[Closed] He is a very high risk to children

Have I ever told you, that you're my ray of sunshine on here, iolo.

8)

The thing that really got to me about that story, almost as much as the crime itself, is that I find it very unlikely that the crim knew about all the technicalities he needed to fulfill to be able to get to the appeals stage in the first place (though to be fair, its not like hes got anything better to do, save for scrapping with other inmates), so a solicitor must have at least helped him through it or at worst, come up with the idea/noticed the technicallity in the first place.

Hope they sleep well tonight.

What a sad mad world we live in when a technicality can put little girls in danger. I hope that he comes to a stcky end before he strikes again.

Have I ever told you, that you're my ray of sunshine on here, iolo.

I've heard that it's highly recommended when recovering from certain illnesses to surround yourself with positive and constructive influences

I hope that he comes to a stcky end before he strikes again.

I've been banned for that kind of sentiment on petrolhead threads, RaveyDavey. And yet far more kids are killed or damaged for life by drivers.

No doubt some poor child will suffer when he offends again, then questions will be asked as to why he was released and then the same old "we will learn lessons from this " BS will be spouted by the various authorities responsible.

TBH I stand by my statement and if it results in a ban then fair enough. Being a twunt in a car and raping little girls are on opposite ends of the scale of offending in my opinion. If you disagree that's your prerogative but I'd guess you don't have kids.

Are there not perfectly reasonable grounds for sectioning him?

And yet far more kids are killed or damaged for life by drivers.

🙄

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/story/2014-12-09/very-dangerous-child-rapist-released-from-prison/

the top link died for some reason

I do. I think most parents would rather get their kids back alive.

These emotive outbursts are on the same forum as people bragging about their fast cars and fast driving. Which objectively and statistically is more widespread and more threatening to the welfare of our children. How about wishing a sticky end on those whose behaviour does more harm to more children. "Being a twunt in a car" is in the same league as far as I'm concerned and very much extremely anti-social deserving jail time.

Both crimes need dealing with, rapists generaly are dealt with, this is an exception (not a good one). Killer drivers are rarely jailed whether they've killed kids or adults and are rarely banned from driving for as long as rapists spend in jail.

...opposite ends of the scale of offending...

Edukator - Troll

I do. I think most parents would rather get their kids back alive.

These emotive outbursts are on the same forum as people bragging about their fast cars and fast driving. Which objectively and statistically is more widespread and more threatening to the welfare of our children. How about wishing a sticky end on those whose behaviour does more harm to more children. "Being a twunt in a car" is in the same league as far as I'm concerned and very much extremely anti-social deserving jail time.

Both crimes need dealing with, rapists generaly are dealt with, this is an exception (not a good one). Killer drivers are rarely jailed whether they've killed kids or adults and are rarely banned from driving for as long as rapists spend in jail.

Did you ever, just for a second, consider that there may be more drivers on the roads than there are peadophiles?

How is that relevant?
People who unintentionally harm children through dangerous driving outnumber people who intentionally harm children by other means, therefore they should receive lighter sentences?

The law requires intent to be taken into account, so actually, yes.

Not saying it is right, just saying that is how I understand it.

Intent. So everyone that kills someone while breaking a traffic law gets done for murder rather than manslaughter if they kill someone. I'll go with that. Drunk when you kill someone with your car, 20 years in jail. Going through a red light when you run over a pedestrian, 20 years in jail.

MidlandTrailquestsGraham - Member

How is that relevant?

Are you serious? He posted

Being a twunt in a car" is in the same league as far as I'm concerned

So being a "twunt" in a car, is in the same league as raping a child. Get to ****. In Edukators opinion, anyone who breaches the speed limit, regardless of context should be locked up.

I challenge anyone to drive up the motorway at 70mph and observe how many cars pass you. A HUGE number of people regularly exceed the speed limit. If speeding automatically equaled child death, there wouldn't be any children left alive. Whilst vehicles are responsible for a large number of child deaths over a certain age, a huge proportion of this is in built up or heavily populated areas. You can't simply say speeding = dead children, therefore drivers are worse than peadophiles.

Not quite, Jimjam. But other STWers have the reading ability to see you are misquoting me again.

Edit: have a look at your posting history Jimjim on car threads Jimjam, that alone is a statement of intent.

Intent. So everyone that kills someone while breaking a traffic law gets done for murder rather than manslaughter if they kill someone. I'll go with that. Drunk when you kill someone with your car, 20 years in jail. Going through a red light when you run over a pedestrian, 20 years in jail.

I might be wrong (only studied law to A level, 12 years ago), but aren't those scenarios EXACTLY what manslaughter is for? the person didnt expressly intend to kill their victim, but by their action/inaction, they did. Or does assumed liability come into play?

He didn't say "anyone who breaches the speed limit, regardless of context should be locked up", but I suppose pretending someone else's opinions are more extreme than they really are is a good way of making your own opposing opinions sound more reasonable.

tomhoward - Member

Intent. So everyone that kills someone while breaking a traffic law gets done for murder rather than manslaughter if they kill someone. I'll go with that. Drunk when you kill someone with your car, 20 years in jail. Going through a red light when you run over a pedestrian, 20 years in jail.

I might be wrong (only studied law to A level, 12 years ago), but aren't those scenarios EXACTLY what manslaughter is for? the person didnt expressly intend to kill their victim, but by their action/inaction, they did.

How exactly do you accidently rape a child?

Edukator - Troll

Not quite, Jimjam. But other STWers have the reading ability to see you are misquoting me again.

Sorry, aren't you in favour of all cars being physically limited to the speed limit and tracked by GPS to identify any breach of the speed limit? Exactly what punishment would you select for anyone found breaching this in your police state?

Excess speed is a factor in a high proportion of road accidents resulting in child death. You, Jimjam, advocate speeding (with the excuse everybody else does which they don't) and bragging about racing on the public road (with motorcycles at that).

Edukator - Troll

Excess speed is a factor in a high proportion of road accidents resulting in child death. You, Jimjam, advocate speeding (with the excuse everybody else does which they don't) and bragging about racing on the public road (with motorcycles at that).

I'm worse than a paedo then. Hang me quick before I infringe on speed limits again.

what about a massive kick in the bollocks to anyone caught being a twunt in a car, and I mean massive, I'd be happy to do it.. and a stern warning to grow the hell up, stop being a silly little kid and start getting their jollys in a less perverse and insipid way, like travel, masturbation, meaningful relationships, sporting achievement or self improvement..

I dunno what to do about paedo's mind... they prolly just need a cuddle or summink

I'm in favour of all cars being fitted with black box which would be exploited in the event of a collision causing death or injury. I'm in favour of voluntary GPS trackers in cars with results relayed to the drivers' insurance companies. Refusal to use a tracker would result in a minimum premium equal to the maximum premium applied to any driver with a tracker.

Check the Golf thread, I've been making these suggestions for some time.

Edit: and I'm against hanging.

I'm out, I can't work out which side of the fence i'm on here but i'm not liking the look of either of them. I'll leave with a parting thought that people who speed, IMO, are not in the same club as people who rape and molest children.

Have fun kids. Play nice. Peace out.

How would enforcing existing laws turn this in to a police state?

You're still at this exaggerating the counter argument to make yourself sound reasonable thing aren't you?

This place IS odd, did not expect the thread to go this way. 😕

I challenge anyone to drive up the motorway at 70mph and observe how many cars pass you. A HUGE number of people regularly exceed the speed limit. If speeding automatically equaled child death, there wouldn't be any children left alive.

You don't get many kids playing on the motorway, mind.

You don't get many kids playing on the motorway, mind.

Not since those motorway paedos nabbed 'em all.

This place IS odd, did not expect the thread to go this way.

this thread is particularly shit, mainly because of the egos wading in.

Tomorrows Daily Mail:

Spaedos - the new threat to the British Way of Life

But they let him go ...... Subject to extended licence and delayed letting him go until the proper safeguards were in place . love the I'll informed criticism of lawyers what are they supposed to do only represent the clients they approve of and ignore it when they find out people are illegally detained. No point in having a justice system if it only applys to the nice people .

Kids might not play on the motorway but they still get killed on the motorway. Compare these sentences for drivers breaking the law in their vehicles at the moment they killed children. You'll note that the second lorry driver was prosecuted on the basis of tachograph information which showed he was speeding. He'll still be driving again in five years. In France [url= http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/stat_recidive_2013.pdf ]only 26% of sex offenders recidive[/url], 40% of motorists convicted are recidivists.

[url= http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/llandudno-family-six-killed-motorway-2147725 ]by dangerous driving[/url]

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/25/robert-booth-priyanka-bhogal-_n_2759563.html ]speeding[/url]

[url= http://metro.co.uk/2008/06/16/footballer-charged-with-deaths-189498/ ]Only seven years despite speeding when on drugs and drink.[/url]

[url= http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-29990934 ]Racing on the road.[/url]

I think you'll find child rapists get around 20 years (of which they'll serve higher proportion than killer drivers) and then end up on a register. Killer drivers get shorter sentences, get out of jail and [url= http://www.sudouest.fr/2014/05/16/le-chauffard-recidiviste-avait-tue-deux-cyclistes-1556421-1350.php ]kill again[/url]

TBH I stand by my statement and if it results in a ban then fair enough. Being a twunt in a car and raping little girls are on opposite ends of the scale of offending in my opinion. If you disagree that's your prerogative but I'd guess you don't have kids.

So you're saying that you child being molested is somehow worse than your child being killed by a dangerous driver? Neither are great but at least in one case they aren't dead!

Okay, I'm out as this thread is vile and depressing but Edukator has a point,

Just to support Educator for a moment child sex offenders tend to be wired that way and impulsive so not deterred by the deterrent sentencing of others . They are also capable of being monitored in the community by way of registration and sexual offences prevention orders to manage risk and reduce offending .
Dangerous drivers are often very rational and weigh risk so are more likely to be detered by harsh sentences and because of their prolific numbers much harder to monitor once identified. While child sex offences are terrible you are far more likely to lose your child to a driver than a pedophile and the risk is much harder to manage.

Welcome to the child molesters appreciation society.

Not really at all just dislike those who think killing loads of kids for kicks with cars gives them a moral high ground over the few sick and damaged individuals who harm fewer kids in a different way.

What the actual.....?

So, anyone who ever went a bit over the limit likes killing loads of kids and is as bad as a paedophile?

The moral outraged are among us!

Jamie and thestabaliser made me laugh, thanks guys 🙂

The rest of the comments in this thread are mostly dogs howling at the moon or something

I might change my username to Spaedo File....Cougar can you make my dream come true?

Yes my post was a bit over the top ... My original point was far more harm is caused to children by dangerous driving than by pedophiles both in terms of deaths injury and psyocological damage . Dangerous drivers are far more likely to be deterred by harsh sentences . So harsher sentencing of bad driving is likely to produce more benefit by way of reduced harm than deferent sentencing of sex offenders who can and are successfully managed in a range of ways.
Sorry if any offence caused I was a tad irritated by the " child molesters appreciation society" slur.

Welcome to the child molesters appreciation society.

[img] [/img]

I don't think this was a "technicality" discovered by pedantic lawyers - it's pretty bloody obvious that you can only give someone a sentence that existed at the time of the offence.