What Sort Of Country Do We Live In

[Ian]

With respect Ian - people who have posted in this thread are professionals which includes me - having spent over 20 years supporting child abuse victims it is never quite that simple or that black and white.

 

It is not for us to judge them for how they feel or to punish them further for what they have suffered.

 

With respect ? This usually means the opposite in my experience.

 

I wonder whether you feel that you are being patronising - as you are the one who mentions this not I. I can't say that I feel patronised - merely that we have a variance of opinion. I'm not too proud to admit it if I'm shown to be wrong but at this point I really dont feel that I was shown to be.

I do however think that you do me an injustice here - At no point did I suggest judging the child nor with the exception of the fact that it is not acceptable did I say that it was always simple or black & white. I actually said quite the opposite (ie I'll admit there is more to the subject than a quick post could cover)

 

In reference to family support I was thinking for example of instances of children showing physical bruises and the parent excusing or "covering" this rather than act against their partner. Ie appreciate that some will be genuinely frightened but when a child is involved I'm afraid it's one instance where I wouldn't sympathise with that.

 

Whilst I accept what you say about not all being disfunctional families is it not true that statistically the majority of abuse cases are committed by family members - generally male when sexual, female when neglect and in poorer / less educated families, young mothers, single parent families etc & alcohol / drug abuse is a common factor? (this is based on an American study)

 

For me the crux is in your opening comment of "having spent over 20 years supporting child abuse victims". Ie in twenty years "the system" has not been able to solve this problem with existing provision and legislation! I don't say that by hanging them all you will necessarily save every child within that period but I do believe that if the perpetrators were removed for the next twenty years you wouldn't have any significant number of people comitting child abuse in the following twenty - as the children currently suffering would be released from the cycle and other potential perpetrators would be discouraged by fear of the consequences - just my opinion.

[pboae]

I'm sorry if I upset you Ian, it wasn't my intention.

 

In relation to this:

 

Excuse me? Where did I say anything about feeling violent, wanting revenge or to personally feel better?

 

That's what I took you to mean by this:

 

When I take over the country these scum will end up with a rope round their necks - and if anyone wants to ask it then yes I'd quite happily tie the noose pull the lever and kick away the stool myself

 

I apologise if I misread what you meant, but to me, that sounds like a personal act of violence.

 

I was trying to show that these things are not as black and white as they seem. To me, the victim's needs have to come first, especially in the case of children, (and note I say needs which may not be the same as what the child wants). If the actions they need to come to terms with what's happened to them are in conflict with what society needs to see justice done, then for me, the child's recovery ought to take priority.

 

To me, the most horrifying thing about child abuse is that it is actually an incredibly mundane and everyday thing, you say that the abuser knows what they are doing wrong and does it anyway, but in fact their behaviour may seem quite trivial to them. It's more likely to be many small daily acts of abuse than one huge headline hitter. In those cases meeting violence with violence is rarely going to be helpful for the victim. And in cases where the child really does have peverse values from their upbringing, it would be reinforcing all those warped ideas that you want to change.

 

For me the crux is in your opening comment of "having spent over 20 years supporting child abuse victims". Ie in twenty years "the system" has not been able to solve this problem with existing provision and legislation! I don't say that by hanging them all you will necessarily save every child within that period but I do believe that if the perpetrators were removed for the next twenty years you wouldn't have any significant number of people comitting child abuse in the following twenty - as the children currently suffering would be released from the cycle and other potential perpetrators would be discouraged by fear of the consequences - just my opinion.

 

That hasn't been the case in the states in USA were they have the death penalty for child abuse or other sex crimes. The offending rates are similar across all states, except that in the ones with the death penalty you are far more likely to find the victim murdered as well. If they are going to the chair for the sex offence anyway, they may as well kill them rather than leave a living witness.

[Ian]

I'm sorry if I upset you Ian, it wasn't my intention.

 

In relation to this:

That's what I took you to mean by this:

I apologise if I misread what you meant, but to me, that sounds like a personal act of violence.

 

 

No, please don't worry about me, you've not upset me at all. I'm a hardy soul and you're more than welcome to express your honest opinion. I have no problem with anyone differing in opinion.

I think for me the only way it would be a personal act of vengence about feeling better or me in any way would be if they'd done it to my child (not that I have any as yet), nephews etc when I'm afraid I probably wouldn't wait for the Courts. Other than that I'd just see it as something needed by society to protect kids and which I was therefore trying to say yes I would be prepared to do it if necessary - in anticipation of someone coming back with the question would you like to have to hang somebody?

 

 

I was trying to show that these things are not as black and white as they seem.

 

To an extent I think we all agree on that somewhere in here don't we? - though to be fair my critics in life would say that I often appear to see things in these terms where in reality I may merely have lacked the time / opportunity or whatever it was to convey my entire sentiment / view

 

 

To me, the victim's needs have to come first, especially in the case of children, (and note I say needs which may not be the same as what the child wants). If the actions they need to come to terms with what's happened to them are in conflict with what society needs to see justice done, then for me, the child's recovery ought to take priority.

 

Whilst I entirely agree with your sentiment of putting the children first where I think we differ is that I am saying that if helping one in a particular case causes many other children to go on suffering as a consequence then it may be that in some instances it's just not possible. - I did say somewhere above that I didn't see it all as black & white. (just 99.99% of it might suggest my critics - not necessarily about this)

 

 

To me, the most horrifying thing about child abuse is that it is actually an incredibly mundane and everyday thing,

 

This one I just can't accept. Wasn't that where the post began? It was certainly why I joined it rather than passed it by

 

 

you say that the abuser knows what they are doing wrong and does it anyway, but in fact their behaviour may seem quite trivial to them. It's more likely to be many small daily acts of abuse than one huge headline hitter. In those cases meeting violence with violence is rarely going to be helpful for the victim. And in cases where the child really does have peverse values from their upbringing, it would be reinforcing all those warped ideas that you want to change.

 

 

For me I think this would depend on the manner of abuse - I can accept that a child who grew up with nothing but shouting and swearing for example would probably repeat that pattern with their own child and know no better. I cant accept that a paedophile doesnt have any comprehension that what he is doing is wrong in every sense of the word - moral / legal - the same study I mentioned above would suggest that most abused do not become the abuser for example.

Edited April 9, 2007 by Ian

[Kats inc]

Whilst I believe there are differences in causes between emotional and physical or sexual abuse as you say yourself history often repeats itself - sometimes in a very vicious circle - tragic but true. So why, knowing that, would you possibly not see the point of getting this poor child out of that circle and into adoption or even responsible fostering where he could in time learn exactly what was wrong with it and stop it ultimately repeating with his kids too?

 

He'll run away - Well I'm sorry but that's in part what our taxes are paying you to stop. I'm not suggesting that's easy, that there's a quick fix etc but he's a 10 year old child who knows no better and has been taught some perverse values whilst you are a responsible adult who does know right from wrong. It may not be easy to solve how you stop him running away but that is the job you've chosen to take on.

 

How would he react to his parents public punishment? Without knowing the child I could only speculate but I would suggest in the same manner he reacted to being taken away from them. He's probably confused, frightened uncertain about the future and lashing out at you because you don't particularly matter to him where rightly or wrongly the only faily he knows does. That doesn't make it right though - somehow that circle must be broken and as I said above I believe the wider picture is that many families and children would be prevented further heartache if they were forced to think about their actions and consequences through what happened to others and seeing that child abuse of any form is not normal and not acceptable - end of story

 

Ian in short I think your post is patronising and you've come across as arrogant and supercilious.Do not try to judge me by things I post and on work I have done.I am merely making an observation in a post in which I can not and will not post any more detail than I have.If I could you would perhaps understand more.But I can not post intimate details of this child,his family situation or any background to the case as that is breaching confidentiality.Therefore I give a brief synopsis of how I felt and in doing so give you a very very small snapshot and a very very tiny piece of what was,believe me,a massive jigsaw....infact the case was known in my office as War and Peace Volumes one to ten as it was so big and convaluted.

So quite how you've managed to make such a massive leap into being judge and jury is quite beyond me.Spend a week in our shoes and then perhaps you may rethink.A lot of people do.The reality of family life on these estates is a whole world away from most people's reality and putting the problems right is not quite the one step problem solving that many imagine it to be.

[pboae]

For me I think this would depend on the manner of abuse - I can accept that a child who grew up with nothing but shouting and swearing for example would probably repeat that pattern with their own child and know no better. I cant accept that a paedophile doesnt have any comprehension that what he is doing is wrong in every sense of the word - moral / legal - the same study I mentioned above would suggest that most abused do not become the abuser for example.

 

But it's the truth, humans can convince themselves of the most improbable things, if they want to believe something enough then nothing will convince them they are wrong. That is one way that partners can fail to see abuse, it's so completely at odds with their world view that it is impossible for them to see it. People always think the crimes they commit are lesser than the crimes other people commit. That goes for speeding motorists right through to murderers, everyone thinks their situation was exceptional and unique. Never undestimate people's ability to distort their world view so they can live with contradictions.

 

I can't explain this very well, maybe someone else here can. Sometimes it can go beyond failing to see what's in front of you, to outright mental illness and delusion, that's a fine line sometimes. But as impossible as it can be to explain or comprehend, and as disgusting and heart wrenching it can be to try and understand it, there are paedophiles that genuinely believe they have a healthy consensual relationship with a child, that even a toddler can flirt with them and initiate a relationship. I'm the first to admit I cannot understand how they can reach that stage, and I am certainly not condoning it or accepting it, but I have to admit they really honestly do believe that, however impossible and revolting it may seem to me. If we don't try to understand how they reach that point, we have no chance at all of intercepting before they get there.

[border collie]

there are paedophiles that genuinely believe they have a healthy consensual relationship with a child, that even a toddler can flirt with them and initiate a relationship.

 

 

This has been clearly demonstrated on documentaries on television when the paedophiles are interviewed. They appear to truly believe it.

[Ian]

Ian in short I think your post is patronising and you've come across as arrogant and supercilious.......

 

The reality of family life on these estates is a whole world away from most people's reality and putting the problems right is not quite the one step problem solving that many imagine it to be.

 

Kats Inc, clearly I have upset you here and for that I sincerely apologise. It was certainly not my intention to upset anyone nor indeed my perception of my post.

 

Arrogant? I dont think this is actually true though to be fair an entire side of my family could at times come across that way. Stubborn or Opionated, I'd hold my hands up to. Supercilious? Again I'd say not though I genuinely saddened to think I might have come across to you as being so.

 

In my defence however I would say that I wouldn't for a minute have expected you to reveal confidential information.. I don't think that I was judging you personally - perhaps the system within which you work, on child abusers certainly but not I don't think on you - we've never met or even spoken.

 

As for life on the estates however you are way out on that. When I was just 2 or 3 years old we moved to Branshome - as far as I'm aware Europes largest housing estate, I stayed on Bransholme until moving to a little village when I was 31 so I do know a little about life on the estates.

 

I'm not so sure that a week in your office would change my mind. But by all means if you can get that past your bosses then I would be willing to take up your offer.

[Kats inc]

Kats Inc, clearly I have upset you here and for that I sincerely apologise. It was certainly not my intention to upset anyone nor indeed my perception of my post.

 

Arrogant? I dont think this is actually true though to be fair an entire side of my family could at times come across that way. Stubborn or Opionated, I'd hold my hands up to. Supercilious? Again I'd say not though I genuinely saddened to think I might have come across to you as being so.

 

In my defence however I would say that I wouldn't for a minute have expected you to reveal confidential information.. I don't think that I was judging you personally - perhaps the system within which you work, on child abusers certainly but not I don't think on you - we've never met or even spoken.

 

As for life on the estates however you are way out on that. When I was just 2 or 3 years old we moved to Branshome - as far as I'm aware Europes largest housing estate, I stayed on Bransholme until moving to a little village when I was 31 so I do know a little about life on the estates.

 

I'm not so sure that a week in your office would change my mind. But by all means if you can get that past your bosses then I would be willing to take up your offer.

 

You perhaps come across like other many others do,that it's so easy to have answers when you're not the one doing the work.

I know you didn't expect me to divulge information,I was just trying to explain why I found it so annoying that you'd leapt to your conclusion that I wasn't earning my living,paid by your taxes,by stopping him running back to his parents.These children are so damaged by what they've been subjected to they don't think the way most children do.Put the way you rationalise things out of your head Ian because they do not think like you.Normality to them is not anywhere near normality to you.It's not even on the same plane.

Your mind would be boggled by a week in my office.When you get to the stage where you are casually talking about 'oh there's that bloke that bu**ered those kids last year' like you've popped to the shops for a loaf of bread you suddenly realise your world is warped and it's not a good thing.It's not something my manager would contemplate although I suspect it would be interesting and if you'd like a more in depth chat at any time let me know.

[Kathyw]

My biggest bug bear is the number of children killed in their own homes who are on an 'At Risk' list.

 

I have seen a few progs where the sw goes to the house, is told the child is not there as the mum/dad has taken the child to visit/see someone and the sw accepts this and walks away.

 

My old Mum said 'They should get rid of all those gulliable people with degrees hanging from their ears and replace the lot of them with Grandmothers and give the Grandmothers the power to call in the police to demand access to the child there and then, Grandmothers with their varied experience of young children and guile of people trying to cover something up, would certainly not stand any nonsense'.

 

I think Mum had a very good point.

 

I am not saying all sw are useless but the ones who did nothing to protect children on the at risk list, when the child died they just carried on, maybe a reprimand but rarely ever sacked.

 

When Maria Caldwell died at the hands of her step-father, the newspapers all said Never Again, how many children have died since? yet we have all these so called provisions in place to help.

 

If you hurt a child you pay for it - simple.

It's against the law to hurt a child and if you break the law there is a penalty to pay, ignorance is not an excuse in my book.

[chuckey-lee]

Plus I still hold with the view that many parents abuse not out of spite or vindicteness or malice but out of a lack of knowledge or insight or because they themselves know no better.It's often just history repeating itself sadly.No excuse but the sad truth.

 

 

exacly my point , like I said, family-life is MORE important then any material things money can buy. ask any kid what they rather want , that brand new bike/computer/toy OR an older/cheaper version BUT with more time with parent(s) / carer to share it with

I mean ,at the end of the day what are we teaching our kids? that its ok to see someone be beaten up ,no matter what size (human or animal), and just close our eyes and walk away?

and another point, why is it that childeren keep putting their parents in homes when their old and then never visit them again? not by any chance got anything to do with all this 'each for themselfs and f everybody else' society we live in today and its only gonna get worse if we stuff our kids off with just anybody for most of the time instead of building a propper bond with them and teach them love,respect and values.

Ofcourse there are always gonna be the people that just never learn ,Im afraid that's human nature and not a fat lot we can do about other then stand by and help if needed, not close our eyes and walk away

 

there's a lot more I'd like to say about this subject but I just don't know how to put it in english and not just that, I'd be sitting here till the morning writting

 

my heart goes out to all those little innocent ones that had to suffer (and still do) and it sometimes makes me cry when Im looking into my baby's happy eyes and think of what they must have been going through

[snow]

Ian I'm truly sorry that your experience of someone saying "with respect" to you has been so negative - on this occasion however I can assure you there was no alternate meaning.

 

I wonder whether you feel that you are being patronising - as you are the one who mentions this not I. I can't say that I feel patronised - merely that we have a variance of opinion.

 

Fear not Ian I certainly don't feel I was being at all patronising when inviting people to inform and educate themselves about this subject, and since you have stated clearly you don't feel patronised then all is well.

 

I am however curious - could you tell me if you have any direct experience of working with either abuse survivors or with the professional bodies who both work and research the issue? It would be helpful for me to get some kind of idea of the basis on which you are forming your opinions.

 

In reference to family support I was thinking for example of instances of children showing physical bruises and the parent excusing or "covering" this rather than act against their partner. Ie appreciate that some will be genuinely frightened but when a child is involved I'm afraid it's one instance where I wouldn't sympathise with that.

 

And in that you aren't alone sadly - it's very unfair on the non abusing parent but plenty of people feel the same way, thankfully though many more understand what conditioning is, and how abusers abuse, and exactly why non abusing parents collude with or condone the abuse to their child. Again a topic which I invite you to research in more depth, as you rightly say it's far too complicated a subject for a quick post to cover.

 

As for the American study - not all studies actually make the transition well to the UK for comparrision, I'd need to see the specific study and be very happy with their control group and the way the study was conducted - far too many American studies have been discredited over the years for me to base much credence on their findings without double and triple checking it against similar studies world wide. Could you cite the specific study for me and I'll see if I get time to take a look at it.

 

For me the crux is in your opening comment of "having spent over 20 years supporting child abuse victims". Ie in twenty years "the system" has not been able to solve this problem with existing provision and legislation!

 

Exactly my point too Ian - there are far too many myths still out there which affect how the laws are applied and a lot more work needs doing to overhaul the existing laws. Neither one of those things can happen overnight and to try and change both is an exhausting, utterly frustrating process. Which is again why I invited you and anyone else reading this thread to actually learn more about the subject. I'm not running any courses at the moment - ironically I'm trying to take a break from this area of work *wry smile* but if that changes at any point I'd be glad to extend an invitation to you to attend.

 

Kathy

 

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that offenders should not be punished - we are merely disagreeing over the type of punishment.

[chuckey-lee]

sorry ,Im a bit behind with keeping up reading throught the last few posts, but on one point I have to agree with ian, I was myself sexual abused from as far as I can remember at 3yrs of age up until my teens ( too long a story to go in to now) so I can speak from a child's point of view towards their offender(s) ,up untill say about your teenage you dont always know any better and trust 'the grown-ups' and whatever they do with/to you and sometimes for a child its not possible to know the different types of loves there are ,doG this is sooo hard to explain in a simple post

 

but If I ever find out that somebody has laid one dirty finger on any of my (step)children , I will personally wring this persons neck ! I would deffinitly not ask him first what made him do this , and nobody can convince me otherwise, they KNOW that what they do/did is wrong, very wrong , why else would they try to hide their nasty ways? so have a guess what Id do to somebody who has killed a child?

 

 

sorry, Ill be back, need to sort spinning head out first now

[border collie]

Viv

[snow]

OK this threads getting moved as of right now into contro where it is no longer visible to non regular members

[scotslass]

sorry, Ill be back, need to sort spinning head out first now

 

 

Liz x