Only 92 applications to check 1,497 names have been received for the sex offenders registry (e-DKK) which was launched by the Women. Family and Community Development Ministry in March.
Its deputy minister Hannah Yeoh (photo, above) said the number of applicants using the registry from April to July was still low due to the lack of awareness in society, especially nursery operators when hiring caregivers or new workers.
maybe we can use this to point out that it cost too much to run Megan’s website in California.
I truly don’t get this obsession with $EX. Do people who run “nurseries” (as these fruitloops call them) not care if people only got drunk, drove some neighbor’s children in a vehicle, and “accidentally” got them murdered? Or how about someone who got really angry at a neighbor’s child and smashed his/her face in with a shovel? That is not nearly as dangerous as looking at pictures!
Are those people put on their “sex offender registry”? How about people who’ve only been convicted multiple times of beating a spouse nearly to death? Stabbing someone while robbing them? Pointing a gun in someone’s face? Or perhaps they can just use the nursery to hide their meth? Doesn’t seem dangerous to me.
So what is this idiotic obsession with $EX?! Wouldn’t a person running a “nursery” want to do full background checks on any employee? Why in the world would anyone have any need for some extra Registry? I really don’t get it.
But the great thing about it all is that they can check their BS Registries and run background checks all they want and it will do nothing significantly useful. They will still have the number of problems that they would’ve had if they had done nothing. Probably more. I can’t feel sorry for them.
“not care if people only got drunk, drove some neighbor’s children in a vehicle, and “accidentally” got them murdered? Or how about someone who got really angry at a neighbor’s child and smashed his/her face in with a shovel? That is not nearly as dangerous as looking at pictures!”
I know this seems a relevant question, especially to us, but it is a losing argument and muddies the waters when attacking the registry. Just because some other circumstances may call for the same treatment, if they want to be consistent and half ass appear to be rational, does not necessarily lessen the perceived need for what is already in place. It certainly points to the irrational part, but once again just because it is irrational to apply something to one group and not the other is a losing argument.
And believe me, I am the farthest one from accepting and rationalizing any registry. I just hear this argument a lot and feel it needs to be said.
Just saw this topic pop back up in the news. The registry only applies to those convicted after 2017. And recently a person convicted in the UK who served 9 months went back to MY to get a scholarship for a doctorate.
https://www.worldofbuzz.com/wan-azizah-we-should-let-nur-fitri-pursue-his-studies-as-he-served-his-punishment/