Gary Glitter

Originally posted by PDJ@Nov 19 2005, 10:55 AM
That's the spirit, Brian!! While we are at it, let's cut off the bollocks of anyone who may offend in the future too...
Click to expand...
I never mentioned Huntley. I said repeat offenders, who had been prosecuted and found guilty. The bottom line is that if castration was introduced as a punishment, there are children out there in the future who would escape abuse.
 
I disagree. I want to be careful here and not be too graphic but paedophiles will abuse children with other parts of their bodies or foreign objects if they lose their penis.
 
Originally posted by Euronymous@Nov 19 2005, 04:05 PM
I was under the impression that like eunochs the sexual urge disappears once one is gelded.
Click to expand...
At first, a man who has been castrated will still have a sexual urge. Over time, however, because he's no longer producing testosterone, he'll lose much of his libido or sexual desire. Medications can readjust the chemicals in his blood and bring back some sexual desire. Studies have also been done that show with increased stimulation, a castrated man can actually get an erection, have sex, and orgasm (although he won't have any sperm in his ejaculation, which would be minimal in volume).
 
Originally posted by BrianH+Nov 19 2005, 05:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BrianH @ Nov 19 2005, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Euronymous@Nov 19 2005, 03:41 PM
I never mentioned Huntley.
Click to expand...
No one said that you did. Read other people's posts. [/b][/quote]
I do, i just wanted to make it clear as it was i who introduced the olde castration "solution" into the thread.
 
Yes, I mentioned Huntley. My point being that if closer tabs were kept on people who were repeatedly being accused of preying on young chidren & if people had done their jobs properly, Huntley would never have been allowed to work near children. Tell me Brian, would you have been so magnanimous towards Huntley were your own children, or grandchildren, going to a school where such a monster was employed?

I'm sorry but this country has become too namby-pamby & politically correct. All the hand wringing in the world won't prevent paedophilia - maybe it's time a harder line was taken.
 
Why is it that people don't read what is actually said in these threads? Where the feck have I been "magnanimous to Huntley"?

But as for "My point being that if closer tabs were kept on people who were repeatedly being accused of preying on young chidren & if people had done their jobs properly, Huntley would never have been allowed to work near children" - that's something with which I would firmly agree.

What was actually said however was this:-

Euronymous: I know it seems barbaric, but I believe that these under-age sex offenders, once caught should be castrated.

(PDJ disagrees)

Shadow leader: I'm sorry hun but I tend to think along the same lines as Euronymous on this one. Very few paedos rehabilitate - why should they be allowed the freedom to hunt down more unsuspecting children after they've been let out from a paltrey sentence? As responsible adults, we should want to do everything within our power to protect our children.

(Three more dissenting posts)

Shadow leader: FFS - instead of being so feeble, airy-fairy & tolerant, why don't we make something of these arseholes who prey on children? If we took a harder line, maybe Ian Huntley would have been unable to murder those poor, innocent girls. It's time our soceity took a stand against intrinsic evil.

Any reasonable person would interpret that as agreement that Euronymous was right in that castration was a correct thing to do and that Ian Huntley should have been a prime candidate.

I just pointed out the perhaps relevant fact that Ian Huntley had never been convicted of any sex offences, and questioned whether it was being suggested that the recommended punishment (castration) be handed out to those who people thought were deserving of without bothering about the decisions of the courts.

So, I'm happy to debate with anyone but only on the condition that they don't (a) attribute words or opinions to me that are not my own, nor 9b0 say one thing and later say that they meant another.

That seems fair and reasonable, doesn't it?
 
So what would you do to female paedophiles, SL? The sexual molestation of small children (and, yes, even babies) isn't the sole preserve of the maladjusted male. In the interest of bringing some semblance of balance to the argument re. punishment, one has to bring in the Rosemary Wests, the Myra Hindleys, and the hundreds of women who gratify their urges at the cost of their own children as much as anyone else's.

What does the panel consider is a just punishment for the man or woman who forces an incestuous relationship upon their children? There are plenty enough cases of mothers who have masturbated their young sons for years (although, like PDJ, I don't want to put more detail on here about other perversities) and wrecked their heads.

By the time you decide to nip 'n' tuck the offenders, it's already far too late. You need a proactive, not a reactive, system. But I don't see one happening, unless there is a fault in the genetic system of such offenders, as there is a mental one in psychopaths, and so on. So that brings us to genetic engineering and tweaking the gene that's causing the problem - I assume all children would have to be tested for this faulty gene, in case they carried it. If they did, they could be either 'corrected' or, presumably (taking some people's desire for legalized murder into account), they would have to be tastefully euthanized so that they couldn't grow into a potentially harmful adult.

"I'm sorry, Mrs Smith, but little Chantelle is likely to rape her children, so we'll have to take her away to be fixed."

"But she's only 18 months old!"

"Yes, but we have to do it now. Of course, if you'd prefer to sign her up, we are looking for infants to harvest lungs and kidneys from just now..."
 
Originally posted by krizon@Nov 19 2005, 09:59 PM


By the time you decide to nip 'n' tuck the offenders, it's already far too late. You need a proactive, not a reactive, system.
Click to expand...
To be honest i haven`t a clue what you`d do with female offenders. The castration idea isn`t a cure-all by any means, it`s just a way of saving a certain proportion of future children from harm. Not 100%, not 75%. 5% would be satisfactory for me.
As for the proactivity argument, i`m afraid repeat offending is the only way to be sure, pre-empting these things is not only impossible, it also brings miscarriages of justice into the equation.
 
What I was thinking of (viz 'proactive') was of first-timers' actions being taken far more seriously. I think that following the first incident of any sexual battery towards a youngster, the offender should be taken into preventative psychiatric care for an indeterminate period, for long-term assessment. If after rigorous testing, treatment, and assessments, a panel of trick cyclists can be as sure as they can that he or she won't reoffend, the person could be let out on gradual licence for, say, two years. If a reoffence occurred during that period, they should go straight into full-time and lifetime detention. And ignoring the predictable squealing about human rights and civil liberties - such a person forfeits their right to live at liberty among the civilian population, full stop.
 
The orgasm pill might end it all in one fell swoop. Porn empires will collapse. No one will be interested in page 3 pills. The main attraction (sex) of social outlets for the young such as pubs and clubs will be gone. No more binge drinking or running strreet battles between frustrated young men wanting to stamp on each other's heads. No more unwanted or abused children. No more wars started by frustrated pervert politicals. People will no longer feel the need to amass ridiculous wealth just so they can impress bimbos. We can all concentrate, and work as a team, on finding the death gene.
 
I think that we should model the justice system on the movie, 'Minority Report'.

(I'd like to nominate the following cast..

Pre Cog 1 = Shadow Leader
Pre Cog 2 = Euronomous
Pre Cog 3 = Merlin

They will do a grand job as they know crimes will be committed before they happen.

Supporting Cast

Tom Cruise Role = PDJ
Christopher Plummer Role = Brian H.

I am open for nominations as to who would play the Colin Farrell role.
 
Originally posted by an capall@Nov 20 2005, 02:59 PM
I am open for nominations as to who would play the Colin Farrell role.
Click to expand...
Would the chosen candidate get to slip Amelia Warner one AC?
 
That's OK, I can do Swedish as well as Canadian. I don't fancy that chess opponent though...can I be Steve McQueen in "The Thomas Crown Affair" and have that chess game instead?
 
Back
Top