Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth

[Jonti]

Outright sexual and physical abuse within the family is difficult to tackle, and it dwarfs the peril of stranger-danger, which is easily guarded against.

But more important and significant in terms of numbers even than that familial abuse is neglect. Far more kids are neglected, than are actively abused. But in either case, the result is youngsters wanting to get way from home, and ill equipped to do so. Those that do are vulnerable to sexual predators. And that may seem preferable than being returned home.

The kids have rights here. They have a right to come home from school to a warm house and a responsible adult. No-one seems to support that; the government is all for getting carers back into work when their child is as young as twelve. They intend to back this up with benefit cuts.

That's not going to help tackle the national disgrace of neglect and abuse of children. That would be expensive. It's far cheaper to distract from the real issues of child poverty and neglect by banging the drum about stranger-danger!

 

[dylans]

I believe "handing out bags of sweets" and "blinded by moral panics" are two more of yours.

Well I will take credit for the sweets image but the term "blinded by moral panic" alas isn't mine. (wish it was)

 

[dylans]

Jonti But more important and significant in terms of numbers even than that familial abuse is neglect. Far more kids are neglected, than are actively abused. But in either case, the result is youngsters wanting to get way from home, and ill equipped to do so. Those that do are vulnerable to sexual predators. And that may seem preferable than being returned home.

The kids have rights here. They have a right to come home from school to a warm house and a responsible adult. No-one seems to support that; the government is all for getting carers back into work when their child is as young as twelve. They intend to back this up with benefit cuts.

That's not going to help tackle the national disgrace of neglect and abuse of children. That would be expensive. It's far cheaper to distract from the real issues of child poverty and neglext by banging the drum about stranger-danger!

Absolutely. A point I made earlier. I will believe that the issue of child abuse is being addressed when there are demonstrations against single parents being forced to work in poundland while their kids come to home to an empty house.

I'm a single dad with a 10 year old kid who I love very much. I am in despair at the dilemma I am being faced with, having to choose between taking care of my son and taking some shitty minimum wage job.

 

[existentialist]

fine if you want to look like a know it all hammering home a point in a very obvious fashion.

Since we're getting all personal here, you're really quite hung up on this issue about other people's intelligence.

I suppose I could take it as flattery, but I'm getting a sneaky feeling it isn't intended that way. Does the sight of a reasonably well-deployed logical argument bring you out in a rash, or something?

 

[dylans]

Since we're getting all personal here, you're really quite hung up on this issue about other people's intelligence.

I suppose I could take it as flattery, but I'm getting a sneaky feeling it isn't intended that way. Does the sight of a reasonably well-deployed logical argument bring you out in a rash, or something?

Angels anti intellectualism is pretty obvious isn't it?

 

[Jonti]

I will believe that the issue of child abuse is being addressed when there are demonstrations against single parents being forced to work in poundland while their kids come to home to an empty house.

* applauds

 

[_angel_]

Absolutely. A point I made earlier. I will believe that the issue of child abuse is being addressed when there are demonstrations against single parents being forced to work in poundland while their kids come to home to an empty house.

I'm a single dad with a 10 year old kid who I love very much. I am in despair at the dilemma I am being faced with, having to choose between taking care of my son and taking some shitty minimum wage job.

I think forcing lone parents into work if they don't have the childcare is shit there is not, however, a monopoly on only being able to care about one thing!

And as you said, it could be construed as potential neglect, however, the finger will inevitably get pointed back at the parent, not the state forcing them into that position.

But once again, why can someone only care about one thing.

 

[dylans]

I think forcing lone parents into work if they don't have the childcare is shit there is not, however, a monopoly on only being able to care about one thing!

And as you said, it could be construed as potential neglect, however, the finger will inevitably get pointed back at the parent, not the state forcing them into that position.

But once again, why can someone only care about one thing.

Angel be careful, we almost agree on something.

The point is while we are distracted by the bogeymen in the park this mundane neglect is being forced upon us. That's the purpose of distractions.

 

[_angel_]

Angels anti intellectualism is pretty obvious isn't it?

Are you and your mate on some kind of competition for the most condescending attitude in one post?

 

[_angel_]

Angel be careful, we almost agree on something.

The point is while we are distracted by the bogeymen in the park this mundane neglect is being forced upon us. That's the purpose of distractions.

Sadly, I don't think it is a distraction. Unfortunately no one cares about lone parents unless they work.

 

[Jonti]

But once again, why can someone only care about one thing.

How dare you imply your correspondents do not care about the rape of children! Is there to be no end to these slanders?

Again: the moral hysteria distracts from the real issues. The propaganda serves a purpose, and its purpose is not to make life better and safer for kids.

You are not making life better and safer for kids if you allow yourself to get taken in.

 

[tbaldwin]

Angels anti intellectualism is pretty obvious isn't it?

More celebrating ignorance. This anti intellectualism you are so fond of is incredibly tedious. Thinking isn't bad.

Sadly your arrogance stops you from having a real discussion. Instead you seem to want to dismiss anyone who disagrees you as part of what you see as some frenzied ignorant media influenced mob.
You have made the point several times about the real danger being not stranger danger but within the family home. But what have you got to say about that? How do you think that should be tackled?
Why do you assume that people worried about stranger danger as you put it are not worried about kids abused by family members and friends etc?

 

[Jonti]

My guess: Because one has to endlessly challenge sensationalist headlines, government "initiatives", and outright deceitful manipulation of information.

That, and the fact that when one does challenge these things, one then has to endure endless slanders which may well seek to paint one as a sexual criminal, or at least an apologist for abuse, and one's parents as nonces.

And all this even in the more "progressive" parts of the country, like here

 

[dylans]

My guess: Because one has to endlessly challenge sensationalist headlines, government "initiatives", and outright deceitful manipulation of information.

and knee jerk populist legislation

 

[kenny g]

and knee jerk populist legislation

Proposals have been put forward in this thread for registered details of convicted paedos to be published which you have only responded to by accusing those putting them forward as being part of a media moral panic. That is kneejerk.

 

[_angel_]

and knee jerk populist legislation

"knee jerk" is another one!

 

[Jonti]

Such a measure makes it look as if the government is Doing Something.

But they are not. It is exactly the neglected and abused children who are at risk. Functional families have no trouble protecting their children from the sexual predations of strangers. It is easy to guard against stranger-danger; the existence of a register doesn't change that.

What it does, however, is to criminalise a large number of people as "paedophiles" who are no such thing, not in any proper understanding of the term. One clear example is a married couple under the age of eighteen who may not possess a nude photograph of each other, for fear of being prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders register.

Yes, it's insane. But that's moral panics for you.

 

[dylans]

"knee jerk" is another one!

Dylansisms

 

[_angel_]

I do think I said about a million times, no way should someone who is 17 with a 15 yo etc be a) prosecuted nevermind b) put on a sex offenders public list anywhere. Mostly people in that category you mentioned wouldn't be prosecuted in this country however.

 

[Jonti]

"Don't worry what the law says, they won't apply it"

You think?

 

[dylans]

Proposals have been put forward in this thread for registered details of convicted paedos to be published which you have only responded to by accusing those putting them forward as being part of a media moral panic. That is kneejerk.

The demand for legislation to tackle a problem that doesn't need tackling solely on the basis of crude stereotypes and salacious tabloid scare stories is knee jerk.

Legislation that is ill thought out and enacted soley to satisfy the populist demands of the News of the World (which is exactly the case with Sarah's Law) is knee jerk

Legislation that is enacted despite the evidence that not only does it not work but actually may make the situation worse but is enacted despite this because of a need to be seen to "do something" is knee jerk.

 

[existentialist]

Angels anti intellectualism is pretty obvious isn't it?

I'm going in for Tactful Understatement. For all the good it'll do me

 

[Jonti]

The way I see it, it is just not a good idea to have laws that criminalise married children taking a nude photo of their partner (or "making child pornography" as it would now be called).

Such stupidity should not be tolerated for a moment, let alone waved away as inconsequential (oh! they'll never actually prosecute anyone for that).

 

[existentialist]

Why do you assume that people worried about stranger danger as you put it are not worried about kids abused by family members and friends etc?

Well, because they're barely ever mentioned, for a start? It's all "paedo beasts" and scary old men offering kids a show of their puppies outside the park. As ever, the mundane routine-ness of it all isn't nearly interesting enough for the papers, so they whip up their stories - as ever - about the behaviours on the extreme margins, and quietly ignore the main body of activity (in this case familial abuse).

And then well-meaning but otherwise rather dull people see this terrible scourge of our children - "won't someone think of the children?" - and get all up in arms, and pitchforks, about it. And then they come on here and rant about it. Further reinforcing the unrepresentative stereotypes.

You want to do something about "paedo scum"? Start working out how to protect kids from it happening to THEM. And that's best achieved with education (of kids and other family members to spot when something is going off), decent rehabilitation and treatment as appropriate, and some reasonable follow-up care for the victims.

Marching down the street shouting slogans only makes it worse.

 

[dylans]

 

[_angel_]

The way I see it, it is just not a good idea to have laws that criminalise married children taking a nude photo of their partner (or "making child pornography" as it would now be called).

Such stupidity should not be tolerated for a moment, let alone waved away as inconsequential (oh! they'll never actually prosecute anyone for that).

That is not what is being suggested though. (Except by you)

 

[Jonti]

Oh, you didn't know?

That is the present legal position. A married couple under the age of eighteen who take nude photos of each other may be prosecuted for making child pornography, and registered as sex offenders.

It seems you don't realise just how easy it is to end up on the sex-offenders' register.

 

[_angel_]

Oh, you didn't know?

That is the present legal position. A married couple under the age of eighteen who take nude photos of each other may be prosecuted for making child pornography.

Once again, and for about the millionth and oneth time, I don't think that is the kind of information that would be important or useful to any local community.
Does this mean we should not know about someone who raped a child under ten though?

And yes I did, which is why, again, I said information like that should be not about prostitutes etc or anyone who doesn't constitute a danger to children.

 

[dylans]

Once again, and for about the millionth and oneth time, I don't think that is the kind of information that would be important or useful to any local community.
Does this mean we should not know about someone who raped a child under ten though?

And yes I did, which is why, again, I said information like that should be not about prostitutes etc or anyone who doesn't constitute a danger to children.

For the reasons that have been outlined again and again and again. There is no useful reason for the names of convicted sex offenders to be made available to the general lynch mob, sorry I meant population. (typo)

 

[Jonti]

The question is, how it is actually being applied and used, and what abuses it could lead to. How you or I think it should be used is immaterial.

Is it appropriate to treat sexual offenders in a different way to other anti-social types? Frankly, I'm sceptical. It strikes me as similar to treating terrorists as different to other criminals. The delinquencies are almost invariably dealt with under other laws, so the provision of "special measures" is really just window dressing.

Deceptive window dressing to comfort the feeble minded that Something is Being Done, while folks' ability to look after their own families is systematically eroded. By those very window dressers themselves.

Interesting, eh?