[Closed] What should I do about my neighbour?

Yes, but does he drive a big diesel, and/or drop litter?.

Burn his house down? Get the lynch mob round?
Perhaps have a realistic chat with your kids about life in general. Statistically it's more likely to have involved a family member or person like that.

Yes, but does he drive a big diesel, and/or drop litter?.

No, but I do.

Am I the monster here?

You should probably at least wait for the verdict, then lynch him anyway as the justice system doesn't work

Nothing at all?

Well - nothing at all until 'Accused' becomes 'Proven'. While it would be difficult to disprove he possessed the images 'taking or permitting to be taken' may not be proven. Consuming the material and participating in its production are very different things. Your local paper will have been hot on printing the accusations - papers aren't so good on following up on what has or hasn't been proven.

If its all proven then theres not much to do - he probably won't be your neighbour anymore.

Ask the popo if your kids are in the pics? Do you REALLY want to know, they can't think he's a danger or he'd be in custody, not terribly reassuring granted.

Pray for a cold snap?

Statistically it's more likely to have involved a family member or person like that.

So burn one of your relative's houses down, just in case.

thestabiliser - Member
Ask the popo

I think we've found the real monster now.

I work for a local paper. If we print accusations and name someone we are obliged to follow up the case and present the outcome.

I'm not sure how to put you're mind at rest but IF the police had found pictures which had apparently been taken in the street where he lives then you would know about it by now as you would have had a visit. A huge proportion of abusive images are ones widely circulated by paedophiles and are readily identifiable by those who have to investigate these offences. When "new" images are discovered they are widely circulated amongst forces (heavily edited of course) in an effort to identify potential victims.

It seems to me that you have legitimate/genuine concern. Have you spoken to the police? It may be that they are able to reassure you that none of the images involve your family.
Hopefully the case and if so you have done all that you can/should.

I work a local paper. If we print accusations and name someone we are obliged to follow up the case and present the outcome.

Do you print the follow-up on the same page and with the same prominence though? Genuine question as I have seen some national papers bury apologies down at the bottom of page 46 or something.

Feel sorry for him, warn the kids to steer clear and that's it, no harm done to you, poor bastards life is pretty much screwed anyway, doubt he'll stay in the locality much longer.

Do you print the follow-up on the same page and with the same prominence though?

Just print it in the last paragraph of the same article - safe in the knowledge that most readers won't read that far - or will have already formed their opinions if they do 🙂

Whilst I am obviously filled with revulsion for this guy, I am trying my level best to be even handed and give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't want to have the knee jerk reaction and frighten the kids and stop them having any contact with the world.

It's the thought of him watching them though.....

He will be on bail with conditions imposed to prevent risk of reoffending.
99.9% of offenders are looking at stuff on line only. Not photos of your kids.are you sure it was taking not making.if taking you would know if there was a chance it was your kids as the police would want you as a witness .
Most likely if quilty he will be put on a sex offender course to stop him doing it again and a suspended sentence to back it up.
Certainly if guilty he will go on the sex offender register to monitor his future risk .
In all probability he will get a Sex Harm Prevention Order (sexy asbo) to criminalise behaviour that may pose a future risk eg unsupervised contact with kids if relevant.

@ kennyp
It depends. Usually if it is big enough to be featured prominently then the verdict is worth reporting properly. The smaller offences would likely not warrant a huge piece first time round so the result would be correspondingly smaller.
Oxfordshire Guardian, Basingstoke Observer, Newbury Observer. You can check them out. There is a link on the websites to our ISSUU archives.

Local papers so covering thrilling local subjects once a week,

speak to the local safeguarding/community officer and heed their advice as to what to do and deal with it as advised

Not a great scenario to be in but you need to know what the real risks are to your kids - probably only been on the internet rather than taking them but if the later then greater vigilance obvs- and mitigate the risk as you see fit.

I would probably teach my kids to avoid and scream **** off paedo if they came anywhere near them and then report it to the police.

Its a less than ideal scenario for any parent and I feel for you, as I think any parent would [ and non parent to be fair].

Cheers Eddie. As I said it was a genuine question. Not so much an issue with local papers I suspect which generally have far more integrity, but some of the nationals (and I think we all know the ones I am talking about) are very quick to print lurid, unfounded accusations that can ruin people's lives, then when the person turns out to be innocent they print a tiny little apology that no-one ever reads. I'm thinking, for example, of that woman murdered in Bristol some years ago, whose landlord was vilified in the tabloids, then found to be totally innocent.

Yeah, well we're not big enough to bribe and hacking our reader's phones would probably provide fascinating information about nail bars and pig farms - integrity comes easy in such circumstances.

To be fair to the local paper, it was a bare statement of facts in a few paragraphs.

There was no attempt to sensationalise it and it appeared in the court report column along with the usual smattering of assault charges.

It's not the local paper that's accusing him. It's the Procurator Fiscal.

I'm surprised I even noticed it to be honest.

... is this really about Israel ?

I'm thinking, for example, of that woman murdered in Bristol some years ago, whose landlord was vilified in the tabloids, then found to be totally innocent.

You're right, and in that case, as the fella never made it as far as court, they weren't even legally obligated to cover proceedings fully in the way Kenny describes.

Thankfully Chris Jefferies had the money and confidence to take some of the papers to court for libel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14339807

Feel sorry for him, warn the kids to steer clear and that's it, no harm done to you, poor bastards life is pretty much screwed anyway, doubt he'll stay in the locality much longer.

Pretty generous outlook there. Not sure I would be so relaxed.

speak to the local safeguarding/community officer and heed their advice as to what to do and deal with it as advised

Best advice so far

It's the thought of him watching them though.....

Yeah, with his eyes emitting those damaging paedo-rays. Better kill him now in case he looks at anyone else.

^^^

How is that helpful?

Most parents would prefer that a suspected sex offender was not watching their children. if you cannot work out the reason when why not ask rather than be so fatuous?
One day we will actually have a sensible adult conversation on here for an entire thread but it is not this day

its one of those things we absolutely need a free press in this country but it is also absolutely clear they are abusing that position of trust in order to vilify people - be it politicians* or just innocent members of the public who look a bit weird.

* the DM red ed and hid dad as traitor when his dad fought in the war with us and they supported the brown shirts being an obvious and odious example.

[img] [/img]

Yeah, with his eyes emitting those damaging paedo-rays. Better kill him now in case he looks at anyone else.

Are you really suggesting that I should be comfortable with the thought of a seventy year old man with a prediliction for images of child pornography, standing at his window watching my thirteen year old daughter or eleven and eight year old sons playing in the garden?

Can you feel the damage my can't-believe-you-said-that-rays are doing to you right now?

Perchy, I've got kids. No one can hurt them by looking at them, just like no one can hurt me by looking at me. At 13 and 8 they are old enough to understand not to go with him if he asks them to, and if he's 70 they can probably run faster than he can if he chases them (which is incredibly unlikely to happen). I think the reality is that he should be pretty low down on the list of risks they face.

I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with him looking at them, even if it's not actually doing any measurable harm. I get a similar feeling when I catch a guy eyeing up my 17yr old daughter, which I suppose is perfectly normal and to be expected...

That said, other than warning your kids not to go near him, and to let you know if he tries to approach them, I don't think there's much you can (or should) do.

Are you really suggesting that I should be comfortable with the thought of a seventy year old man with a prediliction for images of child pornography, standing at his window watching my thirteen year old daughter or eleven and eight year old sons playing in the garden?

Can you feel the damage my can't-believe-you-said-that-rays are doing to you right now?

It's a really emotive one and in your position I can understand why you would be on edge. I think one of the problems with it is most normal folk can't begin to comprehend the attraction these men have so it all becomes even more scary.

Should you be indignant that he may see your kids as they go about their daily lives? No

Should you be worried if you see him standing outside your house or loitering in the bushes rubbing his thighs - hell yes!

Should you be worried if some of the things he has been accused of means he might approach/snatch/assault your kids and he only lives a couple of doors doors? Yes to that too.

I guess the direct legal/normal equivalent would be that I would imagine in your time you have looked at enough grumble to be familiar with the art. Should the woman next door be worried about you perving over her or assaulting her because you like looking at naked ladies in the privacy of your lair/ computer room?

At 13 and 8 they are old enough to understand not to go with him if he asks them to, and if he's 70 they can probably run faster than he can if he chases them

You don't think that an adult who falls into the friendly family member / friend / neighbour category would be able to outsmart a kid and convince them to come into his house and then bribe or terrify them into keeping quiet afterwards?

or, failing that, resort to a huge net?

I am well aware that he has probably never posed a real threat to my children and certainly won't be a risk in the future.

The thought of him cracking one off while hiding behind the curtains still disturbs me on a visceral level, however.

I understand your reaction, Perchy, but at least you can warn your kids to avoid this particular man.
But, to be realistic, it's all the unidentified perverts out there that we need to be wary of.

Sorry, that's not particularly helpful, is it? 🙁

The knee jerk reaction is natural as it's unthinkable that someone should be given opportunity to harm your children but the bloke with the indecent images is no more likely to attack a child than blokes learing at woman in person or on the internet are to be rapists. it's a big leap from having desires even socially unnatural ones and acting on them.

As for the original question of what to do. Talk to your children (as you've done) explain to them that some people aren't to be trusted, not all people are good people and that they shouldn't talk to that man in particular and make sure they know what to do if they feel unsafe then leave the specifics of this case in the hands of the police. If there is a danger to neighbour's you'll find out about it first hand.

Playing devil's advocate, you don't know that he's eyeing up your kids if as someone else has suggested he's got a supply of ready-made and widely circulated unpleasantness to look at. And in the age of the Internet, arguably he's safer doing that than having to resort to making his own.

People can't help their predilections, in the same way that you can't help being gay or having a foot fetish. Doesn't necessarily make them evil predators, though of course it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't either. Must be pretty grim to be afflicted with such a perversion.

Difficult situation, you have my sympathies.

it's a big leap from having desires even socially unnatural ones and acting on them.

Yeah, that's broadly what I was trying to say.

The thought of him cracking one off while hiding behind the curtains still disturbs me on a visceral level, however.

I get that, but convert's question provides some perspective. And visceral reactions are frequently unhelpful. Maybe my paedo-rays comment was OTT, but as the second part of junkyard'c comment suggests, we have to get better at being more rational about some of these threats.

You don'tr think that an adult who falls into the friendly family member / friend / neighbour category would be able to outsmart a kid and convince them to come into his house and then bribe or terrify them into keeping quiet afterwards?

Yes, it happens. The best way to guard against this is to make sure your kids have an age-appropriate understanding of the world, and don't assume that because you've told them something once they'll remember it forever. The world can be a dangerous place, although not as dangerous as the tabloids would have you believe, and our job as parents is to give our children the best chance we can - but not to instill them with fear and paranoia, or to over-protect them. It can be a difficult line to tread.

Kill him, cook him, and eat him as a warning to others to stay away from your kids. Or do nothing if you can't be bothered.

Unless your kids are going round to his house to play doctors or whatever, I'm not sure you really have much to worry about.

Kids are much more likely to be abused by someone they know or are in some way close to - relatives, friends of family, TV presenters, etc... Whilst I can understand the concern, some guy down the street looking at some dodgy images of children is unlikely to be any threat whatsoever to your own kids. If he was personally producing his own images....that would be more worrying, but again unlikely to involve your kids unless they have any real contact with them. Let the law deal with it.

If he was personally producing his own images....that would be more worrying,

Which is one of the two charges he's facing.....

Kill him, cook him, and eat him as a warning to others to stay away from your kids

I did this with a clown once. Didn't enjoy it. He tasted funny.

Break his didgeridoo?

it's a big leap from having desires even socially unnatural ones and acting on them.

This. Walking around Tescos I see dozens of women I'd like to shag, so far I haven't felt compelled to rape anyone. Plus the law on indecent images is pretty crazy. It's perfectly legal to marry and have sex with a 17yo girl but if you take naked photos of her it's a criminal act and you go on the sex offenders register - even if you're 17 yourself - even if the photo you took is *of* yourself! Also possession isn't an offence so if the image is on paper instead of electronic and there's no evidence you (made) downloaded the image it's not even an illegal image.

Also it's entirely possible this guy had a perfectly 'normal' porn stash with every single girl over 18 but one of the girls looked under 18. Guessing the age of women with makeup is pretty tricky. (I've always wondered if that's why why so many Islamists seem to get done for child porn offences - if every porn image you've ever downloaded is investigated there's probably a few that look like they might be 17yo.)

However, let's assume his images weren't of his 17yo wife, or 'normal' porn he'd downloaded from p*rnhub and he really is a peado. Does the knowledge that there's a peado nearby really change anything? I supervise my children appropriately with regard to all the risks they face - I'm not sure I'd do anything differently if I knew one of my neighbours was a peado. Singling one neighbour out for a warning seems needless, they shouldn't be going anywhere alone with anyone without me knowing.

So yeah, if I was in the situation (and like the OP I wouldn't like it very much) I'd pretty much carry on as normal.

People can't help their predilections, in the same way that you can't help being gay or having a foot fetish. Doesn't necessarily make them evil predators, though of course it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't either. Must be pretty grim to be afflicted with such a perversion.

I've never dared admit it but I've started to think along these lines. These guys don't ask to be wired up the way they are. If they offend against children that's different, but just having an unfortunate desire is just an accident of biology.

we have to get better at being more rational about some of these threats.

the other thing is you are in a better position as last week you did not know so if he started helping out your kids/showing an interest you might have thought lonely old man with no grand kids nearby rather than think sex offender is grooming my kids.
Knowledge is power and no one would choose to live this close to a sex offender but better it is known and managed than not known and unmanaged

possession isn't an offence

Latest incarnation is Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and its up to three years for each offence

Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Thanks for the correction:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/62

I thought it was the Child Protection Act but a search for "takes or permits to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudophotograph of a child;" points to other legislation as well.

You'd think they'd keep all the legislation in the same place.

aye its in a daft place but i am not certain it has ever been legal to have child pornography pics - possibly the old law was possession of indecent images ?
IANAL

Walking around Tescos I see dozens of women I'd like to shag,

More info needed, which store?

For indecent images we usually charge under Protection of children act 1978, theoretically it's ten years max, it's unusual for people to be found nowadays with iioc who have not had to create it themselves so straight possession doesn't happen much. If thepolicechad had found first generation images a victim Id process would have been undertaken, any images found would have been put through a system to identify new images I.e CAID and there are protocols to deal with what might be new images

aye its in a daft place but i am not certain it has ever been legal to have child pornography pics - possibly the old law was possession of indecent images ?
IANAL

It's weird because I looked into all this after a high profile case a while back - I thought subsequent to 2009.

At that time I found that possession had historically been legal (which makes sense, it's quite legal to have a photo of a child being killed) but that with the child protection act and with the advent of the internet there was a test case in which a judge decided 'make' included download which effectively make possession of electronic media images illegal because in the eyes of the law by downloading them you've made them.

Given all that it's quite a surprise to me to find that there's a specific 'possession' offence which seems to make the Child Protection Act a bit redundant on this specific issue along with all the legal clarification of it. None the less, it's there!

Send the kids to a fairground. They should be safe from wrong-uns with cameras, there. 😯

It recently came to light that a guy about 3 doors along from us in Edinburgh - who had moved into the area - had moved in after an old conviction, and was then re-arrested, after we'd moved on, for much the same offences, possession of images, child abuse as a care worker. I never had taken to him, and would not have been happy had he had any contact with our children, but I wasn't aware off any suspicions when he was in the street.

When it was about 13 I got a lift off my cousin's mate a few times he was about 23 (thought it was a bit weird but made it easier to get places...) Nothing happened to me.
I'm
But a few years later i found out he was in jail for indecent images (apparently very very bad ones) of children being found on his computer, wasn't a very nice thought knowing I willingly got into an actual paedos van 😯

Just had a bit more time to type about the legal aspect, IANAL, the coroners court act, linked above, doesn't apply to photos or pseudo photos but images, we have used this recently for a person with indecent cartoons of children. S65 of it details definitions which details this.

which makes sense, it's quite legal to have a photo of a child being killed

Not at all sure about that, images depicting sadism, which could include a child being killed, to a child would be regarded as Cat A indecent images of a child, which would put you at the higher end of a charge, under Protection of children act. Ultimately the question of if an image of a certain child being killed is indecent would be up to a jury using an objective test. I think a lot would depend on the mechanism of the child "being killed".

My 3 children are the only kids who live in our street and, as far as I am able to ascertain from talking to them, they have never had any contact with him either.

On the one hand I'd be glad that the peado hasn't went near them.

On the other hand, I'd be worried now that I had ugly kids.

perchypanther - Member 

If he was personally producing his own images....that would be more worrying,

Which is one of the two charges he's facing.....

Producing his own or downloading, the offence is considered the same. Both considered 'making'. Can even be a count for every photo. Ends up someone downloading stuff gets a bigger sentence than those fiddling with kids.

All nasty whatever, but let's not forget, innocent until proven guilty. Even if the press have forgotten it and this guy's life is basically over whatever happens. Even if innocent he'll get attacked and bricks through his window. If not, he's off to jail and the shit will be kicked out of him.

Can even be a count for every photo.

The charge would be that you made x amount of images rather than a seperate charge for each image and yes each image is counted seperately as they are seperate images even if they are duplicates.

Ends up someone downloading stuff gets a bigger sentence than those fiddling with kids

with the advent of the internet there was a test case in which a judge decided 'make' included download which effectively make possession of electronic media images illegal because in the eyes of the law by downloading them you've made them.

By downloading an image, you have made a copy of it. There's no "in the eyes of the law" - it is reality. Those who actually abuse the children and take the original photo would generally get a far harsher sentence than those downloading them.

Playing devil's advocate, you don't know that he's eyeing up your kids if as someone else has suggested he's got a supply of ready-made and widely circulated unpleasantness to look at.

Sure, the marginal impact of one person is small but you have to look at these things collectively. I mean, what if we all drove remapped diesels?

Must be pretty grim to be afflicted with such a perversion.

To make it worse, society alienates those who want help because if you are "outed" then the lynch mobs gather, meaning that help isn't sought to manage these feelings. Criminals need punished, people who can't help their feelings need help (with plenty falling into both camps).

I sympathise entirely, perchy. You know who I am, so put this in context:

When I was working in Northern Canada, a man was released from prison into my community for having done exactly what you describe in your OP.

For the sake of everyone under my care, I called the police and asked for advice. They essentially told me to relax, and that they were on the case. I ultimately called a meeting of everyone who might be affected in my community to discuss the issue, but it turns out we needn't ever have worried.

He was re-arrested and taken away with about two weeks of having returned home. Poor, sick man.

When you know it is wrong, but can't stifle your feelings must be hell. Perhaps a lot like being homosexual before it was tolerated

Sure. There's a world of difference between being a paedophile and being an active paedophile. The former you can't help, the latter you absolutely can.

As the father of kids, I'd be more worried about the paedophiles i don't know about than the ones I do.

Sounds like a useful teachable moment for your kids about what to watch out.

Walking around Tescos I see dozens of women I'd like to shag, so far I haven't felt compelled to rape anyone. Plus the law on indecent images is pretty crazy. It's perfectly legal to marry and have sex with a 17yo girl but if you take naked photos of her it's a criminal act and you go on the sex offenders register - even if you're 17 yourself - even if the photo you took is *of* yourself! Also possession isn't an offence so if the image is on paper instead of electronic and there's no evidence you (made) downloaded the image it's not even an illegal image.

Also it's entirely possible this guy had a perfectly 'normal' porn stash with every single girl over 18 [u]but one of the girls looked under 18[/u]. Guessing the age of women with makeup is pretty tricky. (I've always wondered if that's why why so many Islamists seem to get done for child porn offences - [u]if every porn image you've ever downloaded is investigated[/u] there's probably a few that look like they might be 17yo.)

However, let's assume his images weren't of his 17yo wife, or 'normal' porn he'd downloaded from p*rnhub and he really is a peado. Does the knowledge that there's a peado nearby really change anything? I supervise my children appropriately with regard to all the risks they face - I'm not sure I'd do anything differently if I knew one of my neighbours was a peado. Singling one neighbour out for a warning seems needless, they shouldn't be going anywhere alone with anyone without me knowing.

So yeah, if I was in the situation (and like the OP I wouldn't like it very much) I'd pretty much carry on as normal.

I remember a lot of commentary when laws where brought in. The bit I remember is that these laws are meant to be discretionary... effectively making everyone guilty and the CPS and police then choose who to prosecute.

A photo of a baby in a bath is illegal... etc. etc. I know my mum is a potential criminal as she has a nearly 50 year old photo of me and my brother in the bath...

If I remember correctly the photo doesn't need to be of a minor, an adult pretending to be a minor is also illegal... (given the old page 3's its amazing some nationals are so vocal)

Unless you have a huge amount of filtering software and empty your browser caches then [u]anyone[/u]can have illegal photo's ... it just pops up (annoyingly you dismiss it and another window pops up) or you do some random google search (nothing to do with porn) that unfiltered brings up illegal photo's ... and the images are in your browser cache. You don't need to select download... if you can see it on the screen it's downloaded... even if you don't want to see it..

A child can get legally married ... but it could be theoretically illegal for a parent to give them a condom for their honeymoon. (As that is encouraging them to have sex) ... and it would be illegal to have a garter belt photo of the bride (as that is sexualising minors)

The point this bloke is being investigated means nothing unless he is actually prosecuted for something ...... meanwhile....

Your kids are far far more likely to have an accident in the home.... or in a car etc. You need to put perspective on these things...

My brother just flew back to Manchester (where he lives) where my mother was stressing out... despite the recent horrific incidents his chance of coming to harm in Manchester is minuscule ... he drives 40k a year (work) so he is far more likely to come to harm driving than being "blown up" in Manchester.

To make it worse, society alienates those who want help because if you are "outed" then the lynch mobs gather, meaning that help isn't sought to manage these feelings. Criminals need punished, people who can't help their feelings need help (with plenty falling into both camps).

Did anyone see "The missing" .... on BBC ???

Like most people I'd imagine I had it in for the paedo's .... the final episode really made me think !

Walking around Tescos I see dozens of women I'd like to shag,
More info needed, which store?

Standards, please!

Waitrose for a better class of lecherous perving.

I got into psychotherapy with a view to trying to help paedophiles. When I was questioned about it by fellow students and friends the general view was why help those sick bastards.

I dropped out of the whole thing in the end after realising I was too much of a **** up to help others. Later I was told by the tutor that's just the kind of self honesty they look for in counsellers... 🙂

Can you feel the damage my can't-believe-you-said-that-rays are doing to you right now?

Made me chortle...

hoof him in the slats
wee on his shoes
wee through his letterbox
poo on his doorstep

then if he's found guilty then get the pitchfork and bombers out and then join the mob in lynching him up before you burn down his house!!
if he's not found guilty...burn his house down anyway

outofbreath - Member

just having an unfortunate desire is just an accident of biology.

In fact it's usually the result of having been abused themselves.

Walking around Tescos I see dozens of women I'd like to shag,

Lidl for me; the Reader's Wives of supermarkets

Should the woman next door be worried about you perving over her or assaulting her because you like looking at naked ladies in the privacy of your lair/ computer room?

it's a big leap from having desires even socially unnatural ones and acting on them.

There's a heterosexual man down our street. He has indecent pictures of women. I'm worried that he may have surrepticiously taken pictures of my wife (she's a woman).

There's a heterosexual man down our street. He has indecent pictures of women. I'm worried that he may have surrepticiously taken pictures of my wife (she's a woman).

Is he in court tomorrow being prosecuted for taking illegal and illicit photographs of women without their consent?

If he is, then maybe you should be worried

was in court last week accused of "possessing indecent pictures of children" and "taking or permitting to be taken photos of children"

The former is absolutely meaningless because the vast majority of the population will unknowingly possess images that can be classed as "possessing indecent pictures of children"

Just do an google image search for "Blue Lagoon movie" and you are now in possession of illegal images of children.

"taking or permitting to be taken photos of children" ?
This isn't an offence unless the photo's are of a sexual nature.

My 3 children are the only kids who live in our street and, as far as I am able to ascertain from talking to them, they have never had any contact with him either. Obviously, we have spoken to them about it and warned them from having any contact with him in the future.

I genuinely don't know what to feel or do about this.

How do I know he hasn't been taking pictures of my 13 year old daughter through her bedroom window?

You don't know for certain but what changed from a year ago ???
If there was any evidence of this you would have been informed. Its [b]possible[/b] he is a computer expert that can fool the police forensics teams ... but it seems extremely unlikely...

You've spoken to the kids...

If he was "in court" only 4 basic things can have happened ..
He has been found innocent of any wrong doing
He has been found guilty
..the court case is ongoing or
the court case was dismissed before it even started

If he was found guilty he in unlikely at 70 to see the outside of a prison again
If its still ongoing perhaps you may have to wait a week?

[b]If he was found innocent then I think you need to put this to the back of your mind and consider you could easily be in court for possession of indecent images of children.
[/b]
You'd hope that if you have some photo's of your kids on holiday or in the bath when they were 1-2 that its not going to go that far... and if it does that you are then going to be found innocent ...

Court case is still ongoing. He is back in court today.

perchy ... wait and see ...

If there is any evidence the immediate problem will solve itself...

It's extremely unlikely it will in any way involve your kids but meanwhile you will probably imagine 101 ways it might.

Update:

Neighbour, who turns out to be a retired teacher, pleads guilty to downloading 10000 images of which 3000 are Category A.

Will be sentenced in July.

Thankfully i doubt the ****er will be your neighbour for long then and hopefully will end up in prison.

He'll probably get a suspended sentence, enrolled onto a rehabilitation program and on registered sex offenders list

He'll probably get a suspended sentence, enrolled onto a rehabilitation program and on registered sex offenders list

10,000 images and a retired teacher? I wouldn't be at all surprised if more serious charges aren't brought quite soon.

I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are and I'm not going to google but that number of Cat A sounds large. His age is going to mitigate against a custodial sentence, though, as is an early guilty plea.

I hope the fear he must now be living in is sufficient punishment but given what he likely had images of I'm not sure anything could be.