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.
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.
