PDA

View Full Version : Sarahs Law



Pipsqueak
17-02-2008, 04:05 PM
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1305729,00.html

Does Paedophile Plan Go Far Enough?
Updated:15:43, Sunday February 17, 2008

The mother of Sarah Payne has told Sky News she welcomes a new pilot scheme to identify sex offenders - but says more needs to be done to protect children.

Sarah PayneUnder the trial, parents will be able to check whether people who are allowed unsupervised access to their children have convictions for child sex crimes.

Sara Payne, whose daughter was murdered by a paedophile, backs the scheme but admits it doesn't "go as far as what we've called for" in her original campaign for "Sarah's law".

This would allow parents to obtain details of convicted paedophiles living in their neighbourhoods.

She said she wanted "anybody who is the carer of a child to be able to go to a police station and ask what danger there is in their area".

Advertisement

The campaigner believes "everybody has a right to know" if a paedophile is living near them.

Ms Payne also denied that such a right would lead to problems with people being wrongly targeted because of their name.

She told Sky News: "To say that the British public are a bunch of vigilantes is degrading."

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced the scheme in an article for the News Of The World, which has hailed it as a victory in its long-running campaign for "Sarah's law" .

The campaign was named after eight-year-old Sarah, who was murdered in 2000 by Roy Whiting.


Sara Payne on Sky NewsHe had previously spent time in prison for the indecent assault of a girl.

The scheme will initially be trialled in four police areas - Cambridgeshire, Hampshire, Cleveland and Warwickshire - and if successful could be rolled out across England and Wales.

It will allow single mothers to ask police whether potential boyfriends have child sex convictions before they start a relationship.

And family members or neighbours who regularly look after children could also be checked.

Police and probation services will have discretion on what information is revealed in each case and disclosure will be carefully controlled.

But it is understood that if children are thought to be at risk, parents and carers will be told.



So bearing this in mind - us as carers of children will we have access to information.
Is this law going far enough? Its a start though. Do you think we should be told of potential risks and offenders in our communities?

sarah707
17-02-2008, 05:08 PM
I had a letter once, a few years ago, telling me about 2 halfway houses somewhere in Manchester that might or might not house sex offenders... since Manchester is about 25 mins drive away, I thought it was a bit of a joke tbh.

They have to supply the right information to the right people while also protecting the 'rights' of the offender, which cannot be an easy thing to do.

I don't think the changes go far enough either - but I also worry what making the information public will do... will it create a 'hangman' mentality in the neighbourhood and mean people will be afraid to live on their road?

louise
17-02-2008, 09:04 PM
Hi, I do think something needs to be done. and whatever is done im sure there will be some problems to start with. Sarah went missing near where i live and i remember that night as a guy i was seeing came home from clubbing and said the taxi couldnt get down his mates road due to the police.
Sara has worked in our area for 'Saftey house' My Mum helped out on the fundrasing but it fell through after a short time. I remember questions being asked about that as it was certain houses who have been CRB checked displayed the saftey house logo any child that was lost or felt like someone was following them could ask this house for help.

Lou
17-02-2008, 09:09 PM
I had a letter once, a few years ago, telling me about 2 halfway houses somewhere in Manchester that might or might not house sex offenders... since Manchester is about 25 mins drive away, I thought it was a bit of a joke tbh.

They have to supply the right information to the right people while also protecting the 'rights' of the offender, which cannot be an easy thing to do.

I don't think the changes go far enough either - but I also worry what making the information public will do... will it create a 'hangman' mentality in the neighbourhood and mean people will be afraid to live on their road?

Sorry but the "rights" of the offender??????

The offender should not have any rights at all in my hunble opinion. I watched a very disturbing documentry years ago, and it is imortant to understand that these people do not believe they have done anything wrong, they see it as a sexual preference like being gay.
They need to be in an institution indefinatly.

sarah707
17-02-2008, 09:12 PM
Sorry but the "rights" of the offender??????

The offender should not have any rights at all in my hunble opinion. I watched a very disturbing documentry years ago, and it is imortant to understand that these people do not believe they have done anything wrong, they see it as a sexual preference like being gay.
They need to be in an institution indefinatly.

I put the word in quotation marks for a reason... :D

Pipsqueak
17-02-2008, 09:27 PM
I like the idea of "safe house" for lost children. I should imagine though that a scheme like that is very hard to get of the ground.

I am in full support of Sarahs Law - the full whack as in Megans Law. It works well enough in America and whilst I don't believe in vigilantism and would never advocate or condone it I believe that the safety and welfare of children should be put above these offenders.

Sexual predators will never be rehabiliated and therefore in my opinion cannot live in society without being a constant threat or danger to their (potential) victims.

Lou
17-02-2008, 09:29 PM
I like the idea of "safe house" for lost children. I should imagine though that a scheme like that is very hard to get of the ground.

I am in full support of Sarahs Law - the full whack as in Megans Law. It works well enough in America and whilst I don't believe in vigilantism and would never advocate or condone it I believe that the safety and welfare of children should be put above these offenders.

Sexual predators will never be rehabiliated and therefore in my opinion cannot live in society without being a constant threat or danger to their (potential) victims.

Totaly agree and you say it so much better than me lol

LittleMissSparkles
18-02-2008, 08:53 AM
I fully support Sarah's Law xxx

Schnakes
18-02-2008, 09:14 AM
Im not entirely sure what Sarahs Law would acheive though - we know that these people exist...arent we being careful enough already?? Kids are tied to mothers apron at the moment, through this mass hysteria the Sun and so on have whipped up. Do we really need more paranoia?

I think that there are some really sick people out there, but I think this national obsession with them is pretty sick too. :(

A bloke who used to work in my old office was banged up a while ago for this sort of thing (wont go into the details). I have seen that hes out now..I see him in the street, but while the sight of him makes my skin crawl I dont want to start shouting and waving my hands in the air and starting chasing him with pitchforks.

Lastly - I dont think "Safe houses" are a good idea AT ALL. How easy would it be to fake it and lure some kiddie into god knows what. Or even have someone who worked there who hasnt been arrested (so CRB check is clean)?? No way, not in a million years would I want to see something like that. Its too easy.

Sx

manjay
18-02-2008, 09:20 AM
You can leave the pitchforks to me!

amanda xx

Schnakes
18-02-2008, 09:49 AM
LOL Manjay!!! :laughing:
Sx

Banana
18-02-2008, 11:55 AM
Sex offenders should have their bits cut off and then they should be locked up with the key thrown away!

Sorry but they do not have any 'rights' to anything after commiting a crime like that.

I think we need capital punishment in this country!
x

angeldelight
18-02-2008, 12:07 PM
I fully agree with you Lana

Angel xx

charleyfarley
18-02-2008, 12:08 PM
Sex offenders should have their bits cut off and then they should be locked up with the key thrown away!

Sorry but they do not have any 'rights' to anything after commiting a crime like that.

I think we need capital punishment in this country!
x

I'm with you Lana, you hold them and I'll chop them off!!!!!!!!

People like these have no rights!!!!!

Just my opinion

Carol xx

Lou
18-02-2008, 12:11 PM
You are so right!!!!

I am in full support of Sarahs Law,

Pipsqueak
18-02-2008, 07:28 PM
Im not entirely sure what Sarahs Law would acheive though - we know that these people exist...arent we being careful enough already?? Kids are tied to mothers apron at the moment, through this mass hysteria the Sun and so on have whipped up. Do we really need more paranoia?

I think that there are some really sick people out there, but I think this national obsession with them is pretty sick too. :(

A bloke who used to work in my old office was banged up a while ago for this sort of thing (wont go into the details). I have seen that hes out now..I see him in the street, but while the sight of him makes my skin crawl I dont want to start shouting and waving my hands in the air and starting chasing him with pitchforks.

Lastly - I dont think "Safe houses" are a good idea AT ALL. How easy would it be to fake it and lure some kiddie into god knows what. Or even have someone who worked there who hasnt been arrested (so CRB check is clean)?? No way, not in a million years would I want to see something like that. Its too easy.

Sx


I think Sarahs Law would acheive a lot Schnakes - it would give children the rights that they deserve and give a clear resounding message to offenders.

Consider why children are so tied to mothers apron strings nowadays - it is because of what you consider a "national obsession" (with these offenders). We as a society have realised and accepted that the abuse of children DOES happen - it is more widely acknowledged and the shame and stigma have been taken away from the victim. In years gone by, that was the "childs/victims lot" , thats how the cookie crumbled, it was hushed up and refused to be acknowledged that this happened. The "grapevine" then was mothers telling their children to keep away from that house over there, that man who lives at xxx. And perhaps these mothers telling their children to stay away where more paranoid (and unfounded) that what we have today.

I think that for the "national obsession" to dissapate then the law and rights needs to start coming down more heavily in favour of the vulnerable, abused, law abiding etc, instead of protecting the rights of the abusers and perpetrators.

In regard to the Safe Houses, perhaps this is why the pilot scheme failed - I still think its a good idea though!

casey's mum
18-02-2008, 07:52 PM
Lou, I am totally with you there!

They lost their "rights" as soon as they touched the child! They get protected and the child is scarred for life! Where is the justice in that?!!

Schnakes
18-02-2008, 07:54 PM
Yeah, I know all that stuff Vik...I just think...you know - most sexual abuse (as in fact most violent crime - murder and so on) is commited by the people we know. I just think that this tabloid hysteria about men in dirty overcoats etc is actually doing more damage than anything..by that I mean - stop looking for the odd bloke round the corner, with his squinty eyes and slobbery lips....the real predators lurk under a cloak of normaility.

It infuriates me that the press like to whip up this fear,then shows pictures of young girls with their breasts out on the very next page, for their readers titilation.

Okay, enough waffling. Actually I think that what this boils down to is that knowing that Mr or Mrs X lives on your street gives you a false sense of security. You wouldnt let your child play at their house right? But Mr Z is fine!! Cos the database tells you!!! But what about all these people who go undetected? One of my friends was sexually abused by his father for many many years. And his dad is still out there today, playing happy families, very much the respected business man. If I didnt know any better - hell, I'd let him babysit the kids! In fact, Im sure that my friends sister would happily let him babysit hers, because SHE doesnt know.

Vik - Im not about protecting these vile basterds, Im really not. I just honestly dont see what GOOD would come from it. Apart from vigilantes roaming the streets. And then when does it end? We dont like murderers? Lets get 'em. We dont like gays? Hell, lets see them on the list too. And all of a sudden we're living in Nazi Germany??? Maybe a little dramatic but still!

Okay. Let me ask everyone on here who agrees with Sarahs Law (that is - everyone but me!!! :p ) - should you get this list - what would you do with it?

Sx

casey's mum
18-02-2008, 07:58 PM
[

Okay. Let me ask everyone on here who agrees with Sarahs Law (that is - everyone but me!!! :p ) - should you get this list - what would you do with it?

Sx[/QUOTE]


Panic probably in all honesty! ....and if I caught any of them on the list so much as glancing in the direction of one of mine I would find it very diff to control myself!!!

Angela xx

Schnakes
18-02-2008, 07:58 PM
Caseys mum - the thing is (with what you've just said) is that you know what? We should be campaigning against the courts then, to impose harsher sentences, harsher restrictions. Not having to go out there and do this stuff for ourselves.

I think that if someone ever hurt one of my babies, I wouldnt bother with the law...I WOULD take it into my own hands. And that is because I dont even trust the law to deal with it appropriately. Thats where the problem lies, I think.

Sx

Schnakes
18-02-2008, 08:00 PM
Caseys mum - in reply to:
and if I caught any of them on the list so much as glancing in the direction of one of mine I would find it very diff to control myself!!!



...and thats exactly why this law will never come to pass in this country.

Im not saying you're wrong, because I would be the same - its pure instinct.

Sx

Pipsqueak
18-02-2008, 08:05 PM
Yeah, I know all that stuff Vik...I just think...you know - most sexual abuse (as in fact most violent crime - murder and so on) is commited by the people we know. I just think that this tabloid hysteria about men in dirty overcoats etc is actually doing more damage than anything..by that I mean - stop looking for the odd bloke round the corner, with his squinty eyes and slobbery lips....the real predators lurk under a cloak of normaility.

It infuriates me that the press like to whip up this fear,then shows pictures of young girls with their breasts out on the very next page, for their readers titilation.

Okay, enough waffling. Actually I think that what this boils down to is that knowing that Mr or Mrs X lives on your street gives you a false sense of security. You wouldnt let your child play at their house right? But Mr Z is fine!! Cos the database tells you!!! But what about all these people who go undetected? One of my friends was sexually abused by his father for many many years. And his dad is still out there today, playing happy families, very much the respected business man. If I didnt know any better - hell, I'd let him babysit the kids! In fact, Im sure that my friends sister would happily let him babysit hers, because SHE doesnt know.

Vik - Im not about protecting these vile basterds, Im really not. I just honestly dont see what GOOD would come from it. Apart from vigilantes roaming the streets. And then when does it end? We dont like murderers? Lets get 'em. We dont like gays? Hell, lets see them on the list too. And all of a sudden we're living in Nazi Germany??? Maybe a little dramatic but still!

Okay. Let me ask everyone on here who agrees with Sarahs Law (that is - everyone but me!!! :p ) - should you get this list - what would you do with it?

Sx


I appreciate that you are not about protecting these people.

Reports from the US state that incidences of vigilantes doing their thing is not happening any more often.
What I would do with this list - I would breathe a bit more sigh of relief, one because it would actually show that someone, somewhere is more in favour of those who don't commit a crime and two I would know that I can actively point out these people. I would not actually physically "do" anything to these people (I would want to and by heck I certainly would if they touched my child but in the main I would not do anything).

I think that it is becoming more acceptable to discuss these things and I think that the message is getting across to people that statistics show that abuse is more likely to happen when the victim knows the abuser. It is all about educating people and yes you are right about the papers creating (often) a hysteria about these things but it does need to be talked about. (I agree with you about the media and story A page 16 and page 17 naked women (albiet 16/17yrs old etc).
The fact remains as well though that some crimes are committed by those who snatch a child off the street and that person could look as you have described OR Mr X from down the street. I do think that you are wrong about the media portraying the abusers as a gibbery eyed mac wearing person though.

Twinkles
18-02-2008, 08:08 PM
Wow! it's very uncomfortable sitting here on this fence :o

casey's mum
18-02-2008, 08:10 PM
Schnakes you make some great points here!! I agree harsher sentences should be imposed but I don't think it will ever happen. More of these animals locked up means more money being spent on keeping them locked up! I'm sorry but I can't see the gouvernment going for that! I don't know, I have never been one for politics.
My personal honest opinion is that forensic evidence is so precise nowadays that if one of these animals are found guilty beyond doubt then shoot the ********!!!!!!!
Sorry if I have offended anyone but these are my own true feelings!!

Angela

Schnakes
18-02-2008, 08:23 PM
I think that it is becoming more acceptable to discuss these things

Morbidly so, in some cases...with all these books on the supermarket shelves with titles such as "Please Daddy No" and so on,containing explicit details of abuse...

I think it should be more open, I DO think that there is an element of self blame that needs to be eradicated...I think the abused should feel more able to accuse those who have done it to them and so on. (Although of course, its so much more difficult if it IS a family member etc).

Actually, my mother is a volunteer for a charity that works with/for victims on a councelling basis...she had one case where a 14 year old girl was pregnant with her fathers baby - and had NO IDEA that that was wrong. There was a very big debate between those that were managing the case about how to deal with it - ie. was it more damaging to lay on the horrible truth, or to deal with the case such as it was.

WRT Sarahs Law: I dont pretend to know what the ultimate answer is...I just dont think this is it.

Angela (I hope you dont mind me calling you that? :) ) - I agree that the govt is far too namby pamby. For someone who reads the Guardian, Im actually quite right wing on certain issues!! :laughing: I also agree with your statements about forensics...which is why Im not entirely opposed to the death sentence for those that present an immediate threat to society...but thats another thread!

Sx

Schnakes
18-02-2008, 08:33 PM
BTW - when I gave the squinty eyes, slimy lips description I was thinking of Jonathan King!!!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article105312.ece

Sx

louise
18-02-2008, 08:42 PM
Im not entirely sure what Sarahs Law would acheive though - we know that these people exist...arent we being careful enough already?? Kids are tied to mothers apron at the moment, through this mass hysteria the Sun and so on have whipped up. Do we really need more paranoia?

I think that there are some really sick people out there, but I think this national obsession with them is pretty sick too. :(

A bloke who used to work in my old office was banged up a while ago for this sort of thing (wont go into the details). I have seen that hes out now..I see him in the street, but while the sight of him makes my skin crawl I dont want to start shouting and waving my hands in the air and starting chasing him with pitchforks.

Lastly - I dont think "Safe houses" are a good idea AT ALL. How easy would it be to fake it and lure some kiddie into god knows what. Or even have someone who worked there who hasnt been arrested (so CRB check is clean)?? No way, not in a million years would I want to see something like that. Its too easy.

Sx

I remember that those were some of the questions raised but so was teenagers abusing it so the house memeber was to call while they waited outside.

I think it was mainly cost to the reason it never took off. Sorry i was a 17 year old at time.

Good old bit of googling found this
http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/worthing/For-Sarah.255097.jp
not was i was looking for it but it tells you a bit about it down the bottom

Lou

Pipsqueak
18-02-2008, 08:51 PM
Perhaps that should be the answer - the law needs to be redone to redress the situation but how. Should sexual offenders be castrated and what about female offenders? Should it be an eye for an eye? What about those people who do not realise what they are doing is wrong? (As in your story above).
Why not in the meantime allow people to know if they have an offender in the midst.

I think in general the media do not portray offenders as J King types, this is what him (and Gary Glitter) happen to look like, they are has been high profile types and their movements will tend to get column inches.

As for a lot of the books on the shelves - a lot of these are books written by the survivors (as I believe they like to be called) of abuse and if that helps them in some way then that is their choice. It is then your choice whether to pick it up and read it. I actually agree with you that there are a LOT of these types of books - some of which are very explict.
Again its also a persons choice to pick up the papers, read and choose to interpret (depends how much of the media spin you beleive in and the choice of sensationalist reporting techniques etc) etc. The way some things are worded gives a very different impression to what was actually said/done.

Schnakes
18-02-2008, 09:13 PM
Vik - I think that The Sun et al DO portray these people as the dirty old man stereotype. Ive tried to search their website (unsuccessfully) to find a story they recently ran on two men taking photos of children by a duck pond. They were exactly what you would expect. Its a bit tricky to search without filling my computor with dirty words that I dont want it filled with...I also remember them running a double page spread with photos of children in abusive photos..with just the faces and privates blurred out. It was very obvious what the photos contained and I thought it was nothing short of perverse.

I KNOW the books are written by the "survivors". What disturbs me is that there is such a market for these books. Equally, these womens weeklies such as "Chat", "Thats Life" etc, that constantly feature stories of spousal abuse, rape, insect, murder and everything else....paying £200 a pop to lay your misery out for the rest of the nation to read...I dont know why people want to read it. And, completely veering from the original thread topic - why is it always women that seem to read these things? Mens mags may have pictures of mangled limbs and so on, but they dont have a blow by blow account,and they dont have the sorts of stories that makes these womens mags popular.

Lastly - you and I may be able to filter the truth...but I think its pretty clear that there is a large group of people out there that swallow it down hook line and sinker.

Sx

Pipsqueak
18-02-2008, 10:58 PM
i remember the story about the duck pond blokes Sc, but i cannot see how showing the pictures of known offenders who happen to fit the criteria of being "slimey" (for what of a better word) matters - no matter who commits the crime they are always going to look a particular way once the truth is out there. Its like mug shots - most people have that starey, glassy evil eye glint in them (even if its for a really trival matter ie/parking offences).

Again with a lot of these mags, people are choosing to tell their stories for offers of money (they would get money with the story made into a book). Again I personally very rarely read these mags as I find a lot of the content abhorrent (my personal bug bear is Jeremy Vyle sorry Kyle and Trisha type shows and the presenters).

I agree that there is no necessity for the newspapers/media to have to show pictures like you suggest in your previous post and they are feeding predators out there and further humiliating the victims and to me there is no point in what they are publishing (does that I wonder them make them guilty of publishing pornographic/indecent material). I wonder how long it will take for people to start becoming desensited to the stories and pictures, like we perhaps have done with other crimes like murder etc. I think at the moment thankfully people are still outraged at it and the media continues to feed that.

angeldelight
19-02-2008, 08:10 AM
I do not want to get into this

But after reading both of your comments - I happen to agree with some of the things that both of you are saying

So where does that leave me then ha

Angel xx

Twinkles
19-02-2008, 08:26 AM
I do not want to get into this

But after reading both of your comments - I happen to agree with some of the things that both of you are saying

So where does that leave me then ha

Angel xx

On the uncomfortable fence with me Angel :D

Pipsqueak
19-02-2008, 08:32 AM
Why is uncomfortable Twinkles.

I didn't start this thread to make anyone feel uncomfortable (nor to have an argument), I just thought some of the proposals may be of interest to us as carers of children and wondered how it will affect us. I am sorry if it/I have made anyone feel uncomfy.

I happen to agree with much of what Schnakes is saying but I also think there is a need for Sarahs Law.

angeldelight
19-02-2008, 08:39 AM
No I dont feel uncomfortable

Just like both your arguments

What is so nice too is that you can both have your different views and air them - and also respect each other- and not get nasty with each other

A nice friendly debate

Unlike some new members here !

Angel xx

Twinkles
19-02-2008, 08:40 AM
Why is uncomfortable Twinkles.

I didn't start this thread to make anyone feel uncomfortable (nor to have an argument), I just thought some of the proposals may be of interest to us as carers of children and wondered how it will affect us. I am sorry if it/I have made anyone feel uncomfy.

I happen to agree with much of what Schnakes is saying but I also think there is a need for Sarahs Law.

No hun, it's not you thats made me uncomfortable. It's just that I can see relevance to certain points in both sides of this debate and the uncomfortable bit is having to make up my mind about it. These things should be discussed and debated and as child carers and parents it is important that we have all the information to help us make up our minds as to how best help to protect our children.
Please keep debating and I will keep dithering - it's what i'm good at :D

angeldelight
19-02-2008, 08:41 AM
Twinkles you twinkle away

you did make me laugh xxx

Pipsqueak
19-02-2008, 08:48 AM
No hun, it's not you thats made me uncomfortable. It's just that I can see relevance to certain points in both sides of this debate and the uncomfortable bit is having to make up my mind about it. These things should be discussed and debated and as child carers and parents it is important that we have all the information to help us make up our minds as to how best help to protect our children.
Please keep debating and I will keep dithering - it's what i'm good at :D

:thumbsup: