Would you ever dob in?

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • Have to agree with atomik. I've always felt that two wrongs don't make a right.I have in the past, voiced an opinion and been shot down in flames. Am not sure of a solution maybe one to one help rather than imprisonment which doesn't resolve the issue. Easy words from someone who hasn't been effected, apart from a friend a while ago beating a suspected paedo. The whole episode I found disturbing on many levels and didn't resolve anything!


    Generally speaking I would agree with you, two wrongs don't make a right. However, the option of choosing between one to one help and imprisonment means assuming that the person in question has been arrested, charged, convicted and jailed. There are so many cases that never get that far, and so many people who don't report what has happened to them for many years, if at all, because they are so traumatised by what happened to them. It's also very difficult, if not impossible, to help someone who doesn't believe they have a problem, and I think that applies to all sorts of problems that different people have. If I walked into a room and found someone hurting my son I don't believe for a second that any of that would move around in my head; I feel my instinct would be to attack them in order to stop them. Equally I feel the same way about being in a situation where I knew who had done something to him. Given our experiences with the police last time I would assume they would do the same and I would therefore have a choice between nothing happening or sorting something out myself. I would choose to do the latter. But as I said at the beginning, generally speaking I would agree with you that two wrongs don't make a right, although I do feel this isn't always the case.

  • You use euphemisms for violence to make violence sound more reasonable and acceptable. By "protecting your son" and "dealing with it yourself", what do you specifically mean?


    I apologise, I wasn't trying to make violence sound reasonable and acceptable, I simply hadn't felt the need to explain specifics.


    If I walked into a room and saw someone harming my son I would intervene immediately. I feel my response would be to stop that situation as quickly as possible and would therefore range from yelling to attacking with anything that came to hand, depending on the severity of the situation.


    If my son told me someone had harmed him at some point in the past my response would be affected by the amount of time that had passed, the nature of the harm inflicted and who the person was (by that I mean whether or not they were known to us). I would probably, depending on the circumstances either talk to the person involved or, if it was serious and I knew the person, ask a bloke I know to beat them up for me. If I didn't know the person, or the bloke wasn't willing to beat them, I would probably go to the police.


    I don't really know how best to explain my views on violence. My priority would always be my son's safety, and if I felt that using violence was the best way to achieve that for him then I would. Equally, I am very hot tempered where my son is concerned and I don't believe I would react calmly and rationally to something he might tell me, I think I'd be more likely to react first and think later. To go back to the original question about whether or not to dob someone in, I think my first instinct would always be to do what was best for myself and my son, rather than focusing on what was best for society or what is generally considered acceptable or reasonable.


    It would be nice to be able to say I'd always do the 'right' thing and go to the police, but experience has taught me that isn't necessarily best. I appreciate that doesn't mean I would have the same experience with them again, but it's a big risk as far as I'm concerned and quite possibly not one I'd be willing to take. I think as well it depends on the likely outcome. My son has certain health problems which would mean he wouldn't even be able to make a statement, let alone give evidence in court. How does someone achieve justice for him in that instance? I wouldn't feel comfortable doing nothing and I don't feel the police or the court would do anything useful for him. If beating someone up made me feel that they were unlikely to attack my son a second time then I think that is probably what I would do. I'm not trying to make it sound reasonable or acceptable because in all honesty I don't care whether people think it is or not. I'd rather minimise the chances of him being assaulted again and have people think I was dreadful then stand back and do nothing - I think that would make me feel like I was making him a sitting duck.


    All hypothetical, obviously, and hopefully not something I will ever have to act on. I appreciate people don't like it, but in this instance I've not read anything that has made me feel any differently about it.

  • If I walked into a room and saw someone harming my son I would intervene immediately. I feel my response would be to stop that situation as quickly as possible and would therefore range from yelling to attacking with anything that came to hand, depending on the severity of the situation.

    No problem with that. As I said earlier, I'm fine with violent intervention to protect someone when there's no other option.


    Quote

    ....or, if it was serious and I knew the person, ask a bloke I know to beat them up for me.

    And this is the problem. There is absolutely no evidence that violence deters people. It's not prevention or protection - it's vengeance. The most likely result is that being beaten up will just make the person more careful next time - and a damn site more bitter and twisted, which really isn't gonna help any kid he ends up getting his hands on. All you're likely to achieve is to feed the cycle of violence, hatred and abuse. :shrug:


    Quote

    If beating someone up made me feel that they were unlikely to attack my son a second time then I think that is probably what I would do. I'm not trying to make it sound reasonable or acceptable because in all honesty I don't care whether people think it is or not. I'd rather minimise the chances of him being assaulted again and have people think I was dreadful then stand back and do nothing - I think that would make me feel like I was making him a sitting duck.


    All hypothetical, obviously, and hopefully not something I will ever have to act on.

    Here's a hypothetical question for you then. What if beating someone up caused them to find your son and injure him? Or, what if beating someone up meant that the next time they abused a kid, they made sure the kid wasn't alive to tell tales on them?

  • I also think you'd have to be pretty damn sure that what you've heard is right before having someone beaten up. There was a case in the news recently of two people being sent to prison for beating up a suspected paedophile who later died in a care home. He wasn't one. I'm not saying anyone's kid in particular would lie about something like that, but kids do make things up for all sorts of reasons. At least the police are able to investigate the situation properly (hopefully) before 'justice' is handed out.

  • No problem with that. As I said earlier, I'm fine with violent intervention to protect someone when there's no other option.


    And this is the problem. There is absolutely no evidence that violence deters people. It's not prevention or protection - it's vengeance. The most likely result is that being beaten up will just make the person more careful next time - and a damn site more bitter and twisted, which really isn't gonna help any kid he ends up getting his hands on. All you're likely to achieve is to feed the cycle of violence, hatred and abuse. :shrug:


    Here's a hypothetical question for you then. What if beating someone up caused them to find your son and injure him? Or, what if beating someone up meant that the next time they abused a kid, they made sure the kid wasn't alive to tell tales on them?



    I haven't suggested there is any evidence that violence deters people and as far as I'm aware there isn't any evidence that being beaten up makes someone more 'careful' - how do you define careful when it comes to abusing children? If you'd prefer to call it vengeance that's fine by me.


    I'm not really understanding how doing nothing would help other children? Are you suggesting that if the person in question doesn't receive any kind of punishment he will decide to stop abusing? I don't think that's very likely. You seem to feel you can assume the outcome more accurately than I can? I don't see how either one of us can know how the mind of a child abuser works, or assume that their response to any situation would be of one kind or another.


    If my actions made the situtation worse then I would have made the wrong choice in dealing with the situation I found myself in.


    Do you have any suggestions as to what to do if you rule out vengeance and the police take no action? If that was your child that had been assaulted, that was now depressed, withdrawn, self harming, scared to leave the house, sleeping with the light on? If you now know that the person who hurt your child is free to carry on harming other children because no-one's doing anything to stop them? If they decide, as a result of you going to the police and the police doing nothing, that the best thing to do is to kill the next child so that child can't inform on them? You can carry on with the hypotheticals endlessly, it's a grotesque situation that involves many variables and rarely has a 'good' outcome. Whatever happens, the person who has been harmed has to live with that for the rest of their life and I personally feel that no-one doing anything about it makes that harder.

  • I also think you'd have to be pretty damn sure that what you've heard is right before having someone beaten up. There was a case in the news recently of two people being sent to prison for beating up a suspected paedophile who later died in a care home. He wasn't one. I'm not saying anyone's kid in particular would lie about something like that, but kids do make things up for all sorts of reasons. At least the police are able to investigate the situation properly (hopefully) before 'justice' is handed out.


    I feel that I'm repeating myself. I've at no point advocated the random beating up of someone who may or may not have abused a child. The original question was about whether or not people were willing to go to the police and my response was that it would depend on the circumstances. The hypothetical examples I've used are extreme examples of what I feel I would be likely to do should someone harm my son - not your son, not my next door neighbour's son, not anybody else's son, just mine. The police don't always investigate properly; that's the whole point behind my saying I may choose to deal with it myself instead. I've also pointed out that my son wouldn't be able to make a statement which makes him a more likely candidate to be abused as well as making it so much harder to follow the appropriate routes and achieve anything. In a situation where he is not only more vulnerable but also far less likely to achieve justice, what are the options? I'd genuinely be interested in hearing suggestions as to which way to proceed if there's no legal avenue to follow and you don't go round there yourself?


    There seems to be an assumption that reporting a crime results in a conviction and some kind of 'justice'. It doesn't, particularly when it involves children. You said yourself that kids make up things for all sorts of reasons; what makes you think the police and the courts think any differently? It doesn't happen by magic; they need witness statements, forensic evidence, children that can cope with cross examination in court, details that they can check and verify. How do you prove that a man touched your child's genitals? It's their word against the child's and in that instance nothing more happens. My son struggles to explain what he had for his tea, let alone convince a jury that he can identify the man that molested him. I'm not suggesting that beating someone up is the 'best' way to deal with it, but if the situation meant that my options were that or doing nothing at all I would probably take the former.

  • I haven't suggested there is any evidence that violence deters people and as far as I'm aware there isn't any evidence that being beaten up makes someone more 'careful'

    That's a straw man argument. Paedophilia is a compulsive behaviour pattern. Ergo, intimidating paedophiles won't stop them. On the other hand, there's nothing in their behaviour to inhibit more cautious behaviour. Ergo, in the absence of contrary evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that violence is much more likely to make paedophiles careful rather than to deter them.


    Quote

    If you'd prefer to call it vengeance that's fine by me.

    And vengeance is never productive. If you want to advocate violent vigilantism as a form of vengeance, then I view that as extremely socially and emotionally unhealthy.


    Quote

    I'm not really understanding how doing nothing would help other children? Are you suggesting that if the person in question doesn't receive any kind of punishment he will decide to stop abusing? I don't think that's very likely.

    I don't recall advocating "doing nothing". There are many schemes that have reduced recidivism rates dramatically amongst paedophiles - and none of them have involved violence.


    Quote

    You seem to feel you can assume the outcome more accurately than I can? I don't see how either one of us can know how the mind of a child abuser works, or assume that their response to any situation would be of one kind or another.

    So we should kick the shit out of them then? That strikes you as the reasonable response?


    Actually, I do think I can predict the outcome more accurately than you. I don't think you're being objective. We know an awful lot about human behaviour and how the mind works, and predicting how people will react to having the shit kicked out of them isn't really that difficult.


    Quote

    If my actions made the situtation worse then I would have made the wrong choice in dealing with the situation I found myself in.

    That's a very glib way of looking at something that carries a very high risk of causing greater harm to children. :shrug:


    Quote

    Do you have any suggestions as to what to do if you rule out vengeance and the police take no action?

    It would depend on the situation, wouldn't it? The vast majority of paedophile incidents can be prevented via cautious parenting, since the offenders are generally related or known to the family.


    Quote

    If that was your child that had been assaulted, that was now depressed, withdrawn, self harming, scared to leave the house, sleeping with the light on? If you now know that the person who hurt your child is free to carry on harming other children because no-one's doing anything to stop them?

    I know that the last thing I'd want is to teach my child that kicking the shit out of someone was the best solution I could come up with.


    Quote

    You can carry on with the hypotheticals endlessly, it's a grotesque situation that involves many variables and rarely has a 'good' outcome. Whatever happens, the person who has been harmed has to live with that for the rest of their life and I personally feel that no-one doing anything about it makes that harder.

    Whereas throwing violent vigilantism into the mix helps? I'm sorry, but that's an irrational and negative response when there's not one shred of evidence to suggest that it will help.


    I totally understand why you feel protective towards your children, but responding with violence isn't the answer. Have you ever beaten anyone up? Properly beaten anyone up? Have you ever kicked the living shit out of someone? Do you have the first idea what this does to your character? Violence is incredibly easy to advocate when it's all nice and theoretical. The reality is very different.

  • But your son can explain himself sufficiently well and with sufficient certainty to justify you kicking the shit out of someone? :S


    Yes, he can. There's a world of difference between him telling me something at home and him having to sit in a rape suite with a police officer and a social worker or having to give evidence via video link in court.

  • Yes, he can. There's a world of difference between him telling me something at home and him having to sit in a rape suite with a police officer and a social worker or having to give evidence via video link in court.

    That's a very big leap - to assume a child will always be truthful, always be accurate in their understanding of what happened, and always able to correctly identify an attacker.

  • Originally Posted by SmilingMum
    I haven't suggested there is any evidence that violence deters people and as far as I'm aware there isn't any evidence that being beaten up makes someone more 'careful'





    "That's a straw man argument. Paedophilia is a compulsive behaviour pattern. Ergo, intimidating paedophiles won't stop them. On the other hand, there's nothing in their behaviour to inhibit more cautious behaviour. Ergo, in the absence of contrary evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that violence is much more likely to make paedophiles careful rather than to deter them."


    They're already careful, that's how they get away with it as often as they do and for as long as they do. I've seen no evidence to suggest that violence or the threat of violence would not act as a deterent when selecting a victim. From what I've read, they tend to target children they know who aren't well protected by their families. I would assume, therefore, that making it common knowledge locally that I would react violently would make someone less likely to target my son. Again, I ask what the alternative is? If it's compulsive - and therefore something they will keep doing until forced to stop - how do you stop them? How do I personally protect my son from being abused by someone a second time if that person is free to do so?


    "I don't recall advocating "doing nothing". There are many schemes that have reduced recidivism rates dramatically amongst paedophiles - and none of them have involved violence. "


    If the police do nothing and I do nothing, then what is being done? There are schemes that reduce recidivism, I'm sure, but I would assume that you need to get someone convicted before you get them on one. In a situation where I feel it unlikely anything like that will occur, I still don't feel that I could just sit back and do nothing.


    "So we should kick the shit out of them then? That strikes you as the reasonable response?


    Actually, I do think I can predict the outcome more accurately than you. I don't think you're being objective. We know an awful lot about human behaviour and how the mind works, and predicting how people will react to having the shit kicked out of them isn't really that difficult. "


    It strikes me as a reasonable response to someone molesting my son, yes. You are quite right when you say I'm not being objective, for me, objectivity flies out of the window when I think of someone harming him. My assumption to someone's response to being beaten up is that they would either retaliate in some way, as you suggest, or they would leave my boy alone, as I suggest. I don't think either one of us is in a position to say one is more likely than the other.


    "That's a very glib way of looking at something that carries a very high risk of causing greater harm to children. :shrug:"


    Again, I'm not at this stage aware of any evidence that it carries a very high risk of causing greater harm to children.


    "It would depend on the situation, wouldn't it? The vast majority of paedophile incidents can be prevented via cautious parenting, since the offenders are generally related or known to the family. "


    Yes they can, but the example I used was one where an incident had taken place. So again, if you rule out vengeance and the police don't do anything, what do you do?


    "I know that the last thing I'd want is to teach my child that kicking the shit out of someone was the best solution I could come up with."


    And ordinarily that would be my feeling as well. However, in this situation I don't know what else I would be able to come up with? Any suggestions?


    "Whereas throwing violent vigilantism into the mix helps? I'm sorry, but that's an irrational and negative response when there's not one shred of evidence to suggest that it will help.


    I totally understand why you feel protective towards your children, but responding with violence isn't the answer. Have you ever beaten anyone up? Properly beaten anyone up? Have you ever kicked the living shit out of someone? Do you have the first idea what this does to your character? Violence is incredibly easy to advocate when it's all nice and theoretical. The reality is very different. "


    Again, I've not suggested that there is any evidence that it would help. My feeling is that, in the absence of action from the police I don't feel I could do nothing at all.


    I have never beaten anyone up and doubt I could do it myself unless I was in an immediate situation - physically I'm small and it's not generally in my nature. That's why my first thought would be to ask someone else to do it for me. I have lived with the effects of abuse and the knowledge that no-one did anything about it. If I heard someone had kicked the shit out of him for me I think it would have helped.


    As I've already said, I am aware it's not a logical or generally acceptable point of view. I find it hard to be objective about something as vile as child abuse and again, I'm not hearing a lot of alternatives to a good kicking if the police don't do anything.

  • That's a very big leap - to assume a child will always be truthful, always be accurate in their understanding of what happened, and always able to correctly identify an attacker.


    It isn't a big leap at all; I know what my son is capable of intellectually. He has no awareness of sex or sexual activity, nor does he have the capacity to fabricate stories - his brain is damaged and abstract concepts mean nothing to him.

  • Sorry SmilingMum, I was just taking the hypothetical situation we seem to be running with here as an example, I didn't acutally intend to direct that soley at you :). It's just the idea of handing out violent justice really bothers me. It's this bit I have a problem with:


    The police don't always investigate properly;


    Quote

    they need witness statements, forensic evidence, children that can cope with cross examination in court, details that they can check and verify.


    But they do investigate, and those steps you mentioned above are in place for very good reasons. If everybody went and dealt out their own 'justice' when their child accused someone of something like that, with no investigation and no evidence, I wonder how many innocent people would suffer (and die) as a result. And as Atomik says, it wouldn't solve any problems, and could actually make it worse.


  • Sorry, my mistake, I thought it was aimed at my post, I apologise. They don't always investigate; I reported the man who abused me and they didn't investigate him. He still has daily access to children, I've been to the police and social services and the sum total of the police investigation was to pop round and ask his wife it my accusations against him were true. She said no and they took it no futher. Both agencies claimed I was mentally ill and fabricating the claims - complete nonsense, no evidence to support it on their part and my doctor wrote a letter for me stating that I didn't suffer from mental health problems. Made no difference. It has affected the way I would deal with a similar situation again in the future. If I'd been asked the question ten years ago I would have been saying the same as everyone else. Now I know if it happens to my boy the chances of anyone else doing anything are slim to nothing. I don't feel I would be able to do nothing about it myself knowing the person who harmed him was still able to carry on doing it. I fully appreciate what everyone has said about it not being the 'best' thing to do, but again, I don't have an alternative other than do nothing and that doesn't feel acceptable to me.

  • In a heartbeat if the person deserved it, I believe in justice, sadly our police don’t seem so concerned these days. When I got mugged I told the police, the gang came after me twice and beat me up, the police, well they were just great, they didn’t put the paper work through from the beatings until the next day so it didn’t add up in court, case gets thrown out. The idiot who robbed me also robbed a load of other kids; luckily they got him on that. But still, what incompetent twat of custody officer. (Enough police bashing, there not all bad) I've always had a deep sense of right and wrong, if somebody does wrong they deserve what they get, this is of course subjective, obviously I wouldn’t call the fuzz if my mate sparked up a joint. Muggers, murders, thieves and general bastards of that ilk I’d grass in a second. If you grass for silly little things then that just childish and a waste of time, all factors must be taken in. If I was a witness I’d make sure I had some bloody good protection first, learnt from that one!

    Taking Life To Seriously? Just Remember We Are Talking Monkeys On An Organic Spaceship.

  • What a fascinatingly provocative thread, couldn't resist....


    As with all things, I think the concept of justice is subjective. It seems that almost everyone here agrees that there is a certain line past which taking some sort of action becomes justified....


    But exactly where that line lies is down to our own views on society - which laws / crimes are justified - and is ultimately always going to be a judgement call based on our own beliefs / experiences and the information available to us.


    Perhaps the most important thing, if ever faced with such a situation (and able to remain rational enough to weigh it up, rather than just reacting instinctively) is to be wary of our own bias, and of the possibility that the information / facts as we understand them may not be the entire or true picture...


    ...and then there's the question of what action to take... reporting something to the police... organised vigilanteism.... or responding to the baser human urge to go and take action individually...


    Personally I fucking hate the police as we know them, but I totally realise and appreciate that if we are to have a society, it has to have rules.... and if we have rules, somebody has to enforce them, and despite my utter disdain for policing in this (and many other) countries today, I'd rather be policed by a police force than by vigilantes or on the basis of individual retribution.


    As far as where the line is for me...


    Disability Benefits? - I'm not a Doctor so I don't feel in any way qualified to form a valid opinion about the validity of someone's entitlement. I'd leave well alone - if I had to choose between one of the other I'd rather pay my share of taxes to fund the few fraudsters than risk someone who genuinely needed their benefits being shat on, as seems to be happening increasingly at the moment due to the huge exaggeration of DLA fraud by the media / politicians.


    Robbing Large Corporations? - Good luck, from where I'm sitting it's (probably / mostly) thoroughly justified.


    Violence against Children, the Elderly, or otherwise Disadvantaged - I'll call the police. I know there's two sides to every story, and things aren't always what they seem, but this is why society has police and a legal system, to figure out the rights and wrongs of shit like that. Yes, I know they fuck it up a large proportion of the time, but even our police force probably has better odds of making the right judgement than I would if I waded in and did it myself.


    Yeah... those 3 where easyish. It's the borderline stuff that's harder to make a judgement on.


    Hard working owner operated business, let's say the nice chap in your local corner shop, being robbed by a vulnerable person who you know is in an utterly shite situation through no fault of their own, and acting out of genuine need / fear - Bit harder to say isn't it?


  • Disability Benefits? - I'm not a Doctor so I don't feel in any way qualified to form a valid opinion about the validity of someone's entitlement. I'd leave well alone - if I had to choose between one of the other I'd rather pay my share of taxes to fund the few fraudsters than risk someone who genuinely needed their benefits being shat on, as seems to be happening increasingly at the moment due to the huge exaggeration of DLA fraud by the media / politicians.


    Absolutely! I don't get why people would favour the corrupt rich over someone who may or may not be making a few extra quid a week from being a blag artist. And I *really* don't get how people can feel confident they know more about their neighbours' health than their own doctors do! :S Despite what the Daily Fail et al tell folk, people claiming disability benefits have to jump through metaphorical hoops of fire in order to receive anything these days. And to be honest, if someone can manage to blag their way through all that, good on them; why should I care?


    Large Corporations? Yes, f**k 'em. Robbing bastards. :thumbup:


    Violence against Children, the Elderly, or otherwise Disadvantaged - I'll call the police. I know there's two sides to every story, and things aren't always what they seem, but this is why society has police and a legal system, to figure out the rights and wrongs of shit like that. Yes, I know they fuck it up a large proportion of the time, but even our police force probably has better odds of making the right judgement than I would if I waded in and did it myself.


    ...or than most people, I think. I've known blokes who've gone and "sorted out" (:rolleyes:) the allegedly violent boyfriend of a female friend for supposedly beating up said female friend... but they've beaten up their own girlfriends. It's macho bollocks. I'm not a snitch, but I can't stand bullying, and if someone can't protect themselves then it's not snitching to use the authorities to do what they are (or should be) there for, ie to protect folk.


    Our justice system if far from perfect, but it works better than what would be meted out from the mind of the average person when angry, and especially when part of a mob. Accusations of rape were often used as an excuse for lynchings.


    (I'd definitely turn a blind eye in your last example.)

  • Right with you Tordisa, especially on the macho bollocks, except...


    (I'd definitely turn a blind eye in your last example.)


    It probably wasn't very well put to be honest. I was looking for a situation where there isn't a clear line between who is more deserving, the victim (working all hours trying to put food in his/her kids mouth), or the perpetrator (driven to nicking as a last resort in a hideous situation)...


    I guess most people's answer would probably depend on which of those people they find it easier to identify with - but basically both are getting fucked over.


    The tragedy there is that it's normally a whole lot easier to rob an innocent individual than it is to rob a morally corrupt corporation... growing up in a grim inner city I know I always thought that the bloke who ran the corner shop was rich, and deserved robbing because his car was less than 10 years old. I now realise that he probably needed a reliable car to get to the cash and carry each day so he could earn a pittance selling crisps... and fags / glue to kids... yeah, ok... probably still a bad example!


    What I'm trying to say, is that those who (in my book) perhaps do "deserve" to be the victims of crime, are normally insulated from it, think big houses in the country with CCTV and an alarm wired direct to the local nick...


    While the rest of society is left (or encouraged?) to envy, rob and fight each other over the scraps...

  • Morning all,


    The thread has raised some issues for me that I feel I need to deal with and I will therefore be leaving the discussion. Apologies for any offence caused.

  • They're already careful, that's how they get away with it as often as they do and for as long as they do. I've seen no evidence to suggest that violence or the threat of violence would not act as a deterent when selecting a victim.

    That's an irrational position. If you're going to kick the shit out of someone, the onus is on you to prove that it will have a positive effect - not on others to prove that it won't. :S


    Quote

    From what I've read, they tend to target children they know who aren't well protected by their families. I would assume, therefore, that making it common knowledge locally that I would react violently would make someone less likely to target my son.

    It's hardly an uncommon reaction, is it? I doubt paedophiles select victims on the basis of a scale of potential retribution. They target kids who are accessible. Simple as that. :shrug:


    Quote

    Again, I ask what the alternative is? If it's compulsive - and therefore something they will keep doing until forced to stop - how do you stop them? How do I personally protect my son from being abused by someone a second time if that person is free to do so?

    Do you think it likely that someone would have the opportunity to sexually abuse your child? Having done so, how on earth could they end up in a position to do so a second time? :S


    Quote

    If the police do nothing and I do nothing, then what is being done? There are schemes that reduce recidivism, I'm sure, but I would assume that you need to get someone convicted before you get them on one. In a situation where I feel it unlikely anything like that will occur, I still don't feel that I could just sit back and do nothing.

    You seem to think that violence is a magic bullet that stops paedophiles. Short of crippling them or killing them, it won't stop them offending. Are you advocating crippling them or killing them? Are you prepared to do that yourself?


    Quote

    It strikes me as a reasonable response to someone molesting my son, yes. You are quite right when you say I'm not being objective, for me, objectivity flies out of the window when I think of someone harming him. My assumption to someone's response to being beaten up is that they would either retaliate in some way, as you suggest, or they would leave my boy alone, as I suggest. I don't think either one of us is in a position to say one is more likely than the other.

    I disagree. You've already said that you're not being objective, so I don't see how you can then argue that your assumptions about responses to violence are reasonable. The scenario in your head seems very unrealistic to me. If you're talking specifically about protecting your own child rather than preventing paedophiles from molesting other children, then your argument just doesn't make sense. How on earth would your child end up alone a second time with someone you knew had molested him? Why would you need violence in that situation?


    Quote

    Again, I'm not at this stage aware of any evidence that it carries a very high risk of causing greater harm to children.

    Again, it's incredibly hubristic to advocate a violent response simply because you can't empirically prove that it isn't harmful. :S


    Quote

    I have never beaten anyone up and doubt I could do it myself unless I was in an immediate situation - physically I'm small and it's not generally in my nature. That's why my first thought would be to ask someone else to do it for me. I have lived with the effects of abuse and the knowledge that no-one did anything about it. If I heard someone had kicked the shit out of him for me I think it would have helped.

    I've known a frightening number of people who've been abused. The vast majority of them haven't wanted any kind of retribution or vengeance. And I've known plenty of people offer to do it. I'm not saying that your reaction isn't understandable, but in my experience it's unusual.


    Quote

    As I've already said, I am aware it's not a logical or generally acceptable point of view. I find it hard to be objective about something as vile as child abuse and again, I'm not hearing a lot of alternatives to a good kicking if the police don't do anything.

    And I'm not hearing what you expect a good kicking to achieve. In a situation where your child has been abused, I would assume that you'd keep them away from the abuser in the future. :shrug:

  • What I'm trying to say, is that those who (in my book) perhaps do "deserve" to be the victims of crime, are normally insulated from it, think big houses in the country with CCTV and an alarm wired direct to the local nick...While the rest of society is left (or encouraged?) to envy, rob and fight each other over the scraps...

    Gee, thanks. After living in the inner city, and as a teen on the dole on what was allegedly one of the worst estates in Europe, scrabbling for crumbs, we found a house that we could afford, because my husband's parents died and because they'd been frugal all their lives they left him some money. Believe me, he'd rather have had his mum and dad. And it probably *does* look like a big posh house, but it needs a massive amount of work doing on it, including a complete rewire, windows, timber, heating.... And we have a shared mortgage to pay as well. Would you like to tell me just why I deserve to be a fucking victim? For living in a house with a nice view and with a nice garden after years of council flats and damp overpriced rented accommodation? And yes, the alarm goes straight to the local nick because there's no neighbours close enough to hear it and the old guy who lived here before us WAS victimised and terrorised by people with your fucking attitude.

    "You’re only given a little spark of madness. You mustn’t lose it"

    The post was edited 1 time, last by spiralite ().

  • Gee, thanks. After living in the inner city, and as a teen on the dole on what was allegedly one of the worst estates in Europe, scrabbling for crumbs, we found a house that we could afford, because my husband's parents died and because they'd been frugal all their lives they left him some money. Believe me, he'd rather have had his mum and dad. And it probably *does* look like a big posh house, but it needs a massive amount of work doing on it, including a complete rewire, windows, timber, heating.... And we have a shared mortgage to pay as well. Would you like to tell me just why I deserve to be a fucking victim? For living in a house with a nice view and with a nice garden after years of council flats and damp overpriced rented accommodation? And yes, the alarm goes straight to the local nick because there's no neighbours close enough to hear it and the old guy who lived here before us WAS victimised and terrorised by people with your fucking attitude.


    I'm not suggesting for a moment that anyone who doesn't live in the inner city deserves to be a victim of crime. In an ideal world I wouldn't say that about anyone, however it certainly seems unjust that a small proportion of the population are obscenely rich while the vast majority of people live either in poverty or in acceptable mediocrity.


    I was really just observing that it's tragic that those at the very top, who are effectively responsible for the poverty of those at the bottom, are very unlikely to become the victims of crime, as they are insulated from it by geography and/or technology.


    Unless you are obscenely rich, which it doesn't sound like you are, I certainly don't think that being security conscious or remote means you deserve any bad vibes whatsoever!


    ...in fact, what you're saying about the old chap who lived there before is exactly my point... because your house looks reasonably ok, people who are out on the rob are likely to look at it and assume that you're rich, whereas in actual fact you're living reasonably, by virtue of hard work... the houses of the mega rich (who my rant was basically aimed at) are likely to be far more remote, inaccessible and well protected than yours, and the scallies would never even head out that far.


    It sucks that anyone should get robbed. But it sucks even more that, of anyone, the top 1% are the least likely to get robbed.


    Sorry for any offence caused anyway.

  • ...and for what it's worth, I'm also lucky enough that I managed to work my way out of the situation I grew up in, and I now "live in a house, a very nice house in the country", for which I count myself immensely lucky.

  • no i wouldnt dob anybody in- for what are criminals but manifestations of ourselves. And what are the most henious criminals but expressions of the least palatable dark sides of our nature that we prefer to deny. But wec are all capable of extao-ordinarywonderful things, but also have the potential to horror . The sooner we embrace that with understanding and compassion the sooner as a species we can grow and transcend some of our primal weaknesses.
    and if you dodob someone in- where do they go- isnt it a bit ridiculous that after thousands of years of proof that it just further strips the possibility of the already damaged to play a positive role in our society. How pathetic that we havent come up with something more considered than putting people in a cell for x number of years. Do you really want to collude with such babylonian insanity?