Would the nationwide introduction of Sarah's Law necessarily lead to revenge?

[Rantagonist]

In the pilot scheme there were 60 children who were protected from potential abuse by it.

Surely if just one child is spared then it makes it all worthwhile?

And should all ex-husbands checking out their ex-wifes new boyfriend be viewed as doing it out of revenge?

I think it would sometimes lead to revenge.

Which is why I could never endorse it. It's the opposite (and less tasteful) side of the coin which, as you say, spares just one child.

I also don't really get how the stats can show that children were protected from "potential" abuse.

That's kind of like me saying "Oh, I could potentially have been run over 500 times this morning".

It's a bit of a daft statistic.

Buch, I'm presuming it means that where info was given out, that 60 children were in contact with a person who was known to the authorities to be a danger to children, so they were protected from potential abuse.

But should the pilot not be rolled out just because some blokes might use it for revenge? Does the fact of that possible revenge outweigh the rights of the children who would otherwise be protected by it do you think?

dunnow about revenge, but it doesn't exactly indicate the start of a loving trusting relationship does it? "yes I'd love to have dinner with you, just have to check first that you're not a paedophile."

How long before men have to have a crb before being allowed to have any contact with any children.

I think it's less the idea of an ex using it as revenge for a failed relationship that bothers me, than the idea of the rentamob finding out and starting with the brick throwing.

The women and children identified as at risk are presumably informed, but then if they choose not to take action? My (half)sister was going out with someone I knew had been in (juvenile) prison for child abuse. I told her, she said I had my facts wrong, the relationship continued.

Or, they are informed and do leave the relationship- how many of them are going to tell someone else, who tells someone else and you get the whole vigilante thing starting up?

I think it's just too hard a thing to police effectively.

Wannabe, has the, erm, bus thread been pulled?

"The scheme was explained to all resident registered sex offenders in each area who were assured that it would not lead to their names and addresses appearing
in the local press." How on earth can they assure anyone of that? let's face it a lot of papers have no qualms in running "name a paedo" campaigns. They've done so in the past, who's to say they wouldn't do it again?

oooh no idea Bucharest.

But what would be the motive for making the list known if it wasn't to single out potential threats to children (regardless of why they appear on the list in the first place) .... surely, the law is there to protect everyone and not just the innocent ...

LOL at parents having to 'promise' not to tell others of the presence of a sex offender in thier area.

Be honest.

If you knew that a convicted sex offender - and one who targeted children - lived on your street, would you keep that information to yourself?

Could you risk a child of a neighbour being abused because you were not allowed to reveal what you know?

The risk of vigilante attack is very high.

It think it should be rolled out more slowly than just opening the information up to everyone straight away. That way it can be more closely monitored and controlled, which can only be a good thing, rather than some things slip through the net and allows vigilantism to rear it's ugly head.

The other danger is that it only highlights the danger of a convicted sex offender. It does not warn of anyone who has offended but has not been caught, or a first offender.

We need to rely on our own instincts about a person instead of merely getting CRB checks and disclosure checks.

Why don't they just keep convicted sex offenders locked up in jail? That would solve a lot of problems.

bucharest, your post takes the prize .......are you for real?
Quote "I think it would sometimes lead to revenge.

Which is why I could never endorse it. It's the opposite (and less tasteful) side of the coin which, as you say, spares just one child."

I can not believe I am reading this......
So it would be far more 'tasteful' to let the potential child molesters access our children and hope for the best, than, God forbid, inconvenience someone by having their background checked?

I'm speechless and disgusted.

"So it would be far more 'tasteful' to let the potential child molesters access our children and hope for the best, than, God forbid, inconvenience someone by having their background checked?

I'm speechless and disgusted."

I don't think that's what she meant at all. She was discussing possible revenge attacks or attacks on an innocent due to mistaken identity from my reading of the post. Not equating child molesting to having someone check your background at all. equating an attack on a child to an attack on an adult due to vigilantes.

I don't support it.

Most child abusers go undetected for their whole lives.

It should include women too, no?
My dd was abused by her SM.

Thank you MQ, that is what I meant.

Mme Lindt, I know from personal experience that you can't keep it quiet when you know something like this about someone. I told someone very close to me (a family member) that I knew her partner had been in prison for child sex abuse. I didn't know which way she would go, tbh, she's not the brightest button in the box and I quite believed she might go for the telling the neighbourhood and rallying the hue and cry. She didn't, she chose not to believe me and stayed with him.

Oh FFS: why not call it 'Brain DOnor's Law' and be done with it. This is a ridiculous, dangerous proposal that only appeals to sentimental fuckwits who get pant-wettingly excited at the thought of a bit of hot vigilante action.
Most child abuse is domestic, ie within the family. There probably are idiots who think that people should have to be licenced and checked up on to be parents in the first place (Hello Badman and the whole anti-home-ed campaign) but the best defence for children is giving them a sensible grounding in personal boundaries and safety. Not inflaming the idiot mob to go round puttingbricks through paediatrician's windows yet again.

nicky...., so let's throw away the only chance parents have to potentially weed out the known bad apples? Just because 'most child abusers go undetected'. I fail to see your logic....
If only one child would be saved from abuse via this scheme, it is a success.

SolidGoldBrass well said

Rollmops: That;'s one of my favourite stupidity-incicators, the 'if just one child ' statement. Because it's NONSENSE. It's completely unprovable.
And if you really think that the only chance of protecting children from attack lies in building a culture of vigilantism and rumour mongering (rather than teaching children autonomy, personal safety oh and keeping a reasonable eye on their whereabouts, feelings and behaviour) then I wonder how you have the cognitive powers to put your underwear on without assistance.

The thing that stood out for me when I read it on the BBC was that 1 in 15 of all the requests had given a positive result.

DH and I worked out that with about 1 in 20,000 of the population being registered child sex offenders, that meant that people's instincts are working awfully well.

Will read the grauniad stuff now.

The article I read also said that about a quarter of requests were from ex partners on new partners IYSWIM, about a quarter on neighbours and a quarter on family members.