[Closed] What should I do about my neighbour?

possession isn't an offence

Latest incarnation is Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and its up to three years for each offence

Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Thanks for the correction:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/62

I thought it was the Child Protection Act but a search for "takes or permits to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudophotograph of a child;" points to other legislation as well.

You'd think they'd keep all the legislation in the same place.

aye its in a daft place but i am not certain it has ever been legal to have child pornography pics - possibly the old law was possession of indecent images ?
IANAL

Walking around Tescos I see dozens of women I'd like to shag,

More info needed, which store?

For indecent images we usually charge under Protection of children act 1978, theoretically it's ten years max, it's unusual for people to be found nowadays with iioc who have not had to create it themselves so straight possession doesn't happen much. If thepolicechad had found first generation images a victim Id process would have been undertaken, any images found would have been put through a system to identify new images I.e CAID and there are protocols to deal with what might be new images

aye its in a daft place but i am not certain it has ever been legal to have child pornography pics - possibly the old law was possession of indecent images ?
IANAL

It's weird because I looked into all this after a high profile case a while back - I thought subsequent to 2009.

At that time I found that possession had historically been legal (which makes sense, it's quite legal to have a photo of a child being killed) but that with the child protection act and with the advent of the internet there was a test case in which a judge decided 'make' included download which effectively make possession of electronic media images illegal because in the eyes of the law by downloading them you've made them.

Given all that it's quite a surprise to me to find that there's a specific 'possession' offence which seems to make the Child Protection Act a bit redundant on this specific issue along with all the legal clarification of it. None the less, it's there!

Send the kids to a fairground. They should be safe from wrong-uns with cameras, there. 😯

It recently came to light that a guy about 3 doors along from us in Edinburgh - who had moved into the area - had moved in after an old conviction, and was then re-arrested, after we'd moved on, for much the same offences, possession of images, child abuse as a care worker. I never had taken to him, and would not have been happy had he had any contact with our children, but I wasn't aware off any suspicions when he was in the street.

When it was about 13 I got a lift off my cousin's mate a few times he was about 23 (thought it was a bit weird but made it easier to get places...) Nothing happened to me.
I'm
But a few years later i found out he was in jail for indecent images (apparently very very bad ones) of children being found on his computer, wasn't a very nice thought knowing I willingly got into an actual paedos van 😯

Just had a bit more time to type about the legal aspect, IANAL, the coroners court act, linked above, doesn't apply to photos or pseudo photos but images, we have used this recently for a person with indecent cartoons of children. S65 of it details definitions which details this.

which makes sense, it's quite legal to have a photo of a child being killed

Not at all sure about that, images depicting sadism, which could include a child being killed, to a child would be regarded as Cat A indecent images of a child, which would put you at the higher end of a charge, under Protection of children act. Ultimately the question of if an image of a certain child being killed is indecent would be up to a jury using an objective test. I think a lot would depend on the mechanism of the child "being killed".

My 3 children are the only kids who live in our street and, as far as I am able to ascertain from talking to them, they have never had any contact with him either.

On the one hand I'd be glad that the peado hasn't went near them.

On the other hand, I'd be worried now that I had ugly kids.

perchypanther - Member 

If he was personally producing his own images....that would be more worrying,

Which is one of the two charges he's facing.....

Producing his own or downloading, the offence is considered the same. Both considered 'making'. Can even be a count for every photo. Ends up someone downloading stuff gets a bigger sentence than those fiddling with kids.

All nasty whatever, but let's not forget, innocent until proven guilty. Even if the press have forgotten it and this guy's life is basically over whatever happens. Even if innocent he'll get attacked and bricks through his window. If not, he's off to jail and the shit will be kicked out of him.

Can even be a count for every photo.

The charge would be that you made x amount of images rather than a seperate charge for each image and yes each image is counted seperately as they are seperate images even if they are duplicates.

Ends up someone downloading stuff gets a bigger sentence than those fiddling with kids

with the advent of the internet there was a test case in which a judge decided 'make' included download which effectively make possession of electronic media images illegal because in the eyes of the law by downloading them you've made them.

By downloading an image, you have made a copy of it. There's no "in the eyes of the law" - it is reality. Those who actually abuse the children and take the original photo would generally get a far harsher sentence than those downloading them.

Playing devil's advocate, you don't know that he's eyeing up your kids if as someone else has suggested he's got a supply of ready-made and widely circulated unpleasantness to look at.

Sure, the marginal impact of one person is small but you have to look at these things collectively. I mean, what if we all drove remapped diesels?

Must be pretty grim to be afflicted with such a perversion.

To make it worse, society alienates those who want help because if you are "outed" then the lynch mobs gather, meaning that help isn't sought to manage these feelings. Criminals need punished, people who can't help their feelings need help (with plenty falling into both camps).

I sympathise entirely, perchy. You know who I am, so put this in context:

When I was working in Northern Canada, a man was released from prison into my community for having done exactly what you describe in your OP.

For the sake of everyone under my care, I called the police and asked for advice. They essentially told me to relax, and that they were on the case. I ultimately called a meeting of everyone who might be affected in my community to discuss the issue, but it turns out we needn't ever have worried.

He was re-arrested and taken away with about two weeks of having returned home. Poor, sick man.

When you know it is wrong, but can't stifle your feelings must be hell. Perhaps a lot like being homosexual before it was tolerated

Sure. There's a world of difference between being a paedophile and being an active paedophile. The former you can't help, the latter you absolutely can.

As the father of kids, I'd be more worried about the paedophiles i don't know about than the ones I do.

Sounds like a useful teachable moment for your kids about what to watch out.

Walking around Tescos I see dozens of women I'd like to shag, so far I haven't felt compelled to rape anyone. Plus the law on indecent images is pretty crazy. It's perfectly legal to marry and have sex with a 17yo girl but if you take naked photos of her it's a criminal act and you go on the sex offenders register - even if you're 17 yourself - even if the photo you took is *of* yourself! Also possession isn't an offence so if the image is on paper instead of electronic and there's no evidence you (made) downloaded the image it's not even an illegal image.

Also it's entirely possible this guy had a perfectly 'normal' porn stash with every single girl over 18 [u]but one of the girls looked under 18[/u]. Guessing the age of women with makeup is pretty tricky. (I've always wondered if that's why why so many Islamists seem to get done for child porn offences - [u]if every porn image you've ever downloaded is investigated[/u] there's probably a few that look like they might be 17yo.)

However, let's assume his images weren't of his 17yo wife, or 'normal' porn he'd downloaded from p*rnhub and he really is a peado. Does the knowledge that there's a peado nearby really change anything? I supervise my children appropriately with regard to all the risks they face - I'm not sure I'd do anything differently if I knew one of my neighbours was a peado. Singling one neighbour out for a warning seems needless, they shouldn't be going anywhere alone with anyone without me knowing.

So yeah, if I was in the situation (and like the OP I wouldn't like it very much) I'd pretty much carry on as normal.

I remember a lot of commentary when laws where brought in. The bit I remember is that these laws are meant to be discretionary... effectively making everyone guilty and the CPS and police then choose who to prosecute.

A photo of a baby in a bath is illegal... etc. etc. I know my mum is a potential criminal as she has a nearly 50 year old photo of me and my brother in the bath...

If I remember correctly the photo doesn't need to be of a minor, an adult pretending to be a minor is also illegal... (given the old page 3's its amazing some nationals are so vocal)

Unless you have a huge amount of filtering software and empty your browser caches then [u]anyone[/u]can have illegal photo's ... it just pops up (annoyingly you dismiss it and another window pops up) or you do some random google search (nothing to do with porn) that unfiltered brings up illegal photo's ... and the images are in your browser cache. You don't need to select download... if you can see it on the screen it's downloaded... even if you don't want to see it..

A child can get legally married ... but it could be theoretically illegal for a parent to give them a condom for their honeymoon. (As that is encouraging them to have sex) ... and it would be illegal to have a garter belt photo of the bride (as that is sexualising minors)

The point this bloke is being investigated means nothing unless he is actually prosecuted for something ...... meanwhile....

Your kids are far far more likely to have an accident in the home.... or in a car etc. You need to put perspective on these things...

My brother just flew back to Manchester (where he lives) where my mother was stressing out... despite the recent horrific incidents his chance of coming to harm in Manchester is minuscule ... he drives 40k a year (work) so he is far more likely to come to harm driving than being "blown up" in Manchester.

To make it worse, society alienates those who want help because if you are "outed" then the lynch mobs gather, meaning that help isn't sought to manage these feelings. Criminals need punished, people who can't help their feelings need help (with plenty falling into both camps).

Did anyone see "The missing" .... on BBC ???

Like most people I'd imagine I had it in for the paedo's .... the final episode really made me think !

Walking around Tescos I see dozens of women I'd like to shag,
More info needed, which store?

Standards, please!

Waitrose for a better class of lecherous perving.

I got into psychotherapy with a view to trying to help paedophiles. When I was questioned about it by fellow students and friends the general view was why help those sick bastards.

I dropped out of the whole thing in the end after realising I was too much of a **** up to help others. Later I was told by the tutor that's just the kind of self honesty they look for in counsellers... 🙂

Can you feel the damage my can't-believe-you-said-that-rays are doing to you right now?

Made me chortle...

hoof him in the slats
wee on his shoes
wee through his letterbox
poo on his doorstep

then if he's found guilty then get the pitchfork and bombers out and then join the mob in lynching him up before you burn down his house!!
if he's not found guilty...burn his house down anyway

outofbreath - Member

just having an unfortunate desire is just an accident of biology.

In fact it's usually the result of having been abused themselves.

Walking around Tescos I see dozens of women I'd like to shag,

Lidl for me; the Reader's Wives of supermarkets

Should the woman next door be worried about you perving over her or assaulting her because you like looking at naked ladies in the privacy of your lair/ computer room?

it's a big leap from having desires even socially unnatural ones and acting on them.

There's a heterosexual man down our street. He has indecent pictures of women. I'm worried that he may have surrepticiously taken pictures of my wife (she's a woman).

There's a heterosexual man down our street. He has indecent pictures of women. I'm worried that he may have surrepticiously taken pictures of my wife (she's a woman).

Is he in court tomorrow being prosecuted for taking illegal and illicit photographs of women without their consent?

If he is, then maybe you should be worried

was in court last week accused of "possessing indecent pictures of children" and "taking or permitting to be taken photos of children"

The former is absolutely meaningless because the vast majority of the population will unknowingly possess images that can be classed as "possessing indecent pictures of children"

Just do an google image search for "Blue Lagoon movie" and you are now in possession of illegal images of children.

"taking or permitting to be taken photos of children" ?
This isn't an offence unless the photo's are of a sexual nature.

My 3 children are the only kids who live in our street and, as far as I am able to ascertain from talking to them, they have never had any contact with him either. Obviously, we have spoken to them about it and warned them from having any contact with him in the future.

I genuinely don't know what to feel or do about this.

How do I know he hasn't been taking pictures of my 13 year old daughter through her bedroom window?

You don't know for certain but what changed from a year ago ???
If there was any evidence of this you would have been informed. Its [b]possible[/b] he is a computer expert that can fool the police forensics teams ... but it seems extremely unlikely...

You've spoken to the kids...

If he was "in court" only 4 basic things can have happened ..
He has been found innocent of any wrong doing
He has been found guilty
..the court case is ongoing or
the court case was dismissed before it even started

If he was found guilty he in unlikely at 70 to see the outside of a prison again
If its still ongoing perhaps you may have to wait a week?

[b]If he was found innocent then I think you need to put this to the back of your mind and consider you could easily be in court for possession of indecent images of children.
[/b]
You'd hope that if you have some photo's of your kids on holiday or in the bath when they were 1-2 that its not going to go that far... and if it does that you are then going to be found innocent ...

Court case is still ongoing. He is back in court today.

perchy ... wait and see ...

If there is any evidence the immediate problem will solve itself...

It's extremely unlikely it will in any way involve your kids but meanwhile you will probably imagine 101 ways it might.

Update:

Neighbour, who turns out to be a retired teacher, pleads guilty to downloading 10000 images of which 3000 are Category A.

Will be sentenced in July.

Thankfully i doubt the ****er will be your neighbour for long then and hopefully will end up in prison.

He'll probably get a suspended sentence, enrolled onto a rehabilitation program and on registered sex offenders list

He'll probably get a suspended sentence, enrolled onto a rehabilitation program and on registered sex offenders list

10,000 images and a retired teacher? I wouldn't be at all surprised if more serious charges aren't brought quite soon.

I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are and I'm not going to google but that number of Cat A sounds large. His age is going to mitigate against a custodial sentence, though, as is an early guilty plea.

I hope the fear he must now be living in is sufficient punishment but given what he likely had images of I'm not sure anything could be.

10 thousand!

There's a heterosexual man down our street. He has indecent pictures of women. I'm worried that he may have surrepticiously taken pictures of my wife (she's a woman).

BigButSlimmerBloke - I think the opportunity for 'it could be you' type humour has passed on this thread... [i] turns out to be a retired teacher, pleads guilty to downloading 10000 images of which 3000 are Category A.[/i]

I think the opportunity for 'it could be you' type humour has passed on this thread...

In his defence, I am no position to have a go at anyone about the deployment of innappropriate humour on threads of a more serious nature....

Yeah turns out Perchy's fears weren't unfounded. Nasty business.

Starting point for possession is 1 year, range is 26 weeks to 3 years. There is no non-custodial option for Cat A images.

The 1 year is before mitigation (early plea) and aggravation (volume of images) and other factors.

Ref: http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/item/sexual-offences-definitive-guideline/

Assume the guidelines are broadly the same for Scotland?

A couple of technical questions:

What is "Category A"? Last I recall from news reports of similar seemed to be a number based one - 1 being least serious and 5 or similar being the nastiest. I might have misremberised some or all of that though, am I talking rubbish?

re. "no non-custodial option" - where would a suspended prison sentence fit in with that - does that count as "custodial"? I would guess it does since it is a custodial sentence, just one that isn't being implemented immediately, but IANAL..

I've not read the whole thread, but I was in a very similar position a few years back. I'd just exchanged contracts on a new house when I saw in the paper that the next door neighbour (a very charming 70-year old man who I'd met when viewing the property) had been charged with similar things.

He stood trial and got 2 years in prison. He was out after a year and moved back in - his wife stood by him and they still live next door.

When I first found out, my gut instinct was to pull out of the purchase, even though it was too late. My 2 brothers had small children (I didn't) so I spoke to them about their concerns. My elder brother said "better to have a known paedo next door than an unknown paedo".

When he first got out, I vented my anger at him, told him what I thought and neither made myself feel any better or portrayed myself in a particularly good light.

For the past 3 years, he's very much kept himself to himself, we don't speak and I never hear a sound out of them. Pretty much the best neighbours I've ever had in some respects!

He gets regular visits from various probation workers and will be on the Sex Offenders Register for the rest of his life.

He recently had a leg amputated, so I'm hoping he's at the right end of a slippery slope that means he won't be around much longer.

What offends me most is that in his defense, he claimed not to have any personal interest in the images (many of which were the worst classification and new born babies) but that he was selling them to others to make money.

Personally, while I find him and his crimes abhorrent, I'm slightly reassured that it was only online offenses that he committed - there was never any suggestion that he directly assaulted any children himself.

I guess what he suffers from is a compulsion - if they outlawed pictures of busty brunettes of child-bearing age performing naked yoga, I'm not sure I'd be able to resist searching if you sat me down in front of a computer with a broadband connection! The internet simply puts another layer of temptation in front of these people, and whilst he probably spent a lifetime resisting the urge to harm children himself, it presented a conduit for his cravings that allowed him to distance himself from what he perceived to be the actual crime.

So take reassurance from the fact that he's been convicted. Take reassurance from the fact that he's not assaulted anyone, especially your family. And if he ever comes back home, be confident that his every move is being monitored - you wouldn't be able to say that if you had an unknown paedo next door.

Best of luck...

I hope the fear he must now be living in is sufficient punishment

It really isn't.