Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
Sunnybitch · 20/04/2016 16:59

Yes cate that's it and absolutely nothing to do with the violent abuse that they have helped encourage a child (possibly a baby) to be put through Hmm

LagunaBubbles · 20/04/2016 16:59

Browntrout* Did you actually read the OP? Because you have spectacularly missed the OPs point!

LagunaBubbles · 20/04/2016 17:00

You have missed the OPs point.

limitedperiodonly · 20/04/2016 17:07

We are debating whether it is acceptable for adults to socialise with an erstwhile friend who has been convicted of this offence

Not exactly, because to me and many others, a wedding is a family event open to all ages. Though many people are keen on child-free weddings, the presence of a child abuser among the guests has never been among the reasons I've seen given for having them.

Capricorn76 · 20/04/2016 17:08

Surely he's on a register? Can you not contact the police and tell them he'll be at a wedding around kids?

ParanoidGynodroid · 20/04/2016 17:08

Which is weird as normally on threads the consensus is, oh, they're only LOOKING

I have never seen this written in relation to a paedophile on MN before Hmm

ParanoidGynodroid · 20/04/2016 17:09

Oops, I mean I've never seen this written on MN in relation to a paedophile before!

thebacksofmyhands · 20/04/2016 17:15

*Augusta

But,Needs, as I pointed out, such a photo in the hands of a paedophile can indeed be treated as a Level One image if a jury determines that in that context it was indecent. Why are you ignoring that?*

You said that I interpreted the level incorrectly. I interpreted it as someone who assesses content to ascertain if it meets a level/Category. While a judge and jury may be able to make exceptional additions to the evidence (which is not my experience - please could you give me links to where this has happened either here or via inbox?), that is not my duty.

By your own explanation, the photo or video would still need to be defined as indecent, so it would still not include PPs example of a Fairy Washing Up Liquid advert.

limitedperiodonly · 20/04/2016 17:21

If we're talking about the consensus on MN, then it's usually judged that people who put poems asking for money in their wedding invitations are wrong.

That doesn't bother me. However, I think it is more of a breach of etiquette to invite a child sex offender, who gets his kicks out of viewing children or their images in a sexual way to an occasion where children will be present and their photographs will probably be taken.

If I had children with me and I found out the bride and groom had done that without giving me the option not to attend, I would be very pissed off with them indeed.

If it was a child-free wedding, obviously no one would come to any harm from this man. But if it came up over the canapes, I'd give him a swerve. Because sexually abusing children is fucking awful, isn't it?

If they were to tell people, I guess the number of attendees might drop. But that's only fair. They've made it clear that the attendance of this man is more important than the feelings of their other guests.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 20/04/2016 17:39

Because Augusta that is not the case according to the poster on this thread who explained the terms, and fwiw it's not the case according to the cps barrister I rang earlier and asked.

She said an totally innocent picture child doing normal things wouldn't meet the criteria, she did however say that a large volume of pictures of unrelated children may be mentioned during a trial to build a picture of the accused conduct but if they didn't meet criteria they wouldn't be included as if they did.

She then told me to fuck off and stop blathering at her because she was busy (in her defence it was the 6th time I rang in one morning)

hobnobsaremyfavourite · 20/04/2016 17:45

This is still here?????!

NeedACleverNN · 20/04/2016 17:53

It's still here and apparently getting worse

limitedperiodonly · 20/04/2016 17:53

hobnobs, why shouldn't it still be here?

Baconyum · 20/04/2016 18:16

And yet apparently my view that some posts should have been deleted that weren't is extreme?

bloodymaria · 20/04/2016 18:19

Which is weird as normally on threads the consensus is, oh, they're only LOOKING

Link please?

Or not. Because you're talking shite.

UptownFunk00 · 20/04/2016 18:28

Can't believe there is still debate over this.

Let's just say paedophiles is disgusting.
It's up to you if you want to sweep it under the rug but if you think another should, keep it to yourself.

Those who are saying that those who have been victim to such abuse should still sweep it under the rug should stfu.

limitedperiodonly · 20/04/2016 18:30

There have been almost 700 posts on this thread. Nearly all of them agree with the OP that she was right to object to this child sex offender being invited to the wedding.

She said she was going to leave MN (I hope she doesn't) but asked MNHQ not to delete the thread. So why do you think it should be?

I think it's an opportunity to discuss how far, if at all, we wish to welcome child sex abusers who have completed their sentences, back into society and where that would be acceptable.

It seems from this thread that most people say no and no.

paxillin · 20/04/2016 18:33

This is the first time I hope somebody recognizes themselves on a thread. If this was known to the other guests the bride and groom would get to celebrate with the paedophile alone.

Stratter5 · 20/04/2016 18:58

No, I have seen the 'you're being hysterical, there's not a paedophile on every corner' posts, along with ones stating that your child can't be hurt by someone looking at them.

I disagree vehemently with them, paedophiles have no place in society. And I do not believe they are capable of being rehabilitated.

What I DO believe though, is that paedophiles may have these urges, but THEY DON'T HAVE TO ACT ON THEM. That is partly why I cannot abide them, they commit the most heinous crimes because they don't control themselves.

NeedACleverNN · 20/04/2016 19:04

What I DO believe though, is that paedophiles may have these urges, but THEY DON'T HAVE TO ACT ON THEM. That is partly why I cannot abide them, they commit the most heinous crimes because they don't control themselves

If law and order special victims unit have any truth to it, they don't see it as a problem. One episode actually had a man say 50 years ago it was frowned upon to be in a mixed race relationship.it was frowned upon to be in a same sex relationship. My version of love is just that. I love them just like a man and woman love each other. Some bullshit like that anywayb

limitedperiodonly · 20/04/2016 19:14

The OP posted about a particular kind of social occasion; one where it would be reasonable to expect children to be present and photographs to be taken. Along with the usual kind of charming scenes of little girls dancing on their dads' toes.

I am not a hanger and flogger, but I would feel uncomfortable with someone who had been convicted of child sex abuse to be at that kind of gathering - for everyone's sake.

Becca1818 · 20/04/2016 19:20

I'm surprised he's allowed to be around children after that.

catewood21 · 20/04/2016 19:29

The thread is NOT ABOUT whether the guy is safe around children,.That is not what the OP asked, she makes it clear that it is about whether she should be at the same social event as a convicted paedophile.

OnYerBikePan · 20/04/2016 19:34

It may well be that he can't be around children, but the bride doesn't know/get this and he doesn't show after all.
But of course cate is right - the OP is about whether anyone else could go in the circs., and some of us answered 'yes'.

Stratter5 · 20/04/2016 19:39

I'm with you, Becca. And I'd be having a quiet word with my local police station about it.