Pants!
The Urban Dictionary describes the word ‘Pants‘ thus: Adj. British slang. Not good; total crap; nonsense; rubbish; bad; woefully inadequate; useless; a waste of time and space.
I just thought I’d mention that before I told you that the NSPCC has today announced that their brand spanking new campaign is to be called – wait for it – ‘Talk Pants’!
The NSPCC has belatedly accepted that having celebrity pretendy policemen tweeting manically about the latest ‘questioning’ of some geriatric comedian who may or may not have put his hand on the bum of a 15-year-old 40 years ago is all very well when it comes to garnering donations from well intentioned middle-aged cat lovers, and works wonders for getting your name plastered all over the media – but it doesn’t actually do anything for the 90% of sexual abuse victims who never get to meet a celebrity in their entire miserable lives – nor a celebrity policeman.
As of today, they have turned over a new leaf – in future their attention will be on those 90% of genuine horrific child abuse victims.
Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, said children needed to know “stranger danger” was not the biggest threat they faced. “The shocking case of Savile has horrified many parents and understandably it has heightened concerns around sexual abuse. But most abuse is closer to home and if we are to tackle this issue we must prevent it before it even starts,” he said.
Well, hurrah for that – but wait – how exactly are they going to tackle this issue? How are they going to use all those extra donations to protect these children?
This is the charity’s biggest campaign since the Full Stop fundraising campaign which raised £250 million. Although the campaign raised awareness of the issue, critics said it did not appear to reduce the incidence of child abuse which appeared to be the objective.
Um, they are going to leave it up to ‘parents’ to deal with it….
Mr Wanless said he was not ordering parents to do anything but most since want to protect their children, this was a way to help.
“I am not telling parents what to do. We are giving them the opportunity to step up, help them with what to say. Who as a parent does not want to protect their children?
“Who as parent does not want to protect their children.” That old rhetorical question!
The biggest group of young children at risk, is those who suffer from what is euphemistically called ‘learning disabilities’ these days. ‘Learning Disabilities’ range from the mildly ‘thick’ and poorly educated – right through to scraps of humanity, lovingly nurtured by those who gave birth to them, but without any means of communication whatsoever, deaf, dumb, blind, and often horrifically physically handicapped. My heart goes out to those parents as to no other group of people. The law forces them to send their ‘child’ to school every day.
‘School’ is another euphemism in this instance. It often amounts to little more than what the rest of us might consider ‘day care’. Every morning a bus will arrive, driven by a man or woman they may or may not know from Adam, who will take their child to a centre where parents may or may not be welcome to drop in whenever they please. There, their child will be fed, amused by coloured lights played on the ceiling, diapers will be changed, games will be played, by a group of people they may or may not know from Adam. Their only reassurance in this system is that none of those people will actually have been convicted of any offences involving young children. (See CRB checks passim).
Many of these children, in the absence of effective means of vocal communication, will be endearingly tactile and touchingly trusting, and pitifully vulnerable. The end result is a form of torture for anxious parents which cannot possibly be fully appreciated by those of us who do not have to endure 18 years of it. These are parents, Mr Wanless, who would willingly and without your prompting, explain to their child that “the parts of their body covered by underwear are private and no one should “ask to see it, touch or kiss them” there. It also urges them to say to no to family members or other people they love if they want to touch them there, and then tell someone what has happened”. If only they could.
Perhaps some of that £250 million war chest you have amassed could be used to pay Inspectors to go into homes like Winterbourne, on a regular and unannounced basis? You know, like the old cruelty man. Old fashioned idea, but being all modern and media savvy is not all it’s cracked up to be.
Then there are another large group of children at risk, those to whom the plural ‘parents’ is a mystery. ‘Parent’ they would understand. Or ‘Parent accompanied by long string of Uncles’. Some of them will be caring enough to have already explained to their child that ‘the parts of their body covered by underwear are private and no one should “ask to see it, touch or kiss them” there’. They will be the ones who have no need of your patronising ‘pants‘ campaign. but there will be others, sadly, who will be over occupied working out where the next bottle of Vodka is going to come from or whether to have the full colour tattoo or save the money for a rave in Ibiza. I fear your campaign will be lost on them. Assuming they can even read.
Perhaps some of that £250 million war chest you have amassed could be used to pay Inspectors to stalk the corridors of social housing, on a regular and unannounced basis? You know, like the old cruelty man. Old fashioned idea, but being all modern and media savvy is not all it’s cracked up to be.
There is another smaller group of children at risk – those who actually do have ‘parents’ – and one of those parents is the very one who is “touching or kissing them there”. Do you not think your expensive campaign might be a tad wasted on that parent – even on the other parent who shares the house with them? Perhaps if the old ‘cruelty man’ was in better evidence and more accessible to these children, they might be encouraged to speak up sooner? Just an idea, you know, after all, we now know that Child Line, which you bought from Esther Rantzen, did absolutely nothing, heard not a peep, from – what was it you said? The possibly 1300 victims of Savile? That sounds to me like the largest field trial ever of the idea that kids would go into a phone box and talk to a stranger over the phone of such matters. Didn’t work, did it? So dump it, and go back to real people in places where kids go….
Still, that was quite some admission from you, that the majority of parents now think that the greatest danger to their child might be bumping into a celebrity in the corridors of the BBC and getting their bum touched:
Many parents appear to be confused about where the real danger lies. Over half said “stranger danger” was one of their top concerns for their children, yet it is well established that 90 per cent of sexual abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the child.
Whose fault is that, eh? Who confused them? Who left thousands of children at risk because their parents thought that ‘stranger danger’ was the biggest risk to their child?
Well, blow me down, if it wasn’t the NSPCC, and the ghastly NAPAC, and their involvement in the Yewtree charade.
By God, you have along way to go Mr Wanless, before you can ever again lay claim to being an organisation that is about ‘protecting children’. Now get on with it. You’ve had your flirtation with celebrity and oodles of publicity – now get back to the hard grind of actually protecting some of these children. It’s ‘pants‘ I know – not glamorous, but someone has to do it.
July 12, 2013 at 13:36
-
@Ali’rum’Baba
To be fair, I was told never to take sweets off a stranger
when I was a kid on the street, and that would have been 1962 or so. Maybe the
Moors Murders changed everything but I suspect this is just basic human logic
at work.
- July 12, 2013 at 01:45
-
Nowadays, most if not all adults are fitted with ye olde cell phone. A
child encounters you and asks for help, you call the police on said device,
stay with the child until they arrive and then, after providing your
information, you leave them to it.
Perhaps there should be a public service ad made to this effect. A special
number for child protection issues from your phone.
Stranger-danger thinking belongs in the 80s, before technological
advances.
- July 12, 2013 at 10:49
-
Presumably the modern thing to do if you find “a child in distress” is to
use your mobile to phone the NSPCC and report another child neglect
statistic…..
-
July 12, 2013 at 16:25
-
Nowadays, most kids have cellphones of their own, at least if America
is any model to go by.
-
July 12, 2013 at 13:20
-
What a palaver. “Police, help, a child wants help to cross the road –
please send an officer”.
Anyway, to get that far the forbidden contact
would have been made.
Most adults could always be trusted to help a
child. The Stranger Danger nonsense has put paid to that. Now a kid needing
help is on his own. Teaches self reliance, I suppose
-
July 12, 2013 at 00:48
-
The ‘stranger danger’ idea, launched by child protection charities in the
1980s, is the single most damaging thing to be done to child safety. In
instructing children to trust no adult that they didn’t know, it undermined
and demolished the most effective protection for children as they ventured out
in the world without their parents. Before then, the sound advice would be:
“If you need help, ask a grown-up”. That safety net has been forbidden to
them. And any adult, especially a man, will think twice and more before
intervening if a child asks for help.
And those brought up from the mid-80s
onwards who are now adults must wonder if they themselves are untrustworthy.
And yet this destructive nonsense is still preached.
- July 12, 2013 at 10:51
-
@ The ‘stranger danger’ idea, launched by child protection charities in
the 1980s, is the single most damaging thing to be done to child safety.
@
That bloody Jimmy Savile can be blamed for anything……….
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F5yReBkLwxE/UGoavR–laI/AAAAAAAAvt8/Dg9mbwkZ-Pg/s400/Jimmy%2BSavile%2Bintroduces%2BBenjamin%2BRabbit%2Band%2BThe%2BStranger%2BDanger.jpg
-
July 10, 2013 at 16:44
-
For 30 yrs our sex-obsessed bent-Cops/Media/Charities daily mass deception
has been deviously masked as ‘Child Protection’.
When in fact they don’t give a damn about 90% of serious child abuse
victims.
Amounting to nothing less than a typical UK totalitarian-tabloid headline :
“British Justice & Journalism Serial Gang Raped – In Plain Sight!”
- July 9, 2013 at 17:48
-
THE National Society of the Perversion & Cruelty to Children have a
main UK news story – which exposes them with their pants around the ankles so
speak.
The bimbo on the radio reading the hourly propaganda tells me their new
campaign is to “protect children against people like Jimmy Savile & Stuart
Hall”
Do they mean ghosts?
-
July 10, 2013 at 13:52
-
@Chris ……. great I’m still chuckling about your ‘Bill Baloney’ reference
on Moor’s ?. ‘National Society of Perversion and Cruelty to Children’,
classic ! I hope your allusion to Stuart Hall as a ‘ghost’ is not a portent,
that is, I hope that this crap does not hasten the deaths of any of the
elderly ‘accused’ . I cannot begin to imagine the hell some of these people
are in right now. Big smiley to you – and them !
- July 10, 2013 at 15:06
-
If Hall was innocent he should have pleaded so. Guilty or innocent,
he’s put himself in whatever hell he’s now in.
I’m more inclined to feel sorry for Gary Glitter. He patently is
innocent because he wasn’t even in the TV Centre back in 1974, seeing as
Clunk Click wasn’t made there. He’s now in his ninth month of Bail. The
process of UK Justice is as debased as the allegations against him.
- July 9, 2013 at 10:55
-
I thought I was missing some ‘smalls’. Many years ago, a child about 4 came
up close to my open car door and asked ‘ Are you a stranger?’ I went BOO and
made a pretend grab for him. He ran to his mum who was sitting on a doorstep
close to. She laughed and said ‘ Now you know not to talk to strangers’. A
small example of how hard it is for mums to get very young children understand
difficult matters that adults are aware of. She was a good mum,doing her best
to keep her child safe. Many children these days may be aware from an early
age of sexual matters and not understand that they should not indulge. This
incident predated the internet. Now what can be seen and related/shown to
children by other children, is truly terrifying to contemplate. I remember 2
young boys gleefully showing me key rings hanging on the living room wall of a
naughty kind. In the new mums bedroom were ‘fanny pictures’ of their mum, also
gleefully pointed out. Polaroid pictures….pre digital. Such on early induction
by parents into sexy images was a shock. I kept a straight face. Now what
happens I wonder? Is this child abuse? I line managered as instructed. As
nothing known on this happy family after some in depth research….GP and SS and
so on. They were left to their earthy ways. Would this be the case now?
- July 9, 2013 at 12:08
-
@MsMildred
Surely this sort of openness about sex and sexuality is
what has been recommended to the lower orders for the last forty years? I
should imagine the NSPCC would thoroughly approve. Peter Saunders of NAPAC
seems to blame all his woes on his zipped-up father and the lack of any
sexual discussions within his family grouping……
“The youngest of five children, Peter Saunders was born into a devout
Catholic family. Church and grammar schooling were the norm. Discussions of
sex and swearing never took place in our household – these were taboo
subjects. Sex wasn’t discussed and I certainly didn’t know anything about it
or my body – it was a complete unknown. Dad was an accountant, church-going;
brothers went to grammar school; sister’s a teacher. On the surface, we were
a totally normal family. Underneath it, we were a totally screwed up,
dysfunctional family, he laughs bitterly again.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-insistence-of-memory.html
- July 9, 2013 at 12:14
-
Ditto for me and my family, although I did manage somehow. But this
could account for why I have been divorced twice. No one told me that
women weren’t supposed to enjoy sex. So I spent most of both marriages
feeling like some sort of a tart.
- July 9, 2013 at 10:34
-
Apologies for harping on about Hewson but Channel 4′s attempt to make her
look like the devil incarnate will backfire. People will read the Spiked
article/s and the comments – the word is spreading folks !
-
July 9, 2013 at 12:09
-
And it’s all getting so boring. I hardly ever get Red Arrowed anymore.
Unless I make some logical comment about The Church of England and its
approach to Gay Marriage. Although I can’t say I care if homosexuals get
married or not. It’s just he raving hypocrisy that gets to me.
-
July 9, 2013 at 18:54
-
Like most of us when under-AOC while rightly affirming our humanity
against naZty neo Victorian nannies seriously aBusing young girls.
By burning their fingers for merely ‘aMusing’ themselves.
It’s a fair bet a young Babs Hewson (now barrister), was ‘aMused’ by more
than an uncoerced harmless smoke in the school bogs or dorms.
“It’s Only Sex But We Like It.”
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/savile-case-lead-persecution-lawyer-says-181543385.html#zrwzOaL
-
July 9, 2013 at 06:21
-
Always empathy for all true victims.
But what’s rapidly emerging via (90% unreported) cases, like 5 lusty
schoolboys shagging a woman, kids aged six sexually-propositioning teachers,
and a 15 y.o. girl barbarically barred from visiting her lover/teacher
brutally UK imprisoned for 5 1/2 years.
Is that, like 1950s gay sex now all legal (almost compulsory), all
uncoerced unlawful sex is about as abusive as a crafty smoke in the school
bogs !
- July 9, 2013 at 01:04
-
Makes you wonder how we all managed to grow up successfully without any
interference from the SS, well named Social Services. As you say we had the
‘cruelty’ men who knew what they were doing. Now parents are afraid to take
their kids to A&E for the accidents all kids have, how did we come to
this?
- July 9, 2013 at 00:42
-
This is all rather odd but vaguely reminiscent.
You teach ,well
indoctrinate, young children that sex iis everywhere and is ok ( even though
to a young child it is understandable as dark matter)
And then warn them
that men ( as women have no interest in sex) might want to do things to
them.
Of couse , back in my day, it was butterfly bombs that we were warned
about.
Big sisters were there for all other protection. (And they were big
back then)
- July 8, 2013 at 22:26
-
Interesting interview on Channel 4 News if the Telegraphs article is
anything to go by. Ms Hewson sticks her head above the parapet again. This
time she just has to laugh as Krishnan Guru M raises the subject of one
satanic abuse !
When asked by presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy whether she found it funny,
she said: “I do. Satanic ritual abuse doesn’t exist, it’s like alien
abduction.”
“Are you saying that the people who have made these allegations have made
it up?” Mr Guru-Murthy then asked, to which she responded: “I would think so.
They have made allegations but that’s not evidence.
Might be worth a gander on Ch 4 on demand just to see how she handles this
!
- July 9, 2013 at 09:31
-
I’d be interested to hear her clarify to the great British public about
the full implications of lowering in the age of consent. The gay lobby would
expect the same treatment…….
Insofar as her mentioning the “better” American laws, she might be better
off promoting the imposition of the “Statutory Rape” principle. This would
take all the moral panic out of the courts at least. There would be no more
“jury disgust” or legal argument about how the older person was “led on” and
all that sort of stuff. All that would be required was evidence that sex
took place and then the older person is guilty. Nobody need be the judge of
their morals as everyone did in the Jeremy Forrest case. It’s not allowed
and the law is quite clear. Obey it and you’ll be fine, break it and you can
expect trouble. The muddiness about the current “sex laws” is one of the
biggest problems and fuels the bonfires.
-
July 9, 2013 at 12:02
-
She is right, isn’t she. And she was more than a match for that
Interviewer. And I can’t see her views doing her any harm either.
-
July 8, 2013 at 20:50
-
There are so many more interesting people about these days than there were
when I was a kid.
-
July 8, 2013 at 20:40
-
Remember ‘nonce-sense’?
- July 8, 2013 at 20:17
-
More hypocrisy from another country that televises Toddlers and Tiaras.
- July 8, 2013 at 19:35
-
I assume from this campaign it is quite acceptable for the “uncles” and
DJ’s to cop-a-feel of 13-year-old breasts.
And if the 13 year-old were wearing a thong, then a bit of gluteal massage
would also be OK.
-
July 8, 2013 at 19:07
-
Another all-Anglo ‘Emperors’ New Clothes/’Elephant In The Room’.
Always empathy for all true victims.
But, for 30 years, 90% of myths perpetuated by UK-US Fraud Market
bent-mainstream Cops/Media/Charridies/anti-Social Services etc, are for greed,
ratings, profit, and corrupt compo.
A Mass Deception scam masked within a Child Protection-Racket, amounting to
a populist New Patriotism – last resort of scoundrels.
For 30 years, wized up kids have been more sexualized/abused BY that
bent-mainstream sex-filled so called ‘Family’ mass media. Leading now to
increasing numbers, in schools, on the streets, and web, seeking sex, from
teachers, relatives, and family friends, as well as by so called ‘Stranger
Danger’ often more danger to stranger-abusers than the so called ‘abused’. And
all bent-mainstream unreported of course.
After 30 years the shallow ignorant masses now know less not more about
true pedophilia-adultophilia, traditionally residing not least in Anglo-elite
education producing our so called leaders. The mislead Anglo public are all
victims, told as much about the truth of under age sex, as the bad joke James
Bond knows about true spying = SQUAT !
Quote truthful wartime troops: “We are the mushrooms, kept in the dark and
fed Bullshit!”
Check these links, just the tip of a vast iceberg, 90% unreported.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3096988/Kids-aged-6-are-teacher-sex-abusers.html
- July 8, 2013 at 18:50
-
- July 9, 2013 at 08:21
-
I’d be interested to hear her clarify to the great British public about
the full implications of lowering in the age of consent. The gay lobby would
expect the same treatment…….
Insofar as her mentioning the “better” American laws, she might be better
off promoting the imposition of the “Statutory Rape” principle. This would
take all the moral panic out of the courts at least. There would be no more
“jury disgust” or legal argument about how the older person was “led on” and
all that sort of stuff. All that would be required was evidence that sex
took place and then the older person is guilty. Nobody need be the judge of
their morals as everyone did in the Jeremy Forrest case. It’s not allowed
and the law is quite clear. Obey it and you’ll be fine, break it and you can
expect trouble. The muddiness about the current “sex laws” is one of the
biggest problems and fuels the bonfires.
- July 9, 2013 at 09:40
-
Just realised the above was a *reply* intended for a different
rabbitaway comment…… *blush*
Just while I’m here though, this statistics page for 2012, on the NSPCC
site is salutary reading and is relevant here,
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/england_wdf49858.pdf
Neglect……………………
18,220
Physical abuse……………. 4,690
Sexual abuse……………….
2,220
Emotional abuse…………. 12,330
Multiple……………………. 5,390
Sexual Abuse seems to form 5% of the problem, but 95% of the white
noise.
-
July 9, 2013 at 10:09
-
@Moor – Thanks – here’s a link to Ms Hewson’s ch 4 piece, note how
she responds to the consent question near the end … ” …. as you will see
when you read the article”
‘Controversial lawyer speaks out’
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/
- July
10, 2013 at 07:26
-
Too true Moor.
And for 30 years, 90% of ‘White Noise’ has been from our bent-media
for greed, ratings, profit. Mass deception deviously masked as ‘Child
Protection’.
They don’t give damn about true child victims or they would have
prioritiesed the 90% most serious NON-sex child abuses.
Fast emerging now thru cases (90% unreported) like once-criminal
Gaysex/now almost compulsory; 5 lusty schoolboys shagging a willing
woman; kids aged 6 sexually-propositioning teachers; a 15 y.o. brutally
UK barred from visiting her lover barbarically UK jailed for 5 1/2
years. Is that (90% unreported) all uncoerced unlawful sex, is about as
harmful as a crafty smoke in the school bogs.
” Govt Health Warning – 90% Junk Media Can Serioulsy Damage The Mind
! “
- July 10, 2013 at 12:56
-
@ Is that (90% unreported) all uncoerced unlawful sex, is about as
harmful as a crafty smoke in the school bogs. @
The keyword being “uncoerced”. I’m inclined to agree with you.
There have been times recently where it would appear some sextions of
society would have us believe that sex is worse than death………
I also sometimes think a lot of the current paedo-panic amongst the
predominantly male-dominated “Authorities”, is all about the same old,
same old, male angst concerning independent female sexuality, an
aspect that seems completely lost on the Feminista’s just now.
What do you make of Murdoch’s divorce from the fragrant Wendy,
btw………….
- July
10, 2013 at 16:24
-
Moor,
Always empathy for all TRUE victims.
I like your subtle (if intended) “seXtions of society”.
As for Mafiosa Mind Rapist Multi-Billionaire Rupe and his circa 40
yrs junior, pretty young wife. It’s obvious that intially it was his
body that attracted her, but when the BIG scandal hit, she couldn’t
‘hack’ being close to a likely BIG criminal.
When they wed, he was of course warned: “Rupe, at such an age, sex
with a very young attractive girl could be dangerous to health.”
Rupe: “Yeah, well – if she dies, she dies.”
LoL.
- July 8, 2013 at 18:49
-
The NSPCC has made my day – now there’s something you won’t be hearing
again from me any time soon. Treat yourself , go to their site and ‘download’
your underpants – Online ! Strewth Sheila someone is taking the piss here
surely ! ‘Learn the underwear rule and you’ll have it covered !’ For Welsh
speakers there’s a ‘download’ your Welsh underpants – online …… any more
offerings folks ?
- July 8,
2013 at 19:18
-
I didn’t think the Welsh wore underpa….
No, wait. That’s the other lot!
-
July 8, 2013 at 20:25
-
Easy mistake to make – the Welsh are reputed to wear velcro trousers,
as it apparently has a beneficial gripping effect on wool.
- July 8, 2013 at 18:14
-
Saint Mark of Wimbledon has been grumbling about this campaign as it “mixes
up age relevance for children”
Mixing up relevance and C.P. being his forte….
- July 8, 2013 at 15:35
-
When it comes to “Stranger danger”, this should be required viewing for all
under 5s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxrZ7NbuVms
- July 8, 2013 at 15:20
-
I should maybe clarify that my anal reference was due to cogitating about
the mother of the modern abuse mania: Marietta Higgs.
But I see Spiked! got there some time ago………..
“The Cleveland child abuse scandal was a watershed moment in modern British
society. Firstly, it revealed a disturbing, unhealthy obsession among state
officials with seeing child abuse everywhere. And secondly, strikingly the
panic was promoted, directed and sustained largely by those who describe
themselves as left-wing or liberal, rather than by authoritarian
conservatives. By this time in the twentieth century, many on the British left
had started to view ordinary working people as a dangerous scourge that the
state must control and reprimand. Despite the original child-abuse claims
being thrown out of court, the Cleveland scandal still established a precedent
for how the state and its left-leaning cheerleaders viewed working-class
families. The new emerging idea was that parents could not be trusted to bring
up their children responsibly, and that children everywhere were under threat
from the adults they knew. Of course, after the Cleveland scandal, the
hysterical language used by social workers and their supporters was toned
down; but that powerful sense of institutionalised distrust of ordinary
parents which exploded around Cleveland remains intact.
And now, following the Savile revelations, respectable observers feel
emboldened to rehabilitate the Cleveland debacle, and to cast doubts on the
fury many people felt with the state officials who kidnapped children and
criminalised parents. In 2007, Higgs said in an interview with the BBC
regional TV news show, Look North, that she would do the same thing again if
she had to, and that she suspects the number of children being abused in
Cleveland was even greater than the 121 named. Her unapologetic attitude
speaks to the continuing strength of the idea that parents can’t be trusted
and thus the state must monitor them closely. Such prejudices and elitist
mistrust have poisoned and ruined people’s lives in the past – let’s not allow
observers to rehabilitate Cleveland now as part of the post-Savile effort to
shore up the principle of zealous state intrusion into family life.”
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13120
- July 8, 2013 at 13:18
-
Presumably the pants campaign will require parental explanation of the
purpose of the anus too?
This passage is quite a conundrum:
“Marilyn Hawes, founder of the charity Enough Abuse, agrees it is vital to
talk to children about the issue – so that they are ready to tell someone when
“something does not feel right” with adults they have been led to trust. She
says her sons were abused by someone who became a trusted family friend. But
she says parents need to watch for changes in behaviour or attitudes to other
adults too. “Talk all you can but don’t ignore the behaviour. I watched it for
20 years,” she said. “Paedophiles groom the adults before getting to the
children. I was told by the police it could take seven years before they
abused children they had been getting to know] and that the wait might give
them a buzz. “They will be looking for a window of opportunity over many
years, so that they are there, offering to help by picking up your daughter
when you are stressed or have to go to hospital.” Ms Hawes thinks the campaign
will not work on older primary school children, who she says will “probably
laugh”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23202242
-
July 8, 2013 at 12:30
-
I don’t know what the statistics are like in the UK, but in the US the most
common source of child sexual abuse is the boyfriend of the single or divorced
mother living in the same house as the child, or the step father. Alcohol and
drugs are often part of the picture as in the recently reported Tia Sharp
tragedy.
One can see how these situations may arise, for example sometimes I am
responsible for bathing my 4-year old stepdaughter on the rare occasions when
her mother is away from home and she will say things like “aren’t you going to
put soap on my vagina?”. Um, no, not today, my dear.
The problem with campaigns like that of the NSPCC is that if the offender
is in loco parentis, he, for it is nearly always men with young girls, will
nearly always fly under the radar. A further layer of ambiguity may also be
added when offender may also genuinely love the child, especially if the child
is a reminder of a younger version of the mother.
{ 43 comments }