Monday, September 15, 2008

Won't somebody think of the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren?

Note: I am not the Devil!

You know, if you came to Britain from a different planet, you'd imagine that pederasty was pretty much the national sport. There are daily headlines banging on about protecting the children, and it seems that no excess, no fascist awfulness, no amount of egregious ludicrosity* is beyond the pale when it comes to protecting our children. I've already blogged elsewhere about the insane levels of CRB checks that are planned, and in fact, some of the things I worried about then have already come to pass.

And today, we have yet another initiative to protect the children:

Local authorities around the country are setting up databases to hold records of accusations made about anyone from teachers and doctors to Scout leaders, priests and private tutors.

They are employing staff just to look into the claims - which can be made anonymously - who are required to contact police, social services or the adult's employer and then keep track of the case.

Details of the allegation will be kept on the accused's personnel file until they retire so they can be seen by potential employers, and in a reversal of the basic tenet of English law they will only be deemed innocent if they can prove it.

Now, this is, I suspect, just a rehash of something that already had me reaching for the piano wire, but as I feared at the time, it is spreading like wildfire.

OK, so we've established that protecting the children is a big business (albeit a worthy one.) So, how many children are we protecting? Well, this article was interesting:

The anti-child abuse police organisation said 297 arrests have been made in the last year, three times the number in the organisation's first year. Ceop was set up as a national collaboration between forces in 2006, in a bid to better tackle the complex networks operated by paedophiles online.

Almost one million images of child abuse were processed by Ceop in its second year. Such intelligence gathering led directly to the identification of 18 young victims of abuse.

Over the last 12 months, 131 childen were safeguarded and ten of the UK's highest risk offenders were located via Ceop's "most wanted" website and awareness campaign.

So, they have a dedicated team that does nothing but rope in paedophiles, they've tripled their arrest rate to 300 in 2007. Now, to put that in context, they arrested over 1.4 MILLION people in 2006 for "recordable crimes" and I've no reason to think the number will be lower for 2007. So that is 0.02% of all the arrests in the UK, were arrests for pederasty. And the number of children protected? 131? Out of nearly 12 million? That is about 0.001% of the children out there.

I don't want to encourage people to make pederasty into a lifestyle choice, but aren't reacting entirely disproportionately to this non-existent crisis? SWAT teams and destruction of our civil liberties and historical rights for 0.02% of all crimes? Crimes that affect 0.001% of all children?

Is that really justified or could this be just another great salami-slicing technique from our political overlords?

Update: I haven't even discussed the increased proportion of false arrests that take place under these schemes. More people are arrested ("something is being done") but fewer people are being charged, prosecuted and convicted. Nothing to worry about though, because they're protecting the children

*I might have made this word up.


Panopticon Britain said...

Pederasty is probably better for them than fascism.

These cunts can shove this bullshit idea in their totalitarian arse(depending on Health and safety form 385B1 "Permission to insert large amounts of logic and truth into anus" being completed).

Anonymous said...

I have an excellent book on the Spanish Inquisition, which used the same techniques.

You could be arrested because someone accused you of something. You weren't told who accused you, or indeed what you were accused of or what penalty you might be facing.

They could then hold you as long as they liked until you admitted to something. If the charges against you were unfounded, it didn't matter. The charges remained and you were not released until you'd confessed to something. The church could never be seen to have arrested someone innocent so once arrested, you were guilty by default.

On release, you'd have the permanent stigma of having been arrested and convicted. Forever.

We're nearly back there.

Thatcher's Child said...

The very real danger of all this is that it terminates any adult child relationship which is not part of a nuclear family or based on professional needs.

The problems the scouts and guides have with recruiting people is already too much - opening yourself up to having to fight off baseless accusations is going to close down these and similar youth organisations - for the sake of almost literally a handful of kids!

Anonymous said...

The "131 children" won't actually be really children ; it's probably less than a dozen or so.

They reach these numbers by assuming that those who view pictures of abuse will physically abuse children and the children are "saved" by being put in care.

This is rather like saving children from eating Broccoli by drowning them.

Patrick said...

I have to agree with V on this... I have even heard mothers (intelligent ones) admit to having concern about leaving their child with any male outsider (non family)... They even admit that they are over-reacting as a consequence of the negative publicity surrounding pederasty...

The irony is, that from all the serious research done that pederasty nearly always happens within the family or at the very least sanctioned by the family...

You just have to wonder how far they will go with these ideas... pretty scary for a guy who finds himself mixed up between the state and some henious accusation...

the doctor said...

If it is anonymised then I can think of a few politicians who would benefit from inclusion .

Anonymous said...

No problem. We just need to anonymously claim that the staff looking into these claims are actually abusing children. Then, they will not be able to do their jobs, as they will be being investigated by other staff, who we can anonymously claim are abusing children. Then, THEY will not be able to do their jobs, as they will be being investigated by even more staff, who we can anonymously claim are abusing children, etc, etc, until such time as every single person who could possibly be an investigator has this unproven and unprovable allegation on their file.

Guthrum said...

more anti male legistlation ! more ghettos in the legal system.

Anonymous said...

The people running this scheme will effectively be immune to claims. What a brilliant system to maliciously fuck up someone's life. Make an anonymous claim when the victim is, say, twenty years old. The slur stays there for forty, fifty years. Every employer that person has will be told.

This is fucking appalling. This is a de facto fascist state being set up here, whether those doing it are consciously fascist or not. Even ten years ago I would have laughed at someone who suggested that. Not any more.

Timothy Wallace said...

Why is it only men? Everyone forgotten Mira Hindley? Maxine Carr, perhaps?

Not to encourage the persecution of innocent strangers, just felt that a reminder was neede that its not just men who can be nasty to children, and so perhaps this mindless whitch-hunting could stop.

Katabasis said...

"I have to agree with V on this... I have even heard mothers (intelligent ones) admit to having concern about leaving their child with any male outsider (non family)... They even admit that they are over-reacting as a consequence of the negative publicity surrounding pederasty..."

Indeed! How long before it is a crime for female family member to go out in public without a male family member?.....Oh wait...

Anonymous said...

Radio 1 had this on the news today, but I'm pretty sure they said "convicted sex offenders."

BBC: "Under the measures, police will be able to tell families if someone with access to a child has convictions or has been previously suspected of abuse."

Nice of Radio 1 to give the impression that never will an innocent person be caught by this law, nope, never.

Anonymous said...

Look, this phrase "Won't somebody think of the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren?" is getting fucking tedious now. You "libertarians" have done it to death, just like your climate change "scepticism" which you talk about 10 times as often as any green, & your general hysteria.

Fucking change the record, if you can't find new phrases & ideas then don't bother talking at all.

Snowolf said...

'Why is it only men? Everyone forgotten Mira Hindley? Maxine Carr, perhaps?'

Hindley, certainly. Maxine Carr? Certainly not, she wasn't involved in the abduction of the two girls, she was a simple minded young lady who was persuaded to pervert the course of justice by a credible individual.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

@caitlin: won't somebody think of the mooooooooooooooooooooooooonbats?

Timothy Wallace said...

Snowolf: My apologies to Ms. Carr.

Caitlin: What phrase would you suggest? Paedophile hysteria is clearly still rife, despite DK's best efforts, and so counter-arguments are as relevant as ever if innocent men are to be spared suspicion and children are to be able to see what a grown-up man looks like.

Anonymous said...

How many commenters here who mock child protection measures are actually parents of young children? Precious few I suspect.

I agree with much of the original post. But the reason for the "you are all guilty" rubbish, especially aimed at men, is a result of our "leaders" failing to get to grips with serious child abuse. (Calling smacking "child abuse" devalues the crime of abduction, rape and murder of a 4 year old).

There are claims that most abuse occurs in the family. But it depends what you mean by "family". Most such abuse is perpetrated in broken families by new boy/girl friends, "uncles" etc. Or by strangers. Abuse by the natural parents living together with the child is quite rare.

The remedy is to support and encourage first marriages, so children's true parents are their carers. But of course that is old fashioned and no one wants to hear it.

Patrick said...


Can I point you to some serious research which indeed confirms pederasty to be generally within the family.. I dont doubt they occur within broken ones also..

But this is where we begin to recognise the unwarranted attention on single men as abusers.. One could be forgiven for thinkng of them as scape goats.. Hmmn, theres a thought..

Obnoxio The Clown said...

How many commenters here who mock child protection measures are actually parents of young children? Precious few I suspect.

I'm one. I don't think that there is sufficient serious child abuse going on that it merits:

1. Anonymous allegations being held against you for the rest of your life, allegations where the presumption of innocence is removed;

2. CRB checks on 20% (or more) of the population;

3. Single adults in parks being questioned about their paedophilia;

4. Granny photographers being harassed by council jobsworths;

5. Media hysteria;

6. Etc.

But I agree with the notion that smacking your kids is child abuse and devalues genuine abuse. It's a statist intervention in the normal disciplinary procedures of the home.

Just re-read point 1, and think about how your kids can blackmail you or ruin your life, just for the hell of it. We're all going to have to kowtow to Kevin, because if you don't buy him that Wii / iPhone / bling, he's going to shop you to the council. You'll never get a job again.

This country is SO fucked.

Tomrat said...

The worst part about this, and every time I think about it makes me angry enough to give me heartburn, is that whilst the thought police are out there searching for new example of paedophilia, they are ignoring existing individuals who have form for it, not to mention turning a blind eye to other forms of child abuse which are very real and very present dangers due to a lack of oversight, misplaced resources in the social services, and media grandstanding of the wrong problems.

I can think of several children who cannot go home until late at night for fear of interupting a drug deal and receiving a severe beating, I have heard of others who have babysat for family friends and have been assaulted by those same friends, only to have their story rejected by their families, and I have seen neglect that gives a disconnect between parent and child where the former is living in relative poverty whilst the latter lives in absolute; kids being forced to fend for themselves with no clean clothes, no money and no food in a permanent state of pseudo rejection by those that are supposed to love them.

And yet the state continues to ignore this, principally exposing it would lead to a loss of their voter base.

Unknown said...

How many commenters here who mock child protection measures are actually parents of young children? Precious few I suspect.

I have 3 young children and I think it's fucking totalitarian.

My wife is a Beaver Leader (no sniggering please - that's the kids younger than Cub Scouts), and I also help out occasionally. It's already hard to get parents to help. This is just going to make things much worse.

Anonymous said...

Critics appear to have overlooked that I said that I agreed with much of the original post.

All research bar one that I have seen fails to distinguish between families that consist of mother and father living only with their own children on the one hand, and the various families that consist of step parents, children of multiple unions, live in uncles etc on the other.

I think this distinction is important, not least because it works. I also said nobody wanted to hear it because it is considered "old fashioned".

Anonymous said...

I was speaking to some care professionals about this issue the other day - and was gob smacked to hear that they thought it was a good idea - however, in the same breath they were complaining that the whole process for CRB checks is broken due to its complexity.
You cannot use a CRB check for one organisation as proof of your suitability for the same role in a different organisation!

We also worked out that very soon, almost anyone who has contact with children will need to be CRB checked - that includes anyone who works in a company where there are staff under the age of 18 - companies where customers can be under the age of 18 and in any organisation where children are present.

Secondly, what about the problem of having the ability to check people's past history, but not the knowledge to understand the real crimes that created their record. For instance, getting caught having a drunk piss in a door way as a teenager, will land you with an indecent exposure marked on your record - 15 years later - how do you convince the mother of a local child that you were not dressed in a mac and flashing in a park?

This is possibly the best example of the slow death of society by beaurocracy!

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...