Then some lad bangs her and gets to sign the sex offenders register or even worse, go to jail.

Damo, if you have any younger sisters I'd keep them away from your weird 'mate'.

Its very hard and like I’ve said it’s a touchy subject but since its sensible I’ll carry on. If you get with someone because they look old enough and you get on with them then that’s different. But if I got with a 15 year old and only realised later on I’d have to apologise to both her parents and herself because its too young for me as she’ll still be in school.

Now with my mate and the internet. The first time you meet a person online you tend to say ASL which results can be the end of the conversation or the continuation of it. Personally I think my mate got with her because she was 13 rather than the fact that he liked her.

Reminds me of a mates party I went to on the estate and a lass I’ve been dancing with dragged me in front of a camera and said she’s pulled in front of all her mates. Must have been 15 so I did the decent thing and let her carry on with people her own age.

He's not a mate its just that I can't think of another term to describe a school friend. Someone who I went to school with would have been a better term.

Luckily I’ve only got one sister one year younger than myself.

Exactly, The situation is Daft a times, For example He's 18 goes out legally meets a girl who legally shouldn't be there cops off and is then classed as a Sex Offender due to a girl giving him a false age...

He should have IDd her

That Would Be The Last Thing On your Mind!...

Vigilantes should be allowed to deal with paedophiles/nonces etc whatever you want to call them .
Danny .. I assume you don't have a daughter . If you did your view on such a subject might change .

There shouldn't be a sex offenders register.. Only way do deal with them is the registrar of births , deaths , and marriages .

Agreed.

What if the vigilantes get the wrong person?



You've missed the point. I'm saying vigilantes are not the way to go because you could end up attacking an innocent person.

You mean like [url=http://www.salon.com/sex/world/2000/09/26/vigilante/this group of illiterate vigilantes did ?[/url

Leaving the law to groups of self-righteous pub tap room tub-thumpers is a dangerous step to take, I'd hate to be a pediatrician if LS13 came walking down my street.

No they shouldn't. It only takes one person to cry wolf for someones life to end up ruined anyway as with things like that it is very much a case of mud sticks. To start allowing the idiots who take the law into their own hands would only make that worse and give people an "excuse" to do what they wanted to who they wanted in a way.

These things need to be properly investigated and dealt with by the correct people not by Joe Bloggs who wants to take the law into his own hands.

Thankyou. My faith in this board is restored.

It had sunk to new depths.

Make ya mind up Danny lad.

I should have added a rolleyes on the first one.

They’ll always be an opposite opinion of yours on this board but they’ll always be one that’s around the same of yours as well. Its like in a debate were someone says give all the power to the victims.

The bitter victims or the recovered victims?

Fair point . So lets just go for the convicted ones .


Why ?

Just my opinion . Anyone GUILTY of tampering with , or abusing children , should be tortured before they are killed . No excuses , no second chances .

Since when did 2 wrongs make a right though?

Generically I've never understood that saying.

It assumes that the reaction of the second event is always wrong. I'd call that justice. In some cases.

e.g. Man A punches Man B. Man B punches Man A (harder hopefully!!)

Sounds ok to me!!

Answer this one then .
Would you be happy to see the person/persons that had sexually abused your child freed after a short custodial sentence ?

Aye we all know how watertight a guilty verdict is. Not like there's ever been a successful appeal in the history of the British legal system is it?

"Oh, by the way, we've just discovered that your Dad didn't do that crime we had him brutally executed for and that a bent copper made all the evidence up. Still, never mind eh?"

Probably not, but that is why we have a (hopefully!) impartial court system in place in this country so emotion doesn't come into it just the facts of what has happened.

On the other hand do you think your child would want to see there father in prision for battering/killing the person? would that really help them through the difficult time? Does responding with violence really send the right message out?

You didn't say that, you said...



The idiots in that story I linked to didn't bother to check whether the target in their street was convicted of anything, they simply heard the words " pediatrician/paedophile/nonces etc" and decided that they wanted blood, its just a shame that none of them knew what a pediatrician was, still "it sounds like paedophile" so thats good enough eh ?

Fortunately we have extensively written laws, judges and juries to deal with accusations, vigilantes and bent coppers in an impartial setting with guidelines to stick to - its called civilisation, you might like it.

Andy.. re-read the above . Where did I say 'anyone found guilty' ? I mean people who are guilty .
We all know how unsound convictions can be . I am doubting wether anyone would be fitted up by a bent copper on noncing charges though .



By allowing them a second chance you may as well say you condone their actions . I guess you don't have kids of your own .



No . That is why my opinion is that the law should allow the 'vigilantes' to take such actions . That or just hang the barstards upon conviction .

Nobody is condoning it, infact you are the one condoning something that is illegal by encouraging people to be allowed to take the law into their own hands.

I think they should be dealt with lawfully. Dealing with them in that manner ruins your own life too.