Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

AIBU to not want to socialise with someone convicted of sexual offences related to children?

770 replies

tomhardyonthewaltzers · 19/04/2016 16:46

Am I losing my mind? because apparently I'm being unreasonable!.

A friends wedding is coming up. Invitation arrived ages ago and I accepted. I was really looking forward to it as would see lots of friends from Uni I haven't seen for years.

One of our old friendship group was several years ago convicted of making and distributing child abuse images. He got a suspended sentence. His GF was also part of our friendship group and she stuck by him. I cut contact with both of them.

A few years later he was caught again and jailed this time. GF found out she was pregnant just after he went inside. Again she stuck by him and they now have two children together and are still a couple but not living together since he was released.

They're both invited to the wedding which I only just found out. So I told friend who's getting married that I won't attend now because they're going.

So now I'm being pressured by the rest of the friendship group. Told that friend who's getting married is devastated, that her wedding won't be the same if I'm not there to watch her get married. Can't I just put my opinion aside for one day? That they don't want to see him either but wouldn't let the bride down. I was even called selfish!.

I CANNOT watch him laughing and joking at the reception or having a dance or whatever. I just can't watch him enjoy himself knowing what he's done and I am more angry with his partner really, although I know that's unfair but I just can't fathom her thought processes at all.

Would anyone on here be able to put it aside and go? I do feel guilty about letting my friend down and upsetting her and it seems like I'm the only one of our friendship group making this decision.

OP posts:
magoria · 19/04/2016 23:18

OP you have done nothing wrong.

I was not allowed at my step-father's funeral in case I mentioned what the sick fuck was really like and upset his next family.

The day he died was like a massive weight I didn't even realise I was carrying as an adult was lifted off my shoulders.

I hope MN don't delete and cover up this attitude as a 'bit of a bun fight' it may make it the end of my MN days too.

LilacSpunkMonkey · 19/04/2016 23:18

Yes, that's it Add,you just engage with the parts that suit you and ignore the awkward questions, eh?

Hmm
Sunnybitch · 19/04/2016 23:18

MNHQ... please tell me that you didn't say that to her....'do you just want to delete it' if so your as bad as the Bastard she's talking about....

AddToBasket · 19/04/2016 23:18

OK, I'm off this thread.

MNHQ
PresidentOliviaMumsnet · 19/04/2016 23:18

Please be assured that there is no attempt to hide anything.
We are not in any way condoning any pro abuse stand points here
It has been an incredibly busy evening here at HQ and we try to ensure that we don't delete threads willy nilly or cover things up
That said, MN's underlying principle is to make lives easier and we did sorry DO not want to upset the OP or also trigger anyone else unnecessarily.

AugustaFinkNottle · 19/04/2016 23:18

AddTo, if you can't answer the perfectly reasonably questions that Maddy and I have asked, what on earth do you think you are contributing to this thread?

WellErrr · 19/04/2016 23:20

Yes Add WE FUCKING GET IT.

Really MNHQ? Really? This goady fuckery is allowed??

AntiqueSinger · 19/04/2016 23:21

I am a sexual abuse survivor, endured 9 years of sexual assault by my mothers boyfriend. Addto is not a 'paedophile apologist' She's simply giving an opinion from a different prospective as to how the OP may have chosen to refuse the invitation. I would think very very carefully about throwing such highly loaded and denigrating labels at people for trivial shit.

AIBU invites a plurity of opinion. Some of it may be wrong, but that doesn't mean dissenting posters have to be insulted by one of the worse slurs you can throw at someone. I wouldn't throw it at my worst enemy because I know full well the reality of what a paedophile apologist is.

bloodyteenagers · 19/04/2016 23:25

It wasn't unreasonable. Chances are more will be doing the same once more people are aware that he has convictions for a heinous crime.

At least you did answer. Indirectly the question that was asked. You wouldn't give a shit as long as the bride and groom don't get upset on their wedding day.

Sunnybitch · 19/04/2016 23:28

How can anyone find excuses or reasons for these fucked up sick vile fucked up things (can't call them human)!!!! I won't say what I think should happen to them coz id be banned...

MaddyHatter · 19/04/2016 23:29

i suggest some of you go back and re-read Addto's first point.

she was disappointed in this thread.

Apparently

  1. the op should have declined without giving reason.
  2. we should welcome people like this man back into society and invite them to social gatherings for their recovery
  3. the B&G only invited him out of loyalty to the scumbags DP.

If that isn't justifying the invitation of him i have no idea what is!

ImNotThatGirl · 19/04/2016 23:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Waltermittythesequel · 19/04/2016 23:32

No MNHQ in response to your PM about my request to delete my account. No, I don't just 'want my thread deleted instead

What a shame. That would have made life a lot easier, I'd imagine.

Fucking hell.

Baconyum · 19/04/2016 23:34

MNHQ I am utterly disgusted at the way this thread has been treated! Are you really saying posts minimising defending and apologist to child abuse are acceptable on a site supporting parents? I'd LOVE to know what your advertisers would think of that?!

I'm now also considering staying on the site or not (as both a survivor of Csa and someone who's worked in child protection).

IF I stay I certainly have one positive out of this thread and that's that there are certain posters I will be ignoring on any subject from now on. I actually wish you had a blocking facility.

Not naming them you and they know who they are and that way there is NO justification for deleting THIS post other than what would be a reprehensible act to cover mnhqs own despicable actions.

Makes a joke of your 'we believe you' campaign too. Which I have been a massive supporter of. Until now, words are cheap actions speak louder.

Justinemnhq should see this thread and decide if this is really how she wants MNHQ represented!

PaulAnkaTheDog · 19/04/2016 23:34

ThatGirl while I agree with everything you've said, I think we have to refrain from graphic descriptions. They will be deleted by hq (the only deletions on this thread I understand so far) and your completely valid and important comment will go also.

Sunnybitch · 19/04/2016 23:35

Seriously Wtf Is wrong with some people?

Flowers to imnot and all you others who have suffered

sleeponeday · 19/04/2016 23:35

MNHQ can fuck up royally. They did over Anyfucker (sorry, AF, not meaning to use you as exhibit A) not just in what the choice was, but in the amount of info relating to her that they shared in the aftermath. I felt, and feel, that that was wrong. But they can also be stellar on disability - when people post horrible, bigoted posts, they step in, and they delete, and they support. They genuinely do care about that side of things, from responses to reports I've made in the past. And I cannot believe that they care any less about abused children than they do disabled ones.

They've screwed up on this one, I agree. But I would imagine they are trying to apply the usual personal attack policies in a very abnormal and incredibly emotional thread. I agree some of their choices are wrong; I think they've messed up too. But I don't think malice or complacency about abuse is why. I think scrambling to deal with a very difficult situation is.

I imagine they offered to delete the thread as a way to defer to the OP, as they were distressed she was upset, and are scrambling to know how to manage this thread on the fly. They're making it up as they go along, and I would imagine they wanted to give the OP the choice between deleting the thread, and leaving altogether, because they also think she's in the right, and are loathe to have her feel she needs to leave MN over it, when she's coping with the fallout of integrity, and concern for abused children, in her actual life. I'd have been insulted in her position by the offer, too, and suspect it was arse-covering. But I honestly doubt that it was. They're a massive, hugely established site. They will sail on regardless. I think it was an attempt to support the OP.

OP, I hope you stay. Your thinking and integrity and guts in saying what your friends don't want to hear makes you a valuable poster. I'm sorry the thread has gone as it has, when you are already in such a horrible situation with this anyway.

MaddyHatter · 19/04/2016 23:38

SGB's original post has now gone.

Her second one, and the one from Cate, are however, still there...

AugustaFinkNottle · 19/04/2016 23:39

Glad to see that SGB's post has been deleted, as have at least a couple of AddTo's.

SolidGoldBrass · 19/04/2016 23:40

It's because some crimes are so dreadful that it's important to be clear about the facts when accusing people of committing them. The original post referred to images: the 'lowest' category of criminal images can include those in which no harm was done to any individual. The law makes distinctions here. There are also distinctions between possession of images and committing assaults on human beings, which are important, too. The bride in this case may have had more detailed information and made her decision based on the information in her possession.
OP later clarified that the man had been convicted of being in possession of worse material. While there is a possibility that someone who looks at images may go on to commit assaults, people cannot be prosecuted for a crime they might commit when they haven't yet done so, no matter how horrible that crime might be.

sleeponeday · 19/04/2016 23:40

Oh, and I think it's been lost in the shuffle, but SGB's original post was deleted a while ago on talk guideline grounds. It's not been allowed to stand.

I also think it's worth pointing out that the minority disagreeing over the OP's choice is miniscule - I've only seen two people, in fact. OP, almost everyone agrees with you. It's just that one dissenter has been profuse and vocal.

Baconyum · 19/04/2016 23:41

Op you are DEFINITELY not bu and I'd like to thank you for taking this stance.

In this situation personally I'd have cut these 'friends' off as soon as I knew they were having anything more to do with this piece of scum.

Paedophiles don't change ever. Recidivism is higher in this group of criminals than any other. I've said on other threads and will always believe that all convicted paedophiles should never leave prison let alone be considered to have paid their debt to society (impossible) or be allowed a normal life. Their victims never will.

Sunnybitch · 19/04/2016 23:42

How about we do mnhq iob for them and just send the op some Flowers

sleeponeday · 19/04/2016 23:42

SGB he was jailed for the second offence. It said so right there in the OP.

Waltermittythesequel · 19/04/2016 23:42

She never came back to explain what acceptable child abuse images were either, even though she definitely implied they exist...