Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Would you put your child in danger

  1. #21
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Let's not. Like it or not, the NSPCC report, and similar reports, provide the best information we have about child abuse in this country.
    No it doesn't - their statistics only apply to England and Wales.

    Quote Originally Posted by Astro View Post
    Unfortunately jobs involving children are a magnet to the wrong sorts, that's why we need the Child Protection Register.
    We dont need scaremongering, the Child Protection "system" in place in this country is awful, especially with the ridiculous new "guilty until proven innocent but then still guilty" vetting checks - heres some background


    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    In all fairness, I think this had been a policy of most international airlines for a long time and that while not exactly a secret - it was not supposed to become widespread public knowledge.

    I don't think it makes much difference to children.
    Of course it does. Over time it creates a paranoid society where men arent trusted with children. You'll know we've reached it when newspapers constantly find stories on paedophilia no matter how silly - like the Daily Record one from last year where a man "groomed a girl for sex" - she was 15 when they met and 21 when they had sex! Now thats sensationalism. And watch out if you ever went out with a school friend...then you were clearly "grooming" and should be shot, or strung up, or both

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Come on now MartinHarper, before you quote, look at what you are quoting.

    You have given a link to a report, which actually would not stand up in a simple Uni exam.

    2,869 - 18 to 24 year olds were "sampled" of which 69% responded.

    So the whole "UK" NSPCC "findings" [in the report you quote, with percentages] are based upon 1,079 people.

    They even admit in the report...

    "We know very little about the extent of child maltreatment in the UK. Official data
    records only what is known to the authorities, and many offences against children are
    known to go unreported. In order to plan services properly, we need to know more
    about the unreported cases"

    They also go on to admit in the report findings:
    "In interpreting the results, it is important to consider the size of the
    national population to which these results are relevant. The child population of the UK
    is approximately 12 million (Office for National Statistics 1997), and even 1% of this
    represents 120,000 children and young people."

    So even though as you quote... "Very few children (less than 1%) experienced abuse by professionals in a position of trust"

    Let's get real and realise that even in 1997, very few in the UK (or maybe just England and Wales - If we look at DS's comments about NSPCC dealing with England and Wales only) could mean close to 120,000.

    So looking deeper at it... I guess there is a worry there, even if you go by NSPCC reports (based on a 1,079 sample).

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    North Hertfordshir
    Posts
    751
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    It is very simplistic to judge risk purely on the factors that are easy to measure. Being overly protective is often worse in the long run.

    Sean

  4. #24
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Rep on the way

    Quote Originally Posted by Astro View Post
    I think, in the case of children being abused by Catholic teachers there is a higher risk than from non catholic teacher if the teachers are priests or nuns.

    This is due to the fact that they cannot marry.

    Consequently homosexuals tended to apply in the past for this reason. not exacly to abuse children but so they would be with fellow gays in the priesthood.

    The Nun's seemed to go in for violent abuse, more than sexual abuse.

    These days when being gay is seen as normal, men don't need to join the priesthood.

    This is just my theory, I'm not saying I'm right.

    Stop reading the Sun

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Waltham Abbey
    Posts
    5,534
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Stop reading the Sun
    Yeah, Astro...stop reading The Sun, you're nicking all of Stewart38's ideas.

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Waltham Abbey
    Posts
    5,534
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by Astro View Post
    Unfortunately jobs involving children are a magnet to the wrong sorts, that's why we need the Child Protection Register. It's a start, but some kiddie fidlers are pillars of the establishment and not suspected.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    We dont need scaremongering, the Child Protection "system" in place in this country is awful, especially with the ridiculous new "guilty until proven innocent but then still guilty" vetting checks - heres some background
    Actually, I'm with Astro on this one. I saw a program a few months back about paedophiles who are on the run from the police. A journalist managed to track about 4 of the most notorious British Paedo's down and some were working with or around children. One had a mobile disco and worked as a childrens entertainer for kids Birthday parties.

    The purpose of this documentary was to point out how useless the police are at catching known paedophiles, when a jouralist managed to find 4 of the evil b@stards in a matter of weeks, but what I found disturbing was that the ones on the run all tended to go for work that involved them being around kids.

    They also interviewed a few convicted anonymous paedophiles who all agreed that the best way to abuse children is to get a job that gives you access to them all the time and it's something they always try and do (when they are not in prison).

    Anyway...I dunno what the answer is. I mean, if you employ a childrens entertainer out of the yellow pages, how would you know if they were on the run from the police for raping a 2 year old girl?

    I don't think Astro's comments are scaremongering.
    Last edited by Double Trouble; 28th-July-2008 at 12:34 PM.

  7. #27
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Trouble View Post
    Yeah, Astro...stop reading The Sun, you're nicking all of Stewart38's ideas.
    Mine come from the Daily Mail, headline tomorrow will be 'Is the pope a secret Vulcan' ??

    Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests' | Mail Online

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Martin, to quote your own advice, before you post, look at what you are posting. It would appear that your maths is almost as bad as your argument! 69% of 2,869 is not 1,079. It's 1,979. I suppose I could give you the benefit of the doubt and say that it was a typo, but you have quoted the figure twice, so at the very least it shows poor attention to detail, which, I have to say, is consistent with the rest of your argument.

    Let's be a little clearer about the figures you are quoting. Yes, the report states that, "Very few children (less than 1%) experienced abuse by professionals in a position of trust". However, what you have failed to mention is the preceding text, which further classifies this figure into a smaller subset of children. This figure is actually 1% of "children who experienced sexual abuse outside of the family", which is far removed from the figure of 1% of all abused children that you cited. To quote the full text -

    For the children who experienced sexual abuse outside of the family, the most common perpetrator was a boyfriend or girlfriend.
    70% of penetrative/oral acts of sexual abuse outside of the family were by a boyfriend/girlfriend
    17% were perpetrated by 'someone I recently met'
    10% were perpetrated by a fellow student/pupil
    6% were perpetrated by a friend of their parents
    6% were perpetrated by a friend of their brother/sister.

    Very few children (less than 1%) experienced abuse by professionals in a position of trust, for example a teacher, religious leader or care/social worker.

    In fact, looking at this report and others available on the Internet, boyfriends / girlfriends and siblings are far more likely to commit acts of sexual abuse than Catholic priests or other Catholics in a position of trust. So, based on your suggestion that we remove our children from high risk groups, should we just keep them in a medically induced coma and lock them in a cupboard until they are 18!?

    Unfortunately, none of the quoted references provide strong enough evidence to create a solid argument. The NSPCC figures are, at best, fuzzy, but the articles you have quoted are no better. Nobody is denying that these crimes against children carried out by members of the church are heinous beyond belief and that the cover up by the Catholic church is disgusting, but it is incredibly unfair to tar every member of the Catholic community in a position of trust with the same brush.

    The biggest issue I have with your original email and follow up comments is that all of your arguments are presented in isolation. At no point have you compared any of your 'figures' with other groups, so they show a clear case of bias against the Catholic community. I'm sure that, if there were statistics available, you would find a large number of allegations of abuse against non-Catholics in a position of trust, so do we suddenly insist that all our children are educated in Catholic schools because they now seem safer!? Without having a proper control group and comparative figures from various cross sections, this discussion is worthless.

  9. #29
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Trouble View Post
    Actually, I'm with Astro on this one.
    So am I

    The purpose of this documentary was to point out how useless the police are at catching known paedophiles, when a jouralist managed to find 4 of the evil b@stards in a matter of weeks, but what I found disturbing was that the ones on the run all tended to go for work that involved them being around kids.
    Indeed. My point was that current extensions to data that is checked to see if you are allowed to work with children or not include simple and unproven accusations. In other words more and more data will restrict more and more people in the hope that some of them were, in actual fact, dodgy. And at the end of the day, the same percentage of paedophiles are still out there not getting caught because they actively try not to be caught and the police cant find them - well theres a surprise.

    I don't think Astro's comments are scaremongering.
    They are not, I wasnt referring to Astros comments. The media in general IS scaremongering (not always on purpose of course, they do report made up "facts" from people all the time ) and the addition of "soft data" in the child protection register is pushed through purely by scaremongering. When people have any sort of "mark" against their record they tend to go through official channels to try and sort this, REALLY dodgy people are not interested in being "official" and will slip under the radar. What is discussed little is that the people "under the radar" are, as you say, the ones you need to worry about

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Waltham Abbey
    Posts
    5,534
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    What is discussed little is that the people "under the radar" are, as you say, the ones you need to worry about
    Yep, and it's relatively easy to work with kids, under that radar, even if you are a convicted paedophile.

    I can't see a way of ever policing that. Most of the parties my kids go to have a children's entertainer. You can't go up to the parents and say "Have you vetted that clown? How do I know he isn't going to interfere with my child?". Although I do always find out what agency he comes from, etc.

    Obsessed? Moi?

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by Filthy Monkey View Post
    The biggest issue I have with your original email and follow up comments is that all of your arguments are presented in isolation. At no point have you compared any of your 'figures' with other groups.
    Very true. I was looking at one thing in isolation.

    The beauty of a forum is that you and others, then take this and put it in context.

    Martin

  12. #32
    Commercial Operator StokeBloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    2,366
    Rep Power
    10

    Cool Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin View Post
    Very true. I was looking at one thing in isolation.

    The beauty of a forum is that you and others, then take this and put it in context.

    Martin
    Don't agree with him man! Fight! Fight! Fight! Paedos and the Pope... that was hotting up into a fantastic forum spectacular

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    My thanks to Filthy Monkey for explaining the statistics to the other Martin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Broken Rites
    In Australia, this Catholic cover-up began to break down after Broken Rites began operating in 1993. Broken Rites established, and publicised, a telephone hotline for survivors, and we began receiving calls from thousands of people (mostly Catholics), alerting us to cases of church sex-abuse that had had hitherto been covered up.
    Thanks for the link. This is slightly different to what you wrote.
    Also, thanks for showing me that the NSPCC report doesn't rule out the possibility of thousands of Catholic abuse cases in the UK. The more disturbing figure, for me, is the 16% of adults who were sexually abused as children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    No it doesn't - their statistics only apply to England and Wales.
    Depends on the statistic. For the research that gives rise to the figures I quoted:
    http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/publi...y_wdf48006.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by NSPCC
    Sampling was used in the postcode address file, and the sample was drawn from all parts of the UK
    Other statistics on the NSPCC website apply to specific parts of the UK.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Trouble View Post
    You can't go up to the parents and say "Have you vetted that clown? How do I know he isn't going to interfere with my child?".
    Statistically, perhaps you should be thinking "Have you been vetted? How do I know you aren't going to interfere with my child?". The clown, being a total stranger, is a lower risk. The biggest risk is the other children present, followed by the parents and other associated adults.

  14. #34
    The Forum Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    10,672
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Nope. Not my child (if I had one). But I can think of a few belonging to other people I'd be happy to

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South
    Posts
    5,424
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Trouble View Post
    You can't go up to the parents and say "Have you vetted that clown? How do I know he isn't going to interfere with my child?". Although I do always find out what agency he comes from, etc.
    Strangely I don't see that as a problem and would be happy to ask if they have a valid CRB check certificate.

    If I were a children's entertainer, I would get a CRB certificate and use it to market myself.

    I have been CRB'd several times and it's pretty painless if you have nothing to hide.

  16. #36
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    For the research that gives rise to the figures I quoted:
    http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/publi...y_wdf48006.pdf
    Am I missing something, because I see hardly any figures in the executive summary, and certainly little justification thereof.

    To be honest, I found that pdf to be appallingly vague about actual details. I think the figures are only backed up in the full report, but that seems only available to purchase, which is more than a little aggravating.

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by StokeBloke View Post
    Don't agree with him man! Fight! Fight! Fight! Paedos and the Pope... that was hotting up into a fantastic forum spectacular
    I thought I was only agreeing that : "I was looking at one thing in isolation" initially

    and then went onto explain the onus is upon others to expand the debate with comparisons and comment.

    "The beauty of a forum is that you and others, then take this and put it in context. "


    If I had put over all points and done all the reaserch up front, I would have completed the whole thread all by myself and not left the door open for others to join in
    Now what would be the fun in that!

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by Gav View Post
    Strangely I don't see that as a problem and would be happy to ask if they have a valid CRB check certificate.

    If I were a children's entertainer, I would get a CRB certificate and use it to market myself.

    I have been CRB'd several times and it's pretty painless if you have nothing to hide.
    I would think it logical to ask up front.

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London & environs'
    Posts
    3,938
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    I posted something similar on the Madeline thread.

    Public places where paedophiles hang out -

    Near schools - especially at opening/closing time

    Swimming pools. Lidos

    toy shops

    children's clothes shops

    parks

    playgrounds - in London lone adults (male or female) are not allowed in children's playgrounds unless accompanied by children.

    libraries

    cinemas

    fun fairs

    beaches

  20. #40
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Would you put your child in danger

    Quote Originally Posted by Astro View Post
    Public places where paedophiles hang out -
    Wow, they're all places where children gather. Who would'a thunk it

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Put your Christmas giggles here!
    By Lory in forum Fun and Games
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 24th-December-2004, 04:49 PM
  2. Put your best (or worst) Christmas site here
    By philsmove in forum Fun and Games
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 7th-December-2004, 10:21 AM
  3. When we say "Im not good enough for you" (dance)
    By stewart38 in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 30th-July-2004, 12:43 PM
  4. Best put downs (dancing and others)
    By stewart38 in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 6th-May-2004, 06:16 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •