'Pedophile Protection Act': What's next for hate crimes?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Apparently you haven't read the whole thread. Some pedophiles have come out and announced their "affliction" and, as another poster pointed out, many in UK have put themselves in the sex offender registry even though they haven't done anything.

Those people have seek help, privately and publicly. Should we punish them for it? It's pretty funny that they had to seek help when they, according to you, weren't born pedophiles.

Even convicted pedophiles need protection. If you start with one group, why not the next one that you consider undesirable? The world will be a very small place if everyone starts killing those they consider undesirable.

apparently you haven't the thread

I REPEAT

If I attack someone now in the street, regardless if they fancy kids or not, I will have broken the law and receive some punishment- NOW WHAT ADDITIONAL PROTECTION IS REQUIRED HERE?!

Originally posted by FMLuder

I would like to see you cite precedent for that piece of totally spurious fearmongering. I don't believe that IS how the law works.

I too disagree with 'hate speech' legislation of any kind (despite being a beneficiary of some of said legislation - not paedo lol -.-). MY ISSUE is with the manner in which child sex offenders (and indeed others, sometimes for incidents of rape that they STILL deny having served a full sentence) are 'named and shamed' by the government, and then illegally forced to undergo incarceration and psychological treatment on an ex post facto basis simply because pressure groups of 'concerned citizens' with NO real insight into the subject have lobbied loudly enough. In effect, these people are victims of selfish party politics and demagogy. They're being illegally imprisoned to suit a political agenda. And for all their NWO cynicism, many people have apparently swallowed this tripe whole.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by FMLuder]

I'm actually not sure what you mean

news.bbc.co.uk...

these vermin received higher sentences because of the perceived "hate" aspect of their crime which receives a higher penalty- I thought all murder involved some form of hate...........

reply to post by blueorder


Ah, I edited my post.

My point was that a 'hate' crime is in reality 2nd degree murder, whereas if you just kill someone for 'no real reason', you could likely have your sentence reduced to manslaughter.

IF there is any supplementary aspect to the sentence based on racial/cultural sensibilities, then I agree; that is ludicrous. You should NOT recieve a higher sentence for killing a black guy because he's black than you would for killing a ginger man because he's ginger or a bloke with a really annoying voice.

The point of the legislation is to highlight the 'irrational' nature of the crime. In effect, they have created a parallel to 2nd degree murder where the offender demonstrates a callous propensity to commit violent crime based SOLELY on a dislike for a superficial aspect of their victim. This is different to murdering someone because they've pissed you off/slept with your wife etc...

That's probably a better explanation of what 'hate crime' is than you might find in the hyperbolous papers, who are desperate to turn this into a poor-persecuted-white-christian-heterosexual-englishman issue...

[edit on 12-5-2009 by FMLuder]

Originally posted by FMLuderAh, I edited my post.

My point was that a 'hate' crime is in reality 2nd degree murder, whereas if you just kill someone for 'no real reason', you could likely have your sentence reduced to manslaughter.

IF there is any supplementary aspect to the sentence based on racial/cultural sensibilities, then I agree; that is ludicrous. You should NOT recieve a higher sentence for killing a black guy because he's black than you would for killing a ginger man because he's ginger or a bloke with a really annoying voice.

The point of the legislation is to highlight the 'irrational' nature of the crime. In effect, they have created a parallel to 2nd degree murder where the offender demonstrates a callous ability to commit violent crime based SOLELY on a dislike for a superficial aspect of their victim. This is different to murdering someone because they've pissed you off/slept with your wife etc...

That's probably a better explanation of what 'hate crime' is than you might find in the hyperbolous papers, who are desperate to turn this into a poor-persecuted-white-heterosexual-englishman issue...

[edit on 12-5-2009 by FMLuder]

I think I get you now:lol

The whole hate crime agenda is an absoloute disgrace in my opinion (and I rarely read papers, certainly not the red tops) and is more to do with extending control, power and certain peoples in position of power venting some infantile radical urges they should have left behind at universities.

There was the fella on the London bus (white) who got stabbed to death by the bloke (black) for asking him to shop throwing chips which were hitting his girlfriend- if the white guy had just stabbed him for being black he would have received a higher sentence than the black guy who was being anti social, and ultimately murderous

It is a ridiculous situation

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Dont do the crime if you cant handle the time!!

There are certain things in this life that have and must be protected and that is the freedom and innocence of children.

I dont care who it is......6ft under for all found guilty.