BERT POTTER...
Sarndra
abuse again.....should he be allowed amongst children and young adults without
supervision?
--
Sarndra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The gene pool could use a little chlorine
The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and
are entirely seperate from my employer.
Long live freedom of speech :o)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
visit my website www.angelfire.com/ok/nzfamily
Brian
Sheesh it had to happen. Every society needs it's "Demon" for people
to poke pins into, to attempt to make *themselves* feel, or look
better.
"Gee, I hate child molestation so much that I'm prepared to say nasty
things about Bert Potter ..... doesn't that show what a wonderful
person *I* am?" The sentiment *oozes* out of your post.
If you really want the death penalty for Bert Potter, and/or any other
penalties that you can dream up, then at least please be honest about
your objectives, and campaign openly for changes in penalties for
people who are convicted of molestation. There *are* some very real
arguments for making sentences tougher, and some good arguments for
retaining the status quo, and even some for alternative punishment
approaches.
What I fear from the lynch mob gang, cheerfully headed by Sarndra, is,
apart from any considerations as to suggesting that a sentence is
finished when it is finished ... how we treat our fellow man etc; is
the hysteria being provoked by her goody goody two shoes attitudes.
"Lets get tough on molesters... etc etc " ... as if we haven't had
quite enough of injustice in this country over the last ten years, as
justice as been compromised to keep the likes of Sarndra happy.
For Chrissakes ... the man is completing his sentence. Where exactly
do you want to draw your extra pound of flesh from Bert Potter,
Sarndra?
> ....is to be released soon and will probably head
> straight back to 'Centrepoint' to abuse again .....
I'll bet you felt really *good* about saying this ..... We have a
choice in our Society. We either have sentences and at the completion
of these sentences we let people go, or we do it Sarndra's way, and
lock em up and throw away the key.
What evidence does Sarndra have for suggesting that he will abuse
again? Absolutely none, except for Sarndra's fertile dirty little
mind fantasising about issues sex.
I would suggest that "Centrepoint" is likely to be the safest place in
the country for a child to be protected from sexual molestation. The
culture of the place is completely different from what it supposedly
was like at one stage .... and the residents are divided themselves
about future leadership, and even residency for Bert. In all of
this, I stress that I am speculating, as I do not know anybody who
lives there, and my only source of information is the media.
> should he be allowed amongst children and young adults
> without supervision?
What do you know of the man, Sarndra?
What do you know of Centrepoint and children's safety there in 1999?
What do you mean by "supervision"?
I think that you're not really concerned about the safety of the
children there at all, and are more concerned about trying to punish
Bert Potter some more.
I'm not justifying anything that Bert was convicted of. But there
comes a time, when other people involved need to let go of their
personal demons, associated with crime. When people such as Sarndra
(I could be wrong .. perhaps Sarndra is a Centrepoint child?) who have
had no involvement with Centrepoint at all, wish to continue to
victimise a man who has already been punished, I want to ask *Why*?
But I could ask the same about the origins of all moral panics, and
hysteria through the ages.
I think it is time for New Zealand to let Bert Potter, aged 73? go, as
the representative demon for our country. Choose a new one, if you
really must, but even better, question why you need one at all.
Brian
Sarndra
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:36f87ac7...@news.wave.co.nz...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:33:12 +1200, "Sarndra" <su...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Sheesh it had to happen. Every society needs it's "Demon" for people
> to poke pins into, to attempt to make *themselves* feel, or look
> better.
Oh fuck off if you can't offer any positive opinions....
Safety against molestation for children should be paramount...
> "Gee, I hate child molestation so much that I'm prepared to say nasty
> things about Bert Potter ..... doesn't that show what a wonderful
> person *I* am?" The sentiment *oozes* out of your post.
So you like child molestation do you....get a kick out of reading about it
huh....heard about your sick type...
> If you really want the death penalty for Bert Potter,
Stop wanking...I mentioned nothing about death penalties...just supervision, which I
think isn't unreasonable considering what a cretin the guy is.
and/or any other
> penalties that you can dream up, then at least please be honest about
> your objectives, and campaign openly for changes in penalties for
> people who are convicted of molestation.
You are way off target you little troll you :-}~
{snip alot of trolling crapola}
>
> > ....is to be released soon and will probably head
> > straight back to 'Centrepoint' to abuse again .....
>
> I'll bet you felt really *good* about saying this .....
Nope...just being realistic....
We have a
> choice in our Society. We either have sentences and at the completion
> of these sentences we let people go, or we do it Sarndra's way, and
> lock em up and throw away the key.
In the case of Bert Potter ... sounds good to me....hope he doesn't abuse a female
relative of yours...then maybe you'd think differently huh..
> What evidence does Sarndra have for suggesting that he will abuse
> again? Absolutely none, except for Sarndra's fertile dirty little
> mind fantasising about issues sex.
ROTFLMAOOO!!!!!!!!
A devotee to Bert Potter huh....
> > should he be allowed amongst children and young adults
> > without supervision?
>
> What do you know of the man, Sarndra?
Man!! Surely you use the term extremely loosely....has your misguided madness that
men are the trampled on sex in New Zealand led you to defend such a monster huh?
> What do you know of Centrepoint and children's safety there in 1999?
Nothing ... I admit it...but some people can be manipulated easily and he is a
manipulator.
<quote>
A dawn raid by police in 1991 on a psychotherapy commune called "Centerpoint" found
dozens of children who had been sexually abused by psychotherapists. Psychiatrist
Bill Rowntree and psychiatric nurse Bert Potter, who founded the commune, taught that
sexual promiscuity and incest were not only normal but therapeutic. This theory
resulted in Potter and his colleagues taking license to abuse innocent children--some
as young as three--and even their own offspring. Potter was jailed for seven and
one-half years for the sexual assault of his own children.
<unquote>
> What do you mean by "supervision"?
Derrrr what do you think....Not being allowed to be with children by himself. Don't
ask me how it would be enforced cos i don't know, I just know that anyone who permits
incest or molests toddlers is a sick bastard....
[snip even more crapola}
No..i'm not a centrepoint child. I just think too much child molestation goes
on...both by men and women....
--
Sarndra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The gene pool could use a little chlorine
The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and
are entirely seperate from my employer.
Long live freedom of speech :o)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
visit my website www.angelfire.com/ok/nzfamily
> Brian
>
Nigel Neale
>
> ....is to be released soon and will probably head straight back to 'Centrepoint' to
> supervision?
I hope not, and doubt it. He is a total pervert and will be very closely
watched.
However he is also a sick old man and has spent many (deserved) years in
jail. As one of the most reviled figures in New Zealand, he has paid the
price of his disgusting crimes more than most such guilty people do,
because most of them are not very well known, whereas he has been
rightly painted as the filthy creep he is. I mean, even murderers do not
attract the opprobrium Potter does. He should be allowed to live his
remaining time on this earth with a certain amount of the human dignity
he denied others both adult and child.
Just out of interest, Sarndra:
Was your ex an abuser?
Do you know anyone from the Civic? Whether or not, what do you think of
that episode?
Sarndra
Nigel Neale <bum...@spammers.co> wrote in message
[snip]
> Just out of interest, Sarndra:
>
> Was your ex an abuser?
No...
I just feel that people become too complacent. I feel that the attitude of 'he's
served his time, he won't do it again' is a very foolish attitude to take.
> Do you know anyone from the Civic? Whether or not, what do you think of
> that episode?
An acquaintance knows a grandmother of one of the 'abused' children. I'd heard some
horror stories but not first hand, about that particular child.
IMO, I hold no faith that Peter Ellis is the 'abuser'. Something definitely went on,
but I would not even attempt to say who actually did it. There does seem to be a
gross miscarriage of justice though.
Brian
> IMO, I hold no faith that Peter Ellis is the 'abuser'.
> Something definitely went on,
On what basis do you say this Sarndra?
> but I would not even attempt to say who actually did it.
Did what?
> There does seem to be a gross miscarriage of justice though.
Your post makes absolutely no sense at all.
If a crime was committed, then Peter Ellis deserves to be in prison,
and there can be no miscarriage of justice. Unless you are saying
that the wrong person has been convicted. I have never heard such a
theory before.
Peter Ellis is innocent, precisely because nothing "went on", and
nobody "did it".
At least until the women responsible for "interviewing" the children,
began fantasising about sex, and abused the innocence of the children.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
> Ask Brian, he probably thinks there is a conspiracy
> against him as well and a cop perjured himself.
Was Detective "Bonker" Eade, somehow involved?
Can you please provide details Scooter?
Brian
Brian
> Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote :
>> Sheesh it had to happen. Every society needs it's "Demon" for
>> people to poke pins into, to attempt to make *themselves* feel,
>> or look better.
> Oh fuck off if you can't offer any positive opinions....
> Safety against molestation for children should be paramount...
So what do you mean by "Safety against molestation"?
Lock up every male in the country?
Life imprisonment for those convicted of child molestaition?
Or just treating Bert Potter as the representative demon, symbolic of
all child sexual molestation in New Zealand, and single him out for
special victimisation?
If you want to have a witch hunt, and chase Bert Potter until he dies,
that is your choice. But even this thread has been started before he
has been released from prison ... what greater example of hysterical
ranting could there be?
If there is evidence that those who have served their time are
"unsafe" as you wish to describe it, then please, let us see your
evidence, or please tell us that you're really telling us about your
beliefs.
And if there is justification for extending punishment in any way,
then the least I would ask, is that *all* criminals are treated
equally, and one is not singled out for "Demon" status.
>> "Gee, I hate child molestation so much that I'm prepared to say nasty
>> things about Bert Potter ..... doesn't that show what a wonderful
>> person *I* am?" The sentiment *oozes* out of your post.
> So you like child molestation do you....
Of course not. What evidence do you have that I condone the crime in
any way?
> get a kick out of reading about it huh....heard about your
> sick type...
I've read a lot of the fantasies of the social wreckers who acted as
the child interrogators in the Creche case. Some of the fantasies of
the social wreckers were indeed sick. And even sicker to convince
the children of the Creche that the interrogators fantasies actually
happened.
But of course that reading was not about child abuse. It was about
the fantasies that some women have about matters sex.
>> If you really want the death penalty for Bert Potter,
> Stop wanking ... I mentioned nothing about death penalties
> ...just supervision, which I think isn't unreasonable
> considering what a cretin the guy is.
Given your vagueness about supervision in another part of your post,
yes, I do think unreasonable.
Your reply reinforces my earlier suspicions that you're more
interested in additional punishment for Bert Potter than anything to
do with the safety of the children. Your reason for supervision is
that you consider him a cretin.
You're quite entitled to have any view you like about anybody, and a
negative opinion about a person who has been convicted of a serious
crime. But you need to be clearer in how you express yourself, what
your motivations for action against Potter are. Purely "child
safety" or additional punishment to show how deeply you revile his
crimes? (cretin) Both are legitimate reasons, but they need to be
considered separately.
>> and/or any other
>> penalties that you can dream up, then at least please be honest about
>> your objectives, and campaign openly for changes in penalties for
>> people who are convicted of molestation.
>
>You are way off target you little troll you :-}~
OK. You have given no indication where the target is.
>>> ....is to be released soon and will probably head
>>> straight back to 'Centrepoint' to abuse again .....
>> I'll bet you felt really *good* about saying this .....
> Nope...just being realistic....
What gives you any justification for saying that this is "realistic"?
Given that there are a group of people at Centrepoint *opposed* to the
return of Bert Potter, (as well as those who support him), what
opportunity do you really think that Bert Potter would have to "abuse
again"?
>> We have a choice in our Society. We either have sentences
>> and at the completion of these sentences we let people go,
>> or we do it Sarndra's way, and lock em up and throw away
>> the key.
>
> In the case of Bert Potter ... sounds good to me ....
Great. A little *honesty*.
You're telling us how you feel.
Which is precisely the point I've attempted to make that Bert Potter
is New Zealand's own special "demon".
Why should Bert Potter be treated differently to other men who have
been convicted and served out their sentences for child sexual abuse?
Why should he be treated worse?
Why should others be treated better?
This post of mine, is not advocating that Bert Potter has been
punished too much, or too little. I'm just disturbed at the hysteria
that surrounds his name.
> hope he doesn't abuse a female relative of yours...
> then maybe you'd think differently huh..
If anybody was resonsible for a crime against somebody I know, of
course I would have an emotional investment in my feelings against the
criminal. But we have laws, and a justice system to deal with
crimes, that should provide some consistency to punishment that would
not be so apparent if justice were meted out by the families of the
victim. The courts are taking into account the feelings of the
victims to some extent .... some say an insufficient amount.
>> What evidence does Sarndra have for suggesting that he will abuse
>> again? Absolutely none, except for Sarndra's fertile dirty little
>> mind fantasising about issues sex.
>ROTFLMAOOO!!!!!!!!
Why do you laugh?
> A devotee to Bert Potter huh....
Never met him, Never spoken to him, Never written to him.
But the hysteria surrounding his case, makes me consider doing
so more and more.
Bert Potter has been convicted.
Sentenced.
Served his time.
Now, to start punishing him more, for crimes dreamed up in the fertile
imagination of Sarndra, seems to me to be little different than the
suffering of people who have been falsely accused of sexual crimes.
He is guilty for what he has done.
He should be punished for criminal actions he has done.
But he remains innocent of crimes that he has not committed.
>> > should he be allowed amongst children and young adults
>> > without supervision?
>>
>> What do you know of the man, Sarndra?
>
> Man!! Surely you use the term extremely loosely
A good marker of civilisation is how a society treats it's criminals.
If we do not consider that our criminals are still human, then there
is little point in considering that rehabilitation of our criminals is
a desirable goal.
> ....has your misguided madness that men are the trampled on sex
> in New Zealand
To what are you referring?
Can you please provide a reference that justifies this fantasy?
> led you to defend such a monster huh?
I am not defending any criminal actions of Bert Potter.
I will defend him against the charge of "monster" unless the term is
specifically related to what he has done, and not to the hysteria that
surrounds the man.
>> What do you know of Centrepoint and children's safety there in 1999?
>
> Nothing ... I admit it...
Do you not think that the question of "supervision" or not, depends a
little on the what the place is like, and how it is managed in 1999?
> but some people can be manipulated easily and he
> is a manipulator.
> <quote>
Quote from what ????
> A dawn raid by police in 1991 on a psychotherapy commune
> called "Centerpoint" found dozens of children who had been
> sexually abused by psychotherapists. Psychiatrist Bill
> Rowntree and psychiatric nurse Bert Potter, who founded the
> commune, taught that sexual promiscuity and incest were not
> only normal but therapeutic. This theory resulted in Potter
> and his colleagues taking license to abuse innocent children--
> some as young as three--and even their own offspring. Potter
> was jailed for seven and one-half years for the sexual
> assault of his own children.
> <unquote>
>> What do you mean by "supervision"?
> Derrrr what do you think....
Your question, and your "Derrr" especially, underscores that you know
little of the nature of "supervision".
> Not being allowed to be with children by himself.
That is a reasonable view of what supervision could be. But does this
mean every second? Every minute? There seems to be a view that
frightening things are likely to happen if the supervisor blinks for a
little long!
I have been told of a particularly obnoxious "supervision centre"
called "Care for Kids" in Auckland. Men are supervised to such an
extent that even what they can say is subject to stringent rules. The
centre is obviously ashamed of it's own rules, because the people
being supervised are not permitted to have a copy of the rules.
Trangrssions against the rules, means access is cancelled. Rules
include "No asking the children any questions" Extraordinary!
> Don't ask me how it would be enforced cos i don't know,
> I just know that anyone who permits incest or molests
> toddlers is a sick bastard....
There is not anybody arguing that in any meaningful way. I would
perhaps emphasise the "sick" a little less, and put a little more
responsibility on the perpetrator by calling his actions "criminal" as
much as sick. We may all want to speed, but there are road rules
against speeding. Even pedophiles who may want to act out their
desires, know that there are strong sanctions in our society against
child sexual abuse.
> No..i'm not a centrepoint child. I just think too
> much child molestation goes on
This is the sort of statement that owes it's heritage to astrology ...
appears to say something but doesn't. Child molestation is a crime,
and *any* occurrence of the crime is too much.
But what do *you* mean by "too much"?
There *are* horrible crimes that are perpetrated. But the occurrence
of horrible crime, does not mean that solutions to preventing such
crimes should not have to be justified.
> ...both by men and women....
Literally true, but the sentiment behind this is pure crap. Commonly
held by those wanting to emphasise that the crime is very common ....
This belief that women are frequent perpetrators, was probably
sufficient for the social wrecker interrogators in the Christchurch
Creche case to suggest to the children that they had been abused by
the women of the creche as well ... and the children dutifully said
sufficient for Detective "Bonker" Eade to think that four innocent
women should be charged with child sexual abuse.
The truth is that child sexual abuse is perpetrated by women. But
extremely rarely.
Child sexual abuse is a crime, that is almost exclusively a *male*
crime.
Brian
Kerry
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:33:12 +1200, "Sarndra" <su...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>Sheesh it had to happen. Every society needs it's "Demon" for people
>to poke pins into, to attempt to make *themselves* feel, or look
>better.
>
>"Gee, I hate child molestation so much that I'm prepared to say nasty
>things about Bert Potter ..... doesn't that show what a wonderful
>person *I* am?" The sentiment *oozes* out of your post.
>
>I think it is time for New Zealand to let Bert Potter, aged 73? go, as
>the representative demon for our country. Choose a new one, if you
>really must, but even better, question why you need one at all.
>
Brian sometimes you are just plain irrational.
Sure Bert Potter has served his sentence for the few child sex abuse
cases he was convicted of. His guilt of these cases was never in
question. These cases are the tip of an iceberg of offending against
children.
He is not a 'cured' paedophile. There are many that would argue a
paedophile is never 'cured'.
Sure he is being released by the authorities.
That does not absolve him, that does not make him a more trustworthy
person, that does not mean he is worthy of my respect, that does not
mean he is able to be trusted with children ever again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No one can be as calculatedly rude as the British, which
amazes Americans, who do not understand studied insult and can only
offer abuse as a substitute.
--Paul Gallico
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarndra
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:36f8b3c2...@news.wave.co.nz...
a whole lot of crap...so i've wiped it and shall repost my original question....
Bert Potter...
is to be released soon and will probably head straight back to 'Centrepoint' to
abuse again.....should he be allowed amongst children and young adults without
supervision?
The main point is not to punish Potter but rather to focus on the safety of children
in his midst....so fuck off Brian....
CATHROX
prison and notify the authorities where he is living; also is the list
available to the public?
Cath, San Diego, CA,.
Sarndra
dangerous....
Brian
(Kerry) wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 05:41:42 GMT, bri...@wave.co.nz (Brian) wrote:
>>Sheesh it had to happen. Every society needs it's "Demon" for people
>>to poke pins into, to attempt to make *themselves* feel, or look
>>better.
>>
>>"Gee, I hate child molestation so much that I'm prepared to say nasty
>>things about Bert Potter ..... doesn't that show what a wonderful
>>person *I* am?" The sentiment *oozes* out of your post.
>
>>
>>I think it is time for New Zealand to let Bert Potter, aged 73? go, as
>>the representative demon for our country. Choose a new one, if you
>>really must, but even better, question why you need one at all.
>>
>
>
>Brian sometimes you are just plain irrational.
Is there something in particular that you wish to point out as
irrational? Difficult to defend such a broad brush accusation.
> Sure Bert Potter has served his sentence for the few
> child sex abuse cases he was convicted of. His guilt
> of these cases was never in question.
Given that he was convicted at roughly the same time as Peter Ellis, I
wonder about the possibility that at least some of the charges against
Potter may have been as imaginary as the charges that were used to
convict Peter Ellis.
****** I emphasise that this is pure speculation, and I have not heard
this view expressed by anybody else. **************
Peter Ellis was convicted in an age where people were willing to
believe pure fantasies that were the basis of the charges against him.
Peter Ellis was completely innocent of the charges brought against
him.
So what was the likelihood that some of the charges against Bert
Potter were just as imaginary? Perhaps the point is simply academic,
because there is nobody that is questioning his guilt on at least some
charges.
But the same process of social worker interviewing took place in the
same sort of hysteria as existed in Christchurch. If the fertile
imagination of the interrogators could dream up abuse where absolutely
nothing happened in Christchurch, what could possibly have been
dreamed up in a case where *something* did definitely happen?
I say academic, because Bert Potter would have been convicted for what
he actually was guilty of.
But I wonder ..... please remember, on the basis of pure speculation
.... that the "monster" status of Potter may be partially as a result
of the extent of his crimes, which *may* have been exaggerated.
Please also remember that the women who brought the charges were very
likely to have been provided counselling and therapy, in an
environment where "recovered, false memories" was a very real problem
in New Zealand. It is again very likely that some of the charges
were brought on the basis of women who sincerely believed what they
were saying was true, but did not in fact happen.
That's quite a difficult scenario to consider. But at that time in
New Zealand there were many charges being brought against totally
innocent men, purely on the basis of "recovered" and false memories.
> These cases are the tip of an iceberg of offending against
> children.
I'd prefer to consider that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
You may be right. But the basis of your assertion has never been
tested.
> He is not a 'cured' paedophile. There are many that would argue a
> paedophile is never 'cured'.
Being a pedophile is of course not a crime. And so your assertion that
some would argue that a pedophile may not be cured may be correct, or
may not be, but does not really matter.
What is a crime, is the acting out of pedophile behaviour.
Child molestation
Child sexual abuse.
Those are very serious crimes.
Distinguishing between a sexual preference, which may not have a
"cure", and a crime, that is a choice that a person can decide to act
on, or not, is important.
So, what is important is not really what Bert Potter thinks in his
head about his sexual preference, so much as the chances of him acting
out criminal behaviour in the future. That is the important question.
Does he now recognise that the law, which he may not agree with, has a
higher priority than what he wants to do?
>Sure he is being released by the authorities.
>
>That does not absolve him, that does not make him a more trustworthy
>person, that does not mean he is worthy of my respect, that does not
>mean he is able to be trusted with children ever again.
I understand all your feelings above. And you are correct that his
release does not do any of these things.
But the question is, whether it is possible that he has changed in the
time that he has been in prison. Is rehabilitation possible? Is
there a willingness (and ability) to conform to the laws of our land?
Are these questions valid questions for anybody to determine, at the
release date of a serious offender, or are they questions that should
be ignored, and post release conditions be pre determined at the time
of the conviction, years before?
Brian
Brian
> Is a convicted child molester required to register as
> such when released from prison and notify the authorities
> where he is living; also is the list available to the public?
The American "Megan's law" does not extend as far as New Zealand.
We have had Coddington? private published book of convicted sexual
offenders, and there was controversy surrounding this publication.
The police have a generally responsible attitude towards released
offenders. If there are concerns about a particular person, and that
person commences living around children, schools etc, then
neighbourhoods are sometimes notified, and/or publicised in local
newspapers.
In the case of Bert Potter, such notification is unlikely to be
necessary, anywhere in New Zealnd. I suspect that most people know
very well who he is, and what he looks like, from the many newspaper
and television articles about him.
But there is generally a feeling that there is more damage by creating
fear in the community, than the small risk associated with most
offenders. There have been some cases where the police have
cautioned against witch hunting. I seem to recall this occurred after
the release in the Waikato region of an offender who had been a
Catholic priest, and the local newspaper followed his movements.
Remember that New Zealand is a smaller country than the USA, and it
easier for the police to keep in contact with people they have
concerns about, than it may be in the States.
Brian
Kerry
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:49:47 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>(Kerry) wrote:
>
>
>> Sure Bert Potter has served his sentence for the few
>> child sex abuse cases he was convicted of. His guilt
>> of these cases was never in question.
>
>Given that he was convicted at roughly the same time as Peter Ellis, I
>wonder about the possibility that at least some of the charges against
>Potter may have been as imaginary as the charges that were used to
>convict Peter Ellis.
People commit the same crime Peter Ellis was convicted of every day.
That does not make them innocent. The fatc that Peter Ellis may not
or may be guilty has nothing to do with the Potter conviction. The
fact the one man may be innocent does *nothing* to redeem the guilty
>
>****** I emphasise that this is pure speculation, and I have not heard
>this view expressed by anybody else. **************
<Peter Eliis irrelevance snipped>
>> These cases are the tip of an iceberg of offending against
>> children.
>
>I'd prefer to consider that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
And Potter was proven quite quite guilty
>
>You may be right. But the basis of your assertion has never been
>tested.
It was tested and proven in a court of law. Even if Peter Ellis is
innocent......
>> He is not a 'cured' paedophile. There are many that would argue a
>> paedophile is never 'cured'.
>
>Being a pedophile is of course not a crime. And so your assertion that
>some would argue that a pedophile may not be cured may be correct, or
>may not be, but does not really matter.
Having sex with children is a crime. Potter had sex with children.
>What is a crime, is the acting out of pedophile behaviour.
>Child molestation
>Child sexual abuse.
>
>Those are very serious crimes.
>
>Distinguishing between a sexual preference, which may not have a
>"cure", and a crime, that is a choice that a person can decide to act
>on, or not, is important.
Does any adult have any right to a sexual 'preference' for children?
Our society says no, heck so do I.
>So, what is important is not really what Bert Potter thinks in his
>head about his sexual preference, so much as the chances of him acting
>out criminal behaviour in the future. That is the important question.
>Does he now recognise that the law, which he may not agree with, has a
>higher priority than what he wants to do?
He didn't before.....
The law was always quite clear. Potter ignored the law for his own
sexual gratification with children. I have no reason to believe he
would hesitate in future.
>>Sure he is being released by the authorities.
>>
>>That does not absolve him, that does not make him a more trustworthy
>>person, that does not mean he is worthy of my respect, that does not
>>mean he is able to be trusted with children ever again.
>
>I understand all your feelings above. And you are correct that his
>release does not do any of these things.
>
>But the question is, whether it is possible that he has changed in the
>time that he has been in prison. Is rehabilitation possible? Is
>there a willingness (and ability) to conform to the laws of our land?
In his case, I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt in my home.
One can only find out if he still sexually abuses in retrospect.
>Are these questions valid questions for anybody to determine, at the
>release date of a serious offender, or are they questions that should
>be ignored, and post release conditions be pre determined at the time
>of the conviction, years before?
When the only determinant of whether a child sex offender will re
offend is the word of that child sex offender, I'd rather not risk my
children being in his company
Brian
(Kerry) wrote:
> Brian wrote :
>> Kerry wrote :
>>> Sure Bert Potter has served his sentence for the few
>>> child sex abuse cases he was convicted of. His guilt
>>> of these cases was never in question.
>>
>>Given that he was convicted at roughly the same time as Peter Ellis, I
>>wonder about the possibility that at least some of the charges against
>>Potter may have been as imaginary as the charges that were used to
>>convict Peter Ellis.
>
>People commit the same crime Peter Ellis was convicted of every day.
>That does not make them innocent.
If they committed the same "crime" that Peter Ellis was convicted of,
then they too, would be innocent. Peter Ellis committed no crime.
There *are* people who are guilty of child sexual abuse and are found
guilty of the crime. Do you have any basis for saying this happens
"every day"?
Rape Crisis asserted that there 59 cases of incest in one city in New
Zealand (Hamilton) in the year 1997. Actual convictions for incest
over the whole of New Zealand in the twelve years to 1997, were 204.
Depending on who you have been listening to, I do understand how
people could believe that such crimes are committed "every day". (I'm
aware that Ellis was not convicted of incest)
> The fact that Peter Ellis may not or may be guilty has nothing
> to do with the Potter conviction. The fact the one man may be
> innocent does *nothing* to redeem the guilty
I agree completely.
The cases of Bert Potter and Peter Ellis are totally separate cases.
What I was referring to was the common time frame of their
convictions; the common methods of interviewing the children involved
in both cases; the common hysteria at that time (and since), the
prevalence of therapy induced "false memories"
While nobody that I have ever spoken to has ever suggested to me that
Bert Potter was innocent of sexual abuse, and I also do not believe
that he was innocent, I also made the suggestion, and I'll emphasise
and repeat that it is pure speculation on my part, that these
counselling and therapy practices could easily have affected some of
the evidence of the Potter trial.
>>> These cases are the tip of an iceberg of offending against
>>> children.
>>
>>I'd prefer to consider that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
>
>And Potter was proven quite quite guilty
My comment was referring to the rest of the iceberg that *you*
referred to. He was not found guilty of such offending. He was not
charged with such offences. Because a person is guilty of X, does
not mean that he is guilty of Y.
>>You may be right. But the basis of your assertion has never been
>>tested.
>
>It was tested and proven in a court of law. Even if Peter Ellis is
>innocent......
I'll repeat again. My comments were related to your accusation that
the cases he was found guilty of were the tip of an iceberg of
offending. These were *not* tested and proven in a court of law.
Your comment about Peter Ellis is irrelevant in the above context.
The only relevance of introducing the subject of Peter Ellis, is as a
reminder of the prevailing and now discredited practices of
counselling, therapy, and investigations of sexual abuse, that existed
at that time (and later) in New Zealand.
>
>>> He is not a 'cured' paedophile. There are many that would argue a
>>> paedophile is never 'cured'.
>>
>>Being a pedophile is of course not a crime. And so your assertion that
>>some would argue that a pedophile may not be cured may be correct, or
>>may not be, but does not really matter.
>
>Having sex with children is a crime. Potter had sex with children.
Which was the point that I had made below.
>>What is a crime, is the acting out of pedophile behaviour.
>>Child molestation
>>Child sexual abuse.
>>
>>Those are very serious crimes.
>>
>>Distinguishing between a sexual preference, which may not have a
>>"cure", and a crime, that is a choice that a person can decide to act
>>on, or not, is important.
>
> Does any adult have any right to a sexual 'preference' for
> children? Our society says no, heck so do I.
You have missed my point about the difference between pedophilia and
child molestation. Our society cannot do anything about a person's
sexual preference, as much as most of us would like this to be
possible. What our society can do, is say clearly and strongly that
child sexual abuse is wrong, and will not be tolerated, and will be
punished severely.
>>So, what is important is not really what Bert Potter thinks in his
>>head about his sexual preference, so much as the chances of him acting
>>out criminal behaviour in the future. That is the important question.
>>Does he now recognise that the law, which he may not agree with, has a
>>higher priority than what he wants to do?
>
>He didn't before.....
He was charged, and convicted, and sent to prison.
> The law was always quite clear. Potter ignored the law for his own
> sexual gratification with children.
And he has paid the price of our law for having done so.
> I have no reason to believe he would hesitate in future.
And now you're talking about your beliefs. I'm not saying they're not
legitimate beliefs. You may be right. But I'm also wondering, how
much this commonly held view depends on the media inspired (not
without the help of Bert Potter himself, I'll agree) demonisation of
Potter.
I can think of some reasons why what you say may not be true. His age
for a start. The effect of prison and time on his views. His lack
of desire to spend any more time in prison. Surely these are at
least possibilities why he may hesitate? People closer to him, than
you or I, may be able to assess these considerations better than
ourselves.
>>But the question is, whether it is possible that he has changed in the
>>time that he has been in prison. Is rehabilitation possible? Is
>>there a willingness (and ability) to conform to the laws of our land?
>
> In his case, I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt in my home.
> One can only find out if he still sexually abuses in retrospect.
That is a very personal thing that everybody needs to decide for
themselves.
I would not give any stranger the benefit of the doubt in my home.
My doubts would naturally be significantly greater for anybody
convicted of a crime where trust has been betrayed (and child sexual
abuse is a serious subgroup of this group of crimes).
But a few months ago, I met a man, who had pled guilty to a sexual
crime, and served his sentence. He is now living in a home with a
family with children, where he *is* trusted. So it can happen, for
some people.
But if anybody needs guarantees, then there is nobody issuing such
tickets.
>
>>Are these questions valid questions for anybody to determine, at the
>>release date of a serious offender, or are they questions that should
>>be ignored, and post release conditions be pre determined at the time
>>of the conviction, years before?
>
> When the only determinant of whether a child sex offender
> will reoffend is the word of that child sex offender, I'd
> rather not risk my children being in his company
Again, I understand.
Brian
Kerry
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:01:40 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>(Kerry) wrote:
>
>> Brian wrote :
>>> Kerry wrote :
>>People commit the same crime Peter Ellis was convicted of every day.
>>That does not make them innocent.
>
>If they committed the same "crime" that Peter Ellis was convicted of,
>then they too, would be innocent. Peter Ellis committed no crime.
"the same crime Peter Ellis was convicted of" that is child sexual
molestation.
>
>There *are* people who are guilty of child sexual abuse and are found
>guilty of the crime. Do you have any basis for saying this happens
>"every day"?
Because it happens every day.
>
>Rape Crisis asserted that there 59 cases of incest in one city in New
>Zealand (Hamilton) in the year 1997. Actual convictions for incest
>over the whole of New Zealand in the twelve years to 1997, were 204.
>Depending on who you have been listening to, I do understand how
>people could believe that such crimes are committed "every day". (I'm
>aware that Ellis was not convicted of incest)
Oh right, so now convictions for incest accurately reflect the number
of actual cases of incest in any day?
Get off the grass.
>While nobody that I have ever spoken to has ever suggested to me that
>Bert Potter was innocent of sexual abuse, and I also do not believe
>that he was innocent, I also made the suggestion, and I'll emphasise
>and repeat that it is pure speculation on my part, that these
>counselling and therapy practices could easily have affected some of
>the evidence of the Potter trial.
"could have' 'may have'
As i recall older teenagers finally confronted Potter about sexual
abuse they had never forgotten. They didn;t need to recover any
memories, they lived with the recall of the abuse every day.
Maybe you;d like to document to us the ways that the children in the
Bert Potter case were interviwed and treated.
>>>> These cases are the tip of an iceberg of offending against
>>>> children.
>>>
>>>I'd prefer to consider that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
>>
>>And Potter was proven quite quite guilty
>
>My comment was referring to the rest of the iceberg that *you*
>referred to. He was not found guilty of such offending. He was not
>charged with such offences. Because a person is guilty of X, does
>not mean that he is guilty of Y.
And because he isn't charged with Y, does not mean he did not abuse Y.
It is my knowledge that not everyone so abused chose to press charges.
>>It was tested and proven in a court of law. Even if Peter Ellis is
>>innocent......
>
>I'll repeat again. My comments were related to your accusation that
>the cases he was found guilty of were the tip of an iceberg of
>offending. These were *not* tested and proven in a court of law.
But they happened
Your insistance that no crime has occurred unless proven in a court of
law is a quaint one Brian, given your obsession with a case that you
insist is false, even though it meets that exact standard.
>>>So, what is important is not really what Bert Potter thinks in his
>>>head about his sexual preference, so much as the chances of him acting
>>>out criminal behaviour in the future. That is the important question.
>>>Does he now recognise that the law, which he may not agree with, has a
>>>higher priority than what he wants to do?
>>
>>He didn't before.....
>
>He was charged, and convicted, and sent to prison.
Your faith in the judicial systems ability to rehabilitate is truly
heartwarming Brian.
>> The law was always quite clear. Potter ignored the law for his own
>> sexual gratification with children.
>
>And he has paid the price of our law for having done so.
As above
>> I have no reason to believe he would hesitate in future.
>
>And now you're talking about your beliefs. I'm not saying they're not
>legitimate beliefs. You may be right. But I'm also wondering, how
>much this commonly held view depends on the media inspired (not
>without the help of Bert Potter himself, I'll agree) demonisation of
>Potter.
'demonisation'? When something is bad, I'll say so.
>I can think of some reasons why what you say may not be true. His age
>for a start.
Oh right old guys don't like to exercise their sexual preferences....
>The effect of prison and time on his views.
He was in his mid 60s when he went to prison, after a lifetime of
cultivating such views. You believe he has now seen the error of his
ways? Forgive my scepticism.
>His lack
>of desire to spend any more time in prison. Surely these are at
>least possibilities why he may hesitate? People closer to him, than
>you or I, may be able to assess these considerations better than
>ourselves.
People closer to him also participated in the sexual abuse of
children, his female partners also had a role.
>> In his case, I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt in my home.
>> One can only find out if he still sexually abuses in retrospect.
>
>That is a very personal thing that everybody needs to decide for
>themselves.
>
>I would not give any stranger the benefit of the doubt in my home.
>My doubts would naturally be significantly greater for anybody
>convicted of a crime where trust has been betrayed (and child sexual
>abuse is a serious subgroup of this group of crimes).
Which is my point really.
>
>But a few months ago, I met a man, who had pled guilty to a sexual
>crime, and served his sentence. He is now living in a home with a
>family with children, where he *is* trusted. So it can happen, for
>some people.
He is a very lucky man to be so trusted. I hope he continues to
deserve that trust.
BABY...@manawatu.gen.nz
POTTER BEING 73 MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO HOW DANGEROUS HE IS, IT'S THAT
SIMPLE, AND ALTHOUGH YOU ARE RIGHT IN THAT SOME PEOPLE JUST HATE AND JUDGE
BECAUSE OF THEIR INNER GARBAGE I STILL BELIEVE AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT
GIVING BABIES HEAD, AND DRUGGING YOUNG CHILDREN AND FUCKING THEM IS THE ACT
OF A PSYCHO, I DO THINK HE IS NUTS BUT KEEP HIM OFF THE STREET THANKS.
BABYMASH.
AFTER HEARING "EAT YOUR MASH" I KNOW YOU HAVE COME UP WITH A
MASTERPIECE - Cranium Music, Richard - http://www.cranium.co.nz
- http//:members.tripod.com/~babymash/ NEW CD VERY DUE. 70 Mins.
Net-Tamer V 1.10 Beta - Test Drive
BABY...@manawatu.gen.nz
MY GOD SANDRA I AGGREE WITH YOUR RESPONSE TO BRIAN, NOT THAT I READ IT ALL.
I THINK THE GUYS TOSSED HIS LOBSTER.
BABY...@manawatu.gen.nz
On 1999-03-24 bri...@wave.co.nz(Brian) said:
>Newsgroups: nz.general
HMMM, WOULDN'T GO THAT FAR BUT I BELIEVE HIM TO BE INNOCENT.
BR
Is your name Brian Paul Lilburn?
Bill.
Brian
>On 1999-03-24 bri...@wave.co.nz(Brian) said:
> >Newsgroups: nz.general
> >On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:16:13 +1200, "Sarndra" <su...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >> IMO, I hold no faith that Peter Ellis is the 'abuser'.
> >> Something definitely went on,
> >On what basis do you say this Sarndra?
> >> but I would not even attempt to say who actually did it.
> >Did what?
> >> There does seem to be a gross miscarriage of justice though.
> >Your post makes absolutely no sense at all.
> >If a crime was committed, then Peter Ellis deserves to be in prison,
> >and there can be no miscarriage of justice. Unless you are saying
> >that the wrong person has been convicted. I have never heard such a
> >theory before.
> >Peter Ellis is innocent, precisely because nothing "went on", and
> >nobody "did it".
> >At least until the women responsible for "interviewing" the
> >children, began fantasising about sex, and abused the innocence of
> >the children. Brian
>
> HMMM, WOULDN'T GO THAT FAR BUT I BELIEVE HIM TO BE INNOCENT.
> BABYMASH.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "wouldn't go that far". But I
am interested to consider that there are people who would consider
that Peter Ellis is innocent, or may be innocent, while also holding a
belief that a crime was committed at the Creche. The two views are
inconsistent, in my opinion.
Brian
Sarndra
<BABY...@MANAWATU.GEN.NZ> wrote in message
news:92228639...@news.manawatu.gen.nz...
>
>
> MY GOD SANDRA I AGGREE WITH YOUR RESPONSE TO BRIAN, NOT THAT I READ IT ALL.
> I THINK THE GUYS TOSSED HIS LOBSTER.
> BABYMASH.
That's alright Babymush....
You've obviously taken a sedative since the MJ thread and can see the light.... ;-)
Sarndra
Scooter <sco...@tipnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:37023295...@news.taranaki.ac.nz...
> On , Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:58:09 +1200, "Sarndra" <su...@es.co.nz>, , ,
> "Sarndra" <su...@es.co.nz>, Re: BERT POTTER...,news:36f87ac7...@news.wave.co.nz...
> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:33:12 +1200, "Sarndra" <su...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Sheesh it had to happen. Every society needs it's "Demon" for people
> >> to poke pins into, to attempt to make *themselves* feel, or look
> >> better.
> >
>
> sexual offending. He is a sex crimes groupie, he hangs around on the
> edges waiting for the crumbs to drop from the mouth of the predator,
> like a remora on the body of a shark or one of those birds that pick the
> teeth of large mammals.
> It is kind of unhealthy when it occurs in mammals though.
LMAO!
Ewwwwww is it what!
Sarndra
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
[SNIP]
> You have missed my point about the difference between pedophilia and
> child molestation. Our society cannot do anything about a person's
> sexual preference, as much as most of us would like this to be
> possible. What our society can do, is say clearly and strongly that
> child sexual abuse is wrong, and will not be tolerated, and will be
> punished severely.
Why do I get the feeling you are a pedophile?
> > The law was always quite clear. Potter ignored the law for his own
> > sexual gratification with children.
>
> And he has paid the price of our law for having done so.
Paying the price does not always equate to doing time in prison....paying the price
should also mean remorse and seeing what it is that you have done wrong...Potter has
none of this and infact more upset when he thought his computer was going to be taken
away.
And what about the children and young adults - his victims?....They will have to live
with some abhorrent memories for the rest of their lives..whereas he walks 'free' in
the sexual anticipation of doing it again and looking for new victims...
> > I have no reason to believe he would hesitate in future.
>
> And now you're talking about your beliefs.
That has nothing to do with beliefs....It has to do with knowing what a sick monster
the prick is and it has to do with overpowering sexual urges that Potter obviously
has. He's a power freak and an uncontrollable pedophile. Plain and simple...
I'm not saying they're not
> legitimate beliefs. You may be right. But I'm also wondering, how
> much this commonly held view depends on the media inspired (not
> without the help of Bert Potter himself, I'll agree) demonisation of
> Potter.
I agree, media can aggrevate, but in some cases actual evidence is
overwhelming....this is obviously one.
> I can think of some reasons why what you say may not be true. His age
> for a start.
Age has nothing to do with it....he can still think sexually and therefore should be
considered dangerous because of what he has previously done. Why worry about his age
when he couldn't give a stuff about the tender ages of his victims....
The effect of prison and time on his views. His lack
> of desire to spend any more time in prison. Surely these are at
> least possibilities why he may hesitate? People closer to him, than
> you or I, may be able to assess these considerations better than
> ourselves.
Hesitation is nothing......urges rule.
> >>But the question is, whether it is possible that he has changed in the
> >>time that he has been in prison. Is rehabilitation possible? Is
> >>there a willingness (and ability) to conform to the laws of our land?
> >
> > In his case, I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt in my home.
> > One can only find out if he still sexually abuses in retrospect.
I'm in full agreeance there Kerry...
> That is a very personal thing that everybody needs to decide for
> themselves.
So when ya having him over for tea to discuss pre-pubescent kids then Brian?
[snip]
> But a few months ago, I met a man, who had pled guilty to a sexual
> crime, and served his sentence. He is now living in a home with a
> family with children, where he *is* trusted. So it can happen, for
> some people.
Blind fools if it involved a child especially....anyone of 'normal' thinking knows
that sex between and adult and a child is not right, and therefore shouldn't even be
in a persons head.
[snip]
> Brian
Greg
Sarndra wrote in message <92230540...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
>
><BABY...@MANAWATU.GEN.NZ> wrote in message
>news:92228639...@news.manawatu.gen.nz...
>>
>>
>> MY GOD SANDRA I AGGREE WITH YOUR RESPONSE TO BRIAN, NOT THAT I READ IT
ALL.
>> I THINK THE GUYS TOSSED HIS LOBSTER.
>> BABYMASH.
>
>That's alright Babymush....
>
>You've obviously taken a sedative since the MJ thread and can see the
light.... ;-)
>
>
>--
>Sarndra
>
maybe he smoked a doob
?
:)
Tigger
>
> a whole lot of crap...so i've wiped it and shall repost my original question....
>
> Bert Potter...
>
> supervision?
>
> in his midst....so fuck off Brian....
I know a thief that gets out soon. Should he be allowed in a shopping
centre without permission?
I also know a murderer that's coming up for parole. Should he be allowed
near any people without supervision?
I know a guy who drank and drove and killed someone. He's coming out
soon. Should he be allowed to drink in his home without supervision?
I know a man that molested his daughter. Should he be allowed around
children without supervision?
I know a man who raped someone. Should he be allowed near women without
supervision?
I know a woman that crossed the street illegally. Should she be allowed
on the street without supervision?
Of course BP should be allowed to live whatever life he chooses. He did
his crime, he paid his crime, and bigots like you should now leave him
alone. Unless, as Brian said, you can provide evidence that suggests
that he really is going to offend again....
--
Tigger =^..^=
Cat page: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Park/8426
Red Dwarf page: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Heights/3555
http://www.freethought.org.nz/usenet/nz.soc.religion
Jenny
it when people turn things personal when it's in otherwise a good debate
:) ]
> > > The law was always quite clear. Potter ignored the law for his own
> > > sexual gratification with children.
> >
> > And he has paid the price of our law for having done so.
> Paying the price does not always equate to doing time in prison....paying the price
> should also mean remorse and seeing what it is that you have done wrong...Potter has
> none of this and infact more upset when he thought his computer was going to be taken
> away.
Hmm.
This whole thing proves to me that we have a problem in our Justice
system, in that incarceration does not mean rehabilitation.
Potter will have served his requirements under the law that he be
incarcerated for a given period of time for the crimes he committed
against children.
But nowhere does the law say: "He must also be rehabilitated and learn
the wrongness of his actions".
So: therein we have a problem. He has met the legal requirements with
regard to his crime, but there is a large social aspect that is being
ignored.
This man can now walk free after doing his time. What assurances do we
get from whoever the powers that be that he is "safe" to be left doing
this? This man committed hideous crimes against children. I'd like to
know, as a taxpayer, that he's safe to be allowed back into society.
I'd rather pay for him to be in continuous psychiatric care (oh here we
go - the mental health system) than to allow the possibility of him
putting more children into a bad psychological state.
This is the problem here. All people who commit crimes against other
people have a mental health problem, IMHO. If you kill, rape, abuse,
molest, whatever, you have no concept of what is wrong or right with
regard to other people.
So: what's the point of imprisioning people who do these things if they
came out never having learnt and truely being remorseful about the crime
they commit? it's a waste of time. I don't know what the answer is,
but I know we're not fixing most of them. How many people incarcerated
for the crimes such as these against others re-offend? I betcha there
are heaps.
> And what about the children and young adults - his victims?....They will have to live
> with some abhorrent memories for the rest of their lives..whereas he walks 'free' in
> the sexual anticipation of doing it again and looking for new victims...
The problem we have here is how do we do he'll re-offend? Do they
release a psychiatric report on him to the public at large to say: "yes,
Bert Potter has done his time, but he's okay in the head now and allowed
to roam free", or can that report say:"Hey, this guy has done his time,
but we have good reason to believe he's not "cured" of his way of
thinking and therefore is a risk to society". We can't do this though,
can we. Not under today's privacy laws, etc. So, we're stuffed.
> The effect of prison and time on his views. His lack
> > of desire to spend any more time in prison. Surely these are at
> > least possibilities why he may hesitate? People closer to him, than
> > you or I, may be able to assess these considerations better than
> > ourselves.
> Hesitation is nothing......urges rule.
Agreed: he may hesitate. we'll never know. We can't know. Unless
someone can get inside his head and find out for sure. What assurances
can we get? None. Ditto for anyone released from prison.
I hear both sides of the argument here from both Brian and Sarndra. I
think we need to get more out of the prison system by truely educating
the criminals about the wrongness of their doing. I'm not convinced we
are.
Jen.
Handy_handle
Brian wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:58:09 +1200, "Sarndra" <su...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote :
>
> >> Sheesh it had to happen. Every society needs it's "Demon" for
> >> people to poke pins into, to attempt to make *themselves* feel,
> >> or look better.
>
> > Oh fuck off if you can't offer any positive opinions....
> > Safety against molestation for children should be paramount...
But what about the safety of children from the CYPS?? Is it not true that in
SOME cases there are children who are "abused" just to find out if they have
been abused? CYPS say they are acting in the best interest of the child, yet
they send a stranger into a persons home and "steal" a child just because
they SUSPECT some form of abuse. Yet the child has not made any complaints.
Who is right then??
>
>
> So what do you mean by "Safety against molestation"?
>
> Lock up every male in the country?
> Life imprisonment for those convicted of child molestaition?
>
> Or just treating Bert Potter as the representative demon, symbolic of
> all child sexual molestation in New Zealand, and single him out for
> special victimisation?
>
> If you want to have a witch hunt, and chase Bert Potter until he dies,
> that is your choice. But even this thread has been started before he
> has been released from prison ... what greater example of hysterical
> ranting could there be?
>
> If there is evidence that those who have served their time are
> "unsafe" as you wish to describe it, then please, let us see your
> evidence, or please tell us that you're really telling us about your
> beliefs.
>
> And if there is justification for extending punishment in any way,
> then the least I would ask, is that *all* criminals are treated
> equally, and one is not singled out for "Demon" status.
>
> >> "Gee, I hate child molestation so much that I'm prepared to say nasty
> >> things about Bert Potter ..... doesn't that show what a wonderful
> >> person *I* am?" The sentiment *oozes* out of your post.
>
> > So you like child molestation do you....
Child abuse (in any form) is a very nasty crime. But only one thing is
worse.....False allegations. How many people do you know that has been
falsely acused? If you say none, then I would suggest you ask around. I know
of a lot of people. Most were convicted because of people are ready to
believe a person is guilty before they believe any "evidence" of innocense.
Can you honestly say you would listen (without bias) to the Potter case??
I am not saying he is innocent nor am I saying he is guilty. I was not there
now did I follow the case. I cannot judge a person I do not know. It would
not be fair to judge him upon what you say. If I did that I would have NO
friends. A saying, which I believe comes from the bible, is very good: "One
mans meat is another mans poison".
Thank about that.
>
>
> Of course not. What evidence do you have that I condone the crime in
> any way?
>
> > get a kick out of reading about it huh....heard about your
> > sick type...
Why not look at the CYPS files??..Or the Psychologists cases?? I have heard
that in the CHCH prison (for sex offenders) they have child pornographic
material. Yet they say that this is "for use to help these people".
Yet if you had that in your home and said "I am trying to help my friend"
they would send you to jail. Why should they be allowed such material yet
you or I not??
I do not want that type of thing, but they do. So who is the real "sicko"
here?? And when CYPS do interviews...are they really as innocent as they
would like the public to believe??
Bert was a "public" case. Do you really think he would be able to go
anywhere near any children unsupervised??
That would last for the rest of his life. Isn't that enough punnishment??
Not seeing your family. Could you survive that??
People are lead to believe that a person who abuses a child will never
change. Yet is a person who steals cars able to change?? Why is "sex crimes"
the ONLY one that will never change?? Why is it that when it comes to "child
abuse" everyone is allowed to make jokes about it but if a person is acused
then they are guilty??
>
> Why do you laugh?
>
> > A devotee to Bert Potter huh....
>
> Never met him, Never spoken to him, Never written to him.
>
> But the hysteria surrounding his case, makes me consider doing
> so more and more.
>
> Bert Potter has been convicted.
> Sentenced.
> Served his time.
>
> Now, to start punishing him more, for crimes dreamed up in the fertile
> imagination of Sarndra, seems to me to be little different than the
> suffering of people who have been falsely accused of sexual crimes.
>
> He is guilty for what he has done.
> He should be punished for criminal actions he has done.
>
> But he remains innocent of crimes that he has not committed.
>
> >> > should he be allowed amongst children and young adults
> >> > without supervision?
> >>
> >> What do you know of the man, Sarndra?
> >
> > Man!! Surely you use the term extremely loosely
>
> A good marker of civilisation is how a society treats it's criminals.
> If we do not consider that our criminals are still human, then there
> is little point in considering that rehabilitation of our criminals is
> a desirable goal.
Remembering also that they are just as human as you. They chose to do what
they have done in the same fashion a "prostitue" has chosen to sleep for
money. She can do a lot of damage to some families yet she is not punnished
harshly. A woman can alk out of the family leaving the kids behind, (which
can be emiotional abuse) and yet if she wanted her kids back she has a good
chance. If she thinks she gonna lose she screams "child abuse" they guy is
sunk.
That may be true, but there is also a lot of false acusations. Which make it
APPEAR to be a lot of real cases. Therefore confusing the real issue. Would
you want a falsely acused to go to jail and be punnished?? but how can we
tell who is and who isn't?? The laws are there to protect you and me, yet
there are people who will abuse those laws and make it hard to protect. From
my understanding of the case, Bert Potter, over-stepped the boundary of
legality. He has been punnished. Do you want to lower yourself to be like
him?? Isn't it best to let the law punnish him. Do you think your family
would be happy to know that you won't be there cause you commited a crime??
Is that not punnishing your INNOCENT family??
>
>
> This is the sort of statement that owes it's heritage to astrology ...
> appears to say something but doesn't. Child molestation is a crime,
> and *any* occurrence of the crime is too much.
>
> But what do *you* mean by "too much"?
>
> There *are* horrible crimes that are perpetrated. But the occurrence
> of horrible crime, does not mean that solutions to preventing such
> crimes should not have to be justified.
>
> > ...both by men and women....
>
> Literally true, but the sentiment behind this is pure crap. Commonly
> held by those wanting to emphasise that the crime is very common ....
>
> This belief that women are frequent perpetrators, was probably
> sufficient for the social wrecker interrogators in the Christchurch
> Creche case to suggest to the children that they had been abused by
> the women of the creche as well ... and the children dutifully said
> sufficient for Detective "Bonker" Eade to think that four innocent
> women should be charged with child sexual abuse.
>
> The truth is that child sexual abuse is perpetrated by women. But
> extremely rarely.
>
> Child sexual abuse is a crime, that is almost exclusively a *male*
> crime.
>
> Brian
Men may be classed as the "sexual" abuser. But what about the abuse a woman
can cause??. If the woman decides she not like the father of her kids she
could say nasty things. That is emotional abuse. Or she will say that their
father doesn't like them. She will not allow him to see the kids and then
tell them that he doesn't love them and doesn't want to see them. Isn't that
abuse??
Yet the sexual crimes are more advertised. Imagine the scars on a child that
has to live with their mother and get told this all their lives. What damage
is that for a child?? Yet it is "accepted".
CYPS are teaching us how to be good parents, yet the are doing more harm
than any parent could do, except for causing death. Abusing a child could
take YEARS to fix. CYPS are allowed to "insert" foriegn objects into a
childs genitals to see if the child has been abused. yet if you were to do
that you would be sent to jail.
Why are they so special?? Why should they have the power to destroy your
family without evidence, yet have to fight hard to prove them wrong??
A good joke was sent to me about CYPS. "What is the difference between CYPS
and a Pit-bull??...With some effort you can get your child back from the
Pit-bull"
The thought for the day for everyone. "If a person commits a crime, I would
be the same as that person if I was to punnish that person myself"
Tricia
>Why do I get the feeling you are a pedophile?
????
Tricia
Brian
>????
>Tricia
Needs to be put in the context of some very robust debate, Tricia.
I've not minced words with what I have thought about some of what
Sarndra has written, and I've been quite prepared to receive equally
assertive opinions in return.
That Sarndra has chosen to engage in a direct attack on me, rather
than what I have written, reflects more on her character, than me.
Without reading back on my posts, perhaps I have been guilty of
attacking her, rather than what she wrote, and if that is the case,
her statement above, is still undeniable wrong, but more
understandable.
She actually demonstrates a weapon that is too often used by angry
women, usually associated with acrimonious separation and divorce,
where very young children are concerned. Such false accusations are
vile and evil.
Brian
Sarndra
Tigger <d...@mr2.org.xnz> wrote in message
[SNIP]
> I know a thief that gets out soon. Should he be allowed in a shopping
> centre without permission?
>
> I also know a murderer that's coming up for parole. Should he be allowed
> near any people without supervision?
>
> I know a guy who drank and drove and killed someone. He's coming out
> soon. Should he be allowed to drink in his home without supervision?
>
> I know a man that molested his daughter. Should he be allowed around
> children without supervision?
>
> I know a man who raped someone. Should he be allowed near women without
> supervision?
>
> I know a woman that crossed the street illegally. Should she be allowed
> on the street without supervision?
>
> Of course BP should be allowed to live whatever life he chooses. He did
> his crime, he paid his crime, and bigots like you should now leave him
> alone. Unless, as Brian said, you can provide evidence that suggests
> that he really is going to offend again....
Shit Tiggs.... you hang out wiff some bad types don't cha! ;-)
Possibly yes to all the above....IF they can't see the bad or harm they have done...
I'm not a biggot Tiggs...I'm a concerned citizen of New Zealand who is sick to death
of the far to lenient judicial system...
Brian
> Sarndra wrote :
>> Brian wrote :
I appreciated your post, and what you have added to the debate.
>This whole thing proves to me that we have a problem in our Justice
>system, in that incarceration does not mean rehabilitation.
>
>Potter will have served his requirements under the law that he be
>incarcerated for a given period of time for the crimes he committed
>against children.
>
> But nowhere does the law say: "He must also be rehabilitated
> and learn the wrongness of his actions".
Because there is no way of effectively ensuring such "rehabilitation".
They can demand that a condition of parole is that a person expresses
guilt and/or remorse, but that appears to be a simple further
victimisation of the truly innocent such as Peter Ellis, than having
any meaningful effect on people who may remain a danger in society.
> So: therein we have a problem. He has met the legal
> requirements with regard to his crime, but there is a
> large social aspect that is being ignored.
>
> This man can now walk free after doing his time. What
> assurances do we get from whoever the powers that be
> that he is "safe" to be left doing this?
This issue comes up whenever a particularly notorious criminal is due
for release. The more important question at this stage is the
question we have for ourselves : What assurances do each of us
personally need?
However much we demand assurances from others, they are not able to be
given. And anybody who does give such assurances are simply lying.
People who are a serious threat to society *can* be detained, but this
provision would be being abused if it was used against all criminals.
And so, we are left with making personal decisions about our *own*
lives. How much fear do we want to live in? Fear does not come
purely from an external threat. It comes just as much from within
ourselves.
> This man committed hideous crimes against children. I'd
> like to know, as a taxpayer, that he's safe to be allowed
> back into society.
You may pay all the taxes in the world, but there are some things that
your tax money cannot buy. Knowledge of when you are going to die.
Knowledge that the guy next door is "safe"
And the notion that even trained psychiatrists have a better insight
into the future actions of a person, than the insights of you or I, is
a romantic notion, but unfortunately untrue.
> I'd rather pay for him to be in continuous psychiatric
> care (oh here we go - the mental health system) than to
> allow the possibility of him putting more children into
> a bad psychological state.
But this is unjust if it is based on simply your fears, than on
reality.
We also come up against the concept of guarantees, chance etc, with
your reference to "possibility". If you require a possibility of
zero, then continued incarceration is the only solution. But you
don't have such a guarantee from the guy next door.
So what is "fair", when it comes to making assessments of
possibilities?
> This is the problem here. All people who commit crimes
> against other people have a mental health problem, IMHO.
> If you kill, rape, abuse, molest, whatever, you have no
> concept of what is wrong or right with regard to other
> people.
That to some extent negates the role of personal responsibility. An
excuse: "He wasn't resonsible... his sickness was". We live in an
age where there are too many excuses, in my opinion.
I believe that almost all criminals *do* know the difference between
what is right and wrong, and choose to ignore what is right.
When I speed in my car, I know that what I'm doing is wrong. But I'm
doing it because I think I can get away with it; I deny that any harm
will happen; I justify doing so because I am in a hurry etc etc.
I know that you have referred specifically to crimes against other
people, but I see no reason why they should be considered differently
in the majority of cases.
>
> So: what's the point of imprisioning people who do these things
> if they came out never having learnt and truely being remorseful
> about the crime they commit? it's a waste of time. I don't
> know what the answer is, but I know we're not fixing most of them.
We need to be clear about what we are doing when we convict people.
How important is the punishment component of the sentence and how
important is so called rehabilitation?
Peter Williams QC has described the appalling conditions of our
prisons..... but spending more money on our prisons, and our prisoners
is not a political move that wins many votes.
> How many people incarcerated for the crimes such as these
> against others re-offend? I betcha there are heaps.
Re-offending rates for serious crime, including crimes of sexual abuse
are low. I do not have figures to hand. Perhaps somebody else may
have relevant actual statistics.
>The problem we have here is how do we do he'll re-offend? Do they
>release a psychiatric report on him to the public at large to say: "yes,
>Bert Potter has done his time, but he's okay in the head now and allowed
>to roam free", or can that report say:"Hey, this guy has done his time,
>but we have good reason to believe he's not "cured" of his way of
>thinking and therefore is a risk to society". We can't do this though,
>can we. Not under today's privacy laws, etc. So, we're stuffed.
And the point that I made above, is that such a psychiatric report
would mean little anyway. It may make people "feel" safer, but I
suggest that feeling of safety is but an illusion.
I'm not suggesting that there are people who need to be detained in
psychiatric care. Perhaps Tricia could comment on the laws
surrounding this, and how compulsory detention works.
But I think demanding guarantees off psychiatrists, is simply an
unrealistic expectation for people in that profession.
> Agreed: he may hesitate. we'll never know. We can't know.
> Unless someone can get inside his head and find out for sure.
> What assurances can we get? None. Ditto for anyone
> released from prison.
Thats largely the main point I've been making in this post.
And how we all personally wish to live with that lack of certainty, is
something we all have to decide for ourselves.
Or go live in a country, where all criminals are incarcerated for
life, or shot. But would personal safety be enhanced with such
policies? I suggest not, as we would be creating a class of wanted
fugitives, who would have nothing to lose, in their desire to stay
away from the long arm of the law.
> I hear both sides of the argument here from both Brian and
> Sarndra. I think we need to get more out of the prison
> system by truely educating the criminals about the wrongness
> of their doing. I'm not convinced we are.
Brian
Brian
>
>
> MY GOD SANDRA I AGGREE WITH YOUR RESPONSE TO BRIAN,
> NOT THAT I READ IT ALL.
Sheesh, 'Mash. You're very flippant with your agreement.
Without even reading it all, you agree !!!!!!
> I THINK THE GUYS TOSSED HIS LOBSTER.
Often :-)
" He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression,
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent
that will reach to himself "
-- Thomas Paine
I've spoken up, and will continue to speak out against injustice.
That is easy to do when referring to the cases of Peter Ellis, and
Kriseya Labastida (Las Vegas), who I think are tragically wrongfully
incarcerated.
My entry into the debate about Bert Potter, is not on the same basis,
and has, (and I'm not surprised) hit a lot more raw nerves. I have
spoken to no one who has told me that they believe that Bert Potter
was not guilty of some of the crimes for which he was convicted.
My concerns about the man, extend to the way hysteria is building up,
as his release date approaches.
If "safety" issues are addressed, then there is no reason, at least
that I am aware of, why he should be treated any differently to any
other person who has served a term of imprisonment. If we have a
problem with the length of a sentence, then this is a political issue
associated with the the terms of punishment for certain sorts of
crime. Such political issues should *not* be determined by lynch
mobs standing outside the prison gates.
I have also raised my speculation that the counselling and therapy
that the complainants in the Centrepoint case were subjected to, could
have contaminated some of their evidence. The counselling and
therapy practices at the time were inherently dangerous. Because
Bert Potter was guilty of some crimes, he would have had little
credibility against any accusations. With the benefit of hindsight,
we can now reflect on the consequences of counselling practices of
that time.
Justice is for everybody.
And that includes our prisoners.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
> Everything is a conspiracy for Brian,
Check the meaning of the word, Scoots. I've not referred to a
conspiracy. I do not believe that there has been a conspiracy in any
of the cases that I have been referring to.
Simple the tragic consequences of a group of issues. Ignorance and
Fear are two driving forces far more lethal than talk of conspiracy.
> especially if it involves sex or sexual offending.
The crime of sexual abuse is rightfully considered abhorrent in our
society. The punishment, is rightfully severe, to reflect the values
we hold on the subject.
And therefore the crime of false allegations of sexual abuse, for
which there has been an epidemic in 1990s New Zealand, becomes
especially tragic, and also abhorrent.
> He is a sex crimes groupie, he hangs around on the
> edges waiting for the crumbs to drop from the mouth
> of the predator,
I have a library such that I have no need to wait for your crumbs,
Scoots.
> like a remora on the body of a shark or one of those birds
> that pick the teeth of large mammals. It is kind of unhealthy
> when it occurs in mammals though.
I appreciate a good flame, that includes clever similes.
You made me smile :-)
Brian
Sarndra
Handy_handle <handy_...@yahoo.com> replying to various postings wrote in message
[snip]
> > > Safety against molestation for children should be paramount...
>
> But what about the safety of children from the CYPS??
I agree... totally disgusting all round....no faith in them either....
>Is it not true that in
> SOME cases there are children who are "abused" just to find out if they have
> been abused? CYPS say they are acting in the best interest of the child, yet
> they send a stranger into a persons home and "steal" a child just because
> they SUSPECT some form of abuse. Yet the child has not made any complaints.
> Who is right then??
Wouldn't have a clue....this whole issue is very airy fairy in my view and CYPS
should be thoroughly investigated by an independant assessor...
[snip]
> Child abuse (in any form) is a very nasty crime. But only one thing is
> worse.....False allegations. How many people do you know that has been
> falsely acused?
Personally I know of two....one is a close relative, who (similarly like Peter
Ellis's stand) refused a sexual offenders rehab programme because he was not guilty
and in turn served out a longer prison sentance. That case also involved ACC and an
accusation that took place over 20 years ago....
>If you say none, then I would suggest you ask around. I know
> of a lot of people. Most were convicted because of people are ready to
> believe a person is guilty before they believe any "evidence" of innocense.
> Can you honestly say you would listen (without bias) to the Potter case??
Absolutely.... I as well as others do not like to see the innocent wrongly
incarcerated.
> I am not saying he is innocent nor am I saying he is guilty. I was not there
> now did I follow the case. I cannot judge a person I do not know. It would
> not be fair to judge him upon what you say. If I did that I would have NO
> friends. A saying, which I believe comes from the bible, is very good: "One
> mans meat is another mans poison".
> Thank about that.
[snip]
> Why not look at the CYPS files??..Or the Psychologists cases?? I have heard
> that in the CHCH prison (for sex offenders) they have child pornographic
> material. Yet they say that this is "for use to help these people".
Yes, that's sick if it is indeed true.
> Yet if you had that in your home and said "I am trying to help my friend"
> they would send you to jail. Why should they be allowed such material yet
> you or I not??
> I do not want that type of thing, but they do. So who is the real "sicko"
> here?? And when CYPS do interviews...are they really as innocent as they
> would like the public to believe??
I agree...the whole thing should be looked into
[snip]
> Bert was a "public" case. Do you really think he would be able to go
> anywhere near any children unsupervised??
Hopefully no.
> That would last for the rest of his life. Isn't that enough punnishment??
> Not seeing your family. Could you survive that??
Yes....if I realised what i had done was wrong, I couldn't face them.
I am a law abiding citizen....and I know right from wrong so therefore this doesn't
even come into it for me....
[snip]
> People are lead to believe that a person who abuses a child will never
> change. Yet is a person who steals cars able to change?? Why is "sex crimes"
> the ONLY one that will never change?? Why is it that when it comes to "child
> abuse" everyone is allowed to make jokes about it but if a person is acused
> then they are guilty??
Hormonal....bodily urges......whereas I hardly think car conversion or similar is
hormonal....
[snip]
> Remembering also that they are just as human as you.
In some cases...pure evil....not as human as I...
They chose to do what
> they have done in the same fashion a "prostitue" has chosen to sleep for
> money. She can do a lot of damage to some families yet she is not punnished
> harshly. A woman can alk out of the family leaving the kids behind, (which
> can be emiotional abuse) and yet if she wanted her kids back she has a good
> chance. If she thinks she gonna lose she screams "child abuse" they guy is
> sunk.
Oh boy......sheeeshhh........
[snip]
> > > No..i'm not a centrepoint child. I just think too
> > > much child molestation goes on
>
> That may be true, but there is also a lot of false acusations. Which make it
> APPEAR to be a lot of real cases.
I do not think so
Therefore confusing the real issue. Would
> you want a falsely acused to go to jail and be punnished?? but how can we
> tell who is and who isn't??
Physical exams are pretty conclusive....especially forensic evidence...
The laws are there to protect you and me, yet
> there are people who will abuse those laws and make it hard to protect. From
> my understanding of the case, Bert Potter, over-stepped the boundary of
> legality. He has been punnished. Do you want to lower yourself to be like
> him??
Excuse me, I take offence to that....I shall never be as low as him.....
> Isn't it best to let the law punnish him.
I have NO faith in the law and I am not interested in 'punishing' him.....just
keeping him away from vulnerable individuals
Do you think your family
> would be happy to know that you won't be there cause you commited a crime??
I would be damn well embarrassed as well as distressed being any part of his 'family'
> Is that not punnishing your INNOCENT family??
He's punished them already......
[snip]
> Men may be classed as the "sexual" abuser. But what about the abuse a woman
> can cause??. If the woman decides she not like the father of her kids she
> could say nasty things. That is emotional abuse. Or she will say that their
> father doesn't like them. She will not allow him to see the kids and then
> tell them that he doesn't love them and doesn't want to see them. Isn't that
> abuse??
Not getting into that.....is another thread...
[snip]
Sarndra
Greg <gr...@spam.co.nz> wrote in message news:7dbipo$6lh$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
>
> Sarndra wrote in message <92230540...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
> >
> ><BABY...@MANAWATU.GEN.NZ> wrote in message
> >news:92228639...@news.manawatu.gen.nz...
> >>
> >>
> ALL.
> >
> >That's alright Babymush....
> >
> >You've obviously taken a sedative since the MJ thread and can see the
> light.... ;-)
> >
> >
> >--
> >Sarndra
> >
>
>
> maybe he smoked a doob
> ?
> :)
LOL
Touche!!
Sarndra
Jenny <den...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:36F978...@ihug.co.nz...
> Sarndra wrote:
> >
> > Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> >
> {snip of stuff, including accusing Brian of being a pedophile - I hate
> it when people turn things personal when it's in otherwise a good debate
> :) ]
Well, he sorta makes ya do it....;-)
[snip]
> > Paying the price does not always equate to doing time in prison....paying the
price
> > should also mean remorse and seeing what it is that you have done wrong...Potter
has
> > none of this and infact more upset when he thought his computer was going to be
taken
> > away.
>
> Hmm.
>
> This whole thing proves to me that we have a problem in our Justice
> system, in that incarceration does not mean rehabilitation.
That has been known for a very very long time...
> Potter will have served his requirements under the law that he be
> incarcerated for a given period of time for the crimes he committed
> against children.
>
> But nowhere does the law say: "He must also be rehabilitated and learn
> the wrongness of his actions".
He cannot accept that he has done anything wrong....therefore trying rehabilitation
of any kind is fruitless.
> So: therein we have a problem. He has met the legal requirements with
> regard to his crime, but there is a large social aspect that is being
> ignored.
>
> This man can now walk free after doing his time. What assurances do we
> get from whoever the powers that be that he is "safe" to be left doing
> this? This man committed hideous crimes against children. I'd like to
> know, as a taxpayer, that he's safe to be allowed back into society.
> I'd rather pay for him to be in continuous psychiatric care (oh here we
> go - the mental health system) than to allow the possibility of him
> putting more children into a bad psychological state.
Exactly my point....
> This is the problem here. All people who commit crimes against other
> people have a mental health problem, IMHO. If you kill, rape, abuse,
> molest, whatever, you have no concept of what is wrong or right with
> regard to other people.
I disagree...some do...some don't....
> So: what's the point of imprisioning people who do these things if they
> came out never having learnt and truely being remorseful about the crime
> they commit?
Because society is so used to doing this. This is the 'accepted'
measure....something has to change...
it's a waste of time. I don't know what the answer is,
> but I know we're not fixing most of them. How many people incarcerated
> for the crimes such as these against others re-offend? I betcha there
> are heaps.
Indeed....and not to mention the judges that let others get away with far too
much...take for example the 18 year old on tv this week who bashed that old lady up
North. He had something like 31 or 36 previous crimes already behind him....that is
just disgusting...take first offenders and give them a harsh taste of 'justice'....I
call it tough love....
> > And what about the children and young adults - his victims?....They will have to
live
> > with some abhorrent memories for the rest of their lives..whereas he walks
'free' in
> > the sexual anticipation of doing it again and looking for new victims...
>
> The problem we have here is how do we do he'll re-offend? Do they
> release a psychiatric report on him to the public at large to say: "yes,
> Bert Potter has done his time, but he's okay in the head now and allowed
> to roam free", or can that report say:"Hey, this guy has done his time,
> but we have good reason to believe he's not "cured" of his way of
> thinking and therefore is a risk to society". We can't do this though,
> can we. Not under today's privacy laws, etc. So, we're stuffed.
Exactly
[snip]
> I hear both sides of the argument here from both Brian and Sarndra. I
> think we need to get more out of the prison system by truely educating
> the criminals about the wrongness of their doing. I'm not convinced we
> are.
I too can hear Brian's side of the argument...a bit!!
I believe that once a term is served people should be able to get on with their
lives if they are truly remorseful and learn from the experience. But some members
of society are true monstrous throwbacks...
Thank you for your post
--
Sarndra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The gene pool could use a little chlorine
The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and
are entirely seperate from my employer.
Long live freedom of speech :o)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
visit my website www.angelfire.com/ok/nzfamily
> Jen.
Sarndra
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
[snip]
> Needs to be put in the context of some very robust debate, Tricia.
> I've not minced words with what I have thought about some of what
> Sarndra has written, and I've been quite prepared to receive equally
> assertive opinions in return.
>
> That Sarndra has chosen to engage in a direct attack on me, rather
> than what I have written, reflects more on her character, than me.
*SIGH*....I recall a couple of attacks on me also Brian...what's good for the
Goose......
> Without reading back on my posts, perhaps I have been guilty of
> attacking her, rather than what she wrote, and if that is the case,
> her statement above, is still undeniable wrong, but more
> understandable.
Thank you for that Brian...maybe it is the way your write things....it does make one
stop and think.....
> She actually demonstrates a weapon that is too often used by angry
> women, usually associated with acrimonious separation and divorce,
> where very young children are concerned. Such false accusations are
> vile and evil.
I've never accused my exhusband of something so vile.
I've always been assertive as long as I can remember regarding being outspoken...and
i do not apologise for this....
--
Sarndra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The gene pool could use a little chlorine
The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and
are entirely seperate from my employer.
Long live freedom of speech :o)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
visit my website www.angelfire.com/ok/nzfamily
> Brian
>
>
>
>
Handy_handle
Sarndra wrote:
> Tigger <d...@mr2.org.xnz> wrote in message
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > I know a thief that gets out soon. Should he be allowed in a shopping
> > centre without permission?
> >
> > I also know a murderer that's coming up for parole. Should he be allowed
> > near any people without supervision?
> >
> > I know a guy who drank and drove and killed someone. He's coming out
> > soon. Should he be allowed to drink in his home without supervision?
> >
> > I know a man that molested his daughter. Should he be allowed around
> > children without supervision?
> >
> > I know a man who raped someone. Should he be allowed near women without
> > supervision?
> >
> > I know a woman that crossed the street illegally. Should she be allowed
> > on the street without supervision?
> >
> > Of course BP should be allowed to live whatever life he chooses. He did
> > his crime, he paid his crime, and bigots like you should now leave him
> > alone. Unless, as Brian said, you can provide evidence that suggests
> > that he really is going to offend again....
>
> Shit Tiggs.... you hang out wiff some bad types don't cha! ;-)
>
> Possibly yes to all the above....IF they can't see the bad or harm they have done...
>
> I'm not a biggot Tiggs...I'm a concerned citizen of New Zealand who is sick to death
> of the far to lenient judicial system...
The system is there to protect. Yet who is there to protect us from the system?
As much as we all hate "child-abusers" how about thinking of the child? What about the
child if the "system" suspects it has been abused and they "steal" children to find out.
Then they stop the child from seeing his/her family for an indefinate time until they
are ready.
Is that fair?? What would the child be thinking about while not allowed to be with the
parent?? What happens to the childs future?? Is this not what WE all should be thinking
about? Why not tell the "system" that they should do more FOR the child and less for
themselves.
The above was very well written. Why is it that a child abuser is punnished for life??
Ask yourself...if you have got a ticket for speeding when you know you didn't do
it..does that mean you also should be banned from driving cars without supervision??
Could you spend the rest of your days having another "clean" person with you cause you
made a mistake??
Why should you lower yourself to the "criminal" level ?? How about thinking of the
actual innocent victims...be it the child or the adult. Would you want a dramatic
incident to be repeated over and ver because someone else wants to have their say?? What
about a child?? Would they want tp be hurt again and again?? Why not punnish and leave
it. If it is 6 month or 10 yrs who are you to say when enough is enough?? I believe the
"victim" should have some say in each punnishment, not "strangers".
Brian
wrote:
> Brian wrote :
>> Being a pedophile is of course not a crime.
> You are an incredibly sick person if you believe this.
Nothing to do with being sick.
Just a statement of fact.
The law does not care what a pedophile thinks in his head. The law is
very concerned about whether a pedophile commits any crime such as
child sexual abuse.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
> People do not get convicted by a jury of their peers
> if they are not guilty.
What absolute rubbish.
Arthur Thomas
David Dougherty
"Michael"
Peter Ellis
are all high profile examples of innocent people who have been
convicted. Peter Ellis has not yet had his name cleared.
Brian
BABY...@manawatu.gen.nz
On 1999-03-25 gr...@spam.co.nz said:
>Newsgroups: nz.general
>Sarndra wrote in message <92230540...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
>><BABY...@MANAWATU.GEN.NZ> wrote in message
>>news:92228639...@news.manawatu.gen.nz...
>>> MY GOD SANDRA I AGGREE WITH YOUR RESPONSE TO BRIAN, NOT THAT I
>READ IT ALL.
>>> I THINK THE GUYS TOSSED HIS LOBSTER.
>>> BABYMASH.
>>That's alright Babymush....
>>You've obviously taken a sedative since the MJ thread and can see
>the light.... ;-)
>>--
>>Sarndra
>maybe he smoked a doob
>?
>:)
I AS ALWAYS ON MOST LATE NIGHTS WAS OUT OF MY SKULL, STILL MADE SOME GOOD
CASH FROM A SOUNDTRACK TODAY :), MORE DRUGS :).
BABY...@manawatu.gen.nz
WHAT I MEANT WAS "WOMAN RESPONSABLE BLAH ...... FANTASISING ABOUT SEX.."
SEEMS TO FAR, THEY WOULDN'T PROBABLY UNDERSTAND ENOUGH ABOUT SEX TO
FANTASISE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Brian
(Kerry) wrote:
> Brian wrote :
>> Kerry wrote :
>> There *are* people who are guilty of child sexual abuse
>> and are found guilty of the crime. Do you have any
>> basis for saying this happens "every day"?
>
> Because it happens every day.
You have simply repeated your assertion. I am interested in sources
of any reliable information that may exist.
>>Rape Crisis asserted that there 59 cases of incest in one city in New
>>Zealand (Hamilton) in the year 1997. Actual convictions for incest
>>over the whole of New Zealand in the twelve years to 1997, were 204.
>>Depending on who you have been listening to, I do understand how
>>people could believe that such crimes are committed "every day". (I'm
>>aware that Ellis was not convicted of incest)
>
> Oh right, so now convictions for incest accurately reflect
> the number of actual cases of incest in any day?
That is your claim, not mine.
There are guilty people who are convicted
There are guilty people who are not convicted
There are innocent people who are convicted
There are innocent people who are not convicted.
> Get off the grass.
Mash?
>>While nobody that I have ever spoken to has ever suggested to me that
>>Bert Potter was innocent of sexual abuse, and I also do not believe
>>that he was innocent, I also made the suggestion, and I'll emphasise
>>and repeat that it is pure speculation on my part, that these
>>counselling and therapy practices could easily have affected some of
>>the evidence of the Potter trial.
>
>"could have' 'may have'
Absolutely.
>
>As i recall older teenagers finally confronted Potter about sexual
>abuse they had never forgotten. They didn;t need to recover any
>memories, they lived with the recall of the abuse every day.
>
>Maybe you;d like to document to us the ways that the children in the
>Bert Potter case were interviwed and treated.
Considerable counselling, carried out during the same time span as the
counselling involved in the Ellis debacle ..... regular "survivor
meetings" where memories were shared. Some allegations were proven
false in court ... some obviously occurred and I do not want to
condone these offences in any way.
>>>>> These cases are the tip of an iceberg of offending against
>>>>> children.
>>>>
>>>>I'd prefer to consider that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
>>>
>>>And Potter was proven quite quite guilty
>>
>>My comment was referring to the rest of the iceberg that *you*
>>referred to. He was not found guilty of such offending. He was not
>>charged with such offences. Because a person is guilty of X, does
>>not mean that he is guilty of Y.
>
>And because he isn't charged with Y, does not mean he did not abuse Y.
>It is my knowledge that not everyone so abused chose to press charges.
It would help in your discussions if you referred to alleged offences,
for offences that he was not charged with. Goes with the principle
of innocent until proven guilty.
Earlier in this post I listed four groups of people. Yes, there are
undoubtably people who are guilty of crimes, who are either not
charged, or not convicted of the offences.
I'm trying to provide a reminder that Potter's guilt on some crimes,
does not make him automatically guilty of all other allegations. It
is reasonable to consider that his guilt may be more likely on such
alleged events, because he has been convicted of similar crimes ....
but that is insufficient reason to convict.
I was pleasantly surprised by the reaction on this group to the
suspect in the South Island murder, asserting his innocence on TV.
When I watched the programme, I thought to myself, that here was a
very shady character. And yet the posters on this group recognised
that he should not be treated as guilty.
>>>It was tested and proven in a court of law. Even if Peter Ellis is
>>>innocent......
>>
>>I'll repeat again. My comments were related to your accusation that
>>the cases he was found guilty of were the tip of an iceberg of
>>offending. These were *not* tested and proven in a court of law.
>
>But they happened
What happened? You can say that the tip of the iceberg occurred, or
that he was convicted of crimes x, y and z. But the most that you can
say about the rest of the iceberg, is that there are other
allegations. You have no proof that has been tested in a court of
law that they happened.
>Your insistance that no crime has occurred unless proven in a court of
>law is a quaint one Brian,
I have never made such a statement, let alone "insisting" on such a
view. I do not agree with such a view.
> given your obsession with a case that you
> insist is false, even though it meets that exact standard.
>>>>So, what is important is not really what Bert Potter thinks in his
>>>>head about his sexual preference, so much as the chances of him acting
>>>>out criminal behaviour in the future. That is the important question.
>>>>Does he now recognise that the law, which he may not agree with, has a
>>>>higher priority than what he wants to do?
>>>
>>>He didn't before.....
>>
>>He was charged, and convicted, and sent to prison.
>
>Your faith in the judicial systems ability to rehabilitate is truly
>heartwarming Brian.
I have provided no such "faith"
>>> The law was always quite clear. Potter ignored the law for his own
>>> sexual gratification with children.
>>
>>And he has paid the price of our law for having done so.
>
>As above
I do not understand "as above". Above you asserted, by implication
that I had "faith in the ..... etc Which does not seem to relate to
my comment about him having served his sentence.
>>> I have no reason to believe he would hesitate in future.
>>
>>And now you're talking about your beliefs. I'm not saying they're not
>>legitimate beliefs. You may be right. But I'm also wondering, how
>>much this commonly held view depends on the media inspired (not
>>without the help of Bert Potter himself, I'll agree) demonisation of
>>Potter.
>
>'demonisation'? When something is bad, I'll say so.
If by demonisation you are simply meaning that you wish to express
your negative feelings strongly, I understand.
By demonisation, I was trying to imply a process in which Potter has
become not only guilty of the crimes he is guilty of ... for which he
must accept the judgement of society, but he has also become symbolic
for far more than his actual crimes.
It is this symbolisation of Potter that I object to, for as much as
what I say is true.
>>I can think of some reasons why what you say may not be true. His age
>>for a start.
>
>Oh right old guys don't like to exercise their sexual preferences....
>
>>The effect of prison and time on his views.
>
>He was in his mid 60s when he went to prison, after a lifetime of
>cultivating such views. You believe he has now seen the error of his
>ways? Forgive my scepticism.
>
>>His lack
>>of desire to spend any more time in prison. Surely these are at
>>least possibilities why he may hesitate? People closer to him, than
>>you or I, may be able to assess these considerations better than
>>ourselves.
>
>People closer to him also participated in the sexual abuse of
>children, his female partners also had a role.
I meant professionals involved with him now in the prison situation.
>>> In his case, I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt in my home.
>>> One can only find out if he still sexually abuses in retrospect.
>>
>>That is a very personal thing that everybody needs to decide for
>>themselves.
>>
>>I would not give any stranger the benefit of the doubt in my home.
>>My doubts would naturally be significantly greater for anybody
>>convicted of a crime where trust has been betrayed (and child sexual
>>abuse is a serious subgroup of this group of crimes).
>
>Which is my point really.
I'm pleased we've found a point to agree on :-)
>>But a few months ago, I met a man, who had pled guilty to a sexual
>>crime, and served his sentence. He is now living in a home with a
>>family with children, where he *is* trusted. So it can happen, for
>>some people.
>
>He is a very lucky man to be so trusted.
Yes.
> I hope he continues to deserve that trust.
Yes.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
>Care to answer any of the points?
Did you have one?
Brian
Brian
wrote:
> Just a question, I have assumed you have children,
> before I comment any further I must ask if you have
> any children.
Why _must_ you, Scoots?
> Do you have any children?
I think it would be instructive for you to ask what you want to ask
twice. Once, based on my having children, and the second, based on
my not having children.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
> Brian wrote :
>
>
>>You may pay all the taxes in the world, but there are some things that
>>your tax money cannot buy. Knowledge of when you are going to die.
>>Knowledge that the guy next door is "safe"
>
> But knowing that the man next door is a convicted child molester allows
> you to take steps to ensure your children are safe and he doesn't commit
> any crimes on your or other children.
My understanding is that the police do take a considered approach to
this problem.
Yes, I would also like to know if the guy next door has a conviction
for child sexual molestation. If I have children, I'd feel that I
had a right to know. But if I don't have children, then do I have
that right, or is my "need" purely idle curiosity?
What about the guy 10 doors away? Twenty doors away? A block away?
How does my need to know change, depending on my circumstances, and
where does simple curiosity begin?
And at what point is publication of the living arrangements doing more
*harm* in society than potential good, for the hysteria that is
fostered?
Brian
Tricia
wrote:
>Just a question, I have assumed you have children, before I comment any
>further I must ask if you have any children.
>Do you have any children?
Relevance Scooter??
Tricia
A shark is the only fish that can blink with both eyes.
Graeme Butler
off' .
Hongi Carter
Hang on Graeme, I think Sarndra said that down the bottom of her
message thus:
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:50:10 +1200, "Sarndra" <su...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:36f8b3c2...@news.wave.co.nz...
>
>a whole lot of crap...so i've wiped it and shall repost my original question....
>
>Bert Potter...
>
>is to be released soon and will probably head straight back to 'Centrepoint' to
>abuse again.....should he be allowed amongst children and young adults without
>supervision?
>
>
Graeme Butler
Sarndra, be a dear and shut the fucking door on your way out!!!!
Hongi Carter wrote in message <36fc1948...@news.netaccess.co.nz>...
Kerry
>
>DPF <da...@farrar.com> wrote in message news:3701ff0f...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:07:37 +1200 in nz.general Sarndra wrote: in
>> <92234243...@newsch.es.co.nz>:
>>
>> >> She actually demonstrates a weapon that is too often used by angry
>> >> women, usually associated with acrimonious separation and divorce,
>> >> where very young children are concerned. Such false accusations are
>> >> vile and evil.
>> >
>> >I've never accused my exhusband of something so vile.
>>
>> You've never accused your ex-husband of something "so vile" yet you
>> fling the accusation (or at least suggest it) at a stranger in a
>> Usenet debate!!!
>>
>> DPF
>
>Yeah...well looking at it that way then....shit Brian must be realllly horrible
>LMAOOOOOO
>
Have you ever noticed Sarndra....you're the only one that's ever
laughing her AOOOOOOO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She's so swishy in her satin and tat
In her frock coat and bipperty-bopperty hat
Oh God, I could do better than that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kerry
>
>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:36f9e0a2...@news.wave.co.nz...
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 06:20:36 GMT, sco...@tipnet.co.nz (Scooter)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Brian wrote :
>>
>> >> Being a pedophile is of course not a crime.
>>
>> > You are an incredibly sick person if you believe this.
>>
>> Nothing to do with being sick.
>> Just a statement of fact.
>>
>> The law does not care what a pedophile thinks in his head. The law is
>> very concerned about whether a pedophile commits any crime such as
>> child sexual abuse.
>
>Well the law must think something about that because having pedophile pornography in
>your possession is a crime...
>
>Sarndra
So nyah Brian.....
Brian
(Kerry) wrote:
> Sarndra wrote :
>> Brian wrote :
>>> Scooter wrote :
>>>> Brian wrote :
>>>>> Being a pedophile is of course not a crime.
>>>> You are an incredibly sick person if you believe this.
>>> Nothing to do with being sick.
>>> Just a statement of fact.
>>> The law does not care what a pedophile thinks in his head.
>>> The law is very concerned about whether a pedophile commits
>>> any crime such as child sexual abuse.
>>
>> Well the law must think something about that because having
>> pedophile pornography in your possession is a crime...
>So nyah Brian.....
Please, Sarndra and Kerry, reread what I wrote. Sarndra obviously
thinks that she has shown that what I wrote is wrong, where she
actually only confirmed what I had said. I'm not sure what Kerry
meant by her response.
Being a pedophile is not a crime.
Dreaming of committing mass murder is not a crime.
The crimes being referred to above are child sexual abuse, and
possession of child pornography.
Brian
BABY...@manawatu.gen.nz
On 1999-03-26 su...@es.co.nz said:
>Newsgroups: nz.general
>Graeme Butler <tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:pvpK2.1521$Ch2.1...@news.clear.net.nz...
>> Quite right
>> Sarndra, be a dear and shut the fucking door on your way out!!!!
>Get knotted ya jerk...just cos you made a dick of yerself don't
>take it out on me sweets :-}~
>Tis an open forum....you don't like my swearing...fuck off then
>hehehe or are females not allowed to swear in nz.gen cos a fucking
>lot of males fucking well swear in here...so fucking there !!
>--
>Sarndra .o} ~The one eyed Cantabrian~
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OH FUCKING SAY FUCK MORE, WOA.
BABY...@manawatu.gen.nz
POTTER BEING 73 MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO HOW DANGEROUS HE IS, IT'S
THAT SIMPLE, AND ALTHOUGH YOU ARE RIGHT IN THAT SOME PEOPLE JUST
HATE AND JUDGE BECAUSE OF THEIR INNER GARBAGE I STILL BELIEVE AFTER
ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT GIVING BABIES HEAD, AND DRUGGING YOUNG
CHILDREN AND FUCKING THEM IS THE ACT OF A PSYCHO, I DO THINK HE IS
NUTS BUT KEEP HIM OFF THE STREET THANKS.
Badger
Scooter wrote in message <3703d280...@news.taranaki.ac.nz>...
>On , Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:31:36 GMT, bri...@wave.co.nz (Brian), , , , Re:
>BERT POTTER..., <36f8e8ce...@news.wave.co.nz>, wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:01:40 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
[snip]
>People do not get convicted by a jury of their peers if they are not
>guilty
What utter bullshit.
Ask Arthur Allan Thomas. Ask David Doherty. Ask Timothy Evans.
No, you'd better not ask the last one. They hanged him for murdering his
wife and child. And then Christie later confessed to their (and other)
murders.
Badger
Brian
wrote:
> Brian is setting himeslf up as an expert on child abuse,
I am no expert on child abuse.
I have no wish to set myself up as an expert on the subject.
If somebody treated me as an expert, I would direct them to more
appropriate professionals, even to the counselling profession if I
thought that was required, despite my criticisms of some in the trade.
> he also thinks that paedophila isn't wrong.
Entering into debate on this subject has set many people up to be the
targets of such half truths and innuendo. You certainly have to have
a very thick skin to endure the sort of ad hominem attacks that
Scooter has just made, and Sarndra made a day ago, against me.
But to repeat, for Scooter's benefit, the distinction between
pedophilia and child molestation that I've previously referred to.
I think the world would be a much better place if there was no one who
was a pedophile. But the fact that some people are, cannot be
wished away. If it is "wrong" as Scooter obviously believes, who are
we to blame for this ... "God"? Some unfortunate people are born,
or develop with an interest in pedophilia.
So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
translated into criminal *actions* by that person. (And I would use
the word "criminal" loosely, to encompass a wider set of behaviours
than those that would only result in a conviction).
I just as importantly do not think pedophilia is "right".
What *is* important, is that anybody with any sort of pedophilic
interest, does not *act* on those desires. I hold a pedophile
completely responsible for his own behaviours, and do not excuse him
for his mental "affliction", or whatever else you wish to call it.
Anybody with half a brain, is able to understand that crimes of child
sexual abuse, molestation are considered legally and morally repugnant
in our society. A pedophile may have an interest in children, but if
he were to act out those interests, he must know of the potential
severe emotional damage he will inflict on that child. The crime of
child sexual abuse is serious, and should be treated as such.
It is somewhat sad, that I have had to make this post, because I would
normally assume that what I have said is somewhat self evident, and
just accepted. But I think it is important to make the post, if
any reader such as Scooter, is confused about the subject.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
>>>> Being a pedophile is of course not a crime.
>>
>>> You are an incredibly sick person if you believe this.
>>
>>Nothing to do with being sick.
>
>Your comment shows that you still don't understand.
>
>>Just a statement of fact.
>
>Your facts differ from everyone elses.
Please refer to my separate post, which should explain to you the
difference between pedophilia, and the crimes associated with a
pedophile acting out his desires.
Brian
ta...@xtra.co.nz
>
>Does any adult have any right to a sexual 'preference' for children?
>Our society says no, heck so do I.
This is probably just a language thing, but every adult has a right to
sexual preference for anyone of any age. They do NOT have the right to
act upon that desire. Sexual preference is not something you can
control. Homosexuals cannot give up their desire for those of the same
sex. Nor can heterosexuals give up their desire for those of the
opposite sex. And pedophiles can love children all they want to...in
their head.
*****
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
-- J. Danforth Quayle
*****
Brian
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:01:40 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>(Kerry) wrote:
>
>>
>>Does any adult have any right to a sexual 'preference' for children?
>>Our society says no, heck so do I.
>
>This is probably just a language thing, but every adult has a right to
>sexual preference for anyone of any age. They do NOT have the right to
>act upon that desire. Sexual preference is not something you can
>control. Homosexuals cannot give up their desire for those of the same
>sex. Nor can heterosexuals give up their desire for those of the
>opposite sex. And pedophiles can love children all they want to...in
>their head.
Thank you Tarla. I wrote a post explaining this exact point to
Scooter, earlier today. I think your explanation is clearer.
Brian
Brian
>Brian wrote:
>>
>> So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Dammit, Bri: i've just gone to great lengths to tell Scooter you never
>said this, and now you just did.. :) I know what you mean: I hope he'll
>understand what you're trying to say here...
<Grin>
But you did not underline enough. .......
" So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "
I am sure that if people *want* to misinterpret my words, they'll find
a way.
Brian
Brian
>Jenny wrote:
>>
>> Scooter wrote:
>> > >Relevance Scooter??
>> >
>> > Brian is setting himeslf up as an expert on child abuse, he also thinks
>> > that paedophila isn't wrong.
>>
>> Jesus: that's a bit of a lateral shift, Scooter. How'd ya get that
>> from what he's said?
>>
>> He's never said: "paedophilia isn't wrong" in any of the posts.
>
>Oopw.. dammit: he just did in a post he posted around the time that I
>was typing this, but he qualified it...
Yes, I made a particular point of qualifying the statement, to ensure
that there was no confusion. People generally, at least in healthy
debate, do not attack the meaning of half a sentence. <smile>
I do feel that I have to dot every "i", and cross every "t", in
everything I say in this debate. An indication of the depth of
feeling about the subject matter. So some of my posts may sound a
little pedantic, and unnecessarily serious.
People should be under no illusions that the hurt that people can
carry associated with being victims of child sexual abuse, or being
victims of false accusations of child sexual abuse can be enormous.
Brian
Matthew Poole
*SNIP*
>Ooh.... let's see how many times we can say the word "fuck" in a single
>sentence, then...
>
Don't be so fucking ridiculous, you fucking fucked-up
south-fucking-island fuckwit ;P
>You guys are funny :)
>
We try to be. Sometimes we even do it by accident ;)
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"
My real e-mail is mpoole at ihug dot co dot nz
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GO d- s+: a--- C++ UL P L+>+++ !E W++ N+++ o++++ K?
w+ O- M- V? PS+ PE+ Y+>++ PGP+ t- 5 X R- tv- b+>++
DI D+ G e- h(-) r@ y+(++)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Matthew Poole
>In article <7deaak$n94$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, sp...@stops.here says...
>> In article <36FA9D...@ihug.co.nz>, Jenny <den...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> *SNIP*
>> >Ooh.... let's see how many times we can say the word "fuck" in a single
>> >sentence, then...
>> >
>> Don't be so fucking ridiculous, you fucking fucked-up
>> south-fucking-island fuckwit ;P
>
>
>"Fuck! The Fucking Fucker's Fucking Fucked!! Fuck!!!"
>
>The translation for the gentle reader goes:
>
>"Darn. The M1A1 is badly broken. I am not pleased."
>
One can understand the man's position. Badly broken, when talking about
a multi-million-dollar main-battle-tank, is not a good state of affairs.
Hence the displeasure, I guess.
The man is a genius. Only ONE word, out of 7, wasn't "fuck" or a
derivative thereof.
Sarndra
Graeme Butler <tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:pvpK2.1521$Ch2.1...@news.clear.net.nz...
> Quite right
>
> Sarndra, be a dear and shut the fucking door on your way out!!!!
Get knotted ya jerk...just cos you made a dick of yerself don't take it out on me
sweets :-}~
Tis an open forum....you don't like my swearing...fuck off then hehehe or are females
not allowed to swear in nz.gen cos a fucking lot of males fucking well swear in
here...so fucking there !!
--
Sarndra .o} ~The one eyed Cantabrian~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The gene pool could use a little chlorine
The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and
are entirely seperate from my employer.
Long live freedom of speech :o)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
visit my website www.angelfire.com/ok/nzfamily
Sarndra
Tricia <rab...@eeextra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:36f9fe4...@news.wgtn.ihug.co.nz...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 07:58:51 GMT, sco...@tipnet.co.nz (Scooter)
> wrote:
>
> >Just a question, I have assumed you have children, before I comment any
> >further I must ask if you have any children.
> >Do you have any children?
>
> Relevance Scooter??
>
> Tricia
Actually i thought that would have been fairly obvious.....
Sarndra
DPF <da...@farrar.com> wrote in message news:3701ff0f...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:07:37 +1200 in nz.general Sarndra wrote: in
> <92234243...@newsch.es.co.nz>:
>
> >> She actually demonstrates a weapon that is too often used by angry
> >> women, usually associated with acrimonious separation and divorce,
> >> where very young children are concerned. Such false accusations are
> >> vile and evil.
> >
> >I've never accused my exhusband of something so vile.
>
> You've never accused your ex-husband of something "so vile" yet you
> fling the accusation (or at least suggest it) at a stranger in a
> Usenet debate!!!
>
> DPF
Yeah...well looking at it that way then....shit Brian must be realllly horrible
LMAOOOOOO
Sarndra
Sarndra
> wrote:
>
> > Brian wrote :
>
> >> Being a pedophile is of course not a crime.
>
> > You are an incredibly sick person if you believe this.
>
> Nothing to do with being sick.
>
> very concerned about whether a pedophile commits any crime such as
> child sexual abuse.
Well the law must think something about that because having pedophile pornography in
your possession is a crime...
Sarndra
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sarndra
Kerry <ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:36fa2d9d...@news.wgtn.ihug.co.nz...
> laughing her AOOOOOOO
Yeah....that's cos i've got a sense of humour and try not to take life to seriously
sweetie...otherwise you end up like you :-)
Sarndra
Sarndra
No, it wasn't one of those...just stating a FACT...you know...SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN
RESEARCHED......
Sarndra
Sarndra
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:36fa2f3a...@news.wave.co.nz...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:37:26 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
> (Kerry) wrote:
>
> > Sarndra wrote :
> >> Brian wrote :
> >>>> Brian wrote :
>
> >>>>> Being a pedophile is of course not a crime.
>
> >>>> You are an incredibly sick person if you believe this.
>
> >>> Nothing to do with being sick.
> >>> Just a statement of fact.
>
> >>> The law does not care what a pedophile thinks in his head.
> >>> The law is very concerned about whether a pedophile commits
> >>> any crime such as child sexual abuse.
> >>
> >> Well the law must think something about that because having
> >> pedophile pornography in your possession is a crime...
>
>
>
> Please, Sarndra and Kerry, reread what I wrote. Sarndra obviously
> thinks that she has shown that what I wrote is wrong, where she
> actually only confirmed what I had said. I'm not sure what Kerry
> meant by her response.
Kerry is getting a dig in at me Brian...
No...I didn't do that at all...just pointing out this it is a crime to own child
pornography.....don't be so sensitive you wee beastie :-)
> Being a pedophile is not a crime.
> Dreaming of committing mass murder is not a crime.
Sarndra
Jenny
>
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:42:00 +1200, Jenny <den...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Sarndra wrote :
> >> Brian wrote :
>
Thanks - it's a rather interesting debate.
> >This whole thing proves to me that we have a problem in our Justice
> >system, in that incarceration does not mean rehabilitation.
> >
> >Potter will have served his requirements under the law that he be
> >incarcerated for a given period of time for the crimes he committed
> >against children.
> >
> > But nowhere does the law say: "He must also be rehabilitated
> > and learn the wrongness of his actions".
>
> Because there is no way of effectively ensuring such "rehabilitation".
And that's the biggest failing. It gives no one any security, neither
us or Potter.
> They can demand that a condition of parole is that a person expresses
> guilt and/or remorse, but that appears to be a simple further
> victimisation of the truly innocent such as Peter Ellis, than having
> any meaningful effect on people who may remain a danger in society.
So then it all comes down to risk. I don't know how we assess risk from
one person to society in general, but I figure that there must be some
way of determining this. If he's determined to be of a high risk factor
(and face it: I can't assess that - never met the man, I don't know how
his head works, and whether he's now become old, frail and infirm whilst
in prison) then the State needs to take some sort of action regarding
him. Either institutionalise him further or have him supervised. My
guess is that neither will happen, as it costs bucks.
> > This man can now walk free after doing his time. What
> > assurances do we get from whoever the powers that be
> > that he is "safe" to be left doing this?
> This issue comes up whenever a particularly notorious criminal is due
> for release. The more important question at this stage is the
> question we have for ourselves : What assurances do each of us
> personally need?
And yes - all of us will have different needs. So: When we assess
this, do we take the most vulnerable "denominator" in the equation?
Again, it's a question of risk. All things have to be considered:
Where precisely in society will he be placed? He may be so old as to
have to be put in a home or something similar. Is it known for a fact
that he'll return to Centerpoint? (Does Centerpoint still exist?).
What does he want for himself? He's not young anymore.
> However much we demand assurances from others, they are not able to be
> given. And anybody who does give such assurances are simply lying.
> People who are a serious threat to society *can* be detained, but this
> provision would be being abused if it was used against all criminals.
Yes. That's the scary thing - there is no KNOWN way of saying whether
this person is good, bad or otherwise. He did something wrong, we don't
know if he'll do it again, we can't be entirely sure he'll do it again,
we think he might, then again he might not... who the hell knows.
> And so, we are left with making personal decisions about our *own*
> lives. How much fear do we want to live in? Fear does not come
> purely from an external threat. It comes just as much from within
> ourselves.
Yes. We only feel fear when we don't have control over the
circumstances. I do not believe he's a threat to me PERSONALLY. I'm an
adult woman able to take care of myself. I'm not certain about that for
children, though.
The other thing that concerns me is that if he returns to Centerpoint,
how many others hold his personal view on sex, etc, and may perpetuate
the ideology, despite Potter himself being perhaps unable to act upon it
e.g. age, frailty, fear of further legal retribution, etc?
> > This man committed hideous crimes against children. I'd
> > like to know, as a taxpayer, that he's safe to be allowed
> > back into society.
>
> You may pay all the taxes in the world, but there are some things that
> your tax money cannot buy. Knowledge of when you are going to die.
> Knowledge that the guy next door is "safe"
Yup. At the end of the day, we are responsible for our own safety. The
Law can only assist in protecting us, but it's not perfect.
> And the notion that even trained psychiatrists have a better insight
> into the future actions of a person, than the insights of you or I, is
> a romantic notion, but unfortunately untrue.
Well: I figure that they may be able to assess a person's current state
of mind better than you or I - they are trained to observe such things
in a way that you and I aren't.
Let's just say, Brian, that it might be of SOME help, surely?
> > I'd rather pay for him to be in continuous psychiatric
> > care (oh here we go - the mental health system) than to
> > allow the possibility of him putting more children into
> > a bad psychological state.
> But this is unjust if it is based on simply your fears, than on
> reality.
Fears? no. As I said, I'm not fearful. I am concerned that there are
people out there that cannot protect themselves. This is scary. This
means that anyone with inclinations that Potter was convicted of may
take advantage of them.
Is it worth running the risk of the chances of it happening again?
Again, how do we assess if such a risk exist? How do we respond to such
a perceived risk?
> We also come up against the concept of guarantees, chance etc, with
> your reference to "possibility". If you require a possibility of
> zero, then continued incarceration is the only solution. But you
> don't have such a guarantee from the guy next door.
This is true. Let's just say, Brian, that we have more of a history
here. We have documented evidence that Potter has held such views and
commited acts that society as a whole has determined as being totally
unacceptable. Based on history, surely we can at least attempt to act
with caution and not just simply allow him a clean slate? We have
enough knowledge to know that reoffending is not unheard of.
There are varying levels of crimes, I suppose. Some people will have
commmited a crime once, been shit scared, done their time and never
reoffend. Others think it' a huge hoot, do it for the buzz or for some
sort of public acknowledgement (maybe even negative, but any attention
is better than none, right?) and do it again after having served time.
Now surely: we have a pattern, a history, something we can base our
decision on? What obligation do we have to attempt to protect those
that can't protect themselves e.g. small children, frail people, etc?
> So what is "fair", when it comes to making assessments of
> possibilities?
Yes. I don't know the answer. I think we take the whole issue of crime
from the wrong basis and we need to revisit it and consider whether
there are better things that we could be doing. For example, are we
doing enough for the "attention seeker crims" to make them feel like
worthwhile members of the community when they're in prison? Teach them
a skill, make them feel valued, then send them back out into the
community? I know that this might all sound like a huge experiment, but
these people need simply, good old fashioned lessons in what's right and
wrong and how to deal with the issues they have. It may be something
lacking in their own upbringing or in their current lives. Each person
incarcerated should be evaluated as to what is best to make them see the
error of the ways, be given something to work towards. Taught that
they can be of value to the community, as opposed to being menaces
currently.
> That to some extent negates the role of personal responsibility. An
> excuse: "He wasn't resonsible... his sickness was". We live in an
> age where there are too many excuses, in my opinion.
No - he is responsible for his brain and his illnesses. It's like me
taking my flu to work and infecting everyone else. I desparately dont'
want to be off work right now, but I have a responsibility to my
workmates to not inflict them with the same thing. I could say: "Hey,
it's not my fault - I never asked to be sick", but then neither did I.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
> I believe that almost all criminals *do* know the difference between
> what is right and wrong, and choose to ignore what is right.
I agree. We need them to understand that in every way possible it's not
okay to think like that and why. Make them learn as to why it's better
not to think like that. God. I can hear Samuel Jackson in "Pulp
Fiction" "The path of the righteous man" speech.. hehehehe..
> When I speed in my car, I know that what I'm doing is wrong. But I'm
> doing it because I think I can get away with it; I deny that any harm
> will happen; I justify doing so because I am in a hurry etc etc.
Yes. You take that risk. However, if I take that risk and I'm caught,
I'm prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. Are others?
> I know that you have referred specifically to crimes against other
> people, but I see no reason why they should be considered differently
> in the majority of cases.
Crimes against other people, IMHO, are worse than crimes against
people's property. I know that one can affect the other, but personal
crimes where there is an intent to injure another person is worse.
That's just the belief I hold, Brian.
> > So: what's the point of imprisioning people who do these things
> > if they came out never having learnt and truely being remorseful
> > about the crime they commit? it's a waste of time. I don't
> > know what the answer is, but I know we're not fixing most of them.
> We need to be clear about what we are doing when we convict people.
> How important is the punishment component of the sentence and how
> important is so called rehabilitation?
I think punishment is an aspect, but I feel that more effort should be
placed in at least ATTEMPTING to rehabilitate. Can people be
rehabilitated? Is there any criminal that is beyond rehabilitiation?
re-offending isn't a good method of assessing that, as I don't believe
that there is a hell of a lot of effort being put into rehabilitation at
the moment in this country. I'd be delighted to be proven otherwise.
> Peter Williams QC has described the appalling conditions of our
> prisons..... but spending more money on our prisons, and our prisoners
> is not a political move that wins many votes.
No. Unless we know HOW the money is to be spent. We need to see
results as a society as a whole.
> > How many people incarcerated for the crimes such as these
> > against others re-offend? I betcha there are heaps.
> Re-offending rates for serious crime, including crimes of sexual abuse
> are low. I do not have figures to hand. Perhaps somebody else may
> have relevant actual statistics.
Yes please - I'd be very interested in this as well.
> >The problem we have here is how do we do he'll re-offend? Do they
> >release a psychiatric report on him to the public at large to say: "yes,
> >Bert Potter has done his time, but he's okay in the head now and allowed
> >to roam free", or can that report say:"Hey, this guy has done his time,
> >but we have good reason to believe he's not "cured" of his way of
> >thinking and therefore is a risk to society". We can't do this though,
> >can we. Not under today's privacy laws, etc. So, we're stuffed.
> And the point that I made above, is that such a psychiatric report
> would mean little anyway. It may make people "feel" safer, but I
> suggest that feeling of safety is but an illusion.
Not mean little. It's all we have, Brian. If we have no other way of
assessing a person, what else can we use? We need to develop some sort
of way of assessing this type of risk.
> I'm not suggesting that there are people who need to be detained in
> psychiatric care. Perhaps Tricia could comment on the laws
> surrounding this, and how compulsory detention works.
> But I think demanding guarantees off psychiatrists, is simply an
> unrealistic expectation for people in that profession.
No - we can't demand guarantees. We can only say: "In your humble
opinion, what is the likely risk of reoffending"? We can only go by
their best judgement, given that that may be the only way of assessing
the risk. I'm not saying psychiatrists are god, but hey - they're
trained to do SOMETHING, surely. They certainly have knowledge about
the psyche that I don't have.
> > Agreed: he may hesitate. we'll never know. We can't know.
> > Unless someone can get inside his head and find out for sure.
> > What assurances can we get? None. Ditto for anyone
> > released from prison.
> Thats largely the main point I've been making in this post.
> And how we all personally wish to live with that lack of certainty, is
> something we all have to decide for ourselves.
Exactly. I can see that Sarndra and Scooter will decide that the risk
is untenable. We need that, as much as we need it tempered by other
opinions, such as yours and mine. This is the only way we can get a
"balanced" feel about this. At the end of the day, it may not be the
"authorities" that get to make the decions, but the general public as a
whole. All aspects of this must be considered: it cannot be looked
upon from simply one viewpoint.
> Or go live in a country, where all criminals are incarcerated for
> life, or shot. But would personal safety be enhanced with such
> policies? I suggest not, as we would be creating a class of wanted
> fugitives, who would have nothing to lose, in their desire to stay
> away from the long arm of the law.
Some people will always live in fear and will take whatever steps they
feel necessary to protect themselves. I do not believe they have the
right to impose the limitations of their fear upon me. To that end, I
hear what fearful people say, but I won't allow them to dictate to me
how things WILL be - I will merely take that into consideration and at
the end of the day make my own mind up about it. They must appreciate
the same.
So: this debate may continue on forever - a never ending debate, as
there may be too strongly opposed opinions that will never move together
in an effort to understand one another's point of view.
Great discussion, Brian.
Jenny.
Jenny
> > {snip of stuff, including accusing Brian of being a pedophile - I hate
> > it when people turn things personal when it's in otherwise a good debate
> > :) ]
> Well, he sorta makes ya do it....;-)
With all due respsect, bollix :) keep yer wits about ya, Sarndra..
don't let these blokes get the better of ya.. us girls need to ensure
the boys know their place, 'k? :)
> > This whole thing proves to me that we have a problem in our Justice
> > system, in that incarceration does not mean rehabilitation.
> That has been known for a very very long time...
I know. This is the worst thing about it. I feel sure it's been looked
at, hasn't it? Or is it the easy way out? I know the easiest, quickest
thing to do is to remove a person from society. But then the laws say
we cannot do this indefinitely for certain crimes. Then they must be
released back into society.
> > Potter will have served his requirements under the law that he be
> > incarcerated for a given period of time for the crimes he committed
> > against children.
> > But nowhere does the law say: "He must also be rehabilitated and learn
> > the wrongness of his actions".
> He cannot accept that he has done anything wrong....therefore trying rehabilitation
> of any kind is fruitless.
Do we know this for sure? Has he been interviewed lately? Is he
absolutely a "hopeless case" when it comes to rehabilitiation? Have we
tried everything to make this person think differently?
> > This man can now walk free after doing his time. What assurances do we
> > get from whoever the powers that be that he is "safe" to be left doing
> > this? This man committed hideous crimes against children. I'd like to
> > know, as a taxpayer, that he's safe to be allowed back into society.
> > I'd rather pay for him to be in continuous psychiatric care (oh here we
> > go - the mental health system) than to allow the possibility of him
> > putting more children into a bad psychological state.
> Exactly my point....
INdeed. But Sarndra: we don't know for ABSOLUTE sure that he is still
a risk. Yes - we have precedence: he's been inside for hideous
crimes. Can we be ABSOLUTELY sure? And who has the
right/authority/necessary smarts to make that judgement call and say one
way or other?
How do we know he's not some frail old man who can barely walk?
> > This is the problem here. All people who commit crimes against other
> > people have a mental health problem, IMHO. If you kill, rape, abuse,
> > molest, whatever, you have no concept of what is wrong or right with
> > regard to other people.
> I disagree...some do...some don't....
Well, if you do still understand that what you're doing is wrong, then
you have no regard for other people whatsoever. Makes you exceedingly
selfish. Total lack of consideration for your fellow person. IT's
still a mental health problem, I think.
> > So: what's the point of imprisioning people who do these things if they
> > came out never having learnt and truely being remorseful about the crime
> > they commit?
> Because society is so used to doing this. This is the 'accepted'
> measure....something has to change...
Yup - it sure does - I couldn't agree more.
> it's a waste of time. I don't know what the answer is,
> > but I know we're not fixing most of them. How many people incarcerated
> > for the crimes such as these against others re-offend? I betcha there
> > are heaps.
> Indeed....and not to mention the judges that let others get away with far too
> much...take for example the 18 year old on tv this week who bashed that old lady up
> North. He had something like 31 or 36 previous crimes already behind him....that is
> just disgusting...take first offenders and give them a harsh taste of 'justice'....I
> call it tough love....
OK: what is "tough" or harsh justice? Will it rehabilitate them? Who
do we have faith in sufficiently to fix these criminals? Anyone? No
one?
> > I hear both sides of the argument here from both Brian and Sarndra. I
> > think we need to get more out of the prison system by truely educating
> > the criminals about the wrongness of their doing. I'm not convinced we
> > are.
> I too can hear Brian's side of the argument...a bit!!
His opinion is just as valid as yours and mine. All opinions are
valid. We have to consider them all to know that we're doing the very
best for you, I, each other, even Potter. Despite his crimes, he is
still a human being, and he still has basic human rights. It's called
doing the best that we can.
> I believe that once a term is served people should be able to get on with their
> lives if they are truly remorseful and learn from the experience. But some members
> of society are true monstrous throwbacks...
Yes... if only we could learn or get a picture of how remorseful these
people are.
> Thank you for your post
Ditto. Fascinating discussion.
Jen.
Jenny
>
> Graeme Butler <tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:pvpK2.1521$Ch2.1...@news.clear.net.nz...
> > Quite right
> >
> > Sarndra, be a dear and shut the fucking door on your way out!!!!
>
> Get knotted ya jerk...just cos you made a dick of yerself don't take it out on me
> sweets :-}~
Sarndra, Sarndra, Sarndra.. don't reduce yerself to his level, love.. :)
> Tis an open forum....you don't like my swearing...fuck off then hehehe or are females
> not allowed to swear in nz.gen cos a fucking lot of males fucking well swear in
> here...so fucking there !!
Ooh.... let's see how many times we can say the word "fuck" in a single
sentence, then...
You guys are funny :)
Jen.
Jenny
> >Relevance Scooter??
>
> Brian is setting himeslf up as an expert on child abuse, he also thinks
> that paedophila isn't wrong.
Jesus: that's a bit of a lateral shift, Scooter. How'd ya get that
from what he's said?
He's never said: "paedophilia isn't wrong" in any of the posts.
I could all SORTS of morbid thoughts about some actions that you would
find untenable.
You might have them too.. how do we know that you don't? What proof can
you provide that you don't?
So: unless you ACT upon those thoughts, then until then I have no
choice but to consider you INNOCENT of any such crime. Acting upon
those thoughts may include saying "I think doing disgusting things to
chicken is fantastic", or actually going ahead and doing those acts.
(BTW: I can't stand live chooks - they freak me out, so don't get any
ideas....).
This is what Brian is saying, Scooter. We might all be crackpots: some
of us act it out, some of us don't.. :)
> I am afraid when I see those sort of attitudes.
If someone said: "I'm a paedophile and I find nothing wrong with it",
then yes - I'd be a tad perturbed by that. I do not believe Brian ever
said that, Scooter.
Take another look, hon.
Cheers,
Jenny.
Jenny
>
> Scooter wrote:
> > >Relevance Scooter??
> >
> > Brian is setting himeslf up as an expert on child abuse, he also thinks
> > that paedophila isn't wrong.
>
> Jesus: that's a bit of a lateral shift, Scooter. How'd ya get that
> from what he's said?
>
> He's never said: "paedophilia isn't wrong" in any of the posts.
Oopw.. dammit: he just did in a post he posted around the time that I
was typing this, but he qualified it... oh, hopefully you'll get the
picture before jumping all over my case about semantics.
Anyway: make sure you have read what he's said, and what I've said
about the fact that we could ALL be weirdos' ok?
Cheers,
Jenny.
Jenny
>
> So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dammit, Bri: i've just gone to great lengths to tell Scooter you never
said this, and now you just did.. :) I know what you mean: I hope he'll
understand what you're trying to say here...
:)
Bugger. My job just got harder. Bugger.... :) lol
Jen.
Peter Metcalfe
> In article <36FA9D...@ihug.co.nz>, Jenny <den...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> *SNIP*
> >sentence, then...
> >
> south-fucking-island fuckwit ;P
The record, I think, must go to the platoon sarge who once said:
"Fuck! The Fucking Fucker's Fucking Fucked!! Fuck!!!"
The translation for the gentle reader goes:
"Darn. The M1A1 is badly broken. I am not pleased."
--Peter "repeating from memory" Metcalfe
Jerry
Peter Metcalfe <ph...@its.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> The record, I think, must go to the platoon sarge who once said:
>
> "Fuck! The Fucking Fucker's Fucking Fucked!! Fuck!!!"
>
> The translation for the gentle reader goes:
>
> "Darn. The M1A1 is badly broken. I am not pleased."
I wonder how drill instructors communicate with recruits now that they are
no longer allowed to swear at them? Any DI I ever met would be absolutely
mute.
Jerry
Jenny
>
> In article <36FA9D...@ihug.co.nz>, Jenny <den...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> *SNIP*
> >Ooh.... let's see how many times we can say the word "fuck" in a single
> >sentence, then...
> >
> Don't be so fucking ridiculous, you fucking fucked-up
> south-fucking-island fuckwit ;P
Sweetie.. it tis not I that is the fuckwit: I'm not a south islander :)
ROFL :) hahahah :)
/me wins points from Matthew.. hehehe :)
> >You guys are funny :)
> We try to be. Sometimes we even do it by accident ;)
Yeah.. you're not kidding !
ROFL :)
Jen.
Handy_handle
concerns that may in some situations differ to mine I am glad that we all agree on one
thing..."Child Abuse is the lowest crime around".
And I feel sorry for the people you know who have suffered from false alleagations.
Remembering also that with some allegations there is no physical evidence. How then can
we say it has happened?. If a child says nothing happened but a "professional" says it
did, who do we believe?? Does the 'professional' really know what is happening?? Is it
therefore correct to say that the child is in "denial" cause they don't want to admit to
it?? Or that the "alleged abuser" is in denial therefore he/she is guilty?? And if in
denial then the "abuser" is therfore at high risk of re-offending. But if the allegations
are false..how can a person "re-offend"??
As for stealing a car, I guess that is not a fair to compare with child abuse, but either
way someone has had something stolen. If your house was broken into would you not feel
"violated"?? Different situations..yes...but a person chooses to commit a crime..whether
it murder, abuse, or theft. It is a choice. And if a person is taught of other choices to
make then they can be "re-habilitated". Even child abusers can be "taught" new ways and
got on with their lives.
But as with anything, be it drinking/smoking or criminal activities, a person has to WANT
to change. The 'professionals' say that to change you have to admit you have a problem.
If you do not admit you have a problem then you are in denial and cannot be "changed". Is
that how you see it??
What are your views??
Sarndra wrote:
> Handy_handle <handy_...@yahoo.com> replying to various postings wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > Safety against molestation for children should be paramount...
> >
> > But what about the safety of children from the CYPS??
>
> I agree... totally disgusting all round....no faith in them either....
>
> >Is it not true that in
> > SOME cases there are children who are "abused" just to find out if they have
> > been abused? CYPS say they are acting in the best interest of the child, yet
> > they send a stranger into a persons home and "steal" a child just because
> > they SUSPECT some form of abuse. Yet the child has not made any complaints.
> > Who is right then??
>
> Wouldn't have a clue....this whole issue is very airy fairy in my view and CYPS
> should be thoroughly investigated by an independant assessor...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Child abuse (in any form) is a very nasty crime. But only one thing is
> > worse.....False allegations. How many people do you know that has been
> > falsely acused?
>
> Personally I know of two....one is a close relative, who (similarly like Peter
> Ellis's stand) refused a sexual offenders rehab programme because he was not guilty
> and in turn served out a longer prison sentance. That case also involved ACC and an
> accusation that took place over 20 years ago....
>
> >If you say none, then I would suggest you ask around. I know
> > of a lot of people. Most were convicted because of people are ready to
> > believe a person is guilty before they believe any "evidence" of innocense.
> > Can you honestly say you would listen (without bias) to the Potter case??
>
> Absolutely.... I as well as others do not like to see the innocent wrongly
> incarcerated.
>
> > I am not saying he is innocent nor am I saying he is guilty. I was not there
> > now did I follow the case. I cannot judge a person I do not know. It would
> > not be fair to judge him upon what you say. If I did that I would have NO
> > friends. A saying, which I believe comes from the bible, is very good: "One
> > mans meat is another mans poison".
> > Thank about that.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Why not look at the CYPS files??..Or the Psychologists cases?? I have heard
> > that in the CHCH prison (for sex offenders) they have child pornographic
> > material. Yet they say that this is "for use to help these people".
>
> Yes, that's sick if it is indeed true.
>
> > Yet if you had that in your home and said "I am trying to help my friend"
> > they would send you to jail. Why should they be allowed such material yet
> > you or I not??
> > I do not want that type of thing, but they do. So who is the real "sicko"
> > here?? And when CYPS do interviews...are they really as innocent as they
> > would like the public to believe??
>
> I agree...the whole thing should be looked into
>
> [snip]
>
> > Bert was a "public" case. Do you really think he would be able to go
> > anywhere near any children unsupervised??
>
> Hopefully no.
>
> > That would last for the rest of his life. Isn't that enough punnishment??
> > Not seeing your family. Could you survive that??
>
> Yes....if I realised what i had done was wrong, I couldn't face them.
>
> I am a law abiding citizen....and I know right from wrong so therefore this doesn't
> even come into it for me....
>
> [snip]
>
> > People are lead to believe that a person who abuses a child will never
> > change. Yet is a person who steals cars able to change?? Why is "sex crimes"
> > the ONLY one that will never change?? Why is it that when it comes to "child
> > abuse" everyone is allowed to make jokes about it but if a person is acused
> > then they are guilty??
>
> Hormonal....bodily urges......whereas I hardly think car conversion or similar is
> hormonal....
>
> [snip]
>
> > Remembering also that they are just as human as you.
>
> In some cases...pure evil....not as human as I...
>
> They chose to do what
> > they have done in the same fashion a "prostitue" has chosen to sleep for
> > money. She can do a lot of damage to some families yet she is not punnished
> > harshly. A woman can alk out of the family leaving the kids behind, (which
> > can be emiotional abuse) and yet if she wanted her kids back she has a good
> > chance. If she thinks she gonna lose she screams "child abuse" they guy is
> > sunk.
>
> Oh boy......sheeeshhh........
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > No..i'm not a centrepoint child. I just think too
> > > > much child molestation goes on
> >
> > That may be true, but there is also a lot of false acusations. Which make it
> > APPEAR to be a lot of real cases.
>
> I do not think so
>
> Therefore confusing the real issue. Would
> > you want a falsely acused to go to jail and be punnished?? but how can we
> > tell who is and who isn't??
>
> Physical exams are pretty conclusive....especially forensic evidence...
>
> The laws are there to protect you and me, yet
> > there are people who will abuse those laws and make it hard to protect. From
> > my understanding of the case, Bert Potter, over-stepped the boundary of
> > legality. He has been punnished. Do you want to lower yourself to be like
> > him??
>
> Excuse me, I take offence to that....I shall never be as low as him.....
>
> > Isn't it best to let the law punnish him.
>
> I have NO faith in the law and I am not interested in 'punishing' him.....just
> keeping him away from vulnerable individuals
>
> Do you think your family
> > would be happy to know that you won't be there cause you commited a crime??
>
> I would be damn well embarrassed as well as distressed being any part of his 'family'
>
> > Is that not punnishing your INNOCENT family??
>
> He's punished them already......
>
> [snip]
>
> > Men may be classed as the "sexual" abuser. But what about the abuse a woman
> > can cause??. If the woman decides she not like the father of her kids she
> > could say nasty things. That is emotional abuse. Or she will say that their
> > father doesn't like them. She will not allow him to see the kids and then
> > tell them that he doesn't love them and doesn't want to see them. Isn't that
> > abuse??
>
> Not getting into that.....is another thread...
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Sarndra
Matthew Poole
>Matthew Poole wrote:
>>
>> In article <36FA9D...@ihug.co.nz>, Jenny <den...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> *SNIP*
>> >Ooh.... let's see how many times we can say the word "fuck" in a single
>> >sentence, then...
>> >
>> Don't be so fucking ridiculous, you fucking fucked-up
>> south-fucking-island fuckwit ;P
>
>Sweetie.. it tis not I that is the fuckwit: I'm not a south islander :)
>
My mistake.
>ROFL :) hahahah :)
>
>/me wins points from Matthew.. hehehe :)
>
*steals points abck*
>> >You guys are funny :)
>> We try to be. Sometimes we even do it by accident ;)
>
>Yeah.. you're not kidding !
>
I never kid. I ocassionally calve, but I never kid ;P
>ROFL :)
>
Holding onto your ass, I see ;)
Jenny
> >> Don't be so fucking ridiculous, you fucking fucked-up
> >> south-fucking-island fuckwit ;P
> >
> >Sweetie.. it tis not I that is the fuckwit: I'm not a south islander :)
> >
> No? Your newserver is listed as newsch.ihug, which is the Chch server.
> My mistake.
Indeed it is. You may be forgiven - I have resided in Chch.
> >ROFL :) hahahah :)
> >/me wins points from Matthew.. hehehe :)
> *steals points abck*
What a rude young man :)
> >Yeah.. you're not kidding !
> I never kid. I ocassionally calve, but I never kid ;P
Eww... cow jokes. How udderly fascinating. NOT. :)
> >ROFL :)
> Holding onto your ass, I see ;)
No. Rolling On Floor Laughing. My butt never got in the way :P
Jen.
Sarndra
Handy_handle <handy_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36FADF1B...@yahoo.com...
> Thank you for your objective comments. Although I understand your opinions and your
> concerns that may in some situations differ to mine I am glad that we all agree on
one
> thing..."Child Abuse is the lowest crime around".
absolutely amongst others..
> And I feel sorry for the people you know who have suffered from false alleagations.
Plans are underfoot for wrongful imprisonment.
> Remembering also that with some allegations there is no physical evidence. How then
can
> we say it has happened?.
'Visual' evidence?
If a child says nothing happened but a "professional" says it
> did, who do we believe?? Does the 'professional' really know what is happening??
So true, but then there arebehavioural problems et. al. being displayed by the
children to look into.
Is it
> therefore correct to say that the child is in "denial" cause they don't want to
admit to
> it??
Possibly, but then many children are scared of adults that threaten and see adults as
being in the controlling role and that they (the child) will not be believed. Many
molesters control children in this way therefore the kids are basically scared
shitless to deny or agree to anything...
[snip]
> As for stealing a car, I guess that is not a fair to compare with child abuse, but
either
> way someone has had something stolen. If your house was broken into would you not
feel
> "violated"??
I did yes...
>Different situations..yes...but a person chooses to commit a >crime..whether
> it murder, abuse, or theft. It is a choice.
Yes, choice indeed....none of this mamby pamby feeling sorry for people because they
had a crap upbringing....we all face tough times...
Just this morning I was reading in 'The Press' of a young couple from up North...he
20 she 19 in court for:
1] He being caught by a social worker sexually interfering with a dog
2] Both of them charged with abuse of their (at the time) 5 week old daughter who
suffered a fractured skull, broken ribs and 'twist' injuries to her legs....
It was mentioned that they had both had parents that were killed in car accidents and
he had a 'history' of psychiatric problems I think it was...and some issues were
still unresolved...that they had already been punished because their daughter was
taken away from them...
How pathetic blaming (amongst other things) the torturous abuse on a 5 week old
because their parents had died in car accidents????? These two have totally sick
minds....as has Bert Potter........right from wrong stands out a country mile for
most people......
>And if a person is taught of other choices to
> make then they can be "re-habilitated". Even child abusers can be "taught" new ways
and
> got on with their lives.
> But as with anything, be it drinking/smoking or criminal activities, a person has
to WANT
> to change. The 'professionals' say that to change you have to admit you have a
problem.
> If you do not admit you have a problem then you are in denial and cannot be
"changed". Is
> that how you see it??
Absolutely
Sarndra
> What are your views??
Sarndra
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
[snip]
> Entering into debate on this subject has set many people up to be the
> targets of such half truths and innuendo. You certainly have to have
> a very thick skin to endure the sort of ad hominem attacks that
> Scooter has just made, and Sarndra made a day ago, against me.
Well then, you should make your posts clearer and not write as if you are in favour
of something such as paedophilia
>
> But to repeat, for Scooter's benefit, the distinction between
> pedophilia and child molestation that I've previously referred to.
>
> I think the world would be a much better place if there was no one who
> was a pedophile. But the fact that some people are, cannot be
> wished away. If it is "wrong" as Scooter obviously believes, who are
> we to blame for this ... "God"?
I believe that it is 'in' people already...just as much as someone being determined
heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, blue eyes, brown eyes whatever....a mutant gene
maybe? I believe this type of person is not 'made' but evolves from something that
is already within. Some may react on this trait...other's maynot.
Some unfortunate people are born,
> or develop with an interest in pedophilia.
>
> So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
> translated into criminal *actions* by that person.
Looking at children in a sexual way be it by picture, 'peeping', filming them in a
sexual way whilst they are asleep (of which a person has just been charged of),
WHATEVER....is not and should not be looked upon as normal.
(And I would use
> the word "criminal" loosely, to encompass a wider set of behaviours
> than those that would only result in a conviction).
>
> I just as importantly do not think pedophilia is "right".
>
> What *is* important, is that anybody with any sort of pedophilic
> interest, does not *act* on those desires. I hold a pedophile
> completely responsible for his own behaviours, and do not excuse him
> for his mental "affliction", or whatever else you wish to call it.
>
> Anybody with half a brain, is able to understand that crimes of child
> sexual abuse, molestation are considered legally and morally repugnant
> in our society. A pedophile may have an interest in children, but if
> he were to act out those interests, he must know of the potential
> severe emotional damage he will inflict on that child. The crime of
> child sexual abuse is serious, and should be treated as such.
Absolutely
> It is somewhat sad, that I have had to make this post, because I would
> normally assume that what I have said is somewhat self evident, and
> just accepted. But I think it is important to make the post, if
> any reader such as Scooter, is confused about the subject.
>
>
> Brian
Sarndra
Sarndra
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:36faa7f8...@news.wave.co.nz...
> >
> >Dammit, Bri: i've just gone to great lengths to tell Scooter you never
> >said this, and now you just did.. :) I know what you mean: I hope he'll
> >understand what you're trying to say here...
>
>
> But you did not underline enough. .......
>
>
> I am sure that if people *want* to misinterpret my words, they'll find
> a way.
>
> Brian
Know what you mean Brian...certain people do it to my posts all the time.....don't
they :-)
--
Sarndra .o} ~The one eyed Cantabrian~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarndra
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
[snip]
> I do feel that I have to dot every "i", and cross every "t", in
> everything I say in this debate. An indication of the depth of
> feeling about the subject matter. So some of my posts may sound a
> little pedantic, and unnecessarily serious.
Incredible...it was as if i had written that post myself!!!!!!
Sarndra
Jenny <den...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:36FA9D...@ihug.co.nz...
> Sarndra wrote:
> > > {snip of stuff, including accusing Brian of being a pedophile - I hate
> > > it when people turn things personal when it's in otherwise a good debate
> > > :) ]
> > Well, he sorta makes ya do it....;-)
>
> With all due respsect, bollix :) keep yer wits about ya, Sarndra..
> don't let these blokes get the better of ya.. us girls need to ensure
> the boys know their place, 'k? :)
K...I'll try my hardest...i pwomise... :-)
> > > This whole thing proves to me that we have a problem in our Justice
> > > system, in that incarceration does not mean rehabilitation.
> > That has been known for a very very long time...
>
> I know. This is the worst thing about it. I feel sure it's been looked
> at, hasn't it? Or is it the easy way out? I know the easiest, quickest
> thing to do is to remove a person from society. But then the laws say
> we cannot do this indefinitely for certain crimes. Then they must be
> released back into society.
yes...and as a totally unchanged and quite often for the worse type of person...
> > > Potter will have served his requirements under the law that he be
> > > incarcerated for a given period of time for the crimes he committed
> > > against children.
> > > But nowhere does the law say: "He must also be rehabilitated and learn
> > > the wrongness of his actions".
> > He cannot accept that he has done anything wrong....therefore trying
rehabilitation
> > of any kind is fruitless.
>
> Do we know this for sure? Has he been interviewed lately? Is he
> absolutely a "hopeless case" when it comes to rehabilitiation? Have we
> tried everything to make this person think differently?
He is an elderly but yet still dangerous man set in his ways.
> > > This man can now walk free after doing his time. What assurances do we
> > > get from whoever the powers that be that he is "safe" to be left doing
> > > this? This man committed hideous crimes against children. I'd like to
> > > know, as a taxpayer, that he's safe to be allowed back into society.
> > > I'd rather pay for him to be in continuous psychiatric care (oh here we
> > > go - the mental health system) than to allow the possibility of him
> > > putting more children into a bad psychological state.
> > Exactly my point....
>
> INdeed. But Sarndra: we don't know for ABSOLUTE sure that he is still
> a risk. Yes - we have precedence: he's been inside for hideous
> crimes. Can we be ABSOLUTELY sure? And who has the
> right/authority/necessary smarts to make that judgement call and say one
> way or other?
Why give him the benefit of the doubt when he has done such disgusting
things.....including using large wooden 'instruments' on women to 'prepare' them for
marriage....
> How do we know he's not some frail old man who can barely walk?
In that case..good....keep him in his home....
> > > This is the problem here. All people who commit crimes against other
> > > people have a mental health problem, IMHO. If you kill, rape, abuse,
> > > molest, whatever, you have no concept of what is wrong or right with
> > > regard to other people.
> > I disagree...some do...some don't....
>
> Well, if you do still understand that what you're doing is wrong, then
> you have no regard for other people whatsoever. Makes you exceedingly
> selfish. Total lack of consideration for your fellow person. IT's
> still a mental health problem, I think.
absolutely. Chemical inbalance??? Hereditary????....but then it is so easy to say
it is a mental health problem and offload it as something else...
[snip]
> > much...take for example the 18 year old on tv this week who bashed that old lady
up
> > North. He had something like 31 or 36 previous crimes already behind him....that
is
> > just disgusting...take first offenders and give them a harsh taste of
'justice'....I
> > call it tough love....
>
> OK: what is "tough" or harsh justice? Will it rehabilitate them? Who
> do we have faith in sufficiently to fix these criminals? Anyone? No
> one?
Instead of waiting for 30 or more convictions to go past....give them a taste of
prison on the first offence....no warnings..... no nothing...
[snip]
> > I too can hear Brian's side of the argument...a bit!!
>
> His opinion is just as valid as yours and mine. All opinions are
> valid. We have to consider them all to know that we're doing the very
> best for you, I, each other, even Potter. Despite his crimes, he is
> still a human being, and he still has basic human rights. It's called
> doing the best that we can.
I beg to differ. He took something precious called innocence and with no compunction
at all....he does not deserved to be looked upon with dignity.
> > I believe that once a term is served people should be able to get on with their
> > lives if they are truly remorseful and learn from the experience. But some
members
> > of society are true monstrous throwbacks...
>
> Yes... if only we could learn or get a picture of how remorseful these
> people are.
>
> > Thank you for your post
>
> Ditto. Fascinating discussion.
>
> Jen.
Jenny
>
> On , Fri, 26 Mar 1999 09:05:45 +1200, Jenny <den...@ihug.co.nz>, , , ,
> Re: BERT POTTER..., <36FAA5...@ihug.co.nz>, wrote:
>
> >Brian wrote:
> >>
> >> So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Dammit, Bri: i've just gone to great lengths to tell Scooter you never
> >said this, and now you just did.. :) I know what you mean: I hope he'll
> >understand what you're trying to say here...
>
He is? No. Read again, Scoots. I know what he means. You convinced
he's a paedophile then, huh?
> His arrogance is such that he believes that anyone who disagrees with
> him is both wrong and confused.
Semantics, Scooter.. don't get caught up in semantics, 'k? Just debate
the issue.
It was about Potter and what the story is with his pending release.
Jen.
Sarndra
<ta...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
[snip]
And pedophiles can love children all they want to...in
> their head.
That certainly sullies the word love doesn't it....I think I would have phrased that
lust after...not love...
Brian
wrote:
> We don't have to misinterpret your words, we just have
> to read what you post without thinking.
Please, Scooter, start thinking while you read. :-)
Brian
Graeme Butler
Mind you she is a lot nicer to be sworn at by that the idiot of all idiots
Scooter, he really believes what he says....can you imagine?
>Sarndra, Sarndra, Sarndra.. don't reduce yerself to his level, love.. :)
>Ooh.... let's see how many times we can say the word "fuck" in a single
>sentence, then...
>
>You guys are funny :)
>
>Jen.
Kerry
>On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:37:26 GMT, ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz
>(Kerry) wrote:
>
>> Sarndra wrote :
>>> Brian wrote :
>>>> Scooter wrote :
>>>>> Brian wrote :
>
>>>>>> Being a pedophile is of course not a crime.
>
>>>>> You are an incredibly sick person if you believe this.
>
>>>> Nothing to do with being sick.
>>>> Just a statement of fact.
>
>>>> The law does not care what a pedophile thinks in his head.
>>>> The law is very concerned about whether a pedophile commits
>>>> any crime such as child sexual abuse.
>>>
>>> Well the law must think something about that because having
>>> pedophile pornography in your possession is a crime...
>
>>So nyah Brian.....
>
>
>Please, Sarndra and Kerry, reread what I wrote. Sarndra obviously
>thinks that she has shown that what I wrote is wrong, where she
>actually only confirmed what I had said. I'm not sure what Kerry
>meant by her response.
I was being sarcastic.....
It was how it sounded to me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She's so swishy in her satin and tat
In her frock coat and bipperty-bopperty hat
Oh God, I could do better than that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian
>
>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>
>[snip]
>
>> Entering into debate on this subject has set many people up to be the
>> targets of such half truths and innuendo. You certainly have to have
>> a very thick skin to endure the sort of ad hominem attacks that
>> Scooter has just made, and Sarndra made a day ago, against me.
>
> Well then, you should make your posts clearer and not write as if
> you are in favour of something such as paedophilia
Please provide any reference to any of my posts where you consider
that I've been "in "favour of something such as paedophilia"
If my words can be construed in such a way, it would be completely
unintentional. I'd like the opportunity to clarify those words,
wherever they may be.
I really do not think that you will be able to produce anything that I
have written which will provide justification for your vile slur.
Saying "Sorry" would have been a more honorable option for you.
I hope you take this as a challenge to either justify your slur, that
you have exacerbated by this post, or apologise.
<snip>
>> Some unfortunate people are born,
>> or develop with an interest in pedophilia.
>>
>> So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
>> translated into criminal *actions* by that person.
>
> Looking at children in a sexual way be it by picture, 'peeping',
> filming them in a sexual way whilst they are asleep (of which a
> person has just been charged of), WHATEVER....is not and should
> not be looked upon as normal.
And you confirm the point I was making.
Criminal acts deserve punishment.
Brian
Graeme Butler
Brian wrote in message <36fa95cd...@news.wave.co.nz>...
>On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:46:19 GMT, sco...@tipnet.co.nz (Scooter)
>wrote:
>
>> Brian is setting himeslf up as an expert on child abuse,
>
>I am no expert on child abuse.
>I have no wish to set myself up as an expert on the subject.
>
>If somebody treated me as an expert, I would direct them to more
>appropriate professionals, even to the counselling profession if I
>thought that was required, despite my criticisms of some in the trade.
>
>
>> he also thinks that paedophila isn't wrong.
>
>Entering into debate on this subject has set many people up to be the
>targets of such half truths and innuendo. You certainly have to have
>a very thick skin to endure the sort of ad hominem attacks that
>Scooter has just made, and Sarndra made a day ago, against me.
>
>But to repeat, for Scooter's benefit, the distinction between
>pedophilia and child molestation that I've previously referred to.
>
>I think the world would be a much better place if there was no one who
>was a pedophile. But the fact that some people are, cannot be
>wished away. If it is "wrong" as Scooter obviously believes, who are
>we to blame for this ... "God"? Some unfortunate people are born,
>or develop with an interest in pedophilia.
>
>So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
>translated into criminal *actions* by that person. (And I would use
>the word "criminal" loosely, to encompass a wider set of behaviours
>than those that would only result in a conviction).
>
>I just as importantly do not think pedophilia is "right".
>
>What *is* important, is that anybody with any sort of pedophilic
>interest, does not *act* on those desires. I hold a pedophile
>completely responsible for his own behaviours, and do not excuse him
>for his mental "affliction", or whatever else you wish to call it.
>
>Anybody with half a brain, is able to understand that crimes of child
>sexual abuse, molestation are considered legally and morally repugnant
>in our society. A pedophile may have an interest in children, but if
>he were to act out those interests, he must know of the potential
>severe emotional damage he will inflict on that child. The crime of
>child sexual abuse is serious, and should be treated as such.
>
>
Graeme Butler
rabbit knitting fur condoms.
Jenny wrote in message <36FAA5...@ihug.co.nz>...
>Brian wrote:
>>
>> So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Dammit, Bri: i've just gone to great lengths to tell Scooter you never
>said this, and now you just did.. :) I know what you mean: I hope he'll
>understand what you're trying to say here...
>
Brian
wrote:
>>Please refer to my separate post, which should explain to you the
>>difference between pedophilia, and the crimes associated with a
>>pedophile acting out his desires.
>
>I have read your posts and don't agree with you.
Whether you agree with *me* or not is irrelevant.
What would be more interesting to know, is what I have specifically
written, that you disagree with?
It's called debate, Scooter.
Brian
Graeme Butler
ever so slightly fucked up inviting a reader to draw whatever conclusion
they may.
I must say, to your credit that the conclusions drawn by readers often make
a hell of a lot more sense than you ever could so that's pretty nice isn't
it?
While Brian's posts are very easily understood and people misquoting them
are as transparent as a great white shark in Bert Potter's paddling pool.
Sarndra wrote in message <92243107...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
>
>Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:36faa7f8...@news.wave.co.nz...
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 09:05:45 +1200, Jenny <den...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >Brian wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> >Dammit, Bri: i've just gone to great lengths to tell Scooter you never
>> >said this, and now you just did.. :) I know what you mean: I hope he'll
>> >understand what you're trying to say here...
>>
>> <Grin>
>>
>> But you did not underline enough. .......
>>
>> " So I do not think pedophilia is wrong, by itself, unless that is
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "
>>
>> I am sure that if people *want* to misinterpret my words, they'll find
>> a way.
>>
>> Brian
>
>Know what you mean Brian...certain people do it to my posts all the
time.....don't
>they :-)
>
>