[Mystic Mock]

Some people on this thread have given me some of the most disturbing posts that I've ever read, seriously rehabilitating a paedophile!? And he is one as the girl was 12 at the time.

Imo if these criminals are gonna get ****ty prison sentences then they should be punished on not being able to get the higher up jobs as it just seems like the UK's legal system is out to keep rewarding the criminals instead of the victims, or law abiding citizens full stop.

[Mystic Mock]

Some people on this thread have given me some of the most disturbing posts that I've ever read, seriously rehabilitating a paedophile!? And he is one as the girl was 12 at the time.

Imo if these criminals are gonna get ****ty prison sentences then they should be punished on not being able to get the higher up jobs as it just seems like the UK's legal system is out to keep rewarding the criminals instead of the victims, or law abiding citizens full stop.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by The Mockinator

Some people on this thread have given me some of the most disturbing posts that I've ever read, seriously rehabilitating a paedophile!? And he is one as the girl was 12 at the time.

Imo if these criminals are gonna get ****ty prison sentences then they should be punished on not being able to get the higher up jobs as it just seems like the UK's legal system is out to keep rewarding the criminals instead of the victims, or law abiding citizens full stop.

I find that impossible to believe.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Livia

I find that impossible to believe.

[2]

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Livia

I find that impossible to believe.

People saying that he was not a paedophile because he was 19 at the time is quite sick imo as it's trying to excuse Jamie Oliver's decision to hire him, and it's excusing his disgusting behaviour on a 12 year old girl.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by The Mockinator

People saying that he was not a paedophile because he was 19 at the time is quite sick imo as it's trying to excuse Jamie Oliver's decision to hire him, and it's excusing his disgusting behaviour on a 12 year old girl.

Originally Posted by Josy

I can't believe what I have read in this thread.

A 19 year old is an ADULT a 12 year old is a CHILD, the man is a Paedophile and a rapist and there's no excuses to be made to say otherwise.

The restaurant will suffer due to this being made public and rightly so IMO.

The definition of a paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre-adolescent children. A 12 year old is not necessarily pre-adolescent (some are, some aren't, puberty begins at different times) and therefore someone who is attracted to a 12 year old is not necessarily a paedophile. Illustratively: it's perfectly possible that a 12 year old might look 16, and that in that case, a 16 to 20 year old might find them physically attractive. It's then revealed that they are 12 - does that other person automatically "become a paedophile"? No, of course not. To put it bluntly; to know whether or not he's a paedophile, you would have to see a picture of the girl. If she is sexually developed, then he is NOT a paedophile. Full stop.

An adult actively, knowingly, pursuing sex with someone of that age is OBVIOUSLY morally abhorrent. This MUST be kept distinct, though, from bellowing "PAEDO" - because paedophilia is an abnormal psychological perversion. Branding someone who is not a paedophile as a paedophile isn't helpful.

Finally (and I find myself having to state this almost every time a case like this comes up) - "paedophile" and "child molester" are not interchangeable terms. There are paedophiles with self-restraint who have never harmed a child, and there are child molesters who are not necessarily paedophiles (though this is less common).

This is why the term "statutory rape" exists. There is a legal distinction. An adult having sex with a pre-pubescent child is a child molester in the eyes of the law. An adult having sex with an underage person who has reached sexual maturity is a statutory rapist. That distinction exists for the reasons outlined above; i.e. "they're NOT paedophiles".


What he is, however, is a convicted rapist and apparently a predatory one who preyed on someone young and vulnerable. This is bad enough. Certainly enough to condemn him, if someone was to feel so inclined. But banding around terms like "paedophile" is as helpful as stating without evidence that someone is "a psychopath" or "schizophrenic".

As usual, we have the press and popular culture to thank for the bastardisation of a psychological term.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The definition of a paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre-adolescent children. A 12 year old is not necessarily pre-adolescent (some are, some aren't, puberty begins at different times) and therefore someone who is attracted to a 12 year old is not necessarily a paedophile. Illustratively: it's perfectly possible that a 12 year old might look 16, and that in that case, a 16 to 20 year old might find them physically attractive. It's then revealed that they are 12 - does that other person automatically "become a paedophile"? No, of course not. To put it bluntly; to know whether or not he's a paedophile, you would have to see a picture of the girl. If she is sexually developed, then he is NOT a paedophile. Full stop.

An adult actively, knowingly, pursuing sex with someone of that age is OBVIOUSLY morally abhorrent. This MUST be kept distinct, though, from bellowing "PAEDO" - because paedophilia is an abnormal psychological perversion. Branding someone who is not a paedophile as a paedophile isn't helpful.

Finally (and I find myself having to state this almost every time a case like this comes up) - "paedophile" and "child molester" are not interchangeable terms. There are paedophiles with self-restraint who have never harmed a child, and there are child molesters who are not necessarily paedophiles (though this is less common).

This is why the term "statutory rape" exists. There is a legal distinction. An adult having sex with a pre-pubescent child is a child molester in the eyes of the law. An adult having sex with an underage person who has reached sexual maturity is a statutory rapist. That distinction exists for the reasons outlined above; i.e. "they're NOT paedophiles".


What he is, however, is a convicted rapist and apparently a predatory one who preyed on someone young and vulnerable. This is bad enough. Certainly enough to condemn him, if someone was to feel so inclined. But banding around terms like "paedophile" is as helpful as stating without evidence that someone is "a psychopath" or "schizophrenic".

As usual, we have the press and popular culture to thank for the bastardisation of a psychological term.

In the eyes of the law having sex without consent is rape, an adult having sex with a child makes them a peadophile...ergo he is a peadophile rapist however you try to dress it up.

[Samuel.]

He's served his time. There should be no issues.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The definition of a paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre-adolescent children. A 12 year old is not necessarily pre-adolescent (some are, some aren't, puberty begins at different times) and therefore someone who is attracted to a 12 year old is not necessarily a paedophile. Illustratively: it's perfectly possible that a 12 year old might look 16, and that in that case, a 16 to 20 year old might find them physically attractive. It's then revealed that they are 12 - does that other person automatically "become a paedophile"? No, of course not. To put it bluntly; to know whether or not he's a paedophile, you would have to see a picture of the girl. If she is sexually developed, then he is NOT a paedophile. Full stop.

An adult actively, knowingly, pursuing sex with someone of that age is OBVIOUSLY morally abhorrent. This MUST be kept distinct, though, from bellowing "PAEDO" - because paedophilia is an abnormal psychological perversion. Branding someone who is not a paedophile as a paedophile isn't helpful.

Finally (and I find myself having to state this almost every time a case like this comes up) - "paedophile" and "child molester" are not interchangeable terms. There are paedophiles with self-restraint who have never harmed a child, and there are child molesters who are not necessarily paedophiles (though this is less common).

This is why the term "statutory rape" exists. There is a legal distinction. An adult having sex with a pre-pubescent child is a child molester in the eyes of the law. An adult having sex with an underage person who has reached sexual maturity is a statutory rapist. That distinction exists for the reasons outlined above; i.e. "they're NOT paedophiles".


What he is, however, is a convicted rapist and apparently a predatory one who preyed on someone young and vulnerable. This is bad enough. Certainly enough to condemn him, if someone was to feel so inclined. But banding around terms like "paedophile" is as helpful as stating without evidence that someone is "a psychopath" or "schizophrenic".

As usual, we have the press and popular culture to thank for the bastardisation of a psychological term.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

In the eyes of the law having sex without consent is rape, an adult having sex with a child makes them a peadophile...ergo he is a peadophile rapist however you try to dress it up.

Indeed.

[Northern Monkey]

This guy is obviously a sick bastard.But it is up to Jamie who he employs when it comes down to it.A very unwise decision imo though.People say that any publicity is good publicity,In this case i beg to differ.

[Z]

I just can't believe the focus in this thread... he gave the guy a job despite his past, not because of it? He's not bloody rewarding him, he's giving him a second chance!

[Ammi]

..I'm not sure how I feel about this...it's something that's hard not to feel 'emotional' about but it's not really about emotion..I haven't read the article or know any details of his case but he has been brought to justice for his crime and whether we agree with whatever sentence he got or not, the whole point of prison sentences etc is surely the possibility of 'rehabilitation' and for that to happen then part of that is to be given an opportunity by an employer in full knowing of what his past is...this must happen all the time or a lot and would surely have to happen for the prison/justice system to have a 'point'...so long as the job and the crime committed doesn't put that person in a position of trust with vulnerable people...it's just that we mostly don't know about it but that doesn't change that it's what has to happen and what does happen..someone has to give offenders a 'chance' otherwise they serve a sentence for a crime their whole lives...I guess it could be a 'worst' decision for Jamie because of the media attention it will bring or could be deemed as him, in being aware of this media attention..really wanting to 'stand up' for something he truly believes ....but yeah, hard for people who are directly involved....

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I'm not sure how I feel about this...it's something that's hard not to feel 'emotional' about but it's not really about emotion..I haven't read the article or know any details of his case but he has been brought to justice for his crime and whether we agree with whatever sentence he got or not, the whole point of prison sentences etc is surely the possibility of 'rehabilitation' and for that to happen then part of that is to be given an opportunity by an employer in full knowing of what his past is...this must happen all the time or a lot and would surely have to happen for the prison/justice system to have a 'point'...so long as the job and the crime committed doesn't put that person in a position of trust with vulnerable people...it's just that we mostly don't know about it but that doesn't change that it's what has to happen and what does happen..someone has to give offenders a 'chance' otherwise they serve a sentence for a crime their whole lives...I guess it could be a 'worst' decision for Jamie because of the media attention it will bring or could be deemed as him, in being aware of this media attention..really wanting to 'stand up' for something he truly believes ....but yeah, hard for people who are directly involved....

But that's how it should be. Otherwise every criminal will be like Oh let me just do the crime then. I'll be in the prison rent free, tax free for a few years then go back out and get a job. Good stuff.

People that offend need to know that as soon as they offend that's it, it's over you'll pay for it somehow the rest of your life otherwise what's the point of the law it's just pointless then if everyone gets a pat on the back afterwards.

And the thing about the criminals serving a sentence all their lives, who cares, their victims might serve a sentence all their lives.

I'm just worried about human rights getting a bit too soft when it concerns criminals now. God forbid if something happens to me or my family one day, is this what I can look forward to then? Pft.


The headline on dailymail is the victim of that footballer getting threats while the footballer is getting ready for a party and possibly going back to high paying job. Awful

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Z

I just can't believe the focus in this thread... he gave the guy a job despite his past, not because of it? He's not bloody rewarding him, he's giving him a second chance!

The focus on his crime took place in the discussion so much because there was posts in here claiming this guy wasn't a paedophile.

I couldn't care any less how much anyone tries to dress it up or make excuses about it, ANY ADULT that is attracted to a 12 year old CHILD is a paedophile in my eyes regardless of how much anyone tries to deny it and I'm just glad that the law see's it that way too.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Originally Posted by Josy

The focus on his crime took place in the discussion so much because there was posts in here claiming this guy wasn't a paedophile.

I couldn't care any less how much anyone tries to dress it up or make excuses about it, ANY ADULT that is attracted to a 12 year old CHILD is a paedophile in my eyes regardless of how much anyone tries to deny it and I'm just glad that the law see's it that way too.

And he was only 19 as well. If it's psychological as they claim then he can't be fixed. Watch out Jamie.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Samuel.

He's served his time. There should be no issues.

There should be no issues?

There will always be issues with criminals of this type throughout their entire life and rightly so, just because they have served a jail term does not mean they are rehabilitated there is always the risk of them reoffending, there are issues with parents worrying if their child is safe around them for a start, there are issues about where criminals like this will be housed after leaving prison, for Jamie and his restaurants or any other employer that gives these people a chance there will be issues of customers not wanting to be associated in any way with the business due to fearing the safety of their children and then others will stop going there just to make a point.

Saying there should be no issues is pointless because the issue of the crime they committed will always be there.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Josy

The focus on his crime took place in the discussion so much because there was posts in here claiming this guy wasn't a paedophile.

I couldn't care any less how much anyone tries to dress it up or make excuses about it, ANY ADULT that is attracted to a 12 year old CHILD is a paedophile in my eyes regardless of how much anyone tries to deny it and I'm just glad that the law see's it that way too.

It doesn't. "paedophile" is not a legal term. "convicted paedophile" is a media buzz term. There is no such thing. There are convicted child molesters, people convicted of making or storing indecent images of children, there are convicted rapists, convicted statutory rapists, a myriad of other convicted perverts, but "convicted paedophile" simply isn't a thing because it is meaningless: paedophilia is not and cannot be a crime until the urges are acted upon, at which point the perpetrator becomes a child rapist or child molester (or child pornographer).

It is a psychological term. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre pubescent children. Someone who is attracted to teens after the onset of puberty, but not before, may be messed up, morally abhorrent, a scumbag, a predator, a danger to society, any of these things... But they are not a paedophile. It's not a debate, it's a fact, whether you want it to be or not :/.

Please don't think that this is in any way a defence of this man, or any other person convicted of a sexual offense, or of actual paedophiles... I'm not defending or making excuses for anyone. It just annoys me (as someone with a degree in psychology) when people get these things completely wrong.

Calling non-paedophiles paedophiles is stupid, and damaging, when actual paedophiles exist. The best way to keep society safe from anyone with any mental disorder is to understand it ACCURATELY and take appropriate measures. Muddying the waters with blanket terms might make people feel better in their rants and rages but it doesn't help anyone else. At all.

[Kyle]

Just a shame there is no reformation for the poor 12 year old girl who will very much have to live with the events she had forced upon her.

If a rapist wants to reform themselves they should be offered a gun with one bullet and a secure room where they can be politely asked to redeem themselves. I know I couldn't live with the shame if I did such a thing.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It doesn't. "paedophile" is not a legal term. "convicted paedophile" is a media buzz term. There is no such thing. There are convicted child molesters, people convicted of making or storing indecent images of children, there are convicted rapists, convicted statutory rapists, a myriad of other convicted perverts, but "convicted paedophile" simply isn't a thing because it is meaningless: paedophilia is not and cannot be a crime until the urges are acted upon, at which point the perpetrator becomes a child rapist or child molester (or child pornographer).

It is a psychological term. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre pubescent children. Someone who is attracted to teens after the onset of puberty, but not before, may be messed up, morally abhorrent, a scumbag, a predator, a danger to society, any of these things... But they are not a paedophile. It's not a debate, it's a fact, whether you want it to be or not :/.

Please don't think that this is in any way a defence of this man, or any other person convicted of a sexual offense, or of actual paedophiles... I'm not defending or making excuses for anyone. It just annoys me (as someone with a degree in psychology) when people get these things completely wrong.

Calling non-paedophiles paedophiles is stupid, and damaging, when actual paedophiles exist. The best way to keep society safe from anyone with any mental disorder is to understand it ACCURATELY and take appropriate measures. Muddying the waters with blanket terms might make people feel better in their rants and rages but it doesn't help anyone else. At all.

Ok, he's not a peadophile... just a child molesting rapist. Glad we cleared that up.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Ithinkiloveyoutoo

But that's how it should be. Otherwise every criminal will be like Oh let me just do the crime then. I'll be in the prison rent free, tax free for a few years then go back out and get a job. Good stuff.

People that offend need to know that as soon as they offend that's it, it's over you'll pay for it somehow the rest of your life otherwise what's the point of the law it's just pointless then if everyone gets a pat on the back afterwards.

And the thing about the criminals serving a sentence all their lives, who cares, their victims might serve a sentence all their lives.

I'm just worried about human rights getting a bit too soft when it concerns criminals now. God forbid if something happens to me or my family one day, is this what I can look forward to then? Pft.


The headline on dailymail is the victim of that footballer getting threats while the footballer is getting ready for a party and possibly going back to high paying job. Awful

I feel the same about anyone who hurts children in any way at all as you do, CeeCee ... but through my own personal experiences I just don’t think that I can say ‘every criminal in a ‘one size fits all crimes’ type thing..maybe I’m wrong in my thinking with this and tbh, I haven’t even read the article but with this I do think age could be of relevance..not in a way that his crime was any less or awful because of course it wasn’t and he has been brought to justice for it... but in that being little more than adult age himself, I just don’t necessarily think this is definitely something that is a ‘bad’ in him but could have been something bad that he did because of his own childhood/because of his own experiences/situation and environment and things that he couldn’t help and a possibility that there was no positive nurturing in his life and nothing except negatives and bad stuff....I don’t think that it’s necessarily that there was an ‘attraction’ there to the victim or that he is as such a ‘paedophile’/something that he can’t change..?.....it is a really difficult one I know because this is something which will most probably have far lasting effects on the victim so then they are ‘punished for their whole lives..’ and that’s not fair/why shouldn't he be as well....?...but my feelings are that, those effects and what he has done has sadly already happened and nothing is ever going to change that...maybe what he has needed in his life..what he has never had is just for one person to ‘believe in him’ like Jamie is doing...and maybe that one chance will make the whole difference between him being a repeat offender or being rehabilitated after what he did and it never happening again ..?...if that happened then surely for everyone..the fact that he would never create another victim in his life would be the much better outcome for everyone and ‘society as a whole’...my heart breaks for the victim, but nothing now will ever change what he did to her...but there are many ‘victims’ in life in many different ways, young people who you feel that their whole life is almost ‘mapped out’ for them before it barely starts and through no fault of their own either...and sometimes, with a ‘chance’ for some people, they could possibly change that course and never hurt anyone ever again....and yeah, I know that some people re-offend and don't deserve any more chances if they've already been given one... but maybe there are lots that don't repeat offend because that chance and that belief was something that changed their lives and so will change the lives of others/any 'potential victims'...I mean, we don't know if 'the system' and rehabilitation works for some and to what extent unless it's given the chance to work....and it's not that it doesn't happen all the time anyway in cases we don't ever know about...as I say, I haven't read the article so I'm presuming that he's not a multiple offender but I do believe with child abuse, that offenders can be victims themselves and behaviour patterns can be changed ..rather than it necessarily be something 'bad that's in them' that can't ever be changed and a part of that will be 'giving them a chance/giving them an environment of 'belief' and something positive....

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Ok, he's not a peadophile... just a child molesting rapist. Glad we cleared that up.

"Just" a predatory rapist who happened to prey on someone very young, is more likely. I've looked at several articles on this and I can't find anywhere what he was actually charged with, unfortunately, but I highly doubt he was charged with child molestation. Not if he's out this soon.

Again, not defending him, and I don't think he SHOULD be out this soon. Being a rapist who targeted someone young and vulnerable is bad enough to be locked up for a long time, IMO. But I still maintain that the distinction is an important one.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Josy

The focus on his crime took place in the discussion so much because there was posts in here claiming this guy wasn't a paedophile.

I couldn't care any less how much anyone tries to dress it up or make excuses about it, ANY ADULT that is attracted to a 12 year old CHILD is a paedophile in my eyes regardless of how much anyone tries to deny it and I'm just glad that the law see's it that way too.

Okay, but I don't think that should dictate that he can never work ever again. Being a chef is pretty tough going, the hours are insane and I think it's positive that he's been given an opportunity to turn his life around and work hard at something than just serving his sentence and having his life be over before he's even 30 years old. I mean what would people rather he did? He's not going to come into direct contact with children being a chef so I don't really see the relevance; what he did wasn't good but he was punished and now he's moving on with his life.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Ithinkiloveyoutoo

But that's how it should be. Otherwise every criminal will be like Oh let me just do the crime then. I'll be in the prison rent free, tax free for a few years then go back out and get a job. Good stuff.

People that offend need to know that as soon as they offend that's it, it's over you'll pay for it somehow the rest of your life otherwise what's the point of the law it's just pointless then if everyone gets a pat on the back afterwards.

And the thing about the criminals serving a sentence all their lives, who cares, their victims might serve a sentence all their lives.

I'm just worried about human rights getting a bit too soft when it concerns criminals now. God forbid if something happens to me or my family one day, is this what I can look forward to then? Pft.


The headline on dailymail is the victim of that footballer getting threats while the footballer is getting ready for a party and possibly going back to high paying job. Awful

I think it's a bit ignorant to make out that prison is like some sort of Haven holiday camp. I probably couldn't deal with being imprisoned very well and I reckon a lot of people on this board wouldn't either.

As for the blue paragraph, what the hell do you propose ex cons do if 'it's all over for them' if they offend? If reformation isn't an option then what can they do? Would you be happy for them to live on benefits all their lives, draining the budget just to appease your overactive sense of righteousness?

A sentence is a sentence for a reason, you do your time and then you try to go back to being a functioning member of society. Why would you want to deny someone that chance out of pure malice when you're just forcing them back into a situation where they might go back to old habits when they wouldn't have needed to if they were given a chance to reform? Attitudes like yours plays a big part in why we have so many repeat offenders of all sorts of crimes, why should anyone ever bother learning from their mistakes and bettering themselves for it when people like you are content to casting them aside in a meaningless show of self righteousness?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

A sentence is a sentence for a reason, you do your time and then you try to go back to being a functioning member of society. Why would you want to deny someone that chance out of pure malice when you're just forcing them back into a situation where they might go back to old habits when they wouldn't have needed to if they were given a chance to reform? Attitudes like yours plays a big part in why we have so many repeat offenders of all sorts of crimes, why should anyone ever bother learning from their mistakes and bettering themselves for it when people like you are content to casting them aside in a meaningless show of self righteousness?

Indeed; by creating pariahs of people with criminal records, all you do is ensure that those people have no real choice but to turn to crime to survive. On top of that, because they FEEL like outcasts from society, they have less social responsibility, and they feel less guilt about acting out of pure self-interest.

A self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Indeed; by creating pariahs of people with criminal records, all you do is ensure that those people have no real choice but to turn to crime to survive. On top of that, because they FEEL like outcasts from society, they have less social responsibility, and they feel less guilt about acting out of pure self-interest.

A self-fulfilling prophesy.

Spare the sociology lecture please, It does stick in my craw the fact that this 'man' may have honed his skills whilst at her majesties pleasure, then walked out into this fantastic opportunity.
Nobody is suggesting he never work again, but this is for me smacks of some odd ill thought out publicity stunt to get media attention for jamies restaurant.