Apparently sex offenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt Watch

This discussion is closed.
Viva Emptiness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-May-told.html

Is this some sort of sick joke?

The part that really caught my eye:

In her article, Miss Reece suggested that the review should also introduce an assumption that sex offenders including child abusers posed no threat once they had served their sentence.
1
Hopple
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
I think she raises an interesting point - if these people are not safe, what are they doing out on the streets?
2
somemightsay888
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
"She has also argued that rape victims should no longer be granted anonymity."

Wow.
3
Viva Emptiness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Hopple)
I think she raises an interesting point - if these people are not safe, what are they doing out on the streets?
That's one way of looking at it...not much more reassuring though.
1
kantdothis
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
She must be on meth smh.
0
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Viva Emptiness)
That's one way of looking at it...not much more reassuring though.
I agree they should have the right to apply. - HEAR ME OUT BEFORE GETTING THE PITCH FORK.

To deny them the right based on a certain circumstance is against the law in some regards this is true. However adoption is one of the most stringently monitored systems, this isnt the 1950s where you walked into an orphanage paid them a fiver and walked out with an irish baby. These days every possible check can and will be done. They check all your records, your social media, you finances, your family - the list goes and one of the first things is your criminal record. Anyone with a conviction like this is going to have thier rejection summarily binned.

Whilst i understand the mentality of "they have served thier time" people dont forget relatively banal stuff like shop lifting. There is no way they are going to let a sex offence get within twenty feet of a child whether working with or adopting. Most people who are on (or have been on) the sex offenders register are there for a very valid reason.

Let them apply - thier reasons may even be entirely noble - BUT no one is going to give them a child and that woman needs to shut the **** up
3
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by silverbolt)
I agree they should have the right to apply. - HEAR ME OUT BEFORE GETTING THE PITCH FORK.

To deny them the right based on a certain circumstance is against the law in some regards this is true. However adoption is one of the most stringently monitored systems, this isnt the 1950s where you walked into an orphanage paid them a fiver and walked out with an irish baby. These days every possible check can and will be done. They check all your records, your social media, you finances, your family - the list goes and one of the first things is your criminal record. Anyone with a conviction like this is going to have thier rejection summarily binned.

Whilst i understand the mentality of "they have served thier time" people dont forget relatively banal stuff like shop lifting. There is no way they are going to let a sex offence get within twenty feet of a child whether working with or adopting. Most people who are on (or have been on) the sex offenders register are there for a very valid reason.

Let them apply - thier reasons may even be entirely noble - BUT no one is going to give them a child and that woman needs to shut the fcuk up
The problem is there are more kids needing adopting than applicants. I heard earlier something on the radio about the government wanting to liberalise adoption, in order to save money, so you could well see corners being cut in order to place as many children as possible.
0
Phoebe Buffay
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
No I think they should be hanged.
1
Plagioclase
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
This makes for a very good sensationalist headline but I think there are circumstances where I could agree with this. Obviously, if someone has committed a very serious sex crime and there is any remote chance that they would re-offend, then they shouldn't be allowed to adopt - that's common sense. But not all people convicted for sex crimes are crazy rapists. People have been put on the register for comparatively petty things like urinating in public or trading nude images of themselves as teenagers (admittedly this was a case in America, I don't know if you could be convicted for that in the UK) - and I don't see why stupid things like that mean that a person would never be capable of being a reasonable parent.

I think that common sense and judgement is needed when deciding who can adopt rather than simply ruling someone out because of a conviction. If it's clear that somebody does not pose a risk to children, let them adopt. If there's any reasonable risk that they would, don't.
2
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by scrotgrot)
The problem is there are more kids needing adopting than applicants. I heard earlier something on the radio about the government wanting to liberalise adoption, in order to save money, so you could well see corners being cut in order to place as many children as possible.
some corners (these are the Tories after all) may well be cut but something as obvious as a criminal record? No wouldnt happen.

It would only take one child to be harmed by someone who was approved for adoption and there would be uproar
0
Cremated_Spatula
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
Obvious pedo is too obvious.
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Viva Emptiness)

Is this some sort of sick joke?
So lets say you try to steal a kiss in club. Boyfriend sees you. There is a fight; you both end up on the street and arrested. The whole thing doesn't go very far but you end up accepting a caution for indecent assault.

So you should never, ever be able to adopt a child?

A similar thing happened with Police and Crime Commissioners. The government's original idea was that they shouldn't have convictions for anything serious. The Police, trying to sabotage the scheme, said this wasn't good enough. A Police and Crime Commissioner shouldn't have been convicted of any offence (despite there being over a thousand serving police officers with convictions). The government caved in. Then Simon Weston OBE Falklands War hero and charity campaigner aged about 50 wanted to stand to be his local Police and Crime Commissioner but found he couldn't because at the age of 16 he had been caught as a passenger in a twocked car.
2
Viva Emptiness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by nulli tertius)
So lets say you try to steal a kiss in club. Boyfriend sees you. There is a fight; you both end up on the street and arrested. The whole thing doesn't go very far but you end up accepting a caution for indecent assault.

So you should never, ever be able to adopt a child?

A similar thing happened with Police and Crime Commissioners. The government's original idea was that they shouldn't have convictions for anything serious. The Police, trying to sabotage the scheme, said this wasn't good enough. A Police and Crime Commissioner shouldn't have been convicted of any offence (despite there being over a thousand serving police officers with convictions). The government caved in. Then Simon Preston OBE Falklands War hero and charity campaigner aged about 50 wanted to stand to be his local Police and Crime Commissioner but found he couldn't because at the age of 16 he had been caught as a passenger in a twocked car.
I could probably get behind this if it were thoroughly checked etc., but this also includes child sex offences. It's slightly more difficult to come up with a compelling hypothetical for that.
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Viva Emptiness)
I could probably get behind this if it were thoroughly checked etc., but this also includes child sex offences. It's slightly more difficult to come up with a compelling hypothetical for that.
The girl in the club was 15 you were 17.
1
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
Another victory for egalitarianism. Some sections of the left are trying to normalise pedophilia and this is where the promotion of sexual degeneracy gets you.
0
sophietish
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
I think that everyone has the right to adopt, however the individuals wanting to adopt who are sex offenders should be extremely carefully checked before they are allowed to. However with this, yeah there is a risk that a sex offender could reoffend but whats to stop normal people who want to adopt being paedophiles? There is literally no way to prevent someone from raping a child or predicting if they will do so, personally I don't think it can be said that any of these previous offenders are that much worse than normal people when the normal people could have bad intentions. Although obviously it is more likely with previous offenders but they should be allowed a chance to redeem themselves.
1
The Blue Axolotl
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
Sex offenders and paedos should be kept as far away from children as possible.
0
redferry
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by scrotgrot)
The problem is there are more kids needing adopting than applicants. I heard earlier something on the radio about the government wanting to liberalise adoption, in order to save money, so you could well see corners being cut in order to place as many children as possible.
They'd have to cut about 300 corners before paedophiles got onto the adoption list. It's so hard to adopt. At the moment you can't adopt if you smoke, drink much, too old , too young, single, yada yada yada
0
Arkasia
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
No I think they should be hanged.
:lolwut:
0
Phoebe Buffay
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by Arkasia)
:lolwut:
Not all of them. I understand there may be mitigating factors. Just the vast majority.
0
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

2,964

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (168)
13.1%
Excited (111)
8.66%
Worried (235)
18.33%
Terrified (299)
23.32%
Meh (103)
8.03%
Confused (32)
2.5%
Putting on a brave face (170)
13.26%
Impatient (164)
12.79%

Watched Threads

View All