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.

@IloveJKRowling you may be surprised to hear that I don't have a problem with convictions, and details of those convictions, being reported, once decided (obviously with survivors names anonymised unless they specifically want their names published). That is not quite what the OP was about.

The whole thread is a lot of people more concerned about protecting the convicted child abuser and shutting up a concerned adult, than protecting the children that this man poses a risk to.

No alternative solutions for the OP at all are provided - none - to protect the children she is concerned about.

That's the problem, right there.

[quote theDudesmummy]@IloveJKRowling you may be surprised to hear that I don't have a problem with convictions, and details of those convictions, being reported, once decided (obviously with survivors names anonymised unless they specifically want their names published). That is not quite what the OP was about.[/quote]
But if he's convicted, and this is reported (it usually is somewhere and of course the survivors are always anonymous - what reputable newspaper would do otherwise?) then all the OP has to do is find that report and quietly alert the neighbours.

All she's doing is directing them to relevant information that is public.

It's disturbing that so many people thing she would be wrong to do that.

It is more subtle than that, and not about silencing. The amount of information given by the OP was not enough to say that it would a good, safe or even reasonable idea to publicise something (the exact details of which we don't know, as "convicted paedophile" tells us very little, not even whether the person is really a paedophile) to the neighbourhood.

Survivors are not always anonymous by any means. Many brave souls have allowed their names/imagesd/interviews to appear in the media, as I am sure you are aware.

We have been describing solutions, in the form of proper, validated, methods of risk assessment and management. Individualised to each specific case. The fact that it has not always been done right (or at all) does not mean the method is not valid.

Survivors are not always anonymous by any means

As has been pointed out, abusers are often family, or known to the family.

So in many cases, outing the abuser will also out their victims. You can’t do one without the other.

@reallyreallyborednow that is not actually what I was referring to, I was referring to survivors who have deliberately chosen to go public. But you are right to bring that up, and in certain cases of course the greater publicity for the offender the greater the pain of the survivor/s. You have to consider the specific case/history and all the facts before you advocate a course of action. Exactly what I was saying.

@theDudesmummy

We have been describing solutions, in the form of proper, validated, methods of risk assessment and management. Individualised to each specific case. The fact that it has not always been done right (or at all) does not mean the method is not valid.

I must have missed that bit. What practical steps should someone in the OP's position take that doesn't involve staying silent and doing nothing to protect children?

Protect her children against ALL the potential sex offenders in her neighbourhood and the wider community/internet, as best she can, not just this one. Education, communication etc. You know what is needed.

I think what people forget is that the convicted peadophile (and this covers a huge range of levels of criminality) has already served their sentence.
They will be on the SOR and if their crime was severe they are on this for life. They will not live with your childminder, they will not work in your kids school, they will not work at your child's nursery, they will not take your child's gymnastics lessons, their phone will be monitored, their internet monitored, you get my drift. Let the police do their job.
It is actually very rare for a peadophile to snatch a child off the street. The most risk comes from family members, from friends who groom, from people in positions of trust. It is the unconvicted peadophiles that are more of a concern that can find ways to get close to our kids.
Telling the neighbourhood that a peadophile is living there serves no purpose in protecting anyone and can lead to horrific consequences for neighbours for family, and the individual himself who has already served their time.
They deserve to pay for their crimes but we thankfully live in a civilised society, let the judge decide the punishment and leave it be. Don't create more crime and violence.

If I heard of someone who was without doubt, a convicted paedophile, and someone set their house on fire or even just gave them a beating, I’d be so pleased

Oh yeah? What if the wrong house was targeted by mistake and innocent people died? What if even if it was the right house, but next doors house also caught on fire and innocent people died? How on earth would this actually help anyone without the serious risk of causing serious injury or worse to innocent people??

I don’t know what I think about this, tbh. I’m an SA survivor and I’m also a mum of two DDs (12 and 9). Would I want to know if one of our neighbours was a paedophile? Yes, obviously I would, especially if it was someone we were friendly with.

However, as has been said, the real danger comes from those paedophiles who haven’t ever been caught. My F was a pilar of our church and community and my DM had no idea that he was sexually abusing my DSis and me.

And it isn’t ‘paedophile defending’ to point out that vigilante actions are unacceptable and will drive paedophiles underground and make them an even greater risk to children if they’re not monitored. That’s in the interests of no one at all.

The most risk comes from family members, from friends who groom, from people in positions of trust. It is the unconvicted peadophiles that are more of a concern that can find ways to get close to our kids.

This is such a good point. Conviction rates are low and most offenders are never prosecuted. Safeguarding should be part of daily life. I have a child with additional needs, very trusting, very vulnerable. There is no help or education at his special school on safeguarding such as privacy, body, circles of trust, no secrets etc. No one even brings this up as an issue even though he’s many times more likely to be a victim. I’ve had to research it all myself. I stand my ground now. It’s amazing how many small things we do let go that are simple ways of protecting our kids. Being careful on babysitting family members is one of them.

Could try passing on some practical help that would check out people with convictions is to look on Uk and Ireland database, can search name or convictions in your area. A good way to check on anyone then. Then you wouldn't be breaching confidentiality giving their details either.

Still won't help with those that haven't been caught but better than nothing.

If I heard of someone who was without doubt, a convicted paedophile, and someone set their house on fire or even just gave them a beating, I’d be so pleased

And if it was your husband or son doing this? You’d give them a pat on the back and say well done, knowing they’ve ruined their own lives as well facing prison for arson/assault/murder?

All this is doing is making more work for social services, probation officers etc. The children are not any safer really as there are loads of unknown offenders about, but this particular offended will have to be rehoused at great effort and expense. Or if they own their own home they will move, where again they will be unknown. So this is very much a nimby approach.

Some sensible people hopping on to the thread this evening.

@theDudesmummy

Protect her children against ALL the potential sex offenders in her neighbourhood and the wider community/internet, as best she can, not just this one. Education, communication etc. You know what is needed.

OK but here is where I think having a conversation about a convicted paedophile helps because some people are determined to deny that CSA exists. It's not nice to talk about and there can be a 'this doesn't happen here' vibe.

Certainly when the convicted child rapist moved near my DDs school it got people talking about safety and about how most paedophiles aren't caught and most are family or friends.

I think all the children were much safer not only because people knew to avoid this one man but because it made people accept that CSA is a real risk and that they needed to learn how to protect their children. So it had a really beneficial effect in terms of increased education and awareness and communication in general.

No-one targeted him in any way. He'd been in jail for a decade at least and no-one knew the family of his victim. I don't think people were that worried about him after the first shock, because they felt forewarned and felt they could avoid him (and also knew that yes, hopefully the authorities would be monitoring him). But it got people talking about risk in general and sharing resources and learning and protecting children better.

Effective safeguarding should mean that an adult should feel supported in speaking up whenever they feel children are at risk. People should not be scared to raise concerns, ever. It's a failure of safeguarding if they do. The idea that you 'shouldn't mention' when a convicted child rapist is known to live nearby is in direct contradiction to this.

Of course, no-one should be violent or incite violence but that is not what I got from the OP at all. Careful and responsible speaking up to those whose job it is to protect children - and the first line of defence is parents - is important. Incidentally, one of the things the Mum in my case did was inform the school. The school didn't confirm or deny whether they'd been told by authorities but I hope they were because if they're not that's a definite failure and I felt a huge lack of reassurance in knowing whether or not that happens routinely - maybe the professionals could comment on that.

@IloveJKRowling

The whole thread is a lot of people more concerned about protecting the convicted child abuser and shutting up a concerned adult, than protecting the children that this man poses a risk to.

No alternative solutions for the OP at all are provided - none - to protect the children she is concerned about.

That's the problem, right there.

The solution has been provided.

1. don't spread an unsubstantiated rumour
2. look and out for, and protect the children in her care as normal. By ensuring that they are supervised etc

No need for anything else.

@IloveJKRowling

How is knowing that the person is Paedophile going to protect your kids more? You should already be protecting them. If you didn't know they were a paedophile, presumably you wouldn't let your kids have unsupervised access to them anyway because you don't know them?

don't spread an unsubstantiated rumour

In this instance it's not an unsubstantiated rumout though. Its a fact.

If you are certain and it's not just hearsay I would want to know yes.