When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
11:00am Friday 27th January 2012 in News By Miriam Phillips and Darren Slade
SEVEN child sex offenders with regular access to children have been uncovered in Dorset, thanks to the introduction of Sarah’s Law.
More than 60 concerned families have also contacted Dorset Police to find out if their child is safe.
Sarah’s Law, known as the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, came into place in the county last October after campaigning from parents and Sarah’s Law supporters.
It was introduced after a successful trial in four police forces and Dorset is now one of 18 forces that have it.
The scheme allows parents controlled access to information about whether a sex offender is in their area.
It was named after eight-year-old Sarah Payne, who was murdered by convicted paedophile Roy Whiting in 2000.
Martyn Underhill of Poole was the detective who led the inquiry into Sarah Payne’s murder in 2000.
He said at the launch of Sarah’s Law: “This is great news for Dorset – empowering parents in the fight against paedophiles can only be a good thing.”
The mum of a 15-year-old sex abuse victim, whose attacker faced a two-year-sentence, said the introduction of the scheme was a real step forward for parents in Dorset.
She said: “When the unimaginable happens you can’t help but blame yourself for not being perceptive enough to keep these monsters away from our children. But in reality it was very difficult to find out and I just wish this was around four years ago.”
She was surprised only 60 families had contacted the force.
Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole and former Liberal Democrat spokesperson for children, said last night she was “absolutely staggered” that seven sex offenders had been able to have regular contact with children.
“One really needs to know more details about the cases. It’s really important that we protect our children, but on the other hand we have to try to get the situation where somebody can be let out of prison without a witch hunt. “That means we put our trust in the police and other authorities to monitor them. This is one area where we can’t save scarce resources. We have to do this job.”
Claire Smith, Bournemouth’s former children’s champion, said: “I welcomed Sarah’s Law at the time and I still welcome it.”
She said the law was encouraging more cross-referencing of information by the authorities. “For parents who perhaps have asked someone in authority for reassurance in the past but felt they were fobbed off a bit, this can be another way for them to get reassurance,” she said.
And she said the law could quash unfounded rumours about innocent people being abusers.
Kidscape deputy director Peter Bradley told the Echo: “The uptake of parents using Sarah’s Law is a similar picture around the country.
“Sarah’s Law is very important for parents to be able to find out if their child is safe and it’s an avenue they can use to investigate any concerns they have.”
Detective Inspector Joan Carmichael said: “Since January 2011, seven child sex offenders with regular access to children have been uncovered in Dorset and 60 concerned families have contacted the force.
“The relevant parties have had a face to face meeting with officers and safeguarding measures have been put in place for the children.”
• You can make enquiries online, at a police station, or by calling 01202 222 222.
The campaign for Sarah’s Law
Sarah Payne disappeared on July 1 2000 from a cornfield near her grandparents’ home in West Sussex.
Her body was found on July 17 in a field nearly 20 miles away.
Roy Whiting was found guilty 17 months later of of killing SarahSarah Payne, and it was revealed that he already had a conviction for abducting and indecently assaulting an eight-year-old girl.
The campaign for Sarah's Law was spearheaded by the now-defunct News of the World. Sarah’s mother Sara Payne appeared with the paper’s editor Rebekah Wade (now Rebekah Brooks) at the Conservative Party conference in Bourne-mouth in 2002 to promote its aim of controlled access to the Sex Offender Register.
Comments(32)
Huey
says...
11:07am Fri 27 Jan 12
Northstand_dan
says...
12:04pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Arjay
says...
12:07pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Mikeebar
says...
12:34pm Fri 27 Jan 12
puglove
says...
12:41pm Fri 27 Jan 12
puglove
says...
12:52pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Omni314
says...
1:14pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Bob49
says...
1:26pm Fri 27 Jan 12
585
says...
1:46pm Fri 27 Jan 12
PokesdownMark
says...
2:17pm Fri 27 Jan 12
pete woodley
says...
4:17pm Fri 27 Jan 12
justsayithowitis
says...
4:24pm Fri 27 Jan 12
ZooeyGlass
says...
4:40pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Huey wrote:How does that work for women?
Oh come on just chop their bits off and let's be done with this.
static kill
says...
5:27pm Fri 27 Jan 12
mmm2008
says...
6:47pm Fri 27 Jan 12
static kill wrote:Well that's the kind of comments that separates the 'them' from 'us' and allows abuse to go on because society attempts to convince the ignorant amongst us that 'they' are hideous, monsterous characters and therefore we never suspect that it could be our uncle, brother, grandma, lovely neighbour, teacher etc. And the use of the term 'paedophile'??? Why? This is a term that child sex offenders have chosen for themselves in attempt to justify their crimes, as paedophile means 'lover of children'. Let's not go along with child sex offenders justifying their abuse please and let's not keep thinking that evil monsters commit these crimes, it's getting innocent children nowhere.
Genetically, paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it but it's scientific fact.
mansak_hunt
says...
8:02pm Fri 27 Jan 12
ZooeyGlass wrote:chop their bits off.
Huey wrote:How does that work for women?
Oh come on just chop their bits off and let's be done with this.
i hate do-gooders
says...
9:21pm Fri 27 Jan 12
dickie darcy
says...
10:25pm Fri 27 Jan 12
puglove
says...
10:35pm Fri 27 Jan 12
i hate do-gooders wrote:Agreed!
oh dear i seem to have some read some do gooders comments on here ,no ifs no buts they should be shot at dawn or let the family members of the victms have a couple of hours alone in a room the them,to serve real justice
mansak_hunt
says...
11:00pm Fri 27 Jan 12
puglove wrote:agreed
i hate do-gooders wrote:Agreed!
oh dear i seem to have some read some do gooders comments on here ,no ifs no buts they should be shot at dawn or let the family members of the victms have a couple of hours alone in a room the them,to serve real justice
Arjay
says...
11:14pm Fri 27 Jan 12
boby
says...
11:27pm Fri 27 Jan 12
boby
says...
11:39pm Fri 27 Jan 12
boby
says...
11:49pm Fri 27 Jan 12
denmarmat
says...
10:55am Sat 28 Jan 12
boby wrote:Please dont take this the wrong way but there are a few people who get their kicks by making comments up and posting them on here,If what you have posted is true then you need to name him not on here but with the police irrespective if you can or wont press charges they will advise you as what alternatives there are but you cannot live the rest of your life in his shadow the way you say ring someone today
This is when I wish I could tell you his name, but I can't because me the victim would be in trouble. I will take this to my grave , he has blighted my families lives. Can anybody see if this is right ???.
boby
says...
11:26am Sat 28 Jan 12
boby
says...
11:40am Sat 28 Jan 12
boby
says...
11:57am Sat 28 Jan 12
Veryhappyincomer
says...
12:47pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Bob49 wrote:Unfortunately the "overexcited dimwits" can end up doing jury service. I had to do jury service on a historical child abuse case some time ago. The defendant was clearly innocent and the "victim" was blatently making it up to avenge some perceived slight. However several members of the jury had obviously made their minds up before the case started, on the basis that "if it has gone to trial he must be guilty" and "he looks a bit weird so he must be a paedo". It took some persuading by the sensible majority to bring it down to a majority not guilty verdict. The real victim though had lost his job and his home as a result of the false allegations.
Whilst it might be easy to dismiss this as a harmless stunt to delude the terminally stupid that 'something is being done', there is a greater danger to this idiocy. Every convicted paedophile is at some point a first time offender. No branding, mutilation etc will address that. Unfurtunately however, it will merely expend time and energy on a pretty worthless distraction. Lets wait until a child/children are abused then we can inact extreme vengeance. A few over excited dimwits can march through the streets, bang on prison van doors and parade their 'decency' and outrage for all to see. In the meantime we, as a society, will continue to accept a growing over sexualisation of children through innapropriate dress, behaviour and roles model. Whilst that acceptance may not be the major cause or should ever be used as an excuse for such abhorent actions it does highlight the sickening hypocricy behind such absurd witch hunts. That this lunacy was championed by that paragon of virtue, Rebecca Brooks, whose newspaper was tapping the phone of the already murdered Milly Dowler speaks volumes for what this execise in stupidity is all about.
ShuttleX
says...
5:35pm Sat 28 Jan 12
ashleycross
says...
10:55pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Hardy Lass
says...
11:19am Mon 30 Jan 12
Search for jobs with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Find the right person for you with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for homes with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for cars with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with