A terrible case

[gatso]

Well you answered if he was inside he wouldn't be touching kids, implication if he wasn't he would be. I imagine he's subject to the same scrutiny whether he goes to prison or not.

so no point in ever locking up nonces unless it's until they die because they'll be under the same scrutiny when they come out as if they hadn't gone in at all?

[TheChipPrince]

18k is helluva lot of money for some, while I don't agree with taking the money I can certainly understand some doing so

[EvilPie]

Just be careful calling the parents scumbags because it's just possible that they're not and they did what they felt was best for their child.

a scary thought is that it's also quite possible that the teacher thought he was doing what was best for the child

Definitely. But their primary goal should be the protection of their child and if they have done that then fair play to them.

It may sound harsh but if I had a child I would do everything I could to protect it even if it put others at risk. My child would my 100% first priority and everything else can gtfo.

It isn't their job to see this person behind bars and on the offenders register. That is the job of the justice system.

All these campaigners saying they are disgusting make me sick. If these parents had decided to go to court it wouldn't be them that were faced with a top notch scumbag lawyer posing all kinds of stressful questions it would've been the child.

Seriously if you had a child who had been through all that would you want to put them through even more by having to be questioned about it?

Obviously you'd want the offender behind bars but if the justice system can't lock up a guy who's actually pleaded guilty why would you make it the job of your child to see to it that justice is done?

[Bongo]

Well you answered if he was inside he wouldn't be touching kids, implication if he wasn't he would be. I imagine he's subject to the same scrutiny whether he goes to prison or not.

so no point in ever locking up nonces unless it's until they die because they'll be under the same scrutiny when they come out as if they hadn't gone in at all?

That isn't what I'm saying at all.

He's been given a 3 year course with the intention of stopping him offending again. If that works (I have no idea on success rates) then that seems far better to me than him spending 6 months inside.

[gatso]

Seriously if you had a child who had been through all that would you want to put them through even more by having to be questioned about it?

that's a tricky one to answer really. I don't think you can tell how you'd react but I'm pretty damn sure I wouldn't go and see the guy for a payoff

[Bongo]

Just be careful calling the parents scumbags because it's just possible that they're not and they did what they felt was best for their child.

a scary thought is that it's also quite possible that the teacher thought he was doing what was best for the child

Definitely. But their primary goal should be the protection of their child and if they have done that then fair play to them.

It may sound harsh but if I had a child I would do everything I could to protect it even if it put others at risk. My child would my 100% first priority and everything else can gtfo.

It isn't their job to see this person behind bars and on the offenders register. That is the job of the justice system.

All these campaigners saying they are disgusting make me sick. If these parents had decided to go to court it wouldn't be them that were faced with a top notch scumbag lawyer posing all kinds of stressful questions it would've been the child.

Seriously if you had a child who had been through all that would you want to put them through even more by having to be questioned about it?

Obviously you'd want the offender behind bars but if the justice system can't lock up a guy who's actually pleaded guilty why would you make it the job of your child to see to it that justice is done?

I read once that a high proportion of kids who are abused become abusers themselves. If that's true then it seems that the parents actions are indefensible on 3 counts:

1) They leave the original offender free to abuse again.
2) They leave their child with a higher chance of become an abuser and no extra help - which (3) also leaves children of the future a bit more likely to be abused.

[gatso]

That isn't what I'm saying at all.

He's been given a 3 year course with the intention of stopping him offending again. If that works (I have no idea on success rates) then that seems far better to me than him spending 6 months inside.

ah. you came across as if you were saying 'sod it, let him off'

prison and a course please imo. he needs punishing as well as rehabilitating

[EvilPie]

Seriously if you had a child who had been through all that would you want to put them through even more by having to be questioned about it?

that's a tricky one to answer really. I don't think you can tell how you'd react but I'm pretty damn sure I wouldn't go and see the guy for a payoff

But if your only possible way to relocate and get away from it all for a fresh start at a new school was to take 18k from the offender?

I'm not saying this is what happened btw I'm just throwing in a possibility.

[EvilPie]

I read once that a high proportion of kids who are abused become abusers themselves. If that's true then it seems that the parents actions are indefensible on 3 counts:

1) They leave the original offender free to abuse again.
2) They leave their child with a higher chance of become an abuser and no extra help - which (3) also leaves children of the future a bit more likely to be abused.

1) They didn't leave him free. He went to court and pleaded guilty but got let off. It was the justice system that left him free to abuse again.

2) How do we know they haven't sought help? Maybe that's what they're using some of the 18k for, private help?

3) Not their problem unless it's their child who is the one doing the abusing. As I said in (2) we don't know that they haven't sought help.

[gatso]

actually I've decided. I'd take the 18k then report him

[EvilPie]

actually I've decided. I'd take the 18k then report him

Lol. That was my first thought

[Colchester Kev]

TBH if it was my kid that he abused, he wouldn't have had enough time to reach for his wallet !

[EvilPie]

TBH if it was my kid that he abused, he wouldn't have had enough time to reach for his wallet !

Not knocking this Kev because I'm of the same opinion but is this in the kid's best interests?

It might make you feel better but is it going to help the child's rehab if his dad's locked away for 20 years for murder or 2 years for GBH or whatever?

[Bongo]

I read once that a high proportion of kids who are abused become abusers themselves. If that's true then it seems that the parents actions are indefensible on 3 counts:

1) They leave the original offender free to abuse again.
2) They leave their child with a higher chance of become an abuser and no extra help - which (3) also leaves children of the future a bit more likely to be abused.

1) They didn't leave him free. He went to court and pleaded guilty but got let off. It was the justice system that left him free to abuse again.

2) How do we know they haven't sought help? Maybe that's what they're using some of the 18k for, private help?

3) Not their problem unless it's their child who is the one doing the abusing. As I said in (2) we don't know that they haven't sought help.

To quote the article:

"His offences only came to light four years later when the youngster spoke to others about what had happened."

So it seems that they let him go free and if they did seek help for their child it was only after 4 years.

[thetank]

Sometimes I think the judges get backhanders from the papers to give lenient sentences to sex offenders. It makes for good copy.