That this decision by Rotherham Council is unbelievable!

[mothertruck3r]

Well, not really unbelievable in this era of craziness but make me furious. It seems like the girls who were victims of these gangs still don't have any value (judging by the subsequent treatment by the Council) and their emotional and physical wellbeing is completely dismissed so that a rapist can see his child. What were Rotherham Council thinking!!??

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46368991

Or he cold rape the boy. I don't think they're that fussy.
You do not expose a child to a child rapist.

No you don't expose any child to that, User12345 response was quite frankly shocking and unacceptable.

@Xenia if a child is coming into care, and likely to remain in care (so not just short term/respite), then the social worker will always consider first if there are any family members suitable to care under, say, a Special Guardianship Order. This would of course require a full assessment to ensure they are able to keep the child safe and meet their needs.

We need a new law to prevent rapists accessing the children they forcibly create, because rotten boroughs like Rotherham Council will always prioritise the rights of the rapists, or be too lazy to defend against them

Again, you do not know why they didn't apply (if indeed they didn't, as The Transparency Project point out, we don't actually have that information). So this is reaching. It's absolutely fine to say it looks that way to you, but any more than that is people saying things they can't back up.

Agree though that the legal position isn't satisfactory. There's a mechanism that clearly isn't interpreted or applied in the same way by all professionals, and as it involves an active application, it's inevitably vulnerable to resource based decisions or just fuckups in a climate of increasing austerity and cuts.

He is a child rapist. If he gets to know his child that child will likely be raped

WTAF are you on about! He has a right to know his child, no he has no rights! He threw them away when he raped a child. What about the child's safety and wellbeing, he is rapist, a sex offender, and a paedophile! Do you honestly think he will care and look after this child, and have their well being and safety at heart. You have leaved go of all your senses.

Is there any evidence he raped a family member or any of his own children? Is the child the same sex as his victims? Were any of the victims pre-pubescent?

You can never have a serious dialogue on these issues because people just become hysterical and take leave of the facts.

I'm glad people like the people on this thread aren't one ones making the laws.

He raped a child. A load of caveats about who that child was or wasn't doesn't make other children safer. It's no hysteria it's simple risk assessment.

You don't have all the facts to make a risk assessment.

lol @ person with rapists best interests at hearts telling women off for deciding that violent child rapists are bad men.

It's attitudes like these that let these men and so men others rape with impunity for years (and continue to do so).

Sometimes you don't need nuance, no matter how sad it makes some poeple. You are convicted of multiple counts of child grooming sex abuse etc, you are a BAD MAN. End of story :)

Should said child rapist be given access to children he has conceived through the rape of children?

Well why not! Says user.

Mens rights innit, bloody women taking against men who have been convicted of child rape, wanting to deny them access to children! Wanting their victims not to be forced into ongoing relationships with their abusers! Feminazis pah froth etc.

Oh do give up!

The mother had ample opportunity in courts to show that he father was and is a danger to her and her son. In the video and as reported in many newspapers:

Miss Woodhouse said Hussain had been proved to be "a danger to myself and to other children".

She added: "I've also been able to prove that he is a direct danger to my son.

That isn't hysteria, it is an acknowledgement of the facts, as accepted in a court!

No I don't but I'd still do everything in my power to keep my children and any other children I could away from him. If you wouldn't you're a bloody fool.

He is a convicted sex offender. What more facts could be relevant? Maybe if he was dead he'd be an acceptable level of risk, OK.

Username isn't saying anything which isn't already enshrined in law.

Immigrants??

Where do you draw the line of which crimes means you have no rights of access to your child?

Not all sex offenders offend against children or even their own children.

Someone with all the available facts should make the decision of how much a risk or damaging it would be for him to have access to the child.

I'm never going to be an angry villager with a pitchfork.

I take it you aren't fussed about the brown girls also getting raped then Vicky, or the white men committing sexual assaults? Shocker.

"BlancheM Wed 28-Nov-18 16:24:50
Username isn't saying anything which isn't already enshrined in law."

My understanding was that the parents do not have "rights" to the child, but that everything centres on the rights of the child.

User has said that this father has rights to his child. My understanding is that this is not what the law says. That it is child centred.

"Where do you draw the line of which crimes means you have no rights of access to your child?"

Weelllllllllllllll

He's in prison for multiple counts of grooming and child rape
For 35 YEARS.
He repeatedly raped the childs mother.

I would say that is a reasonable starting point for a line, personally.

Thank god User12345 isin the minority, and keys hope that don't work with vulnerable children, or safeguarding children. Bloody hopeless.

Nothing that is right, the rights belong to the child but the outcome is the same, the benefits outweighing the missed relationship in relation to what is best for the child is the argument used day in day out by convicted criminals including rapists and paedophiles up and down the country and is what grants them access. It's the law and it's current and it happens everywhere, it isn't some controversial idea born out of Rotherham council which is what concerns me about the way this has been reported.

Dunno

Users ideas seem quite well aligned to police forces throughout the uk, council people etc etc

The reason that the likes of these men, saville etc were able to operate with impunity for years
Then even when caught, keep getting opportunities to revistimise their original victims + get more victims poss very young

Beacsue mens rights.

The chdw rights and safety come first, he is a convicted sex offenders who raped a CHILD, should mean he never has access to children including his own.

I'm aware of that Blanche

You said that user was correct in the law >>
He is not correct that in law a man has a "right" to his children.
I don't want anyone thinking that poster is anything other than a complete pillock

sorry I assumed user was male
I don't know why
Didn't even realise I'd written that til I read it back!

user may be female