I shouldn't sodding listen to sodding radio 4 should I?

[Unrulysun]

Helen Reece from the LSE just explained very patiently why we shouldn't group sex offenders together when deciding who can adopt and foster children. She feels it's wrong.

She used the example of a man who had sex with a 15 yo when he was 29. apparently the poor love should be able to have access to children.

She also talked about how cohabitting couples pose a risk to children (in order to say that they shouldn't be lumped together as a group) and now my head is about to explode.

It's a complicated subject. I was with a 26 year old when I was 15. He in no way took advantage of me.

that whole discussion was just too strange for words

I just tried to blank it out tbh

I agree with Constance. It is an area where it definitely doesn't do to label everyone the same.

Phew, someone agrees with me! I was donning my flameproofs :o

YANBU I listened to this interview during the week and thought WTF!

She actually said that because cohabitting couples split up more than married couples, they are a risk, so if they are allowed to adopt then so should sex offenders!

I just dont understand how she can link the two.

I dont know why womens hour gave this stupid woman air time.

I think we still might need to but at least we have one another!

:o

But she wasn't saying that cohabiting couples pose a risk to children. She was saying that previously it had been believed that cohabiting couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt/foster because they are statistically more likely to split up, which may be harmful for the children, but now it was realised that you had to assess individual couples for their own personal circumstances, and not just lump them into the category to which they belong. She was arguing that this reasoning should apply to all individuals - they should be assessed rather than labelled.

Talking about the case of cohabiting couples was purely illustrative of the principle, rather than a direct comparison about the well-being of children.

I dunno. did the man know the girl was 15? Or did he think she was older? - still weird even if he thought that she was 17, or 18 imo - although I know plenty of people who think differently, I just personally don't know what a person of nearly 30 could have in common with a teenager! However, it's not the same thing as a man who has an attraction to young children. And a man knowingly having sex with a 15yr old is not the same as a man having sex with a girl he 100% believed to be older.

I don't think you can group all people together who are technically sex offenders - the 18yr old sleeping with his 15yr old girlfriend etc does not make him a danger to children.

So I can actually see a small point in there.

Sorry iismum but I really did hear it that she was saying cohabiting couples posed more of a risk to children because they split up more than married couples. She then said thatif they were allowed to be considered then so shpould sex offenders.

She only gave the one example of the older man who on appeal had been allowed to keep his foster children. Therefore the system works anyway. He was a sex offender who said he made a mistake 30 years ago, and so was allowed to foster.

What other types of sex offenders is she expecting to be allowed for god sake?

I think she just means that you shouldn't have a blanket ban on fostering for anyone falling under the legal term 'sex offender'. That includes people who drunkenly pissed in a bush outside the pub, fgs.

Yes definitely blah blah consensual relationship blah blah grouping people together. But honestly? Sex offenders? Convicted sex offenders? It's pretty much a no-brainer isn't it?

Well. I went to school with a girl who had a baby at 15 by her, I think he was 18 or 19 at the time, year old boyfriend and her parents had the police to him.

So he is a convicted sex offender.

No brainer?

All I'm saying is it's not black and white. sex offender can mean many things. Not all of them dangerous or actually a sex offender. iyswim.

Why would someone who pissed in a bush when drunk be convicted of sex offences?

I heard it too and I must admit I was a bit at first.

I think what she was saying (although admittedly not very eloquently) was that you shouldn't group together all sex offenders and ban them from fostering etc. and more than you should group together all unmarried couples in the same way. She reckoned it should be looked at on a case by case basis.

Not sure I agree though.

ISNT - something to do with exposing your genitals in public, I think.

I just thought really hasn't she got anything better to do? Could she not fill her time with something a little more worthwhile than trying to get some sex offenders to adopt?

Wouldn't want to be in a room when someone asked her what she did for a living!

oh yes, indecent exposure. same as whipping open your flashing mac.

i thought she was there to explain a legal ruling, that treating individuals as group-embers and making blanket decisions for entire groups was wrong.

A history teacher at mums school eloped with a 15 yo. they got married, had kids, and were still together ten years later - unusual perhaps - but technically that guy was a sex offender - was he unfit to have around kids?

personally i think its a highly theoretical debate, as jsut how good would you have to be in other respects to make up for a sex-offending criminal record in the eyes of those judging potential placements?

If there are people on the sex offenders register for pissing outside a pub I would suggest that that's the law that needs changing!

Yes - we should get round to rights for sex offenders maybe one day but it must be at the bottom of a very long list.

I think it's a bit 'other people's children' as well tbh: as if kids in the care system weren't vulnerable enough :(

She's not trying to get sex offenders to adopt! She's an academic looking into the basis on which our society makes decisions like this, and what this implies for different groups of people. It's ridiculous to suggest she should be ashamed of this!

To be honest, I find it a bit tiresome how difficult it is to have intellectual debates about things like this without people becoming completely over-emotional - though to be honest, she didn't make her case clearly enough.

Lismum I understand your point but I also think there's a danger in having academic 'who's got the best argument' debates when we're dealing with vulnerable people and if there are people more vulnerable than looked after children I don't know who they are.