Posted on 08/21/2011 10:15:10 AM PDT by massmike
Paedophiles have won unsupervised access to their own children because it would breach their human rights to keep them apart, judges have ruled.
They ruled that the "right to a family life" must be taken into account before the "sexual offences prevention orders", known as SOPOs, are issued.
The ruling, issued after a legal challenge by a group of men convicted of using the internet to view child pornography, significantly weakens the ability of the criminal courts to place restrictions on paedophiles. It means judges cannot impose blanket bans on men and women convicted of child sex offences spending time with their own children because they breach the right to a "family life".
The development comes amid a review by ministers of the way the Human Rights Act has had a "chilling effect" on British law.
The judges said total bans on surfing the internet and coming into contact with teenagers aged between 16 and 18 cannot be imposed after a paedophile has been found guilty.
Last night the ruling was described as "very worrying" by MPs.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“Did you mean summary execution?
...or execution in a summery spot, like maybe, Cancun.”
I’d settle for “some”....
>>People who are sexually attracted to children are the same as adult men who like to look at hooters?<<
You missed the point. Posessing Pictures and actually doing the deed are two different things. Thinking about driving drunk is not illegal. Driving drunk is.
I understand the biblical concept of looking at a woman with lust in your heart is equivalent to adultery, but we are talking about actual man made laws here. And they are very specific. On purpose.
If all of us were prosecuted for what we THINK, we’d all be in prison for life.
Those kids have no human rights until they are 18, right judge?
well judges or even congress can say anything they want to.
Any adult messes with my kids or grand kids and I’ll personally take you out and take the responsibility for my actions and our judicial or congressional jerk offs can go to hell.
Posession of child porn is in itself a crime.
Really...stop digging...
Possessing child porn involves real victims, it isn’t simply thought-crime...
...and do it via proxy by possessing the material.
Even if they're not actually buggering children, they're complicit in it.
Your sentiments are well understood but your profanity got in the way. Please re-post without the gutter talk.
Wow, you are defending possession of child porn as long as no "deed" is done. You disgust me.
>>Wow, you are defending possession of child porn as long as no “deed” is done. You disgust me.<<
I’d disgust me too, if that is what I was doing. It’s not.
All I am saying is they are two different things. Related but different. And different in seriousness.
I’ve been pretty clear here. You are letting your emotions cloud your logic. Or are you female, which would explain that? This is, after all, a pretty emotional issue, and this explains our failure to communicate on this particular issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BxckAMaTDc
How interesting, you’re a misogynist and you think possession of child porn is ok.
And yes, I am a female.
Your defense of purveyors of child pornography defends those actively involved and is beneath contempt.
>>How interesting, you’re a misogynist and you think possession of child porn is ok.<<
No. I’m frankly amazed that you glean such a statement from what I have said.
Clarifying the differences between how men and women think does not make me a woman hater, any more than comparing a fully loaded pickup truck to a fully loaded convertible sports cars.
I am simply pointing out that they are different, with different strengths and weaknesses. Having a logical discussion with a woman regarding an emotional issue is next to impossible, but YMMV. It doesn’t mean I hate women.
My wife would differ with you on that one quite vehemently, and at a very emotional level which, regarding that subject, is a good thing. ;-)
Hope they rip your balls off child porn zot. Oops, guess my emotions got the better of me.
Yes, I am Robroy’s wife. I have not posted here since 2002, when I used to come here to see what he was spending all his time talking about. The last time I posted was here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/621786/posts?page=72#72
Rob hates even using this word, but I’ll say it. Your treatment of him was UNFAIR. We talked together about this issue and he showed me his comments. I have the benefit of more explanation of his thoughts, but I am confused by the full lack of anyone’s grasp of what he was trying to say here, followed by a hair trigger revocation of posting. He has been a member here since just after we were married in 1998. It also makes me really angry.
I’ve seen his comments here every now and again even though I lost interest in commenting myself. He has supported this site on other places all over the world, sometimes with a lot more vigor than he showed on this subject.
However, he also knows that I am, deep down, glad this happened. We both thought he was spending too much time here. With our move, this will make one more positive change in our life for me.
You can ban me too if you want, even though I have done nothing to deserve it. I am not going to need this account. We’re going to work together on his big steel shop building now. He will be busy rebuilding engines and tractor stuff, refinishing furniture and recording his bands.
And most importantly, he will be spending a lot more time with me. And our new property with its fields and forest really motivates us, if you know what I mean.
This is us a few days ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuqK5EtxWTg
And after our 40 minute conversation with Sarah last year
http://i409.photobucket.com/albums/pp176/robbbb4/Sarah1.gif
Rob always talks about how illogical and thin skinned liberals were on some internet sites. He told me it sometimes happened at his favorite political site, especially when cruelty to animals comes up. I could not believe what I saw in these comments and the wild accusations against him completely without merit. I now know what he means. I also do not know why he bothers and have told him so.
We’re going to go look at the milky way now. People are very nice and easy to get to know here in central Kentucky.
Well, he picked the wrong hill to die on. He should’ve apologized and backed away gracefully instead of digging in his heels.
For what? A few comments are not really digging in heels. And I didn’t see anything in that list of comments showing he had an opportunity. We both agree that he sort of pulled no punches skewering that woman. Is that what he should have apologized for? I told him she was probably a friend of yours.
Anyway, Rob told me it’s your site and you can do whatever you think is best. I like where it left us so this is like a thank you in a way.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Private apology sent, but public apology also required. My apologies for my language. If it offended anyone, please accept my deepest apology.
To re-state, without the profanity: During the riots, people here were telling me to leave the UK. I said no, this is my home.
If the judges can do this, with the rights of scum over riding the rights of children, this is no longer my home.
Not VERY different, really, dude. The possession of child porn is a predicative infraction to acts of harm. Also, the creation of the porn requires and encourages acts of harm. The difference, while slight, is there.
Jean, dunno if I'd say he's defending child porn, entirely.
If the someone was accused of Murder, but really should be accused of Manslaughter, it's not defending the act of killing people to properly identify the STILL VERY SERIOUS charge,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
