And I'm back!

With more to whinge about than ever!

Todays bitching session is about the legal system and its downfalls.

I was absolutely infuriated to read about this case. The thing that really got up my nose about this case was the fact that;

• a) "It emerged during his trial that Sully had convictions for almost identical attacks stretching back 38 years."


• b) Sully was ordered to sign the sex offenders register and was disqualified him from working with children for life.
  

Well yes, brilliant its happened now, why wasn't it done before anyway?!

And lastly;

• c) "If and when Sully is ever released from prison, he will be subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO), which would prohibit him from undertaking work that would bring him into contact with children."

fantastic, great idea, except...

"Breaking the order would make him liable to a maximum five-year prison sentence. "

Ooh, wow, a whole five years!

Why the fuck isn't it longer?

Say he assaults a 7 year old, then when he gets out that child is going to be a mere 12 years old. A difficult time for any child let alone one who knows that the guy who screwed up their life is now out and about - and may well be angered that they told.

Anyone think that child will sleep well again? Isn't enough that the child has to face memories in dreams let alone know they might yet come face to face in reality?

On a note away from child abusers this is an interesting story...

In short for all of you who don't care to read it through, be sure to encourage your kids to study hard and maybe become a doctor. If they want inflict gross bodily harm on someone and get away with only a few hours community service a week they will need a good job.

Bloody Paedophiles!!

It's late and I've not been home from work long, so this is a short blog - that will be extended as soon as I wake/remember.

How on Earth can a convicted paedophile manage to abduct a child and then bring the screaming three year old to his BAIL hostel and proceed to rape her on the premises.

How is that possible?

Did it not strike anyone as somewhat obscure?

Even if it were his own child, who in their right mind would believe that he would be allowed unsupervised access.

My heart goes out to the poor little girl. At the age of three, she is now scared to go home. Home at that age is supposed to be a place of safety, a place where children feel secure and can develop and grow. But not for this little girl. Not unexpectedly she is now "very quiet and hasn't said very much at all", the things going on in her mind now are things that someone the age of 103 shouldn't have to have, let alone at age 3.

I can see me getting carried away with this story tonight, so I will stop soon.

As a solution, perhaps we need to deter/dissuade abusers of children in a more personal way than public humiliation. In centuries past and in various different countries, peoples punishments fitted their crimes. For example, if you killed - you were killed, if you stole - your hand was cut off. So, I propose this; for male (female ones exist too and also should be punished) abusers of children (or indeed rapists), a simple act such as the removal of the penis would certainly act as a deterrent. If you get caught, it is removed - you certainly wouldn't be able to commit that particular crime again.

Yes, I realise that a similar reason as to why the UK does not have the death sentence applies here - "what if the person is later found innocent and you've hacked off their manhood?"

Well to be frightfully honest, if they were incriminated to the extent that there wasn't even reasonable doubt as to their guilt then they probably deserved it.

In murder the victim cannot indicate the perpetrator (the pedantic among you will now bring up the subject of forensics), but in abuse/rape the victim is usually more than capable of indicating/confirming the identity of the abuser/rapist.