Donate SIGN UP

Knee jerk reaction re: Freddie Starr?

Avatar Image
Snafu03 | 16:54 Wed 14th Nov 2012 | News
10 Answers
http://www.huffington...42.html?ncid=webmail1

For those not wanting to read yet another JS related news piece the upshot is Freddie Starr has been banned from seeing his own kids whilst the police investigate.

Is this really neccessary? even if he is guilty are his own kids at risk from him? Is this how 'they' work? Is a paedophile always an incestuous paedophile?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 10 of 10rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Snafu03. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think it's standard practice when someone has been accused of any wrongdoing towards a child - they are banned from being alone with their (or anyone else's) children.

Better to ban some innocent person until they are cleared than let some monster have free access to carry on offending.

(And I am NOT saying that Freddie Starr is guilty of any offence.)
someone else posted this earlier, consensus seemed to be that if proven, as yes it is still innocent until proven guilty, then social services are taking no chances.
Question Author
whoops! thanks em, didnt see it had already been debated.
I would have thought its down to the mother to make the decision on whether he can see this kids.

she should be able to make sure hes not alone with them if shes that worried
^
that's not borne out by experience.

frequently when one parent (or step parent) is abusing the other parent is complicit or in denial

so hardly a safe option for making such decisions.
knee jerk reactions often lead to foot in mouth.
In actual fact, the majority of cases of child abuse do occur within the family.
It's actually a good call by the SS. As pointed out better a disgruntled innocent person than an abuser carrying on(not just referreing to this case)

My big issue with all of this is the trial by media. Non of this should be in the papers until a person is found guilty. It totally flies in the face of fair justice.
Non of this should be in the papers until a person is found guilty.

What, secret arrests and trials? Or what facts would you like suppressed?

1 to 10 of 10rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Knee jerk reaction re: Freddie Starr?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.