The woman can't be named for legal reasons

sonofenoch

2 stories in todays Herald, woman attempts abduction from a creche and another mother pours washing up liquid down childs throat.....neither can be named for legal reasons, seems to be the case for 99.9% of child abuse cases involving women....why is that

Atlantic Dawn

Usually it's so the victims can't be identified.

Penny Tration

It's actually for all people in cases of child abuse, to protect the identity of the child

eviltwin

They do it to protect the victims and do it with male abusers too. A child has the right not to be labelled a victim.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It's to protect the identity of the children. Obviously.:rolleyes:

The Backwards Man

sonofenoch wrote: »

2 stories in todays Herald, woman attempts abduction from a creche and another mother pours washing up liquid down childs throat.....neither can be named for legal reasons, seems to be the case for 99.9% of child abuse cases involving women....why is that

Because people see what they want to see, not the true picture.

custard gannet

On a slightly related note, every few weeks there does be alerts, be it nationwide or on local social media, of men approaching children from cars and such, warnings for parents and children to be extra vigilant.

The thing is, I have never, not once, seen a follow up to any of these stories. Never a story along the lies of how a man has been arrested in connection with approaches made to children in x and y area this month. Is it simply that there is nothing to report? Unless one is on parole/ bail with conditions that include not interacting with children I can't see what exactly thy could be charged with in fairness.

KERSPLAT!

sonofenoch wrote: »

2 stories in todays Herald, woman attempts abduction from a creche and another mother pours washing up liquid down childs throat.....neither can be named for legal reasons, seems to be the case for 99.9% of child abuse cases involving women....why is that

Men and woman, not just woman.

sonofenoch

Well I'll keep an eye on that...I don't believe it's consistently the case

patsypantaloni

custard gannet wrote: »

On a slightly related note, every few weeks there does be alerts, be it nationwide or on local social media, of men approaching children from cars and such, warnings for parents and children to be extra vigilant.

The thing is, I have never, not once, seen a follow up to any of these stories. Never a story along the lies of how a man has been arrested in connection with approaches made to children in x and y area this month. Is it simply that there is nothing to report? Unless one is on parole/ bail with conditions that include not interacting with children I can't see what exactly thy could be charged with in fairness.

Err..
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/monster-who-attempted-abduction-schoolgirl-6773653

byhookorbycrook

custard gannet wrote: »

On a slightly related note, every few weeks there does be alerts, be it nationwide or on local social media, of men approaching children from cars and such, warnings for parents and children to be extra vigilant.

The thing is, I have never, not once, seen a follow up to any of these stories. Never a story along the lies of how a man has been arrested in connection with approaches made to children in x and y area this month. Is it simply that there is nothing to report? Unless one is on parole/ bail with conditions that include not interacting with children I can't see what exactly thy could be charged with in fairness.

http://www.radiokerry.ie/news/innocent-explanation-for-suspected-suspicious-approach-to-children-near-kerry-school/

eviltwin

sonofenoch wrote: »

Well I'll keep an eye on that...I don't believe it's consistently the case

Women are more likely to abuse a child they know hence less women get named. It's not some kind of feminist conspiracy.

custard gannet

patsypantaloni wrote: »

Err..
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/monster-who-attempted-abduction-schoolgirl-6773653

There's a fair difference in the law between asking a child for directions and kidnapping. What i'm saying is that very few of these mere approach reports ever seem to have any follow up.

Pink Fairy

I don't understand the need for secrecy to be truthful. If someone tries to abduct a child from a creche Her name is known all around the local community where it counts, they all know her family and kids, the larger populace of Ireland couldn't really give a rat's ass about her and knowing some randomers name won't make any difference surely

Samaris

If there's any chance that the child can be identified, they won't release the name of the offender, bar in cases where the victim waives the right to anonymity to expose them. -Generally-, women tend to commit offences against children their related to and men seem more likely to commit them against strangers. Thus, there are more cases where a woman's name is hidden (because the child can be identified due to the relationship to her) than men (whose victims are, in more cases, unidentifiable.

Dravokivich

Samaris wrote: »

If there's any chance that the child can be identified, they won't release the name of the offender, bar in cases where the victim waives the right to anonymity to expose them. -Generally-, women tend to commit offences against children their related to and men seem more likely to commit them against strangers. Thus, there are more cases where a woman's name is hidden (because the child can be identified due to the relationship to her) than men (whose victims are, in more cases, unidentifiable.

Huh? Most child abusers are people who put themselves in a position of trust. Its rare that its an absolute stranger.

darkpagandeath

Dravokivich wrote: »

Huh? Most child abusers are people who put themselves in a position of trust. Its rare that its an absolute stranger.

Generally family or family friends or a person well know to the family and child. The idea of child molesters under bushes is nonsense.

Paramite Pie

^^ Actually most men also commit offences against a child known to them as well -- and often aren't named either unless they're a teacher/coach (ie no relation).

Historic cases of abuse are often the most common or memorable because the abuser is named so it may appear that men are always named but in these cases adult victims often waive their anonymity allowing the perpetrator to be named.

Tarzana2

sonofenoch wrote: »

Well I'll keep an eye on that...I don't believe it's consistently the case

So you hadn't been keeping an eye before writing the OP? Shocking.

Dawn Rider

Thought this was going to be about the female solicitor who was caught bringing a phone in to a prisoner the other day.
She's 'on leave' and hasn't been named, probably to protect the confidence of the practice she works for.

ceadaoin.

eviltwin wrote: »

Women are more likely to abuse a child they know hence less women get named. It's not some kind of feminist conspiracy.

No, children are more likely to be abused by someone they know, that is the same for both male and female perpetrators.

Abuse by strangers such as a kidnapping situation is very rare

Azalea

I don't understand why the accused in anything is ever named though, until the verdict.

manonboard

Samaris wrote: »

If there's any chance that the child can be identified, they won't release the name of the offender, bar in cases where the victim waives the right to anonymity to expose them. -Generally-, women tend to commit offences against children their related to and men seem more likely to commit them against strangers. Thus, there are more cases where a woman's name is hidden (because the child can be identified due to the relationship to her) than men (whose victims are, in more cases, unidentifiable.

That explanation makes alot of sense

Dravokivich

manonboard wrote: »

That explanation makes alot of sense

Shame its wrong so...

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

-Generally-, women tend to commit offences against children their related to and men seem more likely to commit them against strangers.

Male and female abusers target kids known to them, but women may be more likely to be related. The male abusers are more likely to offend against children known to them, not necessarily strangers, just not related.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Generally family or family friends or a person well know to the family and child. The idea of child molesters under bushes is nonsense.

Child molesters under bushes also exist, but are much less likely than those known to a child in some capacity.

eviltwin

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No, children are more likely to be abused by someone they know, that is the same for both male and female perpetrators.

Abuse by strangers such as a kidnapping situation is very rare

Men take more risks, men will be more likely to groom a child than a woman. It's more likely a female perpetrator will be closely connected to her victim, men do too but are far more likely than a woman to abuse a stranger particularly when it's a teen as opposed to a child.

endacl

custard gannet wrote: »

On a slightly related note, every few weeks there does be alerts, be it nationwide or on local social media, of men approaching children from cars and such, warnings for parents and children to be extra vigilant.

Always on social media. Always a white van. Never verified. Almost certainly never true.

Ain't no panic like a Facebook panic 'cause a Facebook panic don't stop.

:rolleyes:

I love the threads where you feel the OP is winding up only for the crowd to all drown him out by pointing out the obvious inaccuracy.

Looks like this one was crushed before AHs large "it's third wave feminism" brigade arrived...

Kiwi in IE

Azalea wrote: »

I don't understand why the accused in anything is ever named though, until the verdict.

Absolutely! There is no 'innocent until proven guilty' when the accused is named in the media. There should be legislation around this. If a person is falsely accused of something and have been named, it's all very well if the courts find them innocent, but mostly they have already been convicted by gossip and it is likely to permanently destroy their reputation/livelihood etc. That is not 'innocent until proven guilty'!

Samaris

Oops, I missed out on responding to this, particularly having been thoroughly corrected!

I phrased that poorly, and people are entirely right - it is generally someone known to the child. Female paedophiles are -relatively- rare (or else just don't get caught that much), and female child abuse tends to be of a child closely connected to the woman, usually their children, and usually physical and mental abuse. I appreciate that one cannot blanket-statement ALL cases. Myra Hindley is an example of falling completely outside the norms.

Male abusers tend to, as people have said, groom their victims, but often outside the immediate family - neighbouring children, students, etc. Also within the family, and in those cases, they too will not be named unless the victim waives anonymity. Also, the "child molester under a bush" cases DO happen and are -usually- male when they do; thus however you look at it, there -tends- to be more named male abusers than female just because there are more cases of it happening in such a way that the abuser can be outed without automatically outing the child victim.

Is what I was getting at. I entirely agree that the majority of cases are within the home, but those are the cases that we don't tend to get any names for.