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.

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

Even then, how do you know 100% that the John smith from yourtown is the same John Smith that’s in the paper/conviction list? Or someone who looks a bit like them?

The paedophile hunters get the wrong person on occasion, and ruin lives of innocent people who are hounded out of the community.

@Iminaglasscaseofemotion

don't spread an unsubstantiated rumour

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

Oh yes. The undeniable fact that.... Sarah overhead a conversation that Sam Smith is a convicted paedophile and lives at No. 12 New Road.

That's definitely got no room for errors or mistake... Definitely 100% true. And definitely no way anything could get lost in translation as it passes down the grapevine.

@DeflatedGinDrinker

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

Ok..now you know.

Now what?

What are you going to do differently to protect your child against their next door neighbour who is also a convicted paedophile but you don't know that.

Children aren't supervised by parents in their school playground with a low wall around it (and the pavement directly the other side of that low wall) where there is 1 playground supervisor to maybe 60 kids at a time. Who may sometimes be distracted by a bad injury, for example.

I do think such a school should know if there's a convicted child rapist living 2 doors down, yes, so they can ensure their safety and security during playtimes is absolutely watertight. It is unclear to me if this information is shared.

As in.
You know Person A is a paedophile.
You have no clue Person B is a paedophile.

They live either side of you.

How will your children interact differently with each person?

@IloveJKRowling

Children aren't supervised by parents in their school playground with a low wall around it (and the pavement directly the other side of that low wall) where there is 1 playground supervisor to maybe 60 kids at a time. Who may sometimes be distracted by a bad injury, for example.

I do think such a school should know if there's a convicted child rapist living 2 doors down, yes, so they can ensure their safety and security during playtimes is absolutely watertight. It is unclear to me if this information is shared.

But the safeguarding should be in place REGARDLESS. Whether there's a known paedophile living nearby or not.

They shouldn't need additional "security" when there's a known offender... because the systems and safeguarding in place should be enough to protect the children in the first place.

How many kids have been taken from playgrounds in the last 10 years? Please find me some figures.

The danger in the school is from the Teachers, the coaches, the playground assistants etc which is why safeguarding measures are ALREADY IN PLACE.

Allowing children normal childhood freedoms and the ability to explore and grow socially does involve a degree of trust in people - we can't completely lock them away and that is the only way to keep them completely safe. We can teach them the 12 principles in Gavin de Becker's book but that is not a 100% guarantee - of course it isn't. Nothing can be.

If I lived next door to a convicted child rapist I'd be more careful about supervising my children in the garden and I'd be a lot more careful about getting distracted by a phone call for example.

Our neighbours are friendly with me and my kids and we stop and chat whenever we see them. This would NOT happen with a convicted child rapist. I would not talk to them, I would ask them not to talk to me if they tried to approach. I am not normally that rude. I would ensure that my kids do NOT see this person as a trusted adult and do NOT interpret my friendly behaviour as indicative of trust.

They say 'friends and family' is the most common source of CSA and I bet that includes a lot of friendly next door neighbours. Knowing you shouldn't develop that relationship in the first place is valuable.

If I knew someone else was untrustworthy (a thief perhaps or a rogue trader) I'd warn friends. I honestly don't see why paedophiles have some special protected status that the kind of behaviour that applies to everyone else doesn't apply to them.

@iloveJKRowling a convicted child rapist would have a sexual harm prevention order preventing them from living that close to a school and will not be allowed near a school. If found hanging out by a school that is an offence and they could wind up back in jail. I'm not suggesting this couldn't happen, but it is no more likely to happen because they are 'living in the neighbourhood'

Not all peadophiles are child rapists, many have never committed a contact offence, and the ones that have will face jail sentences and be even more closely monitored. As others have said, the biggest risk comes from the ones we don't know about not the ones we do.

It saves me valuable time and having to interpret red flags for myself if I already know someone is not to be trusted.

Maybe person B eventually sets my red flag alert off using the type of skills in de Becker's book. They try and forced team me and my kids, they use charm or bribe them with sweets, or wait for an opportunity where I'm struggling and offer to help look after them. OK fine, but my kids have already seen me being pleasant and friendly and they may already see person B as a trusted adult. I then have to undo that. Most paedophiles try not to set red flags off too early. If they did, they wouldn't victimise anyone.

How are peadophiles treated differently to other criminals exactly? All criminals are given the right to move on after they serve their sentence, but restrictions will always be in place to stop them working in certain professions etc to safeguard, that's why we have advanced CRB checks.
Would you like all their houses to have a big black cross on them with a sign saying 'murderer' or 'thief' or 'peado' ?
What good would that do for the community? And what incentive does that give someone to rehabilitate if they will always have a big arrow pointing at their head wherever they go.

Sorry my previous post was in response to your previous post not your last one.
I can see why you're concerned for your kids, we all are, but naming and shaming people really isn't the answer.

@reallyreallyborednow

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

Even then, how do you know 100% that the John smith from yourtown is the same John Smith that’s in the paper/conviction list? Or someone who looks a bit like them?

The paedophile hunters get the wrong person on occasion, and ruin lives of innocent people who are hounded out of the community.

Well it doesn't really matter because the names addresses and ages of convicted criminals usually get put in local papers, so it's there for anyone who wants to find out anyway.

00100001

As above

And with person B I'd probably be questioning myself (bloody female socialisation) after all I don't KNOW for sure he's dodgy. I haven't given him the opportunity to show that. Maybe I'm being unfair and unkind? He's probably indicating to me that I'm unfair and unkind..... and seeding doubt.

I mean we already share information as parents, right? If you have a babysitter you don't trust for some reason, you share this information with other parents. Or is it just me?

The minor niggles from person B aren't enough for me to warn others though. A conviction is.

And safeguarding - if only the safeguarding in schools and clubs was as great as it should be. But people get lax. I see it all the time. The schools are good, but in other places it's hugely variable.

I have raised safeguarding concerns before and you know what - it's been hell. I've been cast as 'hysterical' even when proved right and even when they're doing things that go against their own written safeguarding policy. It's human nature to trust people and also to take the easy route.

But NO-ONE anywhere on the thread is saying 'name and shame' or deface a house - the OP wanted to quietly inform the neighbours. No naming or shaming involved. I've talked about quietly sharing information.

Why the hyperbole? It's ridiculous. Straw man argument.

Because quietly telling friends and other parents is actually fine but some people don't like that - and it's totally against good safeguarding where adults should feel free to express concerns to those responsible for safeguarding kids.

@Drunkenmonkey

How are peadophiles treated differently to other criminals exactly? All criminals are given the right to move on after they serve their sentence, but restrictions will always be in place to stop them working in certain professions etc to safeguard, that's why we have advanced CRB checks. Would you like all their houses to have a big black cross on them with a sign saying 'murderer' or 'thief' or 'peado' ? What good would that do for the community? And what incentive does that give someone to rehabilitate if they will always have a big arrow pointing at their head wherever they go.

Well I wouldn't put thief's in the same category as peados. Even some murders can be self defence, or accidental (but then technically that would usually be classed as manslaughter). I honestly don't think child rapists should be allowed back into the community at all. They shouldn't be able to go on and get a job and live a normal or semi normal life. What the solution is, I don't know. I don't believe in the death penalty, and as for the ones that don't get caught, there really isn't a solution to that problem, but the thought of having a convicted paedophile living next to me makes me sick, and I would definitely want to know. Not so I can go any let the local young team know or the criminals in the town so they can harass them, but for my own personal knowledge (the thought of a paedophile that hasn't been caught living next to me makes me sick aswell, but unfortunately I wouldn't know and would probably end up chatting to them and having my kids with me a allowing them tk talk to them aswell like any other person).

Whilst this conversation has moved on to hypotheticals, and I know no one ever reads the good old DM, but there was a story in there yesterday. A bloke had his ID stolen/cloned whatever you want to call it , and subsequently, the fake ID was set up in a paedophile hunter sting, 2 hours live streaming before the police arrived. After investigation, the police exonerated him, absolutely nothing linking him to the fake ID.

But. His life was made a misery, name cascaded, lost his job, family, home - all because someone got it wrong and live streamed him, his name, address, workplace.

No good ever comes of vigilantism.

It's strange to say that knowing wouldn't give parents any advantage. Of course people will be more cautious if there is a known risk.
I have just started letting me 7 year old go round to the next street to go in for his little friend. I have to give him little bits of freedom as he grows, and can't always assume there will be a paedophile on every corner, but if I know there was a convicted paedophile living in the street, free to come and go as he pleased, free to talk to my child as he was passing, there's no way I would allow him to go. Of course there could be an unconvicted paedophile doing those things, but of we lived out lives thinking like that we would never let our children go anywhere.

Someone I went to uni with, her husband went to court a few years ago for downloading images, images of young children. He was a scout leader and training to be a teacher 🤢

She stayed with his which absolutely disgusted me and I cut all ties. He’s recently been arrested and remanded for trying to meet up with a young girl, it turned out to be police that he was messaging. Disgusting.

In answer to your question, no I wouldn’t. People need to be aware that there are paedophiles everywhere and their parenting should reflect this. It’s a sad fact of life.

Fucks sake.

NO-ONE has suggested vigilantism in this case - it's sad when it happens BUT RARE. Shame that CSA isn't that rare. You're making stuff up!

The OP wanted to quietly inform the neighbours.

I'm out. I can see mens' feelings about something incredibly rare and much less likely than child sexual abuse is more important.

Wherever you live, there are certainly paedophiles living near to you.

Many will not offend, so are not a threat to your children.

Many who do offend won't be detected, so are a potential threat to your children but you cannot be aware of it.

Some who offend will be detected but will not be convicted, so are a potential threat to your children but you may or may not know this, depending on whether you know the person or somone who knows them.

Some who offend will be detected and convicted, like the person in the OP's first post. This will be likely to be known to some people in the neighbourhood, but maybe not if they have been moved from their original area. They are also a potential threat to your children but will be being monitored.

It is a mistake to focus only on the latter group, likely to be a much smaller number of people in your vicinity than the other groups. Protect your children against all potential threats as much as you can. (Not by locking them up, by education and open communication, from you to them and them to you).

I have a child and I would want to know. He's a paedophile, not a charity worker. I'd put children before his human rights. He lost those when he touched kids

NO-ONE has suggested vigilantism in this case - it's sad when it happens BUT RARE. Shame that CSA isn't that rare. You're making stuff up!

It isn’t that rare. Look at facebook and the number of PH groups out and about. It’s big business.

Attacks on convicted paedophiles is rare because of the current safeguards. If their locations were published there’d be a massive rise, with the associated risks to neighbours, communities, families and victims.