80,000 paedophiles present online threat to UK children

Pubs are the best. As my father in law used to say.....dont trust a person who doesnt drink.
Cheers George.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

a reply to: lakenheath24
Real pubs yes
Shawn of the Dead had some truth to it regarding where is the best place for a community to reassess their situation and adapt. Guys at the pub are the local 'leaders' for sure, from football hooligans to drug dealers and gun renters, the local boozer is the place.
Pubs which delete CCTV are the way forward, maybe not the most legal environments but in these parts you don't see too many cops so street justice is accepted as normal.
Paedos get turned over in my local boozer so for that reason alone I like the place, and I'll keep my hand in with similar minded non paedo people.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Aazadan

I would like a top of the range Mercedes and a one grand CP Company coat, not particularly bothered about driving home after a night out.
But surely you get the point.

There are no incentives for me not to steal, and there shouldn't be either - just the law....and a natural law at that.
Same as there should be no incentives not to molest children - just the law....and a natural law at that!

Why not? You're not stealing already, you're obeying the law. Why do you need an additional incentive to not break the law? People who have an illness or disability sometimes need more help.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I see your intention but I'd just lock them up as a danger to children, say a quarter of a million folk admitted to wanting to rape kids then your scheme would be expensive.

In the US it costs approximately $50,000 per year to lock someone up (minus a couple states where it's extremely cheap). In the UK it's approximately $70k GBP.

Therapy costs a couple thousand (and in the UK are you already covering it under national healthcare?). Education grants are a one time cost of a few thousand each, and even pay themselves back through better tax revenues in the future. These aren't expensive proposals, and I specifically excluded mentioning any programs that give people money directly, but even if you did that it would be much less expensive than prison.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
The OP is about taking down those people who have and/or have committed the crime of having or sharing child porn. It is all about law enforcement arresting them, a judge sentencing them, and the press reporting it on the front page. If not then out the vile pricks.

These subhumans cannot be treated. Its untreatable. Spraying sunshine and rainbows up such mentaly disturbed peoples arses wont change their wiring.

But having sexual urges isn't a criminal act. Unless what you're suggesting is to make that a criminal act, then it's wrong to punish people before they've actually done anything. Possessing child porn is a crime, that's what you're punishing in that instance, and a whole lot more than just pedo's like child porn. Molesting a child is a crime, that's what you're punishing in that instance.

Someone having the desire to touch a toddler in inappropriate ways is not a crime so why should they be preemptively punished?

originally posted by: andy06shake
Never say never mate, i was 32 before i got my act together. Got two of the little blitters now. LoL

Maybe. I'm 36, I have my act together. That's not the issue. I may adopt one day, but I believe certain types of people shouldn't reproduce, I fall into my own categories of those who shouldn't.

a reply to: Aazadan
I'd section anyone to a secure ward under the mental health act in a heartbeat if they told me they wanted to rape children.
I'm not in a position to do that but I would if I was.
Like I said, we will never find agreement.
It is a ghastly subject and I want to read threads about rainbows n stuff now instead.
Yes escaping, human nature.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Are they Human through? Do you imagine their victims see them in that light?

Yes, they're human and just as much a victim giving them faulty wiring in their head.

What their victims think is irrelevant. We don't let the victim punish the criminal because victims cannot put personal experience aside and judge without prejudice. Only those who are a step removed from the act can judge without their thoughts being clouded by emptions and write laws and sentencing guidelines for the guilty.

originally posted by: lakenheath24You want to normalize it so they feel comfortable coming forward? I cant even wrap my head around that idea.

How can you treat something if you stigmatize it?

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I have 3 stepkids mysel. I can attest to your emotions. My oldest was attacked in portugal. By attacked of course i mean raped.

That probably colors my hatred for this crap. Being human should not guarantee your right to consume oxygen.


a reply to: andy06shake

Another reason i will be teaching my children in the near future the importance of self defense, no matter the arts. The liberalism ideology of the far left in Europe is turning our children into weaklings.

Look at what you quoted against your reply please. It doesnt remotely match up.

Im starting to thing you are just winding us up.



a reply to: Aazadan

Because electrcution therapy is illegal.
a reply to: Aazadan

a reply to: Aazadan

"What their victims think is irrelevant."

What the victims of pedophiles think is irrelevant???!!!

"We don't let the victim punish the criminal because victims cannot put personal experience aside"

Mabey they should let the poor victims decide there fate?

You're coming away with some crackers the night, would you like a spade per-chance?

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Because electrcution therapy is illegal.
a reply to: Aazadan

So you admit you can't treat it. Rather than treat people suffering as people and trying to help them, you would rather just kill them?

originally posted by: andy06shake
What the victims of pedophiles think is irrelevant???!!!

Legally speaking? Yes.

Store owners don't punish thieves. Friends and family don't punish serial killers. Why should the victims of sex crimes be the ones who punish their rapists?

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Look at what you quoted against your reply please. It doesnt remotely match up.

It matches up perfectly, you just want an excuse to hurt people that you think are different, and can rationalize away as not being human.

a reply to: Aazadan

I'm not sure anyone has advocated killing non offenders who just have the lust for the crime in this thread?
They need to be locked up if they express the lust though in my opinion, public safety issue.
I'm popping to the store though need butter for my sandwiches tomorrow, I hope I'll return to a post which seems to care about potential victims.

a reply to: Aazadan

Let's just say the option would not go amiss.

Would that not actually offer a real modicum of justice rather than the trivial sentences that blind bastard justice seems to be handing down?

Yes.
And you ignored the previous post which cofirms you are here purely ti wind people up.

Shame on you.





a reply to: Aazadan

originally posted by: lakenheath24
Yes.
And you ignored the previous post which cofirms you are here purely ti wind people up.

Which post did I ignore?