Jon Venables.

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Raggamuffin » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:01 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.

I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.

Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.


Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.


When one of my brothers moved out of London to the Kent coast he had six step daughters and a biological one, all under the age of 15. After about six months they were told that the bloke who lived next door was a convicted paedophile who had done time.

I was gobsmacked when he told me but surprisingly neither he nor his wife were unduly worried and certainly not freaked out. They said there was little they could do about the situation, they just warned all the girls about him without frightening the life out of them and kept a eye out more than they normally would have done.

They lived there for 9 years and not once did they have any problems with him or the girls. The thing is, despite the hue and cry which follows paedophiles around, most are not the kidnapping murdering, rapists the media and certain groups make them out to be, thats not excusing their behaviour but more being realistic of the dangers they are said to pose.

No one should live in fear of them as if they lurk behind every corner just waiting to snatch your kid, that doesn't happen very often and you can ruin your own life and your kids if you think it does.

All you need to be is vigilant to possible threats just like you would about a busy road or condemned building, not look for them where they probably don't exist.


That's an interesting story TJ. Yes, there is no particular need for hysteria, but paedophilia seems to be rife according to the press, and there have been some high-profile cases in recent years. I think there's a tendency for people to lump all "paedophiles" together, and include those who maybe had consensual sex with a 15-year girl or whatever, and it's really not the same thing.
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 28687
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:51 am

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby guest » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:31 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:When one of my brothers moved out of London to the Kent coast he had six step daughters and a biological one, all under the age of 15. After about six months they were told that the bloke who lived next door was a convicted paedophile who had done time.

I was gobsmacked when he told me but surprisingly neither he nor his wife were unduly worried and certainly not freaked out. They said there was little they could do about the situation, they just warned all the girls about him without frightening the life out of them and kept a eye out more than they normally would have done.

They lived there for 9 years and not once did they have any problems with him or the girls. The thing is, despite the hue and cry which follows paedophiles around, most are not the kidnapping murdering, rapists the media and certain groups make them out to be, thats not excusing their behaviour but more being realistic of the dangers they are said to pose.

No one should live in fear of them as if they lurk behind every corner just waiting to snatch your kid, that doesn't happen very often and you can ruin your own life and your kids if you think it does.

All you need to be is vigilant to possible threats just like you would about a busy road or condemned building, not look for them where they probably don't exist.

For me it's the fact that Venables murdered a child, "rehabilitated", jailed again, "rehabilitated", jailed again.........will be released into the community again under anonymity.

Your brother, in one sense, was lucky to know his neighbour was a sex-offender from the on-set. Knowing your brother as you do, how do you think he would he have felt (hypothetically of course) if after his children had been socilaising with this neighbour then your bother found out he was a nonce and a convicted child murderer?

I feel there's a difference when you are made aware and safeguards are put in place, as your brother did. Can I ask do you think your brother would have looked at this all differently if his neighbour had had the prison record Venables has?

Also, I'm curious who told your brother initially?
User avatar
guest
 

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Trapper John » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.

I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.

Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.


Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.


When one of my brothers moved out of London to the Kent coast he had six step daughters and a biological one, all under the age of 15. After about six months they were told that the bloke who lived next door was a convicted paedophile who had done time.

I was gobsmacked when he told me but surprisingly neither he nor his wife were unduly worried and certainly not freaked out. They said there was little they could do about the situation, they just warned all the girls about him without frightening the life out of them and kept a eye out more than they normally would have done.

They lived there for 9 years and not once did they have any problems with him or the girls. The thing is, despite the hue and cry which follows paedophiles around, most are not the kidnapping murdering, rapists the media and certain groups make them out to be, thats not excusing their behaviour but more being realistic of the dangers they are said to pose.

No one should live in fear of them as if they lurk behind every corner just waiting to snatch your kid, that doesn't happen very often and you can ruin your own life and your kids if you think it does.

All you need to be is vigilant to possible threats just like you would about a busy road or condemned building, not look for them where they probably don't exist.


That's an interesting story TJ. Yes, there is no particular need for hysteria, but paedophilia seems to be rife according to the press, and there have been some high-profile cases in recent years. I think there's a tendency for people to lump all "paedophiles" together, and include those who maybe had consensual sex with a 15-year girl or whatever, and it's really not the same thing.


Thats the problem, there is a fear machine at play which also includes terrorism, these two subjects are almost guaranteed more than any other to get people to allow the powers that be to walk all over our rights.

I know this won't be popular but I don't agree that looking at pictures necessarily guarantees a person will go on to commit abuse on a child.

If that were the case we would have people running around killing people left right and centre because they enjoy a good blood and guts film. Or do we think that say the people who slow down to gawp at road accidents hoping to catch a glimpse of some mangled bodies or watch those gross videos of real life deaths in horrible circumstances would like to do those things to someone if they got the chance?

I know that pics of child abuse mean a child has been abused but is that really what concerns the lawmakers and powers that be? You see someone can suffer exactly the same fate as someone who looks at real pictures of abuse who only looks at artists impressions where no-one is actually abused or comes to harm. :dunno:

I found that out some years ago when reading an article in a magazine at the dentist one day. It had an interview with a convicted paedophile found guilty of downloading child abuse pictures, who amongst other things said that making it just as illegal to create drawn or digital impressions of naked children and looking at them as it is creating them in real life would only increase the instances of real life abuse.

It struck me at the time that he was talking some sense, if this bloke was happy to satisfy his unnatural urges with 'fake' or whatever you want to call them pictures then it stood to reason that was a better way to deal with these people than risk more children being abused in real life to satisfy those same urges. I think you have to look beyond the shock factor and personal preferences to see what is the best scenario you can achieve with a problem which isn't going to go away.

I think the powers that be and other interested groups are well aware of that fact but it doesn't suit them to admit it for one reason or another.
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35423
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Lady Murasaki » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:16 pm

What is the best scenario you can achieve with this problem that isn't going away? I find most discussions on forums about this get too emotive and accusations of being too sympathetic come out but it is something that people need to discuss in a more measured, calm way. Because, like you said, this paedo problem isn't going away with all the laws and restrictions and vigilantism
User avatar
Lady Murasaki
 
Posts: 21719
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Raggamuffin » Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:05 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.

I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.

Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.


Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.


When one of my brothers moved out of London to the Kent coast he had six step daughters and a biological one, all under the age of 15. After about six months they were told that the bloke who lived next door was a convicted paedophile who had done time.

I was gobsmacked when he told me but surprisingly neither he nor his wife were unduly worried and certainly not freaked out. They said there was little they could do about the situation, they just warned all the girls about him without frightening the life out of them and kept a eye out more than they normally would have done.

They lived there for 9 years and not once did they have any problems with him or the girls. The thing is, despite the hue and cry which follows paedophiles around, most are not the kidnapping murdering, rapists the media and certain groups make them out to be, thats not excusing their behaviour but more being realistic of the dangers they are said to pose.

No one should live in fear of them as if they lurk behind every corner just waiting to snatch your kid, that doesn't happen very often and you can ruin your own life and your kids if you think it does.

All you need to be is vigilant to possible threats just like you would about a busy road or condemned building, not look for them where they probably don't exist.


That's an interesting story TJ. Yes, there is no particular need for hysteria, but paedophilia seems to be rife according to the press, and there have been some high-profile cases in recent years. I think there's a tendency for people to lump all "paedophiles" together, and include those who maybe had consensual sex with a 15-year girl or whatever, and it's really not the same thing.


Thats the problem, there is a fear machine at play which also includes terrorism, these two subjects are almost guaranteed more than any other to get people to allow the powers that be to walk all over our rights.

I know this won't be popular but I don't agree that looking at pictures necessarily guarantees a person will go on to commit abuse on a child.

If that were the case we would have people running around killing people left right and centre because they enjoy a good blood and guts film. Or do we think that say the people who slow down to gawp at road accidents hoping to catch a glimpse of some mangled bodies or watch those gross videos of real life deaths in horrible circumstances would like to do those things to someone if they got the chance?

I know that pics of child abuse mean a child has been abused but is that really what concerns the lawmakers and powers that be? You see someone can suffer exactly the same fate as someone who looks at real pictures of abuse who only looks at artists impressions where no-one is actually abused or comes to harm. :dunno:

I found that out some years ago when reading an article in a magazine at the dentist one day. It had an interview with a convicted paedophile found guilty of downloading child abuse pictures, who amongst other things said that making it just as illegal to create drawn or digital impressions of naked children and looking at them as it is creating them in real life would only increase the instances of real life abuse.

It struck me at the time that he was talking some sense, if this bloke was happy to satisfy his unnatural urges with 'fake' or whatever you want to call them pictures then it stood to reason that was a better way to deal with these people than risk more children being abused in real life to satisfy those same urges. I think you have to look beyond the shock factor and personal preferences to see what is the best scenario you can achieve with a problem which isn't going to go away.

I think the powers that be and other interested groups are well aware of that fact but it doesn't suit them to admit it for one reason or another.


It's interesting that you haven't had a load of troll guests jumping on that post. :gigglesnshit:
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 28687
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:51 am

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:21 pm

It's interesting - and very telling - that some people can find anything to snigger at in a discussion about child abuse
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
It's interesting that you haven't had a load of troll guests jumping on that post. :gigglesnshit:



I think you personally get off on shit stirring

I reckon in real life you would not say boo to a goose

:shake head:
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
When one of my brothers moved out of London to the Kent coast he had six step daughters and a biological one, all under the age of 15. After about six months they were told that the bloke who lived next door was a convicted paedophile who had done time.

I was gobsmacked when he told me but surprisingly neither he nor his wife were unduly worried and certainly not freaked out. They said there was little they could do about the situation, they just warned all the girls about him without frightening the life out of them and kept a eye out more than they normally would have done.

They lived there for 9 years and not once did they have any problems with him or the girls. The thing is, despite the hue and cry which follows paedophiles around, most are not the kidnapping murdering, rapists the media and certain groups make them out to be, thats not excusing their behaviour but more being realistic of the dangers they are said to pose.

No one should live in fear of them as if they lurk behind every corner just waiting to snatch your kid, that doesn't happen very often and you can ruin your own life and your kids if you think it does.

All you need to be is vigilant to possible threats just like you would about a busy road or condemned building, not look for them where they probably don't exist.


That's an interesting story TJ. Yes, there is no particular need for hysteria, but paedophilia seems to be rife according to the press, and there have been some high-profile cases in recent years. I think there's a tendency for people to lump all "paedophiles" together, and include those who maybe had consensual sex with a 15-year girl or whatever, and it's really not the same thing.


Thats the problem, there is a fear machine at play which also includes terrorism, these two subjects are almost guaranteed more than any other to get people to allow the powers that be to walk all over our rights.

I know this won't be popular but I don't agree that looking at pictures necessarily guarantees a person will go on to commit abuse on a child.

If that were the case we would have people running around killing people left right and centre because they enjoy a good blood and guts film. Or do we think that say the people who slow down to gawp at road accidents hoping to catch a glimpse of some mangled bodies or watch those gross videos of real life deaths in horrible circumstances would like to do those things to someone if they got the chance?

I know that pics of child abuse mean a child has been abused but is that really what concerns the lawmakers and powers that be? You see someone can suffer exactly the same fate as someone who looks at real pictures of abuse who only looks at artists impressions where no-one is actually abused or comes to harm. :dunno:

I found that out some years ago when reading an article in a magazine at the dentist one day. It had an interview with a convicted paedophile found guilty of downloading child abuse pictures, who amongst other things said that making it just as illegal to create drawn or digital impressions of naked children and looking at them as it is creating them in real life would only increase the instances of real life abuse.

It struck me at the time that he was talking some sense, if this bloke was happy to satisfy his unnatural urges with 'fake' or whatever you want to call them pictures then it stood to reason that was a better way to deal with these people than risk more children being abused in real life to satisfy those same urges. I think you have to look beyond the shock factor and personal preferences to see what is the best scenario you can achieve with a problem which isn't going to go away.

I think the powers that be and other interested groups are well aware of that fact but it doesn't suit them to admit it for one reason or another.


It's interesting that you haven't had a load of troll guests jumping on that post. :gigglesnshit:

Why would anyone troll, what appears to be, a genuine post from TJ?

I find your response laughable though and odd.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Raggamuffin » Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:45 pm

Guest wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
It's interesting that you haven't had a load of troll guests jumping on that post. :gigglesnshit:



I think you personally get off on shit stirring

I reckon in real life you would not say boo to a goose

:shake head:


Stop copying Didge, and try to be more original. :wink:
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 28687
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:51 am

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby TWATkins » Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:04 pm

Lady Murasaki wrote:What is the best scenario you can achieve with this problem that isn't going away? I find most discussions on forums about this get too emotive and accusations of being too sympathetic come out but it is something that people need to discuss in a more measured, calm way. Because, like you said, this paedo problem isn't going away with all the laws and restrictions and vigilantism


Part of the reason the problem won't go away is, as you say, that people are generally afraid to tackle it for fear of being seen as appeasing or "sympathising" with the offenders.

Of course it should go without saying that the welfare and protection of children should always be paramount and should always come first above anything but would it not be logical to try and treat the root cause of the problem as well ?. Some of the offenders have been victims of abuse themselves and may well only require intensive treatment and psychological help to control, and even eliminate, their urges.

Good article in the independent here, especially this last paragraph ..

In 2013, Donald Finklater, of the child protection charity the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, said: "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/paedo ... 65956.html

Of course any treatment or programs like this should absolutely be done while the offender is in a secure facility so they are not able to harm other children.
User avatar
TWATkins
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:20 pm

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:19 pm

Has anyone mentioned chemical castration as a possible solution yet? Or would that be a violation of poor Venables human rights? Try and rehabilitate by all means, and good luck with that. Castrate him too though. Every little helps.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Major » Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:33 pm

Even if you castrate the vile scum they will possibly turn to another perversions cus they have permanent twisted minds.
User avatar
Major
 
Posts: 2162
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:08 am

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:42 pm

Major wrote:Even if you castrate the vile scum they will possibly turn to another perversions cus they have permanent twisted minds.


Yes Marjory, you are right and this is the first time I've ever agreed with you. They will use something else instead. It's about control and abuse.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby guest » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:33 pm

Major wrote:Even if you castrate the vile scum they will possibly turn to another perversions cus they have permanent twisted minds.

Whatever they do I hope they make a good job of it before this vile monstrosity is once again released back into the community.
User avatar
guest
 

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Grafenwalder » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:24 pm

You are a bit behind the times as chemical castration for serious sex offenders was piloted in UK prisons six years ago under the DoH. Not all specialists agree though. Frances Cook, of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: "Sex offending is often not about sex at all, but about violence and domination. The drugs used will not affect those attitudes."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -jail.html
User avatar
Grafenwalder
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests