Paedophiles and marinas

[savageseadog]

And why would he leave? Would reason could he possibly have for wishing to comply with the "advice"?

People don't want to be where they're not welcome, a normal human trait.

 

[l'escargot]

well the OP could tell the police what he had for dinner, but it would be better to just explain his concerns. sure that would deal with any concerns
Steveeasy

Right, so he says there is a person with a criminal conviction living in the marina. What do you think they would do?

 

[macd]

I am not sure anything can be done legally about this because of the re-habilition of offenders act.

I'm not at all sure that a single prosecution has been brought under that act since it became law over 40 years ago. Besides, having received a prison sentence (whether suspended or not is to some extent immaterial), the offender wouldn't be protected for some considerable time after conviction. Equally, most sex offender register stuff postdates RoOA, and I daresay there are other exceptions within it, although I'm not up to speed with what they might be.
Bottom line: forget RoOA: the prosecuting authorities did at more or less the moment it became law.

 

[macd]

People don't want to be where they're not welcome, a normal human trait.

This is getting very Loungy but I, for one, find your repeated veiled suggestions almost as sinister as the real risks which so concern the OP.
You may, as you have previously done, suggest that I am attributing to you motives which you do not possess, and I actually hope that is so. But if you are blind to the impression your posts give then...well, may I offer you the price of a white stick?

 

[l'escargot]

I'm not at all sure that a single prosecution has been brought under that act since it became law over 40 years ago. Besides, having received a prison sentence (whether suspended or not is to some extent immaterial), the offender wouldn't be protected for some considerable time after conviction. Equally, most sex offender register stuff postdates RoOA, and I daresay there are other exceptions within it, although I'm not up to speed with what they might be.
Bottom line: forget RoOA: the prosecuting authorities did at more or less the moment it became law.

The ROOA is a bit of a red herring here. It is only about whether an offender has to disclose their conviction in certain circumstances such as job applications, obtaining applications etc. There is potentially a case for libel if say a newspaper published details of a spent conviction but it would have to proven that it was done with intent to damage the individual. - and sexual offences are generally exempted from the act in many situations.

 

[macd]

The ROOA is a bit of a red herring here. It is only about whether an offender has to disclose their conviction in certain circumstances such as job applications, obtaining applications etc. There is potentially a case for libel if say a newspaper published details of a spent conviction but it would have to proven that it was done with intent to damage the individual. - and sexual offences are generally exempted from the act in many situations.

You are substantially correct but it is (or was when the act first became law) a criminal offence for a third party publicly to reveal the existence of 'spent' convictions*. As you suggest, the watery use of a pretty wet act has no doubt been rendered even more hygroscopic by subsequent events (mops brow) :ambivalence:

* I've just checked (or, at least, Wiki'd) and that remains the case, although the act was revised in other respects in 2012.

 

[chrishscorp]

I was involved in youth work for over 10 years, a tricky situation the OP finds himself in.

If i was the OP i would visit the local plod and firstly check that they know he is where ever this marina is, and make it clear that there are live a board youngsters in close proximity. They will decide what action if any is needed. We found ourselves in a very similar position with another individual similar sort of offence.

 

[alant]

To answer your question. Nothing in this instance. If his conviction was only for WATCHING VIDEOS. If on the other hand he was a participant I think I would feel rather differently about it.

I am not sure anything can be done legally about this because of the re-habilition of offenders act. I don't know the details of what is and isn't covered but the marina would have to be very careful if it applies to this situation.

"Only for WATCHING VIDEOS"

"Only"???

Are you really saying, that you are happy about someone watching video's involving child sex?

 

[bdh198]

If it is you that has the problem have you considered moving yourself rather than imposing your "problem" on someone else by effectively harassing them to move? As others have pointed out this person may have done wrong in the past but they appear to have paid the price to society and are trying to get on with their lives, who are you to add further to their punishment?

Alternatively, and this is just a suggestion, how about inviting him round for a coffee and actually discussing your concerns with him directly? All you appear to know about him at the moment is what you have read in the press or "heard" and that can be spectacularly misleading at times. If you can trust yourself to remain civil then an honest conversation with him may be quite revealing and put you in a much better position to make a decision than to rely on the apparent paranoia that I see at the moment.

If you can't trust yourself to keep a level head then best to stay away, nobody in authority is going to tolerate you giving him any kind of "warning".

+1

Being hostile to these people and making them feel 'unwelcome' only increases the risk and makes us less safe.

I've met dozens of sex offenders (and represented them in court), and frequently when I have met those charged with possessing indecent images they know their behaviour is abhorrent and are deeply ashamed of what they have done, but so often they have acted in that way precisely because society makes them feel like a pariah and they have hidden their feelings and ‘gone to ground’. They are scarred of hostility and violence if they give any hint of how they feel. Consequently they don’t get the help they need and are likely to become more dangerous. Often, by being caught by the police and made to face up to their actions they can begin to put strategies in place to mitigate and remove any risk they present, and that makes us all safer. As one earlier poster said, just because you fancy women, it doesn't make you a rapist.

Of course I share the concern of living in close proximity to someone who has been convicted of those offences (particularly if children are also living nearby), and in no way do I condone the offender's actions. However, the way I would address those concerns is to speak to him and find out what kind of person he really is (you might find he is open and committed to his rehabilitation). Ostracising someone who has served his sentence isn’t going to help his rehabilitation or make your community, or the next community he moves into, any safer.

 

[doris]

Moderators, attention please.

This thread makes for very disturbing reading. There seems to be a staggeringly high proportion of posters who are only one step from a lynch mob mentality, a bunch of nimbies who have no respect for the rule of law. Following the rule of law is the only thing that separates us from savages, Jihadists and the like. Some of the posts are bordering hate crimes.
I am amazed that this thread has been allowed to continue on a YBW boating forum.

Probably best I leave the forum for a month or so and see if it recovers its senses.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

This thread makes for very disturbing reading. There seems to be a staggeringly high proportion of posters who are only one step from a lynch mob mentality, a bunch of nimbies who have no respect for the rule of law. Following the rule of law is the only thing that separates us from savages, Jihadists and the like. Some of the posts are bordering hate crimes.
I am amazed that this thread has been allowed to continue on a YBW boating forum.

Probably best I leave the forum for a month or so and see if it recovers its senses.

There's an interesting on-topic discussion to be had: how do we deal, if we deal, with unpleasant characters who join our world. Alas it has been partially over-run by the mentality of The Lounge: string 'em up, I'd pull the switch meself, it's the only language they understand, I 'ad that Tyson Fury in the back of the cab once ...

 

[theoldsalt]

Would you stay in a marina in which a convicted paedophile lived ? One who is convicted and received a prison sentence (albeit suspended) for downloading kiddy rape videos !! As an ex foster carer I find this vile person sickening and as a fellow liveaboard have to share the pontoons on a regular basis . What would you do ? Live and let live ? Bring it to the attention to marina manager ? Or push the bastard in on a dark night ! BTW he knows that I know . His case is plastered all ver the Internet .

Oh, come on Clyst. When did you really care about other's opinions. You have your opinions and predudices, as we all have, just act on them, if you must, but please don't try to justify any action by canvassing consent here.

 

[FullCircle]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

This thread makes for very disturbing reading. There seems to be a staggeringly high proportion of posters who are only one step from a lynch mob mentality, a bunch of nimbies who have no respect for the rule of law. Following the rule of law is the only thing that separates us from savages, Jihadists and the like. Some of the posts are bordering hate crimes.
I am amazed that this thread has been allowed to continue on a YBW boating forum.

Probably best I leave the forum for a month or so and see if it recovers its senses.

If you feel that this transgresses the forum rules, please report by use of the little black triangle, which emails the mod team. If however, the content puts you beyond your discussion comfort zone, then just don't click into this thread.
Personally, whilst not agreeing with some of the posts here, I do find it illuminating in a more abstract sense, as an insight to the yachting clan values (in a statistical sense with low mid and hi range opinion).

 

[ronsurf]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

This is one person that got caught. Imagine how many are still out there, infesting our marinas and pubs. They may even be in the same shops as us. It's enough to make you never want to leave the safety of your own house....

 

[dom]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

There's an interesting on-topic discussion to be had: how do we deal, if we deal, with unpleasant characters who join our world. Alas it has been partially over-run by the mentality of The Lounge: string 'em up, I'd pull the switch meself, it's the only language they understand, I 'ad that Tyson Fury in the back of the cab once ...

This is such a difficult area and I agree with you and others that the lynch mob mentality is no solution, such as this famous case in Newport where a paediatrician was inadvertently targeted by a mob:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

It is for this reason that UK, European and US Courts come down harshly on those who presume to take the law into their own hands, which for clarity I do not for a moment believe Clyst was suggesting.

The trouble is that the flipside of such a system as that families and their children must be protected from crime. I regret to say, and I say this from an element of personal experience, is that large segments of the UK's social care system, seems far more concerned with tilting at social inequality windmills than in truly caring for the welfare of vulnerable children. And all children can be vulnerable at certain times, including kids toddling around a marina, a park or wherever.

My personal opinion is that the UK has yet to sort out an acceptable balance between the two.

 

[fireball]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

This thread makes for very disturbing reading. There seems to be a staggeringly high proportion of posters who are only one step from a lynch mob mentality, a bunch of nimbies who have no respect for the rule of law. Following the rule of law is the only thing that separates us from savages, Jihadists and the like. Some of the posts are bordering hate crimes.

Lock up your sons and daughters ....

is that the sort of world you want to live in? where you don't know if you can or can't trust your neighbour?

If someone at your sailing club was convicted of theft from the club they would probably be expelled from the club - totally understandably - members wouldn't want a theif in their midst. Being a rather small environment it's easy to remove an individual from that. But once you go out to the size of a country - how would you remove a criminal? Two ways - deportation or death - we did the first 150-200 years ago and the second was removed as recently as 1965.

So, now all we can do is lock them up for a period of time - once that time is passed then they're free again - but, do you want to live next door to a criminal? Depends what the crime is doesn't it - if it was embezzling money from an organisation then the risk to you is pretty much zero, if it's a theif then you might want to take a bit more care on what you leave in your back garden and don't forget to lock those doors & windows, if it's a peadophile and there are kids in the neighbourhood then it's natural to be protective of those kids.

Time spent or not - the bloke was conviceted of having some gross material on his computer - and the worry will be that now he's seen that sort of thing, unless he can get his "fix" or supress his desires he might be tempted to carry out the act himself. I wouldn't want to live in the same neighbourhood as someone like that - having to keep a closer eye on my and other children. If I discovered anyone doing that sort of thing to my boy they wouldn't be arrested - there would be nothing to arrest - no, I wouldn't act "rationally".

It's his sort of activity that has led to the club changing rooms being out of bounds to adults whilst we have "junior week", why blokes with kids can get second glances just incase it's not their kid, the kid being examined and parents living in fear of punishment if the child has the slightest blemish.

Live and let live? Yes - if it doesn't impact my life - but it does ... so it's very hard to forgive and forget ...

 

[GrahamM376]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

The guy appears to have been convicted only for watching kiddy porn, which I also find unacceptable but, that doesn't mean any children are at risk of attack and, unless there is evidence that he is a risk, then leave him alone.

I would imagine many posters have watched adult porn videos some of which can be pretty extreme. A large percentage of the population consider these offensive and think they should be banned. Should those guys be kept away from women?

 

[fireball]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

The guy appears to have been convicted only for watching kiddy porn, which I also find unacceptable but, that doesn't mean any children are at risk of attack and, unless there is evidence that he is a risk, then leave him alone.

I would imagine many posters have watched adult porn videos some of which can be pretty extreme. A large percentage of the population consider these offensive and think they should be banned. Should those guys be kept away from women?

Watching two consenting adults having sex - of whatever sort, may be offensive, but it isn't illegal (is it?). What's the risk? Being chatted up by someone who wants to watch you do it? Or perhaps he'll use binoculars to watch couples without their consent. Perhaps he wants the same thing for himself but is too shy to approach women - or has and been knocked back.

Watching a child being raped is a totally different level and IMHO having someone who enjoyed watching that sort of thing around children is a greater risk. What is that risk? He might just take photos as the kids play on their boats or walk the pontoon - no real "harm" ... then he might start snooping on them - trying to watch them in the showers? Perhaps one day that won't be enough and he'll try to entice a child back to his boat...

No I don't think the OP needs to "do anything" other than keep an eye on his behaviour - if the guy starts interacting with the kids then it's probably time to think about doing something.

 

[Tintin]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

My kids spend time on my boat. I'd move from that marina sharpish. I wouldn't put them at any risk.

Am sure the marina management would act if people started voting with their wallets.

 

[Wandering Star]

Re: Moderators, attention please.

My kids spend time on my boat. I'd move from that marina sharpish. I wouldn't put them at any risk.

Am sure the marina management would act if people started voting with their wallets.

I think it was JumbleDuck who posted there are 2% of the population with Paedophile inclinations. If that's correct, then in the average 500 berth Marina there are potentially 10 paedophiles at any time. At least in the OP's case, the bertholders are aware of this chap and can keep an eye on his behaviour but what about the other 9 who are as yet unidentified?

You're going to have to shift your boat to an awful lot of different marinas over a season before you discover a paedophile free marina.