Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Stratter5 · 20/04/2016 00:55

No. SGB has made her 'alternative views perfectly clear on many occasions. She knew exactly what she was posting.

She needs to fuck off elsewhere.

Alasalas2 · 20/04/2016 00:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AugustaFinkNottle · 20/04/2016 00:59

Needs, am I right in thinking you didn't see SGB's original post before it was deleted and are deducing what it said from other posts?

OnYerBikePan · 20/04/2016 00:59

Another tricky aspect is that the OP posted in AIBU. And asked a question 'would anyone else be able to go?'. There isn't just one 'hive-acceptable' answer here. It was an open question, and anyone answering in the positive doesn't deserve the attempted vilifications.

AugustaFinkNottle · 20/04/2016 01:04

Again, OnYerBike, I suspect you didn't see the worst posts before they were deleted. The responses were entirely justified.

Sunnybitch · 20/04/2016 01:06

Unless you know her then you can't say she "misunderstood" anything? Do you know her needs?

Regardless of the answer I'm going to bed but just wana say that the people who are trying to make excuses for this scum piece of shit...there's no words for how low you are

MaddyHatter · 20/04/2016 01:06

No.. SGB tried to justify why the suspended sentence happened.. apparently she feels the fact he only might have downloaded them and no actually assaulted a child himself, or only been in possession of drawings and/or vintage photography for which there is no provenance or proof of age means that his friends/gf might have decided he wasn't an actual threat to anyone.

In other words.. .some pictures of CSA aren't as bad as others, so h'es perfectly fine and safe and its all dandy.

[boak]

She also referred to it as 'child porn' and said we were being 'foaming, gibbering hysterics' because apparently we shouldn't care and should be FINE with convicted paedophiles!

[double boak]

Those points were addressed in several posts thereafter.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 20/04/2016 01:06

No I read it, thought deleting it was a good call.

It appeared to me to be quite obvious she hadn't registered the prison sentance and had a lack of knowledge of most things surounding what she figured were lower level offences and a lack of understanding about the impact of the most frequently used term for the offences.

Stupidity does not equal child abuser or child abuse supporter

NeedsAsockamnesty · 20/04/2016 01:08

Of course I don't know her BUT she did post saying the op hadnt posted about the prison sentance initially. This was wrong the op did. So she clearly misread or misunderstood the op

kosh71 · 20/04/2016 01:08

*OP, the point you are missing is not that you aren't entitled to take a strong view of this man's crime. It is that you are doing it at the expense of the bride and her wedding.

Why didn't you just say 'Sorry, can't make it'?' Or why didn't you accept but ask her quietly not to sit you anywhere near him? You have turned her wedding into a platform for your moral outrage. Really, you didn't need to do that. You could have been morally outraged on MN or anywhere else for that matter, but you've made a drama of her wedding. She was just being nice inviting you.*

I know that this ^^ has already been discussed but I feel I have to comment.

The OP is not doing anything at anyone's expense. I am surprised that in a 'parenting' forum it was not obvious to everyone that if the bride decided to invite a peadophile to her wedding, this will have consequences (ie people deciding not to go) and she should deal with them.

I can't believe you are suggesting that the OP should have said she was busy. She is not fucking busy she has a moral opinion and is voicing it. And if she wants to cut ties with the bride and others I applaud her too. I really do not see why people could 'be morally outraged on MN' but should keep quite IRL so no one gets offended? It is about time people stand up for what they believe.

AugustaFinkNottle · 20/04/2016 01:09

She expressed some views quite obviously based on misreading the op and not registering that the man had served time and with a lack of understanding of the emotions a badly thought out post would have along with a misunderstanding of severity and lack of knowledge about the subject

That might work if she had come back once the facts were drawn to her attention and apologised. However, when she did eventually come back, she simply tried to justify herself even further, wholly failing to take in the correct facts. QED.

OnYerBikePan · 20/04/2016 01:10

no you're right there AFN I didn't see the especially unpleasant stuff before deletion, but I could make a pretty shrewd guess as to what they contained.
Still doesn't mean that answering the question in the positive (albeit extremely uneasily and planning to have no contact with the man) earns the 'goady' title or anything else.
But it's AIBU, on MN. And it's sleeps time.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 20/04/2016 01:11

Oh and as the poster on here who very very obviously knows what she is talking about actually clarified the situation with convictions and not real images in her very well written post, it's bloody obvious that SGB has misunderstood what happened in regard to the apparent convictions just for drawings she was blathering about

Aussiemum78 · 20/04/2016 01:12

Its absolutely condoning it.

If you accept something, and continue to associate with the person, you might as well be saying its ok.

And yes, they are offering up any children to him on a plate as they are happy to invite him to an event where children might be present... and presumably other parents aren't aware. If I was invited to an event with my child and there was a peodophile present, and my friends knew, i would never speak to them again.

MaddyHatter · 20/04/2016 01:15

its not a misunderstanding if she TWICE comes back and carries on trying to condone and clarify her point.

The fact that the law has to categorise these pictures, doesn't mean that the general public should.

Child abuse is child abuse..just like rape is rape.. there is no grey area.

Whatever he had in his possession, he was convicted for wanking off to images of children being sexually abused.

You cannot justify being ok with that. ever.

AugustaFinkNottle · 20/04/2016 01:17

I don't think it is obvious, Needs. In her second post SGB said "Therefore there was at least a possibility that his offence had not been that serious and therefore his friends/partner, being closer to him and knowing more details, did not percieve him as a danger.* At that point SGB has to have known full well what was in the OP, and is still implying that the offence wasn't "that serious" and that the bride, knowing he'd been convicted twice and imprisoned, could justifiably think it was absolutely fine to invite him and get upset if guests pull out as a result.

Plus, SGB wasn't just talking about drawings, she was talking about old photographs of child abuse. No-one in their right mind would think abuse is more acceptable just because it happened a long time ago.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 20/04/2016 01:19

if she had come back once the facts were drawn to her attention and apologised. However, when she did eventually come back, she simply tried to justify herself even further, wholly failing to take in the correct facts. QED

But she was still thinking along her original lines just over an hour ago with her last post (she's only had a very small number of posts on this thread) it's quite likely she's not even bothered carrying on reading.

Of course she should have apologised and backed down but so few posters ever do. God only knows why as a quick 'oh shit I didn't even notice that bit' is all it takes, but perhaps she was disinclined to do so after being called a child abuser and child abuse supporter for about 19 pages

PaulAnkaTheDog · 20/04/2016 01:22

Sorry Sock I usually agree with you but you're way off base with this. When she minimised it to begin with it was apparently due to misreading the op. Yet she continued to try and make the same points afterwards. She was wrong, her attitude is honestly disturbing and it has no place on a forum for parents. No one who actively tries to downplay images of child sex abuse deserves a place on this site.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 20/04/2016 01:24

augusta

SGB says in brief people have been convicted for having drawings of images of child abuse (she used the media phrase I won't as it makes me feel sick)

Poster who asseses these images for a living says ....
That's not true someone has but the drawings were amongst a huge amount of real images.

That is what I mean about her obvious misunderstanding and lack of knowledge

RonaldMcDonald · 20/04/2016 01:27

At any given wedding you could be sitting at a table with any number of ex cons, or worse, those never convicted of their crimes and who continue on without remorse.
That's the nature of being out in public in a country that rehabilitates offenders.

That sounds like I'm being a bit flippant but I'm not. I know this must be very hard for you oP

I would go to the wedding to support my friend.
I wouldn't have anything to do with this man or his wife at all.

AugustaFinkNottle · 20/04/2016 01:28

Needs, you can't have it both ways: SGB can't have felt offended about being called a child abuser over 19 pages and at the same time not have bothered carrying on reading.

Her most recent post demonstrates that she must have seen at least some of the responses to her first post as she was clearly attempting to justify it. I find it difficult to believe that, if she read some, she didn't read all of them. Yet she's still trying to minimise what the man has done. I don't understand why you think that's OK.

AugustaFinkNottle · 20/04/2016 01:30

Given that SGB has made no secret of her experience working in the porn industry, a lack of knowledge on her part is surprising. But the point is that by the next post she has no excuse for that lack of knowledge as she could obtain it from reading the thread.

AugustaFinkNottle · 20/04/2016 01:33

Of course you may end up at weddings being in the same room as people who turn out to be ex cons or unconvicted criminals. That doesn't mean you don't have the right to walk out if you find out that they were guilty of particularly loathsome offences, or to refuse to attend if you find out in advance. I think if the bride wants support she really has to think about the wisdom of inviting a convicted paedophile.

RonaldMcDonald · 20/04/2016 01:38

I can understand how you feel Augusta. I understand why there is a lot of strong opinion.
The OP asked our opinions. In honesty I would be able to go.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 20/04/2016 01:38

And that is why her post should have been deleted paul she did minimise it was totally beyond the pale or what ever the precise catchphrase is but I don't think she was intending to.

I think in a very misguided stupid way she was trying to have what she percieved to be an intelligent discussion but given her clear lack of knowledge and understanding on the subject and initial error on reading the op and for what ever reason not being willing to correct that error, that was clearly never going to happen.

I haven't seen any of SGB's posts on these sorts of threads previously (at least I haven't registered if I have) so I'm just going from this one. I may be well off base because of that. Her comments in that post were horrible in the context of this thread and I'm not defending that at all. I just think lack of knowledge and understanding rather than child abuser supporter.

Perhaps I'm just in a plesant forgiving mood tonight, who knows, I don't even know if I'm making any sense or explaining what I mean very well.