The only way to clear the internet of perverts:

Contraversial? To be sure. Does he have a point? I think so. Is he right? I really don't know. I have my own opinions, but let's hear yours first.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/13/the-only-way-to-clear-the-internet-of-perverts-bring-back-the-death-penalty-for-murder-115875-22107044/

The only way to clear the internet of perverts: bring back the death penalty for murder.

The sad and brutal truth is that the internet has ushered in a golden era for paedophiles.
You can warn your children all you like about the dangers of internet chat with strangers.
You can limit the hours they spend alone in their room, monitor their army of Facebook friends and treat every chat-room they enter as if they are playing in busy traffic.
And it will not make any difference.
Because they will still be kids, looking for validation and friendship and romance.
And the abusers of children will still be out there, anonymous in the virtual jungle, looking for fresh, easy meat.
Ten years ago, Ashleigh Hall would not have been murdered and dumped in a ditch by a pervert she met on Facebook. Ten years ago, Ashleigh would have struggled with the torments of adolescence alone in her room – without internet access to make her feel better.
Ten years ago, she would never have met serial rapist Peter Chapman, because he would never have got near such a young and painfully vulnerable girl.
But the magic of that computer lets every lonely, awkward kid feel as though they have the social life of Paris Hilton.
For a hardened sex offender like Chapman, that computer offers everything he could possibly want to satisfy his sickest dreams, including easy access to a limitless supply of gullible children under the venal cloak of anonymity.
In grim reality Chapman is a bald, middle-aged weirdo who any child would run a mile from if he approached them in a park.
But he posted a picture of himself on Facebook looking like a boyband hunk. And he was believed.
Five million British teenagers use Facebook. It is the modern equivalent of hanging around the chip shop, or the bus stop.
It is what kids do and it puts them in direct contact with men who only a generation ago would have had to keep their sick cravings in the shadows.
Chapman, we now learn, was in contact with almost 3,000 teenagers before alighting on poor young Ashleigh.
And such is the smoke and mirrors quality of the internet that even when he met Ashleigh, serial rapist Chapman was able to put her at ease by pretending to be the father of the non-existent boyband hunk.
And then she died. Before she ever had a life, or even her first date.
Dead in a ditch because of a creep she met through the wonders of modern technology.
Ashleigh was tragically unlucky. The victim could have been any one of those 3,000 that Chapman tried to seduce online.
It could have been your child. It could have been mine.
And the problem of the abusers of children turning the internet into their happy hunting ground will not go away.
To my seven-year-old, the net is as unremarkable as running water or electricity. She has grown up with it. She presses a button, and expects it to be there.
By the time she is a teenager, social networking sites will be what the club, the disco or the dancehall were to previous generations.
Meeting someone on the internet is going to become as natural as getting a phone number from someone you met on Saturday night dancing under the plastic palm trees.
The Peter Chapmans will never go away. We have to live with that. But right now they are completely unafraid. And we are insane if we live with that. Our children need protection from the perverts and protection from themselves.
Chapman has got 35 years inside. But any criminologist, psychologist or police officer will tell you the same thing – the likes of Chapman do not change.
So he will live a comfy life at the taxpayers’ expense and the same sick stuff will always be in his head.
He will die of old age in his bed. And long out of prison by then – because these sentences are always shorter than advertised.
Any civilised society that truly cared about the welfare of its children would simply put Peter Chapman to sleep.
Humanely, painlessly to sleep – an infinitely more peaceful death than the one he inflicted on young Ashleigh, raped and murdered and dumped in a ditch like a piece of trash before she ever had her first boyfriend.
You want to know how to control the abusers of children who patrol the internet?
Bring back the death penalty for murder.
It is all right telling our children to be afraid of strangers. But it is high time that the strangers learned to be afraid of the parents.

Close down Facebook. That´s a start in the right direction. It is inherently dangerous, and promotes all the worst aspects of human nature. It encourages not only paedophiles, but bullying, posturing, spitefulness and vaingloriousness. Everyone wants to be a b----y celebrity and have their photos on the net.

If you want to keep in touch with friends (real friends!) email them.

As to bring back hanging Vee......for child murderers I would say yes, but it aint never goin to happen. Not in my lifetime. But it will make a comeback in the future I prophesy.

This may not be the right place for this comment but Vee here goes. I have developed a theory about internet forms and hate sites since I started posting on this essentially kind and gentle forum.

We try don´t we, to keep our bodies healthy by eating well and buying good food etc? Why then do pollute our minds and our spirit by even looking at hate sights or trying to understand toxic sick people who haunt them, such as TB?

It is quite simply an unhealthy and toxic occupation. Perhaps there are some people who feel they are immune to this kind of a daily diet. I cannot agree with them. I understand completely the perceived need to right the wrongs of evildoers but I would put up a Health Warning on such sites "Danger! Too much consumption can lead to a nervous depression!" "Keep Away"!

I would agree, Rosemary, but if we don't know what is going on then we can't fight it. We needed to know that The PJ cocked it up, and then started discarding leads, and with that knowledge comes the rest I'm afraid.

The PJ we had to investigate but they don´t come under my heading of hate sites Sabot. I suppose my prime loathing would be Bennett et al.

rosemary wrote:The PJ we had to investigate but they don´t come under my heading of hate sites Sabot. I suppose my prime loathing would be Bennett et al.

Bennett isn't a problem. We've all been banned and prevented from reading his rubbish. Although I know that's not what you meant.

I wish they were all closed forums, then I wouldn't be tempted.

rosemary wrote:This may not be the right place for this comment but Vee here goes. I have developed a theory about internet forms and hate sites since I started posting on this essentially kind and gentle forum.

We try don´t we, to keep our bodies healthy by eating well and buying good food etc? Why then do pollute our minds and our spirit by even looking at hate sights or trying to understand toxic sick people who haunt them, such as TB?

It is quite simply an unhealthy and toxic occupation. Perhaps there are some people who feel they are immune to this kind of a daily diet. I cannot agree with them. I understand completely the perceived need to right the wrongs of evildoers but I would put up a Health Warning on such sites "Danger! Too much consumption can lead to a nervous depression!" "Keep Away"!

I couldn't agree more Rosemary, I have never used Facebook nor shall I, but I have looked into the cess pit of pathetic morons who feel they need to advertise themselves to gain friendships, what is wrong with these pathetic individuals thant they cannot form friendhips in the normal manner, socializing and participating in hobies and interests

There is nothing wrong with Facebook. You control who can see your photos and read your page. The trouble is that kids think it is cool to make it public, so anyone can see it. It is the same as those idiot kids that send naked photos of themselves around. They just dont realise the implications of what they are doing. Education of the dangers of the internet would be far better in the National Corriculum than teaching kids some of the nonsense that is in it.

Facebook needs parental control for those under 18, or something like that. Another tip for Facebook is to not put up all of your information on it, put some, enough to identify you to your friends, but that wont let non friends find out who you are. Plus, only let 'friends' access your info. I get requests from people I dont know to be made friends, and I NEVER give permission to any of them.

Simple - Bring back the death penalty. I'd be the first to volunteer to push the button!!

The mother who starved that beautiful girl to death. Give me the rope and I will do it for free. That poor little mite dies an agonisingly slow and frightening death, and there is absolutly no doubt about who is guilty. Why should this government spend millions of tax payers pounds keeping that animal alive, when that money could be better spent on hospitals or nurses? Same with the parents of baby P, Victoria Kolumbe and others. Rose West, fat disgusting cow, will be kept fed and watered for the rest of her life, how much will that cost? No, I am in favour of the death penalty in cases of absolutly no doubt, simply on economic terms. Why waste money on keeping people alive who don't deserve to share the same air as us?

dianeh wrote:There is nothing wrong with Facebook. You control who can see your photos and read your page. The trouble is that kids think it is cool to make it public, so anyone can see it. It is the same as those idiot kids that send naked photos of themselves around. They just dont realise the implications of what they are doing. Education of the dangers of the internet would be far better in the National Corriculum than teaching kids some of the nonsense that is in it.

Facebook needs parental control for those under 18, or something like that. Another tip for Facebook is to not put up all of your information on it, put some, enough to identify you to your friends, but that wont let non friends find out who you are. Plus, only let 'friends' access your info. I get requests from people I dont know to be made friends, and I NEVER give permission to any of them.

Agreed. Like I get requests from people I don't know on Skype as well.

I'm not in favour of the death penalty, no matter what somebody did, or how angry I feel about that.
It's irreversible. There's still miscarriages of Justice, no matter how much people try to prevent that.
Imo it's better to uphold the punishment, if sent to prison for life, keep them in prison for life.

I have to be honest, I agree with Jean and Vee.

Oh I am in favour of the death penalty, didn't used to be but I am now.

vee8 wrote:The mother who starved that beautiful girl to death. Give me the rope and I will do it for free. That poor little mite dies an agonisingly slow and frightening death, and there is absolutly no doubt about who is guilty. Why should this government spend millions of tax payers pounds keeping that animal alive, when that money could be better spent on hospitals or nurses? Same with the parents of baby P, Victoria Kolumbe and others. Rose West, fat disgusting cow, will be kept fed and watered for the rest of her life, how much will that cost? No, I am in favour of the death penalty in cases of absolutly no doubt, simply on economic terms. Why waste money on keeping people alive who don't deserve to share the same air as us?