The Mentally Challenged

[Mystic Wanderer]

This woman, Helen Reece, has done lost her last marble!  She thinks pedophiles should be allowed to adopt children and work with them in academic settings!

Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are ‘unfair’ and even convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said.


Theresa May was urged to allow sex offenders to adopt Photo: AFP


By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
6:00AM GMT 15 Dec 2010
Follow

Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights.

In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”

Very low?  Oh, okay. So that "low" number means as long as it's "low", it's okay?  Here's a thought... let's see if we can get it down to zero! 

A review is currently ongoing into the Vetting and Barring Scheme, introduced following the 2002 Soham murders, amid concerns by ministers that it is too heavy handed.

As well as banning certain offenders, the law currently requires adults coming into regular contact with children other than their own to be screened.

Mrs May ordered the review amid concerns about the vetting of ordinary volunteers such as parents who drive children to football practice and church flower arrangers.

In her article, Miss Reece suggested that the review should also introduce an assumption that sex offenders including child abusers posed no threat once they had served their sentence.

I've had some training in this area, and let me tell you, Bitch, once a sex offender, always a sex offender! Just because they served their sentence doesn't mean they are cured. They might fight the urge for a while, but eventually, they will give in. And YOU want to place the temptation right smack dab in front of them!  YOU STUPID IDIOT YOU!  

She said: "There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.

“The Vetting and Barring Scheme and other legislative measures single out sex offenders for unfair special treatment and they destroy the principle that a prisoner pays his or her debt by serving their sentence before re-entering society on equal terms.”

Moving down the article a bit...

A Home Office spokesman said: “It is safe to say that the vetting review will not be considering allowing paedophiles to adopt. It wouldn’t exactly go down well with the public.

Well, hallelujah! Someone left in office that still has a brain cell that hasn't been affected by chemtrails and GMOs!  
A ray of hope shines through the darkness.
 
(Wanders off mumbling obscenities at that stupid bitch!)  

Read the full article here: Source

[BIAD]

Considering The Telegraph is deemed a noteworthy newspaper of standing, I'm starting
to wonder what the hell is going on here.

I perused sites looking for who this 'Helen Reece' is and saw this one with an image attached.

Helen Reece….is anyone really this silly?

'...In today’s Daily Telegraph, there is a report (which I have checked out fully) about how Helen Reece,
a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax
rules automatically banning sex offenders from caring for children.
The usual bollocks is applied, viz: such a ban “could breach their human rights”.

In an article in the somehow ‘respected’ Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that
reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over
paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”...'

April 9, 2013.
Published by John Ward.

SOURCE:

No problems, The Telegraph is taking an old article and with a little embellishment, attempting to
show a ridiculous point of view that is stamped down at the end of the article.
Pure fakery.

But... poor Helen Reece died in January of this year!

The Guardian
Wednesday 25 January 2017 12.47 GMT.

Helen Reece obituary.



'My friend and former colleague Helen Reece, who has died of cancer aged 48, was widely acknowledged
as one of the most brilliant and original family law scholars of her generation. Her work has been essential
reading for students across the country and internationally.

Born in London to Gordon Reece, an academic in maths and engineering, and his wife, Nesta (nee Jones),
Helen spent most of her early years in Bristol, attending Redland high school for girls and Henbury school,
before returning to London to study law at University College, where she graduated with a first-class degree.

She went on to qualify as a barrister, studied logic and scientific method at the London School of Economics,
and opted for an academic career. After posts at UCL (1993-98) and Birkbeck (1998-2009), her final post
was as a reader at the LSE...'

SOURCE:

Your President is sometimes correct!

Edit: I see Mystic's post is from 2010.

[Mystic Wanderer]

Considering The Telegraph is deemed a noteworthy newspaper of standing, I'm starting
to wonder what the hell is going on here.

I perused sites looking for who this 'Helen Reece' is and saw this one with an image attached.

Helen Reece….is anyone really this silly?

'...In today’s Daily Telegraph, there is a report (which I have checked out fully) about how Helen Reece,
a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax
rules automatically banning sex offenders from caring for children.
The usual bollocks is applied, viz: such a ban “could breach their human rights”.

In an article in the somehow ‘respected’ Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that
reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over
paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”...'

April 9, 2013.
Published by John Ward.

SOURCE:

No problems, The Telegraph is taking an old article and with a little embellishment, attempting to
show a ridiculous point of view that is stamped down at the end of the article.
Pure fakery.

But... poor Helen Reece died in January of this year!

The Guardian
Wednesday 25 January 2017 12.47 GMT.

Helen Reece obituary.



'My friend and former colleague Helen Reece, who has died of cancer aged 48, was widely acknowledged
as one of the most brilliant and original family law scholars of her generation. Her work has been essential
reading for students across the country and internationally.

Born in London to Gordon Reece, an academic in maths and engineering, and his wife, Nesta (nee Jones),
Helen spent most of her early years in Bristol, attending Redland high school for girls and Henbury school,
before returning to London to study law at University College, where she graduated with a first-class degree.

She went on to qualify as a barrister, studied logic and scientific method at the London School of Economics,
and opted for an academic career. After posts at UCL (1993-98) and Birkbeck (1998-2009), her final post
was as a reader at the LSE...'

SOURCE:

Your President is sometimes correct!

Edit: I see Mystic's post is from 2010.

2010?  Oops!  I missed that. 

And I take back all my curse words about her. Even though I would have said the same thing back then, I don't like to speak ill of the dead when they are trying to earn their "angel wings". 
I'm sure she realizes the error of her ways now.  

[BIAD]

2010?  Oops!  I missed that. 

And I take back all my curse words about her. Even though I would have said the same thing back then, I don't like to speak ill of the dead when they are trying to earn their "angel wings". 
I'm sure she realizes the error of her ways now.  

There's still a discrepancy in the dates I provided, though!
John Ward playing hell about it three years later and on another blog, the writer
was actually blaming Theresa May only...! Using The Telegraph article without a
single mention of Reece!

But anyway, It was build-up-walk-back piece of crap journalism.

[Daitengu]

Theres only one cure for them ..... a bullet through the head ......

[gordi]

My pal (Scott) always said:

"Cut their bollocks off.... NO, on second thoughts... cut just ONE of their bollocks off with a rusty spoon! (They won't want to offend again after that!!)"

I like that.

G

[BIAD]

My pal (Scott) always said:

"Cut their bollocks off.... NO, on second thoughts... cut just ONE of their bollocks off with a rusty spoon! (They won't want to offend again after that!!)"

I like that.

G

As long as it's not using the National Health Service do it!

Maybe a Drop-In Centre or a chap with a van and a t...rusty pair of shears.

[gordi]

As long as it's not using the National Health Service do it!

Maybe a Drop-In Centre or a chap with a van and a t...rusty pair of shears.

...a "drop-off" centre!

[Wallfire]

Seems strange to me that muslims in the UK have been and still are raping and selling as sex slaves 1000s of white British children with the full knowledge of the police and social services. Could the reason be that its seen as the muslims human right and part of there religion ???.
No talk of getting the muslims "help" or even talk of cutting there bits off.
Perhaps its not rape or pedophilia if you belong to islam

[BIAD]

Seems strange to me that muslims in the UK have been and still are raping and selling as sex slaves 1000s of white British children with the full knowledge of the police and social services. Could the reason be that its seen as the muslims human right and part of there religion ???.
No talk of getting the muslims "help" or even talk of cutting there bits off.
Perhaps its not rape or pedophilia if you belong to islam

In my view, the youth-generated, middle-class political correctness soaked with their
unconscious class-superiority-guilt prohibits those in control of telling a person who
hasn't white skin that their ideology is demeaning to women and  dangerous to all.

It's easier to turn a blind-eye to the vulnerable to be molested and even killed because
of several reasons.
1. The recent crimes don't happen to those who spout about diversity and anyway,
it's doubtful they'll ever interact with women of that class unless they enter a
Supermarket or need serving in a restaurant.
2.The abused come from poor backgrounds and probably couldn't afford to pay for
the alcohol the gangs gave them, so it doesn't matter.
3. It feels good to let those who you secretly deem 'lesser' feel special. It negates
your private guilt and it's what 'good people' do in movies.


It's the simple method of transferring the things you feel bad about onto those you
wish control. It derives from the school-yard... ever heard a racist call someone a racist?!

[Wallfire]

A country that does not want to protect its children is a country that is lost. England does not need the Christian church, but it does need the Christian morals not muslim ones

[BIAD]

A country that does not want to protect its children is a country that is lost. England does not need the Christian church, but it does need the Christian morals not muslim ones

I couldn't agree more.