rehctub: <"...the fact remains that this guy has done his time and should be left alone.">

He was left alone and he used that time to move in with an underage female and later to sexually assault another two children. The judge in those cases decided the cases shouldn't proceed because DF wouldn't get a fair trial. I, for one, didn't even know who he was until then.

I think therefore that the magistrate was very mistaken. In any case, the court could have flown in jurists from elsewhere - or sometimes a judge only trial is granted; I wonder why that sort of trial wasn't undertaken.

One researcher has stated that the average number of victims for a person caught for paedophilia is 110. It is very unlikely that the one event for which he has served time was the beginning or will be the end of his predatory activity.

Recidivism rates for paedophiles have been assessed as from about 14 to 40 percent. Recidivism is more likely when a paedophile cannot empathize with child victims and/or believes that they have done nothing harmful. DF refused to take offender courses while in gaol - I wonder why. (BTW I understand that such courses are optional).

DF is a very specific type of paedophile; he has particular predilections such as sadism/ perhaps masochism. I think he is amongst the rarer and most recalcitrant type of offender.

He also has a role in making sure that the housing he accesses is in a suitable place. So far he hasn't been the least proactive in ensuring that his accommodation would place him away from children; quite the opposite.

I agree with the writer and one or two others who believe that the cost (in terms of potential victims) of trying to reintegrate many (but not all) of these types of offenders, is too high.

Any vacant islands or outback ghost towns?

Until we have done a whole lot more research and know more about how to defuse these walking timebombs - send them to one of those distant locations.

Pynchme, you are 'way off the mark' and, it is quite obvious you are one of those who found him guilty before he had his trial. In fact, it is your kind that allows these people to roam our streets as, if you lot would simply 'clam up' and keep your opinions on one's guilt to yourself, perhaps there could have been a fair trial. In any case, you seem to have made up your mind.

Just a few facts.
1. The under age girl he was living with was a few months from being 18. Huge grey area!

2. He did receive a 'judge only trial' and was found 'not guilty'.

3. The person named as being the one most likely to have committed the recent crime has not been charged. (more evidence the police when on a which hunt in reaction to public outroar) The very 'outroar' that prevent justice being done in the first place.

4. He did attempt to reside on a remote property (well away from any children) but the towns folk, fueled by the media, drove him away.

I say again, you are way off the mark!

p.s. There is a peodophile still on the loose, as DF was found not guilty. So, have you any intentions of bringing him to justice?

I've seen nothing on the media about him, other than the four corners report. Have you?

Where are the police now?

Do they not care about the little girl's (alledged) molestor being on the loose?

Pynchme: "I think therefore that the magistrate was very mistaken."

No, he wasn't Pynchme. He implemented the law as it is written. You can't retrospectively change the law, and the decision has been appealed a number of times and stood firm. So the point remains: Dennis has done his time and is now a free man. If we as a society actually put our faith in the rule of law he should be allowed to do this in peace and quiet without harassment from the media or vigalanties.

If you are correct and all paedophiles are highly likely to re-offend regardless of age we should change the law. It would be good if you could post some links backing up that assertion. I'd be particularly interested in seeing the percentage of paedophiles who were over 60 when they offended.

"If we as a society actually put our faith in the rule of law"
ie Australian laws.
That's the problem- nobody does. Most of us think they're crap and badly need to change. Our legal system has shown itself increasingly corrupt and slanted when dealing with different demographics, and they seem to put low consideration on public safety for serious cases (while harboring a disjointedly harsh stance against leaking information and graffiti).

And assuming Ferguson was in fact guilty (of a repeat offense), it may well be putting others in danger he is to settle near- which is not fair on them.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to side with the locals- it shouldn't be up to them to give up their rights and adjust their lives around this man- if they don't want to. I'd say it's fairer to say it's HIS tough luck than to say it's THEIRS.

Ok King Hass and all those who hate this man.

What about the person who alledgedly assulted these girls from Dalby. Why haven't you lot gone after him?

He is still living in the community, so what makes him any less of a threat than DF? After all, he to is a convicted peodophile!

Now unless you intend to take this matter up and have him face justice, then you really are simply a pack of 'closed minded' vigilanties out to fuel the media hype.

I challenge you lot to 'stand up and be counted' or simply leave DF alone!

Like it or not, he has been tried and found 'not guilty'.

It is very 'double standard' of you all to sit back and do nothing about this alledged peodophile at large.

King Hazza: "it shouldn't be up to them to give up their rights"

I think you are under a couple of misconceptions.

Firstly under Australian law these people have no rights to give up, as we have never had the right to choose our neighbours.

Secondly Dennis, bless his black little heart, does have some rights. He has property rights, tenancy rights and all sorts of other rights given to him under law, which you now demand be taken away.

So don't argue your case on a "I have rights" basis. You don't, but Dennis does.

King Hazza: "it may well be"

It may be. However it may not, and the idea of a 60 year old man going on a sexual rampage sounds far fetched to me. That is why I asked Pynchme to provide some proof it is a real possibility.

All I see in your words is a justification for an unlawful lynch mob. Now I can have some sympathy for lynch mobs. Some of the commanders of Hitler's camps were hung by little more than lynch mobs. The evidence was overwhelming, the crime was great, and at the time unpunished. How can one argue?

But here we have a man who is innocent - he has been punished for all his crimes, and no one claims he has committed new ones. The evidence that he might commit a another crime looks to be based on hearsay. I certainly appears to be so in your case - I'd wager you don't have a clue how often 60 year old paedophiles re-offend, and have never bothered to look it up.

So all I see is a man whose blood is boiling at the thought of remote deeds done in a distant past, and now saying he has the "right" to chase another out of town because of it. That doesn't seem right to me.