Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

News

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Nursery paedophile to get new identity - all funded by taxpayers

44 replies

HidingFromTheDM · 02/10/2009 22:57

Full article here

I can't bloody believe this!! I read this article and then promptly had a massive rant at my DH. Why should this woman be allowed a new identity after the atrocities she committed? And what's more, why should we have to fund it? I am disgusted that our tax dollars are going to help hide and protect this woman. I bloody irate about this!!

OP posts:

nancy75 · 03/10/2009 09:39

simple soloution to not paying for a new identitiy is never let her out of prison, then she won't need one.

WinkyWinkola · 03/10/2009 09:52

I'm not comfortable with any of them ever being released.

That trio were allegedly also planning to kidnap a child together and do more terrible things.

I'm not a capital punishment advocate - far from it - but my word, allowing such people freedom after what they've done doesn't really sit right with me.

Can they ever really function in wider society again?

Can we trust those to monitor them properly so no more fresh hell can be produced by them? It's such a difficult debate.

CazSimpson1982 · 03/10/2009 11:15

What happens if they are released from prison and start relationships with people with children? Surely that risk would mean they can't be given new identities?

I always think that about the James Bulger murderers; potentially someone could meet one of them, marry them, have children with them...And have no idea about their past..

Gives me the heebie jeebies!!

wannaBe · 03/10/2009 11:21

It is precisely because of papers like the daily mail that people like Vanessa George have to be given new identities.

Let's face it, she (and her partners in crime), are going to be in prison for a long time. Are people really going to remember what she looked like to the extent they would recognize her if they passed her in the street say, ten years later? Probably not. But the press will refresh our memories by publishing her picture afresh when she is due to be released, just so we can all remember what she looked like, and the vijilanti's (most of whom weren't even in the area, and many of whom won't even have heard of the case) can begin to plot their "revenge" for a crime which did not affect them personally.

If the press didn't feel the need to advertise the release of these criminals (and the public do not need to know that they are being released, they will be under supervision by the authorities, and besides, regardless of personal feelings they have then served their time for their crimes), they could be released and would most likely not be recognized and would therefore not need to be protected.

The media has a lot to answer for, but is quick enough to start the feeding frenzy which wouldn't be needed at all if it were not for their involvement.

neenz · 03/10/2009 13:20

Well said wannabe.

madusa · 03/10/2009 18:25

let her have a new identity once she has given the parents the identities of those babies she hurt but not before then

sarah293 · 03/10/2009 18:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

PeedOffWithNits · 03/10/2009 19:18

I think these people should not have new identities because then who knows where they are or what they are doing

these crimes are so sick, they should stay in prison for LIFE

LeninGrad · 03/10/2009 19:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Maggie34Behave · 03/10/2009 20:01

She is so ugly that woman. I think she's going to be in jail for a long time.

Maxine carr had such a distinctive face. If I ever saw her I'd know. I wouldn't say anything like here, lynch mob, over here. But I'm sure I'd know so I'm surpirsed that she has been able to live anonymously.

neenz · 03/10/2009 22:38

In some ways though life does mean life, even though they are let out of prison they are on licence for life - if they do anything at all for the rest of their lives they can be recalled to prison immediately.

I think the man in this case was caught with pics of 14yo girls... so it was probably not in the public interest to take it to court because of the cost involved and the punishment he would have got. There was no indication as to the despicable crimes he was to go on to commit

sarah293 · 04/10/2009 08:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

saggyhairyarse · 04/10/2009 09:00

CazSimpson, I believe that one of James Bulgers murderers has a child now and is in a long term relationship. I have no idea where I heard it but I am sure I read that somewhere.

I think for the sake of his child it is better off if they don't know, it is hard to live a lie and if anyone found out then there is no saying if they would use that child (who is innocent despite their fathers past) to seek revenge.

wannaBe · 04/10/2009 09:30

"I think these people should not have new identities because then who knows where they are or what they are doing"

The people that need to know, know. People like you and I don't need to know - people may want to know out of some desire to "warn their children to stay away" etc but if we teach our children to be aware then we don't need to single out individuals anyway. Plus if they are ever released the terms of their release will mean they won't be allowed to work with children...

I agree that life should mean life in most cases but that's surely a different debate. And tbh it's unlikely these people will get life sentences.

edam · 04/10/2009 11:23

I'd go for life should mean life in these cases, then no need for a new identity at all. And I'm generally a left-wing liberal...

Not so long ago, new identities were only available to people like 'Mary Bell' who were children when they had committed their crimes. Now the possibility seems to be there for any disgusting repellent criminal who committed horrific crimes.

I do NOT agree with vigilantes, apart from anything else because of the risk that they will attack innocent people. But neither do I think dangerous people who have committed hideous crimes should be protected. Keep 'em in prison, problem solved.

edam · 04/10/2009 11:24

Oh, and I do feel terribly sorry for her poor children, and her husband who apparently had no idea.

edam · 04/10/2009 11:24

And that's assuming they do get life sentences, of course...

charis · 04/10/2009 11:29

I would rather pay for the woman to have a new identity and for her protection than to pay for the trial and prison term for the idiot who thinks it is their job to punish her. It is simple economics to me.

I also suppose that ethically we shouldn't tempt folk into violence that they may not normally commit by flaunting the disgusting paedo at them.

neenz · 06/10/2009 20:26

But if you keep people like this in prison for life, then you have to keep anyone who does anything 'worse' than this in for life (anyone who kills, rapes, commits any sexual offence) - well the prisons would be full to overflowing.

I can understand why people feel that way but it is just not practical.

Prisoners with no chance of every being released have no motivation to behave themselves either, so to have the prisons full of people serving real life sentences would make them very hard to manage.

Full life sentences should be for people who can never be trusted to be free again - it is not a proportionate punishment for someone who does something like this, as awful as the crime is .

Flip

1 2