Girls locked in their bedroom every night.....

I would find it very hard to not warn people in some way if I knew a paedophile was living locally and I don't think phoeneix's friend was a loose cannon but a caring woman with a conscience [sp] who had been put in a difficult position. I also thank p for giving that side of the story to us because it would be easy to dismiss it as the press sensationalising something yet again. You won't be banned phoenix; if you were [and you won't be] it would be 'one out, all out'! I've known of several paedophiles and the lengths they go to are unbelieveable [eg marrying women with children/opening shops where children are likely to visit]. It's quite terrifying .

It was not just reported in the 'redtops' * jingl*.

I have only posted a link from ITV news.

No excuses can be made for this and I can understand why the teaching assistant said what she did.
'Loose cannon' seems an extreme remark about someone who obviously cares about local children.
The information may have been available through 'Sarah's Law' and probably it should have been kept confidential; however, she probably felt it was worth the risk of a reprimand than having a child in her school or neighbourhood in danger from this man.

Too many secrets have caused so many vile things to happen to children over the years.

I do realise that the public could react in a way that is unlawful as a result of such information being in the public domain but is that a risk worth taking? Presumably this family have now moved to another town where, unless someone knows, local parents will be totally oblivious to any potential danger from this man. Presumably social workers consider he is still a danger to children as his stepchildren have to be locked up safely every night. If he is still a problem and cannot target them will he target another child? That is what the SW will have to weigh up.
Good post Mishap re doing the job so long that what is right or wrong could become distorted.
If he is no longer a danger to children then why do these two stepchildren have to be imprisoned every night?

The situation appears to have been mismanaged imo as are so many cases where the truth is swept under the carpet.

For anyone who thinks this is an acceptable sutuation, try to put yourself in that grandmother's or natural father's shoes.

phoenix No, I am sure they won't ban you. They already know you're a daffy old bugger. . (See Gransnet Guide to the Internet thread)

(I'm out of 'ere!)

The crux of the matter here is that the court clearly consider this man to be a continued danger to the girls, and yet they are allowed to remain in the home with him present.

A representative of a charity involved in paedophile cases (?Lucy Faithful Trust) said that sometimes this sort of behaviour is a feature of young manhood and some "grow out of it" and are therefore considered as safe within the family as they mature. If this were the case here, these "safeguards" would not be needed.

What on earth has been said to these girls about the locking in? They will know this does not happen to their peers. Have they been told that he is a danger to them and why? Or has some story been concocted?

There is nothing good about this situation.

EXPLANATORY!

Nellie the person concerned is very far from being a "loose cannon", the discussion/conversation is very hard to describe without giving more information, but please be assured that it was not the sort of "gossip at the school gate" conversation.

As my original post was removed (but with a very kind exploratory note by HQ) so I'm sure that you will understand my reticence re any further information.

I see that my first post on this thread has been deleted. Sorry GNHQ to have put you/us in this position, however I stand by what I said, and would like to confirm that I have NOT named anyone in this, although I could have done.

I wouldn't be surprised if I was banned!

jingl re you post of 21.55, I fully appreciate your point, but the conversation came about following an "incident" witnessed by myself and another neighbour.

The friend/teaching assistant was extremely concerned re the breach of the T's & C's and her total focus was on the children. I must say that she made her point totally within the law/guidelines on such matters. It is very difficult for me to give any further explanation, but I will say that J, the teaching assistant, was in my opinion in no way in breach of any regulations.

There doesn't seem to be any need to think about foster care. The girls have a father and a grandmother who are concerned about them. Either of them should be considered to care for them before fostering becomes an option. I can't see anything positive about this arrangement, or anything to justify it. It sounds completely mad to me.

Phoenix That is information which gives a clearer picture but we probably should not know about this.

However I worry for the privacy of the children if a school assistant is such a loose cannon, what else is she going to say.

The ITV news comment was certainly less sensationalised than the Daily Mirror.

What were the courts thinking of though! They are the final arbiters of these issues.

Wonder why it'S only been reported by red-tops. Perhaps we will hear more in coming days. I will listen to the item on PM when it's up.

Hands up who wants to live with a convicted peadophile?

It's not just odd, it's abnormal and unjustifiable. IMO.

Just says they are under thirteen. No, there won't be anything normal in their lives.

soon I don't know if foster care would be better. That too, could be traumatic.

It's all very odd.

How on earth can these poor girls lead a normal life while all this is going on? Do we know their ages?

The situation is beyond bizarre. What time of night does the door get locked? When are they allowed out in the morning?

They won't be able to indulge in normal activities for schoolchildren like having sleep-overs.

I just don't understand how a mother could put her children through such turmoil.

Foster care is worse jingl?

x posts Mishap.

You can't blame people for the moral outrage. It's a weird situation.

Perhaps the authorities have decided this is the way to make the best of a bad job.

Do you really think that these two very young girls should have been asked whether they wanted to be locked into their bedroom every night, just so they could stay with their mum (and her paedophile husband) jingl?

From what I heard on the radio this was a plan that was organised by a whole team of people and endorsed by the court.

I have long felt that social workers dealing with child abuse should only do so for a period of a few years and then move on to a different branch of SW. I really do believe that it is impossible to remain objective and sane in that profession for an extended time. The sort of distorted thinking that results in the plan that has been put together is a prime example.

Clearly the overwhelming consideration here was an attempt to keep these girls with their mother - but that mother was acting irresponsibly and neglecting the needs of her children by bringing this man into the house. Whilst I would endorse that where possible all attempts should be made to keep children and natural parents together where possible, sometimes this clouds judgement. Whatever had been decided for these girls would have fallen far short the ideal; but this arrangement does appear to be out of order. This man is clearly seen as a danger to the girls - hence the locking in the bedroom. There is no way that this can be safely monitored; or that it can be acceptable for those girls.

I do not blame the grandmother for blowing the gaffe on this - she must have felt completely powerless and so very worried.

What if the situation changes, petallus?

One thing is for sure, all this publicity and moral outrage isn't going to help the children.

I don't think a teaching assistant should have been talking to a membRe of the public about the family's situation. That is terrible.

Sorry phoenix.

I wonder why the girls' father doesn't have his daughters living with him. Maybe we don't know enough. I wonder if the girls have been asked what they want. I think they probably have been, and want to stay with their mum and this man. Maybe we have to trust the social workers and other professionals involved?

....and how is this arrangement supposed to contribute to enabling the child he abused to recover from what he did to her? Doesn't exactly convey the message that her account of the abuse was believed, so other children should be protected from him, when she is aware that he is being allowed to have close supervised contact with more girls in his target range. Unlikely to help her to feel more secure and safe from him, either, if he can persuade the authorities to let him do this.