A ‘high-risk’ sex offender has gone missing from his home in East Lancashire.
Yes, you read that right – ‘from his
home’…
Police think he may be in the Blackpool area, and officers believe he poses a significant risk of reoffending.
In which case, why was he released?
“Sex offenders are managed in the community by police and partners, a system which aims to prevent them committing further offences.
“But if they do not comply with the obligations of their licence, or Sex Offender Prevention Order, then we will take robust and positive action to locate them, as we are doing in this case.”
Thank you for closing that stable door now that the horse is twenty miles down the road and looking for his next victim…
7 comments:
“But if they do not comply with the obligations of their licence, or Sex Offender Prevention Order, then we will take robust and positive action to locate them, as we are doing in this case.”
Yes .. they'll get a damned stiff talking to .. and if they've been really naughty, maybe, just maybe a bit of finger-wagging thrown in for good measure ..
But today you see .. its all about "Partnerships" .. They're everywhere ..
Safety Camera Partnerships (We all get a bit of the funding and we all get a share of the revenue)..
Community Partnerships .. (Someone else to share the blame with) ..
Road Improvement Partnerships, formerly known as Council Highways Departments (You scratch our backs & we'll scratch yours) ..
And of course (as is inevitable) when it all goes to rat-shit & the solids hit the air extractor .. everyone gets a splattering .. but no-one gets sacked ..
Assume he only became 'high risk' after he breached conditions?
Should a sex offender, particularly an offender against children, be locked up forever? If yes, fine, problem solved - campaign for that. If no, then it follows that the offender will be released on completion of sentence. Then we have the problem, as with all crime types of course, of trying to prevent that offender from reoffending, keeping him constantly under supervision, while allowing him to live his life otherwise normally in the wild, so to speak. Now, even without making allowance for holidays, sickness and meal breaks, toilet breaks etc, it takes at least five people to keep someone under observation around the clock. And that's if he's a good boy and agrees not to slip out of the back door, to guard against which would double the manpower commitment. And if our sex offender learned spook-like tradecraft, he would still find no problem in evading his watchers. And that's just one sex offender. What about the major drug dealers, the violent gangsters etc, do they need watching too? How much tax do we want to pay for all these watchers?
The system we have is full of holes, completely unworkable, and the police have been ordered to make it work, within their existing resources. Well of course they can't, it's impossible. So sex offenders are not watched as a matter of routine, it can't be done. So yes, they are free to go missing, whether for innocent or sinister reasons. But it's unfair to blame the police for this
There are such things as problems without a solution. For our "civilised" society this may be one of them, although if we lived in a less "humane" society, certain solutions may become apparent.
@ PT ..
I don't blame the Police per se ..
I blame the idiots in the Courts, who allow these people to live amongst the rest of us ..
I blame the idiots involved in so-called "Partnerships" where no-one takes ultimate responsibility .. so no-one takes ultimate blame when it all goes wrong ..
What you say with regard to keeping these people under observation 24/7 is quite correct .. its unworkable ..
So, why aren't sex offenders (particularly where children have been involved) .. simply "chemically" castrated & then released back into society ?
Not a pleasant thought by any means .. but a damned sight better than the alternative, where there is a substantial risk of them re-offending ..
Better that a convicted pervert lose his libido .. than an innocent woman or child suffer at their hands ..
And its so much more cost effective ..
I suspect the search will be robust because they don't want a member of the public topping him.
"But today you see .. its all about "Partnerships" .. "
Another appalling perversion of the English language.
"Assume he only became 'high risk' after he breached conditions?"
Possibly.
"For our "civilised" society this may be one of them, although if we lived in a less "humane" society, certain solutions may become apparent."
I'm sure with some, that solution, would be agreed. Certainly by me.
"I don't blame the Police per se ..
I blame the idiots in the Courts, who allow these people to live amongst the rest of us .."
Agreed, but why do they so assiduously peddle the latest claptrap straight from their PR department?
There are ways of making your displeasure with the words forced into your mouth known...
Yep, but I bet when they catch him again* they put him under double secret monitoring.
*'catch' in the sense that he walks into a police station and announces 'I'm a dangerous predator'
Post a Comment