My neighbour is a convicted paedophile

It may not feel so cosy for him now.

Op I would have the local police force check his conditions. Some convicted sex offenders are supposed to be placed away from young children. I would also ask that they come and reassure the street. Everyone needs to know, even the elderly may have grandchildren visiting etc.

@thestudio Pornography implies consent.

No it doesn't.

That word simply refers to media intended to cause sexual arousal.

What research are you looking for?

The premise of this entire thread was the OP saying she'd found out a neighbour had been convicted of CSAM and she was sickened and didn't want him near her or her DC.

But her DC were never at risk of CSA from a man she just talked to in the street occasionally.

Which led to lots of posts saying OP should move to protect her DC and some saying tell everyone local and that's informing people and others saying tell everyone local so he's hounded out.

DC are extremely low to risk of CSA from strangers who do not have access to them.

DC are at risk of CSA from people who do have access to them who are usually trusted individuals by the parents or caregivers.

So anyone worrying about the paedo down the street are statistically more likely to have their DC abused by trusted individuals then the paedophile down the street.

And all the research around consuming CSAM suggests there is an increase risk of contact offending though many do not commit contact offences or consider doing so but again, the likelihood is of committing contact offences against DC they have access to

So everyone needs to be aware of the staggering rates of CSAM consumption but don't need to worry about the neighbour who their DC don't come into contact with, but worry about the people they trust

I don't understand what's so controversial or CSA apologetic about that.

They're just facts.

I haven't had time to read the full thread but, as an ex child protection social worker, I can guarantee that practically everyone on here has a paedophile living near them.

It is always up to the parent/s to protect their children and I would always act on the basis that anyone I didn't know could be one, and I acted accordingly.

Additionally, I knew from my professional experience how paedophiles befriend families with children, especially vulnerable families, and act soooo friendly and helpful, making themselves familiar and indispensable, sometimes for years, before they commit the abusive acts, so always kept a nasty suspicious mind when it came to new adult (or teen) friends.

I let my children know why too, in age appropriate ways.

There are paedophiles everywhere. I'd be more concerned about the ones I don't know about, more than the ones I do. Those people who are saying they'd move, to where? Do you know of paedophile free towns, cities etc?

The other thing is if op owns her home and choose to either sell or rent it out, she should consider selling or renting to someone without small kids, or at least disclosing to any prospective tenant/buyer with young kids.

I understand what apologist means. I have a PhD in Applied Linguistics. Nobody on this thread is an apologist for paedophiles. I have read every post. Nobody excuses or minimises the awful things this man did. Some people just have different ideas about how to react to him.

erm, I think she does yeah.

it doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means excuse or minimise.

Pornography implies consent. A child cannot consent.

Years ago I was given a list of child sex offenders in my press days (no idea who leaked the info) and was sent to follow up on some of them, ugh. There are so very many and many zoned in and living around schools, children's clubs - scouts, guides, ATC etc. One I saw come out of his house, lean against his low garden wall and just watch the children playing in their lunch break, as he lived opposite a school. It made me so aware of where to live. I will never understand why anything so revolting, wrong and nasty can be so prevalent in society.

Sorry OP. If you can, move. Yes, you won't know who is what in a new place but now you know for sure you have one as a neighbour.

He is at a low risk of having contact with op's kids as they are never in his care. There's a very low probablity he'd have the opportunity. Most offences happen when there's some time of relationship, often one of trust.

Op has to do what's best for herself. Moving is obviously expensive and causes upheaval, but if the stress is too much it may be worth it for her.

This is such a strange thing to say. Do you understand what 'an apologist' means?

Sorry, I don't think it legitimises it. 'Child pornography' is not two words that ever should be together.

Me also , although 10+ years ago . It turned be very paranoid about it , I even became extra hyper aware around men in my family / friendship network .

It's fact that DC are more at risk from the people intimately around them who are very likely not consuming CSAM and not paedophiles (there is a clinical definition) but are opportunistic contact offenders then some bloke down the road who has been convicted of possession of CSAM.

You are wilfully distorting the facts. Yes, children are more at risk from a male family member than from a stranger - bu that statistic absolutely goes out the window when you add 'who has been convicted of looking at images of CSA' to 'stranger'.

I'd also like to see your data on family CSA offenders with a history of viewing images of CSA, versus those without a history. I've never come across any such research.

Just have a read through. Plenty of “let them be”, “they need to go somewhere”, “some of them don’t touch kids, they just look at images”, “just watch your children” type stuff.

Don’t have time just now to sift through, there’s plenty there though.

Can you quote them?

Indeed, it's sickening to read.

The number of apologists on this thread is staggering. 🙄

Be aware that mob “justice”, ie. hounding people out of communities can go very badly wrong. As someone said, it can happen if somebody has a similar name to a paedophile. Mistaken identity happens all the time. Paediatricians have been attacked by people who can’t spell “paedophile”. Remember also the movement “letzgohunting”, in which people posed as teenagers in chat rooms, to act as honey traps? This caused more problems that it solved, as evidence was inadmissible, and jeopardised other cases.

Mumsnet always says “move house” to solve any problem. Doing so is opening the mystery box. As others have said, perverts are all around us, including ones nobody knows about.

I think this is very true.
Now that we have the Internet anyone can watch anything, and they do.
I think men who do this are similar to people who watch extremely violent films, most will not go on to commit violence themselves. They see a distinction between looking at something online, and doing it in reality. However. there are a few who might, so safest to steer clear.
As for this individual, he has done wrong and his life has been destroyed, keep away from him but let him be.

Not if the parent doesn't allow them around the DC.

OPs DC are 2 and 4. She's just been friendly in the street to the neighbour up to now, no suggestion she was inviting him in to spend time with her DC.

At that point he wouldn’t be the stranger neighbour up the road, he'd be someone OP was inviting into her DCs lives.

Which is why I and other people who aren't hysterical on this thread are saying you don't need to worry about the possible paedo up the street who your kids never come into contact with, you need to worry about the people you are trusting with your DC.

Stranger CSA is vanishingly rare in the same way that 85% of women over the age of 16 are rapes by someone they know and usually trust, more than 50% being a partner or ex-partner.

So a convicted rapist in your street is much less likely to rape you then someone you know and trust.

That's not minimising sexual assault or CSA it's factual and people pointing out that women need to be aware of it instead of getting in an outrage about local convictions are in fact, trying to educate people to the real risks posed by people they know and not the paedo down the road.