http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/01/sarahs-law-rollout-scheme
Various kinds of revolting crooks, bullies and worse are rolled out into mostly poor parts of society to do harm. I’ve long suspected we do nothing about this not through good, liberal intentions but because it’s cheap, the likely victims have little power or representation and those making the decisions are damned sure they won’t have to live near them.
Sarah’s Law seems to have prevented 60 abuses by paedophiles in its limited roll out. If it’s this easy,why has this been so long in coming? Our local cops reckon they know who is committing crime across the board. Why do any of us have to have any of these people living near us? Why is the widespread problem of recidivist crime not being excluded from our communities? Who has interests in keeping the problem alive? Who thinks, for whatever selfish reasons (and they are selfish as the thinking is done knowing they will not be victims), that any recidivist criminals and especially violent ones should be dumped to commit more crime? John Rawls once talked of a veil of objectivity in decision making – essentially putting yourself into the other’s position and then asking what you would want. The crooks and paedos may want to be where they are, the worthies may well want them there (away from them) – but there’s clearly another group involved we never seem to hear from.
Of course, beyond this, we do need some sensible argument and practice. We don’t even let all the parties get their say before we start ‘decision-making’. I know this is difficult because of spam,flamers, trolls and snerts, but there is a deeper problem with our rush to defend positions, to enter ad hominem that actually is a personal attack rather than banter between friends or simple expression of being pissed off with ‘great reputation’. I believe we now have a fatal nexus of idiot media and bent politicians who dare not tell the truth, jobsworth and obscenely overpaid bureaucrats and ‘captains of industry’ and a culture in which we dare not tell the truth. Books on this are legion -I can barely credit how many I have read and see no point in more. We need new systems of public argument that get into practice like Sarah’s Law. Evaluated practice is essential because we are so damned bad at argument,
Allcoppedout's Blog 
Sarah’s law? Knee jerk reactive rubbish…
1. Sarah’s law wouldn’t have saved Sarah, Whiting lived miles away from her-better supervision might…
2. States in the USA that have Sarahs law are missing significant amounts of offenders- some as many as 50%…
We all know why Mrs Payne has campaigned so hard for this law … Guilt…
The proffessionals that ACTUALLY work with and monitor sex offenders: probation, police, NSPCC have long tried to stop this stupid law…
Well I hope it doesn’t end in tears…
You are spot on Sijuro….100%
There is something very disturbing and sinister going on
in this country, and has been for a long time.
There are Intelligence records which warn that Sara Payne
would be misguided in her campaign to introduce this law, and supported by the media, would undermine a long term POLICE OPERATION to tackle the serious problem of paedophiles. This Sarah’s Law will HELP to drive paedophiles to disappear and go underground, lost to those
tasked with monitoring them. The Home Office were warned about this by an undercover officer, and the warning was not acted upon. One can only draw the conclusion that the Home Office have been, and are being misled by someone, or a group of people, perhaps with “vested interests”.
One can understand Sara Payne wanting to do something about the problem, however she WAS manipulated and wrongly encouraged to drive this misguided campaign.
She may not like the fact, but her actions and this law
will do more harm than good, and has seriously undermined
and sabotaged the “good guys” long term efforts to genuinely protect children from paedophiles.
The former PM had a hand in this mis-direction.
This could well be the problem Intel, that brings this law down – but it is being evaluated. Dispatches revealed some horrible home-truths about how little supervision paedophiles and dangerous people in general can get.
We need to see past factionalism and defensive positions. The claim being made here is that the trial did stop abuses (60) and this suggests current arrangements are not satisfactory.
There are alternatives, it seems…..
http://www.bacausa.com/Internet/AboutBACA.php
There may well be problems with it Shijuro, but you hit the wrong nails in rather nasty form and only bend them. Mrs. Payne deserves better You may be reflecting something very important about our ‘professionals’ and their inability to cope with their own incompetence and criticism. I suspected Mr.Payne when the news first broke – fair enough given what we glean from practice, but utterly wrong. I suspected Huntley when I first saw his female familiar on television as was utterly right. Such suspicions form a part of enquiry, but left at that are crass ignorance. We see little sign of the extended arguments, following where the evidence leads.
We regularly see the ‘monitoring’ system fail – there have been excruciating documentaries and cases in the public eye, even to the extent in the US of the psychopaths recruiting idiot wives whilst in prison. The monitoring agencies are so stupid that we find psychopaths three times more likely to convince parole boards to release them than other prisoners.
What I regularly find ‘professionals’ doing is working with a totally false view of their own competence, using a dumb version of stereotyping, failing to collect the real evidence and then entering vile defences of their own stupidity.
Mr.and Mrs. Payne should be concerned I had suspicions about them, but are just the kind of decent people who would accept I should have had such considerations – knowing these might well also have led me to nick Huntley when he failed to have keys to open buildings (the WPC who was on duty has at ;east admitted he conned her) as the search began. To linger with such suspicions after the evidence is in light is utterly crap. Shame on you. You have certain initial insights that might help make you a good enquirer, but you need something beyond the undergraduate to discover how much rigour you lack.
I only wish Hoggie, that my own Chapter (Bikers with crocodiles against child abuse) was fully formed.
“There are alternatives, it seems…..
http://www.bacausa.com/Internet/AboutBACA.php…”
Now, is that, or is that not, EXACTLY what iDave should be encouraging as part of his ‘Big Society’?
And not the semi-statist, bound-to-fail rubbish his policy wonks have been churning out since the term was coined?
“We all know why Mrs Payne has campaigned so hard for this law … Guilt…”
If so, it would be entirely natural.
Denise Bulger must similarly torment herself – ‘What if I hadn’t gone shopping that day?’ ‘What if I’d gone to a different shopping mall?’ ‘What if, what it, what if…’
At the end of the day, though, the people solely responsible are Whiting, and those people who were charged with seeing his predilictions were not given free rein in the community.
Sorry jules posts crossed…
No, Whiting alone is responsible for Sarah’s murder. Certainly not the Police.
If you want to play the blame game how about the judge that didn’t give a maximum sentence? Or the Probation that didn’t object to his release? Or tagging?
No. It’s become a sport for many and a career for some to blame the CJS…
A CJS with many faults but the envy of many around the world.
You’ll notice I didn’t say ‘police’ – that was purely your assumption.
The people I was referring to were indeed those in the justice and probation systems.
, the people solely responsible are Whiting, and those people who were charged with seeing his predilictions were not given free rein in the community.
Oh.., I see… Looks like us jules…
Sorry, you want the truth? Or the party line?
Just curious… how many sex offenders have you monitored in your career? I was given the responsibility of looking after over a 100… to my knowledge non committed any offences against kids- a few broke the rules and I put them before a court.
I would say that gives me a right to argue from a point of FIRST HAND knowledge… that trumps book learning every day…I would have thought that someone that purports to be intelligent and educated would see that… I guess not…
Almost all of the offenders I monitored were scared of ‘Sarah’s law’…
Not that I mind them being fearful… I am worried that what happens in the US will happen here… and sex offenders will have NO monitoring at all because we can’t find them.
For good reason.
We used to give out disclosure-until a few deaths occurred… not only the offenders… remember the chap murdered because people THOUGHT he was a child sex offender.
The burden of data integrity lies with the person holding. So, if parent A was to learn that the person that helped the football coach had a conviction for possessing indecent images-they are going to keep that to themselves?
If they withdraw their child from the team, other parents are sure to ask why… When telling they get it wrong, as we all do on occasion, even super-genius’ like you… lets hope they burn down the right house eh?
What about people that are cautioned for sex offences against adults? Do you think people will make any differential?
The monitoring system isn’t perfect. However, with the law as it stands, it’s probably as good as it gets. It is IMPOSSIBLE to remove risk from a system. If a sex offender wants to kill, they will do it.
I can take criticism no problem, informed criticism from someone that knows what they are talking about….
I really never suspected the Paynes at any stage-not for a moment… there was too much non connected evidence and the crime scene was too far away.
Thing is, you like many of the un-informed, seem to forget that the vast majority of sexual assaults against kids are by their own families.
I was talking about the natural guilt of a parent who’s child has been murdered and they were not there to prevent it. Shame on you for jumping to conclusions without asking for clarification… very under-grad…
You really need to read up…
“”…the people solely responsible are Whiting, and those people who were charged with seeing his predilictions were not given free rein in the community.”
Oh.., I see… Looks like us jules…”
Oh, well. If you see something in that description that you recognise, then who am I to gainsay you? 😉
Well since the only people that actually monitor sex offenders actively are: the Police and Probation … It’s a small list eh?…
I reject completely the idea that it was anyone elses fault than Whiting’s…
What’s next ?
Did you see my blog post about the Police have been blamed for the sinking of the Titanic?
I suspected (briefly and far away) Mr. Payne precisely because I know family members are so often the perpetrators. Your assumptions are entirely false and typical of half-baked thinking and groupthink Shijuro. Pity you don’t declare more first hand knowledge against what is more widely known.
Book learn= other peoples experience.
First hand experience= direct learning, my experience.
Just thought I’d spell it out nice and s l o w for you.
I did the the job for 5-years… What’s your experience again? Ahhh. None.
So who has the credibility?
You accuse ME of group think when you are using other peoples conculsions??? Lol…
You accuse me of ‘half baked’ thinking when you fail to ask the most basic of questions?
Lol …
Unless you are joking, of course…
Nah! You didn’t ask about my experience Shijuro, you merely project. Think about the cockups IG reveals and who is making them. Organisations are often trapped by the idiot-experienced and flat-earthers. Have a look at Intel’s sensible post above. I don’t agree fully, but there is something to work with.I don’t want to waste time engaging in battles of wits with an unarmed opponent. The idea is to get to mutual understanding.
Check upon what ‘groupthink’ means – avoiding it means using other people’s views. It might help to look at work on the paranoid-schizoid position too.
So, ACO you don’t agree fully with my pearls of wisdom.
You attempt to undermine me and what I have stated here
about a very serious matter. Hmmmm. And is the protection of children, from nasty paedophiles YOUR specialist job?
I don’t think so……..
No Intel – I did,long ago, investigate abuse as what would be called SIO today. I have recently seen, close up, (again – but this time as victim in having to witness) how little protection children get from rotten families, and how little this has changed. I am not inclined to believe the authorities know what they are doing, but accept much of what you and Shijuro say. The missing voice is that of the victims,though I also feel the perpetrators are not sufficiently understood – not to excuse them, but understand just what they may be doing whilst under ‘supervision’. There are ethnographies of abuse that suggest the perpetrators are highly skilled in persuading authorities nothing is wrong. I don’t mean to undermine you – I want to know how we tell whether we are listening to expertise or the kind of tossers involved in Baby P etc. in bullshit cover-up.
So, you take the moral stance then attack me personally ?
You may need to do some reading too. Try passive aggresive, for a start…
Err I did ask.., first thing I did – you chose not to answer.
Hard to debate with one that does not answer questions.
Nah! Baby talk.
In case you don’t believe me… Her is a cut and paste of my question…
‘Just curious… how many sex offenders have you monitored in your career?’
also intel agrees with me… Spot on is the phrase …
Look it’s simple: you don’t like what I say because I am a police officer. Don’t be ashamed of being a bigot…
Benders never learn.
Benders? Ahhh sorry name calling?
I believe the appropriate response is: up yours… God I love people like you… no idea of the difference between knowledge and wisdom…
Lol
See what I mean? You say, ‘You didn’t ask about my experience Shijuro, you merely project’ …
I show you I did and you….. just insult me in a puerile and childish way…
debate…
You don’t get it Shijuro. It’s your problem and you do it all over.
Lol, sure.
The last recourse of the coward…
That went quite well.
One level of the farce of argument is that of the wrong people squabbling Melvin – but another is the pathetic hymn-singing of Zanu PF Nulabour. I’m toying with a long-term bet with Ladbrookes on a landslide for them at the next election though. ConDem have busted their draw to an inside straight already.
Mos blogging is re-inventing old wheels when there is new technology to use if only we’d look.
Now that is something I agree with you on…
The ‘Labour’ party is no more socialist than I am a god fearing christian…
I am an atheist btw 🙂
sorry about the above… No excuses.
Mtg – you too appols