Beoz

I like B.

Amazulu

I think you will find that he is going to lose a lot of his wealth in compensation claims anyway. It's just a pity that his victims will have to go to court to get it

moneypenny20

Could you point out who you're referring to because I've read the thread several times and I've not found anyone who isn't horrified by paedophilia, regardless of whether they use the term 'enraged' or not. Please don't assume that you know how people think just because they're not using the same terminology as you.

Molly Coddle

Perhaps some paedophiles could be connected with having a psychological condition but I also think some paedophiles are just down right evil and I'm so surprised this word hasn't been used yet.

It is a very complex issue, one that in my eyes hasn't been addressed properly.
What I find disturbing is that children's needs aren't being put first.
We have all established that paedophiles are dangerous to children on any level, but yet children aren't safe from their clutches. They ARE still free to roam the streets. This is what I have a problem with.



If a dangerousness dog hurts a child, ( or anyone) it immediately gets put down so it can never harm anyone again.

If a terrorist is found in possession of a bomb he is immediately taken off the streets never to
walk them again. ( in a civilised society )

If a paedophile abuses a child he gets wrapped in cotton wool sent to prison in a special unit
( to protect him!! ) then released a few years later to go on abusing other children, which is what most do.

I have to ask how anyone can think that, that is acceptable?



To me the children are the main priority, I couldn't careless about the paedophile and his needs. I couldn't care less if he has a condition of any kind. What I care about is the safety of vulnerable children.



The child's needs should always come first not the paedophiles.






Well said.

You'd think people with even just an once of common sense would get that wouldn't you?

Pollyana

I wholeheartedly agree that some are pure evil, however I do not believe that they should all be tarred with the same brush. I think for many men (and women) the situation is more complex and there is a chance they can be helped - and monitored.
As for those screaming for the death penalty etc..... remember there are many kids out there who have made malicious allegations against innocent men.

I am not defending anyone, I agree that crimes of this nature are abhorrent, but I just want people to realise that its not black and white, the whole issue is far more grey.

moneypenny20

I don't care who you are or what you've done, no one should get the death penalty. End of imo. Proved not to work and solves nothing other than end someone's life earlier than would otherwise happen, sometimes someone who was innocent of any crime.

andyrich666

<<<@!1!@>>>

Think that's disturbing? Check this show out. How the very **** was a show
like this ever allowed to go on?

mikelincs

BadgeIsBack

I was under the impression Rolf had touched up his friend's daughters and propositioned them, and maybe slept with a few silly enough to agree. And had wandering hands. I don't consider him to be a full blown pedo. But then I haven't read the papers.

mikelincs

A paedo doesn't have to have sex with a child to be classed as a paedo.

moneypenny20

You don't have to read the papers. An adult, whether man or woman who has 'wandering hands', 'touched up a child' etc etc is a paedo end of. I suggest you contemplate an adult, whether a friend of yours or a stranger who decided to 'touch up' one of your children (seriously perish the thought) and then tell me again that that person is not a paedo who you would want prosecuting. Tell me then that you think there are levels of paedophilia. Oh and just for good measure, find that their PCs are loaded up with photos of semi clad or naked children.

Don't be naive Badge. An adult having sexual thoughts and acting on them, on any levels is a paedophile. You need to think before you type sometimes.

knockoff nige

Well there is different levels of offence of child sexual abuse. If that's what determines who is and who isn't a paedophile, then I guess there are different levels of paedophilia. As mentioned before, an 18 year old having sex with his under age girlfriend is surely not on the same level as a 40 year old having sex with or even just groping an 8 year old. They can both be convicted and might even get the same sentence, but are they the same level of sex offender?

moneypenny20

Ok granted . I was working on the basis of Rolf Harris being 'inappropriate' and sexually abusing children well under the age of consent. I see little difference between him touching, fiddling, whatevering 8 to 13 year olds and actually penetrating them.

knockoff nige

But surely then, if the determine factor is what a paedophile gets convicted for and also depending on their sentence, this indicates there are different levels of paedophilia? So, is Rolf Harris the same level of paedophile as Jimmy Saville? I'd find that hard to accept. Obviously I'm not trying to defend anyone who does anything like this, but the seriousness of the crime might be a measurement into how much they are paedophile-like (yes, that's probably really politically incorrect).

Some people are more sexually expressive than others whether straight or gay. Is it the same of paedophiles? Bisexuals might be more into guys than they are girls. We've probably got too many questions about this. Maybe those who have done the research can give us answers. But, I doubt (and hope) no-one on this forum is an expert.

moneypenny20

I'm being too simplistic. Or simple, one of the two. My gut, heart and brain tell me a paedophile is a paedophile but in the same breath, an 18 year old having consentual sex with his/her underage partner is not paedophilic so I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. Is Harris as 'bad' as Saville? I have no idea and honestly I don't think I want to know. From my understanding, more and more people are coming forward with regards Harris's history.

Am I alone in querying the level of research done by certain 'experts' into the reasons why a person chooses/needs to be a paedophile? I can't help wondering if it's similar to a paedophile taking a job which gives them immediate access to children. I guess it has to be done to attempt to find a 'cure' but the idea of researching such information makes me heave and I don't see how, unless you can completely cut yourself off 100% emotionally, you can research factually. I guess it's the same with any psychology though. ****ed up is what it is.

Apologies to Badge, I was probably replying to him in the heat of the moment and not taking enough time to consider what he was actually saying.. I should obviously take my own advice...