The town I grew up in on an estate near me heard that a guy was a paedophile moved in from another area by someone wanting to do the right thing, supposedly the evidence was there. He was found murdered in his flat and investigation showed there had been no records of of being a paedopphile, still at least people's kids were safe.
Obviously convicted paedophiles are amongst STW forumites' protected demographics. Hands up. Sorry for treading on toes.
OK OP. How about instead directing people towards [url= https://www.gov.uk/guidance/find-out-if-a-person-has-a-record-for-child-sexual-offences ]https://www.gov.uk/guidance/find-out-if-a-person-has-a-record-for-child-sexual-offences[/url] and letting folk make their own minds up.
In you situation I would be contacting the police and advising that you see him fraternising with children and you are concerned owing to his previous convictions.
If he is on a register he will have stipulations of what he can and can't do.
If he is likely to be a danger to youngsters he will have conditions preventing contact with them and your information could have a result that makes your situation happier.
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.
Very much 😯
You have issues, please get them sorted out before you interact with the public.
Ta.
Jambourgie, our first baby is due in less than 3 weeks... I also have 6 nephews/nieces under the age of 10 who visit and stay on a regular basis.
I hadn't considered lamp post signs, I quite like the idea. I can picture the artwork now:
Headline type: MISSING!
Subheading: paedophile's leg
Please return to....
I also have 6 nephews/nieces under the age of 10 who visit and stay on a regular basis.
Why are you inviting little kiddies to come and stay on paedo island knowing full well there's a monster at large?
[i]You're enabling potential noncery[/i]
Now we're just going round in circles...
(Sorry, yes, that was another monopaed joke)
Until a child in your family has been in direct contact with paedophiles and you've read what has been communicated, I guess you can't really feel the revulsion I feel. I have no issues with parents knowing they are fraternising with convicted paedophiles, but I've not once advocated more than that.
I guess people may take matters in to their own hands but that's what happens when people act on their deepest impulses, a sorry fact that if weren't true we wouldn't have this thread in the first place.
I've sadly had to deal with victims of child abuse, kids through to those who are now adults. I despise the very thought of them and what they can do, I won't defend them but I also would not encourage vigilantes. We have no idea if this guy is a risk or not no matter what someone's wife thinks. Klunky has the best suggestions, if you have concerns contact the relative authorities not put it on lamppost or print it in the Sandford Parish News.
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 all the abuse but creating a market will result in more children suffering and even dying
That's pretty much my thoughts on this subject too, as far as I'm concerned people like him are right up there with terrorists, murderers, rapists and Welsh people who paint their faces black!
I don't think you're being unreasonable at all by being angry about the fact he's wandering around happily chatting to people with kids etc, I'm sure these people wouldn't give him the time of day if they knew about his past.
A full on public outing is probably not the right way to go but quietly spreading the word around to people with kids about his past is not unreasonable as they have a right to know in my opinion.
Right, OK, common sense prevails. Wife is now home, vigilante justice is wrong (although I never suggested it's right) but her professional opinion is that OP you 100% need to speak to the police. The fact that convicted paedo is interacting with young families is 100% not OK and is a direct result of a failure within the social care system that needs to be addressed.
Aren't the restrictions on those released and on the SOR also public? (Sorry can't be bothered to follow the link but I vaguely recall this from another discussion)
If breached I believe a return to prison will be on the cards.
Break in to his house at night and pilfer his mechanical leg and (if you have time) remove his staircase. That way you can rest easy knowing that he's trapped on the top floor of his house.
All joking aside, I'd want to know if somebody like that lived near me. Not so I could form a lynch mob, just so I could keep my kids away from him (and steal his mechanical leg).
I hadn't considered lamp post signs, I quite like the idea. I can picture the artwork now:
Headline type: MISSING!
Subheading: paedophile's leg
Please return to....
Great idea which I think would work with would be terrorists as well.
I hadn't considered lamp post signs, I quite like the idea. I can picture the artwork now:
Headline type: MISSING!
Subheading: [s]paedophile's leg[/s]terrorist head
Please return to....
I am still struggling with the OP's comment that he just doesn't want this person near his home and doesn't care if he bothers another neighbourhood. Surely if this person isn't fit to be allowed out in public, he should still be in prison, not just moved somewhere as to not upset the OP?
Trolling surely?
Expect nothing less from one of Shibboleth's threads...
From the information provided pedo man is on the sex offenders register and if there is any evidence he poses a risk a "sexual harm prevention order" both are automatic and routine parts of sentencing. Public naming and shaming a is counterproductive and creates offences by preventing rehabilitation driving offenders underground and stimulating vigilantes. If you have genuine concerns contact your police public protection team ,otherwise accept he has been punished and is monitored and ignore the fact he continues to live having done the custodial element of his punishment.
hestabiliser - Member
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/find-out-if-a-person-has-a-record-for-child-sexual-offences
So no right to consult the sex offenders register then?
Sarah's law entitles people with responsibility for child (usually the parents) to ask the police if a specific individual with access to the child would give cause for concern. The police may not tell the person who asks if they think there is a better person to make aware, or if it would be disproportionate to do so. If they do tell, you are legally required to keep that information confidential.
What you certainly can't do, is make a generic request for details of who lives within a certain distance and is a bit dodgy.
Confusing Sarah's law with giving you carte Blanche to publish information about someone is a recipe for disaster.
funkmasterp - , I'd want to know if somebody like that lived near me.
They do.
He was found murdered in his flat and investigation showed there had been no records of of being a paedopphile, still at least people's kids were safe.
One reason you shouldn't name and shame is because there are a lot of very stupid people out there.
Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
Public naming and shaming a is counterproductive and creates offences by preventing rehabilitation driving offenders underground and stimulating vigilantes. If you have genuine concerns contact your police public protection team ,otherwise accept he has been punished and is monitored and ignore the fact he continues to live having done the custodial element of his punishment.
Sounds like the best piece of advice given on this thread.
Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged [s]yesterday[/s]17 years ago.
It's an old article, just the first one that came up on the search. Still highlights the danger of mob mentality.
oh, so that's OK then. Name away.
Where did I say that?
ok, stealth edit. too quick to react.
stealth edit.
What?????
All I did was point that "news" isn't new.
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...
No more than you would talking to someone you were attracted too. Unless he's shuffling change in his pocket at the same time.
No more than you would talking to someone you were attracted too.
This is the point I was trying to make earlier... I find it very pleasurable chatting to attractive women - it's not necessarily sexual, but it's gratifying nonetheless. I'm sure there's a deep-rooted sexual element in why we as homo sapiens enjoy interactive with attractive people, but 1000s of years of education and culture mean than very few of us feel the need to "shuffle change in our pockets" at the same time!
However, the fact remains, that most people would admit - at some level at least - to preferring to interact with people they're attracted to.
If there's the slightest suggestion that he might be gaining any sort of gratification from these interactions, even if it's simply a subtle 2-fingers-up at the authorities who seek to prevent him from doing so, I'm really uncomfortable with it.
People get arrested for having a favourite vegetable?
All joking aside, I'd want to know if somebody like that lived near me. Not so I could form a lynch mob, just so I could keep my kids away from him
I would have assumed that the internet with its global reach and general lack of oversight is a bigger threat to children then your local guy in a park these days. Is not having a conversation with your children about this the best measure to stop it happening?
For the OP, I am torn, I agree with the NIMBY approach and the want to protect others by informing them. But I also read from your post this occured 5 years ago, he did some jail time an then due to illness was relatively housebound for several years and is now mobile again due to surgery. Might he not be simply enjoying a new lease of life his operation has granted him after years of being housebound with I expect little interaction from the outside world due to his previous crimes and jailtime and is actually rehabilitated?
As posted earlier, I think talking with the local police about your concerns would be a good start.
*EDIT: no idea how I have double quoted - fixed
If there's the slightest suggestion that he might be gaining any sort of gratification from these interactions, even if it's simply a subtle 2-fingers-up at the authorities who seek to prevent him from doing so, I'm really uncomfortable with it.
And your preferred outcome is to simply push the problem onto another community...
And your preferred outcome is to simply push the problem onto another community...
No. My preferred outcome, as per my original question, would be for all those young parents who've recently moved to the village to know exactly who they're chatting with whilst walking the kids to school.
and is actually rehabilitated?
If someone is sexually attracted to children can that be "fixed"? Or is it just the way they are wired?
He may be able to curtail acting on his desires but I doubt he can stop the feelings.
Have you talked to your local Bobby/PCSO or whatever they're called now?
It is definitely a moral maze.
If someone is sexually attracted to children can that be "fixed"? Or is it just the way they are wired?
I'm firmly of the believe that a person's sexual preference can't be "rewired". And in the same way that lecherous old men like ogling or pestering young women, long after their physical ability to perform has left them, I suspect this guy gets his kicks trying to engage young families in conversation...
No. My preferred outcome, as per my original question, would be for all those young parents who've recently moved to the village to know exactly who they're chatting with whilst walking the kids to school.
But then you said...
Personally, yes, I'd like him to move. I know that's selfish,[b] but somebody else's problem isn't my problem.[/b]
I know exactly what I said Johndoh. At no point did I say it was my "preferred outcome".
🙄
Having thought about this, the guy's defence (if true of course) I find more troubling than the more expected explanation - on the grounds that there are two sorts of people:
Most of us: not sexually aroused by young children
A few (unfortunate) individuals: aroused by it, some with a "compulsion" that they can't help acting on, some who genuinely, I guess, don't agree that it's a wrong thing.
For the people in the latter group, it's to some extent understandable (not justifiable) that they might possess or distribute the images.
But if you're in the former group, how could you? You could tell me that I'd make a million pounds per image distributed and I wouldn't be able to do it. I just couldn't. I don't know how the coppers who deal with this kind of stuff cope. I've never seen such images, but the thought of it makes me kinda nauseous, I wouldn't be surprised if seeing a baby rape picture would make me vomit.
If this guy didn't have a sexual interest but was trading baby rape pictures or similar for money, then that's twisted in a way that I honestly think in some ways is actually worse than for those for whom it's their "thing"
Not sure if that helps the issue at hand, but it's just a thought I had.
At no point did I say it was my "preferred outcome
Fair point. But you are happy for him to be a potential danger to other children, just not the ones in your community? Or do you see another way he could somehow have his freedom (given that he has served his prison sentence and he is now a free man) without being exposed to children?
If this guy didn't have a sexual interest but was trading baby rape pictures or similar for money, then that's twisted in a way that I honestly think in some ways is actually worse than for those for whom it's their "thing"
I couldn't agree more, and one of the main reasons that I refuse to show any compassion or forgiveness is that:
a) he thought that was a reasonable justification for his crimes
b) he expected people to believe that he wasn't aroused by those images
and c) that he was part of an actual industry that encouraged the abuse so that images could be distributed for financial gain!
A few (unfortunate) individuals: aroused by it, some with a "compulsion" that they can't help acting on, some who genuinely, I guess, don't agree that it's a wrong thing.
A lot of them don't believe they are doing any wrong.
Did you ever hear of this organisation from the 70's and 80's? [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange ]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange[/url]
A lot of them don't believe they are doing any wrong.
I got this impression when I aired my views upon his release from prison. His attitude was dismissive to the point of arrogance. I asked him what sort of man could return back to a wife and daughter, effectively making pariahs of them in their neighbourhood, and continue to sleep at night... He claimed they were glad to have him back and supported him no matter what.
I think that speaks volumes for his wife (his daughter has now moved on) and I don't ever want any interaction with her either.
He may be able to curtail acting on his desires but I doubt he can stop the feelings.
Assuming that to be the case, is that not successfully rehabilitated? You can't get fat by thinking about pies.
I have plenty of thoughts on a daily basis that would net me a very long jail sentence. I was at a concert a while back and some fat **** standing behind my seat decided to use my head as a gutrest and then got up in the grill of me and my disabled wife when I shoved him off. I had several very clear thoughts about booting the bastard over the balcony that night.
It's a tricky and emotive situation for sure, but I'm uncomfortable with the notion of the thought police.
People get arrested for having a favourite vegetable?
Of course not, only for sexually interfering with them - creamed peas anyone?
councilof10 - I seriously think you need to accept it is what it is and stop fantasising about what his motives are. You are basing your hate on an assumption that he has not been in any way rehabilitated and is going to offend again but that doesn't have to be the case (although I can accept it would be very difficult for an individual to curb base desires). At the end of the day you are not the judge or jury of this man - he has been through that process and is now on the other side and he is not known to be offending in any way - you are just finding it impossible to think that he isn't. All you can do is accept that and trust that the authorities are keeping a check on him and he won't offend again.
Johndoh, you seem to be very tolerant of the "otherly aroused"... Just an observation.
Johndoh, you seem to be very tolerant of the "otherly aroused"... Just an observation.
Oh good, we've reached the inevitable point in any pedophile discussion where one party gets accused of being a pedophile themselves in only 4 pages!
Johndoh, you seem to be very tolerant of the "otherly aroused"... Just an observation.
You have got to be kidding me.
Can this thread be closed now, please?
As I said, just an observation... I openly admit that I can't find the slightest modicum of empathy, forgiveness or compassion for paedophiles. I also have an unswerving sense of certainty that he hasn't and cannot be "rehabilitated".
What is wrong with observing that another poster's views seem to go beyond "Devil's Advocate" and demonstrate a remarkable level of tolerance and empathy for these people?
I would have assumed that the internet with its global reach and general lack of oversight is a bigger threat to children then your local guy in a park these days. Is not having a conversation with your children about this the best measure to stop it happening?
What?
Last time I checked the internet wasn't hurting my son. He's never even used it. I also don't think talking to a three year old about stranger danger is going to work. If every second word isn't dinosaur or dragon he tends not to listen.
You honestly think I won't talk to him when he's older and capable of absorbing the information? This place is really ****ing odd at times. In the meantime I'd definitely be nicking his leg to restrict his movements.
Edit - the creepy old chaps leg, not my son's
assuming that this isn't just going on inside shibboleth's head, and it's actually a real scenario.
Contact the cops, and let them know that some-one who is on the sexual offender register is interacting with children. It would be better if you could provide times and locations. You could also contact the safeguarding team of your local council, their number will be on the council website.
assuming that this isn't just going on inside shibboleth's head, and it's actually a real scenario.
What a curious thing to say! Would you like a link to a news report about his conviction?
Statistically, family members are still the biggest threat to kids.
Move along, nothing to see here.
This is a shocking thread on all counts. The guys done his time, he's paid his dues to society and you councilof10 are not his judge, social worker or psychologist. The legal system isn't perfect and whilst he's clearly had a horrid past the law of the land has caught him and dealt with him in the way that it has been fairly decided it can.
Plenty of sensible "suggestions" have been made to you saying the sane thing, which are the correct responses. Stop looking for positive reassurance that some sorry sort of vigilante retribution is the way forward because it is not. You cannot take things into your own hands.
So, if you are concerned, and from what you say I might be too, then contact the local police, safeguarding team etc...
Other than that it's not your concern.
This is coming from a father of two young girls and while I share your fears, and respect them, you cannot play God.
Wise up.
This thread should have been closed three pages ago.
What a curious thing to say! Would you like a link to a news report about his conviction?
He's referring to some trolls never rehabilitate.
Statistically, family members are still the biggest threat to kids.
Have you forgotten the 'dogs not on leads' thread!
😀
FFS he's only a harmless old peado who gets off on raping babies, it's not like he parks his van inconsiderately on the pavement or argues about who is responsible for the boundary fence out back. Just think yourself lucky he doesn't hate cyclists.
Can he advise on acceptable tyre tread depth?
Johndoh, you seem to be very tolerant of the "otherly aroused"... Just an observation.POSTED 8 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
Nice move. Care to expand on this observation?
Actually ignore my last post - clearly this thread has run its course,
councilof10 - MemberWhat a curious thing to say! Would you like a link to a news report about his conviction?
Yes.
Have/has anyone qualified in the Legal profession actually made comment on the OP (and others) proposed actions ?
Or is the thread just "whataboutery" ??
If his defence is genuine, Then he’s got the same ethics as anyone who supplies drugs, stolen gear, etc. It’s just he was peddling in genuine human misery to satisfy some sick individuals to make a few quid.
His moral compass isn’t a Silva.
Then he’s got the same ethics as anyone who supplies drugs, stolen gear, etc.
Genuine question - You really think those things are similar to selling photographs of babies being raped?
I agree that all 3 things can cause misery and suffering but are they comparable?
Yeah, i do. It may be sliding scale of twisted morality, but to profit off illegal products, with zero care about the human carnage it causes, same set of ethics.
I know they like to act like they have a moral code, but they’re all the same, either on a minor level or a major level they profit on others misery. And that’s what it’s about, profit. That’s if his defence is genuine. If he got satisfaction from the images, then that’s a different issue.
I don't think there's any doubt that he got pleasure from the images himself, he mistakingly thought that people would take a less dim view of his actions if he claimed that he was just being entrepreneurial.
Safe to say that it was more a case of turning his hobby into a small business...
[url= http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Croft-Brown-7961-1.law ]Croft Brown[/url]
If his defence is genuine, Then he’s got the same ethics as anyone who supplies drugs, stolen gear, etc. It’s just he was peddling in genuine human misery to satisfy some sick individuals to make a few quid.
There's no money in distribution of IIOC, maybe in subsequent blackmail, too much of it is available for free
Seems odd. Plenty of regular pron available free, but it's still a massive industry.
Having read the news article and the brief from the link. 2 years?? The guy was also a Dad (poor children)
Seems he's appeared on the Facebook UK paedos exposed site, about 2 years ago.
He has 2 adult daughters - one lived at home at the time of his conviction and moved on shortly after his release. His other daughter and son-in-law used to visit regularly but seem to have stopped since she had a baby.
I have no sympathy for this type of predator. They are wired up wrong and have no place in normal civilisation. I know someone in their 60's who is still mentally scarred from being abused as a child by someone in a position of authority.
nealglover - Member
Seems odd. Plenty of regular pron available free, but it's still a massive industry.
I investigated IIOC full time for work for a couple of years, plenty of forums dedicated to sharing and p2p options as well all free. These deviants are happy to / get a kick from sharing stuff. Money is in other streams which I should imagine no one really wants to know about. tbh the work has made me quite unwell so I have to stop here.
I have no sympathy for this type of predator. They are wired up wrong and have no place in normal civilisation. I know someone in their 60's who is still mentally scarred from being abused as a child by someone in a position of authority.
+1
I normally stay away from this sort of thread but...
As a father of 3, and a grandfather of 2, I would want someone to let me know that someone like this was living nearby and initiating contact with kids. The justice system has deemed that he has served his debt to society and is fit to be back living with his family (what sort of woman is his wife to take him back in?), unfortunately the justice system is often at odds with what society thinks or feels.
The difference between humans and animals is to know right from wrong, and the ability to act upon that knowledge accordingly. This 'thing' decided that he would either enjoy, or make profit from, the abuse and terror of defenceless children and as such I have no regard for him at all. If he suffers every minute of every day of the rest of his miserable life that wouldn't come anywhere near the suffering of the poor kids involved. In fact if the OP punched him in the face once a week to increase that suffering then that would be ok with me!
I realise that this view is at odds with a lot of views of people on here but these crimes are so bad that I would exclude these animals (as that is what they are as they act on instinct rather than reason) from society.
tbh the work has made me quite unwell so I have to stop here.
Kilo, I know someone who had to investigate this and had to view the videos to get evidence, it affected him deeply. I couldn't do it, and the people who do are real heroes!
Real thanks to you Kilo from the people who can't do it.
In fact if the OP punched him in the face once a week to increase that suffering then that would be ok with me!
Leave it with me! 😉
Seriously, I agree 100% with those sentiments, I do have a degree of sympathy for anyone unlucky enough to be wired up this way (I firmly believe it's just the way they're born) but acting on those urges, knowing the legality, and the misery those actions cause make these people beyond contempt.
What worries me most is that we're becoming desensitised to it. It happens so regularly that people just seem to shrug their shoulders and ignore it. And in my case, people are so ambivalent of his crimes that they'd rather sweep it under the carpet than let the thought of a convicted paedophile living in their midst ruin their little rural idyll.
I'm very much of the same school of thought as Spursn above - he should never be allowed to enjoy an ordinary life. He clearly feels no shame for his crime, so society should ostracise him.
From that link,
[i]"He pleaded guilty to [b]making[/b] distributing and possessing indecent images and videos of children..."[/i]
He was making them? That shines a new light onto this tale.
councilof10 - Member
In fact if the OP punched him in the face once a week to increase that suffering then that would be ok with me!
Leave it with me!
Perhaps laws and not naming publically/labelling is protecting the rest of the world from spending time for unprovoked attacks on people. You are not the law, you are not the justice system.
I do have a degree of sympathy for anyone unlucky enough to be wired up this way (I firmly believe it's just the way they're born) but acting on those urges, knowing the legality, and the misery those actions cause make these people beyond contempt.
Exactly. As I said on a previous thread, we shouldn't condemn someone for being a paedophile, but we should in the strongest possible way condemn someone who is an [i]active [/i]paedophile.
What worries me most is that we're becoming desensitised to it. It happens so regularly that people just seem to shrug their shoulders and ignore it.
I really do not think that's the case at all. If anything people are more aware of it now, 70s and 80s seem more evident that such things were swept under the carpet by many in various authorities.
The link is asking for a log in so I can't read it.