Britain's Talent (at what?)

[Misunderstood]

On Friday, impressionist Richard Bates was removed from the contest after police contacted producers to tell them he was on the sex offenders' register.

ITV said Bates, who is due to be removed from the register next month, had agreed to step down from the show.

I don't know what to make of this, I didn't watch the show and I don't care very much,  But I wonder whether the police did the right thing or not, in disclosing to the entire nation that he was on the Sex Offenders Register and that it was going to be annulled in a matter of days.

When I recall spectacles of police refusing to release photo's of escaped felons in case it breached their human rights, it seems to me to be a bit bizarre and vindictive.

A parallel might be an announcement in The Gazette whenever someone is released from prison just in case you may be interested, not recognising that the release signalled the completion of the penalty.

Guilty he may be, but the penalty imposed by society is not something an offender is responsible for.  If it is not enough then that is our fault, not his.

In his case, the mud will stick for a very long time due to the exposure and it amounts to a sentence that will be stiffer than the original one.

I am doubtful that that can be a good thing.   

[Darwins Selection]

On Friday, impressionist Richard Bates was removed from the contest after police contacted producers to tell them he was on the sex offenders' register.

ITV said Bates, who is due to be removed from the register next month, had agreed to step down from the show.

I don't know what to make of this, I didn't watch the show and I don't care very much,  But I wonder whether the police did the right thing or not, in disclosing to the entire nation that he was on the Sex Offenders Register and that it was going to be annulled in a matter of days.

When I recall spectacles of police refusing to release photo's of escaped felons in case it breached their human rights, it seems to me to be a bit bizarre and vindictive.

A parallel might be an announcement in The Gazette whenever someone is released from prison just in case you may be interested, not recognising that the release signalled the completion of the penalty.

Guilty he may be, but the penalty imposed by society is not something an offender is responsible for.  If it is not enough then that is our fault, not his.

In his case, the mud will stick for a very long time due to the exposure and it amounts to a sentence that will be stiffer than the original one.

I am doubtful that that can be a good thing.   

I tend to agree. Either publish all the names or none of them.

The punishment will last longer for those published, which may be what society wants, but there must be one set of rules.

Perhaps there should be a 'no publicity' tick box on the charge sheet, which they can trade for longer sentences?

[Shy Talk]

whetherv the police were right or wrong serves the b'stard right he knew he was still on the sex offenders register, whether it had a few days to run is irrelivant, and was in breech of it if he auditioned .  I'm glad everybody knows at least he should have a bugger of a life from now on .  Now where's that castration emicon ??

[Uncle Mort]

I haven't been following this story but after a quick trawl through the news on the internet I cannot find a mention that he was in breach of any conditions.

Also I doubt if the producers of the show had any entitlement to know if he was on a register.

A spokesman said he was placed on the sex offenders' register and given a two-year conditional discharge when he was sentenced at Preston Crown Court in December 2005.

No further details of the offence have been given.

We also don't know what his offence was.

I don't think we don't need a castration emoticon.   

[Shy Talk]

I haven't been following this story but after a quick trawl through the news on the internet I cannot find a mention that he was in breach of any conditions.

Also I doubt if the producers of the show had any entitlement to know if he was on a register.

A spokesman said he was placed on the sex offenders' register and given a two-year conditional discharge when he was sentenced at Preston Crown Court in December 2005. 

No further details of the offence have been given. 

We also don't know what his offence was.

I don't think we don't need a castration emoticon.    

anyone on the sex offenders register needs castration IMHO of course .  The reference to the emoticon was in jest BTW

[Darwins Selection]

I don't think we don't need a castration emoticon.   

So you do think we need one?

As for automatic castration, I would think that was sweeping given that we can't tell if somebody is on the register as a serial abusing priest who has damaged dozens of kids over decades, or as a 16 year+1 month boy who got lucky once with a 15 year+11 month girl.

I wonder how many of us here risked singing on the front row of the choir in the latter example?

[Snoopy]

  X Several

[Uncle Mort]

I don't think we don't need a castration emoticon.   

So you do think we need one?

  

[Misunderstood]

I understand that there are some women on the register. Do we substitute polyfilla for castration in their case?

The concept of a sex offenders register was a step in the right direction but totally lost focus when purely technical offences were included regardless of their individual merits.

From that point on, every serious sex offender can claim circumstances conspired against him and as we all know, that may be true, it extends the typical benefit of the doubt to the major offenders.  Yet it tars the technical offender with the same stigma brush of the serial rapist.  The register has lost whatever impact it ever had and can be likened to motoring offences where in early days they were a disgrace to the whole family and nowadays when asked it you have a record these forms usually end with 'Except motoring offences' because everyone recognises they are trivial, but they do nevertheless hold the occasional 'Causing death by dangerous driving.' blot.

He can't have done much wrong if his time on the Register was only 18 months, Indecent Exposure can carry 10 years!

I feel that under the circumstances, he should have been given the opportunity to withdraw voluntarily before they grassed him up, it is not down to the police who serves a second punishment period or not.

[Boozehag]

Hmmm....my understanding of this case was that the cop concerned, phoned ITV after Bates refused to drop out himself. It was a television show with a whole load of kids so presumably the cop felt it his duty... Apparently his offence was engaging in sexual activity with a boy under the age of 16, in effect, a child, so perhaps if the stupid fool had bowed out gracefully when he was rumbled he wouldn't be creating news and grief for himself now.
Nought but himself to blame.

[Misunderstood]

Hmmm....my understanding of this case was that the cop concerned, phoned ITV after Bates refused to drop out himself. It was a television show with a whole load of kids so presumably the cop felt it his duty... Apparently his offence was engaging in sexual activity with a boy under the age of 16, in effect, a child, so perhaps if the stupid fool had bowed out gracefully when he was rumbled he wouldn't be creating news and grief for himself now.
Nought but himself to blame.

Well, if it was his own decision then he indeed has only himself to blame.  End of thread.   

[Snoopy]

If indeed a police officer has contacted the television company with this information after first giving the offender the opportunity of "revealing" himself the officer is guilty of (i) Blackmail and (ii) A serious breach of his professional duty of confidentiality and (iii) A clear breach of the Data Protection legislation.
Correctly the TV company should, under its "duty of care" as laid down by the Child Protection Acts have asked the man if he had any convictions or an entry on the SO Register. They should then have checked his answers with the CRB. The onus is on the TV company to ensure the safety of the child. An entry on the Sex Offenders Register does not bar anyone from anything ~ it is up to the people who have the duty of care towards those who are considered at risk to protect them from such risks ~ in the manner I have described.

[Darwins Selection]

I understand that there are some women on the register. Do we substitute polyfilla for castration in their case?

Superglue.

[Snoopy]

I understand that there are some women on the register. Do we substitute polyfilla for castration in their case?

Superglue.

Well that would take care of the talking aspect I suppose.

[Darwins Selection]

I understand that there are some women on the register. Do we substitute polyfilla for castration in their case?

Superglue.

Well that would take care of the talking aspect I suppose.

Everyone knows that Superglue is only good at sticking together: fingers, eyelids and labia.

Use it on anything else and it falls apart three seconds after you turn away.

Unless the item to be glued was in contact with one of the three above, in which case half the item will fall off and you will need surgery to remove the remaining part.