Paedophiles and marinas

[SimonFa]

Parliament has investigated what to do about paedophiles and that included consulting widely with the police, offender groups, victim's charities and anyone with an opinion and decided that as part of the punishment and management of offenders they can't be locked up in jail forever for every crime and that they have to live somewhere. The approach they have taken is offender management that ensures they don't work with children and vulnerable adults and that their whereabouts needs to be known to the authorities at all times.

Rightly or wrongly this doesn't include banning them from living in marinas. If you disagree with the way they are treated it should be taken up with your MP, and maybe through lobby groups, but driving them underground is probably more dangerous for children than knowing where they are.

As others have said, we've always had this problem which is why even in the early 60s, and I'm sure before then, we were always warned about not going with strangers and sticking together whenever we went anywhere (I grew up at the time and not far from the moors murders so it was never far from parental briefings when we went out, but didn't stop us going out to play). Children on the whole are quite sensible and as long as it is done matter of factly they should be able to deal with having a strange man around who they aren't supposed to talk to.

Anyway, I'd have thought a marina was quite a good place for a paedophile - on the whole there are fewer children and when they do go there its easier to brief them about the dangers of strangers and keep an eye on them. You're also more likely to be moving off at times whereas if it was a land based home they are there for the period. Lets face it, a marina is already a high risk environment for children so warning them of even more dangers shouldn't be too scary and you also have a good excuse for giving them a very loud whistle.

And after all that if you still have a problem I'd have thought a marina was not a good place to live given the number of people who sail in and out as visitors, sometime for very short stays.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Our children are exposed to all kinds of risk on a daily basis. Teaching them to be aware of risk and how to manage it is a far more effective method of preparing them for life than trying to isolate them from it, or worse still filling their heads with our paranoia and an unreasonable perception of danger.

Absolutely. It's reasonable to protect a two-year old from everything and it's reasonable to expect an eighteen-year old to deal with everything. Between these two there should be a gradual transfer of responsibility; protecting children from risk for too long is as bad as exposing them to risk too soon.

Most children are sensible; most children are capable of taking much more responsibility than most adults think.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Our children are exposed to all kinds of risk on a daily basis. Teaching them to be aware of risk and how to manage it is a far more effective method of preparing them for life than trying to isolate them from it, or worse still filling their heads with our paranoia and an unreasonable perception of danger.

Absolutely. It's reasonable to protect a two-year old from everything and it's reasonable to expect an eighteen-year old to deal with everything. Between these two there should be a gradual transfer of responsibility; protecting children from risk for too long is as bad as exposing them to risk too soon.

Most children are sensible; most children are capable of taking much more responsibility than most adults think.

 

[l'escargot]

I don't know, but I think the police might be in a better position to review the situation. they would asses risk, if any, and make sure everyone behaves in a reasonable manner. what do you think they would do then ?

Steveeasy

They would do nothing. Providing he has advised them of where he's living, which he is obliged to do if he is on the sex offenders register, he is just one of many with a criminal conviction who is of no interest to them unless he commits another crime - and there has been no suggestion by the OP that he has committed another crime.

 

[l'escargot]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Yes. It's a no brainer for me.

Better call the removal van then, unless you live somewhere extremely isolated - or move to somewhere really isolated - you will have pedophiles living near you. As others have already said, it is better to educate children about risk and how to protect themselves. You can't physically isolate them from risk, especially pedophiles who are more likely to be someone know to them rather than a random stranger.

 

[Uricanejack]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Common sense If I had any would tell me to stay out of this.
Like someone already said I have no sympathy for this individual.
I do believe since he committed a crime, was prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and served his sentence. He has the same right to live and pursue life's legal pleasures as anyone else. Unless he commits another crime.
Would I want him in my marina or neighborhood? No
Would I move? Why? there is just as likely to be a pervert or two in most communities.
Should he be restricted from any involvement with children? certainly which is why he is on a registry.
The police should have no more right to pursue this individual than anyone else provided he complies with the restrictions the courts put on him.
I think I would be more concerned about people in my community who believe they should take the law into their own hands and act outside the law based on what they think someone might do.

Live and let live, there is no requirement for me to like him, Just a requirement to let him be.

I do know of at least 1 pedophile living in the small community where I live. I don't like them.
He was convicted and has lived here for 20 years since he was released and not reoffended AFAIK. I won't have anything to do with him. I don't have to. I just leave him alone.
Are there others. Its a small community. I have heard rumors, I don't repeat them. The trouble with rumors, you don't know what the truth is.

 

[dom]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

It's a sad reality that the children most at risk to abuse are those that are already vulnerable due to lifestyle and their care regime. Is there a particular reason you feel your children would be at any risk in the scenario described by the OP?

Our children are exposed to all kinds of risk on a daily basis. Teaching them to be aware of risk and how to manage it is a far more effective method of preparing them for life than trying to isolate them from it, or worse still filling their heads with our paranoia and an unreasonable perception of danger.

I must say that I personally have a problem with the first point here. To even tangentially imply that concerns about the risk the children face "in the scenario described by the OP" are only substantive if magnified by bad parenting, is IMHO quite wrong.

Again a matter of opinion, but parents must assess risks to children against a constantly moving scale: we might for example teach a five year old how to boil a kettle under supervision, but allow a two year nowhere hear it. It is at the best of times difficult to get parents and communities to buy into the notion that paedophiles must in time be at least partially accepted within society. The flip-side of the coin is that communities must be reassured about what is going on. Covertly placing ex-offenders within communities runs against the basic principle that justice should be transparent where ever possible and fair to all elements within society. My point is basically that I, like many others, am not sure that the UK has got the balance quite right.

 

[alant]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Think it is still fact that most abuse takes place within the family or by close family friends. Stranger abuse is still relatively rare, it is people that take advantage of our trust that are the major problem.

Best not sending them to church, school or scouts then.

 

[Uricanejack]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Best not sending them to church, school or scouts then.

Unfortunately I know someone who would agree with the first two points. He was never a scout.

 

[Poignard]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Yes. It's a no brainer for me.

Yes, it would be.

 

[Triassic]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

I must say that I personally have a problem with the first point here. To even tangentially imply that concerns about the risk the children face "in the scenario described by the OP" are only substantive if magnified by bad parenting, is IMHO quite wrong.

Maybe I was being a bit to subtle. They are not magnified by bad parenting, but they can be significantly reduced and managed by good parenting.

 

[fireball]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Covertly placing ex-offenders within communities runs against the basic principle that justice should be transparent where ever possible and fair to all elements within society. My point is basically that I, like many others, am not sure that the UK has got the balance quite right.

Difficulty with trying to be transparrent is that it's not treating the offender equally - you don't walk down the street wearing a plaquard with your criminal record (assuming you have one) on it - so pointing out a convicted and time served released peadophile isn't treating that person equally. If the courts deemed the person a big risk to society then they wouldn't be set free would they?

It is at the best of times difficult to get parents and communities to buy into the notion that paedophiles must in time be at least partially accepted within society.

and there's the difficulty - if we don't know who we can or can't trust then we have to assume nobody is to be trusted - which is a very sad state of affairs - but then whats the alternative?!

As I said earlier - peadophiles are affecting our lives already - unnescersarily IMHO - eg, the club changing rooms are out of bounds to adults during a junior training week - why? Because any one of us may be getting our kicks from seeing boys/girls getting changed ... ?

 

[dom]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Maybe I was being a bit to subtle. They are not magnified by bad parenting, but they can be significantly reduced and managed by good parenting.

No disagreement with that; and they can be reduced even more if the state implements a suitable framework of monitoring and control over the relevant persons. I would say that whilst the UK has taken great strides on both of these fronts, a great deal of tension could be diffused if there was a general acceptance that the current status quo represents a work in progress.

 

[Triassic]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

As I said earlier - peadophiles are affecting our lives already - unnescersarily IMHO - eg, the club changing rooms are out of bounds to adults during a junior training week - why? Because any one of us may be getting our kicks from seeing boys/girls getting changed ... ?

OK, given that this thread has now settled at an adult level lets now take that a step further.

If someone does get their kicks out of watching children get changed is there anything wrong with that? Now before I start getting death threats I'm not suggesting it is OK, I'm just asking people to consider it for a moment. If the person does nothing further and the child is completely unaware of what is going on is any harm done?

Now because we think this kind of behaviour should be stopped we take steps as mentioned above. So how does this impact on our children and is the cure actually worse than what we are trying to protect them from?

There are many things that motivate adults to work with children and the vast majority of them are laudable, but history has shown that there are a small minority that do so for their own sexual satisfaction. If we take steps to deny that person their opportunity we invariably impact on the others and the net result is that there are fewer opportunities for our children to engage in the social activity being promoted. As I said earlier if we remove risk from our children we also deny them the educational opportunity that comes with it.

My personal belief is that we already have sufficient background checks and colleague awareness amongst those that work with children to be able to reassure ourselves that we should be able to trust them. Taking the kind of action described by Fireball above is taking things to far and actually to the detriment of our children. How do we explain to the children that an adult isn't allowed to come into the changing room? Do we really want our children growing up thinking all adults are sexual deviants?

 

[GrahamM376]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Maybe I was being a bit to subtle. They are not magnified by bad parenting, but they can be significantly reduced and managed by good parenting.

Recently discussed the abuse problem with a friend who is a retired probation officer with many dealings with sex offenders. Family background often has a bearing to the extent that some parents are actually involved in allowing their children to be abused, sometimes even for payment in drugs. It's a life style which most of us can't even begin to imagine.

This guy (from what we have been told) has been prosecuted for "viewing" nasty images, not participating and, assuming he's from a normal background, his behaviour may well have cost him his marriage, house and unrestricted access to his children as well as loss of job, friends and of course the pubic shaming. Most would agree just what he deserves but, what he doesn't deserve is not being allowed to rebuild his life and, just maybe, contact with so-called normal people could help mend his ways.

 

[steveeasy]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Im not condoning what any person has done, but it does seam a person may have actually done absolutely nothing other than had access to online depravity. A slippery slop maybe, Perhaps we simply don't know the facts. most of us are probably uncomfortable with the thread developing as it could have repercussions for individuals. Ill for one not add any further to this thread. we have to in such cases reley on the police or other resources.

Steveeasy

 

[Sandyman]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Yes. That seems to be the top and bottom of it.
Clyst (the expert) sees his presence as an ill-defined threat.
Sandyman postulates that this bloke will start abusing children in the marina. Perhaps the reason he can't understand why the bloke didn't get a custodial sentence is because he was not involved in the prosecution and doesn't know the actual facts.

These are merely fears with nothing to support them except that the bloke has been convicted of a different offence.

Most posters in the thread can see this.
Most seem to accept that the offender is now in the virtual custody of the authorities, but the OP feels the need to make his own stand against the bloke.

If Clyst has professional experience of these behaviours, I find it remarkable that he is acting as vigilante on this occasion.

Your ill informed comments certainly got my Mercury Rising.
Did you fully read & inwardly digest what has been posted on this thread?
If you did, then you would realise that I stated I know of the person concerned.
I know what crimes he committed & I know what he was charged with.
If you knew this information I think you would also be surprised at him only receiving a suspended sentence. Knowing what I do I have absolutely no doubt that the OP acted correctly. Bom Dia.

 

[fireball]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

OK, given that this thread has now settled at an adult level lets now take that a step further.

If someone does get their kicks out of watching children get changed is there anything wrong with that? Now before I start getting death threats I'm not suggesting it is OK, I'm just asking people to consider it for a moment. If the person does nothing further and the child is completely unaware of what is going on is any harm done?

In itself, no - but what is "further"

getting aroused whilst observing?
arousing himself whilst observing? (we always assume it's a bloke - I guess the majority are?)
taking photos - easily done with a smartphone these days
taking video - as above

To me - the issue of banning adults (I guess they have a couple who are checked) from the changing room is that you're not enabling other adults to observe inappropriate behaviour and it's only during the specific junior week rather than general use - something to do with the RYA school it's run through (I don't get involved!) - To me, that's nuts - cos if you've got a few adults in there then you're likely to spot another acting inappropriately before it affects the child. I suppose the risk is that one adult is left in there with kids ... so banning all of them is the simplest way of removing that risk - but like you ask - what does it say to our children?

Back to the bloke in the marina - we (if we knew the circumstances) may not agree with his sentence and I can understand the desire for parents to keep a wary eye on him or remove him completely - but as we've discussed, it's not really appropriate - and what's the saying?
Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer? Which, if you don't know who, then you have to trust no-one - a really sad state of affairs - but what's the alternative? We can't mind read. We can't convict someone of a crime they've yet to commit and once someone has served their time then they are "free" - although in the case of sex offenders it's never quite free - but keep pointing the finger and they'll go to ground - anyone would - and then they're not being monitored and so the temptation to stray is (probably) greater once more.

I know the OP has asked for this thread to be locked as it's served his purpose - but I'm glad it's not as it's allowed us to air our thoughts - and whilst some views may be a bit drastic I'd be surprised if they weren't - as otherwise it wouldn't be such a serious crime ...

 

[alant]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

Im not condoning what any person has done, but it does seam a person may have actually done absolutely nothing other than had access to online depravity. A slippery slop maybe, Perhaps we simply don't know the facts. most of us are probably uncomfortable with the thread developing as it could have repercussions for individuals. Ill for one not add any further to this thread. we have to in such cases reley on the police or other resources.

Steveeasy

"A slippery slop" indeed.

 

[alant]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

In itself, no - but what is "further"

getting aroused whilst observing?
arousing himself whilst observing? (we always assume it's a bloke - I guess the majority are?)
taking photos - easily done with a smartphone these days
taking video - as above

To me - the issue of banning adults (I guess they have a couple who are checked) from the changing room is that you're not enabling other adults to observe inappropriate behaviour and it's only during the specific junior week rather than general use - something to do with the RYA school it's run through (I don't get involved!) - To me, that's nuts - cos if you've got a few adults in there then you're likely to spot another acting inappropriately before it affects the child. I suppose the risk is that one adult is left in there with kids ... so banning all of them is the simplest way of removing that risk - but like you ask - what does it say to our children?

Back to the bloke in the marina - we (if we knew the circumstances) may not agree with his sentence and I can understand the desire for parents to keep a wary eye on him or remove him completely - but as we've discussed, it's not really appropriate - and what's the saying?
Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer? Which, if you don't know who, then you have to trust no-one - a really sad state of affairs - but what's the alternative? We can't mind read. We can't convict someone of a crime they've yet to commit and once someone has served their time then they are "free" - although in the case of sex offenders it's never quite free - but keep pointing the finger and they'll go to ground - anyone would - and then they're not being monitored and so the temptation to stray is (probably) greater once more.

I know the OP has asked for this thread to be locked as it's served his purpose - but I'm glad it's not as it's allowed us to air our thoughts - and whilst some views may be a bit drastic I'd be surprised if they weren't - as otherwise it wouldn't be such a serious crime ...

In most cases perhaps, but a few adults have also been known to act in concert.