Scenario four: The odd-looking neighbour

[void]

"DON'T RELY ON OTHERS. IF YOU SUSPECT IT, REPORT IT."

The above quote is from another post below about reporting suspicious behaviour believed to be terrorism related, to the government. Well today the Government (UK) has done similar by sliding in an 'expansion' of Sex Offender information laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7945364.stm) (interestingly, timed that it's on the same day that the trial of Josef Fritzl is prominently being plastered on the news).

By their own admission this is being set up as - "Single mother with children? Got a new boyfriend? Check him out with us first".

Now, I won't deny that this route 'has' been taken by people before to get access to children.

But, look at what this is saying underneath. Is it not implying that by 'default' men should be suspected as child molesters "until we give them the all clear"? It's more of the 'stranger danger' thing, and only adds to this mindset that men with children they are not directly related to, should be viewed with great suspicion. And they wonder why Boys (for example) are growing up confused. With less and less contact with other males outside their family, it might explain a few things. Of course, they don't specifically say it's aimed at men, but c'mon the signs are all there in their language.

Can you see a single parent male with his own kids checking out his new girlfriend's record before he gets into a relationship with her?

Let's remember that not all child molesters are men, lest we forget.

I'm split on this one. On the one hand I can see it from the other side, but I do wonder what this will mean for how men are viewed in the future.

Take for example the Sex offender alerts: Five scenarios (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7616515.stm) they've put up to accompany this. The scenarios take into account the various situations that may arise in relation to this, and if the police would act on each one. It looks 'like' they won't entertain requests for information from random folks on that quiet neighbour who keeps himself to himself, and they include how people have pointed out flaws in the various safeguards listed.

"Protecting the children" has been one of the most best trojan horses in the last 10 years to crack down on things. It paved the way for government to get involved in regulation of the internet for a start, because they knew that few people would question it (or dare question i, perhaps).

And, the big problem with this is that it is well documented that most cases of child abuse occur at the hands of 'existing' close family members who are in a position of power to prevent the child saying a damn thing, and not shadowy people hanging around in parks with anoraks on or new boyfriends.

Anyway, your views...

[rhydra]

Easy then for someone to hook up with a man, get them to disclose their criminal record then dump them and let everyone know. I wonder if this is an official war against man or it's just done to make more people live on their own so that more houses will be built and more people can come into the country to look after old single people? Everyone will have to be on the database though, and monitored.

[gilly]

Most women are so naturally protective of their kids, that it's an insult to have unrequested and unnecessry "advice" on their well-being being constantly doled out.

Those wierd women who aren't, are not going to have the intelligence to take any notice of anybody's advice anyway.

I did hear on the news headlines on the radio this morning that they're going to make more info available to people about local paedo's, but I didn't listen to any more.

The fact is, I daren't let my little boy (6 yrs) out of my sight.

My daughter's 15, and she goes out all the time, but I never let her go anywhere without friends, and am her private taxi service. She kicks up a fuss because she doesn't want me waiting outside the disco for her coming out, but I've told her there are too many predators about & that till she's older, that's how it's got to be.

It's something I'm a bit paranoid about.

There was an 11 year old girl playing in the street just round the corner from me a few summers ago, when a man and woman tried to drag her into a car. Thank God she managed to wriggle free & they sped off.

When me & my older brother were little, we got picked up by a paedo, and we were really lucky to get away safely (there was definately someone looking after us that day).

[debs67gb]

Most women are so naturally protective of their kids, that it's an insult to have unrequested and unnecessry "advice" on their well-being being constantly doled out.

Those wierd women who aren't, are not going to have the intelligence to take any notice of anybody's advice anyway.

I did hear on the news headlines on the radio this morning that they're going to make more info available to people about local paedo's, but I didn't listen to any more.

The fact is, I daren't let my little boy (6 yrs) out of my sight.

My daughter's 15, and she goes out all the time, but I never let her go anywhere without friends, and am her private taxi service. She kicks up a fuss because she doesn't want me waiting outside the disco for her coming out, but I've told her there are too many predators about & that till she's older, that's how it's got to be.

It's something I'm a bit paranoid about.

There was an 11 year old girl playing in the street just round the corner from me a few summers ago, when a man and woman tried to drag her into a car. Thank God she managed to wriggle free & they sped off.

When me & my older brother were little, we got picked up by a paedo, and we were really lucky to get away safely (there was definately someone looking after us that day).

great post - im very protective about my children :)

[void]

I've told her there are too many predators about

Are there? Are you sure?

[gilly]

Are there? Are you sure?

I've given 2 examples in the post Void, so yes, I'm absolutely sure.

[void]

Two is 'many', Gilly?

[merlincove]

Most women are so naturally protective of their kids, that it's an insult to have unrequested and unnecessry "advice" on their well-being being constantly doled out.

Those wierd women who aren't, are not going to have the intelligence to take any notice of anybody's advice anyway.

I did hear on the news headlines on the radio this morning that they're going to make more info available to people about local paedo's, but I didn't listen to any more.

The fact is, I daren't let my little boy (6 yrs) out of my sight.

My daughter's 15, and she goes out all the time, but I never let her go anywhere without friends, and am her private taxi service. She kicks up a fuss because she doesn't want me waiting outside the disco for her coming out, but I've told her there are too many predators about & that till she's older, that's how it's got to be.

It's something I'm a bit paranoid about.

There was an 11 year old girl playing in the street just round the corner from me a few summers ago, when a man and woman tried to drag her into a car. Thank God she managed to wriggle free & they sped off.

When me & my older brother were little, we got picked up by a paedo, and we were really lucky to get away safely (there was definately someone looking after us that day).

i think the whole ball park here is one of instilling fear into the hearts of parents. All to often the people that abuse children are in possitions of power, how often do we see that members of the police or social security have abused their powers? A local GP in the next town was arrested last week for having indecent pictures on his computer.

Like Gilly, i was befrended on two occassions by pedo's when i was a child and i was lucky enough to escape unscathed. i give my thanks to the forces that kept me safe, one couple were friends of the familly and would visiut us often, suddenly they stopped coming around - they had been arrested for abusing a boy and had been sent to prison.

We do as a society need to be aware of preditors in our midst, and as it stands now all we have is our judgement which may be wrong. But we ned to focus also on the scare tactics that TPTB are instilling into the minds of society, i'm not sure where the middle ground falls.

If someone attacks children, and where there is no doubt of guilt, i personally feel that they need to be institutionalised for their entire life. because they will always be a danger to every child they come into cobtact with. It is a harsh standpoint, i know, but can these offenders be 'made better' because in their mind are they offending, or is it a natural impulse? It is an animalistic behavioral trait, having such a lack of respect not only for children but for anyone, and i don't think that is a curable issue.

But, can we then argue that someone with no moral fibre or respect for other members of the human race can be treated with the same laws as those who do respect human values? i don't think that human rights can be applied, but it is a slippery slope on the way to freedom erosion at the behest of fear - and like the OP said, with such law, every male is guilty unless TPTB say he isn't. That is diobolical...

peace

[gilly]

Two is 'many', Gilly?

It fuckin is when you're talking about personal contact with paedofiles - 1 is too many.

Have you got kids?

[void]

It fuckin is when you're talking about personal contact with paedofiles - 1 is too many.

So because of two incidents, you'll wrap your kids up in cotton wool?

Have you got kids?

Ah,this one again. It always crops up sooner or later, and if the answer is "no" (as it is) then that's the end of the discussion as far as many people are concerned. No I don't have kids, but I have Nephews and Nieces. I'd rather that they (and my Brother who is of the same view) aren't overly wrapped up to believe that the world is swarming with child molesters on every street corner.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s and walked alone from my house about 30 minutes or more back and forth to schoo each day, going through different remote areas and even spent whole days out by myself in forests.

Nowadays most parents wouldn't allow that, and drive their children right up to the gates of schools and pick them up from gates of schools. Claims are often bandied about that that it's much worse now than it was before.

On the contrary, experts say that child molestation was rife in the 70s in parrticular compared to today. Just today, it's much more plastered over the media as a fear tactic to install control . It's very similar to the whole 'terrorism' thing. Different wrappings, same tactics to restrict freedom for all.

[gilly]

So because of two incidents, you'll wrap your kids up in cotton wool?



Ah,this one again. It always crops up sooner or later, and if the answer is "no" (as it is) then that's the end of the discussion as far as many people are concerned. No I don't have kids, but I have Nephews and Nieces. I'd rather that they (and my Brother who is of the same view) aren't overly wrapped up to believe that the world is swarming with child molesters on every street corner.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s and walked alone from my house about 30 minutes or more back and forth to schoo each day, going through different remote areas and even spent whole days out by myself in forests.

Nowadays most parents wouldn't allow that, and drive their children right up to the gates of schools and pick them up from gates of schools. Claims are often bandied about that that it's much worse now than it was before.

On the contrary, experts say that child molestation was rife in the 70s in parrticular compared to today. Just today, it's much more plastered over the media as a fear tactic to install control . It's very similar to the whole 'terrorism' thing. Different wrappings, same tactics to restrict freedom for all.

If, like myself, you had been kidnapped by a paedophile at the age of 6, and you actually had children of your own, rather than believing wrongly that you know it all without having that experience, you would not make such a flippant statement! Or if you did, I'd just deduce that you're not a full shilling.

Keeping an eye on my kids, & escorting them safely is my duty, and if you try to make out I'm wrong for doing this, it's to your discredit.

[void]

Like I said Gilly, now my opinion gets ditched because I don't have kids. If it comes to 'duty', is your job as a mother to act as a bodyguard? Or is it to bring up children to live freely and without fear? It's a matter of debate I guess. :) Does the pedophile who kidnapped you in your past, now win? Because if you now wrap up your children like royalty, are you not kidnapping them yourself in another sense? Risk is part of life, agree? Removing any chance of it may bring a good feeling and certainty, but how will they be when they're older? Just a thought. I appreciate that questioning this tends to unleash the knives from mothers in particular, but I'm questioning the ideas themselves rather than the person themselves.

[debs67gb]

Like I said Gilly, now my opinion gets ditched because I don't have kids. If it comes to 'duty', is your job as a mother to act as a bodyguard? Or is it to bring up children to live freely and without fear? It's a matter of debate I guess. :) Does the pedophile who kidnapped you in your past, now win? Because if you now wrap up your children like royalty, are you not kidnapping them yourself in another sense? Risk is part of life, agree? Removing any chance of it may bring a good feeling and certainty, but how will they be when they're older? Just a thought. I appreciate that questioning this tends to unleash the knives from mothers in particular, but I'm questioning the ideas themselves rather than the person themselves.

Void you made a brilliant remark there "if you wrap your children up like royalty are you not kidnapping yourself " fuckin hell thanks man thats made me think a little more deeply :)

[gilly]

Like I said Gilly, now my opinion gets ditched because I don't have kids. If it comes to 'duty', is your job as a mother to act as a bodyguard? Or is it to bring up children to live freely and without fear? It's a matter of debate I guess. :) Does the pedophile who kidnapped you in your past, now win? Because if you now wrap up your children like royalty, are you not kidnapping them yourself in another sense? Risk is part of life, agree? Removing any chance of it may bring a good feeling and certainty, but how will they be when they're older? Just a thought. I appreciate that questioning this tends to unleash the knives from mothers in particular, but I'm questioning the ideas themselves rather than the person themselves.

I'm not unleashing any knives at you, because I feel that's the reaction you'd like to provoke, and I wouldn't like you to have that satisfaction.

And no, I don't feel that driving my kids around & keeping my 6 year old in sight is kidnapping them in any sense.

Risk is part of life, but there's no logical reason not to reduce all risks to life & safety where it's feasible to do so.

When they're older, they'll have to look out for themselves, and I'm sure they'll be as capable of that as the next person. While they're vulnerable, their dad & myself will do as we see fit to protect them.

And it's a fact that people's views on many aspects of parenting change dramatically when they do actually have kids of their own.

[debs67gb]

gilly is right about that when you DO have your own kids things get different in a major way :)

[void]

I'm not unleashing any knives at you, because I feel that's the reaction you'd like to provoke, and I wouldn't like you to have that satisfaction.

On the contrary, it's not the response I'd like to see, and when I first saw some hints of it ("it fuckin is" and "do you have kids"? etc), I thought - "Oh here we go again. I've had discussions like this in the past and it usually follows the same pattern.

And no, I don't feel that driving my kids around & keeping my 6 year old in sight is kidnapping them in any sense.

Why not? Isn't it to a degree isolating them from contact with other human beings beyond a certain confirmed and approved circle? (potential kidnappers aside). I speak from my observation of other cultures, where Kids are not kept isolated within a small circle of a few people like they are in our countries and only get minimal shielding from parents. Kids from an early age interact with people of all ages of different genders, and whether they know them or not. It makes for far better adjusted people, from what I've seen. No fear, and also lots of respect for other people of any age (and it works the other way around too, with the adults not 'fearing the feral teens' like they do in our countries now). Strangers are also allowed to reprimand other people's children. You rarely see that nowadays in our cultures.

In a way this topic could link up with our other discussion about the shooting. In it you mention you'd expect the guys in that scenario to have protected women. But if each generation now is growing up protected like royalty, then where will that courage that you claim is the central issue, come from? Especially if mothers are over protective of males.

Risk is part of life, but there's no logical reason not to reduce all risks to life & safety where it's feasible to do so.

To an extent, yes some common sense needs to be used. But our countries are getting ridiculous. You don't have to go too far to see places that point this out to us. I went to Russia a few years back and the health and safety culture we have, simply doesn't exist there. Kids were getting up to things (and having lots of fun in the process because of that freedom) that made my health and safety conditioned mind flash like an alarm all the time until I relaxed and went with it. Risk is seen as part of the upbringing and development of children, there. Not in our cultures increasingly, it seems.

When they're older, they'll have to look out for themselves

Oh I think the state will be doing that for them (but that's another story :p )

And it's a fact that people's views on many aspects of parenting change dramatically when they do actually have kids of their own.

Probably true. But does that mean that they use common sense? Or that they revert to over caution?

[debs67gb]

"To an extent, yes some common sense needs to be used. But our countries are getting ridiculous. You don't have to go too far to see places that point this out to us. I went to Russia a few years back and the health and safety culture we have, simply doesn't exist there. Kids were getting up to things (and having lots of fun in the process because of that freedom) that made my health and safety conditioned mind flash like an alarm all the time until I relaxed and went with it. Risk is seen as part of the upbringing and development of children, there. Not in our cultures increasingly, it seems.
"

when i was growing up it was so laid back cant say that things didnt happen but that time was fun going out with mates making dens having tree swings lol seems so boring now but i loved it then :0

[void]

"when i was growing up it was so laid back cant say that things didnt happen but that time was fun going out with mates making dens having tree swings lol seems so boring now but i loved it then :0

Indeed. Some might say we're looking back through rose tinted glasses, but no I don't think we are. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and it really was a case of - "Kids come in for food at lunch and dinner, and the rest of the day they do what they do outside" (sounds rather like pets :D ) for myself, my brother, and other kids I knew. Occsaionally I used to head off to forests alone for the entire day, and was in situations where I could have either drowned jumping across dangerous fast flowing rivers and nobody would have found me, or impaled by sharp sticks or had my eye taken out from flying through undergrowth on a bike, or kidnapped and molested.

I also use to have an assortment of nasty looking Rambo-esque knives (mabe that's why I wasn't molested? Or perhaps I just wasn' pretty enough? :confused: ) that were all about copying the antics of John Rambo (I didn't lure the local police into the woods for a show down though :D ) but never had intentions to harm anyone. I was left with friends of the family (I hope they checked them out on the central database computer first just in case they had a 'history' :p ) some of whom were fairly young guys and didn't abuse either me or my brother in any way. On the contrary I think we abused and terrorised 'them' by pretending we were sick after being sent to bed, so that we could come down and watch TV as they were doing.

I used to play around an old out door empty old school pool that was incredibly deep. Fall off the side and your head was sure to be cracked open. Bits of spiked metal sticking up, along with some pretty toxic looking drainage areas. My parents had me on route marches across the moors of England in freezing rain. It's amazing I'm still alive. I think they wanted me dead :D

Dem were the days :p

[gilly]

On the contrary, it's not the response I'd like to see, and when I first saw some hints of it ("it fuckin is" and "do you have kids"? etc), I thought - "Oh here we go again. I've had discussions like this in the past and it usually follows the same pattern.



Why not? Isn't it to a degree isolating them from contact with other human beings beyond a certain confirmed and approved circle? (potential kidnappers aside). I speak from my observation of other cultures, where Kids are not kept isolated within a small circle of a few people like they are in our countries and only get minimal shielding from parents. Kids from an early age interact with people of all ages of different genders, and whether they know them or not. It makes for far better adjusted people, from what I've seen. No fear, and also lots of respect for other people of any age (and it works the other way around too, with the adults not 'fearing the feral teens' like they do in our countries now). Strangers are also allowed to reprimand other people's children. You rarely see that nowadays in our cultures.

In a way this topic could link up with our other discussion about the shooting. In it you mention you'd expect the guys in that scenario to have protected women. But if each generation now is growing up protected like royalty, then where will that courage that you claim is the central issue, come from? Especially if mothers are over protective of males.



To an extent, yes some common sense needs to be used. But our countries are getting ridiculous. You don't have to go too far to see places that point this out to us. I went to Russia a few years back and the health and safety culture we have, simply doesn't exist there. Kids were getting up to things (and having lots of fun in the process because of that freedom) that made my health and safety conditioned mind flash like an alarm all the time until I relaxed and went with it. Risk is seen as part of the upbringing and development of children, there. Not in our cultures increasingly, it seems.



Oh I think the state will be doing that for them (but that's another story :p )



Probably true. But does that mean that they use common sense? Or that they revert to over caution?

The responses half quoted reflects a degree of incredulity that anyone would imply that two brushes with paedophiles is perfectly acceptable, as you did.

Let's be straight here - you're accusing me of stunting their freedom - so you really think it would be appropriate for a 6 year old to be left to run around the streets without adult supervision? It's a good job you don't have kids then Void. I can't see how looking out for his safety is likely to lead him to be "confused at what a man's role in society", or that it's being overprotective.

And yes, I could let my lovely 15 year old daughter meet a whole variety of drunkards, molesters & dodgy gits by letting her travel home at night on the bus. How very enriching that would be for her. No matter what kind of spin you put on it Void, you're clueless. I've been accosted on the streets round here by feral teens myself, and I've felt intimidated - she's not ready for that, and that's down to the type of folk on the streets round here.

I'd hardly compare transporting my daughter & her mates around to treating them like royalty.

[debs67gb]

gilly no i think youre doing what you think is right as a parent - but im still obsessive about my 17 year old lol and i shouldnt be

[void]

The responses half quoted reflects a degree of incredulity that anyone would imply that two brushes with paedophiles is perfectly acceptable, as you did.

You're focusing on the worst case scenarios, to your (imo). And that's the whole problem. Instead of focusing on two incidents, perhaps collate all the times when you "haven't" encountered such things, and then put it all into perspective. Otherwise the two you encountered, have been ruling both your life and the lives of you children, by proxy. In my opinion, of course.

Let's be straight here - you're accusing me of stunting their freedom - so you really think it would be appropriate for a 6 year old to be left to run around the streets without adult supervision? It's a good job you don't have kids then Void. I can't see how looking out for his safety is likely to lead him to be "confused at what a man's role in society", or that it's being overprotective.

Perhaps I should be clear. What I mean is that at what age will you stop this? With your Son currently being 6, yes quite a degree of hand holding is going to occur and I understand that. But, you daughter is now 15. 15 years old. If you're over protecting her at 15, then at what age will you stop over protecting your son? 15, too? I'd hope not, but that's just my opinion (which is "clueless" apparently).

You mentioned that your daughter kicks up as a fuss about not being allowed out without friends, and being picked up outside discos. To me, this is the issue. If she 'wants' to be picked up, then that's fine.

But if she kicks up a fuss then it shows that perhaps she wants to have the freedom to make her own way home at night (despite the various characters you describe). Preventing that only makes our society more and more fearful.

We'll all get to and fro places by cars, and then lock ourselves inside our houses either at the place we're dropped off at , or back at home. It's a fearful way to live.

I'd hardly compare transporting my daughter & her mates around to treating them like royalty.

It's at your insistence though, isn't it? Apart from times they request it. Which to me is making them into royalty. Prince Harry was taken back from Afghanistan by the powers that be, after the first sign of any risk appeared. It annoyed him immensly.

[debs67gb]

i do tend to agree with you void my mother was so strict with me i went totally off the rails around 15 lol couldnt stand the hassle off her disliked her till i left home and bought a house at age 18 lol now we get on great :)

[void]

i do tend to agree with you void my mother was so strict with me i went totally off the rails around 15 lol couldnt stand the hassle off her disliked her till i left home and bought a house at age 18 lol now we get on great :)

Yeah I guess this is an offshoot issue that could be brought into thise. Over protect kids and the pressure build up often explodes and make the kids reckless and do the total opposite in rebellion. It tends to appear in gifted children, child prodigys, for example. Years of being treated as pure and chast makes quite a lot of them suddenly snap at some stage and go utterly off the rails to break that perceived image of them by their elders. Charlotte Church, for example. What happened there, aye? :eek:

[debs67gb]

lol aye with the charlotte church not particularly gifted i was sent to an all girls school which i despised and played cello lol :)

[gilly]

Re the above two posts, am I being too strict, or am I mollycoddling. For Christ's sake !
I did not say I don't let her go out with friends, I said she goes out all the time.
So you think that because a 15 year old kicks up a fuss at my insistance of safe transportation, I should back down. Well you're wrong.

The 2 incidents I've witnessed do have an influence on my decisions, and that's logical. You base your decisions on what you know to be true - or at least I do. And while I don't anticipate there being a bogeyman around every corner, I will not allow for unneccessary risks, because what I'm actually focusing on, contrary to your assertions, is the well being of my family.

You keep using this phrase "over protecting". You seriously think that giving a 15 yr old a lift home late at night is being over-protective? You see, this is where I've come to with you in previous debates - your opinions on things are just so much the opposite of mine, that to me, it's like you're telling me black's white.

[debs67gb]

gilly no i think youre doing what you think is right as a parent - but im still obsessive about my 17 year old lol and i shouldnt be

well gilly thats what i wrote :(

[gilly]

well gilly thats what i wrote :(

Yes I know honey, but then Void does his big expert parent thing, stating that I'm suffocating the kids, and your agreeing with him & saying your mum's strictness made you go off the rails, it makes it look like you're backing him up.

:)

[debs67gb]

aw hun hell no i was a bitch child at 15 cos id been kept under strict control through my mother - but other things that happened to me made me how i was - i went completely off the rails through all of the added ingredients - im sorry if i made you feel i was getting at you I wasn't

[void]

I did not say I don't let her go out with friends, I said she goes out all the time.

Gilly, in my post above I am referring to you saying in an earlier post that your daughter kicks up as a fuss about not being allowed out "without friends", and your insistance on picking her up outside discos. It wasn't saying that you don't 'let her out'.

So you think that because a 15 year old kicks up a fuss at my insistance of safe transportation, I should back down. Well you're wrong.

I don't think she has any choice in the matter, by the sounds of it :confused:

do have an influence on my decisions, and that's logical

Debatable. Isn't it like saying ----

"I met a dodgy character in a high street once. People shouldn't go to that same street. It's logical"

You seriously think that giving a 15 yr old a lift home late at night is being over-protective?

It's certainly denying her freedom if she kicks up a big fuss about it.
If it's over protective or not, we'll have to agree to disagree on that :).

[gilly]

aw hun hell no i was a bitch child at 15 cos id been kept under strict control through my mother - but other things that happened to me made me how i was - i went completely off the rails through all of the added ingredients - im sorry if i made you feel i was getting at you I wasn't

No problem - I was also a nightmare - I'd be coming home an hour or 2 after curfew, & bump into my dad who was out hunting me down with a full head of steam, & doing a pretty fair impression of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

But whereas I'm happy to run my daughter all over the place for parties, disco's, pop concerts etc, to make sure she has plenty of social interaction, but stays safe in transit, the only place I was allowed to go to was the local youthclub once a week, & hanging around mates' houses. So it pisses me off when someone comes along & tells me I'm stifling my kids. Actually, it pisses me off a lot! :mad:

[debs67gb]

ooo i have a thing for jack nicholson lol :)

[gilly]

Gilly, in my post above I am referring to you saying in an earlier post that your daughter kicks up as a fuss about not being allowed out "without friends", and your insistance on picking her up outside discos. It wasn't saying that you don't 'let her out'.



I don't think she has any choice in the matter, by the sounds of it :confused:



Debatable. Isn't it like saying ----

"I met a dodgy character in a high street once. People shouldn't go to that same street. It's logical"



It's certainly denying her freedom if she kicks up a big fuss about it.
If it's over protective or not, we'll have to agree to disagree on that :).

No, Void - I didn't meet a dodgy character once up our street, I meet many dodgy characters up our street every time I venture to the local shop after dark.

No, she doesn't have a choice - the only time I've let her travel (about 10 miles ) on a bus late at night, was when I knew there were half a dozen of her friends all together. If you back down to teenagers every time they kcik up a fuss, they'd rule the roost, and that would not be good. There have to be a few sensible rules.

[free_soul]

The above quote is from another post below about reporting suspicious behaviour believed to be terrorism related, to the government. Well today the Government (UK) has done similar by sliding in an 'expansion' of Sex Offender information laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7945364.stm) (interestingly, timed that it's on the same day that the trial of Josef Fritzl is prominently being plastered on the news).

By their own admission this is being set up as - "Single mother with children? Got a new boyfriend? Check him out with us first".

Now, I won't deny that this route 'has' been taken by people before to get access to children.

But, look at what this is saying underneath. Is it not implying that by 'default' men should be suspected as child molesters "until we give them the all clear"? It's more of the 'stranger danger' thing, and only adds to this mindset that men with children they are not directly related to, should be viewed with great suspicion. And they wonder why Boys (for example) are growing up confused. With less and less contact with other males outside their family, it might explain a few things. Of course, they don't specifically say it's aimed at men, but c'mon the signs are all there in their language.

Can you see a single parent male with his own kids checking out his new girlfriend's record before he gets into a relationship with her?

Let's remember that not all child molesters are men, lest we forget.

I'm split on this one. On the one hand I can see it from the other side, but I do wonder what this will mean for how men are viewed in the future.

Take for example the Sex offender alerts: Five scenarios (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7616515.stm) they've put up to accompany this. The scenarios take into account the various situations that may arise in relation to this, and if the police would act on each one. It looks 'like' they won't entertain requests for information from random folks on that quiet neighbour who keeps himself to himself, and they include how people have pointed out flaws in the various safeguards listed.

"Protecting the children" has been one of the most best trojan horses in the last 10 years to crack down on things. It paved the way for government to get involved in regulation of the internet for a start, because they knew that few people would question it (or dare question i, perhaps).

And, the big problem with this is that it is well documented that most cases of child abuse occur at the hands of 'existing' close family members who are in a position of power to prevent the child saying a damn thing, and not shadowy people hanging around in parks with anoraks on or new boyfriends.

Anyway, your views...

If someone i was with looked up things like that about me, even though it will come up totaly clean, she will be gone out of my life for good.

What good is a relationship withut trust?

[gilly]

If someone i was with looked up things like that about me, even though it will come up totaly clean, she will be gone out of my life for good.

What good is a relationship withut trust?

I'll bet there'd be no way for you to know if she'd checked you out.

[debs67gb]

"And, the big problem with this is that it is well documented that most cases of child abuse occur at the hands of 'existing' close family members who are in a position of power to prevent the child saying a damn thing, and not shadowy people hanging around in parks with anoraks on or new boyfriends."

and unfortunately thats mostly true :(

[bluman]

FDA statistics actually indicate that women are more likely to molest children due to their hormonal nature.

[breezinreezin]

There was an 11 year old girl playing in the street just round the corner from me a few summers ago, when a man and woman tried to drag her into a car. Thank God she managed to wriggle free & they sped off.


The fact that women can be paedophiles is not widely accepted. At 13 I was subject to abuse by 2 nurses (no jokes please, it wasn't nice) in hospital. One of them thought it funny to try to grab my dick while I was laid up ill in bed. The other I don't want to talk about. It wasn't particularly traumatising, more very embarrasing and isolating to me. To this day I don't know whether she had sexual motives or was just playing, but I do know how it would be perceived if the genders were reversed. What she couldn't have known at the time was that it was the last thing I needed to receive from a woman. She was thinking of herself and not me, as with most child abusers.

[debs67gb]

The fact that women can be paedophiles is not widely accepted. At 13 I was subject to abuse by 2 nurses (no jokes please, it wasn't nice) in hospital. One of them thought it funny to try to grab my dick while I was laid up ill in bed. The other I don't want to talk about. It wasn't particularly traumatising, more very embarrasing and isolating to me. To this day I don't know whether she had sexual motives or was just playing, but I do know how it would be perceived if the genders were reversed. What she couldn't have known at the time was that it was the last thing I needed to receive from a woman. She was thinking of herself and not me, as with most child abuser

thats just awful so sorry for you - yes it is known that women molest not just men nevertheless whichever its still crappy to go through

[gilly]

Yes, women are just as sick as men in these instances. I'm sorry you went through that Breezinreezin - it's something nobody should have to suffer.

I've just remembered that a lad in my husband's class at school (aged 11) was also abducted, raped & murdered.

[dhama_initiative]

Void is making the same mistake a lot of people make about paedophiles and yobs - "The government is hyping up their existence to their advantage - therefore they don't exist".

The fact that the govt. is taking advantage of the fear we have of them does not mean there is no real danger.

Void is showing extreme naivety on this thread, in my opinion. A 15 year old girl's wish to walk home alone should be ignored - she has no idea of the danger she could be in.

Children's 2 encounters with dangerous, potentially lethal people aren't enough to worry Void - how many would be?

We have to come to a comprimise between the extreme right wing "agh, yobs and peedos are everwhere" and the extreme left wing "relax, yobs and peedos don't exist". They are both foolish.

[void]

Void is making the same mistake a lot of people make about paedophiles and yobs - "The government is hyping up their existence to their advantage - therefore they don't exist".

When did I say that "therefore they don't exist"? Nowhere.

I said that it is know that most child molesters are close family. And you'll even find child protection organizations saying that is the case.

A 15 year old girl's wish to walk home alone should be ignored - she has no idea of the danger she could be in.

'Could'. That's the word. 'Could'. "Could, therefore live in fear. Trust nobody".

A girl of 15 is not an imbecile. Of course they're aware what danger they're in. After all the establishment has been telling them since their primary school. No, I think she knows exactly what risks are in life and wants to live anyway.

Children's 2 encounters with dangerous, potentially lethal people aren't enough to worry Void - how many would be?

"Remember 9/11. Terrorists are everywhere and 'could' strike at any time. We can't take that chance again,so let us impliment what we need to. Trust us.. Stop living freely, as that's dangerous. Keep tuned to the TV. Report anyone who looks dodgy. Be afraid".

The two incidents referred to in this post are decades apart. And as mentioned, if you collated the days where nobody tried to drag an 11 year old into a car, I think you'd discover that life is nowhere near as threatening as is made out.

We have to come to a comprimise between the extreme right wing "agh, yobs and peedos are everwhere" and the extreme left wing "relax, yobs and peedos don't exist". They are both foolish.

I never went to either extreme, like you suggest. I acknowledge there are risks in life and I was talking about the need to acknowledge risk and live anyway because that's the only way to live. "Feel the fear and do it anyway" as that famous book is titled. Anything else is a betrayal of life.

[dhama_initiative]

A girl of 15 is not an imbecile. Of course they're aware what danger they're in. After all the establishment has been telling them since their primary school. No, I think she knows exactly what risks are in life and wants to live anyway.

I strongly disagree. I wouldn't use a word as insulting as "imbecile", but in my experience, a lot of 15 year olds have no idea about keeping themselves out of danger and act as though they are invincible. That doesn't mean they are "imbeciles", just teenagers in the process of growing up. They're too young to be expected to keep "the risks" in mind - that's what parents are for.

The govt. take advantage of the fact that dangerous people exist to create fear - so people feel they have to react by tipping the balance to much the other way - trying to convince people the world is safer than it is. Being wise to the govt's scare tactics doesn't mean you have to live foolishly and put yourself in danger. You should still keep yourself safe and recognise genuine threats.

[the worm that turned]

Gilly - I think you are being perfectly sensible in the way you are bringing up your daughter because you are reacting to the way our current society requires you to react. By you changing your ways and becoming "liberal mum" and letting your kid walk home alone at night in the dark you will not CHANGE society, in fact I would say that statistically it is more likely that your child would be attacked, abused etc than society changing as a result of your single actions!!!

I was subject to a paedophile who was actually my teacher, fortunately he didn't manage to do anything too bad!! So bringing in measures to check teachers IS a good idea but back in the 80's I don't think it was done.

I also stopped a filthy illegal immigrant from attacking and raping a young (17 year old) girl walking home on her own. So picking your 15 year old up at ANY TIME is a good idea.

Void - you are 1 example of a child not exposed to horrible chancers, but IMO that should not be a reason to promote greater interaction in society with the examples you give (although I DO understand your reasons for wanting society to change).

[apekteina lordosis]

the man who brought me up used to perform bottom inspections on me when i was in single figures, to check that i had "wiped properly". i don't really remember the details apart from having my lower clothes removed and being told to lay face down on the bed. the only other memory of the room that bed was in is of being held out the window (it was on the first floor) and the man who brought me up threatening to let go of me.

i wonder what fucked my head up more? the threat or whatever action happened during a bottom inspection...

such was his influence i actually thought he was the greatest and it was only after i turned 18 and he split with my mum that as the years rolled by i realised what an entirely unpleasant individual he really was. until the split i called him dad and for a few years after but i now view him as "the man who brought me up".

sex, apart from conceiving new life, is about pleasure but the fact he threatened me says that the bottom inspections were purely about his own pleasure and i guess he had no choice but to do it that way, he was then an up and coming player in the defence industry and wasn't prepared to risk his career for a scandal yet my right to say yes or no was stolen from me.

you can say i was too young to understand consent but if a two people both find something pleasurable and should that status change during an "act" and the other respects a statement of "stop" then what is all the fuss about? it's the fuss that messes peoples heads up. even if he had given me the right to a yes or no it would have messed my head up, cos sure is sure he would have had to say something like, "look this has to be our secret"- and a young growing mind would wonder why but not be able to understand why something so simple as pleasure had to be a secret. say if i had been given the right to a yes or no but the secret got out, the ensuing fuss from "official" people would have destroyed my young life, and that of the man who brought me up and my mother, and our families.

i fully comprehend why young people need to be protected, for there are far worse things that go on than "bottom inspections", but one ponders sometimes if this is a resultant of adults who are attracted to children being restricted to such an extent that they snap aka it drives them into madness and behaving irrationally.

meanwhile, for some of those known as "official", they do the most abhorrent things, both sexually and non-sexually, to kids and use their network to protect them... that's the real child abuse.

you might not like what i am typing and i'll finish by adding this, the only thing some of you agree with when it comes to the shite spouted by the msm is the topic of adults being attracted to children, yet you never seem to question that perhaps the msm has ulterior motives for doing so, like hiking the climate of "fear" for example.

the "logical" conclusion of this "check out your boyfriend" policy eventually will see the state telling people who they can and can't date aka taking control of dna fusing together and mutating into something new- that will cease and they will be the "god" deeming what dna gets mixed together. it's nothing to do with stopping kids being "abused", afterall when you think about it what's really actually far worse? like the "liberation" of iraq for example. how many thousands of children have been murdered, crippled for life and/or orphaned? is a "bottom inspection", bit of respected pleasure etc actually worse?

[breezinreezin]

Well that's a pretty horrible and sad story. No child should have to be subjected to that sort of behaviour from an adult that you did. This is what perpetuates the remorseless selfishness in this world, individuals not taking control of their own shit--or at least the worst aspects. Having a conscience means to see the full impact of ones behaviour on another--especially on our children, who are the future. If I write any more I'll just start getting angry. So I'll leave it at that.

[talulah]

I would like to know were the beasts live in my area for my child and other childrens protection.I beieve Sarah Paynes mother worked hard to get this law through parliment.

As for boyfriends/partners i dont do those for my childs sake.I dont believe in brining strangers into her Life that i know nothing about.Thats one of the sacrifices i made when i had her.

These stupid woman who bring partner after partner into their kids life really do beggar belief.Is it any wonder theyre kids are at risk?

And yes woman are just as much a risk as men,i wouldnt trust them either.

Peace

[motleyhoo]

This is all part of our indoctrination and is desensitzing us into being nosey snitches. Eventually, our govts will be talking about organizing "Civilian Citizen" groups in which they will tell its armband wearing members all the things they can do for their country. Spying on, and turning in their neighbors for so-caled crimes of the state will become our daily lives. It truly is Orwellian.

If you want to know how this works, think of the Nightwatch characters of the show Babylon 5.

The sad fact is, a lot of people get put on these watch lists that never did anything wrong beyond immature folly or a practical joke. An example would be the drunk college kid that gets caught on Friday night after the frat parties walking around naked. After being arrested for public indecency, he will be put on the list and his location tracked and publicized the rest of his life, making his life a living hell. That's just one example of the hundreds of ways that good people who make a mistake can have their lives detroyed by getting put on these lists.

Please understand that not all is as it seems. For enlightened people who claim to know how the govt works, I assume you know what I mean.

[talulah]

This is all part of our indoctrination and is desensitzing us into being nosey snitches. Eventually, our govts will be talking about organizing "Civilian Citizen" groups in which they will tell its armband wearing members all the things they can do for their country. Spying on, and turning in their neighbors for so-caled crimes of the state will become our daily lives. It truly is Orwellian.

If you want to know how this works, think of the Nightwatch characters of the show Babylon 5.

The sad fact is, a lot of people get put on these watch lists that never did anything wrong beyond immature folly or a practical joke. An example would be the drunk college kid that gets caught on Friday night after the frat parties walking around naked. After being arrested for public indecency, he will be put on the list and his location tracked and publicized the rest of his life, making his life a living hell. That's just one example of the hundreds of ways that good people who make a mistake can have their lives detroyed by getting put on these lists.

Please understand that not all is as it seems. For enlightened people who claim to know how the govt works, I assume you know what I mean.

I understand were your coming from.And yes there are innocent people,but there are also a lot of dangerous,twisted sex cases out there too.

Peace

[mikethepunk]

Most people nowadays when they meet a new person they want to date will put their name in a google search. By doing that you can easily find out if they are a sex offender.

The problem arises when people just date other people because they are lonely or feel that they need a sig. other to make themselves complete. But no one needs another to feel complete.

If you cannot love yourself unconditionally, you cannot love another, anything other than that is fake, needy love and is not real. The problem with society is that none of us are taught about self love and what it really means to love yourself.

Rape and child molestation has gotten out of control. I believe it is because of all the sex and rape in TV and film. Plus we are given an unrealistic view of sex at an early age. We are taught that without sex we are nothing. Hence people that act out of rage in sexual manners. It is a deep psychological sickness and it comes from the elite as another way to dumb us down, make us unhappy, violent, criminals.

Back in the times of Rome, Greece, etc. where public orgies were the norm, I bet there was less rape going on because everyone was getting laid and sex was not a taboo thing. Plus larger women were held in higher esteem. Today we are taught unrealistic views when it comes to body type and sex.

Bring back public orgies and watch the rape count drop. (as if this would ever happen). Luckily here in Seattle we have a Sex Positive Community Center also called the wet spot where people can join and attend a number of different events each week-straight, gay and bi-sexual. I am not a member but I have been there and it is hella cool. Centers like this are breaking sexual norms and sexual taboos by bringing communities together to work it out. Every city should have one of these.

[motleyhoo]

I understand were your coming from.And yes there are innocent people,but there are also a lot of dangerous,twisted sex cases out there too.

Peace

There are, but should we condone locking up a lot of innocent people just to ensure that we likely got all the guilty people? That's not a world I'd like to live in, but we're getting closer and closer to being like that every day.

There are people in the US who believe it is ok to torture innocent people because sooner or later you'll torture enough innocent people to maybe find one that's guilty.

The problem with these sex offender lists is that most of the people on them are not really sex offenders in the way that the lists are being used. The lists assume that the people on them are habitual offenders, which is not the case for many of the people on them. But hey, lets just crucify as many people as possible so we can satiate the hysteria being whipped up by the govt and media.

I don't mean to be arguementative or anything, just showing another point of view.

[mr facts]

This is a very good thread. Plenty of good points on both sides but I agree with Void on this. Kids get wrapped up in cotton wool through there parents fear which is been fed by the goverment with an agenda. I dont know were some of you are from but you make it sound like hell. "dodgy charcters everywere" and scared to even walk your own street at night. Now im from one of the roughest places in Scotland and it is nowere near as bad as whats made out by TV. I bet your daughter at 15 is wiser than you give credit for Gilly.

[talulah]

There are, but should we condone locking up a lot of innocent people just to ensure that we likely got all the guilty people? That's not a world I'd like to live in, but we're getting closer and closer to being like that every day.

There are people in the US who believe it is ok to torture innocent people because sooner or later you'll torture enough innocent people to maybe find one that's guilty.

The problem with these sex offender lists is that most of the people on them are not really sex offenders in the way that the lists are being used. The lists assume that the people on them are habitual offenders, which is not the case for many of the people on them. But hey, lets just crucify as many people as possible so we can satiate the hysteria being whipped up by the govt and media.

I don't mean to be arguementative or anything, just showing another point of view.

Yeah i understand what your saying here,i would in no way want to see innocent people tortured.Its like the death penalty, if they brought it back innocent people would die and no doubt the polis would set up people they want off the streets.I know i sound paranoid but when you have children its a worry.My daugher has a little freedom as she is now coming up to her teens.I tell her i trust her,its other people i dont trust.

I was brought up in Leith in edinburgh and it used to be classed as a bad area.To be honest we were never indoors as kids.But i agree with you that the media is a lot to blame.But the authorities are also to blame,when they let some sex cases live in communities when they clearly need to be put away were they are to danger to our children.

[gilly]

This is a very good thread. Plenty of good points on both sides but I agree with Void on this. Kids get wrapped up in cotton wool through there parents fear which is been fed by the goverment with an agenda. I dont know were some of you are from but you make it sound like hell. "dodgy charcters everywere" and scared to even walk your own street at night. Now im from one of the roughest places in Scotland and it is nowere near as bad as whats made out by TV. I bet your daughter at 15 is wiser than you give credit for Gilly.

It's not about whether she's wise or not though Mr Facts, it's about whether she's vulnerable - and in an area where there are gangs of young thugs hanging about the streets, and older drunkards at pub closing time, in my opinion, any 15 year old girl is vulnerable.

I do not accept that providing safe transportation is wrapping in cotton-wool, I believe it to be taking a necessary precaution.

She spends a lot of time enjoying herself with her friends, and meeting new people at the venues she goes to, and I think that's healthy.

I feel that parents should not be flippant about their kids safety.

I also believe there will be innocent people on these lists. I suspect that part of the reason for publicising them is to create vigilante attacks against those listed. After all, it was to prevent such attacks that the lists were kept out of the public domain previously.

[beldazar]

Ive been thinking about this thread a lot.

At christmas I was told that the man who lives opposite me is a registered paedophile. I told the person who told me to keep quiet about it. Ive lived here 13 years and so has the man. My garden is like the local park, children are always playing and I looked after the mans dog over christmas and was in his back garden. If he is watching the kids his view is perfect :(

Why did I tell the person to keep quiet? Because one thing I hate are people who get involved in witchhunts. The parents will tell the children and the children will make this mans life a misery, if not the parents themselves.
Yes he is a likely candidate for most people to reckon he is one, lives alone, big hedges round his garden, always has an alsatian prowling around on guard (?)

This is so very difficult, I dont want him persecuted and at the same time I dont want a child in danger but this is all WHAT IF's. I try to avoind WHAT IF's if I can really help it as they dont help.

[brainstormer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHdbcbzLnOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8kk8Y5w5aQ

[brainstormer]

A few more overblown Maddie McCann type stories and they will have an excuse to install mandatory RFID chips in all newborn children.

[talulah]

Ive been thinking about this thread a lot.

At christmas I was told that the man who lives opposite me is a registered paedophile. I told the person who told me to keep quiet about it. Ive lived here 13 years and so has the man. My garden is like the local park, children are always playing and I looked after the mans dog over christmas and was in his back garden. If he is watching the kids his view is perfect :(

Why did I tell the person to keep quiet? Because one thing I hate are people who get involved in witchhunts. The parents will tell the children and the children will make this mans life a misery, if not the parents themselves.
Yes he is a likely candidate for most people to reckon he is one, lives alone, big hedges round his garden, always has an alsatian prowling around on guard (?)

This is so very difficult, I dont want him persecuted and at the same time I dont want a child in danger but this is all WHAT IF's. I try to avoind WHAT IF's if I can really help it as they dont help.

It depends on what you were told was true.I agree with you that a witchunt is on called for.However,if it is true and he is a paedophile,a real paedophile then i would be very worried.Even if hes an old man.Im talking here through knowledge,not because of the media.

If the man is a paedophile who enjoys sex with young children and babies then theres a 90% chance he will belong to a paedophile ring in your area.This means more paedophiles around your children.Watching them,grooming them,perhaphs planning to snatch one.Now while i dont want to see a Witchunt,im not really bothered about someone who is clearly sick in the head and a danger to the children in the community.What i want is for him/her to be removed from the area.Im sorry but the children have more of a right to be there than a paedophile does.

I am not talking here as someone who is scared from what the media say,i have knowledge on this.Yes the media are to blame for a lot of scaremongering,but the other side of it is,Paedophiles are real.paedophile rings are real,they are in every city in around the world.The members of paedophile rings are not just dirty old men with anoracs and thick glasses.far from it.Many of them are people in proffessional positions,doctors,teachers,judges,police,social workers, amongst others and in some cases celebrities.

This is fact.

Peace.

[beldazar]

He keeps himself to himself Tahlula.

Loners are often looked at with suspicion thanks to the media portrayal.

Im not worried....He may not be, it may simply be rumour-mongering because he is a loner

[talulah]

He keeps himself to himself Tahlula.

Loners are often looked at with suspicion thanks to the media portrayal.

Im not worried....He may not be, it may simply be rumour-mongering because he is a loner

No thats a completley diffrent thing all togther.Hes probalbly just a lonely old man.Thats a shame that people start these rumours isnt it?theyve obviously got very empty lives and sick minds themselves.

I gave the kids a row the other day they were talking about a man that lives in our stair and saying he looked like a paedo.Its a shame his wife died a couple of years ago and you can tell hes still greiving for her.Because he wears thick glasses they labelled him a paedo.They all got a lecture from me about labelling people.Its dangerous as innocent people get labelled for no reason at all.

[beldazar]

Thats really sad Talulah. :(

I know how it feels to be labelled with something. A few years back I worked at a pub near where I was born. A group of lads who knew me and my family classed me as a lesbian, they must have thought, pretty girl, no boyfriend then she MUST be a lesbian! :rolleyes:

They must have been surprised when I had kids, maybe they thought I had artificial insemination or something :D

Just because someone is shy or doesnt feel the need to mix with others, they are automatically singled out for not following the herd.

Ive just come in from dropping my boy to school and told a mate to look up and see the chemtrails, she tells me Im mad, lol

GET ME OFF THIS PLANET!!!

[talulah]

Thats really sad Talulah. :(

I know how it feels to be labelled with something. A few years back I worked at a pub near where I was born. A group of lads who knew me and my family classed me as a lesbian, they must have thought, pretty girl, no boyfriend then she MUST be a lesbian! :rolleyes:

They must have been surprised when I had kids, maybe they thought I had artificial insemination or something :D

Just because someone is shy or doesnt feel the need to mix with others, they are automatically singled out for not following the herd.

Ive just come in from dropping my boy to school and told a mate to look up and see the chemtrails, she tells me Im mad, lol

GET ME OFF THIS PLANET!!!

Pmsl!Why do some men make assumptions that if you live on your own and dont have a male patner you must be a lesbian!!I had an experience on a night out a few weeks back.These tossers in the pub couldnt believe i had no partner and that ive been celebrate for over four years.I say Tossers because they were steriotypical blokes.They assumed i must be a lesbian as i wasnt fussed about having a drink with them!!To be honest it doesnt bother me if they thought i was a lesbian,its no wonder there are lesbians with tossers like that around!

Better being a Lesbian than a stepford wife anyday!

Peace
:)

[beldazar]

Lol, nice one Talulah :D

[unusual_suspect]

You can't even say to blokes like that that you are a lesbian, because it makes them all excited then :eek:

[talulah]

You can't even say to blokes like that that you are a lesbian, because it makes them all excited then :eek:

yeah its a no win situation,saying your a tranny works sometimes though,

:D

[apekteina lordosis]

Well that's a pretty horrible and sad story. No child should have to be subjected to that sort of behaviour from an adult that you did. This is what perpetuates the remorseless selfishness in this world, individuals not taking control of their own shit--or at least the worst aspects. Having a conscience means to see the full impact of ones behaviour on another--especially on our children, who are the future. If I write any more I'll just start getting angry. So I'll leave it at that.

the thing is i know nothing else cos they were some of the main formative experiences of my childhood, however it became food for great insight about that sort of human condition, and all i can do is try to share my resultant thoughts with others to try and make the world safer.

i don't believe hysterical msm headlines do that, nor does encouraging people to snitch their "hunch" that whoever is a "nonce" aka "not on communal exercise" aka tried and found guilty sex offender who was sectioned in prison for their own safety, because there's a big difference between having thoughts that the younger teenybopper things in life are cute and raping a toddler and having been convicted of that. the same people who would witch hunt probably have a copy of st trinians in their film collection and think cor she's a bit of alright but cos it's an adult, an 18year old wearing a school uniform that's "okay", and they'll be the same people who'd loudly proclaim in the pub what they'd do if someone touched their kids then half an hour later they'll be telling their mates the latest gary glitter joke. once you start dictating what sort of thoughts are acceptable and what are not, well it's a very slippery slope.

people should accept that some adults find kids attractive and that the safest way to protect children from those adults carrying out their desires is to live in a society where such adults feel safe enough to talk to other adults, especially doctors so that they can get professional help to aid them from not interacting in an appropriate way with the younger things in life. course something like 95% of all child abuse happens within the family/family friends circle, according to childline (founded by ester rantzen, who's allegedly a high ranking member of a certain female secret society). however as i've and others have mentioned it's the organized rings that "utilize" children in care and kids at boarding schools that is the major menace. usually the adults involved are well connected, take the dunblane case for example, thomas hamilton often frequented a all boys boarding school and some teachers reported he was often found "creeping" around the dormitories at night- but despite complaints nothing was ever done about it and the senior teacher who allowed him to be around the school and to use its shooting range ended up having an "accident"- he fell of a ladder and broke his neck. the files on the dunblane case have been restricted from public access for 100 years, allegedly to protect some high ranking members of the scottish judiciary who supposedly are linked together by the "speculative society".

back on a "hunch" perhaps you should bare in mind that highlighting a loner who might be attracted to the younger things in life might very well end up with him getting stitched up. whilst ian huntley probably should be serving a prison sentence it shouldn't be for double murder- there was evidence reported in the soham trial involving two very dodgy (now) ex police officers that the msm chose not to report. for some predators it's not just kids they are after, there is sport for them in trying to stitch others up for their crimes as well, i guess they've been getting away with sexually abusing kids for so long they get bored, though of course there is the ritualistic element to stitching other people up as well.

so if you really want to stop nasty stuff happening to kids you should strive to make it a non taboo subject, one where adults can discuss it rationally without being afraid to voice an alternative opinion lest others "suspect" them being attracted to kids themselves, or for adults who are attracted to kids to feel safe enough to get professional advice to help them to ensure that they never try to "activate" their thoughts in reality. oh and if you are really serious about stopping kids being abused then why not pop in without invitation to your local "lodge" when no one else is there and have a good snoop around and see what you might find- not that i am suggesting all of those who frequent such places are involved in such things but it has been alleged (though mysteriously never in the msm) that some of them certain buildings are "hubs", though be aware this topic on that level is seriously heavy shit and anyone who tries to expose it is marked for life (and i am talking from personal experience here).

it's not the "odd looking neighbour" you should be trying to out...

[scatlond]

Tell them your trisexual.:)

[beldazar]

[QUOTE=apekteina lordosis;869657]the thing is i know nothing else cos they were some of the main formative experiences of my childhood, however it became food for great insight about that sort of human condition, and all i can do is try to share my resultant thoughts with others to try and make the world safer.

i don't believe hysterical msm headlines do that, nor does encouraging people to snitch their "hunch" that whoever is a "nonce" aka "not on communal exercise" aka tried and found guilty sex offender who was sectioned in prison for their own safety, because there's a big difference between having thoughts that the younger teenybopper things in life are cute and raping a toddler and having been convicted of that. the same people who would witch hunt probably have a copy of st trinians in their film collection and think cor she's a bit of alright but cos it's an adult, an 18year old wearing a school uniform that's "okay", and they'll be the same people who'd loudly proclaim in the pub what they'd do if someone touched their kids then half an hour later they'll be telling their mates the latest gary glitter joke. once you start dictating what sort of thoughts are acceptable and what are not, well it's a very slippery slope.

people should accept that some adults find kids attractive and that the safest way to protect children from those adults carrying out their desires is to live in a society where such adults feel safe enough to talk to other adults, especially doctors so that they can get professional help to aid them from not interacting in an appropriate way with the younger things in life. course something like 95% of all child abuse happens within the family/family friends circle, according to childline (founded by ester rantzen, who's allegedly a high ranking member of a certain female secret society). however as i've and others have mentioned it's the organized rings that "utilize" children in care and kids at boarding schools that is the major menace. usually the adults involved are well connected, take the dunblane case for example, thomas hamilton often frequented a all boys boarding school and some teachers reported he was often found "creeping" around the dormitories at night- but despite complaints nothing was ever done about it and the senior teacher who allowed him to be around the school and to use its shooting range ended up having an "accident"- he fell of a ladder and broke his neck. the files on the dunblane case have been restricted from public access for 100 years, allegedly to protect some high ranking members of the scottish judiciary who supposedly are linked together by the "speculative society".

back on a "hunch" perhaps you should bare in mind that highlighting a loner who might be attracted to the younger things in life might very well end up with him getting stitched up. whilst ian huntley probably should be serving a prison sentence it shouldn't be for double murder- there was evidence reported in the soham trial involving two very dodgy (now) ex police officers that the msm chose not to report. for some predators it's not just kids they are after, there is sport for them in trying to stitch others up for their crimes as well, i guess they've been getting away with sexually abusing kids for so long they get bored, though of course there is the ritualistic element to stitching other people up as well.

so if you really want to stop nasty stuff happening to kids you should strive to make it a non taboo subject, one where adults can discuss it rationally without being afraid to voice an alternative opinion lest others "suspect" them being attracted to kids themselves, or for adults who are attracted to kids to feel safe enough to get professional advice to help them to ensure that they never try to "activate" their thoughts in reality. oh and if you are really serious about stopping kids being abused then why not pop in without invitation to your local "lodge" when no one else is there and have a good snoop around and see what you might find- not that i am suggesting all of those who frequent such places are involved in such things but it has been alleged (though mysteriously never in the msm) that some of them certain buildings are "hubs", though be aware this topic on that level is seriously heavy shit and anyone who tries to expose it is marked for life (and i am talking from personal experience here).

Thankyou for this post Apektiena, first class!

[lordzoma]

I like how they make such a big stink over sex offenders and pedophiles while the establishment continually reinforces the sex slave industry and prepares females to fuck the elite by imposing upon them a strict regime of mind control.

[merlincove]

I like how they make such a big stink over sex offenders and pedophiles while the establishment continually reinforces the sex slave industry and prepares females to fuck the elite by imposing upon them a strict regime of mind control.

Same old rule of thumb, one for them and one for us. They seem to deem it ok for priests and MP's and gvt officialls to clinically abuse women from childhood, mind program them into being sexual slaves and then deem the instigation of fear through propoganda as a way of keeping the sheeple under controlled vigilance.

i think it is a case of the sikest people are the ones who crerate the law. And again. maybe those who create the law feel that they are above it.

Like Bush snr is reported as saying 'who are you going to tell?'

Little do they know thought that even they are not beyond judgement, for they will be judged by a higher power come the day.

[the nine]

can we be really sure that the motive is to see who is living where?
maybe a benefit cheat...?
they only seem to take children of parents for minor things, those that have a history of violence and where the children are seeing doctors for wounds, and are ON the child protection registry for serious violence, seem to be left to do their worst!!

propaganda...

[the nine]

You can't even say to blokes like that that you are a lesbian, because it makes them all excited then :eek:

but you can say you have a contagious medical condition lol