The Guardian on sex abuse

Mr Cameron’s pledge of criminal prosecutions and five-year prison sentences for officials who turn a blind eye to child abuse fails badly on this count. It turns the whole focus of attention on the failings of officials and away from the crimes being committed by the real abusers. By doing so, it may deter recruitment of the skilled specialists whose work is now most needed.

To translate that for you.

Don’t blame the people who find their jobs through The Guardian employment pages.

98 thoughts on “The Guardian on sex abuse”

  1. Cameron’s legislation is still wrong. I’m sure there will be unintended consequences if its implemented. Like social workers being even more draconian in their actions and taking into care loads more kids – just in case and to cover their backs.

  2. It’s classic Lefty thinking. “We want more oversight and regulation of everything…”

    “…Except Lefty professionals. Teachers and Social Workers shouldn’t be scrutinised at al…”

  3. Regardless of the Graun, it’s terrible legislation. Like most legislation these days. It’s just going to make taking your child to A&E into a game of Russian Roulette.

  4. So Much for Subtlety

    Mr Cameron’s pledge of criminal prosecutions and five-year prison sentences for officials who turn a blind eye to child abuse fails badly on this count.

    When in British history have officials ever been threatened with a jail term just for doing their job incompetently? This is a little bit totalitarian. Yes, incompetent officials should be fired, but how can someone be said to have criminal intent?

  5. SMFS-

    It’s not actually about them being incompetent. It’s forcing them to do another job, of policing, or being child wardens, or whatever. It basically means that if you have any interaction with kids and you don’t report a suspicion, you have committed a criminal act. It’s not a little bit totalitarian. It’s full-on totalitarian.

    Until recently my dad was involved in running brass bands, many of whose members are under 18. If one turns up with a black eye, what is the adult in charge supposed to do? Report them to the police as a potential abuse victim? If the child says it’s the result of a bicycling accident, is accepting that explanation and not reporting them a criminal offence?

  6. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “It’s not actually about them being incompetent. It’s forcing them to do another job, of policing, or being child wardens, or whatever. It basically means that if you have any interaction with kids and you don’t report a suspicion, you have committed a criminal act. It’s not a little bit totalitarian. It’s full-on totalitarian.”

    We are certainly in agreement that the laws forcing more and more people to act as snitches is morally wrong and full on totalitarian. But I am not sure that is what “Dave” means. I think he means that former Social Workers will get a jail term, not a massive pay out the next time there is a Baby P case.

  7. The Guardian’s criticism is thay the legislation will turn attention away from the perpetrators of the real crimes.
    With respect, that is precisely what hose Gueardian-reading ‘professional’ did when confronted with the evidence of those same crimes.
    To turn your back on a child when presented with clear evidence.of the risk she is facing is indeed criminal – in the wider sense of the word. However, proving that to the standard required will be very difficult indeed.

  8. SMFS-

    I think whatever Dave might “mean”, how this will end up implemented is much as I have described.

  9. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “I think whatever Dave might “mean”, how this will end up implemented is much as I have described.”

    I will agree that “Dave”‘s one great saving grace is his utter incompetence and ineffectualness. Nothing he does ends up being implemented.

    But it is worrying if it is an indication of what the bureaucracy want.

  10. “It turns the whole focus of attention on the failings of officials and away from the crimes being committed by the real abusers.”

    Well, yes. Because we can’t expect better of the criminals but we CAn and SHOULD expect better of the people paid to STOP the criminals.

    i didn’t think this was rocket science.

  11. What it will mean is that no one who is not a fool will want anything to do with kids. All kid-related activities–scouts /guides/martial arts classes/sport–will now be put in peril.

    Camorgueron is one of the most moronic shit-house clerks ever to occupy the job. Even the Bottle-fed Boy wasn’t this stupid –on non-economic matters at least.

  12. “…but how can someone be said to have criminal intent?”

    Because there was a deliberate effort to suppress this for a reason – political correctness.

  13. Also it sets a precedent for 1001 other areas.If you won’t be a police informer–go straight to jail

  14. No good Julia–you are making specific what is intended to be general. If a piece is wanted of the leftists who facilitated Rotherham and many other such capers–fine–but not this way. This opens the door to abuse of ordinary people. As Ian B says it will make life a misery for ordinary people.

    The time for active resistance is approaching to deal with this kind of shit. Such as taking people arrested under abusive laws such as proposed out of police custody.

  15. It turns the whole focus of attention on the failings of officials and away from the crimes being committed by the real abusers.

    That really is a quite glorious sentence. I’m always impressed when someone can fit that much lying into so few words.

    What the officials in question have been doing is taking focus away from the crimes being committed by the real abusers. We are now able to focus on the criminals precisely because we have started focussing on the officials. Also, it wasn’t a failing; they did it quite deliberately. Their failing was in eventually being caught.

  16. bloke (not) in spain

    This going to be another “something must be done” when there were already plenty of somethings could have been done that weren’t.
    I’d start with it being fairly obvious there’s been obstruction of the police in the course of… & be looking at a few other laws. I know, as someone who’s engaged in a public facing business, that behaviour that can be construed as reckless can put one into criminal territory.
    But a headline of “something is being done” is going to be more the point of this than actually doing anything. Prosecutions there will be few, if any. And then only of the innocent.

  17. “When in British history have officials ever been threatened with a jail term just for doing their job incompetently?”

    Admiral Byng. Although he was shot by firing squad rather than jailed.

  18. I’m also presuming as a cynic that this is the trojan horse that will get the desired kangaroo rape courts into British universities.

    And on a more general point, regarding this and the thread a few posts down, the Right are, once again, the useful idiots demanding the gates of Troy be opened and the horse welcomed in.

  19. A lot of people here seem to be slightly misinformed about what’s in the legislation.

    Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the Cameron plan did not go far enough. “Stronger laws are needed to protect children. The government should bring forward a legal duty to report child abuse, a new specific offence of child exploitation, and new child abduction warning notices. However, ministers voted against these last week.”

    So the legal duty to report child abuse that you’re so concerned will be misused is in fact a Labour policy that the Government has just explicitly rejected.

    > If one turns up with a black eye, what is the adult in charge supposed to do? Report them to the police as a potential abuse victim? If the child says it’s the result of a bicycling accident, is accepting that explanation and not reporting them a criminal offence?

    No. Next question.

  20. Let’s wait and see the form of the legislation that actually goes through the Commons shall we, Squander? Remember when the smoking ban was only going to apply to venues selling food?

  21. SMFS,

    > When in British history have officials ever been threatened with a jail term just for doing their job incompetently?

    They weren’t incompetent. They very competently kept child-abusers out of police investigations. They went so far as to discipline people who tried to get the abuse stopped. If they’d just been incompetent, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  22. > Let’s wait and see the form of the legislation that actually goes through the Commons shall we, Squander?

    That is in fact what I am suggesting. You’re the one already pronouncing with absolute certainty exactly what form it will take and how it will be implemented.

    But a Cabinet vote against a particular measure is at least indicative that, you know, the Cabinet are against it.

  23. That is in fact what I am suggesting. You’re the one already pronouncing with absolute certainty exactly what form it will take and how it will be implemented.

    It’s extremely naive to take the Progressive State at face value. Every opportunity is bent to progressivist ends. Even if Cameron gets this through in its weaker form, it will be revisited and intensified.

  24. Making it easier to fire incompetents would be a good first step but the public sector unions would never consent hence “criminalisation”. Btw where are the charges against the mid Staffs bureaucrats and Cumbrian midwives?

  25. Squander

    Very well argued. I don’t have any problem with us adults being required to report child abuse when we suspect it. However, proving that it was genuinely suspected is a much greater step.
    That said ( arguing in circles, I accept) surely to God the repeated complaints made in Rotherham and Oxfordshire would provide enough grounds for it to be suspected. And surely to God criminal law has a place for the sort of deliberate policy pursued by those councils and police forces.

  26. Anyway, as with so many of these things (e.g. the “anti-slavery” laws) the question remains as to why not just use the laws already in place. Perverting The Course Of Justice, for instance.

  27. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “I’m also presuming as a cynic that this is the trojan horse that will get the desired kangaroo rape courts into British universities.”

    Not cynical enough. This won’t be for British universities alone.

    “And on a more general point, regarding this and the thread a few posts down, the Right are, once again, the useful idiots demanding the gates of Troy be opened and the horse welcomed in.”

    Sorry but the horse has been welcomed in. By governments of both the Left and Right. The Left mainly. They wanted to rub our faces in diversity and haven’t they succeeded!

    There is no one here demanding these new laws. Although Ironman may welcome the State requiring us to snitch on our neighbours, he is not really on the Right is he? Nor is Dave. The Trojan Horse is surely your defence of sexually active pre-teens.

  28. I don’t have any problem with us adults being required to report child abuse when we suspect it. However, proving that it was genuinely suspected is a much greater step.

    What on Earth is a genuine suspicion? What are you going to use? Telepathy? Good grief.

  29. The Trojan Horse is surely your defence of sexually active pre-teens.

    I’m not actually defending any such thing, though. My basic point throughout these many discussions is that you have to start with the facts of human beings (and the rest of the reality) as they are. And one of those facts is that humans after puberty have sexual desire. If you are determined to prevent any of them having sex, it then comes down to your choice of whether it’s the females or the males who you’re going to drag into a barn and set alight.

  30. > What on Earth is a genuine suspicion? What are you going to use? Telepathy? Good grief.

    How about proof of multiple written reports thrust under the perps’ fucking noses? No-one has said “Oo, I bet they knew about it.” That would be a tabloid smear campaign. The reason it’s not just sensationalist tabloid innuendo but instead a series of official reports taken seriously is precisely that there is evidence. Tons of it. Going back years. In Rotherham, we know that the problem was highlighted in at least three separate official reports. We know who saw the reports. We know what action they then took. We know whether the reports were correct (they were). We know that, in one case, the official reaction to a report was to discipline the person who wrote it and send her for compulsory diversity training to stop her ever saying such things again. There are records of all of this. And we all know you know this. So what the fuck do you mean by “telepathy”?

    Why not react to the actual news under discussion instead of the made-up bollocks in your head?

  31. Ah, so you want to send somebody to prison if somebody else suspects something then? So, I send you an email saying that I suspect that SMFS is running a paedo ring, then if you don’t report it, you’re criminally responsible? Jolly good.

  32. I’m not “denying” anything. I’m just interested in the facts, rather than the lurid synopses. Your insinuation is, as ever, predictable.

    You see, you don’t know what happened. Neither do I. You have reports of reports of reports, all predicated on certain assumptions. This is a battle of narratives, not a sober analysis of reality. All I can see on all sides is axes grinding.

  33. The police officer specifically tasked with addressing Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham was Inspector Abdul Aziz.

    His childhood friend was deputy leader of Rotherham Council.

    You would have thought we would want to have a word with Mr Aziz.

    However, we can’t as he has done a runner to Pakistan.

    Amazing what does and doesn’t get national coverage,

  34. > I’m just interested in the facts, rather than the lurid synopses.

    No matter how sober and serious a report is, you will always claim that it is lurid. I’m just astounded that you haven’t used the word “icky” yet.

    Look, the people who were in charge of and responsible for the protection of children in Rotherham have not been accused, by anyone, of receiving some email from some bloke who claimed there was a paedo somewhere. To make ignoring that a criminal offence would obviously be completely absurd. Which is why absolutely no-one has even hinted at doing so. Yet that is what you are arguing against.

    Also, no-one has suggested that we can know from some gut feeling based on suspicion and rumour and telepathy that the people who were in charge of and responsible for the protection of children in Rotherham knew what was going on. And yet that is another thing you are arguing against.

    > Your insinuation is, as ever, predictable.

    What is predictable is that, whenever the subject of child rape comes up, you will have an awful lot to say about how the perpetrators aren’t as guilty as claimed, how the victims aren’t really victims, how there’s a witch-hunt going on, and you will never, ever even hint that maybe people who rape children are bad.

    You claim that I am hinting that you’re a paedophile. I am not. One thing we know about paedophiles is that they tend to put a lot of effort into hiding their prediliction. I am absolutely positive that no paedophile would post the shite you do in a public forum. When I say that it is odd, I mean just that: it is odd. You have this absolute single-minded determination to deny that child rape is bad and that raped children are victims.

  35. You claim that I am hinting that you’re a paedophile.

    No, you just claimed that. I didn’t. What Ironman is insinuating I’m not sure; but then I doubt he’s just a bit dim.

    No matter how sober and serious a report is, you will always claim that it is lurid. I’m just astounded that you haven’t used the word “icky” yet.

    Have you actually read the Rotherham report?

    My position here is very simple. We are in the midst of the greatest moral panic since the 17th century, and as such we need to be extremely cautious. Words are distorted before our eyes. People with no complaint to make are labelled victims on their behalf. Teenage girls having consensual sex turn into child rape victims. And we have as citizens no good data to work with. We have “example” reports, which is obviously unreliable. We have some girls who repeatedly, actively consorted with supposed “abusers” in defiance of parents and social workers. This is complex territory; unless you just slap a narrative- “innocent ingenue “groomed” by swarthy foreigner” slapped on it (a recurrent narrative in history by the way- Chinese, Blacks, Eastern European immigrants in the USA, now its Teh Muzzies).

    Now, I understand; you like 99% of the population just want to buy the narrative (one or the other). That’s why moral panics work and are so destructive. But that doesn’t make doing it right.

    Well yes, it is “odd” to be one of the few who stand up against a torrent of consensual bullshit; and to do that is to get fingers pointed and insinuations made. It’s dangerous. If you dare say Old Sarah isn’t a witch, maybe it’s because you’re a witch, or at least in league with the Devil in some way. Much safer to go with the flow.

    What do I know? I have my own experience. I know that when I was that age, many girls in my cohort were voluntarily having sex, often with much older boyfriends- who were seen as a “prize” (money, car, worldly compared to callow youths their own age). I know that many of the prettiest girls seemed to have ethnic (in my day, Afro-Caribbean) boyfriends, the cause of much considerable racial niggling from us pasty white spotty virgins. If such a panic had arisen in Northampton in the late 1970s, how many of them would have appeared in the statistics as “victims”? And while we’re doing moral panics, one of my close friend’s sisters was shagging her English teacher (in his 40s) and ended up living with him, I could show you the Facebook page of another teacher who indulged, and could tell you the name of a young female geography teacher who had an affair with a hunky sixth former; all of whom would now be absurdly labelled criminal paedophiles.

    I just wish some of you bastards would apply some fucking common sense for once. I am trying to get people to deal with the messy reality of human sexuality.

    Not as much fun as hysteria though, reality. No fun at all.

  36. Also-

    Look, the people who were in charge of and responsible for the protection of children in Rotherham have not been accused, by anyone, of receiving some email from some bloke who claimed there was a paedo somewhere. To make ignoring that a criminal offence would obviously be completely absurd. Which is why absolutely no-one has even hinted at doing so. Yet that is what you are arguing against.

    Because at that point I was more in the mode of discussing what’s going to happen when compulsory reporting of suspicions becomes the law. Not about specifically Rotherham. As is usual in these threads, different aspects become confused.

    So back with the issue, the problem is this; once there is a legal obligation, what level of suspicion becomes a reporting requirement, and what can you ignore before being legally culpable? It seems to me the answer is that every suspicion, however minor, will have to be reported in order to avoid prosecution. Which does indeed bring us to the example of, say, an anonymous email accusation.

  37. While we’re at it, the funniest element of all this is that the government is apparently about to issue a blanket pardon to some 50,000 gay men who were convicted under a law passed a century ago at the urgings of the Ironmans and Squanders of their day who similarly refused to accept the real nature of human sexuality and decided to impose their own shape on it by the force of law. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and all that.

  38. Julia: There is no need for a new law –with all manner of possible ramifications and extensions–to deal with those who (say “may” cos they are not convicted yet–even tho’ I think it likely they did look the other way because of their leftist affiliations) may be guilty of doing nothing in Rotherham and elsewhere. Criminal negligence will do fine. This law is kneejerk “we’re doing something” bullshit at best. It could easily lead to moronic “kid has a black eye and you said nothing” type arrests despite SQ2s bland assurances about what is in or not in it.

    “What is predictable is that, whenever the subject of child rape comes up, you will have an awful lot to say about how the perpetrators aren’t as guilty as claimed, how the victims aren’t really victims, how there’s a witch-hunt going on, and you will never, ever even hint that maybe people who rape children are bad.”

    That is all a lot of garbage. The Savile/Old Men caper is a pile of leftist-manufactured shite, peddled by Radfems–a movement with a long track record of creating bogus panics that turn out– 25-30 years later– to be proven to be utterly baseless piffle. Only after they have ruined numerous innocent peoples lives of course. IanB is right about that 100% and all your slimy insinuations of “child abuse” reflect on you.

    “You have this absolute single-minded determination to deny that child rape is bad and that raped children are victims.”

    Unlike you not everybody is dumb enough to rush out and grab a torch every time a mob is stirred up by leftist liars in and out of the media. The Savile/Old men caper is 100% nothing. Read Anna Racoons demolition of the latest crop of expensive horseshit NHS reports on Savile.

    Now Ian is looking at the Rotherham capers in the same light. Here I do not agree. Because the same leftist filth lighting and stoking the boilers in the white accusations are extremely keen to put out any fire in so far as the non-white accusations go. But to call having doubts about what went on being the same as denying “child rape is bad” qualifies you as a prize fool.

    “Why can’t I write like you? The time and effort I could have saved!”

    Because you are inarticulate as well as habitually wrong.

  39. Now Ian is looking at the Rotherham capers in the same light. Here I do not agree.

    Not quite. I think Savile looks more and more like pure invention. With the Rotherham panic I’m just questioning how much exaggeration has occurred. It’s clear that some of it is real, and some of what occurred was disturbing indeed, and that various officials ignored things and then tried to cover their arses. But it doesn’t help to swing from one extreme to the other. It’s even less helpful to start throwing the shit of bad legislation at the wall to see what sticks.

    For me the irony (if nobody else) is that all I keep saying is an appeal for calm in looking at this stuff. But everybody wants an extreme. Everyone wants the most lurid.

  40. So, in the last week I seem have made mortal enemies of Mr Ecks, So Much for Subtlety and IanB; I think I’ll survive.

    IanB, just a couple of direct quotes:
    “People with no complaint to make are labelled victims on their behalf. Teenage girls having consensual sex turn into child rape victims.”
    “We have some girls who repeatedly, actively consorted with supposed “abusers””
    “victims”
    Following the agreed facts that led to criminal convictions by jury and long prison sentences: you are in many cases, MANY cases, talking about 13-year-old girls here.

    So, all in all, I’m quite pleased not to be very bright, inarticulate as well as habitually wrong.

  41. “…50,000 gay men who were convicted under a law passed a century ago at the urgings of the Ironmans and Squanders of their day who similarly refused to accept the real nature of human sexuality and decided to impose their own shape on it by the force of law.”

    Not quite sure what you’re saying here Ian. We now accept that gay adults can do whatever they like. I’m not sure how that fits in with sex with young girls (or boys). The real nature of human sexuality may well be that very young children would voluntarily engage in sexual activity but we (as a society) have decided that whatever the child’s physical state, their emotional development means they need some protection. You refer to teachers and pupils but again society says that this is a posiiton of responsibility involving children whose emotional development almost certainly lags behind their physical development and imposes a duty on the teacher not to abuse this. I agree with society’s view. Are you saying you don’t?

    After all, I don’t think anyone in the Rotherham (and elsewhere) ‘grooming’ trials has yet been convicted of having consensual sex with a girl aged 16+. Unless I’ve missed that?

  42. you are in many cases, MANY cases, talking about 13-year-old girls here.

    And in many cases I’m not, a point you keep stubbornly ignoring.

  43. You have cases that have gone to court and convictions that underage girls had sex with assorted older males. In the case of the assorted Asians convicted my point is that the same gang of leftist liars who were on the job to turn entirely unsupported allegations (indeed suspect not just unsupported) into convictions in the case of the Old White Men were entirely absent in the cases of the Asians. To me that makes the Rotherham convictions much more credible. If the standards applied in court to the Rotherrees (so to speak) had been applied to the Old Men–they would almost certainly have walked.

    “So, in the last week I seem have made mortal enemies of Mr Ecks, So Much for Subtlety and IanB; I think I’ll survive.”

    Alas you will. Hopefully you will be lynched as an (innocent) dirty old man in some future paedo-panic facilitated and made possible by the credibility fostered today by many just like you.

    “So, all in all, I’m quite pleased not to be very bright, inarticulate as well as habitually wrong”

    I have no doubt that you are never less than pleased with yourself regardless of your circumstances.

  44. > Now Ian is looking at the Rotherham capers in the same light. … to call having doubts about what went on being the same as denying “child rape is bad” qualifies you as a prize fool.

    Which is not what I’ve said. The broad subject of child rape comes up quite a lot here, and the fact is that Ian responds every single time with many hundreds of words casting doubt on the guilt of abusers, rubbishing proof, no matter how solid it is, as mere hysterical rumour, and claiming that victims were voluntary, and never a single word suggesting that it might actually be a bad thing.

    I have asked before: what, hypothetically, would constitute actual evidence of child-rape that harms a child? We know it is a thing that happens. It must be possible to prove it sometimes. Yet we have yet to see any evidence that Ian B would accept. Is it because child-rapists are in fact the world’s greatest master criminals, never leaving behind a shred of evidence? All of them? That seems unlikely.

  45. Andy,

    > I agree with society’s view. Are you saying you don’t?

    Yes, he is. He has repeatedly stated that he agrees with what he calls “science”, i.e. that anyone who’s started puberty is sexually available and responsible.

  46. After all, I don’t think anyone in the Rotherham (and elsewhere) ‘grooming’ trials has yet been convicted of having consensual sex with a girl aged 16+. Unless I’ve missed that?

    Any girl up to 17 known to social services is in the aggregate “estimate” in the report.

    Not quite sure what you’re saying here Ian. We now accept that gay adults can do whatever they like. I’m not sure how that fits in with sex with young girls (or boys). The real nature of human sexuality may well be that very young children would voluntarily engage in sexual activity but we (as a society) have decided that whatever the child’s physical state, their emotional development means they need some protection. You refer to teachers and pupils but again society says that this is a posiiton of responsibility involving children whose emotional development almost certainly lags behind their physical development and imposes a duty on the teacher not to abuse this. I agree with society’s view. Are you saying you don’t?

    “We” didn’t think that about gay men until a few decades ago. “We” thought it was necessary to have laws against them to protect society and the young particularly. Bear in mind at this point that neither Wilde nor Turing were cruising for an age appropriate husband to have a mature relationship with.

    The point here is that “we as a society” have at various point believed lots of things. Currently apparently “we as a society” choose to believe that sexual activity before 16 is fine (or at least tolerable) so long as the other person is under 16, otherwise it is a crime against nature, and this doesn’t make any more sense than saying that every gay man is a crime against nature. Additionally, people talk a lot about this assumption that some degree of “emotional development” is necessary before you can be allowed to have sex, but it is entirely unclear what this actually means; it is just a euphemism for “I don’t want 15 year olds having sex. So long as it’s with each other”. Why one needs to be less emotionally developed to shag a person of one’s own age than one who is older remains to be explained.

    Meanwhile, oblivious to the laws of man, human nature continues switching on sex drives at about the age of 13, almost like evolution wanted it to be that way. And millions of teenagers continue to wank themselves crosseyed while “we as a society” tell them that their feelings are abnormal.

    Has nature played a terrible, cruel trick on teenagers, or have “we, as a society”, maybe made a bit of a cock-up?

  47. Clearly the Guardian and the class it represents did everything they could to hide the real nature of the abusers for years, so their argument is cynical disingenuous bollocks.

    That said, this looks like being an absolute corker of an example of legislation which from day one will not simply be useless but actively harmful. Any ‘professional’ would simply report absolutely everything to the police just to cover their arse. The police, even if they have the inclination to actually investigate this sort of crime, will be snowed under with trivial bollocks and the real abusers will slip through.

    Expect loads of cases of nice middle class parents having their door kicked down at 5am, and shake your head in wonder at the Tory MPs raging in disbelief about their lovely law being used like this.

  48. SQ2 “Which is not what I’ve said. The broad subject of child rape comes up quite a lot here, and the fact is that Ian responds every single time with many hundreds of words casting doubt on the guilt of abusers, rubbishing proof, no matter how solid it is, as mere hysterical rumour, and claiming that victims were voluntary, and never a single word suggesting that it might actually be a bad thing.

    I have asked before: what, hypothetically, would constitute actual evidence of child-rape that harms a child? We know it is a thing that happens. It must be possible to prove it sometimes. Yet we have yet to see any evidence that Ian B would accept. Is it because child-rapists are in fact the world’s greatest master criminals, never leaving behind a shred of evidence? All of them? That seems unlikely.”

    What constitutes evidence of child rape?
    1–Witnesses to the act–less likely but some one could walk in whatever was happening.
    2–A distressed child–within minutes/hours/days etc–not 40 years later with extra financial incentives and hate filled femmi-commisars coaching said “victim”.
    3-Physical evidence–semen, DNA etc.
    4- Accused credibly placed at the scene of crime by independent witnesses or video etc. Not 40 year old accounts from “victims” who can’t even remember when and where supposed crimes occurred. Or claim a hand was put up their skirt by the accused when audio-visual evidence exists that they were wearing trousers on the occasion in question.
    5-The absence of non-evidence about supposed “patterns” of the accused’s behaviour–used in place of real evidence. Most laughable in the case of those talking about Jimmy Saviles “patterns”–He worked alone, with other individuals, in small groups, larger groups as well as a satanic coven. Assaulted little girls, teenage girls, little boys, teenage boys, adult women and men, mental patients, corpses, women recovering from surgery, the sick and paralyzed in their beds. He worked from home, other peoples flats and houses, the back seat of cars, hospitals physical and mental, dingy basements, the BBC, he had his own fleet of rape mobiles (an ordinary and a motor caravan), he prowled corridors and stairwells, had unlimited access to empty office and room space wherever he went and could still swing in windows Batman style. Bull-fucking-shit.

    There are plenty of other criteria for real evidence. Any child pre-puberty would be a victim if real evidence exists. Post -puberty girls, still underage but who say they did it voluntarily and enjoyed it–that is a more thorny question. Best solution is to wait forty years until they are embittered middle-aged wrecks. On todays form they will co-operate with the prosecution no problem. At least that way there would be an accurate record of what happened 40 years before.

  49. Mr Ecks

    “…my point is that the same gang of leftist liars who were on the job to turn entirely unsupported allegations (indeed suspect not just unsupported) into convictions in the case of the Old White Men were entirely absent in the cases of the Asians.”
    Except you can’t find leftist liars who have turned unsupported allegations into convictions can you! You aren’t able to name wrongful convictions (for child abuse) of Old Whight Men are you!
    You are basically just howling at the moon aren’t you.

  50. So, a woman claims that when she was seven, forty years ago, Rolf Harris put his hand in her knickers. In public. There are no witnesses to either the assault specifically or the event generally. There is no corroborating evidence that he was even there, or that she was there, nor that the visit to the community centre ever took place.

    A woman claims that a long lasting affair with him began when she was very underage. He claims it started when she was legal. There is no evidence either way.

    That’s sound is it, Ironman? Beyond reasonable doubt is it?

  51. Ben is quite right. The only reason for bringing in new legislation, is a smokescreen to conceal the fact that the CPS is shy of prosecuting the senior police and council officials in Rotherham etc, under the existing laws.

  52. Mr Ecks: “There is no need for a new law …Criminal negligence will do fine. “

    Then why (and i will accept that Cameron’s a populist idiot) is there a call for one?

  53. Actually, I think Ben has the right of it, and how I wish we had a PM with the balls to go into the Home Office and start laying waste until they start doing their bloody jobs…

  54. OK, so Rolf Harris is he victim of a miscarriage of justice is he?

    Any others? Please do keep going guys.

  55. Then why (and i will accept that Cameron’s a populist idiot) is there a call for one?

    To be less cynical, “sending a message”. Proggies pass new laws merely to make a statement.

    To be more cynical, as a smokescreen for more bad things, as discussed above. Mandatory reporting obligations on everybody, primarily.

    Meanwhile, I’m wondering how on Earth this can only get a 10-2 manslaughter-

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11449078/Mother-and-lesbian-lover-guilty-of-killing-girl-8.html

    Although the cause of her death was a head injury, she suffered more than 40 injuries, including a bite mark and carpet burns.

    and wonder how much more prominent it would be if a man had done it. Where’s the outrage? The Daily Mail are having a half hearted go, admittedly, but it’s hardly Baby P intensity, is it?

  56. Currently apparently “we as a society” choose to believe that sexual activity before 16 is fine (or at least tolerable) so long as the other person is under 16
    We as a society have made sexual activity between 15-year-olds an offence – for both parties – carrying a sentence of up to 5 years in prison.

    We wisely choose not to apply this sanction in ordinary circumstances. That’s not remotely the same as saying we think it’s “fine”.

    one of my close friend’s sisters was shagging her English teacher…

    Teachers have power over their pupils, and a responsibility to care for them. That’s wholly incompatible with even the possibility of a sexual relationship with them. Most parents, including me, want such a relationship to be very clearly taboo.

  57. We as a society have made sexual activity between 15-year-olds an offence – for both parties – carrying a sentence of up to 5 years in prison.

    We wisely choose not to apply this sanction in ordinary circumstances. That’s not remotely the same as saying we think it’s “fine”.

    We as a society- oh, let us stop this fiction, the SOA 2003 was not passed by us, as a society, but by the Blair government- accompanied that law by explicit instructions to the CPS to not only not prosecute, but to block any attempted private prosecutions. It’s hard to think of a more explicit statement of, “if you’re both underage, it’s fine”.

    Teachers have power over their pupils, and a responsibility to care for them. That’s wholly incompatible with even the possibility of a sexual relationship with them. Most parents, including me, want such a relationship to be very clearly taboo.

    Well, back then all those years ago, the parents were not entirely pleased, but considered it her matter. How times change. Indeed, back then most parents would have wanted their child being homosexual to be very clearly taboo. It’s only very recently that the view that being gay is fine has become a majority one. Certainly wasn’t back then.

    Which is why the appeal to the wisdom of society is not much use in these issues.

  58. It’s hard to think of a more explicit statement of, “if you’re both underage, it’s fine”.

    Only if you find it hard to think. One possibility would be not to have a law against it.

  59. Problem happens. Government decides it has to be seen to be doing something. So announces a measure that sounds good and will have public support.
    The fact it will not make things better is irrelevant to the issue – Government must be seen to be doing something.

    Knee jerk reactions by government tends not to work very well. If the guilty get punished its a bonus but its not required.

  60. PaulB-

    The law has the bizarre form it has because, like many commenters here, the government were deep in cognitive dissonance about how they could simultaneously think it’s fine for two 15 year olds to shag, but if one of them is older it turns into the greatest imaginable crime against nature. Hence the bizarre solution they ended up with.

    This is the kind of thing that happens when people refuse to think rationally.

  61. “The law has the bizarre form it has because, like many commenters here, the government were deep in cognitive dissonance about how they could simultaneously think it’s fine for two 15 year olds to shag, but if one of them is older it turns into the greatest imaginable crime against nature”

    Well, what’s your answer? Old enough to bleed old enough to breed? The moment a 12 year old has her first period and has a few confused physical feelings it’s OK for her teacher to start shagging her?

    For sure the current laws are arbitary but what would you put in their place?

  62. AndyC

    Yes, that is basically what he thinks.

    Btw: Rolf Harris, nasty paedophile who downloaded ‘My Tiny Girlfriend’ and sagged his daughter’s underage friend. 12 men and women heard the evidence, first hand from accuser and accused and convicted him. Judge told him he might die in prison. Society spoke. Guilty as sin. Anything g else boys? Still waiting for all those miscarriages of justice.

  63. And what about ‘naked tickling games’ with your 4 year old neice? i’m sure she’s untroubled by the cognitive dissonance of adult morality and would giggle along with you? Is anything OK so long as the other person is a willing participant?

    Just curious on what your point of view is, other than pointing out the confused morality of others.

  64. I admre Ironman for his dogged commitment to idiocy. It’s almost refreshing.

    AndyC- I’m just trying to get people to think about what criteria they are using. We never get to the interesting part of the conversation about what approach to take instead, because of the blind refusal to face facts by the paedohysterics.

    A point I have made many times (it is always ignored) is that there is a fundamental qualitative difference which occurs in human beings at sexual maturity in that their sexual systems- including most importantly psychologically- switch on, and a non-sexual being turns into a sexual being. This is why evolution implemented this metamorphosis. Children don’t have any sexual feelings.

    So, the place to start thinking is how people can avoid having things done to them that they do not desire- which is pretty much the same criterion as we use with adult rape. If you consider on the other hand a situation of somebody who wants to have sex, it is very hard to find a justification for preventing them doing so. The age of who they have the hots for is an irrelevance, unless you’re really just obsessed with stopping males getting their ends away rather than protecting anybody, which of course is what is really under all the hysteria.

    I’m always reminded in these discussions of another discussion, years ago on a now defunct website primarily populated by youngish, American, college educated liberal types. One of the women told how her sex life had started when she was 14, but it only really dawned on her years later that she’d put so many boys at great legal risk by doing so.

    Nobody ever dares address the fact that evolution put sexual maturity where it did, and evolution doesn’t generally make mistakes like that. Rites of passage in those cultures that have them tend to be around 13. Our own age of marriage (not “consent” as such) for girls used to be 12, until it was bumped up to 16 during the first White Slavery Panic. So, if you want an age of legality, 13 is probably good; the law already acknowledges that, partially, by having a dividing line there.

    As a final anecdotage, I started wanking when I was 13. I had transitioned from a child who drew endless pictures of Spider-Man to a young man who drew endless pictures of busty barbarians with their tin bikinis falling off. I had undergone, sexually, a fundamental transformation. Why people refuse to acknowledge this basic fact of human reality comes down to the strength of the taboo system in the human mind. If somebody can explain to me why it was better for me to cause my own orgasms in the company of the Freeman’s Catalogue underwear section than to experience them in the company of another person as nature intended, I’d like to hear that reasoning.

  65. IanB

    If children don’t have any sexual feelings, I’d like to know why my daughter (now 29) vigorously rubbed her clitoris from the age of about 4 months.

  66. Ian B

    “Children don’t have any sexual feelings.”

    It’s not relevant to your debate above here – but given (I think?) that you define puberty as the cut-off point, do you actually believe that (for boys that is)..!?

  67. Why one needs to be less emotionally developed to shag a person of one’s own age than one who is older remains to be explained.

    It’s about exploitation, specifically the fact that an older man can use his superior emotional development to persuade a girl to do something she would not do were she more developed. It’s frowned upon for the same reason preying on elderly widows for roof renovations is frowned upon. This is somewhat different from society’s historical view of homosexuals, who saw it as immoral rather than exploititive.

  68. Well, I take it as a foregone conclusion that lust is an alien thing to children. If it isn’t, then there’s a real problem defining paedophilia as abnormal.

    Bear in mind that it’s me not saying that. It’s other people. If you guys think children have sexual capacity, what on Earth reasoning are you using to justify a distinction between child and adult in sexual terms?

    All I can say is that for myself, sexual interest in girls went from zero to infinitude when puberty hit.

    *shrugs*

    It’s about exploitation, specifically the fact that an older man can use his superior emotional development to persuade a girl to do something she would not do were she more developed.

    This is very dubious justification. A pulchritudinous teen can user her superior physical development to seduce her teacher, but nobody sees that as an excuse. She’s still the victim.

    All of this comes back to this resurgent Victorian view that girls have no sexuality and are mere vessels for male lusts; which is after all the basic feminist model.

    And all I can say of my own time at that age is that had either of two of my much older teachers (who for reasons of discretion I will call Miss H and Mrs K) used their superior emotional development to drag me into a supplies cupboard and have their way with me, I’d have been a lot happier with that than the badly drawn barbarian women.

  69. Just to add-

    If children don’t have any sexual feelings, I’d like to know why my daughter (now 29) vigorously rubbed her clitoris from the age of about 4 months.

    Because it felt nice, presumably. At the risk of plunging even further into Too Much Information territory, I used to rub my willy as well. But it wasn’t linked to any sexual emotional states. I did not fancy girls, or boys, or anyone. It was just a sensation, quite distinct from having a sex drive.

  70. This is very dubious justification.

    Not to most people, it’s not.

    A pulchritudinous teen can user her superior physical development to seduce her teacher, but nobody sees that as an excuse.

    Yes, because the teacher is supposed to engage his superior emotional development to control himself.

    All of this comes back to this resurgent Victorian view that girls have no sexuality and are mere vessels for male lusts; which is after all the basic feminist model.

    No, it doesn’t. It comes down to a recognition that those under an admittedly arbitrary age can easily be exploited by those older than them. It’s why children cannot enter into contracts. You’re focussing too much on the sex.

  71. It seems pretty clear now that Mr Ecks and IanB are not going to produce the examples of unfortunate white men who’ve been the victims of miscarriages of justice; Rolf Harris being not far off the worst possible example. I think Mr Ecks has gone to bed.

    And it does seem we are going around in circles now with IanB genuine in his belief that grown men, teachers even, should be free to have sex with “pulchritudinous” underage teenage girls who “seduce” them. Which brings us right back to Squander Two’s original observation: how very odd that a man with no personal sexual interest in little teenage girls should expend so much energy, time and words explaining his view that the age of consent should be so much younger.

  72. IanB,

    Yes, of course, in biological terms, puberty is the age. But as a species we’re not just governed by biology are we?

    Sex has many potential dangers; disease, emotional damage, exploitation, pregnancy. In biological terms the latter is actually a Good Thing / The Whole Point. We don’t think like that now, and that’s a key difference.

    There is a clear difference between two 15 year-olds getting it on, and a 15 yo girl and a 30 yo man. We don’t want either to happen, regardless of natural desires, but the latter example is much worse due to all other factors.

    Besides, one reason for retaining the 70 mph limit on motorways is to keep people reasonably close to it. The age of consent is similar.

  73. Mr Ecks is sick of your bullshit Ironman. You were given a specific example and you dismissed it with the words “nasty little paedophile”. The sweeping scope of the argument and precisely composed logic is enough to take the breath away. Both Clifford and Stuart Hall also were bullshitted into jail with zero corroboration but the tales told in Clifford’s case were less openly ridiculous. The alleged “plan” of Hall to rape a 9 year old while a dinner guest at her families house ( ie excuse himself to go to the toilet and attack her instead) is so fucking stupid that had he really tried it he would have been in jail that night not accused 40 years later.There are also 700 odd trials of non-famous old men one of whom is now in jail at age 94 over unsupported allegations that supposedly occurred 60 years ago. The cop pukes are trawling even as I write to see if they can find some demented or psychopathic liar to fit Cliff Richard up–as revenge for their humiliation last time out. The first bullshit volleys have already been fired by the feministas at the HOC. There will very likely be much more to come. Whatever examples you are given you will dismiss in the same numptie manner. This argument is about the triumph of your ego. I have wasted enough time on you.

  74. Ian B

    Well, I take it as a foregone conclusion that lust is an alien thing to children. If it isn’t, then there’s a real problem defining paedophilia as abnormal.

    Bear in mind that it’s me not saying that. It’s other people. If you guys think children have sexual capacity, what on Earth reasoning are you using to justify a distinction between child and adult in sexual terms?

    If one can accept that puberty may not necessarily always be a transition point, then as you say other factors can and probably should come into play, and which Tim Newman articulates extremely well. And I would accept that that is imposing political or cultural reference points, but was ever thus?

    Jack C

    Yes, of course, in biological terms, puberty is the age.

    Not necessarily.

  75. And what a lot of time you have wasted.
    So just about EVERY celebrity was fitted up. And for that to happen the judge in each and every trial must have been blind to what you can see. And the jury in each case must likewise have been blind to what is staring you in the face. Or are they all part of your feminist conspiracy? And yet your inability to write a comment without littering it with abuse and to find an adjective that isn’t obscene suggests that maybe, just maybe, you are not the man with unique clear sight you clearly believe yourself to be.

    For my part I’ll just say I think there are one or two right nut jobs on this blog.

  76. Judges –like most of the human race– know which way the wind is blowing and know rocking the boat is not the way to a good career. Picking juries to vote the way you want was a career option in the US 50 years ago (W J Bryan the hypnotist wrote a book about it). The CPS after their humiliation in the LaVeil /Roche cases brought in their best liars to avoid the whole Yewtree circus collapsing. If courts protected against witch-hunts numerous families would have been protected from being wrecked by Social Services zealots back in the Satanic Panic. The same satanic panic that 25 years later was officially declared absolutely baseless bollocks. Again you are all ego and bullshit.

  77. Ironman:

    Imagine this. Let us say you are a man in his 60s, and decades ago when your own children were young, you were involved in running a local sports club for children. One day, at the crack of dawn, vanloads of police arrive. They confiscate your computers and phones, ransack your home, take your family albums. A woman who was a child then has accused you of touching her inappropriately. The police cast around everyone who attended, seeking further allegations.

    The woman has had an unhappy life and visited a therapist who encouraged her to try to remember abuse. Eventually fragments of memories under this tutelage coalesced into an abuse memory.

    And you say to the police, “what evidence is there?” and they grin back at you and say, “we don’t need any”. No physical evidence, no corroboration. The fact that everyone else at the club says they saw nothing is irrelevant. In court, the woman theatrically weeps behind a curtain as she reels off lurid allegations- you smelled of stale beer and cigarettes (yes, you did smoke then, that’s proof), you told her it was “our little secret”. You were indeed in that location on the day she says- that’s more proof. Unless you can prove you definitely were not there- and that she hasn’t simply got the date wrong due to her trauma- you are convicted, labelled a paedophile, your whole life destroyed.

    This could happen to you. It could happen to anyone. It does not matter how implausible her account is; victims of abuse do not lie, everyone believes.

    This is how it is right now. Which is why this is an important issue. Would you accept convictions on such a basis- mere testimony- for other crimes? Would you not expect “beyond reasonable doubt”? Why then do you accept it for sex crimes?

  78. IanB:

    “I take it as a foregone conclusion that lust is an alien thing to children.”

    Your assumption is false. The lust of infants and children may be solipsistic, but it’s still lust. And little boys and girls often play ‘I’ll show you mine if you show me yours’, often masturbate, often have primitive sexual fantasies.

    “If it isn’t, then there’s a real problem defining paedophilia as abnormal.”

    A massive non sequitur, because many other factors are involved. Besides, if my dog is aroused by my leg, I am not justified in buggering him.

    “Because it felt nice, presumably. At the risk of plunging even further into Too Much Information territory, I used to rub my willy as well. But it wasn’t linked to any sexual emotional states. I did not fancy girls, or boys, or anyone. It was just a sensation, quite distinct from having a sex drive”

    Your memory is not a reliable source of evidence. There is, however, plenty of evidence that sexual development begins very early. It may be solipsistic at first, but it’s still sexual.

  79. @ IanB/Ironman

    “The woman has had an unhappy life and visited a therapist who encouraged her to try to remember abuse. Eventually fragments of memories under this tutelage coalesced into an abuse memory.

    And you say to the police, “what evidence is there?” and they grin back at you and say, “we don’t need any”. No physical evidence, no corroboration. The fact that everyone else at the club says they saw nothing is irrelevant. In court, the woman theatrically weeps behind a curtain as she reels off lurid allegations- you smelled of stale beer and cigarettes (yes, you did smoke then, that’s proof), you told her it was “our little secret”. You were indeed in that location on the day she says- that’s more proof. Unless you can prove you definitely were not there- and that she hasn’t simply got the date wrong due to her trauma- you are convicted, labelled a paedophile, your whole life destroyed.

    This could happen to you. It could happen to anyone. It does not matter how implausible her account is; victims of abuse do not lie, everyone believes.”

    Apart from the suggestion that you will be convicted under the above circumstances – juries are reluctant to convict on that sort of evidence – this is a very accurate picture.

    (And the conviction part will eventually be ‘fixed’ be altering the burden of proof, or possibly professional juries.)

    Even without those changes, the punishment is the process to an extent. You won’t get legal aid to defend yourself, and you won’t get your costs if you’re acquitted.

    So you’ll sell your house and lose half your family and friends on a no-smoke basis, but at least you’ll officially be not guilty.

    Funny thing is, I think sex abuse is a serious problem, I just don’t think there’s any way of proving most historic cases BARD and that attempts to change that will lead to near-terror.

    I expect a few murder-suicides.

  80. Imagine someone in the financial industry not only ignores but covers up some awful fraud, threatening a whistle blower in their company? The Guardian would be demanding blood. Yet when hundreds of young girls are tortured and raped the people who’s very job to prevent it should face no comeuppance what so ever.

  81. Theophrastus

    At what point does difference in degree equate to difference i kind? e.g.
    I don’t believe Bill was DUI. He’s a teetotaler so I assume he had not imbibed alcohol.

    Your assumption is false, for I saw him last December eating Xmas pudding with a spoonful of rum poured over it.

  82. Dee
    Teetotalism to spoonful of rum on the Christmas Pudding to DUI are all differences of degree and can be plotted on a scale. Likewise, infant to pre-teen to post-16 to adult sexuality. So the degree/kind distinction is not relevant here.

  83. Interested

    Funny thing is, I agree with you. The innocent have been swept in Operation Yewtree every bit as much as the guilty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *