egafd.com

I am glad that the thread has encouraged a healthy debate and reiterate that if a paedo is convicted they should stay in custody until they are no longer a danger, if that means life, so be it. Publishing names not only puts the innocent at risk, it sends the guilty underground and brings out the worst in the vigilante mentality. Also I cannot stand the hipcrosy of the gutter press or some of the victims family. Wonder how much money the Payne family have made out of death of Sarah and how guilty are they for allowing her to be in the situation she found herself.

I very much agree with what you say. The dangers of an making these peoples' names public are clear. It is, perhaps, worth remembering that the last lynching in this country was as recent as 1956.

And who exactly in this thread has been offering excuses for child abuse?

The main trouble I see is the blurring of what is and what isn't a dangerous paedophile, where does the line get drawn? Who is a danger to innocent to children and who is just seedy/mixed-up/undesirable but not dangerous or psychotic?
Do we put the Roy Whitings, Alan Websters, Craig Sweeney's etc on this list (*to me, they should never be "free" as they represent a risk to any child) as well as those convicted of looking at pictures? Are those seedy blokes who "holiday" in Thailand, Cambodia etc twice a year also in the same bracket as the above? What about the 23 yr old who got convicted of shagging a buxom 14 or 15 yr old girl with whom he had a serious relationship with but happened to break the law in doing so, does he represent a dangerous paedophile who's whereabouts must be made known to every tom, dick & harry, who might suddenly start lusting after a 7 yr old? The female teacher who had a fling with a 16 yr old pupil, should she be outed in case she goes looking to seduce an 11 yr old? Do we accept that the 15 yrs and 8 month old girl with 36DD and round arse is a child the same as she was when was a flate-chested 9 year old, and this represents paedophilia yet her sister who is about to be 17 is fair game?
You see, the lines have been blurred too much and this is a big problem.

eroticartist wrote:

>>


When I was at primary school in the early 1970s, we had this one male teacher, who I guess would've been in his late 20s or early 30s then.

And he was a similar "figure of fun" to us kids at the time. Besides his gaudy purple & yellow floral ties (which were pushing it a bit even for the early '70s), the thing I remember most about him is how he always used to favour the girls and would listen to any old tittle-tattle they used to whisper in his ear - rather than send them away with a flea in their ear and telling them not to "tell tales".

And I mean "whisper in his ear" quite literally, because he'd often quite openly have one or sometimes even two pre-pubescent girls perched on his knee, fiddling with his tie, undoing his shirt buttons, giggling away and cooing in his shell-like.

At that age I was too young to associate it with anything sexual, it was just normal for this particular teacher. And it's difficult to know for sure whether or not it was in fact a sexual kick for him, because in those days there wasn't this hysteria surrounding paedophilia (or even suspected paedophilia) that exists today. At least not that I was aware of - maybe somewone who was older and more "tuned-in" during the early '70s can tell me different, but I suspect that I'm right. And the girls' mums all loved him as well.

Quite obviously though, he'd be in big trouble today.

You make some very good points here, dynatech. Clearly the likes of Sweeny, Webster and Whiting should be dealt with custodially. However there are problems with the other groups you describe. Outing people is dangerous and there have already been examples of mistaken identity.

I rather suspect that I am older than you Eric but, nevertheless, I am sure your observations are totally correct. Of course sexual assault was taken seriously then but people who would now be considered paedophiles were often only figures of fun. I remember a friend of mine recently describing to me being out as a young boy by a river with other children. A man came along who had a reputation for having an interest in young children and made a nuisance of himself. The kids threw him in the river! I am not suggesting that the approach of the 50's 60's & 70's was correct, but you are correct.

In my original post I said that I wasn't looking for an argument and I am not.

That still being the case I suggest you read the posts again and work it out for yourself.

ok mate ...i get ya !!