quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

It’s not as simple as that though.
In the case of Vanessa George, and indeed any suspected paedophile, there is huge potential for unidentified victims. By naming her at this stage parents whose kids attended little teds can contact the police and attempt to find out if their child has fallen victim, whereas if she had been given anonymity (and potentially acquitted) the parents of all those kids (who were in her care) are left completely unaware.
It's a choice between the ‘rights’ of the defendant’s family and the 'rights' of the family whose child was in her care and potentially fell victim.

quote:

Originally posted by cologne1:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by cologne1:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

I think that's the same problem in this case. This woman has 2 teenage daughters who had to go into hiding already. These children must be shell shocked about the allegations against their mother. Isn't that bad enough without depriving them of their home and some sort of security.

I figure that the quacking masses figure that her kids are guilty because they had the misfortune to be born of someone who is an accused paedo.

It really sickens me

It's a local case for me Ennis and I think listening to ppl, you are right in your thinking.

Well they are morons then! How the hell can they want to make a couple of teens responsible for the alleged actions of their mother?

Bunch of twats the lot of them!

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

It’s not as simple as that though.
In the case of Vanessa George, and indeed any suspected paedophile, there is huge potential for unidentified victims. By naming her at this stage parents whose kids attended little teds can contact the police and attempt to find out if their child has fallen victim, whereas if she had been given anonymity (and potentially acquitted) the parents of all those kids (who were in her care) are left completely unaware.
It's a choice between the ‘rights’ of the defendant’s family and the 'rights' of the family whose child was in her care and potentially fell victim.

So her kids should suffer because of her alledged actions then?
I know, I will ring up the police tomorrow and tell them that I think that you are a kiddie fiddler cos of some off hand comments made to me. Then the paps will descend on you, as will sky news and BBC news 24, they will be taking video and photos of your family....
How do you feel now?

Bear in mind all this alleged evidence is 2nd hand to the papers, none of this has been aired in court for a jury of your peers?

In MY opinon no one should EVER be named for ANY crime untill it has been proven in a court of law that they are guilty,....
ANYONE could be wrongly accused it happens time and time again,. totaly inoccent peoples lives ruined, I know we have to protect the victim, but does that mean we have to risk making someone else a victim?

But could the police have not done that jasmine, without naming her?
Surely the nursery would have detailed records of children that had attended there and they could have approached them that way.
Although I'm sure that any parents approached would have contacted the local press and talked about it at the school gates etc.
And any nursery worker not going into work would have been easy to track down I guess and then name.
I just think that we have to be careful when naming people before they have been convicted

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
In MY opinon no one should EVER be named for ANY crime untill it has been proven in a court of law that they are guilty,....
ANYONE could be wrongly accused it happens time and time again,. totaly inoccent peoples lives ruined, I know we have to protect the victim, but does that mean we have to risk making someone else a victim?

Oh don't bother OHG, if someone says it happened then it did...

quote:

Originally posted by Ms Golightly:
The re-offending rate is exceptionally low - so it works. But, the GBP can't reconcile these 'monsters' receiving such luxuries, even though it benefits society as a whole. Mainly because no such help and rehabilitation is on offer for the victim.

I make myself quite unpopular fairly regularly arguing for stuff like that. The Stone's Justice Manual explains (or did when I last looked many years ago) the purpose of sentencing and I've tried to take that on board. If someone thinks sentencing should be primarily about society's revenge then they will have a particular view about things like counselling, education, activities, and so on in prison. I don't follow that myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
Lecs you are completely correct though. It seems if you do not complain loudly enough, you are condoning the actions, which is obviously bullshit to anyone with an ounce of sense...

But there you go

Well yeah, there was some of that today

I have to say and not just this case but others) I resent the fact that because I'm adult enough to take a deep breath, step back and view these stories with a long term view/goal (which is a fair trial and appropriate sentence if found guilty)that I am somehow cold...or don't care about kids (I'm a bloody qualified TA! FSS!)

Caring and doing the right thing is never ever about vigilantism. That's not caring, that's revenge.

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
Lecs you are completely correct though. It seems if you do not complain loudly enough, you are condoning the actions, which is obviously bullshit to anyone with an ounce of sense...

But there you go

Well yeah, there was some of that today

I have to say and not just this case but others) I resent the fact that because I'm adult enough to take a deep breath, step back and view these stories with a long term view/goal (which is a fair trial and appropriate sentence if found guilty)that I am somehow cold...or don't care about kids (I'm a bloody qualified TA! FSS!)


Caring and doing the right thing is never ever about vigilantism. That's not caring, that's revenge.

Lecs you is preaching to the converted. You know my views on all this completely.

Won't somebody please think of the children!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:
But could the police have not done that jasmine, without naming her?
Surely the nursery would have detailed records of children that had attended there and they could have approached them that way.
Although I'm sure that any parents approached would have contacted the local press and talked about it at the school gates etc.
And any nursery worker not going into work would have been easy to track down I guess and then name.
I just think that we have to be careful when naming people before they have been convicted

What about other places she may have worked, maybe cash in hand so no records? Other kids she’ll have been in contact with informally and thus untraceable, and of course lots of paedophiles use false names to get jobs with kids. It’s for these reasons and more that her picture and name have been released.

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
In MY opinon no one should EVER be named for ANY crime untill it has been proven in a court of law that they are guilty,....
ANYONE could be wrongly accused it happens time and time again,. totaly inoccent peoples lives ruined, I know we have to protect the victim, but does that mean we have to risk making someone else a victim?

Oh don't bother OHG, if someone says it happened then it did...

some people here scare the beejeesus outa me, proper torch n pitchfork they are, and there are millions like em out there,

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
In MY opinon no one should EVER be named for ANY crime untill it has been proven in a court of law that they are guilty,....
ANYONE could be wrongly accused it happens time and time again,. totaly inoccent peoples lives ruined, I know we have to protect the victim, but does that mean we have to risk making someone else a victim?

the problem is that unless you make it illegal to publish any details prior to conviction (as i believe it should be) you will always get newspapers pulling these kind of stunts, and worse as shown in the last couple of days you'll get the police using the media as a shortcut to them doing the policework they are supposed to be doing, the fact is the police can and should get the records they needed to from places this woman worked, they can and should contact parents from those places and they can and should gather any evidence they need to prosicute this woman, it should not be the press and the public convicting this woman without seeing the evidence and it should not be up to parents who may be involved to come forward because they saw it in the papers.

this womans family have already been destroyed by publishing the details in the press and yet they have done nothing wrong and if that doesnt prove why publishing details is just wrong then nothing will, it doesnt matter what the offence is.

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:
But could the police have not done that jasmine, without naming her?
Surely the nursery would have detailed records of children that had attended there and they could have approached them that way.
Although I'm sure that any parents approached would have contacted the local press and talked about it at the school gates etc.
And any nursery worker not going into work would have been easy to track down I guess and then name.
I just think that we have to be careful when naming people before they have been convicted

What about other places she may have worked, maybe cash in hand so no records? Other kids she’ll have been in contact with informally and thus untraceable, and of course lots of paedophiles use false names to get jobs with kids. It’s for these reasons and more that her picture and name have been released.

Jas are you aware of how difficult it is to actually get a cash in hand job these days? On a building site or elsewhere?
Anyone who works with kids or vulnerable adults has to have an enhanced CRB, if there is the slighest whiff of an investigation it has to be declared, as do all criminal convictions

100% behind you Lecs an Ennis and before anyone jumps on th e not caring bandwagon Lecs is a TA and Im a T.

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:
But could the police have not done that jasmine, without naming her?
Surely the nursery would have detailed records of children that had attended there and they could have approached them that way.
Although I'm sure that any parents approached would have contacted the local press and talked about it at the school gates etc.
And any nursery worker not going into work would have been easy to track down I guess and then name.
I just think that we have to be careful when naming people before they have been convicted

What about other places she may have worked, maybe cash in hand so no records? Other kids she’ll have been in contact with informally and thus untraceable, and of course lots of paedophiles use false names to get jobs with kids. It’s for these reasons and more that her picture and name have been released.

if she worked with children then she will have had a crb check, one for every job and an employer is going to also include checks on previous employment so no, changing names would not help nowdays.

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:
100% behind you Lecs an Ennis and before anyone jumps on th e not caring bandwagon Lecs is a TA and Im a T.

i am in social care working with peeps with learning disabilities and hoping to get funding to train as one of those evil and uncaring social workers in the near future...Awaiting flaming pitchfork up the arse

Two years for all cat misanthrophists

I'm vergin' on hanging

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
In MY opinon no one should EVER be named for ANY crime untill it has been proven in a court of law that they are guilty,....
ANYONE could be wrongly accused it happens time and time again,. totaly inoccent peoples lives ruined, I know we have to protect the victim, but does that mean we have to risk making someone else a victim?

Oh don't bother OHG, if someone says it happened then it did...

some people here scare the beejeesus outa me, proper torch n pitchfork they are, and there are millions like em out there,

different matter but i kind of noticed the same attitudes to another topical subject last week, the pitchforks were out then too.

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

What about other places she may have worked, maybe cash in hand so no records? Other kids she’ll have been in contact with informally and thus untraceable, and of course lots of paedophiles use false names to get jobs with kids. It’s for these reasons and more that her picture and name have been released.

Those are fair points hun, but are people able to get jobs with kids now without a CRB check? I would think that any nursery employing someone off the cards would be in big trouble.

or do you mean babysitting and the like? That would raise more problems I guess.
It is a really difficult issue that's for sure

quote:

Originally posted by carotino:
Two years for all cat misanthrophists

I'm vergin' on hanging

I love Clarence in a consensual way

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:
100% behind you Lecs an Ennis and before anyone jumps on th e not caring bandwagon Lecs is a TA and Im a T.

i am in social care working with peeps with learning disabilities and hoping to get funding to train as one of those evil and uncaring social workers in the near future...Awaiting flaming pitchfork up the arse

Yay! Lets not care about vulnerable adults and kids together in a right on justified kinda way!

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

It’s not as simple as that though.
In the case of Vanessa George, and indeed any suspected paedophile, there is huge potential for unidentified victims. By naming her at this stage parents whose kids attended little teds can contact the police and attempt to find out if their child has fallen victim, whereas if she had been given anonymity (and potentially acquitted) the parents of all those kids (who were in her care) are left completely unaware.
It's a choice between the ‘rights’ of the defendant’s family and the 'rights' of the family whose child was in her care and potentially fell victim.

whats wrong with naming her AFTER she has been convicted?, and THEN the parents of other possible victims could come forward, and she could then be charged with further offences, rather that than some inocent person getting wrongly accused and having their life destroyed, because if she IS guilty she aint going anywhere and if she isnt, her life hasnt been destroyed for NO reason,

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:
But could the police have not done that jasmine, without naming her?
Surely the nursery would have detailed records of children that had attended there and they could have approached them that way.
Although I'm sure that any parents approached would have contacted the local press and talked about it at the school gates etc.
And any nursery worker not going into work would have been easy to track down I guess and then name.
I just think that we have to be careful when naming people before they have been convicted

What about other places she may have worked, maybe cash in hand so no records? Other kids she’ll have been in contact with informally and thus untraceable, and of course lots of paedophiles use false names to get jobs with kids. It’s for these reasons and more that her picture and name have been released.

I dont know anywhere you can work with kids cash in hand. There are checks - the reason people like her could be working in a nursery on an enhanced CRB is simple - she'd never been caught.

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

It’s not as simple as that though.
In the case of Vanessa George, and indeed any suspected paedophile, there is huge potential for unidentified victims. By naming her at this stage parents whose kids attended little teds can contact the police and attempt to find out if their child has fallen victim, whereas if she had been given anonymity (and potentially acquitted) the parents of all those kids (who were in her care) are left completely unaware.
It's a choice between the ‘rights’ of the defendant’s family and the 'rights' of the family whose child was in her care and potentially fell victim.

Her children are the victims already too.

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

whats wrong with naming her AFTER she has been convicted?, and THEN the parents of other possible victims could come forward, and she could then be charged with further offences, rather that than some inocent person getting wrongly accused and having their life destroyed, because if she IS guilty she aint going anywhere and if she isnt, her life hasnt been destroyed for NO reason,

Oh shurrup OGH! You are denying people their god given right to show how caring and how much better they are about people!

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:
100% behind you Lecs an Ennis and before anyone jumps on th e not caring bandwagon Lecs is a TA and Im a T.

i am in social care working with peeps with learning disabilities and hoping to get funding to train as one of those evil and uncaring social workers in the near future...Awaiting flaming pitchfork up the arse

Yay! Lets not care about vulnerable adults and kids together in a right on justified kinda way!

well i'm a foster carer so i guess i dont care about kids either and more importantly so far today i've also been a left wing do gooder and a paedo lover because i though a fair trial and conviction was quite important.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
In MY opinon no one should EVER be named for ANY crime untill it has been proven in a court of law that they are guilty,....
ANYONE could be wrongly accused it happens time and time again,. totaly inoccent peoples lives ruined, I know we have to protect the victim, but does that mean we have to risk making someone else a victim?

Oh don't bother OHG, if someone says it happened then it did...

some people here scare the beejeesus outa me, proper torch n pitchfork they are, and there are millions like em out there,

different matter but i kind of noticed the same attitudes to another topical subject last week, the pitchforks were out then too.

F'kin hate the mob mentality me

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:
100% behind you Lecs an Ennis and before anyone jumps on th e not caring bandwagon Lecs is a TA and Im a T.

i am in social care working with peeps with learning disabilities and hoping to get funding to train as one of those evil and uncaring social workers in the near future...Awaiting flaming pitchfork up the arse

Yay! Lets not care about vulnerable adults and kids together in a right on justified kinda way!

Lecs I am thinking about dressing my clients up in clowns clothing or summink, god knows when I am out and about with them, they get looks from parents like they are about to molest their kiddies

Yes Cologne, her kids are being wilfully forgotten in all of this. I did say earlier, it smacks to me of some kids being more equal than others

OHG, I agree. IF convicted then name and shame all day long, I'm sure there is no legal reason why, even serving a prison sentence she couldn't be taken back to court and have a sentence added if more cases came to light after the initial trial and sentences?

Any legal bods or clever peeps about that could clarify that?

I don't know if I dare read this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

It’s not as simple as that though.
In the case of Vanessa George, and indeed any suspected paedophile, there is huge potential for unidentified victims. By naming her at this stage parents whose kids attended little teds can contact the police and attempt to find out if their child has fallen victim, whereas if she had been given anonymity (and potentially acquitted) the parents of all those kids (who were in her care) are left completely unaware.
It's a choice between the ‘rights’ of the defendant’s family and the 'rights' of the family whose child was in her care and potentially fell victim.

whats wrong with naming her AFTER she has been convicted?, and THEN the parents of other possible victims could come forward, and she could then be charged with further offences, rather that than some inocent person getting wrongly accused and having their life destroyed, because if she IS guilty she aint going anywhere and if she isnt, her life hasnt been destroyed for NO reason,

I do like your way of thinking on that one but the evidence is overwhelming against her - its on her phone FFS so the police are probably hoping everyone will come forward now - one fell swoop (if thats the expression)

Innocent till proved guilty. Always.

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by carotino:
Two years for all cat misanthrophists

I'm vergin' on hanging

I love Clarence in a consensual way

Let's see what he says in court

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

It’s not as simple as that though.
In the case of Vanessa George, and indeed any suspected paedophile, there is huge potential for unidentified victims. By naming her at this stage parents whose kids attended little teds can contact the police and attempt to find out if their child has fallen victim, whereas if she had been given anonymity (and potentially acquitted) the parents of all those kids (who were in her care) are left completely unaware.
It's a choice between the ‘rights’ of the defendant’s family and the 'rights' of the family whose child was in her care and potentially fell victim.

whats wrong with naming her AFTER she has been convicted?, and THEN the parents of other possible victims could come forward, and she could then be charged with further offences, rather that than some inocent person getting wrongly accused and having their life destroyed, because if she IS guilty she aint going anywhere and if she isnt, her life hasnt been destroyed for NO reason,

I do like your way of thinking on that one but the evidence is overwhelming against her - its on her phone FFS so the police are probably hoping everyone will come forward now - one fell swoop (if thats the expression)

Have you seen this evidence with your own eyes then? Well if you have this damning evidence, maybe you should post it here so we can all split the can of unleaded so we can go round her house and burn her innocent family out?

quote:

Originally posted by tupps:
I don't know if I dare read this thread.

PMSL
It's a cunning trap Tupps

Actually it's all been quite civilised, with the exception of Ennis's arseflakes

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
well i'm a foster carer so i guess i dont care about kids either and more importantly so far today i've also been a left wing do gooder and a paedo lover because i though a fair trial and conviction was quite important.

I wish I could have seen you face when you were called a lefty, hahahah

I wonder, and I'm genuinely not being snooty or sneering or having a patronising attitude here-that those of us who have had to go through some procedures (CRBs, training etc) realise the importance of collecting strong evidence and presenting a strong case a bit more?

I know that makes me sound like a right git, I don't mean to...but I'm just thinking back to child protection issues, you can't go off half cocked and stuff procedure up before it's even started.

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:

quote:

Originally posted by tupps:
I don't know if I dare read this thread.

PMSL
It's a cunning trap Tupps

Actually it's all been quite civilised, with the exception of Ennis's arseflakes

Now I have to decide whether it has been civilised because it has just been civilised.. or whether it has been civilised because I've not taken part in the discussion (what with me being flypaper for freaks and all).

I'll have a shufti..

I've said from the beginning I really feel for her children and husband (hate the people who insist her husband must have known) but feel that some parents would have lived in blissful ignorance as so many of the kids are unidentifiable apart from to their own parents - so why not alert them to the risk? Im probably going to get shot down in flames for this. Sorry.

Oh bollocks I love having to go to a safeguarding vulnerable adults meeting, just cos I feel like it

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

It’s not as simple as that though.
In the case of Vanessa George, and indeed any suspected paedophile, there is huge potential for unidentified victims. By naming her at this stage parents whose kids attended little teds can contact the police and attempt to find out if their child has fallen victim, whereas if she had been given anonymity (and potentially acquitted) the parents of all those kids (who were in her care) are left completely unaware.
It's a choice between the ‘rights’ of the defendant’s family and the 'rights' of the family whose child was in her care and potentially fell victim.

whats wrong with naming her AFTER she has been convicted?, and THEN the parents of other possible victims could come forward, and she could then be charged with further offences, rather that than some inocent person getting wrongly accused and having their life destroyed, because if she IS guilty she aint going anywhere and if she isnt, her life hasnt been destroyed for NO reason,

I do like your way of thinking on that one but the evidence is overwhelming against her - its on her phone FFS so the police are probably hoping everyone will come forward now - one fell swoop (if thats the expression)

I was speaking in general terms and not so much about this particular case, and now that the information has been released its quite obvious that she IS gulity...but then thats for the courts to decide n not me,