Page 2 | ...to have made an issue of this?

TheValeyard · 2021-06-09T04:10:53+00:00

DP and I found out that someone who was to be working one-to-one and unsupervised with our DCs has been on the sex offenders register. We objected to this and alternate arrangements have been made, but ever since I've been feeling conflicted if we should have done that. There was no suggestion this person was a danger to children, and I'm worried we've overreacted and been unfair to this person. Have we been unreasonable?

Jellycatspyjamas · 09/06/2021 07:30

Nope, while being on the Register doesn’t mean the person has harmed children or that they present a risk to children, I’d be uncomfortable with them working 1:1 with my child. I’d have done the same.

AbsolutelyPatsy · 09/06/2021 07:30

how do you know this though op?

YouGetUpNow · 09/06/2021 07:30

How did you find out?

Weird that this person was going to be 121 with your DC!

Lindy2 · 09/06/2021 07:31

I'm surprised this person is working with children.

I would have done the same thing. The register is there for a reason and it's not the kind of thing you can afford to take a wait and see what happens attitude on. If it happens it's too late.

PracticingPerson · 09/06/2021 07:32

This person should be on some level of monitoring, although this may be very low level. Some people live in an absolute dream world! Every aspect of the criminal justice system has been cut to the bone, serious and violent offenders are barely supervised by probation any more - there is no resource (people/time/money) to check on everyone on the register.

Dream on!

p.s. please don't vote Tory, they are on the side of the criminals - allowing more of them to get away with crime through cuts to police, courts, prison, probation budgets.

DysmalRadius · 09/06/2021 07:33

@Terminallysleepdeprived

Firstly the op hasn't disclosed if the person is male or female sonthe assumption is a little unfair.

Please remember that people can and do wind up on the register for things as innocuous and peeing outside in a public place. It is not necessarily for anything nefarious.

@TheValeyard your duty is to protect your child, you absolutely did the right thing.

I can't find a single case of someone being put on the register for peeing outside - can you link?

legotruck · 09/06/2021 07:34

Some ex-prostitutes for example are on the register despite working as prostitutes many years ago and of course being no risk to anyone.

I find this one hard to believe. To be on the SOR for 'many years' one would have to have completed a lengthy custodial sentence, which doesn't really sit with prostitution.

PracticingPerson · 09/06/2021 07:37

@legotruck

Some ex-prostitutes for example are on the register despite working as prostitutes many years ago and of course being no risk to anyone.

I find this one hard to believe. To be on the SOR for 'many years' one would have to have completed a lengthy custodial sentence, which doesn't really sit with prostitution.

You can find it hard to believe if that suits your world view but there is a campaign around this issue. It affects small numbers but yes it has happened.

legotruck · 09/06/2021 07:37

@AbsolutelyPatsy

otoh if a 16 year old sleeps with a 15 year old i believe in that instance they can be put on the register, correct me if i am wrong, but would that person be a threat. i doubt it

Yeah that's not going to happen.

legotruck · 09/06/2021 07:38

You can find it hard to believe if that suits your world view but there is a campaign around this issue.

Can you point me in the right direction?

I disbelieving because it 'suits my view' - it was based on length of custodial sentence for prostitution alone.

legotruck · 09/06/2021 07:39

I WAS NOT disbelieving

PracticingPerson · 09/06/2021 07:43

I can't bear being asked to provide sources/references/etc. in a general chat! I watched a long news item about it, which gave details of a campaign, but didn't file all the details in my database of everything I have ever read/heard/seen. You are free to do your own research of course.

YouWerePrettyIWasLonely · 09/06/2021 07:44

The safeguarding of children is paramount so if the adult is on the SOR then we must trust it is there for good reason.

Original poster

TheValeyard · 09/06/2021 07:45

Can't give any details, although it wasn't an innocuous offence, but was nothing to do with children either. We found out through local gossip, and were able to confirm, so no doubts about accuracy.

OP posts:

BackBeatTheWordisOnTheStreet · 09/06/2021 07:46

@impostersong

They absolutely should not have been cleared by DBS, in what capacity are they working with children?

This. I work with kids, never even 1 on 1, and have a full DBS check every time.

notanothertakeaway · 09/06/2021 07:47

OP, how did you find out?

PegasusReturns · 09/06/2021 07:47

was it because as a 16 year old boy they had sex with their nearly 16 year old girlfriend?

They certainly were in London in the late 90s early 00s. It was a particularly unpleasant tool the police used when they believed a boy was a “wrongun” but they could not prove other criminal activity.

A statement would be obtained from the girls mother with the intention of persuading the boy to admit to other offences if the under age sex charge was dropped.

The police were well aware that understandably teen boys were very keen to ensure they did not have a sex offence recorded against them. The police seemed to think it was a smart way of clearing up twocing and Public order offences.

legotruck · 09/06/2021 07:47

@PracticingPerson

I can't bear being asked to provide sources/references/etc. in a general chat! I watched a long news item about it, which gave details of a campaign, but didn't file all the details in my database of everything I have ever read/heard/seen. You are free to do your own research of course.

Goodness I was only asking as you mentioned a campaign. I wasn't asking you to research it for me.

Jellycatspyjamas · 09/06/2021 07:49

Being on the Sex Offenders Register doesn’t mean a person is a risk to children per se, nor does it disqualify people from working with children - there’s a separate process for that. I’d ask for my child’s worker to be changed but there’s nothing to say someone on the Register can’t legally work with children unless they’ve committed offences against children or are assessed to present a risk to children.

So if we’re going to trust they’re on the SOR for good reason, if they’ve got a job working with children and the usual vetting processes have been followed, we could also say we could trust they aren’t a risk to kids.

PegasusReturns · 09/06/2021 07:49

^^ copied the wrong bit there I was responding to the suggestion by @legotruck that

Nobody is charging 16 year olds for having sex with almost 16 year olds

legotruck · 09/06/2021 07:49

@PegasusReturns

They would have needed to be jailed for life/at least 30 years in the late 90s/early 00s to be on the sex offenders register today, so that really eliminates your scenario of corrupt cops being relevant here.

BackBeatTheWordisOnTheStreet · 09/06/2021 07:52

PracticingPerson

I can't bear being asked to provide sources/references/etc. in a general chat! I watched a long news item about it, which gave details of a campaign, but didn't file all the details in my database of everything I have ever read/heard/seen. You are free to do your own research of course.

Well of course no one is going to believe a randomer on the internet because they vaguely remembered watching a documentary. I'm not saying you're lying but there is a huge amount of misinformation posted so of course people aren't going to just take your word for it.

AlternativePerspective · 09/06/2021 07:56

They absolutely should not have been cleared by DBS, in what capacity are they working with children? that’s not correct. Not all sex offences bar someone from working with children. E.g. an offence against an adult does not mean that person would be rejected via DBS for working with children.

TBH while I wouldn’t want someone on the sex offenders register to be working with my children, I would approach the organisation they were working for rather than engaging in local gossip about it.

IF they’re being gossiped about then their employer needs to know that in order to assess the situation for themselves and ascertain whether this person working for them is going to be in the best interests of both the organisation and the individual.

If you’re going to take steps for this person not to be working with your children then you should do so through official channels so that everyone’s interests are best served.

And before people say that a sex offender shouldn’t have any rights, truth is that if whatever they’ve done becomes local gossip then they could be subject to e.g. vigilante attacks etc which could put everyone at risk, including the children people are trying to protect.

The employer needs to deal with this, not the local village gossipmongers.

Jellycatspyjamas · 09/06/2021 07:59

Can't give any details, although it wasn't an innocuous offence, but was nothing to do with children either. We found out through local gossip, and were able to confirm, so no doubts about accuracy.

Who did you confirm with? If they aren’t a risk to children the police won’t have shared information about their offence because you don’t have a legal right to know. Anyone who holds that information in a professional capacity (eg their employer) has a duty to confidentiality so, if they present no risk to children, how did you confirm the gossip?

slashlover · 09/06/2021 08:01

Yeah that's not going to happen.

Drunk 17 year old has sex with a drunk 15 year old, now has to go on the register. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3033647/Judge-apologises-teenager-sex-15-year-old-girl-17.html

www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jul/31/childprotection.society The authors of the Whitehall review said because of the way the law was framed it caught the 17-year-old who engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with his 15-year-old girlfriend and the persistently abusive 17-year-old offender exploiting a 12-year-old girl.

Both are placed on the register for two and a half years.