Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
the liverpool echo, our local paper, is reporting today two stories from either side of the sex offenders' debate.
the first is regarding a man who has been driving around huyton (an area near liverpool) filming children playing in their gardens. this man didn't even have the nouse about him to drive away when he was followed and threatened by horrified parents. he only fled when the police came along. he is still at large, and nobody knows if he lives in the area or is in contact with children who may be at risk.
the other story is about the to-and-fro human rights debate of whether convicted sex offenders, especially paedophiles, should be named and shamed, or at least the number of sex offenders in any area to be published. this would also allow single mothers to check up on their new partners.
having had victims of childhood sexual abuse in my own family, and seeing the aftermath of such terrible crimes, i can't help but be disgusted by people who do that sort of thing, and hold the very real belief that once someone has strayed across the line into paedophilia, there is no going back from there. i can't imagine how anyone can expect to be rehabilitated for their perverted sexual orientations toward children (it goes along the same line as bestiality and necrophilia in my book.)
so what i'm getting at is what do you all think of this discussion- how much of the human right to privacy should convicted sex offenders be allowed when the safety of children is a serious issue? apologies in advance for sparking off a potentially heated discussion... xxx
If I were a mother of course I would want to know who/where the paedophiles live in my neighbourhood and of course to check on any potential new boyfriend.
I'd also like to know if my new neighbours are/were burglars before I let them have my spare house keys, and I'd like to see if any potential lodger has a criminal record. Hmmm...
People hate paedophiles so much that once their identity is known their presence often provokes criminal acts (window-smashing, graffitti, GBH) so they have to move again and again and again, usually at the taxpayers' expense. In the end it is a case of "where can they live?" if they are hounded out of every community. One solution would be to make them all live in a sort of ghetto, though it is also known that if they associate with others like them they will "normalise" and "rationalise" their behaviour.
Like you I don't think perverted sexual orientation toward children can be cured.
My first husband (we were married for all of 18 months, to the very day) was arrested for assaulting children. Apparently he had a record of it and, because no records were in place at the time, he came out of the Army and got a job as lifeguard at the local swimming pool. (I confronted his mother and asked why I wasn't told, she said if she had, I would not have married him, too right!) I felt then that information on convicted sex offenders should have been given to places like that where vulnerable children would be. I divorced him. It took me five years to trust anyone enough enough to remarry. I doubt though I would have thought of looking on any register to see if my potential husband was on it! That would have been the furthest thing from my mind. I met and fell in love with a 6 ft 4 inch soldier, handsome, charming, with a persuasive way about him. Would I distrust enough to go looking on a register? Issue all places with the names such as swimming pools, schools, playgroups, etc but neighbours? I think not. My life was bad enough after it was all over the local paper at the time, I had to move and I had done nothing. We need to think of the relatives, too. We all suffered.
In the same breath you can't let them be driven underground either.
I abhor vigilantism, it is nothing more than yob behaviour, with thugs taking the law into their own hands.
I remember a few years ago a Paedatritian was killed by a fire bomb through his letter box in Newcastle. For some reason one of these morons thought a children's doctor is the same thing as a Paedophile. I can't think of a better argument againt this stupid law.
This is a difficult issue as already said.
As a mother I would want to know if such an individual was living nearby. I'd also want to know that appropriate measures were in place to prevent re-offence.
When we moved into one of our past homes, we received a visit from a nearby resident who thought we should be told that one of our neighbours at (etc) had been taken to court for molesting a child- a teenager at the time.
It ensured we could safeguard our child, and because it was known about generally the risks were reduced.
The individual has been dead many years, but I know the sister (of the teenager) and it had long lasting effects that shaped his life.
Unfortunately there are morons out in society who would abuse that information, but it should not deny the rest the information to keep their family safe.
If someone gets that information and then attacks that person, or causes actual harm, then they should be prosecuted, as they would in doing the same to anyone else.
While we may utterly abhor a person who commits such crimes, our legal system deems serving a prison sentence after a trial right.
As long as they do not begin to do anything which suggests they may be intending to re-offend then they should be left alone. BUT as I said before appropriate supervision MUST be in place to protect everyone.
Vigilanteeism will only result in the services losing track of these individuals, and perhaps leaving a family vunerable to abuse.
This is an issue where right or wrong will battle continuiously.
Many on here know that I was raped at aged 12. I have dealt with that in various ways.
One thing, though: a friend of mine went out with a bloke who (cutting to the chase) turned out to be living in a hostel for sex-offenders which was being considered for a move to somewhere in Surrey. She only found out through a newspaper article, put two and two together and asked him outright.
Turns out you never know if a convicted sex-offender or paedophile could be living near you. I found that hard but, of course, they could be ANYwhere.
At the tourist information centre where I do volunteer work, quite a few years ago I worked with a man who became (who I thought) a very good friend. Then I find out that he's been convicted of paedophilia against young boys. I was stunned, to say the least. I've never spoken of this to anyone, until now. I hope I never meet him again.
When I graduated in 1992 I really wanted to work in the prison psychology service. To get some experience of working 'inside' I got a job as a sessional tutor in the education department of a high security men's prison near where I lived at the time. The majority of my work in the prison was with segregated offenders - this included sex offenders (known at the time at least as the 'Rule 42s') as well as those who had severe mental health or drug problems.
As an observation of sex offenders based on working with them, they were from across all social, intellectual and economic sectors of society - in other words, they look just like you or me or anyone else you have ever met. Some were extremely remorseful for their actions (which might have been against children or adults) and recognised that what they had done was wrong; others made no public reflection of their feelings known at all. It is absolutely no excuse whatever of course for these most appalling offences, but it was certainly true that the vast majority of these men had been severely abused themselves over many years as children.
So as for the possibility of genuine rehabilitation, I'm really not sure how realistic that is - some studies show that it can be successful, others not - and I suspect not in the long term. Most of these offenders are extremely damaged people themselves and they inflict damage in turn on subsequent generations and so the terrible cycle continues. I've pondered on this one for the last 15 years - other than prevention of abuse in the first place, I'm still no closer to knowing what the answer to the problem is.
the issue in my family was my mum and her sisters. they were each methodically abused by their father from very young ages (he told my mum and her older sister that if they told he would start in on their younger sister. at the time he had already been abusing her).
in order to escape their father, my mums older sister got married very young to a man who beat her within an inch of her life on almost a daily basis- and my mum still believes that her death at aged 23 (caused by a brain haemmorage) was the result of one of those beatings.
he only stopped abusing my mum when he made her pregnant at 13, resulting in a traumatic abortion.
my younger aunt told a teacher in her school when she was 10 or 11, and had him convicted. my nanny was convicted as well, as they said she knew of the abuse and did nothing to protect her daughters. the fact was that she was terrified of her husband, and had been subject to physical and mental torture on a daily basis throughout the course of their marriage.
although she was safe from the clutches of her father, my younger aunt went off the rails completely, and after being sexualised at such an early age she has been highly promiscuous, dabbling in drugs and prostitution. she is now married with two children, and had to have a full hysterectomy at age 36 due to cervical cancer- another legacy of her fathers abuse.
my dad knew about my aunts history, but my mum never told him until recently about her own experiences. she only told him because my aunt, being extremely manipulative, had told my younger sister, filling her head with lies about our dad. i've always been quite intuitive where my family is concerned, and always knew something was wrong in the family. i had asked my mum many times what was going on, why was there such a tension between her and my aunt? not long before everything came to light, i figured it out. it was a horrible kind of epiphany. i just knew, and told my best friend and my boyfriend what i thought. they told me not to be so stupid. then my mum told us. i think i vomited, cried for a week, and then started drinking and going out. i was depressed and i think, just short of alcoholism.
after everything came out, we discovered that once he was released from prison, he began abusing his nieces, and was raping his wheelchair-bound sister regularly. when he was found out he disappeared, surfacing occasionally to cause trouble or contact his son in australia. he has just died, alone and in pain, in a squat in manchester.
the sad thing is that my mum will never have closure, and will always wonder how their lives could have been if he hadnt been such a sick sadist (he also beat and psychologically his sons every day.)
SA, this thread has proved most cathartic in many ways for a lot of us, giving us a chance to talk about things we would otherwise have kept locked up in our minds. Expressing it does help, even a tiny bit. I want to say thank you for having the courage to start such an emotive subject and bringing it out. It needs to be talked about and much of it has put many aspects into proper perspective. As writers, even if we don't write about it, we need to be aware of it.
And I also want to applaud your courage in handling the truth, even if you did go off the rails a bit you came back on the straight again and are a fine person. I respect that.
I believe anyone convicted of sexually abusing a child under the age of say 11 should have PED tatooed on their forehead in large letters. I know the PC brigade will scream at this. At one time children with any sort of problem could turn to an old man like myself and be sure of help and protection, what a tradgedy this is no longer the case
thanks dorothy. i think that this is one of those subjects that should never be hushed away, no matter how embarrassing it may be to discuss.
my mums silence nearly destroyed my dad and our family when we found out the truth. after my mum told us (in horrible, graphic terms) my ex's mum, and my best friend's mum and auntie came out and said they'd had similar experiences in their own childhoods, but had never had the courage to tell anyone. sometimes the truth can set you free. xxx
Thanks to all of you who have been willing to share your knowledge and own experiences. I hope this has helped you as well, as giving the rest of us an insight into a difficult and upsetting issue.
It should never be an issue to avoid.
I've been reading the reports in todays papers, and the law isn't going as far as I believe it would.
Supposedly, the information will only be an extension of what already happens when the Police approach a single mother, making her aware of her new boyfriend's previous convictions. The database will not be made public, it seems to be a need to know basis only.
One thing that disturbs me is that a man who has sex (not necessarily rape - although I know the law sees it as rape) with a fifteen year old can be described as a Paedophile.
Children's charity's correctly point out sexual abuse is more prevalent in the home, and committed by family members and friends, and rarely strangers.
The book I am writing is about a man taking revenge against Politicians and Judges after his son is killed by a convicted Paedophile, so this discussion has been insightful. Thank you, I can imagine how painful it has been.
by the way, the man who was driving around huyton filming kids in their gardens has come forward to the police. after questioning him, the police have said that he wasn't doing anything wrong! well, what was he doing filming children playing in their gardens? the paper didn't go into much detail about why he was there, so it's been left like an unsolved bit of ickyness..
yeah i understand what you mean, claudia. maybe there is too much of a stigma about adults (especially men) being too interested in children.
when i was little there wasn't so much of it (i'm 25 now), and even though my mum had a horrible childhood, she never sheltered us too much, and i never felt that the old man who lived next door was a predator, he was just sad and all alone. but now he would be watched with a careful eye by parents who wouldn't appreciate the way he used to stand on the front step and chat to us while we were playing in the street.
it's a two-edged sword, because although some innocent men may be guilty until proven otherwise, many innocent children have been protected by perhaps over-vigilant parents.
i would rather give the strange man next door a wary wide berth than find out that my son or daughter had had their childhood destroyed by them. it's sad, but it's how the world works these days.
to be quite honest i am totally hard line about these things. they should all be shot. sorry but true. if you do it once you do it again. its the facts - the long and the short of it. all re-offend or continue with their thoughts in privacy i say name um shame um then put the sickos to sleep! painfully and slowly with all sivility of a tick on an elephants doo dah!
Claudia makes some important points. A normal, innocent man cannot in today's climate strike up a conversation with a youngster in the park or swimming pool or on the bus, whatever, for fear of being thought a pervert.
I am not fond of the word paedophile because
"-phile" means a lover of something and the things that many of them do (kidnap, rape etc.) isn't love.
I think I will start a thread of words people hate!
Last week my son was out taking photos of the new water feature in Nottingham, in our newly rebuilt Market Square. He was using his digital SLR, and was approached by a Community Warden- suddenly they are everywhere except where stuff is happening- and demanded to know if he was taking pictures of children.
My son explained, that no he was taking pictures of the water feature, and if he was going to take a photo of a child he would need a signed permission from the parent first.
This completely threw the warden, and he left my son alone after that.
But it is more likely that someone intent on doing that would be doing it surreptitiously, not out in the open.
Unfortunately everyone becomes suspect.
Because this thread has been running and stirred up a lot of thoughts, I asked my guys what they did about such people in their time. This is part of the answer, for the section ranges over murder, rape and all sorts:
When it reached our ears, our being peasant or aristocrat, that any person had touched any of our children in a way not appropriate, they were in for a very bad time indeed. I know of one village where they holed up the man in a hut and let him starve to death. In another they beat him to death. Each place had their own way of dealing with it and those of us who owned the estates and villages merely turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. What sense to bring them before a court and have them merely hanged? It was not something we did and not something we would have done, either. Rose, if such vengeance were carried out now, those who have such leanings would keep them strictly to themselves.
Comments
the first is regarding a man who has been driving around huyton (an area near liverpool) filming children playing in their gardens. this man didn't even have the nouse about him to drive away when he was followed and threatened by horrified parents. he only fled when the police came along. he is still at large, and nobody knows if he lives in the area or is in contact with children who may be at risk.
the other story is about the to-and-fro human rights debate of whether convicted sex offenders, especially paedophiles, should be named and shamed, or at least the number of sex offenders in any area to be published. this would also allow single mothers to check up on their new partners.
having had victims of childhood sexual abuse in my own family, and seeing the aftermath of such terrible crimes, i can't help but be disgusted by people who do that sort of thing, and hold the very real belief that once someone has strayed across the line into paedophilia, there is no going back from there. i can't imagine how anyone can expect to be rehabilitated for their perverted sexual orientations toward children (it goes along the same line as bestiality and necrophilia in my book.)
so what i'm getting at is what do you all think of this discussion- how much of the human right to privacy should convicted sex offenders be allowed when the safety of children is a serious issue? apologies in advance for sparking off a potentially heated discussion... xxx
If I were a mother of course I would want to know who/where the paedophiles live in my neighbourhood and of course to check on any potential new boyfriend.
I'd also like to know if my new neighbours are/were burglars before I let them have my spare house keys, and I'd like to see if any potential lodger has a criminal record. Hmmm...
People hate paedophiles so much that once their identity is known their presence often provokes criminal acts (window-smashing, graffitti, GBH) so they have to move again and again and again, usually at the taxpayers' expense. In the end it is a case of "where can they live?" if they are hounded out of every community. One solution would be to make them all live in a sort of ghetto, though it is also known that if they associate with others like them they will "normalise" and "rationalise" their behaviour.
Like you I don't think perverted sexual orientation toward children can be cured.
I abhor vigilantism, it is nothing more than yob behaviour, with thugs taking the law into their own hands.
I remember a few years ago a Paedatritian was killed by a fire bomb through his letter box in Newcastle. For some reason one of these morons thought a children's doctor is the same thing as a Paedophile. I can't think of a better argument againt this stupid law.
As a mother I would want to know if such an individual was living nearby. I'd also want to know that appropriate measures were in place to prevent re-offence.
When we moved into one of our past homes, we received a visit from a nearby resident who thought we should be told that one of our neighbours at (etc) had been taken to court for molesting a child- a teenager at the time.
It ensured we could safeguard our child, and because it was known about generally the risks were reduced.
The individual has been dead many years, but I know the sister (of the teenager) and it had long lasting effects that shaped his life.
Unfortunately there are morons out in society who would abuse that information, but it should not deny the rest the information to keep their family safe.
If someone gets that information and then attacks that person, or causes actual harm, then they should be prosecuted, as they would in doing the same to anyone else.
While we may utterly abhor a person who commits such crimes, our legal system deems serving a prison sentence after a trial right.
As long as they do not begin to do anything which suggests they may be intending to re-offend then they should be left alone. BUT as I said before appropriate supervision MUST be in place to protect everyone.
Vigilanteeism will only result in the services losing track of these individuals, and perhaps leaving a family vunerable to abuse.
This is an issue where right or wrong will battle continuiously.
One thing, though: a friend of mine went out with a bloke who (cutting to the chase) turned out to be living in a hostel for sex-offenders which was being considered for a move to somewhere in Surrey. She only found out through a newspaper article, put two and two together and asked him outright.
Turns out you never know if a convicted sex-offender or paedophile could be living near you. I found that hard but, of course, they could be ANYwhere.
As an observation of sex offenders based on working with them, they were from across all social, intellectual and economic sectors of society - in other words, they look just like you or me or anyone else you have ever met. Some were extremely remorseful for their actions (which might have been against children or adults) and recognised that what they had done was wrong; others made no public reflection of their feelings known at all. It is absolutely no excuse whatever of course for these most appalling offences, but it was certainly true that the vast majority of these men had been severely abused themselves over many years as children.
So as for the possibility of genuine rehabilitation, I'm really not sure how realistic that is - some studies show that it can be successful, others not - and I suspect not in the long term. Most of these offenders are extremely damaged people themselves and they inflict damage in turn on subsequent generations and so the terrible cycle continues. I've pondered on this one for the last 15 years - other than prevention of abuse in the first place, I'm still no closer to knowing what the answer to the problem is.
in order to escape their father, my mums older sister got married very young to a man who beat her within an inch of her life on almost a daily basis- and my mum still believes that her death at aged 23 (caused by a brain haemmorage) was the result of one of those beatings.
he only stopped abusing my mum when he made her pregnant at 13, resulting in a traumatic abortion.
my younger aunt told a teacher in her school when she was 10 or 11, and had him convicted. my nanny was convicted as well, as they said she knew of the abuse and did nothing to protect her daughters. the fact was that she was terrified of her husband, and had been subject to physical and mental torture on a daily basis throughout the course of their marriage.
although she was safe from the clutches of her father, my younger aunt went off the rails completely, and after being sexualised at such an early age she has been highly promiscuous, dabbling in drugs and prostitution. she is now married with two children, and had to have a full hysterectomy at age 36 due to cervical cancer- another legacy of her fathers abuse.
my dad knew about my aunts history, but my mum never told him until recently about her own experiences. she only told him because my aunt, being extremely manipulative, had told my younger sister, filling her head with lies about our dad. i've always been quite intuitive where my family is concerned, and always knew something was wrong in the family. i had asked my mum many times what was going on, why was there such a tension between her and my aunt? not long before everything came to light, i figured it out. it was a horrible kind of epiphany. i just knew, and told my best friend and my boyfriend what i thought. they told me not to be so stupid. then my mum told us. i think i vomited, cried for a week, and then started drinking and going out. i was depressed and i think, just short of alcoholism.
after everything came out, we discovered that once he was released from prison, he began abusing his nieces, and was raping his wheelchair-bound sister regularly. when he was found out he disappeared, surfacing occasionally to cause trouble or contact his son in australia. he has just died, alone and in pain, in a squat in manchester.
the sad thing is that my mum will never have closure, and will always wonder how their lives could have been if he hadnt been such a sick sadist (he also beat and psychologically his sons every day.)
And I also want to applaud your courage in handling the truth, even if you did go off the rails a bit you came back on the straight again and are a fine person. I respect that.
my mums silence nearly destroyed my dad and our family when we found out the truth. after my mum told us (in horrible, graphic terms) my ex's mum, and my best friend's mum and auntie came out and said they'd had similar experiences in their own childhoods, but had never had the courage to tell anyone. sometimes the truth can set you free. xxx
It should never be an issue to avoid.
Supposedly, the information will only be an extension of what already happens when the Police approach a single mother, making her aware of her new boyfriend's previous convictions. The database will not be made public, it seems to be a need to know basis only.
One thing that disturbs me is that a man who has sex (not necessarily rape - although I know the law sees it as rape) with a fifteen year old can be described as a Paedophile.
Children's charity's correctly point out sexual abuse is more prevalent in the home, and committed by family members and friends, and rarely strangers.
The book I am writing is about a man taking revenge against Politicians and Judges after his son is killed by a convicted Paedophile, so this discussion has been insightful. Thank you, I can imagine how painful it has been.
when i was little there wasn't so much of it (i'm 25 now), and even though my mum had a horrible childhood, she never sheltered us too much, and i never felt that the old man who lived next door was a predator, he was just sad and all alone. but now he would be watched with a careful eye by parents who wouldn't appreciate the way he used to stand on the front step and chat to us while we were playing in the street.
it's a two-edged sword, because although some innocent men may be guilty until proven otherwise, many innocent children have been protected by perhaps over-vigilant parents.
i would rather give the strange man next door a wary wide berth than find out that my son or daughter had had their childhood destroyed by them. it's sad, but it's how the world works these days.
I am not fond of the word paedophile because
"-phile" means a lover of something and the things that many of them do (kidnap, rape etc.) isn't love.
I think I will start a thread of words people hate!
My son explained, that no he was taking pictures of the water feature, and if he was going to take a photo of a child he would need a signed permission from the parent first.
This completely threw the warden, and he left my son alone after that.
But it is more likely that someone intent on doing that would be doing it surreptitiously, not out in the open.
Unfortunately everyone becomes suspect.
When it reached our ears, our being peasant or aristocrat, that any person had touched any of our children in a way not appropriate, they were in for a very bad time indeed. I know of one village where they holed up the man in a hut and let him starve to death. In another they beat him to death. Each place had their own way of dealing with it and those of us who owned the estates and villages merely turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. What sense to bring them before a court and have them merely hanged? It was not something we did and not something we would have done, either. Rose, if such vengeance were carried out now, those who have such leanings would keep them strictly to themselves.
It's not just men, I don't like approaching children because you don't know what people are thinking.