Pedophillia

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



eleveninches
I was thinking about this the other day. Do you think that pedophilles should be able to be arrested just because of their sexual orientation even if they have not commited any crime. I think that as long as they dont commit any crime, then they should be left alone, even though you might not agree with what they think.

I read in the news a few weeks ago that a male teacher had confessed to having pedophillic fantasies. But the school refused to fire him, as he hadnt committed a crime, and they didnt want to be thought of as being the 'thought police'.

Are any thoughts illegal?
Should they be illegal?
Should they be monitered?


What are your thoughts on this topic?

Bardock42
Hell no.....if he didn't do anything you can't just arrest someone for their thoughts.....and you shouldn't.-...that would lead to a police state where no one can say what they think and even worse they can't think what others dislike........just...no....

As for the Male Teacher....admitting it openly already is kind of a deed.....if he had kept it to himself would be better....but I don't think you can fire him for that.

bilb
Originally posted by eleveninches
I was thinking about this the other day. Do you think that pedophilles should be able to be arrested just because of their sexual orientation even if they have not commited any crime. I think that as long as they dont commit any crime, then they should be left alone, even though you might not agree with what they think.

I read in the news a few weeks ago that a male teacher had confessed to having pedophillic fantasies. But the school refused to fire him, as he hadnt committed a crime, and they didnt want to be thought of as being the 'thought police'.

Are any thoughts illegal?
Should they be illegal?
Should they be monitered?


What are your thoughts on this topic?

you're kiddding right? what happened to innocent till proven guilty? i should think this would go doubly so for a crime that hasnt even been committed

Bardock42
Originally posted by bilb
you're kiddding right? what happened to innocent till proven guilty? i should think this would go doubly so for a crime that hasnt even been committed

^And she's a Mommy....listen to her folks....

PVS
i think they should recieve help.
some refer to the prison system as reabilitating, but we all know thats bullshit.
i think state-funded psychiatric help should be given to all diagnosed. however, it would be unconstitutional to make it manditory.

"im not paying for some pervert to go to a shrink!"

if it could prevent children from being molested, i'd be willing to pay my share.
it would probably be like .01 cents to every dollar spent on our war.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by eleveninches
I was thinking about this the other day. Do you think that pedophilles should be able to be arrested just because of their sexual orientation even if they have not commited any crime. I think that as long as they dont commit any crime, then they should be left alone, even though you might not agree with what they think.

I read in the news a few weeks ago that a male teacher had confessed to having pedophillic fantasies. But the school refused to fire him, as he hadnt committed a crime, and they didnt want to be thought of as being the 'thought police'.

Are any thoughts illegal?
Should they be illegal?
Should they be monitered?


What are your thoughts on this topic?

While I was at EMU, i did a bit of work on sex offenders, most of them were peadophiles.

There is a website, the lecturer at EMU is researching - its not open to everyone, but its a forum fr recovering sex offenders. He has gotten te premition to observe the posts, but he does not post.

He has collected the data and I have read some of the responses by these people - who are preadophiles.

For those people, they feel guilt, when they think about little boys in the way they do. They feel ashamed, and they feel like they don't deserve to be loved by anyone.
They also seek help and support one another, and I think this is great.

So,

I do not believe they should be arrested based on what they think - its only acting on those thoughts that is condemned.
And I agree with giving them help, as some pheadophiles search for it, but have NO way of getting it.

Take this int account -

if a man goes to a psychiatrist or psychologist and says hes been having weird feeligns for little boys, the psychologisy or psychiatrist has to make a MANDATORY report to the police about it - then they get arrested and go to jail, or get put on the sex offenders list, and they havent even done anything.

Its hard to udnerstand and/or grasp, but those peole need help, many of them want help, but they cannot get any without being persecuted.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
While I was at EMU, i did a bit of work on sex offenders, most of them were peadophiles.

There is a website, the lecturer at EMU is researching - its not open to everyone, but its a forum fr recovering sex offenders. He has gotten te premition to observe the posts, but he does not post.

He has collected the data and I have read some of the responses by these people - who are preadophiles.

For those people, they feel guilt, when they think about little boys in the way they do. They feel ashamed, and they feel like they don't deserve to be loved by anyone.
They also seek help and support one another, and I think this is great.

So,

I do not believe they should be arrested based on what they think - its only acting on those thoughts that is condemned.
And I agree with giving them help, as some pheadophiles search for it, but have NO way of getting it.

Take this int account -

if a man goes to a psychiatrist or psychologist and says hes been having weird feeligns for little boys, the psychologisy or psychiatrist has to make a MANDATORY report to the police about it - then they get arrested and go to jail, or get put on the sex offenders list, and they havent even done anything.

Its hard to udnerstand and/or grasp, but those peole need help, many of them want help, but they cannot get any without being persecuted.

Not wanting to dispute your post

but its:

paedophile

in the UK and US if its a Psychiatrist he is bound by "patient" confidentiality

PVS
it seems she was being hypothetical, as per the topic.
i hope

KharmaDog
I find it interesting that this thread was started by a 21 one year old KMC member who has repeatedly mentioned how he wants to have sex with Dakota Fanning (an eleven year old child) and puts his Location as "In Dakota underneath her picture in his avatar.

To answer the question, should he be arrested...no, should a teacher who confesses to be a pedophille be fired, yes, that is an inappropriate place for him to work. When it comes to protecting the rights and safety of 100's of children or the rights of one man, he loses.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I find it interesting that this thread was started by a 21 one year old KMC member who has repeatedly mentioned how he wants to have sex with Dakota Fanning (an eleven year old child) and puts his Location as "In Dakota underneath her picture in his avatar.

To answer the question, should he be arrested...no, should a teacher who confesses to be a pedophille be fired, yes, that is an inappropriate place for him to work. When it comes to protecting the rights and safety of 100's of children or the rights of one man, he loses.


Who the hell is Dakota Fanning?

and I disagree over the teacher, he should get a warning for an innapropriate remark if it was serious. Paedophillia is in the mind of these individuals but if it stays in the mind, no harm is done. I would not want to hear about their thoughts, but thoughts if not articulated hurt and upset no one.

Spelljammer
How are they a pedophile if they never commited a crime? What? Do they have a fetish for invisioning really young individuals in the bedroom? What him/her and their partner do is none of my buisness, as long as a real child is not being victimized, I don't care. Hell, even our god was a pedophile. (Batman..)

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Spelljammer
How are they a pedophile if they never commited a crime? What? Do they have a fetish for invisioning really young individuals in the bedroom? What him/her and their partner do is none of my buisness, as long as a real child is not being victimized, I don't care. Hell, even our god was a pedophile. (Batman..)

The phrase means child lover not child molester.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Who the hell is Dakota Fanning?

She is the eleven year old actress that appears in his avatar.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
and I disagree over the teacher, he should get a warning for an innapropriate remark if it was serious. Paedophillia is in the mind of these individuals but if it stays in the mind, no harm is done. I would not want to hear about their thoughts, but thoughts if not articulated hurt and upset no one.

Would you feel different if your child or sibling was in an admitted paedophile's company and influence 5 days a week for a year?

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by KharmaDog
She is the eleven year old actress that appears in his avatar.



Would you feel different if your child or sibling was in an admitted paedophile's company and influence 5 days a week for a year?

Weird thing to have in an avatar the "in dakota" is obviously a flame as is this thread.

If he was an admitted paedophile who had acted on his feelings - yes. If he had said something but never acted on them - no!

BackFire
No, you can't arrest someone for their thoughts. I think it would be best to try and help them so they can at least attempt to live a normal life.

However, the second they actually touch a kid in any sexual way, lights out, throw them in prison for good, once they take that first step towards actually touching children, then they are most likely beyond help and need to be just locked away until they are factually no longer a threat to any child.

KharmaDog
I still wouldn't put my child in the position of spending time with a confessed paedophile.

Bardock42
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I still wouldn't put my child in the position of spending time with a confessed paedophile.

Why?..:.hat probably much safer than anything else......

dave123
I think the teacher should be made to see a professional, that's all... y'know, to make sure it doesn't develop into something worse

§pearhead
disturbing, yes, but nothing warranting an arrest...or maybe he needs to start seeing someone?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Not wanting to dispute your post

but its:

paedophile

in the UK and US if its a Psychiatrist he is bound by "patient" confidentiality

This is not the case in the US for this "crime?" only. If you go to a Psychiatrist and say you have such fantasies, they have to report it. There was one guy who wrote a story about it and was arrested. sad

WindDancer
I'm not sure but once a pedophile has been sentence to serve time in prison for their crime they get put in a separate section. This is due because some prisoners (that are parents) would kill the pedophile upon hearing his crime. So putting a pedophile in prison is just as bad as using the death penalty. Some inmate eventually will get to him and kill him.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I still wouldn't put my child in the position of spending time with a confessed paedophile.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Why?..:.hat probably much safer than anything else......


How so?

You ask 'Why?' Because I would choose not to put my child in that situation. I am basically trusting that a person who has declared that they are a paedophile , yet haven't acted upon it, will indeed not act upon it.

Would you put a bag full of $100.00 bills by a self proclaimed kleptomaniac (sp?)?

Would you feel comfortable with your wife or girlfriend spending alot of time around someone who has admitted to having vivid rape fantasies?

Well, maybe you would, but I would put the safety of those I love ahead of trusting someone I do not know who may have a proclivity tor temptation to act upon their fantasies.

bilb
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why?..:.hat probably much safer than anything else......

based on what logic? messed

MildPossession
Some think, in an ideal world, the best place for paedophiles or people who think such thoughts is in the community where they can get on with their life(while getting psychiatric further help) under the eyes of the community and the children are educated in the person to keep away or not go anywhere with the man/woman.

But unfortunately, we have people in the world who will do something about the paedophile and probably kill him/her.

jaden101
again i'll highlight the medias role in the hysteria surrounding this issue

only today the papers printed headlines about the rory blackhall murder trial...he was found dead last week and one of the suspects was found hanged in his house yesterday....the suspect was due to appear in court the day after rory's body was found on child sex offences...he hadn't been tried or found guilty....but that didnt stop the newspapers printing headlines such as "child sex beast found dead"

big gay kirk
A friend of mine, when he was eighteen, went out for a couple of months with a fifteen year old girl, and he admits to a bit of heavy petting.... technically, this makes him a paedophile, despite the fact that she was only a few days off sixteen when the "offence" occurred.... should he be jailed?? And lets be honest, how many men haven't looked at a young, attractive girl, thinking thoughts of a sexual nature, only to be told "look out, mate, she's only fourteen..." should they be arrested for that? There's no way of magically making that girl unattractive just like that, but the knowledge that the girl is underage would prevent one taking those feelings further.... and that's the point.... its the deed that counts.... if you could arrest people for their thoughts, we'd all be in jail.... who hasn't contemplated theft, murder, assault.... very very few I'd warrant... the difference between a criminal and a non criminal is that the thought becomes deed.... a teacher who admits to paedophilia should, if he has any honour at all, resign his post, rather than risk anything happening.... just as an arsonist should resign from the dynamite factory....

Shakyamunison
So if you are a Pedophile, you have no choose but to hide, and if you hide, you can't get help. If you don't get help, you might molest some child and if you get caught, you die. Sounds like a which hunt to me. Maybe we should just burn them at the stake, really show how barbaric we can be.

FeceMan
Remember, folks, there's a difference between a child molester, a pedophile, and statutory rape.

bilb
Originally posted by big gay kirk
A friend of mine, when he was eighteen, went out for a couple of months with a fifteen year old girl, and he admits to a bit of heavy petting.... technically, this makes him a paedophile, despite the fact that she was only a few days off sixteen when the "offence" occurred.... should he be jailed?? And lets be honest, how many men haven't looked at a young, attractive girl, thinking thoughts of a sexual nature, only to be told "look out, mate, she's only fourteen..." should they be arrested for that? There's no way of magically making that girl unattractive just like that, but the knowledge that the girl is underage would prevent one taking those feelings further.... and that's the point.... its the deed that counts.... if you could arrest people for their thoughts, we'd all be in jail.... who hasn't contemplated theft, murder, assault.... very very few I'd warrant... the difference between a criminal and a non criminal is that the thought becomes deed.... a teacher who admits to paedophilia should, if he has any honour at all, resign his post, rather than risk anything happening.... just as an arsonist should resign from the dynamite factory....

yes




yes

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FeceMan
Remember, folks, there's a difference between a child molester, a pedophile, and statutory rape.

By what I hear on the radio, that wouldn't be the case. I believe you are correct, but many people don't (or it seems that way). I believe a person could be a pedophile and never molester, it would be like an alcoholic who never drinks.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Both KarmaDog and lil' B have made some fascinating points here and I'd like to add one or two of my own.

Anti-social behavior is perverse in that it is created by the society it is part of. No-one is born 'evil', but through experiences certain disreputable personality traits are created. When considering the nature of a paedophile, it is important to remember that society contributed to the problem to begin with. Therefore, it is a community-shared shame as well as an individual one.

As for the nature of eleveninches' avatar, I think it's a case where the moderators of this forum should act. I'm certainly not someone who condones censorship, but considering the nature of the 'joke', I feel it is totally lacking in decency and that he should be ashamed of himself.

Alpha Centauri
Alot of paedophilia gets blown way out of proportion as many have said, for no other reason other than kids are involved.

Proof being in a paper yesterday there was a headline: "Arsonists kill 4 year old baby" or something.

I was reading it, then I noticed that the mother was tied up and left to burn alive. Yet they chose to highlight the fact that a baby died. It's child worship. You either love everyone from all ages equally or you can shut up.

Crimes are crimes, some cases are more severe than others but age should never be that decider.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Eh, AC...

Children are given greater attention simply because they are more vulnerable than adults. Their world is lacking in experience and appliable wisdom. I'm surprised that this should illude you.

Ushgarak
I think you will also find that the point was that the mother survived.

finti
you can use both pedophile and paedophile

Whirlysplatt
I posted these links and this pieces of text a while ago in another
thread, its crazy at the turn of this century the uk was whipped into a frenzy by the media who created a moral panic and turned a "paediatrician" into someone very scared as he was mistaken by an ignorant mob for a paedophile.

In comparison to the past, children today are relatively safe. During the years 1983-93, 57 children were killed by strangers in the UK - an average of five a year... when one considers that there are 12 million children in the UK, the risk of murder by a stranger is statistically negligible.
- F Furedi, Culture Of Fear, 1997
The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard1 (78%) were maltreated by their birth parents, and this held true both for children who were abused (62% were maltreated by birth parents) and for those who were neglected (91% experienced neglect by birth parents).
- US Department of Health Survey, September 1996

This bit is scary the English more so than the Welsh and Scots went insane:-

From Plymouth to Portsmouth, Manchester to London, wrongly identified men and known paedophiles found themselves being hounded by mobs up to 300-strong.

The vigilante action was most severe on the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth, where protesters circulated a list of 20 alleged sex offenders in the community and proceeded to target them.

The crowds - 40 of whom were later charged with offences - smashed windows, torched cars and forced five families wrongly identified as harbouring sex offenders out of their homes. A suspected paedophile in nearby Southampton shot himself dead and a female registrar was hounded from her South Wales home because neighbours confused "paediatrician" with "paedophile."

As senior police officers warned that such action would end in murder, the News of the World called off its ambitious naming and shaming project, and called instead for "Sarah's Law'.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,618198,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,891476,00.html

We've had paediatricians attacked because people get "paediatrician" confused with "paedophile". Whose next? I've got relations in Ireland called "Paddy O'Farrell"; that sounds a bit like "paedophile", so maybe the mob will storm their houses as well. And as for Iraqi paedophiles posing as asylum seekers, well they're the worst of the lot.


This bit is hilarious

Brass Eye Special

As always, the programme took the form of a spoof documentary. In Channel 4's own words, there were five fundamental themes:

Media hysteria
Misinformation
Sexualisation of children
Media hypocrisy
Public debate
The programme makers approached 315 public figures and invited them to take part in promoting a paedophile awareness campaign. This campaign was a set-up. They were asked to read scripts containing ludicrous assertions, including:

Internet paedophiles can project poison gas through a child's keyboard using the new HOECS3 system.

Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than humans.

'Trust Me Trousers', which were inflated to hide a paedophile's erection.

Supporting a group called 'Nonce4 Sense'.

Amazingly, several celebrities fell for it and happily regurgitated this rubbish for the camera. These people included



http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A676424

It really saties the ridiculous moral panic and forlk devils created by the British media on paedophiles at the turn of the century.

The crazy thing and don't tell Deano is David Icke may well have got it right this time confused and don't tell Deano I read some David Icke and agreed with it on this - OK

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/europe/england/080101a.html

I would like to point out again I think this thread is a flame as the guy who started it is showing a picture of a child star in his avatar called Dakota Fanning and states his location as in Dakota. He also calls himself "eleven inches" read into all that what you will.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Eh, AC...

Children are given greater attention simply because they are more vulnerable than adults. Their world is lacking in experience and appliable wisdom. I'm surprised that this should illude you.

What science did you use to deduce that it ELUDED (not illude) me?

I'm well aware of why people do it. Doesn't stop it being bullshit though. If you're so altruistic, a life is a life.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What science did you use to deduce that it ELUDED (not illude) me?

I'm well aware of why people do it. Doesn't stop it being bullshit though. If you're so altruistic, a life is a life.

-AC

Ahh...There's that corridor-esque world-view of yours again! I meant what I typed - 'illude'.

Ask my friend, www.dictionary.com about it...

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I posted these links and this pieces of text a while ago in another
thread, its crazy at the turn of this century the uk was whipped into a frenzy by the media who created a moral panic and turned a "paediatrician" into someone very scared as he was mistaken by an ignorant mob for a paedophile.

In comparison to the past, children today are relatively safe. During the years 1983-93, 57 children were killed by strangers in the UK - an average of five a year... when one considers that there are 12 million children in the UK, the risk of murder by a stranger is statistically negligible.
- F Furedi, Culture Of Fear, 1997
The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard1 (78%) were maltreated by their birth parents, and this held true both for children who were abused (62% were maltreated by birth parents) and for those who were neglected (91% experienced neglect by birth parents).
- US Department of Health Survey, September 1996

This bit is scary the English more so than the Welsh and Scots went insane:-

From Plymouth to Portsmouth, Manchester to London, wrongly identified men and known paedophiles found themselves being hounded by mobs up to 300-strong.

The vigilante action was most severe on the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth, where protesters circulated a list of 20 alleged sex offenders in the community and proceeded to target them.

The crowds - 40 of whom were later charged with offences - smashed windows, torched cars and forced five families wrongly identified as harbouring sex offenders out of their homes. A suspected paedophile in nearby Southampton shot himself dead and a female registrar was hounded from her South Wales home because neighbours confused "paediatrician" with "paedophile."

As senior police officers warned that such action would end in murder, the News of the World called off its ambitious naming and shaming project, and called instead for "Sarah's Law'.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,618198,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,891476,00.html

We've had paediatricians attacked because people get "paediatrician" confused with "paedophile". Whose next? I've got relations in Ireland called "Paddy O'Farrell"; that sounds a bit like "paedophile", so maybe the mob will storm their houses as well. And as for Iraqi paedophiles posing as asylum seekers, well they're the worst of the lot.


This bit is hilarious

Brass Eye Special

As always, the programme took the form of a spoof documentary. In Channel 4's own words, there were five fundamental themes:

Media hysteria
Misinformation
Sexualisation of children
Media hypocrisy
Public debate
The programme makers approached 315 public figures and invited them to take part in promoting a paedophile awareness campaign. This campaign was a set-up. They were asked to read scripts containing ludicrous assertions, including:

Internet paedophiles can project poison gas through a child's keyboard using the new HOECS3 system.

Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than humans.

'Trust Me Trousers', which were inflated to hide a paedophile's erection.

Supporting a group called 'Nonce4 Sense'.

Amazingly, several celebrities fell for it and happily regurgitated this rubbish for the camera. These people included



http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A676424

It really saties the ridiculous moral panic and forlk devils created by the British media on paedophiles at the turn of the century.

The crazy thing and don't tell Deano is David Icke may well have got it right this time confused and don't tell Deano I read some David Icke and agreed with it on this - OK

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/europe/england/080101a.html

I would like to point out again I think this thread is a flame as the guy who started it is showing a picture of a child star in his avatar called Dakota Fanning and states his location as in Dakota. He also calls himself "eleven inches" read into all that what you will.

finti
indeed

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Ahh...There's that corridor-esque world-view of yours again! I meant what I typed - 'illude'.

Ask my friend, www.dictionary.com about it...

Yeah, I know what illude means. It's not applicable. You said the point "should illude" me. It's quite clear the word you were looking for is elude, meaning that you believed the point escaped me. Illude means to mock and or deceive. Or as your friend Dictionary says:

To play upon by artifice; to deceive; to mock; to excite and disappoint the hopes of.

Nothing about missing or overlooking.

Go climb a tree or something.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, I know what illude means. It's not applicable. You said the point "should illude" me. It's quite clear the word you were looking for is elude, meaning that you believed the point escaped me. Illude means to mock and or deceive. Or as your friend Dictionary says:

To play upon by artifice; to deceive; to mock; to excite and disappoint the hopes of.

Nothing about missing or overlooking.

Go climb a tree or something.

English is difficult and sometimes children need help.

AC, you originally stated:



Obviously, the real reason why children are focused on has illuded you in as you fail to recognise it. Thus, you have been deceived.

You're very welcome.

PS. 'Alot' is not a word. Did you fail Grade 1 or have you not reached it yet?

Clovie
why don't you instead of focusing on people spelling/grammar/whatever (*gets prepared to be attacked*) say something relevant to the topic?

Alpha Centauri

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I posted these links and this pieces of text a while ago in another
thread, its crazy at the turn of this century the uk was whipped into a frenzy by the media who created a moral panic and turned a "paediatrician" into someone very scared as he was mistaken by an ignorant mob for a paedophile.

In comparison to the past, children today are relatively safe. During the years 1983-93, 57 children were killed by strangers in the UK - an average of five a year... when one considers that there are 12 million children in the UK, the risk of murder by a stranger is statistically negligible.
- F Furedi, Culture Of Fear, 1997
The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard1 (78%) were maltreated by their birth parents, and this held true both for children who were abused (62% were maltreated by birth parents) and for those who were neglected (91% experienced neglect by birth parents).
- US Department of Health Survey, September 1996

This bit is scary the English more so than the Welsh and Scots went insane:-

From Plymouth to Portsmouth, Manchester to London, wrongly identified men and known paedophiles found themselves being hounded by mobs up to 300-strong.

The vigilante action was most severe on the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth, where protesters circulated a list of 20 alleged sex offenders in the community and proceeded to target them.

The crowds - 40 of whom were later charged with offences - smashed windows, torched cars and forced five families wrongly identified as harbouring sex offenders out of their homes. A suspected paedophile in nearby Southampton shot himself dead and a female registrar was hounded from her South Wales home because neighbours confused "paediatrician" with "paedophile."

As senior police officers warned that such action would end in murder, the News of the World called off its ambitious naming and shaming project, and called instead for "Sarah's Law'.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,618198,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,891476,00.html

We've had paediatricians attacked because people get "paediatrician" confused with "paedophile". Whose next? I've got relations in Ireland called "Paddy O'Farrell"; that sounds a bit like "paedophile", so maybe the mob will storm their houses as well. And as for Iraqi paedophiles posing as asylum seekers, well they're the worst of the lot.


This bit is hilarious

Brass Eye Special

As always, the programme took the form of a spoof documentary. In Channel 4's own words, there were five fundamental themes:

Media hysteria
Misinformation
Sexualisation of children
Media hypocrisy
Public debate
The programme makers approached 315 public figures and invited them to take part in promoting a paedophile awareness campaign. This campaign was a set-up. They were asked to read scripts containing ludicrous assertions, including:

Internet paedophiles can project poison gas through a child's keyboard using the new HOECS3 system.

Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than humans.

'Trust Me Trousers', which were inflated to hide a paedophile's erection.

Supporting a group called 'Nonce4 Sense'.

Amazingly, several celebrities fell for it and happily regurgitated this rubbish for the camera. These people included



http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A676424

It really saties the ridiculous moral panic and forlk devils created by the British media on paedophiles at the turn of the century.

The crazy thing and don't tell Deano is David Icke may well have got it right this time confused and don't tell Deano I read some David Icke and agreed with it on this - OK

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/europe/england/080101a.html

I would like to point out again I think this thread is a flame as the guy who started it is showing a picture of a child star in his avatar called Dakota Fanning and states his location as in Dakota. He also calls himself "eleven inches" read into all that what you will.

Ya Krunk'd Floo

Wonderer
I have a little daughter and it would kill me if she got molested...and I would probably kill the sicko. But I think from a philosophical perspective, humans who have children worry specifically about these kinds of people, while those who are not affected probably see it as being a moral issue rather than a survival one.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
My dear boy! Words fail me! I shall ask my son, Jesus, to pray for you.

Yeah, retreat sucks doesn't it? The only thing more disgraceful than being so idiotic as you and openly being wrong, is denying that you've been shown up. Tsk tsk.

Whirly, you like Brass Eye?

-AC

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, retreat sucks doesn't it? The only thing more disgraceful than being so idiotic as you and openly being wrong, is denying that you've been shown up. Tsk tsk.

Whirly, you like Brass Eye?

-AC

He was foolish to argue a position which he could not win!

Yes I do

whobdamandog
Originally posted by eleveninches
I was thinking about this the other day. Do you think that pedophilles should be able to be arrested just because of their sexual orientation even if they have not commited any crime. I think that as long as they dont commit any crime, then they should be left alone, even though you might not agree with what they think.

I read in the news a few weeks ago that a male teacher had confessed to having pedophillic fantasies. But the school refused to fire him, as he hadnt committed a crime, and they didnt want to be thought of as being the 'thought police'.

Are any thoughts illegal?
Should they be illegal?
Should they be monitered?


What are your thoughts on this topic?

Thinking about illegal activities doesn't put you in jail. It doesn't become illegal until you "express" that desire to another individual.
For example..if you told your friend that you were thinking about killing your teacher, you could then be arrested on the basis of making death threats. So yeah, it is against the law to "express" illegal thoughts which could be deemed "threatening."

Pedophilia is a very heinous crime, especially since young children lives are at stake. Any individual who consistently expresses to others their thoughts about engaging in illegal activities, particularly those involving the hurting of young children..should at the very least be stringently monitored by authorities.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Yes I do

You're a chimney bottler, you're a bunty man, you're a shhhhrub rocketeer.

-AC

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're a chimney bottler, you're a bunty man, you're a shhhhrub rocketeer.

-AC

laughing out loud

Alpha Centauri
Best terms ever I swear.

Whirly, when he says shrub rocketeer be sure to listen to "Peter" doing some kind of a stressed exhale. So funny.

-AC

Ushgarak
"tete a derrier?"

"Quite frankly, yes!"

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Best terms ever I swear.

Whirly, when he says shrub rocketeer be sure to listen to "Peter" doing some kind of a stressed exhale. So funny.

-AC

I thought that bit with the paedophile "watching" from the monitor was funny.

Did you like the 11 o'clock show as wellsmile

Alpha Centauri
Wasn't bad really.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, retreat sucks doesn't it? The only thing more disgraceful than being so idiotic as you and openly being wrong, is denying that you've been shown up. Tsk tsk.

There's that ugly braggadocio, again...

AC, I'm really just trying to help you. Your behavior is a lot - notice, 'a' and 'lot', not 'alot' - like the autistic child who can only accept that which conforms to his narrow understanding. When I was your age, I did some volunteer work with people with learning difficulties. After a while, you realise that their problems are rigid and have to be coped with rather than changed. You, on the other hand, can change. The sooner you do it, the sooner you will recognise the fool you have been. I wish you luck.

Alpha Centauri
Hahaha, gotta love how your one saving grace is a space between two letters. Somehow I think we forgot how you just completely used the dictionary to prove yourself wrong and look like a complete failure.

I'm the shit, don't hate. Just step your game up.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahaha, gotta love how your one saving grace is a space between two letters. Somehow I think we forgot how you just completely used the dictionary to prove yourself wrong and look like a complete failure.

I'm the shit, don't hate. Just step your game up.

-AC

Shit! I've only just realised you were being sarcastic the whole time!

Alpha Centauri
Yes.

Feel free to jump off me any time now.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Why? I'm not finished ****ing with you yet...

Alpha Centauri
Hahahaha, you think you're f*cking with me? Oh man this is so good it just has to be unhealthy.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
I like your style on the ol' 'no, you are' routine. It suits you.

Hedonism begins at home, AC.

This is a little off-topic, but are you dealing with problems related to insecurity? I notice that after every post you add the superfluous 'AC'. Do you think we won't know it's you posting even with your name right there next to every post?

Poor boy! Mommy's calling...

-YKF

Alpha Centauri
Not a wise move to pick something out, then go do it. Sort of invalidates pretty much anything you just said wink.

No insecurities here my brother. You're the one following me around man. There's a fan club if you wanna join though, hmm?

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
It certainly is a peculiar mind that believes he has found a follower in someone who has castigated him for his crapola. However, considering that you are the character in question, it actually kind of yeah-you-know, makes sense.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
It certainly is a peculiar mind that believes he has found a follower in someone who has castigated him for his crapola. However, considering that you are the character in question, it actually kind of yeah-you-know, makes sense.

witty comeback, but you started this flame war with AC when you used the wrong word to describe an action and singled his post out for personal attention. It certainly appears you came on to attack him and the fact your initially attack line was flawed in its communication has led to a rather pathetic flame war. Neither of you will back own that much is clear so i will sit back with some popcorn.

At the moment I give slightly in favour of AC as he usually wins these things and you did not know the meaning of illude. In your favour you are sharp and have a nasty line in personal abuse.

smile

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
It certainly is a peculiar mind that believes he has found a follower in someone who has castigated him for his crapola. However, considering that you are the character in question, it actually kind of yeah-you-know, makes sense.

Let's stop pretending I haven't owned you wherever you've followed me though smile.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Let's stop pretending I haven't owned you wherever you've followed me though.

My work here is done. I've managed to teach both you and your pal a new word. The only shame is that you don't know how to use it.

I enjoy playing with this idea that you 'owned' me:

- Yes, mummy...I know it's not nice to laugh at people less fortunate than I, but he's just so funny! Look, he still thinks he's 'won'! What was the competition again? "Oh, how I do like to live beside the low-life..."

- STOP IT! RIGHT NOW!

- Sorry, mummy. I couldn't help it.

- Apologise to the poor boy!

- Sorry, AC. I won't make fun of you again.

finti
yeah back to the topic again something we lost on what page 1?

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
My work here is done. I've managed to teach both you and your pal a new word. The only shame is that you don't know how to use it.

I enjoy playing with this idea that you 'owned' me:

- Yes, mummy...I know it's not nice to laugh at people less fortunate than I, but he's just so funny! Look, he still thinks he's 'won'! What was the competition again? "Oh, how I do like to live beside the low-life..."

- STOP IT! RIGHT NOW!

- Sorry, mummy. I couldn't help it.

- Apologise to the poor boy!

- Sorry, AC. I won't make fun of you again.

Hahaha, it's actually getting to the point that I feel like your role model. You're an idiot man, you've proven it. I didn't even have to do most of the work. Moreover, you'll likely be banned if you continue. I won't, because you're following me. Though you are entertaining.

-AC

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Alot of paedophilia gets blown way out of proportion as many have said, for no other reason other than kids are involved.

Proof being in a paper yesterday there was a headline: "Arsonists kill 4 year old baby" or something.

I was reading it, then I noticed that the mother was tied up and left to burn alive. Yet they chose to highlight the fact that a baby died. It's child worship. You either love everyone from all ages equally or you can shut up.

Crimes are crimes, some cases are more severe than others but age should never be that decider.

-AC

You didn't read it though did you? I told you about it.

Victor Von Doom
The Brass Eye Special is excellent.

It was perfectly pitched to infuriate the very people it was attempting to 'help' (ie those that are inflamed by a provocative media).

It's the issue that's surrounded by the most BS and hypocrisy.

Any attempt to sensibly debate is met with fury- and the media seems intent on poking such people with a stick.

Lana
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The Brass Eye Special is excellent.

It was perfectly pitched to infuriate the very people it was attempting to 'help' (ie those that are inflamed by a provocative media).

It's the issue that's surrounded by the most BS and hypocrisy.

Any attempt to sensibly debate is met with fury- and the media seems intent on poking such people with a stick.

I actually saw that. I couldn't (and still can't) believe how stupid people could be, and how blindly people will follow something without even knowing or bothering to find out what's really going on.

Victor Von Doom
I'm past the point of such optimism I think. smile

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Lana
I actually saw that. I couldn't (and still can't) believe how stupid people could be, and how blindly people will follow something without even knowing or bothering to find out what's really going on.

agreed

Evil Dead
back to the topic.........

I believe any teacher who openly admits to being a pedophile can be rightfully terminated. A teacher must not only teach, they must also be responsible for the well being and safety of the children while in their care. If the community (mostly the parents of the students) do not feel comfortable trusting that the teacher will look out for the well being and safety of their children, the teacher should not retain the position. Going to school is not an option......it is a mandate. It is illegal not to. The salary of the teacher comes directly from the taxpayers.....the parents of the students. I don't believe anywhere it the constitution is mentions a government right to legally force children to be cared for by a person who the majority feel to be compramising to the position.......at the parents cost none the less.

Victor Von Doom
I suppose it comes down to whether such fantasies/desires are likely to lead to action.

It kind of reminds me of the gays in the military debate.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Evil Dead
back to the topic.........

I believe any teacher who openly admits to being a pedophile can be rightfully terminated. A teacher must not only teach, they must also be responsible for the well being and safety of the children while in their care. If the community (mostly the parents of the students) do not feel comfortable trusting that the teacher will look out for the well being and safety of their children, the teacher should not retain the position. Going to school is not an option......it is a mandate. It is illegal not to. The salary of the teacher comes directly from the taxpayers.....the parents of the students. I don't believe anywhere it the constitution is mentions a government right to legally force children to be cared for by a person who the majority feel to be compramising to the position.......at the parents cost none the less.


Thoughts are not a crime and this is the point.

Evil Dead
the thread does not simply ask about crime.........it was also mentioned should someone be fired?

a person does not have to be guilty of a crime to lose their job. If the person signing their paycheck is in anyway doubtful that the person can perform their task, termination is completely acceptable. Probably 99% of the people who have ever been fired from a job.......any job.....did not commit a crime......

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Evil Dead
the thread does not simply ask about crime.........it was also mentioned should someone be fired?

a person does not have to be guilty of a crime to lose their job. If the person signing their paycheck is in anyway doubtful that the person can perform their task, termination is completely acceptable. Probably 99% of the people who have ever been fired from a job.......any job.....did not commit a crime......

Your talking about professional responsibility, acting as not to bring an organisation into disreput. I think in a school articulating his feelings would certainly cause problems, if his commments had been taken out of context or had been made up obvioulsy no action would be taken. If he had said something to someone or this is alleged it could be hearsay. If he had said something like she's pretty etc again no action. If it had been stronger, he would almost certainly be asked to explain himself in the UK before the board of Governors. It is unlikely he would be sacked more likely he woluld recieve an official warning. Trust me I have been a school Governor smile

The US I cannot talk about smile

Lana
Well, I know that in my high school there was a teacher who was sleeping with a student when she was 15 -- under the age of consent, which is 17 here. Nothing was ever done about it. He finally was forced to resign 2 years later (during my last year of high school) midway through the year for making remarks to female students, who reported him for sexual harassment. And trust me, I heard these remarks and they were pretty damn vulgar, some of which I can't say here as they would break the PG-13 rule.

There's another teacher who was known as the "perverted leprechaun" because he would constantly hit on the female students and basically had a shorter-skirt-higher-grade policy. I had him my sophomore year of high school (so I was 15-16) and wore a low-cut shirt once; he spent the entire class period staring at me. I was minorly creeped out and refused to wear anything that was the least bit revealing the rest of the year.

It seems that when stuff like this happens at the high school level, no one really cares or does anything about it, but at any younger age people throw fits.

Evil Dead
well.........here in the U.S. you can get fired for anything.........

you can get fired for your actions away from the workplace.......which have nothing to do with the job at all. If a teacher in the United States openly stated they were a pedophile....they would be gone......regardless if they had ever actually molested a child. The story would be running on CNN Headline news 24/7............

Victor Von Doom
Yeah, the employment laws offer a lot less protection in the US than in the UK.

The teacher is in loco parentis, so I suppose you want to have faith in them. It probably put the school in quite an invidious position him saying that.

Lana: 'minorly' creeped out? laughing

Lana
I say that a lot stick out tongue usually if I say 'minorly' in front of something, it means the exact opposite. As in, me saying "minorly creeped out" here really meant "it was ****ing disgusting and creepy and I was considering wearing a turtleneck sweater the rest of the year" laughing out loud

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Evil Dead
well.........here in the U.S. you can get fired for anything.........

you can get fired for your actions away from the workplace.......which have nothing to do with the job at all. If a teacher in the United States openly stated they were a pedophile....they would be gone......regardless if they had ever actually molested a child. The story would be running on CNN Headline news 24/7............


Sarahs law in the US means I would think anything going on would get them sacked.
In the uK as far as student teacher relationships go you can't have any. Even University Lecturers have to declare relationships with students here now.
A slight question, In the UK teachers are in loco parentis, I did not think this was the case in the US are you sure it is?

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt

A slight question, In the UK teachers are in loco parentis, I did not think this was the case in the US are you sure it is?

Can't say I am, but I'd imagine so, even if by default.

Originally posted by Lana
I say that a lot usually if I say 'minorly' in front of something, it means the exact opposite. As in, me saying "minorly creeped out" here really meant "it was ****ing disgusting and creepy and I was considering wearing a turtleneck sweater the rest of the year"

Hahaha.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Lana
I say that a lot stick out tongue usually if I say 'minorly' in front of something, it means the exact opposite. As in, me saying "minorly creeped out" here really meant "it was ****ing disgusting and creepy and I was considering wearing a turtleneck sweater the rest of the year" laughing out loud

I thought minorly the joke was cause you were or are a minor confused

Lana
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I thought minorly the joke was cause you were or are a minor confused

Hah, no, even though I was 16 at the time I wasn't trying to be witty or anything. That's just how I always talk.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Lana
Hah, no, even though I was 16 at the time I wasn't trying to be witty or anything. That's just how I always talk.

oh, OK smile

DreamingWarrior
Pedophiles? My stepdad was one. he molested my older sister. It has royally f@#ked her life up. And, from the lips of another pedophile who was on The John Walsh show, "Pedophiles never quit. it is an incurable mental disease." I understand having bad thoughts, but the actions that follow are what makes you in need of jail or just a normal person. When you see a young woman/man (regardless of your gender) who is attractive, do you say "Hey, hottie" and move on, or do you start stalking 'em, looking at teenie porn, etc etc... normal folks just feel a bit embarassed about it, and go about the day. The ones with problems are those fixated on under-age children. And that, imo, is wrong. Jail for the thought? no, we all think evil at times. Jail for the crime? Hell YES. Regardless the offender, they should be jailed, and for a loooong time.

whobdamandog
Originally posted by Lana
I had him my sophomore year of high school (so I was 15-16) and wore a low-cut shirt once; he spent the entire class period staring at me. I was minorly creeped out and refused to wear anything that was the least bit revealing the rest of the year.


I sense a bit of instigation going on here..you knew the guy was a perv..yet you chose to wear a low cut shirt in front of him, sounds to me like you were trying to get an "A" on the test for the day..laughinglaughing

BackFire
I wish teachers would give me A's for flaunting my boobs around....people just don't like hairy man boobs these days.

Alpha Centauri
BF, I'm eating here man. Dammit, have some restraint!

-AC

BackFire
Oh, sorry.

I'll try not to turn you on sexually anymore when you're eating. *Licks own nipple* Sorry, had to be done.

whobdamandog
Hairy boobs...sounds like an off topic thread..aren't a lot of European chicks hairy?

BackFire
So the legend says.

Alpha Centauri
Those aren't chicks, those are men. You're just not wise enough to notice smile.

-AC

PVS
Originally posted by BackFire
Oh, sorry.

I'll try not to turn you on sexually anymore when you're eating. *Licks own nipple* Sorry, had to be done.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/nipple.gif

Alpha Centauri
Why does Peter Griffin look like BackFire? I actually know someone nearly identical to him. Griff, not BF.

-AC

Lana
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I sense a bit of instigation going on here..you knew the guy was a perv..yet you chose to wear a low cut shirt in front of him, sounds to me like you were trying to get an "A" on the test for the day..laughinglaughing

1) Wasn't a test day.
2) It was the first day back from spring break and I had just bought the shirt the day before.
3) It wasn't even THAT low-cut, I thought I'd be fine with it (and at any rate, I didn't have any real chest to speak of at that point).
4) I didn't need to kiss up to the teacher to get A's in class, it was math which was always one of my best subjects.

Try again wink

Alpha Centauri
Look at Lana. Go on with your own bad self.

-AC

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Look at Lana. Go on with your own bad self.

-AC

It's just that I know in real life you say 'splitting'.

Alpha Centauri
Dalendless shid.

Wait, nobody even gets that reference. Why continue to use it?

-AC

Curl_Up&Dye
i honestly dont think pedophiles can be reformed.

they can be taught to control themselves and not act on any sexual urges....

but you cant change a persons sexual preference through therapy...

pedophilia is a sexual preference just as heterosexuality or homosexuality, however pedophiles are a danger to the community, especially a community with children.

Trying to change their sexual preference through therapy is just a waste of time, all it will do is make them repress their feelings. Repression causes violence, and there is nothing more dangerous than a violent pedophile.

What the reformation therapy needs to focus on is control. Control of their impulses, and their actions/reactions in everyday situations and enviornments

Curl_Up&Dye
^ my post wouldnt let me edit.


I wanted to add that I am in NO way advocating pedophilia in my last post. I personally think theyre sick, mentally diseased people who should be locked away, however if help is sought before their mental state gets away from them then thats where my last post comes in

finti
only in ignorant yank movies, in real life they are just as good as your american girls with the razor except the years of the Iron Curtain, when the east german girls of sport was so full of hormons that sick sick sick they were more men than women, hell they were more men than men most

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Not wanting to dispute your post

but its:

paedophile

in the UK and US if its a Psychiatrist he is bound by "patient" confidentiality

Actually no. If a psychiatraist fears that the person's feeligns could lead person to do harm to another person ( a child in this case) he/she is obligated to a manditory report.

PVS
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually no. If a psychiatraist fears that the person's feeligns could lead person to do harm to another person ( a child in this case) he/she is obligated to a manditory report.

yes, i believe she is correct.
similar rule applies to suicidal patients.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually no. If a psychiatraist fears that the person's feeligns could lead person to do harm to another person ( a child in this case) he/she is obligated to a manditory report.

Not in the UK, for thoughts unless they think they need sectioning, sorry its Doctor patient.

Thats not to say problems have arisen.

http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/1998/Dec/glancy.htm

however

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=18745

FeceMan

Whirlysplatt
In the UK they ony have a duty to disclose past crimes, not thoughtssmile

http://www.emory.edu/AAPL/newsletter/N241_Royal_College_meeting.htm

including if a crime has been committed


I hope this explains things for you.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by FeceMan
Count it.

(Wish I had done this, though.)

Its very good isn't it, AC although can be OTT sometimes in this case is completely rightsmile

FeceMan
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Its very good isn't it, AC although can be OTT sometimes in this case is completely rightsmile
To be honest, it didn't add anything to the thread aside from an "OWNED" moment, but I do derive a certain satisfaction from pointing out grammatical errors.

PVS
and who cares about sticking to the topic when you can turn a thread into a juvenile pissing contest. PWN3D!!!

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by FeceMan
To be honest, it didn't add anything to the thread aside from an "OWNED" moment, but I do derive a certain satisfaction from pointing out grammatical errors.

well as a dyslexic I make loads, sadly.

I still past Language and Lit though but it was hard, unlike most subjests, damn that specific learing difficultysmile

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by PVS
and who cares about sticking to the topic when you can turn a thread into a juvenile pissing contest. PWN3D!!!

Its rare its worth the trouble but that guy deserved it smile

big gay kirk
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Dalendless shid.

Wait, nobody even gets that reference. Why continue to use it?

-AC

No-one gets it because their all dwads.... and you're a dosser..... and I'll level with you.... I'm scared.....

Alpha Centauri
Apologies to those who have enjoyed the thread. Was not my intention to ruin.

-AC

manjaro
Originally posted by eleveninches
I was thinking about this the other day. Do you think that pedophilles should be able to be arrested just because of their sexual orientation even if they have not commited any crime.

i think it is funny as shit that you think being a pedophile is a sexual orientation, that had me rolling for a few minutes i swear laughing laughing

Deano
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt


The crazy thing and don't tell Deano is David Icke may well have got it right this time confused and don't tell Deano I read some David Icke and agreed with it on this - OK

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/europe/england/080101a.html


cool he's right all the time

manjaro
i dont give a damn about innocent until proven guilty in this instance. you dont say those types of things. thats like working on a stud farm and saying that you fanatsize about boinking the horses.. how can you expect them to dangle these little kids in front of him like cute wittle itty bitty chew toys and not concieve that this might be a disaster waiting to happen?

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by manjaro
i dont give a damn about innocent until proven guilty in this instance. you dont say those types of things. thats like working on a stud farm and saying that you fanatsize about boinking the horses.. how can you expect them to dangle these little kids in front of him like cute wittle itty bitty chew toys and not concieve that this might be a disaster waiting to happen?

YHour point of view is one I understand, I think the concept of paedophillia is wrong, however punishing those who have done nothing wrong is equally wrong.

Britannia
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
YHour point of view is one I understand, I think the concept of paedophillia is wrong, however punishing those who have done nothing wrong is equally wrong.

I think that when it comes to protecting children from sexual abuse, these kind of measures are required.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by manjaro
i dont give a damn about innocent until proven guilty in this instance. you dont say those types of things. thats like working on a stud farm and saying that you fanatsize about boinking the horses.. how can you expect them to dangle these little kids in front of him like cute wittle itty bitty chew toys and not concieve that this might be a disaster waiting to happen?

Ok, lets say you are right and get your way. Now, for illustration purposes lets say you are a teacher and I am another teacher in the same school. For a long time now you have always been in my way of doing what I want to do, so I go to the principle and tell him/her that you said you would like to have sex with little boys. Now this is untrue and I am lying, but you get fired and I get your job.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Britannia
I think that when it comes to protecting children from sexual abuse, these kind of measures are required.

Why?...How are children more important than any other being?

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why?...How are children more important than any other being?

agreed

BackFire
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why?...How are children more important than any other being?

Children can't take care of themselves, thus they may need special or even extreme laws to protect them.

It's quite simple if you put any sort of thought into it.

Britannia
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why?...How are children more important than any other being?

Unlike adults, they are less able to defend themselves... They are innocent children! I can't believe how anyone can believe that it is Ok to subject them to a known paedophile!
No, they're not 'better' than another human being but they're defenceless, reliant on adults not being sexually twisted.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by BackFire
Children can't take care of themselves, thus they may need special or even extreme laws to protect them.

It's quite simple if you put any sort of thought into it.

that does not make them more important in the late 80's and early nineties believing the word of children over adults with little or no corroboration caused a great deal of problems for innocent people, I know of a teacher who served 9 months in prison on the word of a child which was later to be found false. Who needed the protection more, the man on rule 43 or the lying child? His wife left him before it came out it was all lies and I don't think the rifts in hi relationships with his own children ever healed totally. They were not protected. Its not as simple as you believe my friend, Bardock and I see that. Its simple for tabloid think though.

Britannia
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
that does not make them more important in the late 80's and early nineties believing the word of children over adults with little or no corroboration caused a great deal of problems for innocent people, I know of a teacher who served 9 months in prison on the word of a child which was later to be found false. Who needed the protection more, the man on rule 43 or the lying child? His wife left him before it came out it was all lies and I don't think the rifts in hi relationships with his own children ever healed totally. They were not protected. Its not as simple as you believe my friend, Bardock and I see that. Its simple for tabloid think though.

We're not saying that they're more important! It is our duty to protect the innocent! We're not protecting them because they're in some way 'superior' to adults... it is because they are unable to care for themselves.

xmarksthespot
I thought innocent until proven guilty no longer applied in Britain in the new age of terror.

Bardock42

xmarksthespot
So if a man works with children and admits to contemplating having sex with the children he works with; nothing should be done?

Britannia

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Britannia
I wouldn't have him locked away! I would have him fired. It is inapproproate for a paedophile to work in a school. Dangerous. It would be like having a drug dealer working in a rehabilitation centre.

No if the drug dealer has never dealt drugs or the paedophile has never touched a child

Whirlysplatt

Britannia
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
No if the drug dealer has never dealt drugs or the paedophile has never touched a child

It is still wholly inappropriate. How can you even think it is ok to put defeneless children at risk of molestation?

Bardock42
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So if a man works with children and admits to contemplating having sex with the children he works with; nothing should be done?

Indeed.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
No if the drug dealer has never dealt drugs or the paedophile has never touched a child Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So if a man works with children and admits to contemplating having sex with the children he works with; nothing should be done?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Britannia
It is still wholly inappropriate. How can you even think it is ok to put defeneless children at risk of molestation?

What the hell...the child is a lot safer with someone that admitted that.......and you cant just fire someone for their thoughts...where should that stop.....

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Bardock42
Indeed. And if a man works at an airline and expresses his desire to fly a plane into a building? Nothing should be done?

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Britannia
We're not saying that they're more important! It is our duty to protect the innocent! We're not protecting them because they're in some way 'superior' to adults... it is because they are unable to care for themselves.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
that does not make them more important in the late 80's and early nineties believing the word of children over adults with little or no corroboration caused a great deal of problems for innocent people, I know of a teacher who served 9 months in prison on the word of a child which was later to be found false. Who needed the protection more, the man on rule 43 or the lying child? His wife left him before it came out it was all lies and I don't think the rifts in hi relationships with his own children ever healed totally. They were not protected. Its not as simple as you believe my friend, Bardock and I see that. Its simple for tabloid think though.

Yes so who needed proitection here and who was innocent smile

Because someone looks innocent, and acts innocent it does not make them innocent. Because someone looks guilty and acts guilty it does not make them guilty.
Corroboration is always needed.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And if a man works at an airline and expresses his desire to fly a plane into a building? Nothing should be done?

It depends on context as I stated much earlier smile

xmarksthespot
I came in halfway but it seems as if the premise of this thread has nothing to do with children making false accusations, Whirly. The premise of this thread is that a man admitted he thinks about having sex with children and works in a school, and wasn't subsequently fired.

Bardock42
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And if a man works at an airline and expresses his desire to fly a plane into a building? Nothing should be done?

If he said "I dream aboot flying a plane into a building" then no...if he said "I will fly a plane into a building" then yes.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I came in halfway but it seems as if the premise of this thread has nothing to do with children making false accusations, Whirly. The premise of this thread is that a man admitted he thinks about having sex with children and works in a school.

No the premise of this thread is someone made a statement, the context of which is unknown (joke etc, ver a ttractive girl who looks 20 and is 15 and he says she's fit etc.), and can someone lose their job over a statement. - Or even a fantasy they have no intention of carrying out - the answer is simple and clear - No they can't without corroboration. He may well get a warning or a suspension, Interestingly a Headteacher in London was texting students (the texts were ambiguous) he stepped down as Head and became a deputy in another local education authority.

When Doctors, Teachers, Police Officers etc actually have fantasy's and act on them damage is obviously great, however, a alleged statement made by someone could be a malicious slur etc, without corroboration. Context is always the key and each case must be individually judged.

Whirlysplatt
Originally posted by Bardock42
If he said "I dream aboot flying a plane into a building" then no...if he said "I will fly a plane into a building" then yes.

Again I agree smile

xmarksthespot
A man works at an airline.
He says "I have a great desire to and contemplate flying the planes at my disposal into buildings."

A man works at a school.
He says "I have a great desire to and contemplate having sex with the children in my care."

Neither are saying they "will" do anything.
Do either of these cases warrant action on the part of any authority, be it the person's employer or the legal system?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
No the premise of this thread is someone made a statement, the context of which is unknown (joke etc, ver a ttractive girl who looks 20 and is 15 and he says she's fit etc.), and can someone lose their job over a statement. - Or even a fantasy they have no intention of carrying out - the answer is simple and clear - No they can't without corroboration. He may well get a warning or a suspension, Interestingly a Headteacher in London was texting students (the texts were ambiguous) he stepped down as Head and became a deputy in another local education authority.
When Doctors, Teachers, Police Officers etc actually have fantasy's and act on them damage is obviously great, however, a alleged statement made by someone could be a malicious slur etc, without corroboration. Context is always the key and each case must be individually judged.
Whirly children's accusations has nothing to do with the topic. Just to refresh this is the topic:
Originally posted by eleveninches
I was thinking about this the other day. Do you think that pedophilles should be able to be arrested just because of their sexual orientation even if they have not commited any crime. I think that as long as they dont commit any crime, then they should be left alone, even though you might not agree with what they think.
I read in the news a few weeks ago that a male teacher had confessed to having pedophillic fantasies. But the school refused to fire him, as he hadnt committed a crime, and they didnt want to be thought of as being the 'thought police'.
Are any thoughts illegal?
Should they be illegal?
Should they be monitered?
What are your thoughts on this topic?

Bardock42
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A man works at an airline.
He says "I have a great desire to and contemplate flying the planes at my disposal into buildings."

A man works at a school.
He says "I have a great desire to and contemplate having sex with the children in my care."

Neither are saying they "will" do anything.
Do either of these cases warrant action on the part of any authority, be it the person's employer or the legal system?

Of course not.......why should it....I can say I have a great desire to kill my boss....I'd never do it though...and i wouldn't feel very happy if I got fired....might actually make me kill him..........what aboot that teacher....now he is somewhere he can get supervised and knows that he will get caught when he does anything. If he gets fired...what if he moves...gets another job and as a hobby rapes little kids...you know that would be the fault of exactly those authorities that pretend to do good for kids.......plus he didn't do anything...one cannot get judged for something they didn't do......

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>