"Oh, these are just some people in your neighborhood..."

[DanaC]

That sounds sensible to me. I'm not sure I'd want to know. I doubt my brother and his wife would want to know either. I suspect they'd rather just make sure their daughters know not to talk to strangers etc.

[Undertoad]

Don't trust those Amish dudes

[HungLikeJesus]

Every one of the offenders in my area had lots of facial hair, or unusual shaving patterns (e.g. neck beard). Does facial hair = sex offender, or is there some profiling going on?

I'm going to go shave now.

[DanaC]

From the BBC:

A Home Office review of the way child sex offenders are handled in the community has decided against a Megan's Law for the UK, the BBC has learned.
Named after Megan Kanka, seven, who was killed by a convicted sex offender, the US law gives parents access to names and addresses of known paedophiles.

Instead, the Home Office may allow parents to request information about people left unsupervised with children.

But it does not seem to want details of offenders to be made widely available.

A report of the government's year-long child sex offender review, headed by Home Office minister Gerry Sutcliffe, is expected to be published next month at the earliest.

Single parents

The review has effectively decided that a Megan's Law is not appropriate for the UK.

A campaign to launch a 'Sarah's Law' - a UK version of the legislation - was launched after Sarah Payne was murdered by paedophile Roy Whiting in 2000.

At the moment, employers can request a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check if a potential employee is going to work with children, while private citizens cannot.

But the review is looking at the case for widening disclosure of details held on the CRB computer.

For example, it is known that some paedophiles target single parents - working their way into the relationship in order to gain access to children.

Lone parents may, in the future, be allowed to request a CRB check.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6540749.stm

[tissy_uk]

God, that is quite scary. I'm a single parent & i never thought of it that way. Not sure if i'd do a crb check on someone though. If i had my suspisions about someone i'd just steer clear

[mike black]

if communities would come together and shun these people, they would leave.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I'm not not convinced of the usefulness of such sites m'self. Given that the vast majority of sex attacks/abuse on kids is committed by family or close family friends, rather than strangers who are paedophiles. To me a site that shows all these 'dangerous' people just gives parents a false sense of security, since statistically, those dangerous people are not likely to be a danger to their children.

Meh, find myself agreeing with you as I often do, Dana. I'm not against these websites per se, but I don't think they are as useful as people would like them to be. In fact I'll stick my neck out and say they are less about child protection and more about curiosity. That's why I'd look at one anyway. Same as I'd look at a website that had details of any ex-convicts in my area (and then probably wish I hadn't).

Originally Posted by pourbill

I think a number of people on these list include young men who had relations with their girlfriends who happen to be under the age of consent. They carry a stigma for life when in many instances only a year or two may separate them. When I was younger I remember dating a few girls a class or two younger who were quite mature for their ages and in some cases pretty aggressive sexually. No parents ever caught me and turned me in, but that sort of thing happens.

My mother has a friend whose son is on the sex offenders register in the UK. He was convicted of raping a 15 year old and is now not allowed unsupervised access to his children. The case wasn't totally straightforward - she was his girlfriend at the time and they were both drunk with no witnesses. I'm not saying he was innocent (he was a very disturbed young man - he tried to strangle my brother when he was 10) but he wasn't a child abuser and has been labelled as one for life.

Originally Posted by mike black

if communities would come together and shun these people, they would leave.

And go where....?

[Cloud]

Mr. Rogers always kinda gave me the creeps . . .

[wolf]

This site has considerably fewer than the PA Megan's Law site through the PA State Police.

There's a whole load missing from near where I work, and I know they haven't moved or had their offenses downgraded.

[DanaC]

I'm not not convinced of the usefulness of such sites m'self. Given that the vast majority of sex attacks/abuse on kids is committed by family or close family friends, rather than strangers who are paedophiles. To me a site that shows all these 'dangerous' people just gives parents a false sense of security, since statistically, those dangerous people are not likely to be a danger to their children.

[pourbill]

I think a number of people on these list include young men who had relations with their girlfriends who happen to be under the age of consent. They carry a stigma for life when in many instances only a year or two may separate them. When I was younger I remember dating a few girls a class or two younger who were quite mature for their ages and in some cases pretty aggressive sexually. No parents ever caught me and turned me in, but that sort of thing happens.

[DanaC]

*nods* good point pourbill. There was a thread about that very same thing on the Cellar. A young man of seventeen was caught getting a blowjob from his 16 year old girlfriend and is now in jail.He will presumably end up carrying the stigma of being a 'sex offender' for the rest of his life.

[duck_duck]

They feature some of these men on the local news and none that they talk about were jailed because they had an underage girlfriend.

[DanaC]

I doubt the local news would be that interested in showing people like that. It's not half so likely to grab people's attention as something more lurid and frightening.


SG how's it goin ? You left that job now?

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by DanaC

SG how's it goin ? You left that job now?

Yup - I'm at Whizzy Wheels from now until I move. Only downside is I hoped for 6 days work a week - 5 days at the very least, and I based my financial calculations on that. But they don't need me on Thursday or Sunday, and on Monday (the day I expected as a day off) they want me to work, but the shop closes at 14.30 instead of 17.30. So effectively it's only 4 and 3/4 days.

I know it doesn't sound like much - 3 hours less per week, but that's 3 hours less than the minimum I expected i.e. 12 hours less a month and it makes a difference. My own fault for not talking to them beforehand - they have a right to employ me when I'm needed, not when it's convenient for me.

A social club within walking distance of my flat is advertising for bar staff. The place looks a bit run down so I'm not sure if the sign is current, but it's worth a try. Even if I only picked up 2 shifts a week it would make a difference.

I should be there now instead of wasting money in an internet cafe, right?
[/THREADJACK]