Wednesday, June 06, 2007

As I Was Saying...

Further evidence of what Liberals really think about crime: Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, thinks that the whole 'padeophillia' thing is overblown.
Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), said some offenders who viewed child porn could be given a police caution.

He believes treatment in the community is a practical way of dealing with the huge scale of the problem.
Can you imagine this in any other context ? 'Practical'. Not 'effective', 'just' or 'safe', just 'practical'. Hey, when the 'End World Poverty Now!' side of the spectrum starts talking about practicality, grab grandma and the kids and head for the hills: rancid ideas are on the way.
He suggested that to deal with the scale of the problem, some offenders should receive a police caution and then be managed within the community.
See ? We might have perverts walking the streets, but at least they're managed perverts. When are Liberals going to start managing tax evaders, smokers or people who put the wrong thing in the recycling bin ?
We shouldn't be sending everyone that ever commits an offence - particularly of the viewing kind - to prison.

There are people who have been dealt with by police caution who can be dealt with successfully in a way that allows them to maintain their lives and their families.
Yep, you did read that right: Jimbo is arguing that our policy on predators should be driven by the need to cause them minimal disruption. There you have the pathology of Liberalism better than Shakespeare could sum it up.

But just in case you think the Left are a bunch of amoral scum, Jimbo qualifies his position thus:
Mr Gamble said he was not referring to paedophiles who committed violent offences like the rape of a child....
Yes, he takes a hard line on people who rape children. Just as a rule of thumb, I'd say that if members of a movement need to spell out their opposition to child rape, that raises serious questions about the underlying ideology. Of course, if you only pay money to a guy who rapes children so you can see the videos he makes of him violating children, well, y'know, who cares ?

Seriously, can Jimbo or anyone on the Left point to a single other area of law where there exists a distinction between those who commit criminal acts and those who merely pay other people to perform them ? I doubt it, but don't worry, the rest of the sentance is even more obnoxious:
.....but he insisted that some offenders "at the beginning of the spread of abuse may benefit from a police caution and can be managed
Well, y'know, as long as the perverts can benefit, that's the main thing. At this point, I would remind you that Jimbo's title is head of the 'Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre '. With protectors like these, who needs predators ?

No comments: