Janice Turner on safeguarding manages to name everyone succinctly in one column

[NotBadConsidering]

Cuties, Exist Loudly, Stonewall, NSPCC, Bergdorf, Tatchell, MAP...

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8c46aad6-f461-11ea-9de6-a6e4d4016fb7?shareToken=e196d311d52618102baf33fd9f6a2fbd

This is why she wins writing awards. Gets so much across in a short space (waves to Janice! 👋)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8c46aad6-f461-11ea-9de6-a6e4d4016fb7?shareToken=c1d6232836c0dc3e4970d64cfd4aa05c

Hope this works - I haven’t checked comments yet

Owen Jones is such a fucking disingenous arse. When he is talking about this stuff he never actually answers fundamental questions, he always twists things. And if he thinks it's going to be something particularly tricky he just turns off the comments!

I would bet my house he will ignore Janice's question. And as she says, he never posts the actual link so people can read it for themselves, it's just a headline and then his biased take on it. He is such a crap journalist.

Owen Jones is basically an MRA.

Sadly his response is precisely what Janice Turner is writing about.

@Beamur

Sadly his response is precisely what Janice Turner is writing about.

Exactly - he has proved the point of the entire article! Sacred castes, any pointing out of gaping holes in safeguarding is bigotry etc.

Janice Turner's article created huge armies of straw men on social media yesterday. "How come you aren’t going after Childline for their safeguarding policies?"

And this bloke who also completely missed the point of the article:
twitter.com/sacha_coward/status/1304815683990155269

Interesting how many people get twitched when safeguarding is mentioned

She is such an excellent writer - never wastes a word

Interesting how many people get twitched when safeguarding is mentioned

Isn't it just. Every single one of them should have their hard disks seized by the police.

About Cuties: I believe that the director possibly had good intent. It is just that the execution of the film is rubbish. The dance scenes are unnecessarily long, which makes them seem gratuitous. The scene where the main character takes an explicit photo and published it online is a blatant (and very distasteful) plot device to get the narrative from one point to the next. And, as someone who grew up in immigrant Paris communities, the depiction of all minorities as unassimilated and young migrant girls as either beholden by conservative religious values or exploited by Western society - well, I think it's inaccurate and damaging.

I think the director's plan is to show that Amy's upbringing leaves her ill-equipped to make good choices. But it's poorly executed.

That Sacha coward guy has no understanding of the article whatsoever. If you don't want the lgbt* community to be associated with safeguarding nightmares, then have a go at others in your community who are putting children at risk, not the journalist who is exposing the issues!

The filmmaker herself speaks out. Still no excuse. It is possible to have the long overdue discussion without feeding the monsters who get off on such films.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cuties-director-maimouna-doucoure-why-i-made-the-film/2020/09/15/7e0ee406-f78b-11ea-a275-1a2c2d36e1f1_story.html?fbclid=IwAR2kepeDI_73QR6i-aWYTcZ67RRrj-sQ41ud4HXR73eGCMaNQqmNgBU3WeU

Well she’s not going to acknowledge she sexualised a bunch of 11 year olds, is she? Her career is on the line.

There are so many rape scenes on TV and in film, and they say they are included as it’s a real life issue that needs to be covered. However, one of the biggest search topic on Pornhub is rape/forced sex, and many men like to watch it, not because of the ‘issues’, but because it obviously turns them on.

Yes. I don't watch a lot of TV - would you confirm that rape scenes are much more common now? I have little doubt they are. I remember the 18 rated film The Accused having a rape scene in it in the 80s and there was great shock and much discussion about it - and that was when the entire plot hinged around obtaining justice for the victim.

I have no doubt that rape scenes nowadays are male entertainment plain and simple. Part of why it's so disturbing to watch anything like that is not just because it is upsetting for women but because it's enjoyable for some (many?) men. It turns them on . I get a kind of icy chill through me when I am confronted by that aspect of their sexuality. It's quite sickening really that we are exposed to this and conditioned to accept it.

It renders even the best intentions of a director irrelevant. Same for filming twerking 11 year olds.

^ this

Peter Tatchell has a letter in the times today in response. I can't get a link for it. It starts "I agree with Janice Turner: children should never be sexualised", and he apologises for his letter to the guardian in 1997 being open to misinterpretation.
He then states that adults having sex with children is rape; children cannot consent; abusers should be jailed.

Now that's interesting errol. I someone looking closely at him and making him feel uncomfortable, otherwise I can't work this one out

Open to misinterpretation?

Well, this is what he said in 1997:

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends - gay and straight, male and female - had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.[4]

So was it misinterpreted for 23 years and you’ve finally decided to address it?

Ok Peter..

Oh Pete, do you really think that being cool with child rape and changing your mind after 23 years is going to win you plaudits? You should shame facedly slink off, not seek approval. You said that child rape is not always abusive or harmful. There is no coming back from that, pal.

‘Apologising for misinterpretation’ is the same as ‘sorry if you were upset’ - ie not actually an apology or showing any understanding of why it was wrong.

Thanks for digging that out, notbad .
Yes, it's really quite hard to avoid 'misinterpreting' his 1997 letter as condoning what he now condemns. No praise for him - but, as someone who is still unaccountably in a position of influence, at a time when there's the rise of the 'MAP' phenomenon it's a good thing he's stating now that adults having sex with children is rape.

Misinterpretation my arse.

Let's not forget Peter's fawning obituary for Ian Campbell Dunn:

www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-ian-dunn-1151494.html

Apparently, despite being a close friend, Peter didn't know that Campbell Dunn was a co-founder of the Paedophile Information Exchange. Amazing.

I've mentioned it up thread but Google Peter Thatchel gript.ie.
Not a site I particularly approve of - disclaimer necessary- but excellent article that lays it all out without editorialising.

Eh?

from PTs personal website - the caveat at the top of the article that he thinks there should only be a 2-3 year age gap if one partner is under 16 is a very recent addition. Previously, as I remember, the article described the boyfriend of 'Lee' as being 29 and there were no caveats about age gap etc.
Google 'I'm 14, I'm gay and I want a boyfriend'