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.

You have to remember that while you are gossiping about the supposed ‘perpetrator’ that you are also gossiping about his victim/s.

The alleged crime is someone’s reality.

My abuser was a family member. The whole town knowing what he had done (and wanting all the juicy details) and therefore what had happened to me was devastating. I will always be that girl.

As odd as it is I went on to work with perpetrators (amongst other things).

I think @theDudesmummy and I may work in similar settings.

@RoseRedRoseBlue

Interesting how you have picked up on that, but not the fact that I have been labelled “part of the problem” and a paedophile sympathiser.

I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but as I can't see who else it would be for here....

You are told you have no empathy, you are told you have no compassion. It’s doesn’t occur to anyone that you too might have personal experiences of abuse or similar.

This may be why people have that opinion.

Amateur paedophile hunting/outing/naming and shaming destroys lives. I'd like to see anyone involved in it given a criminal record and an appropriate sentence. Dealing with offenders is for the police and other appropriate authorities. You need to stay out of this.

@theDudesmummy

I don't agree with you, no matter how many times you say surety.
I don't care what the definitions say. It IS minimising the suffering families feel when someone decides they can't control themselves any longer. How about the scum don't get curious then 'hot' when viewing pictures of children being raped/penetrated in the first FUCKING place.

It's very disappointing you didn't learn anything from your dealings with the families left to deal with the devastation of the sexualisation - RAPE - of children.

Surely you must agree I'm right.

[quote RoseRedRoseBlue]@LouiseBelchersBunnyEars as had been mentioned on here several times already, you up the odds of it going wrong by outing people.[/quote]
It seems to go wrong far too often without any interference. Perhaps this is why people feel the need to take matters into their own hands. 🤷‍♀️
And has been experienced by victims far more often than ‘several times’, children are still vulnerable while these people are being monitored and the cogs of the ‘system’ move at a glacial place.
A 17 year old raped a baby, and only received a suspended sentence. The judge was confident he was only ‘experimenting’ and it wouldn’t be repeated.

If you want to place blame anywhere for vigilantes, don’t put it on concerned parents trying to protect their children.

Place it on the shit system more concerned with protecting those ‘experimenting’ individuals.

@LouiseBelchersBunnyEars it works out successfully far more often, but in this field, successes are never discussed. To be fair, a Judges sentencing decisions are an entirely different subject to community safeguarding.

It seems to go wrong far too often without any interference. Perhaps this is why people feel the need to take matters into their own hands. 🤷‍♀️
And has been experienced by victims far more often than ‘several times’, children are still vulnerable while these people are being monitored and the cogs of the ‘system’ move at a glacial place

Maybe read the post upthread of an actual victim who is of the opinion paedophiles shouldn’t be outed as it made her life hell when everyone knew?

This is the problem with vigilantes and people taking the law into their own hands. They certainly aren’t listening to the actual victims, more concerned about “doing it for are kids” and telling anyone who disagrees they’re a “nonce supporter”

Place it on the shit system more concerned with protecting those ‘experimenting’ individuals.

Exactly, and perhaps the "professionals" on this thread could come up with some suggestions on how to fix the problem, rather than demand it from the general public, or demand it from the people on this thread who feel they would like to know if a CONVICTED paedophile or child sex offender moved in next door.

Maybe read the post upthread of an actual victim who is of the opinion paedophiles shouldn’t be outed as it made her life hell when everyone knew?

You don't know all victims would feel that way though. For example, my mum was abused as a child, today I asked her (because of this thread) if a convicted child sex offender moved into my street next to her grandchildren, or moved into her street, would she want to know, or think it would be appropriate for us as the parents to know? She said yes, she would want to know, because in her words " she wouldn't want to give the time of day to the disgusting animal".
It's the victims identity that should be protected, not the offender.

I don't necessarily believe that my children would be at an increased risk if we knew there was one living in the street. As pointed out anyone can be a sex offender, they don't walk around with a sign, but I would be horrified if I was standing chatting to someone who there was absolutely no doubt was a paedophile.

@reallyreallyborednow

*It seems to go wrong far too often without any interference. Perhaps this is why people feel the need to take matters into their own hands. 🤷‍♀️ And has been experienced by victims far more often than ‘several times’, children are still vulnerable while these people are being monitored and the cogs of the ‘system’ move at a glacial place*

Maybe read the post upthread of an actual victim who is of the opinion paedophiles shouldn’t be outed as it made her life hell when everyone knew?

This is the problem with vigilantes and people taking the law into their own hands. They certainly aren’t listening to the actual victims, more concerned about “doing it for are kids” and telling anyone who disagrees they’re a “nonce supporter”

I don’t agree with vigilantes, but they exist because they are not satisfied with the law. I don’t care how you care for them in the community to be honest, I’d want to know who they are. Not so I can get the pitchforks out, but so I can keep my children the fuck away. That’s my ultimate concern quite frankly

@LolaSmiles I just saw your post quoting my post. Actually it is true that you can access illegal content accidentally, so please don't be so patronising unless you actually know what you're talking about.
I mean people file sharing PORN clearly. Lots of people use file sharing software to obtain free pornography in huge volume where they can download entire contents of someone else's device without knowing what's on it. So yes it is very possible that someone can be convicted for a sexual offence without actually intentionally looking for child sex abuse images. Whilst not 'ideal' and still sleazy to some, that is a very different kind of 'peodophile' to someone who actively sexually abuses children. Just like with any other kind of crime there are people wrongfully accused, and to take the attitude that all sex offenders should be strung up is just wrong and misguided.

@TotallyFloored I've sent you a pm xx

[quote RoseRedRoseBlue]@LouiseBelchersBunnyEars it works out successfully far more often, but in this field, successes are never discussed. To be fair, a Judges sentencing decisions are an entirely different subject to community safeguarding.[/quote]
Well, they’re not really an entirely different subject, are they? That’s the point. If judges gave actual custodial sentences to convicted child rapists, rather than suspended sentences and a register, they’d be in prison, wouldn’t they, and then we wouldn’t need to worry about community safeguarding.

Yes, you would need to worry about community safeguarding as the vast majority of prison sentences come to an end.

it works out successfully far more often, but in this field, successes are never discussed.

To paraphrase the IRA, the intelligence and surveillance officers need to get lucky all the time, the paedo only needs to get lucky once. Really close monitoring of individuals- as in, 24hr close surveillance, which is what you would need to be sure of preventing an offence- is so hugely resource consuming that it's usually only done when intelligence suggests a pretty specific threat of a major terrorist incident or something like that.

And that is never, ever going to be on offer all round as resources, finances and personnel can’t meet the demand. Cases are risk assessed to determine the correct amount of supervision and intervention though, and this can be amended as required.

@AlternativePerspective

As for the PP who said that nobody doesn’t want a paedophile being beaten up, you’re wrong. Do you really think these vigilante thugs who set out to beat up the local paedo do so because they have the welfare of society at heart? Because they care about what happens to our children? Get real. The kinds of people who set out to beat up the local paedo are the same types who are out brawling on a Saturday night only to come home and beat the crap out of their wives.

They do it for notoriety and nothing more.

But if you want to encourage those types on to your street then crack on.

Well said.

Some people (primarily men) just get off on violence. Any excuse, no excuse - they just want to kick the sh*t out of someone who can't fight back.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/vincent-tabak-admits-possessing-indecent-images-of-children

If this person moved in next door to you when he gets released, would you want to know? Joanna Yeates had never met him before he killed her, despite living next door to him.

The distinction between being a sex offender and a convicted sex offender is critical. My ex committed an offence involving under age girls but because of vigilantes gathering inadmissible evidence and naming and shaming on social media his trial collapsed and he is now free to continue his life. If they had left it to the police he would probably be in jail now. But he isn’t and he can’t be banned from anywhere because legally he hasn’t committed an offence. He could be your neighbour, he could be at the park while your DD plays in the splash pad or in a local shopping centre checking young girls out. And eventually I may be forced to send my DC to stay with him alone as he could go to court for more contact (social services are still involved as their threshold of proof is lower). I also don’t think “outing” people is beneficial to victims who become the subject of gossip or the offender’s family who face harassment or even violence. I believe reporting on these cases should not name the offender for the sake of others involved. People who go after paedophiles do it for themselves because they thrive on the hero status some people give them and they like a good confrontation.

And that is never, ever going to be on offer all round as resources, finances and personnel can’t meet the demand. Cases are risk assessed to determine the correct amount of supervision and intervention though, and this can be amended as required.

For a week or two after the horse has bolted? I do not expect close monitoring of any but a tiny minority- it's just not possible. But this needs to be acknowledged. It's basically the equivalent of letting dangerous dogs that have attacked people out in the streets with no muzzle and no lead, just an owner who looks out the window at them once a week to check they're not actively savaging someone to death on the doorstep. Sex offenders and other hideous people have human rights; most of them legally can't be locked up forever so the dogs have to get out sometime. I'd rather know when one of them is walking down my street though.

Some people (primarily men) just get off on violence. Any excuse, no excuse - they just want to kick the sht out of someone who can't fight back.*

off track slightly here, but I have to ask. What makes you think a paedophile/ sex offender/ child abuser etc couldn't fight back? That makes it seem as though you see them as some weak victim.

@powershowerforanhour for some there is extensive monitoring for the duration of the sentence.

somebody i worked with was convicted of the unspeakable. At first it was just a rumour. Like - he misbehaved online - was chatting up teenagers and had indecent images. I thought - meh. Teenagers do misbehave online and the guy was just stupid, rather than an evil predator. Then police came, then the court, the conviction and the media... turned out the indecent images he made and sold were of his own children.
So maybe you shouldn't wait until authorities come knocking. Warn others and don't dissmiss warnings.

confused off track slightly here, but I have to ask. What makes you think a paedophile/ sex offender/ child abuser etc couldn't fight back? That makes it seem as though you see them as some weak victim

Generally vigilantes aren’t looking for a fair, one on one fight.

Watch some of the paedophile hunter videos, you have a gang of men cornering a lone man with cameras in a threatening manner.

Should that kind of thing turn violent, do you really think that man would stand a chance.

As an aside, I saw a livestream a while back where the “paedo” clearly wasn’t competent, and he was agreeing to everything they accused him of, out of fear.

@MrsOrMiss I literally cannot understand what you are saying, I am afraid. I am not minimising anything and cannot see why you think I am.