nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Child Protection.....has society gone over the top in its desire to protect children?

AudreyHepburn

Reading the Micheal Le Vell thread and others that have cropped up here over time, I really do think we as a society have become paranoid and hysterical over child safety.

The Le Vell demonstrates how unwilling we are to accept that people can be falsely accused of things, that children can and do lie and/or make mistakes, that not guilty verdicts can genuinely mean not guilty.

I have seen threads where women are afraid to let their sons near male loos on their own or where the idea of children being anywhere adult men is enough to cause panic attacks.

I have seen male posters say they would be afraid to go near a child that wasn't their own.

Have we gone over the top with regard to child safety?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

allibastor

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Reading the Micheal Le Vell thread and others that have cropped up here over time, I really do think we as a society have become paranoid and hysterical over child safety.

The Le Vell demonstrates how unwilling we are to accept that people can be falsely accused of things, that children can and do lie and/or make mistakes, that not guilty verdicts can genuinely mean not guilty.

I have seen threads where women are afraid to let their sons near male loos on their own or where the idea of children being anywhere adult men is enough to cause panic attacks.

I have seen male posters say they would be afraid to go near a child that wasn't their own.

Have we gone over the top with regard to child safety?

Its not people dude, it is the media who are looking to seel stories. If you read throught he case transcripts and all that, there was a lot of shakey evidence from the start. Now, I still think the process has to be done, as it is better to ask the questions and get it wrong than to leave a kiddie fiddler off, but the media needs to butt out as it paints saints and sinners when ever it wants to.

anncoates

Ironically enough, the tabloids love ranting about things like the Bulger case but on the day he was abducted, there were dozens of sightings of him being led across Liverpool. Perhaps without the pervasive climate of paranoia stoked by those very papers, more people might have acted on their suspicions and challenged the abductors.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

anncoates wrote: »

Ironically enough, the tabloids love ranting about things like the Bulger case but on the day he was abducted, there were dozens of sightings of him being led across Liverpool. Perhaps without the pervasive climate of paranoia stoked by those very papers, more people might have acted on their suspicions and challenged the abductors.

I think, back then, people would have challanged a bit more as the pedophobia wasn't really as evident back then.

Kids leading kids is also a lot less likely to attract attention than an adult leading a kid.

[Deleted User]

You know it has gone a bit OTT when people on the beach run up to you when your toddler is briefly naked between getting out of the sea and getting dry and into their clothes. Why sir! - a Pedo might see something! - oh the humanity of it all!

Or when walking in the local forest you have to take your little girl slightly off the track and into the trees to drop her pants and allow her to pee. And someone comes running up like a knight in ill fitting armour ready to rescue the little girl from the man who is obviously pulling her underwear off to molest her. Because yes if you were planning on raping a toddler - 2 metres off the side of a public path way is EXACTLY where you would go to do it rather than - say - half a kilometre up and actually concealed by all the trees.

Or on another forum with a Parenting section on a thread about nappy rash I mentioned the application of certain creams and how one can seperate the relavent bits to check for irratation and infection and so forth. Cue the Anti Pedo warriors saying how this was no job for a man - the mother should be doing such things - and how they feel that somehow a 1 or 2 year old could be scarred for life by this. By a parent - carefully ensuring the physical and medical health of their own child by performing basic cursory observations that parents have been performing for decades.

Not to mention the kind of people who come out of the wood work if you mention that occasional nudity is common place in your own household. Why a toddler or older might see genetalia! How horrific! I had never before realised the power of the naked human body to psychologically scar all those that behold it.

People harp on about innocence all the time - but one wonders what is going on the minds of people who are seeing molestation and rape in every act around them. And more often than not it appears to be people who are not themselves parents and have no idea what the day to day care of a child actually entails. I have started to think of it as a case of "The lady doth protest too much" wondering if it is the people who seem to see sex in everything around children are the ones - despite their protests and claims of protecting children - that I should be keeping an extra watchful eye on when they are around my kids.

anncoates

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Kids leading kids is also a lot less likely to attract attention than an adult leading a kid.

Fair point.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I think, back then, people would have challanged a bit more as the pedophobia wasn't really as evident back then.

It was the 90s. We were well into the tabloid into pedo-fear era by then.

Dravokivich

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm surprised they let it happen now.

I don't get this. You drop them off at the airport, they are escorted to the plane and someone picks them up at the other end.

It's not like you're sending a 10 year old off to Ibiza by themselves for the summer.

AudreyHepburn

allibastor wrote: »

Its not people dude, it is the media who are looking to seel stories. If you read throught he case transcripts and all that, there was a lot of shakey evidence from the start. Now, I still think the process has to be done, as it is better to ask the questions and get it wrong than to leave a kiddie fiddler off, but the media needs to butt out as it paints saints and sinners when ever it wants to.

It's both the media and the public that are at fault tbh.

The media both causes and feeds the hysteria of its consumers.

I agree the process must be done but the problem is that in this day and age, at least in terms of child safety, we seem to go by the proviso 'Guilty until proven innocent'.

Unless and until that changes I am not sure the current process will help anyone.

Men in today's society can't so much as breath near children but they're paedophiles.

How can we claim to give anyone a fair and just hearing nowadays?

AudreyHepburn

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't get this. You drop them off at the airport, they are escorted to the plane and someone picks them up at the other end.

It's not like you're sending a 10 year old off to Ibiza by themselves for the summer.

Ok I need to make clear that I myself don't have an issue with it as long as they are looked after.

I'm just surprised no-one has ever taken serious issue with it given the hysterical 'all men are paedophiles out to rape children' environment we live in.

Again I personally don't see the problem.

AudreyHepburn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Bus ****....?? (Sorry!)

I'm going to turn this on it's head: how many people - and be honest - if they saw a man with a crying child who to whom he was not related or in loco parentis - would think something might be up?

It's not just the media who are responsibel for for goign OTT.

I can only speak for myself but it certainly wouldn't be my first thought.

I would hope anyone with half a brain and a bit of cop on would say the same.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

anncoates wrote: »

It was the 90s. We were well into the tabloid into pedo-fear era by then.

Disagree. I mean, it might have been in it;s infancy, but it;s onlt in the last 10-15 years it's gotten out of hand. I think the dawn of the internet and people getting prosecuted for having child porn (and I mean actual child porn, not just pictures of naked kids on a beach or the garden) on their computers was the turning point.

Banbh

I prefer public paranoia to the horrors I read every day in the news.
My own experience of seeing a lone crying child in the supermarket doorway and hunkering down to ask what was wrong (there was nobody with him, and I am a male). He had lost his daddy and was very upset. I told him I would wait until his daddy came back as he was probably just gone to the car and would be back. Seconds passed like hours. I thought of bringing the child into the shop to have an announcement made or stopping a woman to help me.
Daddy returned, picked up the child, glowered at me and went off. I felt like dog dirt but on reflection it is still better than what can happen.
After all the revelations about priests and others in authority, I think paranoia is a small price to pay for the safety of even one child.

GorillaRising

People who succumb to this paranoia are weak, idiotic sheep.

Banbh wrote: »

I prefer public paranoia to the horrors I read every day in the news.
My own experience of seeing a lone crying child in the supermarket doorway and hunkering down to ask what was wrong (there was nobody with him, and I am a male). He had lost his daddy and was very upset. I told him I would wait until his daddy came back as he was probably just gone to the car and would be back. Seconds passed like hours. I thought of bringing the child into the shop to have an announcement made or stopping a woman to help me.
Daddy returned, picked up the child, glowered at me and went off. I felt like dog dirt but on reflection it is still better than what can happen.
After all the revelations about priests and others in authority, I think paranoia is a small price to pay for the safety of even one child.

Disgusting behaviour. Given the circumstances you'd think you'd get the benefit of the doubt and a 'thank you'.

AudreyHepburn

Banbh wrote: »

I prefer public paranoia to the horrors I read every day in the news.
My own experience of seeing a lone crying child in the supermarket doorway and hunkering down to ask what was wrong (there was nobody with him, and I am a male). He had lost his daddy and was very upset. I told him I would wait until his daddy came back as he was probably just gone to the car and would be back. Seconds passed like hours. I thought of bringing the child into the shop to have an announcement made or stopping a woman to help me.
Daddy returned, picked up the child, glowered at me and went off. I felt like dog dirt but on reflection it is still better than what can happen.
After all the revelations about priests and others in authority, I think paranoia is a small price to pay for the safety of even one child.

So you'd rather all men be viewed as potential predators just to be safe?

Guilty until proven innocent is not how it goes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Banbh wrote: »

I prefer public paranoia .... I felt like dog dirt but on reflection it is still better than what can happen.

Thanks, but I'd rather not be made feel like dog dirt simply because of my gender. Especially when said paranoia actually does absoultely nothing to protect the child. Vigilance and common sense are enough.

Zen65

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes you did....the fact that he had purpose built a torture chamber and was planning to kidnap, torture, kill and consume a child.

That man was a danger and a monster....don't try to make less of his crimes.

However disturbing his actions, the crime he committed was distribution of kiddie porn. All that dungeon and other preparation stuff is legal, in pretty much any country. My point is that the story paints him as being more vile, more dangerous than a convicted killer, even though he didn't actually use those items.

In America anyone can own a gun, ropes, a coffin and handcuffs. They call it their right to bear arms.

I'm not defending him at all, I'm merely pointing out that the perception of his crime is distorted by our belief about what he might have been planning to do.

sbsquarepants

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Society has just became more fearful. I certanly would be wary of going near a child even it it was clearly lost or in distress incase a passer by thought I was up to something.

I can see where you're coming from but alright, but I wouldn't walk past a child in obvious distress. It's not the right thing to do.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

:eek:

That's the most horrific thing I've ever read!!!

Still though I don't know that we allow should monsters like this to influence our ideas about children and adults in general.

Jesus Christ, what a scumbag. That story is after disturbing me.

People like him skew the average hugely I think, thankfully 99.99999% of people are not like that - the odds of your kid meeting one who is are tiny - but the consequences if they do are just so horrific that it seems like a real and plausible threat. It's a similar thing to being afraid of sharks when you're swimming - the odds of one biting you are negligible, but if you are unfortunate enough and we all know that sometimes people are - it's literally the stuff of nightmares. You know statistically you can just ignore it, the threat doesn't exist for all intents and purposes - but your brain doesn't care for statistics, it has evolved to be more concerned about big pointy teeth!

Roger_007

Banbh wrote: »

I prefer public paranoia to the horrors I read every day in the news.
My own experience of seeing a lone crying child in the supermarket doorway and hunkering down to ask what was wrong (there was nobody with him, and I am a male). He had lost his daddy and was very upset. I told him I would wait until his daddy came back as he was probably just gone to the car and would be back. Seconds passed like hours. I thought of bringing the child into the shop to have an announcement made or stopping a woman to help me.
Daddy returned, picked up the child, glowered at me and went off. I felt like dog dirt but on reflection it is still better than what can happen.
After all the revelations about priests and others in authority, I think paranoia is a small price to pay for the safety of even one child.

It is a sad-but-true fact that in practically 100% of cases of child abuse, the abuser has been someone known to the child. I do not know of any case in Ireland where a child has been abused by a stranger.
Yet most of the child protection hype is about warning children to beware of strangers. The chances of a lost child being picked up by a child abuser are virtually nil but parents are paranoid about that happening.

Mr Benevolent

Roger_007 wrote: »

It is a sad-but-true fact that in practically 100% of cases of child abuse, the abuser has been someone known to the child. I do not know of any case in Ireland where a child has been abused by a stranger.
Yet most of the child protection hype is about warning children to beware of strangers. The chances of a lost child being picked up by a child abuser are virtually nil but parents are paranoid about that happening.

Indeed. 'Stranger danger' is a laughable idea. Much, much more likely that a child would be sexually abused by someone known to the child, and in the vast proportion of those cases it would be a family member doing the abusing, so the idea of stranger danger has no basis in logic, merely primitive fear that has no bearing on real life and alienates children from other adults.

We've created the phenomenon of paedophobia - fear of children. I hope people who publicly worry about paedophiles are happy now.

Zen65

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

Indeed. 'Stranger danger' is a laughable idea. Much, much more likely that a child would be sexually abused by someone known to the child, and in the vast proportion of those cases it would be a family member doing the abusing, so the idea of stranger danger has no basis in logic, merely primitive fear that has no bearing on real life and alienates children from other adults.

Which brings me to this story, a truly sickening tale of legal paedophilia.

Z

Mr Benevolent

Zen65 wrote: »

Which brings me to this story, a truly sickening tale of legal paedophilia.

Z

...and another person gleefully adds fuel to the insane pyre of paedophobia. Child marriages are common in many parts of the world and have been for hundreds of years. Not every country conforms to your expectations.

Put it another way. In Spain the age of consent is 13, barring some obvious exceptions. If you were in Spain and saw a 18 year old in a relationship with a 14 year old, would you run down the street after them screaming 'PEADOPHILE!' ?? You probably would, but you'd be wrong. Actually, you'd be arrested for slander.

JimmyCrackCorn

It gets abused.

Think of the children, health and safety, cultural sensitivity,equality........
These are all arguments that are hard to win against without looking like a dick.

The problem is however groups often hide there own personal or moralistic agenda under one of these umbrellas.

Ogh and in case you think im pro pedo or anything along those lines id like to see a life sentence with no parole for serious sexual offences.

Crea

I'm involved in a voluntary group for kids and 99% of our child protection training is really protecting the adults from accusations of inappropriate behaviour.

Handsome Bob

Roger_007 wrote: »

Yet most of the child protection hype is about warning children to beware of strangers.

Actual child protection legislation and guidelines very much revolves around the likeliness that the victim will know their abuser.

mikemac1

JimmyCrackCorn wrote: »

Ogh and in case you think im pro pedo or anything along those lines id like to see a life sentence with no parole for serious sexual offences.

That was unnecessary, nobody though that

And the fact you thought it was needed is pretty much what the whole thread is about

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

JimmyCrackCorn wrote: »

Ogh and in case you think im pro pedo or anything along those lines id like to see a life sentence with no parole for serious sexual offences.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

AudreyHepburn

Zen65 wrote: »

Which brings me to this story, a truly sickening tale of legal paedophilia.

Z

That's horrible...poor little things

But...and this is the point of this thread....you cannot and should not allowed stories like this colour your view. You can't allow yourself to conclude that because some men are monsters all men are.

Mr Benevolent

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That's horrible...poor little things

But...and this is the point of this thread....you cannot and should not allowed stories like this colour your view. You can't allow yourself to conclude that because some men are monsters all men are.

But you're blatantly allowing your views to be coloured by that story. Culturally child marriage has gone on for many generations in many countries. Are you seriously calling all those men monsters? A very low % of those men would abuse the child. So I suggest you take your own advice.

sbsquarepants

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

But you're blatantly allowing your views to be coloured by that story. Culturally child marriage has gone on for many generations in many countries. Are you seriously calling all those men monsters? A very low % of those men would abuse the child. So I suggest you take your own advice.

I couldn't care less what has gone on culturally for centuries - a 40 year old marrying an 8 year old is wrong - in absolute terms, no exceptions for culture or anything else.
8 years old - are you seriously suggesting that's ok, under any circumstances? If so, maybe a change of username is in order.

A2LUE42

About ten years ago, in a waterpark with my own children in a kids pool that was quite large and got gradually deeper, I saw a toddler who had just wandered out of his depth and had his mouth and nose underwater. I looked around and didn't see anyone coming to help. I picked the little boy up under his arms and held him with my arms outstretched, staying in the same spot, and turning around to try and spot whoever he was with. About 30 seconds later his mother, I presume, came over and took him from me and thanked me. At the time I was very nervous and wasn't sure what I would have done if one of the child's parents had screamed to put down the child or accused me of anything.

Knasher

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm going to turn this on it's head: how many people - and be honest - if they saw a man with a crying child who to whom he was not related or in loco parentis - would think something might be up?

67% apparently, the study asked the men that question as well.