s70rjw

iTrader: (2)

If he'd been in his 30s / 40's 50's ? Does he live near a school?

s70rjw

iTrader: (2)

As luck would have it I manage a team who among other tasks, manage RSO's.
ALL RSOs are visited at least once every 3 months.
Those who pose a high risk are visited every month. Those who pose a high risk are monitored by other means and devices in addition to the unannounced monthly visits.
In addition to the visits from officers, their movements are monitored and disrupted by local uniform officers and PCSOs. My staff help house the offenders, taking into account the location of addresses which local authorities suggest. However as the Police do not own infinite properties and the ultimate responsibility for housing lies with local authorities, not the Police. Police may oppose the address, however they are unable to dictate where individuals live.
As uncomfortable as it may be to some, one has to remain professional. Article 2 of the Human Rights Act is a right to life.
However despicable the acts of RSOs are, the law in this country applies to them as much as it does to everyone.
I've had sex offenders criticise Police for not dealing with motorists who speed past schools as in their opinion the speeding motorist poses a higher risk.
They quote more children are killed by motorists than be pedophiles.
Chemical castration is not an option in UK.Human Rights Act prevents that.
Your comments on "statutory rape", jef make no sense whatsoever. Consent to sex cannot be made by a person below the age of 13. Above that age rape is a question of consent, irrespective of age. 15 and 16 years have no relevance.
The systems in place are not foolproof. However while European legislation is in place to protect EVERYONE, lawyers will protect the rights of offenders, no matter what their crime.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I'd still not be convinced he was necessarily a threat, more odd than anything.

Like I said, I think this comes down to somebody having a bit respect for others, even if said person is happy to prance about naked. I guess it depends on 'intent'. If he is going about his business (not flashing to a specific person), then I personally wouldn't view it as a sex crime as such, warranting putting someone on the register. That is not to say he shouldn't be dealt with regarding what he is doing (as I stated earlier), I'm just not 100% comfortable with such a person being lumped together with actual sexual predators.

All I am saying, is I feel different situations should be treated as just that, not everything is always black or white/right or wrong, deserving of the same punishment.

jonc

The guy was a sex offender and in the eyes of the law, he as done his time and punishment with is last conviction in 1996. There is no evidence that the step father committed any offences upto now. The natural father signed a police harassment notice which prevents him by law not to reveal the step father's previous convictions. Despite his good intentions, he breached the police harassment notice and therefore broke the law.

However, his £1000 fine was for harassment and not for the breach of the notice; phoning his ex 17 times on one of the days and was using abusive and threatening language against the step father. The underlying story is that the father was getting frustrated due to decreasing access to his daughter.

The facts in this court case was about harassment and this charge has been proven. You cannot have a court trial on what potentially could have happened nor can you base a trial on peoples' emotions. There was no clear evidence that the step father was a threat to those children.

Just to add, I wonder if the parents of the other daughters offered to help pay his fine........

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

Do you have kids ?

The fact that he has done it once is enough for me to class him as a threat and as a father I'd do the same thing. The police have probably given him the choice of sign the agreement or face prosecution ..

At the end of the day no amount of fine or jail time is going to stop me protecting my children from this kind of threat.

jonc

OK, if you were the presiding judge, based on the evidence and the reason for this case presented to you, as the Judge, how would you have ruled this case?

Beef

I've seen this a few times now, including one aimed at me.

Would not having kids suddenly make my opinion less valid? Does having kids and having the stance I do somehow make me 'less' of a father in your eyes?

Can't protect them forever - life's dangerous, no-one gets out alive. You can do your best and try and guide them away from danger as much as possible, but most of the hyperbole about what people would do with a RSO living near them is just that. To act any different also makes you unacceptable to a civilized society - not in the same way, not in as 'emotive' a way, but still unacceptable.

Bear in mind that all father in this case had absolutely no involvement in historical crimes, nor has it been reported that he has a shred of evidence that any new crimes have been committed or even planned.

Simply put, he's harassing a (now) law-abiding citizen as a result of his own opinions and prejudices. Again, not saying his actions can't be understood, just that he doesn't deserve sympathy.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

Not really relevant is it ? This board is just my opinion, I don't dispute the facts, I question how anyone can argue a point against the father.

If you wouldn't act in a way to protect your children from a potential sexual predator, then yes in my opinion you are not worthy of being a father.

That's not to say you wouldn't have done the same thing, had it been you in the father position, completely different when your faced with something like this in real life, than arguing about it on a forum.

s70rjw

iTrader: (2)

The court which imposed the Order had the opportunity to consider the evidence, they were clearly of the opinion that an order was necessary. Without knowing the full facts, I don't see how one can express a meaningful opinion in such matters .

jonc

You say that no amount of jail time is going to stop you from protecting your children. How do you propose to do that from your cell? What sort of example are you setting to your children if your actions results in breaking the law that leads to a term in jail? Like you say, it's different when faced with something like this in real life than expressing your opinions on a forum.

Beef

Someone above made a good point when they mentioned RSO's complaining about speeding motorists. To some, a speeding motorist is the worst thing in the world. The direct analogy would be to make it impossible for a car to go over any speed limit on a road, and ban everything that has more than a certain level of horsepower. This would prevent someone, anyone, from maybe doing something, even when you have no evidence that they're going to other than you think they shouldn't.

Of course, to apply it to everyone is an extreme case, and not a close enough analogy. So lets say that this restriction should only be applied to anyone who has even been caught speeding. But how long do you wait until you lift the restriction? Is it for life? If not, at what point do you have to accept that the past is the past?

Speeding is not the same severity of crime - but only in the eyes of most people (me included). To some it is the more serious crime, and when you allow one group to act on their prejudices and opinions, you allow every group.

Isn't that the truth of it. What I do notice is that there seems to be a strong 'Won't Someone Think Of The Children' emotion factor, and it seems to become almost a competition to show just how 'good' a parent you are and how far you would go to be a 'protector'. Real life is somewhat different.

jef

iTrader: (13)

thanks for educating me on my mistakes- i did not know some of this,

however to me just because something is law does not mean it is right or wrong. there are so so many incorrect laws in this country, and there is basically nothing a single person in this country can do about it.

human rights laws should be removed or a % removed in relevance to the crime committed - otherwise now theres no real deterrant from committing crimes?? for sex serious/repeat sex offenders, chemical castration is the answer and its done, so so easily with no pain ect, just lowers/stops sex drive. and therfore risk. but human rights says these people cant have 1-2 inj per week in order to reduce risk of child rape???? small price to pay imo.

another for me is the laughable approach to illegal drugs in this country - the laws dictating them have more to do with history/tradition and social acceptance, rather than actual harm caused to human body.

obv i understand social impact and risk to public - but to me that just strengthens my next point.

i mean its inconceivable to even start to comprehend how alchohol and cigarettes can be legal, and the others are not - with exception for me being herion or crack cocaine.

the system is corrupt as fck from the top down - its all about rvenue rather than real life.
and people shrugging there shoulders "its just the law" ect ect.

small rant over

jonc

Unless of course as a result of reckless and pesisitant speeding one eventually cause serious injury or death of a person or child. And if you apply the same mentality as those expressed in this case one would think that we should all go round slashing tyres and harass these offenders or take whatever action to protect yours and others' children long after the offence was committed.

Beef

Which brings me back to my original point - understanding the actions of the father in this case is easy, but he does not deserve sympathy.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

We're moving away from the actual story here, but on the flip side, if you thought your child were at risk I don't think reason would be the first point of call. You would react like any parent to remove that danger.

I've written a few things and deleted them, trying to express what I'm getting at. Teaching a child right and wrong is probably the biggest responsibility of a parent, but it comes after keeping them safe. If I truly thought the only way to protect my child was to break the law, then I wouldn't have a second thought. As far as I'm concerned the day my children were born, my life became the second most important thing in the world and keyboard worrier-ness aside, I'm not a violent person, I'm not an angry person but I am someone who will do anything I can to keep them safe.

Again, I'm not suggesting I would attack someone for no good reason, or because they had been previously convicted for a sex crime, but I would certainly keep my children away from them and make it known to other parents.

There is, I think a lot of it comes from the removal of context from a post. What I'm saying isn't always how you're reading it.

Using your example, I would be doing all I could to stop motorists speeding in a area my children used. To the point of tracking down the drivers, reporting them or speaking to them. I agree that the ratio of speeders to pedos is massively different, but I still see them both as a threat and to be perfectly honest I think someone trying to hurt a child is more of a risk than someone accidentally running them over. You can teach a child to be road safe (to an extent) but how do you stop someone from abusing them ?

You do your best to keep them safe.

Beef

This is the point - what the father was doing was attacking. No, it wasn't physical, but it was an attack - one he had already agreed he would stop doing.

All of which seems reasonable action to me. However when faced with a situation where someone has many years ago, drunk-driven and injured someone, is it reasonable to go around telling everyone you know that he is still a danger to others and going to injure someone else? Especially when you've already signed a notice saying that you won't do this any more and you have no evidence or suggestion that he's likely to do it again?

jonc

I think the difference between a SO and drink driver is intention, the intention to cause direct harm. Add children to the mix and it becomes less objective and more emotive. Your instinct is to protect your offspring and quite rightly do all you can to provide that protection. Would you be as emotive or more objective if the step father was repeatedly convicted of GBH or assault on another man for example.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

Oh come on now, someone drink driving compared to someone who's abused a child ?

Beef

It was simply an example of how opinion is not a good base for allowing people to act in a way that constricts and controls others without due process. Some would argue that choosing to drive a car drunk is as bad as pulling the trigger on the gun, regardless of 'intent'.

Why not? It's all personal opinion as to what is or isn't an equivalent crime, and the outcomes can be very similar; children can get injured/killed with years of suffering and trauma for them/families? A child-killing drunk-driver may well regret what he did, reform and become a valid member of society - should he still be hounded by those not even involved decades later for being a child-killer?

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

You show me one person that rates drink driving at the same level as child abuse ..

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

lol, yeah, ok this is pointless. Someone who gets drunk and hits a child, compared to someone who abuses a child ..

If you can't understand the severity of child abuse, I'm not wasting any more of my time.

Beef

I'm not saying I rate it the same, but someone will. Should that one person's viewpoint be allowed to influence the lives of others, with no additional checks or measures? I used drink-driving as an easily-understood analogy.

Which means I once-again restate my original point - you can understand why the father did something, but he does not deserve sympathy. He was attempting to impose his own viewpoint on another without regard to that individual, and this cannot be allowed to happen, no matter what, no matter why.

Beef

It just occurred to me that the irony with this thread is that by definition, what you think should or should not have happened is all personal opinion, and as such each person's opinion is as valid as any others any and there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer.

What is certain though is that you don't need to be a father just to express an opinion...

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

No one said you did, nor did anyone say your opinion was invalid, stupid, but not invalid

Having children gives you a different outlook on things, as you can put yourself in the fathers position.

SubaruGaijin

As serious as the topic is that made me lol.

jef

iTrader: (13)

you make a good point there - there is no right and wrong answer as everyones opinion is valid.

but the law enforces one opinion on everyone - so technically, there answer is the only right one.

altho clearly here shows its not what evryone thinks/beleives. more examples to me of flaws in system - not claiming i have an answer btw - just highlighting how laws imposed do not always represent the veiws of people.

and i know if you dont like the laws you can move away ect ect, as overall we are pretty lucky in life,

its just to me its seems, its much more important to APPEAR to have a squeaky clean image, than actually have one.

s70rjw

iTrader: (2)

That is why sex offenders are required to reigister for between 2 years and life, dependent on sentence.