England's White Dragon

England's White Dragon
England's true Flag

Wednesday, 16 February 2011

Sex Offenders now have more rights than the innocent



This is what England gets with a half backed Liberal-Dem government,
Sex Offenders put on the sex register for life now get appeal right, what about the rights of those they commit these offences against, and what about the rights of those they will offend? There are certain circumstances where “Rights” of certain offenders don’t have rights.

 Sexual offences such as rapist, paedophiles, murders, and repeat offends with more than three convictions for violence towards others, decent honest people Have the Right to no who’s living next door, for their and their families rights from protection of  these offenders, these offenders will only  reap what they sow?.

Thousands of sex offenders in England and Wales are set to be given the right to appeal against having their names on the sex offenders register for life.

A government source told the BBC it had no choice but to adopt the change following a Supreme Court ruling.

It found that not giving offenders the right of appeal was incompatible with their human rights.

Under a review system, offenders would have to prove they no longer pose a risk to the public.

Only individuals sentenced to more than 30 months for a sex-related crime are placed on the register for life. There are currently about 20,000 sex offenders in the UK who have received such sentences and they include paedophiles and rapists.

The government source said: "We have no choice but to implement the Supreme Court judgement. There is no right of appeal."
Test cases

Last year, two convicted sex offenders used human rights laws to challenge the system and won the right to appeal against their inclusion on the register.

The two offenders were a teenager convicted of rape and a 59-year-old man guilty of indecent assault.
The teenage boy, known only as F, had been jailed for 30 months in October 2005, aged 11, for raping a six-year-old boy.
The second case involved a man named Angus Aubrey Thompson who was jailed in 1996 for five years.
Both the offenders said permanent inclusion on the sex offenders register with no chance of a review was a disproportionate interference in their family lives.
In the case of F, he said he had been prevented from taking a family holiday abroad and from playing rugby league.
At the time, Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said: "It is obvious that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified."
The BBC's political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said the ruling meant ministers were now "committed to introducing a review process".
"They were due to bring proposals forward around now to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but government sources have told the BBC an appeal system won't be introduced to Parliament until the spring," he said.
He added the move was likely to infuriate backbenchers on both sides of the Commons who last week registered their disapproval over plans to give prisoners the vote in elections following legal decisions based on human rights laws.
The Scottish government has already brought forward plans to allow convicted adults to seek a review after 15 years on the sex offenders register.
Also those placed on the register when less than 18 years old can seek a review after eight years.
The two offenders were a teenager convicted of rape and a 59-year-old man guilty of indecent assault.
The teenage boy, known only as F, had been jailed for 30 months in October 2005, aged 11, for raping a six-year-old boy.
The second case involved a man named Angus Aubrey Thompson who was jailed in 1996 for five years.
Both the offenders said permanent inclusion on the sex offenders register with no chance of a review was a disproportionate interference in their family lives.
In the case of F, he said he had been prevented from taking a family holiday abroad and from playing rugby league.
At the time, Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said: "It is obvious that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified."
"They were due to bring proposals forward around now to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 but government sources have told the London Times an appeal system won't be introduced to Parliament until the spring," he said.
He added the move was likely to infuriate backbenchers on both sides of the Commons who last week registered their disapproval over plans to give prisoners the vote in elections following legal decisions based on human rights laws.
The Scottish government has already brought forward plans to allow convicted adults to seek a review after 15 years on the sex offenders register.
Also those placed on the register when less than 18 years old can seek a review after eight years.

Sir Michael Black-Feather the English first minister said; this ruling to allow sex offenders the right to have their names removed from the sex offenders register is outrageous and is one of those issues this British governments dreads, because it has “No back-bone, you can guarantees Cameron and Clegg’s coalition government will be getting truck- loads of irate letters and coruscating English and British tabloid headlines, its very well known by the press that half of these that sit in these courts and seats of high places are perverts themselves so it’s no wonder to me that they want rights for perverts.
Sir Michael went on to say; that firstly, unlike the recent judgement on prisoners' votes, it does not involve the toxic issue of Europe. This was a decision made by A British Supreme Court - not the European Court of Human Rights that would have most like have thrown it out as in Europe they have every strong views on sexual offenders unlike under the British liberal ways its soft.
Secondly the catch 22, it's not clear whether any change in the way the register is managed would require primary legislation, avoiding the possibility of a protracted Parliamentary tussle the way the policy was designed for the register was for just such a reason to cover the British government if had been one of my policy’s there would have been no right of appeal without English voters voting on it.
The Scottish Government going by way of the good old back door method has already implemented the change without suffering undue damage only because most of the scots where unaware of the change.

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for such a nice and updated information. I got some interesting tips from this post.
    Sony Laptops

    ReplyDelete