It's Paedogeddon!

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,326
Likes
26,762
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
#1
Apologies in advance if anyone takes this the wrong way. :)

This latest story about a 12yr old running off with a hulking great marine has brought all the typical scare-mongering and hysteria to the surface. Although it'd be exceedingly difficult to gauge i'd be VERY interested to see a reliable study of just how many active/predatory paedophiles are supposed to be living in our country because the kind of stories that we routinely read now assure us that, like the communists before them, there is one drooling paedo beneath each and every child's bed. I honestly believe that beneath the facade of 'informing & educating' parents as to potential risk the popular press are certainly creating a climate of absolute paranoia in which children cannot be allowed to be children but must be sheltered from any interaction with the outside world.

Does anyone actually believe that paedophilla is more prevailent today than say one hundred years or more ago, or is it just that it is revealed more often?

Take a look at this BBC article (the bold print is my emphasis usaully pointing out the Sun-esque sub headings!) and give me your honest appraisal of the situation. I'd be particularly interested to hear from parents as i speak from the non-parent perspective.

Of course, the BBC is far from the worst offender. Although it may well turn out that this Marine guy is a sex offender the Sun ran a headline dubbing him a "Pervert Marine" before any evidence whatsoever was adduced.
===================

Lure of the chatroom

One in five children regularly use chatrooms, reports suggest
Shevaun Pennington, the 12-year-old who ran off with a man she met on the web, is hardly alone in chatting to an older man on the internet.

Making friends on the web and internet dating is a growing culture among her contemporaries, researchers say.

Some of Shevaun's 12-year-old friends from Lowton High School described to BBC Radio 4's Today programme how popular chatrooms were, particularly among the girls.

"In my class they don't like a lot of the boys, they don't find us very nice so they go after older people," said Jordan Brookes.

"You can go into chatrooms and get e-mail addresses from all over the world, that's how people order boyfriends," said Jack Charles, Shevaun's classmate .

Jack said most of his friends were aware of the potential dangers of paedophiles disguising themselves as children on the web, and did their best to check people's identities.

"There's quite a lot of paedophiles over the internet," he said.

"If you click on the right e-mail name and see the e-mail address, you click on it and you can go on profile, and it tells you all the details.

"I go on profiles and see their age and stuff, it's dead popular.

"But half of them they don't even fill in the profiles, you don't know who you're talking to, don't know what they're like."

Paedophile lurking

If he found he was talking to somebody whose profile was empty, he said, "there's no real point in talking to them, so I'd just click off."

Dr Rachel O'Connell, director of the Cyberspace Research Centre at the University of Central Lancashire, is presenting a paper on children's use of chatrooms to the Home Office on Thursday.

Paedophiles regard chatrooms for teens and children, in terms of picking up kids, as akin to shooting fish in a barrel

Rachel O'Connell, Cyberspace Research Centre
She said the two friends of Shevaun seemed absolutely typical in their use of the internet.

"We travelled around to 42 schools in the UK and conducted a large piece of research involving 1,400 children," she said.

"We found that one in five of them aged between nine and 16 used chat on a regular basis.

"Over half of them reported engaging in conversations of a sexual nature.

"A quarter of them had received requests to meet face-to-face.

"And one in 10 had had accepted those requests and had met."

Danger signs

Those children who had face-to-face meetings on the whole reported having a "really good time", she pointed out - typically meeting other children, rather than an adult paedophile.

But that did not mean the paedophiles were not out there.

"They'll try their luck with one and if it doesn't work they'll move on very quickly to another."

Parents could not realistically be expected to watch their children all the time they were on the internet, she said.

But they could give their children some protection by making them aware of danger signs.

"It is a difficult issue, I admit, to discuss with children - but there are very obvious points at which adults can set boundaries."

Stages to sex

She said there was a "fairly consistent" pattern in the way paedophiles approached children in chatrooms.

"The initial one being a friendship forming phase in which they'll say to the child 'oh you sound lovely, let's talk in a private chatroom'.

PAEDOPHILES' USUAL PHASES
1: Friendship: Flattering a child into a private chatroom
2: Relationship-forming: Asking the child what problems they have
3: Mutuality: Identifying with those problems to create bond
4: Risk-assessment: Asking about location of computer etc
5: Exclusivity: Using powerful language to create trust and often love
6: Starting sex chat
Source: Cyberspace Research Centre

(my note: does this sound a bit like those 60s guide to canabis culture - know your enemy: "your average paedo will be crusted
with semen from constantly jerking off when he can't find a rape victim..."
)

"So they isolate the child from the chatroom which contains many chat users into a one-to-one private chatroom.

"They'll move then onto a relationship-forming phase and ask the child for a photograph."

They would also then try to establish where the child is having problems in life, she said.

"Whether it's with schoolmates, whether it's parents, they'll use that as a leverage point to create a sense of mutuality."

'Powerful language'

They then move onto a risk-assessment phase where it would be clear to a researcher, although not necessarily to a child, that the chatter was an adult or an adolescent with a sexual interest, she said.

"There are questions about where the computer is located, who else uses the computer, be sure you don't save copies of conversations."

The next phase was an "exclusivity" one, building on the sense of mutual love and trust between the pair, she said.

"The language that they use is very, very powerful. And often the reports that we get of victims they really do believe they've actually fallen in love, that this is the fairytale romance that's come true in a chatroom."

The paedophile may then reach the point where they engaged in sex chat, asked questions about sex or asked for a naked photograph, she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3073603.stm
===========================

Opinions?
 

NilesCalder

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,817
Likes
12
Points
67
#2
What these chatrooms need is decent moderators. :rolleyes:

I think the apparent increase in paedophilia is due to more being reported than an actual increase. Fear sells more papers after all... :hmph:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#4
One interesting point:

The number of child murders/abductions per year has basically been constant since the end of the war, with some minor year to year variations.

In other words, kids were in just as much danger in the golden age of the 50s as they are now. All that's increased is the media feeding frenzy, partly because we the 24 hour news channels which are desperate for anything to fill their mostly vacuous programming.

In all the talk of 'paedos' and 'pervs' ther main point that gets ignored is that approximately 95% of cases of child murder the killer is a parent or close relative. And nearly all cases of child abuse are carried out by family members or family friends.

People I know complain about the fact that they're made to feel like bad neglectful parents if they allow their kids to walk to school or go off and play on their own.

We're headed towards a generation of fearful couch potataoes.
 

beakboo1

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
2,312
Likes
28
Points
69
#5
I read or heard somewhere (great references as ever) that this daft girl told the marine she was a 19 year old student. They must both have been pretty disappointed when they met up, as he's no oil painting certainly. Now he's being portrayed as a child-preying perv, surely every man's nightmare? Let that be a lesson to all who flirt on message boards and chat rooms. Arrange to meet up and you could find yourself with a 12 year old and a 10 year prison sentence. :hmph:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#6
So, Beak, is this why you keep calling off the Cornwall meet?

Or are you worried about the start of your GCSE's?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#9
The Yithian said:
Does anyone actually believe that paedophilla is more prevailent today than say one hundred years or more ago, or is it just that it is revealed more often?
Another thing that may be worth bearing in mind is that whilst in the UK the age of consent is 16, elsewhere it can be significantly different.


Australia
New South Wales and Queensland: gay 18, otherwise 16
Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia: 17
Western Australia: gay 21, otherwise 16
Austria: gay 18, otherwise 14
Belgium: 16
Brazil: 18, but 14 and older only prosecutable after complaint by child
Canada: 14; 18 for anal sex, sex with an authority figure, or appearing in pornography
China: 14
Croatia: 14 or 18
Finland: homosexual 18, heterosexual 16
France: 15
Germany: 16 if perpetrator is over 21 (only prosecuted after complaint) or a teacher, otherwise 14
Greece: 17 for sodomy, otherwise 14
Hong Kong: gay 21, lesbian unknown, heterosexual females 16, heterosexual males 18
Hungary: homosexual 18, heterosexual 14
Iceland: 14
India: heterosexual 16, homosexual forbidden
Ireland: 17, 15 for lesbians and oral sex.
Israel: 16
Italy: 14
Japan: 16, but 18 under some circumstances (13 to 17 for males)
Mexico: 12, but 18 under some circumstances
Netherlands: 16 (however, sex with a prostitute of 16 or 17 is illegal)
New Zealand: 16 (no age of consent for boys for sex with an adult female [1])
Norway: 16
Poland: 15
Romania: 14
Russia: either 14 or 16
South Africa: homosexual 19, heterosexual 16
Spain: 13
Sweden: 15
Switzerland: 16
United Kingdom: heterosexual 16, homosexual 18 in Great Britain, but 17 in Northern Ireland
United States: varies from state to state, usually between 16 and 18; some states forbid homosexual acts entirely, however such laws have been declared unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. Federal law forbids crossing state lines or international borders with the intent of having sex with a person who is under 16 and at least 4 years younger than the perpetrator (18 U.S.C. 2243, 18 U.S.C. 2423)

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Spain and Mexico appear to be particularly extreme examples, though I don't know the details of their legislation.
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,486
Likes
473
Points
164
Location
Left, and to the Back
#10
Those ages may be out of date. There was a fair bit of fuss about unequal ages of consent in Australia over the last ten years. I believe most states now have equal ages, but I need to check.

If I can find a reference, I'll let you know.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,326
Likes
26,762
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
#12
Re: Re: Its Paedogeddon!

Fortis said:
New Zealand: 16 (no age of consent for boys for sex with an adult female [1])
Hang on. What does [1] mean? There's no age of consent for boys having sex with just one adult female??? Is more than one at a time a different proposition. :D
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,486
Likes
473
Points
164
Location
Left, and to the Back
#13
River_Styx said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/3076207.stm

Can someone tell me the difference between these two cases other than the fact firstly the offender is female and secondly she has actually been found guilty and sentenced?
Let's see. She sent him love letters, text messages, and got him drunk before having her way with him. Nope, can't see it. If she were a man, there would be a queue outside the prison to hang her. The judge would probably have increased the sentence, rather than releasing her.

I suppose the idea is that any 13 year old boy would be a willing participant in such a tryst, while a 13 year old girl is more interested in horses. (And of course, had it been a 33 year old man seducing a 13 year old boy, that would just be unnatural.)
 

river_styx

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
1,825
Likes
10
Points
69
#14
anome said:
Let's see. She sent him love letters, text messages, and got him drunk before having her way with him. Nope, can't see it. If she were a man, there would be a queue outside the prison to hang her. The judge would probably have increased the sentence, rather than releasing her.

I suppose the idea is that any 13 year old boy would be a willing participant in such a tryst, while a 13 year old girl is more interested in horses. (And of course, had it been a 33 year old man seducing a 13 year old boy, that would just be unnatural.)
Seems like she used the Slugs and Snails defence.

I suppose the theory is that sex for a boy is a rite of passage into manhood where as sex for a girl is what, a rite of passage into motherhood?
Or could it be something to do with the beleif that males don't connect as emotionally as females?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#15
The loss of virginity for a teen-age boy of any age is seen as a right of passage, but for girls it's seen as corruption even when it's two girls of the same age playing around with each other, one is always cast as the corrupter (usually the one staying over.)

While watching the news when I noticed that alot of the sex chat when investigated was found to be between peers of the same age, not instigated by an adult.

A small point is female sexual desire and pleasure which is mostly ignored as all sex is legally a concession, the law only recognises male sexual pleasure so any woman having sex is seen as giving something and not receiving so automatically it becomes the man taking something from the girl while woman is giving something to the boy.
But there was a case recently where the girls was 15 and the man 30, I seam to remember he got a light sentence if any because he was still in relationship with the girl during the case, he was cleared of rape I think but their was something about sleeping with a minor (the canary kept squawking, the light got in the way and not to mention the state of the sheets.)

The amount of paedophile's hasn't risen but our sensitivity and intolerance has, at one time the mafia ran the child porn with normal porn and then in the eighties they stopped a while before the big Traci Lords (Spits sideways) case.
Infact it was the religious right in America (won't somebody please think of the children) who were clamping down of porn they highlighted the child stuff and then used it as a propaganda tool for their own purposes and they still use it today as any-one who's seen the ad with serial killer who explains that every man he's met on death row has used pornography, he doesn't mention that every man who uses porn isn’t on death row.

"Hello I am Uncle Joe Stalin, speaking with all my years as a all seeing dictator and speaking with many other foreign dictators I have become convinced that the route cause of dictatorships is shoes, I haven't met a single world leader with an iron grip who hasn't at one time or another engaged in/or at seen the wearing shoes.
Please don't let your children grow up in a world covered in shoes, its just not right.
This advert was paid for with money by the Jesus wore sandal's free church of loose toes."
 

McAvennie

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
3,848
Likes
1,485
Points
184
#16
Certainly there seems to be far more media coverage and awareness of paedophile's today. But to say that there weren't any before stuff like the internet etc. is daft. The amount of dirty bastards that have been done for touching kids and stuff in the 70's is amazing and before that there are probably far more. It was a generation where you didn't speak out against or question your elders so they'd get away with it.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,588
Likes
8
Points
69
#17
that's certainly true about people not speaking out in the past, especially when the perpetrators were usually backed by institutions like orphanages or convents. i remember hearing of a case of a soccer club who had coaches at their junior team prosecuted for sexual offences. the club had them sacked when they found out about it. their head coach insisted on them going but later, when he left the club, they rehired them and they just went back to their old ways. can't remember who the team was but i'm pretty certain it was somewhere like scotland. which would make sense since i've heard the fans of the club can be pretty rowdy and might not be too keen on kids coming out and dragging their soccer club's name through the mud, they'd have to deal with sceptics AND the possible threat of violence. this all came out sometimes in the mid-90's but i only heard about it fairly recently. hard to believe and the details were pretty sketchy but maybe somebody can confirm this story.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#18
My mother once reported to me that when she was training as a nurse back in the late 50s, and reached that part of her training where she was working in the local residential psych hospital, that it seemed like nearly half of all the women residents had been committed in their early teens for both becoming pregnant and for claiming that their own fathers had been the ones to make them so.

Which is nightmare enough, but then she told me that 2 of these women were sisters -the daughters of a Provost back in the 20s IIRC- telling identical stories about how they were impregnated by their respectable, pillar of the Kirk and the local community dad, and still they were branded mentally-ill liars. There's a point at which denying that a thing can happen because you don't want it to be possible crosses from passive collusion into active facilitation. How did the authorities in those days sleep at night?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#19
Pregnancy and mental infirmity have gone hand in hand since the Victorian era (probably earlier), is seams as if the theory that linked masturbation with mental weakness was transferred to all kinds of sex and carried on well in the 20 century especially attaching its self to pregnant girls as the fact they were pregnant proved they were having sex and thus they were degenerates and morally corrupt so they were blaming their fathers rather then telling the truth about what had really happened (similar the way rape victims were treated as harlots rather then the victims that they were).

It sort of explains the Magdalene sisters in Ireland who took in young pregnant unmarried women, treated them like dirt and put the into their nun run asylums to toile and work, I think panorama ran a show on the issue of compensation, the fact that these nuns were given free licence to do what they like with the girls shows what kind of esteem they were held in, most probably were baring the young of their fathers as the accusations were expected from the feeble minded and seen as vicious mischief.


God I hope this makes more sense then when read it back, its like saying elbow 15 times.
 

brianellwood

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
722
Likes
11
Points
49
#20
When I was small (1940's) in Manchester, I was allowed to roam pretty much at will, but with a strict time to be home (& how strict!! but you don't want to know about my resultant psychosises :D ). Visiting the park however, I was told not to talk to strange men - women apparently were ok - particularly anyone asking them to follow them somewhere, help them look for something, or pretending to be soccer talent scouts. I was indeed approached, and he vanished smartly when I said he should see my dad by the goalposts! So there was common knowledge about such things, but no hysteria.
I've allowed my boys on int. chat but neither of them would agree to meet anyone they didn't know and have always used an avatar. However they prefer to make their own chat rooms in which they designate who can come in (using e-mail ad's) and can sling out and bar anyone they don't know if they managed to enter. Let's face it, they could be approached by a million ways, the internet is just the latest for the press to start a witch hunt against. My ex said it was "never take sweets from strangers".
Sad though, when you have to think carefully before talking to somebody else's children.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,326
Likes
26,762
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
#21
Vicar steps down for cheek kiss

A vicar has stepped down as a school governor after kissing a primary pupil on the cheek to congratulate her.

The Rev Alan Barrett, vicar of Tamworth, Staffordshire, kissed the girl in front of pupils and teachers because she had done well in maths.

A church spokesman said a police inquiry found no offence had taken place, but the vicar was told to have no contact with the school.

Mr Barrett said he was stunned to be subjected to a police inquiry.

Conduct examined

In a statement he said: "After visiting the school of which I was chair of governors, helping some pupils with their class work, and congratulating one who had struggled, I was stunned to hear I was subject to a police and social services investigating, examining my character, conduct and ministry.

"I was relieved when they found there was no case to answer and I could continue with my life."

He said he agreed with the Archdeacon of Lichfield, the Venerable Chris Liley, that giving a child a kiss of congratulations in his day and age could be considered inappropriate.

'Common greeting'

A spokesman for the Diocese of Lichfield said an informal investigation conducted by the archdeacon found that formal disciplinary proceedings were not justified.

But the investigation did deem the vicar's behaviour as "inappropriate" and sought assurances from him that he would not do it again.

The diocesan spokesman said: "The conclusion that Mr Barrett had acted inappropriately is not a finding of guilt or negligence, but recognition that in today's climate, previously acceptable innocent behaviour is now subject to misunderstanding and suspicion.

"As the complaint and subsequent police investigation demonstrates, the simple act of a kiss on the cheek - a common greeting throughout the world - has potentially damaging consequences.

"The bishop of Lichfield has written to the mother of the girl setting out the steps the diocese has taken and the conclusion of the investigation.

"He has explained that if the mother still feels that the conduct warrants a formal investigation she may lodge a formal complaint under the clergy discipline measure."

The spokesman added the diocese took child protection very seriously and had policies in place which all parishes were required to abide by.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staf ... 176802.stm
 

ogopogo3

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
1,375
Likes
17
Points
69
#22
If you want to see how prevalent it is, go into any AOL or Yahoo chatroom and say that you're a 13-year-old girl and see how long it takes before someone starts talking to you.

Perverted Justice is a website where people pretend to be underaged teens and then post the chat logs from the lecherous nutballs who talk to them. The offenders are ranked by overall sliminess. There's some VERY disturbed people in those rankings.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
25,829
Likes
22,133
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
#23
What a stupid vicar. What's wrong with a heary handshake? Would he have kissed a MALE pupil? Of course not. It would have been inappropriate. So it was equally inappropriate to kiss a female one.

If I'd been that girl's mother I'd have cost him his job. Or at least his front teeth.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,326
Likes
26,762
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
#25
escargot1 said:
What a stupid vicar. What's wrong with a heary handshake? Would he have kissed a MALE pupil? Of course not. It would have been inappropriate. So it was equally inappropriate to kiss a female one.

If I'd been that girl's mother I'd have cost him his job. Or at least his front teeth.
I don't see what's wrong with it myself. It sounds innocent. I don't think the male/female distinction makes it any more sexual in nature, it's just observing a different social norm. My grandfather was always met with a handshake and my grandmother with a kiss on the cheek.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
25,829
Likes
22,133
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
#27
They were your grandparents, though.
You and they had an informal contract, negotiated through your parents, concerning how much and what type of physical contact was permissible.

And it's not about whether it's sexual or not. It needn't go that far. It's about an implied intimacy. It's about power, too. Did he ask her if he could kiss her? And if he had, could she have refused, in front of all those people?

Not respecting her body limits, or personal space, however you express it, implies that he felt entitled to touch her, and that is offensive in itself.

The next 10 people you chat to, try saying 'Well done!' and kissing their cheek. I'll send you a steak for your black eye. ;)
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,326
Likes
26,762
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
#28
escargot1 said:
They were your grandparents, though.
You and they had an informal contract, negotiated through your parents, concerning how much and what type of physical contact was permissible.

And it's not about whether it's sexual or not. It needn't go that far. It's about an implied intimacy. It's about power, too. Did he ask her if he could kiss her? And if he had, could she have refused, in front of all those people?

Not respecting her body limits, or personal space, however you express it, implies that he felt entitled to touch her, and that is offensive in itself.

The next 10 people you chat to, try saying 'Well done!' and kissing their cheek. I'll send you a steak for your black eye. ;)
I don't view children as labouring under all the same baggage as adults. 'Implied intimacy' 'power' etc. She was a primary school girl. We can't see through skulls here, but it sounded like it was well-intentioned affection, and even if the child went 'urgh' inwardly or outwardly I can't for a second believe that sensation would last any longer than the few seconds. What I think is laughable is launching investigations. That's why i stuck it under paedogeddon--because that's the mindset that prevents us from treating children like children.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
25,829
Likes
22,133
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
#29
By 'treating children like children', do you mean believing that they can be touched without their consent? Is it OK to produce that 'urgh' reaction?

Touching people's faces is an intimate gesture. If a person's face is touched, it implies that permission has been given to do that. If permission has not, then it is intrusive, and that is what makes it a misuse of power.

I repeat, try kissing people's cheeks. Or if kissing is too much for you, how about a gentle stroke of the cheekbone? That bouncer at the club would appreciate such a gesture of well-intentioned affection.
 

_Lizard23_

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 23, 2001
Messages
1,600
Likes
14
Points
69
#30
I'm with Yith on this one.

I don't think in my childhood there was any social injunction against vicars and other authority figures giving little girls a peck on the cheek when presenting an award or similar, in fact I am sure it was fairly common place and probably had been for quite some time previously.
Bloody patronising and frequently embarrassing and unpleasant for the child, rather like doing that 'ooh chubby cheeks!' thing, but perfectly normal don't-give-it-a-second thought type behaviour.

I don't imagine there was any more or less paedophilia then and I really don't think that was anything to do with it, and I do think that current hysteria about the subject is behind the current climate where any physical contact with a child except by family is liable to be labelled 'inappropriate' and I don't think that is a particularly good thing, nor especially helpful when you consider that 'the family' are statistically the most likely people to be responsible for child abuse.

So yeah, rough deal for the guy IMO.
 
Top