PeteBrant

BBC NEWS | UK | Sex offender alerts plan launched


I can almost, almost accept that perhaps, maybe, parents ofchildren have the right to know if someone who comes into contact with thier child has been previously convicted of child abuse.

I t sounds as if the realse of such information is at the discretion of the police, so if they feel the person is no longer a threat, then they can refuse to discole the information (but they might as well, because if you get a response saying "we're not going to tell you" then it is obvious they have had a previous conviction).

One of my main concerns is vigilantism. If a parent finds out someone has a previous conviction, then I don't think they are going to keep that information quiet.

The biggest concern I have is this : "Under the measures, police will be able to tell families if someone with access to a child has convictions or has been previously suspected of abuse.

Previously suspected? You can't lump suspects that have never been convicted in with convicted criminals.

I'm not sure how much of this is to protect children, and how much is to placate parents and the media.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Agreed. The more serious the crime, the more important that standards of evidence are upheld and insinuation and suspicion is not leaked. If someone is convicted, their name is rightly tarnished, if not, innocent until proven guilty. There is a real danger of vigilantism occurring here and innocent people being targeted. I recall one case where a crowd set about someone they thought one of their number had heard claiming to be a pedophile when, in point of fact, what someone had actually heard was him state he was a pediatrician.


Ns04

Leslie

Surely the real answer is to prevent any convicted paedophile from being able to come into close contact with children.

All this business of people being able to check on someone's details is over the top I think. It could lead to all sorts of problems and unfair actions as stated above.

I think it is all wrong to put us all into compartments with all our life details being listed especially since it has been shown that such information is regularly being lost and getting into the wrong hands. We cant even trust those who are responsible for guarding that information.

Parents should be responsible for guarding their own children where necessary and educating them and the authorities should ensure that paedophiles are never in the position where they can endanger children.

Les

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Agree, I'm not sure what do they expect parents to do with this info. They should be warning their kids of the dangers of going off with strangers etc.. regardless of such information.

David Lock

What's the definition of a child? Under 16? Under 18? Do they have to be living at home with their parents?

I'm thinking of say a 17 year old daughter who has run off to live with some 35 year old dodgy character who the parents suspect has evil intentions and may have a dark cloud in his past.

dl

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Under 16, mate.

Ns04

Turbohot

These^ kinda safety measures are "dangerous" to the society in one word. It's getting cynical now when a suspect's information can be disclosed. Anyone can become a suspect these days! The other day, a young boy injured his foot opposite to my house, with a slab he lifted to spot spiders. He was crying his eyes out! I had to think a few times before I could go and ask if he needed any help. Simply because of these doubting Thomas perceptions being encouraged by law. I am a mother of two, with regular enhanced CRBs due to my profession. But you just don't know how parents will take it, if you are a stranger; trying to help out their child.

Again, as a mother, I agree with the disclosure of information about convicted pedophiles, but suspects information shouldn't be disclosed unless they are proven guilty. I know a case when a messed-up teenager went to the police, and told them an airy-fairy story of her father abusing her. Now as an adult, she regrets telling those lies at that funny age. But imagine what could have happened to her innocent "suspect" father, had this been disclosed to the public?

Parents should be more vigilant, and develop common sense in their children about judging people, rather than knowing who has been glanced at with coloured spectacles. Got to add that pedophiles generally don't become suspect unless something is there. Then again, the way some teenagers behave these days (rebel without any reason), you just don't know! My example about the father indicates the fragile nature of this whole "accusation" thing.

PeteBrant

That entirely legal - Once you're 16, you can run off with who you like.

Dracoro

All this will do is push the dodgy people (and also these "suspects") underground. This will cause even more problems.

The police want these people "on the radar" so they can monitor and keep tabs on them etc. Push them out of the "radar" and it will cause much more problems.

Also, what can parent/general public DO with this information?

Paul3446

Castration and branding would solve the problem.

Norman D. Landing

Les, do you have children?

"Where necessary"? Thats everywhere, all the time, impossible.

Do you think it is wrong for a parent to have the right to question whether individuals at their childrens school/ballet class/indoor play centre/football team etc etc (including all areas where a parent may leave the child in 'care' for 30 mins or so while they 'pop to the shop') have a shady past?

You cannot be there for your children all of the time, it would be nice to be able to do so but unfortunately it's impossible.

And for those people who say 'it will drive them underground', what utter tosh! Are they not underground now? Do you really think they perform their deeds in the open?

I for one, as a parent completely welcome any measure to allow me to further protect my children within reason (and I think that safeguarding them against what can only be called evil people is within reason).

Had this information been freely available to all for a period of years I would go as far as to suggest that any parent who DIDN'T check the published history of their childrens 'carers' would be massively irresponsible and I'm fairly sure you'd agree.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

What about if you're suspected of something? Anyone can make someone else a suspect, simply by saying (e.g) "I suspect MR/S xxxx of doing xxx". I don't want to be put on such a register if I have an argument with someone and they want to get back at me. Getting your name off a register like that will take ages, and by that time you're already broken goods, as everyone will know you were a suspect at some point (no smoke without fire etc etc).

David Lock

Can an individual get his/her own CRB clearance certificate or can it only be done via an employer? dl

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

So now if I am walking through a particular park in Telford and cannot explain my reason for being there, my details will be taken down, put on file and I may be lumped in with these lot

Oh it just gets better and better

I know of a good friend of mine who had the social services around because the ex-husband decided he wanted to play funny buggers and reported him and his ex-wife for child abuse and possible molesting. Social services madea visit and ascertained that it was all a complete load of bollocks (as we all knew anyway), but just because the idiot could and did make an alledgement, then my friends details ahve been logged somewhere.

Nice isnt it, anyway can make an accusation and it seems we are all guilty unless proven otherwise A ****ing joke

Norman D. Landing

Thats why I said ".. have a shady past." rather than ".. may have a shady past".

I cannot agree with the publishing of details of unproven allegations and find it hard to believe that this is what will happen.

Facts should be published, allegations should not.

My argument stands and I welcome any debate.

Spoon

They aren't underground now in terms of Police cooperation. These people comply with the present form of monitoring is my guess. If the details were made available to all then the Police would lose control of their home address, movements etc, forcing these people to 'hide' away in total fear.

That is my understanding of the term 'underground' not how they commit their crimes.

Dracoro

Exactly.

Norman D.Landing completely mis-read/mis-interpreted/missed the point of what I was trying to say.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Its funny, sometimes on here I feel a bit surprised at the attitudes expressed, Paedophiles, Hang em, cut their ***** of etc, but the minute a girl is sixteen its considered ok to post links to compromising pictures, for example the one from Harry Potter and Charlotte Church.

Back on topic, having seen documentaries about Paedo's, one in particular highlighted how devious and defensive they can be, never understimate how cunning they are in contriving situations for them to be around kids, the authrities are overstretched and sometimes incompetent, so it is with every parent so if you aren sure, dont let them near your kids, its sad but I would rather offend an adult than put a kid at risk.

Norman D. Landing

Fair point, well made. However, you're not seriously suggesting that known offenders (once caught, time served and released) then submit 100% to the will of the police and don't re-offend?

The police may well know where they live but they do not know their movements or activities, otherwise there would be a significantly less percentage of re-offending, and remember, these people do not have an addiction that they can be rid of, they have a compulsion to sexually abuse children.

OllyK

Most of those people require a CRB check anyway. I'm CRB checked as I work for an Educational IT firm, my partner is as she runs a Brownie pack. My Dad is as he is a church warden.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

ALARM, ALARM!!!

SEX PEST ALERT!!!!!

Ns04

Spoon

Nope, I wasn't suggesting anything, let alone seriously. I was stating my take on how I saw the term 'Underground' being applied.

The rest of what you write I fully agree with.

scoobynutta555

It's a knee jerk reaction pandering to the pedophil [sic] mob. Probably a nice idea for a focus group, but in reality the idiots among us will see it as a green light for a vigilante mission.

In fact if we're doing lists of criminality TBH I reckon a list of burglars, rapists, muggers and car thieves would be of more use rather than a specific list of child abusers or alleged child abusers.

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

That is all well and good, but you still look like a dodgy git

SwissTony

iTrader: (19)

Dont worry, I have been on that list for years. Hasnt stopped me from accosting ladies and pinning them against the wall and subjecting them to some of my joke book

unclebuck

Yea good idea, let's everybody 'spying' and 'checking up' on each other - it's the Nu Labour way.

Just like giving busybody pensioners radar guns and sending them out to spy on other members of the public.

FFS - under their rule this country gets more like how East Germany used to be by the day.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

We could use the Gary Oak way of ousting them



WTF!?!?!?!?

fast bloke

LMAO