Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Parents get new law on paedophiles

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 November 2009
PARENTS across Scotland are to be given new rights to know whether a sex offender has access to their children under plans being drawn up following the exposure of Scotland's worst paedophile ring.
Ministers are to consider rolling out a pilot programme currently operating only in Tayside under which parents can request background checks on anyone who has close contact with their children.

The scheme effectively goes halfway towards a "Sarah's law" – named after eight-year-old Sarah Payne, who was murdered by convicted sex offender Roy Whiting – which called for the publication of the names and addresses of paedophiles and known sex offenders.

In this case, however, only those parents who ask for information will receive it. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will wait for the results of the Tayside pilot, due next year, but senior Scottish Government sources said the intention was to roll the scheme out across the country after that.

The move follows the trial of 38-year-old James Rennie and 41-year-old Neil Strachan, who were last week given jail sentences amounting to 29 years after having filmed themselves abusing the children of unknowing friends.

The Tayside pilot began in September and will now run until May. If police are alerted about an individual there is a presumption that they will inform the parents if that person has convictions for sex offences.

Parents are only able to make enquiries about people who have regular unsupervised access to their children. They are also warned that the information they are supplying must be correct and that there may be legal consequences if they have made false accusations.

Families have also been asked to keep confidential any information they receive. However, if their suspicions are confirmed, and a serious risk of harm is evident, then child protection measures will be implemented.

SNP ministers have ruled out a "blanket disclosure" plan, saying that paedophiles would end up changing their names.

A spokesman for MacAskill said: "This important pilot to improve child safety will run until May, with a final evaluation report due next summer. We hope and believe it will be successful, in order that it can be rolled out beyond Tayside."

The new scheme would not have revealed Strachan and Rennie, as they had no previous record of sexual abuse. However, trials in England have already led to parents being given crucial information about adults they had begun to suspect.

In one case, police were contacted by a parent who was concerned about the behaviour of a family friend. They were then informed that the man had breached a court order that should have stopped him being alone with children.

Police in England and Scotland have said the scheme has given parents more confidence about knowing their children are safer. But there are also warnings that the scheme could lead to paedophiles going underground to avoid detection.

The Scottish Conservatives, who earlier this year called on ministers to pilot the scheme, said the time was now right to roll it out nationally.

Bill Aitken, the party's justice spokesman, said: "The horrific evidence in the recent trial has appalled every right-thinking person and has unfortunately confirmed what a number of us had suspected, namely that this sort of crime is much more prevalent than was generally thought."

He added: "We need measures in place to protect against convicted sex offenders who might be grooming a child right under the noses of unsuspecting parents. If this initiative works, it will deter some sex offenders and detect others."

However, Paul Cavadino of the charity Nacro, which works to rehabilitate offenders, said:

"The risks which have to be assessed by the pilot are essentially about whether that information would leak out into the wider community from the parent."

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland said: "The pilot in Tayside is now under way and being assessed, and if it is successful and appropriate then it will be rolled out nationally, with the full support of the Scottish Police Service.

"But first we do have to wait until the success of the pilot has been assessed."


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 31 October 2009 10:46 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Paedophilia , Law and Order
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 01/11/2009 00:13:42

A sad day indeed when it has come to this, in our day and age, that we have people who choose to abuse our children, and our trust has become a non word,
This new Law is not before time, but is one of a sickening nature, that is unfortunately needed.





2

Tracker,

01/11/2009 00:18:54
This is a step in the right direction, but what about a new next-door neighbour who is friendly towards children - could a parent check up on him? If parents can find out about a new neighbour, for example, it could help protect the neighbour from any unjustified suspicion and would provide reassurance to parents.
3

JimC,

Kilmarnock 01/11/2009 00:29:18
A neighbour NO, they would need as the article says to have regular unsupervised access to their children. It is not meant to be a snoopers charter if you don't like the look of the new neighbour or his/hers funny hair style. It is comments like these that make community representatives a bit edgy and the possibilities that some may not be able to keep their mouth shut with the possibility of vigilante attacks on innocent residents as we have seen before.
4

,

01/11/2009 00:44:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 00:44:53
And what about a new neighbour who is unfriendly toward children? Or maybe a bit disabled? Lives alone, keeps himself to himself? Or seems to have a lot of visitors? Or talks in a funny accent? Should people have to submit details in advance of moving? Should neighbours be able to vote? Or do a petition to get rid of someone? Just to be on the safe side, like.
6

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 00:48:49
Well, sergeant, it's like this. There's this man a couple of closes down. Funny name, Link Scale or something, talks funny. Pleasant enough but you never know. Stays up late, on the computer, goodness knows what he's up to. He has a wife but we don't see much of her. Very suspicious. Me and Davie down the stairs are thinking of getting a petition. Just to be on the safe side, like.
7

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 01/11/2009 00:58:49

~4.
S.R.A,

One should refrain from judging others that you no knowledge about, this is why we have comment as #3, in his last paragraph, Childcare is a subject matter which I have studied, this being because my Wife works in this domain, and the many childcare courses that I helped with, taking her to a fully qualified Nursery Nurse, Furthermore, I reared two daughters of my own, who now serve our community, this was through commendable parenting and love, Subject matter is one of importance to me, for all the right reasons, I doubt yours.

8

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 01/11/2009 01:00:55

~6.
Fifi,

I wont take you on, as we know another well.

9

Anthony,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 01:21:04
Good article. Well written and researched, and it gives a balanced account of the situation. A stark contrast with a lot of the tabloids coverage.

I have to disagree with Bill Aitken (who I admire as a politician), the recent horrific case doesn't reveal this to be more widespread than was previously thought. The authorities seem pretty switched on to the risks.

Anything which protects children has to be welcomed. Eddie Barnes gives us the example from England, where a similar scheme did alert parents to a potential risk. That is certainly an argument in the proposal's favour.

Yet we need to also bear in mind that one of the culprits had a history of sexual abuse of children, but had slipped off the child protection radar. This happened as well in other notable and well known cases. Part of the cause of this, is legislation which has significantly extended the definition of sex offences, and also puts increasing monitoring requirements onto police and social workers of this much wider base.

This also creates additional layers of complexity, which was a big factor in Ian Huntley slipping under the radar too. (In that case a senior police officer misunderstood his responsibilties with regard to the data protection Act in conjunction with newly passed child protection provisions. Had it not been for that, he would have identified and blocked Huntley having contact).

So there has to be a balance, and a will to resist shooting from the hip legislation.

As Eddie Barnes correctly points out, nothing in these proposals would have prevented this horrific case. By making things too complex and multilayerd, the danger is that we inadvertently increase rather than reduce the risks.

This isn't an argument against doing something. But where's the rule that says to make children safer, we need to make everything more complex too?
10

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 01:22:06
#8 - I was just making the point that this will be sheer heaven for officious and nosey know it alls and bullies.

None of the bullying will have to be based on fact - rumour will be enough.

"Well, Kylie down the road asked about him up the stair and she says the police had nothing to say but she says the sergeant she spoke to was winking, well maybe it was a nervous tick but there's no smoke without fire and they look like nice enough people but they keep themselves to themselves and I really don't like the look of him too friendly if you get my meaning and he seems to keep odd hours and they certainly get a lot of parcels and they do a lot of washing for just two people on their own.

"Anyway, I think you should get your Shug to put a brick through his window."
11

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 01:25:49
#9 - "Anything which protects children has to be welcomed."

No it isn't. Anyone can propose any kind of "safeguard" claiming it will protect children. But that doesn't mean it has to be welcomed. You could ban male teachers. That might well be intended to protect children, but it is most definitely not to be welcomed. You could ban the internet. And stop fathers and uncles and the like taking children to school and meeting them at the school gate to take them home.

Well, you can't be too careful.

12

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 01:29:30
This isn't a snoops charter, and nor should it be as you don't have the right to snoop. I can only imagine that this will come into play when, perhaps, a woman takes on a new partner or something like that.

But that's where I don't really see how it would work. If you trust someone with your kids then you trust them full stop, so are you going t check them out? Will you ask the Polis if the new bf is a sex offender? I doubt it, because why would you be going out with him in the first place if you thought he could feasibly pose a risk.

13

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 01:35:04
9 Some of the people on the sex offenders register are quite clearly not dangerous and shouldn't be on it.

If you can get placed on the sex offenders register for behaviour which is very mild, then it's value is diminished. And it also becomes more imperative to ensure confidentiality to protect people who the govt have labelled as a sexual risk, when in fact they might not be.
14

Tracker,

01/11/2009 05:45:24
I do not think that that this will allow nosey neighbours to snoop on people as they will simply be told by the police if a person has been convicted of a sex offence.

Recently I read that 1 in 10 prisoners has been convicted of a sex crime. These criminals have got to be housed somewhere upon release, and paedophiles should not be housed near kids.
15

,

01/11/2009 12:19:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Tris,

01/11/2009 12:46:26
First priority is the safety of kids. I completely agree with that.

But, imagine this: girl with a couple of kids meets boy; boy moves in; a couple of weeks later boy decides girl is a bore and moves out; girl is angry and humiliated; girl tells mates that she got a bad report and threw him out; girl's mates tell their boyfriends; bloke gets beaten senseless.

That kind of information in the public's hands can be misused by the wicked or misunderstood by the terminally stupid and almost undoubtedly will be. I have memories of an angry mob marching on the home of a man who had brass plaque outside his door saying paediatrician!
17

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 13:18:54
#18 - us Scottish folk are decent people who are perfectly happy to tell you BNP types to eff off with your anti-Muslim hatred and lies.
18

Tris,

01/11/2009 13:23:50
#19

Go see a doctor. You're sick
19

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 13:27:02
#19 - the paediatrician who got attacked was a woman in South Wales. That really happened in 2000. Her name is Yvette Cloete, then a trainee consultant at the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, and her home at in the village of St Brides was daubed with the word "paedo" in yellow paint. Nobody was ever charged with any offence.
20

Davy,

politically correct 01/11/2009 13:45:45
#22 Fifi la Bonbon
The new laws & rules will create a whole new load of problems. The rule of commonsense is the only rule, which should apply.
In the case of James Rennie, the parents had known the man’s back ground & still let him baby sit. That is the politically correct system which has been created, cool to be, & have gay friends. Allowed now to marry & adopt. The rule of commonsense has been replaced with the rule of fear. If you don’t like the new rules you are homophobic & anti PC.
Ps I wonder if any of our politicians who were in the photo with x GBLT spokesman James Rennie will be visiting him in her majesties establishment.
21

Cynicus Unbound,

01/11/2009 13:47:02
"I have memories of an angry mob marching on the home of a man who had brass plaque outside his door saying paediatrician"!-#19 Tris

It was even worse than that. The doctor was a woman; there was no brass plaque; when word got around that she was a paediatrician ame member of your "angry mob" scrawled PAEDO on the door.

Your own hazy recollection, however, adds force to your argument!
22

Tris,

01/11/2009 13:55:30

Well Cynicus, it was 9 years ago and that for me is a long time. I didn't invent the brass plaque on purpose and I genuinely didn't remember that the man was in fact a woman, not that that makes any difference. We're all equal now.

I don't need to add to the story for it to be horrific.

One of these days in the not too distant future no one will be able to even speak to a person under the age of 16 if we keep going on this way.

~23 Davy. Why don't you go and post on the Record or the Sun? Muppet.
23

Davy,

planet Muppeto 01/11/2009 14:03:53
#25 Tris
A Muppet I may be.
This Muppet is also entitled to his Muppet like comments the same as your Muppet like self.
New rule, no Muppets allowed by order of the chief Muppet. From planet Muppeto
24

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 14:22:28
#25 - no excuse for not checking the truth on the internet machine which is a few inches from your face.
25

Davy,

no excuse.inches from your face. 01/11/2009 14:32:38
#27 Fifi la Bonbon
Yes you are so right, no excuse whatsoever. I do humbly apologise the error of my ways. I will now pursue them with enthusiasm & vigour.
26

Tris,

01/11/2009 15:53:09
Davy, Fifi's comments seem to to be directed at me (hence the reference to my post at 25)

Now I remember why I stopped posting on this soon-to -be-defunct rag.
27

Davy,

defunct rag. 01/11/2009 16:07:28
Yes, I was agreeing with her whole heartedly. Viva Fifi. Tris,why don't you go and post on the Record or the Sun?
28

Media for one,

01/11/2009 17:07:58
I dont get this; a person fiddles with children and is arrested, serves time and is released. Having served the time he or she is now free, thus their previous conviction of no business to society at large.
However, if the government are concerned enough to hand out these names to parents then in effect the government are not convinced that these people are safe enough. SO WHY THE HELL ARE THEY ON THE F@@@KING STREET?
29

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 01/11/2009 17:34:36
#31 Media For One

"SO WHY THE HELL ARE THEY ON THE F@@@KING STREET?"

You can't hold somebody once they have completed their sentence.

Paedophilia is pretty much incurable, those who find the urge to sexually abuse children will continue to have that urge the rest of their life. So you really have two choices if you want to prevent them harming more children. Jail for Life or extremely strict monitoring including electronic tagging.

Not sure how much affect this new law will have since those who have access to children are supposed to have their backgrounds checked anyway.

People already outlining how this process can create confusion, maybe branding convicted paedophiles with a bigger letter P on their foreheads would solve that but I am sure that that would violate human rights legislation.
30

Lizbet,

Dundee 01/11/2009 17:42:46
My kids are all grown up now thank God. I would hate to have small children in this scary world, where even so called 'normal' people love tearing strips off each other. I thought I would perhaps learn something reassuring on this forum, but all I find is a climate of nastiness against fellow Posters. Do you all just Post, to insult and attack each other with petty comments? Is this your personal egotistical little battlefield? Do you really care about the subject you are supposed to be addressing? I will never know, because I will never view this Post again. Liz
31

Mc Max ,

Glasgow,NE. 01/11/2009 17:58:37
32
KampungHighlander,
Castration is the only answer for these monsters.
32

Anthony,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 18:22:24
9) fifi la bonbon - I was speaking figuratively when I said anything that protects children should be welcomed. But you are right to take me to task on it, because it is lazy off-the-cuff statements like mine which create the wrong temprature for debate. If we locked every adult up for example, we would be in one sense protecting chldren. Clearly there has to be a balance.

This is a subject saturated with over the top hype, so again, you are correct in your appeal for more considered use of language.

13) Observer - I agree with you on this. Sticking loads of people on the sex offenders register who clearly do not need to be there, is counter productive. Besides all else, it leaves less resources to monitor those who really do pose serious threats to children and other vulnerable groups.

It can all be traced back to politicians of various shades, pandering to tabloid headlines with a series of ill considered legislation. This was high on dramatic impact, but low on actual real world protection for kids by utilising resources in a strategically coherent fashion.
33

Tris,

01/11/2009 23:09:44
Davy: You'll find me on the Times
34

Laird Drambeg,

Andover 02/11/2009 07:23:19
While it would embarrass the govt. no end, checking the umm, credentials of those dispensing advice to lawmakers on homosexuality and same sex adoption would at least have caught the leader of the recent atrocities. A further check on the credentials of those who aspire to act as advocates to the young on sexual matters, of either persuasion, would also have caught the wretch and his cronies much earlier.

Labeling and monitoring the miscreants after the fact, after they've been caught once will only drive them further underground, making them harder to detect and does little to tackle the problem effectively. Between those who evade detection and the first offenses, that's a lot of damage which can be inflicted.

A more pro-active approach is essential, though how it is administered is certainly difficult to assess. We could at least start by quitting pandering to those who are actively lobbying for a further lowering of the age of consent - treat them as the scoundrels they undoubtedly are.
35

Herne the Hunter,

All of Scotland 02/11/2009 09:38:05
It's time we had a central database for disclosure,at the moment it is run by councils and other groups.Every new job or situation that requires a disclosure certificate, needs a separate disclosure application at £50 each I know some people who have 12 separate disclosures,this is a money making scheme which does not share its information,and indeed is not allowed to share its knowledge.
So an applicant who is known to be an offender in one area,can be disclosure cleared by another. All these small databases in existence with no proper legislation to govern them is a recipe for disaster. We need a national database and this would sort out a great deal of the problems,it is so important that must be handled nationally,the quicker we sort this bureaucratic nightmare out, the better.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.