big thumbs up for the cops

[idb]

UNFORTUNATELY FOR US THE BIGGEST CUSTOMERS OF BONDAGE PARLOURS ARE JUDGES AND LAWERS , UNBALANCED PEOPLE BEING JUDGES SUX.

That's a mighty big assumption there buddy.
I wish it to be known that I'm neither a judge or a lawyer.

[Patrick]

I'm assuming he was dealt with in open court, open to the public, results open to the public, so a member of the public advises other members of the public of the results...just like any member of the public can do, but in this case it's a copper (who when I last looked, is also a member of the public...).

Unsure what the problem is here... good on him... Invite him to your place to play with your kids Lou, since you support him so much...

[thehollowmen]

That's a mighty big assumption there buddy.
I wish it to be known that I'm neither a judge or a lawyer.

And people into BDSM aren't usually pedophiles either...

[Patrick]

And people into BDSM aren't usually pedophiles either...

Too true... at least they know what they like, with "consenting" adults...

[Fart]

ITS GOOD TO SEE SOME COPS DOING THE MORAL THING FOR ONCE ,WHEN THEY PUT OUT THAT PAMPHLET ABOUT THAT KIDDY FIDDLER WITH HIS PHOTO AND LOCATION THEY GOT SOME CRED BACK IN MY BOOKS , A COP SOME COP SAID FUCK THE LAW FUCK THE RULES LETS SAVE SOME KIDS , AND HE DID , I HOPE THE REST OF THE SYSTEM CAN DO THE MORAL THING NOW AND NOT GIVE HIME THE $50,000 HES AFTER IN COMPENSATION .
UNFORTUNATELY FOR US THE BIGGEST CUSTOMERS OF BONDAGE PARLOURS ARE JUDGES AND LAWERS , UNBALANCED PEOPLE BEING JUDGES SUX.
IF I WERE A JUDGE ID TELL HIM TO FUCK OFF , THAT PEDOPHILE DESERVES THE RANDOM BEATINGS HE GETS , HE SHOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE, HE SHOULD BE LOOKING OVER HIS SHOULDER , IF HES KEPT BUSY KEEPING ALIVE HE HAS LESS TIME TO DO WRONG .
I HOPE THE COMMUNITY RALLIES ROUND THE COP RESPONSIBLE AND GIVES HIM THE SUPPORT HE NEEDS TO CONTINUE THIS SORTA WORK WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE OTHER COPS TO DO THE RIGHT THING

VOTE WINJA FOR MINISTER OF JUSTICE !

[Lou Girardin]

I'm assuming he was dealt with in open court, open to the public, results open to the public, so a member of the public advises other members of the public of the results...just like any member of the public can do, but in this case it's a copper (who when I last looked, is also a member of the public...).

Unsure what the problem is here... good on him... Invite him to your place to play with your kids Lou, since you support him so much...

What is it with our pro-Police members, that they only see what they want to? Read the post Patrick, especially the first line.
They entered his house without a warrant and photographed him. Apart from that I don't have a problem with the rest of what they did
I know it's stupid of me, but I expect cops to obey the law too, not just enforce it.

[**R1**]

why do kiddy fidlers have rights??? in my book they gave any rights they had away when they offended....fuck the law in this case i say....nb: this is just my opinion...


if i had my way they wouldnt be around long enough to re-offend....ta da no problem....

[Ixion]

I'm not defending the fiddler at all.
But it sounds like you all would like to give the Police the right to enter anyone's property at any time without a warrant.
Just remember that what applies to paedophiles also applies to everyone else.
That's why it's called one law for all.

While I agree with you on the general point, perhaps one might distinguish on the basis that the prson in question is a convicted felon?

There is a prevalent opinion that if a person has done a Very Bad Thing, and been sent to gaol, then when they are released all is forgiven and they are on the same footing as a person who has never offended. I do not agree with that opinion.

IMHO a person who has been convicted of crimes like kiddie fiddling forfeits some of their rights to privacy and such like even after release. In the same way , if someone has been convicted of embezzlement, they would not , and should not, expect to be able to be employed in a position of financial trust after release.

Note that I am not saying that this is the law. Just that it bought to be

[Lou Girardin]

IMHO a person who has been convicted of crimes like kiddie fiddling forfeits some of their rights to privacy and such like even after release. In the same way , if someone has been convicted of embezzlement, they would not , and should not, expect to be able to be employed in a position of financial trust after release.

Note that I am not saying that this is the law. Just that it bought to be

So where do you draw the line? Which crimes are so heinous that you forfeit certain rights? Effectively becoming an outlaw.
Do you remember when a mans home was his castle?
Right now in NZ, some crimes are so bad that the Police have the power of road side punishment without trial. Would you like that extended?

[scumdog]

What is it with our pro-Police members, that they only see what they want to? Read the post Patrick, especially the first line.
They entered his house without a warrant and photographed him. Apart from that I don't have a problem with the rest of what they did
I know it's stupid of me, but I expect cops to obey the law too, not just enforce it.

I missed this item on the news (or whatever programme) so who said the Police entered his house without a warrant and photographed him?
Seems a little odd (and waste of time) given the Police would already have his photo on the computer system.

[Waylander]

Right now in NZ, some crimes are so bad that the Police have the power of road side punishment without trial. Would you like that extended?

Only problem I see with that is that thier priorities are fucked. Offences that are meaningless get severe punishment while more sever offences get meaningless punishment.

[TonyB]

It's a tricky one eh? But I reckon the cop who did this would have done it out of desperation. He'd know that his career was on the line, although he probably didn't think the slime bag would take him to court. I don't know the full story, but this pedophile was reoffending while on parole, right? If thats the case then the cop would have been desperate to stop him from ruining some other kids life. If that's the case then while maybe the cops methods left a bit to be desired, his intentions were admirable. The system was failing the victims- could you sit back and watch it happen again?

IMHO, if someone commits a henious crime like that against an innocent child, then they have to expect to loose some of their basic rights. Children should be protected from 'people' like this guy at all costs. The children are innocent, the pedophile is an evil subhuman piece of pond scum, who ruins innocent lives for his own sexual gratification or power trip or whatever the fuck it is that makes these scum do what they do. Maybe there'd be less of them if they KNEW that wherever they went, and whatever they did, everyone around them would know who they are, what they are, and what they've done.

[Ixion]

So where do you draw the line? Which crimes are so heinous that you forfeit certain rights? Effectively becoming an outlaw.
Do you remember when a mans home was his castle?
Right now in NZ, some crimes are so bad that the Police have the power of road side punishment without trial. Would you like that extended?

Line seems easy. What used to be called felony. Used to be a thing called being a "notorious felon", also.

Don't agree with road side punishment as a general principle. But if the police stop someone for DIC . He's disqualified, and has a record of gaol time for similar offences. Don't reckon he's entitled to the same treatemnt as someone who's never before fallen foul of the law .

What I'm saying is that after doing the time and being released from gaol , they're still criminals. Convicted felons. And I don't reckon that criminals should have the same rights as honest folk.

And for the avoidance of doubt, by criminal I mean someone who's done a major crime.Not speeding, no WOF etc. (Those used to be called misdemeanours) .

[Lou Girardin]

Felonies and misdemeanours are Merkin concepts, we've never used the terms.
But the question still stands, which crimes are so heinous as to warrant unforgiveness..
When does a criminal finally expiate their guilt?
If a child is innocent, what about a harmless hitch hiker?
If you're severly provoked and accidentally commit manslaughter , when will you stop paying for it?
I'd be very, very careful about supporting the removal of anyones rights, it's just a small step to doing it to us.

[TonyB]

The thing is a child is absolutely innocent when it come to sex. They don't even understand what is happening. They couldn't possibly think "oh this guy might be a bit dodgy- is he befriending me because he wants to rape me?" They trust adults without question- sure they are taught about 'stranger danger' but it's been proven that even a supposedly wise kid can be tricked into getting into a car with a nice old man and lady, or befriended by a 'nice' man. They are taught to do what adults tell them. TV teaches them that 'nasty' people LOOK nasty- if the guy offering them lollies looks and acts nicely, they probably don't suspect a thing.

I can see where your coming from Lou, but the fact is that kids aren't worldly enough to deal with a preditory pedophile. The rights and safety of kids should ALWAYS be put before those of a convicted pedophile.