British Prime Minister: Paedophiles Could Be Allowed To Adopt

British Prime Minister Theresa May says paedophiles should be allowed to adopt

Newly appointed British Prime Minister Theresa May ordered a review on whether paedophiles should be allowed to adopt children in order to “not breach their human rights”.

Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, spurred the then Home Secretary to relax the rules which bans sex offenders from caring for children. reports:

In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”

A review is currently ongoing into the Vetting and Barring Scheme, introduced following the 2002 Soham murders, amid concerns by ministers that it is too heavy handed.

As well as banning certain offenders, the law currently requires adults coming into regular contact with children other than their own to be screened.

Mrs May ordered the review amid concerns about the vetting of ordinary volunteers such as parents who drive children to football practice and church flower arrangers.

In her article, Miss Reece suggested that the review should also introduce an assumption that sex offenders including child abusers posed no threat once they had served their sentence.

She said: “There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.

“The Vetting and Barring Scheme and other legislative measures single out sex offenders for unfair special treatment and they destroy the principle that a prisoner pays his or her debt by serving their sentence before re-entering society on equal terms.”

Individuals are placed on the “Barred List” and banned from working with youngsters or vulnerable adults if they are convicted of a sexual or violent offence, or one involving the mistreatment of a child.

Miss Reece criticised the rules for leading all sex offenders to be “tarred with the same brush,” saying that while “careful screening” was “important,” the issuing of a “blanket ban” violated the rights of criminals who wanted to adopt or work with young people.

She highlighted the case of a grandfather with a conviction for having sex with a 15-year-old dating back to when he was 29, who was refused permission to adopt his own grandchildren.

The ban could contravene the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, and may leave the Government open to legal challenge, Miss Reece warned.

Comparing sex offenders to cohabiting couples, she suggested that if blanket bans on the former were allowed, it would make sense to bar those who were not married from adopting because parents who were wed were less likely to separate with harmful consequences for the child.

She also highlighted the case of four nurses who recently won a High Court challenge after being barred for having convictions. One of the nurses was banned over a police caution for leaving her own children alone in their home.

“Rather than presuming that everyone is a potential risk to children and must therefore be vetted, any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk,” the academic said.

“This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children.”

Miss Reece has been at the LSE since September 2009, having previously worked at the University of London, University College London and Birkbeck College.

A trained barrister, she has an MSc in logic and scientific method, and was awarded the Socio-Legal Studies Association Book Prize in 2004 for a monograph called “Divorcing Responsibly.

She has also argued that rape victims should no longer be granted anonymity.

A Home Office spokesman said: “It is safe to say that the vetting review will not be considering allowing paedophiles to adopt. It wouldn’t exactly go down well with the public.

“The review is very much focused on seeing whether the rules have gone too far in stopping normal volunteering with children, while continuing to carry out criminal records checks on people in sensitive posts, such as in the NHS.”

  • commonlaw

    You are one sick,twisted piece of work, resign already.

  • S8demon

    What a sick woman. Referring to the Human Rights of sex offender, what then about the Human Rights of the children she will be exposing to these sex offender.

  • Lisa Sneed
  • Aida

    You are a fuck wit.. You have no idea what a victim of sexual abuse goes through… You arrogant low life piece of shit..
    ” What about the Human Rights of a child” ? The is no help for Paedophile’s once a Paedophile always a Paedophile.. I work in this area of helping adults deal with their sexual abuse… After almost 30 years I’ve never , ever witnessed a remorseful, changed Paedophile… You are protecting a whole cesspit of scum politicians whose sexual orientation is Paedophilia

  • kamunrah

    This is the Enlightenment at work……

  • MEMacInnis

    “A trained barrister, she has an MSc in logic and scientific method” From where, Trump University?

  • BornVillain

    Obviously the folks commenting didn’t even read the article. The headline is a total fabrication and goes directly against what the spokesman said- “will not be considering allowing pedophiles to adopt”.
    I have no dog in this fight, I’m from the US, but I really dislike sensational, emotional clickbait.
    All they are saying is some sex offenders are people who in their distant past had consenual sex with a 17 year old when they where 19, and they should be able to adopt. Makes perfect sense.

    • M Dog

      The case of a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old does make sense and that is why there is a 4 year buffer in the law. However, A person having sex with a 15-year-old when they were 29 years old is very different from a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old.

      The article stated that any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk. The fact that they have been convicted as a sex offender is pretty strong evidence that they could be a risk to a child. Statistics have found that 84% of males who had been violated when they were young became violators in their adult years. The recidivism rate in this sort of crime is extremely high as well. And we should consider putting children at risk by allowing convicted sex offenders to be considered as possible adoptive parents? The risk is too high to allow them the chance to re-offend.

      This would not be a victory for human rights or for protecting the best interests of children. The best interest of a child is to not place them in a position where there is a high possibility they could be at risk of becoming a victim. We aren’t talking about people who were sexually violated as children being a possible risk here. We are talking about convicted sex offenders who have stepped over that line and committed a sexual offense upon a young child.

      And what happens if someone is screened and they are given a pass and they violate their adoptive child? What are you going to say to that child? We’re sorry we didn’t think they were going to be a risk to you? A lot of good that is going to be to that child!

      • Boro Boy Bluey

        “Statistics have found that 84% of males who had been violated when they were young became violators in their adult years.” Unless you can show some kind of proof to your statement I would suggest that you are a fool. Its people like you, making statements like this that prevent Violated Males coming forward earlier. I wonder, How many females children you suggest turn into violating adults?……

  • Eevie

    Where is common sense? wtf ok Bloodline are ALL pedos. It’s as natural to them as breathing. they are trying to force their ways on us…even make them law. We have to stop this insanity…we have to protect our children. Pedos are for killing…they, by their own admission, cannot be cured.

  • andrea

    unfucking real…nausty biatch….’low rate in child murderer’ pedophils want to have sex with children not kill them…stupid fuck…do they really think we are this stupid and we will go with this, just accept anything and everything…same is going on in Australia right now…fuckers…

    • M Dog

      Yes they do really think we are that stupid and that we will just go along with anything that they say as a fact. Does the world really believe that 9/11 was committed by terrorists from Afghanistan or Iraq? I doubt it. But they have many Americans believing that is the truth and if they can pass that off as truth, even with scientific proof that their version is a lie, to that many people, then they believe they can pass this off as being true as well. They are just that arrogant and believe that they have dumbed down the human population to the point that they can make us believe anything they tell us. The more important question is what are we going to do about it? They haven’t been stopped as of yet, so why shouldn’t they push the envelope even further?

  • Gary Carlyle Cook

    this website should be banned from fb. no doubt it will be soon.

  • 46nd2

    … and Jeremy Corbin gazes into a mirror at the next PM.

  • terryparkerjr

    This bitch should be shot and pissed on.

  • carol


  • Chris Sky

    Pedophile “right” to molest children. Trumps actually human rights of children.

    The lGbt agenda on display for all to see