Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth

[Blagsta]

I do not see why a few people seem to want to hark on about abuse being more common in the home as if this stops the need to publicise convicted paedos. When at home paedos are caught they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home.

Aren't the residents of the communities where these people are dumped allowed to know what is being placed amongst them? Shouldn't potential partners be able to know that the man who wants to move in on the family is a convicted paedo? Shouldn't children have the right to know who the convicted men they should cross the street to avoid are? In fact knowing who these people are will stop them being unknown bogeymen. It will increase safety and improve communities.

Most family members who abuse kids never get prosecuted.

 

[kenny g]

Most family members who abuse kids never get prosecuted.

It is going in circles

When at home paedos are caught they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home. /QUOTE]

Change "when" to "if" if it makes you feel better.

It doesn't really matter a toss either way to the original point.

 

[Blagsta]

It is going in circles

When at home paedos are caught they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home.

Change "when" to "if" if it makes you feel better.

It doesn't really matter a toss either way to the original point.

Point being that what you are on about is actually quite rare.

 

[dylans]

Kenny g,
When at home paedos are caught they are often locked up, released after a few months, a year, and then dumped in social housing as they have been kicked out of the family home.

Change "when" to "if" if it makes you feel better.

It doesn't really matter a toss either way to the original point.

Most family members who abuse kids never get caught or prosecuted. That means your precious Megan's law won't do jack shit to stop them or protect those kids.

 

[tbaldwin]

Most family members who abuse kids never get caught or prosecuted. That means your precious Megan's law won't do jack shit to stop them or protect those kids.

Crikey aernt you clever......You know a lot of child abuse is from family members....Should we all join your fan club?
The thing is though that interesting and oh so impressive that is....it is not an arguement against megans law or protecting children from abuse from other sources is it?

Child abuse is an issue that not suprisingly makes people emotional angry and worried....Most people are not going to be worried about members of their own family abusing children because most will know the people in the family wont do that.....( I think a point you keep missing here in your educated stupidity is that they know them as people not statistics)
But they do worry about people they dont know.
And that doesnt make them hysterical it just makes them concerned. Yeah and maybe some do get over concerned but to be honest i find attitudes like yours a lot more worrying.

 

[dylans]

Crikey aernt you clever......You know a lot of child abuse is from family members....Should we all join your fan club?
The thing is though that interesting and oh so impressive that is....it is not an arguement against megans law or protecting children from abuse from other sources is it?

Child abuse is an issue that not suprisingly makes people emotional angry and worried....Most people are not going to be worried about members of their own family abusing children because most will know the people in the family wont do that.....( I think a point you keep missing here in your educated stupidity is that they know them as people not statistics)
But they do worry about people they dont know.
And that doesnt make them hysterical it just makes them concerned. Yeah and maybe some do get over concerned but to be honest i find attitudes like yours a lot more worrying.

Yeah they just KNOW the people in the family won't do that.

Instead let's demonstrate against.......against.......against......something. Lets search for bogeymen.

 

[dylans]

Crikey aernt you clever.

Well, I'm clever enough to spell "aren't" properly you ignorant grunt.

 

[_angel_]

Most family members who abuse kids never get caught or prosecuted. That means your precious Megan's law won't do jack shit to stop them or protect those kids.

What you're saying makes no sense... most family members don't get caught so therefore there's no point in trying to take any action against the people who do get caught?

And, funnily enough, despite banging on "abuse happens in the home!! It's the same thing as what these people are worried about occurring by strangers!! " you are now actually falling into the trap of seeing stranger-abuse as completely different from the abuse that occurs within the home. The same thing you are attempting to criticise other people for.

What is worse, you seem to be trying to turn cases of child abuse by strangers into something that doesn't really happen and is only imagined by stupid people. It is thankfully rare, but it does occur.

Either way, the distinction is academic, when a family member/ trusted person has been exposed, they may well find themselves re-housed somewhere else after prosecution and therefore be classed as a "stranger danger" to that community around them.

 

[dylans]

What you're saying makes no sense... most family members don't get caught so therefore there's no point in trying to take any action against the people who do get caught?

And, funnily enough, despite banging on "abuse happens in the home!! It's the same thing as what these people are worried about occurring by strangers!! " you are now actually falling into the trap of seeing stranger-abuse as completely different from the abuse that occurs within the home. The same thing you are attempting to criticise other people for.

What is worse, you seem to be trying to turn cases of child abuse by strangers into something that doesn't really happen and is only imagined by stupid people. It is thankfully rare, but it does occur.

Either way, the distinction is academic, when a family member/ trusted person has been exposed, they may well find themselves re-housed somewhere else after prosecution and therefore be classed as a "stranger danger" to that community around them.

That's because it doesn't really occur. It's a red herring which distracts from the very real issue of domestic abuse.

 

[_angel_]

That's because it doesn't really occur. It's a red herring which distracts from the very real issue of domestic abuse.

How on earth can you say it's a "red herring"?

Doesn't "really occur"? It either does or it doesn't. And like you said, most of those convicted WILL be people who were in some way known to their victims. They then go on to be housed in areas where they will be new and unknown, but can still then get to know local children and once again, become a trusted person abusing children.

Why are you making such a distinction between "known" and "strange" abusers?

 

[tbaldwin]

Well, I'm clever enough to spell "aren't" properly you ignorant grunt.

Showing your true colours there.

 

[tbaldwin]

Yeah they just KNOW the people in the family won't do that.

Instead let's demonstrate against.......against.......against......something. Lets search for bogeymen.

Its you who seems to be obsessed with bogeymen.....Maybe your struggling with your bigotry...All credit to you i suppose for doing it so publically.

 

[Spion]

Its you who seems to be obsessed with bogeymen.....Maybe your struggling with your bigotry...All credit to you i suppose for doing it so publically.

LOL

 

[dylans]

How on earth can you say it's a "red herring"?

Because it is. These demonstrations and demands for new legislation are driven by a moral panic which itself is fuelled by tabloid hysteria.

Lets look at the facts a moment. Is child abuse a growing problem ?

Well studies from the USA show that it is actually decreasing.

Are the parks full of armies of pedos waiting to fuck our kids?

The amazing and sad statistic that is so often overlooked and rarely discussed is that 95% of Child Abuse and Sexual Abuse is perpetrated by family members. 79% of perpetrators are parents. Other relatives accounted for 7% and unmarried partners of parents and “other” accounted for 4% and 5% of abuse.

If we want to decrease child and sexual abuse, our efforts would be far more effective if we focused our attention on the families of our students rather than the few sensationalized online incidents that the media trumpets so loudly.

http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=18080

 

[tbaldwin]

That quote dylans is just plain moronic....Very sad.

 

[dylans]

That quote dylans is just plain moronic....Very sad.

What is sad is that morons like you so willingly join the ranks of those who follow hysterical moral panics. We have seen it again and again and you never learn.

Skunk deaths. Video nasties, swine flu, satanic abuse, trafficking, rottweilers, muggers, knife crime, Jazz music, mods and rockers, and now "pedos" the list goes on and on. Hysterical scare mongering by sensationalist tabloids. Never short of idiots like you to join in.

 

[_angel_]

You sound more hysterical than them tbh.

 

[dylans]

You sound more hysterical than them tbh.

Yawn

 

[_angel_]

Can you provide us with an acceptable list of things to be concerned about? Or as you charmingly put it in a "moral panic" altho I don't see anyone on here panicking.

 

[dylans]

Can you provide us with an acceptable list of things to be concerned about? Or as you charmingly put it in a "moral panic" altho I don't see anyone on here panicking.

It's not my term.
It's a sociological term, first coined by Stanley Cohen in the 1970s to describe a disproportionate social response to a perceived problem. An incident brings an issue to the public's attention, the media blow it up out of all proportion and it is then seen as a new or growing menace to be countered. Demands are made for "something to be done" and it often results in ill thought out and counter-productive legislation such as we see with Megans Law or the Amber Alert,in the US or Sarah's law here in the UK. The demonstrations and demands for Sarah's law legislation are a classic example of a moral panic in action.

In order to qualify as a moral panic, the perceived danger must outweigh the realistic degree of danger.

First, despite the publicity warnings over rampant sexual molestation and abduction, both crimes have been decreasing in the past years

Second, the reported frequency of stranger child abduction has been exaggerated and does not align with the facts..... The constant media attention surrounding the ‘stranger danger’ of abduction in the 1980s and early 1990s no longer holds sway when the rates are examined. Rather, the media cultivates a panic by ‘exaggerating claims.

Kristen M. Zgoba. The moral panic behind child safety legislation.
http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/REU/pdf/Moral_Panic.pdf

 

[kenny g]

The requirement for a law where communities are informed of dangerous residents who have been convicted of a crime with such a high recidivism rate as child abuse and accessing abusive images is a sound one.

The fact that it may have received publicity from tabloid newspapers does not negate that fact.

Throwing a couple of quotes from sociology papers does not an argument make.
Just because some people have chosen to describe a sensible idea as being part of a moral panic does not stop it being a sensible idea.

Your attempts to dismiss the idea seem to centre on two fallacies.

1. There is no stranger danger.

2. The rate of stranger danger is in decline.

Point one is obviously a wad of shit.

Point two is based on US statistics which have been collated since laws have been introduced state by state to allow residents to obtain information about paedos.

AND We are not only talking about stranger danger. We are talking about people being able to identify convicted paedos who are no longer strangers but have become step fathers/mothers , fathers, uncles, mothers, aunts, teachers. etc etc.

This is hardly a momentary moral panic it is a longstanding demand of communities across the country.

 

[dylans]

Kenny G The requirement for a law where communities are informed of dangerous residents who have been convicted of a crime with such a high recidivism rate as child abuse and accessing abusive images is a sound one.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population

But hey,don't let facts stop you from hunting your bogeymen Kenny.

Kenny G Your attempts to dismiss the idea seem to centre on two fallacies.

1. There is no stranger danger.

2. The rate of stranger danger is in decline.

I have quoted you fact after fact to show that there is no realistic danger to our children from strangers. Certainly not enough to warrant the kind of knee jerk, intrusive and self defeating legislation you are advocating.

Show me a single reliable statistic that contradicts the facts I have laid out on this thread. And no, News of the World headlines don't count.

Finally, your attempt to credit Amber and Megans law for the decline in the rate of child sexual abuse by strangers, is incorrect. Both pieces of legislation were responses to fallacious media inspired claims that stranger sexual abuse was rising, ie to moral panics.

The legislation....exhibits the classic signs of panic legislation, namely, poor conception and drafting, overly broad scope, and inadequate consideration of the likely side effects’ (Jenkins, 1998, p. 6). Having been designed amid a state of panic, both forms of legislation can be described as underdeveloped and ill conceived (Fox, 2002). The conciliatory legislation affords the public a sense of security often believed to be superficial because the possibility of offenders avoiding detection is reasonably high, and there is the likelihood that the most egregious offenders will not be targeted. As previously stated, the majority of abductions and child molestations are committed by an individual known to the victim, namely a family member (Greenfeld, 1997; Jenkins, 1998; Jones & Finkelhor, 2001). Alerting victims to ‘stranger danger’ or targeting stranger abductions may be misdirected and unknowingly place many victims in harm’s way (Palermo & Farkas, 2001).

http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/REU/pdf/Moral_Panic.pdf

 

[kenny g]

In fact your linked article seems to clearly suggest that moral panics help to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse. ( apologies for the cut and paste but they help to make my point)

p.396

concern
over children and sexual crimes was at its lowest when the country had a high level of
tolerance for sexual experimentation, namely the 1920s and 1960s (Jenkins, 1998).

which according to what follows was the time when there was a peak of child sexual abuse. It is once concerns started being raised that reported incidents decreased.

sexual freedom disappeared around the 1980s with the advent of sexually transmitted
disease and AIDS, and as agents of social control again began establishing
their presence

page 395:

Reported incidence of sexually molested children
Given the private nature of sexual crimes and the limited forum provided for children to speak about sex crimes, it is a commonly accepted belief that reports of child sexual victimization are under-counted (Prentky, Knight, & Lee, 1997). While it is impossible to determine the true extent of child molestation, official reports and offender and victim surveys provide some insight into the frequency. A national Criminal Justice Studies 395
estimate provided by Jones and Finkelhor (2001) reports 103,600 cases of substantiated child sexual abuse for the year 1998, a 31 percent decrease from the 149,800 cases in 1992. This decline did not display a regional pattern, with a decrease of substantiated cases in 36 of the 47 states that provided complete data. In addition, the number of reported, yet unsubstantiated, cases of child sexual abuse decreased
from an estimated 429,000 cases in 1991 to 315,400 cases in 1998, a decrease of 26 percent (Jones & Finkelhor, 2001). Furthermore, despite the increasing rates of child maltreatment during the 1980s and 1990s, the rate of child sexual abuse has
continued to decrease. The majority of information-providing states report a decline
in child sexual abuse unparalleled to any other type of child maltreatment, illustrating a climate cultivated by fear (Jones & Finkelhor, 2001). This decline in both substantiated and unsubstantiated cases of child sexual abuse is widely divergent from the 10 percent increase in child sexual abuse caseloads that social workers reported during the 1980s (Jones & Finkelhor, 2001). Examining the reported frequency of child sexual abuse lends evidence to the belief that media claims tend to sensationalize and exaggerate (Figure 1).

So, increased media interest, the introduction of megan laws etc, seems to result in decreased offending rates.

And you appear to argue that they are just "moral panic" and therefore not worth consideration.

And how about having policies of increased sentencing? How effective are they? It appears that in the past when attitudes were rehabilitative, offending rates were highest.

Do you want to go back to these kinds of attitudes, pre "moral panic"?
p.396

In a similar vein, the fluctuating concern over child protection has also been intricately
linked to the prevailing ideology of the criminal justice system (APA, 1999;
Jenkins, 1998; Palermo & Farkas, 2001). Early legislation was rehabilitative in nature,
concentrating on the treatment of offenders (APA, 1999; Pratt, 2000). Little blame was
placed during this time, as the offender was assumed to be confused and the victim
overly seductive (Belknap, 2000). This belief fell out of favor as the CJS adopted a more
punitive position and widespread reports of child victimization began to paralyze the
nation (APA, 1999; Jenkins, 1998). Thought of as a seemingly reasonable solution,
states soon thereafter started adopting stricter child protection legislation.

p.392

For example,
since 1980 the annual growth in prison populations for individuals convicted of sexual
offenses, other than rape, was 15 percent, which is nearly twice the increase in the overall
prison population (Greenfeld, 1997; Palermo & Farkas, 2001). This number
increased faster than all other categories except drug trafficking (Greenfeld, 1997).
Moreover, while the average sentence for sexual offenders has remained stable at about
10 years, the time served has increased from 3.5 years to 5 years (Greenfeld, 1997;
Palermo & Farkas, 2001).

So, increased prison terms, harsher attitudes towards paedo's, less blame on the victim, reduced rates of offence.

Bring on the moral panics!

 

[kenny g]

Finally, your attempt to credit Amber and Megans law for the decline in the rate of child sexual abuse by strangers, is incorrect. Both pieces of legislation were responses to fallacious media inspired claims that stranger sexual abuse was rising, ie to moral panics.

Doesn't make sense. You are confusing cause and effect.

The effect of something is different to what caused it to happen.

1. Amber and Megans law caused a decline in child sex abuse by strangers. ( and non strangers)

2. Amber and Megans law was caused by little green men from beetlejuice.

2 doesn't negate 1.

 

[dylans]

You have it on it's head. The paper is arguing that the panics occurred because of an erroneous belief that stranger danger was widespread and rising, despite the fact that the opposite was and is the case.

Kenny G
Bring on the moral panics

Good idea, let's encourage irrational and hysterical fear of monsters. What could possibly go wrong.?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/872436.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/849098.stm

 

[kenny g]

You have it on it's head. The paper is arguing that the panics occurred because of an erroneous belief that stranger danger was widespread and rising, despite the fact that the opposite was and is the case.

The paper may be arguing that, and the emotive passages you quote try to make that claim BUT the evidence within the paper suggests otherwise. There was a decline, there was concern and a change in attitudes, there was a greater decline. Now there is continued concern and a continued decline.

That all seems to suggest that a heightened level of concern and enforcement has a positive effect in reducing the incidences of abuse.

To quote a few instances of mistaken identity that occurred as a result of a tabloid campaign does not prove that a sensible, well organised, and rigorous identification of convicted paedophiles in communities would not have a positive effect in improving community safety and trust.

At least you have moved away from suggesting there is no stranger danger purely because there has been heightened concern, or "moral panic" regarding the matter. It does seem a bit of logic has been allowed to overcome your hysterical reaction to the possibility that an issue taken up by the mass media might have some legitimacy.

You have not proved your case, and linking to a sociology paper that is little more than loaded comments around figures is hardly helping you.

 

[dylans]

Sorry Kenny that is disingenuous bollocks. The evidence shows a decline in sexual abuse of children throughout the 1990s, long before Megans Law was implemented. Megans law was enacted in 1996, and it was enacted on the back of a false claim that such incidents were rising.

Kenny G
To quote a few instances of mistaken identity that occurred as a result of a tabloid campaign does not prove that a sensible, well organised, and rigorous identification of convicted paedophiles in communities would not have a positive effect in improving community safety and trust.

A few instances?

Lynch-mob attacks and firebombings have occurred in 11 communities in England and Scotland since the campaign began two weeks ago, the majority of them at homes of people wrongly identified as suspected pedophiles or who look like people pictured in the newspaper or have similar names. A rioting crowd of 150 -- many carrying signs with the emotive News of the World headline -- overturned vehicles, smashed windows and threw stones and rocks at the police

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/07/w...e-of-anti-pedophile-attacks.html?pagewanted=1

Positive effect my arse. If you think that is "a few instances," I'd like to know how you define serious attacks.

 

[kenny g]

A decline of 30,000 a year obviously means nothing to you

That is 30,000 less victims, but as you are talking about reported instances it is probably a lot more.

A few instances as a result of a tabloid campaign does not mean that as soon as people know who the local paedos are they will all be lynched.

The fact is that paedos are identified day after day in their local papers. Look at the website that is the OP of this thread. It is full of news reports.

All that I am suggesting is that the information be put on a statutory footing to help people identify those who are more likely to be a danger.

You are coming across as the one in a tabloid frenzy here. When I was talking about positive effects I was talking about more than a New York Times headline of regurgitated press cuttings which is the only evidence you are able to supply beyond 3 bbc links which include two reports of the same fucking case!

Try better, B-- shit for brains

 

[dylans]

Kenny G All that I am suggesting is that the information be put on a statutory footing to help people identify those who are more likely to be a danger.

To be accessed by whom? Fred blogs and his badly spelled placard and can of lighter fuel?

A decline of 30,000 a year obviously measn nothing to you

That is 30,000 less victims, but as you are talking about reported instances it is probably a lot more.

A decline that was occurring before Megan's Law. A decline that was denied by the proponents of that law at the time and now claimed as evidence for it's success.

 

[kenny g]

To be accessed by whom? Fred blogs and his badly spelled placard and can of lighter fuel?

No, to be accessed by anyone. Just because there was a council estate in plymouth where people went off the rails does not mean that no one else has the right to access a comprehensive database of their local convicted paedos

decline that was occurring before Megan's Law. A decline that was denied by the proponents of that law at the time and now claimed as evidence for it's success.

The 30,000 figure was from 1996 to 2000, after Megan's law was introduced.

There was a decline occurring beforehand as social attitudes changed, as described in the very report you linked to, and that decline continued, rather than plateauing, after the law was introduced.

Whatever was claimed by proponents of the law at the time does not effect the validity of the law itself in terms of the consequences of its enactment. Anything else is pure

.