This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Children The Big Losers

Jump to new
Mr J said:
Define 'sexually' abused', and even if those percentages were correct over the sample, it's not correct to state them as facts for the entire population.
Click to expand...

Sexual Abuse - Occurs when a child is exposed or subject to sexual behaviours or acts which are exploitative and/or inappropriate to his or her age or developmental level.

I've been out of the industry for to long now to quote specific statistics, however 78% does not seem unrealistic.

I really hate it when the community blames the child protection services for letting children down, so to clarrify responsibilities for you:

In order for Child protection workers to intervene, they need a disclosure from the child or sufficient evidence of physical and/or emotional indicators. Consequently it is very difficult to prosecute.

Now there is cross responsibility in child protection - the child protection agency and the Police. Child Protection agencies have a role when the alledged abuser is a parent or family member; has been given loco parentis responsibilities (ie. a babysitter), someone with "care" responsibilities (ie. daycarers); is another child; or the parents are not protective. All other abuse investigations are carried out by the Police. So if the abuser is a teacher, coach, priests, neighbour, etc. it is only the Police who carry out the investigation.

I also strongly agree with Tink, the community is part of the problem. There is no sense of commmunity any more and while everyone thinks it's not their problem and turns the other cheek, it is their inactions that allow the abuse to continue.
 
SM Junkie said:
I also strongly agree with Tink, the community is part of the problem. There is no sense of commmunity any more and while everyone thinks it's not their problem and turns the other cheek, it is their inactions that allow the abuse to continue.
Click to expand...

when we were children there was a kindly ole fellow that used to leer at the kids as they walked home from school .... he used to be a kind old boy to us kids .only problem was it was found out hhe had been tampering wiith one young boy ( a neihbour of mine ) for months ...
when the situation came to light his house was burned down and he was taken by the parents and tortured in there house ......

the peodophile got 2 years

the father of the boy concerned got 5

it was NOT the parents of the child that burnt the peodophiles house down it was the surrounding fathers/mothers

it cured the peodophile attacks on the children of my street/neihbourhood

is this wrong ?


in my way of thinking i think it was the correct thing to do and if in same situation as the boys father i would be inclined to probably go a bit further than he did ..... is this wrong ?

the courts thought so , in fact they thought the crime of the father acting out in anger was a worse crime than a cold calculating peodophile destroying a boys life ..

funny world we live
 
apologies for the heated and straight to the point comments

this is not a discussion i should be part of as it makes me sick to the stomach and i cannot aproach it in a dignified and collected manner , i also have no respect for the "authorities " nor justice sytems ways of dealing with these matters so best i stay out of it

as you were
 
SM Junkie said:
I've been out of the industry for to long now to quote specific statistics, however 78% does not seem unrealistic..
Click to expand...

Statics quoted in different ways mean different things. 78% of children may be at risk of sexual abuse. This is a statistic designed to fool people. It's no different from saying 100% of humans are at risk of dying.

n my way of thinking i think it was the correct thing to do and if in same situation as the boys father i would be inclined to probably go a bit further than he did ..... is this wrong ?
Click to expand...

I will guess that the father got more severely punished (for what I consider a justified offence) because he took the law into his own hands, and I think authority considers that the greatest crime possible (posing a threat to their existence).
 
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs1/rs1.html

Make yourself familiar with the facts, Its EVERY member of a societies responsibility to understand & know to what depth this is going on so it can eradicate these kinds of crimes.
We all need to be able to spot the signs so we can take action and not turn the other way.
A friends brother heads the taskforce that deals with child abuse / paedophilia in QLD. Could not sleep for months after joining the force that has to deal with it. Needless to say he is now a man on a mission. I don't know how he deals with it. I would have shot someone by now.

ANY society that does not look after & put women & children 1st is basically committing a slow form of genocide IMHO.
 

I'm sure it has always existed. That's not the point. The point is that it's gone unnoticed mostly up until fairly recently. I'd prefer to have it noticed so that something may get done. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than pretend everything's alright.
 
SM Junkie said:
Sexual Abuse - Occurs when a child is exposed or subject to sexual behaviours or acts which are exploitative and/or inappropriate to his or her age or developmental level.
Click to expand...
http://childwise.net/faq.php#Whatisthedefinitionofachild


I'm as sickened as everyone else by the abuse of young children but surely the idea of a 17yo being classed as a child is a bit silly. However the media love to exploit these things to increase their ratings etc.

For an interesting case study, google "The Man They Called A Monster", by Paul Wilson. You can read the whole book online if you're interested.

Professor Paul Wilson is the Chair of Criminology at Bond University, and is one of Australia's foremost criminologists.
 
Mr J said:
Define 'sexually' abused', and even if those percentages were correct over the sample, it's not correct to state them as facts for the entire population.
Click to expand...
I'd like to know this too, and thanks to SM Junkie for later elaborating on this point. I am in no way diminishing the horror of inappropriate sexual contact, but do think we throw around the words 'abuse' and 'assault' rather too freely.

This is slightly off topic, but a couple of decades ago if a bloke in the workplace made a lighthearted pat on a woman's bottom, she'd be expected to just deal with it. Usually a few well chosen words would ensure the offender didn't do it again.
But these days she will likely have him charged with sexual assault.
I think this is ridiculously precious.

Mr J said:
It's not an epidemic, it's something that has always existed. As for 78% at risk, well I'm sure everyone knows an abuser whether they know it or not.
Click to expand...
Very true. There has been a cultural swing to freely discussing sexual abuse/assault which is a very good thing. It's one part of our free discussions about pretty much all things sexual.

Even one generation ago, families often covered up for the offender rather than be exposed to the public shame of having him charged and punished.
I was sexually abused for many years as a child, from around age 6, by my grandfather, having been 'groomed' by him for a time prior to the abuse beginning. The paedophile says stuff like 'you're my special little darling and we don't want anyone else to know about what we do because we love each other so much, do we" etc etc. The child is confused because she has grown up to love and trust the perpetrator.
78% may potentially be at risk, but that doesn't mean 78% are at reasonable risk. Statistics themselves may not lie, but the description attached to them can lead to misinterpretations, and this is often intentional.
Click to expand...
78% at risk seems very surprising to me.


 
Julia said:
78% at risk seems very surprising to me.
Click to expand...

It doesn't to me, because "78% of children are at risk" is an intentionally unclear description. It is stated that way to shock most people and exaggerate the problem. I assume the figure probably refers to something like "percentage of children that come into contact with an abuser". That wouldn't be a useful statistic, apart from revealing that most abusers are 'normal' members of society (not raging pedos) and that they don't abuse most children.

There has been a cultural swing to freely discussing sexual abuse/assault which is a very good thing. It's one part of our free discussions about pretty much all things sexual.
Click to expand...

And I hope it eventually trickles down to better educating children about abuse and how to handle it. I know parents don't want to go there with their children, but I think it's the best way to deal with the problem. I intend on being as honest as possible with my children, and will do my best to create a relationship where they can come to me about anything.

Why should women and children be 'put first'. All people should be equally deserving of care and respect until they demonstrate otherwise.
Click to expand...

For males and females, our natural instincts are first to protect the children. As males, we then have a strong instinct to protect the females. We only protect each other when there's no-one else to save .

Because of the risks involved of any gesture being misinterpreted,
Click to expand...

There is something wrong with society when many people question the actions of a father who shows public affection for his child. Such dirty thoughts over such a great love . It's worse than those who cry child abuse when a parent gives their misbehaving kid a (light) smack on the bum.
 
I must return posters to my original post.

The emphasis at present is on protection rather than care.

The care of children who live in families with half, step and other siblings, who travel to live for a brief time in similar households, is not that which was provided to Australian children in the past.

Whatever the problems associated with nuclear families, the parents of biological offspring, in general look after their off spring better than those who have no genetic investment.

This is not to deny that incestuous monsters will not continue to occur, but a society where a Rafferty's rules line of parental control exists , is a sick society.

gg
 
What I should elaborate on Julia is probably that if we as a society where not prone to more and more cutting ourselves off from our neighbours & others. Then the signs of abuse would I suggest present themselves quite clearly.
I grew up in a tenement in Glasgow where people knew their neighbours and looked out for each other each other alot more.

While I agree we are all worthy of the same respect, if you don't place our future (children) and women 1st for protection I stand by my assertion you place your entire society at risk. There is a reason they always shouted women and children 1st into the lifeboats. At the most basic level they more than us men are our genetic future.

Garpal you asked what we are going to do to protect our children. Simple its starts with when we all become more involved with the people around us. It's alot harder for these kinds of things to happen without the isolation factor.

Mr J I think that last post of yours was pretty well spot on in almost all counts!
 

Thanks vizion, but I have not asked what we are going to do to protect our kids.

The Problem in my opinion lies in NOT CARING FOR OUR KIDS

The multiplication of services to protect children encourages a laisse faire attitude towards the CARE of children.

My message is Care not Protect.

Protection is nigh impossible unless we attempt the Pommie route with cameras of a corner and their crime rates are higher than ever.

Care is the secret.

Love, praise and encouragement is what children need.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
The multiplication of services to protect children encourages a laisse faire attitude towards the CARE of children.
Click to expand...

Sorry GG, but I think you are completely wrong. Parental instincts are some of the strongest instincts we have, and nothing will change that.
 
Mr J said:
Sorry GG, but I think you are completely wrong. Parental instincts are some of the strongest instincts we have, and nothing will change that.
Click to expand...

sorry mate, read my post again, unless I'm mistaken that is what I said. If not please clarify my error.

gg
 
Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that it would lead to a care-free attitude and the overall standards slipping.
 
Mr J said:
Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that it would lead to a care-free attitude and the overall standards slipping.
Click to expand...

thanks mate, my premise is

more care = less need for state protection.

gg
 
What I don't understand is how a convicted pedophile can get access to children under a surrogacy program, or why surrogacy is even allowed at all.

Surrogacy and IVF treat children as commodities that can be bought and sold, created for the supposed satisfaction of others.

Both of these programs are unnecessary and create more problems than they solve.
 

When we don't seem to have enough money to run efficient health care in the country, it's always seem unfair to waste millions / 10s of millions on funding IVF and fertility treatments for people who are otherwise healthy.

We still seem to have the populate or perish ethos ingrained into us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...