"You have left your children home alone with a paedophile."

[Bells]

So, are we supposed to believe that the police and DOCS, who are sworn to serve and protect (especially children), supposedly knew this pedophile was a member of this family and raping the underage daughter and that they simply waited until the mother was hospitalized during her pregnancy before telling her about it, arresting the pedophile, removing the kids, and blaming her?

If not, give us the scenario as you see it.

We are talking about a Department who knowingly and willingly allowed a young girl to remain in a home where she was being starved to death over a period of months. The child ultimately died. And she was not the only one. This is the same Department that allowed a baby to remain in an abusive household, and they knew the abuse was happening. The child ultimately died before he was even 2 years of age, from the shocking abuse he was made to suffer for all of his short life.

I think it's not that we should expect you to believe it. It is that we are just not surprised by this organisation anymore.

In an ideal world, maybe the one you live in, this department would be perfect. But they are not. So to absolve themselves of any responsibility, they blame the mother. That is why they are being investigated again.

 

[Bells]

The point is: How well did she really know him? How hard did she try? Checking out every single person is ridiculous, but the guy she was spreading her legs for is not, and the guy she made an intimate part of her family even more so. Obviously. As far as "getting carded", it goes like this .... while scrounging around in her purse, she pulls out her license and says, "Ugh, the photo on my license makes me look hideous ... what's yours look like?" She looks at his, he looks at hers. Maybe people don't do this anymore. If I was a woman, I'd check out who I was spreading my legs for and who I was allowing to join my family.

What do you think looking at his license would have achieved. She could have looked at his license and his passport and every single other official document she could find and she could call the police and say to them 'this individual is living with me now'.. even though she would have no reason to do so.

What you are not quite grasping here is that even if she did that, the Police are under no obligation to inform her that he is a paedophile.

Do you understand now?

She could call the Police and DOCS and tell them that, and they are not under any obligation to inform her that he is a paedophile.

Quite the contrary.

They knew he was a paedophile and they knew he was in a relationship with her and living with them. They knew he had fathered more children with her. Here is the kicker. They not only still didn't tell her, but they did wait until she was not at home to act.

So she could have taken his official papers to the police and requested information and they would not be obligated to tell her. They knew he was living with her and her daughter and they still did not act until years later, after she was forced to go to hospital with pregnancy complications.

Is it really that hard to comprehend?

 

[Tiassa]

Repugnance on parade

Bells

It is a strange phenomenon we witness. What you have presented, if the media report is accurate, is one of those clear-cut cases that could be alternately described as a bungle, clusterfuck, or civil atrocity. The facts on record seem undeniable: the local authority has fucked up, and badly.

From this point, we enter a difficult consideration. To the one, when a person or collective is aware of one's own error, a common response is to mitigate their self-criticism by blaming someone else. This is human. To the other, these humans happen to be part of the civil authority, which makes the practical ramifications of such conduct more complicated. That is, my daughter trying to blame the neighbor kids for certain havoc they wrought together is a similar process, but nobody saw their family split up, or faced possible prosecution for a gash in the wall or a toilet clogged by a plastic toilet paper roller bar.

The authorities, in trying to deflect their own guilt are screwing this woman and her family, perverting justice, and generally making a difficult situation worse.

One would think they ought to be held to account not only for their negligence, but also the cruelty of their cowardice in dealing with the situation. Given the number of people involved in this disaster, there is clearly a patina of mean spirit about the actions of the authorities. This is unacceptable, and yet another contribution to widespread cynicism of growing appeal among people.

Still, some of the reaction to this story is a curiosity of its own. I have noticed that for some, the point is judgment. And for all the cynicism about government, many people prefer, if given the choice, to despise an individual. Government is faceless, and for all the people who make it up, it is a much more personal, and therefore gratifying judgment to condemn the individual. We see, in this thread, that some are so given to this gratification of judgment, that they are willing to ignore the facts on record in order to effect such an outcome. Their priority is entirely internal and selfish.

This is, of course, hardly constructive. One would not be wrong to question the honesty or functionality of such priorities. And though we might be inclined, according to the rules, to refrain from naming such behavior or properly attributing its conductor, we need not afford it the respect of pretending its decency or utility.

Perhaps the facts on record are mistaken, but one should demonstrate that point true before proceeding with the concomitant moral judgments. That we cannot give voice to the full truth of our disgust does not mean such petty priorities and the outcomes they inspire are not, in fact, disgustung and useless.

Such quick, preordained, and desperate judgments tell us more about the judges than anyone, or anything, else.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Wow.

 

[Cifo]

Bells,

1. You have never grasped the concept of her need to know who she spread her legs for and allowed to join her family. Let's say he kidnapped her 9 yo daughter instead of raping her. She goes to the police and says that John Smith did it. They pull out all the photos of every John Smith they know ... every John Smith in the world, but he's not there because he's really Bill Jones. Now she's in the position of describing him physically —— as if he were a perfect stranger. Get it now??

2. You need to back up your claims. The police knew this, they allowed that to happen, etc, etc. I have searched for more information on this story, but have found none. All articles on this repeat the same facts verbatim.

3. Last I knew, you people live in a democracy. You people need to fix your problems.

4. The article you referenced is incomplete and confusing. It cites more than one source, and it is very unclear as to the time line of events and who knew what and when.

5. Now you're talking about other cases, again without references. So again, please provide references, otherwise, this is simply electronic gossip. I'm not saying these things don't happen or never happened, but you need to show that they do happen and did happen.

6. Perhaps most importantly, tell us what this woman can do to prevent such a thing from happening again.

7. I am not clear on the concept that women think they can simply spread their legs for anyone and/or allow them to join their family, but it's up to the government to tell them all about the strangers in their midsts. This concept is very, very fuzzy for me. She wants to run her own life, but she wants to be a kept woman, of sorts — ie, have a safety net below her. This type of concept of life is adolescent, not adult.

 

[Bells]

Bells,

1. You have never grasped the concept of her need to know who she spread her legs for and allowed to join her family. Let's say he kidnapped her 9 yo daughter instead of raping her. She goes to the police and says that John Smith did it. They pull out all the photos of every John Smith they know ... every John Smith in the world, but he's not there because he's really Bill Jones. Now she's in the position of describing him physically —— as if he were a perfect stranger. Get it now??

Ah. And that is the issue for you, isn't it?

She "spread her legs" for another man. Therefore she must be held responsible for not knowing that that man was a paedophile.

You expect her to know something she could have no way of knowing. Absolutely none.

Effectively calling her a slut does not mean that she is guilty. She has done nothing wrong except fall in love. The authorities, who were monitoring him would have known and chose not to tell her.

But hey, for you, she's some kind of slut, so she should somehow be held accountable.

2. You need to back up your claims. The police knew this, they allowed that to happen, etc, etc. I have searched for more information on this story, but have found none. All articles on this repeat the same facts verbatim.

I see. I take it you missed this part of the article:

Police said those on the child protection register were required to tell police their address, where they work, travel plans, whether they have contact with children and the details of their car.

The commander of the sex crimes squad Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec said there was almost 100 per cent compliance with legislation.

Now, having said this, DOCS seemed to know he was a paedophile, living with her and had children in his care. How could they have known this?

3. Last I knew, you people live in a democracy. You people need to fix your problems.

"You people"? Who do you think you're speaking to?

You have effectively accused a woman who became involved with a man a slut, using words such as "spreading her legs". This has nothing to do with "democracy". What it does have a lot to do with is a Government Department that has failed terribly in the past and continues to fail. Horror stories from DOCS in NSW are now a monthly feature. This failure is not a one off and in most of the cases where they have consistently failed to protect the children, they have tried to either cover it up (to the point of using white out on documents) or blamed the parent, sometimes when the parent were not to blame.

Your version of fixing the problem is to ignore the total failure of DOCS and blame the mother.

You have consistently claimed that she could have gone to the police. But you have also consistently failed to realise that even if she had done so, the police would have no obligation to tell her. In face, they chose to not tell her. They told the guy's ex, but they chose to not tell her. Now, what this indicates quite clearly is that this man was being monitored (after all, if they went to the trouble of telling his ex, he was being monitored).

DOCS would have been made aware and they also chose to say nothing until it was too late.. which is almost to be expected from DOCS.

4. The article you referenced is incomplete and confusing. It cites more than one source, and it is very unclear as to the time line of events and who knew what and when.

Which article? I have provided plenty in this thread to show how DOCS consistently fails.

Now, can you tell me how DOCS would have known that he was a paedophile?

5. Now you're talking about other cases, again without references. So again, please provide references, otherwise, this is simply electronic gossip. I'm not saying these things don't happen or never happened, but you need to show that they do happen and did happen.

I have provided countless of links in this thread. They are the underlined bits in the posts. I would suggest you learn to click on it and read it before you accuse me failing to provide any sources.

6. Perhaps most importantly, tell us how what this woman can do to prevent such a thing from happening again.

There is nothing she can do to prevent it from happening again. What will prevent it from happening again is if the laws change and the police are then required to inform new partners.

I would have thought that would have been quite clear.

7. I am not clear on the concept that women think they can simply spread their legs for anyone and/or allow them to join their family, but it's up to the government to tell them all about the strangers in their midsts. This concept is very, very fuzzy for me. She wants to run her own life, but she wants to be a kept woman, of sorts — ie, have a safety net below her. This type of concept of life is adolescent, not adult.

It should be up to those in charge of monitoring sex offenders, to tell potential partners of said offenders that the individual is a sex offender.

Now, you seem to have this issue that this woman has had sex with another man outside of marriage. And you have decided to blame her for the Department's failure as a result of her having had sex, or as you quaintly put it, "spread her legs" and being a "kept woman". You obviously have some issues with women in general, if your comments in this thread are to be taken at face value.

The only safety net that would ensure this does not happen again is if the authorities are required to inform potential partners... Because at the moment, she could have married this man and nothing would have been said to her, because the law does not require such disclosure.

 

[Light Travelling]

Bells,

1. You have never grasped the concept of her need to know who she spread her legs for and allowed to join her family. Let's say he kidnapped her 9 yo daughter instead of raping her. She goes to the police and says that John Smith did it. They pull out all the photos of every John Smith they know ... every John Smith in the world, but he's not there because he's really Bill Jones. Now she's in the position of describing him physically —— as if he were a perfect stranger. Get it now??

You are clearly approaching this from an incredibly sexist point of view. This is the same mind-set that finds rape victims guilty of 'leading their rapists on' by wearing proactive clothing etc.

Your comments are views of someone who clearly has little or no experience of living in the real world with real people and their real everyday life problems.

What if she hadn’t “spread her legs”, (what a turn of phrase), but what if she hadn’t , what if she was just friends with him – would that change your attitude. Is it that she had sex with him that you find disturbing?

What if they were just friends or if he lived next door or was the boyfriend of her sister or another close friend. Would you suggest that every woman with kids should take the names / passports of every single man to enter their lives in any way to the police. You would need to double the size of the police force just to cope with the demand????

 

[Cifo]

I'm going out of order here:

4.

I have provided plenty in this thread to show how DOCS consistently fails.

5.

I have provided countless of links in this thread. They are the underlined bits in the posts. I would suggest you learn to click on it and read it before you accuse me failing to provide any sources.

Bells, thank you for correcting this misunderstanding. I saw the underlining as emphasis, I'm accustomed to links being blue, purple or red. I have now read these articles, and I see that the NSW citizenry and their government have a serious problem protecting endangered children.

1.

Ah. And that is the issue for you, isn't it? She "spread her legs" for another man.

Wow, "another man"?? Trust me, I am in no way jealous. It could have been some woman she met and allowed to be part of her family who turns out to be a wacko who kidnaps kids and pretends they're her own. Same thing. Or let's say that this new female family member is a pedophile. They exist ... I know because I've seen it.

And, "slut"?? — I don't call people names, I describe what they do. She spread her legs for him; she made him part of her family. I think of spreading one's legs as an intimate act, perhaps the most intimate act for a woman and , according to you, all the NSW women have "absolutely" (your word) no way of knowing who they're spreading their legs for. People [should] exercise caution based on the intimacy of the relationship.

Question: If she was habitually spreading her legs for him, even though they weren't living together, would it still be the government's responsibility to inform her that she's "doing it" with a pedophile?

2. The general statement by police about the responsibilities of people on the child protection register does not say that this guy told the police the truth. As I said, the referenced article is incomplete, and I've found no other info. The DOCS seems to have learned about him while investigating the yelling at the toddler. HOWEVER, they may have known for several years that he lived there and told the mother that she mustn't leave her children alone in his care. As I've said, the article does not say who knew what and when.

3.

Who do you think you're speaking to?

I think I'm talking about adult citizens, and I think you're one of them, who know how to petition their government for the redress of grievances.

tell me how DOCS would have known that he was a paedophile?

Again, it makes the most sense to me that, while investigating the yelling at the toddler, they learned of his existence in the family and his name, and they checked the child protection register. In the meantime, the woman checked into the hospital, where they inform her that she's left her children home with a pedophile [and DOCS has had him arrested and the children placed elsewhere]. This is my conjecture because the referenced article is incomplete. In fact, it fails to supply the names of these people, even the offender, so searching for more info is difficult.

6.

There is nothing she can do to prevent it from happening again. What will prevent it from happening again is if the laws change and the police are then required to inform new partners.

I suggest that the citizens in this somewhat lawless corner of the developed world petition their government for redress of grievances. And, as I said, let's not limit this to partners, but include anyone living with others.

The bottom line is that the citizens of NSW need to implement changes in their government. Posting this on a science forum won't help much; we're not the government. Sex offender monitoring systems that do the job properly include active, random monitoring of situations that offenders involve themselves (home, neighborhood, work, recreation, etc).

 

[Bells]

1. Wow, "another man"?? Trust me, I am in no way jealous. It could have been some woman she met and allowed to be part of her family who turns out to be a wacko who kidnaps kids and pretends they're her own. Same thing. Or let's say that this new female family member is a pedophile. They exist ... I know because I've seen it.

I did not mean it in the sense that you were jealous. More as the sense that you do not approve of her "spreading her legs", in that you see her as being somewhat loose. You have no idea of this woman's sexual history, so claiming she's "spreading her legs" is quite astounding.

And, "slut"?? — I don't call people names, I describe what they do. She spread her legs for him; she made him part of her family. I think of spreading one's legs as an intimate act, perhaps the most intimate act for a woman and , according to you, all the NSW women have "absolutely" (your word) no way of knowing who they're spreading their legs for. People [should] exercise caution based on the intimacy of the relationship.

You are effectively saying that all women should be contacting the police before they commence a relationship with a man, just in case. I don't know about where you live, but in the real world, it does not work that way.

Privacy laws in NSW and the way in which the laws around the register work is to ensure that won't be vigilantes out to harm anyone on that list. Therefore, the police are not supposed to confirm or deny if someone is on that list. In short, there is absolutely no way for a woman to know if she is dating a sex offender unless he tells her or the police inform her.

At the moment, there is a push in NSW to give the police the right to inform potential partners that the other is on the register.

Question: If she was habitually spreading her legs for him, even though they weren't living together, would it still be the government's responsibility to inform her that she's "doing it" with a pedophile?

What in the hell is it with you and the term "spreading her legs". You make it sound like she is a slut.

And yes. The push in NSW is to have the police inform any potential partner that the other is on that register and is a convicted paedophile (as one example).

2. The general statement by police about the responsibilities of people on the child protection register does not say that this guy told the police the truth. As I said, the referenced article is incomplete, and I've found no other info. The DOCS seems to have learned about him while investigating the yelling at the toddler. HOWEVER, they may have known for several years that he lived there and told the mother that she mustn't leave her children alone in his care. As I've said, the article does not say who knew what and when.

Okay. DOCS does not normally investigate parents for yelling at their children unless there is an underlying reason to investigate. We are talking about a department that routinely leave children in abusive households. Do you really think they will investigate the mother for yelling at her children?

If that was the case, then every single parent would be investigated at some point or other.

I think I'm talking about adult citizens, and I think you're one of them, who know how to petition their government for the redress of grievances.

/Facepalm..

Again, it makes the most sense to me that, while investigating the yelling at the toddler, they learned of his existence in the family and his name, and they checked the child protection register. In the meantime, the woman checked into the hospital, where they inform her that she's left her children home with a pedophile [and DOCS has had him arrested and the children placed elsewhere]. This is my conjecture because the referenced article is incomplete. In fact, it fails to supply the names of these people, even the offender, so searching for more info is difficult.

While it might make more sense to you, DOCS does not really investigate parents for yelling at their children. So why and how do you think they came to know he was a paedophile? Who told them that he was a paedophile? Where would they have gotten that information from? And why would they have searched the register for him, if they were investigating the mother for yelling at her toddler?

Having worked with organisations like DOCS in other states, I can assure you, that is not how they go about their business.

Again, privacy laws won't release the names because of the nature of the case itself. He is still awaiting sentencing and she has been placed with her grandmother and is undergoing counselling.

I suggest that the citizens in this somewhat lawless corner of the developed world petition their government for redress of grievances. And, as I said, let's not limit this to partners, but include anyone living with others.

The bottom line is that the citizens of NSW need to implement changes in their government. Posting this on a science forum won't help much; we're not the government. Sex offender monitoring systems that do the job properly include active, random monitoring of situations that offenders involve themselves (home, neighborhood, work, recreation, etc).

Okay.

This is a discussion forum.

This particular sub-forum deals specifically with 'Ethics, Morality & Justice'. Ergo, I posted it here to discuss what had happened to this woman and her children.

What the citizens of NSW decide to do with their Government at the next State election remains to be seen. But DOCS has been failing for many years now and any change of policy and investigations done into how they often fail the children they are meant to be protecting have not resulted in any changes. What is also at issue here is the fact that the Police did not tell her that he was on the registry, when they told his ex. So why did they elect to remain silent this time? If he hadn't checked in and informed of his whereabouts, the police would have gone searching for him.

 

[Cifo]

You are clearly approaching this from an incredibly sexist point of view. ... What if they were just friends or if he lived next door or was the boyfriend of her sister or another close friend.

No I am clearly not approaching this from a sexist perspective. I'm very clearly stating that the more intimately a person accepts someone, the more the person should exercise caution in knowing the other person. This is only common sense, something that a "reasonable and prudent person" would do (to use the legal terminology).

If I was a woman, spreading my legs for a man would be a very intimate act indeed, and I think most women will back me up on this. But, hey, maybe the women of NSW are very different from women elsewhere, but I doubt it.

 

[Cifo]

What in the hell is it with you and the term "spreading her legs". You make it sound like she is a slut.

So, do the words banging, boinking, bonking, humping, screwing, and/or shagging work for you. If "spreading her legs" sounds too submissive, I used it for effect because it parallels the fact that she submitted herself and her family to him. Obviously. The fact being, she made him an intimate part of her life and her family's life.

You have no idea of this woman's sexual history, so claiming she's "spreading her legs" is quite astounding.

She apparently had three children by him, so my claim of her having sex with him is, in fact, quite reasonable ... unless she's the Virgin Mary reincarnated. Actually, the article, once again, does not affirmatively state who the father is:

They fell in love and she had three more children.

Is that the way Aussies talk? Americans would say: "They fell in love and had three children together." No doubt remains.

DOCS does not normally investigate parents for yelling at their children unless there is an underlying reason to investigate. ... Do you really think they will investigate the mother for yelling at her children? ... DOCS does not really investigate parents for yelling at their children. ... So why and how do you think they came to know he was a paedophile? Who told them that he was a paedophile? Where would they have gotten that information from?

Now we're getting somewhere. Maybe you've answered you own question. Maybe everyone (including the woman) knew he was a pedophile. Then the declaration to her in the hospital that "You have left your children home alone with a paedophile" makes a lot of sense if DOCS knew that she knew that he was a pedophile and that she wasn't supposed to leave them alone with him (ie, overnight). The referenced article states:

The woman said DOCS, initially called in to investigate her for allegedly yelling at her toddler, then removed all four children on the grounds that she had failed to protect them from a sex offender.

This makes it seem that the woman lied. As I said, the article quotes several sources and is disjointed. Why is there a lack of articles on this story?

 

[birch]

what people are not getting is this thread topic is not even controversial. the so-called facts presented is so open and shut, that there is no reason to debate this part. if the debate was regarding the system, then why isn't this topic centered around it such as why the system is protecting the criminals and keeping their records private?

otherwise records closed to public, she was not notified, therefore she is innocent since she did not know. that is the end.

of course, in the real world we know that in matters of personal domestics, only what is known and not necessarily the entire story will ever come to light. we can only go by what is presented or what can be evidence.

why would bells start such a topic if she was not looking for other issues into the debate that might possibly be?

i brought up some very realistic points and very important ones regarding what goes on and often does go on behind closed doors in these situations. real life is usually not so neat. no one knows if there was prior abuse or if she had any prior signs and no one knows anything about this woman either. we do not know if she is innocent but we do know that the system definitely is at fault. so why present the topic in the first place?

it's also true that not all abusers have prior records to check anyways.

it's also true that most sexual abuse of minors happens most often by family friends and stepparents is a major one.

this points to that, even if someone does have access to criminal records, many possible abuser or prior abuser exists with no record so the system is not a sure fail safe. there is greater likelihood of abuse in mixed families where some or all children is not the biological parent or child. this needs to be considered by parents and therefore personal caution.

the most important point being, IF the person does not realize this or are this counterintuitive, they will not notice possible warning signs even if they are there. i have literally known women who talk about finding a father for thier children as if all men are just potential fathers. it's just the way they view and talk about it is very unrealistic. what? what kind of man is out there jumping up and down with glee wanting to be a father to another man's child and realistically, wholeheartedly and sincerely see it as their own kid? it can happen but it's also more unrealistic than truthful.

They had told the man's previous partner that he was a convicted sex offender, why did they not afford this woman the same courtesy and possibly save that child from being raped? Why now blame her for something she had no way of knowing?

Should she have been told by the police who were monitoring his movements at all times?

Obviously, everyone knows they should have. was that all? thread closed?

 

[visceral_instinct]

She wants to run her own life, but she wants to be a kept woman, of sorts — ie, have a safety net below her. This type of concept of life is adolescent, not adult.

Bullshit. We all expect a certain safety net beneath us. If we get sick, we expect medical care. If we are attacked, we expect the police to arrest whoever did it.

If I was a woman, spreading my legs for a man would be a very intimate act indeed, and I think most women will back me up on this. But, hey, maybe the women of NSW are very different from women elsewhere, but I doubt it.

So you hold men and women to different standards??

And you really think he was gonna let slip that he was a pedophile? What fucking rot.

 

[birch]

Bullshit. We all expect a certain safety net beneath us. If we get sick, we expect medical care. If we are attacked, we expect the police to arrest whoever did it.



So you hold men and women to different standards??

And you really think he was gonna let slip that he was a pedophile? What fucking rot.

everything you say is true except not all abusers have records. so there is not a safety net for everyone.

no one is going to tell someone that they are a pedophile but whenever a woman is going to be involved in a mixed family, more caution is needed when she has children. another misunderstanding is, a pedophile who has interest specifically in children are not the only ones who sexually assault. some who have attraction to children never assault and fantasize and some pedophiles commit the act. also abusers or predators are all different and have different tastes as some will prefer females and some males. there are different age groups too. some sexual abusers do so simply out of a opportunism. everyone needs to be lucid as it only takes three ingredients for it to happen: sexual desire, opportunity, and lack of morals or regard for the other. so children or young people and being in close proximity to target through relationship or mixed family is a given as there are other scenarios. you will often hear of women's daughters being raped by the mother's boyfriends. it's blind to think it's only a stereotypical pedophile society has formed in their mind who has a fetish for a wee child living in some basement and shy.

anyways,
there may be signs beforehand or after but only pick it up if she is aware that there might be potential problems such as the parent not seeing her kids as his own (duh?) and it's only an act or it can be something else such as violent temper etc. just might be a possibility there.

 

[Light Travelling]

no one is going to tell someone that they are a paedophile but whenever a woman is going to be involved in a mixed family, more caution is needed when she has children. .

Women need to be careful of paedophiles, rapists, wife beaters and alcoholics. Men need to be careful of whores, gold diggers, alcoholics. (Actually women need to be careful of gold diggers as well). Anyway, that is the rich tapestry of life, there are lots of good and bad people out there, we all have to be careful in our choices. I don’t quite get the point everyone is trying to make with all this..

The police are culpable no one else.

 

[visceral_instinct]

everything you say is true except not all abusers have records. so there is not a safety net for everyone.

no one is going to tell someone that they are a pedophile but whenever a woman is going to be involved in a mixed family, more caution is needed when she has children. another misunderstanding is, a pedophile who has interest specifically in children are not the only ones who sexually assault. some who have attraction to children never assault and fantasize and some pedophiles commit the act. also abusers or predators are all different and have different tastes as some will prefer females and some males. there are different age groups too. some sexual abusers do so simply out of a opportunism. everyone needs to be lucid as it only takes three ingredients for it to happen: sexual desire, opportunity, and lack of morals or regard for the other. so children or young people and being in close proximity to target through relationship or mixed family is a given as there are other scenarios. you will often hear of women's daughters being raped by the mother's boyfriends. it's blind to think it's only a stereotypical pedophile society has formed in their mind who has a fetish for a wee child living in some basement and shy.

anyways,
there may be signs beforehand or after but only pick it up if she is aware that there might be potential problems such as the parent not seeing her kids as his own (duh?) and it's only an act or it can be something else such as violent temper etc. just might be a possibility there.

A lot of these types are great at manipulating people, though. They put on a show of being a lovely, upright person, until they get into the position they want, and then commit the abusive acts.

 

[birch]

A lot of these types are great at manipulating people, though. They put on a show of being a lovely, upright person, until they get into the position they want, and then commit the abusive acts.

to some extent, yes. but not usually with everything, usually a person can only put up an act so long and in private they unravel at times. i don't buy that in most cases, it's impossible to tell because they are brilliant actors. yes, they also are but usually you can pick up on things about people no matter what act they put on when you live with them. like in my case, you could tell by living with him that he was a bad person. at first before he married, he never showed any signs of ill temper or abuse but i did sense something that i couldn't pick my finger on but i did not trust this person. i suppose it all boils down to who is interacting with who and what radars they have or what they can or cannot pick up. as far as putting on an act in public, that's much easier. i am not saying that there aren't people that are so good at it to fool everyone that is intimate with them and people that just know them as acquaintance.

what i mean is, looking back on hindsight, there were definite signs and even subtle ones. hypocrisy and lying will be a major one as well as dishonesty. but since i was a child, i was taught at first that this was okay or that i deserved some of the abuse. as for the the other adult, there was no excuse for not realizing that this was not okay.

The police are culpable no one else.

well, this case was simple in that he had a prior record so that if she had known, she could have avoided this altogether. but it's not like this all the time and police can't protect you after the fact. so the major part is people have to be aware of all the possible ramifications and one being that many women don't even consider that thier husband could abuse one of thier children from a prior relationship. this is a major blindspot considering that is not biological child and statistics prove that there is more danger of being abused, not just sexually, in these cases.

 

[Light Travelling]

I really don’t like the fact that people are putting this down to the woman’s faulty. It is the f**king paedophile fault foremost, secondly the police’s.

Are you going to say next that the old man that was mugged at the ATM machine only has himself to blame for not taking enough care?????

 

[birch]

I really don’t like the fact that people are putting this down to the woman’s faulty. It is the f**king paedophile fault foremost, secondly the police’s.

Are you going to say next that the old man that was mugged at the ATM machine only has himself to blame for not taking enough care?????

you are being irrational and unrealistic. a man an atm station is not living with the mugger.

in personal relationships, one has to be more careful. this is just bringing up larger and many issues in these situations.

no one is placing total blame on the woman. it's already been stated that if she really had no signs, then she is not to blame.

but as a mother, one has to be more careful in who they choose as a partner and when ends up living with them for years and if their are signs that are ignored, it is also the fault of the parent.

how unrealistic would it be for a woman to just excuse herself everytime by stating that she did not know when there were signs or if there is no record? there are lots of actors out there and even situations where there is pretense of outrage just for a bit or a time and the woman is back to supporting or staying with the man, even lying for them and keeping the child in the same abusive situation. this is also very common. why i mention this is because this is exactly what the public thinks of my mother as she plays on her so-called feigned ignorance but i know better what they don't. i'm not saying that applies exactly to this woman but if this happens often, we cannot ignore personal responsiblity either of people.

as for this situation, this is an open and shut case strictly based on this evidence but this topic is just opening up different possible scenarios and other issues that people need to be aware of. one is about mixed families and there was a book written on it and it did mention just as i did that society does not ever mention this topic and the risks which tends to make other mixed families uncomfortable which are fine. the book highlights the more prevalence of abuse in stepparent/stepchild relationships for obvious reasons. also, even adoption is another uncomfortable topic as most only see it as a good thing without realizing that many are abused for the same reasons while there is a pretense of a legitmate family.

i was adopted by the stepparent. for all practical purposes, i was adopted period because even my mother was not a legitimate guardian or protector. i find it poignant when i got older looking at the adoption papers so clinically stating that it was in the best interest of the child that i was adopted and everything was hunky-dory. how do they know this? how do they come up with this arbitrary and artifical bs? if they had asked me, i would have been able to tell them i was also being beaten and abused. they never did ask me, the child nor did they ever come and investigate my home. of course, they would have put on an act but still this example illustrates how the law can only do so much and know so much.

 

[Bells]

So, do the words banging, boinking, bonking, humping, screwing, and/or shagging work for you. If "spreading her legs" sounds too submissive, I used it for effect because it parallels the fact that she submitted herself and her family to him. Obviously. The fact being, she made him an intimate part of her life and her family's life.

So if a woman enters into any relationship, she is submitting herself to the male partner?

Is that how you view women?

She apparently had three children by him, so my claim of her having sex with him is, in fact, quite reasonable ... unless she's the Virgin Mary reincarnated. Actually, the article, once again, does not affirmatively state who the father is:

Again, you are focusing solely on the fact that she had sex with him. We know she had sex with him since they had 3 children.

I am astounded that in the face of a complete and utter fuck up by the authorities, that you can only focus on the fact that she had sex with him.

Is that the way Aussies talk? Americans would say: "They fell in love and had three children together." No doubt remains.

There is no doubt in this instance.

Again, why are you obsessing over the fact that she had a sexual relationship with this man?

Now we're getting somewhere. Maybe you've answered you own question. Maybe everyone (including the woman) knew he was a pedophile. Then the declaration to her in the hospital that "You have left your children home alone with a paedophile" makes a lot of sense if DOCS knew that she knew that he was a pedophile and that she wasn't supposed to leave them alone with him (ie, overnight). The referenced article states:

Again, you blame the woman.

The only people who knew he was a paedophile were the authorities. They decided to not tell her at all, until she had left the children alone with him. After she returned home and she found out her daughter had been raped by him, they took all of the children from her care because she failed to protect them from a sex offender. They did not remove the children from the house while she was in the hospital, which actually would have made more sense. They told her first, she checked herself out of hospital immediately and returned home and found out that her daughter had been raped. That is when they removed the children from her care. Emphasis on the "her", because by that point, the children were solely in her care.

This makes it seem that the woman lied. As I said, the article quotes several sources and is disjointed. Why is there a lack of articles on this story?

Actually no.

I understand you seem to have this need to blame the woman for this. But what it points to is that DOCS are again trying to cover their backside. DOCS would have no reason to investigate a mother for yelling at her child unless they felt the children were at risk in that house. Ergo, they knew the man was a paedophile, and instead of telling her, they decided to investigate that she yelled at a toddler...

if the debate was regarding the system, then why isn't this topic centered around it such as why the system is protecting the criminals and keeping their records private?

The OP actually asks why the mother was not told that her partner was a paedophile a lot sooner - as in why wasn't she told that when she started seeing him. And in that way, he was the one being protected, not her and daughter.

why would bells start such a topic if she was not looking for other issues into the debate that might possibly be?

The topic is quite clear cut. That people keep getting side tracked that a woman had sex with a man out of wedlock and blaming her as a result of that is not my problem. Those individuals are the ones with the problem.

Obviously, everyone knows they should have. was that all? thread closed?

I have to wonder why you are bothering to participate in this thread if you feel that is all.

It is the f**king paedophile fault foremost, secondly the police’s.

Bingo.

Which begs the question. Why are people focusing on the woman instead of the authorities who had the knowledge and chose not to tell her?

Most importantly, why are people focusing on blaming her and not discussing whether privacy laws should apply in situations where paedophiles are entering into relationships with people who have children, resulting in the other not being told that he/she is a paedophile? Who is the police protecting in not disclosing to potential partners that the individual is a sex offender?