to be mind-numbingly angry my "friends" failed to tell me their lodger was convicted sex offender

[3littlewomen]

Namechanged as wish not to be identified.... will give full story so as not to dripfeed (have slightly changed some facts also)

I have 2 what I thought were good, longterm friends. They regularly rent out a cottage adjacent to their home to friends of theirs for months at a time. A number of months ago I visited them briefly with my DDs and got a horrific sense the current lodger took too much interest in my girls.... it was like shiver going down my spine. I have never had this sense before, chose not to mention it at the time (did mention it subsequently to a different friend in passing) but made a mental note not to let this man near my kids (he was offering to become more involved in their lives, become friends, help out etc).

It became apparent last week during a night out from another friend (who had being informed by someone who recognised this man from the media) that this guy was a convicted sex offender, who had being placed on the sex offenders register for child related offences (though the registration had since expired).

AIBU to feel the most angry i have ever felt in my life that these 2 friends failed to inform me of this mans background - I believe placing my DDs in potential danger? They were aware of his conviction but believed (based solely on his story) that he was incorrectly convicted and was no harm to children.

I feel like these people have played russian roulette with my DDs innocence - how would you feel.

chances are you would get a longer sentence for burglary as well, I have never gotten over the leniency in this case

sorry for the mail link

here

Sorry Wilson - dumb here, as not sure what that means

Edam - yes in a typical risk assessment situation, that sums it up well!! I have no fear my children were abused. I do however have very strong concerns regarding his intention to abuse. According to another friend most of these groomers take 18 months to establish a relationship with the mother.... this is not an instant thing usually

Graham - many child sex offenders know that the offences they commit are 'wrong' but justify their actions in a number of ways. Many feel they are born with a sexual preference towards children and this is therefore linked to why the reoffending rate regarding crimes such as these is high. It isn't necessarily about changing someone's preference as many sex offenders would argue that this would be like trying to change a heterosexual to homosexual for example. What is key is installing internal and external inhibitors through rehabilitation. Many sex offenders will continue to think about reoffending but won't carry out a further offence if the right inhibitors are in place. As I said earlier, access and opportunity are vital here as if these are increased, then so is the likelihood of reoffending.

Thank you Molly - so when i stated to the "friends" that not only were they doing a grave dis-service to my kids, they were also not doing the best by the offender by allowing temptation to cross his path - I was not talking total nonsense!

You're right, it is the system that is wrong. But people taking the issue into their own hands, and essentially handing out their own punishments (by spreading gossip etc) is making things worse. Something does need to change the way we treat sex offenders.

I'd be livid in your situation.

I was in a similar one once when a "friend" tried to set me up with her half brother. Nothing came of it because I was happily single at the time but she pushed a fair few times for us to meet.

A few months later I found out he was a convicted sex offender when her husband told me they were rowing over him banning the guy from the house because he was worried for his daughters safety.

I was a single parent with a 7 year old daughter FFS.

I just don't understand why some people refuse to see the risk. And why they believe they have the right to judge the risk towards someone else's child.

gossip vs facts.... define the difference!

I do not think this man may have a suspect past. I know he is convicted sex offender.

I operate with respect for people, hence I said nothing, except to another close friend in confidence when I had the horrible feeling based on this mans behaviour

Thank you Charlie - at least i am know i am not being an over-protective psycho woman :)

Indeed 3lw, which i why I was immediately concerned that he seemed so interested in becoming friends etc. He knows that this isn't a good idea and in the worst case, he could have been doing this deliberately to create further opportunities to offend. However, there are many other factors involved and I am in no way saying that this is definitely what was happening, but it is a possibility.

Thank you Molly. I have heard of the theory of these guys justifying their behaviour - eg "She was willing/he wanted it to happen" etc and I can see exactly what you mean about reducing access and opportunity, which seems to me to be what 3littlewomen is speaking of.

YANBU. I would feel very very angry too; i know how paedophiles can destroy lives - if i had children i would therefore be beyond careful.. & i'd expect my friends to be careful too, for my children's sake.
Your friends were so extremely naive & stupid - paedophiles are manipulative as Panty said, but the fact is that it's difficult for a paedophile to be convicted without very clear evidence.

Thank God that you had a sixth sense on this one.

EasilyBored - the offences of paedophiles are unforgiveable - sex offences, including child sex offences, affect the victim & his/her entire family for years.

When the victim becomes an adult & has children - there are repercussions for those children also.

Victims of child sex abusers have huge trust issues & distorted views on sex & men - those issues then get passed down to their own children.

Paedophiles know they are paedophiles from an early age; & psychotherapy treatments, maybe even drug treatments, exist to help them - so they CAN choose not to act on their sexual urges EVER.
They do not HAVE TO seek out children to abuse, or view or download child pornography. Child porn only exists because these people choose to view it - & countless thousands of innocent children are hurt when they are forced to take part in child porn.
Paedophiles know that to give into their urges to groom & sexually abuse children or to facilitate their abuse by viewing child porn is morally wrong & evil.
So a convicted offender of this type IS EVIL. In my view they should NEVER be taken of the sex offenders' register. If they have committed those crimes then there's a high chance of reoffending until they are elderly.

3littlewomen - only you can decide whether you can forgive your friends or not. But yes, someone should do them a favour & tell them they need to wake up to the harsh reality of life.

I think you need to tell someone in authority about the way your 'friends' have behaved. What's to stop them doing the same all over again? Someone mentioned a local authority role to do with public protection, IIRC - I think it would be worth tracking down the right person and reporting this, so they can pass information on to wherever the lodger has moved on to, and perhaps visit your 'friends' and explain why it is not a good idea to facilitate access to children.

they should have informed you so that you could have decided what to do.

It would be a friendship breaker for me. What if you had allowed him into your lives and they still failed to tell you about his history. They have directly put your kids at risk by not informing you. They put the needs of a sex offender above that of your kids. Thank goodness you didn't leave your kids with your friends at any point - especially with them trusting this man blindly

Yes and such men can really sweet talk and make people believe in them.

YANBU.

I'd also be very angry and upset at my friends in the circumstances you describe.

They should have made you aware of his conviction, regardless of whether or not they believed his tales of wrongful conviction. It's most definitely not their place to decide whether a convicted sex offender should be introduced to your DDs.

I would have a very hard time trusting those friends again given their lack of regard for your DDs safety.

There has been loads of these type of threads lately. I wounder how many CSO there are that people dont know about or paedos that havent been caght yet?

I would be angry that so called friends didnt say anything as well. I can understand how you feel and why OP.

I have read information saying what Graham has said.
Many just bide their time waiting for the opportunity to offend again.
Your friends are idiots if they bought his story hook line and sinker. He was trying to groom you and the children so he could have access to continue to offend. Good for you getting that gut feeling and listening to it.
Many are very charismatic and very "nice" while they try to buy your trust.
I'd let the other family who take kids over there know. Don't feel sorry about doing it.

CRB only means you haven't been convicted the day the check was run. Bit Like an MOT means your car was road worthy that day.

No it means that there has been a check on your criminal record, or absence of it. It is then up to the employer whether they employ someone or not.

I know someone on the sex offender's register and he is not a danger to children - it can happen. You also said he is no longer on the register, so it is a conviction that is a few years ago and he no longer has to notify people of his status. He will also have had treatment.

BTW do you realise how easy it is to become a criminal and be required to register as a sex offender?

If you are as old as me you will remember Samantha Fox making a fortune by posing on page three. Many of those photos were when she was under 18. They are now clasified as child pornography. Even pictures of her posing fully clothed, if she was posing 'suggestively' are classed as child porn.

I'm not trying to belittle your view, IMHO your istinct is more important, and you were there, I wasn't. I'm just trying to illustrate how something that was mass produced 30 years ago is now classed as porn.

So, suppose you move house and rip up the carpets, the people who put the carpet in could not afford underlay so used news papers. You throw the carpet and news papers in a skip in your garden. PC plod comes along and notices the papers, knocks on your door and you are now a sex offender, you have been in possetion of child pornography and by throwing it in the skip you have attempted to distribute it, possibly exposed your own children to it, and other peoples' children.

Are you inocent? No, you are guilty as hell because that is the way the law is written, but you probably don't feel like a peadophile, you probably don't think your chlidren are in any danger and that you have harmed them in any way.

Yes that is an unlikly scenario, but not totally out of this world.

Sasha, having read the media report of this case and talked to relevant people - in this case that scenario is out of this world

There are very strict definitions of child porn I have being told to avoid totally that scenario - I do not wish to google to find definitions, but was told must be very obviously a child.... Does that describe a 17 year old Sam Fox?

Sorry but sashh you are a nob. Old news papers getting you done for child porn. Bull shit!
There is a massive difference to page 3 porn to child molestation/ rape picturs.

Just a slight tangent, please everyone stop calling it child porn. Porn is legal and calling it that helps to minamise the crime same as saying a thief borrowed without asking instead of stole.
Its pictures of child rape

It is indeed pompoko.

As an aside, talk of it being a "sexual preference" makes me hopping mad. it was referenced upthread but not, I think, given as anyone on the thread's opinion and I am not replying to the person who raised it as though it is what they think but it has been said by many people at different times and there is somehow a movement I think to get people to see it as something someone can't help in the same way that someone can't help being straight or gay.

That's like saying that a man who is attracted to adult females is driven to rape them because his sexual preference is hetrosexual.

There are many many many hetrosexual men, they are not all out there raping women because that's their orientation.

Your friends are not friends, OP. In your shoes, I would simply remove them from my life.

Pompoko - whilst I despise the thought of these images - they do not have to depict images of rape (though sadly on occasion they do).

It is so nauseating, and I feel so sad for anyone who has ever being a direct victim of this. The amount of upset and hurt this small association with this man has caused has absolutely astounded me.

Hecate - I have removed one of them permanently. This person has a foolish arrogance they knows better then the courts etc...

The other appears to be incredibly remorseful and upset was used in this way.

I fear it will serve to feed their poor us and how brave we were to shelter him mentality....

Yes. Where it is not child rape it is still child abuse. 'Pictures of child abuse/rape' are far more appropriate terms than 'child porn'.

I don't blame you for feeling this way. You also have to cope with how people you thought were friends behaved. That's difficult.

If they are a couple, how can you remove one and not the other? Aren't you inevitably going to have contact with the one you wish to cut out of your life?

I would be concerned about someone who was so determined to support and protect, at the potential expense of children, someone who had pled guilty and was exhibiting behaviour that could be seen to be grooming.