Jupiter Images
We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Why take the risk?
It only takes one percent of one percent to cause a disaster that none of us would wish or could bear to imagine.
You only have to read the papers to hear of another horror story where we should have known better.
It's just not acceptable that it would change society, we should all be prepared to suffer it makes the world a safer place.
Our trusting outlook needs to questioned, for example, why are those called to the cloth not all registered or checked as their position gives them unusual access?
How do you know if its safe to leave your children in your friends or even your familiy's hands?
Children deserve to be given the best protection possible even if that means doing a few difficult things.
Login or Register to post comments
We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Why take the risk?
It only takes one percent of one percent to cause a disaster that none of us would wish or could bare to imagine.
You only have to read the papers to hear of another horror story where we should have known better.
It's just not acceptable that it would change society, we should all be prepared to suffer it makes the world a safer place.
Our trusting outlook needs to questioned, for example, why are those called to the cloth not all registered or checked as their position gives them unusual access?
How do you know if its safe to leave your children in your friends or even your familiy's hands?
Children deserve to be given the best protection possible even if that means doing a few difficult things.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
i wouldnt agree with your title at all, as if thats the case we are all criminals of all crime. you imply that we are all subject to crb cleaance of which in a lot of circumstances we are but not always.
to put it personally you suggest that im a peadophile (of which im not) but to prove im not i have to produce a crb stating im not, do i need to carry an i.d. card saying so ?
what i will say though is that if one needs a childminder to look after ones child(ren) when one goes to work one has to employ a childminder, in effect a stranger to look after the children, to enable financial allowances from the government to pay for it. yet if a trusted family member childminds no payments is allowed, so is someone paying for potential child abuse ?
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Most paedophiles have children of their own. If we're going to be serious about protecting children we should be systematically putting everyone through FMRI scanners and showing them images of naked children to find out how their brains respond: it is possible to identify 100% of paedophiles in this manner, and to rule out everyone who isn't one, (although you may need to retest people who suffer brain injuries or tumours which may destabilise them).
There may of course be some gray areas in which a parent has slight tendencies in that direction but will probably never act on them, but it would be possible to put cameras in every house where children may be at risk so that social services can keep an eye on things and look out for any signs of damaged children.
We still aren't taking the issue seriously. I spotted a damaged child at a sports club some years ago and informed his/her parents of my concerns. A coach was cautioned by the police as a result, but what good did that do? A few years later the ex-coach was in court facing a string of charges involving half a dozen children who lived near his home, all committed since he was identified as a danger.
What are the signs? Well, I'm no expert, but the child I identified displayed an unnatural degree of avoidence of eye contact and never spoke to any of the other children. He/she seemed to radiate hostility, and for no obvious reason. I didn't like him/her at all, but that changed after a year: he/she started following me around and the hostility was gone. It had taken that long for him/her to work out that I wasn't a threat. He/she turned out to be perfectly nice: I had disliked him/her for a year for something that wasn't his/her fault in any way. I realised later that at least a year of his/her childhood had been effectively destroyed by the fear that people would find out what was going on: that was why he/she was so determined to avoid eye contact; that was why he/she tried so hard not to be noticed.
All that damage and the coach was only cautioned!
That club actually closed down and I've never got involved with another. We now have a society in which the people who are safe tend to avoid getting involved, largely because of the fear of false accusations which can happen all too easily if you fall out with a nasty child: they all know exactly what to do to get back at you if you tell them off. I won't take that risk. I am a man and I absolutely love children (in the right way), but I now keep well away from them, even though it depresses me deeply. The people who are paedophiles are prepared to take the risk, of course, so the percentage of them working with children is higher than ever, and that means the suspicion is higher too, so there's even more incentive for the rest of us to keep away from children. Society is seriously sick, and everyone's life is being severely damaged by this. The only way to cure it is to stick everyone through an FMRI scanner to find out who's safe and who isn't. Then perhaps we can build a new society worth living in.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Are you serious !!!!!!! It's been a while since I've read anything so ridiculous. Let's hope you are never put in charge.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
I don't imagine you've got anything to be scared of, given that you've commented on this and know that you can be traced. What is ridiculous is that we have such a technology and we aren't using it. I've seen the severe damage done to a child in a "trivial" case, and that's why I'd like to eliminate the possibility of anything of that nature happening to any child.
Why don't you think it would be a good idea to identify all these disgusting people who inflict themselves on children in unspeakable ways? Do you think it better to leave it to random chance whether your children are in danger of being abused or not? Do you think children should have to grow up in cages to keep these predators away from them? I want children to be free, and I want it to be safe for them to be free. What's so crazy about that?
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
You are treading on very dangerous ground. Get a grip. fMRI is far from reliable and is an indirect measure of neural activity only REGARDLESS of the visual stimulus.
From Wikipedia, just one resource amongst a sea of scientific data on this subject.
Advantages of fMRI
* It can noninvasively record brain signals without risks of radiation inherent in other scanning methods, such as CT or PET scans.
* It can record on a spatial resolution of less than 1 millimeter, although resolution in the region of 3-6 millimeters is more typical, but with poor temporal resolution (on the order of seconds) compared with techniques such as EEG. However, this is mainly because of the hemodynamic phenomena being measured, not because of the technique. EEG measures electrical/neural activity while fMRI measures blood activity, which has a slower response. The MRI equipment used for fMRI can be used for high temporal resolution, if one measures different phenomena.
Disadvantages of fMRI
* The BOLD signal is only an indirect measure of neural activity, and is therefore susceptible to influence by non-neural changes in the body.
* BOLD signals are most strongly associated with the input to a given area rather than with the output. It is therefore possible (although unlikely) that a BOLD signal could be present in a given area even if there is no single unit activity.[14]
* The temporal response of the blood supply, which is the basis of fMRI, is slow relative to the electrical signals that define neuronal communication. To alleviate this problem, some research groups are attempting to combine fMRI signals that have relatively high spatial resolution with signals recorded with other techniques, electroencephalography (EEG) or magnetoencephalography (MEG), which have higher temporal resolution but worse spatial resolution.
* fMRI has often been used to show activation localized to specific regions, thus minimizing the distributed nature of processing in neural networks. Several recent multivariate statistical techniques work around this issue by characterizing interactions between "active" regions found via traditional univariate techniques.
* fMRI has poor signal-to-noise ratio, at least in comparison to many electrophysiological techniques. This necessitates extensive post-processing and published fMRI results are often heavily averaged over time and smoothed across space using one of several software packages.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
This sort of language can be quite inflamatory
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
I suppose it could be if taken out of context and given unnecessary attention that diverts from the subject matter.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
do you work for a tabloid?
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
The research I've heard on FMRI suggests that it can be used as a lie-detector that is practically impossible to defeat. It can also be used to identify someone's sexuality. I am judging this on the basis of scientists working in this field who have discussed their research on serious radio and television science programmes. You may argue that they have not been proved yet to be 100% reliable at these tasks, but they are certainly way better than any other tools at our disposal. If you are sceptical about this, why not put yourself forward as a voluntary test subject at one of the universities working on this and see if you can beat the machines - there are teams doing this work in Sheffield and Berlin.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Okay, let us, just for one moment, suppose that you are not ludicrously over-estimating the capabilities of human technology, a very silly thing to suppose I know, but just go with me. Suppose that you find a man somewhere who has led an utterly blameless existence, is a family man who provides well for his family, and lives in a happy, stable family unit. Your machine tells you that he is a paedophile. Are you prepared to destroy his happiness and that of his family on the basis that your machine has told you that he isn’t fit?
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
This is a ridiculous analogy. (its not actually but force of habit prevents me from agreeing with Mr. Natton although I totally agree with him on this but lets forget that for a minute shall we readers...) That sort of over bearing nannying could never happen in modern day Britain, the Health and Safety Executive would never allow it.
On a less serious note the happiness of any man and his family have long since ceased to be a concern of any governing body in this country :
"When the Divorce Reform Bill was enacted in 1969, it was assumed that most divorcing couples would wait two years for a divorce instead of relying on the allegations of adultery or unreasonable behaviour.
As we have heard, in 1993 73 per cent. of divorce petitions were based on one or other of those two faults, because they are often seen as a convenient way of getting a quickie divorce. As many hon. Members have said, that can take as little as three or four months. That is simply not long enough for people to think through the consequences of divorce, to consider whether divorce is appropriate or to resolve all the issues arising from divorce. Some hon. Members have said that it is just about money, but it is also about the family home, who lives in it, who will pay the mortgage or the rent, and the resolution of financial matters and issues relating to the children--who they will live with, contact with the other parent and other family members, and child support considerations.
As it is almost impossible to defend a divorce petition nowadays, allegations of fault that are difficult to challenge heighten tension and foster acrimony. That potentially poisonous climate inevitably affects children." (Hansard)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960325/debtext/60325-25.htm
Any family solicitor worth her salt will tell you that wringing out the last penny from her client's spouse is never about money its about equality and looking after the children's best interests and its pure anomaly if her client is the husband.
and no that hasn't happened to me but look around to see that its happened to the whole country
the continual erosion is to feed the coffers of those who will sell more to a wider disjointed self engrossed society whose battle cry is personal freedom to choose and whose merceneries live in a world surrounded by silk
Give the vote to everyone and see what happens... ...you end up with television, mass histeria, goverence by deception and disingenuity, exploitation of the thickest order, the death of integrity, blame rule, rare sense
Still lets go bomb those who need educating and liberating into the civilised world by jingo its never been a better time to be a man or a paedophile ...same thing to some sexes
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
A good point, KN, but have you not noticed that many of these people are already being caught out by the internet - they look at child pornography, not thinking they're doing any harm (if they aren't paying for it), and they get caught. Their wives are horrified and throw them out of the house, fearing for the safety of their children. Their names are stuck on a register and their photo appears in the local newspaper. Most of the people being caught in this manner would never think of abusing a child.
The thing about FMRI is that it makes a fantastic lie detector as well as being able to identify people's sexuality - you can interrogate people to find out whether they have abused a child, thought of abusing a child, etc. You can assess the actual level of risk and act to a degree appropriate to that risk. It may be that most paedophiles are actually completely harmless, just as many homosexuals are so disgusted by the idea of homosexual acts that they never go in for such activities (even though it would not be immoral or illegal to do so in their case). I would have thought that it would be wise to keep an eye on anyone who is a paedophile, but not necessarily to clamp down on them if all the other evidence suggests that they have never and never will abuse a child. I would not be worried about my child having such a person as a teacher or sports coach, but I would like to think that someone sensible is keeping an eye on them just in case (someone who won't spread gossip about them). They could also be checked on by FMRI every few years as a precaution if they are working with children, though I would have thought that most people with this condition would prefer not to work with children in the first place.
We would have to be sensible about how we use knowledge about people gained from FMRI and not just see things in terms of black and white, good and evil - we must try to be fair to everyone, but surely we would be in a better position to judge people if we actually knew what's going on in their heads? Most people will be shown not to be paedophiles, and that will free them up to get on with working with children without the constant fear of false accusations destroying their lives if they fall out with a bad child.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Is it alright for people who have been proven not to be paedophiles to have sex with children as long as they are not found liking it?
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
This is a reply to the unregistered guest of post #12.
I’m not sure that my point was conveyed to you just exactly as I meant it. Your example of those caught out using child pornography on the internet is a good case in point. They may have convinced themselves that what they are doing really isn’t so bad, but the fact is that they have actually done something. We may disagree about what the criminal justice system should do with such people and what sentence would be appropriate, but I don’t think you and I would disagree that it is right that such people are dealt with by the criminal justice system. And what damage that might do to their happiness and the happiness of those around them is unfortunate, but not really the point. My case was about someone who has actually done nothing. The part of your plan that I find to be sinister is that you are prepared to take sanction against someone who has done nothing untoward, on the basis of your unwarranted faith in the capabilities of human technology.
The first thing that, in my opinion, you misunderstand, and goodness knows it is a common misperception, is the nature of what a ‘peadophile’ is. For me, it is an entirely false notion that paedophiles or homosexuals or Manchester United supporters are somehow different from the majority of the population. Look, there’s one over there. I hesitate to offend you, but horrifying as the idea might be to you, I suggest to you that in a given set of circumstances, you might have turned out to be a Manchester United supporter.
And, as I think the author of post #14 is suggesting, the problem with your idea is not just that it would destroy the lives of perfectly innocent people. It is also fairly inevitable that some of those whom your machine had decreed safe would subsequently go on to abuse the trust that their scan results had afforded them.
And while I do understand that an FMRI scanner is a real piece of human technology, and doubtless it is an extraordinary piece of equipment with some astonishing capabilities; and while I accept the truth that I do not understand exactly what one is or what it can do; I remain completely certain that a machine that can read someone’s mind, like a machine that enables you to travel in time, or to become invisible, or, if it goes wrong, can cause you to become muscular and green when you get angry; are all, and ever more shall be, the subject of nothing but pure fantasy.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Maybe you haven't noticed, but all men, and indeed women, are currently being viewed as probable paedophiles, and the result is a crazy society which will probably soon have all children wearing burkas on the rare occasions when they are allowed out of their prisons. Everyone is being punished for crimes they have not committed. We are already living in a deeply sick society where normal relations between normal adults and children have become illegal, and the result is that children now spend more of their time talking to actual paedophiles on the internet.
I personally wouldn't see the need to take any sanctions against a paedophile if they were able to state in an FMRI scanner that they have never abused a child and never will abuse one, so long as it is clear that their answers are truthful. As I said before, it would make sense for someone to keep an eye on them to some degree, and for them to be retested from time to time to make sure that the situation hasn't changed, but that would actually help that individual by ruling out all possibility of getting away with anything they might be tempted to do in an unexpected situation. Such paedophiles would be fully aware that they are paedophiles and would understand fully well that concerns about them are legitimate and that they need to be checked on from time to time.
You are now suggesting that environmental factors could turn someone gay. Clearly being a Manchester United supporter has more to do with location, although some people have a glory-hunter aspect to them which may be genetic, but gay people believe they were born that way. FMRI scanners can identify homosexuals without difficulty, and no doubt they can do the same for all other kinds of sexuality, including bi/tri/quad-sexuality (any mixture that can exist). If you think sexuality is less stable than that, then surely any adult who works with children or who has children of their own would be likely to turn into a paedophile? This is most certainly not the case.
Did you read post #14 carefully? I don't believe that you could consider it normal for non-paedophiles to have sex with children.
That possibility can't be entirely ruled out, and it's also possible that a brain injury or tumour could turn someone into a paedophile - there is one known case that may show that this has happened, although it is not clear that the tumour wasn't just turning a safe paedophile (of the sort you rightly want to defend) into a dangerous one. Even so, such cases would be ridiculously rare - there would be no other way to reduce the risk to such a low level other than by keeping all adults and children separate at all times. Do you imagine that the current system somehow keeps paedophiles away from children? All paedophiles start out as paedophiles who have never abused a child and who are not on the sex-offenders register - they can apply for a job working with children and be invited straight in through the door. Almost all, if not absolutely all of these paedophiles could be identified using FMRI before they are put in charge of children. I know which system I would trust more.
They certainly can't get near to reading people's complete thoughts, and maybe they never will be able to, but they can determine certain things - they can tell if you are sexually interested in an image because the parts of your brain associated with sexual attraction light up like beacons when they are active. This is something that you can't hide. If the pictures of goats turn the lights on every time you look at them, there is an unambiguous connection. It is also possible to see the brain working harder when people lie, with a particular area involved in deception lighting up. That is all we need to do the job, and it can be done today.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
What happens if they make a version for court rooms... ...the ambulance chasers can go home?
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Again, it is probably pointless pursuing this much further, neither of us are likely to persuade the other. But for what it is worth…
Your idea of catchment area being the cause of Manchester United supporterism can’t be the full story, because, however you might define that catchment area, the vast majority of people within it will not be Manchester United supporters. I was, of course, meaning to be a little ironic with my mention of Manchester United supporters, but I tell you, there are some people who even seem to believe that Manchester United supporters are a sub-species.
It would not require any tumour, or any other trauma to the brain for one of your cleared, approved persons to become a paedophile. And I certainly see the illogic in the notion of a non-paedophile having sex with children, but I think I see a different illogic to you. To me, the moment when he had sex with a child was the moment he became a paedophile. Or perhaps there is a subtlety to this. Before he does it, he has to contemplate it, and there is a case to identify that as the moment he became a paedophile.
Okay, let’s try this. To me, the difference between a paedophile and a non-paedophile is like the difference between someone who has eaten a piece of carrot cake and someone who has never eaten a piece of carrot cake. Yeah, they’re a weird lot those carrot cake eaters, you know. Gotta watch ‘em. But there is something very simple that needs to happen for someone of the latter class to turn into someone of the former class. Presumably your machine could distinguish them as well? Show them a photograph of a piece of carrot cake and watch the neural activity, right?
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Paedophiles are in a distinct category of sexuality in the same way as hetrosexuals, homosexuals, bestialists, necrophiliacs, etc. Someone who is forced at gunpoint to have sex with someone of the same gender as themselves does not immediately become a homosexual, and the same applies to the equivalent situation involving a child. If someone willingly has sex with a child, they would already have to be a paedophile to want to do such a thing in the first place. Once he/she has had sex with a child, he/she is then technically known as a pederast. In the media you will always hear the word paedophile being used for both paedophile and pederast, and the result of this is that most people, yourself included, use the word paedophile incorrectly. It is not illegal to be a paedophile (just extremely unfortunate), but it is well and truly illegal to be a pederast. Pederasts are the ones who should be in prison and who should have all their bits removed if they are ever allowed out, while paedophiles are people who need to be monitored to make sure they don't become pederasts - we should be kind to this latter category rather than condemning them for something which is not their fault, but we should also ensure that they are not a danger to children. It may be that some paedophiles who are not pederasts should nevertheless be kept locked away for the safety of the public, just as someone with a disorder which makes them violent may need to be kept out of mainstream society (and FMRI would again help to identify such people - we currently rely on the guesswork of social workers).
You are comparing apples and oranges. Eating Carrot cake and doing unspeakable things with children are not equivalent. Sexuality is a drive of attraction which has nothing to do with the reality of the act it leads to: many homosexuals find the whole business of acting on their desires disgusting, but they are driven in that direction regardless because it is people of their own gender that excite them. A carrotcakeophile would be attracted to carrot cake before tasting it, and would feel driven to go on eating the stuff forever even if he/she didn't like the stuff at all. That is how sexuality works. A normal person cannot just become a paedophile any more than they can switch their sexuality to any other category. There are of course people with a mixture of sexualities, so some people may have a component of paedophile in the mix, in which case they are already a paedophile - that won't suddenly creep up on them and surprise them. They will know from early on that children excite them sexually, so they will be well aware that they are paedophiles, but they are fortunate in having more than one sexuality as they can shut out the one that worries them and divert themselves to onto the one that is socially acceptable. The machine would identify such people, and the amount of danger they present to children could then be investigated further. If you have never found children sexually interesting, you have nothing to fear, but even if you have found them interesting in that way, so long as you are determined not to be a danger to them there is no reason why being privately outed by the machine should impact negatively on your life.
And yes, there will soon come a time when courts are replaced with FMRI - everyone will be interrogated under FMRI from time to time and all their crimes will be discovered. There will be no hiding place for criminals.
It should be obvious to some members of this forum who I am - I have only changed my writing style in such a way as to remove the most distinctive signature of my writing. Please do not speculate about my identity here because I have only kept it back to reduce the danger of identifying the child I mentioned earlier.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Have you ever looked the word pederast up? How can you criticise people for using words incorrectly, when you don't even appear to know what they mean yourself? Pederast is NOT specifically someone who has had sex with a child (although someone could commit pederasty with a child).
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Someone, else where on these forums pointed out, very tellingly I feel, that the whole beauty of them is that we know nothing whatever of the people with whom we have an exchange. For me, this exchange was a purely intellectual exercise with someone I didn’t know. For the first time, I pick up the hint that your interest in this matter may not be as dispassionate as mine. I intended no insensitivity and I apologise if anything I said was genuinely offensive to you. You and I may differ in our opinions of what the causes and explanations of this problem are and what are the most effective ways of preventing it occurring. We do not disagree that an effective way of preventing it occurring is very necessary.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
and that is as it should be, this is not the place for therapy as a service from others... ...those sites exist and do a good worthy job for their users. First I agree with KH then I defend him... ...strange days indeed mother
This topic elicits hysteria because the conceptualisation of pre-sexual maturity humans being involved in acts of a sexual nature with humans who are sexually mature evokes thoughts of exploitation and suffering of the defenceless vulnerable self that we all have and of an age that we all passed through.
The stories of nursery school children playing with each other as part of innocent investigation without abuse is taken as cute by some. Children's sexual curiosity is natural.
Being exploited is unpleasant.
Curiosity leads to investigation - 40% of kids have sex by the time they are sexually mature in England (maybe a bit sooner in Skelmersdale)
Have an opinion without being sentimental
How many fathers get over their daughters or mothers their sons without thinking thoughts that would make interesting FMRI reading if you start locking up people based on FMRI scans there's not going to be many left.
Anyway, Stay away from my kids you freak or I'll...
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
I have looked it up now, and now I can see that I have been misled by a radio four discussion in which two self-confessed paedophiles who claimed they have never abused and never will abuse children were interviewed. This was probably part of PM (a news programme), because I can't think why else I'd have heard it. I wasn't convinced that either of them weren't a potential threat to children.
My dear fellow, what you have said has not been in any way offensive at all. Please do not think that you have upset me. My interest in this subject is indeed not dispassionate - I have seen the damage done to a child who I actively disliked for over a year when in reality he/she was one of the nicest children you could ever meet. I hope that the science programmes I have heard about FMRI haven't also misled me, but it sounds from what I've heard as if there really may be a way to prevent this kind of thing happening, and if that is the case, we should try it.
Maybe there are more pleople in the grey-area than I had thought, but clearly someone who's had the odd thought of that kind where it is not the norm (or the only kind of thought they have), then they are unlikely to act on it. It would indeed be interesting to investigate how common this is by using FMRI, because knowing more about the problem isn't going to make the problem worse. If you can state in the machine that you have never abused a child and are absolutely certain that you will never do so, the machine will be able to tell if you are being truthful, and if you aren't trying to hide anything you will be judged to be safe. The people who actually abuse children have far stronger urges going on in their heads which would put them into a very distinct category from people of the type you refer to who occasionally have the odd tiny wobble in that direction.
I can assure you that I have absolutely no interest in your baby goats - you can have them all to yourself.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
I think you think I'm joking and possibly up until now you might have been unsure so I'll say it again "Stay away from my kids" don't try and make a joke by calling my kids baby goats or be trying to imply something not nice.
if you were FMRIed would the scan spell Fascist or would I be as guilty as you of whats known as prejudice
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
I did not think you were joking - I thought you were being insulting and I decided to respond with a joke rather than escalating things with an insult. You'd rather hear what I actually think of you? You accuse me of being a fascist because I hate people who abuse children and want to make it impossible for them to get away with it or if possible to prevent them from doing it in the first place. I also hate living in a society where the innocent are punished instead of the guilty - why should children all have to live their lives behind bars to protect them from bastards who are allowed to roam freely? Call me old-fashioned, but I always preferred the idea that dangerous people should be kept locked up while the rest of us are free to get on with living.
Where is the prejudice that you have detected in anything I have said? I don't like child-abusers and I've made that more than clear, but would you describe that as prejudice? If people don't put themselves in that camp, I don't have any problem with them whatsoever on that issue. I have made it abundantly clear that I don't want to punish people just for having the wrong kind of sexuality because that is not their fault, but I do want the authorites to find out who they are so that they can keep an eye on them to the minimum degree necessary. Clearly if such a person is seeking to work with children, that has to be a worry and the motives of that person need to be investigated carefully. FMRI would make that possible.
I don't know what your problem is with that, so I can only assume that you have something serious to hide, whether it be related to sexuality or perhaps to some other kind of immorality entirely which you don't want to be exposed. Clearly you do have some kind of issue, because you have attacked me without justification. I've spent my life campaigning against all kinds of fascism and prejudice and I resent your wholly-unjustified accusation. There is nothing more fascist than someone who abuses a child: they are bullies who threaten their victims into silence - they are not normal people in any sense of the word, and all this talk of "normal" people who occasionally get sexually excited about their own children (we need to investigate how common this is) is a million miles away from the kind of person who actually acts on that and inflicts itself on someone of such an age that the damage is maximal. Go and take a look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself what side you're on.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
No anger issues that I can see.
How long should one hold that amount in for before letting it out?
Could a certain amount of emotional frustration affect a person's judgement?
I could be wrong but using the word bastards seems to convey a somewhat distasteful sexist bias that... ...anger?
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
It is a surprise to me that I find myself returning to this conversation. I might never have entered this conversation had I understood that I would be engaged in an exchange with someone for whom this subject might have more than the usual sensitivities. I suppose some might say that I should always have anticipated that this is, of its nature, very sensitive subject matter. One thing I would agree with that was said by the poster whose primary intention is to haunt me, (I would be wary of sparring with him, rationality is not his strong suit, as I found out to my cost) is that this is not a place to seek counselling, not least because it is frequented by people who feel no compunction whatever to show any sensitivity. But also because, however I might believe what I say, and whatever genuine merit there may be in what I say, the things that I say may not be the most helpful for someone dealing with personal experience of the consequences of these types of problems.
So some might say that I should just shut-up. But this is a discussion forum, this matter has been raised and, most particularly, some of the things said on this thread since I last posted are, in my opinion, among the most misguided and most disturbing things said throughout this thread.
So I will open myself to further accusations of pontification and of pomposity and make a further attempt to clarify my viewpoint. And I will begin by talking about labels. And just to keep it un-inflammatory, let me start by relating a little anecdote about something that was said the other morning on the Sarah Kennedy show on Radio 2. Thursday, I think it was. So the 17th. That is, as you will see, significant. Because Sarah was talking about birthdays.
“It’s Stirlimg Moss’s birthday” she said. “He is 80.”
“And it is motor racing driver Damon Hill’s birthday as well.”
Putting aside the coincidence that those two particular men share the same birthday, my point, of course is that she saw the need to apply the label ‘motor racing driver’ to Damon Hill, but not to Stirling Moss. Now we could lose ourselves in a pointless argument about the relative fame of the two men, or the fact that one man’s career as a motor racing driver was much more recent than the other’s. But the key point I am making is that the bald truth is that the label ‘motor racing driver’ never really defined either man. It is only something that they both did, or more particularly, the thing that they both did that is the reason why we know of them. Someone might argue that they must share a ‘risk taking’ or ‘thrill seeking’ gene. But to that, I say, bol… er, sorry moderators, …nonsense. I do not claim to know either man, but it is clear to me from what I’ve seen of them that they have completely different characters.
In any case, enough of this tangent. Why am I rattling about motor racing drivers? Well of course, my point is that ‘paedophile’ is also just a label. Whether you choose to call someone 'paedophile' or 'pederast' or 'Manchester United supporter' or 'carrot cake eater', they remain exactly the same living breathing reality they always were. We might be discussing some particular individual and I might try to say that he is not a paedophile. You might scoff at the suggestion and point to something that he has done that makes it irrefutable to you that he is a paedophile. Okay, I say, so that is how we define paedophile. He had sex with a child. Or he used internet child pornography. Or he engaged in some other inappropriate behaviour with a child. So therefore he is a paedophile. But along with that label comes a raft of other assumptions about what a paedophile is. Poke a paedophile in this way and he will respond like that. But the truth is that the overwhelming majority of your assumptions are almost certainly wrong. That is not in any way to defend the paedophile. It is to recognise that this simplistic view of commonality between paedophiles is not helpful to deal with the problems paedophilia raises. I do not believe that there is anything in the genes, or in the neural structures of paedophiles that is common to all paedophiles and distinguishes them from the rest of the population. Attempting to identify paedophiles using an FMRI scanner would not only lead to great injustice, both in terms of implicating the innocent and in terms of exonerating the guilty, it would, I believe, be utterly ineffective in dealing with the basic problem.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
It is a label that describes someone who finds children sexually exciting, just as homosexual is a label that describes someone who finds people of their own gender sexually exciting and hetrosexual is a label that describes someone who finds people of the opposite gender sexually exciting. Because I don't enjoy wading backwards and forwards through this sewer, I will not describe the many other similar labels used to describe other kinds of sexuality.
It isn't something he has done - it is something that he experiences that makes him a paedophile, something in the way his brain functions that makes him find children sexually exciting.
They are almost certainly correct.
You would not be able to find a single example of a paedophile who doesn't find children sexually exciting. You might be able to find the odd individual whose motive is more one of violence and domination over children who throws in a bit of sex as an afterthought, but that would be a psychopath rather than a paedophile, and again he would be detected by FMRI as being dangerous to children because his desire to inflict violence on children would make distinctive parts of his brain light up like a Christmas tree when he is shown images of children. Incidentally, there is no need for the images used in this way to be pornographic - the subject's imagination will do all the necessary work.
Do you believe the same about homosexuals? They can identify them with ease using FMRI - John Barrowman was recently tested through FMRI for a TV documentary and was delighted to be told that the machine thought he was a raving ****ter.
It isn't a matter of innocent and guilty - it's a matter of whether the parts of the brain which get active when people are sexually excited are lit up in response to images of children or not. If a person does not find children sexually exciting, those parts of the brain will not be active when images of children are shown to them.
The basic problem is that many paedophiles are expert in hiding their true nature from the rest of society - your children could be in danger of being abused by one when they visit a friend's house. I heard a paedophile's son once on the radio, probably ten years or more ago, describing how he dreaded having friends round, because his father was likely to hit on one and take him off somewhere private. He new that the friend would not only be abused, but would find out about his own secret. This sort of thing is going on within many families, and we won't eradicate it if we don't hunt it down. The paedophile sports coach that I knew was one of the friendliest, most trustworthy people I knew - I would have thought nothing of leaving my child with him to supervise for a time if the need had ever arisen, but it would have been a terrible mistake. We just can't tell what's going on in other people's heads by looking at them. FMRI gives us the chance to change that. If the OU has any connection with any research projects involving FMRI and sexuality and/or lie detection, I offer myself as a test subject. Apparently I'm a freak because I love children but don't find them sexually attractive, so I should be of considerable scientific interest.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
like a dog with a bone... ...won't let go. maybe stop freaking out?
you come across well on the points you make
I'm not as convinced of the dependability of the results under all circumstances as you are because it seems to rely on a match with a paradigm of what the inside firings of a paedo's brain will always be.
fantasy and fact are not the same
a brains immagination means that you can't be sure of the association even if the scan shows a correlation
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
In reply to post #29.
So for you, these things are absolutes. I remain convinced that human reality is far more complex than that. All these terms that you cast to the wind so blithely are, I am certain, psychological, not physical states of being. I find it almost laughable that anyone saw any need to perform an FMRI scan on someone to find out whether or not he was homosexual. Again I would pose pretty much the same hypothetical I posed before. If you take a man living in a happy, stable, family situation and your machine tells you that he is homosexual, does that mean he should give up his family and find himself another man? Or for that matter, someone in a same-sex relationship is shown by your machine to be heterosexual, should they similarly be guided by your results? Or might it just be simpler to let people make their own mind up about whom they want to love and whom they don’t want to love? Why do we need a machine to tell us? Can’t we just look in our own hearts?
I will not rise to the sniping of the poster who seeks to bait me. But there is another significant and worthwhile point to be made in answer to his criticism about my making use of the male third person pronoun in my post #27. Firstly, of course, it was actually just another hypothetical, so the person referred to was arbitrary in any case. But since the issue has been raised, and even though this is wandering away form the original point this discussion, yes certainly women can and do commit sexual crime, but there is a deep significance to why it is much rarer than sexual crime committed by men and to why, in a couple of the more prominent cases where women were involved, it was in conjunction with a man. And the reason for that, it seems to me, is pretty compelling evidence that it is not something genetic or otherwise hard-wired in the brain. It is not always the case, but in a great many cases, probably the majority of cases, the ultimate motivation for sexual crime is not sexual. It is about power and control. The victim is victimised precisely because of their vulnerability. That is why, overwhelmingly, but certainly not exclusively, sexual crime is committed by men against women and children.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
The point of using FMRI is that it sees what the brain is doing rather than looking at its wiring: it doesn't look for a physical arrangement of wires that determines sexuality (or whatever else you're looking for), but looks instead at what the person is thinking. It can't yet isolate individual components of thoughts, but it can show the outlines of what is going on. If you were to measure the amount of activity in various parts of a computer processor, you could in the same way follow the outlines of what's going on with the program being run without actually knowing what the program is doing. If the part designed to handle complex maths is hot, then clearly calculations are being done with it, so that would indicate that it is not a wordprocessor that is running. It may be that the wiring of a paedophile's brain would betray their nature if it could be analysed in sufficient depth, but that is way beyond our capabilities at the moment, but what we can do is watch the brain functioning and see which specialised areas are active from one moment to the next - sexual interest can be detected and follows the same pattern in all individuals, giving you a smoking gun every bit as clear as a hot math co-processor in a computer chip.
They did it to demonstrate the technology.
I can't see why it would be anyone else's business to interfere - it wouldn't come to him as a surprise to find out that he's homosexual. I'm not suggesting everyone should be tested by FMRI and be outed publicly! His wife wouldn't even be told the result, and the information about his sexuality would not be stored - all we're interested in is identifying paedophiles so that they can be monitored and helped.
Absolutely right - if they want to try to live a conventional way despite their inner homosexuality, good luck to them. The same applies to a paedophile who fights against it and tries to live a normal live getting married, having children and never abusing them. These people need to be defended rather than condemned by ignorant idiots, but someone in authority should know and keep an eye out for the children's welfare.
If no paedophiles acted on their wrongly-directed sexual nature then there wouldn't be any need to hunt them down, but many of them do. If we have a tool that can be used to identify them, we should use it, but we should use it caringly and avoid destroying people's lives if they are actually harmless.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
If such a machine does exist shouldn't we be looking for witches? ...I've got my suspicions about a few ...more than a few
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
We currently have a police force made up of responsible people who don't spread rumours around, although you could argue that they are not responsible because there are some rumours that should be spread around. Nevertheless, they don't go round writing "paedo" on people's front doors even if they know that a dangerous paedophile lives there, so why do you imagine they would do so for one that has been determined to be harmless?
There are plenty of good witches - they're no greater danger than the vicar. There are a lot of dangerous criminals who could be identifed using FMRI, so we could clean up the world all round and make sure that everyone who belongs in prison is put there.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
What else would be tested for?, where would it end? Aren't the cctv cameras and the e-mail and text eavesdropping enough for you? Remember we're all nice people, and the majority are, until proven not. By all means check out people working with kids, good thing, but leave the rest of us alone.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
For a while it was possible to buy all the parts necessary to build the smallpox virus - there are all sorts of dangerous technologies which are going to become more accessible to people in the future, and we need to know that they aren't being misused. Whether you like it or not, everyone's going to have to be checked on some day.
I've you've been committing minor crimes and you're worried that they'll all be uncovered through FMRI (which the most certainly will), just put yourself in the right now by trying to undo the damage, or if you can't, do something for charity to compensate so that you come out even - we're never going to want to stick everyone in prison, but we do want to put all the genuinely dangerous ones out of circulation. I doubt there are many people out there who've never broken the law, but there are different degrees of this, and what really matters is genuine immorality and harm to others. FMRI will be able to probe your actual motives and distinguish between intended and accidental harm . It will also be able to tell if you had good cause to harm someone. You know the truth of what you've done, so you can be asked to tell that truth, and if you lie while being interrogated under FMRI, the lies will all show up.
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
When you say "we" which part of the authority entrusted with the enormity of responsibility do you see as having the necessary attributes to behave in the way the "we" you talk of should behave or must behave for your theory to avoid disaster and tragedy.
Which humans have the virtues that are necessary to administer your scheme?
Ask god if he can spare a few saints every other Saturday from 10:00 til 16:00 maybe?
Re: We're all paedophiles until CRB checked
Cayenne be nice when you're trying to be nice
KN is it remotely posible that a paedophile has ever been or ever will be female?
That is not in any way to defend the paedophile. It is to recognise that this simplistic view of commonality between paedophiles is not helpful to deal with the problems paedophilia raises.
But the truth is that the overwhelming majority of your assumptions are almost certainly wrong... ...ineffective in dealing with the basic problem.
Dr Pepper how can you be so sure that you're rational when you limit your options for clarity by emersing yourself in the denial of your baggage that is openly apparent to others but because its called denial not you