Page 8 | My neighbour is a convicted paedophile

Obviouslyneedtonamechange · 2025-12-02T11:56:10+00:00

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?

whatsnewpussycat34 · 02/12/2025 14:49

mindutopia · 02/12/2025 12:50

It’s great you know. Just make sure your children have no contact with him. Stop being friendly and blank him.

The reality is that they are absolutely EVERYWHERE. 1 in 6 children are sexually abused. If your children have 6 friends, it’s quite likely that one of them is or will be abused, probably by someone quite close to them, who your child will know too. I have 2 convicted paedophiles just in my immediate family (who we obviously are NC with).

You need to learn to trust your gut and teach your children to trust theirs. No need to ever be polite with anyone who gives you a funny feeling. But you’ve gotten off easy here because you know about this one and you can give him a swerve.

Edited

Jesus Christ, those stats can’t be true?

If they are, I am ready to get off the world now please.

Rosscameasdoody · 02/12/2025 14:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Which is blackmail/threatening behaviour, and if it turns out that he is living there legitimately as a known/monitored sex offender, or worse, this is a case of mistaken identity, it will land you in trouble yourself.

Ketzele · 02/12/2025 14:51

I do think we need to stop using the word pedo to cover very different kinds of offending. The classic pedo has a lifelong sexual compulsion towards pre-adolescent children, which may include efforts to make durect sexual contact with kids.

Then there is a much, much wider pool of men who view child abuse images but do not seek direct contact. Before you all react to that, I am not excusing it or saying it is a lesser offence, but the profile is quite different.

My relative, for example, only developed an interest in images of children well into adulthood, and as one of a series of categories of transgressive porn that he was into. He was insistent that he was not a pedo and that his was a 'victimless crime'. Well, he's a fucking idiot as well as a pervert, and I'm glad he was sent down (despite having previously being very fond of the guy). But its probably true that he wouldn't have sought out children for direct abuse (preferring for some other creep to do the dirty work).

The unpalatable truth is that pedos are part of a much wider problem of predatory men. Men who are opportunistic and not solely fixated on children, but will happily sexually exploit women and children when given the opportunity. Men who view nasty images online. Men who abuse girls within their family. 'Family men' who harrass schoolgirls from the safety of their cars.

Just as we now know that VAWG is interconnected, that say flashing has roots in the same swamp as rape and domestic violence, we need to understand that transgressive porn and paedophilia are also part of this swamp. The number of men involved is breathtaking and depressing, and thinking that just driving out tge neighbourhood nonce to the next village will keep your kids safe is just fantasy.

timenotime · 02/12/2025 14:53

LeftieRightsHoarder · 02/12/2025 12:03

You are right to be concerned. People convicted on child pornography charges have basically been paying someone else to commit child abuse. That's as bad as doing it himself. Suspended sentences are an insult to the victims. As long as you are certain that it's him, I'd avoid all contact.

Edited

I agree with this. The pathetic light sentences for this crime disgust me.

OctaviaC74 · 02/12/2025 14:53

Twatalert · 02/12/2025 14:28

Your assessment is so messed up. They all start by looking at images, then some progress further and commit 'worse'. He doesn't get to receive the benefit of the doubt here. He likes kids and therefore every caution should be taken so he never gets the chance to abuse anyone again. If I had a man in my neighbourhood I would consider that all he could be prosecuted for were images. It does not mean he never did anything to a child.

Show quote history

Oh so before photography, there were no child sexual offenders.... who knew!

Some people view images, get caught, prosecuted and never look at them again, others do as you say.

At least the OP is aware, most people have no idea.

Edenmum2 · 02/12/2025 14:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

What??!!

fatphalange · 02/12/2025 14:56

You are NOT being unreasonable but if you move, you’ll be moving close to another one. They are everywhere. It’s my job to know, trust me on this (or not- it’s the internet after all). The upside: knowledge is power. Now you know this about your neighbour you can completely cut him off, keep an even closer eye on your children when they are playing in your garden/the area and know never to trust this guy or even speak to him again.

divorcinganabsolutewanker · 02/12/2025 14:58

justasking111 · 02/12/2025 14:17

Well certainly here in n Wales. There's no point in moving. One got hounded out of our town. He turns up in our tiny village. Same face, same dog, same teddies in the window. He'd walk his dog in the children's park. We just banned the kids from talking to the bad man. Stopped going to the park which had a village hall hired out all the time for children clubs. We let every club know. He stayed around six months.

Show quote history

My brother is one.

I always let the neighbours now and then he moves on again.

Pity he won't just keel over an die.

Twatalert · 02/12/2025 14:58

ThisNeatRedMember · 02/12/2025 14:49

It's not my assessment, it's the assessment of the criminal justice system informed by social services, forsensic psychiatry and forensic psychological research.

So that's the best we have and the tools we use.

Like you said, 'some' commit contact offences which is why the offenders are monitored but not all do.

It's fact that DC are more at risk from the people intimately around them who are very likely not consuming CSAM and not paedophiles (there is a clinical definition) but are opportunistic contact offenders then some bloke down the road who has been convicted of possession of CSAM.

ALL child predators cam be someone's son or Dad, Uncle, nephew, friend, work colleague, Religious professional, Dr, teachers, sports coach etc

What happens often is when people are fretting about a CSAM consuming neighbour who never has contact with their kids, they're ignoring the predators active in their lives.

Threads like this make that point clear "oh you should move, tell everyone and he won't hang around etc'.

The least likely person to abuse your kids os the CSAM convicted person down the road who never has contact with them.

It's the people they are spending time with, their parents, Grandparents, extended family etc and teachers, Dr's.

You just have to be aware.

Show quote history

Considering you know quite a bit about this I find your stance (is that a better word for you?) even more concerning. Do you really think any parent will take some statistic and think 'well this guy is more likely to keep away from my child than not, so maybe I don't need to be as vigilant'? Frankly, I think you should join a hypothetical discussion on this and not a thread where a mother is trying to work out how to protect her children from a KNOWN SO a few doors down.

How you bring people closer to the children into this as a potential risk who we know even less about than this neighbour is beyond me. So assuming that someone close to them who we never ever heard about might be a greater risk is ok, but let's not overestimate the crimes a known SO might be capable of because he's only been convinceted of 'images'.

Shall we know all say 'OP, don't worry about the neighbour. Take a closer look at Grandpa instead just in case'?

Do you think your statistic will matter to anyone who's been affected by this?

Bumcake · 02/12/2025 15:00

If you would move in this scenario, would you sell to a family with children?

ThisNeatRedMember · 02/12/2025 15:07

Ketzele · 02/12/2025 14:51

I do think we need to stop using the word pedo to cover very different kinds of offending. The classic pedo has a lifelong sexual compulsion towards pre-adolescent children, which may include efforts to make durect sexual contact with kids.

Then there is a much, much wider pool of men who view child abuse images but do not seek direct contact. Before you all react to that, I am not excusing it or saying it is a lesser offence, but the profile is quite different.

My relative, for example, only developed an interest in images of children well into adulthood, and as one of a series of categories of transgressive porn that he was into. He was insistent that he was not a pedo and that his was a 'victimless crime'. Well, he's a fucking idiot as well as a pervert, and I'm glad he was sent down (despite having previously being very fond of the guy). But its probably true that he wouldn't have sought out children for direct abuse (preferring for some other creep to do the dirty work).

The unpalatable truth is that pedos are part of a much wider problem of predatory men. Men who are opportunistic and not solely fixated on children, but will happily sexually exploit women and children when given the opportunity. Men who view nasty images online. Men who abuse girls within their family. 'Family men' who harrass schoolgirls from the safety of their cars.

Just as we now know that VAWG is interconnected, that say flashing has roots in the same swamp as rape and domestic violence, we need to understand that transgressive porn and paedophilia are also part of this swamp. The number of men involved is breathtaking and depressing, and thinking that just driving out tge neighbourhood nonce to the next village will keep your kids safe is just fantasy.

100%

But it's jarring so people don't want to hear it.

Driving people underground makes them more dangerous and not necessarily of CSA but of mental illness, drug and alcohol use and non-CSA crimes.

Plus the burden that places on society and the tax-payer. I know of a case where the man was convicted of contact CSA (his DC) , served a prison sentence and came out. Heavily monitored, working and no evidence of repeat offending.

Lived on a rough estate privately renting and some locals found out and kicked the everloving shit out of him which I'm sure a lot of people on MN and elsewhere would think was justified but the consequences of that are that he's been claiming PIP for years for PTSD, alcoholic, not working with no likelihood that he ever will and now in social housing and seeing MH services regularly for years.

He costs the tax payer thousands a year.

And it doesn't stop him from having GFs who are all informed of his past either.

That's the reality.

ThisNeatRedMember · 02/12/2025 15:15

Twatalert · 02/12/2025 14:58

Considering you know quite a bit about this I find your stance (is that a better word for you?) even more concerning. Do you really think any parent will take some statistic and think 'well this guy is more likely to keep away from my child than not, so maybe I don't need to be as vigilant'? Frankly, I think you should join a hypothetical discussion on this and not a thread where a mother is trying to work out how to protect her children from a KNOWN SO a few doors down.

How you bring people closer to the children into this as a potential risk who we know even less about than this neighbour is beyond me. So assuming that someone close to them who we never ever heard about might be a greater risk is ok, but let's not overestimate the crimes a known SO might be capable of because he's only been convinceted of 'images'.

Shall we know all say 'OP, don't worry about the neighbour. Take a closer look at Grandpa instead just in case'?

Do you think your statistic will matter to anyone who's been affected by this?

Show quote history

Have you RTFT?.

OP isn't worried about this man posing a risk to her DC because he's never with her DC.

She's posting about how sickened she is that she used to talk to him and she doesn't want him near her or her DC

Because of the nature of his crimes, not because she thinks he's a risk to her DC other than looking at them.

So he's no risk to them. Other than possibly having thoughts. And there's no way to protect anyone from anyone else having thoughts about them.

cripplinglyalone · 02/12/2025 15:17

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Puffin69 · 02/12/2025 15:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

It appears they alrwady know. And you don't get to blackmail people into moving. He has as much right to be there as anyone else. Besides it is the ones you don't know about who are the greatest risk lime the next petson who moves in.

Ketzele · 02/12/2025 15:19

Twatalert · 02/12/2025 14:58

Considering you know quite a bit about this I find your stance (is that a better word for you?) even more concerning. Do you really think any parent will take some statistic and think 'well this guy is more likely to keep away from my child than not, so maybe I don't need to be as vigilant'? Frankly, I think you should join a hypothetical discussion on this and not a thread where a mother is trying to work out how to protect her children from a KNOWN SO a few doors down.

How you bring people closer to the children into this as a potential risk who we know even less about than this neighbour is beyond me. So assuming that someone close to them who we never ever heard about might be a greater risk is ok, but let's not overestimate the crimes a known SO might be capable of because he's only been convinceted of 'images'.

Shall we know all say 'OP, don't worry about the neighbour. Take a closer look at Grandpa instead just in case'?

Do you think your statistic will matter to anyone who's been affected by this?

Show quote history

But we're all affected. We all need to share knowledge and understanding and work out how to make life safer for our kids. This advice is far more useful to the OP than advising her to move or start some vigilante action.

Donsyb · 02/12/2025 15:20

I would have no contact with him and warn the children. However at least you know he is a danger and behave accordingly, many live by paedophiles who haven’t been caught yet (speaking as someone who’s neighbour is currently in prison for a lot more than pornographic photos!)

Ketzele · 02/12/2025 15:20

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Oh blimey, that's me rumbled!

CandyCayne · 02/12/2025 15:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Be aware of that always, when you feel like you are being shamed or told paedos are everywhere just put up with it.

Can you say a bit more about 'not just putting up with convicted paedophiles' would entail?

Twatalert · 02/12/2025 15:26

ThisNeatRedMember · 02/12/2025 15:15

Have you RTFT?.

OP isn't worried about this man posing a risk to her DC because he's never with her DC.

She's posting about how sickened she is that she used to talk to him and she doesn't want him near her or her DC

Because of the nature of his crimes, not because she thinks he's a risk to her DC other than looking at them.

So he's no risk to them. Other than possibly having thoughts. And there's no way to protect anyone from anyone else having thoughts about them.

Show quote history

Yes I have RTFT. I don't know what your role in this field is, but I feel like reporting you for putting this on here.

OP doesn't want him to perv on her kids and has been advised to tell her kids to never speak to the man. Does it not occur to you that he might approach children one day or parents may worry about that? We don't know if he's 'one of the good ones' who will never act on his urge for children. Yes, he has an urge otherwise he'd not viewed these images. Nothing happens until it does. I cannot even understand your train of thought here and how you are so sure this man won't escalate 'because he doesn't spend time with the kids' and go on to post something like 'this man is no risk to these children'.

ThisNeatRedMember · 02/12/2025 15:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Well they are everywhere as the evidence shows.

I'd imagine paedophiles are more likely to be on threads minimising it, not saying how insanely prevalent it is and telling people the facts which are your DC are more likely to be abused by someone you know, trust and often love instead of focusing on the convicted CSAM viewer down the road who the DC never have contact with.

I was a child of the 80s and told not to go off with strangers, if a man offered you sweets or said he had puppies in his car you shouldn't go.

No-one told me your uncle who used to be an ambulance driver might be up for playing imaginative games about hospitals so he gets to touch you inappropriately and you won't realise it was CSA till you get to adulthood.

That's the reality. And not just because of my experience but because of the vanishingly rare incidents of CSA by strangers.

People need to know the convicted CSAM viewer that never has contact with their DC is not the most likely threat to their DC but the person who they trust.

Twatalert · 02/12/2025 15:35

Ketzele · 02/12/2025 15:19

But we're all affected. We all need to share knowledge and understanding and work out how to make life safer for our kids. This advice is far more useful to the OP than advising her to move or start some vigilante action.

Show quote history

This advice is no advice. I'd be really amazed if I as a mother would just calm myself down because a stranger on the internet said that statistically this man is no risk. I just think you'd be extra vigilant just in case. This DOES NOT mean to not consider it might happen elsewhere in the child's life. That alone was a ridiculous suggestion. I just cannot get my head around this. If there was a suspected serial killer in the neighbourhood I'd take very good caution and that is me as an adult. It is beyond me how one might not consider the possibility this man might start talking to these kids one day and worse (they will become older and not tied to mummy) and guilt trip/manipulate them so they might not feel able to tell anyone what is happening. YES there are other unknown PDF around. But in this case it is a known one & that's what I would work with.

Ketzele · 02/12/2025 15:35

Twatalert · 02/12/2025 15:26

Yes I have RTFT. I don't know what your role in this field is, but I feel like reporting you for putting this on here.

OP doesn't want him to perv on her kids and has been advised to tell her kids to never speak to the man. Does it not occur to you that he might approach children one day or parents may worry about that? We don't know if he's 'one of the good ones' who will never act on his urge for children. Yes, he has an urge otherwise he'd not viewed these images. Nothing happens until it does. I cannot even understand your train of thought here and how you are so sure this man won't escalate 'because he doesn't spend time with the kids' and go on to post something like 'this man is no risk to these children'.

Show quote history

Nobody has said he is one of the 'good' ones. We are talking about the difference between direct and indirect abuse: they are both abuse, and both harm children. I can't for the life of me see what you would report RedMember for, since her posts have been civil and informative. Saying something you dont agree with is not a hanging offence.

Twatalert · 02/12/2025 15:36

Ketzele · 02/12/2025 15:35

Nobody has said he is one of the 'good' ones. We are talking about the difference between direct and indirect abuse: they are both abuse, and both harm children. I can't for the life of me see what you would report RedMember for, since her posts have been civil and informative. Saying something you dont agree with is not a hanging offence.

Show quote history

Not to mumsnet 😂

Twatalert · 02/12/2025 15:37

Ketzele · 02/12/2025 15:35

Nobody has said he is one of the 'good' ones. We are talking about the difference between direct and indirect abuse: they are both abuse, and both harm children. I can't for the life of me see what you would report RedMember for, since her posts have been civil and informative. Saying something you dont agree with is not a hanging offence.

Show quote history

This poster literally said this man is NO risk to the children. Do you agree with that? Would you think that he is no risk to YOUR children if this was your neighbour?

ThisNeatRedMember · 02/12/2025 15:39

Twatalert · 02/12/2025 15:26

Yes I have RTFT. I don't know what your role in this field is, but I feel like reporting you for putting this on here.

OP doesn't want him to perv on her kids and has been advised to tell her kids to never speak to the man. Does it not occur to you that he might approach children one day or parents may worry about that? We don't know if he's 'one of the good ones' who will never act on his urge for children. Yes, he has an urge otherwise he'd not viewed these images. Nothing happens until it does. I cannot even understand your train of thought here and how you are so sure this man won't escalate 'because he doesn't spend time with the kids' and go on to post something like 'this man is no risk to these children'.

Show quote history

What don't you get?

Report me for what? Facts,

If you don't let your DC spend time with strangers they are not ar risk from those strangers.

They're at risk from the people you trust and who you let spend time with them

Your husband, your Dad, your brother, nephew, teacher, Dr, sports coach, Priest or whatever

Going around being outraged about a potential paedophile down the road who your DC never even encounter is a waste of your time and doing nothing to protect your DC

Keep your DC safe from the people closet to them because they're most likely to be a risk to your DC

That's just facts