A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Having a safer way for teenagers to explore sexual issues is surely very much on topic for dealing with sexual abuse?
Shine a light on issues surely not hide them in darkness?
IMV removing the stigma from masturbation would help a little. One of the many ways religion harms kids.
How to count the ways.
Also good job well done you - I saw that you donated money to RDA. It's a fantastic organisation and if, as I'm sure you have, you have seen any sessions, you will know how absolutely vital it is and what a critical element of care it provides for its participants.
I hope they didn't spend too much on her education.
Leaving aside anything else, there is a veritable library of alexandria of soft core porn in existence, is she not aware of it?
She obviously had quite the sheltered upbringing, to not realise that there’s a million different types of porn on the Internet. A fair amount of which meets the description of what she’s looking for.
When we were young and you wanted some material it was a case of going to the newsagents and there were age-appropriate risque material available that could be purchased without looking over 18 or having ID. Nowadays online the main websites that are well known are quite perverted, hence the ongoing Stepmom joke. I wouldn't have a clue where a teenager should look for something softcore and appropriate.
The internet it seems to me is pushing things to extremes, as it often does.
I lost interest in reading it when there was a reference to the pictures being "dirty" If they are considered dirty from the off , there is not much hope is there?
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Ignore the morons.
Thanks for the header. As a society, we seriously fucked up.
Glad I’ve never been responsible for child protection. I’d like to think I’d be fearless in standing up against this kind of shit, but in reality I can almost understand why pretty much everyone, one step removed from the abuse, kept their heads down - back in the 70’s/80’s/90’s. Most people had imperfect information (often just unprovable suspicions) and a high chance of losing everything if they made a scene.
I think things have changed, now, though. At least I hope so. The existence of networks of victims groups via Facebook etc make this kind of abuse so much harder to hide/run away from. It also enables witchhunts, of course. But that’s a discussion for a different day.
I think we suffered a great deal as a society from the view that child abuse and same sex activity were more or less the same thing.
While it led some people to unfairly demonise gays and lesbians, it led others to sympathise with child abusers.
Combined with the view that if the Greeks and Romans did it, was it really such a big deal?
It seems the Lambeth defence - apart from ignorance - is that they were too busy doing politics to worry about the kids.
Sadly, I believe them. Activists of any type are dangerous. Common sense is the first victim. If only Labour had another Kinnock to deal with the nonsense.
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Having a safer way for teenagers to explore sexual issues is surely very much on topic for dealing with sexual abuse?
Shine a light on issues surely not hide them in darkness?
IMV removing the stigma from masturbation would help a little. One of the many ways religion harms kids.
How to count the ways.
Also good job well done you - I saw that you donated money to RDA. It's a fantastic organisation and if, as I'm sure you have, you have seen any sessions, you will know how absolutely vital it is and what a critical element of care it provides for its participants.
Thanks. I raised a small amount of money for them on a couple of walks, including my coastal one. It is a great charity, and sadly one that occasionally gets denigrated as 'rich people with horses'. I've probably been to a dozen groups around the country, mostly on my walk, and the work they do is absolutely valuable and heartwarming.
I hope they didn't spend too much on her education.
Very sensible. What objections do you have?
So sensible Flozza has deleted it
Off the top of my head
Gateway drug Zero cooperation from parents All the cool kids will think it's shit
You and Dubya in the war on drugsporn what have you.
Do you learn nothing? They are watching it anyway. Which would you prefer - young teens to watch @TSE's preferred stepmoms or something light(er) and fluffy?
And cool kids might think it's shit but how many cool kids are there vs curious youngsters who need a sensible introduction to all that stuff.
Probably not 'fluffy'. When I was at school (before the web had really taken off) 'fluffy' was used to describe erotica catering to, well,... niche tastes (a classmate brought in a badly printed image in which one of the participants appeared to be fluffy, no idea where he'd got it, parents' computer maybe - safe to say he never lived it down).
Also, I believe that a 'fluffer' is a thing, or rather backstage role, in such films. (from reading a Scottish detective novel partly set in that industry in Aberdeen, not watching a film!).
I don't think I'm going to google that!
I once publicly googled MILF in front of giggling teenage niece & nephew. Much eye rolling....
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
It's a positive number for cases again today but the 4k rise from wednesday to thursday reported is a touch concerning.
The reduction in cases is slowing down, which is to be expected given we're now well into step 4 activity, but what's good is that even with that the R is well below 1.
I hope they didn't spend too much on her education.
Very sensible. What objections do you have?
So sensible Flozza has deleted it
Off the top of my head
Gateway drug Zero cooperation from parents All the cool kids will think it's shit
You and Dubya in the war on drugsporn what have you.
Do you learn nothing? They are watching it anyway. Which would you prefer - young teens to watch @TSE's preferred stepmoms or something light(er) and fluffy?
And cool kids might think it's shit but how many cool kids are there vs curious youngsters who need a sensible introduction to all that stuff.
Probably not 'fluffy'. When I was at school (before the web had really taken off) 'fluffy' was used to describe erotica catering to, well,... niche tastes (a classmate brought in a badly printed image in which one of the participants appeared to be fluffy, no idea where he'd got it, parents' computer maybe - safe to say he never lived it down).
Also, I believe that a 'fluffer' is a thing, or rather backstage role, in such films. (from reading a Scottish detective novel partly set in that industry in Aberdeen, not watching a film!).
Weren't "fluffers" made redundant by a certain little blue pill?
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
Thank you to the thousands of @RNLI volunteers who put their lives on the line to save others and to all who have donated to support them. An incredible organisation.
Thank you to the thousands of @RNLI volunteers who put their lives on the line to save others and to all who have donated to support them. An incredible organisation.
I hope they didn't spend too much on her education.
Very sensible. What objections do you have?
So sensible Flozza has deleted it
Off the top of my head
Gateway drug Zero cooperation from parents All the cool kids will think it's shit
You and Dubya in the war on drugsporn what have you.
Do you learn nothing? They are watching it anyway. Which would you prefer - young teens to watch @TSE's preferred stepmoms or something light(er) and fluffy?
And cool kids might think it's shit but how many cool kids are there vs curious youngsters who need a sensible introduction to all that stuff.
Probably not 'fluffy'. When I was at school (before the web had really taken off) 'fluffy' was used to describe erotica catering to, well,... niche tastes (a classmate brought in a badly printed image in which one of the participants appeared to be fluffy, no idea where he'd got it, parents' computer maybe - safe to say he never lived it down).
Also, I believe that a 'fluffer' is a thing, or rather backstage role, in such films. (from reading a Scottish detective novel partly set in that industry in Aberdeen, not watching a film!).
Weren't "fluffers" made redundant by a certain little blue pill?
I bow to your expertise. Obviously infinitely greater than mine.
It's a positive number for cases again today but the 4k rise from wednesday to thursday reported is a touch concerning.
The reduction in cases is slowing down, which is to be expected given we're now well into step 4 activity, but what's good is that even with that the R is well below 1.
They have given us into the hands of the new unhappy lords, Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords. They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes; They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies. And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs, Their doors are shut in the evenings; and they know no songs.
The new Upper 10,000 is different to the old. The new have worse manners and less shame.
EDIT
My solution for the problem of accountability for the above scandals would be to have put everyone who knew on the Sex Offenders registers.
I love that poem despite the fairly appalling anti-Semitism in it.
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal of former ambassador Craig Murray, over his conviction for contempt of court during the Alex Salmond trial. Murray could begin serving his 8 month sentence as soon as Saturday.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Ignore the morons.
Thanks for the header. As a society, we seriously fucked up.
Glad I’ve never been responsible for child protection. I’d like to think I’d be fearless in standing up against this kind of shit, but in reality I can almost understand why pretty much everyone, one step removed from the abuse, kept their heads down - back in the 70’s/80’s/90’s. Most people had imperfect information (often just unprovable suspicions) and a high chance of losing everything if they made a scene.
I think things have changed, now, though. At least I hope so. The existence of networks of victims groups via Facebook etc make this kind of abuse so much harder to hide/run away from. It also enables witchhunts, of course. But that’s a discussion for a different day.
Also, years later, a lot of the victims have moved on and simply want to forget all about it. The last thing they want to do is relive it all over again.
Going into battle on it only holds faint appeal, and but for a few.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
“Brexit”? Strongbow has been made in Belgium for the mainland European market since 2011. The European version tastes more like Stella Cidre. It’s been ultimately owned by Heineken since 2008.
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal of former ambassador Craig Murray, over his conviction for contempt of court during the Alex Salmond trial. Murray could begin serving his 8 month sentence as soon as Saturday.
That is bitterly disappointing. I frankly expected better of Reed and Hodge. An absolute travesty of a decision and an unacceptable interference with the right of free speech.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
I honestly can't think of anything in my life. I was bullied by other kids, I was subjected to physical violence by teachers beyond anything that would be even close to being legal now but I honestly don't recall something sexual. Maybe in my naivety I just missed it.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
I am sorry. I know I must sound like a sort of PB Cassandra sometimes.
But it is precisely because we do shy away from these sorts of issues that those who are complicit feel no urgency to change their behaviour. We do not get angry enough at what happens. We do not expect more of the adults who are meant to be in charge. We excuse or rationalise away. We put an irrational faith in procedures. And we do not examine our own conduct and wonder whether we can do more to speak up about bad behaviour in our own sectors and in our expectations of others more senior than us and in positions of power.
And this applies not just to child abuse but to other sectors as well.
"For evil to triumph, it is enough that good men do nothing."
People need to understand this and why it matters.
Sorry. I shall stop lecturing now. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.
I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Having a safer way for teenagers to explore sexual issues is surely very much on topic for dealing with sexual abuse?
Shine a light on issues surely not hide them in darkness?
IMV removing the stigma from masturbation would help a little. One of the many ways religion harms kids.
How to count the ways.
Also good job well done you - I saw that you donated money to RDA. It's a fantastic organisation and if, as I'm sure you have, you have seen any sessions, you will know how absolutely vital it is and what a critical element of care it provides for its participants.
Thanks. I raised a small amount of money for them on a couple of walks, including my coastal one. It is a great charity, and sadly one that occasionally gets denigrated as 'rich people with horses'. I've probably been to a dozen groups around the country, mostly on my walk, and the work they do is absolutely valuable and heartwarming.
As it happens the only horse owner in my immediate circle at present is my former hairdresser, who works solo out of a teeny shop in one of the streets behind the local marketplace. Charging about £8 - so certainly not "rich".
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Having a safer way for teenagers to explore sexual issues is surely very much on topic for dealing with sexual abuse?
Shine a light on issues surely not hide them in darkness?
IMV removing the stigma from masturbation would help a little. One of the many ways religion harms kids.
How to count the ways.
Also good job well done you - I saw that you donated money to RDA. It's a fantastic organisation and if, as I'm sure you have, you have seen any sessions, you will know how absolutely vital it is and what a critical element of care it provides for its participants.
Thanks. I raised a small amount of money for them on a couple of walks, including my coastal one. It is a great charity, and sadly one that occasionally gets denigrated as 'rich people with horses'. I've probably been to a dozen groups around the country, mostly on my walk, and the work they do is absolutely valuable and heartwarming.
As it happens the only horse owner in my immediate circle at present is my former hairdresser, who works solo out of a teeny shop in one of the streets behind the local marketplace. Charging about £8 - so certainly not "rich".
@laurnorman Quick summary here. Cuba foreign minister says @JosepBorrellF "lies and manipulates" and that he should busy himself with the "brutal police repression in the EU." So Cuba-EU relations going swimmingly then.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
“Brexit”? Strongbow has been made in Belgium for the mainland European market since 2011. The European version tastes more like Stella Cidre. It’s been ultimately owned by Heineken since 2008.
Aren't nearly all the mass market beverages brewed in the various countries/areas they are consumed in?
I hope they didn't spend too much on her education.
Very sensible. What objections do you have?
So sensible Flozza has deleted it
Off the top of my head
Gateway drug Zero cooperation from parents All the cool kids will think it's shit
You and Dubya in the war on drugsporn what have you.
Do you learn nothing? They are watching it anyway. Which would you prefer - young teens to watch @TSE's preferred stepmoms or something light(er) and fluffy?
And cool kids might think it's shit but how many cool kids are there vs curious youngsters who need a sensible introduction to all that stuff.
Probably not 'fluffy'. When I was at school (before the web had really taken off) 'fluffy' was used to describe erotica catering to, well,... niche tastes (a classmate brought in a badly printed image in which one of the participants appeared to be fluffy, no idea where he'd got it, parents' computer maybe - safe to say he never lived it down).
Also, I believe that a 'fluffer' is a thing, or rather backstage role, in such films. (from reading a Scottish detective novel partly set in that industry in Aberdeen, not watching a film!).
Weren't "fluffers" made redundant by a certain little blue pill?
Was fluffy not the 3 headed dog in Harry Potter? I think I am again missing something.
I hope they didn't spend too much on her education.
Very sensible. What objections do you have?
So sensible Flozza has deleted it
Off the top of my head
Gateway drug Zero cooperation from parents All the cool kids will think it's shit
You and Dubya in the war on drugsporn what have you.
Do you learn nothing? They are watching it anyway. Which would you prefer - young teens to watch @TSE's preferred stepmoms or something light(er) and fluffy?
And cool kids might think it's shit but how many cool kids are there vs curious youngsters who need a sensible introduction to all that stuff.
Probably not 'fluffy'. When I was at school (before the web had really taken off) 'fluffy' was used to describe erotica catering to, well,... niche tastes (a classmate brought in a badly printed image in which one of the participants appeared to be fluffy, no idea where he'd got it, parents' computer maybe - safe to say he never lived it down).
Also, I believe that a 'fluffer' is a thing, or rather backstage role, in such films. (from reading a Scottish detective novel partly set in that industry in Aberdeen, not watching a film!).
Weren't "fluffers" made redundant by a certain little blue pill?
Was fluffy not the 3 headed dog in Harry Potter? I think I am again missing something.
Yes. And "Fluffers" was his Test Match Special nickname.
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal of former ambassador Craig Murray, over his conviction for contempt of court during the Alex Salmond trial. Murray could begin serving his 8 month sentence as soon as Saturday.
That is bitterly disappointing. I frankly expected better of Reed and Hodge. An absolute travesty of a decision and an unacceptable interference with the right of free speech.
Was not the issue that Murray's blog might have enabled "jigsaw" identification of the complainants?
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Yep, who can forget that. A stone cold classic. Like having a header passionately decrying casual racism in all its guises and within a half dozen posts the thread morphs into a celebration of great British standup comics of the 70s. Anyway, great piece here, and since it's not a topic to find disagreement on - utter scandal, end of - I'm more wondering what you think the fundamental reason is for why we keep messing up on this. There must be one. Do we not respect children very much maybe? 'Seen but not heard' etc.
They have given us into the hands of the new unhappy lords, Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords. They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes; They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies. And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs, Their doors are shut in the evenings; and they know no songs.
The new Upper 10,000 is different to the old. The new have worse manners and less shame.
EDIT
My solution for the problem of accountability for the above scandals would be to have put everyone who knew on the Sex Offenders registers.
I love that poem despite the fairly appalling anti-Semitism in it.
Yes - Chesterton was another weird character who gets let off surprisingly easily, in contemparory views on him.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
I honestly can't think of anything in my life. I was bullied by other kids, I was subjected to physical violence by teachers beyond anything that would be even close to being legal now but I honestly don't recall something sexual. Maybe in my naivety I just missed it.
There were things that I missed at the time, which now seem pretty obvious with hindsight. Nothing in the way of serious assault, but most definitely things that were inappropriate. And, I can even remember how we'd joke about things like (in my case) being warned never to be on one's own in an enclosed space with Peter Morrison, or a friend at the Scarborough YC's conference feeling someon stroke his bottom as he queued for a drink, to discover it was a cabinet minister.
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Yep, who can forget that. A stone cold classic. Like having a header passionately decrying casual racism in all its guises and within a half dozen posts the thread morphs into a celebration of great British comics of the 70s. Anyway, great piece here, and since it's not a topic to find disagreement on - utter scandal, end of - I'm more wondering what you think the fundamental, deep seated reason is for why we keep messing up on this. There must be one. Do we not respect children very much maybe? 'Seen but not heard' etc.
It seems to happen across societies around the world. The biggest difference seems to be the level of denial.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
I honestly can't think of anything in my life. I was bullied by other kids, I was subjected to physical violence by teachers beyond anything that would be even close to being legal now but I honestly don't recall something sexual. Maybe in my naivety I just missed it.
Yes, I'm fairly sure nothing untoward ever happened to me. Or as far as I am aware, any of my friends.
Pretty charts for Alistair's half baked theory which make it look proper official
This is the "England Football Excess spike" (smoothed 7-day average).
Calculated from projecting forward the Exponential best fit from 1st May to 14th June and subtracting that from the actual cases. So being at zero would mean tracking the pre-football growth rate exactly.
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal of former ambassador Craig Murray, over his conviction for contempt of court during the Alex Salmond trial. Murray could begin serving his 8 month sentence as soon as Saturday.
That is bitterly disappointing. I frankly expected better of Reed and Hodge. An absolute travesty of a decision and an unacceptable interference with the right of free speech.
That thread seems to say that the judgement could hold out a possible opening for nobile officium - hence 'could begin serving' not 'will' I assume.
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal of former ambassador Craig Murray, over his conviction for contempt of court during the Alex Salmond trial. Murray could begin serving his 8 month sentence as soon as Saturday.
That is bitterly disappointing. I frankly expected better of Reed and Hodge. An absolute travesty of a decision and an unacceptable interference with the right of free speech.
Was not the issue that Murray's blog might have enabled "jigsaw" identification of the complainants?
But was that not also possible from other reportage? Apparently much easier from other reporters, actually.
I haven't followed the case or seen the judgement.
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal of former ambassador Craig Murray, over his conviction for contempt of court during the Alex Salmond trial. Murray could begin serving his 8 month sentence as soon as Saturday.
That is bitterly disappointing. I frankly expected better of Reed and Hodge. An absolute travesty of a decision and an unacceptable interference with the right of free speech.
Was not the issue that Murray's blog might have enabled "jigsaw" identification of the complainants?
There is a limit to what I can say about this but essentially jigsaw identification occurs when the person receiving the information already has the pieces. Like Lady Dorrian did, for example. It is an extremely dangerous idea which will inevitably have a chilling effect on the reporting of cases in the future. I am just shocked, to be honest. This was a remarkable extension of our criminal law in a way incompatible with Article 10 and the Supreme Court declines to look at it?
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Yep, who can forget that. A stone cold classic. Like having a header passionately decrying casual racism in all its guises and within a half dozen posts the thread morphs into a celebration of great British comics of the 70s. Anyway, great piece here, and since it's not a topic to find disagreement on - utter scandal, end of - I'm more wondering what you think the fundamental, deep seated reason is for why we keep messing up on this. There must be one. Do we not respect children very much maybe? 'Seen but not heard' etc.
It seems to happen across societies around the world. The biggest difference seems to be the level of denial.
It does. But I wonder how this country stacks up as regards the extent of it.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.
I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".
Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.
For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal of former ambassador Craig Murray, over his conviction for contempt of court during the Alex Salmond trial. Murray could begin serving his 8 month sentence as soon as Saturday.
That is bitterly disappointing. I frankly expected better of Reed and Hodge. An absolute travesty of a decision and an unacceptable interference with the right of free speech.
Was not the issue that Murray's blog might have enabled "jigsaw" identification of the complainants?
There is a limit to what I can say about this but essentially jigsaw identification occurs when the person receiving the information already has the pieces. Like Lady Dorrian did, for example. It is an extremely dangerous idea which will inevitably have a chilling effect on the reporting of cases in the future. I am just shocked, to be honest. This was a remarkable extension of our criminal law in a way incompatible with Article 10 and the Supreme Court declines to look at it?
Thanks for highlighting the significant impact that others won't pick up.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Yep, who can forget that. A stone cold classic. Like having a header passionately decrying casual racism in all its guises and within a half dozen posts the thread morphs into a celebration of great British comics of the 70s. Anyway, great piece here, and since it's not a topic to find disagreement on - utter scandal, end of - I'm more wondering what you think the fundamental, deep seated reason is for why we keep messing up on this. There must be one. Do we not respect children very much maybe? 'Seen but not heard' etc.
It seems to happen across societies around the world. The biggest difference seems to be the level of denial.
It does. But I wonder how this country stacks up as regards the extent of it.
At a random guess - exactly the same in reality.
Just many places where the denial is still very strong.
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal of former ambassador Craig Murray, over his conviction for contempt of court during the Alex Salmond trial. Murray could begin serving his 8 month sentence as soon as Saturday.
That is bitterly disappointing. I frankly expected better of Reed and Hodge. An absolute travesty of a decision and an unacceptable interference with the right of free speech.
Was not the issue that Murray's blog might have enabled "jigsaw" identification of the complainants?
There is a limit to what I can say about this but essentially jigsaw identification occurs when the person receiving the information already has the pieces. Like Lady Dorrian did, for example. It is an extremely dangerous idea which will inevitably have a chilling effect on the reporting of cases in the future. I am just shocked, to be honest. This was a remarkable extension of our criminal law in a way incompatible with Article 10 and the Supreme Court declines to look at it?
Mr Doleman seems to be waiting on the SC in case it declares a nobile officium hearing. So maybe all is not yet lost?
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
I honestly can't think of anything in my life. I was bullied by other kids, I was subjected to physical violence by teachers beyond anything that would be even close to being legal now but I honestly don't recall something sexual. Maybe in my naivety I just missed it.
There were things that I missed at the time, which now seem pretty obvious with hindsight. Nothing in the way of serious assault, but most definitely things that were inappropriate. And, I can even remember how we'd joke about things like (in my case) being warned never to be on one's own in an enclosed space with Peter Morrison, or a friend at the Scarborough YC's conference feeling someon stroke his bottom as he queued for a drink, to discover it was a cabinet minister.
There was abuse at my junior school (not to me unless I've suppressed it) but this dawned on me only recently. Lying around one day, idly musing about the distant past, some things I'd witnessed back then came into focus and they looked pretty bad. Yet I don't recall being perturbed at the time.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.
The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the appeal of former ambassador Craig Murray, over his conviction for contempt of court during the Alex Salmond trial. Murray could begin serving his 8 month sentence as soon as Saturday.
That is bitterly disappointing. I frankly expected better of Reed and Hodge. An absolute travesty of a decision and an unacceptable interference with the right of free speech.
Was not the issue that Murray's blog might have enabled "jigsaw" identification of the complainants?
There is a limit to what I can say about this but essentially jigsaw identification occurs when the person receiving the information already has the pieces. Like Lady Dorrian did, for example. It is an extremely dangerous idea which will inevitably have a chilling effect on the reporting of cases in the future. I am just shocked, to be honest. This was a remarkable extension of our criminal law in a way incompatible with Article 10 and the Supreme Court declines to look at it?
Mr Doleman seems to be waiting on the SC in case it declares a nobile officium hearing. So maybe all is not yet lost?
The Nobile Officulum is a process of the Court of Session in its supervisory capacity but the most senior judges of that court had already reached this decision. I really do not see how the Court of Session can overcome this. It required the Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
“Brexit”? Strongbow has been made in Belgium for the mainland European market since 2011. The European version tastes more like Stella Cidre. It’s been ultimately owned by Heineken since 2008.
News to me. And clearly to Systembolaget. I can assure you that last month the label had a Union Flag and said ‘Storbritannien’.
(That said, I’ll admit I’ve never read the small print before, and the empties from last month have already gone to the recycling.)
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Yep, who can forget that. A stone cold classic. Like having a header passionately decrying casual racism in all its guises and within a half dozen posts the thread morphs into a celebration of great British standup comics of the 70s. Anyway, great piece here, and since it's not a topic to find disagreement on - utter scandal, end of - I'm more wondering what you think the fundamental reason is for why we keep messing up on this. There must be one. Do we not respect children very much maybe? 'Seen but not heard' etc.
I think there are 3 main reasons:-
1. Sexual attraction to children is probably more widespread than we care to admit. The abuse is done not just by a few horrible perverts but by lots of apparently respectable people. This is hard to admit.
2. Power - where people have it they will abuse it unless they are kept in check. By their own conscience/moral code / by rules / by challenge and by social taboos. We rely IMO too much on rules and procedures and too little on conscience / social taboos and challenge.
3. We don't value children in the right way - there is a tendency to sentimentalise and treat as mini-adults/spoil even rather than guide and teach and protect and care for. Also the sorts of children who end up in care are often horrible - because brutalised and uncared for - and difficult and so it takes immense patience and love and kindness to help them. There is probably also a class issue here. We don't value this work or these children and so it is easy to see why they become prey for abusers.
As to those who are complicit, challenge and speaking up and blowing the whistle are hard. What is the reward? The downsides can be considerable. We value loyalty - to the family, group, friends, team institution etc - over individual courage and conscience. So it is easy to see why people choose the quiet life. A few metaphorical executions of senior staff pour encourager les autres would not go amiss (what the hell was Blair thinking making Hodge Minister for Children?!). But even there we get it wrong - see Sharon Shoosmith.
Our children are our offering to the future. We need to cherish them. All of them.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.
But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.
Edit: SD has just said independently that the term was indeed ‘Storbritannien’ till this time, ie Great Britain.
I think the ending to your penultimate paragraph, about the claim of naivety by those in charge, is crucial to dealing with this. Someone who takes a position with responsibility for care for the vulnerable shouldn't allow themselves to be "naive" (I prefer "ignorant") about this kind of thing happening.
I'm pretty sure we can't change the law and then retrospectively punish people like Hodge for their disgraceful ignorance, though I think we should make it punishable in the future. Could, though, the victims of Lambeth sue Hodge, the others with responsibility, and Lambeth Council? (ditto for Rotherham &c.)
You could put people on the Offenders registers - if they knew, they were accessories to the crimes.
The horrified bleating of "But that is unfair and arbitrary" that arrises when you suggest that, suggests that (a) the current system of registers is arbitrary and (b) the idea is something that terrifies the shit out of people in the system.
I like that idea, but the "if they knew" is the point. If they didn't know, then they should be able to point to all the work they did to try to know about it. If they can't, then I think they should be prosecuted as if they'd joined in.
I think you need to be very careful with incentives here.
Would you take on running an organization if there was a presumption of guilt? I know I wouldn’t.
The people, on the other hand, who would be ok with such a presumption would probably be people who were used to behaving badly and then covering it up.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.
But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.
British isn't sloppy.
Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?
How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.
If you'd asked me this morning whether "Nobile Officium" was a genuine legal term, or something made up by JK Rowling (or similar) I am at least 95% sure I would have said the latter.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
I had exactly the same experience as a child - a teacher checking that we weren't wearing underpants under our football shorts. I knew it was wrong, but I never told my parents or any other teacher.
I wondered though if your step-daughter was at private school? Procedures at state schools are very rigorous these days, and in my experience it's highly unlikely that any teacher could get away with ogling girls in the showers, unless nobody knew. I suspect that dodgy teachers head for private schools, as they are less likely to get caught.
Of course, to really improve safeguarding for children one has to conduct a series of highly bureaucratic checks (DBS etc.), and then folk complain about the nanny state. It's a huge problem.
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Yep, who can forget that. A stone cold classic. Like having a header passionately decrying casual racism in all its guises and within a half dozen posts the thread morphs into a celebration of great British comics of the 70s. Anyway, great piece here, and since it's not a topic to find disagreement on - utter scandal, end of - I'm more wondering what you think the fundamental, deep seated reason is for why we keep messing up on this. There must be one. Do we not respect children very much maybe? 'Seen but not heard' etc.
It seems to happen across societies around the world. The biggest difference seems to be the level of denial.
It does. But I wonder how this country stacks up as regards the extent of it.
At a random guess - exactly the same in reality.
Just many places where the denial is still very strong.
The only ranking I can find puts us top - ie the safest place in the world to be a child. Seems doubtful. Guess it's not the easiest thing to monitor.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.
But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.
British isn't sloppy.
Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?
How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.
That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.
British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Yep, who can forget that. A stone cold classic. Like having a header passionately decrying casual racism in all its guises and within a half dozen posts the thread morphs into a celebration of great British standup comics of the 70s. Anyway, great piece here, and since it's not a topic to find disagreement on - utter scandal, end of - I'm more wondering what you think the fundamental reason is for why we keep messing up on this. There must be one. Do we not respect children very much maybe? 'Seen but not heard' etc.
I think there are 3 main reasons:-
1. Sexual attraction to children is probably more widespread than we care to admit. The abuse is done not just by a few horrible perverts but by lots of apparently respectable people. This is hard to admit.
2. Power - where people have it they will abuse it unless they are kept in check. By their own conscience/moral code / by rules / by challenge and by social taboos. We rely IMO too much on rules and procedures and too little on conscience / social taboos and challenge.
3. We don't value children in the right way - there is a tendency to sentimentalise and treat as mini-adults/spoil even rather than guide and teach and protect and care for. Also the sorts of children who end up in care are often horrible - because brutalised and uncared for - and difficult and so it takes immense patience and love and kindness to help them. There is probably also a class issue here. We don't value this work or these children and so it is easy to see why they become prey for abusers.
As to those who are complicit, challenge and speaking up and blowing the whistle are hard. What is the reward? The downsides can be considerable. We value loyalty - to the family, group, friends, team institution etc - over individual courage and conscience. So it is easy to see why people choose the quiet life. A few metaphorical executions of senior staff pour encourager les autres would not go amiss (what the hell was Blair thinking making Hodge Minister for Children?!). But even there we get it wrong - see Sharon Shoosmith.
Our children are our offering to the future. We need to cherish them. All of them.
I think its a little more specific and horrible than that. There are some children, sadly, who do not have caring parents or protective homes. They live in institutions or with parents with mental health or substance abuse problems which mean that the protective core that is around most of our children is not there. Evil predators find their way to such children and exploit them.
I am not saying that children from good homes are never sexually abused by someone in a position of trust but this is vanishingly less likely than the exploitation of these vulnerable kids which is almost inevitable. And when they are exploited and develop substance abuse problems of their own or a horribly distorted view of what a relationship should be far too many in our society think of them as perpetrators rather than victims. Attempts have been made to change this mindset but evidence of success is thin.
And when it comes to prosecution these vulnerable damaged children make the worst witnesses imaginable. They have been so abused that they struggle to identify the particular incident or the particular offender or the period when this particular thing happened. Their memories are damaged and they are neither coherent nor convincing. So how can a jury convict? Sometimes, as in Rotherham, sheer weight of evidence can do it but it's hard, really hard.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.
I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".
Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.
For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.
I think it’s because British children are more attractive than their Continental peers.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.
But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.
British isn't sloppy.
Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?
How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.
That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.
British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.
Aren't Britain and GB synonymous? If so, what's the issue?
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
I am sorry. I know I must sound like a sort of PB Cassandra sometimes.
But it is precisely because we do shy away from these sorts of issues that those who are complicit feel no urgency to change their behaviour. We do not get angry enough at what happens. We do not expect more of the adults who are meant to be in charge. We excuse or rationalise away. We put an irrational faith in procedures. And we do not examine our own conduct and wonder whether we can do more to speak up about bad behaviour in our own sectors and in our expectations of others more senior than us and in positions of power.
And this applies not just to child abuse but to other sectors as well.
"For evil to triumph, it is enough that good men do nothing."
People need to understand this and why it matters.
Sorry. I shall stop lecturing now. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.
Thank you very much for the effort you put into the header; they are always well written and often quite sobering.
In my job we have what seems like endless training on the various forms of child abuse, how to spot it and what to do about it. I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen it: I have raised issues at times but for obvious reasons we don’t get a running commentary on the outcome of the investigations that follow.
This header reminds me of why we get the endless training, and will help me to take it seriously in September when I sit though the annual reminders at the beginning of term.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.
But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.
British isn't sloppy.
Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?
How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.
That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.
British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.
Aren't Britain and GB synonymous? If so, what's the issue?
No, because Britain is often used = UK of GB and NI. Hopelessly confounded in any context where that difference is important. As it is now when dealing with impex.
Latest victim of COVID-19 is classic of new infections - my fully vaccinated son was working in a London hospital maternity wing where vaccines rates are low and developed headache runny nose sneezing and sore throat .A total lack of Official symptoms but LFT and PCR positive
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.
I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".
Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.
For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.
I think it’s because British children are more attractive than their Continental peers.
Tempted though I am to flag that comment, I don't suppose the moderators would take any notice.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.
But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.
British isn't sloppy.
Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?
How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.
That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.
British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.
Aren't Britain and GB synonymous? If so, what's the issue?
No, because Britain is often used = UK of GB and NI. Hopelessly confounded in any context where that difference is important. As it is now when dealing with impex.
Let me rephrase my comment then:
Aren't Britain and the UK synonymous? If so, what's the issue?
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.
I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".
Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.
For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.
I think it’s because British children are more attractive than their Continental peers.
Tempted though I am to flag that comment, I don't suppose the moderators would take any notice.
Pretty sure it was posted in jest. And he's the site administrator.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.
But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.
British isn't sloppy.
Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?
How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.
That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.
British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.
Aren't Britain and GB synonymous? If so, what's the issue?
No, because Britain is often used = UK of GB and NI. Hopelessly confounded in any context where that difference is important. As it is now when dealing with impex.
Let me rephrase my comment then:
Aren't Britain and the UK synonymous? If so, what's the issue?
No, because Britain is often used = GB. As you yourself demonstrated. Hence the ambiguity.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.
I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".
Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.
For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.
I think it’s because British children are more attractive than their Continental peers.
Tempted though I am to flag that comment, I don't suppose the moderators would take any notice.
Pretty sure it was posted in jest. And he's the site administrator.
I know - hence my comment. Given the subject, I didn't think it was funny.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.
But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.
British isn't sloppy.
Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?
How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.
That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.
British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.
Aren't Britain and GB synonymous? If so, what's the issue?
No, because Britain is often used = UK of GB and NI. Hopelessly confounded in any context where that difference is important. As it is now when dealing with impex.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
Presumably you wrote '"British" (sic)' because you regard Britain as a supranational political union, so why refer to an 'EU product'?
Stuart’s bias = good BritNat bias = bad
Is there a single "BritNat" who is so around the bend that he or she would write '"EU" (sic)'?
I think Stuart is putting (sic) to indicate that that is exactly what the bottle says, not him. (The anomaly presumably being that it should be UK if an actual source, or 'English' to indicate the style.)
Why should it say English instead of British? British is a perfectly legitimate word to use to refer to something coming from Britain.
But for import purposes it is the UK that is the geographical entity, or possibly GB if you aren't allowed to include NI. 'Britain' itself is inaccurate and sloppy.
British isn't sloppy.
Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?
How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.
That's the point. SD was thrown by the use of the word British when you would expect something legally specific such as UK or GB and when those had been used before. So he as making it clear it wasn't a paraphrase.
British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.
Aren't Britain and GB synonymous? If so, what's the issue?
No, because Britain is often used = UK of GB and NI. Hopelessly confounded in any context where that difference is important. As it is now when dealing with impex.
Let me rephrase my comment then:
Aren't Britain and the UK synonymous? If so, what's the issue?
No, because Britain is often used = GB. As you yourself demonstrated. Hence the ambiguity.
If you want to be pedantic British would describe anything from UK+Ireland, since the are the British Isles. Still, I really don't see how it's a huge issue. A product from anywhere in the UK could be described as British.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.
I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".
Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.
For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.
I think it’s because British children are more attractive than their Continental peers.
Tempted though I am to flag that comment, I don't suppose the moderators would take any notice.
Pretty sure it was posted in jest. And he's the site administrator.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.
I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".
Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.
For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.
I think it’s because British children are more attractive than their Continental peers.
Tempted though I am to flag that comment, I don't suppose the moderators would take any notice.
Pretty sure it was posted in jest. And he's the site administrator.
Whooshy McWhooshface
Who knows, they might have thought he was being serious.
I was a young looking 13 y/o and cycling down a road on my own. Some guy overtakes me in a battered Land Rover then stops and waits for me around a bend. Gets out of his car and stands in the middle of the road with his arms out trying to stop me as I’m approaching. Shouts that I should be wearing a helmet. I shout “ok” while speeding up as fast as I can and going onto the pavement as far away from him as possible.
I made it home safely.
1. He wanted to abduct me 2. He wanted to nick my bike 3. He was some busybody/cycle safety nutter who genuinely thought it was appropriate to physically stop a young boy to tell him off for not wearing a helmet.
Hmm.
Thinking about it, I had all sorts of nightmares as a kid about the what-if-he’d-caught-me in that situation.
Never told my parents. I think I was rightly worried they’d never let me go out alone again if I told them.
I think I’ve spent too much time dwelling. Perhaps it’s a memory best left repressed.
Difficult to blame them, after all the sh!t thrown their way for trying to do the right thing.
Don't give me that AZ are so altruistic crap, they saw a business opportunity, screwed it up, and maybe now think that they are just crap at the vaccine business and/or there isn't enough profit in it for them.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
The music teacher at my school was, eventually, caught masturbating in his car whilst watching a 13-year old girl play sport - he put it down to stress.
I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".
Cyclefree's piece is sombre, scathing and seems entirely justified. Thank you for writing it and reminding us of these very fundamental facts.
For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.
I think it’s because British children are more attractive than their Continental peers.
There's a certain oddly hard to find Brass Eye sketch that would be appropriate to insert here.
A thread about child abuse and within a few comments people are discussing porn for teenagers.......
A bit like my header about sexual violence against women where one esteemed poster started boasting about the many tarts his friend had a night.
Only on PB eh!
Yep, who can forget that. A stone cold classic. Like having a header passionately decrying casual racism in all its guises and within a half dozen posts the thread morphs into a celebration of great British standup comics of the 70s. Anyway, great piece here, and since it's not a topic to find disagreement on - utter scandal, end of - I'm more wondering what you think the fundamental reason is for why we keep messing up on this. There must be one. Do we not respect children very much maybe? 'Seen but not heard' etc.
I think there are 3 main reasons:-
1. Sexual attraction to children is probably more widespread than we care to admit. The abuse is done not just by a few horrible perverts but by lots of apparently respectable people. This is hard to admit.
2. Power - where people have it they will abuse it unless they are kept in check. By their own conscience/moral code / by rules / by challenge and by social taboos. We rely IMO too much on rules and procedures and too little on conscience / social taboos and challenge.
3. We don't value children in the right way - there is a tendency to sentimentalise and treat as mini-adults/spoil even rather than guide and teach and protect and care for. Also the sorts of children who end up in care are often horrible - because brutalised and uncared for - and difficult and so it takes immense patience and love and kindness to help them. There is probably also a class issue here. We don't value this work or these children and so it is easy to see why they become prey for abusers.
As to those who are complicit, challenge and speaking up and blowing the whistle are hard. What is the reward? The downsides can be considerable. We value loyalty - to the family, group, friends, team institution etc - over individual courage and conscience. So it is easy to see why people choose the quiet life. A few metaphorical executions of senior staff pour encourager les autres would not go amiss (what the hell was Blair thinking making Hodge Minister for Children?!). But even there we get it wrong - see Sharon Shoosmith.
Our children are our offering to the future. We need to cherish them. All of them.
Cheers. 1. Yes. Very tricky area. Youth is alluring. It doesn't suddenly become so at the age of consent. 2. Totally agree. Culture and role models are more important than structures, systems and procedures. 3. That's what I was getting at. Respecting kids is different to liking/loving them.
Well that didn't do much for my afternoon. What a deeply depressing thread header.
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
From talking to people, I think pretty much everyone has experienced some form of sexual abuse as a minor, even if at a low level. I can't think of anyone who hasn't had a teacher who didn't take liberties of various kinds. We had a really bizarre school rule that you couldn't wear pants under shorts for sports. Inevitably, we had a teacher who insisted on doing spot checks. Twenty years on, and at my step-daughter's girls' school, it was considered one of the perks of the job to ogle the girls in the showers.
I had exactly the same experience as a child - a teacher checking that we weren't wearing underpants under our football shorts. I knew it was wrong, but I never told my parents or any other teacher.
I wondered though if your step-daughter was at private school? Procedures at state schools are very rigorous these days, and in my experience it's highly unlikely that any teacher could get away with ogling girls in the showers, unless nobody knew. I suspect that dodgy teachers head for private schools, as they are less likely to get caught.
Of course, to really improve safeguarding for children one has to conduct a series of highly bureaucratic checks (DBS etc.), and then folk complain about the nanny state. It's a huge problem.
This was a State girls’ school in the early 2000’s. Hopefully, things are now more stringent.
Comments
Also good job well done you - I saw that you donated money to RDA. It's a fantastic organisation and if, as I'm sure you have, you have seen any sessions, you will know how absolutely vital it is and what a critical element of care it provides for its participants.
In cases, we are back to where we were a moth ago
While it led some people to unfairly demonise gays and lesbians, it led others to sympathise with child abusers.
Combined with the view that if the Greeks and Romans did it, was it really such a big deal?
It seems the Lambeth defence - apart from ignorance - is that they were too busy doing politics to worry about the kids.
Sadly, I believe them. Activists of any type are dangerous. Common sense is the first victim. If only Labour had another Kinnock to deal with the nonsense.
We are not big cider drinkers in our household, but we usually have a few bottles kicking about, especially in the summer. My wife’s favourite brand is Strongbow (she is an incorrigible Anglophile). We ran out last week, so I nipped in to the state retail monopoly Systembolaget to stock up. Usually the products have a wee flag and the country of origin, but I was surprised to see a new label under the Strongbow: ’internationellt märke’ - ‘international brand’, and no flag. That’s a bit odd I thought, considering that the bottle itself claims to be “British” (sic).
According to the small print, the product is manufactured at Ciderie Stassen, Aubel, Wallonia. So, the main label is telling a big porkie.
Ah well, at least this particular customer is delighted to be buying an EU product.
https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/1420768173050245120?s=20
The scale of child abuse both physical and sexual in this country is frankly just bewildering as is the reluctance to do anything actually constructive about it. It is deeply shameful. The horrors from Belgium and other places suggest that we are not alone in this but it still makes me feel sick.
Thank you to the thousands of @RNLI volunteers who put their lives on the line to save others and to all who have donated to support them. An incredible organisation.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1420768631919718408?s=20
Murray could begin serving his 8 month sentence as soon as Saturday.
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1420766209918869522?s=20
Going into battle on it only holds faint appeal, and but for a few.
https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1420774009407410183
But it is precisely because we do shy away from these sorts of issues that those who are complicit feel no urgency to change their behaviour. We do not get angry enough at what happens. We do not expect more of the adults who are meant to be in charge. We excuse or rationalise away. We put an irrational faith in procedures. And we do not examine our own conduct and wonder whether we can do more to speak up about bad behaviour in our own sectors and in our expectations of others more senior than us and in positions of power.
And this applies not just to child abuse but to other sectors as well.
"For evil to triumph, it is enough that good men do nothing."
People need to understand this and why it matters.
Sorry. I shall stop lecturing now. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.
I had another physics teacher who used to enjoy putting boys (including me) on the ground by force, and then say, "why are you lying on the ground?".
Quick summary here. Cuba foreign minister says @JosepBorrellF "lies and manipulates" and that he should busy himself with the "brutal police repression in the EU." So Cuba-EU relations going swimmingly then.
https://twitter.com/laurnorman/status/1420776219700834309
This is the "England Football Excess spike" (smoothed 7-day average).
Calculated from projecting forward the Exponential best fit from 1st May to 14th June and subtracting that from the actual cases. So being at zero would mean tracking the pre-football growth rate exactly.
BetterTogether2 is going to be hilarious.
I haven't followed the case or seen the judgement.
Which iirc was the objective, rather than monomania.
I'll have a look when it appears on one of my platforms.
For what it's worth, growing up in Denmark, I never encountered or heard of any kind of sexual abuse. I'm sure it happened, as everywhere else, but not on the general scale that SeanF suggests was (is?) common in Britain. Denmark was even in those days very sexually open so adults generally had no trouble finding other consenting adults to play with - perhaps that helped? But it's pretty much true of Britain today, and doesn't seem to have solved the issue.
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that Denmark is or was perfect - bullying in Danish schools was certainly an issue (though not at all in my international school or at university) and racism is a real issue there too, even today, But this particular abuse does seem to be more common in Britain. I wonder why.
https://labourlist.org/2021/07/government-used-taxpayer-money-for-polling-on-labour-figures-emails-reveal/
BritNat bias = bad
Just many places where the denial is still very strong.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/exclusive-astrazeneca-exploring-options-covid-19-vaccine-business-exec-says-2021-07-29/
I should find out in a few weeks either way.
In other news I still haven't caught Covid despite going out clubbing in Durham last weekend
It certainly is a step up from midwinter mights in Bigg Market in short dresses and nothing else - er, I mean, your lady companions ...
(That said, I’ll admit I’ve never read the small print before, and the empties from last month have already gone to the recycling.)
1. Sexual attraction to children is probably more widespread than we care to admit. The abuse is done not just by a few horrible perverts but by lots of apparently respectable people. This is hard to admit.
2. Power - where people have it they will abuse it unless they are kept in check. By their own conscience/moral code / by rules / by challenge and by social taboos. We rely IMO too much on rules and procedures and too little on conscience / social taboos and challenge.
3. We don't value children in the right way - there is a tendency to sentimentalise and treat as mini-adults/spoil even rather than guide and teach and protect and care for. Also the sorts of children who end up in care are often horrible - because brutalised and uncared for - and difficult and so it takes immense patience and love and kindness to help them. There is probably also a class issue here. We don't value this work or these children and so it is easy to see why they become prey for abusers.
As to those who are complicit, challenge and speaking up and blowing the whistle are hard. What is the reward? The downsides can be considerable. We value loyalty - to the family, group, friends, team institution etc - over individual courage and conscience. So it is easy to see why people choose the quiet life. A few metaphorical executions of senior staff pour encourager les autres would not go amiss (what the hell was Blair thinking making Hodge Minister for Children?!). But even there we get it wrong - see Sharon Shoosmith.
Our children are our offering to the future. We need to cherish them. All of them.
Edit: SD has just said independently that the term was indeed ‘Storbritannien’ till this time, ie Great Britain.
Would you take on running an organization if there was a presumption of guilt? I know I wouldn’t.
The people, on the other hand, who would be ok with such a presumption would probably be people who were used to behaving badly and then covering it up.
Foster's says Australian in its marketing, why can't something from Britain say British? Where is the mistake that justifies the (sic)?
How is English ok but British not? They're both the same grammatical style.
Not so much outwith.
I wondered though if your step-daughter was at private school? Procedures at state schools are very rigorous these days, and in my experience it's highly unlikely that any teacher could get away with ogling girls in the showers, unless nobody knew. I suspect that dodgy teachers head for private schools, as they are less likely to get caught.
Of course, to really improve safeguarding for children one has to conduct a series of highly bureaucratic checks (DBS etc.), and then folk complain about the nanny state. It's a huge problem.
Added to however many the week before (620k). And the week before that.
That's a fair old chunk of people out of the workforce.
British is ambiguous because of the NI issue - both political and now also in the impex issue. So it's very odd to see anything so sloppy in the impex cointext.
I am not saying that children from good homes are never sexually abused by someone in a position of trust but this is vanishingly less likely than the exploitation of these vulnerable kids which is almost inevitable. And when they are exploited and develop substance abuse problems of their own or a horribly distorted view of what a relationship should be far too many in our society think of them as perpetrators rather than victims. Attempts have been made to change this mindset but evidence of success is thin.
And when it comes to prosecution these vulnerable damaged children make the worst witnesses imaginable. They have been so abused that they struggle to identify the particular incident or the particular offender or the period when this particular thing happened. Their memories are damaged and they are neither coherent nor convincing. So how can a jury convict? Sometimes, as in Rotherham, sheer weight of evidence can do it but it's hard, really hard.
In my job we have what seems like endless training on the various forms of child abuse, how to spot it and what to do about it. I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen it: I have raised issues at times but for obvious reasons we don’t get a running commentary on the outcome of the investigations that follow.
This header reminds me of why we get the endless training, and will help me to take it seriously in September when I sit though the annual reminders at the beginning of term.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-william-farrs-way-out-of-the-pandemic/
https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1420782491175202824?s=20
Guernsey CMO made point yesterday that COVID presentation is different in unvaccinated vs vaccinated.
Aren't Britain and the UK synonymous? If so, what's the issue?
I was a young looking 13 y/o and cycling down a road on my own. Some guy overtakes me in a battered Land Rover then stops and waits for me around a bend. Gets out of his car and stands in the middle of the road with his arms out trying to stop me as I’m approaching. Shouts that I should be wearing a helmet. I shout “ok” while speeding up as fast as I can and going onto the pavement as far away from him as possible.
I made it home safely.
1. He wanted to abduct me
2. He wanted to nick my bike
3. He was some busybody/cycle safety nutter who genuinely thought it was appropriate to physically stop a young boy to tell him off for not wearing a helmet.
Hmm.
Thinking about it, I had all sorts of nightmares as a kid about the what-if-he’d-caught-me in that situation.
Never told my parents. I think I was rightly worried they’d never let me go out alone again if I told them.
I think I’ve spent too much time dwelling. Perhaps it’s a memory best left repressed.
Gonna assume it was 3.
People do often say I’m naive….
1. Yes. Very tricky area. Youth is alluring. It doesn't suddenly become so at the age of consent.
2. Totally agree. Culture and role models are more important than structures, systems and procedures.
3. That's what I was getting at. Respecting kids is different to liking/loving them.