Pedophillia

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
This is not the point, I understand a lot of people say things that they do not mean, I have neices and have been a step dad and am still in touch with those children. I would need a lot more information before judging a person based on a statement they made under conditions I do not know.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
greater observation would be warranted as might an investigation and even a warning, beyond that I agree with Bardock.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
In the two scenarios mentioned the pilot and the teacher do not make a passing flippant comment or joke - they go to their employer and tell them their exact desire to carry out an illegal act and the fact that they contemplate it often.

Why wquld they do this, at least make the scenario realistic X

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think dismissal is warranted - yet. But it seems as if Bardock is saying that such a statement should draw no extra attention.

No I don't think he is, in the case of this post I think we all agree 🙂

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Why wquld they do this, at least make the scenario realistic X

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's the scenario from the thread starter except the admission of contemplations/desires is to the employer and we now know that the statement was made in a sincere intonation. You wanted context.

yes and its this context that makes it unrealistic🙂

Which part? The employer part or the sincere admission part?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Which part? The employer part or the sincere admission part?

both 🙂

So you're assuming that in the thread starters post the comment was just made as a flippant joke and that it's entirely unrealistic for a (potential) pedophile to admit to having pedophilic fantasies?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So you're assuming that in the thread starters post the comment was just made as a flippant joke and that it's entirely unrealistic for a (potential) pedophile to admit to having pedophilic fantasies?

I think in the context you described it becoomes a cry for help and is not much of a problem as he wishes not to do it and knows its wrong.

Does admission of the thoughts constitute a deed that would justify measures to be taken? Or is he still completely innocent until proven guilty and nothing more than observation is necessary?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Does admission of the thoughts constitute a deed that would justify measures to be taken? Or is he still completely innocent until proven guilty and nothing more than observation is necessary?

We've said observation is required, if it was to the employer he would have to do this to cover his own back.

Are other measures further than observation required though? Psychiatric assessment? Suspension? Notification of parents?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Are other measures further than observation required though? Psychiatric assessment? Suspension? Notification of parents?

He has committed no crime so no, its not parents bussiness.

In the UK anything else would be at the Goernors and Headteachers desretion with consultation and advice from unions and local authorities. Again it would depend on a huge variety of factors. The fact he confided in the head but had committed no crime or offence means little could be done beyond whats been stated, and rightly so.

And with the airline pilot?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And with the airline pilot?

I would think as its either the military or a private company the options to the employer are wider.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Nothing beyond observing them as much as any other pilot or teacher? No measures whatsoever?

Right

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
In the two scenarios mentioned the pilot and the teacher do not make a passing flippant comment or joke - they go to their employer and tell them their exact desire to carry out an illegal act and the fact that they contemplate it often.

There'S a difference....if they go to their employer and say I want to and I will...that's different....but jsut stating that one fantasizes aboot it is not enough.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think dismissal is warranted on the basis of a statement either - I'm playing the role of counter argument. But it seems as if Bardock is saying that such a statement should warrant no extra attention or special measures.

Well I'd say to be cautious is never wrong...but more than that like psychological treatement....unemployment or even jail are in no way justified.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There'S a difference....if they go to their employer and say I want to and I will...that's different....but jsut stating that one fantasizes aboot it is not enough.

I think we're getting into semantics here. If an individual expresses their thoughts about something...they're expressing a "want"/desire.

One's desires do not become illegal until they fall into one or more of the following categories:

1. Are expressed to others as a "threat" against the laws that govern us.

2. Are expressed to others as an agreement to perform an illegal action in the future. This action is called "conspiracy."

There's a thin line as to when the expression of one's thoughts can be deemed "threatening". The context of the expression, the environment in which the expression took place, as well as other circumstantial factors are taken into account before one's expressions are deemed to be illegal.

Expressing a desire to commit an illegal act to another, and working in an environment that is condusive to enabling one to commit that illegal act, falls within the guidelines of being "threatening."

Sometimes one might know about anothers threatening behavior, however, they choose not to disclose this information to authorities. If the threat then becomes a crime, they can be prosecuted along with the individual as a co-conspirator to the crime.

So to simplify things..

If someone who you are work with consistently has fantasies about molesting children, and you then allow them to babysit 3 of your own children. If your children are molested, the law may be deem you as an accomplice to the crime.

Originally posted by Bardock42
First of all I was asking why they are mo0re important than let's say you, you or me.......swcond...aybe they are defensless but that doesn't mean that you can by pretending you want to protect them, put innocent peoplöe away.....that is just unfair...an d you guys really make me sick......it's a hell of a freedom we have here when someone isn't even allowed to think free anymore.

They're not more important, no one said they were.

They just need to be taken extra care of because they can't defend themselves.

No one said innocent people should get put in prison because of a lying child.

I don't know where you're coming up with these ideas.

Originally posted by BackFire
They're not more important, no one said they were.

They just need to be taken extra care of because they can't defend themselves.

No one said innocent people should get put in prison because of a lying child.

I don't know where you're coming up with these ideas.

Now, now I didn't say in prison bercause of a lying child.....I said just for their thoughts...which would be the next step after firing and marking them as Child Molesters.

Ans saying "I sometimes Fantasize aboot Sex with minors" is in no way a threat.......and you all know that damn well.