“There must be a zero tolerance approach to the physical punishment of children."
We need to be able to clout the feral, illiterate, murderous little bastards whenever the need arises.
Disgruntled of Tunbridge Wells.
The British government is to pilot the limited opening up of sex offender information to parents worried about specific individuals who have access to their children. The pilot is part of the Home Office Violent Crime Action Plan, released today. From June this year parents in Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Hampshire and …
“There must be a zero tolerance approach to the physical punishment of children."
We need to be able to clout the feral, illiterate, murderous little bastards whenever the need arises.
Disgruntled of Tunbridge Wells.
Could not have put it better myself!
Couldn't agree more. The lack of discipline these days is disgraceful, a proper clip round the ear is exactly what these kids need.
With these government databases full of 'potential offenders' it makes me wonder how long we have to wait until it'll be possible to arrest people for 'pre-crime'.
Ah, the joys of living in Police State Britannia.
What is limited about finding parents who are happy to ask about anyone on the request of somebody else?
What defines whether this pilot scheme is a success? Is it along the lines of a "Red Ken trial scheme", whereby any result is deemed a success? (In his case, less congestion in London, don't care about anywhere else it's been displaced = success, or same congestion, more incoming finance = success, or end of the world with sightings of Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse = fewer cars = success.)
Surely the case has already been made that leaking this type of information outside of the authorities, is a bad thing? Misplaced feeling of security when handing over control of one's kids to someone not yet listed. Potential vigilante activity against those found to be on the list, ensuring the listees drop out of public view. etc. etc. etc.
And the NSPCC's attempt to turn this into a "parents must not control their kids" discussion is surely beneath contempt.
"Allowing smacking to remain legal sends out the wrong message about our society’s attitude to violence"
What? If you really want to send a message then you need to ban ALL violent media (films, games, music etc) and ALL sports that involve violence (martial arts, boxing etc) and quite possibly also alcohol... The sheer stupidity of people who get elected or hold positions of power continues to astound me on a daily basis...
Also, the human body has evolved to heal itself after even quite significant damage. I am most certainly not condoning violence to children, but there are occasions when the *only* thing that is going to get through to them is a swift smack upside the head... I have 3 children, and have smacked them a grand total of 4 times, over the 10, 7 and 3 years they have been alive. I felt awful afterwards, but it had the desired effect that no amount of cajoling, bribery, punishment by removal of privileges etc had (in different orders)...
What they should be condemning is the abuse of children. A smack is certainly *not* abuse (unless applied excessively, or for no reason). The fact some people are able to breed is no reason to allow them. Christ, look at GW Bush for fucks sake, his parents should have been sterilised at birth, and if that didn't happen, Bush should have been put down as a baby! Put him out of our misery...
“However, the Government has missed an important opportunity to make physical punishment of children illegal. It is an offence for adults to hit adults and children should be given equal or greater protection from assault."
However, we do have this concept of "reasonable force" in law where force is used in the prevention of a crime. We also have a police force which regularly uses force against protesters to deter dissent which is a far more apt analogy for parent and child than two civillian adults.
A smack on the wrist to let a kid know not to stick their fingers in the fireplace is safer than letting them get burnt to learn the lesson. I'd also like to meet the person who can have a logical, well-reasoned debate with a four year old.
As a toddler, I used to bite people. My parents told me not to, but I ignored them. One day my dad bit me back and I never did it again.
"Before being given any information parents will have to sign an affidavit to confirm the information they are providing is correct and that there might "be legal consequences if they have made false claims"."
Which will be so reassuring for the poor sod strung up by the lynch mob when Mr Plod cocks up the information he releases!!
all I have to do is get the names of all the school teachers, parents of other kids, everyone who may plan to visit the school in the next 5 years, everyone in the neighbourhood and everyone working in or visitng any town/city I plan to take my kids to, then nip over to one of the places actually running this before submitting a 200 page list of names for checking. Oh, and I should also undertake to never smack my kids, even if they are turning out to be total criminals (which they aren't, because they get smacked on occasion :-P)
Alternatively, they could apply mimimum sentences with no possibility of release until the offender is fully reformed or castrated, and permanently branded just for safety. And, while they are at it, they should apply the whole scheme to all sex offenders, not just kiddy fiddlers. I think a victim of rape might quite like to know if they were working alongside a rapist.
"by better combining all the information kept on British citizens in various government departments, we could predict which individuals are likely to commit crimes."
Ah, so no more of that rubbish about them actually having to commit a crime before you punish them? Our computer says you're going to be guilty!
"There must be a zero tolerance approach to the physical punishment of children."
Yes, we can't have some little old lady going around head-butting a teenager's fist.
Haven't they noticed yet that "zero tolerance" means "zero sense"?
So how long until the first parent complains that, despite having an individual checked, their child was still abused by them? This is NOT a foolproof system where anyone "clean" is not a risk. In fact, it is 100% pointless because every responsible parent should be equally careful of everyone - regardless of the result of this check.
Add to that - levels of re-offence (recidivism) for this type of crime is remarkably low, statistically a child is far more likely to be abused by someone without a prior conviction than someone with form.
Finally, the idea that anyone using false details to gain access to this information would be subject to police action - well, surely the horse has bolted by that point and the mob would already be on thier way to Peter Paedo's house with pitchforks at the ready.
P.S. It should be noted that, despite being attributed to Sarah Payne, this law would have done nothing to protect her from Roy Whiting.
“There must be a zero tolerance approach to the physical punishment of children. Allowing smacking to remain legal sends out the wrong message about our society’s attitude to violence."
I fully agree with the officious interfering busybody cretin here. It may be true that a total lack of discipline will result in our children becoming even more feral than before, but the government has just announced a crackdown on kids carrying knives, so it's not like they could do any harm.
But who wants to place bets that someone will both end up wrongly on the list due to 'computer error' , and then end up being murdered by so called vigilantes?
As for discipline, my daughters 16, I've never had to smack her, she's polite, doing well at college and cant stand people who swear.
My sons 14, I've had to smack him twice when he was little, it was that or him sticking things into electrical sockets. I've also thrown a glass of water over him once when he got into a temper and was being arrogant and not listening to a word being said, the shock of the water snapped him out of it.
Both enjoy my and my wifes company, we purposely put their PC's and games consoles downstairs so they don't end up shut away in their rooms, now my daughter has a laptop, there's nothing stopping her shutting herself away, but she prefers to use it in the living room and be in our company.
It's all to do with upbringing. Personally while I know what people mean when I see how some brats behave (I feel like thumping them), there's a huge difference between discipline and hitting. If you teach kids that in order to get them to obey you, you achieve this by inflicting physical pain on them, what are you really teaching them?
I was caned at school, made zero difference to my (or my friends) behaviour, it was seen as a sort of status symbol. My mum used to smack me over the head with her shoe if I didn't do what she wanted, the fact that she used to do this 2 or 3 times a week should show how well this worked for her.
It isn't discipline that smacking is for (use of it as discipline can teach children that using violence to get your way is right).
What it IS is an immediate consequence of their actions.
As I've told one twat kid while I'm holding them up by their collar:
"There's a social contract thing going on here. I promise not to wallop you as long as you promise not to make me want to. If you're not going to hold up your end of the bargain, I'll not bother with mine."
When kids have thrown stones at me, I've thrown them back.
Guess what? I'm still free.
And, oddly enough, most of the kids in the area are fine with me. I treat them as real people (including all the bad shit) and they do respond. That includes the kids who kick the ball about in the street: they don't deliberately kick the ball at cars, they stop playing when a car is coming along and I don't see a problem. The people who DO see a problem get abuse from the kids. Maybe because these adults aren't treating the kids as people.
Just my theory.
This whole thing smacks of the government trying to grab the headlines.
There is no excuse for this kind of information be be in the public domain.
what the hell does "may be legal consequences if they have made false claims"
Does this equate the the same legal consequences as if someone commits an offence against me such as burgle or assault me.
Seems to me that someone getting sentenced to 20 minutes community service (assuming that the police can be arsed to catch anyone for anything) is going to be very very cold comfort for someone who has had to put up with the mobs that are going to be paying them a visit.
As most abuse happens in the home and is inflicted by people known to the children this makes no sense whatsoever.
<sarcasm>Why stop at smacking? What about the children's human rights, like being imprisoned (locked in bedroom), and mental torture (naughty step)?</sarcasm>
So I can just go to my local plod station, and ask if my neighbour is a sex offender, without getting the consent of my neighbour? Seems dodgy under the DPA to me, but IANAL.
Why can't this system use a simple consent form? If I wanted to hire someone to look after my kids, and if they then refused to give me consent, I'd doubt I'd be hiring them.
What next? Could I go to the local hospital, and ask to see the medical records of someone, in case they're diseased, without their consent, just saying I'm a parent??
In the past 10 years this Labour Government has totally F'd up this Country and made it into a police state. I do have an axe to grind in replying to this utterly stupid idea of the government. In my case the police mentioned to a third party that a search had been carried out of my property. Such search was a fishing trip. They neglected to tell the third party that the search had drawn a blank. From that third party, who was allegedly told not to say anything to anyone else, it spread throughout my friends and of course like chinese whispers the story changed as it moves onward. It has taken me 10 years to get an apology letter !!!!. I would not trust the police to see me across the road, they are a corrupt incompetent bunch in the main, made up of bullies and racists.
As a citizen of the United States from the beginning of the Sex Offender Registries until now, I must say that it was a grave mistake for our country to open this pandora's box.
While the registry was created from the best of intentions, it has created an absolute nightmare in the States. I can tell you right now that it will start as what was described in the article. Only the violent, predatorial offenders will be affected by this. But it will be no time at all before anyone and everyone who has ever been convicted of anything even remotely connected to a sex act will be on this registry. Once your Country determines that it's a popular thing (come on, who doesn't like "gossip" or to know the dirt on someone else? It's human nature) and that they can make money off of it, they will quickly widen the net and no one will be safe.
In the U.S. there are CHILDREN on this list now. CHILDREN!! As if our citizens have lost their collective minds, and have forgotten that children WILL experiment, and some start at very young ages. No one remembers "playing doctor?" I guess I'm the only one who will admit to it, and I was in early elementary school when I first played the game.
Please, I beg of you, study the mess this has created in the United States and LEARN from it. Once this ball starts rolling downhill there's no stopping it. Millions of people's lives ruined for having had CONSENSUAL sex at 18 with 16 year old girlfriends, because they are on this blasted registry. They can't get housing, they can't get work, they can't survive, and most of them have children of their own who are now suffering.
Yes, I realize that this article isn't talking about a registry available to the public...BUT, that's how ours started out as well. As soon as our politicians saw that the public was slobbering for this information and that to get elected OR re-elected, all they had to do was say, "Elect me and I will make sex offenders walk on their hands for the rest of their lives (so they can't touch anyone)" and they were a shoe in to win, more and more utterly ridiculously absurd laws as well as the registry being widened to include everyone and giving everyone access to it over the internet became a reality.
Expert after expert in this field have told the American Government that not only do these laws NOT work, they are detrimental to children, yet they don't listen and keep trying to outdo themselves by coming up with more.
They have created hysteria in my country, and it will happen in yours as well, if you don't keep your heads.
Your children are not in any real danger from strangers. They are in danger from people you know, your own family members are more likely to sexually abuse your child than anyone you could find on any registry.
Research for yourselves. Educate yourselves. Don't be swallowed up by this trap, and that's exactly what it is. It's quicksand that will suck you down so quickly you won't have time to catch a breath before going under.
Study the U.S. and learn from our mistakes. All of these, not only worthless, but EXTREMELY HARMFUL laws and gadgets the government came up with are costing our citizens MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars to implement.
Please don't follow in our footsteps.
Limited distribution? That's a funny way to describe the front page of The News of the World.
Do the government _really_ believe that some pennyless single mother who finds out that her boyfriend is on the sex offenders register will not sell the information to the news papers for a few quid?
The overlords...........sorry, 'government' of Britain allowing parents limited access to a database of sex offenders implies something, doesn't it? It implies that anyone with a postal address, a ZX-81 and/or a Swiss Army knife couldn't already get this information from the 'government'.
And, as we know from past events, that's simply not true.
So much job creation for so little effect....
We've (US) got our offenders on-line. Not surprisingly the websites rarely show where they live because they've moved on so you do get the occasional case of mistaken identity (and despite you having to click through a license type page that says you won't use this information for vigilantism and stuff).
I don't go for violence against kids myself but sometimes a smack is the only way to get their attention. You're not trying to hurt them, you're trying to get the little bugger's attention. They're not rational, you see -- its one of the reasons why we don't give 4 year olds driver's licenses.
It's called the "Violent Crime Action Plan" or VCAP. What happened was, some HO bod was watching yet another American cop drama, heard them refer to VCAP for the umpteenth time and thought "We've got to have a VCAP!"
All the rest is just filler, to get to the acronym.
As most child abuse is committed by members of the family of the child or people well known to the family, does this mean that Doris is going to take a list of all her family and close friends down to the police station for checking?
I don't think so. Probably be checking up on that single bloke that moved in down the street that didn't want to talk to her and she now dosen't like the look of.
"It is an offense for adults to hit adults"
Anyone tell Lennox Lewis?
What's the current government record of keeping databases?
not that great. I bet within 6 months of this going live some stupid minister or police official will loose his laptop and guess what will be on it!!
The NotW will probably buy it off of the druggie who nicked it, who's just been released after a few weeks in the local HMP after beating up an OAP or stealing a car for the 100'th time for the cash to but a £10 bag of whatever to keep him high.
Next thing you know Weekly supplements with the full details of the offenders saying "now don't do anything illegal *Wink- Wink*.
A sane voice in the wilderness. Unfortunatly in the wilderness of the British gov'ment nobody can hear you. Their all too busy creating the next buzz word and trying to make sure they get re-elected.
I thought you Brits were proof against this sort of thing I guess not be careful don't take a leak, don't give the kid a smack on the bottom for running in front of traffic or trying to fly off the second floor landing. Those love taps are so wild and poorly aimed they don't hurt they just scare "whats this, it's important I won't do that again (for a bit)". Everyone knows what real child abuse is it's ugly and it needs to be met with absolute intolerance the law knows as well and knows it's place and it's trying to get out it needs a good smack on the bottom. These pandering pols are playing with lives put them in their place as soon as you can I have no idea what will happen here in the states civil war comes to mind though, I am too old for that so I am going to hide.
I understand...but you, the people can stop this dead in it's tracks if you really want to.
LET YOUR POLITICIANS KNOW:
*We are NOT stupid.
**If you come up with stupid laws, we will vote you out and make you get a real job.
The citizens in our country were asleep at the wheel, you see. We actually never thought about the rammifications of allowing this registry, because we were told it would be for LAW ENFORCEMENT eyes only, and it would house the names of only the most heinous, violent child predators or rapists (adult).
It got out of control so quickly most didn't see it coming.
America is no longer the land of the free OR the brave. We have states that now have a Violent Offender Registry. This houses anyone who's committed an assault against another. Could be anything from someone being hurt in a bar brawl to a murderer. It always starts out as THE WORST OF THE WORST, and the next thing you know everybody and their brother is on it. We also have some states with a Methamphetamine users/producers/dealers Registry. What's next? Why not put EVERYONE on a list and put all of their faults beside their names...
Joe Blow - picks his nose in public, is rude to his mother-in-law, and drinks.
It might sound absurd. But so did what I'm already seeing on lists in the states.
Don't let them get away with this...I'm telling you, you will live to regret it. Almost everyone I know, and meet and talk to about this subject has SOMEONE they know or are related to on this registry, including myself.
The really sad part of all of this is that the registry is actually detrimental to the safety of children. The politicians and the american media have the public believing there's a boogeyman behind every bush. They are constantly encouraging them to get on line and check out the registry, make sure your neighbor isn't one of those perverts. While the parent is doing that, the boogeyman (in the form of old Uncle Joe) is in the back bedroom messing with their kid. It gives parents a FALSE SENSE of SECURITY.
Just let the powers that be know that you are not for this invasion of ANYONE's privacy. If the sex offender is so dangerous that we need to put them on lists, then they shouldn't have ever been released from jail to begin with.
We've had vigilante murders over here. One man came all the way from Canada, using the registry, and knocked on two different house's doors and blasted the men who opened them. Neither one of these men were "kiddie fidlers", they'd both been charged with and done time for STATUTORY RAPE, meaning they were over 18 and their girlfriends were 15 or 16, I can't remember which. Most recently we had the WIFE of a man arrested for and charged with having child pornography on his computer, burned to death in their home. A fire set by two men who were their neighbors. The offender got out, the wife couldn't be reached and died in the fire. The incidences of vigilantism are growing in this country.
PLEASE DON'T FOLLOW IN OUR FOOTSTEPS.
Teachers are subjected to CRB checks to make sure that they are ok to work with children, the thing is that the children don't have to undertake CRB checks and these are the people most likely, in a school situation, to be sex offenders. A classic being, 16 year old box has sex with a 15 year and 10 month old girl, if they get caught, he is labelled a sex offender, the News of the Screws will publish his picture, his life is fucked. Somehow though, a 40 year old man can have sex with a 16 year old girl (who isn't his pupil), and providing there is consent this is legal. It's fucked up.
Small problem or two or three or many big ones actually
The list is an admission by the powers to be , that rehabilitation in over crowded prisons is an absolute joke of the highest order !
Those that are attempting to rehabilitate with the usual Social Services of limited time resources staff and money are placed on a form of overload stress !
The government in power in creating the list is caving into a very small idiotic vocal minority of fruit cakes , nut jobs and those with hidden secret agenda's
A very bad stupid idea fronted by people washing their hands like one Pontius Pilate at that fatal crucifiction all those many thousands of years ago in another time and place !
I can hear their words echo in my ear now "but it was not I who was in charge of those evil vigilantes that abused the list and killed the unfortunate individual all because he had the self same identical name and family looks of his third cousin who did the evil deed ! I wash my hands like Pontius Pilate and blame it on the self appointed idiot of a mob leader who could not tell the difference between Arthur or Martha or his own face from his dumb fat ass "
Me , in a just and fair world , I would convict the people who authorised the issue of said list as aiding and abetting murder one and then sentence them to the same term in prison for the next fifty to sixty years to serve in the same cell alongside with the same idiot mob leader as they will have a lot in common just one single brain cell !
Alas in the words of Captain Vallo " Not I. For all my life I 've watched injustice and dishonesty fly the flag of decency . I don't trust it. "
I'm sure we all remember the News of the World protests a few years ago. If *anything* showed that Megan's / Sarah's law is a bad idea that did. We had innocent people dragged out of their houses and beaten because they looked a bit like one of the pictures published by that esteemed (sic) publication. We even had a paediatrician's home attacked because the fuckwit readers of that paper don't know the difference between a doctor specialising in the treatment of children and a kiddy fiddler.
As others have said, the sex offender's register is a very blunt instrument anyway. There is a *huge* difference between a 17 year old lad having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and a 40 year old pervert molesting an 8 year old child.
There are just too many members of the public that *absolutely* cannot be trusted with this information.
Wasn't there a guy murdered by a mob in the States when they found out he was on the Sex Offender's Register, even though he'd only been put on it for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfrriend when he was 17?
Mind you, wasn't a respectable doctor hounded out of her home here in the UK because vigilantes couldn't tell the difference between paediatrician and paedophile?
Of course, the thinking behind the UK Government, is that punishing people for crimes they haven't done yet is reasonable.
After all, if it saves just one life it's worth losing our civil liberties over!
I'd be interested to see if this modification of the law actually breaches the human rights of convicted sex offenders. This clearly is a new deterrent and thus constitutes an increase in the punishment for anyone who has been convicted previously - all without judicial oversight or any form of consultation or protection for those offenders.
I know the popular tabloid image of sex offenders is that they are all evil criminal masterminds who can somehow manipulate and hypnotise their way into families in order to offend. Of course - once a sex offender always a sex offender, they just can't help themselves!
But, I expect the truth is - like most prior offenders - a lot of sex offenders deeply regret their past and are just trying to get on with a normal life as best they can. This new law will destroy their hopes of becoming decent, productive members of society. So what now for them? What is life without hope for a decent future? Unless this "experiment" is quashed there is going to be a combination of suicides, vigilante action and, most worryingly, offenders giving up on their rehabilitation and slipping back into old ways.
how easy it is to end up on the register for nothing even remotely resembling a sex offence (urinating in public, ie hidden in a back alley at 3-4 in the morning) this is a very bad idea. I'm assuming that the actual crime committed will not be disclosed (because that would probably be a breach of data protection) but that the name/address of someone on the register for an "unspecified offence" could be handed out to all and sundry.
But if one life is so important, what happens if the law causes the loss of one life? As in that guy in the states you mentioned. Or that OAP killed by a father "'cos he's a rapist and he might go for my boy"?
Is an urban legend.
No, she really did exist, however, she wasn't directly assaulted but she was spat at, yelled at and her house got egged.
Insteaf of potentially smacking children why not lock them all up inside padded cells so that they cannot hurt themselves. Then release them to the world at large at sixteen years old and see what happens.
@ Jackie Sparling
Bad news, I'm afraid.
Britain already has such a register (and loads of other ones for other things), on which people are included, as AC @ 20:57 points out, for a variety of trivial infractions of the Home Office's schedule of sexual decorum. All this proposal will do is make it effectively public, allowing it to be used to provoke mob violence and pursue personal vendettas.
We also have the Enhanced CRB checks and the ContactPoint database, the latter completely exempt from the law of confidence, libel, or any rules of evidence, which enable people's names to be blackened and their lives blighted by mere suspicions and hearsay.
We ought to scrap all of those. But the idea of a nice clear list of "bad people" is hellish popular.
So, those of you in favour of hitting kids to discipline them - will you mind if someone else does it to your kids as well? No difference, is there?
So, those of you in favour of hitting kids to discipline them - will you mind if someone else does it to your kids as well?
I am not in favour of hitting kids, but I do agree that there are times it's the best way, if not the only way.
I'm talking of a slap that's not purposed to cause physical harm, but to remind the child of his childish position versus the adult. In most cases, like in school, that used to work wonderfully at my young years.
It was not the harm to be slapped, but the shame that did the lesson.
Mind you, when I was a child, we were explained that they were limits, that crossing the limits would have consequences, and we understood the limits.
I was slapped 2 times by a teacher in my school years, but I didn't complain, I knew I had cross the limits, and I knew that if the father was to learn about it (and both times the 2 teachers themselves explained it to my father), well the father would explain me that the teacher did right because if he had been there he (the father) would have slap me himself !
And if I was a father myself, I'd gladly go explain my child's teachers behind what limits they have my benediction to slap them.
All these moderns pedaguogic theories have lost connection with reality I'm afraid.
Would I mind if someone else hits my kids? Possibly not - so long as they don't mind a handful of broken fingers.
Yes mate, there is a difference. What I do within my family - so long as it does no lasting physical, financial or psychological damage to my family - is nobody else's business. Therein lies the problem.
There are children who have been punished by their parents to the point - and beyond - of abuse. There are children who have died as a result of abuse. Often this abuse was intentional and often it was delivered by a person with psychological problems. However, in this world of easy answers, feeble minds and professional hand-wringers, said professional hand-wringers - seeking an easy answer - came up with "Oh, we need to interfere in everyone's family life and make spanking your child verboten." Then the feeble minds, seeing the easy answer, jumped on the bandwagon. So now parents may not discipline their children as they see fit but must bow down before the idol of politically-correct thinking.
Postscript: My father tells me that my mother overruled his plan for my upbringing. His plan was this: Seal him in a barrel and feed him through the bunghole until he's eighteen. Then decide whether to break the barrel or seal up the bunghole.
Just to get one thing out of the way. Looks like the NSPCC spokesperson didn't read anything of what I read. This isn't about smacking a child/minor . . . STAT!!
So back on track . . .
1. What's to stop anyone asking for information about whoever they want to, without qualification/consent from the individual being inquired about, actually is in regular/brief contact with their child? Here are the scenarios:
A. 'My child is regularly/once in a Blue Moon, looked after by XYZ . . . Could you tell me if S/He is a paedo?
"No worries M'aam, will have that info for you in a jiffy. Just sign this form saying you won't pass on the results of our search of 'The Register' to anyone, while I search XYZ's record."
B. 'My child is regularly/once in a Blue Moon, looked after by XYZ . . . Could you tell me if S/He is a paedo?
"No worries M'aam, will have that info for you as soon as I've asked XYZ if S/He does/has ever had contact with your child. BTW, just sign this form giving us consent to contact XYZ, sorry but we need it before we can make an inquiry on 'The Register'.
Come on . . . Neither scenario fits the bill and that being the case then how can it be fit for any purpose . . . except one?
Scenario C (a hybrid of A & B and then some!!)
"I walked past/saw someone from my bedroom window/talked to in the street while I was walking my dog, a (suspicious) person I would like to know more about and the reason is . . . I've got kids. Well not me but my sister/brother/someone I know (vaguely) has 1 or 2 . . . I think."
Can this work?! Can any other proposal that has been brought forth actually work??!!
I guess all that I've wrote won't sit well with the: 'Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear' . . . Brigade!!
Have I got something to hide from or fear of? No, nothing at all, the only thing in my life to fear . . . . is fear itself!!
Will probably be flamed somewhere along the line for my post but . . .
Hey, this is my life and I would be an irresponsible person if I delegated my life and responsibilities to you and yours instead of taking the responsibility for myself!!
Trust me when I tell you the registry isn't a deterrent. In the U.S., studies show that 95% of newly reported sex crimes are perpetrated by people who are NOT ON the registry, and have no criminal history.
Just as the residency restrictions don't do a thing to protect children, the registry is useless as well.
Studies clearly show that if a person is Hell bent on offending, they WILL offend no matter where they live or if their name is on a list in some database somewhere.
People in America actually seem to believe that offenders (restriction is 1000 ft. from a school) who live 1002 ft. away, are too lazy to walk the extra 2 ft. for a victim.
You have the lists, yes, the registeries, yes...but until now they have not been made public. THAT's what you need to stop.
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds