What is the point of this?
This guy is a contestant on a TV show. He is also a sex offender. The police contacted the show to alert them to this fact because the victim or the victims family may see him. Now you might think that this sounds OK but I wonder why they went that far. He comes off the register next month. Read here.He also has clearly served whatever sentence he was set. Considering he was convicted in December 2005 and here we are 18 months later and he has clearly served his time and his sex offenders register is lapsing. Does being on the sex offenders register mean you cannot be a public figure? So theoretically next month he could be on the TV for his victim and the victims family to see. Of course no one will touch him now and with his name and a partial history made public he will have difficulty getting a job never mind getting a new place on any talent show.
This just seems to verge on the spiteful.
posted by Bag @ 8:09 pm
11 Comments:
I don't think one stops having the urge jsut because one is off the register. It entirely depends on the nature of it.
Someone who preys on kids is different, in my book, to a teacher of 22 who has a thing with an 18 year old girl, even a 16 year old girl.
Sure he has to do the time but the chances of him reoffending - I mean he's not a real offender in my book. He stretched the definition.
If he had a history of bedding 16 year olds, that's another thing again.
And so on.
Just read the article again and it was unfair not to say what the offence was.
The sentence is a different issue. I think we let these guys off too lightly but not knowing what he did makes it difficult to comment in detail.
I was really getting at the saying 'Done my time' If this guys crime was so bad why was he out of jail? Plus to have an 18 month record on the sex offenders register means it can't have been that much. It just seems to me that they may have done this legally but it seems that they are happy to ruin any chance he has of making a life. This of course doesn't leave him many options and therefore can hardly be a method of rehabilitation.
It just doesn't sound right while we can't tell the world about murderers who have walked out of prison because of data protection or something.
Something wrong with the whole setup here.
Just to clarify here Bag, on a point of logic.
The fact that we clerly have victims here suggests that somebody was quite traumatised.
The fact that he received a conditional discharge may mean that the victim wouldn't testify to something more serious.
Either way, by performing on public TV, especially with the potential to perform at the royal variety performance, makes him a person who could be seen as a role model.
And how many victims do we have because of slavery 2 centuries ago.
The sentence looks too light for anything significant and with the injustices going on at the moment with special attention to sex offenders I just think this sounds like another example.
Bearing in mind another month and he can be on the telly if he can make it. What of his victim then?
Now I'm all for strong punishment for crimes but it is supposed to be when the time is done they can make their own way in life and their debt is paid. Splashing his name and picture all over the papers is not the way to do it. Bear in mind nobody is shouting about his sentence so why do it? Surely an approach from a parole officer or the police would have made him withdraw. It just doesn't sound right to me. If he deserves a life sentence then he should have been given one in court. (No pun intended)
Bag - I like the debate here. Not sure you are right to say if he is so bad, then shouldn't he be locked up (or something to that effect). It might be right that he has done his time and that he should be out so that he can live his life. But it might also not be right for him to be on TV, as this might offend the family.
I suppose as you and your commentators have been saying, it depends on what the crime was. Sex offence is so broad.
I don't think it was spite. It is just people covering their backs - very simple.
I think what Bags wants to know is...
whats so @%#@#% important about that 1 month that will make everything so much better?
This month they will NOT LET him be on tv because of his past crimes and his victims (chance to) ability of seeing him. Next month, no problem, no victim to worry about, no crime ...? ?
From what has been written in the press about this, the offence was one of "tickling feet" whatever the fek that means. What is more insideous to my mind is the fact that a serving police officer blew the whistle, and contacted the Programme makers. What gave him the right? Smacks to me of interference of the worst kind. I hope the copper is repremanded.
Snuffle, if a crime is a crime against a person then locking them away must be an option. I think punishment must make the crime not worth doing or it is ineffective. Stealing £100 and get fined £5. Means all I need is to get away with it once in 20 times and still be in profit. Makeit £1000 fine and if you don't pay 6 months and nobody would steal £100.
I found this article on Samizdata. I've not browsed for a few days. Seems his heinous crime was to tickle a 14 year olds feet. Read here. If I had know it was as bad as that I would have suggested we hunt him down and kill him.
This is justice in the UK. What a farce.
Bag,
You can be put on the SOR for being drunk and showing your arse in public - it is a bit of a broadbrush solution. Typical of the one-size fits all legislation so beloved of His Toniness.
Unless you are a judge of course.
I thought this one smelt when I read it.
Post a Comment
<< Home