flabbergasted...cannot comprehend this (ex wife related)

It's not clear to me that young children are involved. In fact, I think it's unlikely, given that such a situation would generate a far more immediate response from the police and social services to remove him from children. People who look at pre-pubescent children in pornographic pictures go to prison, simple. He is not in prison, therefore it seems likely (to me) there is information here that might explain the situation further.

To be blunt (but not bitchy!), I try not to be a Daily Mail reader!

no, there is no risk of him seeing the children....once she found out about it off the SS they told her that until his evaluation has been completed if she had him round the house or saw him around the children they would be taken off her. She may be misguided and a *** of a woman to me & my OH but there is no way she would put her kids at risk like that. Plus here mother would have something to say about it (she lives with them!)

so I know they kids are not at risk.....again my original issue was not this, but the fact that she still wants to see him that bothered me...

also like she told us, she sees him so very rarely now that she doesn't see any future for them (no *** Sherlock).

Very unfair Footlong!

I reiterate my point. How do you know this for sure when you live so far away?

Ah, probably just me not reading properly then. I'll get back to work ?

Me too.

Between me and you I prefer The Sun ?

Sorry PJ but I still don't think think that you can be SURE that there is no chance of it happening.

I've got to say I agree with Footlong that it is not clear what age of children are being discussed here. The OP said of illegal age but that could be 15.

Also think the comment about Anna Kournikova is relevant as the OP stated he knew what age the children were. A lot of men were attracted to Anna K despite knowing her age.

I'm not excusing this but I do believe there are levels and it's not clear what level we're talking about here.

What age were the children in the images OP?

You are being bitchy for disgareeing with me

Anyway, it was an undirected comment, meant to parody the "hang 'em all" stereotype...

I think if it were my family involved I wouldn't be discussing it on a forum where I advertise my business.

FWIW, in a fictional scenario, I'm with FTLOMB on the lack of clarity however if I had to take a blanket view I wouldn't want to be with someone who is on the Register, nor would I want any children of mine to be around him/her. I really wouldn't like to comment about the OP's actual situation as it sits rather uncomfortably with me.

I'm a bit sorry I started all this now......I just wondered if other women felt the same as me about her still seeing him

1 the children were young

2 she IS NOT seeing him around the children.....she meets him in another town on the rare occasions they do meet (the times she meets him has halfed since this happened)....solicitors are involved

3 she IS NOT taking him to the house when the kids are asleep as her mother lives with them!

4 she may be a ***, but she WILL not put her kids at risk and WILL NOT take the risk that she may lose them.

again my original post stated how shocked I was at her still seeing him. Even if his evaluation turns out he is no risk (as the SS and solicitors think) I still wouldn't be able to carry on seeing a man like that....just wanted to to see how many thought like me or who may have been blinded by love ( can love make you blind to a crime like this?)

?

Ok, if you know for sure that she is not seeing him when the kids are around and he is not at the house so doesnt come into contact with the kids why are you bothered?

Just coming at this from another angle...

I'm bothered because I personally don't understand why she is still seeing him. If my OH paid for and downloaded sexual images of young children, no matter how long I had been with him, he would be out on his ear. I wouldn't be able to be with a man who thought of young children as sexual beings!!

But if the kids arent in any danger (as you have said) it has nothing to do with you who she sees.

I know it's not. That's not what my original post was about. I was just wondering if anyone else felt like me..ie the OH would be out on their ear, or if my 'hatred' of the ex had clouded my vision

Sorry - jumping in late here!

OP - I can't see a rough age mentioned anywhere? I can only see the work young used, but that means different things to different people...I think my four year old neice is young, my colleagues think that I'm young at 23, my gran thinks that my OH is young at 33, etc. I know you mention underage, but by six months or six years?

As I would I but it would have nothing to do with me.

I would only be bothered if the kids were in danger which the OP had said they arent.

I know where you're coming from Trickers....and yes, it doesn't have anything to do with me who she sees, but like Kochanski, it creeps me out. I couldn't look at OH again in the same way if he'd done the same thing!

Sorry i disagree. I do think it has everything to do with PrincessJayned and her husband who the mother sees.

To me it's a massive enlightenment to someone's character if the woman has children could even like a person who has previously been interested in child porn.

How can anyone say that this man has overcome his perversion? His word wouldn't be enough. I would fail to trust anyone like that.

No one owes him forgiveness or trust.

Although possible (most things are this), this is highly, highly unlikely. Statutory rape doesn't really get used anymore as a term which really lends itself to the fact that more often that not this sort of case would just never ever get to trial; it tends to be labelled as 'sexual intercourse with a young person under the age of 16'. What I'm saying, is the shift in language here reflects a shift in societal/judicial response.

As for the downloading of child pornography, the reason why it 'sells' is purely because it is images of children. Sadly (in my opinion) there are more than enough young women over the age of 16 happy to pose as school children on 'legitimate' pornography sites, anyone actively looking for pictures of underage young people involved in sexualised behaviourr can find just this. I can't help but feel that it would unlikely that someone might accidentally look at a 15 year old, without this young person being explicitly advertised as being at that age - this is her unique selling point. There is a lot of money in this sort of thing - it would not make much sense to have a 15 year old masquerading as someone over age.

I absolutely understand what some are saying about finding out all of the facts, but I have to say, weighing up the odds, I am not immediately struck by the unlikeliness of this situation. And ultimately, above all else, the safeguarding of a child must take priority - there is simply no room to consider the rights of adults first, as an adult can look after themselves, whereas it is our duty as a society to always put a child first - and this should be reflected in all of our actions as human beings, not just as a whole society.

I do also believe we have a duty to find out the truth and ensure people are treated fairly, but in my opinion this can be done after the safety of the child has been absolutely guaranteed.

A risk to child isn't always a physical risk of abuse - influences on young people's lives can be very powerful. Whilst someone on the sex offenders' register might not pose a predatory risk to a child or young person, are they a good, pro social influence?

Nodding in total agreement.