My neighbour is a convicted paedophile

Have you RTFT?.

OP isn't worried about this man posing a risk to her DC because he's never with her DC.

She's posting about how sickened she is that she used to talk to him and she doesn't want him near her or her DC

Because of the nature of his crimes, not because she thinks he's a risk to her DC other than looking at them.

So he's no risk to them. Other than possibly having thoughts. And there's no way to protect anyone from anyone else having thoughts about them.

100%

But it's jarring so people don't want to hear it.

Driving people underground makes them more dangerous and not necessarily of CSA but of mental illness, drug and alcohol use and non-CSA crimes.

Plus the burden that places on society and the tax-payer. I know of a case where the man was convicted of contact CSA (his DC) , served a prison sentence and came out. Heavily monitored, working and no evidence of repeat offending.

Lived on a rough estate privately renting and some locals found out and kicked the everloving shit out of him which I'm sure a lot of people on MN and elsewhere would think was justified but the consequences of that are that he's been claiming PIP for years for PTSD, alcoholic, not working with no likelihood that he ever will and now in social housing and seeing MH services regularly for years.

He costs the tax payer thousands a year.

And it doesn't stop him from having GFs who are all informed of his past either.

That's the reality.

If you would move in this scenario, would you sell to a family with children?

Considering you know quite a bit about this I find your stance (is that a better word for you?) even more concerning. Do you really think any parent will take some statistic and think 'well this guy is more likely to keep away from my child than not, so maybe I don't need to be as vigilant'? Frankly, I think you should join a hypothetical discussion on this and not a thread where a mother is trying to work out how to protect her children from a KNOWN SO a few doors down.

How you bring people closer to the children into this as a potential risk who we know even less about than this neighbour is beyond me. So assuming that someone close to them who we never ever heard about might be a greater risk is ok, but let's not overestimate the crimes a known SO might be capable of because he's only been convinceted of 'images'.

Shall we know all say 'OP, don't worry about the neighbour. Take a closer look at Grandpa instead just in case'?

Do you think your statistic will matter to anyone who's been affected by this?

My brother is one.

I always let the neighbours now and then he moves on again.

Pity he won't just keel over an die.

You are NOT being unreasonable but if you move, you’ll be moving close to another one. They are everywhere. It’s my job to know, trust me on this (or not- it’s the internet after all). The upside: knowledge is power. Now you know this about your neighbour you can completely cut him off, keep an even closer eye on your children when they are playing in your garden/the area and know never to trust this guy or even speak to him again.

What??!!

Oh so before photography, there were no child sexual offenders.... who knew!

Some people view images, get caught, prosecuted and never look at them again, others do as you say.

At least the OP is aware, most people have no idea.

I agree with this. The pathetic light sentences for this crime disgust me.

I do think we need to stop using the word pedo to cover very different kinds of offending. The classic pedo has a lifelong sexual compulsion towards pre-adolescent children, which may include efforts to make durect sexual contact with kids.

Then there is a much, much wider pool of men who view child abuse images but do not seek direct contact. Before you all react to that, I am not excusing it or saying it is a lesser offence, but the profile is quite different.

My relative, for example, only developed an interest in images of children well into adulthood, and as one of a series of categories of transgressive porn that he was into. He was insistent that he was not a pedo and that his was a 'victimless crime'. Well, he's a fucking idiot as well as a pervert, and I'm glad he was sent down (despite having previously being very fond of the guy). But its probably true that he wouldn't have sought out children for direct abuse (preferring for some other creep to do the dirty work).

The unpalatable truth is that pedos are part of a much wider problem of predatory men. Men who are opportunistic and not solely fixated on children, but will happily sexually exploit women and children when given the opportunity. Men who view nasty images online. Men who abuse girls within their family. 'Family men' who harrass schoolgirls from the safety of their cars.

Just as we now know that VAWG is interconnected, that say flashing has roots in the same swamp as rape and domestic violence, we need to understand that transgressive porn and paedophilia are also part of this swamp. The number of men involved is breathtaking and depressing, and thinking that just driving out tge neighbourhood nonce to the next village will keep your kids safe is just fantasy.

Which is blackmail/threatening behaviour, and if it turns out that he is living there legitimately as a known/monitored sex offender, or worse, this is a case of mistaken identity, it will land you in trouble yourself.

Jesus Christ, those stats can’t be true?

If they are, I am ready to get off the world now please.

It's not my assessment, it's the assessment of the criminal justice system informed by social services, forsensic psychiatry and forensic psychological research.

So that's the best we have and the tools we use.

Like you said, 'some' commit contact offences which is why the offenders are monitored but not all do.

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.

ALL child predators cam be someone's son or Dad, Uncle, nephew, friend, work colleague, Religious professional, Dr, teachers, sports coach etc

What happens often is when people are fretting about a CSAM consuming neighbour who never has contact with their kids, they're ignoring the predators active in their lives.

Threads like this make that point clear "oh you should move, tell everyone and he won't hang around etc'.

The least likely person to abuse your kids os the CSAM convicted person down the road who never has contact with them.

It's the people they are spending time with, their parents, Grandparents, extended family etc and teachers, Dr's.

You just have to be aware.

I would deffo check with police... Assume you could so a Claire's Law request?

If you've had friendly contact with him...

Sometimes newspapers reporting is incorrect in terms of names...

I mean eg you could have a Robert Stevens and a Steven Roberts.... Very similar names and easily confused!

The sandwiches are too generous in my opinion 😂

I would just keep my kids safe....

But like hell would i collude with keeping his vile secret... I'd ensure any local pals with kids knew.... Not for vigilantiism...

I take it he’s not your children’s babysitter? No?

just ignore him. It really is as simple as that. You keep up your (I assume) usual high standard of vigilance with your children and you blank him.

anything else is pure drama

But....??

So they become another community's problem...

Whixh is rubbish...

There are AlWAYS sex offenders EVERYWHERE! Our job is to keep us safe and away from harm... Not make an offenders life a misery....

This will make then MORE likely to offend

There are at least 3 Schedule 1 offenders within a mile or so of my house. I only know about them because they were clients of a project I used to work on. I live in a very close-knit town where gossip spreads like wildfire, and I'm sure if it was common knowledge locally, I'd have heard about it.

I bet there are loads more that I don't know about, too, and it's a pretty small town.

I used to work in a Probation Office. I was shocked by how many paedophiles and sexual offenders were within just a couple of streets of my house and my children's school. When they came in to the office they appeared to be the most charming and normal people you could meet, including a few women. My advice would be to calmly let him know you are aware and tell him to never approach your family or your home again. It's best he is made aware as you don't want him trying to seek help or go near your home if others approach him. Then ignore him and keep a close eye on your kids. As others have said, at least you know that he a threat and not to interact with him.

Thing is they may move and in that case he just becomes a problem for another community. I have enormous sympathy for the OP and all the other people who live near him but I am assuming that the police must know his whereabouts. One of the issues with vigilante action is that it drives peadophiles underground and away from the agencies who should be monitoring them. He will be on the sex offenders' register and may well have other condtions attached to him and if he vanishes this will be harder to enforce. It is a horrible situation but as others have said they ae everywhere and at least the OP knows to keep her children well away from this man

Yes. You were suggesting a direct threat with consequences. In many situations that could be a criminal offence under UK law.
As vile as his offences are, driving somebody away, possibly to no or unstable accommodation and away from any support or supervision is
not the answer. It will increase his risk of reoffending and thus increase the risk to children. Especially if he can start again somewhere else, where his history is not known.
As has been demonstrated many times, it also encourages the flaming pitchfork brigade. With fall out such as we’ve all seen.
These crimes rightly and understandably give rise to revulsion. But the response needs to be considered and intelligent.

For the people who say “I would move.” No you wouldn’t.

That’s just such a snap response, but the reality is that moving to where there isn’t a known paedophile would involve having to do media searches for every Rightmove search you do.

Looking up convictions in the area, press reports for upcoming court cases etc etc. Assuming you have an actual job it’s logistically impossible.

I would actually do nothing.

I wouldn’t tell him I know. I wouldn’t stand and chitchat to him any more, but neither would I be spreading news around the neighbourhood or whipping up a frenzy, and neither would I be telling him that I know who he is and what he’s done.

I would behave normally.

These people almost certainly get a kick out of knowing that there are people who know what they’ve done, I wouldn’t let on in any way shape or form.

And if you need to go to extra lengths to protect your children then you need to ask yourself why.

Because you should be looking out for your children regardless, the measures you put in place shouldn’t be different just because you know he’s a paedophile.

The government should buy a remote island and put all the paedophiles on it. Drop some food (out of date supermarket sandwiches etc) on it every so often for a few months and then just let them fend for themselves, Lord of the Flies style. It's the only viable solution.

I think this is an appropriate thing to say to just put an end to your connection with him. Ultimately though, pps are right that there are men with abuse histories, convicted and not, living all around us, and while it’s a shock to have it confirmed, most of us probably have one living in our immediate vicinity if not within our personal network, sadly.