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

[tomhardyonthewaltzers]

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.

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.

Cate, I guess by your use of the term "hysteria" that it's not surprising that you see nothing wrong in characterising the people who wouldn't like to socialise with a twice convicted child abuser as foaming, gibberish and hysterical?

I really don't understand why you think there is a difference between the person who views a picture of a child being abused and the abuser. Do you really not accept that there would be much less child abuse of that type if paedophiles weren't prepared to download and pay for the pictures and videos?

It looks to me like some people do not realise this and actually believe that photos of children playing on the beach in the hands of a pedophile some how become level one images, you have explained very well why and how that is not the case

I don't follow the relevance of this, as clearly that is not what the man referred to in the OP had. However, it isn't an accurate interpretation anyway. The law under the old guidelines provided that images which are below the threshold for Level 1 - but which are judged to be indecent by a jury - will be treated as Level 1 images during sentencing; therefore something like a naturist image or a fashion shoot with no erotic posing will be treated as a Level 1 indecent image of a child, if judged to be indecent.

There are different categories of image, after all. Therefore there was at least a possibility that his offence had not been that serious

SGB words fail me. Any offence that involves child abuse - either participating directly by being the perpetrator or being a consumer of images distributed is "serious" in my opinion. Your opinion that some may not be "serious" is disgusting.

It was not clear in the OP what level of images the man had, and a custodial sentence may be imposed on a repeat offender even if the level of offence is the same as far as I can tell.
My point was never 'oh well that's OK then'. It was more that there are reasons why other people might not cut ties with a person convicted of a lower level offence: they may feel the offender is a low risk, or has undergone treatment and been rehabilitated, or that there were mitigating circumstances such as mental illness and/or having previously been a victim of abuse him/herself. And that it is important to distinguish between levels of severity (with any crime, both in terms of sentencing and how the criminal is subsequently treated) in terms of how much risk a person poses to the public and how much harm their actions have caused.

Haven't read the full thread but no way in hell would I go. I also would be worried for any children that would be attending - do you need to contact the police / social services to get their advice? With drink involved, parents could let their guard down and this guy is a dangerous person to be around children where parents may not be as vigilant. I'd be going around telling everyone who was a guest tbh. Might be worth getting official advice though as to how to approach this.

And that it is important to distinguish between levels of severity (with any crime,both in terms of sentencing and how the criminal is subsequently treated)

Up to a point, but there are no lower levels of severity with csa. They are ALL severe. They go from pretty horrific to astronomically horrific.

...in terms of how much risk a person poses to the public and how much harm their actions have caused

In the case of paedophiles there is ALWAYS risk and harm will ALWAYS have been caused.

It was not clear in the OP what level of images the man had, and a custodial sentence may be imposed on a repeat offender even if the level of offence is the same as far as I can tell.

Its states CLEARLY in the OP that this man was jailed. Suggests serious images to me, and if he is a "repeat offender" thats even worse!

in terms of how much risk a person poses to the public and how much harm their actions have caused

Paedophiles will always pose a risk to children.

I wouldn't socialise with his GF let alone him. She has horrific judgment at best and at worst tolerates it or is complicit in it. IMO having two children by a convicted paedophile is very questionable and would make me wonder about her.

yes SGB, I don't think any of your last post in any way makes up for the rubbish you posted previously. You make some general and reasonable points imo, but it's all underlined by the accusation of frothing and excessive reaction.

As has been said, he is an offender who shows a motivation to repeat offend.

I would probs. still go to the event, but certainly not on any basis you argue.

I wouldn't socialise with his GF let alone him. She has horrific judgment at best and at worst tolerates it or is complicit in it. IMO having two children by a convicted paedophile is very questionable and would make me wonder about her.

There is something to be said for not isolating her socially - she may have a history of abuse and feeling unable to get away for some complicated psychological reason.
If the bride cited this as the reason for inviting this woman (and only her and her children, not the guy) to her wedding, I'd still come, as it would show that she acknowledges that there is a problem in the first place.
(And that is what all those "... but forgiveness!" people miss ... many rapists and child abusers that are part of a family or circle of friends are not forgiven in the way the pope forgives someone who tried to kill him, (namely after that guy has been sent to prison) - their crime is completely ignored, and the forgiveness, if mentioned, is only an afterthought that is used as justification to keep ignoring the crime. )

Are you being deliberately obtuse catewood?
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

So, at that point, he's told her about it and she acts on that information.

Don't be disingenuous Walter, saying that the media call it child porn isn't saying it is ok as a concept. It is saying that villanising posters for calling it child porn is stupid...the poster isn't saying it is titillating they are just using a widely used term.

The media no longer call it child porn, in any case.

and thank you witsender for pointing out my lack of goadiness earlier. I was a bit baffled by the suggestion/accusation.

Just because witsender doesn't think you were, doesn't make it so. I too thought you were very goady.

okay.

SGB

It doesn't matter WHAT category of pictures he had.

Even the LOWEST category are still pictures of CHILDREN in a SEXUAL nature for the purpose of titillation.

Will you please just stop trying to fucking justify the ill informed idiocy you keep spouting.

SGB, Being a victim of abuse is not and never will be an excuse for offending.
Many survivors do not go on to offend themselves, thats because it is not a cause for this kind of offence.

Many families close ranks around offenders, not out of any lofty motive, but just because they are shutting out the victims; they are labelled as troublemakers and told to shut up.

Its also a belief that being accepted into society assists with offenders not re-offending.

But in this case the offender re-offended despite having 'support' of a GF, friends and family. The second offence was more serious than the first.
Many offenders who are accepted back into society go on to re-offend, possibly thats because the families close ranks around them, protect them, and nothing changes.
Its like rehabilitating a heroin user and putting them back into the same conditions, then wondering why they go back to using heroin.

Its possible that reintegrating offenders only works when people make it clear they dont tolerate that kind of behaviour. And that only works when offenders care what a wider society thinks of them, is keen to keep peoples good opinion,. and has cut ties with other offenders.
Its not as straightforwards as just treating them as you would anyone else and hoping for the best.

I'm not going to engage in derailing the thread by debating the use of the term.

If you want to do so, start a thread.

And Pan you always seem baffled by accusations of goadiness, no matter that they are frequent.

Must be nice to float around in a state of oblivion.

I was in a similar situation some years ago. I refused to go and explained why to the organisers of the event.Apparently they were fine with me not coming as long as he could be there. Curious.

Prior to reading this thread I would have referred to the stuff the guy was convicted of having as "child pornography" I was the same and what I said earlier in the thread calling it such in no way diminishes my disgust and revulsion at the people, who view or make child abuse images.

I would argue that you have derailed the thread significantly already Walter, and that picking another poster up on their use of a widely known term and then stating that you don't want to discuss it (despite starting and perpetuating the conversation) when someone disagrees with you is quite poor debating technique and etiquette.

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

I cannot believe I just read that.

Pan, am I correct in thinking you work in some capacity in Social Services, or am I confusing you with another poster? Apologies if I am.