Thursday 26 April 2007

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.

Wednesday 18 April 2007

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.

Friday 13 April 2007

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.