Just to be absolutely clear, smashing convicted paedophile and child rapist Dennis Ferguson over the head with a medicine ball is not the ideal way to respond to his presence in a city gymnasium.

Dennis Ferguson's mug shot.


That said, Ferguson’s presence in a city gymnasium is not an ideal situation either.

Especially when he just sits there, dressed in a business suit, not even exercising at all, but outside at the pool where he can gaze at dozens of primary school kids who are learning to swim. Especially when he times his visits to coincide with the swimming lessons, either the primary school kids in the mornings, or the high school students when he visits in the afternoon.

Especially when the parents who take their kids to the gym are totally unaware of his presence there, because pool management has tied itself in legalistic knots over the fact that Ferguson, now a free individual, has just as much right to be there as the next man.

The key flaw with this line of argument is that the next man probably has never kidnapped and raped two children, and spent the remainder of his miserable existence on the run from civilisation, popping up at an ever-increasing series of locales across Australia where he strikes perfectly understandable fear into every normal member of that community.

I use the word normal quite deliberately because there is nothing remotely normal about Ferguson at all.

As The Daily Telegraph reveals today, Ferguson has now popped up again, this time as a member of the Cook and Phillip Pool just on Hyde Park in the city.

He’s been a member for several months.

The troubled gym and pool staff, under instructions from management not to alert parents to Ferguson’s presence there, are so rattled by the whole situation that they’re telling them on the quiet to make sure they accompany their kids to the change rooms and toilets at all times.

But with his distinctive appearance and his manic behaviour, which runs to an assortment of nervous tics which make him the paedophile straight out of central casting, Ferguson has been readily identified by several parents.

On one occasion he was attacked with something called a kettle ball – which is a medicine ball with a handle on it used for exercising – by a bloke in the gym who recognised him from his many appearances on the news and took the law into his own hands.

You could never condone what his assailant did. It’s a similar kind of vigilantism to what we saw last year when Ferguson turned up in the solid suburban suburb of Ryde, and was met with the menacing implied violence of a neighbour going to the trouble of making a wooden coffin for Ferguson and leaving it on his porch, so the sex offender could make good on his vow that the only way he would ever leave Ryde was in a box.

But the big problem with the never-ending Ferguson case is this – it’s the law which puts the law-abiding and decent and civilised in the totally unjustifiable position of having to modify their behaviour, to fit in with the behaviour of Dennis Ferguson.

It’s the kind of situation which has been labelled an “extreme rights” position where the entire weight of the law ends up being directed towards accommodating the needs of someone who is totally alien from civil society.

When the Sydney Morning Herald obtained a photograph of Ferguson happily laying out of his towel on an eastern suburbs beach, it was as if Ferguson was saying: here I am, world, there’s nothing you can do to stop me.

There’s the basis of a good symposium here on civil liberties and the vexed question of rehabilitation, perhaps an hour’s worth of thoughtful chat on Radio National about how we don’t want to succumb to the ugliness of the mob in denying Ferguson his right to free movement now that he has paid his dues for his crimes.

It strikes me as a load of pseudo-intellectual wank. If Dennis Ferguson unfurled his towel next to me and the kids at the beach I reckon I would go bananas. And if I was teaching my young son how to swim at the Cook and Phillip Pool and saw him sitting next to me in the canteen wearing a business suit and munching on a sandwich as he watched the kids swim,  I’d probably go bananas too.

The person who alerted us to this new story about Ferguson’s frequent visits to Cook and Phillip Pool is not even close to being a vigilante-style rabble rouser. She’s a smart professional woman with a couple of young kids, one of whom was having a swimming lesson at the pool last month when she recognised Ferguson sitting there in the café, listening to his iPod and wearing a black beanie as he watched the kids swim.

“I feel a bit conflicted over the whole thing because I certainly don’t want to be seen as being part of the mob, but it really was a jaw-dropping moment sitting there in that café and suddenly realising ‘Oh, hello, there’s Dennis Ferguson’,” the Mum told me when we first discussed the story.

“It was just creepy and bizarre to see him in that setting, with all the kids running around in their budgie smugglers.”

“It’s hard to imagine a less appropriate setting for the man.”

The legal retort to this kind of sentiment is that Dennis Ferguson has to live somewhere, has to exercise somewhere, has to relax somewhere.

The popular retort to that is – yeah, and so do we.

It’s not up to parents to work out a solution to this recurring problem. That’s why none is offered here. It’s a straight expression of popular sentiment that this bloke should not be allowed within coo-ee of young children – and a forlorn hope that government, the courts, and corrections can stop fobbing off legitimate mainstream concern as hysteria, and finally do something to stop these creeps popping up in the middle of our generally happy lives.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

157 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Dave Jnr says:

      06:30am | 15/07/10

      s11G of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) : A person who is a convicted child sexual offender, and who loiters, without reasonable excuse, In or near, a school, or a public place regularly frequented by children and in which children are present at the time of the loitering, Is guilty of an offence.

      There is nothing ambiguous about that. It would seem that the swimming pool management have a moral, if not legal, obligation to notify the police whenever this cretin makes an appearance. Perving on children is hardly a reasonable excuse. I’m not legally qualified but it would also be interesting to know whether the management of the pool might be liable under civil law if Ferguson eventually does molest someone and they failed in their duty of care to prevent it from happening by allowing a known child sex offender to remain on their premises?

    • KH says:

      08:39am | 15/07/10

      If he is wearing a suit and a beanie, he clearly isn’t swimming now is he? So yes, I would have thought this law would cover his eviction from the pool.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      10:02am | 15/07/10

      Correct me if I’m wrong but the law you stated isn’t retrospective Ferguson’s first offence was in 84-85? and his most recent charge was dismissed with no conviction. This is probably why this mutt can get away with it. I dont even know if he is on the register because that came out at a later date too.

    • Arnold Layne says:

      10:49am | 15/07/10

      Seems like this section of the Summary Offences Act makes it fairly clear.  I wonder if the fact that he has taken out membership of the complex is his way of getting around this law?  I don’t know enough legal precedent to know whether one would carry more weight than the other in this case.  What I do know is that promptly going though the police and legal channels is going to get more done more than going to the tabloid press and sparking yet another round of the civil liverties vs vigilanteism debate that ultimately solves nothing.

      And no I’m not defending his right to be there FWIW, but this is about the most effective way of ensuring he can’t be.  All this is going to do is make sure he quietly finds somewhere else to go where noone knows he’s there, and then we have to go through this all over again.  Assaulting him doesn’t help.  Wishing war, famine, pestilence and plague on him doesn’t help either.

    • DD Ball says:

      11:01am | 15/07/10

      I am not a lawyer either, but I do not think this would play out the way you feel it should. Management are hamstrung because they are not able to identify Ferguson for anything he has done, only for his reputation. And although there is a prima facie argument saying he isn’t there to swim, to single him out is to invite discrimination charges. Ferguson is backed by legal aid in a way that others are not .. simply because his case is charged.
      We can’t castrate him or kill him, and he is persistent in his threat to the community. This is not an insoluble problem, but I don’t think that ALP government is capable of solving it .. it is too close to home.

    • iansand says:

      12:06pm | 15/07/10

      It gives management a reason to call the cops so they can have a private chat to Mr Ferguson.

      Retrospectivity is not a problem.  He has the conviction and is doing the offending acts after that section came into existence.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      12:34pm | 15/07/10

      iansand says:12:06pm; I would really like to agree with you, but sitting in a cafe with his ipod on isn’t an offence, if it was he would be charged.
      I would prefer he was put on a lil island in the middle of the ocean too. I have kids and I would not want IT moving into our community either. The very fact that he is doing it shows the above describe law is not retrospective. Prison doesn’t cure what he desires no more than it would cure our desires for the opposite sex in a normal relationship. That’s what makes IT so dangerous, in the end there is no rehabilitation.

    • iansand says:

      02:01pm | 15/07/10

      How do you know management have called the police?  I bet they did not know about s11G.  I didn’t. Police have to know about it before they take action.  In this circumstance most cops would have a quiet chat to Mr Fergusson before doing anything.  Something along the lines of “We have had complaints about what you are doing and will be dropping by fairly frequently”.

    • BTS says:

      03:52pm | 15/07/10

      He has a reasonable excuse…he’s a member of the club.  The charge won’t succeed.  (Of course the Police know the charge exists).

    • Hach says:

      02:17pm | 16/07/10

      “He’s a member of the club”
      So cancel his membership. For heaven’s sake. If he became a member of my kids’ club I would make it very clear to management that it was him or me. And if all the members did the same thing, he wouldn’t be a member long. We’re not talking about a lynch mob, just people having the cojones to at least vote with their feet to stop a very unacceptable situation. What has the world come to when people are too afraid to take basic nonviolent steps to defend their own children..

    • Gary says:

      07:27am | 15/07/10

      One can wish that he did not nor never existed but this is a hard issue.  As the father of two young children I want to scream that this man and his ilk should be locked up for the term of their natural lives.  I then worry that if that (fitting) punishement was to be expected, what these scum bags would then do to their victims to avoid such punishment.

    • Jack Thomas says:

      11:56am | 15/07/10

      Typical namby pamby Green and Labor Chardonnay Socialist waffle.

      It’s not a hard issue. Growing some test1cles for you lot is though.

      The ideologies and personal views of the Greens and Labor Latte types take priority over the safety and security of the majority of Aussies, always has.

      No doubt the Left’s Human Rights brigade will have helped many more like this rock spider to freely go about their sordid lives.  If he was a terrorist the Greens would be holding rallies for him, I’m surprised they haven’t done so here.

      The Left would prefer to see people’s kids abused before one scumbag gets locked up, the Legal Aid ideologues are queing up to protect him. Make no mistake, there will be any number of Latte Left lawyers happy to represent him.

      In this instance, we have a perfect example of the Latte Left’s continual degredation of our justice system to support the maggots like this, to the point where you have people blogging about what to do with him, whether we might offend him, what his human rights are, how do we limit his sentence, etc. instead of the coppers just rounding him up.

      The issue here is the fact that the Latte Left have left it up to the average punter to protect their kids. Without those apologists, we would not be talking about him because he would be in a dark hole where he should be.

    • All the hypocrites says:

      09:34pm | 15/07/10

      Democracy dictates this man has served his time,therefore rednecks should either preach vigilante’s rabid or accept civil rights,if he was a celebrity he would be feted by magazines and talk shows,,selective indigence and outrage are the bastion of moron, the illiterate and the ill informed,he is a free man,celebrity nightclub owners are criminals yet adored by your type,,Why?

    • Michael says:

      01:08pm | 16/07/10

      Jack Thomas - these Latte Lefty Laws are the very ones that protect your rights if you ever commit a crime, do your time and are released. In our society, you don’t forfeit your human rights even when you harm others. Go back to your friends in the ancient Aztecs and sacrafice some newborns to appease your gods. The 21st Century is for the enlightened.

    • iansand says:

      07:39am | 15/07/10

      Something similar to a domestic violence order, forbidding a person from approaching a defined list of categories of places.  Impose it judicially, and only on the basis of evidence.  It would not happen very often but would be appropriate where there is a pattern of behaviour such as Ferguson’s.

    • Amanda says:

      07:53am | 15/07/10

      Hmmm…actually, a kettle ‘bell’ is a damn heavy metal weight with a handle on it…would have inflicted quite a bit of damage, I’d imagine. Shame.

    • rick says:

      03:25pm | 15/07/10

      even better then.

      no, actually, still not enough.

      shame.

    • Lisa Weaver says:

      08:01am | 15/07/10

      No offence but I would go a little more than bananas if I turned and saw him looking at my kids!

    • Liz says:

      08:11am | 15/07/10

      Not difficult..kids need to be safe, feel safe and not be subject to rape and abuse by paedophiles who are psychopaths who prey on children.They have no remorse and no understanding of the havoc they cause.They can not be rehabilitated and will always be a danger to children.The public good has to come first and the safety of children is paramount.Sadly sometimes you have to take away a a dangerous person’s liberty for the protection of the majority.

    • Michael says:

      12:58pm | 16/07/10

      He needs to offend again before that happens. You can’t impose a sentence, then have that sentence expire, then release him, then decide that actually we don’t want you around, we’re gonna put you back in the interests of safety. He needs to commit an arrestable offence before the police can touch him. I’m not saying this because I am on his side, but that’s just how the system works.

    • wolf says:

      08:13am | 15/07/10

      I really don’t believe in capital punishment.  Or vigilante behaviour.  Truly, mostly, I abhor it. 

      As a mother and and grandmother - and as a survivor of sexual abuse - I know how this man destroys lives.  Not just the lives of his victims but of all those around them.  The ripples of terror and horror that reverberate through my life are not easy for me to live with, nor those that love me.

      He is not the perpetrator of my misery, no.  That was another paedophile.  But hate him with such a rage and such a fury and such a wildness - if I was ever anywhere near him I could not answer for what my reaction would be.

      He has refused to attempt any of the rehabilitation methods available as far as I remember, because he likes what he does.

      My hands and shaking and tears are sogging up my keyboard at the thought of this monstrosity even watching children.  I hope he dies and dies very soon so that there is one less hideous danger to kids..

    • Super D says:

      08:24am | 15/07/10

      Someone should set off the fire alarm every time this creep shows up at the pool.

    • Mary from Wide Bay says:

      11:09am | 15/07/10

      Yep they should. And all the kids should run out screaming danger, danger!
      This way children will learn to recognise inappropriate behaviour in adults such as some guy dressed in a business suit watching them swim.
      Brilliant idea.

    • Bengeck says:

      12:15pm | 15/07/10

      @super and @mary.

      i hope your joking. you have got what 100 kids or more running out side in there swimming kit with staff and others making sure the kids got out not what there doing once there out. it would be a very simple thing for him to grab one by the hand, tell them there with the fire dept and walk off.

    • DG says:

      08:26am | 15/07/10

      Make no mistake- he will not be able to control himslef as its a sickness and it is not curable
      these people are what guns were made for- BANG

    • Jen says:

      12:09pm | 15/07/10

      Yep; the only ‘good’ pedo is a dead one!

    • PaulB says:

      06:19pm | 18/07/10

      Crude Dave, but you’re right he isn’t curable, certainly not while he has all this notoriety making him so important in other people’s lives.  It feeds his immature ego and keeps him mentally right where he is, only with added defiance.  He won’t change now or ever.

    • the apologist says:

      08:38am | 15/07/10

      I found these comments of David’s to be quite telling:

      “(this situation) ...puts the law-abiding and decent and civilised in the totally unjustifiable position of having to modify their behaviour, to fit in with the behaviour of Dennis Ferguson.

      It’s the kind of situation which has been labelled an “extreme rights” position where the entire weight of the law ends up being directed towards accommodating the needs of someone who is totally alien from civil society”.

      This is not justice - which David rightly reacts against. The problem is that the state as we know it is not equipped to deal with the issue because it has done away with capital punishment. It is impotent to deal out justice, and protect society as it ought.

      There are a number of crimes so deviant that to do away the offender is the only way to protect society, and is the only way to deal out fitting justice. It also provides protection to the innocent, decent law-abiding citizen from those who are guilty of depravity on Ferguson’s level. The fact that he is so obviously unrepentant of his crime and tendency further highlights the starkness of this case.

    • Sam says:

      10:17am | 15/07/10

      People often suggest this as an answer to these kind of people but what they don’t realise is if you make the punishment the same for this type of crime as for murder than what is stopping them from simply killing the victim to help them keep their secret?  If they are going to be put to death anyway why not take every precaution to stop them being caught.

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      11:13am | 15/07/10

      The difficulty in adopting a position on this agument is that while extreme views are often dismissed in other arguments, in this one there seems to be no middle ground.  Idiots (and I deliberatly use the term) suggesting that “that’s what guns are for” contribute nothing to the rational debate about what society should do. 
      I don’t pretend to know what the solution is but I congratulate the author on seeding a debate about the rights of parents to protect their children along with an individual’s rights when he has been punished for abhorrent acts.  Simply arguing that he should be locked away for ever or shot is an interesting view but it is just one view.

      The only area where I really disagree with the author is the statement that “(this situation) ...puts the law-abiding and decent and civilised in the totally unjustifiable position of having to modify their behaviour, to fit in with the behaviour of Dennis Ferguson.

      Everytime I lock my car, my house or take a well lit path instead of the shortest route through back alleys I modify my behaviour to fit in with the scum of society who will steal at any chance.  Modifying behaviour to aviod pedophiles is no different.

    • Muttley says:

      11:53am | 15/07/10

      Nigel, Modifying your own behaviour or finding a better way to keep the general public safe from deviant “individuals”? Which is the most appropriate path to follow? We can either put up with their actions and heighten our awareness or we can come up with a more permanent solution to these issues. I know which i think will benefit society more. And how dismissive to group all who suggest a quick permanent solution to this as idiots. You may not agree with capitol punishment but there are a lot of people that do. I count myself among them and i would view what you have put forward to merely modify our own behaviour as incredibly naive.

    • the apologist says:

      12:52pm | 15/07/10

      @Nigel:
      Well, ideally you wouldn’t have to modify your behaviour to accommodate theft either. Just because it happens doesn’t make it right or ok (which is basically what your disagreement stands on on that point). You may also agree that there is considerable difference between someone stealing twenty bucks off you as opposed to kidnapping and raping a child.
      You comment that positions such as mine are ‘extreme’ – and yet, why are they extreme? I don’t think it’s extreme. The only extreme thing is the villainous act that has been done, for justice to be adequately met, it must respond in like manner. As you say, there seems no alternative and I don’t think there is. The question is then, what precisely is wrong with capital punishment for capital crimes? You say you don’t have an answer, but can you pinpoint the problem with mine? If not, perhaps you should get on board.
      I would suggest that capital punishment is not extreme, and is fitting for a number of crimes. Opponents cite the value of life as grounds not to do it, but it is precisely because life is valuable that it must be justly guarded. Those who take or violate life forfeit their right to life, such is the true value of life. Everyone has the right to life, provided the terms on which it is granted are not violated. To argue less is to disregard and undermine the seriousness and weight of the crime, and to devalue the life of the offended. Capital punishment is a sombering prospect, and not to be exercised lightly, nevertheless it should be exercised in the right, serious, circumstances.

    • Elphaba says:

      12:58pm | 15/07/10

      The death penalty will never deal with this problem.  Look at the US.  I’ve said this before, there’s roughly 600 people on death row in California alone, who knew the consequences, and committed the crime anyway.

      It’s not a deterrant.  It’s hypocritical.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

      It’s not the fact that we have abolished the death penalty that makes our dealing with this problem ineffective.  It’s a lack of balls on the judicial systems part to just lock them up for life.  No parole.  No passing go.  Institutionalise them.  Build a planned community somewhere remote, with no internet, where their mail is scanned every day, and their food and medical needs looked after, but don’t let them set foot back into society.

      I know, I know.  A pipe dream, ludicrously expensive, blah blah blah, you don’t have to say it.  But the death penalty just irks me.  It’s bullshit.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:28pm | 15/07/10

      Elphaba, capital punishment IS a great deterrant. If we executed people like Leigh Robinson and Eric Thomas Turner when they were sentenced to death originally, instead of commuting their sentences and then freeing them a few years later - then several innocent people would still be alive today.

      CP may not deter a murder…but it will stop that bastard from doing it again once he’s caught.

      Capital Punishment does work - 100% of all those executed have nto gone on to commit a single offence against innocent people ever again.

    • Markus says:

      02:11pm | 15/07/10

      TheRealDave’s view on capital punishment is one I have always shared regarding ‘it is not a deterrant’ arguments.

      Capital punishment for a capital offense will not deter future offenders.
      But what it will do is prevent a known offender, who shows no signs he will ever change and is extremely likely to re-offend as soon as the opportunity arises, the chance to re-offend.

    • the apologist says:

      02:19pm | 15/07/10

      @Elphaba: on what grounds do you call the exercise of authority by the state in the form of the death penalty wrong?
      Punishment is not an enjoyable prospect on the part of those exercising it, but punishment itself is not wrong. On the contrary, it is restitution of true wrongs. As TheRealDave says, CP is a great deterrent, it won’t stop everyone from doing wrong, but it will certainly stop some. I think you’d find a decrease if it was in force, it would certainly make some think twice before committing a crime. And it does put a stop to offenders doing the same thing again even if they disregard CP at the time of committing the crime.
      I think your imprisonment scenario is hypocritical. Why should the innocent have to fund (at a high cost as you say) the ongoing welfare of a community of people who have forfeited their right to life by violating the right to life of others? Meanwhile, justice is not met in society. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

    • Elphaba says:

      02:46pm | 15/07/10

      @Real Dave, you need to tell that to capital punishment advocates, who all say that deterrence (for other criminals) is one of the main reasons for their support of it.

      The whole point of having courts and trials and prison terms and the death penalty is supposed to show people the consequences of breaking the law, as well as getting criminals off the streets. In America, the death penalty isn’t doing that.  They might as well sentence them to life anyway, given that it takes 20-odd years to kill them.  It’s probably a welcome relief by the time it gets there.  Life imprisonment, never to be paroled, is enough.

      I stand by what I said.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.  I don’t agree with it, and I’d be appalled if it returned to Australia.

    • DJ says:

      03:22pm | 15/07/10

      Elphaba - I am with you, especially since in the US since DNA started being used in criminal cases a lot of inmates on death row have been cleared of all charges as their DNA didn’t match.

      You also have all the crime shows now that are showing people how to get away with it, how you can transfer prints and other bodily fluids or dental imprints to a murder scene and set someone up for murder (NCIS episode) it can happen, corrupt cops, smart crims and any number of innocent people could wind up on death row all for the huge offence of irritating or disagreeing with the perp

    • Mike says:

      04:27pm | 15/07/10

      The beheadings, hangings, and burnings at the stake of old stopped a lot of the spread of bad genes, as would capital punishment if it was properly instituted - all serious offences against fellow man should be treated as capital offences. Get rid of them; it WILL deter many; keep the gene pool cleaner (not intended as a pun). If he or anyone of that ilk came near my kids they would be answering to me before I called in the police, or the coroner as there would be little left to investigate

    • JustMe says:

      10:17pm | 15/07/10

      As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse I can tell you that death might have been an easier answer for me than having to deal with the damage he did to me for the rest of my life…  Ok, so maybe not everyone who has been through it feels that way, but I sure as hell do!!

    • Vigilante Redneck says:

      08:47am | 15/07/10

      The staff could also place a large sign pointing at Ferguson every time he appears with the words “Dennis Ferguson convicted paedophile”, much like you would if the floor was wet and slippery. They could do so on the reasonable grounds of duty of care, a duty of care to protect people from possible or imagined harm.

    • Martin says:

      10:09am | 15/07/10

      The Larry David ‘I steal forks from restaurants’ on a whole other scale.

      In many respects though there is a worthwhile point here.

      However there would have to be some mechanism for the protection of DF.

      Not so much for his benefit necessarily, but for the benefit of the next normal person who goes ‘bananas’ at the pool with more than a medicine ball.

    • SB says:

      08:54am | 15/07/10

      There is no way anyone can provide me with a guaranteed, fail-proof, 100% certainty , that this paedophile, any paedophile, will not abuse again. Until that certainty can be given and proven, then I’ll make no bones about doing what I think is best for the safety of my children.

    • Jen says:

      12:11pm | 15/07/10

      Esp when they are are old and decrepit and have nothing to lose!

    • LC says:

      08:57am | 15/07/10

      Now lets watch him turn around and sucessfully sue the bloke with the medicine ball for battery and assault.

    • Kordez says:

      09:44am | 15/07/10

      @LC, if this actually happened… The bloke with the medicine ball did assault him… Might be a good reason to do so, but the law doesn’t care. Assault remains assault.

    • DG says:

      10:15am | 15/07/10

      And so he should.

      Understandable as such an action may be, if we allow people to go around assaulting people because they think they have a good reason to do so we embrace anarchy.

    • Muttley says:

      11:07am | 15/07/10

      You’re right DG, the bloke should be charged with assault. But having said that, he still should have acted w\how he did. An assault charge is a small price to pay to protect your child. I’d quite happily wear an assault charge if i found him loitering around my daughter. We have to work within the laws we have. But when those laws fail to protect then you need to make a decision.

    • Bella says:

      11:31am | 15/07/10

      DG - In this case I wouldn’t mind seeing a little anarchy.

    • DG says:

      01:19pm | 15/07/10

      Muttley - I can completely understand why a person would choose to break the law and carry out an assault on a person in those circumstances.

      They do however, need to be aware that they then will be joining the ranks of violent criminals who have chosen to behave in a way that they felt was justified (after all everyone behaves in a way that they think is justified, no matter how biased or irrational their reasoning). They should be charged with assault - it’s then up to the courts to determine the appropriate penalty for the assault having regard to the sentencing criteria.

    • Pointing Out Stupidity Since 1994 says:

      02:58pm | 08/12/11

      A little anarchy? Well, there’s an oxymoron.

    • Nicole says:

      09:10am | 15/07/10

      This vile, disgusting, creature makes me feel violently ill. Predators such as this do not rehabilitate. If he came anywhere near my children, I’d be locked up.  A boat, chain and a big slab of concrete would put an end to this piece of excrement. One day, he will become a missing person.

    • Seano says:

      09:15am | 15/07/10

      I believe in civil liberties but I think there’s a definite line. Murder that’s not a crime of passion, gang rape and paedophillia should all be mandatory life without parole sentences. I don’t believe that these people can be rehabiliatated so focus should be on protecting the public.

      I also despise the mob and the bandwagon jumpers who often bay for blood in a show that is more about gaining attention for themselves than it is about genuine concern for the community. With the law as it currenty stands paedophiles get out, pushing them out of differnet community only moves the problem it doesn’t solve it but it does make them hard to to track and therefore harder to police.

    • Gregg says:

      03:34pm | 15/07/10

      If they cannot be rehabilitated Seano why should we forever carry the cost of keeping them detained?

    • Seano says:

      09:17am | 16/07/10

      1. Murder is wrong. State sanctioned murder doesn’t make us any better than the people we are executing. People are not dogs. We as a civilised society should be above that.
      2. The legal system occasionally gets it wrong. incarceration can be redressed, execution can’t. One innocent life is not worth any number of guilty.
      3. People from minorities and low socio-economic backgrounds are far more likely to executed for the same crimes as people from advantaged backgrounds.
      4. There is no humane way to execute someone. Someone has to lower themselves (regardless of whether they are willing) to do the job.
      5. Given due process under the rule of law with the appeal process we have it is actually cheaper to imprison than it is to execute.
      6. We can study them and maybe one day rehabilititate them or prevent others from travelling the same road.

    • Tails says:

      09:16am | 15/07/10

      I reckon people should engage him in conversation and ask him really, really boring, pointless questions like “Where did you get your iPod from?” “How much was it?” “Where was your beanie made?” “Do they come in other colours?” etc… all the while standing in the line of sight between him and the kids.
      Ask him for his autograph. And when you see him yell out to everyone “Hey! Everyone! It’s Dennis Ferguson! He’s like TOTALLY FAMOUS!”

    • Philip Crowley says:

      10:58am | 15/07/10

      I like your thinking Tails smile
      I doubt he’d hang around for long if that happened. It’s non-violent, non-confrontational and could be really effective.

    • Muttley says:

      11:09am | 15/07/10

      fantastic idea. That’d slow the creep down. Funnily enough though all the warm and fuzzy crowd that were so dismayed at his treatment in Ryde have gone pretty quiet not that it is obvious that he is still a predator.

    • MK says:

      09:17am | 15/07/10

      If it’s not a parent or a family member waiting for a child or someone who actually has a reason to be there, I don’t think it’s appropriate for anybody else to be allowed to sit by the pool, watching children swim. There’s no real reason for them to do that if they’re arn’t a parent, supervisor, instructor etc. Surely they have a duty of care to the other patrons of the pool who far outnumber this one sicko.

    • Andrew says:

      11:45am | 15/07/10

      MK the facilites at the gym are for everyone to use. I go and sit by the pool at my gym during the day with a drink. I have no interest in swimming, but am not a sexual deviant perving at swimmers. I go in the middle of the day, not when kids are there, but the attitude of some parents - “Every adult male wants to have sex with my underage child” is absolutely disgusting and puts kids in danger. People should have the right and to go and sit by the pool at the gym they paid membership for at anytime they want. Your also forgetting that 98% of child sexual abuse is by people that the children know, not by Ferguson. Ferguson has never been accused of assaulting any child he doesn’t know. Only children of his friends.

    • Kordez says:

      09:29am | 15/07/10

      \Sometime ago I had this extremely boring job as a consultant with an insurance agency where I was required to meet with clients and sift through their past to ensure they were a desirable insured for the organisation. Risk of occupation, traffic and criminal history were important factors which formulated the decision.
      A 70 year old polite, well spoken and well dressed gentleman was seeking a policy. Traffic record was a bit rocky, retired with a history of drug abuse and a criminal history which appeared to be missing information for privacy reasons. He informed me he’d been convicted of murder and served a life sentence in Queensland, he was not at liberty to discuss anything further but remained calm and rattled it off like it was a normal topic of discussion. After investigating further, I found he’d murdered a 12 year old child and it appeared there was no reason for it. One of the strangest feelings I’ve ever experienced was approving this dudes insurance policy.
      As opposed to giving anything to this sick bastard as I was, it wasn’t my decision to make. The law was on his side, he’d been punished for his crime and society had to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn’t re-offend.
      Dennis Ferguson is an ass, for the last five years his actions are closely monitored by the media because he is willing to make a dick of himself on national television. I don’t like it anymore then the rest of you, but DF served his time and we are required to give him the benefit of doubt our legal system provides all offenders.

    • Muttley says:

      11:15am | 15/07/10

      no we dont have to give him the benefit of the doubt at all. He is a predator who preys on children. He should be made to wear a hat with a flashing light whenever outside. In the US there is a controversal facility where sex offenders that have served their time and are to be released can be housed. This is if they are deemed to be a danger to the community. They are kept there until it is decided they are no longer a danger. The process to be released includes psychological examinations and polyfgraph tests. If they dont pass they can be held for the remainder of their lives. While we dont have the same numbers as the US, this would seem to be an ideal solution for one such as this.

    • Nicole says:

      11:46am | 15/07/10

      I totally agree Muttley, but instead of a hat with flashing lights, all these gutter crawlers should have ‘paedophile’ tattooed on their forehead.
      Penbo, can you please remove the photo of this creature. I don’t know about anyone else, but the sight of him makes me ill.

    • the apologist says:

      12:54pm | 15/07/10

      The question then arises, was the original ‘punishment’ just? or was it a mockery?

    • DJ says:

      03:58pm | 15/07/10

      Nicole - or carved on their forehead ala Inglorious Bastards

    • BlackBall says:

      09:36am | 15/07/10

      Surely there’s a legal restriction that can be placed on him restricting him from visiting such places.  The thought of any grown man hanging out to watch young kid’s swimmming is just too weird.

    • Aaron says:

      11:52am | 15/07/10

      ABSOLUTELY.
      Any grown man who isn’t a dad of one of the kids or an instructor should be asked to leave immediately.

      Too all those people who’ve written in defence of this creature, you mustn’t have kids. I’d gladly go to jail for murdering this thing if he harmed my children. In fact I’d kill anyone quite happily if my childrens lives were in danger. Call me crazy but i think that’s the least i can do as a father defending his babies.

    • ABC says:

      12:09pm | 15/07/10

      No.  There’s not.  He’s not on parole.  He’s served the totality of his head sentence and is free and clear.  The Serious Sexual Offenders Act in NSW does allow for continuing detention orders to be imposed on serious sexual offenders, even if they have served their full sentence, if it can be proven that they will reoffend or are unable to restrain their offending behaviour.  However, the act was only proclaimed in 2006, and it only applies to sexual offenders in custody for a sexual offence and can only be applied for in the last 6 months of a custodial sentence.

      Ferguson was released in 2003.  The NSW government had ample opportunity to plug what was a serious deficiency in legislation regarding the custodial management of serious sexual offenders, but only appeared to get their act into gear once Ferguson was rearrested in 2005, and could not be immediately remanded back into custody because he was not on parole and thus was not subject to any supervisory or prohibitive conditions.

      Therefore, (and this is a very scary thought) Ferguson will only be subject to the continuing detention provisions of the Serious Sexual Offenders Act, if he commits another sexual offence.  He could get banged up in the clink for shop lifting, but a continuing detention order could not be sought as he was not in prison for a sexual offence. Makes you feel slightly ill doesn’t it.  The NSW Government has created this problem and seems (not at all suprisingly)  unable to manage a man who does pose an ongoing threat to children because there does not exist the legislative power to restrain him from doing anything.

    • James1 says:

      12:21pm | 15/07/10

      Interesting thought, Aaron.  Treat every adult, childless male as a potential pedophile.  I suppose you do not see any potential problems with this approach?  Especially considering that most people who molest children are related to them…

    • F says:

      02:28pm | 15/07/10

      Do not trust anyone absolutely. Always question motives and behaviours. Remember that most wolves wear the clothing of sheep. Most abuse goes unreported. Be aware that when you go to work, or sit on the bus or go shopping that you are meeting pedophiles, chatting to rapists and shaking hands with wife beaters. When you have children educate them to dangers and just accept the world always has been full of predators and always will be.

    • AliceC says:

      09:40am | 15/07/10

      There needs to be another option. Yes, he has served time for his crimes, but due to lack of rehabilitation, there needs to be another way to keep him away from these types of places and of course children. I don’t believe in capital punishment, and with no other options, maybe a psychiatric hospital that treats/houses pedophiles specifically? Espeically when they refuse rehabilitating treatment.

    • Taiabada says:

      10:05am | 15/07/10

      I couldn’t agree more with the psychiatric solution.  This man, paedophile or not, is clearly as mad as a March Hare and is a danger to society.  Nevertheless the constant hounding of society while he is at loose, and the ubiquitous Hetty, doesn’t do anything other than aggravate and escalate his bizarre behaviour.  Sooner or later he will resort to murder.  Lock him up where he belongs and let us all move on.

    • Dean Felton says:

      09:43am | 15/07/10

      Spot on, Penbo, as usual.  But at my gym we have kettle-BELLS, which are cast iron weights.  Much more effective on lurking paedophiles than a mere leather ball.

    • Sensible says:

      09:44am | 15/07/10

      So what do you propose should happen? Should pedos be automatically subjected to life imprisonment? Because that’s all you and the above commenters are saying - he has no right to go anywhere, live anywhere or do anything.

      There are many people who go to the beach (and to a lesser extent, pool)just to sit, relax and watch the surrounds (whether it’s underage or not). How can you ban him from doing what is a pretty standard recreation activity?

      Yes, it’s creepy but is he actually doing anything wrong? Looking certainly isn’t touching so what harm is beiong perpetrated?

      Killing him would be the quickest and most final solution, but there’s too many do-gooders who will argue against it. In all honesty, every time any pedophile is released from prison there’s a huge media circus about it with everyone getting up in arms about “not in my neighbourhood” screams. Why release them at all? Obviously the legal system doesn’t reflect ‘community standards’.

      Two extra points:
      1. When people are reported as having child abuse material on their computers, be mindful that because of Australia’s dumb classification laws, this can include people who *look* like they’re below age (even if it’s verified that they’re over 18) and drawings. Who remembers the guy charged with possessing child porn because he had pictures of the Simpsons characters in compromising positions on his computer?
      2. People need to stop yelling “PEDO!” all over the place and checking underneath their beds every night. The media can certainly take the majority of blame for this ridiculous sensation.

    • Bella says:

      11:42am | 15/07/10

      Sitting and staring at underage children dressed in their little swimmers while they have their lessons is NOT “a pretty standard recreation activity”. As you called it. It is disgusting behaviour undertaken by a CONVICTED PEDOPHILE. As for your ‘extra points’ the media is not to blame for the behaviours of sex offenders and yes, they should be locked up for life.

    • Island life says:

      09:55am | 15/07/10

      These kind of incorrigible offenders should be placed on their own island in low security detention centres like asylum and visa seekers without the latter option or possibility of leaving the island. There can be no useful purpose in allowing these offenders back into mainstream society. They cannot be ‘cured’.

    • pisces says:

      10:02am | 15/07/10

      It all comes down to supervision of children. Parents should ALWAYS accompany their children to change rooms and toilets. Dennis Ferguson is recognisable but lots of other creeps are not. Children are a responsibility for parents, not an accessory.

    • Graham S says:

      10:04am | 15/07/10

      The comments herein to date simply reflect the fact we live in a nanny state run by social engineering do-gooder, civil libertarians, PC correct, Pollyanna’s who put the rights of people like Ferguson and others like him ahead of the rest of the population. The faceless bureaucrats in “Welfare” do their best to hide these people from society, do not tell neighbours recidivist creatures like him are in their midst, allow them to do as they bloody well like because ” they too have rights” or they need to re-enter society or be given an opportunity or any number of weak, pathetic excuses straight from Yes Minister 101 or the more ever reliable and abused Privacy Laws. Meanwhile Police time is taken up protecting these people from justifiably angry citizens who cannot relax while these sods are roaming the streets or when it’s revealed they’re living, unannounced in their street. If we didn’t have the Nannies running the State, Ferguson & his fellow bottom dwellers would be locked up for ever, life, 75 years or if given the opportunity, I would gladly put a .45 against his head, pull the trigger and call out… Next. ( but that would be un PC, wouldn’t it)

    • Anti-Anarchy says:

      11:24am | 15/07/10

      No Graham.  That would be murder.  And you would go to jail.  Taking the law into your own hands, while it may give you great personal gratification, does not assist in maintaining a safe society

    • Muttley says:

      11:45am | 15/07/10

      and letting this creep loiter around children creates a safe society how exactly??? Higher priority needs to be attached to public safety as opposed to protecting the convicted.

    • the apologist says:

      12:57pm | 15/07/10

      @Anti-anarchy: wouldn’t be murder if he was a state employed executioner… it would then be a legit exercise of authority and assist in maintaining a safe society.

    • DJ says:

      03:33pm | 16/07/10

      apologist - the state’s executioners rarely wander the streets to take out criminals, they get caught by police, go to court, get sentenced, appeal, appeal again, and one more time, go to the governor, then get executed.  Even the hangmen of old never used to troll the streets looking for random people to hang

    • DG says:

      10:06am | 15/07/10

      I have never disagreed with you so vehemently Penbo.

      Your use of the phrase “perfectly understandable fear into every normal member of that community” is demeaning to those members of the community who are no terrified of Mr Fergusson, and is demeaning to those of us who have the self control to know that if a person, any person, is looking at your children in a way that make you (or the children) uncomfortable you should take responsibility for your own personal safety.

      What a novel idea - personal responsibility.

      That said, I agree that Ferguson should know better than to hang around in such places, but that’s more because of his profile than his history. That said, without knowing Fergusson at all, I suspect that if the irate father had, instead of committing a crime, approached Fergusson and said “Mate, you sitting here watching my kid is making me uncomfortable. when you’ve finished your coffee, I would appreciate it if you would stop watching my child. I will be notifying the other parents that you are here watching their kids in the pool, I expect they will feel the same way.” and then stood in the line of sight between Fergusson and the kids swimming, completely legal and protects the children. Most importantly it makes the children aware that their parents are looking out for them, what could be more comforting?

      Many other registered child sex offenders are out there, every day, going about their business, having a coffee at the gym or local pool, strolling along the beach watching the kids at play in the surf. No one is worried about that, but they should be. Every one of those child sex offenders had a first offence. Parent’s should be looking around, supervising their children and making sure that their children feel safe - regardless of the presence of a known sex offender.

      I suggest that it is a far worse thing that we assume that so long as Fergusson isn’t there that our kids are safe, than we choose expect parents to be responsible for the safety and comfort of their child.

      The process for a parent is simple, that is, if they are to be responsible parents. If a person makes you feel uncomfortable approach the person and, if after talking to them you feel that there is a threat, remove your child from the situation. Locking away one person fails to highlight the problem. Chances are that guy watching the kid play is just out for an evening stroll and has paused for a minute and been lost in daydreams by the pendulum motion of a child on a swing, mourning over the death of their own child who would be the same age as those playing - or some other equally innocent action.

      The world isn’t a safe place - it never will be. The solution is either a nanny state or personal responsibility. There will never be enough police on the streets to make every person safe all of the time (so there goes the nanny state). The only viable option is for the public to grow to accept that they have a degree of responsibility for their own personal safety that should be exercised by removing themselves, and their loved ones, from dangerous situations - not by demanding that other people make the world safe for them.

    • Muttley says:

      11:24am | 15/07/10

      My lord, where to start? Taking personal responsibility for your own safety?Sounds like this is what the fellow did. As for other sex offenders, if they were recognisable as this excrement is they would be treated the same. “Ferguson should know better” He is fully aware of what he is doing. He is still hunting for opportunities. “Approach the person and talk to them” You are seriously suggesting reasoning with a rock spider??? What a warm and fuzzy approach to dealing with these “people”.  I suppose your solution to the mad gunman in the UK would have been to ask him really,really nicely to stop.

    • Ella says:

      11:45am | 15/07/10

      Totally agree. I had a conversation with my mother once and she said that growing up they had a paedophile living on her street. This was the fifties/sixties so they didn’t call it that at the time and she said that as a child she probably didn’t even know what he was, or whether he had a conviction, he was just the funny man who lived down the street. No one hassled the guy, no one threatened him, but every child on her street who was old enough knew to stay away from him and to keep their younger brothers and sisters away from him, and what to do if he approached them. While he lived there and they were playing on the street there was always at least one parent watching at all times.

      Children are still more likely to be molested by someone they know, and I have heard far too many horror stories of people being molested and not being believed when they tell about their grandpa or uncle. The best defense against this is to be vigilant with younger children and to provide older children with information, without scaring them, about who is allowed to touch them and under what circumstances, what to do about it if someone tries, and believe them when they tell you something has happened

    • DG says:

      01:30pm | 15/07/10

      @muttley: It is intellectually dishonest tom compare the actions of a gunman running wild with a person sitting in a café drinking coffee.

      I have no problem with a police officer putting bullet between the eyes of the first mentioned offender whilst he was going about his rampage. Or even another person who faced the immediate threat of physical harm. However, If the gunman were ever freed from prison, I would hold the same view about that person as I do about Fergusson.

      Firstly, in the circumstances, fergusson posed no threat to any person. He made a few people uncomfortable - nothing more.

      This is the problem - a deemed right to feel comfortable. You have no right to feel comfortable in a public place - you only have a right to expect that people will comply with the law (even that is a bit iffy, since we all know that people break the law every single day). Relying on other people to do the right thing is risky - the only sensible thing is to take control of your own behaviour, comply with the law, and get on with life - rather than carrying on about some sense of entitlement to live in a bubble of protection. 

      No person is authorised to go out an assault any person that makes them feel uncomfortable - a person who is in a public place and feels uncomfortable should take reasonable (non-violent) action to make themselves comfortable, without causing discomfort to any other person. After all if your complaint is that someone else is making you uncomfortable, it’s highly irrational, and more than a little hypocritical, to claim a right to make that other person feel uncomfortable.

      It’s more rational (and legal) to assess the actual risk of harm, and then remove yourself from that harmful environment if possible.

    • Battered Sav says:

      03:33pm | 15/07/10

      “Mate, you sitting here watching my kid is making me uncomfortable. when you’ve finished your coffee, I would appreciate it if you would stop watching my child.”

      Haha, love the tone. It might work on other types of criminals too… “Excuse me, don’t mean to interrupt your meal, but could you please stop stabbing me?”

      Brilliant.

    • Jack Thomas says:

      04:27pm | 15/07/10

      Classic Latte Labor attitude DG.

      “Firstly, in the circumstances, fergusson posed no threat to any person. He made a few people uncomfortable - nothing more”.

      Tell that to the kid and parents when (not if) he re-offends.

      You have mixed up your views on personal responsibility with the weak and “we should learn to love each other” namby pamby views of the Left.

      “Chances are that guy out for an evening stroll is just out for an evening stroll…” and “lost in daydreams..”

      Bulldust and you know it. Complete fabrication and a little bit creepy (as per post from Andrew above). Mills and Boon stuff really.

      This is a clear and obviously dangerous situation.

      A recidivist paedophile is simply one opportunity away from another vile act.

      The best defence is to get rid of the problem.

      Kids should be allowed to be kids, not fearful half-adults who are told to be careful when they don’t know what that means.

      Your views do nothing but allow the situation where more children will be molested, simply to make you feel better.

      Suggesting people “remove themselves from that harmful environment” is weak, and wrong. Hiding is your solution.

      People do have a right to be comfortable in this situation. Whatever pseudo intellectual spin you put on it, your views put the ‘rights’ of the scum before the majority. Feel pretty good I’ll bet.

    • DG says:

      04:52pm | 15/07/10

      Battered -

      I’m sure you are well aware that I drew a distinction between a person carrying out a violent crime, and a person sitting down having a coffee and listening to music.

      As I said - Ferguson posed no threat to any person in the circumstances - just made a few people uncomfortable.

    • DJ says:

      03:38pm | 16/07/10

      Unforunately battered, you can’t just lock someone up because they MIGHT re-offend, it’s not a crime to think about something, if it was I could be locked up driving in Sydney traffic

    • Ellis Wyatt says:

      10:08am | 15/07/10

      Unless it responds promptly, I can’t imagine that the Phillip and Cook Pool will be strongly patronised by children’s swimming classes.

    • EssBee says:

      10:31am | 15/07/10

      We need to swap the disgusting perverts of Dennis Ferguson’s ilk with the asylum seekers. We’ll put the padophiles in detention centres while they attempt to prove their value to society. They have none… they can stay there.

      Alternately, put them all on an island. No net access. No TV. Paedophiles of this nature cannot be rehabilitated (and no I dont have stats to back that up).

      This “man” and all those like him are disgusting, the scum of the earth so I’m happy to stand by my hyperbolic vitriol.

    • Baysider says:

      10:32am | 15/07/10

      Ferguson was released in Qld and therefore is governed by his release conditions in Qld at the time.  Part of those release conditions include that he have no contact direct or otherwise with children.  Will the Qld Govt do anything to have him charged with breaching these conditions, which upon crossing into NSW, remained enforceable.  No!! Why, because all they care about are the likes of the civil libertarians up here who appear to shout louder than the advocates for child safety. 

      Good going Qld Govt - you had the chance to keep this man locked away for good but you refused to because you were worried about a court action in the HIgh Court.  Well what about the rights of the children - that’s right according to the Qld govt they don’t have any.

    • Geoff says:

      10:38am | 15/07/10

      Would it be OK for Dennis to buy some of Bill Henson’s “art” work to hang on his wall?  Just a question I’ve wondered about how others feel about.  I do not support either!

    • Muttley says:

      11:25am | 15/07/10

      Now thats clever. Well done.

    • Ella says:

      11:50am | 15/07/10

      There are perverts who get off looking at children in Target catalogs -does that mean that target catalogs are perverted?

    • mum of 3 says:

      10:42am | 15/07/10

      Shouldn’t he be monitored, clearly he is a nut job!  The management of the pool don’t want to loose their members, looks like that was a bad decision to let him become I member.  If I went there, I would ask everyone to boycott it and not go back.  He is vile and a worthless human being, a complete waste of space.  As far as I’m concerned he should never have been released.  He will reoffend, it’s obvious, just a matter of time.  The legal system needs an overhaul and these scumbags need to be locked up, castrated and left to rot until there is nothing more.  I would be going more than “Banana’s”, if I ever found him looking or even breathing in the vicinity of my kids…...

    • Jenni says:

      10:49am | 15/07/10

      David - I agree that “smashing convicted paedophile and child rapist Dennis Ferguson over the head with a medicine ball is not the ideal way to respond to his presence in a city gymnasium.”

      The correct way to respond is to slit his throat, or any other major artery, and let this monster - and all others like him - bleed to death in agony and despair. Preferably slowly. Yes I am 100% serious, and yes, I will be more than happy to do the job myself.

      Paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. Psychologists know this, the police know this, prisons know this (I work in one). The reason they cannot be rehabilitated is because in every case, they will never admit that thay have done anything wrong. There is something so twisted and broken in these people that there is zero chance of them ever being able to stop offending. Either lock them up for the rest of their lives, or execute them. End of story.

    • Paul says:

      10:50am | 15/07/10

      There are no “legalistic knots”, the gym management are being gutless.  They have the right to refuse membership to any person for any reason at any time.

      If I were one of those parents I would organize a petition with 100 other parent’s names on it threatening to quit their memberships if he was allowed to continue attending.

    • Expected says:

      11:06am | 15/07/10

      Sensible,
      You may well say that it looks like, life imprisonment is the only answer according to the majority of the comments.

      However, Pedo’s as you call them are subject to conditions upon release from prison, as are many other offenders.

      Yes Pedo’s are allowed freedom to live and travel. However like other offenders (not only Pedo’s), they are bound by certain restraints with regards to where they can live and where they can loiter or relax and whom they can associate with. 

      These restraints can be both lawful and conditional and are often put in place so as to ensure the safety of all parties including the offenders or the Pedo’s.

      Lastly Sensible, if you have child porn on your computer and are caught with it, charged etc, then the law is working.  If you are a person that occupies a certain position within society, say a teacher, then there are certain expectations placed upon you both in your private life and your public life.  So if you happen to have pictures of persons who appear under age or of Simpson’s characters in compromising positions, then it would be reasonable to expect that as a teacher, society would not approve of such things. 

      It’s not rocket science, the majority of society have expectation with regards to things like offenders or Pedo’s just as they do for persons occupying certain positions within society.

      So if you are a teacher do not have porn on your computer as specially if it looks like child porn.  If you are a Pedo then don’t hang around where kids are.  So if you find yourself questioning why a ‘Registered Serious Sex Offender” is sitting watching children swimming then maybe he shouldn’t be there as yes he is a Pedo and yes he is bound by conditions which have been put in place to protect everyone, even him.

    • Sensible says:

      12:07pm | 15/07/10

      If he has breached part of his parole then he can be charged as such. However I can’t see how banning someone from a pool or beach could be possible given Australia’s climate and population centres. Should we ban him from getting K-Mart junk mail on the chance that he may derive some satisfaction? People will see their version of erotica in many places. Yes, this guy is pushing things, seemingly for the fun of it. However we can’t ban him from everything.

      [Keep in mind that I’d be more than happy for convicted paedophiles to be shot. Problem solved forever then; they certainly won’t reoffend.]

      Secondly, in response to your comments about what happens in someone’s personal life, you and everyone else who thinks they have a right to poke into anyone else’s personal affairs can go jump. Teachers (to use your example) have a right to do whatever they want to do in their personal life providing it does not break any laws. What limits do you want teachers to be placed under? Should they only be allowed ‘sensible’ cars to limit any perception of them being hoons? How about smoking or drinking? What of advocating for a political party or legislative reform? Depending on what side of the fence you stand on a particular issue, YOU might think they have no right to do such things. At what point do you stop placing selected people (and I’m not talking about paedophiles) under arbitrary restrictions?

      You’re essentially asking for an authoritarian police state where everything is monitored “for the children”.

      [My comment about the Simpsons case was actually just highlighting how ridiculous our classification laws are, and is only loosely related to this article, rather than how it relates to paedophiles.]

    • Expected says:

      11:06am | 15/07/10

      Sensible,
      You may well say that it looks like, life imprisonment is the only answer according to the majority of the comments.

      However, Pedo’s as you call them are subject to conditions upon release from prison, as are many other offenders.

      Yes Pedo’s are allowed freedom to live and travel. However like other offenders (not only Pedo’s), they are bound by certain restraints with regards to where they can live and where they can loiter or relax and whom they can associate with. 

      These restraints can be both lawful and conditional and are often put in place so as to ensure the safety of all parties including the offenders or the Pedo’s.

      Lastly Sensible, if you have child porn on your computer and are caught with it, charged etc, then the law is working.  If you are a person that occupies a certain position within society, say a teacher, then there are certain expectations placed upon you both in your private life and your public life.  So if you happen to have pictures of persons who appear under age or of Simpson’s characters in compromising positions, then it would be reasonable to expect that as a teacher, society would not approve of such things. 

      It’s not rocket science, the majority of society have expectation with regards to things like offenders or Pedo’s just as they do for persons occupying certain positions within society.

      So if you are a teacher do not have porn on your computer as specially if it looks like child porn.  If you are a Pedo then don’t hang around where kids are.  So if you find yourself questioning why a ‘Registered Serious Sex Offender” is sitting watching children swimming then maybe he shouldn’t be there as yes he is a Pedo and yes he is bound by conditions which have been put in place to protect everyone, even him.

    • Mary from Wide Bay says:

      11:19am | 15/07/10

      I wonder how long it would take to stop pool management’s political correctness if parents were to vote with their feet. Like a couple a days max?

      Another idea which I believe is kinda biblical where offenders all live together in some big city. Love the idea of Pedophile city, Murderous city, Thief city. It could just be the medicine they need; a continuous dose of their own.

    • James1 says:

      12:35pm | 15/07/10

      While I understand your sentiment, Mary, it would not be right to punish the business concerned because of Mr Ferguson’s actions.  After all, they are just trying to run a business, and are stuck in a very difficult position.

    • Martin says:

      11:31am | 15/07/10

      While the “normal” people on here are preoccupied with Ferguson - thanks to media articles like this - they are ignoring far bigger risks to their children.

      Children are much more likely to be abused by people they know rather than strangers. Evidence from the US shows that strangers only make up between 10 and 30 per cent of offenders, over two thirds of offenders – possibly as many as nine out ten - know their victim. Offenders are relatives, family friends, people in positions of authority, such as the recent high profile cases involving priests.

      If journalists like David and the rest of the media want to do something to protect children they would stop whipping up local lynch mobs and start reporting the facts and giving advice to parents about how to spot the signs of abuse. But that would mean doing some serious research and talking to experts rather than dashing off a few hundred rabble rousing words after getting a phone tip off.

    • ABC says:

      12:43pm | 15/07/10

      I don’t think iy is a greater or lesser danger, or who or what poses the biggest risk.  Rather that there are offenders, like Ferguson, who fall within the gaps of legislative deficiences, based on the dates and times of their offences.  Presently, because of the time of his offences and the legislative lapses of the Queensland and NSW governments there is no way to place any degree of restriction on Dennis Ferguson.  For offenders not in his particular catergory, be they known to children, family members or strangers, there now exists stringent monitoring and control laws on sexual offenders.  However, these current laws cannot be applied to Ferguson based on the legislation in place (or lack thereof) at the time he was initially released.  Its a state based legislative oversight that has become a community’s problem

    • Katie says:

      11:44am | 15/07/10

      Can you imagine - “Oh hello there’s dennis fergusson.”  It’s enough to make your eyes water. 

      The only ethical solution for the pool would be to contact the police every time he comes in and insist on the strongest terms that they come to protect dennis from himself - or from vigilantes when they discover he’s been perving on thier kids.  If anyone see a child sex offender lurking around children it is your responsibility as a citizen to notify the authorities.  We can but hope that the authorities will act accordingly.

    • AdamC says:

      11:55am | 15/07/10

      People like Dennis Ferguson are the typhoid Marys of the 21st century. Ultimately, our governing classes will need to develop some sort of way to contain them. The obvious solution is some kind of halfway house (think like a relaxed form of immigration detention) where Fergie and friends can reside in something like freedom, but without any access to children. While a challenge to traditional correctional notions, this seems like the only way to handle notorious child sex offenders.

    • Zeta says:

      03:27pm | 15/07/10

      In Miami, they tried keeping them in a tent city under a bridge. Like trolls. In California, they’re considering building them an island.

      Neither strategy works.

    • Tamara says:

      12:06pm | 15/07/10

      Threatening to kill someone like several posters have done shows what dangerous people the posters are themselves. If any of them have kids they should have them taken off them. They’re teaching their kids it’s okay to kill or seriously injure someone if you disagree with them. Also the intellectual geniuses that think child abuse should be life in jail or the death penalty are putting kids in a lot of danger. If they’re going to be locked up for life anyway, why wouldn’t they just kill their victim? Or rather than stop with 1 child, go and abuse another 20? And do far worse and extreme things with them.

      The vigilante mentality is just disgusting. He is released, the last time he was accused, he was found Not Guilty, so you have to accept that and can’t say that they got it wrong. He has as much right to be at the pool as anyone else. And yes I have kids. I guarantee that in almost every public pool around Australia there are people who like kids , whether they’ve been charged or not, watching them swim.

    • Kordez says:

      01:56pm | 15/07/10

      Tamara, your right of course. The little faith that some appear to have in the Australian judicial system disappoints me.

    • "A victim who won't accept he is a victim" says:

      12:09pm | 15/07/10

      That the law & those who administer it allow Dennis Ferguson to be openly sitting at a gym, pool or anywhere else that children gather shows just how much any of them care. That it is happening in the now-ungoverned & ungovernable State of New South Wales and it’s notoriously corrupt Police Force comes as no surprise. Ferguson should never, ever have been released. That the judiciary in NSW treat him with kid gloves comes as no surprise either for rather than protecting the rights of the victims the legal profession, in cahoots with Psychiatrists & Psychologists across Australia have so manipulated the entire court process that it is the perpetrators who get the soft, supportive treatment. They use stupid psycho-babble such as “My client, Your Worship, was sexually abused as a child & that creates mitigating circumstances for his/her repeated abuse & rape of these little boys & girls” That is total bullshit. If a person was sexually abused as a child and they found the experience so painful, so abhorrent the very idea of inflicting such pain & trauma on another would be totally abhorrent & they would go to great lengths to ensure it never happened again.
      Try being sexually abused every Saturday night, & if he’s not too drunk again on Sunday night, for almost 6 years, including being @#$%&* up the arse at least twice each time. If that makes you a paedophile then I must be one very sick person for I determined that I would never allow any child of mine or anyone else to go through that experience.
      Being sexually abused does not make you a paedophile.
      Paedophiles know exactly what they are doing.
      They know it is morally & legally wrong.
      They excuse their behaviour by saying “But, I love children & would never do anything to hurt them!” Crap! Total, Utter Crap! - Particularly after they have just forced their penis into some child’s body.
      Paedophiles should never be allowed to see the light of day, they should be locked up “For the term of their natural life”
      I am not ashamed of what happened to me. I came to terms with it many, many years ago. I got on with my life. I did not become a paedophile &if; I was 40 years younger & a paedophile was done away with the Police would have every right to ask me where I had been at the time.

    • jim morris says:

      12:24pm | 15/07/10

      Whya aren’t people burning effigies outside catholic cathedrals? How is it that high court judges can exploit homeless (only slightly) under-age rentboys and be defended by every high-minded progressive thinker? Why did Gough and his establishment cronies attend the funeral the pot-smoking paedophile. Doesn’t anyone acknowledge the fact that >85% of child molestation occurrs within the family? Oh well, don’t want us behaving rationally now do we when we have such a perfect scapegoat to vent our spleen upon.

    • Andrew says:

      12:44pm | 15/07/10

      Well i’m 24yrs old im single and have no kids, i think once a Predator always a Predator. Not really anything he can do about it, it’s just his messed up. In saying that I think it should be enforced that unless he is actually doing gym work, he should be allowed in the doors.
      He is stalking his pray just like any other animal and it make me and nearly everyone else with a pulse feel like punching him in the face, or to cut his manhood off with a rusty knife….. I know that’s not the way we should think but he gave up the right to be treaded like a human being when he raped those children. Im in Tasmania but I would be happy to fly to this place and stand guard, or better yet follow this predator around where ever he goes just to let anyone that crosses his path know what he is. If he doesn’t respect children’s boundaries I will not respect his.

    • andrew again says:

      02:01pm | 15/07/10

      im sorry that was meant to say,( he shouldn’t be allowed in the doors)

    • Parent of 2 Swimmers says:

      01:02pm | 15/07/10

      I would be pretty displeased if I had my children join and attend a YMCA only to be exposed to a person coming to the pool in a business suit who does nothing except view the children in their speedos. I was just glancing at the YMCA Cook + Philip pool website to see what their membership rules were, such as a right to refuse or revoke membership, when I saw something even more basic….their motto!

      YMCA: We build strong people. We build strong families. We build strong communities.

      Really? Is that what is happening with the policy of letting Ferguson do this?

      Enough said?

    • Same Parent says:

      01:06pm | 15/07/10

      Just a minute more research, finds this on YMCA web pages:-

      Community Strengthening
      Connection and Belonging
      Today and into the future, our communities are becoming increasingly disconnected; people are seeking places to contribute, connect and feel part of their community.

      The Y is increasingly a place where people can be part of something bigger. As a member people can ‘belong’ and connect with others. For many, the people they meet at the Y become like family, an important part of their daily lives especially through our seniors exercise program, ‘prYme movers’.

      Connect and belong at your local YMCA.

    • Not Roman Polanski says:

      01:33pm | 15/07/10

      Maybe they’re just giving him a place “to contribute, connect and feel part of their community”.

      But it shouldn’t be up to the YMCA. The Summary Offences Act clearly covers this. Though “reasonable purpose” is a potential excuse, I don’t think that perving on children counts.

    • Greg says:

      01:14pm | 15/07/10

      Surely there must be some provision in the approval of membership applications for the gym that allow them to reject him as an applicant, similar to the approval required for prospective members of rsl clubs? This highlights the need for clubs to be more diligent about their membership approvals, rather than just saying “hey, here’s someone who wants to pay us $500 for a membership, sign them up!”
      It beggars belief that this place isn’t completely empty by now, who wants to go to a place with a convicted predator is known to loiter. If people vote with their feet, it won’t happen again. I say this accepting the probability that the establishment in question had no prior knowledge for what manner of criminal they were letting through their doors initially.
      Beyond that, it is ultimately up to the law makers to make legal provisions for preventing this bottom feeder manipulating things for his own depraved ends. Police are powerless, as they can only enforce what is actually law, regardless whether or not this is someone clearly acting very much against what a reasonable person who regard as morally and socially acceptable behaviour.

    • Kordez says:

      01:51pm | 15/07/10

      Everyone seems irrational today and it’s ridiculous. What DF was doing was not illegal, nor should it be for anyone thats served a full sentence for their crimes.
      Australia will never have capital punishment introduced again, so quit the “I’m going to kill him” bull shit. What disturbs me most is some of these posts are made by those who are in the position to act on them.
      There are much worse people walking the streets of NSW and QLD then DF, and we all need to look out for signs of these people ourselves, not expect it to be done for us.
      I’m stunned that people like Chopper Reid (although sometimes incredibly amusing) become Australian ledgends for much worse crimes, and it would appear that some of you would feel less threatened by a serial murderer or serial rapist watching your children or living next door to you.
      Grow some sense!

    • Andrew u bum says:

      02:54pm | 15/07/10

      r u for real. I’m 100% that people fear a man more if he wants to do something to their young children, then a man that wants to harm them. I’m not saying that i would be besties if some of the beast in the system, but DF as u call him is sick, if u think him sitting in a gym with no intent to do anything apart from look at young kids running around with little clothing on is normal or ok, then u r sick too. Go get ur head read. I would much rather die from being shot by one of these sick people than for a kid to be raped, then have to go through life havent to do deal with that. Im repulsed by u saying that, im guessing u have no family or like bashing ur wife. U grow some sense….....

    • brian says:

      03:09pm | 15/07/10

      If u read the story Kordez, or google him u will find out that he is a rapist. also so do u, or dont u want to live near him

    • DG says:

      03:35pm | 15/07/10

      @Brian - I have no issue with him choosing to live in my neighbourhood.

      I find it more distressing that I live near people who believe that they should be permitted to take the law into their own hands if they believe they have a good reason for doing so. At least his perversion is in a very specific area, rather than some general feeling of entitlement to do whatever they want.

      There is something seriously wrong with that sort of “what I want is the only thing that matters” perspective that vigilantes use to justify their behaviour.

      That mentality has created the sort of place where DF can rape children because he does whatever makes him happy - he has sees no responsibility only the lights of “I should be allowed to do what I want”. He has that much in common with the vigilantes - both believe that they can do whatever they feel like doing because what they feel like is all that matters.

      Neither consider that they should seek only to control their own behaviour - to comply with the laws and take responsibility for their own safety in accordance with those laws.

    • Kordez says:

      03:45pm | 15/07/10

      I lived just one km from DF for about 8 months in QLD before the police shifted him to NSW from the violent protests outside the premises he was housed at, and no I didn’t care he lived near me, my scum drug dealing neighbours are more of a threat then DF could ever be.

      The real danger were the people violently protesting out the front of the home day and night while QLD tax payers funded a 24/7 police presence to ensure the safety of them and DF.

      Murderers kill children too, and are released with less public attention. The only reason you believe DF to be a threat to your child is because the media has made him appear that way, it is a sick joke and you’ve fallen for it. He is a weak 62 year old man who couldn’t defend himself or chase a kid if he tried. The man is complete filth and sick in the head, but also deserving of the rights any convict has upon release.

      Justice has been served to the best of our nations ability at this point in time. Threatening the man will not solve anything and makes each of you as bad as him. In fact in 2005 an Ipswich man was fined for threatening to kill DF. The violence expressed towards this man only causes the public more grief and he just gets a new house at our expense.

    • dancan says:

      02:50pm | 15/07/10

      Any convicted paedophile, when placed into prison should be released into general population and not solitary.  Let nature take its course

    • DJ says:

      04:22pm | 15/07/10

      that’s right, why should they get placed in protective custody, them and rapists, put them in with the general population

    • Zeta says:

      03:17pm | 15/07/10

      I’m kind of shocked someone even mustered up the courage to throw a medicine ball at him.

      In the United States, there are some 600,000 child sex offenders on the public registry, with their names, photos, and home addresses available to anyone who cares to look.

      Now you’d think, from the bollocks that gets tossed around on internet forums like this about how ‘I’d kill the bastard’, ‘if it were my kids, I’d string the bastard up’ etc etc bastard etc kill ad nauseum - that a fair chunk of those sex offenders would find themselves on the buisness end of a lynch mob.

      So just how many child sex offenders were killed by members of the public because of their crimes?

      3.

      More people have been killed for their iPads in New York than have been killed because they were child sex offenders across that entire country. And we’re talking about a nation of 40 million hand guns. You’d think, in their 24 hour news cycle, where a sex offender can have their face splashed across TV sets before they’re even on the sex offender registry, that just one punter would spy a sex criminal wandering down the street and blast him with their legally concealed weapon.

      But no, in fact, per ratio of the population, they’re more likely to kill their neighbours over noise complaints than they are to enact vigilante justice against the most heinous criminals at loose in their communities. You’re actually more likely to kill yourself with a handgun by accident than you are likely to kill a sex offender.

      So to all those posters who drone on and on about the imaginitive ways they’d kill a pedophile if given the chance, get up off your arse, walk over to the mirror and take a good, hard look at yourself and contemplate your capacity for murder. Because the numbers don’t lie. You might kill your partner in a fit of rage. You might kill your kids over a custody dispute. You might kill someone in a hit run accident. You might even kill a Taliban insurgent if you join the Army in time.

      But statistically, you would never kill a sex offender, even if it’s your kids they molest.

      How’s that for a sobering indictment on the state of humanity?

    • Bitten says:

      05:31pm | 15/07/10

      Heart Zeta!

    • bananaman says:

      03:40pm | 15/07/10

      unfortunately - the laws an ass, and if if i saw that war criminal john howard unfurling his beach towel next to mine, id probably go bananas. ( whatever that means )

      its obvious the law cant protect me, and the law prevents me from protecting myself. 

      politicians, child molesters and lawyers should all be sent to a small island in the antarctic somewhere.

    • Peter says:

      03:50pm | 15/07/10

      This guy has done his time and we should appreciate that. Of course he has no business being at a pool in his suit watching kids and perhaps the managment at the pool should ask him to leave if he is not swimming. But if parents are around this guy when their kids are there, they have nothing to fear, but just don’t take your eyes off this guy or kids..

      Surely there are quiet towns in the outback that we can send him to?

    • Rose says:

      04:42pm | 15/07/10

      Wake up it is not only the Denis Fergusons you have to worry about it is the well dressed man in a business suit looking more like a lawyer, top end public servant or similar work entitlement, in Brisbane city as I found who eyed off my 13 year old son back when. Made me so ill I never nor my son went to Brisbane again. It certainly set off my triggers.  Or family friend, don’t go there.
      If anyone shows an in ordinary, any interest in your child get out away nor never leave your child alone in
      public.  Like so many parents they do in shop centres all the time. This is child abuse at its worst by parents including pubs and places of gaming meant for adults or the like.. But don’t bother going to authorities they to will abuse.

      Does one really think if at all just because Hetty Johnson yapped, whipping up on this man only about it that people come in shady St Vinies suits that are the deviants only.

      Wake up as a Forgotten Australian. Police and other such professions like Politian’s, judges and social workers, teachers and so on are more likely to be perving on and touching your kids not so innocently as foolish ones think the local Christian church person same applies. 
      Nor let 15, 16 etc kids in town without protection of you. But this is not alowed is it? You have no rights as a parent,. think on it?

    • Johnno says:

      04:50pm | 15/07/10

      Yep, at least we know where he is. That means we can carefully watch him. Then the chance of him actually doing something to any of the kids at the pool is extremely low to perhaps zero. I don’t think looking at kids hurts them too much.

    • Horatio H says:

      05:13pm | 15/07/10

      Hey Penberthy - how about you apply the same logic to the thousands of murderers, rapists, drug dealers and thugs set free in the community?  You would be shocked if you knew who your neighbours were.

      The bloke is the least of our worries.

      Why the outrage at a small suburb modifying its behaviour for one person when Australia is modifying its behaviour, rules and culture for immigrants who increasingly hate us?

    • Too Easy says:

      06:17pm | 15/07/10

      There are many small islands owned by Australia way off shore that could accommodate Mr Ferguson and the like, perhaps focusing on keeping alive and with no temptations would give him more purpose than his currrent tax payer funded kiddie perving at the swimming pool.

    • Matt B says:

      06:32pm | 15/07/10

      This ‘man’ has done his time but has not been rehabilitated, and from what I’ve heard, has refused to be rehabilitated. What good did gaol do for him or society? Keep him out of the public’s view? Capital punishment should be reinstated for rapists, murderers and paedophiles who refuse to be rehabilitated. This is not designed to prevent further occurrences - it is punishment for a crime which is of the utmost severity. It is the only way for the public to be kept protected from the offenders. It won’t stop new offences from occurring, but it will deal with the public’s perception of criminals like Ferguson. You cannot seriously supervise him every second of the day and watch his every move. It only takes him to follow a child into the change rooms for him to re-offend. We should never fear the scum of society - because then they’ve won. We need to stand up and hold a referendum on the reintroduction of capital punishment in Australia. Nay-sayers will point out that it costs double the amount of money to hold a trial involving the death penalty. I say to those idiots, you are equating people’s lives with money. You are treating the justice system like a business, which it most certainly is not. Stop being so damn worried about court costs and start worrying about real justice for the victims of these horrendous crimes.

    • Gavin says:

      03:30pm | 16/07/10

      Murder is wrong, end of story. Doesn’t matter if it’s a citizen, tourist, immigrant or Government appointed executioner, the wilfull taking of someone else’s life is wrong. There is no difference between a Supreme Court judge facilitating “state imposed” murder and a gangland figure facilitating a “gang imposed” murder. Murder is not a right we can give ourselves no matter how much we want it. Our legal system needs to be better than the people it seeks to punishment.

    • Dan says:

      06:56pm | 15/07/10

      The only people that matter here are the children. Children’s safety should come before the rights of an adult, because an adult should know better. Sadly everyone is sitting on their hands, hoping that nothing bad happens. Will he reoffend? Well, he’s there waiting for an opportunity to present itself—isn’t he. So, not even a matter of if something happens, it’s a matter of when.

      When the law fails children, the law needs to change..

    • DJ says:

      03:52pm | 16/07/10

      No what needs to happen is parents need to educate their children not to go off with strange people.  Most cases of child abduction by a stranger from a public place are a nice man with a leash ‘looking’ for a lost dog. Teach the kids not to go off with these people.

    • Expected says:

      07:15pm | 15/07/10

      Fact 1.
      Ferguson is a registered Known Serious Sex Offender. (Yes Serious)

      Fact 2.
      If he has loitered as he is reported to have done, in or near a place frequented by children then it would appear that he might have committed an offence.

      Fact 3.
      Police should be informed and statements taken with a view to interviewing him over this alleged offence.

      As for his rights, he changed his rights from that of average citizen to that of a known serious sex offender, in 1988 when he kidnapped and sexually molested three children.

      If you don’t like the fact that sex offenders have different or reduced rights to that of normal or average citizens then you may need to think about the rights the children that he sexually molested lost due to his offending.

      End of story.

    • The Cricket says:

      08:26pm | 15/07/10

      Perhaps if I had kids I’d feel differently, but…
      Who gives a shit? The kids wouldn’t even know he was there? If Ferguson gets his jollies sitting there watching children swim, then so be it. There are children everywhere. What are you going to do?
      Children are in an awful lot more danger from those they don’t know are predators then someone everyone recognises as such.
      As long as he’s not touching them or harassing them, I don’t see the big deal.

    • Matt B says:

      12:15am | 16/07/10

      Those who’s job it is to protect the children he watches would like a word with you. They know it is a big deal. You obviously have no idea about paedophilia and the impact it has on lives.‘As for not seeing the big deal’, go back to living under your rock.

    • Gavin says:

      01:04pm | 16/07/10

      Cricket is right. He’s just sitting there and people know who he is. He won’t get within coo-ee of a child at the pool because all eyes will be on him. But you can’t stop him watching, simple as that. You don’t have to agree with it, but there’s bugger all you can do. You might not like the fact that he too has rights, but there’s bugger all you can do about it. I personally am more scared of the charming and popular school teacher, parent, tuckshop worker, doctor…etc…who perpetuate a child’s worst nightmare right under our noses.

    • Julian Thomas says:

      12:31am | 16/07/10

      the ploice are too busy looking after themselves and covering up what they did in the past to be concerned with this, if I got a dollar for every time a member of the police delivered on what they promised but didnt deliver, i would be a millionaire

    • James D says:

      09:55am | 16/07/10

      Pedophiles don’t change their sexual preferences anymore than homosexuals and heterosexuals do. My suggestion is drop them off in the Antarctic and leave them there. Lives are forever ruined by men like Ferguson. You can’t reform them so why even waste money trying

    • DG says:

      12:16pm | 16/07/10

      They may not change their preferences but they do have the capacity to change their behaviour.

      Whether it be person who have a preference for ‘same sex’ partners choosing to live in a heterosexual relationship a person who is attracted to children participating in normal adult relationships or a person with any particular sexual preference participating in any other form of sexual relationship - each chooses their behaviour.

      Increasingly, as a result of the push for everyone to feel like they are special and that their wants are important, people choose to follow their personal preferences as opposed to behaviours that are more inline with the social norms. That, in and of itself, is not a problem.

      It really comes down to people doing what they ‘feel’ like (their preferences), rather than doing what is ‘legal’ or socially acceptable. As if their feeling (preference) is more important than the social norms - whether it’s a good or bad thing is subject to much debate. I tend to think that it’s not a problem unless it directly harms a persons other than a willing participant.

      There is no denial that a preference for one thing may be problematic - but a person can choose to behave against their preferences, and routinely do so*, so long as they are exposed to an environment in which they are made aware that their behaviour is required to be in accordance with socially acceptable limits rather than motivated by their preferences.

      *consider any time that you have been angry and wanted to lash out, scream, yell, punch someone etc but have demonstrated self control because that behaviour is not legal or is not socially acceptable.

    • Mike says:

      10:29am | 16/07/10

      Many of the violent responses to dealing with this pervert outlined here are scaring me much more than Ferguson. We need to educate our children as to what to do when ANYONE tries to interfere with them, give them as many skills as possible to deal with the dangers in this world.

      There’s no way I want any of you taking the law into their own hands, what?, for my own good?, for the good of my children? Vigilantism is very, very fickle.

      Keep a level head, be alert, teach your kids to be alert.

    • Matt B says:

      10:08pm | 16/07/10

      You place far too much emphasis on the child here. Not the adult who should know right from wrong. The public don’t need to be so scared all the time when taking their kids out for a swim or to the beach. Are you suggesting that kids be cooped up at home when not at school ‘for their own good’? Awesome. You have just let the paedophiles win. Your ignorance has done no good at all. Vigilantism isn’t the best answer at all, but when the police are ineffective, the public needs to do what is right.

    • Davido says:

      08:57pm | 19/07/10

      What is wrong with banishment?

    • Chris says:

      10:18pm | 19/07/10

      Comments really demonstrate that none of the people on here, David P included, really care about kids. Just about feeling outraged and getting angry. All our own moral failings fade into the background when we’ve got something truly disgusting to rage at. There’s a million ways to help kids. Raging at paedophiles is the cheap, feel-good way to feel you’re on the right end of the stick.

    • Timmo says:

      10:37am | 20/07/10

      Well it’s better that people know what he looks like and to see him in society where they can keep their eyes on him but apart from taking his life from him completely nothing really can be done. I believe that it came out that he was molested as a child himself. Maybe he was fine before that. Many of these people come out of a terrible circumstances.

      I don’t think that putting coffins in front of a mans house and constantly victimizing him says much for the people who carry so much hatred. If he hasn’t committed a further offence then there is no current crime associated with him.

      I would rather know his whereabouts and have him seen in public as different to Catholic Priests and Ministers of Religion who aren’t seen and hide behind some Morally sanctified religious organization. If people continue to go and support churches who protect pedophiles within their ranks then to me they don’t really care about the children and as long as it doesn’t happen to them I don’t think they could really care. But it’s different strokes for different folks.

      Most child molesters come out of immediate families and friends so people who are worried should also see that point as well and be cautious. They are the ones that we should be worried about as we don’t know who they are, at least Denis Ferguson is notorious enough to be known more widely. And Vigalante tactics just move people to violent behaviour, makes them worse in a way than the so called offender and creates false hysteria in the community. If he comes for a membership and is not wanted why not just say that the memberships are full and they are not taking any more at the moment. But we can’t terrorise a sick person can we?. Apart from cutting his eyes out, hands and legs off so he can do absolutely nothing he has the right to be free as he has done his time and I’m sure the police are aware of his whereabouts each day, so let them do their jobs would be the best thing. The world is full of people with sexual problems but they haven’t been caught yet, that’s all.

    • facial cleanser best says:

      06:15am | 28/10/10

      This is the best article I have read, thank you, I have learned a lot of knowledge in this area.

    • monica leon porn says:

      11:45am | 17/11/10

      Just what I needed, thanks a lot.

    • Observer says:

      02:49pm | 21/11/10

      It is an amusing observation that, in the populist rhetoric poisoning the blogosphere, those who vocalise their opposition to Furguson’s very existence invariably preface their argument with this caveat;  “as a parent, I…”

      The insinuation being, of course, that one’s proven fecundity is the pinnacle of credibility. Apparently these people have some kind of special monopoly on compassion and maturity that the wretched childless cannot possibly comprehend.

      It seems that modern families just want to be able to let their kids roam free while they put their feet up in front of the LCDs they purchased with the baby bonus. It’s not difficult today to take good care of your children and shepherd them out of harm’s way, even if the harm’s your neighbour, or in your own home. But it can be inconvenient if it’s not your priority.

      The hysteria about “stranger danger” is overstates the statistical reality. A frightful number of children are subjected mental and physical abuse at the hands of a parent or guardian. Parents and other family members are those most likely to mentally torment, beat, starve, rape, sodomise and murder a child family member. This is not suggesting that all parents are child-sex offenders but the bulk of child-sex offenders are parents or have parent-like responsibilities. This clearly illustrates that parenthood does not automatically imbue people with selfless sweetness and light.

      The law protects the identity of sexual assault victims from being revealed publicly. This inadvertently protects the identity of offenders when they are related to the child-victim as identifying them will identify the child. Given that the bulk of offences occur within families, we can guess that, for every Furguson, there are 90+ incognito offenders in our communities.

      Unlike Furguson — who, unfortunately for him, looks like a pederast from central casting— most of these offenders are ordinary “nice” people from all walks of life. Chances are, that nice man in the suit who catches your train, the lady who makes your coffee, that sweet old man at church…these people are quite possibly offenders too. To paraphrase a Rumsfeld meme, these are the unknown unknowns.

      The ugly truth about the much venerated “family” challenges people’s comfortable paradigm. It is just too unpalatable and much too difficult to really contemplate that all that hearty goodness known as “The Family ™” has a dark underside. It is just easier to invoke a self-satisfied and smug moral outrage to witch-hunt an awkward and frail old man who has paid his debt to society.

    • car salesman says:

      12:40am | 02/12/10

      thanks for sharing the info.that is interesting.

    • Adam FACAA says:

      11:24pm | 08/01/11

      You are kidding me aren’t you Michael, “the 21st century is for the enlightened” It’s not like the man stole a care here. HE KIDNAPPED AND RAPED CHILDREN. The moment he did that he forfited his rights to privacy and anonimity forever. The man is clearly unrepentant for his crimes he is clearly still a paedophile so tell me something Mr Enlitened, would you let this child rapist who is still clearly a child rapist near your children? If so you don’t deserve to have them.

    • sandy haven says:

      11:10am | 08/04/11

      apparantly living at blue haven seen at swansea skate park watching children, so all persents on the central coast watch out because his on the loose once again.

    • Pete says:

      09:48am | 10/01/12

      Dennis ferguson is a pedophile through and through. He has never accepted the fact that he is and never attended any rehabilitation while in prison. Dennis ferguson is a prime candidate for castration and I don’t mean the chemical type, remove the twins permanently & remove the urge. I don’t care how old he is, the man is a dead set “Rock Spider” & always will be until the day he dies!! The sooner society is rid of this creep the better.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter