The Zohan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12476979

Thousands of sex offenders in England and Wales are set to be given the right to appeal against having their names on the sex offenders register for life.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said they had to follow a court ruling but public safety would not be weakened.

The Supreme Court found that not giving offenders the right of appeal was incompatible with their human rights.

Under a review system, offenders would have to prove they no longer pose a risk to the public.

Only individuals sentenced to more than 30 months for a sex-related crime are placed on the register for life. There are currently about 20,000 sex offenders in the UK who have received such sentences and they include paedophiles and rapists.

They have to notify the police of their personal details, any change of address and when they travel abroad.

It worries me how this country seems to put the rights of proven perverts above and in front of those of children and vulnerable people. It insults those who have died, been abused or assaulted.

The scum that commit these crimes and face it a 3+ years these are serious offences chose to commit the crimes and therefore need to be monitored - IMHO

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

You can't appeal the supreme court. what they need to do is figure out a way of appeal that will more than likely produce a big rubber stamp with NO written on it.

Think you are after the wrong people here. Got to feel good being the leagal beagle who took (no doubt our) money to set this in motion.

5t.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

The problem is there are people on that list that should not be on there in the first place. Or not banded together with high risk offenders, like this example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-in-court.html

Seriously, what risk is he to a child? (uness she's riding a bike )

The fact we have people under caution put on the register BEFORE they are convicted (guilty until proven innocent) is also highly concerning. Just needs a scorned ex-lover to make a false rape claim and bang, you're on the list without even being convicted in court.

The fact we have people under caution on the register BEFORE they are convicted (guilty until proven innocent), is highly concerning.
The register needs massive reform to categorise the most severe offenders away from the likes of these. Even put on a totally different register. It also fails to inlcude offenders convicted before 1997. Meaning there are still die-hard convicted paedos out there not on the list.

Mus

iTrader: (2)

i heard it on the radio this morning, the world has gone mad. its crazy what about the poor kids.

davyboy

Agree with ALi B, lots of people on the list who don't really belong there. Or at least the list needs catergorising. Have sex with a 15 years old who said she was 16, you could be on it.

I actually know a sex offender....I can't remember what he was supposed to have done now (thats how minor it was), but I don't think they deserve to be called a Sex Offender.

The Zohan

Ok, i'll spell it out.

The changes are to convicted sex offenders serving more than 3 years so this isn't a 16 y/o having sex with a 15 y/o this is about serious sex crimes, child pornography, violent rapists and sex offenders. You are most unlikely to get three years for downloading child **** (dependant on how bad it is).

This is about serious sex offenders

davyboy

Good point.

Another court case that they 'have' to follow, like the prisoners vote thing recently.

Leslie

I agree with you in the case of real offenders. They will always have a risk attached to their behaviour.

Those who have been included on that list unfairly should be taken off it.

Les

The Zohan