Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

...to have made an issue of this?

97 replies

TheValeyard · 09/06/2021 05:10

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?

OP posts:

Zzelda · 09/06/2021 08:01

I can’t get my head around that you may think that someone who is on the sex offenders register may not pose a threat to children.

Plenty of people on the register have no interest in sex with children.

PracticingPerson · 09/06/2021 08:05

@BackBeatTheWordisOnTheStreet

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.

of course people should exercise critical thinking
it is disruptive to ask for sources in a general conversation imo
when I read something I'm not sure of or think is interesting and want to know more I do my own research

This 'source?' approach to discourse has ruined general discussion. It is worst on Twitter but annoying here too.

legotruck · 09/06/2021 08:06

@slashlover

The quote you have used of mine was referring to 16 year old and 15 year old. You have taken it out of context to apply it to 15 & 17 because that is not the same thing. It was a 2 week sign in the SOR.

Also, your second link with the bit you quoted is from 2001, changes have been made in the past 20 years.

Eskarina1 · 09/06/2021 08:09

I've worked in several places as a hiring manager where DBS checks are required. Disclosure of criminal convictions always came to me for a decision. I've never turned anyone down because of them (all years before) but I can't imagine approving someone who committed a "not innocuous" sex offence to work with children.

Actions have life long consequences. I absolutely believe in rehabilitation and second chances but not at the expense of risking vulnerable people. I think a reasonable consequence of committing a sex offence as an adult is not being able to have a career working with children.

PracticingPerson · 09/06/2021 08:09

Also the 'no one is going to believe a randomer on the internet' is so stupid, why talk online if you dismiss everyone out of hand anyway? I always refuse to justify my points or provide sources or say what work I do because I could lie anyway.

People need to keep an open mind, not blindly believing, not dismissing. General chat is so important for leading us to consider new things. I've learnt loads of things I didn't know before from here but not by demanding 'sources', by using my own time to find out.

legotruck · 09/06/2021 08:12

General chat is so important for leading us to consider new things. I've learnt loads of things I didn't know before from here but not by demanding 'sources', by using my own time to find out.

You said there was a campaign. I asked if you could 'point me in the right direction'

Nobody was demanding a fucking thing.

PracticingPerson · 09/06/2021 08:21

@legotruck

General chat is so important for leading us to consider new things. I've learnt loads of things I didn't know before from here but not by demanding 'sources', by using my own time to find out.

You said there was a campaign. I asked if you could 'point me in the right direction'

Nobody was demanding a fucking thing.

I think your general tone is a bit unnecessary tbh. Appreciate it is an emotive topic so will leave you to it.

Lalliella · 09/06/2021 08:25

Are they still on the register or not?

If they’re not on it anymore would it still show up on a DBS check?

3Britnee · 09/06/2021 08:26

@TheValeyard

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.

And in what capacity were they working with your kids and how old are they?

I think that makes a difference to whether the person should have been applying for the job.

As does what they did.

3Britnee · 09/06/2021 08:27

I.e. like others said, if it was a 16yr old with a 15.5yr old and there person is now 40 and married.

SuperstoreFan · 09/06/2021 08:28

I wouldn't want anyone who was on the sex offenders register looking after my son even if the reasons for them being on the register had nothing to do with children.

legotruck · 09/06/2021 08:32

I think your general tone is a bit unnecessary tbh.

And I think yours was. Just because you didn't swear though, makes you feel you are better then me?

I asked a really legitimate and innocent question when you mentioned campaigns. I thought it was interesting and very relevant. You shut me down.

PracticingPerson · 09/06/2021 08:43

@legotruck

I think your general tone is a bit unnecessary tbh.

And I think yours was. Just because you didn't swear though, makes you feel you are better then me?

I asked a really legitimate and innocent question when you mentioned campaigns. I thought it was interesting and very relevant. You shut me down.

I don't think I'm 'better' than anyone, no.

I didn't shut you down, that is when you stop someone talking about what they want to talk about. What I did was express my frustration that one gets asked regularly now to back up any old comment on a general discussion thread.

If I could go back in time I would just not have said anything about that aspect! But it is my position and I'm sticking to it.

Tylila · 09/06/2021 08:45

It’s easy enough to confirm something like this. Depending on the offence it may well have been reported by media, perhaps local. A quick search would bring it up.

I once cleaned for a man who used a fake name. I caught sight of his real one on some paperwork (I wasn’t looking for it, i didn’t know he’d used a fake one!) and because it was a titled name I was curious, googled and he’d been part of a pedophile group connected to a church.

I currently have a convicted pedophile living next to me. I found out when he told people locally in the pub ( was lucky not to be lynched!) and they passed on the info to me knowing I have children. The police confirmed not in words, but by their manner of dealing with me when I approached for advice. I also had it confirmed when I accidentally opened a letter addressed to him that had come through my door and it referenced his offence in the first sentence. I didn’t read further.

BackBeatTheWordisOnTheStreet · 09/06/2021 08:50

@PracticingPerson

Oh come on it's not disrupive to provide a source for a factual piece of information during a discussion. The tone of the PP asking was genuine interest in what you were saying. Presumably they wanted to know whether or not it was actually accurate. I really can't imagine why it would be so difficult to just provide a quick link to something. If you don't want to be asked the solution is to just not make definite factual statements which require a source or just accept they'll be disregarded.

supersop60 · 09/06/2021 08:50

@legotruck

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

No of course it wasn't. Nobody is charging 16 year olds for having sex with almost 16 year olds.

I think that was just an example to show that the 'crimes' can be very different.

legotruck · 09/06/2021 08:51

I didn't shut you down, that is when you stop someone talking about what they want to talk about.

That's what you did? Told me I can do my own research.

I think you must have some sort of pent up frustration coming from being asked to provide a source regularly, otherwise why would such an innocent question be met with such reluctance?

You are correct that I can do my own research. I would have really appreciated your campaign Indo as a starting point though. Not because I'm lazy but because I struggle to look at lots of links/info and pick out the right part, so knowing the name or having a link or something would have been hugely helpful.

I will be mindful of asking people to help in the future, which is laughable as it's something I have only learnt to do in the past few years.

Seesawmummadaw · 09/06/2021 08:55

You did the right thing op.

Jellycatspyjamas · 09/06/2021 09:02

What I did was express my frustration that one gets asked regularly now to back up any old comment on a general discussion thread.

When that “any old comment” seems outside the realms of usual process, or contradicts what others know in practice I think it’s fair enough to be asked to give a bit more information or to back up what’s said. Obviously it’s the internet and anyone can claim any level of knowledge or experience but in discussion and debate it’s helpful if only to move discussion along.

MoppaSprings · 09/06/2021 09:02

You have obviously dig deeper beyond the gossip and found out what the person did to get on the SOR. It’s obviously serious enough for you to have concerns about this person being around your child. No point in us speculating about them peeing in the street or mooning someone, or had sex with a nearly 16 year old on their 16th birthday.

KeepingTrack · 09/06/2021 09:16

I’m more wondering how someone on the sex offender register can work 1-1 wo supervision with children....

Regardless of what he did, is that legal??

RaspberryCoulis · 09/06/2021 09:26

@impostersong

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

Well you don't know that..... the DBS doesn't automatically block anyone with a record from working with children.

On the face of it it's appalling, but if you dig a little deeper you might find an entirely different story.

BlueDucky · 09/06/2021 09:37

Not unreasonable. They probably expect it TBH. They've committed a crime so that has repercussions and this is one of them.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 09/06/2021 09:40

There was no suggestion this person was a danger to children

Even if their offence didn't involve children I'd have thought their being on the register was a pretty big suggestion right there

Where your precious DCs are concerned, why would you take a chance?

Kissthepastrychef · 09/06/2021 09:45

I can’t get my head around that you may think that someone who is on the sex offenders register may not pose a threat to children.

Because not all offenders on the SOR have committed offences against children. They do not automatically want to offend against children just because they have committed one type of sexual offence. He may pose no risk to children whatsoever

Flip

1 2 3 4

Swipe left for the next trending thread