signed:love:

signed…

Signed

blah

Oh dear.

:you_crazy

signed

Signed

Sorry Globaloon, that post wasn’t directed at you (I agree with what you say), but at this petition and the people who have signed it. Read the petition, and it contains not a single fact or shred of evidence to support ‘Sarah’s law’ in itself. It’s just a scaremongering list of dubious ‘statistics’ and spurious links, designed to invoke the typical, emotive ‘paedophiles are bad’ response. I don’t think this law is a good idea. Does anyone remember the protests outside paedophile’s houses in Portsmouth/Southmpton (or somewhere round there) sometime a few years ago? I personally don’t think that society as a whole (or certain elements of it) is responsible enough to deal with the information that this law makes available. And as Globaloon states, it will just drive these people further underground. This campaign is typical of the mass tabloid hysteria and sensationalism surrounding this issue at the moment. If you were to believe what you read, you’d think that there was a paedophile on every street corner in the country. This simply isn’t true, and is counter-productive. I work with a guy who’s wife won’t even let her 4 year old daughter into their own high-fenced, locked-gated garden to play. What sort of life is that child going to have as it grows up with that level of ‘protection’? And how do you think those parents would react if they actually knew for a fact there was a sex-offender living round the corner? The solution lies in proper monitoring by the authorites. I personaly don’t agree with making this kind of information available to the type of people that think it’s a good idea to firebomb local mosques after Islam related terror attacks. I apologise for the lack of paragraphs, but I’m using a proxy server from work which doesn’t seem to recognise them.

It just goes to show that scaremongering does work because in a ‘knee jerk reaction’ I signed it but after giving it further consideration I wish I hadn’t had done so. Totally agree with yourself and Globaloon.

I’m thinking that you guys who dont want to sign or have signed and changed your mind..

You dont have kids,do you ??

When you do have kids you will do anything possible to keep them safe..

That’s fair enough, but does the US suffer from the same mass hysteria that we’ve been having to endure here for the last few years? (That’s a genuine question, not a rhetorical one, as I don’t know). And in terms of violence our society seems to be heading more that way every day. And surely the example of what happened in Portsmouth/Southampton has to serve as a bit of a warning as to what could potentially happen?

In terms of police time and resources isn’t it going to be easier just to monitor the nonces effectively (tag them or something), rather than provide them with protection and then have to follow up and investigate any attacks on them? Or would they turn a blind eye to a bit of nonce bashing?

Here I agree with you. I’m sure the everyday danger to kids now is not much more than it was 50 years ago. But the advent of the internet (which has allowed for organisation and for the everyday person to stumble across the material) and this mass tabloid hysteria has made it seem so. To me the example of my work colleague’s daughter is as damaging as anything. If that level of ‘protection’ is widespread across our society then it is a very sad situation for modern children, and something that the media has to answer for.

It doesn’t matter, as they’d get targeted anyway? Sorry, but that’s not an arguement to me. Groups are unlikely to target these people based purely on suspicion. But give them a rock hard fact, ‘Mr X at number 12 is a convicted nonce’, and I think you’ll see a bit more of a reaction. I wouldn’t underestimate the fierce protective nature of parents and mob culture (even if it’s just in terms of keeping information from the police) also potentially driving more everyday ‘straight’ people to act than just the usual suspects you suggest.

Again, to me that’s not a reason to sign it. I prefer the status quo to the idea of this law. Would you vote BNP just because you think Labour are unacceptable to prove a point? Because what happens then when they actually get in?

I understand the liberal and progressive nature of most of the people on here. However, from my experience of the free party ‘scene’, and here and SJ, there are a few people who live in a slightly simplified and ‘fluffy’ version of reality. ‘Paedophiles are hideous monsters, children are lovely and cute’ type of thing, and that’s as far as they see. When in reality the issues are usually much more complicated than that.

Safe.

They can get there just in time to see the corpse hanging from the lampost then.

True, you can infiltrate them, but it’ll be harder work, more resource intensive and probably provide you with less reliable information.

True again, but there’s a huge difference in society’s general perception of of a drug dealer and a paedophile.

Imagine walking into a pub full of people and announcing ‘I’m a drug dealer’. Mumblings, nasty looks, that’s probably all you’d get. But would you fancy walking into the same pub and announcing ‘Hey, I nonce up kids on a fairly regular basis’? I certainly wouldn’t, and I daresay you’d get slightly stronger reaction.

Endless times I’ve heard someone say ‘leave me alone in a room with that nonce for an hour, then he wouldn’t feel so big’, when they don’t even know the victim or family. I’ve never heard anyone get that fussed about a drug dealer. It’s simple, Paedophilia evokes probably the strongest reactions of any crime at the moment.

This is the central point of my whole arguement against this law. Forgetting those people spoiling for a fight anyway for a moment, every parent currently feels their kids are under threat from this menace of marauding paedos. And as Angel herself says…

Now I’m not seriously suggesting that Angel is about to go off Paedo bashing, but her comment demonstrates the strength of feeling that parents have about their kids.

That, and the perceived direct threat to their own children (greatly exaggerated by the media), is what will push parents close to that line of actually taking action themselves. And I’d argue they’d be much closer to this line where a nonce is concerned than a drug dealer.

Therefore I’d suggest it’s just simply best not to provide the information on the wherabouts of these people in the first place. Then of course you have to aforementioned people spoiling for a fight, and again I’d just suggest surely it’s better not give them any more reasons to cause problems than they already have. As I said before they’re far more likely to act on fact than suspicion.

Basically this campaign is nothing but a copy-selling bandwagon for these papers to jump on, capitalising on strong public opinion and the climate of fear, which has itself been whipped up by the tabloid reporting and sensationalism. And this is what I find both disturbing and dangerous.

I understand your point about this campaign being an extreme viewpoint, and eventual negotiation leading to a middle ground. But I think I’d rather just campaign for the middle ground now. And perhaps if ridiculous campaigns like this weren’t around maybe the middle ground would be heard and not drowned out.