Paedophiles and marinas

jerrytug said:
Doris if you read this, I'm massively curious to know what yacht Gary Glitter sailed!...better not be a fecking gaffer ;)
Click to expand...

It was a US built (I think) 33 footer that looked timber but was in fact GRP. Cutter rigged, proper gunwales, immaculate and very handsome boat it was. IIRC of course.
 
Last edited:
Triassic said:
Which says a lot about you, and I don't find it particularly attractive.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say anything of the sort and you're jumping to conclusions about what I might do. What I said is a fact, if a convicted paedophile or viewer of paedophilia were known to be living in the marinas up North, he wouldn't be around too long.
 
savageseadog said:
It doesn't say anything of the sort and you're jumping to conclusions about what I might do. What I said is a fact, if a convicted paedophile or viewer of paedophilia were known to be living in the marinas up North, he wouldn't be around too long.
Click to expand...

Your post implies that you wouldn't tolerate living near a convicted Paedophile and "he wouldn't last five minutes" tends to suggest something unfortunate would happen to him. We live in a civilised society where we entrust the maintenance of law and order to recognised authorities. If they have decided that this individual has answered for whatever he may have done and can be allowed to return to his place in that society who are you, or anyone else, to challenge that decision, especially if it involves any kind of vigilante or "self justice" behaviour.

I don't know the individual that sparked this discussion, nor have we been directed to the press information referred to. All we have been told is that he was convicted of possessing indecent images of children. Lets keep this in perspective shall we?
 
Think its been suggested the OP contacts the local police on the matter. that way hes acted appropriately.(the police will know if any risk exists) other than that, leave well alone, Give the guy the benefit of doubt, he hopefully has learnt a hard lesson. We are a civilised society today.

Steveeasy
 
Triassic said:
Y
I don't know the individual that sparked this discussion, nor have we been directed to the press information referred to. All we have been told is that he was convicted of possessing indecent images of children. Lets keep this in perspective shall we?
Click to expand...
Said I wouldn't say more but feel I need to correct you. These were not just indecent images but vile videos & pictures of small children being violently raped.
Still can't see how he got away with just a suspended sentence.
 
jerrytug said:
Knowing how curious/observant/nosey yachties are, plus the CCTV, I would have thought this person is very unlikely to re-offend in the confines of the marina? The yacht kids are perhaps at less risk than those in the local park.
Doris if you read this, I'm massively curious to know what yacht Gary Glitter sailed!...better not be a fecking gaffer ;)
Click to expand...
We pulled in along side a yacht in Soto Grande in the early 2000s. Were informed that it was GGs. No one on board. All locked up.
It was, I think, a Hans Christian, canoe stern ketch. Google gary glitter yacht for a pic taken by the Sun at the time.
S
 
Triassic said:
Your post implies that you wouldn't tolerate living near a convicted Paedophile and "he wouldn't last five minutes" tends to suggest something unfortunate would happen to him. ..................
Click to expand...

You and others are reading far too much into what I've said. He would be around because he would be advised to leave, and would, I've known it to happen for a different reason at our marina.
 
steveeasy said:
Think its been suggested the OP contacts the local police on the matter. that way hes acted appropriately.(the police will know if any risk exists) other than that, leave well alone, Give the guy the benefit of doubt, he hopefully has learnt a hard lesson. We are a civilised society today.

Steveeasy
Click to expand...

And tells them what?
 
well the OP could tell the police what he had for dinner, but it would be better to just explain his concerns. sure that would deal with any concerns
Steveeasy
 
Stemar said:
As I understand it, he had some sick images on his PC. I appreciate that children suffered in the making of the images, which is why they're illegal, but there's nothing to suggest he ever harmed a child directly. He also got a suspended sentence, which implies that the images were at the milder end of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Mild rape. That's a new one.
 
Seajet said:
Personally I would quietly inform any parents nearby; if I was a parent I'd be outraged if no-one told me.

I don't think any more action than that is required.
Click to expand...

I know of a children's residential activity provider which uses a centre the residential owner of which has been convicted of child sexual abuse. The local safeguarding team has warned groups not to use the centre with children; the organisation I know of responded by changing the name of the place in their brochure so parents wouldn't find out by googling. I have reported this but the authorities are supremely indifferent.
 
To answer your question. Nothing in this instance. If his conviction was only for WATCHING VIDEOS. If on the other hand he was a participant I think I would feel rather differently about it.

I am not sure anything can be done legally about this because of the re-habilition of offenders act. I don't know the details of what is and isn't covered but the marina would have to be very careful if it applies to this situation.
 
savageseadog said:
You and others are reading far too much into what I've said. He would be around because he would be advised to leave, and would, I've known it to happen for a different reason at our marina.
Click to expand...

And why would he leave? Would reason could he possibly have for wishing to comply with the "advice"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top