under local anaesthetic — could also monitor the heart rate and blood pressure of the offender, alerting authorities to the possible imminence of an attack.

Dr William Harwin, of the cybernetics department at Reading University, said such tags were now widely available: “Similar tracking chips are already extensively used on pets and livestock.”

Supporters believe implanted chips would be more effective than electronic tags on ankles or wrists because they cannot easily be removed.

The Home Office is evaluating a trial in which the movements of released sex offenders and wife beaters have been tracked by satellite using conventional tags.

On a British-style Megan’s law, well placed sources say Reid is likely to opt for a compromise solution that will mean information about a convicted sex offender’s address could be disclosed to a “respected” member of a local community, rather than to the public on a website.

Figures released by the Home Office last month showed that since 2001 more than 3,300 sex offenders had been punished for absconding or failing to tell police where they were living.

Additional reporting: Anna Mikhailova

Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
 

Dingo667

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
73
Points
64
So they'll know where they are, will that stop them?
I mean you can't stop a free paedo to go for a walk in a park.If he "meets" a child there and brings it home [you can't stop him going home] and do stuff there how is anyone to know?
It would be better to fix a microphone into their foreheads so that a potential victim can be heard and then a chip might come in handy to stop them in their act.
As a matter of fact, save some money and just shoot them in the head [paedos and wife beaters!]
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
32,757
Reaction score
40,596
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Perhaps if you mounted permanently tatooed a 'P' their forehead. Or made them wear large inflatable pants so it's physically impossible to get within 2 metres of anyone. I think these options should be considered.

Perhaps, following from Dingo's suggestion we could have a small public address system attached to their heads that loudly declares: "Hello, i am a paedophille" to anyone within, say, 5 metres.
 

filcee

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 12, 2002
Messages
516
Reaction score
9
Points
49
Dingo667 said:
So they'll know where they are, will that stop them?
I mean you can't stop a free paedo to go for a walk in a park.If he "meets" a child there and brings it home [you can't stop him going home] and do stuff there how is anyone to know?
It would be better to fix a microphone into their foreheads so that a potential victim can be heard and then a chip might come in handy to stop them in their act.
As a matter of fact, save some money and just shoot them in the head [paedos and wife beaters!]
If said free paedo is only out under license, part of the conditions could be that they are not allowed to go to certain areas (this was the case with the two photo'd filming kids in a park, I think?).
But yes, the lead in the head would be much more cost effective...
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,231
Points
219
theyithian said:
Perhaps, following from Dingo's suggestion we could have a small public address system attached to their heads that loudly declares: "Hello, i am a paedophille" to anyone within, say, 5 metres.
PLace them in a giant hamster ball with a tiny slit to push cheese singles through, that'll teach 'em.....
 

WhistlingJack

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
3,564
Reaction score
38
Points
69
Paedophiles face cancelled cards

Credit and debit card firms will find it easier to cancel the cards of online paedophiles under a planned new law.


Cancellation will be on the grounds that using cards to purchase child pornography breaches the issuer's terms and conditions.

The move has long been urged by charities and card issuers.

The amendment to the Data Protection Act is being discussed in the House of Lords on Wednesday and has the support of the government.

As the Data Protection Act currently stands, card issuers do not know when their cards are used to access child pornography.

The amendment will allow card issuers to receive information on card usage from the police.

The issuers said this will free them to terminate the contract with the cardholder and cancel the cards.

"No card provider wants to be associated with those who commit these crimes," said Paul Marsh, director of cards and fraud control at the Association of Payment Clearing Services (Apacs).

"With this change in the law our members will have the information they need to remove offenders' cards. They will not be able to use the same cards to offend again."

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2006/07/19 10:03:48 GMT

© BBC MMVI
 

Dingo667

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
73
Points
64
That's a good idea!
Or what about a PC/Mac etc licence?
If you are a paedo you are banned from using one. Everytime you go into a cyber cafe you have to show a valid licence and if you haven't got one...tough. They could even go as far as before you use a public PC you have to swipe your card. As for home use, they could imply the same system as they use for the TV licence. Spotchecks, warnings etc.

Yeah, I can see many ways of cheating but any hurdle in their way can only be good.
 

Graylien

As if!
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,443
Reaction score
3,236
Points
184
Location
Norwich.
Surely internet cafes have filters in place to prevent customers from accessing pornography? And isn't it already possible to ban convicted paedophiles from owning a PC without forcing the rest of us to fork out for a PC licence?
 

Leaferne

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Messages
2,736
Reaction score
78
Points
64
Canadian libraries don't--or at least the ones here don't have internet filters on their public computers. (source: former neighbour who is a librarian) The rationale is that such filters are considered 'censorship' which is antithetical to most libraries' statements of purpose. It still didn't thrill the neighbour to have to watch skeevy people browse animal or kiddie porn sites for hours. :?

As for the public computers on campus, there are no filters there either although I believe they're going to be implementing a sign-in on most of them so you have to be a student, staff or faculty member to access them, with the exception of the comps in the larger libraries, as these are considered "open to *everybody*" as opposed to "open to everybody with a connection to the school".
 

Graylien

As if!
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,443
Reaction score
3,236
Points
184
Location
Norwich.
Amazing. At my local public library - and at the local college - you have to log on to the computers with a unique id, and the filters are so stringent that even quite innocent sites are occasionally blocked. At college, a little message used to pop up on the screen saying that your log-in details and the address of the site that you tried to view were being forwarded to the IT department.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
32,749
Reaction score
40,396
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
Catchaperv

www.catchaperv.com

Two students have set up an internet chatroom that catches out men making sexually explicit advances to someone they believe is a 13-year-old girl.

Read this today on the Guardian site. There are pictures of the men. I don't recognise any, I'm glad to say!

It seems that this form of 'net vigilantism' has been done already in the USA. I hadn't come across it before.

'Wave, you're on Catch a Perv!'
Two students have set up an internet chatroom that catches out men making sexually explicit advances to someone they believe is a 13-year-old girl. Entrapment, or a public service? James Silver reports

James Silver
Thursday November 16, 2006

Guardian

'Hot Phil" sits in a squalid-looking bedsit, pecking at his computer keyboard as he logs on to the internet chatroom. Scouring the names and profiles of those online, he homes in on someone called "Lucy Star". He then types out his own profile, describing himself as "male with short hair, slim build, tats [tattoos] all over and body tanned". Helpfully, he also uploads a couple of pictures of himself. The shape of his shaved head makes him look faintly reptilian. A can of lager and packet of tobacco sit on the desk in front of him. He asks Lucy if she wants to chat. Within seconds she responds: "asl?" - chatroom speak for "Age, sex, location?"
Phil replies instantly. "39 MALE SURREY. U?" So far, so banal, as so many chatroom encounters tend to be. Except that "Hot Phil" already knows Lucy's age. From her profile on the website, it is clear she is only 13. And that seems to be exactly why Phil is targeting her.

"DO U LIKE OLDER MEN?" he asks, following it up quickly with "R U ALONE IN THE HOUSE?" When Lucy admits she is, Phil goes for broke. "WOT SIZE BOOBS R U? Then: "CAN U TAKE YOUR TOP OFF AND EXPOSE YOUR BOOBS".

After several minutes of increasingly sordid messages, Phil asks if his young victim has a webcam - and, if so, will she turn it on for him? "No soz [sorry]," says Lucy. "i neva go first. U could be rly rly [really really] old'. Desperate to win her trust, Phil turns on his own webcam. "Now u," he demands. She then asks him to wave at the camera - and when he does, Lucy has achieved her goal. Turning on her webcam, she watches as Phil's face darkens with horror and he scrambles for the off-button. "Smile for me!" types Lucy, before adding: "Welcome to catchaperv.com".

"Lucy Star" isn't a 13-year-old girl at all. In fact, "she" is two male 23-year-old students, Gary and Ash, who congratulate themselves on another job well done.

Fearing reprisals from the men they unmask, Gary and Ash want only to be identified by their first names and decline to have their pictures taken. They launched Catchaperv.com two months ago from a sofa in Gary's mum's lounge in a suburban Home Counties semi.

The first website of its kind in Britain - there are several in the US - Catchaperv is a 21st-

century version of the medieval stocks. It features a rogues' gallery of "perverts" alongside transcripts of their sexually explicit advances. "The website does not claim any persons shown on the site are paedophiles," announces the site's homepage. "It is clear, however, that the behaviour demonstrated is unacceptable."

Visitors to the site - 57,000 so far - can post comments about each "perv" and award them stars. So far Gary and Ash have caught 30 men - "Hot Phil" was "Perv # 00027". "The idea came to us when we were having a laugh on the computer one night going into chatrooms under made-up names," says Gary. "We were shocked by just how many men approached us when we posed as a 12- or 13-year-old girl and decided we would try to do something about it."

"Hot Phil" wasn't the only man the pair caught on the night they gave me a demonstration of their site. Within seconds of "Lucy Star" logging on, messages were flooding in. A few were from other kids, but most were sent by older men. "They can all see from our profile that we're 13," Ash reminds me. "We repeat our age to the ones we get talking to." A message flashes from someone called "Puss Lover" asking if Lucy would like to talk dirty to him. Jason, a 36-year-old from Doncaster joins in. He sends Lucy a pornographic image. "He's now asking if we have a picture to send him," says Gary. "We'll say, 'No, sorry, Dad doesn't like me having pictures on the computer'."

"He's now asked us, 'Are you a virgin?' We'll try and meander off the subject," Ash says. Another pornographic image pings onto the screen. "He wants to know about Lucy's bra size," says Gary. When he replies with "30A", Jason responds with "nice" and asks Lucy whether she masturbates.

Aren't Gary and Ash guilty of entrapment? "No," says Ash, "because we never contact people first. We wait for them to make the first move. I dread to think how many people we could catch if we actually were provocative. It would be in the thousands by now."

The messages are coming in thick and fast. Steve from Birkenhead quizzes Lucy about her day at school - whether she has homework and if she likes football - seemingly innocent questions that may have sinister motives behind them, although the lads insist it is too soon to tell. "You get two kinds of perv," says Ash. "You get the ones that go straight into the sex questions, and the ones that seem a bit more cunning and ask about homework. Jason is definitely the sex kind and Steve is more of a groomer."

Steve invites Lucy to start viewing his webcam feed and Gary accepts. Steve is mid-30s, baby-faced and wearing large-framed glasses. Jason, meanwhile, asks what underwear Lucy has on. "I think we've got more than enough on Jason to go straight to 'the reveal'," says Gary.

This part usually follows the same pattern, Ash says. The man in question asks Lucy to turn her webcam on. Her reply amounts to, "Yes, but you first". Nine times out of 10, the man, who is by now desperate to see his young prey, blinks first. Gary and Ash then ask him to wave at the camera, to confirm that the person on the screen is the one who has been bombarding them with sexually graphic messages. Then comes the "reveal" - a gesture intended to ridicule the man. "We usually get them to do something that humiliates them, like do a little dance," says Gary. "Then we'll turn the camera round on ourselves and wave back at him. Here goes!"

The catchers count to three and turn their webcam on. They jeer and wave at Jason and his expectant face turns into one of sheer horror. A torrent of curses follows, as his webcam snaps off. But it's too late. Gary has saved the footage as well as the transcripts. Soon Jason will enter their gallery as "Perv # 00028". "That's the deterrent," says Ash. "When people see that if they try this kind of thing they might bump into myself and Gary rather than a 13-year-old girl, it will make the majority think twice."

The authorities are less convinced. The Metropolitan police child abuse investigation command is investigating "all aspects" of the site and its content. "We believe the use of the internet in this way is irresponsible. As well as trivialising a very serious issue, such a website is also at risk of compromising policing operations and it exposes the public to indecent material."

John Carr, an internet expert from the children's charity NCH, agrees that "vigilante websites" are not the way to deal with such men. "However noble the motives of these young lads, they are just amateurs dabbling at this," he says. "They could be driving the perpetrators underground where they can't be monitored.

"We should also bear in mind that more than 30 men killed themselves after being arrested or investigated as part of Operation Ore [Britain's biggest investigation into the downloading of child pornography] and as a result the police have developed anti-suicide procedures. It is likely some of the men named on this site will be very shocked and there is no knowing how they will react. From the transcripts it is clear what these men were up to, but that shouldn't make them the subject of lynch law."

In America there are claims that a number of men have been attacked as a result of appearing on sites such as catchaperv.com. Are Gary and Ash concerned about reprisals against those they expose? "We don't support any form of violence," says Gary. "By all means support the site, but please don't do anything about it if you think you know somebody who appears."

I contacted several of those named and shamed by Catchaperv.com, but only one replied. He wrote: "I admit I made a terrible misjudgment on the evening I was trapped, but I emailed the site operators three times telling them the truth that in fact it was something I had never done before and would never do again. I now live in fear of losing my loving family because of this site."

Nevertheless, Gary and Ash say that - although they are happy to cooperate with the police - they have no regrets. "We're not trying to replace the police and we don't support any form of harassment of people who appear," says Ash. "We're simply trying to create a deterrent. We'd rather the site didn't have to exist at all. We'd rather these people weren't so damn easy to catch. But something needed to be done ".
 

ghostdog19

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
3
Points
54
Revolting. My god that's hideously creepy.

There's an aspect to this that's problematic and that's reprisals, and that's the main issue I think. But aside from that, part of me thinks 'good, nice to see someone doing something about it', whilst at the same time wondering if this is an instance where the web populace takes up the initiative or if this should be a matter of officials to decide upon, thereby falling into the age old debate of the web being policed. This is sort of a bit like the video vigilante. The information should really be handed over to the police and not presented on a website for less responsible types to take action upon recognizing a person.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
32,749
Reaction score
40,396
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
Yup, it seems that the videos and chat logs from the website cannot be used by the police, so, most ironically, the blokes cannot defend themselves in court and are at the mercy of informal justice.
 

ghostdog19

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
3
Points
54
It completely defied my mental stereotype of what that sort of person looked like (that said, quite a few fitted the bill bob on).
*shudder*
 

JamesWhitehead

Piffle Prospector
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
13,578
Reaction score
12,835
Points
309
Horrible stuff - and that's just the spelling!

"Hows U" should be regarded as an early indicator. :cross eye

The site admits to having cleaned up its own act in the face of growing popularity. I note that their logo still includes a bobbie's helmet though.

:?
 

Xanatico

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
13
Points
54
And I thought the whole problem with it was that the older men would pretend to be young kids themselves.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
32,749
Reaction score
40,396
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
Yup, there is a modern folk belief that chatrooms are full of 48 year-old lorry drivers chatting up hot Lolitas who are in fact other 48 year-old lorry drivers... :lol:
 

Xanatico

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
13
Points
54
I think it was in Denmark where recently two 13 or so year olds both thought the other was some middle aged pervert and contacted the police.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
32,749
Reaction score
40,396
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
Really? :lol:
 

WhistlingJack

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
3,564
Reaction score
38
Points
69
Missing paedophiles named online

Some of Britain's most wanted child sex offenders have been publicly identified on a new website.


It is believed to be the first time that details of convicted paedophiles have been published nationwide by Britain's law enforcement agencies.

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) centre has set up the site to appeal for information about missing child sex offenders.

They are offenders who have already been punished and then gone missing.

The missing men have failed to comply with the legal restrictions on their movements and have disappeared.

A breach of these so-called "notification requirements" - conditions of their placement on the Sex Offenders Register - is an arrestable offence punishable with up to five years in prison.

The website has published the details of five missing offenders, giving their names, ages, a photograph and where they have gone missing from, but not the details of their convictions.

The five men named on the website are Alexander Colin Dalgleish, Gordon Stewart, Paul Turner (also known as Paul Francis or Geddes), Joshua Karney, who also goes by five other names, and Kamil Krawiec.

The site includes photographs, physical descriptions, additional information and warns the public against taking vigilante action.

The scheme is being run with the Crimestoppers Most Wanted site, which is designed to help track down Britain's most dangerous criminals who are on the run.

Jim Gamble, chief executive of the CEOP Centre, said: "The success of the Crimestoppers' website in gaining the support of the public to help track the UK's most wanted criminals is unprecedented here in the UK.

"Now we need to move a lot of that success towards protecting children and safeguarding communities from harm.

"While it isn't new for the UK police to publish details of offenders on their own sites, this is the first time that a nationwide - and indeed global - approach has been adopted."

He added: "I cannot emphasise strongly enough the need for the public to act responsibly if they believe they know the location of a sought offender.

"They must make immediate reports of sightings so that the police can take appropriate action. Any vigilante activity will be robustly dealt with and is likely to constitute a criminal offence."

Stuart Kuttner, managing editor of News of the World, welcomed the news.

The newspaper has run a high profile campaign, Sarah's Law, which campaigns to give parents the right to know if a paedophile is living in their area,

"I see it as a part of the fabric of restructuring the law, and giving parents and other carers of children the right to know where dangerous, predatory, repeat paedophiles may be in the community."

Law enforcement agencies have previously avoided identifying paedophiles for fear of inviting vigilante attacks with the result of having them driven underground.

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the Probation Union NAPO, sounded a note of caution over the move. He said warnings over vigilante action should be made clear on the website.

"I was worried that false data or incorrect data might go on - and there might be people identified wrongly.

"I still think...there's a risk that people who are already missing may further go to ground if they think that the public may engage in vigilante action.

"So what we need is an assurance from people who are running the website is that they will advise individuals not to take action on their own. "

The CEOP site coincides with the first anniversary of the Crimestoppers site, which went live last November, receiving almost 40 million hits and leading to 24 arrests.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2006/11/17 11:19:31 GMT

© BBC MMVI
 

WhistlingJack

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
3,564
Reaction score
38
Points
69
Crowd outside paedophile's home*

An angry crowd has gathered outside the home of a paedophile who is now living in Bishop's Lydeard, Somerset.


Francis Lee, formerly Robert Oliver, 52, was a member of an East London paedophile gang which killed 14-year-old Jason Swift in 1985.

He was released in September 1997 after serving 10 years of a 15-year sentence. His whereabouts were published by The News of the World** on Sunday.

Women chanting "paedophile out" called for Lee to be kept locked up.

"Are my children not entitled to walk safely in the street and play in the area - why should he have all the police protection?" demanded one woman.

"There's families desperate for somewhere to live and they give a council house to him - it's disgusting," said another.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2006/12/11 14:31:07 GMT

© BBC MMVI

* I do hope that the hard-of-understanding don't interpret this headline as an invitation...

** Who else..?
 

OneWingedBird

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
7,018
Points
284
i thought the NOTW had been told to lay off that kind of stuff by the police? after the last time they started printing paedo's names and addresses and people started getting the shit kicked out of them cos they just happened to have the same name, or lived in a flat that had been recently vacated by a paedo?
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
170
Points
114
theyithian said:
Does anyone actually believe that paedophilla is more prevailent today than say one hundred years or more ago, or is it just that it is revealed more often?
On the United States frontier, down to the time of the Civil War, the young schoolmaster moving to town fresh out of nornal school was not only permitted but EXPECTED to choose his bride from amongst his seventh and eighth grade girls.
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
170
Points
114
Re: Catchaperv

escargot1 said:
It seems that this form of 'net vigilantism' has been done already in the USA.
In the US these "sting" operations are invariably operated hand-in-glove WITH the police, before, during and after. When the suspect arrives for his expected rendezvous, it is the POLICE who are waiting for the perp, who take him down, who book him, and who impound his automobile and search it for incriminating materials. Moreover, the Courts have no problems with this approach.

If the cops and the Courts are ALSO vigilantees, doesn't the word cease to have any meaning?

Or are we confusing vigilantism with a vigilant citizenry working in full partnership with the police and civil authorities?
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
170
Points
114
I don't believe that a kiss on the cheek from a Vicar during my schooldays would have offended me any more than one from my Father. In fact, I would have interpreted it under the general umbrella of in loco parentis. Moreover, so would my parents.

Likewise, when a French military decoration is presented with a kiss on both cheeks, few would consider that kiss a sexual overture.

In any case, a non-sexual kiss from one's spiritual elder has a very long tradition in Christianity.

And, yes, of course, that can be severely abused and perverted, as we've all seen over the past 20 years.
 
Top