to think if a male paedophile is banned from living with under 18s w/o notifying police, then if he's found in sexual relationship with 17yo, he should go straight to jail?

[pisacake]

Said bloke 'identifies as a woman' and is subject to an order banning him from owning an internet-capable phone (though he can still use a PC), which he has breached four times without ever being sent to prison. He is also banned from living with under 18s without notifying the police.

He was caught, as a 33 year old man, in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old girl, which he had not notified the police of.

A previous judge said he was a 'considerable risk to children' and he has previous convictions (PLURAL) for sexually assaulting young women in the street.

theukdatabase.com/2012/08/24/ben-laws-ramsgate/
www.kentlive.news/news/sex-offender-found-living-teenage-1011583

He's obviously not thick or incapable of complying with the rules, he's just an arrogant paedophile who thinks he can do what he likes.

Which apparently, he can.

AIBU to think he should be in prison?

....or hung from the nearest tree.

Oh god please not another trans thread

Why is it relevant that he now identifies as a woman? Or that he's male in the first place? Regardless of sex and gender-identification, I'd think that a person at risk to children and in a relationship with a 17YO in violation of a police order should be dealt with harshly. Your post just makes it seem like you have an agenda.

Oh god please not another trans thread

Oh yes, another trans thread.

Oh hang on, no another thread about a MAN PRETENDING TO BE TRANS.

Fuck sake, women - wake the fuck up!

It's relevant because we've been gaslighted by TRAs who've said that trans people are no risk to women and have denied that they commit violent crimes against women at the same rate as men.

It is relevant because his crime will be recorded in the women's crime figures not men's.

It is relevant because women's sex segregated spaces are constantly under attack.

Hmmm
A sex crime but we should not discuss he sex or gender if the criminal. Handmaiden, much?

But he’s not living with her. And she’s above the age of consent.

Sorry, pressed post too soon.

So, actually, has he done anything to be recalled to prison for? Even if it seems dodgy, it’s not against his order?

ATeardrop Absolutely this! Mumsnet needs a like button.

"But he’s not living with her. And she’s above the age of consent."

"Today (January 4) Canterbury Crown Court heard Laws had moved the teenager into her home in Albert Court, York Street, Ramsgate."

did you even read?

He has a sexual interest in young girls, and the court order prevents him living with under-18s without notifying the police. Which he flagrantly breached by moving a girl who was 17 into his house in order to have sex with her.