...to have made an issue of this?

[TheValeyard]

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?

It depends if a DBS was even done. When you work with any vulnerable people an enhanced DBS is normally done. Every thing gets flagged on there. Even working whilst on benefits and getting caught.

It one WAS done then it would have absolutely been flagged and had been down to the discretion of the employer.

But im at the posts that it might be an ex prostitute or a 17 year old that's had sex in the past. Why do people continuously try and minimise the sexual assault rate of men? Its statistically more likely that this is an offence by an adult male that has assaulted a female.

If this post is true.

I was reading this as OP already knowing what the person did - there’s no need for further research. Not speculating, but I would imagine a ‘not innocuous but not involving children’ offence would be something along the lines of sexually assaulting an ex girlfriend. And despite children not being involved, no I wouldn’t want that person working with my children. It sounds like you’ve handled it fine OP, these are the sort of repercussions that you have to accept when you’ve committed a crime. It’s not a case of ‘done your time’, it will feed into people’s perceptions of you and rightly so.

@Kissthepastrychef

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

But if some one has been charged and put on the SOR it shows that person has a likeliness for aggression and risk taking.

Thats not some one that should be working with children OR 1-2-1 with them.

@Kissthepastrychef

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

I would not want any convicted criminals working with my children. It's not just about the sexual element. If someone has committed fraud or burglary, for example, they are not 'fit and proper' persons.

I didn't realise anyone can work 1:1 with children these days, we even had to be in the room for my son's Zoom music lesson during lockdown!

I wouldn't automatically have objected, it would depend on what they had done. You also say "had been" on the SOR as if no longer on it. Would probably have taken the view that people can change but, without knowing that the reason was, hard to say. My brother worked for 10 years in a prison where there was a sex offenders unit and during his time there, a number of inmates had their convictions overturned due to the discovery that the complainant had been lying. So things aren't always black and white.

I think as long as you were discreet and gave it due consideration then your decision was the right one for you.

Can anyone point me or say what offences would land you on the register? I can see underage sex is rape and therefore would be on the list, but upthread someone mentioned urinating in public, surely this would be a nuisance not sexual offence. All I can find are rape, pornography prostitution ect. All crimes that I wouldn't want an exoffender of being around my child.

legotruck I suspect that the campaign being referred to was Fiona Broadfoot's challenge to the DBS.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/02/former-prostitutes-win-legal-challenge-against-uk-government

ukhumanrightsblog.com/2018/03/06/women-groomed-pimped-and-trafficked-as-teenagers-not-required-to-disclose-prostitution-convictions-to-employers/

The judgment is here: www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/407.html&query=(Broadfoot)

The women who brought the challenge were trafficked into prostitution as teenagers, and then acquired convictions for things like loitering, which were revealed as part of a DBS check. I don't believe they were on the SOR though.

Ultimately your child is the most important thing here. Another person's feelings go straight out of the window if there's the slightest doubt, in my opinion.

I used to arrange for volunteers to undergo DBS checks. The one thing I always said to the lead volunteers who were setting up groups is that they must have procedures in place to safeguard on top of the DBS.

Because, as someone once said to me, the DBS only tells you what is known about the person. Not what they may be doing that is unknown as of yet and they likened it to an MOT. You can pass your MOT this week and your car can break down for a totally unconnected reason next week. Just because your car passed doesn't mean you don't carry on checking the oil or keeping an eye on the tyre pressure. DBS is exactly the same, it's a guide that at the moment everything is OK. Doesn't mean it stays that way. So never look at it as a gold standard. Trust your instinct and protect your kid and don't worry about the other person - that's their problem.

@legotruck

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.

I don't get asked regularly - but I see it being asked very regularly, and I do indeed feel frustration about it at times, not at other times. I have done it myself though on occasion, certainly over covid, but when I do it it is because I am trying to say 'you are talking nonsense'.

If you were genuinely asking for info then and don't let an old grouch put you off doing that.

If this person was a risk to children there would very likely be a sexual harm prevention order. These are imposed by the court on conviction and can include any conditions the magistrate/judge sees fit such as

1. no access to the internet, ever
2. banned from owning a mobile phone or any computer equipment
3. banned from working with children
4. tight conditions on when they can be in the presence of any child This is not exhaustive and the conditions are imposed to fit the nature of the offending and the restraint required.

If the offender was convicted of a child sex offence they would have been banned from working with children. It's safe to say that if they had gained employment working with children, the risk would have been carefully assessed by both the employer and the offender's VISOR officer. 1on1 unsupervised roles with children are subject to enhanced DBS where any investigation is disclosed to a potential employer, even those ending in no action.

No employer working with children is going to take the risk to employ anyone that poses a risk

It (a DBS) WAS done then it would have absolutely been flagged and had been down to the discretion of the employer

Exactly - so either a DBS wasn't done (and if not why not?) or it was and someone decided to take the risk

Either way not somewhere I'd want a DC to go, and please don't anyone carry on about the endless procedures. As we've all seen far too often they fail time and again, and when they do everyone dodges responsibility

Sorry, but there's always another applicant who isn't on the SOR, and where children are concerned this risk is wholly unacceptable

Why would prostitutes be put on the register?

They aren't harming anyone other than themselves or are forced into it.

@KarmaViolet

Thank you, that's very interesting- I'm going to have a bit of a read later

This person knows they're on the SOR. They know this means they should not work with children. So even if they don't think their original offence makes them a danger to children, they know they're committing an offence by now contravening that. Which makes their moral compass still pretty fucked.

Just to clarify the person is not currently on the register, but has been on it not that long ago. Hence my persistent feeling that i have been unfair.

This person knows they're on the SOR. They know this means they should not work with children.

Legally only specific offences preclude someone from working with children, bring on the SOR doesn’t automatically bar you depending on the offence and whether the person is deemed a risk to children. If they are, they’d be given a sexual harm order which would disqualify them and would place them on the disqualified list. If an employer then employs someone on the disqualified list the employer would be committing an offence.

@ImaginaryCat you are very misinformed. Jellycat has explained most of it but in addition you may only be required to sign on the register for a certain period of time. Only the most serious offences carry a lifetime registration requirement.

Can anyone point me or say what offences would land you on the register?
Every offence under the sexual offences act 2003 - whether cautioned or charged. The severity of the offence dictates how long you are required to register for. Eg a 17 year old given a caution for voyeurism may only remain on the register for a short period of time. A child rapist will remain on the register for life

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

Only if you believe that corrupt cops stopped being corrupt when I stopped practicing in that area. Which I doubt. 🙄🙄🙄

Corrupt cops don’t make decisions around SOR though. Time on the register is determined by length of sentence, which is determined by the offence committed, which is determined by prosecutors. So unless you’re saying bent coppers managed to have prostitutes charged with serious sexual offences, which they were then convicted of and then received a sentence in excess of a life sentence, your comment makes no sense.

The police have no power to place someone on the SOR or to have their name retained in the Register.

@Jellycatspyjamas

I’m not sure if that response is directed at me but my comment was nothing to do with prostitutes being charged with serious sexual offences, it was relating to boys being charged with having sex with 16 year old girls.

A PP said it never happens. It does.

I wasn’t claiming that the individual the OP referenced might have been put on the SOR as a boy. Just rebutting, in isolation, the claim that boys duetting prosecuted for sex with 15 year olds doesn’t happen. My direct experience, which I referenced, is dated but I’m aware it still happens.

I can't bear being asked to provide sources/references/etc

Then expect people to think you are spouting bullshit when you state pretty significant information as fact. It isn’t “general chat” to state it is common for people on the sex offenders register to be working with children.

Just like the OP suggesting there are jobs out there where people are working with kids who aren’t going through so basic a checking process that a parent was able to do some cursory research and find it out for themselves, but is unwilling to say what that job is.

It isn't an overreaction to prevent this person accessing your children, sex offenders take advantage of access/opportunities so just because the conviction/register is historic this would mean nothing to me when it came to the possibility they could pose a risk to my child as it could just be that they haven't had access to someone they deem vulnerable enough to target during that time. It just wouldn't be worth the risk in my view even if the offence was against an adult.