Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Seeyounearertime · 20/04/2016 10:44

is it acceptable to socialise with the non-image viewing individual who is turned on by the thought of abusing children
Yes or no answer!

If you know someone is aroused by that sort of thing then no it is not acceptable to socialise with them.
If you don't know, theres little you can do is there.

MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 20/04/2016 10:45

Hi all,

Many thanks for all of the reports about this thread and apologies for any upset caused.

Last night was an exceptionally busy night and there were a few threads that all warranted a lot of attention all at the same time. We weren't quick enough off the mark and for that we apologise.

We do not condone apologists in this sense and we have removed some posts, however, we do allow freedom of speech and that can sometimes include views that others will find offensive. We also do not allow personal attacks, even if they may seem warranted. We believe that people can say how they feel without personally attacking others and we will remove posts that do so.

VestalVirgin · 20/04/2016 10:47

why not?

Because stolen goods usually don't include a picture of the dead shopkeeper, and there is a possibility that the buyer of the stolen goods doesn't know they're stolen. That's why.
It is really obvious.

witsender · 20/04/2016 10:48

I really don't think that pointing out there there is a distinction in the eyes of the law is as heinous as made out here. Likewise that attending the wedding ceremony because you love the couple, and just avoid the person in question doesn't make you a paedophile, nor does it mean you condone the crime.

And yes, I have read the whole thread, including SGB's original comments, I didn't get the hysteria at them then and still don't.

catewood21 · 20/04/2016 10:48

If you know someone is aroused by that sort of thing then no it is not acceptable to socialise with them

..but they can't help what arouses them.Why do they deserve to be ostracised for something that is beyond their control.

Seeyounearertime · 20/04/2016 10:48

ParanoidGynodroid

That was such a close Xpost it's like you were thinking my thoughts at the same time... maybe breat minds think alike? Grin

witsender · 20/04/2016 10:48

And I really don't think Pan has been goady.

Waltermittythesequel · 20/04/2016 10:49

Cate do you think that the two crimes are equal?

Yes or no answer.

I don't really understand what you're asking me. If a man came over and said "hey I'd love to have sex with a child, fancy a chat?" then I would happily never socialise with him.

How am I to know that someone is a paedophile unless they act on it or tell me it?

I may have been unknowingly socialising with paedophiles, of course. I can't do anything about that. The day I know is the day I back off.

But I will say this; if I took my my dc to a wedding and I found out that someone there knew a convicted paedophile was among the guests and hadn't told me, had chosen to gamble with my children that way, there'd be hell to pay.

ThenLaterWhenItGotDark · 20/04/2016 10:50

I agree with Limited- a page or so back now.

With the disclaimer that lots of people on this thread have shared their own stories, and so probably wouldn't want (quite rightly) for those stories to be rehashed on trash tv, the world might just be a tiny bit of a better place if mindsets like some posters on this thread were talked about, and of course challenged, on TV and in the press.

Because the amount of not even back pedalling, but sheer obtuseness and yes, child rape apologia going on, is stomach churning.

But by god this thread should stand. It should be fucking stickied to show MN at large what type of people they are associating with.

It won't, of course, it'll be gone by lunchtime. That's the easy way. Sweep it under the carpet, start a jolly hilarious thread. Pretend you never said it.

Disgusting.

PaulAnkaTheDog · 20/04/2016 10:50

we do allow freedom of speech and that can sometimes include views that others will find offensive. We also do not allow personal attacks, even if they may seem warranted. We believe that people can say how they feel without personally attacking others and we will remove posts that do so.

So people can effectively say that some child abuse images aren't really that bad and not be deleted. Yet if I was to then use my freedom of speech to call them an arsehole for holding such a stupid, insulting opinion, my comment would be deleted.

Unbelievable.

Seeyounearertime · 20/04/2016 10:51

Why do they deserve to be ostracised for something that is beyond their control.

It is within their control. are you really this dim?

If i had a mental issue that i knew was wrong, say i felt like harming myself, i would seek help.
If i had a sexual "taste" that i knew was qwrong and harmful, i would seek help.

any person who feels the way you describe that DOESN'T seek help is putting it firmly IN their control, they are choosing to do nothing to help, they are choosing to be around kids, etc.

catewood21 · 20/04/2016 10:52

How am I to know that someone is a paedophile unless they act on it or tell me it?
he confides in you that he has this problem?'
he confides in a third party who tells you?

GrimmauldPlace · 20/04/2016 10:52

Because stolen goods usually don't include a picture of the dead shopkeeper, and there is a possibility that the buyer of the stolen goods doesn't know they're stolen. That's why.
It is really obvious

^^ This.

catewood21 · 20/04/2016 10:53

Well I think this thread goes a long way to explaining why paedophiles don't seek help before they offend!!

NeedsAsockamnesty · 20/04/2016 10:56

How useful is that on a thread about one who has been convicted twice

Waltermittythesequel · 20/04/2016 10:56

If a close friend or member of my family confided in me then I would send him in the right direction, as much as I could.

I would tell him to seek help.

And then I would distance myself and my children from him because my children's safety is paramount.

GrimmauldPlace · 20/04/2016 10:57

cate I strongly object to your views. You are effectively blaming most decent human beings who have no tolerance for child abuse of being the reason peadophiles abuse. Perhaps if we were nicer to the ones who've already done it then the others wouldn't bother? You make no sense.

PaulAnkaTheDog · 20/04/2016 10:57

Cate don't talk bollocks. I think a lot of people here would probably appreciate someone having the courage to acknowledge that they have a problem before they commit an offence and try to seek help for it.

VestalVirgin · 20/04/2016 10:59

he confides in a third party who tells you?

His psychotherapist is not legally allowed to spread the news, so how would that happen?

This thread is not the right place to defend your hypothetical, poor, suffering paedophile who seeks help and never intends to harm children.
This thread is about someone who was so bad he was convicted.

Waltermittythesequel · 20/04/2016 11:03

Cate I do wonder why you are such a staunch supporter of the poor little paedophiles who just want a normal life.

It has no place on this thread in any case. This man was convicted, as you know.

bumblebee1234 · 20/04/2016 11:08

As I read these posts these are the exact reason why I am so protective of my children and why I keep my self to my self. My partner worked in a children's home they all came from abusive homes. The children are messed up for life how is that child meant to live a healthy life when they have not lived one. Some of you seem to protect the pedophile. Why

MyFavouriteClintonisGeorge · 20/04/2016 11:12

MyFavourite the information about his being jailed for a second set of offences was in the OP. I can't believe that I'm reading posts that are acting as apologists for downloading child porn. Do you know what the highest category covers?

Yes, the conviction information was in the OP. I stand corrected. Yes, I do know what the highest category covers. And no, I am emphatically not an 'apologist' for 'downloading child porn [sic]'. That is a completely unjustified extrapolation from what I actually posted.

WellErrr · 20/04/2016 11:19

What kind of 'person' spends their time defending paedophiles?

Cate your views are disgustingly naive at best.

Pseudo341 · 20/04/2016 11:21

Prior to reading this thread I would have referred to the stuff the guy was convicted of having as "child pornography". I have never for one second thought it was in any way similar consensual adult pornography, it's obviously not, it's disgusting abuse, but I simply hadn't heard anything about what was an acceptable way of describing it. That's not me minimising it at all, just pure ignorance as to terminology, please don't shoot me. I now know better.

I do understand the point that if we can't lock paedophiles up permanently (frankly in a lot of cases I really think we should if they're a risk to the safety of others, but the law disagrees it seems), it makes sense that ostracising from society might increase that risk. But surely that means letting them hold down a job and providing support to help them control themselves and not reoffend. It does not mean inviting them to your wedding FFS! What on earth are these people thinking?

"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing" All the people happily including him in their normal social circle are effectively saying his behaviour is okay. Stand your ground OP. Time to move on from this group of friends, if they want to be friends with a child abuser have no part of it.

bumblebee1234 · 20/04/2016 11:29

Pedophiles are not accepted in to society in a normal way they can't work with children or the elderly or in anything that requires an enhanced DBS check. They are still seen as sick individuals. If you think they are suddenly forgiven then you are mistaken it is at the discretion of the employer if they give that person a job.