I remember reading about a bloke who was "normal" and then got these urges to abuse kids and eventually did to his daughter and rightfully got convicted for being a danger. However during this time he was complaining of headaches and when seen two saw he had a brain tumor pressing on his hypothalamus (primitive part of brain). When removed his urges went. When in prison he told the doctors and staff that these where returning and when examined the tumor had come back.

Very odd but still no excuse.

Edit; just found it was a bit wrong in original post but here is the link:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/4022.php

Depends what you mean by 'kids' because humans are designed to breed and men are programmed to find anyone who looks fertile attractive, though this normally means there needs to be a degree of puberty having happened.

There have been instances, many of them, around the world, where the death penalty has been carried out, only to find the person was innocent.

There have been recent cases of people being found guilty of murder, to be later pardoned.

The death penalty is wrong.

I'll try to help you rationalize here because I know you're not normally a hanging judge.
If this had happened in a country like, say, Afghanistan, you'd find that (in the unlikely event the news got this far) very few people would give a flying fuck.
So why are people (including myself I might stress) outraged at this sort of incident when it happens here?
It's because we consider ourselves to be a civilised country where this sort of thing just shouldn't happen.
And part and parcel of being a civilised country is getting over the urge to want to kill people for every wrongdoing that we can't get our heads round.
We didn't get to be a civilised country by accident. People have militated to make it happen and it's been a long, hard struggle.
In the whole of the EU now it's illegal to allow extradition of someone for trial for a crime that could receive the death penalty. Now that's a fucking result and one to be proud of.
Wanting to take the reverse route back to savagery is an insult to the people who've fought to advance society, and thats why I'm not having any of it.

I can't really rationally argue with or disagree with anything you have said, deep down it is exactly what I think about capital punishment but even a couple of days on I'm struggling to get past the repulsion and anger I have towards this monster. I have a good mate who's a barrister who has to deal with cases like this from time to time, I just couldn't do it clearly I couldn't sit in the same room as someone capable of something like this never mind opposite at a table.

That's for sure. Having to act as his defence lawyer is really getting the dirty end of the stick.

it's not an advocation of the death penalty being brought back, the general feeling is that... and I think I'm correct in gauging everyone's feelings here... if anybody ever did shit like that to any of our kids/ family members' kids... the women responsible for allowing it and the bloke who did this.... would need to be in fear for their very lives if the police didn't get to them first and lock them up for their own safety

People are advocating death for this individual, but not by the hand of the state... I can understand that completely

I certainly wish the fucker would die somehow, by karma or whatever... it's what I wish for.. for him.

If that makes my argument paradoxical, so be it.

Everyone else isn't viewing it in black and white either

A quick death is too good for this worthless fuck.
He should suffer miserably for the rest of his tawdry existence.
Hope he's put on suicide watch too, so he has time to reflect on his monstrosity.

Did I just hear correctly on the radio that those two guys who killed that soldier have pleaded not guilty?

Peaches Geldoff is in bother for naming the two mothers on twitter.

Oh dear, such a shocking crime that. I am sure the courts will take a dim view of this, upsetting those two women.

And joking apart, they will

I am sure someone in Law can explain why though, even though it just makes the law look an ass.

I'm not in law, but the reasons the names will be hidden before they've been in court will be to protect the children and I would imagine that they are being painted as victims by their defence, and they must be mentally ill to have been manipulated by that pervert.

So Peaches Geldof just says the same.

Or that she was drugged up at the time, and was mentally incapable.

The law cant have it both ways, as both are lying.

Yes, they don't name the women to protect the kids identities. Somehow wrong, but almost certainly right.

It's unlikely that these women get to keep their kids so at some stage someone has to look after them, and they'll probably, now the cat's out of the bag, have to have new identities. What a fucking rats nest.

Yup, if the women had worked in a nursery and had used kids they had access to they would have been named like Watkins.

If (ok when surely) they're found guilty they'll be named but the kids will be hidden by the care & legal systems.

But they are going to be found guilty, and will be named. So what happens to the protection then?

No doubt she will spend longer in jail than the paedos.

Kids go into social care system and will be given new identities, this kind of thing happens more than the media tell us but it only comes to light when particularly horrific or it involves celebrities.

I can think of a few people in this town who are far worse parents than the two women in this case.

Even if they go off with fathers etc then they will still be 'looked after' and on the radar of the social care system and will be subject to a child protection plan, which will include steps to limit their exposure to any fall out from the parents convictions.

They won't necessarily go into care.

Well aye, but hasn't young Geldoff made them traceable? You know what the press are like.

I'm sure the press know but even the callous bastards in our media know better than to identify kids abused like this.

How can these butchering animals have a right to live? It isn't an illness or DNA excuse with these bastards. They are just rotten murders

They wouldn't actually be classed as 'looked after' if with their fathers or another member of their immediate family. There would be some initial social services involvement to determine whether they were capable of caring for the children but once satisfied social services would leave them to it. Pedantic of me but I couldn't leave that alone.

I did some very interesting training recently around perpetrators of sexual abuse. Some of the case studies used were staggering. A lot of worse cases never make the press due to no 'celebrity' being involved but this sort of extreme case is more common than you would imagine.

that is worrying

I've heard other social workers say the same kind of thing.
Hawklord (I think) posted at the time of the Baby P case and pointed out that the cases of child abuse that came to official attention are just the tip of the ice-berg.

Probably people we all know well are abusing their children and thinking nothing of it. It's just a way of life for some, and the children usually don't speak out for themselves. I can't imagine what we could do to stop it, but I do know that shouting 'execute the bastards' is just a knee-jerk, and solves nothing.

I used to be in the Lions which is a bit like the local community charity fund raising thing. There was a Magistrate and a Schools Community Officer in the same organisation and then the shit hit the fan.


Unfortunately it seems endemic.

See the 'lovely lovely person' got 29 years today

Peaches Geldof?

I seriously don't expect he'll be allowed to live anywhere near that long in jail.

With any luck, he'll rub himself out and save us all a fortune.

guardian said 35.

trouble is he will get out one day and leopards dont change their spots

29 years in jail.. 6 year on licence it says..