For the Huffington Post this month we respond to Britain’s chief child protection police officer, who has suggested that all paedophiles caught watching child pornography online should be spared jail.
We explain why this policy proposal is flawed and yet again, like so many child protection policies, is really all about money and resources.
Coincidentally, our article comes out just as a debate in the House of Commons is published today about a petition which calls for harsher penalties for paedophiles who access online child abuse images and videos. The petition which refers to “April’s Law”, has been signed by over 126,500 people, and reads:
“We the undersigned call on the prime minister to make all sex offenders remain on the register for life no matter the crime, for service providers and search engines to be better policed regarding child abuse images and harder sentences on those caught with indecent images of children.”
You can catch our article here.
this is one of those Rock & a hard places scenarios.
its all very well and good sending people to prison costing the tax payer £800 per week when a lot of these people may not have committed any offence against a child and may be better dealt with by some form of counselling. Look at people like Rolf Harris and Max clifford for instance. as far as im aware both of these people had not had any recent allegations against them say in the last 10 yrs. they cant they really be classed as a danger to the public therefore why are we paying £800 per week to keep thousands of similar people behind bars when community service would be a better option and the money saved on jail time could be better spent. we really are still living in the dark ages of “lock them up and throw away the key!”
its just not in the public interest unless they have committed serious offences that render them a real danger to the public.
Max clifford. Rolf Harris. these people are clearly not so why are we wasting valuable tax funds on this nonsense.
LikeLike
lets just take a look at the numbers.
Max Clifford serving a min of 4 yrs at a cost of £166,400.
Rolf Harris serving a min of 3 yrs at a cost of £124,800.
i would love to question the economics and reasoning of these judges who thought it was fine to put these people behind bars and have us pay for it. the only people gaining from this is the prison system.
LikeLike
Forgot to mention Footballer Adam Johnson. again clearly not a danger to the public yet we are lumbered with the bill to keep him behind bars for 3 yrs at a cost of £124,800.
it would have made far more economical sense to order him to pay the 15yr old girl some compo and send him home to his family.
we the Tax payer save almost 125 grand. and the young girl gets a small fortune. everyone is happy.
But no, we have to continue with this Mad Merry go round when we just dont need it.
why cant we evolve out of this madness.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Natasha,
I despair at the way language is twisted in such a way that even people who would claim to be literate can be whipped up to hysterical outrage against those who are the ‘hate figures of the week’ (as in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four) – but ignore those who are far, FAR worse!
There was a glaring example on 2/3/2017 in BBC TV’s ‘Question Time’. One subject bought up related to a statement from Simon Bailey, Chief Constable of Norfolk Police.
It was unbelievable that the chairman, panel & audience were universal in their failure to understand what he was trying to say, & consequently unanimous in condemning him.
Though far less educated than the pundits, I was able to understand what the Chief Constable was saying & tried to explain it in my own message to the BBC, Norfolk Police, & others.
That message is pasted below. I THOUGHT I had unraveled the twisted language well enough, but responses from some indicated they had not understood a word.
It may of course be that I hadn’t explained myself as well as I thought?
I would be grateful if you, Natasha, could tell me whether YOU have been able to grasp what I was trying to say.
Thanking you in anticipation,
Norman Scarth.
Pasted message is below:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
All credit to Ch Con Simon Bailey for his THINKING on the matter below.
What a pity he expressed it so badly!
I watched BBC’s Question Time programme (02/03/17), & was appalled (but not surprised) at the display of the ignorance of Dimbleby, his panel, the audience – & even the Chief Constable they criticised. They were like the mob who attacked the home of paediatrician – thinking s/he was a child abuser! Had the Chief Constable of Norfolk not used the word ‘paedophile’ – WRONGLY – he would not have brought such denunciation on himself. This twisting of language (taking the lovely word ‘gay’ to describe sodomites is another example) is one of the ways they manipulate the minds of the people. There is a double twisting of the word paedophile. It actually means someone who loves children (see Anglophile, Francophile, Germanophiles & Italophiles, below). Yet even some dictionaries now define it as meaning someone who abuses children. The second twisting is that they describe anyone who has a picture of a child on a computer as a paedophile, who, by their twisting of language, is a ‘child-abuser’. So what about those who watch Hitchcock’s film PSYCHO? Or who actually make films which glorify the ‘Heroism’ of war – fictional or actual? Which is the worst: To view a picture of a child on a computer? Or to send bombers, troops & drones to tear the arms, legs & heads off children – & their Mums & Dads? Which is what the war criminals & mass murderers of Lawyer Blair’s Regime did – & their successors have done since! The lynch mob are whipped up to demand that all those with a picture of a child on a computer shall be imprisoned (the more extreme want them to be castrated, exterminated – burnt alive, etc. etc.), Yet Blair & his ilk have complete freedom to jet between mansions at home & millionaire playgrounds abroad! And Blair himself is fawned on by the BBC as they promote his views! From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: ‘Definition of Anglophile : a non-English person who greatly admires or favors England and things English Even after fighting two wars against Britain, Americans continued to regard England with more fondness than perhaps any other country. For much of our history, Americans have sought to imitate the British in any number of ways—American movie stars even used to adopt British accents—and the two countries have long been close allies. But Britain isn’t the only country Americans fall in love with; Francophiles (France-lovers), Germanophiles (Germany-lovers), and Italophiles (Italy-lovers) are also common. In the 19th century, Russian Slavophiles called for rejecting European culture in favor of homegrown Russian culture (Slavs being those who speak a Slavic language such as Russian or Polish). Occasionally phil- words are turned around; thus, someone who is philosemitic is a lover of Jewish culture.’ – – – – – – – – – – – – – – I despair at the actions of the Quislings who now rule Britain, but despair even more at the way the bulk of the people are brainwashed into accepting it. Norman Scarth. End of pasted message. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
________________________________
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment Norman. I get what you’re trying to say. The fact remains that my view is different to yours.
LikeLike
In Re “A” a child ,Sir James Munby (President of the family courts) stated the following :-
The second fundamental point is that a successful application for a care order must link the facts relied on to the threshold test, i.e., why do the facts asserted lead to the conclusion that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm?
In this case, the local authority thus had to show how the fact that the father had had sex with an underage girl of 13 when he was aged 17, affected his ability to care for his baby son some six years later. How did the social worker’s complaint that he “failed to acknowledge the immoral nature of the offences committed” support the assessment that his child was at risk of neglect?
A case like the one above where the Local Authority were castigated for removing this man’s child illustrates the enormous difference between a middle aged man who rapes a six year old and a teenager who has sex with an under age girl.It is absurd to say that both “offenders” should be on the register for life;Such severity should only apply to cases of mature adults who rape children before puberty;
LikeLike