Britain Seeks Pedophiles Facebook Ban

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Britain has a good idea, banning pedophiles from Facebook and other social networks. Why stop there? Can’t we just ban them from…you know…everything? Just a thought.

The plan involves forcing sex offenders to give any e-mail address they use to police, who will then ask the Web sites to block their access, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said. Smith said the proposal is aimed at sending out the message that the Internet is "not a no-go area when it comes to law enforcement."
Click to expand...
 
Whilst i wish that pedophiles would drown in a river of fire. Its hardly a good idea. What stops the pedo from having a second email account and signing up on that.
 
Toytown said:
Whilst i wish that pedophiles would drown in a river of fire. Its hardly a good idea. What stops the pedo from having a second email account and signing up on that.
Click to expand...

Thats the same that people said about when that was done here in the USA. However in my opinion they can easy take car of that some by adding some addition charge then when the person is caught with the second account if they make done. Then instead of just busting them for violatiting some court issue to stay away from children you can also get them on breaking this law and give them more jail time. Or make it be punished by death or something harsh like that.
 
Here's my problem with this and maybe it's different in Britain. Here in the U.S. in a lot of places there isn't a difference between a guy who rapes little kids and 19 or 20 yr old banging his 17 yr old girlfriend. They are both listed as "sex offenders". Now maybe my morals are screwed up but I can see a clear difference here. However, in some places the law doesn't and until it does I don't think it's right to take even simple things like this away from what otherwise is a good person. IE the 19 yr old with the 17 yr old gf, however the guy or girl who rapes little kids should rot in hell.
 
Just wonderful, our equivelent of the Secretary of State using a double negative in a press release.

Who says education standards are slipping.
 
bpmurrGT said:
Here's my problem with this and maybe it's different in Britain. Here in the U.S. in a lot of places there isn't a difference between a guy who rapes little kids and 19 or 20 yr old banging his 17 yr old girlfriend. They are both listed as "sex offenders". Now maybe my morals are screwed up but I can see a clear difference here. However, in some places the law doesn't and until it does I don't think it's right to take even simple things like this away from what otherwise is a good person. IE the 19 yr old with the 17 yr old gf, however the guy or girl who rapes little kids should rot in hell.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is a big grey area. I agree with you about the scum who rape little kids. But the age difference thing is a bit of an issue. When I was nineteen I had a sixteen year old girlfriend. Depending on the state, that could have been illegal. Luckily her parents didn't care, and neither did mine.
 
Anything that helps thwart their evilness i am in support of. Eventually, it will be difficult for them to interact with children.
 
bpmurrGT said:
Here's my problem with this and maybe it's different in Britain. Here in the U.S. in a lot of places there isn't a difference between a guy who rapes little kids and 19 or 20 yr old banging his 17 yr old girlfriend. They are both listed as "sex offenders". Now maybe my morals are screwed up but I can see a clear difference here. However, in some places the law doesn't and until it does I don't think it's right to take even simple things like this away from what otherwise is a good person. IE the 19 yr old with the 17 yr old gf, however the guy or girl who rapes little kids should rot in hell.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I agree that there can be a difference by only to a certain extent.

There needs to be a line drawn and in the USA there is. Each state has chosen what their lines are. And this is needed if there is to be some law about sex with children. How low do you go age wise and consider it ok? 13 - 20 as long as they are bf/gf? Yes there is a difference between raping somebody and having sex with your girlfriend. However those who get busted for having sex with their unage girlfriend new the risk when they did so. Like most things if you make an exception and bend the rules the more they will be bent till the age gets lowered more and more and more. Well an 18 year old and a 16 year old aren't too bad, so we will allow it. Well in this case the girl was 15 but she was almost 16 so we will allow it. Well this person was only a few months younger than that person and we allowed that so we should allow this....

I would like to say there should be a new law that states these people aren't given the same treatment. But at what age do we stop then? Do we not pushish the 45 year old that has sex with a 10 year old because they are boyfriend and girlfriend and we just don't understand their love?
 
As others have said, "registered sex offender" is a huge gray area, covering not only slightly mismatched ages and consenting people, but also things like the "indecent exposure" of someone caught taking a leak behind a building. Arguably these laws are put in place to protect children, and neither the 18 year old with the 16 year old girlfriend nor the guy taking a whiz are any more of a danger to kids than the average member of society.
 
Exavior said:
Yes and no. I agree that there can be a difference by only to a certain extent.

There needs to be a line drawn and in the USA there is. Each state has chosen what their lines are. And this is needed if there is to be some law about sex with children. How low do you go age wise and consider it ok? 13 - 20 as long as they are bf/gf? Yes there is a difference between raping somebody and having sex with your girlfriend. However those who get busted for having sex with their unage girlfriend new the risk when they did so. Like most things if you make an exception and bend the rules the more they will be bent till the age gets lowered more and more and more. Well an 18 year old and a 16 year old aren't too bad, so we will allow it. Well in this case the girl was 15 but she was almost 16 so we will allow it. Well this person was only a few months younger than that person and we allowed that so we should allow this....

I would like to say there should be a new law that states these people aren't given the same treatment. But at what age do we stop then? Do we not pushish the 45 year old that has sex with a 10 year old because they are boyfriend and girlfriend and we just don't understand their love?
Click to expand...

You don't have to have "sex" with your bf/gf, you simply need to be dating them or spending time alone in certian states.
 
bpmurrGT said:
Here's my problem with this and maybe it's different in Britain. Here in the U.S. in a lot of places there isn't a difference between a guy who rapes little kids and 19 or 20 yr old banging his 17 yr old girlfriend. They are both listed as "sex offenders". Now maybe my morals are screwed up but I can see a clear difference here. However, in some places the law doesn't and until it does I don't think it's right to take even simple things like this away from what otherwise is a good person. IE the 19 yr old with the 17 yr old gf, however the guy or girl who rapes little kids should rot in hell.
Click to expand...

You know that fact upsets me. I know a guy that i work with ( yes i did check to see if his story was true...got love the net ) and he was 20 and she was 16.
To me that is no where as bad as the sickos that go after anyone under the age of 16.... I mean if he was 40 and going after the 16 yo... well... that might be a different story but still not as bad as those that do it to the young children.

The question to ask... how many guys here have dated girls that were younger then them? I know my old lady was younger ( me 20 ( her 17 ) and we are still together after 8 years.

So

Also I hate to play supporter for really horrible things liek this but bans like this should go on the servarity of the crime. if its a 20 with a 16 year old... well not so bad
 
Ockie said:
You don't have to have "sex" with your bf/gf, you simply need to be dating them or spending time alone in certian states.
Click to expand...

Just wait just looking at a 17 yo with a short skirt and a thong on will get you 10-20 :rolleyes:
 
Ockie said:
You don't have to have "sex" with your bf/gf, you simply need to be dating them or spending time alone in certian states.
Click to expand...

Just wait just looking at a 17 yo with a short skirt and a thong on will get you 10-20 :rolleyes:
 
Pedophiles or sex offenders? Or does the word "pedophile" now mean "any person that has been suspected or convicted of a lewd sex act or thought"? If so, why didn't I get the memo?!

The sex offender laws are a mess. We need to completely clean them out and reboot before we go any further with mass-ostracization.
 
HoppyChris said:
As others have said, "registered sex offender" is a huge gray area, covering not only slightly mismatched ages and consenting people, but also things like the "indecent exposure" of someone caught taking a leak behind a building. Arguably these laws are put in place to protect children, and neither the 18 year old with the 16 year old girlfriend nor the guy taking a whiz are any more of a danger to kids than the average member of society.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they are seen as a danger to society when subjected to what's just become a political pissing contest to see just how far politicians can push these kinds of asinine laws and get votes.

Just like global warming, this issue became totally fucked when it became a political asslicking-for-votes fest.
 
Exavior said:
Yes and no. I agree that there can be a difference by only to a certain extent.

[snip]

I would like to say there should be a new law that states these people aren't given the same treatment. But at what age do we stop then? Do we not pushish the 45 year old that has sex with a 10 year old because they are boyfriend and girlfriend and we just don't understand their love?
Click to expand...

Three words: Five Year Rule. That should be the law. If both parties, or a single party, is underage, there should be a difference no greater than 5 years between their ages. That's an 18 and a 13 year old, a 20 and a 15 year old. When the youngest of the two parties hits 18, then it would be totally legal.

watertown28 said:
Also I hate to play supporter for really horrible things liek this but bans like this should go on the servarity of the crime. if its a 20 with a 16 year old... well not so bad
Click to expand...

If it's a 20 and a 16 year old, it's not bad at all. Minor sex laws ruin lives.

UrielDagda said:
The sex offender laws are a mess. We need to completely clean them out and reboot before we go any further with mass-ostracization.
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
That article is a mess. It says convicted pedophiles in the first sentence, then says sex offenders. Further, it talks about registered sex offenders but doesn't make it clear whether it would apply only to people who have to register.

Hire a prostitute? Sex offender.
You're 20, she's 16? Sex offender or registered, depending on how good your lawyer is.
Indecent exposure? Sex offender.
Rape a toddler? registered sex offender.

The problem is who gets lumped in where, it's easy to say "ban them from everything" if you don't pay any attention to who you're banning from where.

She was 17. I spent 6 months in jail, 3 years on probation, and am saddled with a felony conviction for the rest of my life. Thankfully, I don't have to register.

Now, where would you like to ban me from?
 
Nephelim said:
She was 17. I spent 6 months in jail, 3 years on probation, and am saddled with a felony conviction for the rest of my life. Thankfully, I don't have to register.

Now, where would you like to ban me from?
Click to expand...


Ouch. Laws like that blows ass IMO.
 
yeah before everyone goes balls deep in this...realize...you get drunk and piss off your front porch? sex offender. you date a whore who decides that when you dont call her back she wants to get even and yell rape? sex offender. Sorry.....laws like this are too broad....and most courts dont want to narrow the list down they would rather just leave it broad :|
 
yeah before everyone goes balls deep in this...realize...you get drunk and piss off your front porch? sex offender. you date a whore who decides that when you dont call her back she wants to get even and yell rape? sex offender. Sorry.....laws like this are too broad....and most courts dont want to narrow the list down they would rather just leave it broad :|
 
Pffft!

Better solution:

Ban social networking sites altogether. The world would be much better off without Facebook, Myspace, et. al. They're all pretty much rubbish.
 
Nephelim said:
She was 17. I spent 6 months in jail, 3 years on probation, and am saddled with a felony conviction for the rest of my life. Thankfully, I don't have to register.
Click to expand...

I have to agree thats a bit much. A 17 year old should know what they're doing. 1 year away from being a adult after all. If its 16 and younger though I think something should be done about it. As far as how old the person was.
 
SomeFknGuy said:
yeah before everyone goes balls deep in this...realize...you get drunk and piss off your front porch? sex offender. you date a whore who decides that when you dont call her back she wants to get even and yell rape? sex offender. Sorry.....laws like this are too broad....and most courts dont want to narrow the list down they would rather just leave it broad :|
Click to expand...

And if that isn't bad enough, they are also scouring records as far back as the 60's now to find people with sex offences in their pasts, to include them into the lists, thanks to the Adam Walsh Act.
 
What really saddens me is the way we treat the pedophiles. I understand they do terrible things but they are sick and need help. We simply lock them away, let them out, tell them they can't do a bunch of stuff, and then never really help them. Then they do it again.

I know adults that were molested by pedophiles as children and I see what they go through emotionally. Yes the pedophiles need to be punished. They also need to get the correct psychologicle help.

Banning them from some areas has to be done for public safety first but as well as their own.

Sexual addiction is real and pedophiles are fixated on sex and with childre. Sick I know and discusting I know but we need to help them or lock them away forever. There is no inbetween.
 
Just look at the frequency of repeat offenders after they are 'rehabilitated'. It's pretty telling. I hate wasting my tax dollars on someone who is just going to be a repeat offender. Rather just keep them off the streets away from children. First offense I'd give them 20 years, second offense it would be death.
 
BlueFlameOut said:
What really saddens me is the way we treat the pedophiles. I understand they do terrible things but they are sick and need help. We simply lock them away, let them out, tell them they can't do a bunch of stuff, and then never really help them. Then they do it again.

I know adults that were molested by pedophiles as children and I see what they go through emotionally. Yes the pedophiles need to be punished. They also need to get the correct psychologicle help.

Banning them from some areas has to be done for public safety first but as well as their own.

Sexual addiction is real and pedophiles are fixated on sex and with childre. Sick I know and discusting I know but we need to help them or lock them away forever. There is no inbetween.
Click to expand...

But if you read the article they aren't even exclusively talking about pedophiles.
 
w1retap said:
Just look at the frequency of repeat offenders after they are 'rehabilitated'. It's pretty telling. I hate wasting my tax dollars on someone who is just going to be a repeat offender. Rather just keep them off the streets away from children. First offense I'd give them 20 years, second offense it would be death.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's about 13-15%. Other types of criminals have a roughly 21% recidivism rate. How about we just get rid of crime completely by instituting instant execution for anybody caught breaking the law?
 
w1retap said:
lol, defend the pedo's all you want. I won't.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending pedos, I am just refusing to be rendered braindead by a political and media machine designed to try to make me so paranoid that I grovel at their feet begging them to take my civil rights away in order to vanquish some bogeyman.
 
If the media influence is that strong on you, I recommend counseling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top