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

[SaggyNaggy]

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.

Whilst it is easy to be critical of the wife, she may still be struggling to come to terms with the fact that her life is a lie and the man she is married to is not the man she thought he was. May be her current reaction is an attempt to deal with the fact her world is imploding.

Forcing sterilisation is one thing, but essentially giving him a free pass from jail and suffering some punishment for his crimes because he wants to start a family is a fucking piss take. Can you imagine that defence with drink driving? I'm sorry judge, I know i ran over a couple of kids whilst pissed out my face but don't send me to jail or ban me, I want to be able to drive every day. Fuck that shit

He has no restrictions at all relating to being around children.

I am not an idiot an not is my head in the sand. I was given all information by him and this was all confirmed by the police.

The police haven't seen him as a threat to children for many years and neither have social services. Supervision was in place for our dd purely as an additional form of support for us. It was a formality and was revoked when she was still very tiny.

I made a decision with all the information laid out in front of me.

If you killed someone whilst driving would you expect to never again be allowed a driving license?

Protectmyidentity

Do you really think that 'being in a dark place' with one's previous relationship is any kind of 'reason' for this kind of offence? I'm pretty sure a lot of us on here have been in 'a dark place', I know I have. It didn't alter the fact I'm only attracted to adults.

Protect: Not all these people are inherently evil. Some just get caught in something by accident and they don't know how to get out of it.

That might apply to your partner, but it does NOT to Arrowsmith.

137,000 images of child abuse is no accident. :(

November have you actually read my post. He at no point when looking for child pornography. On a dark place he turned to pornography. When he couldn't tell of what he was looking at was legal he stopped.

He knew if it wasn't it was wrong. It turned out through a police investigation of the website he had been using that some of the images were not legal. Some only just but other turned out to be younger than that. Having been shown by the police some of the images it is difficult to tell.

I am not saying that makes it ok. He is fully aware of. Y feelings on the matter and what I would do to him if I ever found out he was using any sort of porn. However, he made an judgement call that turned out to be wrong but he had stopped viewing the images.

The police & social service do not see him as a threat and they are the ones who should know. He deserves a second chance and I chose to give him that.

I think OP you fail to realise how many people access child abuse images. So many that I'm sure you have quite a few of them in your immediate circle.

Of course you don't believe me. And to be honest, for your own sanity you are better off not realising.

Cocktail I am not for a second saying or implying that it is the same. However what I am trying to point out is that not all sex offenders are equal and there fore a one size fits all punishment should not be permitted to occur.

Wtf? Previous good character? How does that make a difference you'd never seen that tosh when someone murders someone and only 10 months with cat A?

Wondering if this is a MNer who posted a few weeks ago about a man whose wife was standing by him...

Sunshine that's the point I tried to explain, it's largely a case of what the woman discloses either in innocence or deception.

Shame on any woman who stays with such a man, never mind one who plans to or goes on to have children with him.
I wonder how many judges have a propensity for paedophilia. Look at Lord Justice Fulford and others.

protectmyidentity I don't pretend any legal knowledge, but the sentencing guidelines suggest that custody would have been unlikely if the circumstances really were as you describe, without any further aggravating factors

Obviously you know this guy and we don't, but I really hope for your own sake that you're not minimising this ...

You sound very reasonable protect but what I don't understand is how your oh got jail time for accessing a few images he wasn't sure about in terms of legality (slightly under 18)? But the scum referred to in the op has a suspended sentence for thousands of images including cat A? Don't these offences carry recommended sentences for judges to roughly follow? Where's the consistency?
Are you sure what the police showed/told you was the extent of it?

Cross post with puzzled

Cracks me up - he was placed and remains on the sex offenders register as he is indeed still obviously a threat to children.

You can minimize and justify it to yourself all you, it's your life, but I doubt very much you are going to convince any one on here that you have made the right choice in regards to your kids!

Child sexual abuse is about three things:-

• a person who"s sexual Orientation is kids
• Access to children (grooming stage)
• the physical act of abuse

Let's say you put a reformed heroin addict in a room for a significant amount of years (similar to your husband having access to your child in your house) - you place a bag of smack and a some foil/needle in front of him - how long before he gives in and takes what he needs?, - what his body & mind craves & desires (eventually as his mental strength and determination to combat the addiction erodes & support network dwindle over time).

You sound as if he per chance came across some images that were on the grey area of the law but not grey enough to avoid conviction.

I personally wouldn't even sleep knowing he was in my house around my kids and eventually grandkids (who also will be at risk) but that is how females are coerced into accepting abusive behaviours and keep quiet about it as they minimize, normalize and blame project "it was the Internet, he was in a dark place" and the rest of the crap which I'm sure is a well rehearsed pity party on his part

I'm not having a go but trying to be straight and let's just ask - are you really hand on heart happy and trusting enough to leave him unsupervised with your baby/small child who is unable to communicate & think he will not abuse the child?

This story absolutely appalled me. I have sat at case conferences when members of families have been found to have indecent images of children, and more often than not they have to be risk assessed by specialist psychologists before they go back in the family home,or have any contact with their children. The women that KNOW their partners have accessed this material and stay with them absolutely sicken me, although that being said there is often an element of these predatory or controlling partners grooming the mothers themselves, plus they target the vulnerable. The whole thing is just fucking heartbreaking.

Shame on any woman who stays with such a man, never mind one who plans to or goes on to have children with him.

Totally agree. People can make all kinds of excuses or come up with all kinds of reasons why she'd stay with him and plan a family with him, I don't buy any of them.

There comes a time when people have to take responsibility for their own choices, you have a child with a man you know is a paedophile you deserve to have your children taken off you.

No more to it. Just a judge who branded all sex offenders as the same. Trust me the policeman who came to make sure my partner had been truthful was exceptionally brutal with the truth. They have to be. They have to know that as the partner you are fully aware and not being coerced. My partner wasn't allowed to be present and I was asked what he had said before I was told anything.

I am not minimising or protecting him. He was a fucking idiot. I am not excusing his actions and neither is he. But it is an explanation of how lines became blurred.

When I first was told (before I was pregnant) I was disgusted. I branded all people equally who looked at that sort of filth. However, I had known him through others for a long time. Knew him to be kind, quiet and hard working. I came to see the person behind the crime and see the remorse and the self disgust at what he had done.

I have taken a big risk posting and I thank you for not tearing me to shreds and listening to my perspective.

I am not excusing these people and I am not defending them but I am asking you to remember that. It everyone is a prolific offender. Not everyone makes a conscious choice to go hunting for abhorrent images - some people genuinely do find themselves in a sticky situation by chance.

The other thing I would like to say is that those people we know about are far less of a threat than those who have yet to be caught. Statistically we are all in contact wth at least 1 person who has gone looking for such images.

Lolly yes i do and i have

And lolly he remains on it due to a CIVIL order relating to his pc, nothing whatsoever to do with any criminal issue.

This type of order has been ruled as a breech of human rights by the high court and the legal system is now having to apply end dates which is a process that is currently happening and is fully supported by the police that have dealt with my partner.

I can't understand it either op.

Like a poster had said you abuse animals you can be banned from owning one.

When I was nursing we had a woman who took her violent paedophile partner back despite her then having her 4 kids taken into care. She was told this would happen and she choose him over them.

Baffling. And why wasn't this psedophile jailed properly and not deferred.

I think that people who access these disgusting images should be jailed as if they had committed the offences they are viewing.

Just a judge who branded all sex offenders as the same

But surely even unreasonable judges have to take account of the sentencing guidelines? Or if this one didn't for some reason, then presumably your DH must have appealed his sentence?

Puzzled - no idea I wasn't with him at the time. I think he just accepted it as he was so ashamed. He felt he should have known that the pictures weren't legal (although having seen some of them I couldn't pick out the underage ones from those that were OK) and accepted that she was due punishment. His sentence was a short one and he served 30 days so I think the judge was probably within his guidelines but used the maximum allowed

I think you are very brave to be honest about your choices & respect that. But it is hard to comprehend and rationalise but ultimately it is your life and your children's future you are gambling with. As an abuse survivor I still struggle with flashbacks and nightmares 35 years on.

It's funny, my own father upon receiving a 20 year sentence for his abuse & rape, stood in court before me, and the other victims & stated his disgust at paedophillia and how he could never be involved in such acts, despite all the evidence, and a jury of 12 all in agreement, we were "money seeking fantasists" and he still denied it and that he had recently moved in with a single mum with 2 young girls (fresh meat to work on, which prompted me to go to the police) it's called distancing in psychology. I will also never forget how he laughed, when I described the first time he raped me which was noticed by the cps officer and said it chilled him to the bone.

I just hope one day your support is not in vain - as you'll have a job on your hands telling your kids you knew all along, he was a peadophile and stayed with him anyway, if he does go on to abuse them and you will have to tell them either way, as he could be a threat to you future grand kids.

Quite a heavy burden to carry for life, if you were my mother I'd never speak to you again after condemning me to a life of hiding the families dirty little secret & being the son/daughter of the local perv, let alone the risk, to them their friends, their kids etc.

Let's hope when it does come back to haunt you, you are strong enough to admit defeat and go to the police and never go back to him.

Lolly - if there was even a hint of anything he would be out the on his arse. He knows it, I know it, the police and social services know it. I wouldn't think twice about killing him if he ever laid a finger on dd.

He made an error of judgement. He has been assessed etc as part of his sentence and at no point has anyone considered him a physical risk. The supervision for the kids was only ever procedural not because he was considered a danger. Rightly or wrongly in other people's opinions I believe his remorse and I trust the officials involved and their professional assessments of him. He is considered a low risk in terms of likelihood to reoffend.

I am so sorry for what you went through and I am disgusted on your behalf that your father could not only do it but deny and laugh about it. That must have been awful for you.