Jackson Cleared

Posted by: long-time-dead on 13 June 2005

... but would you let him babysit your child ?

Discuss.
Posted on: 14 June 2005 by blythe
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
quote:
Originally posted by long-time-dead:
... but would you let him babysit your child ?

Discuss.


The question ought to be:

"....but would you let your child spend the night at a single man's house?"


Total bollocks and I take exception to your blinkered and outrageous "ought to be" question!

As a single man with several nieces and nephews, I have had them stay at my house, and in fact in my bed and if I thought ANYONE was going to do something inappropriate with MY next of kin, I feel I couldn't be responsible for my actions.

To suggest that ALL single men are going to behave inappropriately is OUTRAGEOUS.

I think your view that all single men are paedophiles is totally out of order.
Posted on: 14 June 2005 by Deane F
Blythe

If you think you can infer my entire philosophy about child molestation from a single post containing a single question and statement...well, more power to you.

You are welcome to think that I consider all single men to be paedophiles - but you think wrongly.

Be outraged all you like. It costs me no energy and has no effect on me. The only reason I am responding to your rather ludicrous post is to extend an invitation to talk reasonably about the issue. But there is little in your post that is reasonable; rather, the tone is quite defensive.

Kindest regards
Deane F.
Posted on: 14 June 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
I have had them stay at my house, and in fact in my bed


This makes me feel uneasy. Why? I don't know but it does.

He protests too loud... Winker

PS: I hated the very fact that men are perceived as perverts from when I was a teacher. Nothing ever happened to me but I know of innocent male colleagues who got compromised (as a deflection ruse for their bad behaviour) by pupils. One of them even spent a couple of days in nick before the accusation was withdrawn, and his teaching career was destroyed before it even properly began.
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Matthew T
quote:
Originally posted by HTK:
I remember last year I was buying taps (of all things) when a member of staff who had been out for jury service came into the shop to tell her colleagues (in a booming tone that was impossible to ignore) how it had all gone. ‘I could tell he was guilty just by looking at him.. Thanks to me we’ll all sleep safer tonight. People like that shouldn’t be allowed to walk our streets… and so on…’ Enough said. They’re everywhere and I only pray I never end up at the mercy of people like that.

Cheers

Harry


Scary! And just imagine if these kind of people where allowed to vote as well...

Matthew
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Did a bloody good job that lawyer, amazing how nobodys's mentioned him, now I wonder why that is ?



Fritz Von Clever Bastards Smile
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Deane F
Seems to me that the lawyer had a pretty easy time of it really. In the words of one journalist, the mother of the boy systematically destroyed his case over five days on the witness stand. The prosecutors must have been cringing.
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
We forget the madman of a local DA who's got it in for Jackson bigstyle, he has enough power to still give this innocent man grievence through sheer hatred, we'll see won't we ?


Fritz Von Vendetta's abound Cool
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Deane F
A true cynic I see, Fritz. Vendetta? So there was no prima facie case established at the grand jury hearing? The search of Jackson's ranch was illegal? The entire legal process apart from the DA was also conspiring against Jackson?

Perhaps.
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Deano old chap, as far as I'm aware this individual was tantamount in bringing this recent farce to court, as a result of building a case (ten charges) on the basis of previous supposition & the British Bashir documentary. He's oppüenly made it clear (Vietnam Vet as he likes to portray himself) that he will get Jackson eventually, in my world that's called a personal Vendetta, what do you call it in New Zealand ?
Not too mention the ludicrous costs involved allround:

Fritz Von I bet Tasmania would have liked some compensation from Britain once ? Big Grin
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by domfjbrown
quote:
Originally posted by blythe:
As a single man with several nieces and nephews, I have had them stay at my house, and in fact in my bed and if I thought ANYONE was going to do something inappropriate with MY next of kin, I feel I couldn't be responsible for my actions.

To suggest that ALL single men are going to behave inappropriately is OUTRAGEOUS.

I think your view that all single men are paedophiles is totally out of order.


I have four nieces and nephews, and I also feel those comments were out of order. Of course, I don't have my own gaff, but if I did, they'd be able to use my bed too (although I would *not* be in it at the same time - I'd be on the lounge floor! - maybe this is what you meant too, blythe?)

I tell you this - if anyone tried it on with any of them, I'd hack off/out their genitalia with a rrrrusty spanner - and that's a fact. I'll never have/want kids of my own, but that comment would stand if I did.

People used to share beds with kids all the time way back when and no-one batted an eyelid - let's face it. That doesn't make them pedder-asses.

As for Jacko - whether you agree with the jury or not, it's final. Deal with it. The only crime he COULD be guilty of is making a shitty album (Invincible).
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by domfjbrown:
quote:
Originally posted by blythe:
As a single man with several nieces and nephews, I have had them stay at my house, and in fact in my bed and if I thought ANYONE was going to do something inappropriate with MY next of kin, I feel I couldn't be responsible for my actions.

To suggest that ALL single men are going to behave inappropriately is OUTRAGEOUS.

I think your view that all single men are paedophiles is totally out of order.


I have four nieces and nephews, and I also feel those comments were out of order.



Comments (plural?) Out of order? This is pathetic. STOP READING THINGS INTO MY POSTS!

Read my original post again and use the comprehension skills that you guys picked up while being processed through whatever system of education you had the benefit of when you were growing up.
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
A German friend of mine who's studying English (I've learnt a lot) e-mailed me last night to comment on this thread which I'd mentioned she may find interesting, innit. She read/saw it for the first time yesterday and commented that she had the distinct impression that the majority of posters on it were pretty dissapointed that Jackson was totally exonerrated of all charges?


Fritz Von She may well have a point there too I reckon, innit? Big Grin
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by blythe
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Toy:
quote:
I have had them stay at my house, and in fact in my bed


This makes me feel uneasy. Why? I don't know but it does.

He protests too loud... Winker


I have to say, that I also felt uneasy when my nephew and neice jumped into bed with me early in morning - it was obviously a very natural thing for them and something that they regularly did with with their mum and dad.

The only reason I felt uneasy I think was because to them it was so natural, an everyday occurance and I didn't know how to react.
My brother and his wife laughed their heads off when I told them.

Protesting loudly? Kneejerk reaction? Maybe; I was pretty anoyed when I wrote my first post and I still find it hard to believe Dean F's post, which to me suggests that a single man isn't fit to host children overnight.

Anyone who leaves their own children in the care of anyone else, has to have full confidence in their ability and integrity.

I do find it most odd that a parent would feel, the quite obviously "wacko" Jacko, fit as such.

If I had any doubts (or kids) I certainly wouldn't leave my own kids in such a situation.
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Chris Dolan
quote:
Here in Scotland we have an interim finding of "Not proven" which can be used in such cases - it's not without it's own controversy though.


It's such a good finding though!

We think that you probably did but... your defence team were good and created a bit of a doubt but wedon't relly think it credible, there is a missing bit in the evidence but we don't believe your alibi, ...................
the police and the CPS were under too much pressure to push for a prosecution before all the investigations had been completed..... that is not a good reason!

I would bring in "not proven" verdicts and link it to possible re-trials if there is new evidence - with other safeguards. If the verdict is not guilty (however perverse)thatshould be the end of it.

It is of course right that modern forensic evidence should be used to vindicate people who have been wrongfully convicted.

Surely it is right to use the same evidence to convict people. Perhaps not even those who have been wrongfully acquitted and found not guilty -but at least for those found "Not proven"?

Chris
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by graham55
Well, I'd like to shoot the f*cker's balls off, just to put the issue beyond doubt.

G
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by TomK
"Here in Scotland we have an interim finding of "Not proven" which can be used in such cases - it's not without it's own controversy though."

Originally a case was either proven or not proven. I find this much more logical than guilty/not guilty.
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by blythe:

Protesting loudly? Kneejerk reaction? Maybe; I was pretty anoyed when I wrote my first post and I still find it hard to believe Dean F's post, which to me suggests that a single man isn't fit to host children overnight.

Anyone who leaves their own children in the care of anyone else, has to have full confidence in their ability and integrity.

I do find it most odd that a parent would feel, the quite obviously "wacko" Jacko, fit as such.

If I had any doubts (or kids) I certainly wouldn't leave my own kids in such a situation.


My question was merely that; a question.

How many people have a full appreciation (and I mean *full* appreciation) of the damage sexual abuse does to the psyche of a child and the adult that that child becomes?

Is it worth the risk? Is it really worth the risk? Of course it is not possible (nor desirable) to shelter a child from all risks but sexual abuse has far-reaching and insidious results for the whole of life of the individual concerned.

Blythe, there is no suggestion here that you are a risk to children, but it is a fact that most sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members or close acquaitances so just sticking with family is no protection from anything. Nor is there ever even the whisper of danger from abusers - if there were then they would never be given the oportunity to abuse.

Deane
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Johns Naim
Deane F said:

quote:
How many people have a full appreciation (and I mean *full* appreciation) of the damage sexual abuse does to the psyche of a child and the adult that that child becomes?


I think that's a very hard one to answer. I in no way condone sexual abuse of children, or anyone for that matter, however sometimes the impression I get is that some adults who experienced sexual encounters/abuse at say puberty as a child, with an older adult, simply 'merge' the experience into a growing one of further sexual experimentation with other partners closer to their own age. I might be wrong, but it's certainly an impression I get.

On the other hand, no doubt some young children are deeply affected by it, and I certainly wouldn't diminish that, howver I also feel that some adults who were sexually exploited/abused as children, seem to use it as an excuse for every other ill that besets them in life.

Most people are lucky if they don't have some horrible experiences growing up, in some area or other of their life; few people are immune IMHO from disaster/emotional crises in childhood/youth; the longterm results/consequences can also come down to how well one endeavours to 'get over it' and move on in life.

Not easy, but a fair number of 'damaged' adults I have meet in life, blame the world, and everyone around them for their life's miserys, based upon hurts/trauma from the past, childhood even, without making any attempt to 'let it go' and move on.

So they stay 'rooted' in the past, and continue to experience the pain everyday, as if that is their reason for existence, or rather the principal way they can get attention, or others interest.

Rather than take responsibility for their lives, it seems easier to blame 'failure' or inability to set about tackling lifes problems, on some event that happened 20 or 30 years ago.

One then has to try to discern whether a dysfunctional individual is that way because of the effects of sexual abuse, or whether the sexual abuse is merely an 'excuse' or 'crutch' for a whole lot of other problems.

Certainly I find it very hard to give a concrete answer, and am unsure if there really is one.

quote:
but it is a fact that most sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members or close acquaitances so just sticking with family is no protection from anything. Nor is there ever even the whisper of danger from abusers - if there were then they would never be given the oportunity to abuse.


Very true, but I would like to point out that it is not gender based. I have a friend, who as an international exchange student, was sexually abused by the adult mother of his host family.

Males are usually seen as being the chief instigators of sexual abuse, and that may or may not be so, but certainly woman are no less lecherous IMHO.

There was recent outcry here where a woman school teacher received an very light scentence for sexually abusing a male minor, whereas a male teacher who abused a female minor, had the book thrown at him.

As a single male, I find it offensive that from time to time, woman that I meet as strangers, in the course of my work environment, certainly give me the impression that all men are 'bastards/rapists' etc, and that as I am a male, I must be one. I make this comment based upon their behaviour and comments towards me. It hasn't happened often, but enough to annoy me - granted the individuals involved may have had hidden problems/agenda.

A few years back, a male taxi driver was awarded a substantial sum of compensation, for being a victim of crime - raped at knifepoint by a female. The court accepted the various police, and forensic physcologist reports necessary for such an outcome - you'd have to be one very smart lier to get past all of that.

I told the tale once to a group of women, when they were giving me one of those 'all men are bastards' routine. You know what? - not only did they not believe it, but they laughed and said, quote: "he must have enjoyed it" - so as I say, sexual abuse/assault/rape etc is NOT just a male (single or otherwise) thing.

Best Regards

John... Cool
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Steve Toy
All men are sexual predators to some greater or lesser degree aren't we?

All women are sexual victims to some lesser or greater degree aren't they?

After all men are usually physically stronger than women to some lesser or greater degree aren't they?

Those women who happen to possess greater physical (or psycholgical) strength than their male counterparts, and also happen to take advantage of such unlikely superiority are rightfully settling male/female scores, aren't they?
Posted on: 15 June 2005 by Deane F
Sounds like you are asking for others to validate your opinions Steve.

Aren't you?

A fairly one-dimensional view of humanity and gender if you ask me.
Posted on: 16 June 2005 by Nime
Despite the protestations, the female rapist is a rare and rather amusing case to most people. It nicely fulfills many stereotypical sexual fantasies. (I can't speak for women)

Letting the woman go on top is always a good idea. Solves all sorts of potential gender battles. As long as she doesn't bring a knife to bed with her. (I can't speak for women)
Posted on: 16 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
It seems to me that virtually all of these highly repetitive posts are exact copies of the Jonathon King threads, rantin & a'ravin ?


Fritz Von Though he's Gay of course Big Grin
Posted on: 16 June 2005 by Nime
quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
It seems to me that virtually all of these highly repetitive posts are exact copies of the Jonathon King threads, rantin & a'ravin ? Big Grin


Waddya 'xpect from us steero .. us stereo .. us s-t-e-r-e-o-k-y ... from blokes like us?
Posted on: 16 June 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Yes, I suppose you're right me old carrot cruncher, innit.


Fritz Von Quickly forget it and start all over again a month later; it's almost Prime Ministerial, innit? Big Grin Now I really must get myself a nice bonnet for Ascot later, I wonder if I'll see Our Mat there with his jolly japers squaffing fizz for HM Gutter Press ? Cool
Posted on: 16 June 2005 by blythe
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
quote:
Originally posted by blythe:

Protesting loudly? Kneejerk reaction? Maybe; I was pretty anoyed when I wrote my first post and I still find it hard to believe Dean F's post, which to me suggests that a single man isn't fit to host children overnight.

Anyone who leaves their own children in the care of anyone else, has to have full confidence in their ability and integrity.

I do find it most odd that a parent would feel, the quite obviously "wacko" Jacko, fit as such.

If I had any doubts (or kids) I certainly wouldn't leave my own kids in such a situation.


My question was merely that; a question.

How many people have a full appreciation (and I mean *full* appreciation) of the damage sexual abuse does to the psyche of a child and the adult that that child becomes?

I doubt that anyone, except for an abused person could really know what a profound effect that abuse might have on their psyche. Maybe a shrink with a lot of experience in the field would have a good insight into the damage done.

Is it worth the risk? Is it really worth the risk? Of course it is not possible (nor desirable) to shelter a child from all risks but sexual abuse has far-reaching and insidious results for the whole of life of the individual concerned.
As you rightly say, not only sexual abuse but also physical and mental can apparently have a profound affect on a person's psyche. My brother and his wife obviously had a total trust in me to be in the company of their children.
Frankly, I'd feel extremely hurt if they didn't.
I was lucky to be brought up in a loving, 2 parent, 5 kid family where all was happy and no abuse (OK, the occasional smacking I'm sure but don't actually remember being smacked).


Blythe, there is no suggestion here that you are a risk to children, Thanks - I'm pleased to hear it! but it is a fact that most sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members or close acquaitances so just sticking with family is no protection from anything. You have to trust the people you leave your kids with - family members or otherwise. It seems that it's only really become a "hot" issue recently due to high profile news items etc. Which in many ways is good, drawing attention to something that has presumably been going on since time began. However, it's a shame that 1000's of "normal" people now have to think twice before even comforting a lost child in a shopping precinct or anywhere else for that matter.
Nor is there ever even the whisper of danger from abusers - if there were then they would never be given the oportunity to abuse. I can only comment on the odd TV documentary or drama that I've seen - and in most cases, there is some suspicion that "something" is a bit odd. Maybe the TV documentaries have portrayed the perpertrator in such a way as to make it obvious, but in a recent program, it was more the behaviour of the child that "gave the game away" - that was even before abuse had actually taken place.

Deane


When I was growing up, I would climb trees, ride my bike fast - go out for bike rides for miles with a couple of friends, racing to see who could go fastest, walk on top of high walls, try to get the playground swing to go higher than anyone else; I fell out of trees, scraped my knees and ended up in hospital on more than one occasion but I was never abused, kidnapped, raped or murdered.
You simply can't protect your child 24 hours a day - it would not be beneficial to their psyche and would they wouldn't develope their own sense of danger or exhilaration.

But leave your kids with someone you TRUST.
What more can you do? Never leave them with ANYONE? Never go out so you can watch them 24/7?

I wouldn't leave any kid unattended with Mr Jackson, but I trust my 4 brothers 100%.