Beasts Behind Bars
News breaking this week of a paedophile being released early in Guildford will have repulsed most parents. These scum deserve no understanding, no mercy, no tolerance. My children attend a local school where a number of approaches have been made on children in recent months. There's a simple solution to dealing with beasts - lock them up for good and show them the same mercy they show their victims.
Don't look to liberals for answers. My post (below) of 4/4/06 highlights their irresponsibility when it comes to child protection...strangers offering toffees to kids.
8 Comments:
Go ahead, Dennis... jump on this bandwagon and perpetuate the 'roaming monster' myth just so you can take a cheap shot at the Lib-Dems.
I support us having Megan's Law, whereby the locations of peados is made public. It hasn't led to vigilanteism, which is always the liberal/democrat argument against this type of action.
There was a big study into abnormal and unusual or unnatural sexual preferences (paedophilia, homosexuality), done in Canada recently.
The study found that one's sexuality could be determined by the number of siblings one has, as well as quality of parenting, and self-confidence.
Hopefully one day scientists will be able to determine exactly what causes such irregular preferences, so that society can rid itsself of these sorts of people!
We all have our preferences Dennis. I agree, paedophiles that act on their impulses should be prosecuted, and a fair penalty applied (fines, or in some cases prison sentences).
However you can't legislate sexuality, or sexual preference!
Some people are attracted to young children. And? So long as they keep themselves to themselves, there's no reason to make a big deal out of it.
The guy who was released recently has served his time. He now deserves to be reintegrated back into society, and not be harassed.
Dennis, the law as it stands means that such offenders are released back into society.
Some of these individuals are particularly evil. What would be your proposal for dealing with this? Until they commit a crime, what exactly can you do in terms of preventative measures? How do you do this without impinging upon civil liberties? For example, if your own children wanted to accuse you of something, and the police had power to monitor your phone records, internet activity etc, you could be set up by them, and put into prison forever.
Having committed a crime, do you not think there is the possibility for reform? How about cases of injustice in which somebody convicted may actually be innocent. Is it fair for them to be locked up for life - the majority of paedophiles try within their own family circle first, as such, should someone be locked away forever, at the expense of not being able to be there for their own children? These victims of abuse, may themselves become offenders. Does this not cause the breakdown of society even further without any attempt at reform?
Dennis, if you are against giving an incentive such as giving sweets to deliverers (as you mention), how are your Conservative leaflets delivered? Just you and Mike is it?
Does that mean you simply don't get children volunteering to do it for free? Or, do you just force your own children to do it against their will for your own political gains?
For volunteers that aren't related to you, what do you do instead, do you then have to pay them? Surely if you pay them in any way, that's worse than offering sweets, as it is a financial bribe!
I read with scepticism when I see 'in touch' leaflets that say 'delivered at no cost by a volunteer.' That's just a Conservative lie, which you simply wouldn't catch Labour pulling.
Tut tut Dennis, I thought you didn't allow "homophoebic" posts? ;-)
I am presuming Jonesey is referring to paedophile acts with minors of the same sex which would also be a homosexual act? Perhaps he could clarify. His error was not to mention that heterosexual acts with minors should carry the same gravity and be punished.
It doesn't help parents that Lib Dem policy initiatives that include lowering the drinking age to 16 would make more minors vulnerable to attack and exploitation in the bars of Guildford - underage drinking is bad enough as it is.
To clarify, that's paedophile acts by adults on minors.
The relaxed attitude of some Liberals to underage sex involving both minors is another irresponsible stance which serves to put our children at greater risk of abuse.
I am surprised*, Dennis, that you address these points and yet allow the comment made by 'Irish_Tim' to slide.
(*Actually, I'm not at all surprised.)
Post a Comment
<< Home