Are we being scaremongered by the news or is this reality

[FlatWhite2]

I tend not to watch the news but have seen an article this morning about Huw Edwards and his lenient sentence. The article went on the highlight other lenient sentences handed to pedophiles who committed horrendous crimes. As a mother, and just a normal person I’m horrified by this. Is the media manipulating us into believing these crimes are more common and prevalent than they are & that they’re not as ‘frowned upon’ as they should be, or is this reality? Asking to put my own mind at ease! Thanks

Don't be so bloody stupid. How dare you. I said paedophiles are a distinct clinical category.

That's certainly a point of view. It looks idiotic to me, but there you go.

Really? You seriously think Edwards is anything like the threat that an actual active paedophile is? It's actually people like you who are the problem. Spreading fear and hyperbole with little understanding or comprehension of the types of abusers and where and how they operate.

Also be careful of women grooming your children.

Someone I know lived on an estate where a women had lots of teenager boys hanging round her and her home drinking and smoking. The teenagers had no money....

And unfortunately due to a role I did, while it is rarer, there are women who are as bad as these men.

He was excused because he has daddy issues and mental health issues. I guess anyone who had a rough childhood and mental health issues (many of us grew up in an abusive environment) gets the green light to engage in such behaviour from now on? That’s the message apparently.

Sorry what's a CSA?

I always think about Instagramers who post their children in knickers and don't see my issues with it.

Like 80% of the population.

In fact I'm surprised when I meet or hear that someone doesn't have issues with at least one their parents.

It doesn't. Paedophilia is a disorder relating to the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Often linked to the age at which the paedophile experienced trauma or abuse themselves.

He may well be a paedophile, but there's been no admission of it and no suggestion he's been diagnosed as such.

I suggest you do some research.

Are we being scaremongered by the news?
Has Santa Claus got a white beard?

Google "why news is bad for you". Many reasons are given, one of them is that bad news sells, so they crank the fear and anger up as much as they possibly can, because it makes people rush out and buy papers, and they want to know "what happens next". One article suggests a 30-day news detox: cancel your subscriptions, sell your telly, cut off your internet feed; and that after 30 days, you will have a more relaxed attitude towards the news. If something significant happens in the world, you will find out one way of the other.

Here are just some of the reasons why I actively avoid the news, dating from 1999, because this was how they spun it:

• The whole of England will grind to a halt, because of all those eclipse tourists "flocking" to see the eclipse. Some of them will burn their eyes out as well.
• The entire world will grind to a halt because of the Millennium Bug.
• Everyone will die from microwaving their brains with their mobile phones.
• Tony Blair would eat Frankenstein food (genetically modified crops), so he is a vampire.
• Weapons of mass destruction. Solution: war.
• Granny will die, because of all those selfish arseholes "flocking" to the beaches. ("Flocking" again.)
• Granny will die, because of people walking the dog for a second time in one day.
• The extensive use of the word "misery" in headlines: summer rain misery, tube strike misery, lockdown misery, austerity misery, etc.

As for the rich and powerful getting away with appalling acts, because of their wealth and power: it does seem to be coming to light a lot recently. Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Harvey Weinstein, and now Mohammed Al-Fayed, according to the BBC. I'm just not surprised by any of this stuff any more. (I remember an absurd tabloid story from about the year 2000 that Al-Fayed knew very well that most people hated him, so he wanted to have lots of clones made of himself, to make sure that he would live on after his death.) Maybe awareness of this is now a good thing, whereas at the time it happened, it would be shut down with "we don't talk about that", or "don't you know who he is?".

@Pigeonqueen
I totally agree with you!

I think it's good to read the news but keep it in the context it should be read in, with political affiliations and quiet motivation in mind. It's why they say it's better to read the news from a number of sources instead of just one. I'm not sure that not reading the news and not being aware of what's going on in the world is any better than reading it and taking it as verbatim. We were taught in school how to read with caution in history and English classes.

Will the news embellish and use dramatic language - of course- the motivating factor is ultimately to run a successful business at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean that they're not reporting on truths that are in the public interest.

You accused me of saying that it's only bad if the child is pre pubescent, which is something I quite literally never said. You on the other hand made this point numerous times on the first page of this thread. It's right there in black and white unless you've crawled back to edit it.

It was weird enough that you made excuses for a pedophile but accusing someone of saying the things YOU said just makes this even weirder.

I suggest you stop making excuses for Huw Edwards he quite literally enjoyed watching videos of children being raped. How the absolute fuck can anyone argue he's not a pedophile ?

I can't believe you're still going, there doesn't need to be an admission or a "diagnosis". He enjoyed watching videos of children being raped. Therefore he is a paedophile .

We’re being scare mongered, but paedophiles are far more common than we realise.

Recent studies in Australia found 1 in 6 men had sexual feelings for children.

Crimes against women and children are also rarely convicted effectively.
We live in an age where dismantling safeguards is normal and those who try to uphold them or point out how they are being taken away are bigoted or considered OTT.

HE and the way that so many have dismissed his actions by justifying that the teen was barely underage is typical of how men basically get away with abhorrent behaviour. I despair that there’s almost an acceptance that some men will behave this way.

This seems like yet another thread with MRA type posters falling over themselves to excuse paedophilia. It’s ho early disgusting.

I'm not sure this is quite fair. I think what people are querying is the language being used. "Paedophile" has become a bit of an umbrella term but in many cases it's not actually accurate as it refers to a sexual interest in a very specific age group that for example teenagers don't actually fall into. There's different terminology for that but as paedophile is the most well known that tends to be what's incorrectly used. The age of the child in question doesn't diminish the impact of the crime or severity of it to my mind though.

I am confused by minimisation of the seriousness of these offences.

In fact, I am highly concerned about minimisation of the sexual exploitation of children and young people.

Child Sexual Abuse.

You seem fond of the word literally, look up the literal meaning of paedophile. All the rest is in your head.

I try not to watch the news. But my default thinking is there are perverts everywhere and if you put 10 men in a situation where they could assault you or your kids without getting caught, you'd be attacked. I think that's your best defence against it. Don't let you kids get into that situation. I know a dad who is doing time for raping infant school kids on a play date arranged by the mums. Hard to trust anyone with that knowledge

No.

You don't know that. He was convicted of viewing 41 images, 7 of the most serious type. No mention of videos.

He may well have done, but you don't know that, and there's no evidence he asked for the images of the most serious type.

But you seem to know more than the whole of criminal justice system and a team of psychiatrists.

Preventing abuse should be the focus of every agency, organisation & adult. Not this ill informed sensationalising of a celebrity scandal.

You can argue about the technical definition of a paedophile all you like but the bottom line is that men watching the type of things HE watched are contributing to the sexual abuse of children and teenagers. He may not have felt a sexual attraction to children in general but his actions and those of others like him are contributing to the sexual abuse of minors.

What a previous pp said about there not necessarily being an attraction to children per se but more an ever increasing thrill is needed as a result of porn addiction is incredibly worrying. I am absolutely convinced that the easy access to porn today is a major contributor to the increase in violence against women and children.

You can see that in the normalisation of things like choking in "regular" sexual relationships and boundaries in safeguarding being pushed further and further with any attempt to object to this leading to accusations of prudery or shaming of people. There is definitely a push to make more and more things acceptable which should not be and I fear we are sleepwalking into this.

Who was the comedian who pointed out that arguing over the terminology of paedophilia makes you sound like a paedophile?