-
Posts
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12478584
what are peoples thoughts on this after the loosening on CRB Checks last week also ?
I think a sex offender will always be a risk…………to slacken the laws/rules only suits the people that have to do the admin on these people………I’m sure that those who have had their lives ruined by these animals would be very hard pushed to see any benefits from the changes.
Shame on you for doing this!
[-XI wasn’t aware this was happening so I read up a little on it.
It is estimated that there are about 24,000 sex offenders required to register for life, including paedophiles and rapists,
At first sight it seems quite reasonable that a person with no known offences for the last 15 years should be able to appeal being on the Sex Offenders List. Being on the list inhibits their movements including traveling abroad and the work they can do. Their argument is that it also affects the lives of their families and their own children and that after 15 years of no re offences they do not pose a threat.
I was sort of won over by that argument until I read further, most the professionals seem against changing the present system one saying we don’t talk about cures, we talk about containing and controlling behaviours, a senior policeman with experience of working in child protection said “These people are like leopards, they don’t change their spots, What we will end up with is potentially a very dangerous situation where someone has committed offences in the past and be able to say they haven’t committed any new offences and therefore don’t present a risk.
“But they are a risk in the same way as an alcoholic is always an alcoholic.”
I think whilst ever we have people with first hand experience of dealing with these people voicing such concerns we should leave things as they are. Whats the point of having experts and then ignoring their advise?
Its too important an issue to experiment with…. I say leave things as they are.
Teapot
CRB checks should NOT have been loosened. Anybody who’s been found guilty of a sex crime should always be considered a risk.
As for the argument that they should have the right to appeal being on the list “because it affects their own children”, Jesus Christ, they shouldn’t even be allowed near their own children!
The majority of sexually-motivated attacks on children are committed by family members. This is fact. I’d go as far to say, 9 out of 10 rapes, abductions, molestations etc of children are committed by the father, or an uncle, possibly even a long-standing, close family friend. Point is, it’s usually someone the child knows very well, and trusts.
So if he has his own children, he should be scrutinised even further and certainly be kept on the list, with social services making regular checks on the household.
There is no cure for these “people”, and I use that term loosely. Well, there is – it involves gallows.
When is a sex affender not at risk ?
when he has had his balls and penis removed ,
then sent to labs to be tested on instead of animals,thats when they are not a risk …….Women can be sent to mothers who care and let them deal with it ,
and then sent to labs as well ………No time for scum like them , scum is what they are dont care about human rights
they loose that when they invade any childs rights ….Dissapointing punchline.
Who’s to say? Some sex offenders might pose a risk for the rest of their lives, others might not. And some people who’ve had a completely clean record might become a sex offender in middle age.
The tipping point was when the flower arranging ladies at Gloucester Cathedral were made to do CRB checks and some resigned because they thought it was stupid. Now this government is scaling down the system to a more sensible level – one of the few good things it’s done.
What’s ironic is that someone had to be CRB checked if they were regularly driving other peoples’ kids around, and yet there were no checks on their past driving record.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!