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.

You are very brave to say your situation here

BUT you are also incredibly naive/in denial. I'm with the poster who said about an addict locked in a room with the focus of their addiction eventually they will succumb.

I am a survivor and have worked in child protection and sat in on case conferences. They don't change they just become more successful con artists/groomers. They groom the adults protecting the children as well as the children - before the children in fact. They usually have a gender and age preference . I believe your daughter at the moment is safe, she will not be once she reaches the age he is attracted to.

Depression does not induce paedophilia. So the being 'in a dark place' is an excuse.

In addition I want to tell you that as a result of my own abuse I not only have ongoing issues I have an appalling relationship with my mother because she put me at risk and doesn't believe the abuse occurred, even with other evidence not just me saying.

Even if your husband doesn't abuse your daughter/any other children you have, your daughter is likely to find out. Will she trust you with your grandchildren? (I don't trust my mother, this is a common reaction in circumstances like mine and yours).

I think you're wrong to stay with him and are giving him a potential victim and certainly allowing him to think what he did wasn't 'that bad'.

As for the original criminal we are discussing here. I would not want him anywhere near any children including his own, the judge in this case has behaved weakly, without understanding the true effects on the children that are abused for the pleasure of these sickos.

Thank u, im through it now, after a heap load of cbt and therapy but still struggle from time to time - 💩 happens! - it is interesting and equally mind boggling at the same time reading your story. I have often thought of the mindset of my own mother and her actions and this has given me a little insight into the motivation to remain with such a person and why & how, you have forgiven & seen past that.

It's also interesting to think of how deeply peadophillia tendencies varies from person to person and in terms of how prolific they are, i say this because, in other countries they have unbiasrd helplines for them to call and a more open and forward thinking approach to prevention alongside various therapies.

Apologies for the waffle I'm in the process of setting up a local charity & although difficult to hear/read, it's good to get a 360° perspective, in order to try and make a real difference, & approach it from different angles, as at the moment our how we handle it in this country has some serious flaws.

Thank you & all the best x

I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if a photo of my child being abused was viewed by a man who felt looking at it was "an error in judgement" or similar.

I think for me that is the distinction - the depth of the tendencies. For me there is a huge difference between hundreds of thousands of images and a prolific offender and the things that my partner had. Same as there is a huge difference between someone on the register who got caught having a pee in a park and a rapist.

I am aware I am taking a huge gamble and there is a possibility that everyone is wrong but I choose to believe them and trust him.

I agree though, the stigma attached to it and the broadcast grouping of "all as bad as each other" is one of the reasons so many people don't get access to help. In many countries people can contact support groups and discuss their urges without fear of repercussions and get help before they do anything.

I

Graphista I am neither naive or in denial

Crashdoll - read the words rather than what you want it to say. His error in judgement was over how old he thought the girls were. Not at looking at them. And as I have repeatedly said here, the police showed me some and I couldn't tell the ones that were 18+ and legal and the ones that were 14-16 and illegal.

I personally think this judge should be made to look at every single one of these vile images and then see if his sentencing was appropriate. This is way beyond allowing him a 'second chance' or being allowed to 'redeem himself'. He is sexually attracted to children which is hard wired into him like being heterosexual is for me. He has already acted on his fantasies by searching for child porn so he's an active participant in abuse. Just because he wasn't physically responsible for the abuse it's abuse all the same. The sheer amount of category A stuff shows how serious he is about being a paedophile. I don't believe for a second that he'll never search out that vile stuff again. He knows how to find it and he's probably made connections with other similarly minded people. A much easier way to stop him having children is to lock him and his wife up in separate jails. Her behaviour is passive abuse, she's not stopping him so in my mind is an accessory to a crime. Even if she genuinely didn't know what he was up to before the case she certainly is now and is standing by him so is guilty of assisting anything he does in the future. Which he will. I will never, ever understand people like the judge, this scumbag and his stupid partner. Send them both to jail and let their jail companions do the rest.

But you're not gambling YOUR safety YOUR mental health YOUR happiness you're gambling your daughter's, she is completely innocent and doesn't deserve to be the ante

Graphista what evidence do you have that she is at risk? Have you read my partner's file? Have you met him? Have you assessed us as a family? NO so stop making sweeping judgements about something you know absolutely nothing about

For me there is a huge difference between hundreds of thousands of images and a prolific offender and the things that my partner had

Even if this is so, don't you ever wonder whether the only reason he didn't collect more images is that he was caught first?

Paedophiles and those interested in grooming children are not just on the internet and they've been around for years. The wolf-whistling thread today shows how prevalent that actually is.

From the time I was in high school, aged 11-15 I was regularly approached and even approached by men. I never felt safe and used to take different routes home, wait in school until it was late to vary the time I left. I expect some of those men are husbands whose wives post here, safe and smug in the 'knowledge' that their man is decent. Urgh.

It's easy to say that paedophiles shouldn't have children but I think there are many more out there, in plain sight, then have ever been caught and convicted. I really agree with DollyBarton's post too.

Protectmyidentity

I am basing my responses and opinion on what you yourself have said, my experience both personal and professional, and that of colleagues still working in the arena.

‘My partner is on the sex offenders register.’ because he IS a convicted sex offender

‘He had images of children’ being sexually abused, therefore creating the demand for such images to be created.

‘He was arrested’ for a crime of which he was convicted. That alone requires a hell of a lot of evidence.

‘served a short jail term’ rare and usually reserved for the most serious offenders.

‘he wasn't allowed to live with his kids and was only allowed supervised access.’ more than one person will have decided this was necessary based on the evidence that convicted him.

MuseumOfCurry

i think you have a point there. paedophilia is disgusting but it isn't any worse than physical verbal or emotional abuse. i have always been a bit baffled as to why sexual abuse is seen as more damaging than the other kinds? especially as the effects are so similar for all kinds as well

Not everyone makes a conscious choice to go hunting for abhorrent images - some people genuinely do find themselves in a sticky situation by chance.

Yes, and if you accidentally access this type of image you write down the web address the close it and report it to CEOP and you won't be prosecuted. You don't carry on downloading multiple images.

no idea I wasn't with him at the time.....having seen some of them I couldn't pick out the underage ones from those that were OK

You weren't with him at the time but you've seen some of the pictures? How? I find it very hard to believe the police would show them to you. And if your partner had them it would be extremely odd and sinister. I also think being prosecuted for a few borderline sounds a bit implausible.

if you accidentally access this type of image you write down the web address the close it and report it to CEOP

Precisely

My own experience of this came from receiving emails from an ex boss, which somehow brought up the child abuse sites he'd clearly been using. Being an IT numpty I was terrified they'd somehow "infect" my own emails, so I took it all the way

The point, though, is that those sites were linked to my computer, yet nobody ever questioned me about it. Maybe I was just lucky, or maybe, in OP's DH's case, there's a LOT more to it than she's been told

This person lives close to me. The entire community is against him. I doubt he will have a happy family life.

Protectmyidentity, I'm going to guess that the vast majority of men access online porn at some point - they don't just accidentally stumble from that into child porn.

You seem confident in your decision, I hope you're ratified in the fullness of time but I have no earthly idea why you'd walk into this situation.

Really the issue is the cost of keeping someone locked up. A criminal defence barrister once told me it costs about £90,000 pa. to keep one person in prison.

Now I'm no expert but I reckon prison ought to be a simpler regime, run on a more economical basis. Leave them in their cells with a few books to read most of the day. That way we could fit more in and stop pathetic sentences like this.

Actually, when you look at the guidelines Judges use for sentencing, this is completely in the range of normal. It would be a starting point of one year. Previous good character (ie no previous convictions) is something that is always taken into consideration, and that will push the sentence down slightly. Pushing it up is the number of images, and that there were a lot of videos. If the photos were of borderline age, then realistically that would likely attract a lower sentence than if they were very young children.

As he pleaded guilty at the first oppertunity, that usually attracts 1/3rd off the sentence. So a 10 month sentence would have been 15 months before GP discount.

The length of time is spot on for the offences (whether you agree with the guidelines is another matter). The Judge then has a discretion as to whether it should be suspended because its under 2 years.

I think it was crass to mention his desire to start a family in the circumstances, and I think thats whats gathered all the press attention, rather than the actual sentence imposed.

There will be lots of police involvement in the future, and lots of SS involvement. They will be keeping a VERY close eye on things.

I know this is an unpopular view on here but I don't see the point of applying the paedophile tag to people who are aroused by sexual images of what looks like fully mature young adults who turn out to actually be under a legally proscribed age.

I've learned from this thread that the age is 18, and of course there are solid reasons for that. But it makes no sense to me to give a shocking label to actions that so many ordinary, non abusive people do.

Most people have consensual sex before the age of 18. I personally was 15. Of course it's an area to be handled very sensitively especially where there are age or power imbalances, or exploitative images taken, but to call it paedophilia is laughable surely.

If (and I accept it's a big if) the guy referred to by the poster is telling the full truth, then I see no risk whatsoever to children. The images he says he viewed were not of children. And he's not a paedophile.

If he is, then so am I. I've had full sex with a fifteen year old.

I know this is an unpopular view on here but I don't see the point of applying the paedophile tag to people who are aroused by sexual images of what looks like fully mature young adults who turn out to actually be under a legally proscribed age.

I agree.

Morris I agree too. But I was very much under the impression that the criminal justice system took the same view. There have been a lot of reports recently that so many people are looking at this sort of thing that only the worst cases are being prosecuted because we simply don't have the resources to target everyone.

Which makes me a bit.

IWasGintyMarlowe - The difference between sexual abuse and other abuses is very different, sexual abuse is scientifically proven to change parts of the brain, I have flashbacks nightmares (ptsd) severe anxiety. Can you imagine what it is like being raped at every given opportunity for 7+ years in your most formative years, not even being able to sleep in fear of whether the door will open every night and then when they split, you are to be sent to your abusers every weekend and full 6 weeks holidays to be your own fathers sexual play thing. You try to escape but he enjoys eatching you desperately scramble around a fkat knowing hes got you locked in and there's no escape or when he threatens to rape your 2.5 year old sister ifor you do not comply and then later you find out he was grooming her separately, he places cooking timers in bowls of pot pourri in your room set to go off in the middle of the night after telling you ghost stories your 10 your afraidetails of the ghosting but more afraid of running into your dad's room for help so you stay awake all night as you know that was the plan - despite you telling your mother and social services who did nothing.

IWasGintyMarlowe - Please tell us all again how sexual abuse isn't more damaging than regular abuse, which I'm not saying can't be of equal damage but mentally ill have to live with this and no amount of counselling or therapy has eased it in any way. Bruises heal mental scars don't!

lollylou2876

The thing is with the "well I thought the images/videos were of participants of legal age" argument is that it is often an excuse. Most "reputable" (if there is such a thing) porn sites such as Pornhub, which is the mostly widely used, have very specific terms and conditions about the age of the participants in the videos, I believe they are also legally required to maintain documentation proving the performers are of legal age. So those that stumble upon "borderline"images must have been "stumbling" around some pretty dubious websites anyway.