I spoke too soon

Looks like the "Corporate Sex Offenders" article, described below, wasn't about me after all. Or at least, someone somewhere is very confused.

Quite a bit of stuff has been added recently, but unfortunately seems to be about someone else. Apparently I'm not the only LeX online - a quick Google shows hordes of them!

Oh well ... I suppose my day will come eventually. Meanwhile, I wonder who the other one is?

Fame at last!

It's funny how search engines often throw up things that, though unrelated to what one is looking for, are nonetheless interesting.

It was one such instance that led me to something called "Corporate Sex Offenders". Not, as one might expect from the name, anything to do with companies that are involved in crime, but basically any company or web site that doesn't reject anything that could be paedophilie-relevant.

Thus, there are bookshops (because there are books about it), social networking sites (because some users might be pedosexual), and of course Blogger, because blogs like this one are here. The fact that there is no proof that any offences have taken place seems not to matter.

Anyway, there's a page about me! And, perhaps surprisingly considering who's responsible for the site, fairly accurate, though they do limit my love for boys to ones they describe as little. Maybe they think, as my grandmother did, that all children are "little", even when they're six feet tall and built like rugby players. I love all boys, big or little. Size, is, of course, irrelevant (unless you're hanging wallpaper).

So, I'd like to say hi to Mr Eide and his friends, and play this one specially for you: I lay my Life down at Your Feet.

What is the world coming to?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6962198.stm

An eleven year old boy was shot as he played football in a car park. It's thought his killer could be as young as 13.

What is going on here? What could possibly be going through the mind of someone who cold-bloodedly murders an annocent child like this? What on earth could have induced him to do it? This is a tragedy.

I weep for this boy and his family and friends, and hope and pray that the culprit is found soon, not only so that the family can find closure, but that he can receive the help he so obviously needs.

Some parents :(

Something I witnessed in the street this afternoon:

A little girl, maybe three or four years old, running a short distance in front of her mother. Nothing wrong with that, it was a pedestrianised area, so the only danger was from people not looking where they were going.

However ... the mother was calling to the child "Shake your a*se! Go on! Shake it!" and wolf-whistling.

What on earth was she thinking of? Possibly the child was too young to understand what the words meant, but if she is now she won't be soon. Certainly she won't understand the possible consequences of such an action.

I suppose the mother thought it was "cute" for her daughter to waggle her backside in public, though I can't for the life of me think why. What will she do when some dirty old man decides it is more than "cute" and takes the girl up on her unspoken and unknowing offer?

I worry about what her home life is like. Do "ar*e-shaking" parties go on? At whom are they shaken? In any case, it should be many years before the child goes to any.

She may not realise it, but this woman is in danger of setting her daughter up to become a victim.

It made my blood curdle.

It's been a while

... since I posted, but sometimes life needs attending to. Anyway, time now permits, so more updates to follow.

Please pray for Madeleine

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6623127.stm

It's now a week since Madeleine McCann disappeared from her apartment in Portugal. So far, there has been no clue as to where she is or who was responsible.

While questions have been raised regarding the efficiency of the Portuguese police and whether she should have been left on her own, even for a short while, these can be answered later. What matters now is her safety and well-being.

I hope you will all join me in praying for her and her parents, and that she will soon be found safe and well and re-united with her family.

Child abusers get away with it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6574907.stm

A mother who goaded her two toddlers to fight each other on video camera has received a 12-month suspended sentence, along with her mother and two sisters.

What is going on here? These women forced the children, aged two and three, to attack each other and shouted and swore at them when they resisted. Not only that, but they filmed it for later enjoyment!! I can't imagine what sort of mental state generated this desire. The women obviously have something wrong with them.

Having pleaded guilty in court - not that they could easily deny it, given the evidence - what sentence was handed down? A year. Suspended. Suspended. That means that if they don't re-offend in the next year or so, they won't go inside. Oh, and 100 hours community service. That means the next few weeks painting fences or municipal gardening. Big Effing Deal.

What it really means is that the court thinks that if you abuse your kids you should get away with it. Why was there no requirement for psychological reports? Therapy? Offending behaviour classes? Why is there no register for these people - I use the word advisedly - to be put on?

The judge said they are no risk to the public. Sure there isn't. Unless the members of the public are under five.

The women are banned from working with children. Unless they want to become teachers or babysitters, this is hardly going to make a difference to them. They are not, however, banned from having any more children of their own; when they do, there can be no doubt that they will abuse them as well.

I weep for the women's past and future victims.

Virginia Tech - a sad day

The killing of 32 people on Monday, by student Cho Seung-hui, who then killed himself, is a tragedy.

Of course, all murders are tragedies, but cases such as this are more so, because it was so sudden and the victims had no opportunity to find out what was happening or why.

We shall probably never know just what drove this young man to act the way he did, though in hindsight warning signs will probably turn out to be all too obvious. Just as with the shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado - eight years ago this week - after the event it became obvious that things were going wrong for the killers long before they did the deed, it seems that Mr Cho was showing signs of disturbance that could have been reacted to, but tragically were not.

In all such incidents, after the event there are always lessons to be learnt. Sadly, it seems they never are.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their loved ones.

Some people have a problem ...

With definitions, language, and the difference between fantasy and reality.

For example:

I made clear my views on the following:-

a) Sex with children: Bad - don't do it.

Why? Not only because it is impossible to be sure the child is doing it completely of his/her own free will, rather than feeling under some obligation, but because the risk of harm - both physical, from the act itself - and emotional/psychological, from the emotions involved at the time and the reactions of others - is too high. And any non-zero risk is too high. (And if you do, you can get put away.)

b) Child Porn: Bad - don't do it.

Why? Because, leaving aside the proportion that is obviously film of child abuse, even if the kids look as though they are enjoying it, how do we know what conditions it's made under? They might like the activity itself, but are they really doing it just because they want to? Or are they doing it because it's the only way they can get food and shelter, or because they are scared of what might happen if they say no? If you enjoy looking at pictures of people who are in situations they cannot control, doing things they have no choice about, what does that say about you? (And if you do, you can get put away.)

c) Taking photos of kids in public places: Bad - don't do it.

Why? Because at the very least, taking someone's picture without asking them is rude. And if you intend to take them to drool over, that reduces a complete stranger, who you have already considered unworthy of even asking permission, to the level of a sex object. This shows a lack of respect. Do you disrespect children that much?

d) Taking photos of kids and posting them to the internet: Bad - don't do it.

Why? Because this is the same as above, but multiplied manyfold. It's bad enough that you think someone worthy only of being used as your own room decoration, but when this picture - remember, taken without permission or maybe even knowledge - is posted in public, for other people to drool over, this doesn't show a lack of respect, it shows a complete absence of it, along with a total disregard for the person's feelings.

In another blog, some people, when given my opinions above, complained I "hadn't got it", "didn't understand" and such, along with abuse and a fair smattering of four-letter words (always a sign they can't think of anything else to say), and went so far as to have my blog removed. The curious thing is, it wasn't a pro-child-sex "I do what I want because they like it really" militant paedophile blog, where one might expect such a reaction, it was an anti-child-abuse kid-sex-is-wrong blog.

I respectfully propose that it's they who haven't "got it", and certainly don't seem to understand that when I say "don't have sex with kids", I actually do mean "don't have sex with kids". Children are much too beautiful and valuable to risk harming them.