Has the world gone completly mad or what

[the_hawk*]

There seems to be more and more wrong in this world by the day  Sex offenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt, Theresa May told

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8201521/Sex-offenders-including-paedophiles-sh...

[lind9650]

I don't think that Helen Reece knows what she is talking about. What about the human rights of the children?

Once a peadophile, always a peadophile, same with child molesters. Times have proven again and again that those kind of people never change. It has nothing to do with child murder. Those poor children are not here anymore to remember, but the ones alive, and there are millions of abused children, they will remember for the rest of their life. Some of them suffering unspeakable traumas and not being able to live a fulfilling life because of the constant neightmares that follow them day and night.

I wish I could meet that Helen Reece in person. She would not have such a big mouth after I finished with her. Absolute rot that woman is talking. Propably to get in to the papers and make a name for herself. Yep all Child Sex Offenders will flock to her side and defend her idiotic reasoning.

GGGGRRRRR! Erica

[*crikey*mate*]

the thing is, if we allow it in "for some" based oin a case by case basis, over time we as a society become desensitized to the issue, and gradually, cases strat to creep in that were a little bit more worse than the previous one, there is enough subjectivity and interpretation in the law, when it comes to the protection of kids, I say we don't risk anything. Make it black and white. It's different for adults who can make theior own decisions, but it is someone else making decisions for the kids.

If the law gets it wrong, there is no second chances for the kids,

Also, often much of the crime against kids is gone unpunished, being difficult to prove, what is actually ultimately penalized and recorded does not always reveal the true extent of the involvement.

When it comes to kids - the law needs to be black and white - no grey, no maybes or perhaps. We have to protect them and if that means that some adults may miss out or get caught in the classification as collateral damage, well, that's how it has to be.

[freakiness]

She didn't say paedophiles should be allowed to adopt.  She said an offence should not automatically disqualify a person for adoption or their chosen career, such as the mother who got a police caution for leaving her children at home alone.

[freakiness]

The article is about a review of the current law 

As well as banning certain offenders, the law currently requires adults coming into regular contact with children other than their own to be screened.

Mrs May ordered the review amid concerns about the vetting of ordinary volunteers such as parents who drive children to football practice and church flower arrangers.

[nevynreally]

---

@freakiness wrote:

She didn't say paedophiles should be allowed to adopt.  She said an offence should not automatically disqualify a person for adoption or their chosen career, such as the mother who got a police caution for leaving her children at home alone.

---

An open mind, and actually reading can be informative.

[tasfleur]

I can't see anyone doing any "lynching" here, metaphorically or otherwise.

When it comes to paedophiles, and in my opinion, there should never be any situation where they are permitted to be anywhere near children, ever.  But then, that's just me.

Human rights?, fine, but there is a line that must be drawn and the boundary never crossed when it comes to the rights of children that outweigh that of the paedophile.

[tasfleur]

Brilliant post Crikeymate @ post 13.  Says it all.

[alexander*beetle]

This is a bit close to home for me to be entirely rational about it however,  I understand what she is saying but Crikey's post is spot on.

I aso question her comments that rape victims shouldn't be granted anonymity. What on earth would that achieve.

[the_hawk*]

---

@alexander*beetle wrote:

This is a bit close to home for me to be entirely rational about it however,  I understand what she is saying but Crikey's post is spot on.

I aso question her comments that rape victims shouldn't be granted anonymity. What on earth would that achieve.

---

it would deter many from reporting and going to court.

[freakiness]

---

@alexander*beetle wrote:

This is a bit close to home for me to be entirely rational about it however,  I understand what she is saying but Crikey's post is spot on.

I aso question her comments that rape victims shouldn't be granted anonymity. What on earth would that achieve.

---

Probably nothing, although as it's only a review I doubt the Home Office will change the rules on that.