back to article Sex offender wins case against Facebook vigilantism

A convicted sex offender has won a court order giving Facebook 72 hours to remove a page on its site which names people who have have been convicted of sex offenses against children. The Northern Irish man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, took the action after his details appeared on the Facebook page "Keeping our kids …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

    Vigilantism can also result in such people dropping out of sight of everyone, including the authorities who could be expected to keep a watchful eye on them. If they feel that they'll be persecuted no matter what, there's little reason for them not to re-offend.

    Granted, when I see someone as clearly ill-educated as "Robert Corbett" it makes me want to smack his fat head back to school, which biases me somewhat against him and his opinions.

    1. LordBrian

      Yes I agree with what you say but there are counter arguments.

      As recidivism rates are quite high, and we rely on underpaid and poorly motivated public employees to "control" said offenders there is quite a high probability that some will reoffend. Based on the laws in the US "Megan's Law" the ability to track offenders in the community can pay dividends.

      Of course the most obvious route is to house them in very upper-class areas where such ill educated lynch mobs cannot run riot.

      1. Zaphod.Beeblebrox
        Devil

        They'll certainly be in good company there!

      2. Old Handle
        Meh

        Despite being one of those things "everyone knows" it's not true that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is unusually high. Obviously "high" is subjective, and anything above zero is higher than we wish, but compared to other criminals, sex offenders don't really have particularly high reoffense rate.

        By the way, I'm not sure exactly what "dividends" you see from Megan's Law. Although it's popular with the public, there's not much evidence that it's actually reducing crime.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Recidivism rate

          A study by Dennis Doren has recidivism rates at 52%.

          Another Canadian study, which took into account undetected crimes (dont know how), had the long term rate at 88.3%

          I would consider either of these figures to be high.

        2. Katie Saucey
          Unhappy

          Well it is popular with the media, and that's what matters. Not to by any mean try to defend the fucks that perpetrate these crimes; I'm constantly told by every primetime show to not go into the carpark by myself, don't go out for "just for a walk or jog" at sundown etc. Unfortunately we all live with uncertainty of running across a nut. No amount of regs and laws will make the probability zero.

        3. James Micallef Silver badge
          FAIL

          Megan's Law

          Any law that is created to address a specific case (easy to identify becase they are usually called "<victim's name> law") is usually a bad idea. Typically, instead of being based on good research and a solid understanding of the problem to be solved, such laws are knee-jerk reactions to a single case (although, unfortunately, usually an exceptionally nasty case) that neglect other significant aspects of the issues. Politicians will waffle about "If we had <victim's name> law, then this would never have happened to <victim> ", quite ignoring the fact that there could be dozens of alternative and better solutions, or they could simply have correctly enforced existing rules.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Well, you either believe that punishment is rehabilitation or just a way to keep them off the streets for a period of time.

        Given how little offenders do in prison and what little changes are attempted to their behaviour it can only be seen currently as a way of keeping them off the streets for a while.

        So we either try to understand these peoples problems and fix them or we just lock them up for good, which is expensive. I heard a figure of £400 a week per prisoner some time ago.

        Trouble is, the problem with trying to alter people's behaviour is this can require them to take drugs permanently, I don't think we're quite ready for behaviour modification using brain surgery again.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        North Oxfordshire

        There is plenty of space in North Oxfordshire and plenty of upper class persons who might themselves feel sympathetic, having had their collars felt by the defenders of public order.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      People who

      People who set up pages like this are in the lower IQ bracket.....

      The very back end of the lower IQ bracket.

      Remember the Pediatrician a few years back who was beated up on his door step because a mob though he was a paedophile.....

      1. Chris Thomas Alpha
        Happy

        Re: People who

        I find it ironic that you mention other peoples IQ level, then go on to spell "beat up" incorrectly. or "beaten up"

        but certainly not "beated up"

        I have no sympathy for pedophiles, I don't go around targetting them, but if one of them had an accident, I wouldn't bat an eyelid...paid for his crime or not, I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

        however, your point is sound, that people confuse paediatrician with a paedophile are pretty stupid, but to be honest, perhaps we shouldn't have chosen words which sound very similar to describe very different things, I blame latin.....or at least, somebody down that road...

        1. Nigel 13

          Re: People who

          That would be the Greek person down the road then.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: People who

            True but the gp has the makings of a point. "Paedophiles" is the name they used to define themselves because it sounded better (remember PIE, the "paedophile information exchange", which at the time was considered legal?) It's like allowing burglars to be renamed as clutter reduction consultants.

            Drop the word and call them "child abusers" which is what they are.

            1. Shufflemoomin

              Re: People who

              Well, that's clearly not true. A paedophile is someone who has a sexual fetish for children or young adults and a child abuser is one who sexually abuses a child. They're not necessarily the same thing.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: People who

                Er, no. I detect special pleading here. Paedophile does not include young adults - that is an ephebophile. And paedophilia does not come to the attention of the public until it turns into actual child abuse, but the vigilantism and newspaper slavering for circulation only applies to actual child abusers. Benjamin Britten had supportive friends who made sure that his tendencies didn't get him into trouble. He wasn't a child abuser. Charles Dodgson liked small children and there's reason to suspect that he was sexually attracted to young women - but he had extremely, some would say unattainably, high moral standards and never did anything about it.

                Whether the NOTW under Brooks and Co. would have "outed" Britten if he had still been alive is unknowable, of course.

                The newspapers haven't yet demanded that vigilante groups identify and drive out people who play violent computer games, because although they might like the idea of killing lots of people, they don't actually commit murder (usually).

          2. Nigel 13

            Re: People who

            Just realised. By Greek I mean the language, not the nationality.

        2. JDX Gold badge

          Re: People who

          So you define words as "sounding very similar" because they start with the same sound "peed"? Presumably every word ending in -phile should similarly be removed?

        3. dssf

          Re: People who

          I suspect that that vandalizer conflated or stretched paediatrician and office files to morph into paedophile...

          That kind of person might assert that Olympics swimmers competing in Speedos is a "speed (drug) freak. Or, that someone who "drops acid" would make for a poor or dangerous lab technician (an assertion that could be simultaneously correct and incorrect). :-)

          Ahhh, Earth... An interesting pit stop in the vastness of the Uniwerse...

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: People who

          Using the phone "phile" thing is stupid too. It generally means someone who likes something. Audiophile is obsessed with audio quality, anglophile is someone who likes Britain and British things. Only when you go to paedophile does it suddenly become a word to describe an offender.

          1. Ian Yates
            Holmes

            Re: People who

            "Only when you go to paedophile does it suddenly become a word to describe an offender"

            Not true - "phile" just means loves or likes. The fact that (an adult) loving children (too much) is illegal (in some cultures) is indifferent to the meaning of the word.

            Another example of an "illegal" one would be necrophile.

        5. Scorchio!!
          Thumb Up

          Re: People who

          "but certainly not "beated up"" [...]

          "however, your point is sound, that people confuse paediatrician with a paedophile are pretty stupid" [...]

          Speaking of which, the people chanting about them at the time of that incident had their children with them, and the children were chanting "peefiles out, peefiles out[...]".

          It is the new Salem, the new McCarthyism, especially popular online.

    3. Graham Marsden
      Boffin

      IIRC the UK Police know where something over 97% of all convicted sex offenders live, so if a related crime happens anywhere near them they know there will be a knock on the door.

      In the USA where they have Megan's Law, I believe around 30% of convicted sex offencers have absconded or failed to register a change of address with the appropriate authorities because this law does not even give them the *chance* of trying to rebuild their lives.

      Facebook vigilantism benefits nobody.

    4. Scorchio!!

      It is worth noting that sex offenders are predisposed to repeat offending. I've worked with that category of psychiatric offender and find them repugnant, not least because one of them set me up to be assaulted, which I was; although my assailant was a feeble individual the grey area of self defence 'in good faith' is a difficult one, so I was reduced to pushing him away and into a seat until the crash team arrived.

      There is a proportion that does not re-offend including those who are medicated using, e.g., di/stilbesterol (unwanted effects include growing breasts, making this a difficult matter, since most paedophiles seem to know how to hire a good lawyer). The attitude of law enforcement and psychiatric agencies in this country tends to be that they should be left to handle such offenders as they are best placed to maintain (e.g. not 'lose') contact with and control this very dangerous category of offenders; the implication is that, unmonitored and on the lam, they are more likely to behave impulsively and kill someone; children particularly spring to mind.

      To repeat, I cannot stand sex offenders, they are devious, manipulative and mendacious, and my professional experience of them, that is (to repeat) I was assaulted as a result of manipulative behaviour by one of them, and I wish there were a solution to them that is commonly accepted as moral.

      People frequently suggest they should be orchidectomised ("cut off their nuts"); human sexual behaviour is fixed inside of the womb before birth, and all this does is to make them more resentful and thus dangerous.

      There is no easy solution.

      1. Grease Monkey

        So we'd better stop using PDF files for that reason then?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So Facebook say its OK to support vigilantism as long as its against convicted paedophiles, as their terms of use state:

    You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law.

    You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence

    Which they seem to be saying don't apply in this case..

    1. Grease Monkey

      Oh come on. We all know that FB's terms only apply when FB say they apply. Furthermore those terms mean what FB say they mean today and can mean something else tomorrow. And of course if they ever get caught out they'll just modify the terms.

  3. h3

    They are doing it wrong these Pedophile's

    If they did it right then they would be untouchable as we see from the great Sir Jimmy Savile OBE KCSG

    (They made him governor of Broadmoor for a bit).

    I think the Police shouldn't speak to the Media at all. (Like in Portugal where the police basically wouldn't say anything at all whilst an investigation is going on - that is how it should be).

    Pedophiles are the new Blacks / Irish / Jew's (There is always someone society wants to persecute). As far as I am concerned it is like Schizophrenia (i.e really bad but still a serious mental disorder).

    Stuff about pedophilia / terrorism is disproportionate and as far as I am concerned not the concern of the general public. (It should be a concern of the Police but they shouldn't use it as a means to shift attention away from the deep routed corruption in their own ranks).

    Britain is screwed (Unless we get another World War). Stuff like the Sun / News of the World makes it worse.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: They are doing it wrong these Pedophile's

      Pedophilia is the new black?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: They are doing it wrong these Pedophile's

        Surely pedophilia is someone who has a kink about bicycle bottom brackets? If Americans must use words derived from Greek, couldn't they at least try to spell them by a closer analogy ( the root is παιδί. Greek used to be translated first into Latin and then into English, and the Latin equivalent of the Greek ai is ae, which is preserved in English, as in Caesar, the pronunciation of what was presumably closer to Kaiser than the usual English "Seeser")

        Color, labor, fine with that. Pedo, a Webster too far.

    2. Martin 71 Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: They are doing it wrong these Pedophile's

      The only problem with your conflation of Paedophilia with a mental disorder, (which may, in some cases be true) is that it doesn't really help, it'd just increase the stigma on Schizophrenics (which is already enormous). The public are ignorant dimwits by and large... Attempting to pretend otherwise is doomed to failure.

      I agree with you re: disproportionate, but if the police TRY to be proportionate, in the case of terrorism, the government get on their backs, and in the case of paedophiles, the public get on their backs.

      None of which helps anyone, least of all the victims of either group.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    "The Northern Irish man, who cannot be named..."

    It's Voldemort!

    1. Martin 71 Silver badge

      I should name him on a facebook page. That would be fine, according to them, right?

  5. banjomike
    Stop

    Vigilantes are retards

    "Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday. "

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

    Vigilantes on Facebook must be about as low as it is possible to go. Apart from the baddies themselves, of course.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Vigilantes are retards

      These vigilante type aren't usually that bright.

      "I'm going to go murder a paedophile to protect my kids!"

      "If you murder someone you'll be incarcerated and unable to raise your kids."

      "Err..."

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Vigilantes are retards (@AC)

        You say that like it's a bad thing

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rule of thumb

    If it originated in the United States, and has to do with law and order, then it is probably draconian, regressive, and generally bad policy. (c.f. death penalty)

    I blame their unnatural fascination with the Old Testament.

    1. nitsedy

      Re: Rule of thumb

      The death penalty originated in the United States?

    2. Lance 3

      Re: Rule of thumb

      England is known for the origination of "hanged, drawn and quartered" as a form of capital punishment. Capital punishment is well over 2000 years old so clearly did not originate in the United States. Capital punishment is also used in over 50 countries and outlawed in nearly 100.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Blight?

    "blight other young lives" == "rape children". Just want to make sure we're clear on this point. It's not just an inconvenient experience that "young people" have to get past. It's a life-altering violation by some sick bastard who preys on the weakest and most vulnerable people in society and then gets to walk free while the child continues to suffer for the rest of his/her life. As a matter of fact, let's just realize that some crimes should never be forgiven by society. This is one of them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Blight?

      Yeah, too bad "sexual offenders" != "people raping children" , even if anyone appearing on a list of such offenders is usually treated the same way. Like the poor bloke who sent an inappropriate message to the wrong address by mistake. (As seen in a recent El Reg article.) As long as someone is on that list, their life is as good as ruined.

      What about the people who murder children? Or those who beat them until they bleed? Where's THEIR registry?

      If we believe such people don't deserve a second chance, then we should either shoot them or keep them behind bars until they die. But we aren't hysterical enough (yet) to say that, so instead, we let them serve their limited sentences, and then make sure they can't do much with their lives afterwards either. How smart. I'm sure the world has become a much safer place because of it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Blight?

        "What about the people who murder children? Or those who beat them until they bleed? Where's THEIR registry?"

        Well, you could stick on topic, but if you want to know about how children are protected against physical abuse, then in the UK there are plenty of mechanisms in place to monitor the abusers. An offenders register is of very limited help because it is retrospective, and there's many people who present a risk to children, but will not, and may never be on such a list. My wife works within the systems society has in place, and I can assure you that for example, turning up at A&E with a child with a non-accidental injury does have consequences that do endure, and that people who physically harm children are monitored and controlled to ensure the well being of children within their household and family. And beyond A&E, there's plenty of other ways of ensuring that the police, local government, social services and health services start taking a very serious interest in your parenting.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Blight?

        "Or those who beat them until they bleed? Where's THEIR registry?"

        It's called the Eton College Year Book.

    2. Notas Badoff
      Megaphone

      Re: Blight?

      Two downvotes in 20 minutes? Have you downers never interacted with someone 'blighted'? Can't say I have recently, as the closest one such killed herself....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Blight?

        Some of us downvoters ARE the blighted. Thank you very much.

        I just don't think that violence solves anything, and 'not forgiving at all' (and your attitude to them) is a form of violence.

        Anon because there's still stigma to being a victim as well.

        Yes, this argument is emotionally loaded both ways.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Re: Blight?

      > Just want to make sure we're clear on this point.

      Unless, of course, you're the PE teacher that got put on the sex offenders register for accidentally sending sexy texts intended for his significant other to everyone on his contact list, including some of his young pupils.

      Not all sex offenders are rapists and not all of them are actually real offenders.

    4. Kevin Johnston

      Re: Blight?

      Whilst I agree that this is a very emotive issue, the whole point is that these people have gone through a trial and have been sentenced in accordance with the law of the land.

      You may not like that law or the sentence it produced but unsurprisingly, breaking other laws to have a go at the people who were convicted does NOT fix the problem. The only way to change it is to get enough like minded people to lobby to have the law changed (and not Daliy Mail style lobbying either).

      Laws can be changed if a sufficiently large portion of the population push for it but be careful, once you open the box and allow emotion to dictate policy you are leaving yourself open to control by the least stable elements.

      1. Jtom Bronze badge

        Re: Blight?

        But it seems you and a lot of others don't quite understand the difference between what is done under the law by the government and what rights the community have. If it is against the law to post the information (I don't know British law, but in the US, who is convicted of what crimes is public information, and the publishing of any truthful and public information is in no way forbidden) then of course the site must come down.

        But if it is not against the law, society has every right to shun those who are considered anti-social and a potential danger. Shunning, or ostracizing, is age-old. It is (or at least, was) an effective way to ensure members of society lived in ways that most benefited the rest of society.

    5. DF118

      Re: Blight?

      some crimes should never be forgiven by society

      Who said anything about forgiveness?

    6. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    7. Greg J Preece

      Re: Blight?

      As a matter of fact, let's just realize that some crimes should never be forgiven by society. This is one of them.

      And that makes vigilante mobs OK? Fuck off. Just, fuck off. Out of the country, off the planet, and preferably into the sun.

      We have a justice system because (we pretend) we're not a bunch of savages. They make un-emotive decisions, appropriate punishments, and abstract the entire thing away from the kind of cretins who would approve of mob justice. Once someone has gone through that justice system, it has not got a fucking thing to do with you.

      Does anyone remember when the focus of our justice system was rehabilitation and reintegration, rather than the whims of shitheads like this?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Blight?@ Greg J Preece

        "And that makes vigilante mobs OK?"

        Where did the OP state that?

        But why worry about what he said, as you've merely used it as an opportunity to fly off into a foul mouthed rant about some issue that wasn't what was said at all. Go back and read it.

        Regardless, there are some things that should be unforgiven. Myra Hindley, Ian Huntley, Harold Shipman, Fred West, Beverley Allitt, Stephen Griffiths, Levi Bellfield, and more besides. All of them arsewipes who preyed on the vulnerable and murdered them. Somebody says, quite reasonably that some crimes are beyond forgiveness, and some of us might take the view that the criminal justice system is often far too lenient. But the best you can do is sound like exactly the sort of knuckle dragger that you're claiming to speak against.

        Pathetic.

        1. Greg J Preece

          Re: Blight?@ Greg J Preece

          Where did the OP state that?

          You're right, they merely heavily implied it, on a thread directly discussing it. How could I have ever made the connection? And if your justification for mounting the high horse is : "you swore, so you're wrong, but I'm condescending, so I'm right", then I have bad news: the OP also cursed. I think you need to go back and call them pathetic.

          Also, I love the inanity of naming several famous serial killers (who received no leniency), and then talking about how the justice system is too lenient.

          The OP was implying that persecution of those convicted should continue after their punishment, which was my actual argument if you'd bothered to read my post before turning your nose up at my language. And that kind of thinking makes me angry enough to use phrases like "fuck off into the sun." Geddit?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Blight?@ Greg J Preece

            "You're right, they merely heavily implied it, "

            No they didn't, you assumed it.

            As for your defence of due process, the irony of your own jumping to conclusion clearly evades you. I can only hope that there is a test to stop presumptious fuckwits like you from doing jury service.

            If the best you can do is resort to fuckityfuckMcFuckbastadwankstainfuckfuckinfuckoofffyerbastadsfuckingffuk then clearly your opinions cannot have much validity. When it comes to swearing, I was trained in this in the motor industry, so I do know how it works.

            Coming back to the aspect of leniency, you may have noticed that some druggy waster has just been convicted of murdering a war pensioner in their 90's in their own home. The scumbag got twenty years, and will probably (on home office guidelines) be out in ten. Obviously you like that. Nice and lenient, the verminous druggy will be back on the streets, unemployable, state dependant, and laughing at twats like you in a decade, when she's out.

            Obviously she'll have "paid her debt to society".

            So no, I don't "geddit". I still think you're a foul mouthed presumptious fool, incapable of engaging in civilised debate, based purely on your own words.

      2. Jtom Bronze badge

        Re: Blight?

        I doubt if many support 'vigilante mobs'. I thought this article was about the posting of public information that some members of society might like to know for the safety of their children. Keeping a child away from a convicted child molester, even if he has done his time, is not an unreasonable thing to do if you give a fig about your child.

    8. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Blight?

      One of the problems with this sort of "hang 'em high" mentality is that the victims of sexual assault can usually complain, and identify their attackers. If you make the penalty for rape (adult or child) the same as that for murder you risk encouraging attackers to kill their victims. That seems especially likely in the case of young children who are less able or likely to fight back.

      No doubt a sexual assault can be life-changing, but children can be amazingly resilient when given the right support. I think that few children (and fewer of their parents) would prefer that the child be killed than 'just' (emotive word, I know) assaulted.

      If you accept that such attackers must eventually be allowed back into society, you have to accept that sciety needs a way to cope with them without demonizing them into "what the hell" recidivism.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bad decision by naive court

    While I do not advocate violence, this is a bad decision. In the U.S. sex offenders names are routinely published and their residence documented by authorities. They can't live near schools or other places where they may easily have access to many children they could violate. I've never seen reports of any vigilanty acts against sex offenders in the U.S.

    1. JimmyPage Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Bad decision by naive court

      absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bad decision by naive court

        Ignorance is no excuse for poor judgment.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @AC

      You seem to ignore the fact here that Facebook is not only used in the US but dozens of other countries around the world too. So solely comparing this to the situation of a single country, whether that's the US or any other, is simply misplaced.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bad decision by naive court

      What a sheltered life you must lead....

      ww.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/05/washington-man-accused-killing-sex-offenders-allegedly-leaves-note-it-had-to-be/

      http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/11/nyregion/vigilante-attack-in-new-jersey-is-linked-to-sex-offenders-law.html

      http://seadev.bonnint.net/?nid=76&sid=66203&page=1

    4. Martin 71 Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Bad decision by naive court

      The court was clearly not naive. The court merely thinks that the law is more important than the views of a bunch of semi-literate morons on facebook.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Implementing a short spelling and grammar test at the Facebook login screen ought to solve 99% of the problem...

  10. This post has been deleted by its author

  11. Don Jefe
    Thumb Down

    what Is Wrong With You People

    It seems every third news story coming from Blighty is about having sex with children. I can't believe your all a bunch of kiddie fiddelers. The news/media seems to be winning this one by making everyone from the UK prone to buttfucking a little boys.

    1. Oninoshiko
      Headmaster

      Re: what Is Wrong With You People

      You mean "you're". It's a contraction meaning "you are." Not to be confused with "your" which is the possessive form of "you."

      You're confused over your usage of grammer.

      1. Michael Thibault

        Re: what is wrong here

        is that "grammar" is spelled that way.

        1. Andy ORourke
          Joke

          Re: what is wrong here

          The first rule of the pedantry post is that you will inevitably make a mistake of your own, why do you think El Reg doesn't allow editing of comments?

      2. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    2. jonathanb Silver badge

      Re: what Is Wrong With You People

      Kiddie fiddling is actually very rare in this country, and rarer than it has ever been in the past, and that is mostly down to the amount of attention it receives.

  12. Gagol
    Facepalm

    From my own experience...

    How much of the offenders responded to seduction from the youth? Not that I am a sick weirdo, but I had, many times, been approached by 11 to 14 yo girls wanting to have sex with me. I do NOT condone sex with children, but when children initiate the thing, it tells me a lot about the low average of sex edication they receive from their parents.

    1. Martin
      WTF?

      Re: From my own experience...

      "I have, many times, been approached by 11 to 14 yo girls wanting to have sex with me..."

      I have never, not once in my life, been approached by any 11 to 14 yo girls wanting to have sex with me. I cannot think of anywhere I would visit where I would be likely to be approached by 11 to 14 yo girls wanting to have sex with me.

      Where the hell do you go to get these approaches?

      1. Robin 12

        Re: From my own experience...

        I have also experienced the same thing. It was very awkward to say the least, especially when I knew the mother and drank at a pub before I knew that the girl offering her body was her daughter. 12 at the time.

        Another girls younger sister at a house party one night. I didn't even know her.

        Outside a pub by Reading some years ago on Halloween.

        It is very awkward and hard to say no when they are very direct and forward, even to the point of grabbing my crotch. I guess it was sexual assault looking back at it.

      2. jonathanb Silver badge

        Re: From my own experience...

        Well I got it a lot when I was about 15-17. They were probably nearer 14 than 11 though.

    2. Andy Fletcher

      Re: From my own experience...

      Presumably you're 11-14 yourself. If not, I'm afraid you are a weirdo in my book.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      Re: From my own experience...

      Seriously. Where were these girls when I was 14? I'm sorry, Gagol, but you either live in some kind of crazy teenage-boys'-Penthouse-letter wonderland, or you're hallucinating.

  13. JaitcH
    WTF?

    Most people wouldn't like their dirty laundry hung out to dry

    In the States you can check on almost any offence a person is convicted of. In fact the authorities make a point in notifying individuals of offenders in their area.

    Making judgements / proclamations about cases when a person was not present in court is a futile endeavour. I have sat on juries and heard the prosecution and started thinking 'toss the key' yet when the defence presented their evidence a lot of the police / Crown suppositions evaporated.

    Some professions are always in and out of courts, including police, medical professionals, etc. There have been cases where such practitioners were accused of crimes and harassed or driven out of their homes because the ignorant mass thought they were criminals when in fact they were expert witnesses.

    Take the Sevile matter: Glad was arrested and released, but has convictions in competent courts of law (and that doesn't include VietNam); Sevile has never been deemed by a competent authority to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a child molester, neither has the late MP Smith.

    For all his alleged evil, Sevile's charities did good but that seems to be conveniently overlooked in this crowd-driven uproar. Mind you the police offering opinions doesn't add much to the discussion, as they are not charged with issuing opinions. Likewise the former policeman, now a self-proclaimed expert on child abuse, is, through his endless verbal diarrhoea, simply promoting his business.

    Once a person has been convicted, and completed whatever sentence was awarded, they should be allowed to continue their lives without interference from do-gooders and busybodies. The job of the police is to take appropriate precautions.

    Remember Profumo? He paid for his mistake and then followed it with a life of service to the community and was, I seem to remember, before his death, restored to good standing by the Queen.

    If the rabble want to publish the paedophile convictions, then let everyone's criminal record be made available on-line so we can see who the thieves, shop-lifters and drunk drivers are.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    quality of education

    "Makes me sick to think that pedos have rites dey have ni rites in our society dey scum that should have no rites"

    For a moment I thought I was reading the column in Private Eye that takes the mick out of the poor spelling and grammar of inhabitants of message boards and news story comments.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tabloid Brains

    It says here that the unions will never learn

    It says here that the economy is on the upturn

    And it says here we should be proud

    That we are free

    And our free press reflects our democracy

    ---

    Those braying voices on the right of the house

    Are echoed down the street of shame

    Where politics mix with bingo and tits

    In a strictly money and numbers game

    ---

    Where they offer you a feature

    On stockings and suspenders

    Next to calls for stiffer penalties for sex offenders

    ---

    It says here that this year's prince is born

    It says here do you ever wish

    That you were better informed

    And it says here that we can only stop the rot

    With a large dose of law and order

    And a touch of the short sharp shock

    ---

    If this does not reflect your views you should understand

    That those who run the papers also run this land

    And they'd rather you believe

    In Coronation Street capers

    In the war of circulation, it sells newspapers

    Could it be an infringement

    Of the freedom of the press

    To print pictures of women in states of undress?

    ---

    When you wake up to the fact

    That your paper is Tory

    Just remember, there are two sides to every story!

    ---

    Billy Bragg — "It Says Here"

    1. Greg J Preece

      Re: Tabloid Brains

      Oh FFS, are we descending to the level of Have Your Say when people start posting shit poetry?

  16. mark l 2 Silver badge
    FAIL

    Facebooks excuse for not taking down the page was that it was used by 4000 users, so if i set up a page with links to torrents to download the latest movies and can get 4000 users then facebook won't take it down without a court order? I think not.

    Unfortunately with the whole jimmy savile scandal it appears that any slight story about someone who might just be accused of a sexual crime and the press are all over it even before any charges are made. Even just an accusation of this type of crime will probably result in arrest, finger prints, dna taken even if the police don't charge the person but the damage the press can cause with printing the accusations can be enough to ruin peoples lives.

    Maybe the levison enquiry may suggest that stories are only reported when someone has been charged with an offence rather than just arrested, or even better only when they have actually been convicted

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sex offenders should be public knowledge

    They most definitely should post the names and location of sex offenders to protect society who's interest comes before convicted paedophile's "rights". Vigilanty activities should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

    1. Greg J Preece

      Re: Sex offenders should be public knowledge

      OK, pop quiz. How does this:

      They most definitely should post the names and location of sex offenders to protect society who's interest comes before convicted paedophile's "rights".

      Work with this:

      Vigilanty activities should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

      Without even reacting to my pet peeve of seeing "rights" in quotation marks, how does publishing names and addresses of convicted criminals assist anything other than vigilantism and persecution? The aim of the justice system is to rehabilitate as well as punish. I'd love to know how that's going to happen when they've got a big marker over their head. You might as well give them armbands to wear.

      1. Surreal
        Holmes

        Re: Sex offenders should be public knowledge

        Well, perhaps I'm being hysterical, but I believe knowing about a potential threat is a good thing.

        In the tradition of silly examples: if I'm notified by a reliable source that there are bears in the local park, I won't send my daughter unescorted to enjoy her smoked salmon and crackers. That doesn't, however, imply that I feel compelled to lob hand grenades into the park. See? :-D

    2. Don Jefe
      WTF?

      Re: Sex offenders should be public knowledge

      See post above. How many kiddy fuckers are there in the U.K.? Surely it isn't that big of a problem that you all whinge about it everyday. Is it? I'm betting that you've never buggered a little kid and I bet you don't know anyone that has. You and those like you are falling prey to the very privacy issues you hold so dear. Fighting for a non-existent cause is a waste of everyone's time.

  18. mrfill
    FAIL

    Beat up your family & friends

    It is not an Official Secret that a huge majority of abused children not only know, but are likely to be related to their abuser. Rather than having the 'Eastenders style' faaaaamily conference to decide which neighbour to beat up, the vigilantes should really have a 'beat up your friends and relatives' meeting.

  19. Ken Hagan Gold badge

    5 more sites

    Since no-one in their right mind could believe that these new sites are co-incidence and not motivated by a desire to cock a snook at the judge, can we now expect those responsible to be chased down by the courts for contempt?

    1. Martin 71 Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: 5 more sites

      THAT, right there, is a very good idea and would send a clear message.

  20. NomNomNom

    "Vigilantism can also result in such people dropping out of sight of everyone, including the authorities who could be expected to keep a watchful eye on them. If they feel that they'll be persecuted no matter what, there's little reason for them not to re-offend."

    So when will Catholic Priests stop getting persecuted by the child abuse witch hunt??? All it takes is a little murmur of some wrongdoing involving a priest and a child these days and the liberal authorities jump on the bandwagon to investigate and persecute the church in inquires resembling something like the spanish inquisition!!

  21. The Alpha Klutz

    "It's hard to believe the ignorance of some people."

    These people were never educated. Most of them have low IQs. They probably have no life except buying whatever the adverts in the middle of X Factor tells them to buy. They are efficient and compulsive at not thinking.

  22. John Savard Silver badge

    Solution

    Vigilantism is not the solution, but we cannot tolerate any recidivism by child molesters. Obviously, if recidivism takes place, the sentences given for the offence are inadequate.

    So the solution is to regard child molestation as on a par with hijacking a plane and flying it in to a building, killing thousands - if all convicted child molesters remained in prison until they died, then clearly no vigilantes would bother them at their homes.

    Well, perhaps one more step is needed to entirely eliminate the risk of vigilantism: no one who commited such acts should fail to be convicted because of some technicality (i.e. suspects are held indefinitely if the police are confident of their guilt, until such time as the police are also confident that their case can achieve a conviction, as is the case in Guantanamo)... and I can understand that this would cause some concern that a dishonest police officer could use such a system against an innocent man.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Solution

      "I can understand that this would cause some concern that a dishonest police officer could use such a system against an innocent man."

      No, really? If the law said that anyone accused of such a crime would be held UNTIL there was enough evidence to convict, not UNLESS? What in God's name makes you think that's a good idea?

      If nobody will 'fail to be convicted' because of a technicality, all it would take is for a cop to plant evidence or a prosecutor to lie, and the most innocent of people would be locked away for life! You say 'no one who committed such acts' - but how can you tell who committed them without a fair trial?

      You're essentially saying: Accusation equals life in prison without parole, without any exceptions. Tell you what - I accuse you of child molestation. The police will arrive shortly - and they're going to hold you UNTIL they have enough evidence to convict. If that day never comes? Well, too bad, I guess!

      And how - as has been pointed out - is molestation such a galaxy away from 'mere' beatings, starvation, or imprisonment? Are you jailed for life if accused of having sex with a 17-year-old but having sex with an 18-year-old is just dandy? Are you thrown in prison forever as an 18 year old for getting drunk and groping your 15-year-old sister's BFF, but you get ten years for beating her until she's lying in a pool of her own blood, half dead and paralyzed?

      I don't think you've really thought this through. Put down the pitchfork and torch and read about policy for a while.

      1. EvilGav 1
        Facepalm

        Re: Solution

        "Are you jailed for life if accused of having sex with a 17-year-old but having sex with an 18-year-old is just dandy?"

        Neither is a crime in the UK, so I would bloody hope no-one would be jailed.

        1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

          Re: Solution

          Hmm. EvilGav1 makes a statement of fact and is downvoted, twice. Riiiight.

          In fact, just as a public service (hoovering up all those down-votes) I will point out that it isn't against the law if the protagonists are 14+15, 15+16 or 16+17 either, as long as there is consent. (There needs to be an 2-year age gap as I recall.) Even the UK isn't so up-tight about sex that we've criminalised the back of the bike sheds.

    2. N2 Silver badge

      Re: Solution

      Sir,

      I am somewhat appalled by the fact you are voted down.

      A firing squad would soon make this serious, but all too frequent offence that affects such a wide spectrum of our society far less popular.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Solution

        "A firing squad would soon make this serious, but all too frequent offence that affects such a wide spectrum of our society far less popular."

        Yeah, because right now, child molesters think, "Hmm, let's see - 10 to 15 in the clink, full of huge angry guys with nothing to do but lift weights and take out their aggression on people that nobody will defend. Ain't no thang!"

        People who think they're going to get caught generally don't go around committing crimes. People committed plenty of crimes even back in the middle ages when there was no protection for the accused and mere arrest meant having boiling tar poured into your palms until you confessed, and being broken on the wheel when you were convicted - assuming you survived that long.

        Summary executions and horrible torture don't miraculously rid the world of crime - criminals by definition tend to self-select to people too dumb, arrogant, or ignorant to take the consequences into account. And the few who fall outside that pattern don't tend to get caught.

  23. Richard 45

    Facefcuk

    I think we're starting to drift away from the point of the article, that of this moronic site and the vigilantism it seems to foster. A good example is with the April Jones alleged abduction and murder case. As most UK readers will probably be aware, April was abducted near her house, and is still missing, and a few days later, a local man, Mark Bridger, was charged with her abduction and murder.

    This is where Facehinder comes in - like a shot, at least one page was set up calling for Mark Bridger to be hung. He's not even entered a plea yet. The trial is due to start sometime next year. From what I've been told, discussion of the case, and what to do to Mark Bridger, is endemic on Facepleb. And doubtless that case isn't the only one where this goes on. That site is further evidence of regressive evolution.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Facefcuk

      Facebook should be shut down in England and wales for contempt of Court. Whatever its faults, our judicial system still has a concept of fairness and we shouldn't allow Zuckerberg to try and downgrade us to US standards in order to improve the value of his shares. We've already allowed Murdoch to degrade our Press in the interests of Murdoch, and it's time we stopped letting them do it.

      1. Martin 71 Silver badge
        Go

        Re: Facefcuk

        I am not sure about shutting it down. How about just issuing an international arrest warrant to whoever makes their decisions (these days it'd be a board, not just Zuck, surely?) for contempt of court, obstructing the police, and several other offences. That'd change their tune methinks

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Facefcuk

        "we shouldn't allow Zuckerberg to try and downgrade us to US standards"

        That's pretty rich coming from someone who lives in a country where a popular newspaper's error-riddled invective and incitement resulted in innocent families being chased from their homes by a mob.

        In the US we have our idiocies - ever-escalating 'tough on crime' laws that are both immoral and counterproductive, for example - but don't pretend that your country was pure as the driven snow until the evil American social network came to town.

        In the US our mob justice is applied via populist politicians and a vengeful, paranoid electorate; in the UK it seems it's applied by newspapers and actual mobs. I know it's en vogue to take any given evil and pretend that it's just the Big Bad USA what -made- you do it, but that's not always the case. Unless -both- of our countries collectively take responsibility for our respective failings, nothing will improve.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Facefcuk

          Why is it pretty rich? There are over 60 million of us in this country and not all of us, by a long way, supported the police corruption and political corruption that allowed that to happen. We've now had an enquiry into it, and the Prime Minister is trying to protect the media in exchange for favours, so we have some way to go. But at least we are trying, and Facebook should have come in the scope of the Leveson enquiry.

          What's more, I specifically named two media owners - Zuckerberg and Murdoch - whose organs have been guilty of privacy violations in this country. In the USA, you do not have a Data Protection Act and you are not signed up to the UNDHR. We are. We should not allow rich people to erode our protections for gain just because they are not enshrined in law in their home countries.

  24. Dropper
    FAIL

    Just curious

    We're the best site to get help translating Facebook posts? Back in the day we weren't brought up speaking Retard so something like the Google translator would be cool.

  25. D 13
    Trollface

    Bring back football hooliganism

    Back in the day the angry illiterate fucknuts would get together somewhere in the vicinity of a football stadium and kick the living shit out of each other. It was a much more agreeable system as they seemed less inclined to bother the rest of us and it helped to keep their numbers down. Apparently it was spoiling things for the real football fans, but I think that was a sacrifice worth making.

    Now they scan Facebook for something to be angry about. I saw one of these vigilante flash mobs in action a few months ago outside the house of some teenage idiot who'd made a sick joke on Facebook. The police ended up taking him into custody for his own safety.

    With a little encouragement we could probably get them all to start gathering in fields and beating the crap out of each other again.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bring back football hooliganism

      Why the troll icon?

  26. N2 Silver badge

    Yes but

    Whilst I don't support he vigilante side of this story, I do believe that sex offenders are treated far too leniently by the courts. if I had my way, Id have them castrated or hunted with dogs, severe offences demand strong punishment as a deterrent & leniency in any way what so ever only encourages such behaviour. Vote down all you like, but this is my opinion & I'm sticking with it.

    1. Graham Marsden
      Boffin

      Re: Yes but

      Try looking at the "Bloody Code" from the 17th Century where all sorts of crimes (such as stealing property worth more than 12 pence) attracted the death penalty because that would "act as a deterrent".

      Obviously this sentencing strategy worked so well so we still use it today...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code

      "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - George Satayana

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yes but

      Well, N2, I suggest that you investigate the number of times teachers have been wrongly accused of molestation by malicious pupils. Perhaps in your wisdom you will tell us how, after your edict comes into force, you are going to replace all the teachers, social workers, nurses and police who will find jobs where they don't risk castration and death on the word of somebody who is probably like you - prone to violent thoughts and and a lack of empathy.

  27. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    "ped"

    "however, your point is sound, that people confuse paediatrician with a paedophile are pretty stupid, but to be honest, perhaps we shouldn't have chosen words which sound very similar to describe very different things, I blame latin.....or at least, somebody down that road..."

    They're VERY VERY stupid. Anyway, nobody choose words which sound similar to describe very different things... paed/ped means "child", so the words for child doctors and child diddlers both have "ped" in the name.

  28. Barry Rueger Silver badge

    Look! Over There! A pedophile!

    It's time stop worrying about pedophiles* in the bushes, and start asking yourself this:

    While the media and government have you all whipped into a frenzy worrying about this specific crime, what things are going on that you're not watching?

    Really, if the people who are screwing you left, right, and centre in a thousand ways need something to distract you folks, this is the low hanging fruit.

    *North American spelling, as the "ae/ea" combinations make our heads hurt.

    1. Mike Flex

      Re: Look! Over There! A pedophile!

      "*North American spelling, as the "ae/ea" combinations make our heads hurt."

      I do wonder about those peadophiles who are too much in love with their garden vegetables.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Trollface

        Re: Look! Over There! A pedophile!

        You want to know the people who really disgust me? Audiophiles. Sick fucks.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Joke

          Re: Look! Over There! A pedophile!

          "3 thumbs up & 1 thumbs down"

          Well, I guess we know there's at least -one- Reg reader who owns a tube amp and a turntable.

        2. Stoneshop Silver badge
          Go

          Audiophiles. Sick fucks.

          Hear, hear.

  29. Simon 15
    Devil

    Brass Eye

    Genetically, paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me....

  30. 404 Silver badge
    Pint

    Wat?

    ....I have no idea what's going on... world's going to hell in a handbasket so therefore...

    Cheers!

    1. Mr Young
      Happy

      Re: Wat?

      I long time ago when I was at school I saw a PE teacher trying to fist a girl I fancied on a caving expedition - I told her I witnessed it when I noticed she looked a little shocked.

      1. Mr Young
        Thumb Up

        Re: Wat?

        Hey downvoters - you're lucky I didn't recharge my time machine tonight cause you'd be back in the 70's right now!

  31. This post has been deleted by its author

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Totally incorrect judicial decision

    There is no way that a convicted criminal's "rights" come before that of the rest of the people. This person may have served his time for his crime but there is no evidence to support that he is no longer a paedophile or a threat to children. Any reasonable person would understand that just because a person serves their time, it doesn't in any way change their desires to sexually abuse children.

    History has shown that convicted criminals have a much higher repeat-crime history than other people. In addition statistics confirm that convicted paedophiles have a dramatically higher rate of repeat crime. This judge is either senile or naive. As we have seen over and over with bad decisions like this, these predators will once again attack young children and after one stint in prison they have nothing to lose so the abused child is likely to end up dead and buried...

    1. Fink-Nottle
      Facepalm

      Whut?

      > convicted criminals have a higher repeat-crime history than other people.

      ... pure genius.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Whut?

        I think you missed the point, which would explain "Whut".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Totally incorrect judicial decision

      "these predators will once again attack young children and after one stint in prison they have nothing to lose so the abused child is likely to end up dead and buried..."

      ...so why not advocate life sentences without parole, rather than limited sentences followed by unemployability, the constant threat of vigilante violence, and public humiliation? If you -wanted- to increase recidivism, you couldn't pick much of a better way.

      Since when does it make sense to say, "We're going to release these people even though we know they'll always be a danger - it'll be OK because we'll encourage torch-and-pitchfork-wielding mobs to attack and intimidate them. That way they won't do anything bad again."

      Seriously.

      And yeah, 'convicted criminals have a much higher repeat-crime history' is pure gold - almost as good as a line in a movie I recently had the displeasure of witnessing: An air force pilot, upon seeing some strange lights flying in the sky, radioed to his commander with deadly seriousness, "If that isn't a UFO, I don't know -what- it is."

      Yeeeeah.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The British are quite vacuous and callous when it comes to people accused of being pedophiles, though thankfully they haven't quite progressed to the level of the Snowtown Murders just yet...

    It's not a crime to be a pedophile, but it is a crime to molest children and have images of children being abused. If it was a crime to be a pedophile, then it would also be a crime to be a misanthrope or a sociopath.

    (Don't get me wrong, real (not drawn) child abuse is abhorrant; as it should be.)

    That aside they really need to learn the difference between a child molester and a pedophile. They really need to learn the difference between a ephebophilia and a pedophile too.

  34. KBeee
    Happy

    People also seem to be confusing being on a Sex Offenders register as meaning Paedophile. Couple of years ago a guy staying in a hostel in Scotland was caught by a cleaning lady having "relations" with his bicycle in his room. The room was locked, but the cleaner used her own key to get in. She complained, the guy was arrested, and convicted and put on a Sex Offenders register. Now if you didn't know the details, and you saw his name come up on Facebook as being a convicted and Registered Sex Offender, you might start worrying about your children being near him. Your children would be safe (though your bike might not be). Then he gets run out of town for using a bicycle as a masturbation aid?

    I heroically resisted calling him a pedalphile.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Angel

      "I heroically resisted calling him a pedalphile."

      Hey, for all you know, he was into the handlebars...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Really ?

      What makes you think he isn't interested in children?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Really ?

        Well, adults look a lot more like children than bicycles do, so if your assertion is that he's likely to like children because he likes bicycles, you'd better lock up the whole damn population and throw away the key.

        Which, since we're all stuck on Earth, has already sorta been done, but...

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    PDF-files - I don't trust 'em either

    That is all

  36. Crisp Silver badge

    I'm more worried about being mugged or burgled.

    That's actually happened to me. Those are the criminals we should be keeping an eye on. I've never known anyone that's been attacked by a pedofile.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Blighted ones

    As the brother of two 'blighted' ones. My life has also been adversely affected by the child molester who attacked my two sisters. My personal opinion is that sometimes death is too good for molesters... however, thats just my opinion and my overall feelings dont really come into play when the justice system makes their decisions about child molesters. I make lots of claims about what should be done with child molesters but once again... thats just my anger talking out and I wouldnt condone that course of action to be perpetrated against another human being... no matter how much I feel they deserve it.

    At the end of the day, the justice system is supposed to act impartially and judge someone and sentence them if they are guilty of the crime. So in the long run, the justice system is supposed to be in control of rehabilitating these people and once they are adjudged to be rehabilitated control their release back into the world. If at the end of the day, the justice system falls down and allows the mob to kill someone that they have adjudged to have been rehabilitated, then the justice system has failed and something needs to be done.

    Raising a mob to go out and murder a child molester is something that should never happen, but you get all sorts when mob mentality takes over and even the most intelligent of people can get dragged down to the lowest common denominator of the mob.

    If you have done the time that was set down in stone for the crime... and you have been adjudged to be rehabilitated and you are abiding by the parole agreements and conditions of release for the rest of your life, then you should be entitled to privacy. Personally, I think that they should be given a course in farming and raising livestock and shipped out to an isolated area that no one can easily reach and no one can leave and given everything they need to survive for the rest of their lives... an old abandoned nuclear testing zone is a good spot really... The Bikini atoll maybe... or Mururoa

  38. Keep Refrigerated
    Facepalm

    Pedotrishan

    "Makes me sick to think that pedos have rites dey have ni rites in our society dey scum that should have no rites," notes one poster, Robert Corbett from Galway in Ireland...

    "It's hard to believe the ignorance of some people. I just can't see how they could confuse a doctor who cares for children with someone who abuses them," her brother told the Daily Telegraph.

    Sadly no, not hard to believe at all.

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    You know, while we're at it, there are clearly a lot of other categories that need to be closely monitored - as has been noted about the guy who 'liked' bikes, how do you know that they're *not* interested in children? Obviously you can't prove they aren't, and you can't be too careful, right? I submit the following for close scrutiny:

    - Audiophiles

    - Philosphers

    - Pedestrians

    - FIle-o-faxes

    - Centipedes

    - Pedro De La Rosa

    - Peddlers, paddle-boat captains, filing cabinets, and people with fillings

    This list should be sufficient to start. In the meantime, I strongly advocate that people should stop having sex with other people in case they accidentally have sex with someone who is underage, and that people should stop having sex with bicycles, and that in particular bicycles should stop having sex with people -and- other bicycles. God knows we have enough roller skates already.

    Thank you, and good morning.

  40. A J Stiles

    Registered sex offender != paedophile

    You can get yourself on the Sex Offenders' Register just for taking a leak in an alleyway after dark when all the public toilets in town are shut, if you're unlucky enough to get caught.

    As part of my job, I need access to various computer security tools, including (but not limited to) secure file erasure and strong, deniable encryption.

    Needless to say, I keep a very close watch on how much I am drinking on a night out. Anybody could easily put 2 and 2 together and make 17.

  41. Stoneshop Silver badge
    Holmes

    And apparently

    open publication of sex offenders' data doesn't reduce recidivism rates anyway.

    http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2012/12/03/pedo-bekendmaken-aan-publiek-helpt-niet/

    In Dutch, unfortunately. Google Translate is a bit off in places, I've tried to make it make sense.

    "Informing the public of sex offenders at large, doesn't lead to less recidivism. Prohibiting pedophiles to live in places where many children come, is meaningless. This is shown by research published today by the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Ministry of Justice.

    Both measures are widely used in the United States, but according to the WODC there is no evidence that they lead to reduced recidivism, reports press service Novum. Compulsory registration with the authorities of dangerous sex offenders may have some effect, say the researchers.

    Supervision and control only lead to less recidivism when combined with therapy. Libido-reducing medication is 'promising'. The effectiveness of supervision also depends on the nature and intensity, the relationship between offender and supervisor and conditions such as adequate housing.

    Informing the public can cause social exclusion of sex offenders who have served their sentence. This is less the case with the approach chosen in the Netherlands, where authorities are informed on a limited basis and where residents are discreetly informed. With this approach it's not known whether recidivism is reduced.

    The Ministry of Security and Justice is researching this matter in the development of a bill that should allow lifelong monitoring of sex offenders. "

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019