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.

Original poster

To think paedophiles should be banned from "starting a family"?

131 replies

SaggyNaggy · 07/10/2016 13:01

ca.news.yahoo.com/paedophile-caught-137-000-indecent-083106459.html

Here's some info to save clicking:
Police found 400 videos in Category A, which is the most extreme, with another 255 films in Category B and 186 films and 851 images in Category C.
There were 1,692 movies and images ranging from Category A to C as well as the 4,336 videos and 137,000 images that remained uncategorised.

Sentence:
Sentencing Arrowsmith to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years, Recorder Martin Butterworth, said: “You are 41 years old, with no previous convictions and you pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
“There are three charges against you in relation to the possession of indecent images of children.
“I am taking into consideration your previous good character, you have a wife who supports you, a steady employment and your hopes to start a family in the near future.
“These are not victimless crimes, they encourage serious abuse of sometimes very young children.
“You were less than honest about the nature of the images.”
Digby Johnson, defending, told the court Arrowsmith and his wife, who was not present in court, were trying for children and wanted to start a family.
Arrowsmith, of Church Gresley, Derbyshire, was ordered to pay £250 costs and carry out 160 hours of unpaid work as well as being made the subject of a curfew restricting him from leaving his house between 7pm and 5am.
He is also banned from working with children and was ordered to sign the sexual offenders register.

Banned from working wowoith children but can quite happily have his own...

Im baffled, truly, truly baffled.

OP posts:
kate33 · 07/10/2016 13:38

I find this shocking. It makes me wonder about the judge tbh.
I am not up to date with current thinking on the rehabilitation of paedophiles. I don't know if I believe it's possible. I honestly think that they cannot help themselves and so should volunteer to be medically castrated and if they don't volunteer. ........I don't know. I do know I think no doubt about it - they would abuse their own kids. If a woman would go on to start a family with someone who had been convicted of having these evil images then she must be complicit or so beaten down but no I can't believe she would stay with him and then bring a child into such a situation.
I just can't believe this man didn't go to prison.

paranormalish · 07/10/2016 13:40

forget starting a family I am amazed you don't get serious jail time for having that shit on your computer.

Saltedcaramel2016 · 07/10/2016 13:41

I agree what is the difference between children in the images and his own potential children? I think if you are that way inclined you should not be planning your own family or allowed to live with children.

DixieNormas · 07/10/2016 13:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 07/10/2016 13:46

You can't prevent him from having children. It might be that Social Services won't let the children remain at home with him.

I do think the judge appears to have got this one wrong.

SmellySphinx · 07/10/2016 13:46

What would happen if these two were to go on and have children though? How would they feel having a father as a paedo and a mother who knew of it?!
Social services won't be there 24/7 it's a disaster waiting to happen surely

SheldonsSpot · 07/10/2016 13:46

This man should never ever be allowed unsupervised access to children, and neither should his wife.

I hope if they do try to start a family that SS are there at the birth to remove the child from both of them.

Valanice1989 · 07/10/2016 13:52

It depends what you mean by "start a family". If you mean "get someone pregnant", then the government can't interfere with that - they can't sterilise sex offenders. But they shouldn't be allowed to raise the children. It's astonishing that some people are more worried about the offender's right to "move on" than the child's right to safety.

Imagine if a woman posted on here that she'd just found out that her boyfriend had been in prison for beating up his ex-wife, or for rape. Would people say, "Don't you believe in rehabilitation? He's served his time. Are you going to hold it against him for the rest of his life? He deserves a second chance"? Honestly, I think very few people would guilt-trip her into staying with him. I think people would advise her to get away very quickly. If you wouldn't expect an adult to stay with someone like that, why would you expect a child to do so? The only difference is that the child isn't old enough to consent, so someone should step in on their behalf.

I'm sure people will say that he hasn't actually been found guilty of abusing a child himself, but that's irrelevant. The fact that he's even attracted to children in the first place - and gets turned on by watching children being sexually abused - makes him a risk. I don't believe paedophiles can be "cured". No one could give me any kind of therapy that would make me attracted to little boys instead of adult men, so I doubt the therapy can work the other way around. They will always be attracted to children. They may not act on it, but why should the child have to take the risk?

JinkxMonsoon · 07/10/2016 13:55

The offender I knew was allowed to go home to his child, so I wouldn't be so sure that SS won't allow this man to live with his future child.

Debinaround · 07/10/2016 13:57

The judge should be sacked, the case reviewed and he should serve jail time.

If his wife has his child (although I would like to think he would get a very long sentence and she would have divorced him by the time he was released) then ss should absolutely be there at the hospital to take the baby unless she gets rid of him.

Oh and I would brand him with a giant "P" on his forehead so everyone would know what he is and could keep their children safe from him.

Cocklodger · 07/10/2016 13:58

My family member, who raped me (when I was 13), has a public facebook profile. every other post or photo is to do with his wife and kid. he seems to be waking up and sleeping there,if not living there full time. I complained to social services,also sending evidence to back what happened and copies of these photos.
I've done this 17 times. If I get a reply its generally a generic, thanks for bringing this to our attention. nothing has changed. I've had to give up now, Its affecting my mental health. But it sickens me that nothing has been done. If I ever speak to his daughter (who atm is only a baby, it frightens me that she is unable, physically, to speak out right now :( ) I will tell her I tried to protect her. I know in my heart that one day I will get told that the same things that happened to me have happened to her.
I cannot understand why this is ok.

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 07/10/2016 13:59

do you believe people can never change?

Interestingly all the responses to this have been along similar lines; that a paedophile will always think like a paedophile. But let's not forget this isn't the thought police. You cannot punish people for the bad thoughts they have, or you believe they have. And actually people aren't criminals for having bad thoughts. They're criminals for acting on them. You can be a kleptomaniac who seeks all the help in the world to help them not to steal, because they know stealing is wrong. So can people change? Even if they have a hardwired thought process I think it is possible to change whether or not you act on it... but there are no guarantees, and obviously the risk is higher. I would think for this person's potential children the risk would surely be too high?

TheWomanTheyCallJayne · 07/10/2016 14:00

you have a wife that supports you
This is one case where I would have said that's it's worse that he has a wife that supports him

CocktailQueen · 07/10/2016 14:02

Here's another link:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/paedophile-caught-with-137k-indecent-images-of-children-spared-j/

137,000 images of children. Who have all been abused and raped just so perverts like this guy can get their jollies. It makes me sick. And so does the judge's sentencing. Arrowsmith may have been 'of previously good character', but that's only because he hadn't been bloody caught!!!

And if he's not allowed to work with children then how can he live with his own children? Disgusting.

Valanice1989 · 07/10/2016 14:02

If someone who has possessed indecent images is never allowed to have a family, then what about someone who murdered a child but who has served their term?

Of course child murderers shouldn't be allowed access to children once they've served their time. Confused If Ian Huntley or Roy Whiting were released from prison and fathered a child, do you think it would be fair for the child to be raised by them?

"Serving your time" just means you've completed your prison sentence - nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean that you get to continue your life as if nothing happened - that would infringe on other people's rights. If someone was convicted of embezzling funds from their employer, do you think they would get their job back once they were released from prison?

Valanice1989 · 07/10/2016 14:05

I'm sorry to hear that, Cocklodger. Flowers

Debinaround · 07/10/2016 14:09

Cocklodger Flowers It's not ok. Well it shouldn't be. Sad

SittingAround1 · 07/10/2016 14:10

One way of stopping him from having children would be a lengthy prison sentence. And some therapy for his wife.
10 months suspended sentence is sending out the message that this isn't a serious crime, when in reality it's horrendous and messes up many young people's lives.

Bananabread123 · 07/10/2016 14:12

Although it's something that is deemed to be unreasonable, forced sterilisation for those convicted of these crimes would be extremely sensible and fitting.

As for his rights? Having children should be seen by society as a privilege not a right in my opinion (albeit a privilege that is not unreasonably withheld).

Collaborate · 07/10/2016 14:12

In reality social services will be closely involved if they start a family. He may have to move out, and only be allowed supervised contact.

We'd never, quite rightly, get to hear about that.

There are many people who have their children taken off them as soon as they are born - those who have a track record of not being able to care for children and having previous ones removed. this can be due to drug abuse, learning difficulties, sexual offences or for other reasons. Should we sterilise them all?

I'll help you with the answer. No.

MargotsDevil · 07/10/2016 14:13

"I am taking into consideration your previous good character"

Because obviously 6,000 videos materialised overnight...Hmm

Would be interesting to know if there was any sort of internet/PC restrictions imposed to go with the curfew and community service. Irrelevant though - I completely agree with PPs that paedophiles can't change - my understanding is that it is a sexual preference in the same way that homosexuals don't "choose" to be gay.

Cocklodger · 07/10/2016 14:14

No, we shouldn't sterilize them.
we should remove their children

SmellySphinx · 07/10/2016 14:15

Just clicked on the link and saw his photo which will now be all over the internet in papers etc I wonder how much police protection he and his wife will now get...

BillSykesDog · 07/10/2016 14:15

YABU, because you can't force people to be sterilised against their consent. Down that road lies a lot of dangerous things. Where would the line be drawn? What other people would we deem so unsuitable they must be sterilised? Drug addicts? Alcoholics? The mentally ill? And you can't stop consenting adults having sex.

IMO the best course that could be taken is an additional ban on being alone with under 18s and an automatic ban on any access to their own children if they are convicted of any sort of sex offences involving children. If they want that the ban on access changing the onus should be on them to take it to court and show they are now safe to be around them. Judges should not be passing the buck onto social services when it's clear they're not suitable parents.

Frestelli · 07/10/2016 14:15

A good start would be a year in prison for every image found on his computer...