SERIAL paedophile Simon Burrows was jailed for eight years today at Swindon Crown Court.
Burrows, 44, admitted 36 child sex offences, which took place while he was general manager at Bumble Bees Nursery in Steeple Ashton, which has since closed.
Appearing in court for sentencing, Burrows stayed with his head bowed and never once looked up at people in the court room, who included family members of the children he had abused.
Judge Douglas Field said: "You are a dangerous predatory paedophile. You groomed and manipulated children and their families to satisfy your perverted sexual demands."
Posted by: westburygirl, westbury on 5:29pm Fri 2 May 08
hhmm i wonder how long he will actually serve? you wait, there willbe some doogooder trying to get his sentence lighter..
hopefully this result means that the families concerned can now concentrate o ntheir children properly and they all can get the help that they need and deserve..
one wonders how the nursery got passed in police checks and al that.... i kno they can take some time to implement..but surely our childrens weel being are of uptmost importance !!
hhmm i wonder how long he will actually serve? you wait, there willbe some doogooder trying to get his sentence lighter..
hopefully this result means that the families concerned can now concentrate o ntheir children properly and they all can get the help that they need and deserve..
one wonders how the nursery got passed in police checks and al that.... i kno they can take some time to implement..but surely our childrens weel being are of uptmost importance !!
The press is incorrect. He was given an indeterminate sentence with a nominal 8 year term, so in fact he will more then likely rot in prison forever....this was the best outcome for all victims and families, but he didn't have the guts to admit all offences!!
A parent
The press is incorrect. He was given an indeterminate sentence with a nominal 8 year term, so in fact he will more then likely rot in prison forever....this was the best outcome for all victims and families, but he didn't have the guts to admit all offences!!
A parent
LETS HOPE THEY DONT PUT HIM IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND THAT THE OTHER PRISONERS GIVE HIM THE PUNISHMENT HE DESERVES. MY FRIENDS TWO KIDS WERE ABUSED BY HIM FOR MANY YEARS. THE SICK **** SHOULD HAVE HIS BALLS CUT OFF SLOWLY, IM SURE MANY OF THE PARENTS WOULD LOVE TO DO THIS. IM NOT USUALLY THIS NASTY BUT WHAT HES DONE IS DIGUSTING!
LETS HOPE THEY DONT PUT HIM IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND THAT THE OTHER PRISONERS GIVE HIM THE PUNISHMENT HE DESERVES. MY FRIENDS TWO KIDS WERE ABUSED BY HIM FOR MANY YEARS. THE SICK **** SHOULD HAVE HIS BALLS CUT OFF SLOWLY, IM SURE MANY OF THE PARENTS WOULD LOVE TO DO THIS. IM NOT USUALLY THIS NASTY BUT WHAT HES DONE IS DIGUSTING!
Posted by: GSXRRRSP, WESTBURY on 7:53pm Fri 2 May 08
HE HAS GONE FOR EIGHT YEARS OF LUXURY LIVING WITH HIGH TECH GYM FOR HIM TO USE,SKY TV IN HIS CELL ,GAMES ROOM AND IF ANY THING LIKE THE PRISON MY MATE WAS A GUARD AT HE WILL HAVE A CINEMA ASWELL!!!!
THIS MAN IS A FIRST CLASS SICK PERV WHO NEEDS HIS BOLLO*CKS RIPPING OFF BUT THE *****R WILL GET EASY EIGHT YEARS OF LIVING AND A PAROLE OFFICER THAT WILL BE AT HIS BECK AND CALL WHEN HE GETS OUT IT MAKES ME SICK CHUCK HIM IN THE MAIN PRISON AND NOT THE PERVS WING WITH PERV WRITTEN ON HIS FOREHEAD AND LET THE OTHER INMATES LOSE ON HIM!!!
HE HAS GONE FOR EIGHT YEARS OF LUXURY LIVING WITH HIGH TECH GYM FOR HIM TO USE,SKY TV IN HIS CELL ,GAMES ROOM AND IF ANY THING LIKE THE PRISON MY MATE WAS A GUARD AT HE WILL HAVE A CINEMA ASWELL!!!!
THIS MAN IS A FIRST CLASS SICK PERV WHO NEEDS HIS BOLLO*CKS RIPPING OFF BUT THE *****R WILL GET EASY EIGHT YEARS OF LIVING AND A PAROLE OFFICER THAT WILL BE AT HIS BECK AND CALL WHEN HE GETS OUT IT MAKES ME SICK CHUCK HIM IN THE MAIN PRISON AND NOT THE PERVS WING WITH PERV WRITTEN ON HIS FOREHEAD AND LET THE OTHER INMATES LOSE ON HIM!!!
Posted by: Russell Hawker, WESTBURY on 11:04pm Fri 2 May 08
Public castration with two bricks is too good for him.
Life imprisonment of scum like this costs far too much.
Bring back hanging for the most despicable of criminals including proven paedophiles ( I do not mean the sickos who look a child **** as that is arguably not in itself actual criminal paedophilia which is the commiting of sex acts with children themselves
Public castration with two bricks is too good for him.
Life imprisonment of scum like this costs far too much.
Bring back hanging for the most despicable of criminals including proven paedophiles ( I do not mean the sickos who look a child **** as that is arguably not in itself actual criminal paedophilia which is the commiting of sex acts with children themselves
I know what you are saying Russell and I agree that keeping them alive at our expense is not in the public interest.
However, the people who contribute to abuse by viewing child abuse images on the internet are nearly as bad. A child has to have been abused to provide the images for these people to view. It is a different offence I realise that, but the fact that they have got the images should mean they are punished severely, before they 'progress' on to live victims.
I hope the survivors (not the word rather than 'victim')from this case get all the support they need now and in the future when they are adults themselves.
I know what you are saying Russell and I agree that keeping them alive at our expense is not in the public interest.
However, the people who contribute to abuse by viewing child abuse images on the internet are nearly as bad. A child has to have been abused to provide the images for these people to view. It is a different offence I realise that, but the fact that they have got the images should mean they are punished severely, before they 'progress' on to live victims.
I hope the survivors (not the word rather than 'victim')from this case get all the support they need now and in the future when they are adults themselves.
Posted by: Russell Hawker, WESTBURY on 11:08am Sat 3 May 08
CC
I agree with all you say.
I was making a distinction between:
1. actual peadophiles who have sexually molested children and who deserve to be exterminated,
AND;
2. the sickos who look a kiddie p o r n who may have a problem which needs treatment, but who have not themselves actually physically touched a child in the wrong way.
I do think there is a difference between thinking about something and actually committing the crime of paedophilia.
Obviously, looking at kiddie p o r n supports the nasty bastards who take the pictures and this is itself a crime, but looking and the kiddie p o r n and helping the criminal who take the pictures (via payment etc) is not itself the criminal act of abusing the children by taking the photos or undertaking sexual molestation. If a sicko who looks at kiddie p o r n has acted as a distributor or has himself taken inappropriate photos for kiddie p o r n purposes then that is obviously verging on paedophilia.
I am simply saying that the sickos who just have looked at the pictures, but who have not molested children themselves and who have had nothing to do creating and distributing the photos are not actually paedophiles in the correct meaning of the word and I would not call for them to be exterminated in the same way as proven paedophiles who have actually fiddled with children.
CC
I agree with all you say.
I was making a distinction between:
1. actual peadophiles who have sexually molested children and who deserve to be exterminated,
AND;
2. the sickos who look a kiddie p o r n who may have a problem which needs treatment, but who have not themselves actually physically touched a child in the wrong way.
I do think there is a difference between thinking about something and actually committing the crime of paedophilia.
Obviously, looking at kiddie p o r n supports the nasty bastards who take the pictures and this is itself a crime, but looking and the kiddie p o r n and helping the criminal who take the pictures (via payment etc) is not itself the criminal act of abusing the children by taking the photos or undertaking sexual molestation. If a sicko who looks at kiddie p o r n has acted as a distributor or has himself taken inappropriate photos for kiddie p o r n purposes then that is obviously verging on paedophilia.
I am simply saying that the sickos who just have looked at the pictures, but who have not molested children themselves and who have had nothing to do creating and distributing the photos are not actually paedophiles in the correct meaning of the word and I would not call for them to be exterminated in the same way as proven paedophiles who have actually fiddled with children.
Posted by: Disgusted of, Westbury on 12:36pm Sat 3 May 08
Strangely taking/distributing indecent images wasnt illegal until 1979.
There is a one in 500 Million chance that this guy could be innocent (yeah unlikely I know) but this reason is the sole one that I am against capital punishment for this or any other crime.
Strangely taking/distributing indecent images wasnt illegal until 1979.
There is a one in 500 Million chance that this guy could be innocent (yeah unlikely I know) but this reason is the sole one that I am against capital punishment for this or any other crime.
bring back hanging.
But you got to ask
how did a sicko like that get a job working with kids in the first place with all the checks you are ment to go though
bring back hanging.
But you got to ask
how did a sicko like that get a job working with kids in the first place with all the checks you are ment to go though
I see what you're saying Russell.
It's just worrying that there are so many people out there willing to buy these images, and how many then go on to the real thing as a result.
J - I doubt if this chap had a conviction already so it would not show up on the yearly CRB checks.
I suspect he was a 'viewer', as described above, until he had ready access to (and 'progressed' onto) actual children. If he was that calculated I suspect he hid his urges well until that point.
Long may he stay locked up.
I see what you're saying Russell.
It's just worrying that there are so many people out there willing to buy these images, and how many then go on to the real thing as a result.
J - I doubt if this chap had a conviction already so it would not show up on the yearly CRB checks.
I suspect he was a 'viewer', as described above, until he had ready access to (and 'progressed' onto) actual children. If he was that calculated I suspect he hid his urges well until that point.
Posted by: Disgusted of, Westbury on 1:22pm Sun 4 May 08
[quote][bold]CC[/bold] wrote:
I see what you're saying Russell. It's just worrying that there are so many people out there willing to buy these images, and how many then go on to the real thing as a result. J - I doubt if this chap had a conviction already so it would not show up on the yearly CRB checks. I suspect he was a 'viewer', as described above, until he had ready access to (and 'progressed' onto) actual children. If he was that calculated I suspect he hid his urges well until that point. Long may he stay locked up. [/quote]
You are totally wrong CC. Only in 'sting' operations such as Operation Ore are these images bought and sold via 'honey trap' web sites set up by the authorities.
Thousands - probably Millions - of these images are freely available to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection via free p-2-p programmes such as Emule. As such cleaning the Internet of them will be almost - if not totally - impossible. The authorities can do little to stem the tide of this filth and the only time that they come to light is when police investigate a suspect for other activities and stumble across images on their pc. I have no doubt that poilce would have checked his computers but did not see any reports of charges for indecent images and doubt that the CPS would have simply let it go had their been any so doubt if Burrows was a viewer as you suggest.
Dare I also suggest that if he had of been and therefore had an outlet for his problems that he might have not progressed to the stage that he did? I.e you are looking at the problem back to front.
CC wrote:
I see what you're saying Russell. It's just worrying that there are so many people out there willing to buy these images, and how many then go on to the real thing as a result. J - I doubt if this chap had a conviction already so it would not show up on the yearly CRB checks. I suspect he was a 'viewer', as described above, until he had ready access to (and 'progressed' onto) actual children. If he was that calculated I suspect he hid his urges well until that point. Long may he stay locked up.
You are totally wrong CC. Only in 'sting' operations such as Operation Ore are these images bought and sold via 'honey trap' web sites set up by the authorities.
Thousands - probably Millions - of these images are freely available to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection via free p-2-p programmes such as Emule. As such cleaning the Internet of them will be almost - if not totally - impossible. The authorities can do little to stem the tide of this filth and the only time that they come to light is when police investigate a suspect for other activities and stumble across images on their pc. I have no doubt that poilce would have checked his computers but did not see any reports of charges for indecent images and doubt that the CPS would have simply let it go had their been any so doubt if Burrows was a viewer as you suggest.
Dare I also suggest that if he had of been and therefore had an outlet for his problems that he might have not progressed to the stage that he did? I.e you are looking at the problem back to front.
Posted by: Disgusted of, Westbury on 2:16pm Sun 4 May 08
[quote][bold]Russell Hawker[/bold] wrote:
CC I agree with all you say. I was making a distinction between: 1. actual peadophiles who have sexually molested children and who deserve to be exterminated, AND; 2. the sickos who look a kiddie p o r n who may have a problem which needs treatment, but who have not themselves actually physically touched a child in the wrong way. I do think there is a difference between thinking about something and actually committing the crime of paedophilia. Obviously, looking at kiddie p o r n supports the nasty bastards who take the pictures and this is itself a crime, but looking and the kiddie p o r n and helping the criminal who take the pictures (via payment etc) is not itself the criminal act of abusing the children by taking the photos or undertaking sexual molestation. If a sicko who looks at kiddie p o r n has acted as a distributor or has himself taken inappropriate photos for kiddie p o r n purposes then that is obviously verging on paedophilia. I am simply saying that the sickos who just have looked at the pictures, but who have not molested children themselves and who have had nothing to do creating and distributing the photos are not actually paedophiles in the correct meaning of the word and I would not call for them to be exterminated in the same way as proven paedophiles who have actually fiddled with children.[/quote]
Tut tut Russell. You should know better than this. Paedophilia is not a 'crime'.
Russell Hawker wrote:
CC I agree with all you say. I was making a distinction between: 1. actual peadophiles who have sexually molested children and who deserve to be exterminated, AND; 2. the sickos who look a kiddie p o r n who may have a problem which needs treatment, but who have not themselves actually physically touched a child in the wrong way. I do think there is a difference between thinking about something and actually committing the crime of paedophilia. Obviously, looking at kiddie p o r n supports the nasty bastards who take the pictures and this is itself a crime, but looking and the kiddie p o r n and helping the criminal who take the pictures (via payment etc) is not itself the criminal act of abusing the children by taking the photos or undertaking sexual molestation. If a sicko who looks at kiddie p o r n has acted as a distributor or has himself taken inappropriate photos for kiddie p o r n purposes then that is obviously verging on paedophilia. I am simply saying that the sickos who just have looked at the pictures, but who have not molested children themselves and who have had nothing to do creating and distributing the photos are not actually paedophiles in the correct meaning of the word and I would not call for them to be exterminated in the same way as proven paedophiles who have actually fiddled with children.
Tut tut Russell. You should know better than this. Paedophilia is not a 'crime'.
he didnt just do it to children at the nursery, he made friends with families where he lived and him and his wife used to offer to babysit for some of them. why wouldnt you trust a person to look after your kids that ran a nursery? he was a very clever sick perverted **** and i hope he rots in prison.
he didnt just do it to children at the nursery, he made friends with families where he lived and him and his wife used to offer to babysit for some of them. why wouldnt you trust a person to look after your kids that ran a nursery? he was a very clever sick perverted **** and i hope he rots in prison.
Posted by: Disgusted of, Westbury on 7:49pm Sun 4 May 08
[quote][bold]hte[/bold] wrote:
he didnt just do it to children at the nursery, he made friends with families where he lived and him and his wife used to offer to babysit for some of them. why wouldnt you trust a person to look after your kids that ran a nursery? he was a very clever sick perverted **** and i hope he rots in prison.[/quote]
Another excellent reason for NOT invoking the death penalty. Burrows cannot suffer and 'rot in prison' if he were to be killed.
hte wrote:
he didnt just do it to children at the nursery, he made friends with families where he lived and him and his wife used to offer to babysit for some of them. why wouldnt you trust a person to look after your kids that ran a nursery? he was a very clever sick perverted **** and i hope he rots in prison.
Another excellent reason for NOT invoking the death penalty. Burrows cannot suffer and 'rot in prison' if he were to be killed.
Posted by: GSXRRRSP, WESTBURY on 10:00pm Sun 4 May 08
[quote][bold]Disgusted of[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]hte[/bold] wrote: he didnt just do it to children at the nursery, he made friends with families where he lived and him and his wife used to offer to babysit for some of them. why wouldnt you trust a person to look after your kids that ran a nursery? he was a very clever sick perverted **** and i hope he rots in prison.[/quote] Another excellent reason for NOT invoking the death penalty. Burrows cannot suffer and 'rot in prison' if he were to be killed. [/quote] why do you seem to be sticking up for this perv!!!!
Disgusted of wrote:
hte wrote: he didnt just do it to children at the nursery, he made friends with families where he lived and him and his wife used to offer to babysit for some of them. why wouldnt you trust a person to look after your kids that ran a nursery? he was a very clever sick perverted **** and i hope he rots in prison.
Another excellent reason for NOT invoking the death penalty. Burrows cannot suffer and 'rot in prison' if he were to be killed.
why do you seem to be sticking up for this perv!!!!
All this "no taking of life" high ground is total and utter garbage.
There are so many deserving people suffering terribly in the world, children with no hope, no clean water, child soldiers and we all know I could go on and on.
It is SICKER when a decadent rotting society will use valuable tax monies to keep total scum like this alive to NO USEFUL END!
Use them for human drug testing, then throw the corpses into the furnace.
I am so, so sick of the twisted world we are beginning to live in. Justice must try to protect the innocent from harm, but when there is clear corroborated evidence that puts it beyond doubt, not just reasonable doubt, then screw their human rights, they lose them.
Now I can calm down and get off my high ground ;)
All this "no taking of life" high ground is total and utter garbage.
There are so many deserving people suffering terribly in the world, children with no hope, no clean water, child soldiers and we all know I could go on and on.
It is SICKER when a decadent rotting society will use valuable tax monies to keep total scum like this alive to NO USEFUL END!
Use them for human drug testing, then throw the corpses into the furnace.
I am so, so sick of the twisted world we are beginning to live in. Justice must try to protect the innocent from harm, but when there is clear corroborated evidence that puts it beyond doubt, not just reasonable doubt, then screw their human rights, they lose them.
Posted by: Disgusted of, Westbury on 10:44pm Sun 4 May 08
"It is SICKER when a decadent rotting society will use valuable tax monies to keep total scum like this alive to NO USEFUL END!"
It is just as sick to spend more than what nonces cost to keep bombing Iraqi kids to bits and would be just just as perverse to have a cheap execution bill and more money to spend on the bombs to kill and maim even more unless anyone can tell me that blowing kids arms and legs off isn't 'child abuse' so long as the kids are wogs?
"It is SICKER when a decadent rotting society will use valuable tax monies to keep total scum like this alive to NO USEFUL END!"
It is just as sick to spend more than what nonces cost to keep bombing Iraqi kids to bits and would be just just as perverse to have a cheap execution bill and more money to spend on the bombs to kill and maim even more unless anyone can tell me that blowing kids arms and legs off isn't 'child abuse' so long as the kids are wogs?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen, Westbury on 10:32am Mon 5 May 08
There should be no protection for this scum in prison.
I truly wish he could spend the rest of his days watching his back and absolutely terrified.
The people directly affected by this scum will NEVER be able to forget what he has done.
There should be no protection for this scum in prison.
I truly wish he could spend the rest of his days watching his back and absolutely terrified.
The people directly affected by this scum will NEVER be able to forget what he has done.
[quote]quote[/quote] Dare I also suggest that if he had of been and therefore had an outlet for his problems that he might have not progressed to the stage that he did? I.e you are looking at the problem back to front.[quote]quote[/quote]
My point was about the CRB checks - I'm more than aware of what's available on the internet. Someone asked how he'd been allowed to work with kids. If he was a viewer, not yet convicted of posessing images, then it wouldn't show up on the CRB.
How can that be 'looking at it back to front'?
It's the law. CRB's are only valid at the time they are done. If someone is charged, then convicted of any crime during the few months after, then it won't show until the next check.
Anyone who has any sense is aware that SOMETIMES people with the same 'urges' as this man, are not satisfied for long by just looking at pictures. You are simplisticly looking at it in black & white, not the many shades of grey in between the viewing and then acting on these urges themselves.
In this case I'm sure if he'd had images then there would've been more charges - or he didn't use his own computer.
Either way, he's locked up for a while and won't be able to damage anymore children - or be in a position to work closely with them again.
quote
Dare I also suggest that if he had of been and therefore had an outlet for his problems that he might have not progressed to the stage that he did? I.e you are looking at the problem back to front.
quote
My point was about the CRB checks - I'm more than aware of what's available on the internet. Someone asked how he'd been allowed to work with kids. If he was a viewer, not yet convicted of posessing images, then it wouldn't show up on the CRB.
How can that be 'looking at it back to front'?
It's the law. CRB's are only valid at the time they are done. If someone is charged, then convicted of any crime during the few months after, then it won't show until the next check.
Anyone who has any sense is aware that SOMETIMES people with the same 'urges' as this man, are not satisfied for long by just looking at pictures. You are simplisticly looking at it in black & white, not the many shades of grey in between the viewing and then acting on these urges themselves.
In this case I'm sure if he'd had images then there would've been more charges - or he didn't use his own computer.
Either way, he's locked up for a while and won't be able to damage anymore children - or be in a position to work closely with them again.
Posted by: Disgusted of, Westbury on 1:53pm Mon 5 May 08
"Anyone who has any sense is aware that SOMETIMES people with the same 'urges' as this man, are not satisfied for long by just looking at pictures. "
That simply cannot be true. Very few people are charged or jailed for downloading these images and it is still a very rare offense yet there are Millions of these images available for free on the Internet.
The figures simply don't add up. Either very few people are downloading them (unlikely) or the images are indeed enough to satisfy the needs of those whose minds for whatever reason are leaning that way. The main problem with the latter scenario of course is that a child has indeed still been abused along the line however remotely but the fundemental logic is that most viewers do NOT go on to abuse children any more than a half pint of beer drinker goes on to become a meths' drinker. As I have said there was no mention of any indecent images on Burrows computers and I am 100% certain that the police will have looked so I doubt very much that he got the idea of abusing kids from photos'.
Have a look at Vanity Fair this month. There is a photo' of a naked 15 year old girl in it in a provocative pose. Child abuse surely and encouragment for men to leer after and attack young girls if the indecent image theory is correct?
"Anyone who has any sense is aware that SOMETIMES people with the same 'urges' as this man, are not satisfied for long by just looking at pictures. "
That simply cannot be true. Very few people are charged or jailed for downloading these images and it is still a very rare offense yet there are Millions of these images available for free on the Internet.
The figures simply don't add up. Either very few people are downloading them (unlikely) or the images are indeed enough to satisfy the needs of those whose minds for whatever reason are leaning that way. The main problem with the latter scenario of course is that a child has indeed still been abused along the line however remotely but the fundemental logic is that most viewers do NOT go on to abuse children any more than a half pint of beer drinker goes on to become a meths' drinker. As I have said there was no mention of any indecent images on Burrows computers and I am 100% certain that the police will have looked so I doubt very much that he got the idea of abusing kids from photos'.
Have a look at Vanity Fair this month. There is a photo' of a naked 15 year old girl in it in a provocative pose. Child abuse surely and encouragment for men to leer after and attack young girls if the indecent image theory is correct?
Gary glitter was released and re-offended because he wasn't given any kind of treatment in jail, psychological treatment isn't an easy option, facing your own shortcomings as serious as his is a bit of a torture. but I think a libido such as theirs can be rehabilitated, but that should be the condition of their release,
Gary glitter was released and re-offended because he wasn't given any kind of treatment in jail, psychological treatment isn't an easy option, facing your own shortcomings as serious as his is a bit of a torture. but I think a libido such as theirs can be rehabilitated, but that should be the condition of their release,
I hope the parent who responded earlier is correct and Simon Burrows will not be a concern to parents in Wiltshire (or anywhere else) for many years to come. As a parent myself I come to a very hard place when trying to reconcile my liberal tendencies with paedophilia. I always fail, and can only go along with the extreme measures suggested. Yep, off with his knackers or (better) kill the pervert before he f***s with more children's lives.
I hope the parent who responded earlier is correct and Simon Burrows will not be a concern to parents in Wiltshire (or anywhere else) for many years to come. As a parent myself I come to a very hard place when trying to reconcile my liberal tendencies with paedophilia. I always fail, and can only go along with the extreme measures suggested. Yep, off with his knackers or (better) kill the pervert before he f***s with more children's lives.
Posted by: Disgusted of, Westbury on 7:28pm Tue 6 May 08
[quote][bold]anon[/bold] wrote:
I hope the parent who responded earlier is correct and Simon Burrows will not be a concern to parents in Wiltshire (or anywhere else) for many years to come. As a parent myself I come to a very hard place when trying to reconcile my liberal tendencies with paedophilia. I always fail, and can only go along with the extreme measures suggested. Yep, off with his knackers or (better) kill the pervert before he f***s with more children's lives. [/quote]
Paedophilia does not occur in the knackers. It occurs about 3 feet higher in the brain. I suppose cutting that out with a rusty knife might stop a particular offender but it won't do a **** thing to stop more taking their place.
The only chance of stopping it is to examine the brain of offenders while it is living to try and find what the cause is. Maybe then and only then is there likely to be any chance of a 'cure' or prevention.
anon wrote:
I hope the parent who responded earlier is correct and Simon Burrows will not be a concern to parents in Wiltshire (or anywhere else) for many years to come. As a parent myself I come to a very hard place when trying to reconcile my liberal tendencies with paedophilia. I always fail, and can only go along with the extreme measures suggested. Yep, off with his knackers or (better) kill the pervert before he f***s with more children's lives.
Paedophilia does not occur in the knackers. It occurs about 3 feet higher in the brain. I suppose cutting that out with a rusty knife might stop a particular offender but it won't do a **** thing to stop more taking their place.
The only chance of stopping it is to examine the brain of offenders while it is living to try and find what the cause is. Maybe then and only then is there likely to be any chance of a 'cure' or prevention.
Disgusted,
OK, point taken - knacker removal/execution reduces the likelihood of re-offending but doesn't get to "why". If you don't mind I'll bow out here because I KNOW I have no answers any more than you do. People like Simon B are very hard to understand - it's beyond you and me? All I can do is be aware people like him are around - do my best to remember it and keep family safe. And hope he gets a hard / long time inside.
Anon
Disgusted,
OK, point taken - knacker removal/execution reduces the likelihood of re-offending but doesn't get to "why". If you don't mind I'll bow out here because I KNOW I have no answers any more than you do. People like Simon B are very hard to understand - it's beyond you and me? All I can do is be aware people like him are around - do my best to remember it and keep family safe. And hope he gets a hard / long time inside.
Anon
Disgusted,
OK, point taken - knacker removal/execution reduces the likelihood of re-offending but doesn't get to "why". If you don't mind I'll bow out here because I KNOW I have no answers any more than you do. People like Simon B are very hard to understand - it's beyond you and me? All I can do is be aware people like him are around - do my best to remember it and keep family safe. And hope he gets a hard / long time inside.
Anon
Disgusted,
OK, point taken - knacker removal/execution reduces the likelihood of re-offending but doesn't get to "why". If you don't mind I'll bow out here because I KNOW I have no answers any more than you do. People like Simon B are very hard to understand - it's beyond you and me? All I can do is be aware people like him are around - do my best to remember it and keep family safe. And hope he gets a hard / long time inside.
Anon
It is just as sick to spend more than what nonces cost to keep bombing Iraqi kids to bits
Deviation from topic? We can debate all sorts of ways to spend tax monies, many of which are wrong. I'm simply suggesting keeping people like burrows alive for "study" serves no purpose.
I even agree about the deaths of innocents through war (always the case), but that is a whole other debate.
Drug tests and then death. His life (or death) may then recompense for his actions.
It is just as sick to spend more than what nonces cost to keep bombing Iraqi kids to bits
Deviation from topic? We can debate all sorts of ways to spend tax monies, many of which are wrong. I'm simply suggesting keeping people like burrows alive for "study" serves no purpose.
I even agree about the deaths of innocents through war (always the case), but that is a whole other debate.
Drug tests and then death. His life (or death) may then recompense for his actions.
And please save the effort to brand the war as racist, i.e. if you supported it you support a racist war.
To use your lovely language, wogs kill wogs too. Mmmm lets think, Rwanda, Somalia, Cambodia, what about Stalin while we are at it?
The war was about oil. We need it, they have it. Realpolitik time when the lights might go out and we can't drive to work any more?
And please save the effort to brand the war as racist, i.e. if you supported it you support a racist war.
To use your lovely language, wogs kill wogs too. Mmmm lets think, Rwanda, Somalia, Cambodia, what about Stalin while we are at it?
The war was about oil. We need it, they have it. Realpolitik time when the lights might go out and we can't drive to work any more?
Posted by: DILLIGAF, Westbury on 3:39pm Wed 7 May 08
[quote][bold]YetiJoe[/bold] wrote:
And please save the effort to brand the war as racist, i.e. if you supported it you support a racist war. To use your lovely language, wogs kill wogs too. Mmmm lets think, Rwanda, Somalia, Cambodia, what about Stalin while we are at it? The war was about oil. We need it, they have it. Realpolitik time when the lights might go out and we can't drive to work any more?[/quote]
Yes you will have to walk or ride a bike. Terrible hard life it will be eh?
YetiJoe wrote:
And please save the effort to brand the war as racist, i.e. if you supported it you support a racist war. To use your lovely language, wogs kill wogs too. Mmmm lets think, Rwanda, Somalia, Cambodia, what about Stalin while we are at it? The war was about oil. We need it, they have it. Realpolitik time when the lights might go out and we can't drive to work any more?
Yes you will have to walk or ride a bike. Terrible hard life it will be eh?
[quote][bold]YetiJoe[/bold] wrote:
It is just as sick to spend more than what nonces cost to keep bombing Iraqi kids to bits
Deviation from topic? We can debate all sorts of ways to spend tax monies, many of which are wrong. I'm simply suggesting keeping people like burrows alive for "study" serves no purpose.
I even agree about the deaths of innocents through war (always the case), but that is a whole other debate.
Drug tests and then death. His life (or death) may then recompense for his actions.[/quote] Pedophiles can be used to review interview video of suspects to see if their lying on the basis that it takes one to know one. A group of pedophiles in jail have other earning potential and professioinal skills. I think we should concentrate on keeping them away from children while appreciating that either their level of guilt may not be what we think it is or that they are on appeal found to be inocent and you can't re-attach someone's long lost knackers :) Lol
YetiJoe wrote:
It is just as sick to spend more than what nonces cost to keep bombing Iraqi kids to bits
Deviation from topic? We can debate all sorts of ways to spend tax monies, many of which are wrong. I'm simply suggesting keeping people like burrows alive for "study" serves no purpose.
I even agree about the deaths of innocents through war (always the case), but that is a whole other debate.
Drug tests and then death. His life (or death) may then recompense for his actions.
Pedophiles can be used to review interview video of suspects to see if their lying on the basis that it takes one to know one. A group of pedophiles in jail have other earning potential and professioinal skills. I think we should concentrate on keeping them away from children while appreciating that either their level of guilt may not be what we think it is or that they are on appeal found to be inocent and you can't re-attach someone's long lost knackers :) Lol
Do me a favour Jake. How many of them do we "need" for these reviews? As I said in my earlier post, if guilty beyond doubt (not just reasonable) fill the syringe.
Other potential and skills. Who gives a **** about that!?
Are you a highly paid psychologist who wants to write a book about one of these people to prove some academic credentials perhaps? Let's save us the bother and expense please.
Do me a favour Jake. How many of them do we "need" for these reviews? As I said in my earlier post, if guilty beyond doubt (not just reasonable) fill the syringe.
Other potential and skills. Who gives a **** about that!?
Are you a highly paid psychologist who wants to write a book about one of these people to prove some academic credentials perhaps? Let's save us the bother and expense please.
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
