to be pretty terrified that being a child abuser(336 Posts)
has actually caused some people to rise to positions of power only because Parliament's power has been corrupted absolutely:
Following the developments of Savile, I continue to be shocked, saddened and horirified on a daily basis - I just cannot get over the depths of this and how far up and nationally this goes. WTF is going on? It took Portugal 7 years to sort out the Casa Pia orphanages abuse network with their very own Savile TV type figure involved. I cannot give a shiny shit about EU referendums and Nigel Horsey Mirage while we now know all this....2015 election has no other issues surely? So long as any party is protecting alleged child abusers within their ranks and preventing due process of criminal justice system being applied to them for a court to find innocent or guilty, as with all other subjects of the law, none shall be above it, then they cannot have be entrusted with power.... how do we know child abusers aren't influencing sentencing guidelines for child sex abuse offences for example? spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-sentencing-council-and-other-legal-panels-took-advice-from-convicted-paedophiles-about-sentencing-for-paedophile-offences/
Am I being crazy to think people would be shouting from rooftops about this if they knew, or does everyone already know and just accept this is the way it is? Not paedo hating public hysteria....I'm a pacificst and I want to see democracy fixed so more like a very severe public Paxmanesque probing on National TV for some of those in charge of the various child abuse inquiries that have thus far been unable to provide proper resolution over the question of abusers in power and children in care being trafficked round the country to be sexually exploited? Why is at the very least this not happening?
I think there needs to be less of a stigma attached to paedophilia.Being sexually attracted to children isn't something that someonehas a choice over, but if they feel they have not got the strength to control their behaviour and are in danger of abusing, then they need to be able to access the appropriate counselling, therapies etc without being judged.
I think there needs to be less of a stigma attached to paedophilia
NO THERE DOES NOT
As for the rest of your post, I don't think I've seen that much bullshit since I was last in a cow field.
Can you explain your point bumpingfuglies Not so long ago people would have been saying the same thing about homosexuals?
Am I being crazy to think people would be shouting from rooftops about this if they knew, or does everyone already know and just accept this is the way it is?
I bloody hope not. But the links suggest otherwise
Agreed with Ryan. If there was safe, non judgemental help for adults who feel they are at risk of abusing someone then I think things could improve a lot. Offering very little help - as the situation currently is - cant be helping. As it is paedophilia is classed as a paraphilia and a mental disorder I think, so surely it ought to be created in a similar manner to schizophrenia for example..
how can anyone justify comparing sexual abuse of CHILDREN with homosexuality???
ryanboy - homosexuality is not ILLEGAL. Is it?
Shall we get all understanding and touchy feely with rapists as well? Not judge them? How about murderers?
I THINK what Ryanboy means is that if someone is attracted to children then there needs to be appropriate support available to stop them acting on that attraction.
I THINK he's trying to draw a distinction between a desire and acting on that desire and saying our disdain and hatred should be reserved for those who act rather than those who desire.
If he's not then he's talking bull shit. If he is I do understand his argument.
i do agree with the OP though. Sadly our country's power structures appear to be deeply corrupted
Potential Murderer - I want to kill someone
Police - follow me into this nice locked cell.
Potential Paedophile - I want to abuse a child
Sit down and have a cup of tea and tell me all about it
Whatever somebody's desires, the thing about being human and not like other animals is our ability to control our urges.
So pedophiles who haven't got the strength to control themselves (wtf!) sit firmly with the rapists and the stigma is appropriate!
How dare anybody compare them to the unkind stigma once given to 2 consenting homosexual adults!
Is this OP genuine information or is it like the Lord McAlpine thing?
How can removing the stigma and therefore making it MORE acceptable help? That's crazy!
Oh dear. Yes, I understand that the compulsion re paedophilia is a mental disorder. But I am compulsed to do lots of things. I see a sexy young builder and I say 'phwoar' (to myself) but I DO NOT put my hands down his trousers or assault him. No one has to have sex or assault another human being, particularly a vulnerable one.
Homosexuality is NOT comparable. It is between consenting adults generally. It really should not be brought into the equation.
Yes, paedophilia should be dealt with and yes, the hysteria is hard to contain and can sometimes be counter-productive. But there also needs to be a distinction between people who have the thoughts - and should therefore be treated - and people who act upon their impulses.
That said, I can't imagine a more horrendous thing for a person who knows they have those thoughts and who fears what they might do, to seek help rather than go underground and then be abused and called names. So yes, there should be more discussion.
There's a very big difference from someone who has the thought that a child is sexually attractive, and someone who chooses to act on that thought. The latter indicates a conscious and wrong choice. The former doesn't suggest any choice.
A potential murderer wouldn't be led to a locked cell by the police, there's no such thing a thought crime.
ryanboy - we tried that during 1980s & 90s under the watchful eye of Ray Wyre who developed therapies for child abusers or child abuse consumers called masturbatian satiation involving him bringing child abuse imagery into his treatment centres like Gracewell. And then it turns out he was a child abuser himself after he died. Quelle Surprise.
Just like the chap responsible for training social workers on working with children in care, vulnerable in being away from home Peter Righton (the one Tom Watson was asking qns about his correspondence and which abusers in parliament it identified) turns out to be a child abuser. Worked for National Childrens Bureau as well.
At the powerful and influential level we are talking about these people feel entitled to be abusing children. They love their ancient greek biblical mythical imagery in jokes, Pan, Spartacus - it links them to feeling noble in their abuse of little boys, like the senators of old (except they don't seem to want to use the word pederast which I thought was the appropriate term?) is an entire subculture, a community the rest of us mere mortals cannot hope to understand, where current choice of children to abuse are referred to as "hobbies" and young boy runaways ensnared on streets near major railway stations are called "chickens" and their pimps are called chickenmasters. It's very difficult not to judge when you realise the world we have allowed them to create for our children, that we have been complicit in creating with them. If I can judge myself I can judge them too.
Bumping - homosexuality (sexual acts between consenting adult males) was illegal in England until 1967. So it's not unreasonable to make the comparison, without condoning sexual abuse of children or saying that "prejudice against paedophiles" is wrong. I don't believe people choose to be sexually attracted to children, but they do have a choice re. acting on the attraction.
To be fair if you indicate that you want to kill someone you will not be hailed until you make active plans and begin to act on your choice. You would in the first instance be offered some kind of help , probably psychiatric.
It is unreasonable and frankly stupid to make a comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia because homosexuality is CONSENSUAL. Yes it was illegal, but it is not now.
And no you would not be locked up for thinking about murder, but you would be likely to be if you SAID it.
There have been cases, thinking Raul Moat and the woman who killed a stranger in the street, after telling police repeatedly that is what they were going to do.
I've often thought some of the sentences for child sex crimes are ridiculously lenient (dodgily so)
And no you would not be locked up for thinking about murder, but you would be likely to be if you SAID it
No. You would if you threatened it - but if you sought help because you were having fantasies about murder & were worried you'd carry it out, you'd be offered support. There was a recent case where exactly this happened.
Also, there is a website (can't remember what it's called) offering support to people who are attracted to children but who have absolutely no intention, under any circumstances, of abusing a child.
The Guardian linked to it once when they had an article about this...and some of the stories on there really gave me food for thought.
This is CEOPs opinion: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9329451/All-child-porn-viewers-at-risk-of-becoming-sex-attackers-experts-warn.html
And hiding behind homosexuality is exactly what PIE did when they hid behind gay civil liberties group sin 70s/80s
Join the discussion
Please login first.