Notorious paedophile Dennis Ferguson was due to face trial next week for an alleged sexual assault but was granted a permanent stay of proceedings by a district court judge and set free, due to the opinion of the judge that he was so notorious that he could not hope to get a fair trial, the crown case being week and the time served in prison waiting for the case to be heard being probably more than the sentence imposed if he was found guilty. http://www.mako.org.au/ausnews74.html

So he was whisked away to an isolated property near Miles, about 350 km west of Brisbane.

Qld Premier Anna Bligh said on ABC radio;

“On the advice I have from the police commissioner, I am satisfied that he has been placed in an appropriate setting,"

“He is not in a neighbourhood, he is not next to people's houses, he is not in a community near a school."

But today the people of Miles came out in very strong protest at Ferguson’s presence in their area and demanded that he be taken elsewhere.

So what do we do with people like this? Lock them up forever? Stick them on some isolated property and prevent them from travelling even into the nearest town? Give them a new identity once they have served their time and deliberately hide their true identity from the public, and send them out into the general community?

What do the good people of OLO think about this?

Well, Ludwig, I remember you and I having this same discussion some time back and our views being very much in the minority then, and I wouldn't imagine it will be any different this time round!

"So what do we do with people like this? Lock them up forever?"

I think the general community feeling is that they should be locked up forever, or at least that's the impression you get by listening to those who make the most noise on the issue.

Part of the problem I think in this particular case is that people feel cheated out of seeing justice served. My feeling though is that the judge's decision was the correct one.

"Stick them on some isolated property and prevent them from travelling even into the nearest town? Give them a new identity once they have served their time and deliberately hide their true identity from the public, and send them out into the general community?"

I think they should live in a reasonably isolated situation. The NIMBY factor has kicked in so strongly that it's now a necessity anyway. They should be able to resume some sort of normal life though, once they've done their time, provided they're not allowed to go near schools and parks and are closely monitored, all of which was set to happen in this case. That is until the vigilante crowd reared its ugly head.

I have thought this out
It is my honestly held view.
The person who set him free is as much a threat to the community as he is.
Along with far too many who sit in judgment.
What to do?
Prison for life may not be the answer but nore is total freedom.
In this case not in my town has Merritt.

In the end he needs to be treated like Typhoid Mary.
Isolated and given something to do.
Mary got a vegetable patch on an island.
An outback cattle station would probably do.

Don't think even the extreme greenie leftie touchy feely everyone deserves a break civil liberty spruiking knobs would disagree this fella is a class 'A' piece of excrement.

No one wants him in their community, understandably. How about we move him into 'The Gap', or 'The Grange', or Indooroopilly where these judges and politicians live.....?.

Why do they end up in the lower socio-economic areas every time?.

There ABSOLUTELY NEEDS to be some law for individuals like this who appear to be totally lacking in rehabilitation.

Wasn't Nauru detention centre recently closed?. Why is it we have camps for refugees who haven't really done anything but queue jump, but extreme proven threats and recent offenders get released becuase no one can judge them fairly.....?. Bizarre.

This is a difficult question. Nearly every suggested solution creates more problems.

Jailing sex offenders for life (the maximum penalty one can receive for any crime in Australia) may result in child molesters killing their victims. If the death penalty were in force, this would cause the same problems.

Castrating offenders (either physically or chemically) won't acheive results as in most cases the perpetrator of the crime gets their satisfaction from the suffering endured by the victim, and enjoys the power they are able to influence over the child, rather than satisfying a sexual urge.

Continual harrasment of offenders by vigilantes will make it difficult for those who want help and want to change their ways.

Bashings in jail will make offenders want to take their revenge on other children when released from jail.

Steel Mann is correct in what he says, however there is another side to this that everyone dismisses. What of the family of the offender? They are forced by the 'vigilantes' to suffer just as much as the offender by proxy, as if even being related to the offender is reason enough to be convicted of the same crime. With the hysteria that is often surrounded by these cases family and former friends are forced to either go into social hiding or move to another town to escape the hatred and recrimination, the gossip and rumours.

So I have to ask this, What business is it of yours what is done with Dennis Ferguson? Perhaps if people were less focused on the rabid pursuit of justice at all costs the family (if not in this case then other cases) would not have to suffer so!

I'm not an expert on this subject.
I simply don't know enough about it,
and although I've held some very strong
views in the past I now realize that each
case must be treated on an individual
basis.

Regarding Dennis Ferguson - if he's on
medication to control his urges, and he's
going to be constantly monitored by the
police - and will be living in an isolated
area, away from neighbours, schools, parks, et cetera,
why can't he be allowed to live in peace?

Child abuse exists in our society - not only from
paedophiles. And of course children need
our protection. But in a case where the man has been
punished, presumably is on medication, and now lives
in an isolated area, being monitored by police, I don't
know what else can be done.

It's irresponsible of the media
to whip things into a frenzy.

StG

"Don't think even the extreme greenie leftie touchy feely everyone deserves a break civil liberty spruiking knobs.."

Well, I'm glad you've got that off your chest! Not sure how it helps the debate though.

"..would disagree this fella is a class 'A' piece of excrement."

No, I agree, very few people would have any sympathy for this man or any other child molestor. I certainly don't. At the risk of inviting another stream of colourful invective, I will state however that he himself is a victim. While the community must be protected from him, he needs to be left alone to live out what is left of his life like any other convicted criminal who has served his time. The hysterical vigilante hounding of this sad pathetic man is every bit as damaging to the community fabric as his presence is feared to be.

Yes, this is a difficult issue. Clearly, this guy's an allegedly recidivist kiddy fiddler who denies his guilt and who has little hope of rehabilitation. However, despite the current moral panic over this issue, our society has always spawned such creeps, and there are many more dangerous ex-murderers, rapists etc who have done their time and live on parole in the community without attracting the kind of vigilante hysteria that Ferguson does.

I also think that the media need to shoulder some of the responsibility for the current situation. In sensationalising Ferguson's case and in publishing his address, they have contributed to the reasons the judge gave for his most recent charges to be set aside, i.e. that he is unlikely to be able to receive a fair trial in Queensland. Further, given that the Crown's evidence is apparently weak, the encouragement by some media of vigilantism seems to me be in contempt of the court.

Yes, this guy seems to be a creep of the worst order, but he is by no means as dangerous to the community as many others who don't attract the same level of hysterical vigilantism. Trials should be conducted by properly constituted courts, not the mass media.

Arthur N, you are correct about vigilantes and the offender's families. As child sex offenders are so despised by the community they find it difficult to make friends with anybody else but other sex offenders. This also results in them befriending children and the next thing you know there's another victim.

I believe it's up to the Courts to determine the punishment that should apply to all criminals, and it is never up to a vigilante group to give out justice.

Regardless of how evil a criminal is, I don't believe that means society should be evil in its justice. If we condone evil in return for evil, we have no right to condemn the offender's actions and we lose the right to consider ourselves a civilised society.

Part of the problem with Ferguson is that he looks the part, and so the media can have a field day with it. The real danger here is that the media are encouraging public opinion about how a child molestor "looks", which had the potential for molesters that look "normal" to not come onto the radar for parents and kids.

That said, public opinion of an individual should not prevent a trial occuring. If a suitable jury cannot be found, there should be a mechanism for a judicial trial, perhaps by a bench of judges. It maybe that our system allows for this?? Not sure, but it should have been invoked in this case, both in the interest of justice for the alleged victim, and for Ferguson himself.

The people who think that 'he's done his time, let him be' etc are forgetting that he's just been let off fresh charges (without knowing if guilty or not) by a sensless judge who feared that he would not get a fair trial.

If he fiddled with my kids, there would be no question of what to do with him. He would be dead.

Ferguson served 14 years gaol for raping three children. During incarceration, he failed to seek rehabilitation or admit to his crimes. On release he was again jailed for failing to tell police he had taken a job which may have given him access to children. In the same year, he was charged yet again, for allegedly molesting a five year old girl.

Most young people who are victims of sexual abuse suffer enormously. Psychiatric conditions plague many and suicides have occurred. I have known several victims and many paedophiles who have duped entire communities with their “good works.” My oldest school chum's son is a paedophile and has gained custody of his 8 year old son. Enough said!

These fiends are recidivist offenders. There is no treatment for them and they are notorious for their inability to practise restraint. They can operate for an entire life-time without detection. There are huge global paedophilia networks - millions of the creeps and these people live in hope that one day paedophilia will be legalized.

NSW police referred 400 charges against 130 offenders in less than a year.

"I think this is just the tip of the iceberg," Police Commissioner Moroney said. You’re darn right there, Moroney.

So whilst many seek "civil" liberties for Mr Ferguson, spare a thought for the three, four, five year old children who have become a reality in the fantasies of these monsters - children who are coerced into carrying out the most perverted, sexual biddings of paedophiles. Perhaps we should also spare a thought for the 9 month old baby who was raped last year in WA.

I'm all for castrating recidivist paedophiles. One is welcome to call me "primitive" or accuse me of "resorting to a paedophile's level." I am unperturbed. Treatments or deterrents to date have been an unmitigated disaster and one has merely seen a massive international expansion of untouchable, paedophile rings. Members are often teachers, lawyers, judges, policemen etc, most very aware on how to avoid exposure whilst operating under a mask of respectability.

If castration doesn’t work, tough! Institutionalise them without parole!

I've got zero sympathy for him Bronie!. He's done his time, but everyone in the know is saying he's not rehabilitated.

As an after-thought. HAS he actually done his time?. Didn't he get released BECAUSE the judge (who lives on the other side of the city) decided he wouldn't get a fair trial?.

Bronie said:

""Don't think even the extreme greenie leftie touchy feely everyone deserves a break civil liberty spruiking knobs.."

Well, I'm glad you've got that off your chest! Not sure how it helps the debate though."

It didn't. It would've been dead an buried but you resurrected it like some champion of rhetoric CPR.

well what should be done

What a joke

We have people supporting the ALP and Unions and they are in the same league.

He can join labor and become a union member

We have Heiner and the forgotton australians.

The hiding and abuses that have been contrived but i dont see anyone here standing up and kicking them out of town.

The media's love of celebrity and notoriety, because it sells so very, very well, has nothing to do with 'informing the public'. And the mindless public laps it up. Acting like brainless sheep whipped up in a frenzy.

I'm not sure what I find more disgusting. A pedophile incapable of admitting to what he does as being evil, or a media hiding behind 'the right for the public to know' creating a celebrity for them to use as news ad nauseam, over and over and over. It is THE reason why Ferguson is not before a court and possibly behind bars again.

The subsequent vigilante behaviour is revolting. Nothing like extreme self righteousness to hide your own sins.

Besides all that, I've never been able to understand why pedophilia is seen as a crime for which you can do your time. It is obviously a major mental abberation and needs to be treated as such. I doubt that there is a 'cure'. Ongoing medical treatment, followed up at least monthly, must be mandatory for the rest of this person's life.

A person's sexual orientation doesn't change, just because society says it is wrong.

Well they often talk about 'karma' and I think this is very much a case of just that.

Thanks to the protesters that made such a fuss out of him residing in a 'remote location', we are now faced with the prospect that he may never be locked up again because they have simply added fuel to the fire with regards to the judges decision. If he was incapable of receiving a fair trial before, he sure as hell can't get one now!

Take a bow you fools, collectively you may well have given this guy a 'free ticket' to re-offend again and again without fear of ever having to face imprisonment again.

Furthermore, your very actions may well have set a precidence for which many other criminals can use as a 'get out of gaol free card'.

Perhaps this is a classic case of the old saying that one should enguage the brain before puting the mouth into gear.

StG

"As an after-thought. HAS he actually done his time?. Didn't he get released BECAUSE the judge (who lives on the other side of the city) decided he wouldn't get a fair trial?."

Didn't you read Ludwig's introduction? Not being likely to get a fair trial was only part of the reason he was released. The other reasons given were that the crown case was weak and that the time he'd served in prison waiting for the case to be heard was already more than the likely length of the sentence he would have received anyway.

"It would've been dead and buried but you resurrected it like some champion of rhetoric CPR."

Nothing is dead and buried when in print. You may have long forgotten your intemperate little spray, but unfortunately it lives on and continues to be read and to offend.

StG: << Are you a extreme greenie leftie touchy feely everyone deserves a break civil liberty spruiking knob?. >>

I think Bronwyn's point - which has obviously escaped StG - was that StG's little spray negated absolutely anything of value he might have had to say. When I read a post that starts out with that kind of rant, I for one roll my eyes and move to the next comment.

It's the attitudes voiced by vigilante sympathisers like StG that, somewhat ironically, negate the capacity of Ferguson to get a fair trial and thus in this case have allowed him to avoid being brought to justice on the most recent charges.

The supreme irony is that if he was convicted of those charges, he would be subject to the new provisions for sexual offenders that would enable him to be detained indefinitely. In this case, it seems that it's the actions of the vigilantes and the media who feed them that have directly led to Ferguson being released into the community.

The electric chair should be used for repeat sex offenders (especially those against children). And yes before someone says it should apply to Priests and Politicians just the same.

Vigilante sympathiser?. lol. Yeah, you really didn't read it.

Runner, I'm with you.

I'd go further and use the chair for priests and politicians, regardless of whether they were beasts (old jail-bird term for molesters) or not.

Vigilantism makes for good Hollywood fodder but all it does in real life is cheapen legal and civil rights for all of us.

Paedophilia is an abhorrent crime and it is easy to be swayed by emotion. I also have no sympathy for paedophiles and as such would like to see them fully rehabilitated prior to release and monitored closely afterwards. Suitable and safe housing for paedophiles would go some way in preventing a later relapse, but not in close vicinity of children.

A policeman friend of mine once told me on release one paedophile was placed in a housing commission complex full of single mothers with children, purely because of the lack of other accommodation. This would go against all logic and commonsense.

If Bronwyn is right about the length of time already served then justice has been done even if not 'seen' to be done.

Whether or not Ferguson has been rehabilitated is another issue and there might be room for improvement on how paedophiles are returned to society ie. ongoing counselling, monitoring, medication if necessary (perhaps medication can be included in the terms of release where appropriate).

This event also raises issues about the role of the media and suggests some further tweaking is needed to restrict some of the more sensationalist media from train-wrecking the legal process.

Isn't it funny how some that are pro-life in the case of abortion and euthanasia are the first to advocate for the death penalty. God obviously works in mysterious ways for some people.

Just how bad is this man?

In 1987 he kidnapped a girl aged 6 and her bothers, 7 & 8 from NSW and flew with them to Brisbane, then molested them in a motel for three days.

Was it really a kidnapping? Did the children go with him voluntarily? Otherwise, how did he get them through an airport? Did he really molest them repeatedly, or what?

Ferguson copped a 14 year jail term for this, which apparently included sodomy. The severity of the sentence was partly due to his extensive criminal record.

So it would be interesting to know just how bad this particular offence was.

Ferguson has never admitted any guilt over this. Upon his release from jail in 2003 he announced an intention to find the girl, claiming that she could help have the conviction overturned.

In 2003 he tried to establish a business to teach children about ‘stranger danger’. Was this an honest attempt to rehabilitate himself and contribute positively to society? We don’t know. But it seems that everyone can only see it in a negative context and condemn him for it on the grounds that he must have only had ugly motives.

continued

Also in 2003 the police watched him visit a school in Sydney and deliver a charity pamphlet. He was charged with non-compliance with the Child Protection Offenders Registration system. He got another 15 months jail.

15 months for that? That sounds a bit over the top.

In 2005 he was charged with indecent treatment of two girls in Dalby. But as Judge Botting declared last week; the crown’s case is weak on this matter. So there is a whole lot of doubt about it.

He is condemned by all for his total lack of remorse. But could it be that he really is not guilty of the magnitude of offences that are attributed to him? Guilty of some pretty bad stuff yes, for which he certainly should show remorse. But perhaps in his head is the idea that if he shows ANY remorse he will be effectively admitting guilt to a level of offence far in excess of what he feels should be attributed to him.

By all accounts he is low lifer, well and truly. But perhaps not as bad as many people think…. perhaps…..just maybe.

Now, before you lot jump down me blimmin throat and accuse me of being paedophile sympathiser; let me say that all I’m doing is trying to inject a bit more information that a lot of people who outrightly condemn him don’t know about, and thus provide and a bit more food for thought and debate.

One solution

Stop going soft on criminals

make chld sexs attacks a capital offence and top the bastard.

That will guarantee he molests no more.

And whilst we are about it, second offence drug dealers - top them too.

Well I'm with you ludwig, perhaps there is more to the story than we are aware.

I have heard that the incident in 2005 was a set up and that there is money involved and rather than pay the debt owed to him it was better for the little girls mother to cry wolf as, being as well known as he is, thanks to the media, who are the authorities likely to believe.

What people have to accept is that the law is the law and when a jugment is made and the recipient does the time, no matter what the crime, then that person deserves the right to a normal life.

How many of us thought that the corby girl was guilty, yet recent revalations may suggest that she was set up.

The fact is that the media has a right to present the news however they do not have the right to pass jugment on people.

Remember, everyone is suposed to be inocent until proven guilty and, thanks to the idiots out there, we will most likely never get to know if DF is inocent or guilty.

The people who think that 'he's done his time, let him be' etc are forgetting that he's just been let off fresh charges (without knowing if guilty or not) by a sensless judge who feared that he would not get a fair trial.

If he fiddled with my kids, there would be no question of what to do with him. He would be dead.
Posted by Austin Powerless, Friday, 4 July 2008 1:11:01 PM

AP
You just don't get it do you. Judges by law have to pass a judgement based on factual evidence, without emotion.

This judge did not make a judgement on DF because people like you have already found him guilty yet if not for the media coverage it is most likely that you would'nt even have known who denis ferguson was.

It is people like you, people who have pre-judged the guy who have set him free while people like me now have to accept that he is free to do as he pleases and may nevr face court again unless caught red-handed.

I hope you and your mob of linchmen, and there are many of you, are proud of yourselves!

"We all need to accept in the police and every other profession from the church (especially) to medicals and beyond, that people change and some who end up bad were OK when they went through the selection process."

This, amazingly, is Col, on another thread. Yes, it's quite a lapse from his usual jackboot style.

"Make child sex attacks a capital offence and top the bastard....And whilst we are about it, second offence drug dealers - top them too."

This is Col, true to form.

Col, you browbeat us incessantly on the virtue of individual rights and how they should always take precedence over consideration of the common good. Where's your broken record defence of individual rights now? Is it rights for all or only for those you deem worthy?

Thank you, Ludwig, for some excellent background information on Ferguson. I too would like to know if he is the monster he's been painted, or whether he's been crucified to a much greater extent than his actions deserve. I've long thought it could be the latter, but I'd really like to know for sure. There are certainly far too many unanswered questions for people like Col to have any right at all to call for his topping at this early stage, if at all.

Rights, Col, rights, individual rights. I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time you've used the words 'individual' and 'rights' in the same sentence. Don't think you've done it on this thread though.

Perhaps vigilantes who picket a paedophile's house are the most boisterous and these groups do appear to attract a few yobbos who declare they're going to "cut his d....k off" or "lynch the bastard."

Nevertheless one would concede that vigilante groups have grown out of public distrust of the police and criminal justice systems, though It's interesting to hear of the public support given to investor vigilantes who take the law into their own hands when pursuing corporate thugs overseas (thanks mainly to ASIC's occasional blunders.)

What appears not to be widely known, is that Dennis Ferguson committed these offences with the aid of an accomplice - Alexandria George Brookes (who also had prior convictions.) Brookes was gaoled for eleven years.

I am unable to find any reason to believe there has been any unjust decisions made in this case.

These children were held captive for three days. Included in the 19 charges against Ferguson were sodomy, indecent dealing, carnal knowledge and gross indecency.

After this ordeal the three children became wards of the state and one child became suicidal. The judge expressed his disgust over Ferguson's stand that paedophilia is an acceptable practice which he sought to institutionalise.

Upon his release, Ferguson flagrantly sought to again associate with children.

All this despite the fact that in 2005, NSW advocacy group, Justice Action offered to take Mr Ferguson in and provide mentoring and housing.

"No one here is afraid of Dennis Ferguson. We and our children welcome
him." said Brett Collins, a spokesperson for Justice Action.

So what happened Mr Collins? Did Ferguson accept your invitation?

Nevertheless he remains a recidivist criminal who has refused rehabilitation, is unrepentant and remains in denial.

Attorney General, Kerry Shine, plans to appeal the decision to throw out the new child sex charges. If successful and Ferguson is again found guilty then I believe the community would be much better protected if Ferguson (already 60 years of age) is detained at the Governor's pleasure or becomes a eunuch - albeit an involuntary one.

I find hysterical/retributive comments about this subject tedious in that instead of sensibility we get a spray of sanctimonious bile under the name of some perverted view of religion.
Then there are those who use the opportunity to empty their ‘fear laden potty’ in public by accusing (inaccurately) lefties, greenies and others as being responsible for their personal insecurities/fears.

The hypocrisy of these posters is stellar. e.g. Do these individuals get so excited about the deaths of children in Dafur and elsewhere? Do these paragons of virtue worry about child exploitation when they see a bargain in the store?

By your own standards how many “good” Christians have broken one of the more important “Commandments”? I would also note paedophilia is not one of them. However any harm to another is wrong particularly against the defenceless.

At the risk of being cliché I would suggest that fear is usually more devastating than reality, it’s all a matter of perspective. To those who believe the rigid Black/white (religious) judgements I would suggest the Bible has it right when it says
“before you to criticise your neighbour for the splinter in his eye first remove the mote in your own.”
”Don’t judge others lest ye be judged”
And then “let vengeance be mine sayeth the Lord”.
How many times has man’s “justice” proven to be wrong later? Absolutes in humans don’t exist.
If I understand Christianity correctly the premise is love of mankind and your enemy.

Just for the record I have experienced many traumas including being homosexually “pack raped” (wrong place wrong time). Therefore have the experience to knowledgeably comment. While I still have repercussions, I have gotten on with my life spending it mostly as a secular humanist therefore consistently associated with societal (volunteer) “frontline” activities.

My point here is focus on doing not abuse and secular people can be societally responsible too so let's address the real issues:
How do we stop child abuse?
How do we rehabilitate offenders (punishment alone never works)?
How do we encourage the media to less hypocritical, be more responsible?

Bronwyn “Col, you browbeat us incessantly on the virtue of individual rights and how they should always take precedence over consideration of the common good.”

“browbeat you Bronwyn?”

hardly, but now I have your attention

If you read all of my posts, instead of cheery pick the bits you do not understand, you would have read that I believe not simply in the sovereign rights of the individual but that I repeatedly acknowledge the responsibility, which attaches to those sovereign rights.

Pedophilia, corruption in public office, illegal drug peddling, all abuse the rights of being individuals by ignoring the responsibility which attaches to those rights.

As for the common good, I still do not give a rats for but I do care passionately about the individual victims of pedophilia, corrupt officials and drug dealers, whose rights and lives are trampled under foot.

“Rights, Col, rights, individual rights. I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time you've used the words 'individual' and 'rights' in the same sentence. Don't think you've done it on this thread though.”

We all know you would sooner see us all subjected to the mediocrity of your limited insight, Bronwyn than dare risk someone achieve and benefit from the sweat of their own endeavours.

You will have also seen I consistently defend your right to express your stupidity. I am doing so now but that does not mean I should be denied my right to respond and set you straight.

Back to the topic – dealing with pedophiles is hard. They do not respond to therapy and do not see or even acknowledge the evil of their ways.

As far as any real solution goes which will protect futures victims of these scum, I have yet to read a more positive suggestion than my own.

We could go down the physical castration path (the chemical system is pointlessly difficult to ensure it is adhered to) but I still think that has only limited application. Best to kill the bastards off and guarantee no re-offending

Col, at the risk of invoking your scorn I too wonder why this exception to concept that Individual right must out weigh common opinion of community good?
Clearly without individual rights being maintained ‘common good’ becomes meaningless. I also agree that with every right there must be corresponding responsibilities, including for one's own actions.
I can’t help thinking that your initial post regarding this issue appears uncharacteristically reactionary and inconsistent to comments in the abortion topic.
As I write I wonder if this post maybe perceived as deliberately intrusive but it’s a genuine with to understand the thinking behind these arguably draconian conclusions. Given that this type of response usually comes from someone with a different level of reasoning capacity than you. I wonder if there is some instructive value I missed.
I find the wording of the criticism of you unhelpful and unwarranted but each to their own capacity. (I intend no judgement only an observation.)
On the issues I wonder of the point to such an absolutist response.
Research shows that most sex crimes are a symptom of deeper issues. i.e. Rape is more about power than sex. Likewise paedophiles are most often victims themselves. It therefore makes sense to understand causes from the perspective of a source of preventing paedophiles and being able to minimise long-term harm to victims. In my case it was the GBH and those surrounding cultural attitudes that created subsequent problems not the rape as such.
Rates of recidivism and history show that deterrents and punishment only condition not correct or cure the offender. The conundrum is how to deal with them in the mean time and protect their sights. Life isn’t a set of binary Q&A.
Logically I think harming another for what is social vengeance is regressive. Only the possibility of social gain makes the hurt less meaningless and therefore more tolerable for me.

I have been reading the comments on here and I can help thinking that this is how lynch mobs start.

Mass media whips up a fire storm of controversy which induces fear in people because as they well know fear sells papers and gets people to watch the news. Public fear turns to anger and hatred is built up against a target (legitimate or not). A small group of people become disgruntled that their version of 'Justice' (usually a very violent and totally illegal version) is not being carried. The disgruntlement turns to anger as it seems that nothing is happening. And now the powder keg only needs a spark and that spark comes in the form of some idiot who thinks that taking the law into their own hands would be a good thing. Next thing you know, someone has been murdered and one or more people are up on charges for murder.

Is it going to be Dennis Ferguson, probably not there is too much media coverage for the cowards who form lynch mobs. But with the hysteria that surrounds all such cases it is inconceivable that there will not be at least one killing.

And yes, I do think that little of our society's ability to maintain the rule of law when faced with such a tempting target.

Arthur N,

If paedophiles were dealt with by the judges you would not have the 'lynch mob mentality'.Anyone not angry about innocent kids being molested are the sick cookies.

Ferguson appears to be an absolute idiot. He has been punished in accordance with the law. He should now be helped to re-enter society. If he fails and returns to his old habits, then he becomes beyond help and should be held in a mental institution at whatever degree is necessary to control him. I consider another animal, the dog. He savages the stupid kid, his tormentor. The dog is put down without protest or further interest by the media. Why is Ferguson different and why does he have privileges above his mental peers?
Angryant47.

Examinator, “Col, at the risk of invoking your scorn”

I do not scorn any ones view, only the way some address me and I don’t think we will have any issues there : - ).

“Clearly without individual rights being maintained ‘common good’ becomes meaningless.”

The common good is always meaningless.

What is not meaningless is the expectation for children to be protected from the abuse and depravities of pedophiles

“ uncharacteristically reactionary and inconsistent to comments in the abortion topic.”

Maybe but I feel no discomfort in the apparent difference.

It is simple, I believe in the rights of individuals and that means their right to be protected from the excesses of others.

Hence, the demands imposed by a pedophile upon another individual, a child are heinous and the child is deserving of protection.

In the instance of a pregnant woman, the embryo / fetus is inseparable from the woman’s body and thus, protections from the woman herself are inappropriate. In fact, the woman is deserving of protection from the demands which other people would impose upon her (albeit for different motives than the pedophile) to accept their decision over her own.

“As I write I wonder if this post maybe perceived as deliberately intrusive”

It is a public forum and could never be considered “intrusive”

“Likewise paedophiles are most often victims themselves.”

Understand and accept that however, it remains the responsibility of the individual pedophile to find less destructive outlets for his particular practices, just as you or I, whilst we may both see individuals which “take our fancy” and might even think how they are in bed but do not act upon those ‘dreamings’ (without checking those feelings are being reciprocated).

“Logically I think harming another for what is social vengeance is regressive.”

I do not suggest execution as a vengeance but as the only solution which protects the innocence and rights of future victims.

Dennis Ferguson is now costing the public $1000 a day.

I doubt any of his victims are being so indulged and I do find something wrong with this.

“Dennis Ferguson is now costing the public $1000 a day.

I doubt any of his victims are being so indulged and I do find something wrong with this.”

This does create a quandary Col. What is this money actually being spent on? Is it in any way aimed at preventing him from reoffending or is it entirely quality-of-life support? Is it being used to protect him from vigilantism? Is there a requirement for all of it to be spent on Ferguson or is the relevant church group able to pocket a good part of it? Are there any of his victims in need of support, who are not getting it, or not getting adequate help?

$1000 a day seems like an awful lot. A more realistic figure would be a $1000 a week.

The taxpayer is also paying for police to guard his home.

How long will these arrangements continue? What will happen when they stop?

Is he also drawing the dole or other income? His new home is government-owned. Is he paying any rent?

Oh what the hell. Does any of this really matter? The important thing is that everyone concerned has put in a solid effort to find a place for him to live, in comfort, while respecting the rights of his neighbours and community. I think it is a pretty good effort, with a reasonable balance being struck, in what is a very difficult situation.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2296933.htm

rehctub, I don't grasp your ambivalence towards the beast Ferguson.
see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1950#39954 where you accuse protesters of giving him a free ticket to offend again, yet you take umbrage when I state the simple fact that if he molested my kids, he would be dead. So, while you admit that he may offend again, you don't accept that I should carry out my own solution. What if it was your kids?

I reckon it's you that doesn't get it. You seem to agree that the judge should have dropped serious charges because 'people like me' have robbed him of any chance of a fair trial. If Hitler had survived, would you have applied the same logic and advocated cancellation of the Nuremburg Trials?

As dickie wrote, vigilantes spring up when the legal system fails those it should protect.

Col thanks for the reply. My comments re "each to their own capacity” was a comment with the highlight that some posters aren’t as incisive as others and consequently they may not understand the context or intent.

Responding to a comment about ‘civility in comments issue’ the poster made note that without conflict the site would be boring. This indicated that the person was either viewing the site as ‘entertainment’ (al la big brother type voyeurism rather than an ‘informational’/‘intellectual’ pursuit which is inherently interesting and thereby ‘entertaining’) or spotlighted their reasoning skills limits. Likewise another poster is prone dogma, aggression, and irrationality/abuse. Again responding in kind to this religiously “twisted sandshoe” is pointless.

Lifeline training emphasises “Always remember which end of the conversation the problem is and isolate the problem from the delivery”. Yours/my dignities, egos are well intact regardless of what they say.

The “intrusion” comment perhaps should have been “personal intrusion.”
Experience and training has taught me that absolutist responses are usually motivated by fear (which is in turn generated by personal insecurities).
Or as a consequential response to personally experiences.

I also alluded to
• Our own dark corners including transgressions against our personal morals biasing our judgements.
• The seeming contradiction for the Dafur children et al.
• Lack of apparent concern about other related issues
• Not to mention the public’s almost vicariously hysterical and disproportionate responses to ‘sex’ crimes that borders on voyeurism.
• The public’s disregard/ selfishness disregard for the victims impeding their recovery.
• Every new media profit driven “circus maximus” forces revisitation on all suffering victims of sex or violent crimes .
• Giving positive consequence to the victim’s suffering as part of the rehabilitation.

In the light of these factors I wondered at the thought process that gave a seemingly emotionally regressive response especially considering your undoubted mental skills.
BTW Your definition on foetuses being part of and dependent on the mother’s body is interesting and I think a good determinant.
regards

Well, we seem to have sorted the situation with Ferguson. Now we must consider, Will anyone so accused ever get a fair trail in the future or will the jury convict just in case. No; it is not new, juries already convict and have done so for years just in case the mongrel is guilty and they dont need witness or corroboration to do it. They even convict when so warned by a competent judge of the dangers arising in such cases. Anyone who thinks that people dont accuse falsely is a fool. The compensation money is a lot of dollars to some people and they really dont care a fig about the ends to their means. If the current Attorney General and many before had any gutz, this problem could be brought into perspective but the government has to be seen to be doing the right thing irrespective of evident false allegations. If Ferguson is to be tried again, then he must face a panel of judges, not an emotional jury. Peers at Fergusons mental level would be hard to find. It is hard to find the end date of a punishment ,correctly or incorrectly given unless ofcourse it is murder,bank robbery and all manner of thuggery.
Angryant47

Dear AP rehctub here again.

Firstly have you ever considered the consequenses of your potential actions.

1. You would be in prison for murder

2. Your kids would grow old without you

3. Your kids would have to live thier lives knowing that thier dad was in jaol.

Mate, the list goes on so don't go there.

Secondly, at no time did I say that I agreed with the judge. I simply pointed out the fact that a judge, unlike the hilbilly public objectors, is obliged to make a judgement based on fact. Once any case gains as much adverse publicity as this one a true judge has little option other than to throw the case out.

Keep a close eye on the 'doctor death case' if you will!

As for me stating that he may re-offend, I simply said that thanks the hilbillies he now has every opportunity to re-ofend and may never have to face court again.

Unlike you guys a judge follows the law which states that one is presumed inocent until proven guilty.

Now if you don't get that then I give up!

Ludwig
At his previous residence I beleive he was paying rent to stay there and tried to return to somewhat of a normal life, 12 KM away from the nearest shop, school, town etc.

It is also my understanding that he tried to return only to be hounded by the media and the hilbillies.

So a big thanks to all you hilbillies out there cause now some of my taxes are going towards the 'gand a day' support for this guy. A guy who from all indications was prepared to attempt to resume a peacfull life.

So not withstanding the fact that he now resides near children he's gone from paying rent on a remote property to costing us a grand a day thanks to the hilbilly exicutioners.

Those hilbillies should remeber the old saying. "Best to enguage the brain before puting the mouth into gear"

rehctub, I share your disgust in the vigilantism that has been expressed today. It is time for the Qld government to stand firm and keep Ferguson where he is.

Sure the locals have some legitimate concerns. But the balance has got to be struck. He’s got to go somewhere. He is supposed to be a free man. He’s getting a lot of support and protection from the state, and the community is getting protection from him.

I don’t think that it is reasonable to move him interstate nor to put him somewhere else without telling the local community. Putting him on a remote property hasn’t worked.

It is time to stand firm with the current arrangement.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2297680.htm

rehctub,

I'd have to be caught to go to prison. Considering the fact that there would be thousands of suspects, I'd feel pretty safe. At worst, if caught, I could always hope for a judge of the same calibre that dropped the charges against the beast.

As for your 'hillbilly' jibe, do you really think that all people who believe in justice (not necessarily law as it is in this case) are some kind of retards? At least we're not appeasing apologists for an animalistic molester.

If the judge 'followed the law', why did he drop such serious charges?

Do you have kids? How would you feel if they were interfered with?

The important thing for parents to remember is that Dennis Ferguson is just one paedophile - there are goodness knows how many others out there. Parents need to look after their children. This sad excuse for a human being has to be kept somewhere, and as I heard a Police officer say on the news last night that when a criminal has completed their prison sentence they are free to move about as they like.
My concern is that Dennis Ferguson may abuse more children as part of his revenge on society for the way he is being treated.
Of all child protection measures in place, I believe 90 per cent of it lies within educating our children. I used to live in a street with a lot of children, and as a single man, I was horrified at the number of children asking me all the time why I wouldn't let them in my house.

"My concern is that Dennis Ferguson may abuse more children as part of his revenge on society for the way he is being treated."

Steel Man. Rest assured, this man will re-offend irrespective of his opinion of society.

Seemingly, those who seek a "fair go" for Ferguson (who also blames the "system" for placing an "innocent" man behind bars) apparently remain unperturbed that, prior to his 14 years incarceration, had five previous convictions for child molestation.

It is a waste of time endeavouring to portray Ferguson as an illiterate under-dog. Ferguson is articulate, cunning and manipulative.

So whilst some of us lament the fact that vigilantes are escaping prosecution for having interfered with the justice system and criminals who've paid their debt aren't being treated with the utmost respect, the child abusers have grown to plague proportions and are out of control.

2006-2007 saw 309,517 investigations of child abuse in Australia - up from 198,355 in 2002/2003. Agreed, these figures encompass all forms of abuse not just sexual.

However, what do our civil rights' movements and our do-gooders suggest? More of the same "justice"? More of the same "deterrents?" More of "Do unto others..........?"

In the Ferguson case we are not looking at some miscreant who likes child porn, or gets his jollies flashing. We are dealing with someone who attacks children.

Whilst many citizens and Ferguson are having a panic attack over the relatively harmless vigilantes in Australia, Irish citizens recently chained a drug-runner, then tarred and feathered him, with a promise of more to come for any other cretin who endeavours to prey on the vulnerable in Irish society. And no-one's yet blown the whistle!

Perhaps the violent Ferguson should thank his lucky stars that he resides in Australia?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23968372-5017590,00.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=462&page=1

AP
If the judge 'followed the law', why did he drop such serious charges?

Quite simply because he had no choice thanks to the media and thier clan whipping up a storm. This is going over old ground, if you don't get it then I can't help you.

Yes I do have kids, both now in thier late teens and what I would consider model children. They have also been under our full supervision, something that seems to be rare these days.

The fact of the matter is that this is a man who served his time yet was hounded by the media upon his release.

He was in fact due to face fresh charges for similar offences yet, due to the excessive adverse coverage has been set free pending an apeal by the atourney general.

You know the ironic part about all of this is that the media and thier supporters are just adding more fuel to the fire and making the original judges decision more credible while at the same time preventing the justice system from taking it cause.

Don't you people see that the more media coverage this case gains between now and the appeal, the less chance you have of gaining what you see as a suitable outcome.

Are you all that narrow sighted that you can't see that?

rehctub, I'm sure that the judge had more options than to put Ferguson in the 'too hard basket' and let him off without establishing whether he was guilty or not. That was a total cop-out. If you don't get that, I can't help you.

You half answered me when you wrote that you do have kids. You conveniently never stated how you would feel if they were molested. If the molester was caught, would you uphold his rights for a fair trial etc? Maybe campaign for him to be given legal aid?

This 'man who served his time ' has proven to be a repeat offender of heinious crimes, not a one-off shoplifter or petty criminal who can be slotted back into society.

As for the media coverage, while you are partly right in its effect, I have no power over it. Also, there have been similar crimes go virtually unpunished in the absence of media awareness.

If that's being narrow-sighted, my eyes must be touching.

Examinator “without conflict the site would be boring.”

There is a difference between dissent and conflict.

And certainly, without dissent, the site would be boring.

The difference between dissent and conflict is in the recognition that ones dissenters are entitled to express their view. I tend to leave the conflict for those who rubbish my right of dissent.

“a seemingly emotionally regressive response”

I do not see the deployment of the death penalty as necessarily regressive nor my support for it particularly emotional.

From my post I hope you would have observed I not only defend personal liberty (hence my support for abortion and the belief that the individual is the pinnacle of society, not the other way around).
Supporting personal liberty does, however, come with its own burden (or price), that of responsibility and respect for the rights of others.

Here we can focus on the unique difference in defining “Others” and also your observation to my analysis between a preganant woman and the fetus:

Obviously Dennis Ferguson is separate to his victims, who are “others” and for whom he displays no respect or consideration;

whereas the pregnant woman is inseparable from the embryo/fetus and thus the fetus/embryo is not an “Other” but is part of the same.

cheers

CR

Dickie

"Seemingly, those who seek a "fair go" for Ferguson ... apparently remain unperturbed that, prior to his 14 years incarceration, he had five previous convictions for child molestation.

I'm not arguing his guilt or innocence regarding the latest round of alleged offences. I'll leave that judgement to people who have all the evidence in front of them. But I will make the point that 14 years of being incarcerated (and presumably undergoing some sort of rehabilitation) is a long time, and that the five convictions prior to that period are not in themselves an indicator that he would have offended since.

"It is a waste of time endeavouring to portray Ferguson as an illiterate under-dog. Ferguson is articulate, cunning and manipulative."

If Ferguson were at all articulate I don't think he'd be where he is today. As we've seen here, there are lots of words to describe him and I agree with many of them, but I certainly don't think 'articulate' is one of them.

Hi Bronwyn

I do agree that 14 years incarceration is a long time but one needs to bear in mind that Ferguson molested not one, but three children. As a result, I do not believe the punishment was severe.

Ferguson is not rehabilitated. Prior to participation in any prison programmes available to sex offenders, the prisoner must first acknowledge his guilt. Ferguson has refused rehabilitation and has at all times, claimed his innocence with the exception of pleading guilty to breaching his parole conditions.

Five prior convictions to the kidnapping charge, is indicative of a habitual criminal. When a sex offender relapses five times (or rather, five that we know of,) he is a recidivist criminal and is regarded as such in criminal law. Without any rehabilitation, I believe five (now 6) convictions would be a strong indicator of re-offending.

A police video of an interview with the two young girls Ferguson allegedly assaulted was shown to the court prior to the trial aborting. Both claimed that Ferguson “touched” them while their Mother was present though she was in another room with Ferguson’s two friends. Ferguson had visited the woman with the "intention" of forming a partnership in a cleaning business. I find it rather curious that he brought along two friends?

Perhaps my use of the word “articulate” was inappropriate. "Plausible" may be better but then again when one considers some of the quotes attributed to this man, perhaps not:

Helen Daly reported that Ferguson “gave qualified support for the new law saying there were some sex criminals who could re-offend on release.

“He claimed he hasn't re-offended and advised the law didn't apply to him because he had done nothing wrong in the first place. He also claimed it's impossible to be honest within the jail sex therapy groups as he felt they're unsafe and one-sided.”

I have no clear "humane" ideas what on earth can we do with the likes of Peter Feregusson.

But,guys, tell me, why is he and other paedophiles who are all so equally reprehenive any different from predatory priests in the Roman Catholic and Anglical church? These monsters have been ,masquerading as men of God and molesting little ones and when found out there have been denials by church authorities and perehaps the worst punishment has been a sly side-ways movement to another parish without telling the people of those communities why they are suddenly getting a new priest and the molestations have been allowed to continue.WHY?
Now that action has been taking place there are hundreds of parishes in the USA that have gone broke and shut down as reparations have been awarded against them.Cardinal Law has been the worst at concealing these monsters. He had to be recalled to Rome to get a dressing down bythe Pope.Recently in both Western Austyralian and in the eastern States new evidence is coming out at the sinful cover-ups and the trerribly transparent excuses of forgetting.The two cardinals involved,Hickey and Pell must think we are awfully gullible! They are guilty of culpability and obstruction of justice but will they be brought to trial? They are criminals!
If we are wondering what to do about Fergusson we should also be having to wonder what we should do about these renegade monsters of the cloth and purple skullcaps.How are they any different?

socratease

contd.....

In another press interview he stated: "Truly, I don't know. I'm the flavour of the month right now. But in two hours' time, something might come up to divert their (the media's) attention."

And: "Now, I had not had sex with any of the children. I never did and I truly did not know the girl was in bed naked," he said.

Ferguson was sufficiently articulate to represent himself in court after his defence barrister quit (reasons unknown.) I hasten to add though, that one newspaper reported his performance as "theatrical."

Dr Bill Kingswell, Queensland psychiatrist claims: "Paedophilia is a disorder of sexual preference. This is not a mental disorder. A person has a sexual interest. It probably lasts their whole life. The issue here is trying to have these people conform their behaviour to law."

Dr Kingswell told a court hearing that “paedophiles do not change their spots.”

Happily, Dr Kingswell's opinion is not disimilar to my own layman's assessment where I have often asserted that paedophilia is no more a mental disorder than heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Many paedophiles do not sexually penetrate their victims, either from a fear of physically harming them or a desire to avoid detection. Ferguson's sexual vileness prevents me from affording him any compassion. I remain unconcerned that his civil liberties have been violated.

Sexual deviates who prey on the defenceless or the vulnerable – those who like to harm others for sexual gratification are criminals and must be held accountable - particularly the likes of Ferguson who continually laments that it is he who is the victim.

This paedophile has categorically refused any counselling - counselling which could have assisted in mitigating the irreparable harm he has perpetrated on his hapless young victims over the decades.

And yet another victim falls prey to a rock spider, the heinous subterranean vermin who stalk the defenceless in our "civilised" society:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24003207-5017004,00.html

Dickie

You've obviously followed the Ferguson case more closely than I have and I'm not really in a strong position to dispute what you say and won't attempt to.

I agree that paedophilia is a disorder of sexual preference and that it lasts for life. I'm still not as convinced as you are though that there was no hope of rehabilitating Ferguson at least to the point where he wouldn't have represented a threat to society. I'm inclined to think it may have been possible at one time, if properly resourced and managed, though it certainly won't happen now, thanks to the efforts of our tabloid media and the vigilante mob they’ve whipped up.

Here are a few excerpts from ABC reports in 2005 when this same saga was last being played out, which in my opinion do at least give some indication that it's not quite the open and shut case that you paint it to be.

"Dennis Ferguson’s counsellor, Wendell Rosevear, has worked with more than 800 victims of sexual abuse and 90 perpetrators.

Dr Rosevear says his client is becoming a desperate man and the constant attacks may be counter-productive, increasing the chance he will re-offend.

'If you put people down and put people down you'll get a revenge response,' he said. 'It's human and its predictable.' Dr Rosevear says Mr Ferguson is trying to change.

'The major factor in re-offending is denial and that's why society is so angry, they see him in denial but I want to put the case that he actually wants to be honest to resolve his issues,' he said.

'People don't come and ask for help unless they want to resolve their issues.'

Dr Rosevear argues it's ultimately in the interests of society to rehabilitate sex offenders, and in this case, that job has just been made all the more difficult."

Dickie (continued)

"Dr Rosevear states that it was Jesus who said, 'Treat other people how you want to be treated', and we're almost in a post-Christian culture where, instead of treating other people how we want to be treated, we're treating other people how they treated us - a revenge culture - and I think it's very primitive, and it's based on people trying to get their needs met, but I'm saying it actually makes it worse instead of better."

I think this comment of the counsellor's is particularly apt, though I'm sure you won't see it this way.

Hi Bronwyn

I do believe we may have crossed wires here.

I must reiterate: Ferguson has always refused counselling for paedophilia. How then can he be rehabilitated?

The Courier Mail, during 2003 stated:

"According to prominent Melbourne criminologist Dr Tricia Fox, Ferguson's world view is one totally consistent with that of a pedophile.

"Typically they cannot logically and rationally see that their sexual preferences are wrong or inappropriate," Fox said. "I've never met a convicted sex offender who said he was guilty. They tend more or less to serve out their full sentences."

In the same article it was advised that: "Ferguson has made an appointment to visit Dr Wendell Rosevear, a well-respected medico who works closely with newly released prisoners and he also intends seeing a psychiatrist. For what reason? "I feel I need to get to the bottom of it," he said.

'"It" being his pedophilia? No, his anger at the system.'

Then on July 2 of this month, Dr Wendell Rosevear advised the ABC that "he has not seen Ferguson for some time, but says he has had to close his books because he cannot keep up with the demand from male victims and perpetrators seeking help."

"Some time?" Rosevear's subtle advice tells me that Ferguson dropped out anyway.

Paedophiles over the past few decades, have had more access to psychiatric treatment and counselling than ever before. This does not portray a culture which seeks "revenge." And how has society benefitted? For their efforts they must now endure sophisticated paedophile rings and a massive increase in convictions for sex offenders.

When I permit my grandies to play on the footpaths with their little friends, I too must stay on the footpath in case they're snatched. Paranoia? Not at all. Kids are being regularly snatched or lured into cars. Kids have been deprived of the glorious freedom, the liberty to run wild without a care.

Ferguson was apprehended for offending as a youngish man.

He's now sixty, refuses counselling yet remains defiant and violent - a "victim?"

Time is not on his side. The man's a monster Bronwyn.

Dickie: "Paranoia? Not at all. Kids are being regularly snatched or lured into cars"

Your response may not be paranoia, but it is predicated on a poor understanding of risk versus the hazard involved. The hazard, in this case is "snatching" of the kids and the risk is the likelihood of its occurrence. Given that there are millions of kids on the street at any time and that there are at most a couple of incidents of "stranger danger" in a year, the risk is very low. Please note that I'm not minimising the awfulness of the hazard, just trying to bring a little perspective.

I take the view that my kids' exposure to the hazard is pretty low anyway, and I do the sensible things that I was taught as a child, such as ensuring they understand to always stay together if they're going to the shops or the playground and they know not to allow strangers to come too close, but I want them to be children while they can, not premature old ladies jumping at shadows.

Let me ask you, Dickie, if a child was snatched whilst you were "on guard", what could you do about it? Does your presence achieve anything, even your own peace of mind?

Relax, the worst fears are rarely realised.

It is interesting to see the various arguments. According to some,no rock spiders can be healed. In other words the jailing to correct bad habits is a waste of time. According to some of the elaborate figures I have seen recently,at least 5 percent of the population are rock spiders and the ones that have been through the penal system are still as bad as ever. I am in need of a guard to spend his whole day to protect my 11 yo boy. Maybe the guard would be a closet rock spider too. This is too hard to believe. What I do believe is the capacity to make false allegations for revenge or dollars. I also believe that there are many convictions made by emotional juries without witness or corroboration. In these issues we need judges to make decisions on the merits of each case,not emotion. I also believe that compensation in all but admitted cases should be withdrawn and you would suddenly see many many rock spider subjects disappear. Yes,many are in it for the dollars and hate. Ferguson,stole some kids and I have never seen the evidence of his trials. I can only assume that he was convicted on the merits of the various cases. Can anyone tell me why he kidnapped them children? What were they to him? We only hear about previous convictions. What are the convictions?
Angryant47

Dear Antiseptic

Thank you for those condescending words of wisdom, directed at a “premature” old lady – whatever that means!

Actually Antiseptic, I don’t need you to tell me how to raise kids. I’ve already done my duty for Australia. “Job well done Dickie”, I muse, as I observe these smart young people about town who also care for their neighbours and are kind to animals.

“Given that there are millions of kids on the street at any time and that there are at most a couple of incidents of "stranger danger" in a year, the risk is very low.”

One of my kids, a high profile, prominent member of our society, who is not yet a parent, could give you the clinical statistics, Antiseptic. “Millions of kids on the street?” Are you kidding? “A couple of incidents a year?” Huh? Which planet are you on?

Last year, there were several attempted abductions where my grandies live and it's not the Bronx. Two weeks ago, a shopkeeper, some 100 metres away was held up by a masked gunman. The victim was lucky since the one previous, in the same shopping complex, was carried out in a box. Facts mate – not delusions!

My grandies happen to be just 5 and 7 years of age. And yes, Antiseptic, their parents have taught them to be street savvy, without putting the fear of God into them. And no, Antiseptic, they do not visit a playground, in a metropolitan area, unsupervised. You really should refrain from going off “half-cocked.”

“Dickie, if a child was snatched whilst you were "on guard", what could you do about it?” Another inane question, Antiseptic? OK - I’d call in the bikies!

Antiseptic. Through the ages of 3 to 12, I had a good deal to do with paedophiles, through no fault of my wonderful, though naïve, deaf and profoundly blind, single mother. I was a “vulnerable” child – easy prey. The paedophiles I encountered, with the exception of one, did not resemble Mr Ferguson.

Contd……

Contd….

These paedophiles all had dutiful wives. Happily, the last I remember of a close encounter, was a paedophile on his knees, clutching his crown jewels after I’d placed my size seven boot into them before fleeing. I was strapped for my efforts and threatened with reform school for fabricating such beastly lies about this devoted husband who played such beautiful piano.

And now, in society, we have the hunters being hunted. This dilemma is, no doubt terrifying for the hunted – the other species - namely one Mr Ferguson. I know this because I was hunted for years too. But then should we be surprised when our leaders encourage their subjects to hunt and torment anything which gets in their way – the defenceless ones , pulling the wings off flies, so to speak. And does it matter that many small vulnerable children in Australian society continue to lose their innocence, their liberty and continue to be molested or raped every day?

So while the law-abiding citizens evolve into “premature old ladies, jumping at shadows,” out on rampage to get Dennis, whilst “Uncle Harry,” baby-sits (ahem) the toddlers, the ‘blameless’ civil rights folk accuse society of all these ills because “society” is simply a vague reference to somebody else anyway? And while they know that the law is an ass, they seek justice only for Dennis.

Why do many paedophiles (male) claim they molest children because they too were molested as children? In Australia, young females are sexually molested three times more than young males, therefore, I ask you: “How many registered female paedophiles do we have in this country?”

Despite your vacuous presumptions, Antiseptic, I rarely obsess over paedophiles. I carry little baggage and have a blessed and fortunate life. However, I’m sufficiently discerning to practise the “precautionary principle.” Unlike you, I do not dwell in La La Land and when a rare opportunity arises such as this; I believe I speak with a “working” knowledge on the subject. Do you?