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.

I think your gut instinct before you got any additional information is the key here. You disliked him. You picked up on non-verbal signals that warned you that he may not have good intentions.

Your friends may be extremely naive or loyal to their friend. I probably wouldn't remain friends with them because I don't like people who belittle child abuse.

Congratulate yourself on being aware enough to trust your instincts and continue to bring your DDs up to assert themselves and to trust their instincts too. There are bad people everywhere. Standing up to those who want to harm us is a life skill.

Just picked up this thread and can't believe the stupidity of your friends, a paedophile can't change it's hard wired in his nature to seek out contacts with children. I think as many others on here do, that these men are extremely manipulative and have the ability to cover up their true intentions very well, they really are the modern day wolf in sheeps clothing. Whatever you do you must not visit your friend with you dd's if you visit go alone - do not give him the opportunity to even cross paths with your children. If your friends ask why tell them the truth and that you can't expose your children to the risk.

Does that describe a 17 year old Sam Fox?

Yes, if she is dressed it is level one, otherwise level 2.

There is a massive difference to page 3 porn to child molestation/ rape picturs.

I agree there is a huge difference, but both are clasified as 'indecent images of a child' and both are illegal if the image is of a child under the age of 18.

Everyone on here should be aware of the fact any indecent image can be prosecuted, so if your 17 year old sends a pic taken in their bedroom, posing to an 18 yearold they have commited a crime, and so has the 19 year old.

The OP has not said what this person did, they have said that he is no longer on the sex offender's register so if they went to prison is was for less than 30 months.

I am not making an excuse for peadophiles. There are numerous offences that put you on the sex offences register. In fact the register is also for violent offences, you can be on the register without commiting a sexual offence. You can be on the register if you are 10 and have accessed certain websites.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1330041.stm

I thought that what the op was trying to express wrt the Sam Fox comparison was that the children concerned in the conviction were prepubescent.

Bletchley

As far as I know the OP has not said why this man was on the register. Unless I missed that post.

She has said it must be 'obviously a child', the legal definition for this is anyone under 18 or who appears to be under 18 so you can be convicted if the picture is of a consenting 20 year old if he/she appears to be under 18.

I think the OP's instinct is the strongest reason to keep her children away.

There does seem to be a 'he/she's on/been on the sex offenders' register therfore is evil and must not ever be able to have a normal life' rhetoric one here. And yes many people on the register are evil, but not all of them.

I teach teenagers, and they do stupid, silly things. Things that could potentially put them on the register or end up with them having a caution that stays on their record for ever.

Just a minor point of law - the "appears to be under 18" isn't concerned with someone who is provably older but looks younger. It is to do with the fact that not all children in the images circulating are identifiable so a decision has to be made on the basis of the evidence available as to whether the subject of the photo is under 18 - hence "appears to be under 18".

So if someone had a photo of their consenting 20 year-old girlfriend they wouldn't be prosecuted as it would be easy to show that the wasn't a child, even if she looked younger.

I suppose there could conceivably be problems if someone had an image of a consenting 20 year-old ex-girlfriend who couldn't be tracked down to confirm her age in the photo, but I certainly haven't come across any scenario remotely like this in my experience. Generally, if the authorities pick someone up for possession of indecent images of children, it is because they are in possession of indecent images of children. I have never had a single client acquitted of this offence - in fact I've only had one go to trial and that was against the strongest possible advice. I have had one client whose prosecution was discontinued but that wasn't because he wasn't guilty, it was to do with his age and mental capacity and the highly unusual circumstances of the offence.

I would be highly, highly sceptical of anyone who was convicted of this offence asserting their innocence. It simply isn't an offence which has, to the best of my knowledge, a high wrongful conviction rate, or even an offence with a high number of people pleading not guilty.

I think is is an offence with a high number of perpetrators asserting their innocence, yes. Because their internal belief system allows them to believe that they were doing it out of love and therefore it isn't/ wasn't wrong. Which doesn't help with the rates of recidivism.