Family and Friends Forum

It's very easy to form an opinion on these offences and the men who commit them. My own opinion wasn't dissimilar from that of the majority of society prior to the knock. I did always have compassion for the family of the person but if I'm honest I didn't have it for the man himself.

I've always looked at homeless people with empathy and the knowledge that something had happened in their lives to bring them to that point. I've known people who have committed other crimes and my head will automatically start to look for a reason as to why the person has done it if I can't reconcile the crime with the person. With these offences the only explanation society offers is they are a p word so from a ss perspective they are and that attraction to children (that they think must be there) is too great a risk for them to take.
This is obviously just my opinion, I'd be interested to hear other people's xxx

I know a person who worked in the prison education system - she worked in all category establishments and all types of crime (incl sex offenders).

She had a huge empathy and said their stories were very sad as they spoke about the period of time when their crime happened. Also the shame they felt, the victims etc. definitely not what people think / these people should be locked up with a thrown away key etc.

I too feel for homeless etc, this jouney has made me into someone less judgmental and more compassionate for sure.

I do agree sex offenders have to be monitored, but it's how it's done that's the thing. We read on the forum about inappropriate attitudes from officials which is unhelpful and cruel on a rehabilitation journey.

I agree people should be monitored but it doesn't quite make sense thier ways of doing things.



I don't understand how you can commit an offence and then the damage/harm to that other person is done.

If the person says not guilty we wait around for years with no monitoring no support but then if found guilty gets the standard punishment for that crime.

If the person says guilty at the start they get the discounts therefore less punishment less SOR SHPO less probation/sentance.

But the harm/damage to the person never changed.

My person if said guilty at the start he would have probably nearly been at the end of his involvement with the authorities and there had been no monitoring but now it's only just begining and for extra now.

surely the crime dictates the risk of how long you should be monitored not getting less because you admitted you caused harm the crime is the crime. I'm not saying my person should get less if he's nothing to hide then it's fine but I don't think you should get less because you admired guilt

I have no idea if that makes sense to you but it does in my head!

Post deleted by user

Cherry,

I signposted my sw to the education for professionals through Lucy Faithfull and was told that she'd have a look but the local authority definitely wouldn't fund it (face palm)! I sent her loads of research I'd done myself on the actual rates of reoffending or those who go on to contact offending and about the risk tools used by probation and visor as she wasn't familiar with them.
How can they provide support or make informed risk assessments when they don't have a rounded understanding of these crimes?



Dragonmama,

It is so frustrating. Find as much information as you can and bombard them with it. I know your local authority are an age behind mine but surely someone has to have some sense within the department.
Maybe try to find some case studies that are similar to your situation and are being used as examples of good practice elsewhere and ask for their thoughts on them xxx

Unfortunately social care have a responsibility to protect children. We all seem to think our own person is 'safe' and it's all a 'mistake' but some of these men aren't. Social services have to act as if they are all p's because they don't know who is and who isn't

Using the p word as a blanket isn't helpful in terms of risk as what a P actually is isn't half the people on here interms of a medical diagnosis. Yes they Ofcourse initally don't know who is and who's not a risk however unless they are forthcoming with an independent risk assessment they are treating everyone the same rather than funding a vital assessment. I'd/family would be happy finding an assessment if ss would agree which is acceptable but they don't they just blanket people so what the point it could be £1000s down the pan when there are finiancial pressures.

That's a good point Summer in terms of risk assessment funding. It would be interesting to see the cost of keeping people on cin and cpp plans long term vs actually funding independent risk assessments for families wishing to stay together.
I am fortunate to have a decent amount of time before we go back to ss due to circumstances so during this time I plan to save to fund an assessment as I feel it's important for me to make an informed decision.

I apologise for bringing the word into the thread but I was trying to voice the opinion society offers for sw to base their views on, I didn't mean to offend anyone xxx

Post deleted

I am aware they give shorter sentences to benefit themselves if time and money, but why does a shorter sentance change the terms of risk you are ie monitoring risk length if the crime was the same.

The other day I read a man had sexually assaulted a school kid on a bus and it was caught on camera and so he pled guilty he got less than most of the people on here ie he got a community order and less monitoring becasue it's a community order it doesn't seem right to me.

either we are treating people as risks or we are thinking of them a ms a financial burden to the justice system.

I get until ss know more about the individual they have to treat them with a blanket but they don't get to know them perhaps what lead to the situation nor understand what life might me like for the family given the Situation. The term professional curiosity is not something I have experienced from social workers becase it's just what is easier! There will always be a risk with any adult and their involvement with a child and they can never negate all risk but depending on social worker will be what they perceive whereas that shouldn't be the case it should be more standardised.