Partners who stay with Sex Offenders *WARNING - EXTREMELY TRIGGERING CONTENT*

[nanoonanoomindy]

Hi

I realise this is a very uncomfortable subject but a thread on mumsnet a couple of days ago with a weblink for support for parents whose children have been referred to social services (can I say I absolutely agree such services should exist and that there isn't enough support for these families).

What has 'surprised' me is the extent that parents (and of course mainly mothers) are posting for advice and contempt that SS are involved as they are in a relationship/married to a partner who has been convicted of downloading child abuse images/found to be grooming 13/14 year olds. 'He was in a bad place, he's not like that now', 'He's been on this course and won't reoffend' and the best 'it was a malicious accusation' - negating the 1001 images recovered from his PC and can't understand while SS have a contact order meaning her partner can't have access to her children is in place.

There are women on there who KNOW their partners wave been convicted of abuse to children and are still claiming 'he isn't a threat'

It's so common on this link surely we have to have some wives/GF's on mumsnet who agree - I genuinely hope those living with a partner/whose children have been removed because you put your sex offender bloke first, will come forward and explain what I'm missing.

I think this is why so many partners don’t believe it or don’t understand, because their boyfriend / DH is interested in them sexually and has never shown signs of uncontrollable attraction to children. These men just want to control, abuse and hurt (usually women and girls, but not always) and they get off on this. I suspect the same is true for some of the men caught with CSA imagery on their hard drives.

Very good analysis.

Wow - imagine how you'd feel if that were your child - unbelievable and shame on you pathetic parents who could ever excuse her part in it

Have you ever thought about the purposes of prison sentences? Punishment is one, for example. Another is to serve as a public deterrent to others.

It's sounding horrifyingly possible in this thread that MC was guilty of more than she was convicted of, but we and the public at large still need to remember what she was actually convicted of, otherwise there is no deterrance value. There are a lot of women who think MC is the most evil woman in Britain and so on, who would supply a false alibi for their boyfriend in a heartbeat.

Just a couple of streets away from me lives a young woman who got convicted of interfering with the course of justice. Boyfriend had sexually assaulted young teen girls. The judge was uncompromising when he expressed his opinion of the man, and how vile his offences were. And the girl was still commenting on the facebook coverage of the case that "there was a lot that hadn't been heard in court" and claiming her boyfriend hadn't been allowed to tell his side of the story.

I don't expect she'd think of herself as like MC in the least, but in terms of what was proven in court, she did more to interfere with the police investigation than Maxine Carr.

Fortunately for her, she's not a household name because her boyfriend was "just" a serially sexually abusive bastard, and not a murderer.

No lessons will be learnt by anyone whatsoever if MC is compartmentalised as a complete monster, because then no-one will ever recognise how closely they're following in her footsteps.

If they were obviously evil, no one would stay

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

I just meant with abusive partners in general - if they were only ever vile and abusive, it would be much easier for victims to recognise the abuse and leave.

You're right, SinkGirl. These people are so good at playing mind games. My F was an expert, which is why we're all so messed up. If he had been plain evil, he wouldn't have had the hold over me that he still maintained over me after he'd died.

And in fact, there is no such thing as the pantomime villain in real life. I've read the autobiography of Mae West, daughter of Fred and Rose. Her father could play the part of the loving father; if anything she was more afraid of her mother, who played mind games with her from prison.

People don't have the numbers 666 tattooed on their foreheads sadly.

in order to succeed as a predator you have to outwit your prey, that's true of a cat stalking a bird, a lion stalking an antelope and of a sexual predator stalking a victim

*JamieVardysHavingAParty Thu 06-Jun-19 19:43:43
I always wonder about people like Maxine Carr who not only cover up for sexual abuse but sadistic murder too.

There is no evidence Maxine Carr did that.

Maxine Carr believed Huntley's claim that he had been victimised by the police before when previously charged for sexual assault. She believed it hook, line and sinker. I wouldn't be surprised if she was on anonymous social media in the years prior, telling everyone that her partner had been 'falsely accused of rape' and agitating for rape victims to be named when pressing charges.

Huntley told her that he needed an alibi to stop the police fitting him up, and as MC was wholly convinced he was innocent of the prior accusation, she did. I expect she thought she was helping the police really by forcing them to look for the 'real criminal'. She was wrong.

She testified against Huntley when she was convinced he had actually killed Jessica and Holly.

Maxine was a complete fool, and she impeded the investigation, but she didn't assist in the murders. She was not Myra Hindley.*

Maxine Carr as she was - she's had the fortune to name change - tried to cover up and hindered the investigation into the murder of Holly and Jessica - Damn right she should be vilified - she knew what he was accused of and tried to negate.

ANY woman who can possibly stay with a man accused of sex abuse, neglect, emotional abuse and lets be fair, abduction and murder of those poor girls - You're frankly inhumane and I just hope you don't have children. If you do? I'll do my best to make sure they're taken off you x