Childrens rights v the rights of the (criminal) father. Disgusted..yes, Horrified..absolutely, surprised..Sadly, no.

[littlemisssarcastic]

Unless this article is completely fabricated?

This is just one example imo of how children are not always protected in our society, and that sometimes, the 'human rights' of abusive parents do come before the rights of the children.

Here

NormaStanleyFletcher I work with looked after children and believe me its amazing what parents can get up to with supervised access.

Often the workers are in the room but sitting in a corner reading book or chatting so they often have no clue what was said to the child the child I support their parents are having supervised contact but are allowed to take the child to the loo

Even if the child dose not want contact the contact has to go ahead how is that good for the child
Shame on uk law another example how parents rights trumps the childs

spiderpig8
The guy in the article had been convicted for posessing images of child pornography.he hasn't abused any children, let alone his own child.

Supporting the child porn industry is child abuse and a person who gets off on kids should never be around a child.

NormaStanleyFletcher

Thanks to those of you who posted links to the judgement to save me from reading the daily hate mail

The judgement I read did not give abusers the right to see their children un supervised. It merely stated that the criminal court should leave the opportunity for the family court to give carefully considered supervised access.

No one think that the law is a blanket offer to "pedos" to do what they like. But some of us think a person who has shown that they are pedophile should not be allowed internet access (bull shit is it a human right) or access to children in any way. Why should they? And several of the women here have already dealt with the courts and don't feel they trust the system to make that decision for their children