Paedophile awarded $25,000

[Grahameeboy]

You say you would help, You think people havnt tried, What a joke to many people have that way of thinking and it gets this country no where.

So it is a joke that some people try to help eh? Clearly we are in the minority which is why nothing happens...........figures?

Sorry Streetwise, but I have faith and maybe, just maybe, us 'Jokers' may be stopping things getting worse.....ah ha.

For what it is worth this Joker helped a geezer out in London a few years back when 4 guys just set on him.......now I am not an agressive person but my 'way of thinking' helped this guy......I did Aikido at time which helped......now it turns out that he was a PDF.......still no regrets...

[Streetwise]

Nice work helping out a man being beaten. But im sick of people in New Zealand walking around after they have done some horible crimes, If we cant lock them up and cant kill them whan can be done,

[MisterD]

Yes, even their privacy is worth protecting.

It's a question of priorities, and I for one, am not impressed with the privacy of a recidivist paedo being given priority over the safety of children.

Even a lefty should be able to grasp that concept (also p/t, or is it?)

Now, where's the legislation to funnel any and all such compensation awarded to offenders straight to their victims?

[Grahameeboy]

Nice work helping out a man being beaten. But im sick of people in New Zealand walking around after they have done some horible crimes, If we cant lock them up and cant kill them whan can be done,

I understand, other than that I am sad that you think that this the way to deal with things.

We are all the masters of our own destiny and sometimes of others.......we just need to find a way to help and put our finger print on people.

[Grahameeboy]

Now, where's the legislation to funnel any and all such compensation awarded to offenders straight to their victims?

So you think compensation helps victims then and takes away the pain.......it doesn't.....now before you say it, I agree that giving this PDF guy $25,000 is wrong and probably adds to the victims pain as does the Media's coverage which I guess is another Privacy issue.......

[Phurrball]

It's a question of priorities, and I for one, am not impressed with the privacy of a recidivist paedo being given priority over the safety of children.

Even a lefty should be able to grasp that concept (also p/t, or is it?)

Now, where's the legislation to funnel any and all such compensation awarded to offenders straight to their victims?

Like I said the reason for the decision has nothing to do with the history of this particular paedophile - the complainant's identity doesn't matter in the eyes of the court. Be pissed off with the police officer concerned for their lack of judgment - they ought to have foreseen this type of compensation being a possibility -AND the subsequent publicity and all the hullabaloo that goes with nasty little hornets' nests such as this.

On the last point you and I agree 100% - there is legislation in train is there not?

[Karma]

On the compensation thing... I wouldn't want it.

It's like blood money, would only make things worse from what I can see...

Imagine finally manageing to get on with your life and putting something like child rape into the back of your mind, then suddenly being sent a cheque by the guy that did it...

[MisterD]

So you think compensation helps victims then and takes away the pain.......

That's not what I said G, my only point is that it sends the right message to the victims from society if we were to do this....it's a small but positive statement of our values.

***edit***

I think this stands as a reasonable response to your post too, Weasel.

[Ixion]

THE 25K COMPENSATION IS NOT TO REWARD THE PAEDOPHILE BUT TO PUNISH THE POLICE!!!! ALL THIS RANTING ABOUT THE PAEDOPHILE IS MISSING THE POINT COMPLETELY!

..I've done this rant elsewhere, but society is judged by how we treat the lowliest of scum. Yes, even their privacy is worth protecting.

Righto,

I'm done.

Sorry. Disagree on several counts.

Firstly, the PDF got the 25K . So, clearly the RESULT was to reward him.

And if the purpose was only to punish the police as a matter of public interest , the action should have been taken in the name of the Privacy Comissioner

Secondly, I do not agree that a convicted criminal (convicted of a serious charge) has the same "right" to privacy as an honest citizen. He committed some nasty offences. He served his time for them, and should not be further punished. BUT- the time he spent in gaol does not turn him back into a respectable citizen. He is still a criminal. What we would once have called a "notorious felon". I submit that the public are entitled to know that their new neighbour is not an honest respectable person . Whether his villanys be kiddy fiddling, bike stealing, murder or whatever.

Obviously, there should be some measure of proportion in this, both as to the initial disclosure to the public, and as to the time before it lapses into "who cares". But it seems absurd for me for someone to come out of prision and get all precious about his privacy and reputation. He has no reputation to protect, and his privacy is subject to the greater right of the public to know that they have a villain in their midst.

It is up to the criminal to redeem himself in the eyes of the law by "going straight" for a lengthy period. And in the meantime accepting that public censure is what he has brought upon his own head.

My opinion would be different if someone were to dredge up stale history - if the man had been living quietly without complaint for years, and someone suddenly discovered his past and publicised it. But that was not the case here. The police released the informatioon immediately after his release from prison. I think they were right to do so.

And there is no question of the police breaching the privacy of "any person". It was not "any person", it was a convicted criminal. I have no problems with the police breaching the privacy of convicted criminals. That is not the same thing as "any person". Not everyone is a convicted criminal (for simplicity let's take it that by "criminal" I mean serious crime - what we used to call felony) .

The right to privacy of the lowest scum is indeed worth protecting. Except where their right to privacy conflicts with the right of the public to know about a peril in their midst.

I would not support a general invasion of the criminal's privacy. There is no justification to release details of his background, or his personal life. But it is not thus to simply say " This man has come to live amongst you. He is a convicted criminal. He was convicted of xxx and recently released from prison".

And, in fact, all this is public information. The police did not make known anything that was not already in the public domain, except to identify the locality the crimninal had come to reside in.

Let us look at the matter from another viewpoint. A man has been convicted of serious crimes (let us leave kiddy fiddling out of our thinking for the moment - assume he is a P maker). He is released, but has no intention of going straight. He sets to work to set himself up a new P lab. Why should he be guaranteed a clock of secrecy to work under? How much better if the public know that "This man is a convicted criminal. He makes and sells P. Maybe he has given up such activity. Maybe not. It is well for the public to keep an eye on him, and be watchful of what he does"

Indeed, further, criminals that are released are "on parole" . Why should not the public as a right and even a duty , keep an eye on them? That is the whole purpose of parole .

What about someone convicted of fraud, by running a fake investment company, pocketing the sums given him for investment and running away with the money? On his release from prison , should he be able to set up a new investment company right away - and no-one is permitted to say "Oh, the man running this investment company has just been released from prison, he was convicted of fraud , by setting up fake investment companies" ?

Would you be happy in this scenario, if your aged parents put their life's savings in the criminals new investment company? Would you not think that they were entitled to know that their new investment advisor was a convicted fraudster?

[Grahameeboy]

That's not what I said G, my only point is that it sends the right message to the victims from society if we were to do this....it's a small but positive statement of our values.

***edit***

I think this stands as a reasonable response to your post too, Weasel.

True but that was how it was perceived.....you are forgiven...... but then you go and contradict yourself......is compensation still the right message to victims....do they need or even want Society to send them a message....I mean this kinda trauma is a personal thing isn't it........best left alone.

I mean you have a Govt who, under ACC pays compensaton to a drunk driver who is injured in an accident and kills someone.....what message does this send to the victims family......ah I guess his drink driving conviction is the message.

All I am saying is that 'Guilt' is not the answer........care is.......

Oh and I still love ya.........

[MisterD]

All I am saying is that 'Guilt' is not the answer........care is.......

Oh and I still love ya.........

Yeah, well it's a fine line isn't it? How does a victim feel when they see this sh1t happening now?

I think I'm going to buy a tree and plant it, just for you to hug....

[Grahameeboy]

Yeah, well it's a fine line isn't it? How does a victim feel when they see this sh1t happening now?

I think I'm going to buy a tree and plant it, just for you to hug....

Yes it is I agree but ya got to draw it somewhere......I agree that the victim may.....I say may cause we do not know how they feel.... not be happy about this award, however, I would say that they have enough shit in their head to be dealing with anyway.....I am happy to be wrong..

I don't need a tree thanks...already have a tree planted for me in Kenya but a beer would be nice................but thanks for the thought

[Streetwise]

Well care can kiss my ass if my kids are in danger,,, I tell ya if i was the policeman i would have done the same thing, Also if i had the funds i would pay $25000, Mate i no where you are coming from i and i do understand that being the nice guy and helping is needed in some casses, But not this one.

[MisterD]

already have a tree planted for me in Kenya but a beer would be nice................but thanks for the thought

Bloody long way to go to hug that innit?

[Grahameeboy]

Well care can kiss my ass if my kids are in danger,,, I tell ya if i was the policeman i would have done the same thing, Also if i had the funds i would pay $25000, Mate i no where you are coming from i and i do understand that being the nice guy and helping is needed in some casses, But not this one.

Fair enough..........caring just should not discriminate in my book.