Rumours of a sex offender moving to town...

[Phteven]

There's not much point in asking. I think that you can be sure that there is at least one, maybe more, in your community. They're just as likely to be someone you trust as the creepy guy down the road.

[littlelara]

Frightening stuff.
Why is it not public here like it is in the US?

[Kazmar]

Sadly the scum are protected more then the children Petitions usually get the answer.....

[Jaycee]

I'm fairly sure if they are a registered sex offender they are not able to live within a certain proximity of a school, but that still doesn't help you to know if they are actually in town or not. I agree with Onyx, regardless of whether this particular rumour is true or not, you can almost guarantee there'd be one around somewhere. No where is safe from these idiots these days.

[~clover~]

Thanks guys
I agree that I think its just rumours after what happened last week. Makes more sence the more I think about it.
And I am always pretty careful jic, coz i know that anyone could be a danger. I usually do arrange for her to meet her friend just down the road & they walk/ride together if they have to.
Just a reminder to be careful I guess.

Christmas holidays are really bad here. Thats why I was a bit relaxed these hols. I think its coz its cold, doesn't feel like holidays. But almost every holidays something happens. A bloke was busted with a camera on his dash & laptop on his passenger seat christmas before last. Hols before that there was someone hiding in the dunes flashing young girls when they walked past. I'm already alot stricter than most of the parents here. Lots of kids DD's age go hang out together at the park or the beach. They are in groups, but there's no way I could allow it for a long time yet. Its not just here though, I'd be like that anywhere.

[LimeSlice]

Frightening stuff.
Why is it not public here like it is in the US?

So they can try and live a reasonably normal life and have some protection and aren't getting abused by vigilanties.

Remember that there are more than just peadophiles on the sex offenders register.

[Jandals]

So they can try and live a reasonably normal life and have some protection and aren't getting abused by vigilanties.

Remember that there are more than just peadophiles on the sex offenders register.

Surely they should lose the right to protection when they have violated someone elses? Particularly if they are repeat offenders. I understand they need to be able to live their lives, but IMHO the right of the general public to be protected must come first.

I know this isn't a black and white issue but just wanted to throw my 2 cents in

[LimeSlice]

As I said, there aren't just paedophiles on the Sex Offenders Register.
And unfortunately, when people find out a "sex offender" is moving in, there is no distinction made by the public (or effort to determine any) between a paedophile and a 18 year old convicted of sexual penetration of a minor - his 17 year old girlfriend.
That is why they are at risk, and why the register is not public. 'The Public' can simply not be trusted not to go off half ****ed and hurt people.

[~clover~]

I agree Jandals, but I also know that there are very little things that have people listed as sex offenders. I have a feeling something like a guy peeing in public & getting a fine for indecent exposure would be classed as a sex offence, so he gets listed. Even if there was noone around to see it but a cop iykwim. Not sure exactly where they draw the line, but thats the impression I get from American TV

I do agree we should have the right to know who could harm our kids though. Even though half the people who would do it, wouldn't be on that list anyway.

[Kazbah]

I guess this would be a great topic for general discussion.

To answer your original question Clover, if its what I remember and there was a blue station wagon involved, this was actually on Media Watch on the ABC last week - it appeared that over-zealous reporting linked a couple of blue cars that hadn't been linked by the police.

Getting back onto the sex offender register, there are reports where people (usually blokes!) get put on the register for Exposure - usually when they are urinating in public. So although I believe that there should be greater transparency, I'd hate to see the same kind of vigilante action in Australia as has been experienced o/seas. Putting a rule that "2 strikes and you're on" would leave authorities open to litigation if the worse were to happen. Add into that the whole "time completed for the crime" angle - where some naively believe that gaol is a rehabilitation chance as well as punishment ... and it's oh-so-messy.

I think by far the safest is to do as Onyx states - teach children stranger danger, teach about staying safe, and try to maintain the balance between safety and knee-jerk fear reactions.

That's my 5c worth (although I do have a 1c coin on my desk!)

[Trillian]

For every Denis Ferguson (for example, meaning the ones you 'know' about), there would probably be 10 that you DON'T know about. I would say that because of what recently happened, that the rumor mill is working triple time atm and that there is no truth in it at all. Don't forget too that rarely do paedophiles snatch kids of the street and abuse them (in which case it would be near impossible to know about them because they could literally be anyone and the chance of a child getting snatched is extremely low) - they are more likely to form a relationship and build trust with the child before abusing them, so she would still be safe riding her bike to school the few times that she does do it. The current law states they cannot live within 400m of a school, so it would be extremely unlikely that if this were a convicted paedophile, that they would be allowed to live only a few houses away from a school

[Kazmar]

Get her to ride with at least one friend That might put your mind at ease