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 ...

The OP has been very clear....FIL is a paedophile. Looking at post pubescent children ( for that is what they still are) makes you a dirty old man. I can't remember the technical term. Looking at pre pubescent children makes you a paedophile. The former like grown up bodies with child like minds, the latter like children's undeveloped bodies ( shivers).

If he was looking at a 16 year old in their undies she wouldn't have called him a paedophile. She knows the content and she says paedophile so can we just move on from the Sam Fox analogies.

I knew someone who allowed one near their child in similar circumstances. He was a close relative and so the thinking was the threat would be lower. Big mistake.

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

you see that's the problem.

There is a vast, vast range of child abuse. Sadly.

You don't know, on this thread, if you're advising someone to cut off their FIL for something that's around the standard of a topshelf girlymag or a bloody snuff movie.

(well, we can presume it wasn't a snuff movie or he'd have been given a custodial sentance. But something very foul).

Can you not see that there is a range of offenses from utterly vile to less serious than you'd see on a beach in summer? And that a measured response to something like 10 pics of a 17yo in her underwear is more appropriate than cutting him off forever?

Sure, cut someone off for something worse. Or supervised contact or whatever, depending on what the situation actually is. which we don't know. Presumably the OP knows the details since there have been these case conferences and she can make a (hopefully) level headed decision.

But people see the word 'paedophile' and start a witch hunt. It's frightening. 50 years ago the same hate was aimed at gay people; 400 years ago at catholics.

Look, 17yos have been arrested for having sex on a public street with their bf/gf and have had their lives less affected than by someone looking at a picture of them having sex. Yet officially that person is a paedophile - and god help them after that. Very few people will, that's for sure. Unfortunately I'm not joking about people being arrested for having sex on the main street :/ If it was my uncle with a collection of stuff like that, I'd not see him the same way ever again, but I would also think there is a very big difference between a picture of sex between 17yos and him actually -doing- anything with my small boys. Yet officially he is a paedophile.

---

You know what's really ironic about all this?

All the lack of rationality, all the unrealistic desire that paedophiles would just vanish - and in some other countries, the UK is seen as a land where land is run by paedophiles. It's like walking into a wall when you realise that's how the UK is seen by some. What's worse is that actually, that pov has validity :(

anyway, there really is no point carrying on. People who can see that there is a wide range of offensive material and who don't want to jump to conclusions, won't. The others have and maybe always will.

This man poses a danger to your children directly or indirectly he sees children as bodies to be raped and abused these pictures are of somebodies child not just images pulled off the internet you have to keep your children away from him would you want this man seeing his grandchildren in a sexual way everytime he saw them i really dont want to be graphic but you get what i mean. This man is a paedophile aspergers or not.

Point nicely made.

How the hell can you compare paedophiles with gay people and Catholics????

I understand what you are trying to say but it is a really poor analogy. This isn't about people merely being ill educated or ignorant this is about people turning against predators who pray on the vulnerable

People who abuse children make choices, they chose to satisfy their own needs at the cost of those who can't defend themselves. Do you think everyone who has those feelings acts on them? No, some people don't and they seek help

Yes people do see the word and run a mile and with good reason as it involves hurting children and remember in this case the police and sw have had meetings with the family....we don't do that unless we think their is a risk to the children within the family

I worked with someone in this situation her fil was convicted for downloading images the whole family were in denial they excused him pitied him said he was sick in the head the woman was bombared with oh he is better now or we will always be there when kids visit etc she ended up moving away from the family to get a bit of peace she just didnt want her kids near him it isnt your responsibility to make this mans life easier or relieve his guilt imo

It's the hatred christina.

There have been times when people who are gay were seen with utter hatred, the same depth of hate as anyone who is tarred with the name 'paedophile' is.

The point that I was trying to make -perhaps with some heat- is that

1. the word itself carries a load of hate attached and that hate has been attached to other groups in the past and probably will be in the future and

2. When you -look- at the range of offenses that 'paedophilia' is attached to, it varies widely.

....we don't do that unless we think their is a risk to the children within the family

actually, to quote thumbwitch:

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.

Now no one who deals with this professionally has commented (they've probably had the sense to hide the thread :P ) but assuming Thumbwitch is right, it means that these meetings have to happen -no matter- the severity or lightness of the offense.

So if that's correct, it's not possible to judge if there is risk to children just because the meetings happened.

.. Only on the content within the meeting ... (sorry posted too soon).

The op does not hate her fil she feels pity for him but it is her responsibility to keeo her children this man looked at pictures of children being exploited ans abused for his own g4atification and kicks these children did not consent to these how is that ok ?

mrsJayy can I suggest reading the link that catrus put up about what is considered paedophilia? And the age range? It's a heck of a lot broader than you might think.

here

I am fully aware of what is considered paedophillia i dont need to read any link but thanks for trying to make me better informed on it that was outstandingly patronising

It wasn't meant to be, sorry

The op hasn't said she pitied him or labelled him a paedophile

She did label him a paedophile christina in the title of the post.

And in her 2nd post she stated 'Not sure why I feel guilty, he's just quite a pathetic character to be honest - I feel sorry for him.'

Quite piteous imo.

Thing is with pity it makes it excuseable (spelling) this might be why the op feels guilt she has nothing to feel guilty about her children are her priority we dont know how many pictures were viewed or downloaded or the nature of them but by him downloading them it is a crime against children it doesnt matter if he didnt take the pictures he still is adding to the increasing problem of child exploitation and abuse young children and teenagers are vulnerable it does not matter why he downloaded these pictures he did and he really has to face ongoing consequence of that and if that means the op has no contact with him then so be it that isnt labeling her fils feelings are not her responsibility

The op hasn't said she pitied him or labelled him a paedophile

1] I feel sorry for him
2] May I draw your attention to the title of the thread?

Yes okay, calm down, I was doing two things at once....I think there are bigger issues to discuss here!

Mrs jayy, yes agree with you

Mrsjayy
"This man poses a danger to your children directly or indirectly he sees children as bodies to be raped and abused these pictures are of somebodies child not just images pulled off the internet you have to keep your children away from him would you want this man seeing his grandchildren in a sexual way everytime he saw them"

There are quite a few assumptions there. If you wouldn't want to take the risk with your own children's safety that is you're right of course, but you really cannot deduce some of these things about a person simply from knowledge that they have been found to be in possession of material that breaks UK "child porn" laws.

As has been pointed out that could cover consensual solo images of people just under the legal limit, or Japanese Hentai or anime cartoons that you can buy off the shelf in Japan.

These things cover a lot of ground.

Meekra Oh my life. I no longer care what you think about anything! There are conversations worth having and those that aren't. I'll leave you to batter on.

Meerka
"But people see the word 'paedophile' and start a witch hunt. It's frightening. 50 years ago the same hate was aimed at gay people; 400 years ago at catholics."

I can empathise with those sexually-orientated towards children as I could with the homosexuals back when it was legally and socially censured. It must be quite awful to have a sexuality that you can never express.

Don't get me wrong, the censuring of same-sex activity was wrong whereas censuring sexual activity with children is entirely spot on, but regardless of whether or not there are good reasons for it, I can find sympathy for those in the situation who have the desires, and who do not want to harm anyone.

Although my sympathy runs out quickly if they do do things that result in harm.

Im not starting a witch hunt or being irrational or hysterical i wish some posters would look into child slavery exploitation and abuse instead of declaring these sort of images as an artform the op fil (who the thread is about) looked at child abuse pictures on the internet probably had a fiddle with himself as he did so and the op is worried her children are not their to relieve any guilt their grandfather does or doesnt have. The law is their to protect children and young people personally i dont give a flying hoot what reason paedophiles and their sympathisers have.

But looking at pictures does harm these children in these pictures are being indirectly harmed by this man looking at them .

If he was looking at a 16 year old in their undies she wouldn't have called him a paedophile. She knows the content and she says paedophile so can we just move on from the Sam Fox analogies.

I'm not sure we know that the OP knows the content, nor that she would use the word paedophile only in its technically correct sense.