Operation Update.

[sadie]

He was arrested in flagrante by an off duty police officer attending the event with her family.

Interestingly witnesses thought he was accompanied by another man who fled the scene.

I wonder why it has been left to the German police to prosecute this man for a crime committed on Portuguese soil, against Portuguese children and arrested by a Portuguese police officer which in any jurisdiction would be a slam dunk case.

What is this guy's get out of jail free card when even retired cop Amaral goes out of his way to champion him.

Yep, very interesting that with such a witness as a policewoman, it seems as though .

I wonder which and why?it was hushed up or they couldn't be bothered

[Eleanor]

Yep, very interesting that with such a witness as a policewoman, it seems as though .

I wonder which and why?it was hushed up or they couldn't be bothered

It was hushed up.  Or Portugal doesn't care about it's own children.  Or both.

[faithlilly]

It was hushed up.  Or Portugal doesn't care about it's own children.  Or both.

Neither, it seems, do the U.K. 4,500 individuals convicted of child sex abuse spent not one day in prison.

Absolutely shocking.

[Venturi Swirl]

Neither, it seems, do the U.K. 4,500 individuals convicted of child sex abuse spent not one day in prison.

Absolutely shocking.

Yes, there was that 25 year old man in Scotland convicted of child rape recently who got community service, outrageous!

[jassi]

Neither, it seems, do the U.K. 4,500 individuals convicted of child sex abuse spent not one day in prison.

Absolutely shocking.

Ah well, there wouldn't be room for them all.
What would be needed is a designated 'Paedophile Island' where they could serve out their time, far away from any temptation

[Brietta]

Yes, there was that 25 year old man in Scotland convicted of child rape recently who got community service, outrageous!

Seems the police did their job, they did find the evidence to bring him to trial.  It's the court system which might be the problem.

[Venturi Swirl]

Neither, it seems, do the U.K. 4,500 individuals convicted of child sex abuse spent not one day in prison.

Absolutely shocking.

Labour’s claim fact-checked

In the first of the attack adverts released by Labour last week, the party claimed that under the Conservatives, 4,500 adults convicted of sexually assaulting children under 16 served no time in prison.

The ad relies on Ministry of Justice data, which is accurate but is from 2010 to the first half of last year, which extends to before Sunak was an MP but also includes the time when Sir Keir Starmer was director of public prosecutions and sat on the Sentencing Council, which sets sentencing guidelines. In 2012 it set out guidelines suggesting that not all child sex abusers should automatically be jailed.

It is judges and magistrates who decide on sentences for criminals rather than politicians, but parliament can set minimum and maximum sentences. Labour claimed the lenient punishments were due in part to problems within the criminal justice system including case backlogs and crowded prisons.

In 2020, according to the Sentencing Academy, the average sentence for sexual assault of a child under 13 in 2020 was three years and eight months, up from two years and three months in 2010 when Labour was last in power.

There was a gradual increase in the average sentence for the offence before it peaked in 2019.

[G-Unit]

Ah well, there wouldn't be room for them all.
What would be needed is a designated 'Paedophile Island' where they could serve out their time, far away from any temptation

Something like Alcatraz Island perhaps. In my opinion CB can't be described as a paedophile as he isn't primarily or exclusively attracted to children. He's an abuser pure and simple; any female of any age will do.

[Venturi Swirl]

Something like Alcatraz Island perhaps. In my opinion CB can't be described as a paedophile as he isn't primarily or exclusively attracted to children. He's an abuser pure and simple; any female of any age will do.

I think you’ll find that many if not most people described as paedophiles are quite capable of being attracted to or at least having sex with adults.  So Gary Glitter is not a paedophile, nor Jimmy Savile by your definition then?

[G-Unit]

I think you’ll find that many if not most people described as paedophiles are quite capable of being attracted to or at least having sex with adults.  So Gary Glitter is not a paedophile, nor Jimmy Savile by your definition then?

Sexuality is a complex subject. Homosexual people married the opposite sex when their preferences were illegal, but would have preferred same sex relationships. Sex is one thing, but romance is another, and it seems to me that a true paedophile is more likely to have romantic feelings about a child, just as a homosexual is more likely to have those feelings about someone of the same sex.

[Venturi Swirl]

Sexuality is a complex subject. Homosexual people married the opposite sex when their preferences were illegal, but would have preferred same sex relationships. Sex is one thing, but romance is another, and it seems to me that a true paedophile is more likely to have romantic feelings about a child, just as a homosexual is more likely to have those feelings about someone of the same sex.

It seems you are saying people should only be labelled paedophiles if they have romantic attachments to pre-pubescent children, do correct me if I'm wrong.  That would discount Savile, Glitter, Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, every man (or woman) who has ever abducted and murdered a child, or photographed or downloaded indecent images of children, the large majority of those who have criminal records for committing acts of child abuse.   In fact you seem to be saying that people can no more help being paedophiles than they can help being gay, which maybe in fact be true but your apparent need to separate the term "paedophile" from the crimes that such people commit against children is somewhat baffling.  Actually, no it's not - it's just another example of your semantic quibbling. IMO.

[G-Unit]

It seems you are saying people should only be labelled paedophiles if they have romantic attachments to pre-pubescent children, do correct me if I'm wrong.  That would discount Savile, Glitter, Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, every man (or woman) who has ever abducted and murdered a child, or photographed or downloaded indecent images of children, the large majority of those who have criminal records for committing acts of child abuse.   In fact you seem to be saying that people can no more help being paedophiles than they can help being gay, which maybe in fact be true but your apparent need to separate the term "paedophile" from the crimes that such people commit against children is somewhat baffling.  Actually, no it's not - it's just another example of your semantic quibbling. IMO.

People, including in particular journalists, use the paedophile label very readily. It's not 'semantic quibbling' to make people aware that not all paedophiles are child abusers and not all child abusers are paedophiles.

Given the ages of those abused by CB, paedophile seems to be a label which only applies to some of his offenses. 

[barrier]

People, including in particular journalists, use the paedophile label very readily. It's not 'semantic quibbling' to make people aware that not all paedophiles are child abusers and not all child abusers are paedophiles.

Given the ages of those abused by CB, paedophile seems to be a label which only applies to some of his offenses.

Is CB a paedo who rapes adult women, or a rapist who is also a paedo ?

[Venturi Swirl]

People, including in particular journalists, use the paedophile label very readily. It's not 'semantic quibbling' to make people aware that not all paedophiles are child abusers and not all child abusers are paedophiles.

Given the ages of those abused by CB, paedophile seems to be a label which only applies to some of his offenses.

Do you really think anyone here needs to be educated by you on the subject?   Are you going to protest every time someone labels Jimmy Savile or Gary Glitter a paedohile, or is it only CB who you feel merits your protection from being labelled thus?  Could it be that by denying that he is a paedophile that it makes him (in your eyes) less likely to have abducted a child to sexually abuse and murder?  I wonder…

[Eleanor]

People, including in particular journalists, use the paedophile label very readily. It's not 'semantic quibbling' to make people aware that not all paedophiles are child abusers and not all child abusers are paedophiles.

Given the ages of those abused by CB, paedophile seems to be a label which only applies to some of his offenses.

So that's alright then.