Challenor showing off their 'new' birth certificate

[MrsSnippyPants]

I will never accept this 'legal fiction, it is a travesty.

Scrimshaw - no it's considered a paraphilia.

However, I think many paedophiles would like it to be considered a sexual orientation. Many would also like the age of consent laws removed.

I think the gist is, you can only think risk assessment is relevant if the nonce in question has had a full psychological assessment and the 'line between fantasy and reality' might be crossed.

If not, then Bespin thinks that you should hold your tongue and contemplate how mean you are to question why this paedophile's romantic partner is still in a position to influence policy in a number of orgs that have access to children.

Glad we've got that clear, eh?

Yes, I think there is probably always going to be a chipping away at safeguarding; attempt normalising, piggybacking on other 'causes', playing with language ('map' now).

You risk assess on information available, which might include reference to diagnosed conditions which affect risk, but diagnosis is not an indicator by itself.

Quite. And clinical risk assessment in paedophiles has nothing to do with safeguarding, nor the desirability of a safeguarding assessment to be part of the GRC process. Nothing whatsoever.

Thanks Spartacus.

SpartacusAutisticus

ah right your a socal worker or probation service as you are talking about the risk assessment of known sex offenders. don't think your a forensic social worker as you would have more understanding around this are. your right most don't have a diagnosis of pedophilia it's not recorded like that.

I'm heartened that there is not another clinician on here who works in this area.

What are your clinical qualifications, Bespin?

pombear

ah right I see we are down to insinuating that I was involved in this. we have Truely hit the bottom of the barral and are now just making allogations.

But you didn't ask my question, bespin.

Are those tweets sufficient for me to not want to employ the person as a nursery school helper? In your opinion

LangCleg

what do you do? I'm proud of my work and job what is it you do where do you work if we are asking such questions.

Those are very good questions, Pombear. I hope adequate answers are forthcoming.

No bespin, that was not the insinuation at all. It was more a concern for you.

Your boundaries and recognition of risk seem a little skewed to a lot of posters here, and I'm trying to understand why you seem so adamant not to be concerned whatsoever about a man who is so open writing about sexual fantasies about children.

That is not casting aspertions on you, that is, like poster after poster, trying to understand why that is.

I am sorry if it came across like that, that was very much not the intention.

what do you do? I'm proud of my work and job what is it you do where do you work if we are asking such questions

I haven't made any professional assertions. You have. So, again: what are your clinical qualifications?

And bespin, your appeal to authority is falling on deaf ears.

When rapists can assault female prisoners, and paedophiles take women to court to wax their balls, current 'authority' is directly responsible.

Datun

I'm not a solicitor so I don't know could you discriminate against someone based on that. did there dbs come back clean? I'd want to question them but are you checking everyone's twitter. do you have a social media policy if so then no as it's inappropriate. is this person a risk to children is the question the correct answer is we don't know. we often don't know until someone commits an offence unfortunately.

right I'm going home and then I'm on AL for a week can not wait.

Mumsnetting is your job?

*aspersions. Friday afternoon spelling

So you're saying that those tweets alone are not sufficient for you to consider that that person should not be employed around children?

LangCleg

you keep asserting you know about safeguarding if you do then you are likely a socal worker or associated professional if you are not then you are just making it up. you don't work in forensic that is certain or you would understand this far more.

again no one in here seems to really work in this area or the answers would not judt be around general safegurding.

So what risk would you say a man posed who said they fantasise about, are aroused by, and enjoy the thought of children being raped?

Would you, for instance employ him as a nursery school teacher?

I've read this thread with interest, as a former (high school) headteacher, senior LA officer with responsibility for safeguarding, long-term primary school governor and education consultant still working in the field.

I've been trained to within an inch of my life in safeguarding and - relevant to this thread and the quotation I've posted (above) - safer recruitment. So what I'm going to say here is much more relevant than Bespin's stuff.

1. Under safer recruitment, were I the nursery school head mentioned above, I'd have done a lot of due diligence prior to shortlisting for the post. This would include using the magic of the internet, as well as reference requests asking specific questions, which might be followed up with phone calls (and yes, school heads are allowed to look at references before shortlisting/interviewing, in fact it's required by 'safer recruitment'). As a head, I was in receipt of such phone calls and in ore than one case advised not employing an individual based on what I knew they'd been involved with (not sex offences, but still a safeguarding issue).

1. After such due diligence, if I discovered that a person applying to my school had been posting things on the internet which suggested they were a risk to children - and I count 'fantasy' about child rape very much as a danger to children, I'd be doing the following: passing on that person's details to the relevant police agencies and to the local authority safeguarding team. I would also do what heads have done for years: advise all my colleagues locally not to employ this person.

Hope that helps on that matter.

On the issue of DBS checks, I'm very interested to discover whether or not the onus is on the person applying for the check to be honest about previous names - because (call me an old cynic) I strongly suspect that your average nonce will NOT be honest about it.

is this person a risk to children is the question the correct answer is we don't know. we often don't know until someone commits an offence unfortunately

Which is why we have this thing called safeguarding, which is a culture whereby we do not ignore red flag concerns such as writing and sharing and gleefully defending titillating fantasies about raping children.

FFS.

@Bespin imagine this situation. Awful situation.

Your child is secially assaulted by a teacher.

You then find out that it's common knowledge this teacher writes sexual stories about raping and abusing children and labels it 'titillation'. They also are vocal about admitting this. The school and the LA were also aware of this.

Would you think 'well as he had never been convicted how would anyone know what he was going to do'
Or would you be horrified this man was allowed anywhere near children in the first place?

Datun

unfortunately in a society where we don't know someone is going to commit an offence before they do, unless we are already aware of them and can actually undertake the levels of assessment previously discussed then no we Dont know. I know you don't like that answer but it's the reality. all we can do is make educated evidence based assessments of risk.

you know about safeguarding if you do then you are likely a socal worker or associated professional

See? You genuinely have no idea who, what and where is responsible for safeguarding, do you? The answer, Bespin, is all of us.

I gave you some helpful reading upthread. It's the statutory guidance. Avail yourself of it because you really, really, really, need to stop. Right now.