Vigilante launching paedophile naming website

[Biohazard]

You need only go back a handful of generations and that's how it was for everyone, old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. First time mums a couple of centuries back were barely above 12, were all there partners beasts?

Very subjective rubbish your trying to hold me too, social acceptance around the age of sexual intercourse has nothing to do with the point I'm making. This is the law, and we have to work under it.

Don't let that get in the way of your straw man however.

Yes, prophet muhammad was a very cool guy indeed for having his child wife. I'm away to the local primary school right now to get a kilf.

 

[nst68]

Let's hope their spelling has improved

 

[krooton]

I think that your sexual preferences are a very difficult thing to control.

So why isn't adult rape a much more common thing than it is at the moment?

 

[LordSplodge]

I thought there was already some form of Sarah's Law in place?

I think so but I really dislike the concept. Why are there no laws letting me know where former <insert offender type here> lives?

It's because the old "Think of the children!" diatribe comes out and that brings me neatly on to...

That is like saying a murderer is always a murderer.
A thief is always a theif.
A rapist always a rapist.

Yes there will always be re-offenders no matter what the crime.
But to say a pedophile is always a pedophile - it's a little bit general.

By saying this you're saying that it's just a matter of time before a released pedophile offends again (not an if).
So in which case you're almost advocating pre-crime - always keep them locked up becasue they will always be a risk.

Exactly but because there is so much emotion tied into paedophiles the prospect of rehabilitation never comes up.

 

[brummie]

Wonder why he's doing it? Victim or money??

 

[aceface57]

Wonder how the site creator would feel if his name appeared on the list?

 

[platypus]

This will end well.

 

[Ahleckz]

You need only go back a handful of generations and that's how it was for everyone, old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. First time mums a couple of centuries back were barely above 12, were all there partners beasts?

Care to back up this ridiculous claim with some figures?

Pregnancy at that age nowadays is extremely risky for the person involved as they are undeveloped and their bodies are not ready to carry a child for 9 months, let alone go through the trauma of childbirth. It doesn't really matter how far you want to go back, but diets 'back in the day' were much worse and people (on the whole) were not getting enough vitamins/everything else. This actually results in slower maturity and someone did not reach puberty until a much later age than we are used to today. This, in many cases it would be impossible to get pregnant at such a young age. If they happened to get pregnant, then it would be akin to a 8 or 9 year old (let's say for arguments sake) today getting pregnant. Medical opinion is of this - it is not wise to be pregnant at that age. Thus what do you think would happen before the arrival of medicines and medical practices we have today? Indeed, the mother would die.

Now, if you have any kind of facts to prove your statement I would be eager to hear them but I suspect you have been fed this myth and also no doubt believe that people died much much earlier in previous centuries too that too is a myth and life expectancy has stayed pretty much the same since Neolithical times. It is only in the 20th century that the life expectancy dramatically increased in some countries.

 

[Russinating]

Why is it always paedophiles? Is there a list of murderers, rapists, domestic abusers etc? Can't really see the difference myself.

 

[mrk]

Man sounds childish ¬_¬

 

[adriano_8]

He claims to be doing everything by the book.

Think about it - in the court news in your local paper it says the name, age and road name of the convicted person.

If the offence is serious enough there will also be a police mugshot which is released to the press or a pic of them arriving at court. All he needs to do is collate the information which is in the public domain.

I can't see any reason how it's illegal providing he's up to date on the DPA.

Doesn't mean he'll get it right though. A lot of people are going to be in for a hiding I think.

 

[Robbo]

The police will take that down, there's bound to be an innocent person on that list.

If it was 100% verified I wouldn't mind, but the guy looks like a thug and I doubt its all properly verified.

 

[Swifty55]

Pedophilia is an illness, just because they like looking at prepubescent children doesn't mean they act upon it!

 

[platypus]

Pedophilia is an illness, just because they like looking at prepubescent children doesn't mean they act upon it!

No but it runs off the argument that in order for people to look at it, a child must have been abused somewhere along the line for them to do so.

 

[Glaucus]

No but it runs off the argument that in order for people to look at it, a child must have been abused somewhere along the line for them to do so.

who says they look at any pictures or anything else.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

£5 says the "vigilante" is a paedo and is in denial.

 

[platypus]

I was just mentioning the argument often made at this kind of thing.

 

[matt_fsr]

£5 says the "vigilante" is a paedo and is in denial.

Chris Wittwer is a paedophile.

I wonder if it gets said enough it makes it true?

No smoke without fire eh?

 

[Ahleckz]

It seems he'll be listing any person that has committed some sort of sex crime and has labelled them all as a paedophile which seems wrong in itself. I think that someone who has committed lewd and libidinous practices against a fifteen year old is in a somewhat different category to someone who has had committed sexual acts against an 8 year old.
Though, I don't agree with naming and shaming anyone in this manner.

 

[Rozzy85]

While Paedophilia is an atrocious crime, it seems bizarre it causes more of an stur up than someone who has killed someone which would surely be the worst of the crimes? I haven't seen anyone do a list of 'People who kill' yet (although I'm sure an Internet Warrior will prove me wrong with that).

Either way I see this going wrong with innocent people being accused incorrectly.