Ruth Kelly Vetting

[luke warm]

BBC gives with one hand but takes away with the other

On that page it would seem Mr Gibson's case was just misunderstood.

But go here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4616404.stm
and the BBC makes him out to be a very dodgy character who assaulted a 15yo, robs, frauds, and the only reason he's not on list 99 is because his case predates it.

Tabloids and the tellly: they're both the same kind of scum who do anything for a 'story'.

[AtW]

The sex offenders register is full of people who, rather than contest in a public court an 'accusation' of child abuse, agree to a private Police caution.

Perhaps they should have insisted on a court hearing with jury - it is not like this country is known for courts that totally sold out and just play role in prosecution's circus (like in Russia).

On the other hand there should not be middlepoint in serious crimes - you either guilty of it (As decided by jury) or not, so such cautions should not have been an option - he should have been either prosecuted or let go.

[EternalOptimist]

I confess

I once sh@gged a fourteen year old girl and got away with it. Mind you I was the same age at the time. I didnt get put on a list but my street cred went ballistic.

Most of the paedos in this country are under sixteen !

[AtW]

In some states in the USA they look at difference of ages for under-age sex, if its same age then its viewed much more mildly then young-old thing.

[Spartacus]

Perhaps they should have insisted on a court hearing with jury - it is not like this country is known for courts that totally sold out and just play role in prosecution's circus (like in Russia).

On the other hand there should not be middlepoint in serious crimes - you either guilty of it (As decided by jury) or not, so such cautions should not have been an option - he should have been either prosecuted or let go.

Are you crackers, AtW?

Okay, so the guy could've insisted on going to court. What happens then? His picture is all over the tabloids and he is labelled as a dangerous paedophile. He gets his windows smashed nightly and petrol poured through his letterbox and set light to. A few weeks later he is found not guilty but this is not reported of course. His News of the World / Daily Mail reading neighbours say "there's no smoke without fire you know", he is hounded out of his home and has to leave town and change his identity.

On the other hand, the old bill have targets to meet. They encourage the guy to accept a caution as this is easier for them to get a tick in the target box with the minimum of effort. They know they have little to no concrete evidence but tell the guy what will happen if it goes to court (i.e. the above paragraph). He gives in and accepts the caution.

[Mailman]

What about the other guy (the one who started it all) who got a caution ages ago but what the media conveniently forgot to mention was that his credit card had been stolen and used on porn sites.

Yeah...why let facts get in the way of a good story!

Mailman

[EternalOptimist]

And these days you could end up with a record for that... whilst the girl wouldn't...

And is there a statute of limitations on that do you think?

there's the statute of - 'you dont know who the **** I am'

[EternalOptimist]

In some states in the USA they look at difference of ages for under-age sex, if its same age then its viewed much more mildly then young-old thing.

In some states of the US I heard sh@gging your under age cousins was compulsory

[Spartacus]

I have been known to let my children out of my sight. Go the the park. Enjoy the outdoors etc. Clearly I am totally irresponsible. Better pack my bag and go meet bubba.

Actually that's very responsible of you, ASB. After all the biggest risk of abuse kids face is from their own parents. The less time they spend with their parents the better. In fact, all children should be raised in state run orphanages. After all, children have to be protected "at all costs".

The more I hear about this DoE nonsense, the crosser I get.

[Spartacus]

there's the statute of - 'you dont know who the **** I am'

Not for much longer, EO. Now that the old bill can arrest you for no reason and then forcibly take a DNA sample, the days of any sort of anonymity are numbered. The only consolation is that EDS will **** up the ID card database implementation project and the whole thing will overrun by 10 years.