Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by eveyoz, Sep 14, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Would existing laws have stopped the Soham incident if they'd been followed? If they had then why are the government trying to bring in new laws when they can't enforce the existing ones and why haven't people been held accountable for not enforcing them. If not, then if the new proposed laws were applied would they have stopped the events within the current enforcement capabilities?
Kiddie fidlers will get round any enforcement you try to impliment (sp?). You won't stop it but you have to try. I don't know the answer, as a potential partent I'd like one but I have to take the risk to trust someone in a position of responsibility, if I don't then my (potential) kids upbringing will suffer.
all these laws do nothing to stop a first time peodophile either, as the article states it's a state of paranoia that is being created in our country.
It's a wee bit rich this Soham copper mouthing-off about this now, under today's "existing laws" - as Ian Huntley was already on the kiddie-fiddlers' register, as it was constituted then, at the time of him taking his job at the school - it's just that the police didn't pass that info on to the school when he applied for the job.
It's implement since you asked.
But you got it in one with that sentence. There is no way to stop paedophiles with legislation. It might help if they were locked up for life, they will never ever be rehabilitated so why release them on licence? Their freedom is worthless compared with the freedom of my children.
The way to make it very difficult for paedophiles is not to make everyone so fearful that we're all watching each other. It's far better to foster a spirit of trust and community with each other, when I was a little lad everyone knew everyone else and we knew that we could go to any of our friends houses and it would be a safe haven and that they could contact our parents as they were all friends in our community.
Adults with children do not need vetting to see whether or not they could be trusted to take friends children to football matches. As a parent I will make the decision who may take our children out and no fcuking government official will tell me otherwise. I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone else take away my rights to parent my own children. I've bloody well earned the right and this government can bloody do one.
Someone told me just a couple of weeks ago that I needed permission to take photos in the park, I asked them to quote the law that supported this. She said she couldn't so I told her that no such law exists and challenged her to find one that does. The problem is that everyone is becoming an expert on what we can and can't do but with very little actual knowledge of the law, just a rumour that it's not allowed. We're being falsely advised by this government who have an ulterior motive, in that if we're all scared they will be able to pass whatever laws they like in the name of public safety and charge us for the privilege. The game's up now though and thankfully people are really starting to question it all. I just hope it's enough to get Labour out of power next year.
Governement isn't the problem. Their advisors are. We've alread seem organisations such as the NSPCC disagree with suggestions/'goverment' recomendations, the goverment doesn't have a clue, it'll only suggest what it is 'advised' at the time. Hopefully the next government will listen to public opinion but I doubt it very much. They may make out they will but..
I agree about their advisors but I think the government is a very big part of the problem. This is part of their social experiment. Government by lawyers. How could that ever be a good idea. Lawyers are just a rung down the hate ladder from estate agents. How on earth did they get into power. Don't answer that.
What everyone forgets about the Soham case is that Huntley was not the caretaker at the school attended by the two poor victims. He was the caretaker at the secondary school. The only reason that he had any contact with the girls is because Carr, his girlfriend, worked at the primary school.
So that fact that he was a caretaker at another school was utterly irrelevant to the case. He might equally well have been still working as a barman. His opportunity to murder the girls would have been entirely the same.
It is the deepest of ironies that the Stasi system now being implemented as a result of his vile crimes would not have done anything to protect Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman. Irony number two - Huntley only got the caretaker job because the previous caretaker had been sacked for having an inappropriate relationship with a girl at the secondary school.
Legislation does absolutely nothing. It's proper policing and enforcement which does. This 'Government' has placed innumerable bits of legislation on the Statute Book, virtually all of it useless and most of it unenforceable.
Since when have any additional laws helped to reduce crime? All they do is criminalise more and more people.
As BarkingSpider said, there is no legal reason why I can't take photos of my or anyone else's kids when they are in a public place.
I would have expected this ex-policeman to have known this and not spread the falsehood that you need to get peoples permission before taking their photo.
Apart from that the piece has some good and valid points.
'Someone told me just a couple of weeks ago that I needed permission to take photos in the park, I asked them to quote the law that supported this. She said she couldn't so I told her that no such law exists and challenged her to find one that does.'
Once again, the problem lies with certain individuals need to push others around. Give a little man a bit of power and he will abuse it. As has been said here, so much useless and ambiguous legislation has been put on the statute books over the last 12 years that no one knows what is legal and what is not.
Separate names with a comma.