Opinion: "Better the Devil you know", the Devil in detail and why blind trust in a failing system is the real danger
- Admin
- Jul 29
- 4 min read
The assertion that community protests against resident sex offenders are “dangerously misguided” is a conclusion born from an idealised view of public protection, one that crumbles under the weight of real-world evidence. While the original author, Tom Sinclair, argues for trusting the system and accepting the “devil you know,” this position rests on a dangerously flawed premise: that the system actually works as intended. For countless victims and concerned communities, the truth is far bleeker. The real danger is not public anger, but the institutional complacency that allows offenders to slip through the cracks. I agree - in part - with Tom Sinclairs' piece. They have to be housed somewhere, but bare with me.
The argument for quiet compliance hinges on the effectiveness of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). We are told that offenders are subject to “strict supervision” and are “dealt with” if they breach conditions. This is the polished veneer of procedure. The reality, evidenced by numerous harrowing cases and official reports, is one of systemic failures, overstretched resources, and catastrophic safeguarding breaches.
Let’s be clear: MAPPA is not a foolproof shield. A 2023 report by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation found significant shortcomings in the management of high-risk offenders, citing inconsistent information sharing between police and probation services and a failure to always take prompt enforcement action following non-compliance. Statistics from the Ministry of Justice have previously shown that a significant number of offenders under MAPPA supervision go on to commit further serious offences. In the 2021/22 reporting year, for instance, 198 MAPPA-managed offenders were convicted of a serious further offence in England and Wales. These are not mere administrative errors; they are failures that result in new victims. To tell a community to blindly trust this demonstrably imperfect system is to ask them to ignore a clear and present risk.
The “devil you know” argument is particularly insidious because it fosters this false sense of security. The idea that Dyfed-Powys Police have a unique “depth of local knowledge” about a resident offender, which would be lost if they were replaced by one from outside the area, romanticises the reality of modern policing and probation. Public services are at a breaking point. Caseloads for probation officers are often unmanageable, and police forces are stretched thin. The "strict supervision" we are promised can amount to little more than periodic phone calls and box-ticking exercises.
Furthermore, this narrative conveniently ignores instances where the focus of the authorities appears to shift from protecting the public to managing the offender’s life. When a community raises the alarm, they are often dismissed as a “mob.” Yet, this “mob” is frequently composed of parents and neighbours who have lost faith after seeing safeguarding alerts ignored, social service failures, and a system that seems more intent on protecting the rights of a predator than the safety of their children. The protests are not an act of random vigilantism; they are a vote of no confidence in authorities who have lost public trust.
To suggest that chasing out one offender simply imports another of unknown quantity is a cynical and simplistic calculation. It presents a false choice: accept this known risk, or we’ll give you a worse one. This logic deliberately sidesteps the fundamental question: why are these risks being imposed on communities in the first place? The protests are not merely about a single individual living on a specific street. They are a raw, public outcry against lenient sentences, a lack of transparency, and a pattern of failures that leaves communities feeling powerless and exposed. They are a demand for a system that prioritises public safety above all else.
I personally stood with the community of Letterston where a peaceful protest began. I saw genuine fear in local residents regarding safety of their children, their cousins, the schools, the parks & other public areas. Not one person was liaised with or spoken to in regarding to the sex offender that had previously been convicted - not once, but numerous times. I stood with residents and argued a Section 42 issues by the Police. We listened and moved to the following street where the Section 42 did not apply - at the entrance of the estate.
In a bid to support the community, I emailed Dyfed-Powys Police. A detective got back to me and was happy to discuss this case with myself, so I travelled 26 miles to Haverfordwest Police Station to meet with this detective to solely be told that his "higher ups" have instructed the detective to not speak with me. Why? What are they hiding? Many services and authorities in the area continued to shut down residents' freedom of speech, right to protest & genuine concerns. Locals also put posters up notifying members of the public in the area of these sex offenders, and police took their own time of day to remove these from the community - again, protecting the sex offender. The sex offender made a choice to commit a very serious crime, subject of which is registered on a sex offender database with an up-to-date picture of the offender. If this is public domain, why are the police removing the posters and taking time DURING their shift for this?
Placing faith in a broken system is not “common sense”; it is a gamble with the safety of the most vulnerable. While no one advocates for lawlessness, to label legitimate, fearful protest as “pitchfork politics” is to fundamentally misunderstand its cause. It is not the protests that drive offenders “underground.” It is the failure of the state to properly punish, monitor, and control them that creates the danger. When the public sees a system that repeatedly fails, their outrage is not misguided. It is necessary.
Demanding accountability and a system that genuinely protects our communities is not mob rule; it's a fight for survival. Better the devil you know? Not when the devil is being managed by a system you can no longer trust.