An acquaintance of mine was arrested today on suspicion of attempting to abduct two children into his car. Although he is on the sex offenders register he has never taken a driving test and does not own a car. He is in his 40s but the description given to him by police says the attempted abductor was aged around 70 years. It also said that he had hair parted on the right and combed over to the left, whereas the accused's hair is parted on the left and combed over to the right. As well as these he is quite disabled and unable to drive a car even if he did have a licence, and he is certainly incapable of handling even one wriggling child let alone two.

Each of these things should confirm that he is not the guilty party, but he has now been bailed conditionally to submit to a video identity parade.

His solicitor has said the case is a load of rubbish.

It appears to be very similar to a case I dealt with years ago where two children were late home and used an attempted abduction story to avoid being punished for their lateness. A lot of wasted police time before the truth finally came out.

about a month a go I was at something here in Oz called the Royal Easter Show with a media colleague. It's held in the giant 2000 Olympic site that rambles all over the place (just like the big white elephant you will have in London)

A radio friend said he had seen Russell Crowe and his kids in the side show section about 20 minutes before. We wanted to get some pictures and a few words..Crowe's very easy going. We were hunting for 'side show alley' and seeing 3 kids with products I knew came from there and being in a hurry I approached them and was just about to ask for directions when I suddenly thought "oh God no..find an adult !"

that's the state we are all in now. Terrified of our own shadows.

From what I understand, once the police have arrested someone they have to go through the motions, interview, searches, etc. even if it is blatantly obvious that they have arrested the wrong person. So, an innocent man/woman can be placed on police bail pending further enquiries and treated like a criminal even though the police know they are innocent. It was one of the features of our Just, Fair and Safe legal system.

In this case, FD, it sounds as though the investigating officers have not properly investigated before jumping in with both feet and are now stuck with trying to find some way of disguising the egg on their faces. Idiots.

Yet another example of how our £15 BILLION a year taxpayers money is wasted by the Police.

Truly shocking case. The man should never have been arrested and bailed. He should have at worst been asked to voluntarily submit to an ID line up.

People who are on the Sex Offenders Register are fair game for the Police ? I would be very interested if anyone else has such stories about people being targeted unfairly if they are placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

My feeling about this register is that it should last a max of 10 years for serious offences ( Rape and Murder of Children or adults with a sexual motive ) and be a max of 5 years for the Indecency/indecent assaults / illegal pictures. Otherwise those convicted serve a life sentence. That cant be fair under HUMAN RIGHTS law. Even MURDERERS dont have a MURDERER OFFENDER REGISTER and I think every right minded person would agree that MURDER of anyone is more serious than anything to do with the het up UK attitude to sex.

What makes me laugh as a Christian is that all these MORAL GUARDIANS are basically screwing around and totally ignoring the WORD OF GOD in the BIBLE - OT - QUARAN - etc where sex is meant to be for marriage.

I would like to see SEX LAWS brought in line with SHARIA LAW and the BIBLE if we are to have SEX LAWS !! At least there would be some basis in spirituality - rather than STATE CONTROL.

( I know this view will be unpopular !! )

I read that conditions of bail where the alleged offence involves children can include no contact with people aged 17 or under. This raises a question about the age of consent and the rights of people who have reached it. The age of consent is 16 for everyone, so by making such a condition, they also saying to 16 and 17 year olds that they cannot mix with this person if they choose to even though they have the legal right to do so.

Surely there are grounds for any 16 and 17 year olds to challenge such a denial of their legal rights.

I maybe went slightly off topic there but this thread just made me think about that.

Wouldn't it have been better for the police to find out whether the suspect actually owned or drove a car before arresting him? Or is that being too thorough? To be honest it sounds like they are rather dumb.

I agree. The age of consent laws in the UK have been a total f-ck-up for years. People are still considered to be ´children´ up until 18 in many cases... (usually when it suits the Police/CPS) rather like the bail conditions you mentioned.. If people are considered old enough to consent to sex at 16 now, then how can another legal adult be banned from having any contact with someone under 18? Ridiculous!

Regarding the Sex Offenders Register.. This has already been tested at the EU level. Someone challenged the legality of the register on the grounds that it amounted to an ´extra punishment´ for certain offenders.

The government successfully defended the register by saying that it was not an ´extra punishment´, (tell that to those on it!)... but was actually a ´crime prevention´ measure.

The EU court of appeal agreed with the governments position on that.

Crazy.

How can it not be considered an ´extra punishment´ when those on the register have to submit to the further indignity of notifying the police of their ´intention to breathe´ for the rest of their lives? Failure to do so can land the ex-offender in prison... Not further punishment?

The register is, as far as I can see, a gross invasion of a persons right to privacy and freedom. Strange the EU agreeing that it was not an ´extra punishment´, I wonder if they would like to live under such a system? ... and if it is such a great idea, then why is the same system not in force EU/worldwide?

The reality of it is that it does not stop crime.. It is simply an well-abused tool to make life easier for the police! At present, it is a life-sentence. The only escape from it is by moving out of the UK´s jurisdiction.

The European Court ruling on the sex offenders register, that I know about, was regarding it being imposed retrospectively. I'm not sure that they have made any ruling on the ever changing conditions which those on it are made to abide by. These are certainly additions to a sentence if they are increased after the date of someone being placed on the register. I'm sure these could be challenged successfully considering the ruling the European Court made on adding to a sentence without due process.

But I might be way out of date on this subject. Maybe the European Court has already defied it's own ruling.

Having made my own enquiries using contacts from "within" I understand that the arresting officer has an attitude towards sex offenders and will want to see this man held for the full 24 hours even though it's been all but officially decided that he could not be guilty. This he does purely to inconvenience the suspect. Of course that means that while he is venting his personal feelings over someone's past record he is failing to focus on either establishing the truth of the allegation or finding the actual perpetrator.

Unfortunately there are many police officers with the same problem. And this officer is up for promotion.

I'm surprised they didn't come in force and bash his door down under the glare of TV cameras. Nothing seems to stupid for the modern British police who know they can (or could) get away with anything. I'm sure they aspire to be reality TV stars, although it sounds as though this case would have backfired on them and they would have ended up facing world ridicule via Youtube.

Seems that wrongful arrests are a bit of a fashion. Are the British police becoming the laughing stock of the planet?

www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/01/...f-policy-on-dna.html

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/8545863.stm

www.anhourago.co.uk/show.aspx?l=4081095

I think videoing things and posting on YOU TUBE is a great idea if the POLICE are harassing you for whatever reason.

The SEX OFFENDERS REGISTER Is certainly a punishment too far. I agree it can amount to a life sentence for someone and in the NEW POLITICS OF THE UK - our laws need to come in line with the EUROPEAN TREATY ON HUMAN RIGHTS where people convicted and having served their punishment do not get an extra punishment.

Real abusers take no notice of a piece of paper. How many people will stop committing a crime because they have to sign a piece of paper.

There is ONE simple way to stop the SEX OFFENDERS REGISTER WORKING. Every SEX OFFENDER should stop signing it on 1 JANUARY 2011. Supposedly there are thousands ( 10,000 + ) on this register. The POLICE do not have the resources to chase everyone. Then if EVERYONE takes out a case based on HUMAN RIGHTS and uses the BANKERS GET OUT CLAUSE ( which they used on Bank Charges ) e.g until all the cases have gone to court then they dont have to abide by any decision by the courts.

THE PEOPLE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER>

I am hereby announcing the END of the SEX OFFENDERS REGISTER which was illegally started by NEW LABOUR and is against the HUMAN RIGHTS of those on it unless it is extended to ALL convicted prisoners in the UK and is therefore equal and fair before the law.

This REGISTER needs to end on DECEMBER 31 2010 if the COALITION has not ended it before then.

It is time FREEDOM was restored to the UK.

The POLICE are re-criminalising people who have served their sentence. That is UNFAIR and against everything about UK JUSTICE.

The "Brain Washing" of NEW LABOUR against so called TERRORISTS and PAEDOHYSTERIA needs to come to an end. We all know that most abuse is "in the family" and should be dealt with in those terms rather than wasting PUBLIC MONEY on silly prosecutions ( like the 10 year olds in the Old Bailey this week )

I agree the register should be scrapped but it was introduced by former Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard, not by New Labour. However, it was New Labour who added numerous new conditions. Initially it was just a register and nobody on it was compelled to make an annual report to a police station. The only requirement was that police be notified of any changes in circumstances. Labour made it a criminal offence not to regularly inform the police that there were no changes of circumstances, thus clogging the police system with huge volumes of unnecessary paperwork and keeping officers off the street where they are needed most.

In America, where the first sex offenders register was created, there is currently a major rethink with the possibility of either relaxing conditions or ending the register altogether. Offenders would still be in the police database so this separate register is surplus to requirements. Maybe if America does make changes then the UK will follow suit. We usually follow whatever America does.