THE number of potentially dangerous sex offenders breaching rules designed to protect the public has doubled in two years.
More than 100 of the 1,716 paedophiles, rapists and other signatories of the Sex Offenders Register in Greater Manchester were cautioned or charged for breaching their orders in a 12-month period.
Breaches include failing to tell the police of a change of address or planned holiday, changing name or passport details or failing to sign the register at all. Senior politicians warned last night the size of the increase was 'worrying' and urged authorities to make sure dangerous sexual criminals were being adequately monitored.
The figures, contained in a new report, show 102 of the 1,716 registered sexual offenders - more than one in 17 - committed a breach in the year to March 31. That compared with 51 out of 1,643 in 2006 and 70 out of 1,722 last year. Susan Williams, leader of Tory-run Trafford council, said: "The authorities need to ask themselves why there has been a jump of this size.
Breaches
"It is worrying. It is obviously good if more people are being identified and caught, but if it is the case that more people are committing breaches because sufficient checks are not in place then the system needs to be investigated."
Christine Beddoe, director of child protection charity ECPAT UK, said the increase was 'extraordinary'. She said: "This is a major concern if there is a risk the police are losing track of sex offenders. "Clearly there is something wrong with our public protection arrangements if the figures have gone up so quickly."
The Sexual Offenders Register must be signed by those convicted of crimes including sex with an underage person, possession of child pornography, rape, grooming, incest and sexual assault. Anyone given a sentence of more than 30 months usually has to sign the register for the rest of their life.
Those jailed for six months to 30 months get 10 years on the register, while those getting lighter sentences still have to sign on for up to seven years. All offenders have to register within three days of their conviction or release from prison. Any breach can result in a caution, fine or jail sentence of up to five years.
Robust
The police and probation services said the rise in known breaches did not necessarily reflect an equally large increase in actual offences. A GMP spokeswoman said: "The increase is due in part to an increase in the staffing of the Sexual Offender Management Unit and also to a continued and robust approach to ensuring offenders remain compliant."
Det Sgt Neil Prunnell, who runs GMP's monitoring strategy, said: "The total number of registered sex offenders in the community has remained relatively stable this year. Although we would normally expect the figure to rise each year as more offenders are added, this is because more offenders came to the end of registration requirements during this period.
"Through our strong partnerships we can ensure we meet the challenge of protecting people and managing the risks." Nationally, the number of registered sex offenders rose this year by 3 per cent to 31,392 - nearly 9,000 more than five years ago.
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 23 and replies | View All
irvtheswerv (21/10/2008 at 09:25)
rlfan, greater manchester (21/10/2008 at 09:27)
This government is good @ thretening us of the consequences of our actions & the maximum jail term that can be imposed....IMPOSE said jail terms you buffoons that so called represent us .
Also what jail term is passed down, thats what you serve, not half for being a good human whilst in prison
PAH , Manchester (21/10/2008 at 09:28)
Jomov (21/10/2008 at 09:43)
Possibly castration would work...but chemical castration depends upon the sex offender taking the drugs....cut if off I say!
The Seeker, Eccles (21/10/2008 at 09:43)
PW, Manchester (21/10/2008 at 09:57)
What about physically removing the urges of the persistent offenders? Out of the question. It's more diabolical than sex offenders ruining the lives of children isn't it? It's their human rights again. In the meantime the victims are unfortunately 'collateral, incidental damage'.
Ace Shakespeare , manchester (21/10/2008 at 10:06)
The laws in this country are dangerous to law abiding people.Its time we had real laws to protect the innocent.Im sick and tired of hearing about criminal rights above the innocent.
Tezza, Tyldesley (21/10/2008 at 11:53)
Possibly castration would work...but chemical castration depends upon the sex offender taking the drugs....cut if off I say!
Who gets this castration? Is it all sex offenders?
A boy of 16 can be charged with sex with a underage girl if say his girlfriend is only 15, and her parents make a complaint, which the police take further.
He would then be a sex offender, so would we “cut his off”?
There are many stories of men accused of rape, and having been found guilty it emerges that the girl was lying, so once we “cut his off” the what do we do “saw it back on”?
Castration whether chemical or physical is just like hanging it cant be given back if we make a mistake
Jomov (21/10/2008 at 12:18)
I wasn't talking about the 'sexual offender' put on the list because his girlfriend was just under the legal age limit...
I do get your point but If you want paedophiles to live amongst us in society then this, for me, would be the only solution.
Mike, Manchester (21/10/2008 at 12:42)
lizard (21/10/2008 at 13:16)
How many of you, on here, are surprised by this?, not shocking news given the freedom these scum enjoy. should be exterminated.
lizard (21/10/2008 at 13:20)
Tezza, Tyldesley (21/10/2008 at 14:30)
Jomov (21/10/2008 at 15:34)
Vigilantism?
There isn't a cure...
S P In exile, Tameside (22/10/2008 at 07:34)
Don't scream human rights at me as far as I am concerned this piece of scum lost that right when they went kiddy fiddling
Tezza, Tyldesley (22/10/2008 at 07:42)
You might be intelligent enough to know the difference, but some people don’t have that ability.
Read the story about people who attacked a paediatrician because they though he was a paedophile
With talk of cutting things off we already have Vigilantism?
Jomov (22/10/2008 at 10:04)
Tezza, Tyldesley (22/10/2008 at 11:18)
Whilst I understand peoples want for justice,
I just don’t think revenge is the right way forward.
And we can never be 100% sure of someone’s guilt (I give you the story of Stefan Kishco)
As Confuses once said “before embarking on a journey of revenge, dig two graves”
Jomov (22/10/2008 at 11:42)
Tezza, Tyldesley (22/10/2008 at 14:43)
I agree but do you honestly believe that all people will just let someone who has served there sentence live a “normal” life, if we start naming them and giving out there address. And even if we cut the bits off it won’t stop some mad people.
I agree that much longer sentences are needed, but if the law goes the way of “castration” who decides who gets done? And what about the female abusers?
I go back to my analogy of the 16 year old boy and his 15 year old girlfriend; in the eyes of the law he is a paedophile, where do you draw the line? 17,18,19?????
I once worked with someone who got jailed for having sex with a 15 year old girl he met in a nightclub (not that I am blaming the girl in any way, but how would he know she was under age).
Jomov (22/10/2008 at 15:33)
No, I'm sure any parent is naturally wanting to protect their kids so therefore will never be 100% at rest if they know of a paedophile living in their midst but the offender, if castrated chemically, will not be a risk as they would have been without the treatment. Fact.
" I agree that much longer sentences are needed, but if the law goes the way of “castration” who decides who gets done? And what about the female abusers? "
If castration was brought in then they wouldn't have to have longer sentences. It is a hormonal medication so maybe it works on females also. The medication can be stopped so is not a problem if the person has been wrongly accused.
" I go back to my analogy of the 16 year old boy and his 15 year old girlfriend; in the eyes of the law he is a paedophile, where do you draw the line? 17,18,19????? "
This is where common sense is needed, isn't this why judges are employed?
" I once worked with someone who got jailed for having sex with a 15 year old girl he met in a nightclub (not that I am blaming the girl in any way, but how would he know she was under age). "
If this case went to court I'm sure the fact that this girl was in a nightclub would be key for the defence? It suggests that she looked 18+ to more than one person! But apart from that maybe he shouldn't have slept with her on the first night.
Marc (22/10/2008 at 17:18)
lizard (22/10/2008 at 20:00)