My neighbour is a convicted paedophile

[Obviouslyneedtonamechange]

I've just found out from another neighbour that the man two doors down, who we chat to regularly and are friendly with, has been convicted of horrific child pornography charges. Like, the worst. It's really thrown me, I have a two year old and a four year old and I want them to be able to play in their garden without worrying about him watching or worse.
We live on a really small street which the name of was reported in the local paper so I am also a bit worried about potential vigilante type actions. I am obviously hoping he moves away (his marriage has collapsed so I'm hoping he financially has to) but no sign of that yet. Incredibly he got a suspended sentence, what a joke. Am I unreasonable to feel like I want to move?! What do I do?

Pornography implies consent. A child cannot consent.

erm, I think she does yeah.

it doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means excuse or minimise.

I understand what apologist means. I have a PhD in Applied Linguistics. Nobody on this thread is an apologist for paedophiles. I have read every post. Nobody excuses or minimises the awful things this man did. Some people just have different ideas about how to react to him.

The other thing is if op owns her home and choose to either sell or rent it out, she should consider selling or renting to someone without small kids, or at least disclosing to any prospective tenant/buyer with young kids.

There are paedophiles everywhere. I'd be more concerned about the ones I don't know about, more than the ones I do. Those people who are saying they'd move, to where? Do you know of paedophile free towns, cities etc?

I haven't had time to read the full thread but, as an ex child protection social worker, I can guarantee that practically everyone on here has a paedophile living near them.

It is always up to the parent/s to protect their children and I would always act on the basis that anyone I didn't know could be one, and I acted accordingly.

Additionally, I knew from my professional experience how paedophiles befriend families with children, especially vulnerable families, and act soooo friendly and helpful, making themselves familiar and indispensable, sometimes for years, before they commit the abusive acts, so always kept a nasty suspicious mind when it came to new adult (or teen) friends.

I let my children know why too, in age appropriate ways.

What research are you looking for?

The premise of this entire thread was the OP saying she'd found out a neighbour had been convicted of CSAM and she was sickened and didn't want him near her or her DC.

But her DC were never at risk of CSA from a man she just talked to in the street occasionally.

Which led to lots of posts saying OP should move to protect her DC and some saying tell everyone local and that's informing people and others saying tell everyone local so he's hounded out.

DC are extremely low to risk of CSA from strangers who do not have access to them.

DC are at risk of CSA from people who do have access to them who are usually trusted individuals by the parents or caregivers.

So anyone worrying about the paedo down the street are statistically more likely to have their DC abused by trusted individuals then the paedophile down the street.

And all the research around consuming CSAM suggests there is an increase risk of contact offending though many do not commit contact offences or consider doing so but again, the likelihood is of committing contact offences against DC they have access to

So everyone needs to be aware of the staggering rates of CSAM consumption but don't need to worry about the neighbour who their DC don't come into contact with, but worry about the people they trust

I don't understand what's so controversial or CSA apologetic about that.

They're just facts.

@thestudio Pornography implies consent.

No it doesn't.

That word simply refers to media intended to cause sexual arousal.

My neighbour and I were discussing this earlier. We now feel we have a duty to disclose this to any families should we sell, which will clearly end the sale 🤦 my best hope I think is for him to not be able to afford a big house without a job and hopefully a very expensive divorce and be forced to move himself. For the people thinking another paedophile will immediately move in to the house, at the moment it's a 100% chance of a horrible creature living there. If someone else moves in the odds are that they aren't, and if they are - well we're no worse off are we.

We're also looking at the best way to block vision - it's tricky as they are tall houses on a hill.

Op I would have the local police force check his conditions. Some convicted sex offenders are supposed to be placed away from young children. I would also ask that they come and reassure the street. Everyone needs to know, even the elderly may have grandchildren visiting etc.

It may not feel so cosy for him now.

Because pornography is seen as, and often is, legitimate. You can legally buy it, make it, watch it and sell it. When we start talking about 'child pornography' we are placing it in the same bracket, as a niche offshoot. It's not acceptable.

Yes, what a hassle! Sorry you have to deal with this op!

That's exactly the point I am making.

The first point is that whether pornography is legitimate depends on where you are, and who you talk to. In many countries, it is illegal. On mumsnet, either a majority, or at least a large minority, would probably argue that pornography is not acceptable.

Second point is... what you are saying makes no logical sense. 'Pornography' is a parent category, which consists of numerous subcategories. If we assume for argument's sake that some of the subcategories are acceptable, that does not mean or imply that all subcategories are acceptable. This type of reasoning is very surprising and confusing to me.

If it’s reported in the newspapers it’s a conviction in a court of law.

No, everybody doesn't need to know.

Shall I find you another hair to split? In the UK, where post is centred, adult pornography is LEGAL. Whether people fond it acceptable or not is another debate entirely.

As for point 2, I work in the field. We don't use the CP term and have not done so for years. You can make of that what you will.

@Lemonfrost Shall I find you another hair to split?

That's not what "splitting hairs" means.

As for point 2, I work in the field. We don't use the CP term and have not done so for years. You can make of that what you will.

Regardless of what terminology you use, what you are saying makes no logical sense.

I will politely point out that use of the term "child abuse image" is non-specific and includes images that aren't sexual in nature. If an offender is viewing sexual images specifically, is it not important to call that out?

OK. You don't understand my terminology, I have attempted to explain it. You don't agree. There really isn't anything more to say.

Agree that it isn’t child pornography - the term is child sexual abuse, let’s call it what it is. But nobody should think of the word phonographs as implying consent in any circumstance, given that so many people taking part are trafficked and forced into it.

According to statistics, there are enough pedophiles in the UK for there to be one on every street.
At least you know where this one is.
Grey rock him, do not acknowledge him and in the summer if your children are in the garden in swimwear, put a gazebo up to block his view.
If he walks past you when you’re with your children, make sure to hold their hands tight and move them away from him.

He’s scum! I honestly hope he moves far, far away.

Also ‘Child pornography’ isn’t the correct term - it’s ’child sexual abuse images/videos’.

That's a separate debate. For the purpose and context of this thread, adult pornography is classed as a legitimate entity.