Did anyone see todays News of the World?

[charliecat]

Front page, 2 peadophiles in a park with a video camera, on tripod, videoing little kids feeding the ducks. Havent read it yet waiting for dp to finish it.

I think the sarcasm on this thread has gone too far.
It hasn't made easy reading.

Rowlers, I'm not sure a thread on paedophilia should make easy reading !

Arghhhh, I'm deffo off to bed.

And now it turns out that the conscientious NOTW, taking the law into their own hands and hpinding paedophiles out of different hostels, have caused them to be moved into unregulated hostels where they cannot be tracked so easily, or monitored as they are supposed to be. This was The Home Secretary, bowing to pressure from the NOTW. What an own goal.

NDP, agree, it's the tone of some posts.
Off to read my crappy crime novel. Much less draining.

lol, i've got chick-lit pap waiting for me. A nice bit of escapism on a Sunday night.

The NOTW is nothing but a rag.

Whilst the situation for professionals dealing with paedophiles is difficult, all this attention is doing is causing absolute chaos across the country.

Fact. Paedophiles will be released from prison (usually on licence and often to approved premises - approved by the Home Office).

The law as it stands does not allow for paedophiles to be kept in prison indefinitely and they have to go somewhere. Imperfect as the system is, this has to be better than them being released into the community with no monitoring and no knowledge of where they are living etc etc. (This is how it used to be).

Licence conditions are imposed before their release from prison and often include curfews and exclusion zones. Approved Premises staff can only monitor the offenders when actually in the Hostel.

I have, on other threads, stated that in my opinion sentences should be longer, but this is how things are at present.

omg, do you ever find yourself on a thread you wish you had never posted on?

OK now the hysteria on this thread is over can anyone please tell me how "Sarahs law" will stop this kind of thing happening?

fwiw - children are actually safer playing in the park than they are sitting in their own house with their dad/stepdad/uncle/brother/cousin/best mates dad/band leader/etc etc

sick but true. while stranger danger exists and it is totally right that we are alert, the risk to children from strangers is miniscule compared to the risk from someone they know.

this type of sensationalist reporting "oh beware the old bald fat sweaty man youve never seen before who wears a dirty mac, and has his hand down his trousers while making leery eyes at your kid" is counter productive in so far as it makes people feel that the only danger to their kids is from men they have never seen before, when statistically, there is much more to worry about inside the home.

oh and to head folks off at the pass - i am not saying every man is an abuser of kids he knows. i mean ... eg 100 kids, 90 safe, 9 abused by person known to them, 1 abused by stranger. (for illustrative purposes only...i know this is not an actual statistic)

I don't want to get anyones backs up, but....
I don't believe that it is right of these men to be filming other peoples children, whether fully clothed or otherwise. I would personally never film a strangers children as it just somehow doesn't seem right.
It isn't fair that men like these are not allowing children to be children anymore or that they are pushing us not to allow our children to be children.
My dp knows someone who was in town with her child and as her back was turned some bloke started speaking to the child, so she thumped him and it was her that ended up in trouble!WTF?!
These people need to be sent away to live on an island, men seperate from women so that they can all be monitored 24/7, how would they like that?!!

SHE got into trouble for thumping someone.

What did the bloke say to her child?

charliecat the ffs comment wasn't aimed at you sorry if you thought it was.

Flutterbee - 'saha's / megan's Law' will not stop anything happening at all, and would make things worse.

If the public are told where people on sex offender registers live, they are far more likely to be hounded out of places and move around and therefore much harder for the monitoring services / police to keep track of.

It could also lull people into a false sense of security: 'no knowm paedophiles advertised in our area, QED we are safe'. But of course we know that is far from true and the paediphile is more likely to be round your dinner table at an extended family gathering than in a hostel down the road.

Parents need to operate sensible precautions whether a known paedophile is in the vicinity or not.

The public knowing exactly where they are will facilitate two things:
Vigilante action
Increased sales of the NOTW who will revel in being able to publicise 'Oaedophile of the week' in endless editions.

Yes, I am confused about how Sarah's Law will make a difference. Surely these people can just travel to a different area. They don't have to pray in their own neighbourhood.

I think New of the World readers must think the our parks, beaches and pools are full of peodophiles. I think their readers should go and read a proper paper to get some perspective back in their lives.

Good posts Sowoffended and Blu. The NOTW has been an irresponsible blot on the face of British journalism for far too long

And FairyMum.
Unfortunately a "Sarah's Law" will just drive these people underground again however understandable the reasons for campaigning for it

I'm intrigued - what kind of speaking to the child was the man who was thumped doing???? I am friendly to children on occasion when out and about - the thought that I could get hit for it is quite scary!

Cheesecakelover - people punching people simply because they speak to a child is a great example of how this has got out of control. Quite right that the woman is in trouble - if all he did was speak kindly to the child!

they have arrested him - after police saw the picture

Soryy SEA, thought Id written something that made you say FFS
My mum said they had arrested someone and the other had got a year or something. Been on the news.
Someone on the thread said this sort of journalism makes these people go "underground"...they are not watched 24/7, even when they live in hostels.
They sign the paper work agreeing to XYZ and thats it. Theres noone stopping them from getting up to anything.

Am sure he wouldn't have got thumped because he spoke nicely to the child. DP has always said that if someone spoke to our children in a way that was less than appropriate then he would have something to say too!!!

DP has just told me that the man the NOTW photographed has in fact been arrested!!!! Just goes to show that not everything they print is tat!

OK?.I?ll just nail my colours to the mast here. I think that the NOTW and their ilk are poisonous, inaccurate, sensationalist rags and I think that they should be banned Generally I really resent anything being banned (I?m a non-smoker who objects to smoking bans on principle) but they are so damaging to the intelligence, independence of thought and tolerance of this country that I think an exception should be made. I don?t give a stuff that so many people like them, read them and believe their intolerant bigotry - more fool them. Sorry. The fact that NOTW is claiming influence over government policy should make the government hang it?s head.

Right having got that off my chest. However unpleasant we may think it that they are filming young children, can anyone honestly tell me that those kids are being damaged no matter what uses the men put that film to? A child who is abducted and abused is clearly being damaged. A child happily playing who is being photographed/filmed is not. Do we really believe that cameras steal our souls ? that somehow part of those children was stolen away by the process of filming? We may not like the idea but logically what harm was done to those children? Obviously what NOTW was trying to highlight was the fact that they shouldn?t have been at large anyway but that is a different issue.

Don?t agree with Sara?s Law for all the reasons already stated. It won?t help, it might hinder and it just gives ammunition to vigilantes. It also helps foster the unhealthy idea that the outside world is a totally scary place where bad things happen all the time?..they don?t?and that the only safe place to be is your own four walls with your own family?.which is of course where the majority of child abuse occurs.

Whilst I agree that the NOTW is a heap of shite, I would like to say this:

Photography of any kind is not allowed in a swimming pool, so why shoiuld it be accepyable ina park? And before anyone says they're not wearing swim cossies in a park, in hot weather kids are wearing very little clothing that is a turn on, sadly, for some pervs.

But that fact that photography isn't allowed in swimming pools is outrageous in itself. When DS#1 had a pool party for his birthday we couldn't take photos apart - we were presented with one that an attendant had taken of DS#1 with one of the lifeguards dressed up as a pirate but none of the other kids or of the party generally.And anyway how can you possible ban photos in an open public place? How about at a family picnic? Or your childs first successful attempt to ride a bike?

Joelallie - I am in agreement with you. Yes, my stomach does churn at the idea of someone using my child's image for god knows what, but I would rather be allowed to take photos at my children's swimming experiences etc than ban all photography "just in case".

But then, I let DD run naked on the beach where all number of men in macs could be taking photos of her.

I want her to grow up enjoying herself, not scared of every shadow.

(Oh and a quick aside... sprayed my apple juice at the attacking a paedestrian because the word starts the same!!!)