English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

According to today's press (Sun):

"Overweight paedophile Andrew Baldwin has been allowed to use a school gym so as not to infringe his human rights."

He has been convicted of indecently assaulting 3 girls aged 12 to 13 but is allowed to work out in school hours at the gym - and ogle the children in their gym kits.

HUMAN RIGHTS? Are they serious?

What about the rights of the kids who are being put in danger?

2006-10-21 12:12:31 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

miracelhand2020 -

I'm in the UK. Thats where this has happened.

Another sterling example of British political correctness gone mad. The rest of the world must be laughing at us

2006-10-21 12:27:45 · update #1

Want to hear something even more ridiculous?

When my BF was a kid, a paedophile raped and molested several little girls living on their street (including my BF's next door neighbours daughter who was 11)

When this scumbag was released from jail (after a laughably short sentence) he got a job in - wait for it -

TOYS R US!!

Seriously. When the locals found out, they told the store and the police and he was obviously sacked (he obviously neglected to tell the store of his criminal record and they never bothered checking). But it shows how seriously the threat to children is taken and how "thorough" the checks some companies (who deal with children) make on their employees doesn't it?

2006-10-22 06:58:40 · update #2

19 answers

this is sick just what is wrong with these people infringe his human rights pathetic more like chop both his hands and his dick off oohh it makes my blood boil

2006-10-21 12:19:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Worked with Sex Offenders, he should have only been permitted this access during times that the gym is not in usage. As the children were not related and unknown by the way that you described him, he is a predator and subject to reoffense. This only feeds the likelyhood. Treatment efforts in the U.S. have varing degrees of success. The leader right now is Washington State where only 5% reoffend following treatment. The numbers are much worse for other states. This was drawn from testimony from the Washington State Attoney General-now Governor. At worst 25% reoffend, this is a much lower rate than any other crime committed. The most likely to reoffend are those that assault children under the age of 14, same gender, and who are unknown to the victim (or have known the victim for a period of under 6 months). This group should never see the light of day. The fact that he sought out this permission and it was granted for that time period, I wonder if he is looking for his next victim.

2006-10-21 12:58:22 · answer #2 · answered by mcdomnhal 3 · 0 0

Read this in the paper yesterday:
The Depart for Constitutional Affairs, which has responsibility for the Human Rights Act, said the council was wrong to allow a convicted paedophile to use the gym.
A Spokesman said ""Human rights do not require a convicted sex offender to be able to use a school gym. The Primary obligation of the state is the safety of its citizens".

If true, perhaps something to refer to the council

2006-10-21 21:34:35 · answer #3 · answered by Thisbysghost 3 · 0 0

Here's a better article from the Evening Standard: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371548-details/Fury+as+padeophile+escapes+school+gym+ban+as+it+would+breach+his+human+rights/article.do

In many or most US states, sex offenders may not live near schools and playgrounds, nor congregate there.

These laws have had unintended consequences, and in Iowa and elsewhere registered offenders often can't find anyplace to live at all, and sleep in cars and cheap hotels. But there must be some compromise between self-defeating laws and poltical correctness.

2006-10-21 21:45:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

That's a bag of shite, like the school will allow kids in their gym kits to do PE at the same time this tw*t is around.
Again, another example of the press finding a story where there isn't one.

2006-10-21 12:22:49 · answer #5 · answered by mark_virgin 3 · 2 0

i don't no about "the sun"but if this is true it makes me
feel sick.
i truly believe in castration for men like this but to avoid injustices
any confusion say a sixteen year old boy having his nuts chopped off for sleeping with his fifteen year old girl Friend
Thar should be clear cut laws.
like if a male over is 20 convicted for a second time .
instant castration no excusess problem solved

2006-10-21 13:29:27 · answer #6 · answered by ste l 3 · 0 0

Guess if the story reached the dizzying height of the SUN, it must be quality journalism, and absolute gospel.

Also suspect if they identified him by name, physical description and school gym he would be face down in a ditch by now.

For this soul we reserve a special hot poker in the seventh circle of Hades.

2006-10-21 12:37:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

This happens ALL THE TIME. The problem is people blame, shame and silence victims so they don't want to come forward. Until society stops pretending that victims of abuse are making it up or "playing the victim" their victimizers will always be able to taunt them and make a mockery of the system.

http://www.sexual-offender.com/predator_registry.php

2006-10-21 12:35:10 · answer #8 · answered by mgtysn 2 · 1 0

i don't know the state you live in but in north Carolina sex offenders are registered and not allowed to go near places inhabited by children.i don't know what lame *** excuse of a system you guys run where you live,but the parents must get off their butts and start acting now!!!!!!

2006-10-21 12:26:32 · answer #9 · answered by miraclehand2020 5 · 0 0

oh dont get me started again. i would be starting a campaign at the school and against him. the school would get so peed off with it that they would have to stop him and he would be so peed off with being followed everywhere he went and being harrassed that he would move. and i dont care if that is an infringment of his so called civil rights the protection of my kids would always come first.

2006-10-21 12:26:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If he is on the register then he is not allowed to be around children, end of story!

2006-10-21 12:22:11 · answer #11 · answered by english_rose10 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers