Paedophiles want to get their hands on your children. That means your government.

Sex offenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt, Theresa May told

Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are ‘unfair’ and even convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said.

Theresa May was urged to allow sex offenders to adopt Photo: AFP

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.”


6 Responses to “Paedophiles want to get their hands on your children. That means your government.”

  1. sovereigntea says:

    According to

    0207-955-7239 (office)
    07940 889411[1](mobile) (email)

    Helen Reece is a middle-class Sexual Bolshevist and radical feminist agitator in the United Kingdom.

    Her specialised field is attempting to undermine the family and subvert law in regards to the “regulation of the family”. In her earlier period, she was known for agitating to have innocent children placed with sodomites as part of adoption. This has naturally developed into her agitating to have children handed over to convicted pedophiles and rapists.[2]

    She is involved with the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at the University of Kent, a critical theory style, cultural Marxist association, founded by Frank Furedi✡ and Ellie Lee. The former a Trotskyist Jew,[3] red professor and pro-pedophile activist, who previous founded and led the Revolutionary Communist Party.

    • sovereigntea says:

      Centre for Parenting Culture Studies

      Under a clever masquerade of critiquing “political correctness”, Furedi has authored propaganda pieces dealing with child-adult relations. He couches his dialogue as if it were against a PC big-brother paternalism from the state and what he calls “paranoid parenting” (ie – parents concerned to protect their children). The true purpose of the dialectic is an absolutely deft critical theory defence of pedophiles, centered around the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at Kent University. The mask has on occasion slipped, notably in 2010 when a representative of the group Helen Reece issued a pamphlet telling the government to allow convicted sex offenders, including pedophiles and rapists to adopt children.[6]

      Frank Furedi✡ (born 1947) is a communist Jew[1] agitator and later day red-professor in sociology at the University of Kent. Although he was born in Hungary, he is best known for his subversion in the United Kingdom, which he invaded and settled via Canada. With co-racialist David Yaffe,✡☭ he was the founding chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party in 1978, a rabidly Britanophobic Trotskyist fifth column. Later on Furedi became associated with Living Marxism and its entryist front group web-journal Spiked. During his RCP days, Furedi attempted to hide his identity behind the name Frank Richards.[2]

  2. Anonymous says:

    They simply wont get away with this as more vigilante’s will set up. So good luck with this latest of a string of laws to keep the sheeple angry. We will have them one day and I really wouldnt want to be one of them. Taking the law into your hands is a very dangerous move Mrs May… Think very carefully about this.

    • pauline says:

      Am I correct in thinking Theresa May is currently being featured as future Prime Minister??she is nothing but a filthy paedophile sympathiser and probably up to her armpits in filthy Paedophiles,this woman should never be allowed to be Prime minister,also none of the current filth should be allowed anywhere near Parliament,these people all support the rape and torture of our dear little innocent children,and whilst these monsters are in power NO CHILD IS SAFE

      • Tapestry says:

        Pauline, we have to find people to stand as independent PPCs at the general election on a child protection ticket. FInd the issues that work in your constituency and agree who’s to stand. No political party can be trusted, as essentially all are managed using the child abuse system. We can’t get rid of political parties if people keep voting for them.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.