Be Excellent To Each Other

Right then. Here's the first substantive paragraph of my original post:



First off, I refer to the actual damage caused to children through actual acts - no ambiguity there then. In te very next sentence I refer to the the vile act, again leaving no doubt as to the true meaning of my argument, which surely is self evident fact that no reasonable person would dispute, and in any case spoken through first hand experience, as stated.



In my second substantive paragraph, I go on to talk about actual indulgence of such acts, and those individuals who are incapable of abstinence from such behaviour, for whatever reason. Again, it's absolutely crystal clear that I am exclusively referring to the practictioners of such acts.



A predator in this context is someone who actively seeks out his prey, not someone who thinks about it. A lion is a predator who actively seeks out and kills other animals; it may well think about it as well, but without the actual act of killing we would hardly use the term 'predator' now would we? So it is in this case; my use of the term predator automatically indicates that I am referring to those who actually act, not just think about it. It's hardly rocket science.

Like I said, the true meaning and intent of my original post is abundantly clear, and any attempt to cherry pick individual sentences and quote them entirely out of context of the complete post, taken as a whole, is both invalid and entirely unhelpful, as is then using this to put words into my mouth. (I think the term is 'trolling' in fact).

Then use the correct words next time. I'm sure if I substituted Captain Christmas for child abuser in every post you'd have a problem.

Idiotic troll. Got nothing better to do with your time? Tell someone who cares.

I'll do what I want, thanks, and I certainly won't be asking your permission first, matey boy.

You're kidding me.

So what do we do about all these Captain Christmases who touch kids?

Ha. Shown in your true light.

What? Apparently the word doesn't matter if the meaning is clear.

Not quick enough with the editing, eh Duds? Go fuck yourself, seriously.

Yeah 'WTF' eh? You edited it right back, too.

Still, I'm betting you now claim you didn't actually edit the post don't you, which would just about sum the courage of your convictions.

Who's being pedantic now, hmmm? Twat.

Sequence of events.

Man uses wrong word.
Someone queries it.
Man backs off from using wrong word.
Man does it again in next post.
Someone points this out.
Man goes batshit insane.

WTF pretty much covers it, you must have some issue you're not telling us about this because you're not even being slightly rational here as multiple people have said.

Cavey - hold up. You're absolutely right, the meaning of what you said in your posts is abundantly clear - to us. All we're trying to point out is that when you're dealing with the sort of mentality that gets the guy in the story linked to in this thread killed, or gets a mob baying at the door of a paediatrician, being careful with terminology is important.

Yeah, but at least I have the courage of my convictions and don't go changing my posts, then when sussed out on it change them back again, and then post a little 'WTF' smiley-face, hey. And so I repeat: FUCK YOU.

* * *

I changed a couple to be a little nicer, clearly I should not have bothered.

Something has gone into you, you're being neither normal nor rational.

Craster, if the meaning of my post is abundantly clear, that's all that matters. Given the gravity of the discussion and implied personal circumstances, to repeatedly pull someone up over such trivial and self evidently entirely unintentional inconsistencies IS nick-picking bollocks and pedantry.

The very first statement I made was that I abhor mob justice, notwithstanding my extreme hatred of child abusers. So that point is also entirely moot.

Don't get me wrong old chap, I hold you in the highest esteem and I wish I had your even temper and wisdom. But I don't, and so much to the relief of the participants of this discussion no doubt, I am out of this thread.

Cavey

Since you made a sweeping statement about sexual abuse victims. I wasn't venting furiously until that point. And I'm not now either, because I'm done with your opinions, which are not worth a damn.

Anyway, why would you waste any further time talking to me - there must be loads of others on the internet who've been abused, who you are yet to explain authoratatively to that they are fucked up for life by it. Poor bastards, carrying on as if everything were fine. If only they knew!

Nice to see you address the various points I made in response to your post. Ah hang on a second, you don't! Another lazy cherry picker then, eh.

My opinions might not be worth a damn according to you, but hey, I least I have the good grace and courage to articulate them and actually respond to others' accusations. Your opinions are non existent, and thus entirely worthless.

Why would I waste my time talking to you? Indeed, good question. Get back to your stupid little computer games, boy, and the next time you want to make vile statements like 'I might as well fuck the kids myself' - far worse than anything I've been "accused" of here - at least be prepared to back them up, you worthless, snivelling little coward. Like you'd say that one to my face, eh?

No, I think you'll find it's more a case of 'being an apologist for filthy paedophiles...', mate. You catchin' my drift here arsehole, or do I need to spell that one out for you and your little friends in words of one syllable as well?

Now, fuck off.

Crikey, you seem like a right cunt... You're entitled to your views, but when pulled up on crass generalisations; you act like a twat.

Well done.

Gash
X

Oh well, I can live with it. Things could be worse; I could be an apologist for paedophiles or something.

Hey, at least I actually take the trouble to explain my posts and answer specific criticisms, rather than say, just wading in from nowhere and call someone 'a right cunt', for example. Your rapier-like wit and astute powers of observation cut me to the quick; how is university life at Oxford these days?

The bone of contention as it were seems to be my outrageous 'opinion' that, shock/horror, children are irrevocably damaged through sexual abuse by paedophiles. Still, what a crass generalisation(tm) that is eh! Silly old me.

/me finds something better to do with my time than conversing with morons on the internet

OK, come out tomrrow evening with the rest of us. I'll say it to your face then, if you like. After all, it's not like you are implying a violent response with that remark, is it?

In the meantime, try and see if you can tell the difference between my hyperbole and your definite statement.

Another rapier line...

Are you suggesting that it wasn't a crass generalisation then?

I'm sure that you must know so many hundreds of abuse survivors, as to dismiss the statement of someone who apparently was abused would seem a little absurd otherwise, or would it?

Gash
x

Even assuming I had the inclination to drive 200 miles+ for some punch up with some random bloke off the internet in a pub, what precisely would this solve either way? Let's say you beat me to a pulp, I would still firmly hold to the view that child abusers permanently damage children. You think violence solves a thing? It doesn't.

I merely pointed out to you that I don't think you would say 'you might as well fuck kids yourself' to anyone to their face, there and then as it were, notwithstanding the fact that any ensuing altercation would be regrettable on all sides, including mine.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's out of order to claim, as a generalisation, that the psyche is permanently damaged by actual, physical, sexual abuse by adults when only a young child? For the absolute life of me I simply do not understand.

And no, I don't know hundreds of sexual abuse survivors, just the three.

Gentlemen, I think you're all just going to have to agree to disagree on this one and respect that each party has their own point of view from their own personal life experiences.

Now I'm all for you continuing this discussion but can we please calm it down a little? I appreciate it's a very emotive issue, but lets rise above the name calling etc.. as it isn't what this place is about, and from reading posts from all of you in the past, I'm pretty sure it's not what you're about either.

Fair enough Jasmine.

I must admit this is a highly emotive issue for me personally. Whilst I honestly didn't think I was saying anything contentious - perhaps out of some stupidity on my part, who knows - in retrospect I should not have got into this thread, for this reason.

For my part I will apologise to all for my inappropriate language and rather nasty sentiment to my posts, which are due to my extreme anger but not towards anyone here. I don't want to hurt anyone.

Cavey

I have said this and shall say this again, to the face of anyone who made the same claim you did. There is no automatic emotional crippling of anyone who has been the subject of sexual abuse. Maybe in a majority of cases, maybe in an overwhelming one, but given how common sexual abuse is, that still leaves countless numbers of people who are made to feel worse about something that wasn't so big a deal to them, because the hand-wringing vocal element of society feel compelled to make the same point over and over.

In fact the NSPCC had to replace a campaign (with the cloud-cuckoo "Full Stop" campaign) when founders of a care-leaver charity successfully lobbied to have the ads taken away. The ads were felt to make the same sweeping generalisation - that a life abused is a life effectively crippled for the duration. One of the complainants, one of my best friends, worked the streets as a child. And she's with me on this point, as are the hundreds of people she and I and our colleagues have supported. People are likely on the streets of your town developing heroin habits not to block the memory of the abuse they received but to block the feelings of guilt they have for being involved in it, when 'decent people' say it is dirty, say it is evil and say it is something which DOES fuck you up.

Any victim could arguably have struggled harder, gouged an eye, screamed a minute sooner, whatever. And they are aware of this. The assertion or even the implication that irrevocable damage in an absolute guarantee is sufficient to have many feeling as if they have themselves contributed to their own pain, however far forgotten that experience is. What if they'd said or done something quicker? What if this means they are somehow just as 'bad' themselves, deep down?

The answer, regrettably, lies in a syringe for many. And that's where I spend my days. Cleaning up the mess. And that's how I know you are wrong.


/edit didn't get the post directly above mine before posting. Fair enough, I'll not edit the above text5 in this post and leave it as my last word on the matter.

To be fair, it looks as though we agree anyway; a generalisation is just that, not a perfect description to fit each and every case, including at the extremes.

That said, I now realise, uselessly and belatedly, that I was unwittingly stereotyping people even though my intent was absolutely entirely benign - I put my foot well and truly in it. For that, I repeat my belated, sincere apologies.



I genuinely did not appreciate this before. I do now.



This terrible guilt complex is, for me, the worst aspect of it all. I have sat through many counselling sessions and had tears streaming down my face upon hearing this again and again, and it doesn't matter how many times you say to the person 'you were not to blame, how could you have done anything more'. And of course, this begets a terrible anger and rage, yet even this is selfish and unthinking on my part: the only people who really have the right to be angry are the people who have been directly affected.



Your post has deeply moved me and made me see that, yes, I was wrong. You have my admiration for what little that's worth, more power to your elbow.

Cavey

I am also sorry for insulting you, a decent post by a decent man... I guess GJ said alot and it's an emotive subject, and easy to get riled about, sorry man.

Gash
x

Thank you, you are all gentlemen.

*raises a glass bottle to you all*

Crikey, it's early.

I agree with Jasmine - no more nonce sense from you lot.

-edit- Seriously, though, you've shown a pair of steel balls to climb down there, Cavey. This place is truly excellent.

Good god, did someone just change their minds because of a web forum argument? Cavey and Goatboy, total kudos to you both; but you may have just broken the entire internet.

Very kind words ladies and gents, but entirely undeserved on my part - Goatboy and Gash deserve any credit that's for the taking for their generous spirit in the face of such stupidity. It's one thing to get hot under the collar about politics or whatever, but when totally innocent, decent people are getting hurt, it's time to throw the towel in double quick. However, once again I just kept on digging away, ignoring all wise counsel, blind to everything as the red fucking mist descended on me once again, spraying everyone with my shite and ending up upsetting someone who totally didn't deserve it. What a prize prick.

Deffo the last word from me, but I just couldn't let that one stand as-is. Balls of steel? Kick in the balls more like. And it's pretty useless saying sorry after the event, as well.

Please don't reply to this post; I am a disgrace.

I don't want to spark a riot but this was in the paper today. Here's what it said -

Paedo's ex-lover 'glad he is dead'

An ex-girlfriend of murdered paedophile Andrew Cunningham said yesterday "I'm glad he's dead".
Annette Morris,47, claimed Cunningham,52, bedded their 15 year old babysitter and then detailed it in his diary.
She said "what he wrote was disgusting". "It made me feel physically sick".
Annette, who had a daughter with Cunningham, was 17 when they first met. She said "even I wasn't young enough for him.he had an obsession with 15 year old girls".

Cunningham was murdered in his caravan in Wandsworth, South London, last week.His genitals had been mutilated.
The beast had a conviction for underage sex with a 15 year old ( at least we know what it was now, instead of a 'thought to be' .
There were also rumours he had recently molested a two year old ( Note, rumours. The reason why I don't bring the sun newspaper home.. )

Annette said "the world is a better place without him".

My comments are in bold

Cavey rocks. I've had many a debate with him elsewhere, both on and off side, and he's always a gentleman about it.

Um... note that "even I wasn't young enough for him" and work it back from their ages. They were 17 and 22....

Also we're once again counting sex with a 15 year old incorrectly as "paedophilia" when it isn't even slightly that. Very helpful to the debate guys.

I'm ignoring that rumour bullshit completely because of a firm conviction it consists of "I know him, he a nonce that one".

Not to mention she was so repulsed she stayed in a relationship with him for over 20 years.

The quote didn't say that, or at least not that I could see. Where's that info?

The BBC say he was just taken off the Sex Offenders Register after being convicted in 2001. I'm not sure how that works exactly, but I'm guessing being taken off after seven years means that it wasn't a very serious crime. According to the Sun, he was imprisoned for 4 months in 2001, which again suggests a non-serious crime. Also, it seems he was only living in a caravan because a previous house had been burnt down by vigilantes.

Well presumably that's the sex with 15 year old one.

Well, admittedly I'm guessing, based on the "sex with 15 year old babysitter" being the 2001 conviction, suggesting he was still with his wife in 2000 or so. This appears to be incorrect, at least according to Wikipedia

For that sentence to be true, there's a lot we're not being told here. Still at least we're dealing with a genuine cunt here (although actually not a paedophile based on what we know so far, although I've not read the wikipedia page).

Remember, even if the 13 year old consented it'd still be rape (statutory).

Absolutely - which is why a 4 month sentence is absurdly short, and I agree with Duds that there's something missing there.

Still wrong to kill him. Doesn't matter what he did.

Absolutely.

So we're all in agreement, then? Who do I direct my sharpened shotgun at?

George Bush. Seeing as the bloke with the shoe wasn't a very good shot

Yes, absolutely.

I just checked the Wikipedia page but the text I quoted still stands. I think it's rubbish though. For example, this Sky News article says


I would guess this was the babysitter that his ex-partner referred to, and that they were therefore still together in 2000.

So his only conviction is for shagging a near legal babysitter.

I'm failing to demonise him too much here and he's certainly not a paedo. There's plenty of better targets if you fancy being a murderer.

Like Craster.