Cyprus-Forum.com

by **supporttheunderdog** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:09 pm

here is 2008 Article about Harriet Harperson and the links betwen PIE and the the NCCL in the 1970's
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html

The activities of the organisation she worked and its affiate, PIE, for could have made some of what Jimmy Savile and Garry Glitter did with under-age children to be legal.

by **theodosia** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:16 pm

it is not about what is legal or otherwise, though it should be and is a criminal offence! its about children being protected at all times, in school, at home or out in the public streets. no man, or woman should interfere with a child clothed or not. everybody has a right to be able to go about their daily business without threat or injury from an adult who does/should know better. if i had children and found that my baby had to endure the pain and agony physically, mentally or emotionally of some dirty scum bag i would not let anything stop me in killing him very slowly.
what a vile article. A lot of judges, mp's and the very rich do seam to indulge in such things. a disgrace and pure evil!

Thanks for the link though, interesting read, though my blood pressure has gone up some what :lol:

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:52 pm

Quite agree that it's not simply about what is legal or not. We still have moral codes of behaviour and it is not the done thing to take advantage of the weak and vulnerable. Ever.

Indeed, laws sometimes have a detrimental effect in that people absolve themselves of responsibility. Too many parents in the UK go by whether someone has been cleared by the sex register checks and don't look after their kids adequately enough. There have been at least 3 teachers over the years who have been pulled out from my friend's and son's schools for inappropriate behaviour and these were in places were one would expect the most thorough of checks and vigilance. One remains dodgy.

Too often close friends have hired baby-sitters, child-minders and au pairs with little or no regard for the consequences to their kids. Simply because they believe there exist adequate laws to protect.

Unfortunately, in Christian-lacking countries, people's moral behaviour is on the decline. Instead of considering whether something is 'wrong' or 'right' they think more of whether it's 'legal' or not legal' and this law society too frequently then adopts the "sane" or "insane" way of dealing with perpetrators. The mental myth business.

Sorry about the rant.

I could go on ....

by **supporttheunderdog** » Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:02 pm

it is not case of Christianity protecting children - look at the cases of the supposed Christian priests who have been involved in child sex abuse.

The problem is that peados do not consider what they do is wromg or immoral and whether or not it is legal does not always provide protection, as continued occurance of such cases despite the law banning it shows. The law is or should be a reflection of what society thinks is permissable, balancing the rights of individuals etc looking for freedom to act in a certain way against the rights of other individuals and society as a whole for protection from the consequences of acts of others and it ultimately permits punishment of transgressors based upon a defined standard.

It is because some have differing views of right and wrong that one needs laws.

My concern was that to amend the law would in fact deprive a vulnerable group, children, from the protection they need, in particular agaist groomers who pursade their victims to consent to the acts of abuse, and the groomers are really evil for the way they manipulate the vulnerable.

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:58 pm

We're not talking about "supposed Christians" just as we're not talking about "supposed celebrities" or " supposed teachers" who abuse their positions of trust. And it doesn't matter whether paedophiles themselves believe they are in the right; because not only are the laws explicitly on the side of the weak and vulnerable but so is Christian moral conduct. The reason I am stressing the protection of the weak and vulnerable by Christian doctrine is that there are other religions where such depraved behaviour is not only acceptable but also encouraged.

by **theodosia** » Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:57 pm

the law don't stop these scum bags, but to some degree it makes it clear about age and consent so there is some protection for children.
Unfortunately if a man/woman wants to abuse a child they will find a way to do this. there are job's to accommodate them, teachers,babysitters,nannies, caretakers working in school ( greekislandgirl pointed out). you can have crb checks, but all that proves is that if you are a pedophile you just haven't been caught yet and its not really worth the paper its written on. The most shocking is when this abuse is happening in the home or by some other family member which is ofter sadly the case.
most people will know that it is wrong to abuse a child and if you didn't know it is wrong why would you want to?
But what also alarms me is how parents let daughters as young as a 13 start to wear short skirts and make up and perfume, and allowed to go to parties and even drink alcohol every paedophiles dream! ( I'm not saying this is an excuse for a child to be abused)
the other worrying concern now is how these pedophiles are grooming young people using the net to indulge themselves in this disgusting behaviour.
I'm appalled about how the BBC kept it quite and its only now come to light that at least 7 people had gone to the police but still no questioning or arrest. more is to follow about this as i feel its only the tip of the iceberg and think there will be some shocking revelations that will rock the very foundations of the BBC

by **theodosia** » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:01 pm

supporttheunderdog wrote:it is not case of Christianity protecting children - look at the cases of the supposed Christian priests who have been involved in child sex abuse.

The problem is that peados do not consider what they do is wromg or immoral and whether or not it is legal does not always provide protection, as continued occurance of such cases despite the law banning it shows. The law is or should be a reflection of what society thinks is permissable, balancing the rights of individuals etc looking for freedom to act in a certain way against the rights of other individuals and society as a whole for protection from the consequences of acts of others and it ultimately permits punishment of transgressors based upon a defined standard.

It is because some have differing views of right and wrong that one needs laws.

My concern was that to amend the law would in fact deprive a vulnerable group, children, from the protection they need, in particular agaist groomers who pursade their victims to consent to the acts of abuse, and the groomers are really evil for the way they manipulate the vulnerable.

well said

by **theodosia** » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:02 pm

GreekIslandGirl wrote:Quite agree that it's not simply about what is legal or not. We still have moral codes of behaviour and it is not the done thing to take advantage of the weak and vulnerable. Ever.

Indeed, laws sometimes have a detrimental effect in that people absolve themselves of responsibility. Too many parents in the UK go by whether someone has been cleared by the sex register checks and don't look after their kids adequately enough. There have been at least 3 teachers over the years who have been pulled out from my friend's and son's schools for inappropriate behaviour and these were in places were one would expect the most thorough of checks and vigilance. One remains dodgy.

Too often close friends have hired baby-sitters, child-minders and au pairs with little or no regard for the consequences to their kids. Simply because they believe there exist adequate laws to protect.

Unfortunately, in Christian-lacking countries, people's moral behaviour is on the decline. Instead of considering whether something is 'wrong' or 'right' they think more of whether it's 'legal' or not legal' and this law society too frequently then adopts the "sane" or "insane" way of dealing with perpetrators. The mental myth business.

Sorry about the rant.

I could go on ....

thank you, some very good points!