Identifying a pedophile to his neighbours

[Bipitybopityboop]

If you found out, through work, that a pedophile was going to live on a certain street near you.
Would you anonymously let the neighbourhood know?

Would you want to know?

This could not be traced back to one individual.

Whatthe sensiblepeople are saying is that by knowing that Sam Smith at Number 1 is a convicted paedophile and going round and harassing them -DOESN'T PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN

Who's going round to harass them? As a parent I would want to know if a onvicted paedophile or child sex offender etc moved into my street, and another neighbour knew, I would definitely want them to tell me. Not so I could go round and harass them, bot so I could keep my children safer (because I keep th as safe as possible anyway, but so I wasn't stopping to have a little chat with them about the weather, or what day the bins go out.

It is of course important to balance a good awareness of the possibility of abuse (by basically anyone, anywhere) and a high level of attention to helping children protect themselves and report concerns, with allowing children autonomy and independence. In most of the cases of CSA I have seen (which is a great many), if the child had had a safe avenue and the appropriate words to be able to express concern/disclose abuse they would have. Communication failures are a very common theme (whether in families or institutions).

Stranger danger is not helpful - why aren't the professionals doing more to educate parents about this? No, far more important to go on a parenting forum and suggest that we should put convicted child offenders first and not share public domain info about them.

I'd recommend this book to any parent who wants to protect their child. It's up to us, clearly.

books.google.co.uk/books/about/Protecting_the_Gift.html?id=utSpn51Usd0C&redir_esc=y

@MrsOrMiss that is not "utter crap", it is a factual description of what words mean. I am minimising nothing.The word paedophile does not mean the same thing as child sex offender and the word convicted has a specific legal meaning. Surely you must agree that someone could be a paedophile yet not have been convicted of an offence?

How is that minimising anything?

Our force assisted another force a man, suspected of kidnapping murdering a child, he was convicted previously, his alibi was thin, when they tested his vehicle the victims urine was found soaked into the seat.

Just imagine that for a moment.

[quote theDudesmummy]@Iminaglasscaseofemotion IF you knew. But in most cases, you would not know. You cannot assume someone is safe just because you don't have evidence. Sadly, sexual abuse of children is far far more common than many people would imagine.

@icelollies If there was a known actual or potential sex offender who was not being adequately monitored/supported /treated (whichever of these was appropriate in the specific case) then I would want the relevent authorities to know. But I am aware that for most potential offenders (undiagnosed paedophiles and unconvicted sex offenders) no-one knows that they are a potential offender. So I keep that in mind.[/quote]
Trust me, I'm well aware of how common it is. This whole thread isn't about hearsay though is it? The OP knows this information as fact. This person has been convicted. U don't assume anyone is safe. I am extremely wary of everyone, but as I said, I wouldn't go around treating everyone as a suspect, but you can be guaranteed if I found out they had been convicted of any crime against children, my attitude towards them would certainly change.

@Foxglovesandlilacs

But we’re not talking about getting the wrong person, or rumours, we’re talking about someone who has been convicted for sexually abusing children. If you are 100% sure of the identity of this person, I would tell everyone.

The police and the law do not protect children in this country, probably because so many of them are paedos, rapists and murderers themselves.

Yep, the muddying of the waters on this thread is interesting isn't it.

We're talking about a CONVICTED paedophile here, probably one whose crimes occurred a while ago if they're out (so no immediate outrage for people to get angry about). Not rumours, not made up vigilantes.

I'm hoping OP's been spurred on to tell the neighbours by all the minimising.

The thing is paedophiles are often really good at grooming adults too. Including professionals.

This reminds me of Criminal UK on Netflix.

@MrsOrMissI have met literally hundreds of people who were sexually abused in childhood by people who were not and never have been convicted of any offence. This is often incredibly difficult for them, especially if they have disclosed the abuse and maybe even gone to court. To say that there is no difference between the term "child sex offender" and the term "convicted child sex offender" is minimising their experience, in fact. There is a huge difference in law, and to the survivor.

@theDudesmummy

So you are saying yes then, you would want to know, so you could make sure that the authorities knew, and were monitoring them.

Maybe that’s the same for most of us? We want to know, and we want to make sure authorities know and are acting appropriately.

I am saying that I think the "neighbourhood" knowing (and probably knowing incomplete and possibly inaccurate information) is on balance likely to increase the risks involved in most circumstances.

No.

I lived on a street with an outed sex offender and honestly myself and my children were much safer before half the town knew.

We had idiots speeding down the road throwing rocks at his window. His neighbours had their windows smashed when one of the rocks landed off target. We had gangs of thugs congregating outside his house, on the street corner and hammering on his door demanding blood and one uber idiot who poured petrol through his letter box and then posted a lot firework. Luckily the fire was put up quickly.

The police took up permanent residence outside his house, remaining there long after he had been moved for his own safety so not only was it terrifying for everyone on the street it was also a massive waste of police resources

I'd much rather have not known and had him live peacefully and monitored by professionals.

Comparison with other crimes is interesting.

I mean, you don't get people saying 'no you shouldn't tell your friend about the dodgy convicted car dealer who sells stolen cars'. Some people might get quite violent if they've handed over cash for a car that turns out to be stolen. But no-one would dream of not passing on information about a conviction there. You'd want to protect your friends and neighbours by sharing the info,

And the stakes are much higher for child sexual abuse.

[quote theDudesmummy]@MrsOrMissI have met literally hundreds of people who were sexually abused in childhood by people who were not and never have been convicted of any offence. This is often incredibly difficult for them, especially if they have disclosed the abuse and maybe even gone to court. To say that there is no difference between the term "child sex offender" and the term "convicted child sex offender" is minimising their experience, in fact. There is a huge difference in law, and to the survivor.[/quote]
How so? I'm struggling to understand this opinion.

@TolkiensFallow

It’s still gross misconduct.

Then I suggest you do not get caught

From the sparse information from OP, a conversation was overheard in an open plan office where a persons identity, address and convictions were discussed in enough details the OP has identified the person and wants to share this information with other people.

I would expect doing so would be gross misconduct, meaning you could loose your job if not face legal action.

This type of 'warning' often leads to vigilante action and violence, it's seen too often and is not the answer. It's not 'protecting' anyone and is not justice.

OP if you haven't already you should raise concerns at work about what is discussed in an open plan office. You know this information now and can't do anything about it but you also know if you have DC you won't be leaving them alone with this person but you absolutely should not be broadcasting it whether anonymous or not.

Interesting that some posters have suddenly become experts in risk management, yet are unable to come up with any cogent solution to dealing with the issues raised.

@MrsOrMiss

What the F?"£ , Did I just read that utter crap? They are three different classes of thing. Paedophile: a mental condition Child sex offending: a behaviour Convicted child sex offender: a legal status^

F?"£ing HELL!
I care not, stop muddying this, its vile and beyond disgusting. Stop minimizing. A person that is sexually aroused by a child needs to at best get their head out of their arse.

Firstly, you can say fuck on here.

Secondly, it's not muddying or minimizing anything, that's exactly what they are.

A paedophile is not always a criminal. They may not engage in criminal behaviour.

@Frequency

No.

I lived on a street with an outed sex offender and honestly myself and my children were much safer before half the town knew.

We had idiots speeding down the road throwing rocks at his window. His neighbours had their windows smashed when one of the rocks landed off target. We had gangs of thugs congregating outside his house, on the street corner and hammering on his door demanding blood and one uber idiot who poured petrol through his letter box and then posted a lot firework. Luckily the fire was put up quickly.

The police took up permanent residence outside his house, remaining there long after he had been moved for his own safety so not only was it terrifying for everyone on the street it was also a massive waste of police resources

I'd much rather have not known and had him live peacefully and monitored by professionals.

I sympathise, Frequency, and agree with you.

Don't do it op. You will achieve nothing except perhaps bring out the worst in some people. What you hear in the office stays in the office. You wanting to do it anonymously, though understandable, makes the idea worse somehow. I expect the local press already know about this person and the police will be monitoring him, leave it to them.

@RoseRedRoseBlue

Interesting that some posters have suddenly become experts in risk management, yet are unable to come up with any cogent solution to dealing with the issues raised.

Or perhaps your superior attitude has made people not want to interact with you.

You want to put your point across an educate people, do it in a less aggressive and patronising manner. The way you have gone about it just gives people the impression that the oy care you have is for the sex offenders wellbeing, and your attitude is just pretty shit to be quite honest.

Oh do give over!

Ok

Another post displaying your superior attitude.

I couldn’t care less about your opinion of me. If I am that objectionable, stop responding. I have disagreed with you, you don’t like it and need to make it personal by telling me my attitude is “shit”. Just go away.

Actually I think you will find you were the one who didn't like my opinion and started commenting on my posts, also it is you who seems to have the problem with me having a different opinion.
Unsurprisingly, I couldn't care less what you think about me either.

Just go away