Wednesday, February 21, 2007

You will be angry....

On the matter of dealing with paedophiles, I am firmly of the view that the full application of Islamic law has much to commend it. No need for expensive treatment programmes, group discussion and individual psycho-therapy, or conditioning methods.Alas, the Scottish Executive takes a different view. Cathy Jamieson, the Scottish justice minister/former social worker/walking disaster, yesterday rejected a suggestion by a Scottish Parliament committee that aimed to give police additional powers to enter the home of a registered sex offender without a warrant where there are concerns about the safety of a child in the area. This came in the wake of a review by members of the Scottish Parliament into child sex offenders ( following the murder of eight-year-old Mark Cummings, who was killed by a known sex offender, who lived in the same tower block in Glasgow) At the same time, Wikipedia reports Jamieson has “used her ministerial position to promote legislation that would target many sado-masochists and fetishists by proposing to criminalise possession of so-called "extreme pornography". A minister with interesting priorities it would seem. Jamieson has plenty of form you won't be surprised to learn. ( See here )
The bottom line is that there is no fool proof system of keeping children safe from paedophiles because we do not know the identities of all of them. Thus, the police need extraordinary powers….any failure to act would be inexcusable.


Newmania said...

I don`t see what the problem with the emotively termed "Chemical castration " is.Paeophilia is not a personality quirk and if it is a dangerous illness then it should be treated.

It would be a kindness to all concerned. They never change and we are going to get a public order/ lynch mob problem if the authorities don`t do something that makes a bit more sense.

OH IT you are being abused by JHL I think he thinks you re a sissy or something . (I `m a woman ....fancy that)

Can`t be bothered with him personally

Serf said...

I am with Newmania on Chemical Castration. Should do the trick.

On the subject of lunatic axe murderers, I would be proud if he said something nasty about me.

Newmania said...

Shouldn`t be long at that rate serf

Observer said...

Paedophile = one who loves children conveys a different impression from "child molester"

With the media's strange proclivities in sexual matters I can see they preferred a more soothing word for this activity.

verity said...

Off with their balls I say!

Darkersideofbridgetjones said...

Dear IstanbulTory,

I work with children and they are all vulnerable to predators like this. Paedophiles are highly skilled manipulators, and it appears that they have a tendency to re-offend once they are released. I don't think it is a mental health issue I think there is some neurological problem with these peoples’ brains, so putting them back into the community without any form of sanction or provision is totally irresponsible, and is almost certainly putting our kids at risk.

There was some discussion on 'Vox Politix' about police being allowed to raid these individuals’ homes. But, the two Tory supporters that I was on the show with thought it was totally unethical to do this. I on the other hand am in favour of this, or as Newmania suggests 'chemical castration' for repeat offenders. Perhaps, chemical castration is a bit over the top?!

I have been teaching Drama now since 2001 and I have worked with kids who have been abused, and heard some really nasty stories, so I've seen the effects first hand. Let me tell you it's a long, slow and painful journey back to recovery for the victims.

So, something has to be done, forget ethics and their human rights. What about the human rights of the kids who have violated?

Newmania said...

Well I wish I `d known when you were going to be on DSOBJ I particularly wanted to see you .
It sounds very interesting indeed.

As you will know in Islignton ,the entire Child welfare system became infiltrated with Child molesters a few years ago. Its hard to see wht could possiboy be an over reaction

Anonymous said...

verity said...

Off with their balls I say!

8:46 PM

Women seemingly do not have any so you must adjust your carnal delights to other punishments for female child molesters of whom there are not a few

Your comment suggests a psychological fixation Verity

Newmania said...

I do not think that is Verity . She is rather cleverer than that

Ms Smack said...

As someone who has worked in this field for over 10 years, chemical castration is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping the desire for children. Many creeps get pleasure watching others abuse, take photos anyway, use foreign objects or their fingers. Their dick is just one way...and the desire would remain, and quite often, they're female.

The thing that pedo's pray on is silence. They say 'ill tell your mum you asked for it' or 'i'll kill your kitten' they've just given them.

The key is education, self-esteem, self-confidence and the like. Pedo's target kids who are low in these things. Teach kids to scream it from the rooftop... break the silence, you'll break the cycle.

Newmania said...

Good for you Miss Smack

The Hitch said...

The best answer is the rope.
A paedo can no more be cured of fancying children than I can of fancying women (25-35 large breasts please)
For the life of me I cannot understand why these fuckers should be allowed to walk the earth.

CityUnslicker said...

At the risk of being hounded by you lot; I have my concerns.

People convicted of real life offences are one thing. But what about those who viewed pictures etc? Not hard to find on the net, I get email spam with loads of wierd stuff every day, god knows what it is as I never open, but still it comes.

In some cases someone convicted of offences may never have left their own home or actually done anything. A harsh reaction to this would be to me over the top.

As would chemical castration of a 17yr old boy who had sex with a 14yr old girl. He may be wrong to do this, but again harsh measures are over the top.

We obviously need to control the sicko's more closely as they cuase such immense harm; but in the process I wotry about the civil liberties of all of draconian legislation. The point about violent porn comes to mind; how is this defined, it could be very vaguely worded. Is it right that the police could potentially arrest people for just for looking at internet porn?

To my knowledge they would be arresting most of the men in the UK.......

Colin said...

It is interesting to see that many critical minds on this blog, normally also critical of MSM reports, are now willing to believe the MSM and are favouring castration of pedophiles unaware that they might talking about their 'own balls'.

The general public is unaware of the fact that there are also a large number of false accusations and even cases of innocent people whose life has been destroyed by false memories of sexual abuse.

The expert in this field is Professor
Elizabeth F. Loftus
at Stanford University. On her website you can find pdf files of dozens of her original scientific publications. "In Loftus' book, The Myth of Repressed Memories, she writes about her involvement with the George Franklin trial, a convicted child-killer accused by his own daughter, Eileen. Twenty years after the unsolved murder of her best friend at the age of eight, Eileen had a vivid memory of the murder portraying her father as the killer. Loftus researched the case to find important discrepancies between Eileen's story and important facts and details from the investigation. Loftus testified in court presenting her previous research on memory, providing the discrepancies she discovered, and providing reasonable explanations for Eileen's mistaken memory."

"Loftus has spent most of her life steadily amassing a clear and brilliant body of work showing that memory is amazingly fragile and inventive. Her studies on more than 20,000 subjects are classics that have toppled some of our most cherished beliefs. She has shown that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, that false memories can be triggered in up to 25 percent of individuals merely by suggestion, and that memory can be interfered with and altered by simply giving incorrect post-event information...

In the mid-'80s an extravaganza of child-abuse cases swept this country, often directed at day-care workers, all of them based on testimony of children who often at first did not "remember" abuse, but when coached and asked suggestive questions, began to unravel a tapestry of magnificently horrific memories: preschoolers raped with knives, forced to drink urine, assaulted in networks of underground tunnels, tied naked to trees, and forced to watch their caretakers torture animals."

Some interesting cases:

Who Abused Jane Doe?

Eileen Franklin.

There are undoubtedly dangerous pedophiles which should be punished. However, the facts are not always that clear-cut as they seem.

Did you know that seeing one's prepubertal daughter taking a shower is considered normal in some Northern European countries but an item on the "sexual abuse scale" developed in the US? Avoid such a situation at any cost because a kindergarten worker might hear about it and start to "investigate" and to induce some false memories of sexual abuse. You wouldn't be the first case convicted as result of an judicial error.

Ellee said...

There is an interesting anomaly regarding paedophiles. When school exchange visits, no police checks are carried out on the families they stay with on both sides. This is a system that could be abused by a paedophile, but should we spoil the enjoyment of our children because of that very slight risk?

james higham said...

Certainly there must be a solution and quickly but 'extraordinary powers' worries the hell out of me. At this time, Blair is gathering all the extraordinary powers he can to use on his own people.

Newmania said...

Colin I am aware of the problems you highlight although not the references you give. There are however repeated cconsistent offenders about whom there can be little doubt .
Any punishment runs the risk of mis trial and to soem extent twe have to accept that the risk can never be zero./

Elee rasie s another interesting point that the paranoia about child molestation has reached a point wherby all men are almost paedophiles by inference. remebere the Adjacent seats problem for BA which people were astonsished about.

On balance I think we are wise to take no chances

Colin said...


Thank you for your interest in discussing the matter. You are certainly right that "There are however repeated cconsistent offenders about whom there can be little doubt."

And understandbly, you are worried about the prospect that children maybe harmed. If we look at the numbers it seems to me that many more children are killed by car accidents or by the military actions of governments.

In addition, if we consider the life of an adult as being of equal worth as the life of a child, then it appears that child molestation isn't the biggest problem in our society.

But what are our politicians doing to reduce the risk of getting mugged or killed? We all know the answer. Therefore, I am asking myself why this extraordinary activity of politicians with regard to a subgroup of criminals?

There are two possibilities: (a) It really is about better protection for children or (b) it is about more power for the ruling class.

Let's assume for a moment that it is about the latter and that the political class wants new laws for better controlling the opponents to their regime, e.g. a postdemocratic EU regime. Introducing such a law into parliament would meet fierce resistance. However, introducing a law to better control child molesters wouldn't meet any resistance. A few years down the road, the application of the law will be widened, e.g. first for controlling terrorists and racists, then for xenophobes and so forth.

That's why I agree with James Higham that " 'extraordinary powers' worries the hell out of me." And the political class, "is gathering all the extraordinary powers" they "can to use on" their "own people."

For example, the ruling elite in Germany has just hired software engineers to develop Trojans & Spyware for spying on the computers of the population. The highest German court, the so-called Constitutional Court, has ruled that this is illegal. As a result, the political class has decided that they simply will pass a new law to make it legal.

Another problem is the "sexual abuse industry", i.e. people making a living by helping children and adults to "remember" that they have been sexually abused. I have seen many individuals entering psychiatric hospitals because of anxiety-related problems and suddenly they discover with the guiding hand of a "psychotherapist" that they must have been sexually abused as a child. And the stories get more dramatic the longer they are psychotherapied. Some of these "psychotherapists" are more quacks than therapists. It is revealing when they demand more power for themselves and to "forget ethics and their human rights". In other words, back to the witch hunts of the Middle Ages.

Naturally, I might be wrong and Blair's activities are not about (b) but instead about (a) i.e. the children. However, I am afraid that in the long run we all - including our children - have less to fear from child molesters than from dictatorial powers.

Ellee said...

Hi IT, I thought you might be interested in this latest news from Turkey, I wish I had time to write about it this weekend:

Pied Piper of Hamelin said...

Colin I am aware of the problems you highlight although not the references you give. There are however repeated cconsistent offenders about whom there can be little doubt .
Any punishment runs the risk of mis trial

There is one way to avoid such errors and to live in a land with justice and safety, where evildoers are punished and everyone will live in safety and must simply entrust me with unlimited and unconstrained power........

Newmania said...


“many more children are killed by car accidents or by the military actions of governments.” - . I reject the approach . Its like saying ?
“ Give me all the money in your wallet”
“ Er no “
“ What ! With people of preventable causes everyday you want a debate about £50?!”
“ errr…well yes actually”

In one way or another an arguement from scale is often introduced and the problem is it can be made show that almost any concern is not worthy or discussion. It is an illusion .Arguments of scale can only show that the world is full of bigger and smaller things which we know already

“There are two possibilities: (a) It really is about better protection for children or (b) it is about more power for the ruling class.”

Well now I `m interested , and I can see your concern . You are suggesting that the state is using public fear of paedophiles , perhaps even fuelling it, in order to achieve that blissful state of ,“Emergency “, in which they can grab power in the good old Reichstag Fire tradition. Your chilling titbit form the land of the lederhosen certainly scares me to death and I am in sympathy with your Libertarian ..or rather simply parliamentarian , views. I also understand what you say about the mysterious phenomenon of repressed memory otherwise known as commercial brain washing ,as has been widely practices in the field of Psychotherapy for years. I have personal experience of this which one day I will tell you all about . True these are all problems .

“Naturally, I might be wrong and Blair's activities are not about (b) but instead about (a) i.e. the children. However, I am afraid that in the long run we all - including our children - have less to fear from child molesters than from dictatorial powers.”

Yes , and no , Boris Johnson did rather a good “ Oh for god`s sake how many of them are there ?” article along these lines .he also pointed out the fact that the relationship between men and all children had been unnecessarily poisoned .The great problem of there being no men in Primary schools ,and in fact few men allowed anywhere near children. The lack of proper role models that has ensued might be reckoned a result of Paedophile paranoia.

Can I set against this the refusal of the political class to contemplate the return of the death penalty despite the consistent requirement of the majority that on occasions this is the only possible justice. The refusal of the state to prosecute their draconian anti sexual discrimination laws when they impinge on areas in which unofficial sharia law is tacitly acknowledged. In other words the states interests may diverge from the citizens in both directions . Typically they will be trying to acquire power by covert means and subterfuge but they also wish to undermine sub state grouping s that by their instinctual and human qualities are not amenable to control. Such a group is the family and also the typical the English culture . In fact the worry parents feel about the rise in paedophilia , and it is rising, is not irrational and public opinion is way ahead of the state which is conspicuously slow to react. The state is always against loyalties that it cannot control. This is why parents have had to battle to find the location of known Paedophiles when such information should have been available. The state would rather the occasional young girl was tortured and killed than see the tribal loyalties of the people have proper expression protecting their own. I feel somewhat differently about it .

I should also add that I somewhat distrustful of Libertarian thinking when its applied to sex . I watched on Doughty Street two of the three Libertarian thinkers equivocate considerably on the freedom one might have to impregnate a minor .I would say , yes , when the father is free to hunt you down and shoot you in the head then we may discuss that “ Freedom”.

But I digress…..

In fact we are denied the freedom to act to protect our families as we should . That is the right way of looking at it in my view.

( apols for spelling and so on I am still suffering horribly with a cold )

grumpy said...

As several people have already said, draconian laws need to be properly thought out and both efficiently and impartially applied.
In the light of Nulab's record, neither of these requirements would seem remotely possible.

While no-one of sound mind could possibly defend child molestation, anyone with doubts about the potential for abuses of law's provisions ought to be very frightened that the most innocent of actions could - if it were seen as expedient by any of our growing number of law enforcers - be construed as an offence.

Given that the rule 'No smoke without fire' seems still to be prevalent in the public's mind, even someone mistakenly arrested and found to be innocent might expect to spend his/her life as a suspect.
So, no, let us not look for stronger laws; not until Blair and his gauleiters are no longer able to affect the way in which they would be implemented.

Voyager said...

There is in Germany a Green MP called Jerzy Montag, a lawyer, who thinks Germany should repeal legislation prohibiting incest claiming countries like Belgium have no laws against incest (it shows)....this comes up because some dysfunctional boy has fathered 4 children by his mentally-retarded sister and been jailed once.

No doubt this will be an EU Directive within months ?

Colin said...


Thanks for explaining your views in more detail. It seems to me that we have quite a lot in common.

For example, your wrote: "I somewhat distrustful of Libertarian thinking when its applied to sex . I watched on Doughty Street two of the three Libertarian thinkers equivocate considerably on the freedom one might have to impregnate a minor .I would say , yes , when the father is free to hunt you down and shoot you in the head then we may discuss that “Freedom”."

I share the view of Sean Gabb, director of the Libertarian Alliance in the UK, who is Putting a Case for Guns. In this BBC interview he said: "You have the right to protect yourself and your family in the best way available.

BBC: Does that mean if you have a gun to shoot an intruder though?

Sean Gabb: Yes it does. If anyone breaks into your house he takes his life into his own hands
I'm talking about giving people like you and me and the listeners the most effective way to protect ourselves and our loved ones from the predations of the various armed street trash who are running uncontrolled on the streets of our country."

Libertarians have only one point in common. They are suspicious of the power of the state. And so are you, if I understand your comments correctly. Otherwise, libertarians come in all kinds of colours and shapes such as conservatives, leftists (for me a contradiction), religious people, atheists, pro or contra armed citizens, pro or contra death penalty, pro or contra immigration.

In regard to the latter, the well-known libertarian H.H. Hoppe wrote in The case for free trade and restricted immigration: "Assume that the U.S., or better still Switzerland, declared that there would no longer be any border controls, that anyone who could pay the fare might enter the country, and, as a resident then be entitled to every “normal” domestic welfare provision. Can there be any doubt how disastrous such an experiment would turn out in the present world?. The U.S., and Switzerland even faster, would be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants, because life on and off American and Swiss public streets is comfortable compared to life in many areas of the third world. Welfare costs would skyrocket, and the strangled economy disintegrate and collapse, as the subsistence fund—the stock of capital accumulated in and inherited from the past—was plundered. Civilization in the U.S. and Switzerland would vanish, just as it once did from Rome
and Greece."

I don't see any major differences between your view and mine. Obviously, I didn't express myself clearly. Let me try again. You and I share two major concerns:

(1) The safety of our children from child molesters.

(2) The safety of law abiting citizens from political tyranny.

Politicians claim that they can only guarantee the safety of our children by increasing their power and reduce the liberty of citizens.

I don't buy their argument because it isn't difficult to improve safety # 1 without harming safety # 2 by keeping dangerous child molesters in psychiatric hospitals for the rest of their lifes. Why not. There is no proven therapy yet and no possibility to predict the outcome of releasing them. Thus, why should they be released? There are not too many of them, the costs are not too high and these hospitals are not as inhumane as prisons. It can be done.

I don't think politicians create an emergency to grab power in the good old Reichstag Fire tradition. My impression is that they employ the salami technique, nipping away their citizen's freedom to oppose their plans for an EU empire.

For many problems exist simpler and more efficient solutions than those proposed by politicians. However, they nearly always choose an increase of their power. Dangerous child molesters can simply be kept in psychiatric hospitals and people proclaiming openly their intention to conquer GB can be revoked the British nationality and deported. Nearly nothing of that sort is done suggesting that a solution is not intended. Instead, the entire population is put under police surveillance. 1 + 1 = 2

Methods of a police state + undemocratic EU = dictatorship. Let's hope that I am wrong.

Newmania said...

My impression is that they employ the salami technique, nipping away their citizen's freedom to oppose their plans for an EU empire.
Ho ho I like the way you put that Colin.Tony Blair`s reported activities in the News of the World are of that sort.

The News of the World reports today that Tony Blair will sign up to Angela Merkel's replacement European Constitution without having a referendum. If this happens it really is true to say that we will have effectively become a province of the Greater Belgian Empire United States of Europe.
The News of the World can reveal the Prime Minister intends to rubber-stamp
the European Constitution without consulting his likely successor Chancellor
Gordon Brown — not to mention British voters. Mr Blair has PERSONALLY pushed
forward plans for a permanent EU President and Foreign Minister as one of his
last acts before he stands down as premier. He will travel to Berlin on March 25
to sign the 50-page agreement, Declaration on the Future of Europe. Far from a
simple "declaration", this is a binding treaty which embodies "basic laws" for
490 million people in 27 countries.

I am not in reality in favour of arms being available for all BTW it was only a hyperbolical way of talking about "Freedom".. But I
often change my mind to tell you the truth I have never given it much serious thought.

I suppose as the number of armed police mounts the argument against individual self protection gets weaker but its makes me very nervous indeed

istanbultory said...

'nice to see you all got along well without me.

Colin said...


We all missed you, didn’t we.


Thanks for the latest report from The News of the World and TB's consent to AM's plans for the EU.

I am not surprised any longer. As far as I can see, all democracies have ended in dictatorships. It only seems to be a matter of time until the ruling class has accumulated sufficient power to stop the unwanted interference of the population in their plans for improving their lifes.

Some hope that conservative parties will reverse the trend. AG is the leader of a conservative party. Therefore, I have my doubts that DC will reverse the trend in the UK.

I just read an interesting article by Sean Gabb, a libertarian conservative, "David Cameron and the Conservative Party: A Farewell to the Quisling Right?" published in "Free Life Commentary, Issue Number 142, 14th December 2005" found here.

He writes: "From the beginning, our membership of the European Union has been mainly an enabling device for our own ruling class to evade the restraints of the old Constitution. From the money laundering laws to compulsory metrication to the relaxation of procedural safeguards in criminal cases, British Governments have used the machinery of the European Union to achieve ends that would have been at least much harder had it been necessary to argue for them as original legislation in a sovereign Parliament."

Furthermore, "Tony Blair is not merely a bad Prime Minister - he is also a profoundly bad man. He is driven by a hatred of England and its people. He is a liar, a traitor, a war monger. He has the blood of thousands on his hands. Not since the time of James II have we had a government directed so plainly to the abolition of our liberties. At no time in our history has an attack on these liberties been so sustained or so successful...”

And he asks: ”Will a Cameron Government repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Civil Contingencies Act, and all the lesser abolitions of procedural safeguards? Will it abolish any of the regulatory agencies that tell us what to say and read and eat and drink, and whom to employ and what to pay them? Will it argue against the fixed view that, while taxes may be undesirable, government spending is a good? Will it allow us to throw away the biometric identity cards with which the Blair Government is trying to festoon us? Will it lift the hand of political correctness form our lives? Will it end the racial and sexual balkanisation of the country? I think not. Based on what has been said, and on what I know of the people saying it, the Conservative leadership has not the slightest intention of undoing the revolution of the past eight years.

We have instead, a championing of the fashionable lies about anthropogenic global warming...

The Conservative Party has never in my lifetime been a party of conservatives. It has at best been a party of corporatist privilege that spoke a vaguely conservative language. It has been the party of the Quisling Right - of men who implied promises of action without making them, or who made promises without any intention of keeping them. Time and again, they have been believed, only to disappoint. When was the last Conservative Government to leave office with a significantly lower burden of tax and regulation than it inherited? When was there one that expanded the sphere of personal freedom? Not in my lifetime. Not in yours. Not, I can think, in the past hundred years...

.. if there is to be another Conservative Government, this will not, even in form, be a government of conservatives. We shall be presented with a political system in which the two main parties differ from each other in the way that Pepsi differs from Coke."

BTW, Newmania, just as you, I already changed my views several times when new facts or insights emerge. Nobody can be 100% certain that his views are correct because in human affairs, there are too many interrelated variables to predict the outcome with absolute certainty. It’s a pleasure to discuss with such an open-minded person like you. Thanks.

verity said...

Newmania - Thank you. This is my first ever visit to IT's blog and thus this post is my first on this blog. No, that was not me. This person is verbally tone deaf if he thought that his comment - and I assure you, that came from a man with feelings of inadequacy - would be mistaken for me, even though he helpfully signed my name. He then, it reeked of the same person, then came back with a sleazy retort to "me".

Sounds like someone with a lot of empathy for prisoners.

Chemical castration apparaently doesn't work, Newmania, although I don't understand why not. Anyway, I'd give them a lethal injection and put them out of their misery. When someone commits a heinous crime - and abusing helpless children is certainly sickening - he abandons his "human rights". What he wants, and his point of view, are no longer germane to the case.

CU, I don't think anyone would term a lusty 17 year old kid who had sex with a 14 year old willing girl a paedophile! It's still a crime and he should still be charged, but certainly not with perversion!

The Hitch (nice to see the whole gang travels in a pack) writes: "than I can of fancying women (25-35 large breasts please)." Care to tell us what you're going to do with a woman who has 25 or 35 large breasts? Or wait a minute. Don't bother.