Challenor showing off their 'new' birth certificate

[MrsSnippyPants]

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

Ah ok. Got it.

Bespin, may I ask - are you directly involved in vetting people who may be coming into contact with children or vulnerable groups?

no I am not.

But you do work with vulnerable youths?

ight I'm done, I'm not defending him I'm trying to explain how something that is vastly complex is not as simple as a tweet. I am defending the people I work with that are often victims of hate becuse they are seen to be different who have not committed offences and that can and are managed effectively in the community on a daily basis. you might want them all locked up but many of them have and will never commit an offence towards others.

Jeez though, that sounds ominous.

alking about "a simple tweet" as though this were a simple "mistake that anyone could make" (!)

What this person did was a massive long thread explaining their fantasies, including adults raping children. This is not an accidental slip of the tongue, which could be open to misinterpretation - it was a confession - and that person has since deleted the thread because of the outrage.

So either, this person is so unwise, or naive, or young, or groomed into online circles with other paedophiles, that they didn't even think there was anything wrong with what they were saying!

Nobody with more than 2 brain cells would think a self-confessed paedophile should be put in a position working with children/vulnerable youth - whether they have committed offences or not. It's amongst the things that intelligent adults just do not do.

If your complex scores and box ticking risk management exercises don't come up with "self-confessed paedophiles who fantasise about raping children and boast about it online should not work with children" - then those risk assessments are worse than useless.

And you think that women on a forum called mumsnet are idiots for being concerned.

Also most trans people know that you can not change biological sex. it's one of the main issues in relation to dysphoria. So saying so n so is aware is like stating the bleeding obvious to us.

And yet AC is incredibly happy she now has a birth certificate stating that she was born female.

You sure people dont believe they can change sex?

The way you are talking circles around 'a tweet doesnt make you peadophile' is quite disturbing.

I'm still confused but I'm reassured by the commons sense posters here, I'm sure we will continue to watch AC's social media and keep a watchful eye on NK.

Maybe AC will never get a US visa, not even a spousal VISA, but I really hope NK doesn't end up living in Coventry.

SpartacusAutisticus

Totally agree so you would complete such an assessment simply based on that set of tweets then? that this is only one example possibly taken out of context do you want to make a clinical diagnosis based on this or assess the level of risk I know I don't.

MNers: This person wrote about their fantasies of children being raped, then took to twitter to explain how what he said was fine. Do you thnk he should be able to work with children?

Bespin: weerrlll, it's complicated. You idiots.

lots and lots of things are complicated, but this really wasn't.

possibly taken out of context

I read that twitter thread before chappy protected it. He admitted that he fantasies about having sex with (raping) children. how do you take that out of context?

Also sorry would you please explain to them how a formulation of risk is actually arrived at as they might listen to you. I only use the tools that I'm trained to use so other can and are used in this as there is not one assessment that can be used in isolation and this should always be an mdt decision.

Bespin! Stop! Right now!

If you don't understand the most basic rules of safeguarding, don't speak about it.

It is not a system of managing guilty people. It is a risk management system. Actually, more than that - it is a risk management culture. Every person in the UK has a responsibility to it. Safeguarding is, by nature, sceptical. Scepticism is the whole point of safeguarding.

Anybody who is insulted or offended by the advocating of safeguarding practice or culture, or who defend another - any person, anywhere, ever, regardless of sex, identity, orientation or anything else - on the basis they have not been found guilty of something in a court of law, not only fails to understand the most basic principle of safeguarding, but is also a risk themselves.

Because, in safeguarding, "risk" doesn't only mean "person who might do something something bad", it also means "person, persons, organisations or institutions who are allowing an environment where it's possible for someone to do something bad". It's not a comment on a person - whether that's the person who is the topic of this thread, you, me, or any other adult in the country. It's a system to manage the ever present risk to children. Taking it personally is a huge red flag. It's not about Aimee. It's not about you. It's not about me. It's about an actuarial system of risk.

So, I'll say again: Bespin! Stop! Educate yourself on what the safeguarding of children actually is before complaining at people who do understand what it is.

Read this, reflect on it. And stop saying risk management is a bad thing because, whether you realise it or not, that's what you're doing.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779401/Working_Together_to_Safeguard-Children.pdf

I only use the tools that I'm trained to use

if your tools don't take into account someone posting reams of sexual fantasies about children on the internet then they sound pretty shit tbh. I'd recommend trying some other tools.

if your tools don't take into account someone posting reams of sexual fantasies about children on the internet then they sound pretty shit tbh. I'd recommend trying some other tools

I'd be interested in seeing these tools.

SpartacusAutisticus

sorry my bad I assumed you worked in this area. sorry about that your reply in no way answers anything I've addressed.

would you please explain why having a clear boundary between fantasy and reality is importent to people in relation to management of people with pedophilia.

LangCleg

your conflating safegurding practice with the clinical assessment of risk around sex offenders. please stop doing that.

I wasn't talking about clinical assessment. I was asking whether you would employ them as a nursery school teacher, or in your youth group.

Would I, as a nursery school head, have to clinically assess somebody in order to not want to employ them?

ah. so bespin appears to be completely cool with someone who fantasises about raping children being in a position of power or responsibility over children

cor.

I mean it is interesting. This man could, theoretically, get a clean DBS.

Would I be allowed to refuse him employment on the basis of his online activity?

I mean I wouldn't have to appeal to any authority, other than my own?

Datun

the risk around someone who is a pedophile is always a clinical assessment of risk. this is not safegurding in the normal sence of how you see thinking about it the person is a know risk if found to be so the the answer would always be no you do not put them in that sinario or around that trigger.

I really wish you had a consultant psychologist or psychstrist who was gender critical on here and then we all might learn somthing about this topic.