News of the World succeeds in driving paedophile underground

[Aladdin]

A convicted paedophile has been moved from his Somerset home by police after a crowd of angry residents protested outside his home.
Robert Oliver, 52, was a member of a gang involved in the killing of 14-year-old Jason Swift in 1985.

His whereabouts in Bishop's Lydeard were revealed by a Sunday newspaper and about 100 people demanded he be moved.

Earlier police had appealed for calm, warning "persistent media attention" could drive Mr Oliver underground.

The protesters grew in number throughout Monday. More police officers were drafted in as fears for his safety increased. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/6170849.stm

Would anyone in favour of implementing the so-called "Sarah's Law" care to explain what good exactly this action has achieved?

Can someone publish the address of the editor of the News of the World and of its proprietor Rupert Murdoch? I'd like to pay them a visit of my own...

:rolleyes:

[HIT]

He is a scum bag, he dont deserve to live in piece of mind. I hope where he's moved to next, the same happens.

BTW alladin, are you a parent?

[Aladdin]

Oh so you welcome vigilantism and taking justice into one's hands?

Even after the laws of this country have determined a person have paid their price for a crime?

Shame time machines haven't been invented. Otherwise you could transport yourself to a time and place where such things were commonplace, and live happily ever after (until the lynch mob set their eyes on you, for a real or imaginary offence of course).

And no, I'm not a parent. Why? Why are you trying to suggest? And why should it matter? If I were a parent I would want sex offenders to be left alone. The tabloid-reading, placard-waving hoardes should try to think for 5 minutes which situation is worse: sex offenders' locations being known to the police, or sex offenders being driven underground by idiotic hate mobs and the police losing track of them.

[I'm With Stupid]

Didn't you just think "now there's a group of responsible parents" when you saw those people who brought their kids along to hurl abuse (and more) at the police van bringing Ian Huntley to his trial (before he'd even been convicted). If those kids end up fucked up, I'm pretty sure that a paedophile won't be the reason why.

[Kermit]

He's in police care, so he hasn't been "driven underground". That's more luck than judgement though.

I'm torn. Sitting 300 miles away I don't think that the paper should have named him and the vigilantes shouldn't have won. It's better to know where they are.

But if I knew that a murdering raping nonce had moved in next to my family then I'd drive him out too, and I can fully understand why the community does not want that cunt in their area. I wouldn't.

The solution, of course, would have been to give proper justice for what he did to that young boy- he should be in prison forever.

[I'm With Stupid]

It's just a case of people not having faith in the police. I do understand the concerns of the people, but if the police are doing their job correctly (and that may be a big if), then they should be able to protect all of the children without the community needing to know who he is. Do campaigns like this help the police do their job? I wouldn't reckon so myself.

[Kermit]

It's just a case of people not having faith in the police.

Unless the police are monitoring 24/7 then they can't guarantee protection.

And when a convicted paedophile under supervision is given enough leeway to abduct a child from her bath, brutally and violently rape her, and then dump her naked in an alleyway in a snowstorm, I can't exactly blame communities for wanting to take things into their own hands.

The supervision meant that he was caught quickly, so it worked, but that isn't much consolation to the six-year-old girl who was almost killed by him.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

I'm torn. Sitting 300 miles away I don't think that the paper should have named him and the vigilantes shouldn't have won. It's better to know where they are.

But if I knew that a murdering raping nonce had moved in next to my family then I'd drive him out too, and I can fully understand why the community does not want that cunt in their area. I wouldn't.

.
thats my fence sitting position exactly.

[HIT]

Oh so you welcome vigilantism and taking justice into one's hands?

Even after the laws of this country have determined a person have paid their price for a crime?

Shame time machines haven't been invented. Otherwise you could transport yourself to a time and place where such things were commonplace, and live happily ever after (until the lynch mob set their eyes on you, for a real or imaginary offence of course).

And no, I'm not a parent. Why? Why are you trying to suggest? And why should it matter? If I were a parent I would want sex offenders to be left alone. The tabloid-reading, placard-waving hoardes should try to think for 5 minutes which situation is worse: sex offenders' locations being known to the police, or sex offenders being driven underground by idiotic hate mobs and the police losing track of them.
Once you become a parent you think differently about life. You tend to worry about your children and the environment your children are in. You wouldn't understand though.

If I was a parent I wouldn't want this scum bag that was part of a paedophile gang that killed a 14 year old boy living near my my children, where my children play.

There not idiotic hate mobs as you put it, there concerned parents concerned over the welfare of there children. If you was a parent and wernt protesting for this murdering scum bag to be moved, I think people would start talking about you.

[Thunderstruck]

He's in police care, so he hasn't been "driven underground". That's more luck than judgement though.

I'm torn. Sitting 300 miles away I don't think that the paper should have named him and the vigilantes shouldn't have won. It's better to know where they are.

But if I knew that a murdering raping nonce had moved in next to my family then I'd drive him out too, and I can fully understand why the community does not want that cunt in their area. I wouldn't.

The solution, of course, would have been to give proper justice for what he did to that young boy- he should be in prison forever.

But the guy did his time. Surely the whole English justice system is based on the premise that a convicted criminal can change? Granted some do and some don't but this guy hasn't offended in 9 years. Does that not suggest to you that he's going straight and has some sentiment of remorse over what he did? He has paid his due to society and thus has a right to pursue his life without harassment from these kind of vigilante cunts.

However, in this country, anyone who has been in prison is immediately tarred with the brush that they must be evil to the bone and it's only a matter of time before they'll be back inside. For a 'free' country, there is a fuck of a lot of retarded discrimination flying around the place where people are treated as second-class citizens. This is just another example of this.

The guy did his time. His sentence may have been a little lenient but that's not his fault. He hasn't reoffended in 9 years. Just leave the poor guy alone and let him get on with his life.

[Aladdin]

Once you become a parent you think differently about life. You tend to worry about your children and the environment your children are in. You wouldn't understand though. Is that why many parents don't agree with naming paedophiles and the vigilante action it promotes?

There not idiotic hate mobs as you put it Apart from those who chase paediatricians or put bricks through the windows of the wrong man simply because he's single and a bit of an oddball...

there concerned parents concerned over the welfare of there children. If you was a parent and wernt protesting for this murdering scum bag to be moved, I think people would start talking about you. What about a man who's got a record for sleeping with a 15 year girl? Would Graham Rix be a danger to local children? Should he be hounded out?

What about people with convictions for drug dealing? What about those who have been done for drink driving?

Where do you draw the line?

[briggi]

Hang on a minute. HIT, are you a parent?

It's a very difficult one. But when push comes to shove there is nothing to gain by revealing the whereabouts of sex offenders, really, as they do have to live somewhere once they have served their time. It seems crazy to talk about behaving in a way that is "fair" to a paedophile but there is no other choice post-sentence. Unless you subscribe to that lovely old idea of shipping them all off to a desert island somewhere... and even then you know there'd be a rabid mob chartering a boat there post-haste.

[I'm With Stupid]

Hang on a minute. HIT, are you a parent?

It's a very difficult one. But when push comes to shove there is nothing to gain by revealing the whereabouts of sex offenders, really, as they do have to live somewhere once they have served their time. It seems crazy to talk about behaving in a way that is "fair" to a paedophile but there is no other choice post-sentence. Unless you subscribe to that lovely old idea of shipping them all off to a desert island somewhere... and even then you know there'd be a rabid mob chartering a boat there post-haste.
Bloody hell, we did that once before, and look what we ended up with - Australia. We can't take that risk again.

[Tweety]

I AM a parent and i agree with Kermit.
It's all very well saying leave them alone, that its best to know where they are BUT if they were living in your street by your children, it would be a different kettle of fish!

[HIT]

Is that why many parents don't agree with naming paedophiles and the vigilante action it promotes?

Apart from those who chase paediatricians or put bricks through the windows of the wrong man simply because he's single and a bit of an oddball...

What about a man who's got a record for sleeping with a 15 year girl? Would Graham Rix be a danger to local children? Should he be hounded out?

What about people with convictions for drug dealing? What about those who have been done for drink driving?

Where do you draw the line?
Aladin go and have kids, then in 10 years time when your kids are playing outside with there mates and there a murdering paedophile living across the road, post back what you will think then.

Your absolutly out of order referring to parents as idiots because they dont want there children out playing where theres a convicted murdering nonce. Until you become a father you have no right passing judgement on concerned parents like this.

And for the record, a few years ago everyone signed a petition to tell the public where peodos live. Are the parents idiots for doing so and wanting to protect there children? A few months back a pedophile has been spotted down a primary school near me. Now you tell me when your a father, you arnt bothered if a peado is waiting outside your childs primary school.

[Aladdin]

I AM a parent and i agree with Kermit.
It's all very well saying leave them alone, that its best to know where they are BUT if they were living in your street by your children, it would be a different kettle of fish!

Bloody NIMBY!

;)

[HIT]

Hang on a minute. HIT, are you a parent?

It's a very difficult one. But when push comes to shove there is nothing to gain by revealing the whereabouts of sex offenders, really, as they do have to live somewhere once they have served their time. It seems crazy to talk about behaving in a way that is "fair" to a paedophile but there is no other choice post-sentence. Unless you subscribe to that lovely old idea of shipping them all off to a desert island somewhere... and even then you know there'd be a rabid mob chartering a boat there post-haste.
If you had read my post, you would have seen I wenrt.

Having a murdering paedohile is in a completely different ball game from having just a peodo.

Its a well you feeling sorry for them saying "theres no choice post sentence", but the parents of that murdered boy are serving there own life sentence having lost there son.

And yes, I would love to see them shipped off somewhere then dumped.

[Aladdin]

Aladin go and have kids, then in 10 years time when your kids are playing outside with there mates and there a murdering paedophile living across the road, post back what you will think then. And I am telling you I know parents who don't agree with Sarah's Law and don't want sex offenders being named and hounded out.

Your absolutly out of order referring to parents as idiots because they dont want there children out playing where theres a convicted murdering nonce. Until you become a father you have no right passing judgement on concerned parents like this. The ones I'm calling idiots are those who create hate mobs and more often than not end up chasing the wrong man.

And yes, sure as fuck I am able to judge others whether I'm a parent or not. The entire justice system of this country is based on the principle that once a prisoner serves his time he is entitled to rejoin society. There is no place for hate mobs and vigilante 'justice' in this country. Not regarding sex offenders, not regarding anyone.

And for the record, a few years ago everyone signed a petition to tell the public where peodos live. Are the parents idiots for doing so and wanting to protect there children? A few months back a pedophile has been spotted down a primary school near me. Now you tell me when your a father, you arnt bothered if a peado is waiting outside your childs primary school. Could you kindly explain how knowing where sex offenders live is going to help you or anyone else stop them from hanging around a school?

This is what you are failing to grasp. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF A LOCAL HATE MOB DRIVES ALL THE PAEDOS OUT OF THEIR HOMES IN AN AREA. NOTHING CAN STOP THEM FROM VISITING THE SAID AREA IF THEY WISH. YOU GAIN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FROM DRIVING PAEDOPHILES UNDERGROUND. YOU ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS WORSE.

[briggi]

I don't feel sorry for them, I'm not sure why you think that as it is not what I said at all! You are obviously not to know this, but as a child I was actually the victim of a paedophile - so I do obviously feel VERY strongly indeed about the sentencing and punishment of such people. I would guess there is nary a person - on this board or in this world - who doesn't, to be honest.

However, I don't think we can continue to deal out our own unique brand of punishment and "justice" once someone has been dealt with by the judicial system (even if it is not considered by all to have been real justice). Just what is at the bottom of that slippery slope?

[Tweety]

Bloody NIMBY!

;)

Too right!
Personally i think that those kind of people sholdn't be let out of prison/a secure unit. As they clearly have something wrong with thier head.

[HIT]

And I am telling you I know parents who don't agree with Sarah's Law and don't want sex offenders being named and hounded out.
Well I know plenty of people that agree (parents and non parents). I wonder if they would think differently to having a murdering peodo living in there area.

The ones I'm calling idiots are those who create hate mobs and more often than not end up chasing the wrong man.
You mean the concerned parents that dont want there children living near a murdering peodo?

And yes, sure as fuck I am able to judge others whether I'm a parent or not. The entire justice system of this country is based on the principle that once a prisoner serves his time he is entitled to rejoin society. There is no place for hate mobs and vigilante 'justice' in this country. Not regarding sex offenders, not regarding anyone.
Again you dont see it through parents eyes.

Could you kindly explain how knowing where sex offenders live is going to help you or anyone else stop them from hanging around a school?

This is what you are failing to grasp. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF A LOCAL HATE MOB DRIVES ALL THE PAEDOS OUT OF THEIR HOMES IN AN AREA. NOTHING CAN STOP THEM FROM VISITING THE SAID AREA IF THEY WISH. YOU GAIN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FROM DRIVING PAEDOPHILES UNDERGROUND. YOU ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS WORSE.
Because as peodos arnt allowed to go near schools, this one has gone near a school, so now he is a possible threat so hopefully concerned parents for there children can protest with flamed torches outside his house. ;)

[I'm With Stupid]

You mean the concerned parents that dont want there children living near a murdering peodo?
That's irrelevant. It's how they deal with it that's the issue. Are you saying that parents who don't agree do want paedos to attack their kids? No-one wants terrorists to plant another bomb, but that doesn't mean that it's the right answer to go bombing the middle east. It's their solution that is idiotic, not their fears.

[HIT]

That's irrelevant. It's how they deal with it that's the issue. Are you saying that parents who don't agree do want paedos to attack their kids? No-one wants terrorists to plant another bomb, but that doesn't mean that it's the right answer to go bombing the middle east. It's their solution that is idiotic, not their fears.
No not at all. I think its relevant that parents are furious of having a murdering nonce near there children. If I was in them parents shoes, I for one would like to see him gone so hes not near my children. You cant call a parent an idiot for fearing for there children. What you seem to forget is he has murdered a child.

[Thunderstruck]

What you seem to forget is he has murdered a child.


Yes but he has done his time, repaid his debt to society and has not offended in 9 years. There is such a thing as remorse and regret; factors on which the English judicial system is founded.

Just because he murdered a child 20 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that he'll do it again.

Remember that hate fuels hate.

[I'm With Stupid]

No not at all. I think its relevant that parents are furious of having a murdering nonce near there children. If I was in them parents shoes, I for one would like to see him gone so hes not near my children. You cant call a parent an idiot for fearing for there children. What you seem to forget is he has murdered a child.
I didn't call anyone an idiot for fearing for their children. I called their proposed solution of hounding him out and publicly shaming him to be idiotic. And the constant rhetoric that he has murdered a child, or "look at it from the parents point of view" doesn't make your proposed solution any more valid.

[HIT]

I didn't call anyone an idiot for fearing for their children. I called their proposed solution of hounding him out and publicly shaming him to be idiotic. And the constant rhetoric that he has murdered a child, or "look at it from the parents point of view" doesn't make your proposed solution any more valid.
Well yes, because again if you was a parent you would see it from there eyes. At the end of the day what these parents done were out of the best interest of there children.

[briggi]

FFS you keep saying the same thing! You don't speak for every parent, anyway, even if you may well speak for the majority.

[HIT]

FFS you keep saying the same thing! You don't speak for every parent, anyway, even if you may well speak for the majority.
FFS what? I keep saying the same thing because its true. Those parents done what they fault was relevant for the safety of there children. And I will keep saying that.

[I'm With Stupid]

Well yes, because again if you was a parent you would see it from there eyes. At the end of the day what these parents done were out of the best interest of there children.
Yes, and I'm saying that it was a stupid solution. So argue your point. Tell us how the end result of such actions is in the best interest of their children. The Iraq war could very well have been carried out with the best interests of the Iraqi people, but that doesn't mean that the result actually is in the best interests of them.

[Teagan]

It's worth remembering that Jason Swift was a rent boy. He was hardly an 'innocent' 14 year old snatched off the street while playing football. As awful as his death was, it was never proved to be murder but was manslaughter - where drugs and sex sessions went terribly wrong.

[budda]

If the government werent running the probation service into the ground then we could keep better track of ex-offenders.

That and treating sexual offences against children as a mental health issue would mean we could keep them locked up until they were deemed safe, not just for a set period.

[Kermit]

With my rational hat on I agree with everything said about protecting the rule of law, and allowing a man to restart his life once that his debt to society has been paid. I completely agree that there is no room for mob justice and newspaper hate campaigns, and I completely agree that mob rule cannot be tolerated.

I also completely agree that it does more harm than good- whilst this time the offender is safely in police protection, that was through luck not judgement, and next time he may simply abscond in the night and be free to offend again far from police supervision.

I can't bring myself to condemn the people who are angry at finding out this piece of filth is living in their town, walking with their children, and I can fully understand why they are angry and why they want that scumbag driven out of town. I would be the same, I wouldn't want a killer paedo anywhere near my house and my family.

To say that they are doing the "best thing" is stupid as it undermines and destroys the whole supervision programme, but it is an understandable reaction.

The blame lies with the newspaper for stoking this up simply for sales- if anyone thinks that the newspaper cares about the people of that town they are fucking idiots. The reaction of the people was entirely justified and entirely predictable, but the newspaper should have known better and the editor should be brought before the court for harrassment and conspiracy to cause public disorder.

[Aladdin]

Well I know plenty of people that agree (parents and non parents). I wonder if they would think differently to having a murdering peodo living in there area. I shouldn't think so.


You mean the concerned parents that dont want there children living near a murdering peodo? No, I mean those who are not only concerned but create mobs that serve no good purpose whatsoever.


Again you dont see it through parents eyes. I don't need to. Being a parent doesn't give anyone special authority to take the law in their own hands.


Because as peodos arnt allowed to go near schools, this one has gone near a school, so now he is a possible threat so hopefully concerned parents for there children can protest with flamed torches outside his house. ;) I'll ask you again. How can mob prevent a paedo from hanging outside a school?

How can a mob prevent a paedo from a different area drop by at any time and try to attack a child?

They can't, and you know it.

That's why there is absolutely no point whatsoever in making their address public domain.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Well yes, because again if you was a parent you would see it from there eyes. At the end of the day what these parents done were out of the best interest of there children.
You dont really speak for me tbh and im a parent.
I can understand not wanting a paedophile living next door for sure. Its hardly your ideal neighbour, but tbh, I wouldnt know if my next door neighbour was one or not, because hes never gonna babysit my kids, and hes not a threat at the school gates because the school has measures to prevent unauthroised people getting in. He also wouldnt be a threat for my children playing outside, because while theyre young, they should be supervised, and they should also know not to talk to strangers.
Sarahs law doesnt make it any safer for anyone, because the VAST VAST majority of paedophilic offences happen by family members and by people whove never been caught.

[Disillusioned]

It's worth remembering that Jason Swift was a rent boy. He was hardly an 'innocent' 14 year old snatched off the street while playing football. As awful as his death was, it was never proved to be murder but was manslaughter - where drugs and sex sessions went terribly wrong.

Well that makes it okay then. Jason Swift was 14 years old. One of his torturers was 72 years old. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465986.stm) The very fact that all of the perpetrators of such a heinous crime are not in jail is scandalous.

The paedophile scum that abused Swift and participated in the session in which he was strangled to death should be behind bars. Anything less than a maximum security jail cell is unacceptable and puts innocent children at unnecessary risk. Driving paedophiles underground would be a bad thing but no responsible parent would feel comfortable living near scum like Robert Oliver. For as long as our government allows dangerous paedophiles who have committed monstrous crimes to walk the streets by not ensuring they're jailed for life the NOTW are justified in their actions.

[Aladdin]

Do you have any evidence to support that this man is dangerous today?

[Kermit]

Do you have any evidence to support that this man is dangerous today?

His previous actions show that he is a menace to society, IMHO.

[Disillusioned]

Do you have any evidence to support that this man is dangerous today?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that he will not re-offend?

No one can say with any certainty that he will not take part in another paedophilic sex session with a 14 year old.

In the absence of overwhelming evidence to suggest that they are completely rehabilitated paedophiles who have attacked children should never be released. (I feel the same way about rapists too).

[Aladdin]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that he will not re-offend?

No one can say with any certainty that he will not take part in another paedophilic sex session with a 14 year old.

In the absence of overwhelming evidence to suggest that they are completely rehabilitated paedophiles who have attacked children should never be released. (I feel the same way about rapists too). You can say exactly the same thing about every single criminal and every single crime.

Therefore, perhaps we should simply give all people who commit crimes life without parole. At the end of the day you never know...

[Kermit]

There's a bit of a difference from smoking pot to raping and killing a 14-year-old boy, don't you think?

I have no problems with this man being hounded out, I hope the rest of his life is one long perpetual misery. With a bit of luck he might even do the decent thing and kill himself.

The paper should not have named and shamed him for public safety reasons, but as for his personal safety, well, he lost the right to that when he killed a teenage boy.

[Disillusioned]

You can say exactly the same thing about every single criminal and every single crime.

Therefore, perhaps we should simply give all people who commit crimes life without parole. At the end of the day you never know...

Tbh I would jail serial burglars for life, if they consistently re-offend they should be prevented from inflicting more misery. If you've seen first hand an elderly person trying to pick up the pieces after a burglar has invaded their home, rifled through their possessions and nicked a few things of enormous sentimental value you'd agree.

Of course though paedophilia and rape are different; the suffering for the victim and the infringement of their person make it an extremely serious crime and those who have shown themselves to be capable of it should be put in a position where they cannot re-offend. (i.e. in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison).

[Aladdin]

Then people should be campaigning for a radical change in our sentencing laws.

Until that happens, if a court of law has decided a man has served his time and can rejoin society, he should not be hounded by anyone else.

I wonder how many of those outraged and concerned parents have thought of starting a campaign to demand to know where convicted drunk drivers live... seeing as children are infinitely more at risk of being run down by a pissed driver than they are of being killed by a paedo.

Though that is perhaps asking them too think too deeply about things. Far easier to reach for the pitchfork and wave placards saying 'don't house them- hang them'. It sure makes their kids a lot safer...

[Kermit]

Do you genuinely not understand why someone would be upset at finding out that a killer paedo has moved in next door?

[Aladdin]

Yes I do. That doesn't mean I support their actions though.

[Kermit]

I don't think that their actions were wrong, I wish this creature a slow and painful death. I'd have been there hounding him out too, because there is no place for filth like that in any community.

The blame is with the newspaper that has done this simply to boost sales. The consideration of the people of that town was not involved in the decision to print, and the newspaper should be done for inciting this reaction.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

There's a bit of a difference from smoking pot to raping and killing a 14-year-old boy, don't you think?

I have no problems with this man being hounded out, I hope the rest of his life is one long perpetual misery. With a bit of luck he might even do the decent thing and kill himself.

The paper should not have named and shamed him for public safety reasons, but as for his personal safety, well, he lost the right to that when he killed a teenage boy.

Exactly, tbh. the problem with what the vigilantes did was to just hound him out to go and live somewhere else, when really they should have beaten the fucker to death.

[Kermit]

Exactly, tbh. the problem with what the vigilantes did was to just hound him out to go and live somewhere else, when really they should have beaten the fucker to death.

Feel the sarcasm :p

I wouldn't shed a tear if someone did do that, mind.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

The sad thing is I wasnt being sarcastic.
Im becoming one of those shitty mothers maybe that cant grasp why we shouldnt do this?
Or maybe I can grasp why theyd do it, and thats why we shouldnt be able to just find out the name and crime of every wrongun. Too tempting to just go and weed them out.

I dont really believe that anyone can adequately do their time for something like that. A complete psychotic depraved abuser/killer - its not as if all of a sudden will see the error of his ways when previously didnt know it was wrong.
I dont believe all paedophiles are evil. I believe some of them try really hard to control their urges and some of them feel a great deal of guilt and remorse, but there are a fair few that dont, and the fact that we KNOW this, and they STILL get let out of prison because of lenient sentancing laws is just beyond belief. He didnt just rape the kids, he killed them too. How much worse need it get for him to get life?

[bluewisdom]

treating sexual offences against children as a mental health issue would mean we could keep them locked up until they were deemed safe, not just for a set period.Very lucid words :yes:

People should understand the complexity of this issue tbh

[Kermit]

I understand the feeling, and the only reasons why I am against the death penalty are practical ones. It costs more money, many lifers would rather die than be stuck inside, and sometimes people get the decision wrong. Also with rape/child abuse cases if the sentence for rape was the same as for murder it would give rapists an incentive to murder their victim- they'd get their money's worth and also if the victim is dead they would be more likely to get away with it. I think it'd also hamper convictions.

I don't condemn the people for hounding him out, and anyone who does condemn them doesn't get it, I don't think. I'd beat the fucker to death, mental illness or not.

[Aladdin]

Fucking hell. And you are a lawyer?

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Fucking hell. And you are a lawyer?
I dont see what difference that makes tbh.

[Aladdin]

Supposing he wasn't joking (I'm pretty sure he was, or at least hope so) do you think someone who wishes to flaunt the law, take 'justice' into his own hands and commit murder should be practicing law?

[SuzyCreamcheese]

I dont think it neccessarily means that, but Lawyers are humans too, and as long as they do their job, it doesnt mean they cant seethe with hate for certain sections of society under their breath or in their free time, especially when theyre saving their hate for people that HAVE actually broken the law and pretty much every moral code you could think of in the worst possible way.
Im sure Kermit realises that if he did put those fantasies into action he would be dealt with by the law too, same as I would.

[Teagan]

Well that makes it okay then.

The fact you find it okay that he died is really sick ... :yeees:

[Teagan]

Well that makes it okay then. Jason Swift was 14 years old. One of his torturers was 72 years old. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465986.stm) The very fact that all of the perpetrators of such a heinous crime are not in jail is scandalous.

The paedophile scum that abused Swift and participated in the session in which he was strangled to death should be behind bars. Anything less than a maximum security jail cell is unacceptable and puts innocent children at unnecessary risk. Driving paedophiles underground would be a bad thing but no responsible parent would feel comfortable living near scum like Robert Oliver. For as long as our government allows dangerous paedophiles who have committed monstrous crimes to walk the streets by not ensuring they're jailed for life the NOTW are justified in their actions.

The death was never 'okay then'. Did I say otherwise? Bear in mind this boy was not like the Soham girls - if you going to prostitute yourself, you are inclined to run into people like this.

[Sofie]

Exactly, tbh. the problem with what the vigilantes did was to just hound him out to go and live somewhere else, when really they should have beaten the fucker to death.

Which makes you just as bad (if not, then nearly) as him.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

You really think im just as bad as a 72 year old man who along with his friends, raped, tortured and killed many young boys?

Seriously?
Are you nuts?

[Sofie]

If you went and beat him up, yes that would make you just as bad as him...

[SuzyCreamcheese]

I havent gone and beaten him up

[Man Of Kent]

" 'anging's too good for 'em" :rolleyes:

Nothing has been gained by this mob nor by the NOTW. It is not right for mob rule, as paediatricians will tell you.

And HIT, I am a parent. I'd have no problem living next door to this man, in fact I don't know who lives in my street or what crimes they are capable of which is why I am always looking out for my children, it's about being vigilant not being a vigilante.

[Disillusioned]

Bear in mind this boy was not like the Soham girls - if you going to prostitute yourself, you are inclined to run into people like this.

He was 14 years old. He was a child. The fact that a few fivers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/465986.stm) were involved makes absolutely no difference: A child was strangled to death and buried in a shallow grave by a gang of paedophiles.

Is the crime somehow less heinous because the victim had accepted money from his torturers? No. Are we supposed to have less sympathy for the 14 year old victim because by some tragic circumstances he ended up working as a rent boy? No.

Reading your post again I'm quite disgusted at what you're implying with your 'it's worth remembering he was a rent boy' and 'bear in mind he wasn't like the Soham girls' line of argument.

It's worth remembering that Jason Swift was a rent boy. He was hardly an 'innocent' 14 year old snatched off the street while playing football. As awful as his death was, it was never proved to be murder but was manslaughter - where drugs and sex sessions went terribly wrong.

[Man Of Kent]

No often I agree with Dis but Teagan your comments are totally out of order. I'll bet that the Ipswich girls "had it coming" too?

There are no mitigating circumstance in the victim being a rent boy. If anything that just makes the whole episode sadder.

[CheeseOnToast]

I agree with MOK on this one.

I don't want to know, but I will be vigilant around with my child.

I would rather of course they were locked away somewhere safe but it's never going happen.

[Teagan]

No often I agree with Dis but Teagan your comments are totally out of order. I'll bet that the Ipswich girls "had it coming" too?

There are no mitigating circumstance in the victim being a rent boy. If anything that just makes the whole episode sadder.

No, MOK, I don't believe that at all. Anyone dying in any unnatural death is appalling - whether a rent boy or prostitute. I was trying to make a certain point which I feel I have not explained well. But where did I say that Swift (or the Ipswich girls) had it coming? You're putting extra words into my mouth. In all sorts of dangerous pastimes, whethere prostituion or skydiving for example, these are dangerous risks - but that in no way implies I feel they have it coming to them.

[Teagan]

[b]Reading your post again I'm quite disgusted at what you're implying with your 'it's worth remembering he was a rent boy' and 'bear in mind he wasn't like the Soham girls' line of argument.

I did not explain myself too well so I understand your misinterpretation of what I was trying to say. There is no way I would ever think that Swift (or the Ipswich prostitutes) ever 'deserved' to die. But at the risk of digging a deeper hole for myself, I'll wander off now ...

[Kermit]

If you went and beat him up, yes that would make you just as bad as him...

That viewpoint is absolutely fucking insane.

To answer Aladdin- a person very close to me was violently raped. If I could get hold of the person who did it, and I could get away with it, then I would have no qualms about beating him to a pulp. And if someone was to beat this convicted paedophile killer to death I would be lying if I said that I would shed a single tear.

I agree that mob rule is wrong, because there is no comeback if mistakes are made (and lots of mistakes are made), and I agree that the newspaper was grossly irresponsible (deliberately) and should face censure for it. But I'm finding it very hard to have any sympathy at all for a convicted child sex abuser and killer.

My job has nothing to do with it. Why should it?

[SuzyCreamcheese]

" 'anging's too good for 'em" :rolleyes:

Nothing has been gained by this mob nor by the NOTW. It is not right for mob rule, as paediatricians will tell you.

And HIT, I am a parent. I'd have no problem living next door to this man, in fact I don't know who lives in my street or what crimes they are capable of which is why I am always looking out for my children, it's about being vigilant not being a vigilante.
well you are quite right of course. The liklihood is that theres a paedophile on every street and its much better to be vigilant of course.
I really do think this particular paedophile was an exceptional case though. He shouldnt have ever come out of prison, and whatever shit he gets in his life, is still too good for him. That sounds like a cliché but im surprised anyone here thinks any different really

[stargalaxy]

Publishing the details of a known paedophile was just asking for trouble. The News of the World has done this countless times before, (remember the "Name And Shame A Paedophile" campaign they ran a few years ago?) so they knew that this was going to get some attention. And because it's part of the Murdoch Press, our political establishment says nothing. If a paper like, say, the Daily Mail, had done this, there would have been utter outrage from both Left and Right-wing politicians. Rightly so. But not a word said against the NotW by our politicians. Shame on them.

Personally, I hope the said paedophile is given legal aid to sue the News of the World out of existence. Can someone publish the address of the editor of the News of the World and of its proprietor Rupert Murdoch? I'd like to pay them a visit of my own... You'd probably have more luck if you visited the News of the World's headquarters in Wapping, East London. :p

[I'm With Stupid]

well you are quite right of course. The liklihood is that theres a paedophile on every street and its much better to be vigilant of course.
Hmm, I worry about that viewpoint. I have a feeling that paedophiles aren't nearly as common as the media makes out. And we all know that your kid is far more likely to be run over when playing out than snatched by some paedophile. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be careful about leaving your kids alone with others, of course.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

well i also said previously that I dont believe all paedophiles are a major threat. I KNOW they are more common than is comfortable to believe, in my voluntary work, I speak to them fairly often, and often they expend a lot of effort controlling their urges, or if anything happens, they feel hugely guilty.
It doesnt make me feel particularly sympathetic when they dont manage to control themselves, but it has opened my eyes a lot.
The vast vast majority of people are perfectly safe with children though and theres still no reason for people to freak out. You just need to keep a bloody eye on your children, that much is obvious.

[Kermit]

I don't think paedophiles are fantastically common, and its a common fact that the person most likely to sexually abuse a young child is their father. Keeping an eye on your children, teaching them not to go off with strangers, that much is obvious.

Like SCC, though, I honestly cannot understand how anyone can see what this creature did and not think that he deserved every misery in his life, and then some more.

I still fail to see what my job as a conveyancer has to do with anything :confused:

[Aladdin]

To answer Aladdin- a person very close to me was violently raped. If I could get hold of the person who did it, and I could get away with it, then I would have no qualms about beating him to a pulp. And if someone was to beat this convicted paedophile killer to death I would be lying if I said that I would shed a single tear.

I agree that mob rule is wrong, because there is no comeback if mistakes are made (and lots of mistakes are made), and I agree that the newspaper was grossly irresponsible (deliberately) and should face censure for it. But I'm finding it very hard to have any sympathy at all for a convicted child sex abuser and killer.

My job has nothing to do with it. Why should it? If someone close to me had been the victim of a violent crime I would probably also kick seven shades of shit out of them. It would be wrong of me to do so but I'd do it all the same.

But I think there is a fundamental difference between that case, and lynch mobs forming to attack persons they have never met, and more to the point who have already served their time.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

i can agree with that to an extent. I think its more justice if its doled out by the victims of the crime, but then again, I dont think its necessarily right to sit by and watch because it hasnt happened to one of yours yet. If anything happened to my boy Im sure theres plenty of people whod be baying for blood, whether they were related to him or not. Is that so bad? I feel pretty strongly for the welfare of others whether I know them or not.
If people perceive a danger, then they will react. I am all for the right to protest, and thats all this was.
Its a community thing. They didnt want that danger in their community, even if they were being simplistic to think the danger wouldnt be there anymore once they remove this one person. Theres PLENTY of people who get out of jail LONG before they have really served their time, and certainly not rehabilitated. I think it boils down to lack of trust in the justice system, which is a fair point. The justice system seems to be a farce a lot of the time. If there really WAS justice, then the guy would still be in prison and none of this would have even been an issue.

[carlito]

The blame lies with the newspaper for stoking this up simply for sales- if anyone thinks that the newspaper cares about the people of that town they are fucking idiots.

Why? Journalists - even News of the World journalists - are human beings as well. Why do you have a the right to care about paedophiles in a community but not these journalists? In all likelyhood they probably think they're doing a good deed, and that they're doing the best thing for the children of that town by releasing the information. You admit that you agree with them when you say that you'd want to know if a "fucking cunt nonce" moved into your street.

It might be that editorial or individual ambition/desperation for sales over-rides what is right in papers like the News of the World: but you don't know that at all in this case, you're simply making an uniformed judgement, and being rather rude about it too.

With my rational hat on...

I don't believe you have such a thing...a dunce-cap, maybe...

[carlito]

If someone close to me had been the victim of a violent crime I would probably also kick seven shades of shit out of them.

Bloody hell Aladdin - don't you think that they'd have been through enough already?! :razz: :D

[I'm With Stupid]

Bloody hell Aladdin - don't you think that they'd have been through enough already?! :razz: :D
:lol:

[Teagan]

Why? Journalists - even News of the World journalists - are human beings as well. Why do you have a the right to care about paedophiles in a community but not these journalists? In all likelyhood they probably think they're doing a good deed, and that they're doing the best thing for the children of that town by releasing the information.

Probably it's because they are News of the World journalists, who have a long tradition of writing kak to make a fast buck for Mr Murdoch ...

If the story had been broken by the Guardian or Independant, it would have been seen to have been far more 'credible' that the journos actually cared themselves.

[katralla]

what is a nimby?

[Man Of Kent]

Not In My Back Yard. basically it means that someone wants something to happen (in this case for Padeophiles to be house somewhere) so long as it's not near them...

[Sofie]

That viewpoint is absolutely fucking insane.

Why? It would make you as bad as him. Sinxe when have 2 wrongs made a right?:rolleyes:

[Kermit]

My experience of the media is that very little of what they do is "in the public interest". Newspapers do what they can to sell copies and make a profit- whether its chasing a princess to her death, taking long-range photos of some celebrity's norks, or "naming and shaming" a high-profile paedophile.

Carlito, if you're going to be abusive at least read what I say first, eh, chuck? I know its hard for you to understand basic English, but have a go!

I don't think that "Sarah's Law" should be brought in and I don't think the paper should have printed what they printed. I don't agree with mob justice.

I understand why, when they found out about this cunt living in their village, they hounded him out, and I don't blame them for doing it. I also believe that the newspaper knew this would happen, and deliberately set the scene to make two lots of profit out of it- once for naming him, and once for reporting the aftermath at length.

Anyone who trusts a journalist is a fool.

[Kermit]

Why? It would make you as bad as him. Sinxe when have 2 wrongs made a right?:rolleyes:

If you think that beating up a nonce is the same thing as raping and murdering a child then you need psychiatric help.

[Sofie]

If you think that beating up a nonce is the same thing as raping and murdering a child then you need psychiatric help.

WTF? When have I said they were the same?

[SuzyCreamcheese]

when you said that me thinking they should have beaten up this nonce, made me "just as bad as him"

You did actually say that.
And that was just for me thinking it, without even doing it.

[Sofie]

Well, it's not right either, is it?

[Kermit]

It's not "right", but it doesn't make you "as bad as him", which is what you claimed.

But who defines what justice is morally right and which justice isn't?

[Sofie]

He's served his time, what more do you want him to do?

[Kermit]

He's served his time, what more do you want him to do?

Have the decency to hang himself, tbh.

Who cares if he "served his time"? Go and tell it to Jason Swift.

[carlito]

My experience of the media is that very little of what they do is "in the public interest". Newspapers do what they can to sell copies and make a profit- whether its chasing a princess to her death, taking long-range photos of some celebrity's norks, or "naming and shaming" a high-profile paedophile.


Well you've cited three examples there, one of which was freelance paparazzi not newspapers, one of which is almost always freelance paparazzi not newspapers, and one of which is the issue under discussion. And you've omitted the millions of items that appear in newspapers around the world every day that are in the public interest.

Not only that, but I never claimed that releasing that paedophile's name was "in the public interest," I was replying to your assertion that "if anyone thinks that the newspaper cares about the people of that town they are fucking idiots." I think that the journalists in question probably do care about the people of that town: they think what they are doing is right and protects the children there. Personally I think thats rubbish, but thats irrelevant, your assertion was not about whether it did help protect the children of that town, but whether or not they cared about them.

Carlito, if you're going to be abusive at least read what I say first, eh, chuck? I know its hard for you to understand basic English, but have a go!


Actually Kermit, it was you who was abusive by calling me a "fucking idiot," which I think most people would find more offensive than suggesting that you are a dunce (I was being generous). And I have read what you've written on this thread, its reminiscent of rushed homework written by the retarded child of a Daily Mail hack.

Anyone who trusts a journalist is a fool

No, anybody who tars every member of a profession that encompasses millions of people around the world with the same brush is a fool. Thats you, it seems.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

He's served his time, what more do you want him to do?
Well if the judges cant bing themselves to sentance him what he deserves (life) then id like him to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life tbh.
not too much to ask.

[HIT]

He's served his time, what more do you want him to do?
Not only did he serve 10 out of the 15 years, you honestly think 15 years is enough?

Life should mean life, that boys parents are serving life so to speak losing there child.

[Sofie]

So, having a criminal record for life isn't a 'life sentence'? :rolleyes:

[Kermit]

Put it this way, I've seen too many journalists screw things around to fit the story, rather than publishing the facts.

Is it human nature to do that? Probably. But anyone who trusts what they say implicitly is an utter fool.

What's the matter carlito, you're not a journo are you?

[Thunderstruck]

So, having a criminal record for life isn't a 'life sentence'? :rolleyes:

Exactly. Given the fact that criminals who have served their time are treated as second-class citizens, it certainly is an unenviable stigma.

Perhpas he should have been given a heftier sentence but that is not the criminal's fault - it is the judge's.

As far as the criminal is concerned, he has served his time, repaid his debt to society and is free to pursue a life without fear of harrassment from vigilante twats who have been incensed by the tabloid press. As I've said twice before, he hasn't reoffended in 9 years - could there be such a thing as remorse and regret - don't you think he may have changed his ways? The past 9 years certainly suggest that he has.

[HIT]

So, having a criminal record for life isn't a 'life sentence'? :rolleyes:
Whats with the rolleyes? I hardly think a piece of paper with his record compares to spending life behind bars.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

So, having a criminal record for life isn't a 'life sentence'? :rolleyes:
no. Its not.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

I actually think some of you are skewed by the idea that its someone elses kid, someone elses brother, someone elses problem. Do you honestly think ten years is "repaying their debt" for systematically torturing, raping and killing young boys.

[Thunderstruck]

Do you honestly think ten years is "repaying their debt" for systematically torturing, raping and killing young boys.

No I don't.

But it's not the criminal's fault. He didn't decide the sentence.

As far as the law is concerned, he has paid his debt to society and thus has a right not to be harrassed about what he's done in his past.

[Sofie]

No I don't.

But it's not the criminal's fault. He didn't decide the sentence.

As far as the law is concerned, he has paid his debt to society and thus has a right not to be harrassed about what he's done in his past.

My thoughts exactly.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

by law yes, and thats why they moved him on, under protection from the police.
None of the general public owes him any favours, and im certainly surprised by the sympathy hes recieving here. Im sure hed be most honoured.

[briggi]

Exactly. Given the fact that criminals who have served their time are treated as second-class citizens, it certainly is an unenviable stigma.

Perhpas he should have been given a heftier sentence but that is not the criminal's fault - it is the judge's.

As far as the criminal is concerned, he has served his time, repaid his debt to society and is free to pursue a life without fear of harrassment from vigilante twats who have been incensed by the tabloid press. As I've said twice before, he hasn't reoffended in 9 years - could there be such a thing as remorse and regret - don't you think he may have changed his ways? The past 9 years certainly suggest that he has.

I agree completely.

A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, leaving aside the obvious emotive and distressing particulars of the case.

Once the individual has been sentenced and seen to serve that sentence with satisfactory behaviour and review, then in my view, they move on to the next chapter of their life. If they re-offend then that is another issue entirely, and of course surveillance is paramount (carried out through proper means, not "neighbourhood paedo-watch"), but the punishment does have to stop at some point - otherwise we might as well just bring back the death penalty. The whole point of a justice system with no death penalty is to allow for the majority of people to come out of the other side of it and hopefully rebuild their life/build a new life, and hopefully also to rehabilitate. We need to look more closely at that, and maybe even trying to understand the actions rather than just shrinking back in fear and horror at the mention of the crimes. Anything is better than encouraging constant finger-pointing, hysterical schoolyard whispering and daubing of red paint on front doors screaming "PAEDO". Though this will never happen of course, as people are so very quickly whipped up into a frenzy by the mention of paedophilia (and understandably so).

[SuzyCreamcheese]

A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, leaving aside the obvious emotive and distressing particulars of the case.

.
I think thats where we differ.
Im seeing it per case.
I dont think all criminals are the same.

[Kermit]

I agree with both sides, as I've said. He should be allowed to get on with life just like any other, but if he's not, and someone bludgeons him, I shan't be crying into my beer.

A sorry situation all round- I can't believe anyone would be happy with him living next door, but he has to live somewhere.

[Thunderstruck]

None of the general public owes him any favours, and im certainly surprised by the sympathy hes recieving here. Im sure hed be most honoured.

That's because the majority of the public are fucking idiots who, in some Brass Eye way, think that paedophiles have black blood and are the spawn of Satan.

Let me say, I do not in any way condone what he did. I personally think that he should have received a larger sentence but that's not for me to decide.

We should respect the court's decision, the prison service's decision and whilst we don't owe him any favours, neither should we deny him any. He deserves the chance to be allowed to start his life again and not be named and shamed by the tabloid press.

[briggi]

Well I don't mean they're the same in terms of their crime, sentence they're given etc, obviously. But they are (or should be) the same in that once they have served the sentence which has been handed down according to their crime, they should be able to at least attempt to move on.

I find the alternative worrying.

[wheresmyplacebo]

people say 'if you cant do the time, dont do the crime' - he done the crime, he done his time, he is under watch - leave him alone

[carlito]

Put it this way, I've seen too many journalists screw things around to fit the story, rather than publishing the facts...

So have I. But then I've also seen too many cases of doctors misdiagnosing patients, denying prescriptions that could immeasurably improve people's lives because they want to keep their budgets, or killing them through surgical negligence. I've seen too many cases of airline pilots drunk on the job. I've seen too many cases of policemen fabricating evidence or being excessively brutal. I've seen too many cases of politicians lying to their constituents (alright, maybe this one is a bad example:D ). I've seen too many cases of soldiers disobeying orders, not protecting the helpless but raping and beating them. Or maybe a bit closer to home, I've seen too many cases of lawyers breaching client confidentiality, perjuring in court, and walking out on their clients, or being lying scumbags in general.

What I'm saying, of course, is that you are a fool to judge anyone of a certain occupation by the worst actions of some of its practitioners. And don't assume you are the supreme arbiter of somebody else's motives unless you actually know something about them and their profession.

anyone who trusts what they say implicitly is an utter fool.


Of course, anybody who trusts anoyone implicitly is a fool. Which is why you should always think critically and logically. Thus yes, if you trust a journalist implicitly you are a fool, just as if you trust a doctor, a pilot, a politician, a lawyer...


What's the matter carlito, you're not a journo are you?

No, I'm a student of history...but I take exception to being called a fucking idiot.

Edited to say: You're a fan of Orwell are you not? Guess what he defined himself as...

[Disillusioned]

He deserves the chance to be allowed to start his life again and not be named and shamed by the tabloid press.

That applies to most people with criminal convictions but not to murdering paedophiles and rapists.

Someone who takes part in a sick paedophilic act where a 14 year old is strangled to death is a menace to society. Nobody can say with certainty that this monster will not re-offend, if he's not behind bars he's a danger to children.

Paedophiles, especially with a history of attacking children and rapists do not get cured after a few years behind bars and even expensive attempts at rehabilitation are incredibly unreliable. If these people are going to be allowed back into society where they can re-offend the public has a right to know where they are. (But, this whole Sarah's law should be a non-issue as these people simply should not be allowed out).

I don't care about the cost of keeping paedophiles that have attacked (and even killed) locked up forever because it's basically an issue of child welfare and reducing the likelihood of future cases like the tragic one of Jason Swift.

[Thunderstruck]

Someone who takes part in a sick paedophilic act where a 14 year old is strangled to death is a menace to society. Nobody can say with certainty that this monster will not re-offend, if he's not behind bars he's a danger to children.

So we should lock them all up indefinitely, ignoring the basic premise of the English judicial system which is that a person can change, can feel remorse and regret?

Paedophiles, especially with a history of attacking children and rapists do not get cured after a few years behind bars and even expensive attempts at rehabilitation are incredibly unreliable.

I'm intrigued by your terminology. Being a paedophile is somehow a disease? Most of the ancient Romans and Greeks indulged in young children. Does that make them all 'ill' and 'diseased'?

If these people are going to be allowed back into society where they can re-offend the public has a right to know where they are.

And what do you think are the consequences of the public being informed of where such people are? You think they'll just keep a distance and be slightly wary? No, there'll be mobs and fucking murders you idiot.

[Disillusioned]

So we should lock them all up indefinitely, ignoring the basic premise of the English judicial system which is that a person can change, can feel remorse and regret?

A basic premise of any penal system is the protection of the public. And paedophiles that have attacked and rapists are a menace.

A serial rapist might feel remorse and regret - would that be any comfort to the unfortunate woman who gets raped when he's released?

I'm intrigued by your terminology. Being a paedophile is somehow a disease? Most of the ancient Romans and Greeks indulged in young children. Does that make them all 'ill' and 'diseased'?

There are sociological considerations but I would call paedophilia a disease. Whatever you want to call it, people like Robert Oliver have shown themselves to be a threat to vulnerable people in society. Do you consider paedophilia a sexual orientation? Does it make a difference anyway? Does it make a 14 year old being strangled to death any less tragic?

And what do you think are the consequences of the public being informed of where such people are? You think they'll just keep a distance and be slightly wary? No, there'll be mobs and fucking murders you idiot.

If you'd bothered to read my posts you'd be aware that I do not think informing the public is ideal - but if people's children are going to be exposed to unnecessary danger (which is exactly what is being done when the likes of Robert Oliver are let out) I can't see any alternative. Idiot.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

I'm intrigued by your terminology. Being a paedophile is somehow a disease? Most of the ancient Romans and Greeks indulged in young children. Does that make them all 'ill' and 'diseased'?



.
If they raped tortured and murdered children, it hardly makes them safe well rounded individuals, whatever point in history they lived at.