Convicted pedophile hired to wash, babysit children

Link.

Quote :

An Ammanford woman has been accused of allowing a convicted paedophile to bathe her two daughters and put them to bed.

The man went on to sexually abuse them even though she had been warned by police and social services that he was a danger to them.

Quote :

Paul Hobson, prosecuting, said the man had criminal convictions for sexually assaulting children. When it became known that he was in regular contact with the woman both the police and social services became worried that his real interest was in her daughters.

Mr Hobson said the man began baby sitting the girls when their mother went out, bathed them, took them out on day trips and showered them.

How... how old were these children? Either way... *skin crawls*

Quote :

The mother allowed the contact to continue "in the face of clear warnings" from the police and social services that he might try to "groom" them for sexual purposes.

When he was eventually arrested he admitted sexually abusing them over a 12 month period and was sentenced to an indefinite number of years in jail "for public protection."

Mr Hobson said the mother was even told by her children they were being abused "but she was too busy with her boyfriend and did not listen."

Just... those poor, poor girls. I really hope something good happens for them, and they go somewhere where they can be safe, and heal from what happened to them.

Though the mother was clearly, clearly negligent, it's weird that most of the blame is placed on her. She's not the one who molested those kids, he did.

The blame for the crime is on the man for molesting them; there are rather firm questions about why the mother knowingly allowed the man do so when she knew of his past and what he was capable of (even ignoring her daughters' complaints). If the girls had been in the care of a single father who had done this, these same questions and accusations would be levied.

vade wrote:

Though the mother was clearly, clearly negligent, it's weird that most of the blame is placed on her. She's not the one who molested those kids, he did.

Because men can't help themselves, vade, and she should've known that. It's her own fault for not distrusting male babysitters, except when the babysitters aren't paedophiles because then she's just being a misandrist. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NOBODY WONDER WHY THIS MAN WITH CONVICTIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST CHILDREN WAS WANDERING FREE IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.

Wait...Waaiiitttt...

Quote :

The mother allowed the contact to continue "in the face of clear
warnings" from the police and social services that he might try to
"groom" them for sexual purposes.

So, she's told that he was a possible threat to her children, and she continued to let him keep watching them? Now, I am all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but this lady just went beyond that and being a complete and fucking dimwit.

Quote :

Mr Hobson said the mother was even told by her children they were being
abused "but she was too busy with her boyfriend and did not listen."

Sooooooo... She was more interested in getting laid that then welfare of her children. Wait...The man knew the children were telling their mother about the abuse and kept it up?

Salamas wrote:

Wait...Waaiiitttt...

Quote :

The mother allowed the contact to continue "in the face of clear
warnings" from the police and social services that he might try to
"groom" them for sexual purposes.

So, she's told that he was a possible threat to her children, and she continued to let him keep watching them?

If he's a possible threat to children, WHY IS HE AT LARGE IN THE COMMUNITY?

Quote :

Quote :

Mr Hobson said the mother was even told by her children they were being
abused "but she was too busy with her boyfriend and did not listen."

Sooooooo... She was more interested in getting laid that then welfare of her children.

YES THAT IS CERTAINLY A TRUE REFLECTION OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. STUPID SLUT THE KIDS SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF HER

Quote :

Wait...The man knew the children were telling their mother about the abuse and kept it up?

OH FINALLY YOU BOTHER TO FUCKING MENTION THE DISGUSTING STREAK OF DIARRHEA WHO ACTUALLY ABUSED THE KIDS.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Salamas wrote:

Wait...Waaiiitttt...

Quote :

The mother allowed the contact to continue "in the face of clear
warnings" from the police and social services that he might try to
"groom" them for sexual purposes.

So, she's told that he was a possible threat to her children, and she continued to let him keep watching them?

If he's a possible threat to children, WHY IS HE AT LARGE IN THE COMMUNITY?

That's very puzzling too, however the article doesn't say much about the man's history, just that he had previous convictions, no time frame or anything. Yes, the police should've interverned sooner, but I am just astounded that the mother, after being warned, let him keep watching the children.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Quote :

Mr Hobson said the mother was even told by her children they were being
abused "but she was too busy with her boyfriend and did not listen."

Sooooooo... She was more interested in getting laid that then welfare of her children.

YES THAT IS CERTAINLY A TRUE REFLECTION OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. STUPID SLUT THE KIDS SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF HER

Okay, my wording may have been judgemental, but if her daughters told her they were being abused and the mother ignored this, because she was too busy with her boyfriend, it does say something about her character.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Wait...The man knew the children were telling their mother about the abuse and kept it up?

OH FINALLY YOU BOTHER TO FUCKING MENTION THE DISGUSTING STREAK OF DIARRHEA WHO ACTUALLY ABUSED THE KIDS.

Good god, Cy, it's not like I went on to a TL;DR rant about the mother! I mentioned things which jumped out at me in the order of their appearance in the article.

Sometimes I wonder if these people really CAN help themselves. Repeat offenders, I mean. I'm not saying they don't have a choice, but sex offenders, especially child sex offenders, have a lousy time in prison.

The man knew the kids were telling the mother (although she did jack shit) and he didn't stop. It seems like some sort of sick addiction, and ALL addictions are hard to break.

I'm not saying it's okay, I'm just saying, CAN these repeat offenders really help themselves? It seems not.

These sex offenders clearly aren't stopped by prison. They need psychiatric help as much as they need to be kept away from their 'temptations'.

In this situation, I am more horrified by the mother's apathy.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

These sex offenders clearly aren't stopped by prison.

They'd certainly be stopped if they were LOCKED UP IN PRISON, YOU STUPID ASSCLOWN.

Quote :

In this situation, I am more horrified by the mother's apathy.

Fuck you, and fuck the rest of you. Not one of you gives a fuck about what happened to these two little girls, because if you did, you'd be asking why the hell this guy, who was such a danger to kids, was out of prison in the first place. You'd be asking why, if the police knew this guy had a high risk of reoffending and saw fit to inform the mother, there wasn't some condition on his release that he was to stay away from children, so that the law could intervene and lock him back up. What guarantee was there that he wouldn't have found other victims if the mother had stopped him seeing the girls? You'd be wondering if he ever was in prison to begin with because a conviction sadly doesn't always mean jail time. But no, you'd rather slut-shame the mother for not acting quickly enough. And not a word about the cops and social services who didn't intervene, either.

Coming up next, Cyberwulf argues with people who want someone locked up and the key thrown away, saying they missed the point of prisons.

Aggie wrote:

If the girls had been in the care of a single father who had done this, these same questions and accusations would be levied.

what is this shit

He should've been in jail, simple as. Especially if they were worried about re-offending. No doubt the cops, social services etc. etc. wanted to see him banged up indefinitely, but a combination of substandard legistlature and a lenient judge probably let him, relatively speaking, off the hook. Sex offenders (whether it's adults, children, or cats) don't get nearly enough time behind bars.

However, if your children try to tell you they're being abused and you either don't listen to or don't get what their saying, then it's a parenting fail (I doubt the prosecutor made that bit up for some reason, seeing as his job is to ensure the rapist goes to jail), although the blame still substantially lies with the judicial system for failing to indefinitely incarcerate this individual.

I really shouldn't comment on this because no matter what I say, someone's gonna get pissed. Oh well.

1.) Does Wales have some sort of law preventing a person convicted of molestation from working with children? Or some sort of national sex offender registry?

2.) In America, one can be convicted of being an accessory to a crime even if they had nothing or very little to do with the crime. Does Wales have the same sort of law?

3.) The man is obviously guilty and should be punished. However, if he did time before that and then was released, then his "debt to society" was paid for that crime. The article doesn't say what he was convicted of (other than "pedophilia", but here I'm talking charges--like rape, unlawful conduct with a child, etc. however it's defined in Wales), and doesn't say for how long he was jailed prior. AFAIK, most countries don't have a "molest a child, lose all privileges to freedom" law. Even a person convicted of murder gets freed after a space of time. It may not be right, and it's something that certainly deserves to be railed against, but it's how it is. This is a perfect example of why crimes against children should be more serious than they are. (Again, assuming Wales is somewhat like America since I don't know the exact laws there.)

4.) The mother, while not actively molesting her children, set up the situation for them to be molested, even after repeated warnings and her own children telling her what was happening. Granted, we can stick an "alleged" on this because the case is in the courts now, so the "truth"* of the matter is not known. If this does turn out to be the case, though, holy fucking shit. How stupid and self-absorbed can she be? She may not be guilty of molestation, but she sure as FUCK is guilty of neglect.

*truth in this case meaning the legal definition of "truth"--ie, what comes out in court. The actual truth may be nothing close to what is actually reported. As 3rd party observers, we can never know for 100% certain of what happened. However, I'm inclined to believe the kids in this case. I can't imagine how frustrating and awful it would be for those poor girls to go to their mom, expecting her to protect them, and being blown off and ignored.

And I'm sorry. I have a hard time with anyone defending the mother here. I'm sickened by the whole story. I can't imagine what those kids went through, the depths of hurt and betrayal to be blown off by their mother, for their cries to be ignored. That they got abused at all is horrible; that they potentially could have never been in that situation to begin with is mind-blowing and is the awful twist to this story. I think that's why we're horrified by the mother here. I can't imagine any mother being so apathetic to her children. It's not parenting fail as HC said: It's parental NEGLECT.

Cyberwulf wrote:

vade wrote:

Though the mother was clearly, clearly negligent, it's weird that most of the blame is placed on her. She's not the one who molested those kids, he did.

Because men can't help themselves, vade, and she should've known that. It's her own fault for not distrusting male babysitters, except when the babysitters aren't paedophiles because then she's just being a misandrist. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NOBODY WONDER WHY THIS MAN WITH CONVICTIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST CHILDREN WAS WANDERING FREE IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.

Don't know if trolling....

Maximilia wrote:

4.) The mother, while not actively molesting her children, set up the situation for them to be molested, even after repeated warnings and her own children telling her what was happening. Granted, we can stick an "alleged" on this because the case is in the courts now, so the "truth"* of the matter is not known. If this does turn out to be the case, though, holy fucking shit. How stupid and self-absorbed can she be? She may not be guilty of molestation, but she sure as FUCK is guilty of neglect.
....
And I'm sorry. I have a hard time with anyone defending the mother here. I'm sickened by the whole story. I can't imagine what those kids went through, the depths of hurt and betrayal to be blown off by their mother, for their cries to be ignored. That they got abused at all is horrible; that they potentially could have never been in that situation to begin with is mind-blowing and is the awful twist to this story. I think that's why we're horrified by the mother here. I can't imagine any mother being so apathetic to her children. It's not parenting fail as HC said: It's parental NEGLECT.

Seconded.

I don't think the mother is completely free of blame here. And I know, just because it's reported doesn't mean is TRUE but by what is presented the knee jerk reaction would be to take away her kids.

But unfortunately foster care may not be much better.

Cy, no one is talking about what a piece of shit the guy is because it's obvious. Child molesters are bad? You don't say! To put it another way, it's not news. Dog bites man. The mother's actions, however, are different from the norm. That gets us talking because it isn't a component of every child molestation case.

If you read that as giving him a free pass, that's you bringing your Issue to the table. Not us.

PS: Sorry for those of you who saw my little skull-in-a-suit avatar and expected prison wank since Cy's been baiting so heavily, but I'm still sorting my opinions out re: child molesters. The unusually high recidivism rate of child sex offenders means a lot of my assumptions don't necessarily work.

Maximilia wrote:

And I'm sorry. I have a hard time with anyone defending the mother here. I'm sickened by the whole story. I can't imagine what those kids went through, the depths of hurt and betrayal to be blown off by their mother, for their cries to be ignored. That they got abused at all is horrible; that they potentially could have never been in that situation
to begin with is mind-blowing and is the awful twist to this story. I think that's why we're horrified by the mother here. I can't imagine any mother being so apathetic to her children. It's not parenting fail as HC said: It's parental NEGLECT.

TheHermit wrote:

Cy, no one is talking about what a piece of shit the guy is because it's obvious. Child molesters are bad? You don't say! To put it another way, it's not news. Dog bites man. The mother's actions, however, are different from the norm. That gets us talking because it isn't a component of every child molestation case.

If you read that as giving him a free pass, that's you bringing your Issue to the table. Not us.

Quoting these both for total fucking truth.

Cy's right that the guy could've just as well picked another victim or another family to prey upon. She's also right that this guy should never have been out of jail if he was deemed that much of a danger -- or that he at least should have been barred from being around children. But the mom's actions are totally negligent, totally irresponsible, and a complete betrayal of her job as a parent to protect her children.

If Cyber wonders about the bad messages we instill in our "girl cubs", well, this mom just sent her daughters a pretty clear message -- that something else, whether it was a boyfriend or whateverthefuckelse, it doesn't really matter, was more important than her daughters' safety.

That's a pretty fucking harsh message, don't you think? And it's gonna be ingrained in these poor girls' heads until the day they die; that they're not worth shit because their mother failed to protect them from the monster that she hired to watch over them.

Cyberwulf wrote:

But no, you'd rather slut-shame the mother for not acting quickly enough.

That's because she deserves it. I'm not saying she deserves it because she's a single mom. I'm not saying she deserved it because she was having sex with some dude she liked. It's because she was allegedly putting having sex with some dude above the welfare of her children, which is pretty fucking shitty. It's a fundamental failure to correctly prioritize what matters in life.

If this person was a single dad and was putting having sex with his girlfriend or boyfriend above his kids' welfare, so that this happened, I'd say the same of him. If this woman was married or living with a partner and neither of them gave a crap about their kids, so that this happened, then my reaction -- and those of everyone else here -- would be pretty much the same, I'd suspect. Two-parent households can be as disgustingly oblivious about bad shit going down to their kids, too.

Or... maybe, just maybe, he wasn't only a child molester, but also abusive toward her? Maybe mentally/emotionally? Maybe he manipulated her? Maybe there's more to this story? Maybe that's what Cyberwulf's been getting at this whole time?

BY JOVE!

I think I may have to explain my initial statement.

Yes, this what the mother did was terrible. She failed her daughters in the worst way possible, despite warnings from the authorities and her own children.

However.

I notice when these types of stories break, all the vitriol is directed towards the mother. I never see that much directed towards the pedophile; it's always "but what was the mom thinking?!" Why is it never "This guy is a sick bastard how can he do this to children!"? Since the pedophile was the one molesting the kids, I put the blame on him.

Quote :

Or... maybe, just maybe, he wasn't only a child molester, but also abusive toward her? Maybe mentally/emotionally? Maybe he manipulated her? Maybe there's more to this story? Maybe that's what Cyberwulf's been getting at this whole time?

Wouldn't the prosecutor have chucked that in too though. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Although maybe he didn't because of insufficient proof, or it just wasn't reported. Who knows?

InkWeaver wrote:

Or... maybe, just maybe, he wasn't only a child molester, but also abusive toward her? Maybe mentally/emotionally? Maybe he manipulated her? Maybe there's more to this story? Maybe that's what Cyberwulf's been getting at this whole time?

BY JOVE!

That's what I was thinking. Either he was fucking with er mind or he was getting the kids to fuck with her mind, because it really sounds to me like we are missing a HUGE peice of the dynamic. Now, I'm on my phone and can't convieniently check the article, but assuming that this guy has been here this long that means that either she was being told the right lies, or he was forcing her to keep him around somehow. Hell, even him going "you report me and I'll let everyone know you let me do this" could be enough, especially if she's going through custody or babby daddy issues. I'm not going to lie, at first I had the same reaction as everyone else here, but I guess my dying faith in humanity can't let me assume that the issue was so black and white. To be edited.

Ok, just read it. First off, we are only hearing the prosecution. No statements from the mother, nothing from the rapist, nothing from the children. Not even the defense attounry. Second, the woman assured the social worker and police that the man never came to the house after it was known he did? That can be construed either way, but that doesn't sound quite right to me. Nor does the prosecution just randomly and with no clarification saying that she was "too busy with her boyfriend." Or that she says she never ignored them, but was claimed to do so by the prosecution. If she did, then there would not be a problem, but did she? What did she say to the children? Did she or diddn't she confront the man? Would it have made a difference?

Point is this is a very biased article. We don't know what happened, but we know what we were supposed to think happened.

Do you know what's another really horrific point about this situation? These children are never going to trust their mother again. They told her the man (Swallows a lot of swear words) was hurting them. And she either didn't believe them (A common thing, sadly), or worse, didn't care. She didn't care about their safety. WTF? Does she have some kind of mental disorder?

And for that matter, I agree with Cy. Why the fuck was this man not in jail for life? What was he doing walking around and- ARGH. WTF?

Lapin wrote:

Do you know what's another really horrific point about this situation? These children are never going to trust their mother again. They told her the man (Swallows a lot of swear words) was hurting them. And she either didn't believe them (A common thing, sadly), or worse, didn't care. She didn't care about their safety. WTF? Does she have some kind of mental disorder?
 And for that matter, I agree with Cy. Why the fuck was this man not in jail for life? What was he doing walking around and- ARGH. WTF?

I think the answer to this question is that there is no provision in law for keeping child molesters in jail indefinitely. May be you think there should be, but there isn't. Instead they are sent to jail, serve their time and are then released like any other criminal.

After that, they are put on a sex offenders register, banned from taking jobs that routinely give them access to small children and from living within a certain radius of areas where small children are likely to congregate, as well as being obliged to keep the authorities informed of their movements. Unless they breach these terms or break the law again, they cannot be arrested or imprisoned.

As a side note, it should be said that physical violence and verbal abuse cannot be assumed to be part of a child molesters MO. Often they ingratiate themselves with parents and do everything they can to convince the parents that they are nice people who can be trusted. This means that a) they gain access to the children and b) if children do report the abuse to parents, parents are less likely to believe them because they don't want to think that the nice man could possibly do that stuff to their kids. This excuse is fairly feeble in and of itself  and certainly doesn't excuse ignoring warnings from the authorities.

Yes, the paedophile is to blame for molesting the children and I sincerely hope he's back in jail, but the mother's role in this should also be examined as she was alerted to a threat to her children's welfare and failed to take action to protect them.