Sex Offenders Working With Children
 

I know! Oh my land!

I've created a topic in Off-Topic. Unlike me, but this is really driving me insane. The local radio is reporting on the escalading up-in-armsness of all and sundry because of Paul Reeve, a registered sex offender who was cautioned for downloading child pornography, but not convicted - that's the limit of his record. He's a sex offender without actually having performed illegal sex.

The latest up-to-date news will be all over the BBC's local news pages, but to summarise: Paul Reeve applied for a job as a gym teacher at a school. The headmaster was aware of this, and his case was reviewed by a junior minister and it was decided that there was no significant risk to the children. Then the police suspended him and he resigned. And everyone is up in arms about why he was employed in the first place! They can't understand how a person can be on the sex offenders' register and still get a job working with children.

Now somebody tell me why people aren't complaining that the man, who was cleared by officials who know what they're doing, had to lose his job because it turns out the majority of the population are overly protective and scared of what they don't understand? I fail to see how looking at pictures means someone is automatically going to kidnap children and sexually abuse them. I know many people who look at pornography, but I'm not aware of any one of them abusing anyone they're attracted to. This whole outcry is built from failing to apply simple logic and understanding, as far as I can see.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I suspect it's everyone else who's wrong.

OH MY GOD! At what point did you forget how to perceive correctly? When was it that you took leave of your intelligence? YOU DO NOT PUT SOMEONE WHO ENJOYS WATCHING THE RAPE OF CHILDREN IN A POSITION WHERE HE IS ALONE WITH CHILDREN! Are you fuucking stupid? Not to be a dick but you are taking leftism to a moronic degree. If I found out that someone who wanted to fuuck my daughter was in charge of what she does for an hour a day I would go on a killing rampage. Jesus Christ.

You've made exactly the same assumption: because he downloads child pornography, he's actually into sexually abusing children. I download pornography, but I don't kidnap people and do unspeakable things to them.

I download tons of porn. BUT I NEVER DOWNLOAD CHILD PORN! Use your fuucking brain! I don't care if he ever touches a child or not. If he likes looking at the pictures then he WANTS to. There are plenty of teachers out there who don't think that child rape is fun to watch. How about we hire one of them. How could you be dumb enough to put a child in a position of well, he probably won't rape and murder my child. So much of this kind of thing happens already, don't you think it would be wise to weed out the people that we KNOW are sexually attractred to kids?

p.s. What the fuuck kind of porn do you watch where people get kidnapped and have terrible things done to them?

Dude, I know it's a harsh subject but keep it down dude. No need to curse him to death.
Max, I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think you can compare normal porn with child porn.
Pretty much everyone has downloaded porn at some point. But the porn in question is usualy not rape and torture. Just clips from some movie or home-recorded stuff from Kazaa.
Child porn is always ALWAYS!!! rape. A child can not concent with a sexual act. Even if it says it does, then still an adult should know not to use a child like that. It's wrong, and most of the people watching or practising child pornography are in a way sick in the head and should be treated for it.

Now, to the matter at hand; Should someone who only watches child pornography be allowed to work with children?
It would depend on the person. There is a diffrence between someone who is caught with 200 porn files, or someone who has entire stacks of tapes and entire harddrives full of stuff.
In any case, putting someone like that in the position of a gym teacher shouldn't happen in any case. As a gym teacher you see and interact with the children while they are most vulnarable. In gym clothes, mostly a tight shirt and short pants. A lust image for any pedophile, needless to say. Plus as a gym teacher you frequintly have to help kids over obsticles, physicly touching them ect. A fair question would be if and when the teacher would cross the line, and I can understand that question from a parents point of view. Would you trust your kid to follow gym lessons with a man who you know watches little kids naked and having sex in his spare time, Max? Even though you also know he never actualy did it?

My anger came from him actually describing people who don't want sex offendors alone with their kids as not being able to use simple logic and understanding. If you want to "understand" a child molestor then be my guest. I will pass on that, myself. And yes, watching kiddie porn is the same as child molestation. If noone downloaded it, it wouldn't be made in anywhere near the quantities that it is. I'd like to say I'm sorry, but I'm not. That had to be the absolute dumbest thing I have ever seen on the internet. Jesus Christ.

I wanted to stay out of this conversation but whatever. This is a funny coincidence really cause I heard in the news that there was some adult molesticating a young asian girl but that is besides the point. My thought on this though....

Well I can understand why people woulden't want to have a gym teacher who watches child porn teach my kids on physical education. Hell I probably woulden't allow it. Still it does raises the question for me on why would he molest one of the stidents? I mean every single part of the school (Well probably) is densly populated. You probably can't rape a child in a school unless you want many witnesses watching you. It's confusing really, but I am a little baffled that the school accepted the school in the first place. Actually you know what? Scratch that. Cause it is probably a high chance that the principle and the guy made an agreement where he will be monitored the whole day so that he doesen't get any strange ideas. The only reasonable answer IMO.

There is no reasonable answer. Obviously the chances of this teacher molesting a child during school are pretty slim (but not out of the question). There is a much better chance of the teacher stalking a child once school gets out. The question is-Would you take that chance with your child? If not, then why would you even consider taking that chance with someone elses. So that everyone has the same rights? Fuuck that. All men are not created equal. That is a complete lie. Degenerates do not deserve the same freedoms that everyone else gets.

To metroixer:

Paedophiles do not rape children in school, they lure them into their cars and such/bring them to another dungeon type location.

I blame the internet for several 'sexual disorders'. If there wasn't so much porn of the said 'disorder' out there, people wouldn't know as much about it.

Although I obviously believe that child pornography is sick, I don't feel it should be against the law to view it. That is like punishing someone for a thought. Should a kid be expelled from school for fantasizing it burning down? Just because he would like it to happen doesn't mean that he would try to do it. I don't find it unreasonable for Max to see it as an injustice, there are valid arguments on both sides of this debate. Sometimes you need to take a step back to analyze something from a perspective seperate from what society says, to better understand it.

Edit: Did the guy ever say that he knowingly downloaded it? There are other ways for such material to show up on a computer.

NO. YOU DON'T! You do not allow people the chance to hurt innocent children. And yes, it must be illegal. You don't let people get these ideas. You don't give pedophiles source material. Jesus Christ. People get so obsessed with freedom of everything that they are willing to let people jerk off to the rape of another human beings child! There are some things that you don't look at objectively. I repeat. Jesus Christ.

I'd much rather they jerk-off to an image on a monitor then to actually commit the act. You could argue that it supresses the urge.

No, you couldn't. It's been proven that it makes the urge stronger. It gives them new scenarios to run around their heads. Plus, if we allow them to watch then more people will, causing more to be made. This equals more raped children. Is this what you want? Whose freedom is more important? That of a pedophile or that of a child? Don't just try to make up reasons to make kiddie porn okay. Do you actually think that is a valuable use of your time?

I never said it was okay, it's not. I believe the Government should be cracking down on the idiots that are actually making these websites. The websites should be 100% illegal, no question. Get rid of the websites, and nobody will be able to access the material.

I'm sure it wouldn't create any significant change, as most people that are into that would do it whether it was legal or not.

I must agree with all of OANST's points. Pretty much covered all mine. But I will add that child pornography must indeed be illegal because if it were legal that would mean the government does not disapprove of watching it. And if the government found watching it acceptable, then creating it would therefore have to be acceptable too.

I agree that a childs freedom and security is more important then one of an active pedo. But you have to remember that pedophilia is just another... decease, if you will. Some will argue it's a sexual preference, but if you're sexualy attracted to children that still leads back to a mental disorder. There are a lot of freaky fetishes out there, but non of them have anything to do with a mental problem. Pedophilia has.
At the end of the day these people are humans just like everyone else. It's an impulse for most which they can't control. And if they have to release their tension, I'd much rather have them doing it to pictures and videos (which first have to be created, ofcourse, and unfortunatly part of the circle) then on an actualy child.
Pedophiles need help. Some know they need help, some don't. Some know, but won't get help. But most of the cases the pedophile in question is open to treatment, which is a good thing.
Then you have the bunch of low life scumbags who actualy make a living from that sort of stuff. Those are the people who should be prosecuted, shot, hung and tortured (IMO, and not specificly in that order).

Anyway, Old and not so tasty, you have to understand that a lot of pedo's have a decease. And it is IMO wrong to portrait and generalize them all as heartless monsters and beasts who should be killed and tortured.

I never portrayed them that way. I am saying that they have no place around children. I wouldn't let a leper around my daughter, either.

Creating it is most certainly in a different ballpark, since you're actually raping someone, where as viewing it harms nobody. I don't believe that making it legal necessarily means that the Government approves of that type of behavior. Anal sex is legal, but you don't see a paragraph in any Government document that states their approval of such an act. Besides, It's not as if viewing the pictures is hurting anybody, it's the creators of that site that are. Yeah, it's a disgusting to think that people actually get off on this, but should it really be treated as a criminal act to look at something?

I think I'm starting to see why he likes cats so much...

ANYWAY! Those pictures could have lead to obsession. And I don't see any reason why the parents of the children shouldn't feel over protective of their children.
Child pornography, in itself, is a rather disgusting occupation. Even I would be a little nervous around someone who... Err... Uses it.

How can you say it hurts noone? What about the child who knows that everyday someone is reliving their agony over and over again and that they are actually enjoying it? And if you don't think that watching this material makes the pedo want to go out and have sex with a child more then you are a fool and you aren't worth talking to anymore. Jesus Christ.

I really wouldn't want anyone who was sexually attracted to children anywhere near my kid. I can see why people are upset about this.
Maybe I've taken your post wrong, but what is supposed to be understood about watching the rape of an innocent child?

-oddguy

The arousal spewed forth from it, young chap. That is the thing only padeophiles can understand, apparently.

And to Havoc: You think that paedophilia is a mental disorder, but bestiality isn't? Or am I at some kind of misunderstanding here?

I don't know, I felt that way Max's post was worded lead me to believe that he was saying that we shouldn't be scared and judgemental becuase we don't understand. My point was that whether we understand it or not, child rape is what it is...an act of sick, perverted violence...and therefore the arrousal of watching such an act is sick. This making it perfectly reasonable to not want anyone who enjoys that kind of thing to be around children.

-oddguy

Yea I think the memory hurts more then the act itself. However, I don't think that a pedo by definition will grab a kid after watching the material. It depends per person ofcourse, but the ones that are actualy aware that it is wrong are unlikely to go out and rape a kid.


I wouldn't know why bestiality would be a mental disorder... unless you can tell me why it is?

OVER PROTECTIVE!? That is not being OVER protective, it is the right amount of protection. Would you not worry as much as this if your child was near these kinds of monsters??? Please don't ever have kids if you won't be that protective of them.

I agree with everything that Old And Not So Tasty has said so far. I think that these kind of people should not be trusted around any children what so ever, if they enjoy these sickening things. I don't think that they can be trusted in any way if they have ever searched for this on the internet or commited it.

Again, I must agree with OANST. Do you not think that the child feels indescribable pain from knowing what kind of sick satisfaction someone is getting from their misery? Also, please note there is a difference between the words acceptance and approval; I was careful to use the former as the latter would make my argument less reasonable.

The crime of creating child pornography is furthered by those who take pleasure in watching it. With more and more disgusting people out there enjoying it, the more the crime is committed, spreading and growing like a cancer.

Okay - remember that this guy was only cautioned for downloading child pornography. That means that he may not have actually downloaded it himself, or only did it out of curiousity but not a regular thing (consider Dino researching the availability of child porn in a recent thread).

This reminds me of a guy in Melbourne who was a registered sex offender because he had been in a relationship with a 15 year old girl when he was 18 (he's in his mid-late twenties now) - they hadn't had intercourse but he had felt her up. Just like this guy, he wasn't convicted of anything. But a new law was introduced that anyone on the register couldn't work with children - irrespective of whether they were convicted, what they did and how long ago. So this guy was fired for a stupid mistake he did a decade ago and cannot work in his chosen profession despite everyone at his school - staff and students - speaking in support of him and his pedagogical talents.

So, whilst there are not words strong enough to describe how discusting paedophilia is, people should learn not to jump to conclusions about these people. I echo Havoc's statements about many of these people being in need of help that they can't get because of the stigma attached to admitting their problem.

In terms of whether viewing child porn should be a crime, allow me to compare it to hiring a hitman to murder someone - you may not be actively performing the crime but you are certainly getting the benefits thereof.

I think nate just summed up pretty much everyones standpoints. All pro's and all con's. Nice one nate.

The individual is not technically hurting the child emotionally, as the child could never know exactly who is viewing the images. Now as disturbing as it is that there are people watching this stuff, it's still the perverts who've produced the material that have allowed potentially anyone to see it. The agony that the child feels would be no different if not a single person was seeing it, because for all they know, it could be hundreds of people.

I cannot jump into the mind of a person with this kind of illness, so no, I can honestly say that I don't know the exact effect that this material has on them. I'm sure in many cases it does. I'm also sure in some cases it makes the person feel sympathy for the child, giving that person less motivation to commit the act themselves. To say that it will obviously make the person want to do it more is simply one demensional thinking. Besides, I never said that it did supress the urge either, I merely brought up the argument for discussion.

No, hiring a pedophile to rape a child could be compared to hiring a hitman to murder someone.

But they are effectively hiring the paedophile if they pay for access to child porn. Even if the guy who made the footage lets it out for free, he's probably getting off on letting other people see his fetish, which could be seen as a sort of non-financial payment.

That governments have made viewing child porn illegal is a way of killing off the market for that sort of thing. If it's not illegal, more people will watch it and then more will be made.