Bit of a rambling 'thinking-out-loud' type post, so apologies in advance.
My neighbour was convicted of possessing and distributing child porn around 5 years ago and served 1 year of a 2 year prison sentence. Since leaving prison, he was virtually housebound due to disability, but having recently had a leg amputated, he's now very active, walking around the local parks and roads.
Due to some sort of weird inverse snobbery, a lot of villagers seem to want to sweep it under the carpet, so 5 years after his conviction, his crimes are largely forgotten, and due to a lot of new housing development in the village, a lot of people are unaware that he's a convicted peadophile.
To make matters worse, he seems to be getting a bit of a reputation as the nice old one-legged man who's always keen to stop and have a chat.
Am I wrong to feel angry and concerned that he's enjoying wandering around pretty much unencumbered by his past crimes? There are 2 primary schools in the village, so a lot of young families, many of whom I'm sure would be horrified to know that the friendly old monoped that they chat to with the kids has been to prison for viewing (and selling!) the worst category of child sexual abuse images... But it seems many locals would rather keep quiet than openly discuss the fact that they share their village with a monster.
What is the legal position relating to making his recent past a little more widely known?
12 pages?
Trolling surely?
I reckon the kids can outrun him.
And 14 pages with extra hand-wringing and at least two simpson's "think of the children"
A mono-podophile...
many locals would rather keep quiet than openly discuss the fact that they share their village with a monster.
As a father, I sympathise with your concerns, but I am not sure I agree with your second last statement. The fact that he is a paedophile does not make him a monster. It almost certainly makes him someone to be concerned about around children, but I would reserve more extreme language for people filled with hate and death (Daesh, for example).
In any case, I had a situation like this in a small town in Canada that I needed to deal with, so called my local detachment of the RCMP. They advised me that asking responsible adults to be alert to trouble and creating as safe environment as possible was the only real course of action we could take. After all, if the man has done his time already, he has a right to live [I]somewhere[/I].
Well he could try to sue you for libel, but he wouldn't have a....
Legally (unlike him), you may not have a leg to stand on.
At least learn how to spell paedophile for the posters.
Otherwise you won't have a legume to stand on.
It almost certainly makes him someone to be concerned about around children, but I would reserve more extreme language for people filled with hate and death (Daesh, for example).
His 'defense' centred on his claims that the images he had weren't for his own gratification, but were a 'business opportunity' for him to sell the images to other peadophiles - which he did on an industrial scale.
The images included the rape of babies... I think 'monster' is a pretty good word for him!
They advised me that asking responsible adults to be alert to trouble and creating as safe environment as possible was the only real course of action we could take.
This is what I was thinking - I'm not talking about daubing graffiti on his house, but perhaps just putting the word out that the one-legged wanderer has a past that should be of concern to most right-minded people...
Since I have a similar issue.....
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/what-should-i-do-about-my-neighbour ]http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/what-should-i-do-about-my-neighbour[/url]
...I will, for once, refrain from making dumb ass jokes on this thread.
As you remember Perchy, I was part of that discussion and shared a lot of my past experiences. The worrying part is that the locals are so stuck up and worried about the reputation of their middle-class enclave that they're happy to forget his crimes...
Maybe he's no longer that way inclined...
He's not a paedo anymore cos he's done his time!
No you sausage, it's a play on words, even paedos get it
Perchy, what did he get in the end, 10,000 images wasn't it?
Maybe he's no longer that way inclined...
If they outlawed images of busty brunettes of child-bearing age, no amount of 'bird' would prevent me wanting to look at pictures of them!
This is what I was thinking - I'm not talking about daubing graffiti on his house, but perhaps just putting the word out that the one-legged wanderer has a past that should be of concern to most right-minded people..
So you'll go round bad mouthing him to other people in the village. Classy....
Maybe as he's your neighbour, you should go and talk to him. Have a frank conversation - see if he feels any remorse? Or maybe you should keep your kids away from him and mind your own?
If they outlawed images of busty brunettes of child-bearing age, no amount of 'bird' would prevent me wanting to look at pictures of them!
Ah, troll then...
Perchy, what did he get in the end, 10,000 images wasn't it?
12 months jail time, 10 years on the Sex Offenders register.
Turns out it was 20,000 images including 3000 Cat A.
He'll be out by Christmas most likely.
Inclined, it was a one legged joke (for the hard of thinking and professionally offended)
So you'll go round bad mouthing him to other people in the village. Classy....
I personally think the nature of his crimes makes him beneath contempt - I have no moral qualms about informing newcomers to the village to be on their guard, and I certainly don't want any form of interaction with him!
Ah, troll then...
Why on earth would that be a troll? You seem to be the only one trying to pick an argument, I've asked a question that I'd like advice on, maybe you should stop posting on the thread if you've nothing sensible or constructive to offer...
The worrying part is that the locals are so stuck up and worried about the reputation of their middle-class enclave that they're happy to forget his crimes...
How do you know this?
Are you sure they don't just find it a bit awkward to bring up?
They're probably starting similar threads on StuckUpVillageTrackWorld as we speak.
Inclined, it was a one legged joke (for the hard of thinking and professionally offended)
Only the left-leaning types will be offended. Don't know if this includes the OP's perp. 🙂
Legally speaking, this potentially falls under harassment, and I wouldn't want to be the spark that triggers violence against him. Libel, not so much, given his lack of reputation, even though, if what he says is true, he isn't strictly speaking a paedophile...
Have you thought about moving ?
22 pages and a picture of the Simpsons pitchfork cartoon.
[i]Only the left-leaning types will be offended.[/i]
I do wonder at this. Like people who have right wing views are literally right thinking and therefore have the only reasonable viewpoint on anything where there may be a moral view to be taken.
And why introduce politics into a debate about a moral dilemma if not to say that those who are not right wing have no opinions worth canvassing?
I personally think the nature of his crimes makes him beneath contempt
So do I and were it pictures of my children he had sold then I'd want a far worse punishment that prison for him - in fact I don't have children and still I struggle with how someone like that can get away with it.
However that's not how the world works is it. Simply going round whispering to others about the 'dirty paedo' doesn't do you any favours, to me it just looks a bit cowardly and something the local village gossips would do.
Speaking to him lets him know that you're aware of what he's done which is no bad thing. He's your neighbour, you have to live next to the man.
[i]Inclined, it was a one legged joke[/i]
No response doesn't mean no-one got it!
I do wonder at this
T'was also a one-legged joke. Sorry.
Speaking to him lets him know that you're aware of what he's done which is no bad thing. He's your neighbour, you have to live next to the man.
I did that when he got out of prison. But that's not what I came here to ask about. Have a read of the original post, it might refresh your memory.
Out of interest as there may be someone on here who might know, does UK last differentiate between paedophilia, Hebephilia or Ephebophilia?
All of which involve minors (depending on local).
What would be the change that you hope to cause? The concern seems to be that he is not active and able to move around. Imprisonment or house arrest was not seemed necessary by the courts (rightly or wrongly) who have the only authority to act.
I guess the guy is on a register and is monitored. While I wouldn't have him round for tea or have him babysit I can't see the positive outcome of "outing" him publicly for the community or him. There have always been plenty of weird people hanging around your parents told you not to go near just add this one to the list.
He's got to live somewhere, if he's done his time. Maybe you should move? (Tho how you'd know that where you moved to was "safe" is a puzzle)
But the thing is (despite his history) is he actually a risk to children in the community? He hasn't made images of nor abused children himself - he simply distributed images. So, whilst I don't condone what he did at all, doing what he has done doesn't necessarily make him any more danger than any other random weirdo.
You could also look at it like this OP – have you ever pulled one out over internet porn of a type you would never get to live out in real life and if you did, you could get into trouble for (ie, voyeuristic/exhibitionistic images)...
[i]T'was also a one-legged joke. Sorry. [/i]
ah, that sound I heard was it whooshing over my head!
What would be the change that you hope to cause?
I personally don't feel comfortable with him chatting to parents with young children. He's quite charismatic and affable (I met him before his conviction) and he seems to be basking in the new-found celebrity that his mechanical leg seems to have brought... I've seen him on several occasions chatting to parents with children who are obviously asking about his leg.
If he's attracted to children, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to figure that he might be getting some sort of gratification from this...
For what it's worth, our solution to this has been to sit our kids down, read through the newspaper articles with them and explain in unemotive terms what our neighbour has gone to jail for.
It would be easy to make him into a monster but we've tried not to demonise him whilst still getting across the message that he is a bad man and is to be avoided.
We have told them that they shouldn't have any contact at all with him when he gets out.
Hopefully, they will disseminate this message to the other local kids.
What else can you reasonably do?
Hopefully, they will disseminate this message to the other local kids.What else can you reasonably do?
My only child is still 2-3 weeks away, so I obviously have a vested interest in this man's future movements, Junior isn't able to help yet!
I did that when he got out of prison. But that's not what I came here to ask about. Have a read of the original post, it might refresh your memory.
I've read it twice - you still sound like you're being a busybody.
If they outlawed images of busty brunettes of child-bearing age, no amount of 'bird' would prevent me wanting to look at pictures of them
Being that the definition of child bearing being the period of a woman's life between puberty and menopause...
You asked a question on a forum. You will get some responses that you don't like. I can't sit here and say informing other villagers of his past crimes is the right thing to do because I don't feel it is. Apart from the fact that it might spur on some moron to take it upon themselves to give him a good kicking (regardless of whether he deserves it), it doesn't paint you in a brilliant light.
is he actually a risk to children in the community? He hasn't made images of nor abused children himself - he simply distributed images.
Genuine 😯
Genuine 😯
After reading the second half of his post, I chose to ignore it on the basis that he's a troll...
I am just trying to offer a different viewpoint to encourage further discussion. As a father of two young girls myself I have no idea how I would feel in the real world.
Johndo, you went on to suggest most of us have cracked one off to images we shouldn't have... Not cool.
Is a peadophile someone who gets off on petit pois?
Johndo, you went on to suggest most of us have cracked one off to images we shouldn't have... Not cool.
Well no, not if you read it properly – I am not suggesting anyone has looked at images of children. But there is tons of stuff out there of things that would get you into trouble if caught doing yourself (ie dogging).
The difference being that you're now talking about consenting adults, not defenseless babies who can't possibly consent, legally, verbally or otherwise!
But there is tons of stuff out there of things that would get you into trouble if caught doing yourself (ie dogging).
**** me this has reached peak STW. Pack it up folks, we're done here.
I don't think you understand the point I am trying to make - him distributing (or even enjoying) those sort of images doesn't necessarily make him a direct danger to children in your community. It certainly doesn't make it any more acceptable, but I am just trying to make the point that although he has looked at images, he won't necessarily go on to make them himself (ie, become a direct danger to children in your community). Just like someone who likes to watch dogging porn won't necessarily go out and start making images themselves.
Granted that him somehow getting off on seeing children around him is very distasteful but I am not sure how that can be avoided – once someone has completed their sentence what can be done with them? Unless they are kept locked up they will be inevitably be around children somewhere even if it isn't in your community.
I [i]kind of[/i] see what you are getting at johndoh, but there is huge chasm of difference between some morally questionable upskirt grot and full on baby raping FFS.
As a father of two young girls I would be [i]very[/i] uncomfortable living near that guy and knowing his past. I'd be instructing my kids not to speak to him and probably warning anyone else who's kids spoke to him too.
I hope people do see what I am trying to say (I would hate to think anyone thinks I somehow condone this sort of behaviour) and FWIW I used to live 4 doors down from a convicted paedophile too. I was simply trying to discuss it from a different angle and as I say – once their crime has been punished they are free to live a life somewhere which is unfortunate for whoever has to live their lives around them.
To expand on my earlier analogy, not only do I like looking at pictures, but I also get a great deal of pleasure if I get the opportunity to chat with or spend time in the company of busty brunettes of child-bearing age (mid-twenties onwards for clarification), so I'm pretty sure he gets a similar thrill when chatting with children.
Looking at his behaviour, I also suspect he gets a kick out of flaunting himself in public knowing that people are unaware of his past.
Looking at his behaviour, I also suspect he gets a kick out of flaunting himself in public knowing that people are unaware of his past.
Smugness isn't a crime though.
If it was, police vehicle impound yards would be filled with Audis as far as the eye could see.
[quote=councilof10 ]To expand on my earlier analogy, not only do I like looking at pictures, but I also get a great deal of pleasure if I get the opportunity to chat with or spend time in the company of busty brunettes of child-bearing age (mid-twenties onwards for clarification), so I'm pretty sure he gets a similar thrill when chatting with children.
I wonder what all the busty brunettes of child-bearing age (mid-twenties onwards) in your village would think about you if they were reading this thread? Rapist???
I wonder what all the busty brunettes of child-bearing age (mid-twenties onwards) in your village would think about you if they were reading this thread? Rapist???
No, they would most probably be confident that they have a legal prerogative to allow a conversation to develop should that be their want, and that the law would protect them if they didn't.
Let's not forget, my desires are perfectly legal - his aren't.
I'm not sure what outcome you want....if he is "outed", what do you expect to happen? If he's forced to move, what about the people where he moves to? Worst case, he gets killed.
What are you trying to achieve?
CaptainFlashheart - Member
Is a peadophile someone who gets off on petit pois?
Is it ok to get off on regular pois then?
What are you trying to achieve?
Good question, and I'm not really sure... I don't subscribe to the "ignorance is bliss" school of thought - if I were one of the parents who are oblivious to his past, I'd 100% want to know about it. And I'd feel pretty angry that he is trying to integrate himself back into the community by taking advantage of the anonymity that the passage of time has afforded him.
Personally, yes, I'd like him to move. I know that's selfish, but somebody else's problem isn't my problem.
I don't think he's going to get killed, and I wouldn't want to see that happen - not because I wouldn't wish him dead (I do wish he was dead), but I wouldn't want to see someone make themselves a murderer.
I guess I don't feel he's paid his debt... I don't think he ever can. I don't think his crimes can be forgiven, and I don't think paedophiles can be rehabilitated.
So I guess I would like to see him shamed into keeping a lower profile. I don't like the thought of him enjoying a leisurely stroll through the village and stopping to shoot the breeze with a young mum with 2 or 3 inquisitive kids in tow. I'd like him to feel scornful eyes burning into him every time he sets foot in public, and I'd like him to feel shame for his crimes every day of the rest of his life. 1 year in an open prison is an insult to his victims, I'd personally like to see him ostracised for the rest of his miserable days.
I like looking at pictures, but I also get a great deal of pleasure if I get the opportunity to chat with or spend time in the company of busty brunettes of child-bearing age (mid-twenties onwards for clarification), so I'm pretty sure he gets a similar thrill when chatting with children.
Do you actually get a sexual thrill from chatting to a woman? I hope you don't work in Tesco, 'Excuse me young man, could you tell me where the petit pois are please? Young man? Young man?' Clean up on aisle three...
OK so he has not actually abused any children directly but by trading in these images he is stimulating the market and by default urging more active paedophiles to abuse more children. I know that the absence of demand wouldn't stop [u]all[/u] the abuse but creating a market will result in more children suffering and even dying.
I think what jondoh is saying is that its a very different situation having a person who has abused kids from one who downloaded it. I guess that the advice on what to do would be different. In this case, if the op is seriously worried he should pop into the local police station and discuss it with them see if they can do anything. I would also be telling my friends about him (as I'd trust them not to get the pitch forks out).
I listened to an interesting phone-in on LBC recently where a "paedophile" who had never offended or looked at illegal images discussed his problems at length. For him, his morals prevented him from exposing himself to any potential temptation and he'd sought help to try and suppress his urges.
By selling and distributing these images (as well as viewing them for his own pleasure) my neighbour clearly lacks any morality. He isn't repulsed by his own urges and he obviously has no regard for the wider results of his actions.
Could be worse, he could be a Nazi
Have all the trolls given up the pretense and created one big trolling world champs thread?
Good, if it keeps them off the rest of the forum.
I'm pretty sure he gets a similar thrill when chatting with children.Looking at his behaviour, I also suspect he gets a kick out of flaunting himself in public knowing that people are unaware of his past.
While this is an emotive subject you are assuming that his drives are the same as yours. So you get a thrill from talking to certain women but assume that he must get a thrill from talking to [b]all [/b]children. Does your thrill make you unable to control yourself and abduct said women for sex? Is this not like assuming that every gay man wants to sleep with every other man in existence and you can't be safe in the same building as them?
Do you know what the age ranges of the children in the images were? I thought that anything below 18 was all classed the same. Jumping into the assumption that it is baby porn is a bit straight out of the tabloids for me.
The guy has to live somewhere either you commit a crime and are segregated from society for life or re-integrated as is seen fit. If he has just regained his ability not be a shut in due to an amputation he will be going out and talking to people.
The approach taken by PP seems to be the most sensible for the at risk population.
The village could ask him to wear a bright hat and a big badge so that everyone could keep their distance - and put a big sign up by his house - beware paedo lives here. Would that help?
Thestabiliser - you sure about that? The register wasn't created to be public, and whilst "Sarah's law" has changed that slightly it doesn't mean you can just search the register fishing for gossip.
If you have concerns talk to social work. Quite possibly they will be delighted that he is out in "normal society". Outing him has potential to do more damage than good, and frankly the convicted ones worry me far less than those who are still getting away with it.
Certainly it doesn't follow that someone who traded in images is getting aroused talking to children any more than the op has to hide his bulging crotch every time a brunette talks to him.
Cornholio, it was quite widely reported from the jusge's summing up that the images included babies being raped. It's in the public domain.
Personally, yes, I'd like him to move. I know that's selfish, but somebody else's problem isn't my problem.I don't think he's going to get killed, and I wouldn't want to see that happen - not because I wouldn't wish him dead (I do wish he was dead), but I wouldn't want to see someone make themselves a murderer.
I guess I don't feel he's paid his debt... I don't think he ever can. I don't think his crimes can be forgiven, and I don't think paedophiles can be rehabilitated.
So I guess I would like to see him shamed into keeping a lower profile. I don't like the thought of him enjoying a leisurely stroll through the village and stopping to shoot the breeze with a young mum with 2 or 3 inquisitive kids in tow. I'd like him to feel scornful eyes burning into him every time he sets foot in public, and I'd like him to feel shame for his crimes every day of the rest of his life. 1 year in an open prison is an insult to his victims, I'd personally like to see him ostracised for the rest of his miserable days.
Given the strength of your views here, what are you trying to achieve with this thread?
.
Remember kids, NONCE SENSE
[img] 
[/img]
I had a friend in the same situation. Convicted of being part of a distribution ring for images. Similar sentence and released and back with his family. Whilst I have nothing to do with him now, (we've left the area), I certainly do not consider him a danger to children. The sentence reflected this - as it did your neighbor's case.
It's an emotive subject, but rational punishment and restitution are the preserve of a decent civilized society. Personally, I'd do nothing and bite my tongue. The necessary information is in the public domain. The people who might response emotively have the information available to them. Harassment is a criminal offence.
[Another two pages before mods close. No Simpsons pitchforks image.]
EDIT: And for those interested, you can work back from https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/possession-of-indecent-photograph-of-child-indecent-photographs-of-children/ to give you a sense of the content of the images distributed. Or just play judge for yourself.
[i]so he has not actually abused any children directly but by trading in these images he is stimulating the market and by default urging more active paedophiles to abuse more children.[/i]
This - so bleeding obvious, I didn't see any point actually saying it.
basking in the new-found celebrity that his mechanical leg seems to have brought...
If we were allowed signatures this would be mine.
Sorry can't help with the peadogeddon thing. Can't you just tell your kids to stay away from the one-legged nonce at number 33?
Edit: You've not got kids? Well wind your neck in Judge Dredd.
If you told me I'd be grateful for the info.
naming-convicted-peadophiles
How many names do you want?
I can get you loads, say £10.00 per name? 😉
Only read a bit of the thread, up until the apologists/"devil's advocates" showed up.
My wife, for a small part of her work, is responsible for keeping an eye on "rehabilitated" paedophiles in her catchment area and she is absolutely certain that there is no such thing as a rehabilitated paedophile.
OP: if the guy's name, crime and punishment shows up on publicly available court records then I can't see how a few lamppost posters could get you in bother, especially as they could have been put up by anyone.
Disclaimer: my 10yo niece has, this week, handed over her Kid's Kindle to the police after it being confirmed that she was being groomed on some messaging app by three separate known paedophile accounts. I've read the messages. I may have some emotional investment in suggesting people with kids should know about paedophiles active in their area.
then I can't see how a few lamppost posters could get you in bother, especially as they could have been put up by anyone.
😯
😯
+1
It must be nice in your ivory towers, where the peados can't reach your kids.
Anyway, I'm not advocating releasing anything not already in the public domain.
Even "nicer" to hound peope anonymously from inside one
Are you going to crowdfund the cost of the paint to daub nonce on his house - secretly of course ?
I can't see how a few lamppost posters could get you in bother
Also 😯
I [i]can[/i] easily see how that could get you in bother.
Particularly if someone decides some vigilante action is called for or the guy can't take the shame and tops himself.