FIL is a paedophile

[Choccybaby]

No easy way to say this and I've being thinking of posting for a while. My FIL was convicted recently of looking at indecent pictures of children. We've had limited contact since (unsurprisingly).
MIL who is too nice still lives with him (we did offer she could live with us but she declined)
We now rarely see them and usually only MIL but I feel guilty - FIL probably had undiagnosed Aspergers, but I still can't forgive him for all the hassle he's caused ( meetings with social workers and police etc) and he seems to want to brush it under the carpet ...

That's an interesting read, cats - the list of aggravating factors is interesting too.

Meerka yes it's entirely likely they would prosecute for images of pouting 15 year olds in their underwear, because it's still an indecent image of a child. However in the theoretical case of the boyfriend of said 15 year old, the circumstances would be taken into account as mitigation.

Oh okay statutory max ... I see.

the rules seem a bit odd as you say.

I noted that on the first page it says:

The definition of ‘child’ for these
offences is anyone under 18 years of age

so in theory an 18yo boyfriend could take a pic of his 17yo gf and be prosecuted ...as you say hopefully a bit of common sense would be used instead!

It does make me think yet again that we simply do not know enough of the original circumstances to start getting the pitchforks out.

At its worst it could have been horrible stuff (though then he'd likely have had a custodial sentance?), at its been it could have been a 50+ yo man looking at pics of a 17 yo in his or her undies. Creepy and distasteful but hardly the stuff of 'monsters'.

We just don't know.

But I've hammered that point enough, not that it will get through to anyone

Common sense can only go so far - there was a case where a teenage girl received a police caution after sending a topless image of herself to her boyfriend. Easy to find via Google but daily fail link. A gay 16yr old sending images of his own body to another gay teenager is also illegal. The only common sense the court can use is in sentencing - the crime has still been committed and those people will have a chriminal record.

The sentencing guidelines are here www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/indecent_images_of_children/

It is indeed possible that the OPs FIL might have been convicted for viewing images of pouting 15 - 17yr olds in their underwear, in images taken by themselves. He would still HAVE to be found guilty as that is against the law. He didn't need to have downloaded a stash of them, just viewing some online would put the images in the cache.

Some people on here really need to educate themselves about what the law actually says.

catsrus the OP wrote ( meetings with social workers and police etc)

Would these meetings have taken place for all offenses, or not?

I mean, would meetings with social workers and police still have happened if he was watching a 17yo in her underwear? Or do those sorts of meetings only happen if the offense is much heavier?

OP has said her FIL has been convicted of looking at indecent pictures of children. There is no evidence that it was "men raping children", as someone here has said; or that the OP's FIL is a danger to his grandchildren.

OP, I would not go NC with him - he is the children's grandfather. Your DH could maybe take the children on supervised visits?

As for people questioning why OP's MIL stayed with her husband, how about "for better, for worse (...) in sickness and in health"?

Posting on mn has reached a new low with this one from IonaNE. I have never seen such unmitigated tripe from anyone on here and that is saying something. You should be ashamed.

I'm a Christian and I can tell you that everyone I know who said their marriage vows would take a dim view of staying with and excusing child abuse. There is sickness and then there's "sickness" (if that's how you view people who get their kicks from watching children being abused).

My husband and I are grandparents and it gives us no rights, only the responsibility to be supportive, loving and protective.

So angry.

Meerka - I'm with you.

I think the meetings with police and SWs happen regardless of category of offence - the person of whom I know who underwent similar, SW and police were involved with all family members and it was definitely cat C (now I've seen those categories) - but ideally we'd need an answer from someone who deals with this sort of thing professionally.

phew, thanks thumbwitches. I was starting to feel a bit beleagured in not necessarily wanting to string him up from the nearest lamppost.

Just in case it needs saying I am not an apologist for paedophilia, it's a life-ruining crime that blights people. The effects are absolutely awful, life-long too often and they reverberate down the generations. But witchhunts and twitch reflex hysteria are no good way of dealing with it.

The only thing that has surprised me on this thread is that the age of "children" in this situation is 18, not 16. If it's legal to have sex at 16, then why is the age set at 18?

Yes, if a conviction is secured, even the lowest possible sentence - which is a medium-level supervision order - would involve sw and police involvement and monitoring, plus family members/new partners being made aware, and there would also be registration on the sex offenders register which would oblige the offender to notify police of whereabouts/ passport would be 'flagged' at airport security, that kind of thing. Even for 'creepy and distasteful', which although awful, is a long way off from the other end of the spectrum.

voting age?

Because this is such a difficult area that they are erring on the side of caution?

I have a faint memory that it's legal for two 16 yos to have sex but not for an 18 and a 17 yo, but not sure if that is right or not.

I think people try to pathologise people who are paedophiles. There must be something wrong with them because they can't truly be like that! They can be!

Thus article outlines one problem with the law as it stands. 16 is the age of consent for actual sex - but 18 for images which might be considered indecent. OPs FIL might have been viewing images of pouting 17yr olds, in their underwear, taken by themselves.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/04/sexting-teenagers-selfie-criminal-record-sex-offenders-register

You know what? If my DF or DB started studying any of types of images I would no longer consider him an appropriate person for my DD to know. It would not mean that I saw him as a monster or wanted to inflict any kind of torture on him. It would be a reflection of my child's vulnerability and how seriously I take my responsibility as a parent, not a condemnation of him. And it wouldn't be done angrily or flippantly, but with great sorrow. Kindly don't patronise this perfectly valid viewpoint by labelling it hysterical or by manipulatively aligning it with the views of a lynch mob.

Cats - again, very useful and interesting article.

Well saturnvista

Seeing as you probably have some males in your extended family of over 18

seeing as an awful lot of men do look at porn without a clue of the ages of the females involved

You're probably very likely to have someone in your extended family who has "started studying any of types of images" *including relatively innocuous ones of 17yos in their underwear.

Which means you'd either better hope not to know, or better be ready to disown them for looking at -any- pictures of females.

That's obviously a ridiculous statement. But so is saying that you'd consider anyone who looked at any image of a scantily clad female, as a risk to your children.

saturnvista
jap Do you mean if a family member purchased an image that would be worse than if they'd downloaded it for free?

In principle I consider it worse to commit a "thought" crime + "causally links to harm" crime, than just a thought crime alone.

A police officer viewing images is different from someone who is choosing to view the same images for recreational purposes; the police officer is not making a true choice to view the images. He is doing so because he has a job to do and obviously that does not magically cause a child somewhere to be abused. The police stand (one would hope) outside the cycle and they benefit not at all from it - I devoutly hope you already knew that.

I did, yes.

ThumbWitchesAbroad
"The only thing that has surprised me on this thread is that the age of "children" in this situation is 18, not 16. If it's legal to have sex at 16, then why is the age set at 18?"

There are probably arguments to be made about disallowing people from choosing to appear in such material until they have made this decision as legal adults. That said, I believe there is a defence of marriage where it is not illegal if the possessor of the images is married to the under-18 person within it. Something along those lines, if I remember correctly.

If I found out that someone had been caught with "child porn" that in actual fact was of physically mature post-pubescants who were under 18, I'd think them wrong and other things, but not sure I would necessarily start seeing them as a sexual danger to pre-pubescent children. Human biology does not give a monkeys about legal age limits and whether the physically mature person is already 18 or is 17 or whatever, but this is still part of heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality and not being a paedophile.

Samantha Fox started appearing topless on page 3 at 16. It is a good thing for the millions of people who bought the Sun in the early 80s that these laws are not applied retroactively.

Nothing could make me disown my son- it honestly wouldn't matter what he did. And of course if he were abused I would feel devastated. I feel both these sentiments about all humans.

Yes Textfan. I don't dispute that the fil may be feeling all kinds of emotions but expecting the family to support him is a bit much.

In the past, I have been chased off threads for daring to suggest that OW aren't necessarily evil and maybe they are lonely, have low self-esteem, have been preyed on by players etc etc etc...... But it is not ok to say that!

that would be very mumsnet! If we were all so liberal we could offer support to a paedophile but other women, they are evil

Meerka Maybe you're right.

I was looking at the vague specifications for images that a poster (you, I think) had described as 'relatively minor' in the great scheme of things, and I suddenly felt completely outside your frame of reference. Even the discussion was wasting your time - you see, viewing the most 'innocuous' of indecent images featuring babies, children and underage young people would be sufficient for me to close the door on a relationship between that person and my children. Thinking about it, maybe that's one thing that's really going to get to the large, growing numbers of offenders and potential offenders: most abuse takes place between older and younger family members; if parents cut contact at the first whiff of trouble between their child and the person involved, it could lead to a much safer environment for children to grow up. But, if mothers react across the UK as they on here today, offenders could lose not just many potential victims - but also their family. A powerful disincentive.

Japab Why couldn't you just have said yes?!