alex3659 Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 as bulgarian just mentioned, not everybody on the register is a gary glitter, its another misconception Never said otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Evidence please? I'll PM you some photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Evidence that two consenting adults have ever been added to the sex offenders register for inadvertantly being caught engaging in sexual activity. For example, you'd expect a couple 'doing it' in the middle of a beach populated by families to be convicted and put on the register, that's fair if they have deliberately exposed others to their sexual acts. If a copper finds a couple at it in their car down some lovers lane, I wouldn't expect them to be added to the Sex Offenders Register. but thats the thing, what if? technically even having sex in your car is a SEX OFFENCE do we know whos exactly on the register? are they ALL peados? theres a common miconception that everybody on the list is a gary glitter what about somebody accused of rape? even done for it, who may actually be innocent? as usual i think its far to a grey area to be a full on thats right thats wrong type of situation, as i said its far too broad and goes for those that have the highest rated child porn down to couples having sex in public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 but thats the thing, what if? technically even having sex in your car is a SEX OFFENCE do we know whos exactly on the register? are they ALL peados? theres a common miconception that everybody on the list is a gary glitter what about somebody accused of rape? even done for it, who may actually be innocent? as usual i think its far to a grey area to be a full on thats right thats wrong type of situation What planet are you on? No they're not all peadophiles, it includes people who have offended against adults, so it is not a common misconception. The only misconception is on your part that their is any misconception. If they have been tried, convicted, done the time, then made to sign the SOR on release, we do not assume their innocence. Do you assume innocence of all criminals, regardless of evidence put before courts and their guilty verdicts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 "The government could face legal action if it continues to ban sex offenders from working with children, according to new research published today. A report by a family law expert argues that some sex offenders should be allowed to adopt or foster children, and claims that the current blanket ban is discriminatory. "Sex offenders shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush," said Helen Reece, family law specialist at the London School of Economics who wrote the report." The lunatics have taken over the asylum IMO. http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/nov/30/sex-offenders-adoption-children Didn't take long for the wooly minded liberalists to arrive and start making excuses for what sexual deviants should be allowed to access vulnerable persons. They should volunteer their homes as bail hostels for sex offenders, put their money where their mouth is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I think if you mention "children" and "sex" in the same thread people will just get hysterical without actually reading anything that people have said, thats how it is these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 What planet are you on? No they're not all peadophiles, it includes people who have offended against adults, so it is not a common misconception. The only misconception is on your part that their is any misconception. If they have been tried, convicted, done the time, then made to sign the SOR on release, we do not assume their innocence. Do you assume innocence of all criminals, regardless of evidence put before courts and their guilty verdicts? Didn't take long for the wooly minded liberalists to arrive and start making excuses for what sexual deviants should be allowed to access vulnerable persons. They should volunteer their homes as bail hostels for sex offenders, put their money where their mouth is. so as usual your emotionally ranting about something that your "assuming", none of us actually know exactly what types of offenders are on the register, but in theory i'd assume theres all types. as i said, to me it seems too wide ranging and a grey area when you actually THINK about it. are you saying theres nobody on the register that maybe shouldnt be? couples done for things they were abit over naughty doing? people actually innocent but convicted? i think your a little over zealous to follow the rabid headlines of the press and use a little common sense its prolly just me but id never spared a thought for the sex offenders register before, its just there. but now its been mentioned and you start to question, its interesting to think what types of offenders are on it, bar the normal gary glitter types Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I have to agree with MJ Scuba on this one . I doubt very much that the isolation wards of our prisons are populated by married couples who had sex on a beach, or people who had a quickie in a phone box. We are not in Saudi arabia, and I'm pretty sure when police 'intervene' in such activities it ends in no more than a caution. If anyone can provide proof that the sex offender's register has a significant proportion of people convicted of such misdemeanors on it, I'll re-consider, but in the meantime I am going to keep on assuming it is made up overwhelmingly of people who have had sex with minors, and sex attackers. Anything else would be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I think if you mention "children" and "sex" in the same thread people will just get hysterical without actually reading anything that people have said, thats how it is these days. Which sex offenders would you deem suitable to work with vulnerable persons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Which sex offenders would you deem suitable to work with vulnerable persons? How about the 26 year old bloke who,ten years ago, had sex with his fifteen and a half year old girlfriend?Why would he be deemed a threat to anyone ...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.