Right To Know Your Neighbours Past

[nailit]

Theres recently been a story in my local paper about someone been driven out of their home because it became common knowledge (ironically because the same paper reported it... ) that they had downloaded child porn.
In the comment section of the paper there were the usual calls that we should all know where convicted sex offenders were living etc.

Just got me thinking, where would you draw the line?

Should we know where all convicted burglers were living in case you got broke into?
All Thieves? Drug addicts? Shoplifters?

[murraymints]

nope..I take folk how I find them, I can make up my own mind if I like them as neighbours and really do not care about the past...with the exception where children are involved....

[EDDIE51]

Would be useful. If you knew a shoplifter you could get them to pick up a few items for you. If you knew of a smuggler you could get cheap booze or fags. Then if you wanted someone bumped off it would be handy to know where to find the local murderer!

[douglas9401]

I think we should know of any and all convictions, right up to the moment when they're 'spent'.
Then we have to forget everything we know and start over with them.

[ummmm]

I think sexual offences.

[Psybbo]

Traffic Warden?

[nailit]

//I think we should know of any and all convictions, right up to the moment when they're 'spent'. //
Is that irrespective of the offence then Douglas?
Convictions are 'spent' on the punishment recieved not on the offence committed.

[nailit]

//Traffic Warden?//
There is NO forgiveness for them, NONE!!

[douglas9401]

A spent conviction is a conviction which, under the terms of Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, can be effectively ignored after a specified amount of time.

Says Google. I'll go with them, ta.

[murraymints]

or estate agents !

[nailit]

so you wouldnt have a problem with a sex offender whos conviction has been spent then Douglas?

[douglas9401]

You started a sentence with 'so', nailit. Farewell.

[-SharonA-]

If I had young kids, then I would want to know if my neighbours were paedophiles, but other than that it would not bother me.
Thieves? Drug addicts? Shoplifters? Each to their own.

[nailit]

//You started a sentence with 'so', nailit.//
Eh? And?....

[ummmm]

There was a long thread the other day about people starting a sentence with 'so'

[hc4361]

The chap referred to had lived in the council property for over 20 without a single complaint against him.
Now, if the neighbours knew he was a paedophile 20 years ago, he would have had to be moved immediately. And on and on and on

[viv41]

Sex offenders definitely. Serial burglars, maybe ...

[andy-hughes]

It sounds ideal in principle - as so many notions do - that we know the criminal pasts of our neighbours.

But the difficulty lies in the fact that there are those whose misplaced sense of self-righteousness leads directly into actions of a vigilante nature, and that is a very slippery slope indeed.

On the basis that a paediatrician was assaulted by individuals in his neighbourhood whose self-righteous application of mob rule prevented them from ascertaining what his job title actually meant, I would be against everyone knowing everyone's legal history.

The law applies punishments, and once completed, they should not follow an individual around for the rest of their life - that is not now a civilised society works.

[Old_Geezer]

Authorities should know. The general public have no right to know. Campaigns are eroding those basic rights to privacy.

[maggiebee]

Are we discussing council or private housing. If someone buys the house next door to me, who would know of their past?