Pedophile Activist on BBC Radio 4 Behind The Crime

[BitMuch]

A convicted pedophile describes his crimes against girls with great self-pity, says his victims did not have negative reactions and if they had he would have stopped before he got caught and argues to reduce stigma for pedophiles. The presenters psychologists Sally Tilt and Dr Kerensa Hocken do not challenge him and repeatedly call for viewers to sympathise with what they call his 'compulsion', comparing his 'attraction' to our desire to eat unhealthy food. Is this the next target for 'just be kind you judgy bigot' propaganda?

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001b43m

It was produced in partnership with the Prison Radio Association. Does that mean this episode is being played to prisoners?

I think PP has a point; what is the need to air it to the public instead of deal with it in private?

There's a huge difference between:
removing the taboo of sexual offending against children

And:
Making it easier for people to seek help with urges to offend.

If young men and boys were able to see their GP or sexual health clinic and raise concerns about their sex drive- perhaps attracted to children or violence, AGP, voyeurism or rubber bloody chickens, whatever- we may be able to prevent a proportion of offending.

This is not about violent, sadistic, predatory pedophiles, it's about catching people at risk of developing paraphilias and intervening.

So why does it need to be on Radio 4?

Why not just in meetings with professionals?

Can you offer any rationale from your point of view for that?

Can you actually address points and answer questions shampoo?

Which question have I not answered?

I will answer it.

can you answer that question? I don't see a reason at all for it to be on a programme for the public, can you?

This is not about violent, sadistic, predatory pedophiles, it's about catching people at risk of developing paraphilias and intervening.

I'd agree. NB: caveat is that I haven't heard the programme but that certainly seems like the mission of the StopSO organisation mentioned in the programme notes.

Ian engaged with a specialist charity called StopSO, which offers treatment to perpetrators and offers support for survivors of sexual offending. www.stopso.org.uk

stopso.org.uk/

To put it in context this was the last of a series of programmes looking at offenders and trying to ask why they offended.

It is very hard to take on the task of trying to prevent sexual offences without actually engaging with the offenders. This does not imply that their behaviour is condoned, nor that work with them does not emphasise the impact on the victims.

I did find it interesting that this man was a friendless loner as a child who found that he got attention from exposing himself, but that this attention was insufficiently negative for him to cotton on immediately that it was unacceptable. A school friend was expelled from school for the same thing, but not this man.

He had higher education, a job, married and took a conscious decision not to have children because he feared what he might do.

We all find it very hard to understand why people behave in this way when there is such a strong social taboo against it. There is clearly some fault in their socialisation. In order to know what that might be, we do need professionals to engage with them and delve into their pasts. But, as others have said, engaging with them implies to some sympathising with them and minimising their crimes, so this deters the engagement that is needed for prevention.

We cannot just ignore it till a crime is committed and a victim created. Providing services where people who have these inappropriate compulsions can come forward and get help is not going soft on them, it is trying to protect society.

What do you think the aim of this organisation is? www.qalliance.org.uk/

can you answer that question? I don't see a reason at all for it to be on a programme for the public, can you?

I don’t see any reason for it not to be.

There are many interesting discussion points in posts above including how we might treat young men and boys who have inappropriate urges towards younger children, none of which you have answered.

But then, I’m finding your posts increasingly unhinged at this point.

’Framing paedophiles as victims who just need help.’

The psychologists talk about his victims and the harm he has caused.

The purpose of forensic psychologists in the prison system is to look at why people offend, the path to that offending, to get the offender to examine and recognise patterns in their own offending behaviour and ultimately to lower reoffending rates. To recognise that they do have control of their own behaviour and take responsibility for it.

The question isn’t if the paedophiles need help, it’s do we as a society want to want to try to stop convicted paedophiles from reoffending. The whole purpose of working with offenders is to stop there being future victims.

Unless you lock them up for the rest of their lives, which we don’t have the money or prison space to do, we need to find ways that work to reduce reoffending rates.

It’s illegal, they know where he is, arrest the filthy piece of shit and lock him up in a women’s prison.

And yet still more coherent as a viewpoint than some …

I’d give up, Floretta. It’s not worth it.

Agree agree agree. What's the motivation?

The problem with just locking up offenders (which is valid in terms of public protection) is that we only know they are an offender because they have offended, been caught and created a victim.

What is needed is a way of identifying those who are at risk of offending (or have offended and not yet been caught) and providing counselling for them so that there is at least a chance of understanding the causes and working with them to prevent more victims.

I think the purpose of airing it in public is to encourage those with inappropriate compulsions to come forward and get help before they offend. If even one person recognised themselves in the story that was told and seeks help then it will have been worth it.

Unless that organisation is covered in the programme notes or in the programme then it's not relevant to this discussion.

The question isn’t if the paedophiles need help, it’s do we as a society want to want to try to stop convicted paedophiles from reoffending. The whole purpose of working with offenders is to stop there being future victims.

Agreed. Somebody has to be doing this work. And, judging by the mission of StopOS, it's to intervene before there is an offence and before people become offenders.

Wouldn't airing it only in private/professionals/offender settings be seen as secrecy? Surely that would set the conspiracy bells ringing, if radio 4 weren't allowed to include it?

I’m really sad that this is happening on this board. I might not always agree with the opinions put forward but the Feminist section on here has historically been the preserve of some frighteningly intelligent and well read women.

^rejectshampoodemandtherealpoo* · Today 15:44
I don't see a reason at all for it to be on a programme for the public, can you?

I do, as otherwise it is a case of everyone putting their heads in the sand.

Paedophiles come from among all of us, and harm children from among all of us.

I don’t know what happened to Ian when he behaved this way in school aged seven, but it is clear that he or any child like him needs immediate expert help as a priority.

This is one of those situations where you can have both! Lock up offenders and throw away the key (as far as practical). Stigmatise offenders. Reinforce the taboo.

Provide treatment for young people who experience confusing compulsions. Publicise and Fund organisations like StopSO.
Examine on the radio the roots of sexual offending and the problems of managing offenders.

Both things are possible.

Are you reacting to well known/familiar and well established posters or is your comment wrt to some of those who might be very recent contributors here?

I live in a village that had a full on moral panic over an ex offenders programme buying a local building.

The rhetoric around it was disgusting.

Barely anyone recognised that there were ex offenders living in the village already, that many people listening to the ranting had relatives serving sentences.

Most remarkably, everyone assumed ex offenders were sex offenders, and that there were no sex offenders already living here.

We have to engage your brain for this debate, and not allow horror and disgust to switch off critical thinking.

And that's dangerous! If you assume there are no sex offenders already here, you are unlikely to sufficiently protect your DC.

Just to this thread and the general tone of many of the responses.