h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is a slight tangent but does anyone think a relationship whereby one half feels the need to check whether the other has a history of sexual offenses against children isn't built on very solid foundations?

Additionally, a bit of a go at stupid media labels here, but how exactly would this law have made any difference to the case of Sarah Paine.

Twolegs makes a good point - if we're serious about protecting children then the focus should be on making sure offenders who remain dangerous (as was the case with Roy Whiting who killed Sarah) remain behind bars.

How can you tell just from being round someone that they arent already conmvicted of sexual offences when you let them into your home, introduce them to your children, leave them alone with your children or allow them to take your kids away for a weekend of sailing to bond with their new step parent?

Lets not get confused here were arent talking abotu people wanting to protect their wealth with a pre-nup we are taling about an extra safeguard to protect vulnerable people who have little or no say in who is let into their house and are often physically or emotionally incapable of rjecting unwanted advances.

I dont see how this could be a bad thing.

Its called Sarah's laws for obvious, dumb and slightly misleading reasons but that doesnt make it a bad law.

I agree with hard treatment for anyone convicted of sex offences, like az said. Known dangerous abusers should be kept behind bars for the safety of children.

It kind of follows that if that was done public access to the register would be less useful for protecting children.

Noggin

What did az suggest? I'm sure someone can rephrase it in a way that won't get modded.


>>Chap X is accused of looking up a schoolgirl's skirt in a shopping mall.<< SWL

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the police in the UK would get a case to court of a man being at floor level where he claims he was tying a shoelace, and someone else claims he was looking up a girls skirt?

And I'd like to see some serious backing up to that anecdote story. Anecdotes are very useful but not when presented like that as evidence of something.



>>
Id think any parent neglegent who put their child in a vulnerable situation with a babysitter or friend of the family if they didnt say "can you make proof of your clean record in this regard available to me".
<< blicky

The problem with that though is that lack of being on a register in no way at all proves that someone is not a sexual risk to your child. It just means they've never been caught, which is true for most sex offenders.

>>Some might say Kea, that the clue was in the name of the register... <<

Psycorp, in the context of this thread I had assumed the register that people were referring to was for child sex offenders. The link SWL provided suggested that it's actually a register of all sexual offending, not just against children.

Sorry Kea.

You miss the point Kea. It really doesn't matter if the case has a chance of getting to court, it's the consequences of being publicly accused that lead some men to accept a caution.

Even cases where the accused is found not guilty still leave a taint.
e.g.
'Nigel Wrench'
'Who?'
'That BBC guy in the rape case'

I do have doubts about the usefulness of the register, especially given the range of offenses which put someone on it. If someone is considered dangerous, then certainly they should not be released from prison. If they are deemed reformed, should their names still be logged thus?
And it only records those who've been caught. Will it give people a false sense of security if the kind bachelor next door who offers to babysit is 'clean'?

Tricky issue.

>>You miss the point Kea. It really doesn't matter if the case has a chance of getting to court, it's the consequences of being publicly accused that lead some men to accept a caution.<<

I did get the point SWL, I just didn't find the anecdote very credible.

When paediatricians get attacked by the ignorant the dangers of this law should be obvious to us all.

However it is also true that offenders seek out vulnerable women to gain access to their children.

I think the answer lies in changing the reporting rules in court whereby the accussed is as entitled to anonimity as the alleged victim. People then might be more prepared to go to court.

Will men be allowed to check on whether women have (falsely) accused men of sexual assualt or rape?

i.e. due to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm

Daddy's rights groups and their testerical allegations aside, how often does that *actually* happen?

"3-9%"

It's obvious that any man is going to claim the woman's a liar, she consented, she's a slag etc etc etc..

When an estimated third of rapes actually attracts the interest of the bored and lazy police and is prosecuted, and only a third of those ends in a conviction, as the jury listens to the angry accused, his stand-by-your-man girlfriend, and his clean-cut mates, and sentences the complainant to a life of ridicule and hate...

The case of Louise Nicholas is instructive.

The men she had accused were revealed after a jury of good New Zealanders, not one of whom can accept that a police officer could *ever* doing anything wrong, found them not guilty of raping Ms Nicholas; to be already in prison for doing to another woman exactly what Ms Nicholas had accused them of doing to her.

At least two upset jurors went to the media and said "If we'd known, we wouldn't have assumed she was a lying slut"...

Yeah, I actually think 3-9% is an acceptable rate. I bet if more women actually reported rapes, that percentage would actually go down.

"Daddy's rights groups and their testerical allegations aside, how often does that *actually* happen?"

Too many times in my lifetime.

> how often does that *actually* happen? <

A member of my family was falsely accused of sexual assault. The experience was not a pleasant one; I can see how easily this sort of thing can be used as weapon. The girl went on to accuse someone else of rape before his trial had even finished. Another person's life ruined and no comeback on the girl.

Happened to a friend of my father's who was going through a bitter divorce at the time. She used it to pressurise him over the terms of the split (or in revenge at the terms, I can't remember). He lost his job as a result.

Woah people!

Do we need this to degenerate into a men versus women thing?

My family, co-workers, friends, and other people I know are people who matter to me regardless of their gender. I come at this with the adgenda that they are ALL best served by an effective and even handed justice system.



Having been the victim of false accusations, accusations that will stay on my record all my life and have affected my employment prospects adversly I can say without doubt that Im STILL broadly in favour of the present systems.


Could the system operate better? The answer has to be yes, but I dont think the system is the biggest problem.



I think that people need major re-education over this subject.



As usual we have a contribution from della that is fueled by bile, based on ignorance and that is deliberately misleading.

What the heck Do fathers rights groups have to do with this subject? Yes you have had some bad experiences with men, doesnt make all men or estranged fathers bad does it? It would be equally resonable for me to suggest that you either have appalingly bad judgement in picking partners or that you TURN men into bad people then project this experience onto the rest of the world.


"The case of Louise Nicholas is instructive.

The men she had accused were revealed after a jury of good New Zealanders, not one of whom can accept that a police officer could *ever* doing anything wrong, found them not guilty of raping Ms Nicholas; to be already in prison for doing to another woman exactly what Ms Nicholas had accused them of doing to her.

At least two upset jurors went to the media and said "If we'd known, we wouldn't have assumed she was a lying slut"...


All this tells me is that juries can be as prejudiced as you have been time and time again. Whenever I mention paedophile preists you find it appropriate to how many people you assume are making accusations falsely in the hope of rubbishing the church and collecting a big fat compensation pay out.

....but this I knew already.....



I have an idea. Given that most people have mobile phones now why cant we have the exchange of certain details being routinely used as proof of consent. For instance the blutooth beaming of a pin locked "consent code" which contains the holders number would atlest prove that both parties were sober enough to operate the system and make each party traceable through their mobile phone records. A system like this could have saved a lot of people a lot of trouble.


one love

The anecdotes all paint a bleak picture, but I have feeling if I had a choice I'd rather be falsely accused of rape than actually raped.

True.

It could be quite simply avoided though by giving the accused anonymity until conviction.