Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 84

Thread: Jamie Oliver hired a potato

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)

    Jamie Oliver hired a potato

    So Jamie Oliver hired a convicted child rapist as a chef, saying he's "served his time"

    the guy served four years - does he really think that is adequate?

    Deluded amoral middle class piece of shit... absolutely typical of the "anything I do is ok because I'm me" home counties toff mentality

    I will enjoy watching his career die a death after this

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    GEORGIA - You're fucking welcome
    Posts
    2,822
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    So Jamie Oliver hired a convicted child rapist as a chef, saying he's "served his time"

    the guy served four years - does he really think that is adequate?

    Deluded amoral middle class piece of shit... absolutely typical of the "anything I do is ok because I'm me" home counties toff mentality

    I will enjoy watching his career die a death after this
    What's the middle class got to do with it?

    He annoys me already. This news doesn't help.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    It's my belief that a lot of people amongst the post Thatcher middle classes in the UK are raised with a sense of self entitlement and sense of duty towards making money, meaning they do things like hire paedophiles to work in their businesses and think it's OK - and also think that everyone else will probably be cool with it if they just offer a limp justification, that's how far gone they are

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    It's my belief that a lot of people amongst the post Thatcher middle classes in the UK are raised with a sense of self entitlement and sense of duty towards making money, meaning they do things like hire paedophiles to work in their businesses and think it's OK - and also think that everyone else will probably be cool with it if they just offer a limp justification, that's how far gone they are
    But you don't honestly think that Jamie Oliver is currently middle class, do you? I don't think many "middle class" people would think that child molesters are okay. However, I am also of the belief that if child molesters who have served their time can't be employed, then taxpayers will forever pay for them and wtf good will THAT do for society? This is, however, a poor PR move for Oliver. At some point, wealthy people become so far removed from reality that they don't think more than a few seconds beyond any decision. This program is for disadvantaged people. Oliver probably thinks this guy will somehow turn himself around through being a chef. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-18-2014 at 11:55 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Aye but I'm talking about the cultural values shared by much of the UK middle classes rather than economic status

    Making a load of money later in life doesn't always erase the values you've been brought up with

    It isn't about rich or poor it's about the values held within certain social strata

    edit - btw I'm middle class but I was born poor, so I get to bag on everyone
    Last edited by Sutekh; 10-18-2014 at 11:58 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    Aye but I'm talking about the cultural values shared by much of the UK middle classes rather than economic status

    Making a load of money later in life doesn't always erase the values you've been brought up with

    It isn't about rich or poor it's about the values held within certain social strata
    But "mlddle class" isn't a "social" strata, technically. It's a financial strata, defined mostly by income levels that can support education, housing, etc.

    I've seen some interesting studies conducted in several countries defining "middle class" and it was interesting how people who were absolutely NOT middle class (were definitely upper class, or even lower class, economically) defined themselves as middle class, only because they didn't want to be associated with the upper class.

    The upper class, also known as Old Money, is still a social class. Hence why Jews couldn't be members for hundreds of years, even though they had a lot more wealth. But I really don't believe that the middle class is a social class. There are really only three groups: The Haves, the Have Nots, and the people who bitch about both.

    Oliver's behavior is much more typical of a Chef; Rock Star who is completely out of touch with reality, who thinks his "foundation" can rehabilitate a pedophile. He means well, perhaps, but this won't end well, for anybody? But blaming this on his "middle class values" is insulting to middle class people everywhere, and sounds like sour grapes on your part right now.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-18-2014 at 12:16 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    I'm a social scientist & in my field of work Middle Class is a well defined and widely accepted term of stratification

    Just wondering - are you from the UK?

    The upper class in in this country is the very rich or titled, the working class is low paid, usually not house owners, not graduates, low income and often manual labour or service industry employment

    By Middle Class I mean professionals or managerial, uni edcuated, income between 30 & 60 pa, house owners etc

    I do agree the lines are becoming blurred in the post thatcher era, but there's a still a section of society with a different lifestyle, values and prospects to those either side of them

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    I'm a social scientist & in my field of work Middle Class is a well defined and widely accepted term of stratification

    Just wondering - are you from the UK?

    The upper class in in this country is the very rich or titled, the working class is low paid, usually not house owners, not graduates, low income and often manual labour or service industry employment

    By Middle Class I mean professionals or managerial, uni edcuated, income between 30 & 60 pa, house owners etc
    Yes, we used to have a middle class in the U.S., we don't have one, anymore, LOL.

    Anyway, this is drift. Are you a big follower of Chefs, in general? A foodie? This looks to be big news in the U.K., this Jamie Oliver story. Here in the U.S., we have lots of douchebag celebrity chefs, you can follow about 900 of them on Twitter and Instagram, and all of them are total dickheads and the dickier they are, the more people seem to love them. Even that asshole Gordon Ramsay's Hell's Kitchen show, which I never watch because he's a stereotypical screaming asshole celebrity rockstar chef.

    "Chef" is a way for ordinary people to go from rags to riches. Tony Bourdain was a heroin addict who hung out with the Ramones in the 70s.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-18-2014 at 12:21 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    I think what's happened on both sides of the pond is that the values and opportunities are beginning to overlap and the playing field is levelling out

    Yep the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but the gulf of people in between who are doing OK seems to be getting bigger

    I put this down (roughly) to the chicago school, Thatcher & Reagan etc.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    So Jamie Oliver hired a convicted child rapist as a chef, saying he's "served his time"

    the guy served four years - does he really think that is adequate?

    Deluded amoral middle class piece of shit... absolutely typical of the "anything I do is ok because I'm me" home counties toff mentality

    I will enjoy watching his career die a death after this
    Just to play devils advocate... What is wrong with employing him? If 4 years jail time is inadequate, how does that problem fall on his employer and not the legal system? And what is the alternative for the employer? Instead of letting him work for a living, let the tax payers pay for him? This is a country with a large social safety net and this guy gets to use it if unemployed.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    It's because he does not deserve a decent life, wage and career

    If he's not working he's on welfare/benefits - fine. Honestly I would rather pay for him to live in squalor than afford him an opportunity to live a comfortable life on a professional wage, he does not deserve that opportunity.

    The welfare doesn't last forever - eventually he will be handed a choice of either menial/unpaid work, or cessation of benefit

    But yes the legal system is massively at fault, too often in these cases it's only the victim who gets the life sentence

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    It's because he does not deserve a decent life, wage and career

    If he's not working he's on welfare/benefits - fine. Honestly I would rather pay for him to live in squalor than afford him an opportunity to live a comfortable life on a professional wage, he does not deserve that opportunity.

    The welfare doesn't last forever - eventually he will be handed a choice of either menial/unpaid work, or cessation of benefit

    But yes the legal system is massively at fault, too often in these cases it's only the victim who gets the life sentence
    In the UK? I don't know the specifics on their benefits, but it does include free healthcare, housing, and some form of unemployment pay that I'm not sure runs out.

    That's another thing with the whole "minimum guaranteed standard of living" thing that people push for. It includes situations like this.

    But yea, this is on the legal system. I don't see why people would rather jump on some celebrity about it. Hell, if his employer wasn't a celebrity there wouldn't be any news coverage on it. So this is much more about a celebrity than it is about a pedophile being employed. Further, who the hell created this story and what is their motivation? There are a LOT of employed individuals who served their time for horrible crimes.... why is THIS the case that gets attention?

    edit: after reading allegro's post, it's because this guy could make well above average pay when he is done being an apprentice. I guess that is why.
    Last edited by DigitalChaos; 10-18-2014 at 04:38 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    you get free healthcare no matter what... free housing only if you have co-dependants (kids or elderly or disabled, and exceptions are made for asylum seekers), unemployment runs out - trust me (I live here, I know the score - I'm not lying). If you are long term unemployed you get benefits, then unpaid work, then finally it gets cut off altogether and you will eventually end up homeless (In London we have veterans and disabled begging on the streets - it does not last forever)

    At the end of the day if ANY employer did this I would be annoyed - the reason this has come to my attention is because the employer is in the public eye and the press scrutinise him, but just because the eye is on him more so than any other individual does not mean he is any less guilty and it is any less outrageous. Once again, I am not jumping on him purely because he is a celebrity, I am jumping on him because he is helping pure scum - the reason it has come to my attention is because he is a celebrity. Are you suggesting that I, or people in general don't really have anything against Paedos and they just want to bash a celeb? Seriously? Given the epidemic of child rape in society I might be inclined the agree with the latter but the former? Enough said

    And even if that was the case, do you not still think he is wrong to take this guy on over other applicants who presumably haven't raped a child and ruined her whole life?

    Why is it this case that gets attention when plenty of of ex-cons re-enter the job market without moral outrage? Aside from that fact that child-rape is leagues ahead of most other crimes in terms of pure evil (mate, what the fuck? obviously), It is worth noting that there is no evidence to suggest child rapists can be reformed - he is beyond redemption and therefore forgiveness and charity (except that which has to be rendered in lieu of the death penalty). This is one of the main things that means this case deserves extra hard treatment - thieves, drug dealers and murderers can be reformed - but even if they couldn't, are you telling me that thieves, all varieties of killer and dealers are less abhorrent than child-rapists? Surely it is self evident why this case is so much worse

    I would ask you now - why does he deserve any leniency?

    I'm wondering if the outrage I'm feeling is due to not understanding the true nature of your argument - please tell me what you think the morally right course of action is with regards to this individual. It seems to me like you're saying "no worse than any other criminal that has served his time, and people are only angry because his employer was a celebrity, whom people love to bash"

    You say you're playing Devil's advocate - I hope so, and I appreciate such emotive issues must be subject to critical thinking - you have the floor!
    Last edited by Sutekh; 10-18-2014 at 08:16 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Nobody has anything to say?

    wow

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    What can you say? I don't know what else to suggest we do with a 19-yr-old who does this kind of thing. There are about 100 various UK news articles about this guy as if he's somehow public enemy number one, and there's zero news coverage, here. It's as if this guy was worse than Jack the Ripper, but I can't tell if he's a multiple offender. I don't know if this was an indication that he is a pathological child-rapist and is incapable of being rehabilitated or if he was in fact rehabilitated but, either way, as somebody in law, the point of the prison system isn't to simply punish but also to rehabilitate so that hopefully these people can become contributing members of society. If this isn't possible, then what else do we do with them? Firing squad? Shoot them into outer space? Soylent green? Fertilizer? We can't afford to support them while they smoke pot on the couch all day and we board them up in the house and keep them from the playgrounds. So we'll have to shoot them all the head and blow their brains out all over the place. Simple. *shrug*. Anyway, this is drift.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    @Sutekh - Did you read my edit?

    But if you insist...
    What other employed pedophiles has your country gone after with such intensity?
    Why hasn't your country used all that energy to fix the legal punishment for that crime? Seems like they are only interested in calling out the celebrity over the matter.


    And before my edit, it seemed like the underlying reason for this story may have had a lot more to do with someone who wanted bad press for Jamie Oliver and not so much about exposing pedophiles who happen to be employed.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    @allegro it's not drift, this is discussion of an issue which a headline raises, unless I'm mistaken this is a discussion forum not a headline aggregation service whereby we repost stories and no more is to be said on the matter
    @DigitalChaos
    yep it's disgusting and unjust that other nonces and nonce enablers haven't been subject to the media scrutiny - we can agree on that

    Now what about

    " There are a LOT of employed individuals who served their time for horrible crimes.... why is THIS the case that gets attention?"

    We can go case by case and I'm sure we can agree on the revolting double standards within our society towards a myriad issues - but surely we can agree this sort of thing is beyond the pale? Why hasn't my country done more to effectively punish the offender?

    If you really want my opinion - it's because rape and child rape are IMHO epidemic and we are in cultural denial, we think of these people as one in a million - but in my honest and informed opinion it's more like 1 in 20. How many people do you know who were abused as a child or raped as an adult? A lot, right? It's not the lightning strike phenomena our cultures seem to insist it is, is it? It's awful and I fucking hate it

    When something like this gets exposed, why is your first instinct to say "well this awful shit only had a light thrown on it because of the status of someone involved" - eh?! given that there is no argument as to whether the abuse happened, why is the priority to decry the unfair attention the celeb has received rather than the very real and proven abuse that has taken place? Why effectively defend the abuser's employer rather than attack the abuser

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    @allegro it's not drift, this is discussion of an issue which a headline raises, unless I'm mistaken this is a discussion forum not a headline aggregation service whereby we repost stories and no more is to be said on the matter
    I dunno, it's a "General Headlines" thread so I think we are to stick to General Headlines and not get into the woods with each General Headline. When that happens, we should probably create a new thread, or the admins will split the thread. yeah, I'm a drift-hater. For me to get into the weeds of this discussion, i.e. the typical sentence for child sexual assault and the number of offenders, etc., then we'd definitely veer beyond the "General Headlines" category.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-19-2014 at 07:57 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post

    When something like this gets exposed, why is your first instinct to say "well this awful shit only had a light thrown on it because of the status of someone involved" - eh?! given that there is no argument as to whether the abuse happened, why is the priority to decry the unfair attention the celeb has received rather than the very real and proven abuse that has taken place? Why effectively defend the abuser's employer rather than attack the abuser
    Because it allows the public to wash their hands of it after the problem is settled (or more likely when it exits the news cycle). People are attacking it for the wrong reasons. They need to figure out the true problem and then go after the root. The best that will happen is that guy loses his job, finds a new one with less publicity, and then the public can feel like they actually did something positive... when it was really just masturbatory distraction from the true problem. I mean, what is the public actually asking for here? Are they saying that Jamie Oliver should fire this guy or are they asking for a legal system where this guy would have received a more harsh punishment?
    Last edited by DigitalChaos; 10-19-2014 at 07:57 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    Because it allows the public to wash their hands of it after the problem is settled (or more likely when it exits the news cycle). People are attacking it for the wrong reasons. They need to figure out the true problem and then go after the root. The best that will happen is that guy loses his job, finds a new one with less publicity, and then the public can feel like they actually did something positive... when it was really just masturbatory distraction from the true problem. I mean, what is the public actually asking for here? Are they saying that Jamie Oliver should fire this guy or are they asking for a legal system where this guy would have received a more harsh punishment?
    Actually, it appears that he received the prescribed punishment per law. DC, maybe split this thread?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    Because it allows the public to wash their hands of it after the problem is settled (or more likely when it exits the news cycle). People are attacking it for the wrong reasons. They need to figure out the true problem and then go after the root. The best that will happen is that guy loses his job, finds a new one with less publicity, and then the public can feel like they actually did something positive... when it was really just masturbatory distraction from the true problem. I mean, what is the public actually asking for here? Are they saying that Jamie Oliver should fire this guy or are they asking for a legal system where this guy would have received a more harsh punishment?
    I can't speak personally for Joe Public and how they feel - but I agree they rely on an Adorno esque false sense of absolution through these witchunts

    but that is quite apart from what my past few posts are getting at

    Alright I'm asking you straight up for your opinion - do you think JO was wrong to hire this guy, given that he knew what he did?
    Last edited by Sutekh; 10-19-2014 at 08:16 PM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    I dunno, it's a "General Headlines" thread so I think we are to stick to General Headlines and not get into the woods with each General Headline. When that happens, we should probably create a new thread, or the admins will split the thread. yeah, I'm a drift-hater. For me to get into the weeds of this discussion, i.e. the typical sentence for child sexual assault and the number of offenders, etc., then we'd definitely veer beyond the "General Headlines" category.
    right but page 53 (for example) has a whole chunk of back and forth about sharpton without any pleas from you for a split

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    right but page 53 (for example) has a whole chunk of back and forth about sharpton without any pleas from you for a split
    Sorry, I just saw this going into the weeds, here, with legality, and we just had a huge discussion about this in the admin portion of the board, but Page 54 has less than 6 responses, so I'll bow out before it exceeds that, here.

    Re JO, he's trying to rehabilitate this guy in his own way, since your own legal system doesn't seem to be interested in doing that? Who knows, he's a fucking idiot really wealthy celebrity chef. In the legal system, "punishment" is also intended to be "rehabilitation" in order to better serve society; it is not intended as "revenge," which the legal system does not view as serving society. Revenge = taking away a person's ability to make a living, which ultimately harms, not benefits, society, because it keeps the person on the dole. Rehabilitation better enables a person to "give back" to society. See Dickens for further reference.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-19-2014 at 08:37 PM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    I'll split it later tonight.

    I wouldn't have hired the guy based on what I know. I'm sure there may be some edge cases where hiring him in specific roles would be more beneficial to the public. I also don't know enough about Oliver's reasoning to make a true judgement.

    And that may be different than what you are getting at, but the demonstration of the public's skewed priorities is a great demonstration of why playing devils advocate is important. Honestly, that exact situation is a common occurrence in most "national discussions" you see. They take the easiest route that makes them feel like they are doing something good. Hell, I made similar complaints in the majority of the US focused headlines over the last year.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    In the legal system, "punishment" is also intended to be "rehabilitation" in order to better serve society; it is not intended as "revenge," which the legal system does not view as serving society. Revenge = taking away a person's ability to make a living, which ultimately harms, not benefits, society, because it keeps the person on the dole. Rehabilitation better enables a person to "give back" to society. See Dickens for further reference.
    Or see my previous posts where I addressed this exact issue. There is NO evidence that rehab for people like this exists, but I don't advocate death penalty or cutting my nose to spite my face by denying him benefit. I stated he should be suspended within the system in lieu of the death penalty. Scroll up - do you see?

    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    I'll split it later tonight.

    I wouldn't have hired the guy based on what I know.
    Good

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    This raises a good question - what is the first step to tackling this problem? If moral outrage and high profile cases only serve to give a temporary feeling of false release - where do we begin :/

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sutekh View Post
    Or see my previous posts where I addressed this exact issue. There is NO evidence that rehab for people like this exists, but I don't advocate death penalty or cutting my nose to spite my face by denying him benefit. I stated he should be suspended within the system in lieu of the death penalty. Scroll up - do you see?
    I see but didn't fully comprehend because your passion overshadowed any logic. And one case in his history does not provide enough evidence of what you are suggesting. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. We haven't seen his shrink records, his psych evaluations (if any), he was 19, we don't know the situation. It was a terrible crime, no doubt, but not all of these cases fall into the "beyond rehabilitation" category. And you can't simply lock all of these types up somewhere, the "system" can't support that, that kind of "system" does not exist without violating human rights. Even if these people do not seem human to you, they still have rights. There is a very thin line, there, between punishment and barbarism. And our taxpaying system simply cannot afford to support locking up first-time offenders and throwing away the keys. It costs a lot of money that the system simply does not have. Yes, it appears that your punishment for these crimes in the U.K. seem pretty lenient compared to ours, and I'm not sure why, other than perhaps an archaic standard of the lack of child's rights, in general, that needs to be changed, probably.
    Last edited by allegro; 10-19-2014 at 09:45 PM.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,210
    Mentioned
    174 Post(s)
    I'd say that people need to be pushing for their politicians to modify the laws surrounding punishment and request for longer sentences. If nobody is doing that, then this whole thing is just a circlejerk for the whole country.

    allegro brings up a solid point though. Unless you were in the courtroom or have access to every detail from the case, I'm not sure anyone can say that they know better about what his punishment should be and that it should be life-ending and he can never recover from it.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Haha love the thread title.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,722
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    I see but didn't fully comprehend because your passion overshadowed any logic. And one case in his history does not provide enough evidence of what you are suggesting. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. We haven't seen his shrink records, his psych evaluations (if any), he was 19, we don't know the situation. It was a terrible crime, no doubt, but not all of these cases fall into the "beyond rehabilitation" category. And you can't simply lock all of these types up somewhere, the "system" can't support that, that kind of "system" does not exist without violating human rights. Even if these people do not seem human to you, they still have rights. There is a very thin line, there, between punishment and barbarism. And our taxpaying system simply cannot afford to support locking up first-time offenders and throwing away the keys. It costs a lot of money that the system simply does not have. Yes, it appears that your punishment for these crimes in the U.K. seem pretty lenient compared to ours, and I'm not sure why, other than perhaps an archaic standard of the lack of child's rights, in general, that needs to be changed, probably.
    Where is the evidence that child rapists can be rehabilitated? I've read with an open mind and I'm under the impression that as far as we know, they are like psychopaths and it appears to be hardwired once it takes root. Search around, the general consensus is that they cannot be cured. Why give people this awful the the benefit of the doubt for no reason. David Crawford did some very good work in this dept, check it out

    At the end of the day you seem to be saying you find it hard to believe they can't change. I believe in rehabilitation of offenders and know for sure that some violent offenders (even murderers, Norwegians have a quite remarkable strategy involving island farms) can change, but I can't ignore the evidence with regards to this particular variety of offender.

    Obviously I would never ask you or anyone to simply take my word for it, but you should be rooting an opinion on something this grave in evidence

    My personal opinion on why the UK is so lenient

    1. these crimes are under-reported
    2. we are in denial as a society as to the scale
    3. there are way more of these people then we suspect and this causes resistance to change in a myriad ways, as they tend to cluster around centres for abuse and make sure their crimes aren't reported

    The reason I think they should be locked up indefinitely is because I don't believe they can change - that isn't barbarism. Releasing these people onto the streets when they are more than likely to reoffend is just... I don't even know what the term is. Suicidally liberal. It's not about putting the boot in for a sense of satisfaction in my case, it's about isolating people who will almost certainly wreck more lives

    I work in social science, and lobby for stricter sentencing and increased powers to prosecute. I agree the moral panics constitute a circle-jerk as sometimes I feel like one of the only people taking this sort of thing seriously, devoting time to research and activism
    Last edited by Sutekh; 10-20-2014 at 05:15 PM.

Posting Permissions