Skip to content

What The Future Holds: Sex Offender In The City [Updated]

09 May 2013 @ 14:39

Lo, these past five years of my blogging career I have repeatedly urged that we should look to the United Kingdom for a glimpse of what will happen here in the future if we continue hurtling down The Road To Serfdom.

In most Socialist/Fascist polices, the Brits are ahead of us by at least a few years. This is good for us [but bad for our friends across the pond] because it can serve as a warning of the dangers of allowing Soft Totalitarianism to thrive here in America.

While I’ve cited many examples of what will happen here under Socialized Health Care, this latest area of forewarning is new…

From The London Daily Mail, Jack Doyle reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to Dan Collins][worth quoting in full][emphasis mine]:

Police have secretly removed dozens of convicted sex offenders, including paedophiles and rapists, from the Sex Offenders’ Register, the Mail can reveal.

Following a human rights ruling, the law was changed last year to allow sex attackers to claim they no longer posed a threat and apply to be taken off the register.

Since then, 43 applications have been approved behind closed doors, at the rate of one every five days.

About half of those who apply have been successful – including eight rapists and 27 child sex attackers.

Each case was signed off by a mid-ranking police officer following a paper review of the case. With the stroke of a pen, each convict was removed from the list, and is now free to walk the streets with no monitoring of any kind.

Those who are taken off the register no longer have to tell the police where they are living, even if they move near a school, or move in with a family with young children.

Nor do they have to tell the police about any overseas travel.

Forces are refusing to name those taken off the register, citing Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to a private and family life – and data protection rules. And they say it would ‘compromise the health and safety of these individuals’ to name them.

Some are even refusing to give details of the offences committed, and victims are not routinely notified if their attacker has been deemed no longer a threat.

Child protection charities said the use of the law was setting back child protection, and questioned whether sex offenders could ever be reformed.

Claude Knights, director of children’s charity Kidscape, said: ‘This step removes a number of bricks from the wall of child protection, and takes us back to the level of a number of years ago.

The jury is out on whether someone who has committed these crimes can ever be cured. The worry is someone could be let off the register and commit further crimes and harm more children.’

Peter Cuthbertson, director of the Centre for Crime Prevention think-tank, said: ‘The Sex Offenders’ Register exists to protect the public from people who risk committing serious crimes.

‘These decisions involve a very one-sided and backward understanding of human rights. It wrongly puts the welfare of serious sex offenders above concern for public safety.’

The Mail used the Freedom of Information Act to ask all 43 police forces in England and Wales how many sex offenders they had removed from the list between September 1, when the law came into force, and the end of March.

Of the 27 who replied, there have been 91 applications and 43 sex offenders taken off the register.

One force, South Yorkshire Police, has approved all eight of its applications, including two rapists, one of whom attacked a child.

Only one force, Norfolk, said it was contacting victims to tell them what was happening.

Ministers were forced to allow the law change after a human rights ruling in 2010 which said it was a breach of criminals’ rights under Article 8 to keep them on the register without any chance of appeal.

The case was brought by two convicted sex offenders. One, Angus Thompson, was jailed for five years for violently attacking and indecently assaulting a girl. He said the ‘stress’ of being kept indefinitely on the register had contributed to his ill health. The other was a man from Wigan who was 11 when he raped a boy of six. He said his name should be taken off because it prevented him from going on holiday.

There are about 37,000 sex offenders on the register.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Sex offenders who remain a risk to the public will stay on the register, for life if necessary.

‘We argued strongly that sex offenders should stay on the register for life. But the Supreme Court decided they should be able to apply for a review of their case.

‘It is for individual police forces to decide how to manage known sex offenders living in the community, but those who pose a risk to the public will remain on the register.’

Yeah, right…sure…we trust you.

Several Thoughts…

-While the Left goes around claiming that this is a ‘matter of Human Rights!!!’, it is actually another step in the decriminalizing of pedophilia. Let us not forget that one of the aims of Leftism is to destroy all traditions and customs [ie: all the things that hold our Society together] in order to build their Heaven On Earth on the rubble of The West. With no self-imposed restraints allowed on sexual behavior, no group of people can maintain a civil society.

-The fact that the government of the United Kingdom will not release the names of those Sex Offenders who have been removed from the List, shows you exactly where their priorities lie…and they don’t even come close to inhabiting the same area as decent, law-abiding citizens do.

-That this move by the Leftist government of Britain was still made despite the fact that the overwhelming evidence before us shows that Sex Offenders [excluding those who have been convicted of Statutory Rape] cannot be cured, proves that those who made it have bad [some may say, evil] intentions. Nothing good at all will come out of this; only bad acts and, in some cases, deaths will result.

-From the report above: ‘Claude Knights, director of children’s charity Kidscape, said: ‘This step removes a number of bricks from the wall of child protection…’. Actually, this action is another brick in the wall, IYKWIMAITYD.

The Battle Rages On…

UPDATE at 1941…

Dan Collins brings further proof of the Left’s intentions to my attention…

From Scriptonite Daily, we learn that a leading Barrister in Britain is calling for the age of consent to be lowered to thirteen:

Leading Barrister, Barbara Hewson has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13 to avoid the prosecution of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall.  She published these comments in Spiked Magazine. Is there a place in the legal profession for a barrister who excuses the rape and sexual assault of minors as ‘low level misdemeanours’?

These cases are low level misdemeanours; it’s not in the public interest to prosecute

Hewson argues that it is not in the public interest to prosecute these historic sexual crimes, and that they are ‘low level misdemeanours’.  Discussing the prosecution of Stuart Hall, she argues that

‘Touching a 17 year olds breast, kissing a 13 year old, putting one’s hand up a 16 year olds skirt is not remotely comparable to…gang rape…anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality’.  There are several reasons this argument is factually wrong, but morally wrong.

Firstly, this is complete logical fallacy.  Touching a 17 year olds breast or putting one’s hand up a 16 year olds skirt is perfectly legal – if they consent to it.  Where there is not consent, where there is force or coercion, it is sexual assault.  This is a crime.

Secondly, this is a false characterisation of the abuses by Stuart Hall. Hall has been charged with, and has admitted, committing 14 acts of indecent assault and one of rape over a near 20 year period, including the sexual assault of a nine year old girl.

For Hewson to dismiss the rape and assault of children as young as nine as some sort of slap and tickle is exactly the attitude that made these assaults possible in the first place.  Her belittling of such crimes as trivia is just the prevailing mood of the time in which the crimes occurred, and which meant victims and potential witnesses alike kept their mouths firmly shut.

The Age of Consent Should be Reduced to 13

Hewson argues that the prosecution of sex offenders “poses a far graver threat to society than anything Jimmy Savile ever did.” She completes her masterclass in moral vacuity with the following:

“It’s time to end this prurient charade, which has nothing to do with justice or the public interest. Adults and law-enforcement agencies must stop fetishising victimhood. Instead, we should focus on arming today’s youngsters with the savoir-faire and social skills to avoid drifting into compromising situations, and prosecute modern crime. As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are: remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13.”

Welcome to the Brave New World.

  1. 09 May 2013 @ 15:00 15:00

    Frankly, I agree that there shouldn’t be a list. A sexual predator needs to just be executed, then we wouldn’t have to worry about them any longer and it might be a deterrent to future perpetrators.

    • 09 May 2013 @ 21:11 21:11

      A sexual predator has the right to a piece of rope, a short drop, with a sudden stop.

  2. M. Thompson permalink
    09 May 2013 @ 19:44 19:44

    Not even by the politicians. It was made by apparatchiks.

    • M. Thompson permalink
      09 May 2013 @ 23:15 23:15

      RE: Update: I wonder if Ms.Hewson has children. I’ve got a very niece, and the thought of someone thinking about her sexually creeps me the hell out.

  3. 09 May 2013 @ 21:57 21:57

    Re: Update…I absolutely have no words that can be printed on this screen. I wonder how this “Barrister” would feel if it was her 13 yr old daughter or son who was molested? Kids that young are not sexually mature enough to make decisions on consent for sex. Frankly, neither are sixteen yr olds.

  4. bob sykes permalink
    11 May 2013 @ 07:48 07:48

    Until very recently, the age of consent in the US varied from 13 to 16 depending on the State. This reflects the practice that lasted up to the late 19th Century of regarding post pubescent teenagers as adults. Midshipmen almost always went to sea at 14, and teenagers were expected work. Marriage by the mid teen was common. And there are Romeo and Juliet. There was no adolescence.

    Saville and Hall clearly committed rapes, However, the current age of consent in the US is usually 18. This has the pernicious effect of making half our high school students legally defined sexual predators, a classification which lasts for life. This is not a theoretical possibility as a number of teenagers (all boys) have been prosecuted and convicted under these statutes. Several teenagers (mostly girls) have been prosecuted and convicted as sexual predators for sending nude photographs of themselves to their boy friends.

    All of those teenagers now have ruined lives. They will be excluded from jobs, housing, schools. etc., because they are on a sexual predator list. All for doing exactly what each of us have done when we were in school.

    Clearly, this whole statutory rape and age of consent business needs a rethink. The net should be fine enough to catch the Savilles and Halls of the world but coarse enough to let through most high school kids.

    PS Under federal government rules, the morning after pill can be given on demand to 13 year olds. Is this not proof of rape?

    • 11 May 2013 @ 14:58 14:58

      Thank That in past times the age of consent was lower was due to a number of factors, including shorter lifespans, high death rates among young childrne driving the need to produce many children, high rates of infectious death among mothers right after giving birth, and the need by farmers to produce workers.

      These reasons became less valid starting in the 19th Century when the number of people farming began to fall, when newly-made middle-class parents could afford to allow their children to have a childhood, and when child labor laws began to be passed.

      The need for girls to produce children as soon as possible slowly disappeared in the Civilized World.

      What these people are advocating is stripping children of almost half of their childhoods. I don’t see that as real progress. One of the great advances The West has made culturally is in giving children childhoods. It is all part of the noble effort to make life less ‘solitary, nasty, poor, brutish, and short’.

      Regarding statutory rape: I expressed a concern over it in this sentence:

      That this move by the Leftist government of Britain was still made despite the fact that the overwhelming evidence before us shows that Sex Offenders [excluding those who have been convicted of Statutory Rape] cannot be cured….

      I did not elaborate on this further in my post because it was, I believe, a subject for another discussion, but I wanted to at least make clear my trouble with putting some of those convicted of statutory rape on sex offender lists. As so often happens, those who crafted the sex offender laws went too far the other way in their effort to right a wrong.

  5. 26 January 2014 @ 09:39 09:39

    I am really pleased to glance at this blog posts
    which includes tons of helpful facts, thanks for providing such information.


  1. Recapping Yesterday’s Benghazi Testimony, a Round-Up | The Necropolitan Sentinel

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: