To be horrified by this Metro article about standing by an offender (content warning, read with care)

[blackcatclub]

I opened this article thinking it would be about her leaving him: metro.co.uk/2021/11/28/i-was-8-months-pregnant-when-my-partner-was-arrested-for-child-sex-offences-15662442/

But no.

As a survivor of abuse I am absolutely appalled that they published this as if it was ok and the woman was not in fact deluded and minimising everything.

He’d a paedophile and their trying to justify it fucking disgusting. She should put her child first and get away from that man

@Cloakedmerry

He’d a paedophile and their trying to justify it fucking disgusting. She should put her child first and get away from that man

And there are posters on this thread saying "oh, it's her hormones. Once they calm down / her maternal instincts kick in she'll leave him".

Horrible, horrible apologists.

@Cloakedmerry

He’d a paedophile and their trying to justify it fucking disgusting. She should put her child first and get away from that man

And if she can't or won't, it may be that social services need to step in and take the child away.

I was in that situation except my DC was already here. My ex never came home, I threw him out straight away. I still am disgusted by what he did to the extent that I feel sick reading that article as it brings it all back. Social services assessed that I was able to protect my child and they stayed with me. But unbelievably I was criticised for this. Some people thought I should be standing by him and that social services were just bluffing that they would get involved if I let him home. I was told that it was partly my fault as men only "play away" if their wife neglects them and that I was not keeping my marriage vows. You literally can't avoid criticism can you? I cannot abide paedophile hunters though. They are self promoting vigilantes who want to pick fights with what people will consider a good reason. They thrive on the drama and conflict of their videos. And in "my" case cocked up the "evidence" so an offender has got away with it in court, leaving my child potentially at risk as there is no conviction. It's a desperately sad and ugly situation all around and I can actually see why a lack of support to end the relationship could lead to women staying, especially if they don't have the means to support themself etc.

@loislovesstewie

He sent a nude picture to someone that he thought was 12, for crying out loud!

What's your point? Was I in any way defending him? What I said is

1. It's easy to say what you would have done without actually being in that situation. When it involves them directly people don't always act strictly in accordance to their loudly proclaimed principles. I for one am withholding judgement on the partner for not immediately leaving him.

1. Being a paedophile does not automatically equal being a danger to one's own kids. He might be or he might not be. But the fact that he messaged a 12 year old stranger doesn't automatically make him a danger to his own.

Being a paedophile does not automatically equal being a danger to one's own kids. He might be or he might not be. But the fact that he messaged a 12 year old stranger doesn't automatically make him a danger to his own.
I disagree, if he is willing to cross moral, societal and legal boundaries by messaging a 12 year old stranger then he is capable of crossing boundaries in respect to his daughter, especially if the risk element is the important thing for him, as the supposed writer of the article claims.

It definitely does mean he is a danger to all kids, even his own. This is the most stupid argument I have ever read on MN. If you are sexually attracted to children, and you have 24/7, unsupervised, easy access to children then most of the time they act on it. To pretend otherwise is at best naive, at worst dangerous. I am not sure why you have categorised abuse as 'sexually misbehaving' either, that is pretty disrespectful and minimising. An emotional attachment to the child actually heightens the risk, lots of research out there. I don't think you know what you are talking about at all Swiss.

Being a paedophile does not automatically equal being a danger to one's own kids. He might be or he might not be. But the fact that he messaged a 12 year old stranger doesn't automatically make him a danger to his own.“

Oh, well, that’s alright then.

Being a paedophile does not automatically equal being a danger to one's own kids. He might be or he might not be. But the fact that he messaged a 12 year old stranger doesn't automatically make him a danger to his own.

Even if I thought your point had merit (I don't) we don't play Russian roulette with children's safety. He knows interactions of a sexual nature with a child is both morally wrong and illegal and he did it anyway. He clearly cannot control his impulses and is therefore a danger to children and we should never give people with his history the benefit of the doubt.

If the mother does not protect her child then she could well face having that child removed from her by Social Services. And that really is the bottom line. Staying with a man who is sending nude pictures to a 12-year-old calls into question whether she is protecting her child. That's it really.

I work with men who have committed sexual offences, and in the vast majority of cases the wife or partner has either stayed with the person, or remained supportive to a degree. There are various reasons why.

RoseRedRoseBlue

I work with men who have committed sexual offences, and in the vast majority of cases the wife or partner has either stayed with the person, or remained supportive to a degree. There are various reasons why.“

Interesting. Given your expertise, would you?

(Asking that as someone who can think of no circumstance whatsoever in which I would).

@MrsSkylerWhite no, I wouldn’t. Without even getting into the legality of it all, I couldn’t manage the betrayal, which is the least of the issue.

RoseRedRoseBlue

@MrsSkylerWhite no, I wouldn’t. Without even getting into the legality of it all, I couldn’t manage the betrayal, which is the least of the issue.“

Thank you. Professional insight is valuable.

@Ritasueandbobtoo9

Devils advocate:

It wasn’t a 12 year old girl it was a police officer.

I think police and paedophile hunters should stop doing this and concentrate on people who are actually abusing real children rather than psychologically manipulating people into committing a crime.

Discuss:-

Discuss? Is that an order then?

I sit in court for loads of these cases.

I just can’t believe how many of the women stand by them. Some of them get to the sentencing and hear for the first time what has actual time happened (because they’ve been lied to and the offences minimised for the two years it’s taken to get to sentencing..) and leave the perpetrator.

But a good deal of them stay. And afterwards, when it’s in the paper, the wives are always the ones who ring our newsdesk angry at their husbands’ cases being covered because ‘they have kids’.

Publicity is by far and away the best deterrent to this kind of offence.

We even had an Oxford-educated woman (she proudly told us this) calling to tell us that we simply must remove the piece we’d written on her husband who’d abused his pupil because when he came home they were going to move and she didn’t want the neighbours to find out his past.

Pretty much every paedo stands in court, admits the offence but then claims to ‘not have a sexual interest in children’. The judges put them right on that, and it goes against them because it displays a lack of remorse and empathy with their victims.

I think the Metro are right to publish this piece (with the caveats explained above, because there are gaping holes in it). It is a good demonstration of how women can be completely brainwashed by these men, of how we become apologists for them and of how society views perpetrators of ‘non-contact’ sex offences. It’s good to get these things out in the open and for women here to discuss them. It’s how change is brought about.

This is a forum where people debate and give opinions. You know that thing that civilised people used to have and be able to do.

I can understand mothers wanting to protect their children from the shitstorm that goes with a case of this nature being in the paper. I think the children of offenders should be protected regardless of the other parent's choices as it is not their fault. If that means that a case isn't reported then so be it. I rang the court and asked if there was any way my ex's case could be kept out of the paper because of the backlash that my innocent kids would suffer. We have an unusual name so they would definitely have been linked as would I. Can you imagine everyone at school knowing that your dad is a paedophile? Seriously? It doesn't bear thinking about. And all your work colleagues and friends knowing too? Your neighbours? And if the abusive comments that were hurled at me indirectly via the comments on the livestream of the sting are anything to go on I seriously think our lives may have been at risk from hate filled vigilantes if the papers had run the story. It was scary enough thinking someone would find us from the sting footage which is why I think these sting groups are abhorrent, putting people at risk like that by live streaming identifying details of people who are not proven to have committed an offence (google cases of mistaken identity that have happened). As it happened the case fell through anyway as I already said and I never got to hear the full truth of what he did. It's irrelevant decision making wise because I was never going to stay with him after that anyway. I amnot in denial about what he has done but I really think offender's families are the forgotten victims in these cases sometimes. My children have lost their dad and it's not their fault.

2. Being a paedophile does not automatically equal being a danger to one's own kids. He might be or he might not be. But the fact that he messaged a 12 year old stranger doesn't automatically make him a danger to his own.

Not wearing a seatbelt does not automatically mean that you'll have a car crash. It's still not a risk worth taking.

Pikak is quoting from the article, she's not agreeing with it.