I was a victim and I don’t want paedophile living in my village

Have your say

Jenny Barwell (Linc Free Press letters, May 15) really doesn’t have a clue. Only someone living a mile away, with no children and little life experience would spout such politically-correct drivel regarding sex offenders.

She’s “disappointed” about the perfectly proper publicity given to this case. The majority of the community is much more than disappointed that a convicted paedophile has come to live in Surfleet.

She thinks the “vilification” of Mr Tumber is “unjust”. What did she think he received a 45-month sentence for? Knitting?

The Free Press produced a factual article and the editor made a very restrained response, I thought, to Ms Barwell’s misinterpretation of Sarah’s Law.

Whilst she’s carrying on about a sex pest’s so-called “right to a normal life”, what about the normal lives of the people in the community, many of whom have been deeply distressed to learn of his arrival.

What about their right to a normal life, to enjoy their gardens, their street, their homes, visits from their grandchildren?

And has it occurred to Ms Barwell that there may be people in the village who have been victims of paedophiles?

When I was nine years old, I was a victim. Every time I walk past this man’s house I feel physically sick while he is in his garden enjoying himself. According to “Jenny’s Law”, I suppose I should move in order that he can stay. How “fair” is that Ms Barwell?

It’s all very well for Paul Tumber and his partner to want a normal life, but to achieve it they must destroy the peace of mind of those that live around them.

If they gave a damn about anyone except themselves, they would have picked an isolated property, not one slap-bang in the middle of a village with a playing field and primary school. I suggest Ms Barwell thinks a bit harder about all sides of the equation next time she parades her inexperience in the press.