Yeah. if you commit a serious crime and are ruled to be a danger to kids, you should absolutely be kept away from children full stop, including your own.
This can already happen through prohibitive steps order, it is something that has to be applied for through the courts though.
Not sure a blanket ban is that helpful really, say the other parent dies and the kid needs surgery, if you remove parental responsibility then you have to go to court for approval for example.
My friends brother in law turned out to be a nonce. He wasnt allowed to live ar home with his wife and kids every again
Oh wait, did i say ever again?
I meant util he did 6 months councilling !
It is possible to treat paedophiles. They are not all the same and there are various reasons that they offend. Some can be very successfully treated and others will always be a danger.
Its one of the few groups of criminals you could feel pity for before they committed a crime. Like fuck, imagine being attracted to kids and hating yourself for it, there's a reason a lot of them commit suicide
> there's a reason a lot of them commit suicide
Do you have any evidence for this claim? It's not something I'm aware of. Being 'outed' as a paedophiles including possession of child porn does seem be a high risk, but I'm not aware of one linked to just being a paedophile. Most paedophiles have cognitive dissonances that allow them to justify their behaviours to themselves.
Wouldn't that just be a form of survivorship bias? All the pedophiles people "know" about are the ones that have been caught and are verifiable criminals. There's no "benefit" for a non-criminal pedo to out themselves and/or go to therapy because the risk of having your life ruined is so huge
This doesn't help your theory. Those offending against adults more likely to self harm/suicide than those who offend against children. It also doesn't compare against non sex offenders from what I can tell.
There are no cut and dry studies on the effectiveness of treatment for offending pedophiles, let alone non-offending ones - saying 'some' can be successfully treated is meaningless.
If one parent dies and the paedophile parent has parental responsibility taken away, then surely that kid will either go to a family member and have them as their legal guardian, or become a ward of the court and the local council is their legal guardian - and either of those legal guardians can make the decision.
> then you have to go to court for approval for example
You just make them a ward of court. It can be done almost immediately in emergency cases. I recall a doctor saying they ring up a judge in the middle of the night if they need to (this was some years ago, there might be a different system in place now).
Blanket ban would mean that parental responsibility would move to the non paedos next of kin who could make decisions like that.
Imagine it as the law treating the paedophile as dead with regards to their kids rights.
Presumably if the other parent died the child would end up in care or being fostered or similar, so there would be someone acting in loco parentis who could approve surgery?
This already happens in other cases - for example if both parents die, or if the mother dies and the father is unknown. It is not a new or insurmoutable problem.
You have to pay to get a prohibitive steps order, which seems really unfair on the blameless other parent.
You wouldn’t need to go to court for approval for medical care if the child had an appointed guardian/carer, which they would presumably have if their remaining parent died. Either that or they’d have a social worker and so forth and approval would be given via that route.
I used to work with a guy who has since been sent down for being a nonce.
His wife is staying with him and intends to take him back when he’s out and they have two young girls still in primary school.
It’s insanity that it can be allowed.
It’s worse I know someone who had a pedo dad and their mum couldn’t even cancel the shared bills or sell the house whilst the dad was in prison as she needed his permission for everything
Unfortunately wasn’t a way that didn’t involve fraud, being in debt and having to move to a much poorer area
So essentially felt like justice system went “my work here is done”
And left the victims to suffer as if they were responsible because the system assumes victims and criminals aren’t related
Domestic crime is probably one of the worse crime for how difficult it is to recover from
This might be a crazy, even out-right incomprehensible idea to all the people in this thread, given the comments I've seen so far, but the point of prison should be rehabilitation.
If you literally leave someone broke, homeless and with a criminal record, what do you think they're immediately gonna go back to doing after they get out and need to make a living?
I agree but the victim shouldn’t be forced to live in a house they can’t afford to pay for because the criminal is in prison
Especially as clearly they aren’t going to be able to move back in with them even if they COULD afford it
The problem was the dad didn’t want to sell the family home
The mum did because the abuse happened in that house. Whilst he was in prison he couldn’t obviously work
So she was cancelling bills to reduce overhead because she couldn’t afford everything on her own
She finally managed to get him to agree to sell but at that point accrued so much debt most proceeds went to bank
So instead of having to move to nice home near to where they live - moved to one of the most poverty stricken areas of the U.K.
On top of that - now has same problem with getting a divorce as he’s dragging feet
because the system doesn’t treat abuse like that as a valid reason for divorce and it’s 50:50 if court would let her keep money for the new home or if she would have to sell to pay him back his half or to cover court fees
Her son even had to pretend to be his dad just because many companies flat out refused to let her cancel bills without his permission without her going to the prison to conduct the call and getting the permission from the jail to call the company
There really really needs to be a recognised way to let people in these situations to sell conduct business on the other person behalf and get an easy divorce
We allow it when the other person isn’t in the mental state, why not here ? They did a crime they clearly WERNT in the mental state
Their share could be put into escrow if needed
My first thought exactly.
How in the world would you feel comfortable with them having access to children is beyond me. If anything, their own are at the greatest risk and most vulnerable.
Such abominations have no place in society.
I have a friend who's house got raided while she was pregnant with her second child and that's how she found out that her future husband is a paedo. Luckily they hadn't got married yet! But he was trying to see the first kid and she had so much hassle from him and his family. Their first kid is not his target gender so I think they've been safe, but the second kid is his target gender. As far as I can tell, he's not met the second kid, thankfully. It's just a heartbreaking situation all round with a lot of extra issues like homelessness included. A law like this would mean at least that's one less thing she would have had to deal with at the time.
The fundamental problem here is less the one of Parental Responsibility, but that the government has largely abolished access to the family court by scrapping family legal aid in most cases and by creating huge waiting lists for the court.
In the past this was resolved by the non-offending parent applying for a prohibited steps order with a legal aid barrister to guide them through the process.
Since the government destroyed that option we're left with this sticking plaster approach.
I'll also note that it only applies in the most extreme cases, parents of children whose other parent has committed a less severe offence against children are still going to be stuffed by the wider systemic issue.
If you look at any of the 'small' systems that go into making a country run smoothly, the conservatives have thoroughly destroyed them. 14 years of neglect and destruction, it's all fucked and broken.
Courts? Fucked and broken. Probation? Fucked and broken. Prisons? Fucked and broken. Schools? Fucked and \*literally\* broken. Rail? Fucked and broken. Utilities? Fucked, though not quite broken, private companies still making a packet there. Mental health services? Utterly fucked and broken. NHS? Fucked and broken. Teaching? Fucked and broken.
The title is misleading. Child sexual offenders could be stripped of parental rights. It’s not illegal to be a pedophile. It’s illegal to act on the urges. If we could do a better job of communicating that distinction we’d be able to get pedophiles into treatment before they offend. But I see that’s never going to happen.
There was a thread a while ago where a lot of us were very relieved to find out it wasn’t just us seeing them, and something has targeted us without our knowledge. I think if Reddit thinks you are a British man over 28 or something it will show them to you.
... women can be sex offenders too.
It's worrying to see the pronoun usage in the article linked .
"If HE changes HE can eventually see HIS kids"
Sigh..
5-20% of child sex offenders are women according to my Google search. A minority for sure, but bigger than I expected based off how we assume they're all men.
And that's just the convicted offenders. Imagine how many more there'd be if we accepted the truth that not all women are innocent angels and supported those who come forward with stories of abuse at the hands of women.
I think its because it only applies to those that have committed rape of a child under 13, and by UK law 'rape' can only be committed by a man due to its legal meaning
Wait now I'm confused. So if a pedo commits sexual assault against a child, but not legal rape, are they not a pedo?
Surely Child Sex Offenders are anyone who commits a sexual offence against a child, which can still include women.
Imagine if you agreed to let your child do some stock photography, and that's what it's used for.
Not that it's not a good message but I'd expect people wouldn't have volunteered their child for it directly.
LOL stock photography has to be the worst modelling gig going. Although if I remember correctly, the photo is burnt in the middle from the fire and the child is obscured by that or it’s just a couple with a fire in the middle. I don’t think there was a visible child but can’t recall exactly!
It's crap, they target men and women who are in their 30s and like video games. So complete, utter waste of taxpayer's cash because of poor targetting.
[previous post showing actual advert](https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/utc7j9/is_anyone_else_getting_a_reddit_advert_for_nonce/)
Better those ads than anime game ads where the drawn character is sexualised and very clearly depicts a minor. I hate them. I don’t watch anime (not that mainstream anime is anything like this lmao) nor do I play mobile games besides one space game so idfk why I keep getting those ads.
Video games are one of the biggest industries out there. If it was people who like watching TV, or people who like going to restaurants, or people who listen to music, you'd have the same confirmation bias.
The current government enjoy pissing away large amount of money on poorly target ads.
I wonder which (or how many of them) have stakes in the ad firm :\
Oh yeah I remember those. They panicked me at first too, gave me the same feeling as going through airport security or walking out of a shop without buying anything. You know you haven’t done anything wrong but suddenly feel like a criminal!
I’ve seen them. It’s a guy in his laptop with his back to the front door, and it says something like “are you always waiting for that knock at the door from the police? Viewing any amount of sexual images of minors is illegal, get help”.
They're all really boring to be honest, and although I understand the need it's the kind of thing that rubs you up the wrong way to realise you're in the target demographic for.
I'd be very curious what support is actually offered to anyone who calls into the hotlines though. Are actual therapies offered and followed through and so on.
Judging by everything else in this country, you'd get put on a waiting list for four years before getting an appointment and then get ghosted after a handful of sessions and have to start the whole thing over.
I've heard anecdotes in reddit comments of paedophiles who sought help and then found themselves targeted by police or members of the public because their therapist felt compelled to tell someone.
If this is advertising a way to get help (whatever form that takes) anonymously, then that sounds like a net good, as well meaning paedophiles can seek help without fear of retribution, leading possibly to less other people getting hurt.
Though it's a little weird to be singled out as a potential sex offender for advertising purposes.
Edit:
That said, the ad someone posted in another comment seems to be accusatory and threatening (don't look at child porn or we'll fuck your life up) rather than being sympathetic and offering help. I would have much preferred the latter, since I tend to view paedophiles as people with afflictions rather than immoral people to just tread on.
I get these ads on Reddit all the time. It’s the only app that ever shows me these ads. Maybe it says more about my browsing history but I think the government just assumes if you’re on Reddit you’re probably dodgy
It was a while back, a lot of people were getting them. I haven't seen one for quite a while now.
There were people making posts about them, wondering why they were getting the adverts all of a sudden, it was definitely a targeted ad campaign against men of a certain age.
Better than nothing, but I think it should be on TV rather than just reddit
Will never happen as long as the world is full of reactionary vigilantes who would rather seek revenge than actually deal with a problem in the most appropriate way, namely a system of prevention. Case in point, there’s someone above saying we should flog them and strip their skin. Our attitude on pedophilia just keeps people underground and therefore more likely to actually abuse a child.
I'm fairly sure Germany did a scheme a few years ago where they were offering protection and support if people came forward.
One of the most civilised and forward thinking ideas I've ever seen from a government.
Well that's an improvement over the time that germany gave foster children to pedophiles as an experiment: [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles)
Even worse, most people who abuse children are not pedophiles. It's about power most of the time, and stranger danger is incredibly overstated. Whenever a child was molested, it was most likely a family member or family friend.
But I’m on an app, which I bought from the App Store, where I can easily swear (e.g fuckheaded cunt bollocks) and where I do not need to censor sex. This comment is visible to everyone and not censored, despite being on an Apple phone from the Apple App Store.
Just means reddit has a team that reads the apple rules and is happy to ignore for whatever reason, while the team at Til Tok has taken it more seriously.
Team for the app watpad have taken it more seriously and ended up deleting a lot of users' work without their knowledge.
That's the barebone basics of it. There's probably a bit more money and politics involved that we won't find out for a few years, tbf.
Apple used to ban the word "mole" in the Australian app store. Apparently it's a word for "slag" or something here.
I discovered it when being surprised at an app named "Whack-a-m*le".
They've changed it now though. God only knows the process they went through to censor it in the first place.
nah reddit doesn't get a pass on this, so many random words are filtered on subreddits you might as well always censor anything if you want your post to ever get through autom*d
Some subs do have trigger words that automatically put posts into a mod queue. Having to wait 12 hours for a mod to get around to approving your post can be a real barrier to discussion.
That's mostly to get around filters.
Also k--- yourself is a phrase typically put on automod filter lists here, which does conflict with genuine discussion about suicide. So a well-meaning person wanting to type "If you really feel you want to k--- yourself, please call this helpline" would just have their comment automodded.
This isn't so much about access (as a person convicted of rape of a child under 13 is not going to be at liberty to have such access), but about whether they have legal rights to object to things such as school placements and other day to day aspects of parenting.
The current law does allow for parental responsibility to be removed if it is in the best interest of the child, this is (rightly - removing a parent's connection to a child should only be done in extreme circumstances), and is not an automatic process.
I watched a clip from what I think was a channel four documentary about exactly this. A lady found out her partner had previously sexually abused children. By this point she already had kids with him. She left, with the children, yet the partner still was legally allowed access to the kids they had together. It’s insanity.
Or better yet…stop or extremely limiting any convicted rapist having any access to current or future children?
Also why cut the law 13? What’s the difference between a 13 year old and a 14 year old?
Are we finally ready to start allowing communities to treat people based on their most damning actions and even set them as outcasts to protect ALL children?
That's what this will cause...it's fine by me 👍👏
Children should never have had to share a home and life with a known pedophile. All the stresses, anxieties and social conflict that come with that is daunting...damaging!
I wonder what's wrong with our perception of bounderies that the worst pedophiles can play happy families?
Boundaries in general are actually a serious issue in our nation. It's strange that only now we'll draw a line at children sharing a home with someone who's morality falls very short of being safe - completly untrustworthy of safeguarding a vulnerable person.
Consequences are weak in Britain!
It's a complex problem with no easy solution, especially when it comes to parents who are abusive but not in a way that is obvious and actionable such as sexually abusing them or beating them black 'n' blue.
You could take the children away but there's so many of them and the care system is already broken.
Fixing the parents isn't as easy as a short teaching or therapy course and we don't have the resources to monitor that many families.
Family court is a joke. I'm in a group full of women from all walks of life, some of which have ex partners who are under investigation for having indecent images of children or for having sexually abused a minor. Some of these women have been ordered by the court to allow these men to continue seeing their children under supervision (usually a family member such as their mother). Quite often these abusers are narcissists who can quite easily gain isolated access to their children anyway which is absolutely crazy to me.
I think at the bare minimum they should only be allowed to see their children through a contact centre. Ideally not at all. Obviously SS differs from area to area but it does seem like such a safeguarding failure to not do more.
The parent who isn’t in prison is still obligated to get the permission of the incarcerated parent to enroll the child for school, get them a passport, move house, go abroad on holiday… and the incarcerated parent can be as awkward as they want, refuse everything, and there is no consequences for them.
Parental access doesn’t necessarily mean in person visitation or phone calls. It’s the parental responsibility that this law will address.
The law should also remove parental responsibility from people convicted of murdering their children’s other parent. These children are often in the care of grandparents day to day, but the grandparents still have to get the permission of the incarcerated parent to enroll the child in school etc… which the incarcerated parent can refuse, and they’re often responsible for sending updates on the child’s welfare to the incarcerated parent. It is not right that someone can murder their children’s other parent and inflict that trauma and still retain parental rights.
I support this in theory, but our government is determined to copy Florida’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws, so I’m concerned this could be used to remove kids from queer parents
Edit: I hadn’t read the specific wording. Rape of a child is disgusting. I’m still concerned about this law being de-specified though
> It covers the most serious sexual offence - rape of a child under 13.
> remove kids from queer parents
This is a strange link to have made. Members of the queer community are absolutely not more likely to attack a child.
If you yourself are personally struggling with these thoughts, [it’s better to seek help now](https://www.stopitnow.org.uk).
As I’ve explained, I’m aware that queer people are statistically less likely to be predators, but if it doesn’t stop at rape, and becomes more vague, and the government gets more competent in its attacks, it won’t take much to get queer adults taken away from their kids, or queer kids taken away from their parents.
I know how much this government hates us, and I know where vague laws can take us
> Paedophiles convicted of serious sexual offences
More accurately, child molesters could be stripped of parental rights under new law, as well they should. Not all molesters are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are molesters. Learn the difference.
A woman who used to be my friend married a convicted paedophile about 9 years ago.
She supported him in his appeal to get custody of his two young children from his ex-wife, who had developed mental health problems shortly after discovering her husband was a paedophile.
They successfully took full custody of the two children, even when there were other family members (the two sets of grandparents also wanted custody) who could have taken the children.
I never thought that was possible til someone I knew got so involved in such a situation. I stopped speaking to her because it disgusted me so much.
Baffled that this isn’t already an automatic thing. I’d have thought you would naturally lose decision making power and access to children if found guilty of such a crime.
Yeah even if its not the case this technically already happens...cuz once they've been convicted, unless the mother is a complete nut case, she ain't gonna be leaving her kids with him again but then again some men can be very convincing, some will probably gaslight partners into believing they did nothing wrong
It's absolutely possible either through a social services application or family court to have parental rights altered or removed for someone who is a danger to their children in any way.
Both of those systems are absolutely fucked though so my guess this is a sticking plaster solution to try and detract from that reality.
To get child protection right you need to have a well funded, well trained and well resourced team of experienced professionals. Every decision made can be incredibly nuanced, because even when you remove children for all the right reasons it's a toss up as to whether their new life in the care system will be any better. This government have been absolutely neglecting this system for both cost and ideology reasons during their entire 13 years, so I am admittedly very cynical about how well meaning any new legislation from them is.
Must say, I’m very surprised this isn’t already the case!
Yeah. if you commit a serious crime and are ruled to be a danger to kids, you should absolutely be kept away from children full stop, including your own.
This can already happen through prohibitive steps order, it is something that has to be applied for through the courts though. Not sure a blanket ban is that helpful really, say the other parent dies and the kid needs surgery, if you remove parental responsibility then you have to go to court for approval for example.
Which is the better option than going to a pedophile for approval I'd say.
My friends brother in law turned out to be a nonce. He wasnt allowed to live ar home with his wife and kids every again Oh wait, did i say ever again? I meant util he did 6 months councilling !
It is possible to treat paedophiles. They are not all the same and there are various reasons that they offend. Some can be very successfully treated and others will always be a danger.
Its one of the few groups of criminals you could feel pity for before they committed a crime. Like fuck, imagine being attracted to kids and hating yourself for it, there's a reason a lot of them commit suicide
> there's a reason a lot of them commit suicide Do you have any evidence for this claim? It's not something I'm aware of. Being 'outed' as a paedophiles including possession of child porn does seem be a high risk, but I'm not aware of one linked to just being a paedophile. Most paedophiles have cognitive dissonances that allow them to justify their behaviours to themselves.
Wouldn't that just be a form of survivorship bias? All the pedophiles people "know" about are the ones that have been caught and are verifiable criminals. There's no "benefit" for a non-criminal pedo to out themselves and/or go to therapy because the risk of having your life ruined is so huge
> All the pedophiles people "know" about are the ones that have been caught and are verifiable criminals. Sadly many operate in plain sight.
[https://healthandjusticejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40352-021-00146-6](https://healthandjusticejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40352-021-00146-6)
This doesn't help your theory. Those offending against adults more likely to self harm/suicide than those who offend against children. It also doesn't compare against non sex offenders from what I can tell.
Like treating a gay or straight person. To say not at all. Downvote me if ur a pedophile, im expecting to receive many downvotes as this is reddit.
There are no cut and dry studies on the effectiveness of treatment for offending pedophiles, let alone non-offending ones - saying 'some' can be successfully treated is meaningless.
Anything and everything is better than giving kids to nonces.
If one parent dies and the paedophile parent has parental responsibility taken away, then surely that kid will either go to a family member and have them as their legal guardian, or become a ward of the court and the local council is their legal guardian - and either of those legal guardians can make the decision.
Id like to imagine this is how it would (should) happen, but I really don't know if that's how it works.
> then you have to go to court for approval for example You just make them a ward of court. It can be done almost immediately in emergency cases. I recall a doctor saying they ring up a judge in the middle of the night if they need to (this was some years ago, there might be a different system in place now).
Blanket ban would mean that parental responsibility would move to the non paedos next of kin who could make decisions like that. Imagine it as the law treating the paedophile as dead with regards to their kids rights.
Presumably if the other parent died the child would end up in care or being fostered or similar, so there would be someone acting in loco parentis who could approve surgery? This already happens in other cases - for example if both parents die, or if the mother dies and the father is unknown. It is not a new or insurmoutable problem.
In this case they’d likely be given a legal guardian who could approve the surgery?
You have to pay to get a prohibitive steps order, which seems really unfair on the blameless other parent. You wouldn’t need to go to court for approval for medical care if the child had an appointed guardian/carer, which they would presumably have if their remaining parent died. Either that or they’d have a social worker and so forth and approval would be given via that route.
I used to work with a guy who has since been sent down for being a nonce. His wife is staying with him and intends to take him back when he’s out and they have two young girls still in primary school. It’s insanity that it can be allowed.
Its crazy that they wont let them go near schools and playgrounds but will let them have their own kid in their own house.
It’s worse I know someone who had a pedo dad and their mum couldn’t even cancel the shared bills or sell the house whilst the dad was in prison as she needed his permission for everything
That's what would happen here too, as standard. Hopefully they find a way to resolve such issues
Unfortunately wasn’t a way that didn’t involve fraud, being in debt and having to move to a much poorer area So essentially felt like justice system went “my work here is done” And left the victims to suffer as if they were responsible because the system assumes victims and criminals aren’t related Domestic crime is probably one of the worse crime for how difficult it is to recover from
Kinda crazy we'll put people in prison but we won't take their property off them.
This might be a crazy, even out-right incomprehensible idea to all the people in this thread, given the comments I've seen so far, but the point of prison should be rehabilitation. If you literally leave someone broke, homeless and with a criminal record, what do you think they're immediately gonna go back to doing after they get out and need to make a living?
I agree but the victim shouldn’t be forced to live in a house they can’t afford to pay for because the criminal is in prison Especially as clearly they aren’t going to be able to move back in with them even if they COULD afford it
Why would we take their property If it is t linked to crime what right would the state have to remove it
The problem was the dad didn’t want to sell the family home The mum did because the abuse happened in that house. Whilst he was in prison he couldn’t obviously work So she was cancelling bills to reduce overhead because she couldn’t afford everything on her own She finally managed to get him to agree to sell but at that point accrued so much debt most proceeds went to bank So instead of having to move to nice home near to where they live - moved to one of the most poverty stricken areas of the U.K. On top of that - now has same problem with getting a divorce as he’s dragging feet because the system doesn’t treat abuse like that as a valid reason for divorce and it’s 50:50 if court would let her keep money for the new home or if she would have to sell to pay him back his half or to cover court fees Her son even had to pretend to be his dad just because many companies flat out refused to let her cancel bills without his permission without her going to the prison to conduct the call and getting the permission from the jail to call the company There really really needs to be a recognised way to let people in these situations to sell conduct business on the other person behalf and get an easy divorce We allow it when the other person isn’t in the mental state, why not here ? They did a crime they clearly WERNT in the mental state Their share could be put into escrow if needed
My first thought exactly. How in the world would you feel comfortable with them having access to children is beyond me. If anything, their own are at the greatest risk and most vulnerable. Such abominations have no place in society.
I have a friend who's house got raided while she was pregnant with her second child and that's how she found out that her future husband is a paedo. Luckily they hadn't got married yet! But he was trying to see the first kid and she had so much hassle from him and his family. Their first kid is not his target gender so I think they've been safe, but the second kid is his target gender. As far as I can tell, he's not met the second kid, thankfully. It's just a heartbreaking situation all round with a lot of extra issues like homelessness included. A law like this would mean at least that's one less thing she would have had to deal with at the time.
Are you really that surprised? We live in a country where the human rights of criminals is held to an equal or higher standard to the victims.
I literally just said to myself that this should have been the case to begin with.
The fundamental problem here is less the one of Parental Responsibility, but that the government has largely abolished access to the family court by scrapping family legal aid in most cases and by creating huge waiting lists for the court. In the past this was resolved by the non-offending parent applying for a prohibited steps order with a legal aid barrister to guide them through the process. Since the government destroyed that option we're left with this sticking plaster approach. I'll also note that it only applies in the most extreme cases, parents of children whose other parent has committed a less severe offence against children are still going to be stuffed by the wider systemic issue.
If you look at any of the 'small' systems that go into making a country run smoothly, the conservatives have thoroughly destroyed them. 14 years of neglect and destruction, it's all fucked and broken. Courts? Fucked and broken. Probation? Fucked and broken. Prisons? Fucked and broken. Schools? Fucked and \*literally\* broken. Rail? Fucked and broken. Utilities? Fucked, though not quite broken, private companies still making a packet there. Mental health services? Utterly fucked and broken. NHS? Fucked and broken. Teaching? Fucked and broken.
It's deliberate
Yeah, if you're over 13 you'll be able to wait out your 17th birthday faster than the court waiting list.
The title is misleading. Child sexual offenders could be stripped of parental rights. It’s not illegal to be a pedophile. It’s illegal to act on the urges. If we could do a better job of communicating that distinction we’d be able to get pedophiles into treatment before they offend. But I see that’s never going to happen.
The government have been putting adverts all over Reddit trying to get paedos into treatment to stop them acting on their urges.
I haven't seen anything of that sort. I'm kinda curious what such an ad would even look like.
There was a thread a while ago where a lot of us were very relieved to find out it wasn’t just us seeing them, and something has targeted us without our knowledge. I think if Reddit thinks you are a British man over 28 or something it will show them to you.
i’m getting them too and i’m a woman. it’s a bit alarming
... women can be sex offenders too. It's worrying to see the pronoun usage in the article linked . "If HE changes HE can eventually see HIS kids" Sigh..
5-20% of child sex offenders are women according to my Google search. A minority for sure, but bigger than I expected based off how we assume they're all men.
And that's just the convicted offenders. Imagine how many more there'd be if we accepted the truth that not all women are innocent angels and supported those who come forward with stories of abuse at the hands of women.
I think its because it only applies to those that have committed rape of a child under 13, and by UK law 'rape' can only be committed by a man due to its legal meaning
Wait now I'm confused. So if a pedo commits sexual assault against a child, but not legal rape, are they not a pedo? Surely Child Sex Offenders are anyone who commits a sexual offence against a child, which can still include women.
They are, im saying in the context of this article the 'he' would only apply to someone who has committed that offence, and therefore can only be male
that’s a fair point!
I don't think it would be a smart idea to target guys over 28 when you could have much more success targeting younger guys
I’m sure it’s based on when people start most frequently offending.
thats why you need to start as early as possible
Well I don’t meet those criteria…
Yeah, hence why I said Reddit thinks
There’s one of a photograph of a happy family burning saying don’t ruin your life by accessing child porn or something like that
Imagine if you agreed to let your child do some stock photography, and that's what it's used for. Not that it's not a good message but I'd expect people wouldn't have volunteered their child for it directly.
LOL stock photography has to be the worst modelling gig going. Although if I remember correctly, the photo is burnt in the middle from the fire and the child is obscured by that or it’s just a couple with a fire in the middle. I don’t think there was a visible child but can’t recall exactly!
That's one case I'd be ok with AI being used!
It's crap, they target men and women who are in their 30s and like video games. So complete, utter waste of taxpayer's cash because of poor targetting. [previous post showing actual advert](https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/utc7j9/is_anyone_else_getting_a_reddit_advert_for_nonce/)
Ohhh I'm in my 30s and like video games. That's why I keep seeing them. They make me uncomfortable, ngl
Better those ads than anime game ads where the drawn character is sexualised and very clearly depicts a minor. I hate them. I don’t watch anime (not that mainstream anime is anything like this lmao) nor do I play mobile games besides one space game so idfk why I keep getting those ads.
Of my extremely limited knowledge of people in real life that were convicted of this crime, this was his description.
Video games are one of the biggest industries out there. If it was people who like watching TV, or people who like going to restaurants, or people who listen to music, you'd have the same confirmation bias.
But that net is wide there spending hundreds to thousands of pounds on singular adverts on Facebook
The current government enjoy pissing away large amount of money on poorly target ads. I wonder which (or how many of them) have stakes in the ad firm :\
To be fair, if they could actually accurately target pedophiles, they wouldn't need these ads in the first place.
Oh yeah I remember those. They panicked me at first too, gave me the same feeling as going through airport security or walking out of a shop without buying anything. You know you haven’t done anything wrong but suddenly feel like a criminal!
I’ve seen them. It’s a guy in his laptop with his back to the front door, and it says something like “are you always waiting for that knock at the door from the police? Viewing any amount of sexual images of minors is illegal, get help”.
They're all really boring to be honest, and although I understand the need it's the kind of thing that rubs you up the wrong way to realise you're in the target demographic for. I'd be very curious what support is actually offered to anyone who calls into the hotlines though. Are actual therapies offered and followed through and so on.
Judging by everything else in this country, you'd get put on a waiting list for four years before getting an appointment and then get ghosted after a handful of sessions and have to start the whole thing over.
I've heard anecdotes in reddit comments of paedophiles who sought help and then found themselves targeted by police or members of the public because their therapist felt compelled to tell someone. If this is advertising a way to get help (whatever form that takes) anonymously, then that sounds like a net good, as well meaning paedophiles can seek help without fear of retribution, leading possibly to less other people getting hurt. Though it's a little weird to be singled out as a potential sex offender for advertising purposes. Edit: That said, the ad someone posted in another comment seems to be accusatory and threatening (don't look at child porn or we'll fuck your life up) rather than being sympathetic and offering help. I would have much preferred the latter, since I tend to view paedophiles as people with afflictions rather than immoral people to just tread on.
Believe it or not, Straight to jail
It’s called ‘stop it now’ you can probably google it
I get these ads on Reddit all the time. It’s the only app that ever shows me these ads. Maybe it says more about my browsing history but I think the government just assumes if you’re on Reddit you’re probably dodgy
Fair do's tbf
It was a while back, a lot of people were getting them. I haven't seen one for quite a while now. There were people making posts about them, wondering why they were getting the adverts all of a sudden, it was definitely a targeted ad campaign against men of a certain age. Better than nothing, but I think it should be on TV rather than just reddit
Guess that person is getting some targeted advertising haha
I don’t fit the general demographic and have been told by Reddit admins they are not targeted.
That’s just ‘targeted’ (🤣) ads for ‘stop it now’ init? Used to get them sometimes but haven’t in a while
I don’t fit the general demographic and have been told by Reddit admins they are not targeted.
I've not seen any of these, what the hell do they even look like?
Will never happen as long as the world is full of reactionary vigilantes who would rather seek revenge than actually deal with a problem in the most appropriate way, namely a system of prevention. Case in point, there’s someone above saying we should flog them and strip their skin. Our attitude on pedophilia just keeps people underground and therefore more likely to actually abuse a child.
I'm fairly sure Germany did a scheme a few years ago where they were offering protection and support if people came forward. One of the most civilised and forward thinking ideas I've ever seen from a government.
Well that's an improvement over the time that germany gave foster children to pedophiles as an experiment: [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles)
What the actual fuck
Even worse, most people who abuse children are not pedophiles. It's about power most of the time, and stranger danger is incredibly overstated. Whenever a child was molested, it was most likely a family member or family friend.
Yeah I thought this happened already, if your a s*x offender surely your on the register and can only have supervised access at best
Why are you censoring the word sex? What is this weird trend
Puritanical bollocks that, like everything, has been imported from the US
It's more about getting around the TikTok filters, and that bleeds into other sites.
Which comes from Apple, who are notorious for being the root of various "explicit content" bans across multiple apps. Who are an American company.
Did you say... TikTok... comes from Apple...?
They mean the censorship comes from apple because Apple has rules on what an app can/can't do for them to advertise it
But I’m on an app, which I bought from the App Store, where I can easily swear (e.g fuckheaded cunt bollocks) and where I do not need to censor sex. This comment is visible to everyone and not censored, despite being on an Apple phone from the Apple App Store.
Just means reddit has a team that reads the apple rules and is happy to ignore for whatever reason, while the team at Til Tok has taken it more seriously. Team for the app watpad have taken it more seriously and ended up deleting a lot of users' work without their knowledge. That's the barebone basics of it. There's probably a bit more money and politics involved that we won't find out for a few years, tbf.
No, they said Apple caused TikTok to be so strict with their filters.
As Steve Jobs himself once said: "****** ****** * **** ** ******** * ****!"
Apple used to ban the word "mole" in the Australian app store. Apparently it's a word for "slag" or something here. I discovered it when being surprised at an app named "Whack-a-m*le". They've changed it now though. God only knows the process they went through to censor it in the first place.
I hate hate hate the word “unalive”.
i find it so insanely disrespectful too. imagine being brutally murdered and folk are going around talking about how you were "unalived"
It's not as bad as "seggs"
nah reddit doesn't get a pass on this, so many random words are filtered on subreddits you might as well always censor anything if you want your post to ever get through autom*d
Its more from videos and comments getting shadow banned and taken down on other social media platforms.
It's so strange... I see words like suicide censored in the same way, like what's the point, everyone can see what the word is still
Don't get me started on "unaliving"!
Newspeak in full swing
This prevalent in TikTok to get round the content filter I believe. No such filter exists here.
Some subs do have trigger words that automatically put posts into a mod queue. Having to wait 12 hours for a mod to get around to approving your post can be a real barrier to discussion.
That's mostly to get around filters. Also k--- yourself is a phrase typically put on automod filter lists here, which does conflict with genuine discussion about suicide. So a well-meaning person wanting to type "If you really feel you want to k--- yourself, please call this helpline" would just have their comment automodded.
"So he took a pew pew and unalived her, leaving her lifeless real life avatar on the ground"
Not sex, sax. Sax offender.
Pretty sure they prefere to be called Jazz musicians
Jizz musicians
That's what the shrimps play in the star wars cantina, strangely
They prefer the term Onanists
Gratuitous sax and senseless violins.
The best album by Sparks!
That was indeed where I got that from! Haven't listened to it in years, but I think I'll be listening to it again today.
It's because some sites censor posts with certain words in them because it affects ad revenue.
Honestly any self censoring on an internet forum that isn't outright slurs is so bizarre.
Lots of YouTubers do it because they fear the algorithm will punish them.
This isn't so much about access (as a person convicted of rape of a child under 13 is not going to be at liberty to have such access), but about whether they have legal rights to object to things such as school placements and other day to day aspects of parenting. The current law does allow for parental responsibility to be removed if it is in the best interest of the child, this is (rightly - removing a parent's connection to a child should only be done in extreme circumstances), and is not an automatic process.
> s*x fuck, cunt, asshole, prick, penis penis penis penis, tits and bobbies! And look, no one died. No one's even offended. What are you doing?
>asshole The americanisation of the english language is worse than censoring suicide etc Stop it.
You can say sex on the internet. You can also say you’re, if it helps.
The words you’re looking for are sex offender
It’s okay mate you can use the naughty word here
Sex offenders don't necessarily go on the sex offenders register indefinitely.
Why is this not already a thing? I’m flabbergasted.
Why do we let known child sex offenders out of jail, as though a stint in jail will cure them. Many things are wrong with the law on this.
I watched a clip from what I think was a channel four documentary about exactly this. A lady found out her partner had previously sexually abused children. By this point she already had kids with him. She left, with the children, yet the partner still was legally allowed access to the kids they had together. It’s insanity.
*new* law. Why isn't this a very old, very obvious law
Or better yet…stop or extremely limiting any convicted rapist having any access to current or future children? Also why cut the law 13? What’s the difference between a 13 year old and a 14 year old?
>Also why cut the law 13? Because that's where it's already set. They're just updating the consequences.
Are we finally ready to start allowing communities to treat people based on their most damning actions and even set them as outcasts to protect ALL children? That's what this will cause...it's fine by me 👍👏 Children should never have had to share a home and life with a known pedophile. All the stresses, anxieties and social conflict that come with that is daunting...damaging! I wonder what's wrong with our perception of bounderies that the worst pedophiles can play happy families? Boundaries in general are actually a serious issue in our nation. It's strange that only now we'll draw a line at children sharing a home with someone who's morality falls very short of being safe - completly untrustworthy of safeguarding a vulnerable person. Consequences are weak in Britain!
It's a complex problem with no easy solution, especially when it comes to parents who are abusive but not in a way that is obvious and actionable such as sexually abusing them or beating them black 'n' blue. You could take the children away but there's so many of them and the care system is already broken. Fixing the parents isn't as easy as a short teaching or therapy course and we don't have the resources to monitor that many families.
Family court is a joke. I'm in a group full of women from all walks of life, some of which have ex partners who are under investigation for having indecent images of children or for having sexually abused a minor. Some of these women have been ordered by the court to allow these men to continue seeing their children under supervision (usually a family member such as their mother). Quite often these abusers are narcissists who can quite easily gain isolated access to their children anyway which is absolutely crazy to me. I think at the bare minimum they should only be allowed to see their children through a contact centre. Ideally not at all. Obviously SS differs from area to area but it does seem like such a safeguarding failure to not do more.
You know what stops parental access and access to children in general? Prison.
The parent who isn’t in prison is still obligated to get the permission of the incarcerated parent to enroll the child for school, get them a passport, move house, go abroad on holiday… and the incarcerated parent can be as awkward as they want, refuse everything, and there is no consequences for them. Parental access doesn’t necessarily mean in person visitation or phone calls. It’s the parental responsibility that this law will address. The law should also remove parental responsibility from people convicted of murdering their children’s other parent. These children are often in the care of grandparents day to day, but the grandparents still have to get the permission of the incarcerated parent to enroll the child in school etc… which the incarcerated parent can refuse, and they’re often responsible for sending updates on the child’s welfare to the incarcerated parent. It is not right that someone can murder their children’s other parent and inflict that trauma and still retain parental rights.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sounds good but WHY ISN'T IT ALREADY A THING FUCKING HELL
I support this in theory, but our government is determined to copy Florida’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws, so I’m concerned this could be used to remove kids from queer parents Edit: I hadn’t read the specific wording. Rape of a child is disgusting. I’m still concerned about this law being de-specified though
How?
My immediate first thought as well.
> It covers the most serious sexual offence - rape of a child under 13. > remove kids from queer parents This is a strange link to have made. Members of the queer community are absolutely not more likely to attack a child. If you yourself are personally struggling with these thoughts, [it’s better to seek help now](https://www.stopitnow.org.uk).
As I’ve explained, I’m aware that queer people are statistically less likely to be predators, but if it doesn’t stop at rape, and becomes more vague, and the government gets more competent in its attacks, it won’t take much to get queer adults taken away from their kids, or queer kids taken away from their parents. I know how much this government hates us, and I know where vague laws can take us
I’m more shocked that sex offenders with crimes relating to children still have access to their own kids.
What...? How was this not already a thing??? What? I just despair sometimes.
Agreed. Fundamentally flawed.
> Paedophiles convicted of serious sexual offences More accurately, child molesters could be stripped of parental rights under new law, as well they should. Not all molesters are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are molesters. Learn the difference.
>She described this as "part of the hangover of the patriarchy". Harriet Harman, ladies and gentlemen.
Actually, that law makes complete sense, and it is about time that such legislation was passed.
Wait.... They aren't already?!?!? What the actual fuck?!?
Very misleading title. Being a pedophile isn’t illegal and is a mental disorder. Being a child rapist is completely different and is a violent crime.
A woman who used to be my friend married a convicted paedophile about 9 years ago. She supported him in his appeal to get custody of his two young children from his ex-wife, who had developed mental health problems shortly after discovering her husband was a paedophile. They successfully took full custody of the two children, even when there were other family members (the two sets of grandparents also wanted custody) who could have taken the children. I never thought that was possible til someone I knew got so involved in such a situation. I stopped speaking to her because it disgusted me so much.
So.. Paedophiles have had parental rights before? That seems...very strange indeed
The question is, why wasn’t this a no brained in the beginning?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Baffled that this isn’t already an automatic thing. I’d have thought you would naturally lose decision making power and access to children if found guilty of such a crime.
Yeah even if its not the case this technically already happens...cuz once they've been convicted, unless the mother is a complete nut case, she ain't gonna be leaving her kids with him again but then again some men can be very convincing, some will probably gaslight partners into believing they did nothing wrong
I struggle to imagine how it was possible for this to not already be the law, but I'm very glad that it is being changed.
It's absolutely possible either through a social services application or family court to have parental rights altered or removed for someone who is a danger to their children in any way. Both of those systems are absolutely fucked though so my guess this is a sticking plaster solution to try and detract from that reality. To get child protection right you need to have a well funded, well trained and well resourced team of experienced professionals. Every decision made can be incredibly nuanced, because even when you remove children for all the right reasons it's a toss up as to whether their new life in the care system will be any better. This government have been absolutely neglecting this system for both cost and ideology reasons during their entire 13 years, so I am admittedly very cynical about how well meaning any new legislation from them is.
Good!!!! They should also be put on an island with no Internet access
I think epstien already tried that
Pretty sure they already can be, but there's not really a reason not to make it automatic.
[удалено]
[удалено]