Yes I think we are mostly agreeing 
I also think we are talking slightly at cross purposes and that that is my fault. I think most people on this thread are talking about spotting a man who will become abusive to them in a relationship.
I am talking about someone who charms their way into a friendship or relationship to abuse their children. My viewpoint is as a child whose family was duped into allowing a paedophile access to me.
I had thought that was clear from my posts but I now think it probably wasn't so apologies if that confused matters
That said - my only point is this
(I will try not to fuck this up)
Whilst we can develop the ability to spot signs and that helping others identify warning signs and then not dismiss them is absolutely right, I just want to flag up that to step further - to imply that one can always tell if you just look hard enough - risks a blind spot.
It's like the down side of the whole Sarah's law debate where a parent armed with detail of local sexual offenders feels as though they know where the risk is when actually an abuser is more likely to be someone they know.
To say 'I always know. I can always tell' is impossible to counter because if an abuser is able to maintain their charming persona then how do you know you have missed them?
I genuinely doubt that anyone would have spotted my abuser. Maybe I am wrong. But he went unpunished and his abuse of me was not revealed.
So it is possible (highly unlikely of course
) that you met him, thought he was a nice bloke and would never ever know that you were wrong.
Does that make sense?
I am not suggesting that people cannot be incredibly astute and spot potential abusers. I really am not. And getting red flags out there is so important, as is convincing people to heed them.
I am just saying don't assert that it is infallible.
People will get duped.they will get into a relationship with an abuser or they will unwittingly allow an abuser access to their children. Let's not suggest they should have known.