Friday, January 15, 2010

A Lengthy Response

First things first: I really didn't expect Jeremy to respond to my questions and presumed that even if he did, it would be a response like Clay's. That he answered openly and honestly surprised me and he deserves credit for that. His response was lengthy and therefore I'll just respond to the points I feel need addressing. Should he feel I've missed anything crucial, I'm happy to address those down the track.

I appreciate that you consider a public registry a good idea but I still disagree. There are other, more effective ways to restrict access of child sex offenders to children. Here in Australia (at least in my home state of Victoria) we have a Working With Children Check for anyone who wants to work with children. Anyone with a relevant criminal record is unable to pass this check and therefore unable to work with children. It would be very easy for any parent who needs a babysitter to demand a potential sitter have this check.

I'd be interested to know more about why you consider the broad scope it currently has would make is less useful. I'd have thought those in support of a registry would want it spreading the widest net possible in order to offer the greatest amount of protection.

I find this statement rather interesting as it seems to go against what I usually read on AZU regarding doing all possible to prevent crimes before they occur. I've read comments from AZU members promoting civil confinement of those with a paedophilic or hebephilic sexual orientation to ensure they don't commit crimes against children. I'd have thought abolishing a register to prevent crimes would be far less dramatic a move than locking up innocent people for the same reason.

This is simply untrue. You are the only person whose registry page I've linked to and you've already stated in your response that this doesn't bother you. What I will say is that I believe anyone who advocates for people's personal details to be posted online has no right to complain if their personal details are also made public.

My question was about whether you've informed the people living in your street and nearby streets that you're a convicted child sex offender and that their children should be wary of you. The purpose of the public registry is to make people aware of sex offenders living in their neighbourhood who they may not know so, as someone who supports the registry, I was wondering if you've been proactive in letting them know you're a danger or if you're happy for them to be unaware unless they happen to look you up? I'd already presumed that your friends and family would be aware of your history of targetting children and would adust their behaviour to suit.

Given that AZU is a blog, I presume it doesn't have a membership as such. I use the term 'members' to reference those listed on the site as contributors, particularly those who most often post articles and comments. I'm sure you know what I meant but it doesn't hurt to clarify.

As for me standing in judgement of another's mental state: where did I do so? I certainly don't see anything I've written which judges the mental state of anyone.

Still on about who is and isn't a member? You know very well this isn't the point and you're just being a smart arse. I asked whether YOU agreed with the people who'd stated that paedophiles and child molestors should commit suicide. So you say you don't agree but you do think the world would be a better place if some killed themselves. Obviously you don't think we'd be better off without you. And, no, I don't wish death on you or anyone else. I've made my opinion on that very clear on numerous occasions.

As for what people online think of you: I don't give a rat's tossbag what they think of me and neither should you.

I didn't say it was an AZU policy, I said that AZU support such a policy. A minor difference but an important one nonetheless and one I'd hope you're intelligent enough to appreciate. Clearly the meaning of what I said was that the key members/contributors/fuckwits (whatever you want to call them) support such a policy... but feel free to play with semantics if you wish. If you want me to trawl back through comments to find where each of the main contributors has expressed their support for this I'm happy to do so but we both know this isn't necessary.

We also both know that when referring to a 'one strike' policy, the AZU crowd have made it clear they don't believe in release for child sex offenders such as you. They believe that once someone has been convicted of a sex offense against a child they should be gaoled for life. Do you really agree with this given it would mean you'd be incarcerated for life? Who cares if I like it or not? It doesn't apply to me as I'm not a child sex offender. That's why I asked your opinion as you're not only a 'one strike' child sex offender but a repeat one so you're the poster boy for why they don't want offenders released.

Some of them have also expressed a view that non-offending people with a paedophilic or hebephilic sexual orientation should also be incarcerated to prevent any chance of them offending in the future. Do you have an opinion on this?

Of course that's a very effective way. I find your last point interesting as you wouldn't have the choice to obey the law now if your AZU buddies had their way. You'd still be incarcerated as a result of your first offense.

My paedo-buddies? Even in the midst of apparent honesty in your responses you try to slip in falsehoods. Who exactly are my paedo-buddies? If I had buddies that were offending against children then, yes, I'd take them to task for it. As it stands, the only ex-offender I have any contact with apart from you and Clay is Derek via comments we leave on each other's blogs. I have no reason to believe Derek has offended since the crime for which he was punished and therefore have no reason to take him to task.

As for my position on rape, let me make it crystal clear so there can be no confusion: I abhor the rape of annyone regardless of their age or gender. I really don't know how I can make this any clearer. This is the reason I find Violent Leaves' repeated expressions of delight in the thought of offenders being raped so offensive. She makes it clear that she's only opposed to the rape of some people whereas I'm opposed to the rape of anyone. Does this make me morally superior to her? That's not for me to say.

Feel free to put me on your ignore list. It doesn't matter to me whether you speak to me or not. I hate to burst your bubble but you've not yet 'owned' me in public or private. Pulling comments from other people and attributing them to me counts for nothing. Neither does making baseless accusations about me. If you really want to 'own' me in public, try taking something I've actually said and make your case around that. I know it's much harder than taking me to task for the comments of others but I'm sure it'd be much more satisfying.


Warped Ohio said...

It sure took him forever to respond, and he's playing dumb. Oh, wait he's not playing...

Seriously though, WE'RE NOT the ones who outed him. ABSOLUTE ZERO UNITED did that two years ago. How short memories are!

Funny. AZU bases risk on how much they hate someone. AZU called him pedophile, AZU pointed out he's a Tier 3, AZU is the one who spread stuff about him on the internet, and the dumb POS wants to blame ME for reminding him of that.

From a risk assessment point of view, lets analyze Jeremy.

Jeremy is a repeat offender.

Jeremy is a member of a site that regularly reads pro-pedophile propaganda. Now, if a registered sex offender was going to NAMBLA, the average person would suspect this person is doing something illicit.

Jeremy is also attacking and falsely accusing others on a frequent basis, which tells me his Mark Foley disease is back in full swing.

Pee-J has been reported to access to kiddie porn, and AZU is in cahoots with Pee-J for years (and many believe MsTattle is Stitches 77). What better way to get access to CP than by joining a fanatical group like AZU that allows its members access to CP and can read pro-pedophile literature without suspicion?

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Voice of Reason said...

What really made me laugh was his whinging about my tardiness in responding to him. Does he really think I visit the AZU site daily to see what drivel he's had to say? I didn't actually know he'd even responded until I saw a screenshot on your page with his response to Wikisposure looking after him and removing the page dedicated to him.

Of course, he still had to include lies in his response which will be left unchallenged on the AZU site. You've got to wonder why they feel the need to blatantly lie and misrepresent things that I say and do. After all, they like to make out I'm so 'transparent' and such a 'paedo' and yet they can't actually point out a single thing I've said or done that proves their claims. Their problem is they're too retarded to realise they'd be better off keeping quiet about me rather than trying to discredit me using quotes from others.