Trials for New Paedophile law

[Supernick]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6540749.stm

So the announcement has been made that trials are being run into a modified version of 'Sarah's Law'. Parents will be able to find out if there are covicted paedophiles living in the area, but not their identity or address. Do we think that this is a dangerous idea? The right of every parent? Has it gone too far, or not far enough?

If anyone can also provide further information, such as the definition of 'paedophile' in this case then i would be interested. E.g. Will parents be made aware of the crime committed bu the paedophile in the area, or are people treated the same if they're a convicted child rapist vs having dowlnoaded some images.

[jake-the-peg]

I'm still not quite clear about what parents are expecting to do with this information.

Interesting that Bernardo's chief executive thinks the scheme is a "very very bad news"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6540749.stm

But giving head teachers access to the details seems a very good and proper idea to me. (I don't think that part was what he was objecting to though)

[Supernick]

Afternoon Jake. What do you think that head teachers should do with the information? I suppose they can identify anyone who might be hanging around the school and report them to the police. Would you be an advocate of providing the heads with full details? My concern with this is that if you tell the headteachers, then all the other teachers and school employees will have to be told, otherwise it seems fairly pointless. After all, the heads aren't the ones patrolling the grounds, and any suspicious people at the school gates should be reported anyway. Once you have that information in possession of a l;arge group of people I think you might as well have given it to the public.

[Supernick]

Although I'll clarify my position and say that I don't think this information should be in the public domain at all.

Further to this, i think these trials are ludicrous. If you really wanted to stir up fear and suspicion in a community, you would tell them that their was a paedophile 'somewhere' near you, but we're not saying who or where he/she is. What on earth can anyone do with that information? I doubt many people need a reminder to keep their children safe.

[jake-the-peg]

I think there have been instances where police checks on school employees have been too slow and inefficient so if they can do those checks themselves that's got to be good

[Supernick]

I see your point Jake, but I'd much rather have the police sort their house out, and get the checks done faster than release the information as a solution

[kags]

I think that part of the purpose of the trials is to decide exactly what information to release.

I'm with you on this - the information should not be in the public domain - for one thing I would prefer registered sex offenders to keep in touch with the authorities and comply with their parole conditions etc, rather than go into hiding for fear of being lynched.

For another, as you say, what will parents do with the information. I have a 9 and a 10 year old - I want to equip them with the skills they need to be independent, and this will include a general awareness of the stranger danger - making it specific to a person, street or area is doing them no favours. In any case, what about he unconvicted sex offenders living next door, or in ones own family or group of friends (statistically more likely to be the person who abuses a child). Above all, they are vastly more likely to be hit by car than abused by a stranger, so I would rather not be distracted from those dangers.

[Ethel]

I think we can all assume that there is at least one paedophile in the vicinity.

Just as there always has been.