Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really, because you are still damning an entire group based upon a tiny minorty of within it, just as a racist in the US will see all African-Americans as suspect based upon a minority of them. That's not the real world, it's just lazy pigeon-holing based upon simplistic profiling - better known as bigotry.

I know well that a small minority of men are paedophiles. My issue is with their rate compared to women. That rate is damning. And for this reason I see no issue with folks being a lot more alert and on their toes when it comes to males being involved with their children as opposed to females.

Paedophiles don't have paedophile stickers on their foreheads, so nobody can really know. In relation to working with children: Best course of action here is to treat every person as a possible threat, male and female, and work from there. Now, bearing in mind that males are the ones committing the sexual crimes far more than women, then it's only logical that males will come in for more attention.

BTW, research and experts think that the prevalance for paedophilia is about 5 percent of our population. It's small compared to the whole, but take any town with say 10000 people. That would see that about 500 people could be paedophiles. That is a lot of people when you line them up in a relatively small area. Now, of that 500 I reckon males would make up 9-10 times more numbers according to research.

Zulu

What research please?

walshb

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618?journalCode=clinpsy

BTW, it's not definite. I posted another link somewhere in this thread too.

Anyway, even allowing for a sway either side, it doesn't take away from the facts that males commit more sexual crimes against people/children than women do.

Zulu

That link only seems to provide a definition of the word; a subscription is required.

bfocusd

I think the media are putting a lot of fear into people that for so many years all of the notorious abuse went unnoticed so now people won't allow their kids with men just in case something could happen.

My family lived next to a man that was found out to be abusing his sons, one committed suicide then the other opened up about the abuse, the father also allowed a convicted ballyfermot priest stay in the house and allowed him mind the children regularly, after years of abuse and it finally being spoken about the mother insisted she knew nothing, but I'm sure if it was the other way around and the father said he knew nothing it would be a different story and he would be guilty until proven innocent, because the majority's immediate reaction is no mother could allow that happen to her kids, she mustn't of known.

Also my uncle has two kids and when they were out with him shopping say, he could rarely change them himself as men's toilets don't have the facilities, if he asked to use the disabled toilet he was looked at like 'you want a room alone with them?!!'
Eventually he got so tired of people commenting and making out that he was up to something, he used to use the facility in the women's toilets, you'd think that he was a pervert for entering the women's toilets, but nope, the amount of them that commented on him bringing the kids there because its safer than the gents was ridiculous and he was never stopped to enter the ladies toilets either. I think they may have thought some pervert was going to watch him changing the kids or something, but he was applauded for it, the women would even strike up conversation about the kids and how he's great with the kids..

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

That link only seems to provide a definition of the word; a subscription is required.

"The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known,[3][61] but is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%.[3][64] "Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders. On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters." It is believed that the true number of female pedophiles is underrepresented by available estimates, and that reasons for this may include a "societal tendency to dismiss the negative impact of sexual relationships between young boys and adult women, as well as women’s greater access to very young children who cannot report their abuse", among other explanations.[20]"

Source is from wikipedia.

Anyway, the general point I was making was that I felt it not at all odd or illogical for society to be more alert and on their toes as regards males working with children as opposed to females working with children.

walshb

bfocusd wrote: »

the mother insisted she knew nothing, but I'm sure if it was the other way around and the father said he knew nothing it would be a different story and he would be guilty until proven innocent, because the majority's immediate reaction is no mother could allow that happen to her kids, she mustn't of known.
.

You can damn well bet she knew. I agree with your point here.

As for your uncle using the ladies toilets. No, I don't think that should be allowed or condoned. I would be suprised if some women didn't protest.

bfocusd

walshb wrote: »

You can damn well bet she knew. I agree with your point here.

As for your uncle using the ladies toilets. No, I don't think that should be allowed or condoned. I would be suprised if some women didn't protest.

He used the changing stand, never went into the toilets, it was the only place he could change them as some places the disabled toilet is the ladies also, I wouldn't promote it, but as there are no facilities in the gents, what else can you do? He honestly got more nasty looks going into the gents with two babies/toddlers than as a man with the kids entering the ladies. He changed them then left.. Even elderly women were saying its better than bringing them into the men's.

walshb

bfocusd wrote: »

He used the changing stand, never went into the toilets, it was the only place he could change them as some places the disabled toilet is the ladies also, I wouldn't promote it, but as there are no facilities in the gents, what else can you do? He honestly got more nasty looks going into the gents with two babies/toddlers than as a man with the kids entering the ladies. He changed them then left.. Even elderly women were saying its better than bringing them into the men's.

Not saying that some women would not have an issue. But for the sake of being on the level what if a man was using the children as some bait to enter the toilets? I mean, that has to be looked at. Any woman would be well within her rights to protest, and to question his actions. It's not the womens' fault or problem that the mens toliets may not have change facilities. That's his problem.

Not related to your uncle specifically: I wouldn't criticise any woman for having the view that: "How the hell do I know that this man isn't using his children to gain access to the ladies toilets."

If the changing facility is inside the ladies toilets then that is a problem. Anyway, these places should have a baby changing facility, not in the mens or the womens. A baby change facility to avoid any of these potential problems.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, the general point I was making was that I felt it not at all odd or illogical for society to be more alert and on their toes as regards males working with children as opposed to females working with children.

Sadly there's a big difference between being "alert" and being "paranoid". I'd argue society is more the later.

Taking your numbers on face value, I'd be interested to see a beer-mat calculation of the odds of being attacked by one of those paedophiles!

Interestingly, apparently, there's a 1 in 3000 chance of you being struck by lightning. Avoiding the use of golf clubs during a lightning storm would be being "alert" to this fact. Avoiding grey clouds altogether would be being paranoid about it.

Where am I going with this? Well avoiding sexual offenders would be being "alert", whereas, avoiding men altogether is simply paranoid.

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

Sadly there's a big difference between being "alert" and being "paranoid". I'd argue society is more the later.

Taking your numbers on face value, I'd be interested to see a beer-mat calculation of the odds of being attacked by one of those paedophiles!

Interestingly, apparently, there's a 1 in 3000 chance of you being struck by lightning. Avoiding the use of golf clubs during a lightning storm would be being "alert" to this fact. Avoiding grey clouds altogether would be being paranoid about it.

Where am I going with this? Well avoiding sexual offenders would be being "alert", whereas, avoiding men altogether is simply paranoid.

I know what you are saying. But, all I am saying is that when it comes down to males and females being looked at or assessed for child care roles etc, that females will be less scrutinised, and for reasons that I personally fully understand. I don't think anyone is saying that males should be completely avoided.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

I know what you are saying. But, all I am saying is that when it comes down to males and females being looked at or assessed for child care roles etc, that females will be less scrutinised, and for reasons that I personally fully understand. I don't think anyone is saying that males should be completely avoided.

I get that, but a society which has previously decided that this is wrong; a society that deems this unacceptable in all other aspects, now appears to make an exception when it comes to men. Which is appalling.

Scrutinising travellers more, simply because they are travellers is deemed unacceptable.
Scrutinising women more, simply because they are women is deemed unacceptable.
Scrutinising Roma more, simply because they are Roma gypsies is deemed unacceptable.
Scrutinising Jews more, simply because they are jewish is deemed unacceptable.
Scrutinising Nigerians more, simply because they are from Nigeria is deemed unacceptable.
But, scrutinising men more, simply because they are men is acceptable.

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

I get that, but a society which has previously decided that this is wrong; a society that deems this unacceptable in all other aspects, now appears to make an exception when it comes to men. Which is appalling.

But, scrutinising men more, simply because they are men is acceptable.

I don't see a problem with this scenario as regards sexual crimes against children. If women were the main offenders I would have zero issue with them being scrutinised more. If all things were equal then I would hope that men and women would be scrutinised equally. As it stands today it is males that are the ones committing the crimes to a far greater number. Surely it makes logical sense that they will then come in for more scrutiny?

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

I don't see a problem with this scenario as regards sexual crimes against children.... it makes logical sense that they will then come in for more scrutiny?

So in essence, are you saying you have no issue with discriminating against men when it comes to child care?

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

So in essence, are you saying you have no issue with discriminating against men when it comes to child care?

I don't see an issue with males being perceived and viewed and scrutinised that bit more when it comes to working with children. It's not ideal, and if males weren't the ones showing the far greater capacity to commit sex crimes against children then we wouldn't be here.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

I know well that a small minority of men are paedophiles. My issue is with their rate compared to women. That rate is damning. And for this reason I see no issue with folks being a lot more alert and on their toes when it comes to males being involved with their children as opposed to females.

Paedophiles don't have paedophile stickers on their foreheads, so nobody can really know. In relation to working with children: Best course of action here is to treat every person as a possible threat, male and female, and work from there. Now, bearing in mind that males are the ones committing the sexual crimes far more than women, then it's only logical that males will come in for more attention.

Yet were you to replace the words 'men' with 'blacks' and 'paedophiles' with 'criminals', you would rightly be identified as a racist - a bigot.

That is a lot of people when you line them up in a relatively small area. Now, of that 500 I reckon males would make up 9-10 times more numbers according to research.

It's funny how the bigotry and hysteria has a tendency to obfuscate the facts:

"A major difference between boy victims and girl victims is... boys are more likely to be abused by females than are girls" - Source

"The 2000 AAUW data indicate that 57.2 percent of all students report a male offender and 42.4 percent a female offender with the Cameron et al. study reporting nearly identical proportions as the 2000 AAUW data (57 percent male offenders vs. 43 percent female offenders)." - Source

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

I don't see an issue with males being perceived and viewed and scrutinised that bit more when it comes to working with children. It's not ideal, and if males weren't the ones showing the far greater capacity to commit sex crimes against children then we wouldn't be here.

I asked you a straight question walshb, I'd appreciate a straight answer.

...because it sounds an awful lot like you are condoning sexual discrimination.

And, as TC said, if "you to replace the words 'men' with 'blacks' and 'paedophiles' with 'criminals', you would rightly be identified as a racist - a bigot."

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

I asked you a straight question walshb, I'd appreciate a straight answer.

...because it sounds an awful lot like you are condoning sexual discrimination.
."

I have no issue. Not at this time in the world!

I would gave thought that my view on the whole airline "rule" would have made my position clear.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

I have no issue. Not at this time in the world!

I would gave thought that my view on the whole airline "rule" would have made my position clear.

I just want you to come out and admit that you are happy to support gender discrimination (if you do).

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

I just want you to come out and admit that you are happy to support gender discrimination (if you do).

Depending on each circumstance I make a decision. This one: Men being scrutinised more than women when taking up roles with children in the workplace. I have no problem there. You want to call that discrimination, that is ok. I have no problem with it.

Another example is women getting, or having gotten cheaper car insurance policies. Tough on us men, but again, I wouldn't slate an insurance company for their rationale behind what they are doing. So, I have no gripe there.

I can't think of any more at this time. If you do please post them and I will make a call.

Each situation and circumstance is different. But, if supporting one gender discrimination circumstance gets me labeled, fine by me.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

Depending on each circumstance I make a decision.

Would you support employment discrimination against travellers on the basis that they are more likely to be commit a criminal offence?

Or, would you support educational discrimination against travellers on the basis that they are more likely to act aggressively towards other children in the playground,they are more likely to be truant, they require greater resources which could (arguably) be better spent on settled children?

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

Would you support employment discrimination against travellers on the basis that they are more likely to be commit a criminal offence?

Or, would you support educational discrimination against travellers on the basis that they are more likely to act aggressively towards other children in the playground,they are more likely to be truant, they require greater resources which could (arguably) be better spent on settled children?

Your questions are not specific to gender.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

Your questions are not specific to gender.

So you won't answer the questions then? What if I phase them as "traveller males", then they'd be gender specific.

Is it only gender discrimination you deal with on a case-by-case basis?

Do you condon any other form of discrimination?
Why don't you apply the same logic to all other discrimination?

daddyorchips

I feel the same sometimes with my partners nieces and nephews I get on great with children always have and never had a problem with any of them but the other day I asked one of the older children to help me carry something from upstairs and his father who knows I always have a game of ball or play xbox with him always on our own gave me a look as if to say why do you want him to go upstairs which really hurt it affected me in such a way that I don't think I could play ball or even look at the kid anymore without a suspicion falling on me I should mention that I sometimes get asked to look after the kids on my own which from now on I will say no too.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

Another example is women getting, or having gotten cheaper car insurance policies. Tough on us men, but again, I wouldn't slate an insurance company for their rationale behind what they are doing. So, I have no gripe there.

By the same logic, discriminating against female job candidates of child-baring age would be fine as it is also discrimination, based upon statistic, for commercial reasons. Can you confirm that that you have no gripe there either, otherwise please explain what differentiates one from the other?

walshb

No gripe when it is shown that a certain group do not make it safe or rewarding or healthy, as opposed to a different group. I know, it may sound harsh, but we as humans do this. It is a part of us. And, maybe someday I will be in a group and maybe then I will be aggrieved.

Edit: I was in a group. The insurance policy group for male drivers.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

No gripe when it is shown that a certain group do not make it safe or rewarding or healthy, as opposed to a differnt group. I know, it may sound harsh, but we as humans do this. It is a part of us. And, maybe someday I will be in a group and maybe then I will be aggrieved.

So you have no problem with discriminating against women job candidates of child baring age. Grand so; my previous conclusion stands.

nucker

I do believe that some people are using the excuse of paedophilia to tarnish a person's reputation. Even if they are arrested and not even charged with anything people are painting men as paedophiles, which is stupid. It's like finding them guilty w/o a trial and even a judge and jury i.e. "they are the law, so therefore right all the time" scenario

After the Sarah Payne murder, even paediatricians were attacked because people thought that "paediatricians" meant paedophiles

iptba

Upsetting to read:

New Zealand Father Loses Family Over False Sex Abuse Charges
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/11/05/new-zealand-father-loses-family-over-false-sex-abuse-charges/

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Upsetting to read:

Well, apparently it may sound harsh, but we as humans do this. You can't please everyone, I'm told...

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, apparently it may sound harsh, but we as humans do this. You can't please everyone, I'm told...

Did you read the article? If you had then you'd realise how silly your little remark aimed at a few posers on this thread actually is. It was clearly a bs case from the start.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Did you read the article? If you had then you'd realise how silly your little remark aimed at a few posers on this thread actually is. It was clearly a bs case from the start.

I did read it and it was a BS case that spun out of control only because of the culture of hysteria that has developed around this issue, as defended by a few posers on this thread.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did read it and it was a BS case that spun out of control only because of the culture of hysteria that has developed around this issue, as defended by a few posers on this thread.

It did not spin out of control because of a culture of hysteria. It sounded like some kind of personal vendetta to be honest. Police not willing to take statements, ignoring facts and witness reports. It was a pure bullshít case, but it wasn't hysteria driven.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

It did not spin out of control because of a culture of hysteria. It sounded like some kind of personal vendetta to be honest. Police not willing to take statements, ignoring facts and witness reports. It was a pure bullshít case, but it wasn't hysteria driven.

Without the present culture of hysteria, such BS cases would simply not happen. It simply would not have been able to get to that level were it not for the culture that not only allows but promotes an abandonment of reason on such accusations.

Whether the motive was vendetta or well-meaning idiocy or something else, it would never have been able to occur without the environment that this hysteria has fostered - an environment that has been effectively supported by a number of apologists in this thread.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Without the present culture of hysteria, such BS cases would simply not happen. It simply would not have been able to get to that level were it not for the culture that not only allows but promotes an abandonment of reason on such accusations.

Whether the motive was vendetta or well-meaning idiocy or something else, it would never have been able to occur without the environment that this hysteria has fostered - an environment that has been effectively supported by a number of apologists in this thread.

That's complete rubbish. It happens every day with rape cases, assault cases etc and it's not because of hysteria.

The fact of the case in question is that the claim was dismissed and then 3 months later he was arrested and held for 20 months without evidence. This is nothing to do with hysteria.

Your extremest views are ludicrous and your attempt to drag down other people's opinions is nothing but petty.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

That's complete rubbish. It happens every day with rape cases, assault cases etc and it's not because of hysteria.

The fact of the case in question is that the claim was dismissed and then 3 months later he was arrested and held for 20 months without evidence. This is nothing to do with hysteria.

Your extremest views are ludicrous and your attempt to drag down other people's opinions is nothing but petty.

I see extremism only in your views.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Without the present culture of hysteria, such BS cases would simply not happen. It simply would not have been able to get to that level were it not for the culture that not only allows but promotes an abandonment of reason on such accusations.

Whether the motive was vendetta or well-meaning idiocy or something else, it would never have been able to occur without the environment that this hysteria has fostered - an environment that has been effectively supported by a number of apologists in this thread.

Exactly. The current hysteria in society on this topic, and the 'suspicion' that every man is a potential abuser, and any man accused simply 'must' be guilty ... is what led to this case.

There is no evidence that this group of Police and Prosecutors had any personal vendetta against this man outside the fact that they all were convinced he was guilty. This irrational conviction arose from the irrational hysteria we are talking about.

It reminds me of the hysteria in the UK at the time of the Guildford four and Birmingham six. People felt threatened and hence they were ready to believe that any Irish people that were accused of terrorism MUST be guilty ... irrespective of any rational assessment and the huge size of the Anglo-Irish population in the UK. This is what led to a dreadful miscarriage of justice.

This is what happened when this kind of irrational thinking and hysteria takes a grip of a society. And this is what happened in this case. But this case is only the extreme end of a long string. Many men are suffering deeply unjust prejudice here in Ireland elsewhere for exactly the same reasons.

iptba

smash wrote: »

The fact of the case in question is that the claim was dismissed and then 3 months later he was arrested and held for 20 months without evidence. This is nothing to do with hysteria.

If we move away from the word hysteria, probably the more accurate or interesting question to ask is whether what happened is the only or optimal way of doing things, or whether a better way would be possible. Are you saying you think they dealt with it in the only or best way available?

smash

Piliger wrote: »

I see extremism only in your views.

That's because your views are skewed. You think the world is out to get you and you believe if people aren't with you then their against you.

Piliger wrote: »

Exactly. The current hysteria in society on this topic, and the 'suspicion' that every man is a potential abuser, and any man accused simply 'must' be guilty ... is what led to this case.

Show me where you got that from?

Piliger wrote: »

There is no evidence that this group of Police and Prosecutors had any personal vendetta against this man outside the fact that they all were convinced he was guilty. This irrational conviction arose from the irrational hysteria we are talking about.

No, the irrational conviction arose from a report of a supposed incident and then the police ignored other witness reports.

iptba wrote: »

If we move away from the word hysteria, probably the more accurate or interesting question to ask is whether what happened is the only or optimal way of doing things, or whether a better way would be possible. Are you saying you think they dealt with it in the only or best way available?

I never said anything of the sort and I don't know how you could possible have come to that conclusion. I think it's a complete farce.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

That's because your views are skewed. You think the world is out to get you and you believe if people aren't with you then their against you.

Pot ... Kettle ... Black. :rolleyes:

smash

Piliger wrote: »

Pot ... Kettle ... Black. :rolleyes:

I notice how you have nothing to add regarding the rest of my post. You're clutching at strays by trying to dismiss it with that comment.

iptba

smash wrote: »

iptba wrote:

If we move away from the word hysteria, probably the more accurate or interesting question to ask is whether what happened is the only or optimal way of doing things, or whether a better way would be possible. Are you saying you think they dealt with it in the only or best way available?

I never said anything of the sort and I don't know how you could possible have come to that conclusion.

It wasn't clear to me what you thought in this case, so I gave you the opportunity to clarify.

smash wrote: »

I think it's a complete farce.

Why do you think "a complete farce" happened? i.e. I'm not challenging your description of it, but what do you think caused the professionals to act in this manner.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

I notice how you have nothing to add regarding the rest of my post. You're clutching at strays by trying to dismiss it with that comment.

Wrong. I simply chose t deal with one statement and respond in the way it deserves. I may or may not chose to respond to your other statements in due course. You don't get to chose.

smash

iptba wrote: »

Why do you think "a complete farce" happened? i.e. I'm not challenging your description of it, but what do you think caused the professionals to act in this manner.

Nobody is going to know what caused them to act like that. They did not do their job, they ignored witness accounts and held him without evidence. What they did would be illegal in most countries. But you can not blame it on hysteria. Especially when so many people said he did nothing inappropriate.

Pawwed Rig

Has anyone got more information/other sources about this case? Something is not right there so I am wondering if we have heard the full story. I have tried searches but without the mans name it is difficult.

I did find one source that said upto 8 people complained about him.

smash

The story here is a lot more clear: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/7903081/Loving-dads-year-of-torment

iptba

smash wrote: »

Nobody is going to know what caused them to act like that. They did not do their job, they ignored witness accounts and held him without evidence. What they did would be illegal in most countries. But you can not blame it on hysteria. Especially when so many people said he did nothing inappropriate.

Well, you haven't given any reason why it was done. Whether the word "hysteria" or not is used, it seems quite possible this happened because now police and social services (and the public in their own way) don't want to be seen to miss cases of child sexual abuse, so have gone to an extreme and so defendants aren't given the benefit of the doubt as much as in other cases, with lesser standards of evidence causing problems for them.

ETA: I've just read the article. It seems it may be the witnesses that may have talked among themselves.

Judge Behrens decided to discharge the father based on the inadequacy of the evidence that pointed to the girl named in the charges.

The judge said: "There is a distinct danger in this case that the Crown witnesses were somewhat carried away, perhaps, by what someone believed they saw, and possibly there was an infection that ran through the people there.

"And I do say that, because it is possibly unfair that the accused leaves the court in a sense, some might say, with having got away with it simply because the Crown could not prove who the girl was. I just make the comment that I do not think that is the case, that I think generally there is some doubt anyway about the other evidence, but I underline the fact that I do not make my decision on that view. I make my decision based on the inadequacy of the evidence that points to [the girl] as being the - what would normally be called - the complainant."

He said the allegation had been a nonsense. "It's unbelievable that gossip can have such power and these people did not investigate properly or stop to have a wee think."

The man, who has no previous convictions other than two traffic offences, says he doesn't want others to go through such a horrible experience. He believes there needs to be a more inquisitorial process initially, before police lay charges.

"It has such a big impact, not just on the accused but their families and everyone around them, and they need to take a balanced look."

He believes the adversarial system does not work in these types of cases.

"Once they lay charges the process goes into place and the steamroller does not stop, and there is nobody to take a balanced, logical view and for common sense."

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

That's complete rubbish. It happens every day with rape cases, assault cases etc and it's not because of hysteria.

Not true, I'm afraid. Unless you can show us some cases where the alleged victim of a rape or assault has testified that no such crime took place, but the police continued to pursue it.

The fact of the case in question is that the claim was dismissed and then 3 months later he was arrested and held for 20 months without evidence. This is nothing to do with hysteria.

Again that's not entirely true though. Unless there was a personal vendetta at play, some form of motivation would have been required for the police to so vehemently overreact.

It has been demonstrated in this thread (through both personal accounts and documented incidences) that there now increasingly exists a culture that can be described as hysterical with regards to the perception of men around children. Cases, such as the NZ one, may be on the extreme edge of this, but without any other motivation, one must conclude that a significant, if not primary, influence that allows such cases to occur must be this emergent culture.

Your extremest views are ludicrous and your attempt to drag down other people's opinions is nothing but petty.

How are my views extremist? I have stated that this hysteria unfortunately exists, it is increasingly causing men to step away from any involvement with children, it is harmful to both the rights of men and the development of children and needs to be dealt with.

If by extremist you mean that I object to at least some of the arguments given by both you and bwalsh, then you're making a pretty cheap shot, designed to discredit the poster and not the post (I'd report it, but I doubt anything would be done about it).

bwalsh, in particular, has at this stage fully admitted that he believes that gender based discrimination is justified. Your approach has been more mercurial, but nonetheless you have repeatedly attempted to dismiss the existence of this hysteria and have on a number of times gone to suggest that such paranoia is a good thing as it keeps parents "on their toes" (reflecting a 'softer' version of bwalsh's position).

What your actual position is, is a bit confused from what I can make out. On one side you claim to support an improvement in the current culture of hysteria and greater involvement by men in children's lives. On the other side you largely dismiss the existence of this hysteria in the first place and seem to accept this fear as a necessary evil.

Whether this is because you've not put forward your position in a manner that can be understood by me and others, or because you're actively attempting to obfuscate it or simply have a conflicted position on this issue I don't know. But objecting to some of the things you've said does not make me an 'extremist' and attempting to label me as such as frankly a rather blatant ad hominem.

smash

iptba wrote: »

Well, you haven't given any reason why it was done.

Because I don't know the case, as does anyone else who's commenting.

iptba wrote: »

Whether the word "hysteria" or not is used, it seems quite possible this happened because now police and social services (and the public in their own way) don't want to be seen to miss cases of child sexual abuse, so have gone to an extreme and so defendants aren't given the benefit of the doubt as much as in other cases, with lesser standards of evidence causing problems for them.

Child protection has to be taken seriously. If an allegation is made then it must be acted upon, which it was. The reason for them going back 3 months later is beyond me unless they spent that time interviewing the other witnesses who claimed he was being inappropriate.

iptba wrote: »

ETA: I've just read the article. It seems it may be the witnesses that may have talked among themselves.

They should have got their story straight then. A number of people made the reports, yet they had conflicting stories. It doesn't sound like hysteria, but it certainly sounds like they wanted this guy arrested. I don't think the facts of the case will ever be made public so there is no point in any kind of speculation really, no matter what side of the fence you're on.

iptba

smash wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Whether the word "hysteria" or not is used, it seems quite possible this happened because now police and social services (and the public in their own way) don't want to be seen to miss cases of child sexual abuse, so have gone to an extreme and so defendants aren't given the benefit of the doubt as much as in other cases, with lesser standards of evidence causing problems for them.

Child protection has to be taken seriously. If an allegation is made then it must be acted upon, which it was. The reason for them going back 3 months later is beyond me unless they spent that time interviewing the other witnesses who claimed he was being inappropriate.


They should have got their story straight then. A number of people made the reports, yet they had conflicting stories. It doesn't sound like hysteria, but it certainly sounds like they wanted this guy arrested. I don't think the facts of the case will ever be made public so there is no point in any kind of speculation really, no matter what side of the fence you're on.

I think the issue of false reports and the subsequent laying of serious allegations also needs to be taken seriously, just as false calls of rape (mentioned by you earlier: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81607947&postcount=385) should be taken seriously (in rape cases, there should be serious penalties rather than raps on the knuckle in cases where a clearly false allegation has been made).

I remember in the UK, social workers lost their jobs for missing cases of child abuse. How many lose their jobs for involving themselves in false claims? I think the system may be set up so professionals main concern is to not miss any cases, but if this means they "overdiagnose", that is not something that is seen as a big problem to their careers.