Hi
I fully agree.
I think it is interesting how Ch4 have got that programme about Cliff etc and when they were accused. At the time they "trashed" them now they treat them like saints....
However the accusers seem to still be classed as innocent!!
I know that's a simple view to point out and there will be reasons BUT those reasons are never allowed for a convicted person....


Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11133805/Google-AI-flags-dad-photos-childs-groin-infection-phone-share-doctors.html

Anyone can come under suspicion. 

Hi
As always I enjoy the simplicity but effectiveness of your words. 

In general I am of the opinion that in our country (especially), if you include the word "SEX" in any subject the focus of an individual is captured.
Be that "annoyance" because they believe it is a subject that should be private - or "fascination" due to the seemingly high degree of importance that is placed on a "good sex life" and our search on how to be the perfect "sexually active / performing" individual. 

In ways the condition of "embarrassment" is a major element to both the above; because to me, if an individual feels they lack the knowledge or lack the required experience that is perceived to be required by "society", they feel "different" to what they have been influenced to be "normal". This is why the importance of understanding that "porn" is not real life is important as in the same manner "media reporting and social influences" are not.

Therefore I see how individuals are influenced into the "world of porn" as individuals are influenced into other "addictions". They simply feel different or "missing" something in their life they believe everyone else has or is capable of". 

Of course we have the "human conditioning" that has occurred through ones life, but that is only sympathised with if it supports an "agenda"; generally the "victim" receives this but the offender does not! In certain circumstances one could argue about "who is the actual victim" but that goes along a path for another day.

Aggressive behaviour evolves by embarrassment through ignorance.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

I heard a very good argument recently, about the low offending rates for SO. If you were told that there were 100 people in a room and not to worry, because only 5 of them wanted to harm your children, would you feel any safer?

The discussion is always going to be dominated by the worst offenders.

Which is exactly why someone needs to take up the case and start promoting the fact that a lot of sex offenders are not monsters

I have only once heard this touched on the radio by The Lucy Shaw Foundation but apart from that it has never really been talked about. They were talking about it being a form of addiction which starts with normal legal images before moving into illegal content.

Sex offenders are demonised much more than other offenders and whilst it may not be something the public want to hear I think it should be promoted more that arrest and rehabilitation does actually work. People can lead normal lifes post offence..

it is a fact that the reconviction rate for people charged with non contact indecent images offences is less then 5% so 95% of people who get charged with this never do it again but the police and society treat everyone as if they are in the 5% who will reoffend

There needs to be a lot more emphasis on rehabilitation of Sex offenders. As we all know the majority do not reoffend and have no intention of reoffending. 

There is a public perception that a lot of sex offenders should be locked up and the key thrown away. This is blatantly not true. Whilst most offences are difficult to understand for outsiders there is very little chance of most reoffending.

I think the media has a large part to play in this, I think the reporting of offences should be a lot more factual. How many times do you see the word pervert or such in a news article? This just stirs up public hate for sex offenders...and I would like to see the reporting of offences to just contain the actual facts.

I really would like Unlock to take this up and push forward the rehabilitation of Sex Offenders and also deal with some of the other issues that SO's have to deal with. For example getting back into work is difficult as our convictions take a lot longer to be spent and potentially never if you are on SHPO/register for life. I would like to see offences being spent for employment in line with other offences. I don't see this being a threat to public safety as there would still be enhanced DBS checks for any role working with children or vulnerable people. Being in work would mean you are less likely to reoffend...I think at times it is almost like the police and government want to stigmatise offenders.

The police have said something similar. For example, go after the people who produce images, rather than the 'low hanging fruit', who view those images. The problem is that the most serious offenders are usually the hardest to catch and that means fewer successful prosecutions. That's part of the reason why rape prosecutions have fallen to record low levels, while prosecutions for possessing images and talking to police decoys have risen so much, over the same period.

I remember back in 2012/13-ish, when I was still inside, there was a Radio 4 documentary about this. I had actually met the psychiatrist as part of a survey, which wasn't related to the documentary. Anyway, her conclusion was that 90% of all SOs made a bad mistake and realise that and are very sorry (my emphasis). They need an intervention to make sure they are back on the straight and narrow and then low-level monitoring to keep an eye on them. The other 10% are the real problem, as they either refuse to accept that they have done anything wrong or don't see any problem with what they did. They are the ones who need the serious resources applied to their case, both in and after prison. As it was a radio documentary on Radio 4, it didn't get any further media attention, but it was a very interesting listen.



=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

I was thinking when I read it in the context of the NSPCC's statement, a few years back which said that there should be an acknowledgement in a  graduation of harm when dealing with SOs and a concentration on the more serious offenders. They received instant push back and rescinded their public opinion. 

If you read their guidelines, they haven't actually changed their opinions (which made logical sense) but they won't say it publicly because public discourse would be hostile.

Small steps and all that. 

Great article. Pity that the online comments are now closed though.

I don't have any problem with it being an advert for a book, or that she talks about herself. It is a book about her experiences, not a defence of SO.

As for the point about having more stats, to convince people that reoffending rates are low, I'm not sure that would work on its own, because the first response of most people is an emotional one, not a rational one. There is a fantastic book, by Emily Horowitz, called 'Protecting Our Kids; How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing Us', which sets out the stats for reoffending and the fact most SO only offend once. But the book also contains real life stories, about how SO are affected by being on the SOR in America. It humanises the SO and even makes you feel sorry for them, which is important, because that appeals to peoples emotional brains, as well as their rational brains.

The comments on this article are a good mixture of emotional and rational. The people that can't think beyond their first emotional reaction, are the ones that say 'lock 'em up and throw away the key', while the more rational ones say 'yes, its terrible what they did, but we need to think beyond that and look at the reasons why they did it and how to stop them doing it again in future'.  

Where I think that this book will be unhelpful, is that she mainly works with the very worst SO, the ones who committed the most serious offences. She probably doesn't meet the low risk SO, because they don't tend to get referred to the prison psychologist. As a result, her book will skew the public debate, by making people think that all SO are just like the ones she has treated. Their crimes are the hardest to understand, because they (in most cases) have caused the most harm. They will also be the ones with the most extreme mental health problems, like the sociopaths, who have no empathy for their victims. They are difficult to humanise, because they feel no remorse for what they have done and that makes people feel no sympathy for them, in return.  But the public need to understand that these individuals only represent 1% of SO. They are not the majority.

If she can get that message across, then it might advance the debate.

I mean don't get me wrong, the more that people talk about it then the better obviously but I don't think there's much meat in this article for people to really grasp onto. It's all very well her making the claims of sex offenders having a low chance of re-offending but where are her sources and evidence to back this up? We know this to be the case but the average punter on the street doesn't (as evidenced by some of the comments on the article) and by having this data in the article to showcase it then it really helps drive the point home and gives those that perhaps need a bit more convincing some hard evidence that they can't really ignore.

Of course, the sub-editor could've stripped all the good stuff out of the article, we'll never know. I just feel that on the surface it looks like a good article promoting rehabilitation of those with sexual offences but when you actually look closer she doesn't really say much of anything as it's mostly all about her, how she got into that profession, and how she compartmentalises it all. She spends at least 2 paragraphs talking essentially about her fear of men.

Upon closer inspection it looks like it is basically just an advert for her book, Inside Job, which also released the same day that article was published. That's probably why I got that excerpt vibe as it's likely just a bit lifted from the book, so maybe there is a bit more meat on the bones so to speak in the actual book.

Sorry, I know I'm coming across as a moany bastard and I really don't mean to be but I think if we're looking to try and change the general discoure and public perception around sexual offences then this article wouldn't help much I don't feel in the grand scheme of things.

You don't think that's an advance in the national discourse? I do. A massive jump in the national discourse. And it was published.

I've written Indy Voices articles. I'm not giving other clues as I'm now happy with my anonymity. We probably don't know what was in the original copy before the sub-editor got onto it! 🤪

I'll be honest, it's a pretty poor article in regards to the situation, it reads like a short excerpt form a much larger report.. It's 13 paragraphs with 12 of which she basically just talks about herself with the outcome essentially amounting to about 2 sentences where after 25 years she has deduced that people who commit sexual offences are just regular human beings. Nothing super shocking or revealed in that to be honest.

I think this is fair.

I have spent 25 years treating serious sexual offenders – this is what I’ve learned | Rebecca Myers | The Guardian