[alfster]

Originally Posted by What name??

I think the article shows other very partisan views rather than an objective look or the basis of a reasoned discussion. ***** It also conflates paedophilia with underage sex which most people just using common sense alone know is silly.****

And the comment section ably points this out and those posts get many recommendations hence it does seem that generally there is some common sense prevailing.

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

All he is doing here is trying to challenge some of society's attitudes to paedophilia in a calm and rational manner. There's certainly nothing calm and rational about the usual "depraved beasts who ought to be strung up", nor the "every man is a potential paedophile" arguments.....that's just outright hysteria and paranoia.

Strictly speaking, every man IS a potential paedophile. Same with women. Any man or woman could potentially be one, same as any man or woman could be any number of things...it doesn't mean they are but such people probably take many forms.

I agree hysteria doesn't help though - the subject needs to be looked upon, discussed and reported in a calm and proper manner. Also more discussion about the family element might be good because they say that often abuse comes from within the family, yet sometimes it can seem like the press focus on the few times when people are abused or killed by people unknown by the family. People may be fearful of their kids being around perhaps slightly peculiar seeming strangers when in reality it might be someone closer to home that they may need to be more wary of. Presumably thats why its quite a taboo subject though, to think of someone you may be close to or friendly with having such predilections could be quite uncomfortable for some?.

Originally Posted by katetow

Yes, this is all fair enough and I agree.

At the same time, I do also think a civilised discussion about paedophilia is going to help all involved, including victims. Obviously people are going to disagree, and some will have more extreme views than others, but the media way of reporting with words such as monster and predator really does not show the reality or help matters.

Out of interest, would you disagree that someone such as JS was a predator? it seems a fair label to give him, if the majority of the claims are accurate.

The definition of a predator or more specifically a sexual predator as given by Wikipedia is as follows:-

The term sexual predator is used pejoratively to describe a person seen as obtaining or trying to obtain sexual contact with another person in a metaphorically "predatory" manner. Analogous to how a predator hunts down its prey, so the sexual predator is thought to "hunt" for his or her sex partners. People who commit sex crimes, such as rape or child sexual abuse, are commonly referred to as sexual predators, particularly in tabloid media or as a power phrase by politicians.[1]

it may be perjorative but it does seem fairly apt in some instances, what would an alternative label be, a serial offender perhaps?

whereas to me, labels such as 'monster' are clearly over the top and unhelpful, it paints the criminal as some sort of mythical boogeyman, as if its not real somehow and the person is somehow not human? there has to be some understanding of what makes a person that way if we're to be able to better recognise them, prevent them from offending possibly and treat them (ie via some form of rehab or treatment facility) more effectively.

-----

Also, somewhat unrelated to the above - I saw there was a report about JS's cottage in Glencoe, on the Scottish news show Reporting Scotland this evening. I only caught the end as I'd just got home from work but I think they were saying they were going to knock it down and there had been some protests from a few locals, one of which was interviewed briefly saying it'd be a shame if they can't rebuild another building in its place because there's literally nothing for miles around the area, it'd turn the area into a wilderness of sorts and they didn't want that. They mentioned again that JSs charities had talked of converting the cottage into a holiday retreat for families of disabled children but that isn't going to happen now.

[MC_Satan]

It was a counciller on RS, said demolishing it would mean the glen would be unoccupied - who is going to occupy JS's old house?

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by What name??

That is not true. Most paedophiles aren't even locked up for long periods much less for life which obviously gives the lie to that assertion.

The pretense that paedophiles are treated like monsters and locked up for life is just another side to the hysteria. That is not treating the subject in a calm and rational manner. Why not argue about the actual sentencing guidlines and treatment of offenders not pretend ones. Everyone knows that paedophiles aren't locked up and the keys thrown away because we regularly discuss how they are settled back in communities and what level of supervision they should have!

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.g...esAct_2003.pdf

Agree completely that paedophiles aren't locked up for life : the law by it's very nature has to be calm and dispassionate and treat people fairly.

I'm referring more to the hysteria in the media and sections of the public. It's somewhat unclear how this subject has become a big taboo : how often have we seen a television interview with a paedophile for example where he tries to explain his actions or even apologise for them? It's not hard to imagine that such an interview would be met with a quite hysterical reaction.

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by MC_Satan

It was a counciller on RS, said demolishing it would mean the glen would be unoccupied - who is going to occupy JS's old house?

ah ok, thanks for the clarification. Didn't someone purchase his flat in Leeds, for £25k less than the asking price? I remember reading that on here but then I suppose thats in a more practical location perhaps? the Glencoe cottage I'd think of as more of a holiday getaway location. I imagine he was only there some of the time though, with his main homes being in Leeds and Scarborough? so even when he had the cottage, it would be unoccupied at times.

ETA - It said in his biography that he'd helped some hill walkers who had injured themselves near to the cottage, having the only landline phone connection for miles so he could call the emergency services for help. He showed off about helping a German tourist once who had a mild heart attack, saying he thought of himself as an amateur paramedic having been around hospitals so much so he knew what to do until the ambulance came (I bet the tourist had no idea who he was - it makes me laugh a bit when people mention foreign tourists being bemused, having no idea who he was when he tried to be centre of attention in local cafes etc.). I suppose it would be a concern if it means there's miles for hillwalkers to cover without any residences to try and get help from if something were to happen but that must apply in alot of other places too?.

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by What name??

That is not true. Most paedophiles aren't even locked up for long periods much less for life which obviously gives the lie to that assertion.

The pretense that paedophiles are treated like monsters and locked up for life is just another side to the hysteria. That is not treating the subject in a calm and rational manner. Why not argue about the actual sentencing guidlines and treatment of offenders not pretend ones. Everyone knows that paedophiles aren't locked up and the keys thrown away because we regularly discuss how they are settled back in communities and what level of supervision they should have!

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.g...esAct_2003.pdf

I think Eurostar mean that that many have the view that paedophiles should be locked away and shunned by society. He is not advocating, saying it happens or agreeing with the widespread view imo. In fact you seem to be in agreement.

[Sad_BB_Addict]

Another survivor speaks out
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...y-8441657.html

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by Sad_BB_Addict

Another survivor speaks out
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...y-8441657.html

That's a very striking piece. It does make me very angry but at the same time highlights the need for an end to the taboo of talking about it.

To quote the Jim'll Fix it feem toon the JS story could 'be the start of it' i.e. the start of the beginning of the end of the taboo.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by jamtamara

I think Eurostar mean that that many have the view that paedophiles should be locked away and shunned by society. He is not advocating, saying it happens or agreeing with the widespread view imo. In fact you seem to be in agreement.

Indeed Jamtamara, that is exactly what I am saying

The problem with the "throw away the key" approach combined with shoving everything under the carpet means that is does nothing to address the issue of child abuse.

My feeling is that if we remove the taboos around the subject of paedophilia and treat offenders as real human beings and not "monsters", we would be going some way towards getting a handle on the problem (and it seems to be widespread and endemic).

Demonising those who are attracted to underage teenagers and children and making the whole subject a huge taboo does absolutely nothing to reduce the amount of child abuse and may in fact be making things even worse.

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

Indeed Jamtamara, that is exactly what I am saying

The problem with the "throw away the key" approach combined with shoving everything under the carpet means that is does nothing to address the issue of child abuse.

My feeling is that if we remove the taboos around the subject of paedophilia and treat offenders as real human beings and not "monsters", we would be going some way towards getting a handle on the problem (and it seems to be widespread and endemic).

Demonising those who are attracted to underage teenagers and children and making the whole subject a huge taboo does absolutely nothing to reduce the amount of child abuse and may in fact be making things even worse.

I agree. I was actually thinking the other day (and this may sound crazy, I know) but I wonder if a start might be making a special episode of The Sex Education Show (shown on Channel 4) specifically about the topic of child sex abuse? or has there already been one? that show came to mind as although I've never watched a full episode I've seen trailers and I'm aware it was a very upfront and honest programme, part of its remit seemed to be to cover controversial aspects of sex to teenagers, those being aspects that aren't included in sex education classes nationwide. I know they had one programme tackling pornography - the myths and the facts etc. I'd be surprised if they didn't cover abuse, come to think of it. Thats about the only programme I can think of thats been on recently that covers such thing and is targeted at a fairly young audience, though I seem to remember hearing some older people wrote in to Radio Times saying they thoroughly enjoyed watching it too and learnt something from the show lol. That show was supposed to be about ignoring hysteria and tackling big subjects head on, so it'd be an obvious starting place... but again, maybe they already tackled it? I wouldn't know for sure. Just a thought...

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by IzzyS

I agree. I was actually thinking the other day (and this may sound crazy, I know) but I wonder if a start might be making a special episode of The Sex Education Show (shown on Channel 4) specifically about the topic of child sex abuse? or has there already been one? that show came to mind as although I've never watched a full episode I've seen trailers and I'm aware it was a very upfront and honest programme, part of its remit seemed to be to cover controversial aspects of sex to teenagers, those being aspects that aren't included in sex education classes nationwide. I know they had one programme tackling pornography - the myths and the facts etc. I'd be surprised if they didn't cover abuse, come to think of it. Thats about the only programme I can think of thats been on recently that covers such thing and is targeted at a fairly young audience, though I seem to remember hearing some older people wrote in to Radio Times saying they thoroughly enjoyed watching it too and learnt something from the show lol. That show was supposed to be about ignoring hysteria and tackling big subjects head on, so it'd be an obvious starting place... but again, maybe they already tackled it? I wouldn't know for sure. Just a thought...

I'd like to see much more discussion about the subject across the media, Izzy. If people were able to say "Yes, we accept that adults are attracted to children : it's an undesirable aspect of human sexuality but it's a part of it nonetheless and it's not going to go away. Now how do we go about making sure that children are not abused or exploited".

The less a subject is taboo, the easier it is to come to terms with. If there was open discussion about paedophilia and the reasons behind it without hysteria and recrimination, my gut feeling is that child abuse cases would start to fall, not increase.

[Linda_Danvers]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

I'd like to see much more discussion about the subject across the media, Izzy. If people were able to say "Yes, we accept that adults are attracted to children : it's an undesirable aspect of human sexuality but it's a part of it nonetheless and it's not going to go away. Now how do we go about making sure that children are not abused or exploited".

The less a subject is taboo, the easier it is to come to terms with. If there was open discussion about paedophilia and the reasons behind it without hysteria and recrimination, my gut feeling is that child abuse cases would start to fall, not increase.

The problem with that article is not it's defense to treat paedophiles as human beings we should understand and accept, as long as they don't harm children. I think most people agree that being paedophile is not the same thing of being a child abuser. The problem, at least for me, was the first part of the article. It seems it was excusing child abuse (I don't think it was the authors intent, by the way), and, as long as the child "consent" with the sexual contact, it may not be harmful, using as source thesis written 15, 25 years ago and the review of a book written by a paedophile. He completely ignores the concept of grooming and the power adults have over children. Then, by the end, the subject changes on treating paedophiles as humans, saying we should understand paedophila to prevent child abuse, etc. I mean, what is the conclusion?The article lacks objectivity. What was he saying after all? That a sexual contact with an adult and child may not be harmful as long as the child "consents", but we should treat paedophiles as human beings, not monsters, because it may help to prevent child abuse? What the first part has to do with the second part.? The problem most people had was with the first part, not the last. I agree the comments on it are way better the the article itself.

I don't think there is a hysteria over child sexual abuse. It is a subject that was ignored for a long, long time and it was finally brought to light in the last years. I understand people may be sensitive over the subject. When it comes to children people generally see their child being harmed.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by Linda_Danvers

The problem with that article is not it's defense to treat paedophiles as human beings we should understand and accept, as long as they don't harm children. I think most people agree that being paedophile is not the same thing of being a child abuser. The problem, at least for me, was the first part of the article. It seems it was excusing child abuse (I don't think it was the authors intent, by the way), and, as long as the child "consent" with the sexual contact, it may not be harmful, using as source thesis written 15, 25 years ago and the review of a book written by a paedophile. He completely ignores the concept of grooming and the power adults have over children. Then, by the end, the subject changes on treating paedophiles as humans, saying we should understand paedophila to prevent child abuse, etc. I mean, what is the conclusion?The article lacks objectivity. What was he saying after all? That a sexual contact with an adult and child may not be harmful as long as the child "consents", but we should treat paedophiles as human beings, not monsters, because it may help to prevent child abuse? What the first part has to do with the second part.? The problem most people had was with the first part, not the last. I agree the comments on it are way better the the article itself.

I don't think there is a hysteria over child sexual abuse. It is a subject that was ignored for a long, long time and it was finally brought to light in the last years. I understand people may be sensitive over the subject. When it comes to children people generally see their child being harmed.

The same people though are quite happy to talk about the danger from strangers or the pervert lurking near the school playground, but are nowhere near as comfortable discussing the fact that many / most children are abused within their own homes. Perhaps because this would mean having to admit that the perpetrators weren't "monsters" but could potentially be their own husband, brother, father etc?

[Linda_Danvers]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

The same people though are quite happy to talk about the danger from strangers or the pervert lurking near the school playground, but are nowhere near as comfortable discussing the fact that many / most children are abused within their own homes. Perhaps because this would mean having to admit that the perpetrators weren't "monsters" but could potentially be their own husband, brother, father etc?

When I was about 13 I was once discussing sexual abuse with some friends, boys and girls, and two of the girls said a man sexually assaulted them when they were less than 10. Both men were strangers. I'm aware most child abuse happens within the family and/or the perpetrators are people who the children know. But sexual assault by strangers is not uncommon. Part of the sensitivy I mentinoed about the subject, I guess, is not the"stranger danger". It is the fear we may not know who the abuser may be and we will be unable to protect the child because we failed to identify the danger. It is the fear it might happen to us, close to our homes.


I understand the writer of the article was trying to say there still much to know about paedophilia and child abuse and we must have healthy discussions about the subject, free of "hysteria". I only thought he was not very objective in it

[Sad_BB_Addict]

Interesting development on a old story

JOHN Leslie yesterday gave his first telly interview since he was cleared of sex assaults a decade ago.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view...not-a-monster/

[jamtamara]

Some television personalities involved in sex cases are still working quite prominently today. I can think of at least three off the top of my head.

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

Indeed Jamtamara, that is exactly what I am saying

The problem with the "throw away the key" approach combined with shoving everything under the carpet means that is does nothing to address the issue of child abuse.

My feeling is that if we remove the taboos around the subject of paedophilia and treat offenders as real human beings and not "monsters", we would be going some way towards getting a handle on the problem (and it seems to be widespread and endemic).

Demonising those who are attracted to underage teenagers and children and making the whole subject a huge taboo does absolutely nothing to reduce the amount of child abuse and may in fact be making things even worse.

Alan Bennett did a Talking Heads piece which I thought was very brave for the time. It involved a Park Attendant who was attracted to young children and was acted by the Thin Blue Line detective/new Yes Prime Minister actor, who incidentally must also have been quite brave himself to play such a role.

I believe Alan Bennett may have written about the subject elsewhere in his writings. I will check it out later.

Meanwhile, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Heads_%28series%29

David Haig plays Wilfred Paterson in "Playing Sandwiches"

Wilfred is, we discover over time, a reformed paedophile living under a false identity and working as a much-praised maintenance man in a public park. However, as a superior begins to pressure him for bureaucratic historical information to include in his personnel file, the pressure causes Wilfred to resume his old ways with horrifying results. Incarcerated, he contemplates his condition, remarking 'It's the one part of my life that feels right... and that's the bit that's wrong.'

[belinus]

Psychiatrists and Professors are lobbying to normalise and decriminalise paedophilia :

https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2011/1...e-paedophilia/

Be careful, there is a big move to make this behaviour normal.

[nanscombe]

Perhaps a good start would be for people to start differentiating between people who are paedophiles and child abusers.

[Linda_Danvers]

Originally Posted by belinus

Psychiatrists and Professors are lobbying to normalise and decriminalise paedophilia :

https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2011/1...e-paedophilia/

Be careful, there is a big move to make this behaviour normal.

What are the sources for this article? It doesn't give one. It mean, it seems to me another paranoic conspiracy website. I don't see any "move"to make this behaviour normal. Quite the opposite, really.

[belinus]

Originally Posted by Linda_Danvers

What are the sources for this article? It doesn't give one. It mean, it seems to me another paranoic conspiracy website. I don't see any "move"to make this behaviour normal. Quite the opposite, really.

She offers multiple sources for her report, did you want a link to Reuters or some such?

[What name??]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

I'm referring more to the hysteria in the media and sections of the public. It's somewhat unclear how this subject has become a big taboo : how often have we seen a television interview with a paedophile for example where he tries to explain his actions or even apologise for them? It's not hard to imagine that such an interview would be met with a quite hysterical reaction.

There was a programe about a couple of weeks or a month ago showing interviews with sex offenders including paedophiles, their life in prison, treatment program . It was presented by Louis Theroux. Obviously it was from the US but so are most crime documentaries that involve interviews for the simple reason that we don't allow TV's such access to prisons in the UK.

That's why we also have less interviews with murderers, rapists, other sexual offenders, less footage of trials etc. It is also obviously going to be hard to persuade many freed offenders to appear on camera for obvious reasons that dont' necessarily include hysteria. I don't think there is actually a taboo. There are just practical difficulties. In any case a discussion doesn't necessarily have to include paedophiles, accurate portrayal of research on them, treatment, sentencing and likelihood of reoffending is more important for a fact based discussion. They are more necessary for sensationalist crime programes.

[Linda_Danvers]

Originally Posted by belinus

She offers multiple sources for her report, did you want a link to Reuters or some such?

A link would be a start. She said she spoke to someone who knew something, but the article doesn't provide sources. She said saveral gathering and meetings were taking places, but doesn't provide evidence. It is only her word.

[belinus]

Originally Posted by Linda_Danvers

A link would be a start. She said she spoke to someone who knew something, but the article doesn't provide sources. She said several gathering and meetings were taking places, but doesn't provide evidence. It is only her word.

Ok, here are some for you to sift through :

http://freerepublic.com/tag/paedophiles/index

[What name??]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

The problem with the "throw away the key" approach combined with shoving everything under the carpet means that is does nothing to address the issue of child abuse.

There is no throw away the key approach. That too is a figment of the hysteria just as are the mobs who would hound any person who is arrested on a charge related to sexual abuse – if they are named. The public have managed to place these charges in context and await information on cases including those of named famous people despite the repeated lies about the hysteria that will erupt any second in the papers (and from nervous celebs).

An example is Vanessa George who was a first offender who abused several children including babies. That was a high profile case but she was still sentenced to 7 years. The only person in that case who received an indeterminate sentence was both the ringleader and a repeat offender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ja...ackstory-crime

Nor is there any huge taboo. We discuss this subject often and even if the level is often puerile and full of myths and fantasies – that’s because a lot of topics are treated that way in the media. It's the norm for there to be lots of sensationlist rubbish articles and a few more nuanced ones on most subjects but especially on most involving crimes.