A PRISON WITHOUT BARS!

Introducing a £multi-million high-tech scheme to track high risk offenders INCLUDING paedophiles, David Blunkett described the plan as a "prison without bars." It was greeted by drooling admiration from the usual chorus of leftists who have yet to find a really good reason to send anyone to prison but guess what? - yip - the prison without bars doesn't work! DumbJon gets to grips with the issue over on House of Dumb and makes the salient points;

That's the thing though. Liberals (sic; leftists) don't think predators should be in jail in the first place, but even they have the sense to know not to admit it in public. They conjuror up insane plans to track paedophiles in the hope that no one will ask what they're doing on the street in the first place. It's deja vu all over again. They did exacty the same with the rehabilitation industry, gleefully accepting each and every report of success, abscent even the most basic considerations of independent review and the like. Until the Left succeeds in its mission to legalise child abuse, we'll be bombarded with ace new ideas for dealing with nonces that all happen to be the complete opposite of what any rational person would suggest.

Comments

[Peter]

"Until the Left succeeds in its mission to legalise child abuse...."

Someone capable of writing crap like that doesn't deserve an audience, at least not a sane one.

[David Vance]

"The age of sexual consent should be lowered to 12."

Who said that - a leftist or a right wing Christian?

The answer validates what DumbJon says.

[Ciarán]

Who said it?

[Peter]

DV, one left-wing moron cannot be said to represent the whole left.

There are right-wingers who call for the legalisation of heroin - that doesn't mean we can castigate all right-wingers with that view.

[Colm]

David

Just a general point - my god you are prolific today. Making up for lost time. 9 posts in one morning. Your fingers must be buzzing!

[Madradin Ruad]

Predators should be taken out of the Jail system IMO. At it's heart is reform. We need a new system - one of quarantine.

[Mike Cunningham]

The lefties know what happens to peaedophilically-inclined people when they are set into the general prison population, which is why they're so keen on either tagging them, or placing them on Section watch in prison!
I am not saying I understand the left-wing's attitude towards sex criminals, but appreciate what mob rule does when a bunch of illiterates terrorises a peaediatrician based on her job title!

[David Vance]

The advocate of 12 constituting an acceptable age of consent was Supreme Court Judge - President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ginsburg, a brilliant jurist, had served as general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union — a liberal organization that has championed the abolition of traditional marriage laws and attacked the Pledge of Allegiance. She had previously written that traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional; that the Constitution guarantees a right to prostitution; that the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Mother's Day, and Father's Day are all discriminatory institutions; that courts should force taxpayers to pay for abortions, against their will; and that the age of consent for sexual activity should be lowered to age 12.

I think this paragon of US leftism does merit the comments that DumbJon made.

[Ciarán]

Thanks David: it is a very small brush with which to tar everyone to the left of you in the US, rather akin to me suggesting that US Christian rightists are paedophiles because some obviously are.

[David Vance]

Ciaran,

Well, she WAS Clinton's recommended choice, need I say more?

[Peter]

By all means criticise the stupid woman for her views. But if you want to smear all liberals with supporting paedophilia (for that is what the Dumbjon post amounts to) then by the same token Dumbjon and all other right-wingers must support:

1. Lynching blacks (KKK)
2. Attacking abortion clinics (pro-lifers in USA)
3. Legalising heroin (libertarians in UK and USA)

To name but three.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

[Jo]

"She had previously written that... the Constitution guarantees a right to prostitution"

This is in fact what she said:

"Prostitution as a consensual act between adults is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions,"

(The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law
1972.)

She later and emphatically denied that she was justifying prostitution.

[David Vance]

So what WAS she saying when, as you quote, she writes that prostitution is "arguably" within the zone (sic) protected by recent (say no more) constitutional decisions. She WAS arguing in defence of prostitution and she DID want the age of consent lowered to 12. She's a grade one wack case and she is on the Supreme Court care of Bubba bill.

[DumbJon]

Intrestingly, Peter Tatchell also supports dropping the age of consent to 12, but actual Leftists admitting to this sort of thing is rare. What it's really about is...well, to pick up on Peter's point, suppose a Conservative government kept claiming to oppose racial attacks, but sentances for these attacks kept plunging down, parole boards kept releasing people who got off the bus from prison and beat an Asian to death, and Conservatives kept warning people of the dangers of hysteria about racial attacks. I mean, I think we have sufficiently revisted the case of the persecuted paediatrician. But how many Leftists quote that case vs the case of Roy Whiting, known to be a paedophile, yet given parole to kill Sarah Payne ? Which of these two cases is really indictive of a wider trend ? Or consider what would happen if a right-wing commentator claimed Conservatives should reach out to persecuted racists, just as Johann Hari, bright young thing of the Left, claimed Leftists should do ?

Leftists can stampt their little feet all they want about someone calling them out on their support for paedophiles, but the bottom line is this: are there more paedophiles on the streets now than there would be under a Rightist government ? Does Leftists knee-jerk sneering about 'mob rule' every time harsh measures are discussed make the environment better or worse for paedophiles ? Who are these people who keep releasing predators into the environment ?

At best, Leftists condemnation of paedophiles has the empty ritualistic quality of atheists at a Christening.

[Peter]

So DumbJon, do you support the KKK and attacks on abortion clinics and the legalising of heroin or not? I know quite a few of your right-wing chums would subscribe to all three.

Since you choose to smear all liberals with the "wacko" label, you should be prepared to be smeared in turn. There are just as many "wacko" ideas on the right and I've only chosen three.

[DumbJon]

Well, Peter, the US has had a Republican Congress and President for a few years now, is there any evidence of sentances for Klaners, clinic bombers and drug dealers plunging ? Is the New York Yimes full of stories of Klansmen who kill within weeks of release from prison ? Does any reference to clinic bombers by a Democrat result in National Review, the American Spectator and the like filling their pages with eyes-rolling articles about how bomb attacks are media hype, oppoentns of bombing are all semi-literate rednecks and, besides, we really need to understand people who'd put a bomb in a clinic waiting room ?

No - none of these things happen. The vast majority of Conservatives say they oppose these things AND they follow through. They support ruthless sentancing of these people, they support legislation to restrict their activities - much anti-Klan legislation originated from republicans - and most of all, they take the threat seriously. Find me the Conservative equivalent of 'Brass Eye' or a Conservative publication running a sympathetic obituary of a racist killer the way the Guardian ran one on Myra Hindley.

[Jo]

David,
She was saying that people could argue about it - and she was right! Cant go along with the 12 yo thing though, but Id like to see what the context was.

[Peter]

DumbJon, I'm glad to see you're not a racist, pro-life fanatic or drug legaliser.

I'm not an apologist for murder either, nor do I support paedophilia. To claim that "the left" in general is pro-paedophile is an outrageous smear, all too typical of the tactics of the far right.

[DumbJon]

Peter, you keep yammering about being smeared. One question: are there paedophiles on the streets today that would not be under a Rightist government ? Yes or no ?

[ed]

Game, set, match to the Dumb One, 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. How do you do it when as a rightist you're patently so Dumb and lacking in dimensionality?

[Peter]

DumbJon, you keep yammering on about Rightist governments. I repeat that leftists are not pro-paedophile. Many rightists support the legalisation of heroin. But I would not accuse rightists in general of being in favour of a drugs free for all.

Yours is the classic smear techique - find one extremist looney and use that to implicate the rest.

[DumbJon]

Peter, we're talking about actual policy. If Britain went Conservative tommorrow it would still be illegal to sell heroin, torch mosques or whatever, but right now we have parole boards letting predators out into the streets. The Left can hardly claim to oppose a aspect of criminality, even while chiseling away at the sentances for it.

[Peter]

DumbJon, for what it's worth I agree with you about padeohiliia. My own view is that sentencing is too lenient to start with and that people who are still assessed as being a danger to others should not be released to walk the streets. (This also applies to many violent offenders.) Paedophilia is generally regarded as an incurable condition, so ...

But you are naive if you think a Tory government would transform this situation. The whole aparatus of the legal system and probation industry is a formidable obstacle to any real change.

[Madradin Ruad]

Paedophiles require new thinking. They shouldn't be in jail for a limited time. They should be quarantined in a very secure unit on an island so that they pose no risk to their potential victims.

[Jo]

Psedophilia should not be a left-right issue - all sensible heads should be as one on identifying such people and ensuring that they are secured from posing any risk to children or young people.

They are incredibly devious and intelligent, working their way into family confidence and positions where they have access to their prey and they are a formidable enemy. But they ARE an enemy of the most vulnerable in our society and to be honest I'd be a supporter of "whatever works" on this one.