Thursday, 27 November 2014

The Pedophile Next Door : C4 'Documentary'? I don't think so!

I watched the 'documentary' , The Pedophile Next Door, yesterday, and I thought it was more about 'normalising' pedophilia as a genuine biological sexual attraction, than anything else.

Here is what C4 says : "This brave and thought-provoking documentary sets out to discover why legislation to protect children from sexual abuse has failed, and explores radical and controversial alternatives"

It does none of this.

It does not deal with the failures of reporting, policing or the cover-ups we know have taken place, orchestrated by Powerful Institutions to protect themselves.

Within the first ten minutes, the program quoted dubious research and then made the claim that pedophilia as a sexual orientation 'probably' emerges from brain damage within the womb. 

a) This is speculative theory at best

b) Child Rape is not a sexual orientation. It's a devious and abominable criminal act.

The inclusion of that meaningless theory is willfully missing the point.

It's the action taken that harms a child that is the issue, nothing else.

In terms of prevention, it ignores the reality that authoritarian parenting AKA traditional parenting, sets child and adult against each other, the former to seek autonomy and freedom, the latter to curtail the child's freedom based on false fear and authoritarian 'rights' and that this 'style' of parenting's origin lies within the Judeao-Christian tradition with it's hierarchical and judgemental ethos.

In terms of prevention it ignored Mandatory Reporting as an immediate legal necessity.

In terms of prevention it ignored solid research that links childhood trauma, stress and abuse with dysfunctional adult behaviour, research that suggests that parenting counselling and relationship counselling in Schools could prevent abuse by helping parents maintain close and open communication with their children - it is when this is not present that pedophiles knowingly groom children. Even within a single family.

In terms of prevention it ignored the reality that current sentences handed down by courts, for sexual assaults and violence against children, are way inadequate.

In terms of prevention it ignored the deceitful and intentional manner in which powerful institutions have sought to, and continue to attempt to protect themselves rather than the children.... as in the current non-going inquiry into pedophile rings within Political power circles...

Some more thoughts after sleeping on it.

The program ignores issues such as Mandatory Reporting, the adverse affects of Traditional Authoritarian Parenting, the adverse affects of Religious Indoctrination, the validated research that shows that sexual abuse is a social behavioural marker of Hierarchically Violent Societies; the program does not confront the intentional manner by which powerful institutions have sought to protect themselves rather than the children... a behaviour that is still extant.

All of which I covered above, though it is the case that all this needs repeating.

It ignored the lack of training of police and other services in how to deal with Survivors. Rotherham.

In the 80s a massive 'scandal' occurred when it emerged that state run foster homes were rife with child abuse. Thousands of children were victimised by hundreds of adults. What the Government did was arrange to have a few abusers sent to trial, and then closed down the entire system, thus freeing many hundreds of abusers from further investigation, and destroying evidence. A cover up.

And of course, those who were victimised were abandoned.


When all of these points have been dealt with in the manner they demand, then perhaps we can go back to the issue of people who find they are sexually attracted to children and have not acted on their 'attraction'.

Being sexually attracted to children? FFS!


Being sexually aroused by a weaker, more vulnerable non adult person? Is that not indicative of a core power psychology issue - is the attraction more a question of maintaining a position of relative power?

This is a question that is valid and is not addressed.


And the program had very little to say on preventing anything other than peoples ire at pedophilia in general.

The 'cause' is not in the attraction - that's way in the background. And I say this - any adult who cannot control themselves when it comes to this kind of behaviour is 100% responsible for that lack of control.

The 'cause' is in the details of why one person with more power would assault and manipulate another with little relative power.

Which is THE primary issue facing Western 'Civilisation' across the globe as we speak. The willingness to abuse Power and to justify the abuse of other more vulnerable people.

Now let me address the self declared pedophile, Eddie.

We need more information. We have only his word, and his absence from the Criminal Records Bureau to confirm that
that he has not offended. None of which is proof positive. I am not accusing him. I am saying the program does not present anything that confirms his claims.

We have his claim that he is sexually attracted both to women and to young children, as young as five.

Can this be checked in any way?

Who is he, what is his background?

We need more, much more detail as to his acknowledgement of his 'attraction' to small children.

Are there diaries where he records his concerns?

Has he ever spoken to anyone of these concerns, professionally or otherwise, who can corroborate his claims?

Why has he emerged? How did the program makers find or make the connection with him?

Is he in counseling at present?

What is his claim truly representative of?

Can we interview any of his adult partners? What do they have to say?

Is he genuine?  How did the program makers test his case?

I do understand that any adult who feels such an attraction will feel a certain jeopardy, will be inclined not to acknowledge it to others out of a reasonable fear that such an acknowledgement might lead to action against him that would hurt him, or cause him harm. I also acknowledge that to come out with this is, to a degree, courageous. It would be more courageous for him to submit to analysis and to undergo therapy to address the issue. Tackle the issue head-on.

That he has not is worrying. Does he feel that his attraction is somehow valid, even if he refuses to act on it,
out of a moral consideration?

Was he paid for his 'appearance'?

There is too much in this program that is questionable, too many unanswered questions. It does nothing for Survivors, and it does nothing in terms of a robust examination of the failures of both legislation and Government services in terms of reporting, investigating and confronting child rape.




Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Tuesday, 4 November 2014

Politics, arguments, debates and an Institutionalised Emotional Blindness

Politics, arguments, debates and an abdication of responsibility.

The Power Inquiry Report 2006.

You need to know about it.

Examine it.

D. Cameron, E.Milliband and Menzies Campbell paid lip service to it at the time. Cameron said, in public, and it's on video, that The Power Inquiry was the 'most important initiative in Democracy in the UK' in a long, long time.

They all claimed, after attending the conference in 2006, and saying how important it was to the attendees, that it was 'impractical.'

I was there. I heard them support it. Lying through their teeth.

Here's an outline of the recommendations:

http://www.lgcplus.com/give-citizens-power-to-make-laws-urges-inquiry/513437.article

Here's the full document, PDF download, VERY MUCH WORTH reading.

http://www.jrrt.org.uk/publications/power-people-independent-inquiry-britains-democracy-full-report

Power without accountability or shared responsibility is always going to be a serious problem, and open to abuse.

Quite a lot of the comments flying around about Russel Brand, UKIP, and politics in general etc etc are antagonistic 'debating' style, rather than mature, critical analysis. Trying to win or batter the other side down.

What's that phrase they use about the Court system?

Adversarial.

I find that appalling. An abdication of responsibility. Politically immature. Psychologically immature.

Because the issue is not about Brand or Cameron, or UKIP it's about us, the community and how we work together (or not) to create a society that nurtures, that cares for the vulnerable. Which is about relationships based on kindness, rather than Power.

Healthy discourse is about sharing, exploring and growing together.

Debate is about Power, it's about who wins.

The Power Inquiry emerged out of the Community Voluntary Sector, which has decades of providing services at the local community level, dealing with amongst other things : finances, governance, research, best practices, transparency, service provis
ion, understanding their 'clients' needs, overcoming Institutional obstacles, overcoming Institutionalised Emotional Blindness, campaigning, fund raising, discourse on policy formulation and much else besides. These are real life skills.

It was these people that David Cameron's BIG SOCIETY was aimed at, as a direct institutional assault. And it was their clients, the vulnerable who suffer doubly as a result.

And it's working.

People who claim to 'aware' and the electorate in general and most of those who have a public voice a) don't attempt to ensure that they have a CLEAR evidence based understanding of what is happening b) don't do depth research c) go to media and celeb sources rather than the people at the grass roots.

My dear readers....

Have you EVER spoken to or contacted or read any work done by the Joseph Rowntree Trust?

Or Helena Kennedy?

Or Geoffery Robertson?

Or to any disabled people currently being denied benefits on the false basis of 'austerity'?

Use your voice to nurture the active grass roots, as well as to chastise the powerful.

In another comment, elsewhere, I pointed out how appalled I was at the sniping that is so common.

Instituionalised Emotional Blindness. There's something here for everyone to consider.

The immaturity of the debating style of the discourse, as opposed to an effort to share, learn and grow in order to create a more nurturant society. An abdication of responsibility. It's really quite ugly.




Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe