Laws Forcing Homelessness

The Washington Post Article

I read an interesting article in the Washington Post today about the unintended consequence of various sex offender laws in the USA. The restrictions on where former sex offenders are allowed to live have become so restrictive that many are finding there is no area in which they can reside. Once an area that fits within the narrow range is located, so many former sex offenders are housed there that the local community launches into protests until the people are moved. Now, I'm sure the more heartless folk would say that these people brought this trouble on themselves and, of course, this is true. However, these people have done their time and deserve the opportunity to get their lives back on track and become contributing members of society again. To force these people into a situation where they can't work again or even live in a home isn't about justice... it's purely about vengence and cheap, nasty politics. 

Further, not only is this treatment inhumane, it undermines the whole alleged point of the law in the first place ie. the protection of children. Only an idiot would consider that someone who is forced into ongoing homelessness and unemployment poses less of a risk to children than someone who's done their time and is given the opportunity for redemption. Again, the more callous amongst us would probably say that this is a good reason to just put them in gaol and never let them out again. Well, I'm sure there are plenty of third world dictatorships that treat their citizens like this if you want to go there. Personally, I prefer to live in a democracy that values freedom and treats its citzens with compassion and fairness.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Well, it's been an interesting three months since I opened up this blog. I've been exposed to comments from the rational and the cretinous. Generally I've let most comments be published with only the most pathetic off-topic attacks being deleted. I've also found that it's been quieter than I'd hoped but I've come to understand that some will only post on the blogs that guarantee editorial support and no uncensored opposition. It's a shame that they're not interested in free and open discussion but ultimately it says a lot about them and exposes the flaws in their character. To those who've had the courage to enter into open discussion here I offer my thanks and respect.

So, I hope everyone reading this had a fantastic Christmas and that 2009 brings happiness and wellbeing to all.

The 'Romeo & Juliet' Con

In sexual offense terms, the reference to 'Romeo & Juliet' is made when the two participants are relatively close together in age. Usually it refers to a circumstance in which one particpant is underage whilst the other is over; but it can also refer to a circumstance where both participants are underage.

This is an interesting (and controversial) subject. I personally don't agree with Romeo & Juliet laws. To me it's a cop out. It's a con. Someone is either capable of consenting to sexual activity or they're not. The age of the person to whom they're giving consent is completely irrelevant. Presently in my country the age at which people can legally give consent is 16 in most states. This means that up to, and including, the age of 15 years and 364 days they are not considered legally capable of making the decision to give consent to sexual activity... period. (I'm yet to grasp what magically happens at midnight on the night a person turns 16 but that's a topic for another day.) The age of the person they want to have sexual activity with shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. The possible consequences of sexual activity (which is what they supposedly are not intelligent enough to comprehend) are the same whether they're active with someone who is 14 or 40. I'm yet to hear anyone give a rational or convincing refutation to this fact. I appreciate there are arguments that there's a power differential when an older person is involved but, again, that's a separate issue as I'm very aware of the power peer pressure holds over people of all ages.

So why do I consider this concept to be a con and a cop out? Well, it's clear that if we need to relieve people of a certain age from the burden of choosing what to do with their bodies, this must be uniform and without exceptions. There's no grey area. They're either capable of making choices of a sexual nature or they're not. What's interesting is that there are people on both sides of the fence in favour of 'Romeo & Juliet' laws. So what's their motivation?

For those who champion age of consent laws there's a big upside to these laws. Enforcing age of consent laws when the 'sex offenders' are other young people would be a massive PR disaster. So, to avoid having such a PR problem they're willing to sell out the very people they claim need protection. This not only makes them hypocrites but completely destroys their credibility. In the vacuous language of AZU, they would be known as 'enablers'.

For those who oppose age of consent laws it introduces a grey area that can be exploited. It opens a line of logic that underage people are actually capable of choosing whether or not they want to be sexually active. It is effectively the thin end of the proverbial wedge.

As I said earlier, the concept of 'Romeo & Juliet' laws is a con and a cop out. Our law makers have decided at what age a person is capable of choosing to engage in sexual activity and everyone should be treated equally under the law... regardless of age. Anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda.

The Lunsford Hypocrisy

As strange as it may sound, I'd not heard of Mark Lunsford or his family until I read the latest post on Absolute Zero Unites and followed a link back to a comments page at Absolute Zero United and felt obliged to look it up. 

The first couple of articles I read broke my heart. They told the story of Jessica Lunsford, an innocent 9 year old girl who was brutally raped and buried alive by a mentally ill murderer. Whilst I can't possibly fully understand what her family went through, I can empathise with them and share their pain. Her father, Mark Lunsford, became something of a pinup for those who champion publically accessible sex offender registers as he fought a crusade to have far more stringent tracking of RSOs. 

Unfortunately for the Lunsford family, things haven't gone according to plan. Subsequent to Jessica's horrific death, Mark's son, Joshua, has been charged with "unlawful sexual conduct with a minor" and metaphorically pissed on Jessica's grave by wearing a t-shirt with her picture on it to his trial. He later took a plea deal and weasled his way out of being included on a sex offender register.

Whilst Joshua Lunsford's sexual activity with a minor is bad enough, the activities of his father have more significant ramifications. You see, Mark Lunsford was found by Florida police to have child pornography on his computer. What would possess a man whose beautiful daughter was raped and murdered to download kiddie porn in beyond me. 

So this brings me to the AZU post in question. Are they pouring the usual vitriol on a man found to have been in possession of child pornography? Or are they plumbing the depths of hypocrisy by making excuses for his behaviour (something I believe they refer to as 'enabling' and 'blame gaming')? Well, since he was a pinup for their cause, they're taking the latter option. He's not a paedosexual.. he's not even just a very naughty boy. No, he's one of those mythological people who unknowingly possess child porn. Of course he didn't deliberatly download it. Nor did he look at it. Or masturbate to it. Not him. Not the chosen one. 

Having been somewhat disturbed by this rather devious attitude I thought I'd turn to the fount of all knowledge when it comes to exposing those with a prediliction for underage people... Wikisposure. I did a search on Joshua Lunsford and waited to see the page on him. After all, he was sexually involved with a 14 year old girl and so is exactly the sort of person Wikisposure loves to feature. But it was in vain... there was no article on him. Hmmmm.. interesting. So I then searched on Mark Lunsford, the man who was caught by the police with kiddie porn. But alas, there was no article on him either. 

So my challenge to Wikisposure and AZU is a simple one. Treat these two as you would anyone else who is caught with child porn or who is sexually involved with a minor. If you're not willing to do so then at least have the integrity to admit you're making a special case for these people. Until you do so, your credibility is in tatters.

Deep Thoughts Pt2

Quote from Violet Leaves:

"Jacks (sic) 'cause' for pedophiles, sex offenders and their free speech rights is such a mystery...

~**Violet Leaves**~ | Homepage | 11.06.08 - 10:16 am | # "

What VL doesn't explain is how my 'cause' for the free speech rights of her and her friends fits into her conspiracy theory.

{link to comments}

The Hypocrisy Inherent In The System

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24611493-5008620,00.html

One very disturbing trend in the punishment of those found guilty of sexual activity with underage people is the harsher penalties handed out to males than females. In the case linked to above a man and his partner were found guilty of engaging in consensual sexual activity with two underage girls. The male engaged in more activity than his partner and so is worthy of a tougher penalty but what's occured is disgraceful. He's been gaoled for seven and a half years whilst his partner has walked free.

There's no point demanding tougher laws when the ones we currently have aren't being applied evenly. It's time for everyone to be treated equally by the courts, regardless of gender.

Deep Thoughts Pt1

Yeah, I know I'm pinching this concept from Daydreamer of Oz on the AZU site but they say that imitation is the ultimate form of flattery so I'm sure she won't mind. The quotes here will be outrageous for one reason or another. I thought I'd kick it off with an absolute doozy:


You just know Logue was on his belly, paying his dues to his cellmate, on a nightly basis.

Prison was the one place Derek's quivering lips were a highly sought after commodity.
Logue Hater 10.24.08 - 9:44 pm #


Although it's hard to believe anyone could be so callous, the lowlife posting as 'Logue Hater' is actually taking joy from the idea of someone being raped. You can't get much lower than that.

What's New Pussycat?

Stitches77 (aka Stitches the Cunt - SC) reminds me of a kitten: she is constantly taking swipes that either don't land or, when they do, have little to no effect. As soon as someone stands up to her she runs to hide behind insults and aggression. She is great fun to toy with as she's not too bright and very overconfident. But that's where the analogy ends as she's in no way cute and certainly not a nice person.

I've been having a fun exchange with SC over on AZU. Someone made the comment that more men than women are raped if you count prison rapes, to which SC replied:

Cite your source. And don't confuse 'sexual victimization' with RAPE when you do so.

So, as she made it clear she has a definition of rape that precludes acts that many would consider to be rape I had to ask her to define what she considers 'sexual victimisation' and how it differs from rape. At first I didn't understand the reason she wouldn't want to make her definition public but, given her below comment, it's now pretty clear. It's about power - she has it and having to answer someone's question would diminish it. Anyhoo, the comments section can be found here if you want to see the whole exchange. Needless to say, SC very quickly descended into her usual mire of insults and naked aggression but made one very crucial and telling remark which confirms my suspicions.

You also failed to realize that I love having the power to manipulate you, Jack

So there we have it folks, SC has inadvertently revealed her true motivation for running the AZU blog: the power. She says herself that she loves having the power to manipulate people. Presumably SC suffered sexual abuse at some stage in her past and is now seeking to reclaim the power that experience took from her. That would also explain why she so quickly attacks anyone who posts comments that disagree with what she's decided is the official AZU line. It's a challenge to her authority that makes her feel that she's not the one in charge so she has to re-establish her authority: like a cat marking it's territory.

Let me make it clear: I do have sympathy for SC and find it terribly sad that she was used as some bloke's sex toy. I have sympathy for anyone who's been through such a traumatic experience. It must play on her mind that there are likely to still be people getting off on her experiences and that she's powerless to stop it. It must be a debilitating experience and I do have sympathy for her because of what she went through but that doesn't change the fact that she's a total bitch. I guess we'll never know if she would've turned out a nice person had she not been abused.

Such Charming Folk Pt 2

Hmmm.. I'm starting to think that I've given the lovely folk at AZU a bit much credit. They posted the following snippet of a conversation recently:

I REFUSE to even let my husband know my email address. This is MY computer. He can't give them what he doesn't know. I am afraid he will fold like a cheap suit if they give him a hard time.

Quote from: lindape54 on April 04, 2008, 01:04:48 PM

The husband of the woman who made the quote was previously convicted for molesting her daughter but once he was released from gaol she considered her vows of 'for better or worse' and chose to give their marriage a second chance. The AZU interpretation of this quote is that whilst she trusts her daughter's safety with her husband, she doesn't trust him with her email address. Therefore (according to the brainiacs of AZU), she somehow values her email address more highly than her daughter.

Now, to anyone with even a semblence of intelligence, it is clear from reading the quote that this woman is saying she doesn't want to give her husband her email address as 'they' will force him to give it to 'them'. What isn't clear is who 'they' are or why she is so adamant she doesn't want 'them' to have her email address. What is perfectly clear is that she isn't saying that she doesn't trust her husband with her email address. So this is the part when I realise just how much I've overestimated the authors of AZU...

I asked whether it would be prudent to post a link to the full transcript of the quote in order to give context and explain who is the 'they' she refers to. I also pointed out that their interpretation of her quote was obviously incorrect and made no sense. So did they accept the alternate interpretation in good nature? No, of course not. They did what they always do to anyone who doesn't fall in line and blindly accept whatever they've decided is the party line - they went on the offensive and levelled insults at me.

"Oh dear, it's the faux intellectual again. Look, Jack, I'm not gonna play this stupid game with you. If you want to go read the shit at Sosen knock yourself out, Jack

Now. For the last fucking time. That was Linda's comment. That was not a snippet of her comment. We are not going to post the entire thread. The statement means what it means. She did not trust her husband's ability to control himself enough to let him know what her email address was. She obviously DID trust him to live in the home with her little girl who he had previously groomed and molested. If you can figure out some other meaning then say so, otherwise go philosophize on somebody who will appreciate your level of dimwittedness.

I don't.

Stitches
Stitches77 | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 1:49 pm | # "


"You don't have to believe what we say, most pedo's are too distorted to anyway, why should an RSO activist be any different?
Jacey | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 2:22 pm | # "


"Oh brother. I see we've got another thick headed idiot on on hands!
Carisma | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 9:12 pm | # "


So, in addition to the slurs received last time I disagreed with these people, I'm now also a dimwitted faux intellectual, a RSO activist and a thick headed idiot. Full comments here.

Up until now I'd just presumed the people responsible for these blatant pieces of second rate fiction were simply mentally challenged but I've come to realise that they're more than just terminally thick. They're also deliberately deceptive. It was possible they could've really been stupid enough to believe their incorrect interpretation of the quote they posted but their reaction to having their deceipt exposed shows that they are not really interested in the truth.

I guess what people say is true after all... Stitches77 and co. really are cunts... and dramatically dim cunts at that!

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 2

http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S625982.shtml?cat=566

Vigilantes are deluded sociopaths who believe that they're above the law and more important than anyone else. They have no respect for law and order and believe that they're so superior to everyone else that they are well within their rights to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner. They're also completely wrong.

The case linked to above is a perfect example of the problem with vigilantes. In summary, a vigilante took it upon himself to post details of local sex offenders in public places as part of a campaign to stir up the public against them. Some other vigilantes took offense at this and beat the crap out of him. And herein lies the rub. One either supports the concept of vigilantism or one opposes it. You can't pick and choose the vigilantes who should be allowed. If you support even one vigilante then you lose any sort of moral right to condemn other vigilantes with whom you may disagree.

Some people who don't think things through voice their support for vigilantes when the people targeted are those they don't like. There would be many people supportive of the vigilante trying to rabble-rouse by posting flyers exposing people in the community. However, should one have supported his vigilantism, it would be extreme hypocrisy to then oppose the vigilantism of the people who bashed him. In both cases the vigilante engaged in activities with the intention of hurting the intended target... either physically or through orchestrating social exclusion (NB. There are many who would argue that the posting of flyers is aimed at provoking other vigilantes to physically attack the SO's but I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt and presume he wasn't that vicious).

I believe in the rule of law. Anyone who breaks the law, regardless of motivation, is a criminal and should be treated as such. Further, anyone who chooses to break the law does so in the knowledge that this action brings consequences. I guess the bloke who got bashed this time hadn't taken into account the chance that his fellow vigilantes would be part of his consequences.

Free Speech vs Thoughtcrime

{blog: littlegirl saved}

"Minimizing crimes against children should be illegal in itself!"

The above quote is taken from the post titled 'Boy-Chatters think Child porn is laughable?'. Having read the post I still haven't seen anything from the Boy-Chatters that suggests they consider kiddie porn to be laughable... but that's not the point that caught my eye. No, the thing that caught my eye was the suggestion that legislation should be passed to make it illegal for anyone to express an opinion that could be construed as 'minimising crimes against children'. The obvious ambiguity in this statement is hardly surprising as the intention to stifle thought and free speech is most effective when the boundaries are blurred and the goal posts easily moved.

Now, I don't like to see actual crimes against children trivialised but I defend the rights of everyone to free speech. It's very easy to be a defender of free speech when the concept expressed is something we agree with; but the true test of our commitment comes when people want to express concepts with which we disagree. As the Friends of Voltaire so eloquently expressed it: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". There's really nothing I can add to that.

The Problem With Vigilantes

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24425596-2761,00.html

This story highlights perfectly why the business of securing justice should be left to those who are trained in the area. I'm sure the fuckwits who put this pamphlet out thought they were so very smart and were securing some sort of 'people's justice' by publicly naming a convicted sex offender. Whilst the perpetrators sit back smugly enjoying their perverse schadenfreude, the original victim now has to deal with being publicly named and the ramifications of this. One of the big fears of anyone who's been sexually abused is that their ordeal is made public and sadly this is what's happened due to the selfish actions of an ignorant individual (or possibly a group of ignorant individuals).

I hope everyone responsible for this is caught and prosecuted to act as a deterrent to others.

Is Bestiality Rape?

http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/09/sheep_molester_not_a_sex_offen.html

First things first: I have no idea how someone can find an animal sexually attractive. Personally I find the idea of engaging in sexual activity with an animal to be repulsive. But then again I don't know how a man can find another man sexually attactive and I find the idea of homosexual sex repulsive. So rather than making random judgements on who to condemn and who not to, I make a conscious decision not to condemn those different from me and who have attractions I don't understand. It's not always an easy approach to take but centuries of homophobia was based on bigots making value judgements using their own sexual attractions as the only acceptable model and condemning anyone different and I'm not keen to join the ranks of the bigots.

So, having said that I come to the point of the push to include this man on a sex offender register. What is the point of a sex offender register? The official reason is to highlight men and women who may potentially pose a sexual threat to others. Others argue that its purpose is to marginalise those with attractions alternative to the mainstream in the same way different people have been marginalised based on race, religion and sexuality throughout the ages. I personally believe the true intentions are a combination of both. Regardless, unless sheep read sex offender registers, I don't see the point of including people such as this on a register. After all, its not even decided yet if it's possible to rape a sheep. Does the issue of consent even come into play when an animal is involved? Do those who consider sex with an animal to be rape also consider the killing of an animal to be murder? It seems a bit odd that we consider it fine to kill a a sheep but abominable to shag one.

The obvious approach should be one of protecting animals from cruelty. If the action of shagging an animal hurts it, the offender should be charged under animal welfare legislation and treated in accordance with the law. This is entirely reasonable. Placing people on sex offender registers may conform with their marginalising purpose but certainly doesn't meet their other alleged purpose of protecting the public.

Such Charming Folk

I mentioned in my opening post that although I often frequent the Absolute Zero (AZU) blog and find the posts to be thought provoking, I find the comments section to be a disappointing mire of self congratulatory backslapping, substandard thought processes and outright hostility to anyone not blindly accepting of the views and ideology of the blog's authors. Questioning the logic of a post or disagreeing with the listed contributors usually leads to an outpouring of vitriol or, on occasion, accusations that the sceptic is actually either a paedosexual or a 'paedo enabler' (an essentially meaningless made up term addressed previously on this blog). In the past I've seen the rather pathetic attempts by a poster who goes by the name of 'lameo' to ingratiate himself with the main contributors when they've turned on him. His crime? He questioned whether a quote attributed to a politician may have been misinterpreted by Stitches77 in her post (see post and comments). I ended up feeling quite sorry for the guy as he reminded me of the loser at school who tries so hard to hang out with the popular gang and never quite gets that they have nothing but contempt for him.

In the past couple of days I've questioned a post on AZU in which they placed a lot of importance on a quote from a man who tortured and sexually assaulted two children. He made a comment that "The truth is that I am not an exception, I am the rule! Most sex offenders are just like me". The contributor who posted the article, Daydreamer of Oz, considered it so relevant that he even titled the post based on it. My point was simply that, when criminals like this man make statements in support of their actions they are roundly decried and their statements treated as lies and propaganda so it seems somewhat hypocritical to me for AZU to suddenly quote him as though his statement is truth and they accept him as an authority. The response to my audacity in questioning this was:

"Can you not read? I don't think his statements hold any validity whatsoever. Just like the RSO activists today don't.

Why should we put weight on the propaganda they are spreading that is EXACTLY like Duncan's?

HOW are they different?

It appears to me you have a definite bias and are unable to comprehend the question.

Stitches
Stitches77 Homepage 09.16.08 - 9:53 am "

Yes, that's correct. Because I disagree with the self proclaimed experts, I must therefore be some sort of imbecile who is unable to read or comprehend (see post and comments).

It's a shame that the contributors take this approach as, quite frankly, their back catalogue of comments show that as passionate as they are, they're not the sharpest tools in the shed and could really benefit by listening to others.

Now, I have no doubt that by constructively criticising the good folk at AZU I'm opening myself to the likelihood of being attacked as a paedo, a paedo enabler, a blame gamer or some other nonsense term but I'm not about to be bullied into silence. It's these very attitudes that prompted me to start this blog and offer a forum for both sides to be able to post without worrying about being cyber bullied. I just hope I can continue to maintain the neutrality.

Truly Horrible

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24324436-2761,00.html

We all know that hardcore child pornography is disgusting and illegal for a reason but this story is truly disturbing and makes one's stomach turn. I don't understand how someone can be turned on by the picture of a baby bound and gagged. The man who plead guilty to downloading these images has been gaoled which is a fair sentence but I really hope that he'll receive the counselling he needs.

Of course, what is far more concerning than the person who is attacted to these pictures is the person who did this to a baby in the first place. I personally don't believe a baby is able to give consent to such sexual activity and should be protected from such abuse. Let's hope the perpertrator is caught, locked up, and given the psychological help he so clearly needs.

A Total Disgrace

http://chris-drejaj-pedophile.blogspot.com/

"Chris Drejaj currently lives with his pedo enabler parents Paul and Kelly Drejaj, who are both fully aware of his online activities and admitted sexual attraction to little girls. Anyone having contact with these people should be very concerned about the safety of their children."

This is an excerpt from the site linked to above. Now, the question of the ethics of publishing the name and address of an alleged paedosexual and thereby exposing them to the risk of being physically assaulted by a mindless vigilante is a valid topic of discussion and one that I'll likely raise here on another date. The issue I want to address now is the vitriol directed at the parents of the alleged paedosexual.

Firstly, the term 'pedo enabler'. What is a 'pedo enabler'? I've done a search on various dictionary sites, a Google search and checked Wikipedia and there seems to be no official definition of this term. From the context in which it is used here, it would appear that it's an invented slur to be used against the friends and family of paedosexuals. The inference here is that because the parents haven't disowned their son, they are committing some sort of contemptible act. Surely it must be obvious to any reasonable person that to condemn parents for not abandoning their own child is in itself the contemptible act.

Whilst the condemnation this site passes on the parents for not disowning their child is fully deserving of one's contempt, what is worse is that the site's author goes on to claim that the parents pose a direct danger to children and posts their address and details of their places of work. As I said earlier, the question of the ethics of posting the private details of an accused paedosexual online is one that is open to debate but what is not open for discussion is whether or not it is acceptable to deliberately set out to damage that person's family. There is simply no possible justification for such behaviour and betrays the dangers of the fundamentalist mindset of some of the antis.

My challenge to those who feel it's acceptable to post the personal details of this man's family is to post your own personal details first. If you don't feel that it's appropriate to do this, then don't post the personal details of other innocent people. After all, they've not even been accused of being paedosexuals so there is no possible rationale for your attempt to sabotage their lives.

Licensed To Hug

http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/2008/06/licensed_to_hug.html

This is a Civitas Blog entry from a couple of months ago. It's about a paper released by a Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent in the UK investigating the current state of paranoia regarding child molesters and the effect it's having on intergenerational relationships. Some of the stories related to the author are very sad and highlight how social engineering often comes with unintended negative consequences.

One story that I found particularly poignant is that of a 2 year old girl who drowned in a pond. It transpired that a man had seen her wandering the streets as he was driving his car but didn't stop to ensure she was safe as he was fearful of being accused of attempting to abduct her. In this case, the climate of fear and suspicion that is so prevalent today led directly to the death of a child when, had things been different, she would likely have been picked up by the man and returned home or to a police station. I must admit that I doubt I'd have stopped either. The stigma of being labelled a paedosexual is one that can ruin your life and far too big a risk to undertake lightly.

I found this to be a very interesting article and would encourage those who visit the Voice of Reason to take the time to read it and, if you feel inclined, to make comment.

Doug Stanhope

Bloody funny.. no more needs to be said.

Accused Child Molester Seeks Compo

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24282278-3102,00.html

This is an interesting case. At the moment Dennis Ferguson has only been accused of molesting a child but has been hounded across Queenland by vigilantes who seem to have no love for our Western judicial system. Now, if it turns out that he actually did what he's been accused of then obviously I reckon he should have the book thrown at him but what worries me at the moment is the undermining of our societal values of fairness. Our justice system has been founded on the principle that one must be considered as and, more importantly, treated as innocent until they've been tried in a court of law and found guilty by a jury of their peers. This central, pivotal concept is currently being compromised and eroded on a number of fronts as the difference between being accused and being found guilty is being lost on many people all the way from the neanderthal vigilante right up to those who run our countries.

So, this brings us back to the case at hand and begs the question; given that vigilantism is a criminal act, should those who are victims of it be eligible for compensation. Ferguson hasn't yet been found guilty of what he's been accused of doing but if he eventually is, does this disqualify him from being eligible for compensation arising from criminal acts committed against him? If it does, would the vigilante who committed the crime against Ferguson also be disqualified from receiving compensation should someone else decide to even things up?

My opinion is that if Ferguson has offended against someone as he's been accused, he should face the full consequences of this. If someone offends against Ferguson that person should be tried and face the full consequences of his/her actions. Once they've done their time and paid their price they should then be free to continue their lives in peace. If they are offended against, they should be eligible for any applicable compensation.

What's the Point?

If you've managed to stumble across this little site from amongst the millions of blogs that clutter cyberspace, you're probably wondering what on earth the point is. Well, quite simply, I wanted to provide a forum for rational, respectful debate about issues that effect children.

For some time I've frequented blogs and activism sites set up by anti's and also those by paedosexuals and have found myself increasingly frustrated at the lack of dialogue between the two groups.

My favourite anti site has been Absolute Zero United but I find the comments section to be a mire of self-congratulatory posts and insults to anyone who disagrees with the accepted ideology. I'm sure the people who run the site must be more intelligent than they come across in their comments but I suppose it's easier to just insult people than debate issues when you control what your opponents are allowed to say in their posts. Similarly, the posts on Girl Chat tend to lack any serious debate of issues in favour of a pretty uniform opinion.

I realise it's quite likely that neither group will be interested in discussing issues with the other on a neutral playing field but I thought it would be nice to at least provide the field in case anyone turns up... you know, Field of Dreams and all that.

So... discuss away... (cue: sound of crickets chirping)