Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815


A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13.


Barbara Hewson told online magazine Spiked that the move was necessary in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal to end the "persecution of old men".


She also said that complainants should no longer receive anonymity.


The NSPCC called her views "outdated and simply ill-informed" and said to hear them "from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief".

Shocking enough, but for a woman to call for that? Would she like her own 13 year old daughter to be dating a 50 year old man I wonder? All very well to be wrrying about the prosecution of old men (I'm sure she meant to say prosecution, not persecution) but perhaps if her own legal profession (and the Police) had been more interested in treating rape victims better than they did at the time, victims may not have felt too scared to come forward until now.


Truly astounding how some barristers (and judges) think.....

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Shocking enough, but for a woman to call for that?



Not sure why she'd be held to a higher standard than a reasonable man.



> Would she like her own 13 year old daughter to be

> dating a 50 year old man I wonder? All very well

> to be wrrying about the prosecution of old men

> (I'm sure she meant to say prosecution, not

> persecution)


In the context, she did mean persecution - she goes on to refer to the 'Savile Inquisition'.

In any event, what concerns me is the perceived trivialisation of "Taking girls to one?s dressing room, bottom pinching and groping in cars . . ." and "Touching a 17-year-old?s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one?s hand up a 16-year-old?s skirt."

I agree entirely. To dismiss sexual assault (because that's what it is) as trivial is wrong. But with Saville, we aren't talking about groping....we are talking about much worse. The guy was a despicable peadophile, end of. Why anyone would have an issue with the exposure of that (let alone a barrister) is a mystery to me.
  • 2 weeks later...

The issue of children's exposure to pornography via the internet is being debated (again) on Radio 4 right now.


A contributor who is 1) pro opt-in and 2) against the inclusion of the topic of pornography in compulsory sex education classes keeps saying how terrible it would be if parents were criminally prosecuted for refusing to allow their 5 and 6 year olds to study extreme images of sex in class.


Talk about a straw man argument. As if that is what anyone is suggesting.

  • 2 weeks later...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22842192


Seven men are currently awaiting sentencing after being convicted last month of involvement in a major sex trafficking ring in Oxford.


But, after the legal process ends, what support is there for victims as they fight to get their lives back?


...Psychiatrists who have studied girls who've been sexually abused as children found that more than two-thirds had depression and severe post-traumatic stress disorder - suffering flashbacks, intrusive thoughts and the fear the abuse will happen again.


Some victims are offered counselling by charities. But few will get access to specialist psychotherapy.


File on 4 has been told that victims face a postcode lottery when it comes to receiving help from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.


In some areas services last to 18, but in other parts of the country 16- and 17-year-olds are not getting the support they need, with provision cutting off just before 16 in some places.


Thresholds for adult care are higher, and you cannot be referred until you are 18, so many 16- and 17-year-olds are falling through the gap.


...There are now more than 160 statutory and voluntary organisations offering counselling and mentoring - and finding young people housing, and education.


But the deputy children's commissioner for England says the availability of help is still hit-and-miss depending on where people live. Sue Berelowitz will be publishing a report in the winter containing recommendations on what should be available for exploited children.


She says councils are getting better at identifying grooming, but they need to do more to help young people recover.


"We will have a better idea towards the end of the year what the scale of support is but I would be very surprised if it is sufficient.


"What's being done to sexually exploited children is of an utterly savage and appalling nature. It's completely unreasonable to expect young people to survive such experiences psychologically intact.


"There's no point everybody getting on their high horse and very agitated about the horrors of child sexual exploitation if we don't put in support to make sure those who are victims are assisted to come through their experiences as best we can," she said.


DJKQ's omment could be read as one of perspective rather than morality, but I digress from the issue at hand. If we're really to prevent child sexual exploitation, I think we also have to create a culture and an infrastructure that helps and supports victims more. People don't come forward to report crimes and ask for help, if they don't expect to receive any help. Coming forward report crimes early could potentially be an avenue for preventing further crimes from happening. But if people feel like reporting these crimes leads to no real help and incurs in itself a deeper sense of victimisation, then it's easy to see why reporting such crimes is so difficult.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Its crazy, they raise membership prices due to the refurb but things are worse than before.
    • That example seems fair enough - but wouldn’t say it’s completely analogous to the Trump situation the STORY (your caps) is about the bbc edit precisely because of what happened that day and people’s ability to brush it under the carpet. I think the edit didn’t  need to be done in that way to make the exact same point. So it’s wrong thing to do, but it isn’t actually incorrect in its point - and people should be reexamining the events and not the edit  and I don’t think it’s political to say or do this. If your supporter example played out that way then fair enough - I just cannot agree that in this case the edit fundamentally changes what he said, meant or did  - especially without events transpired   It could definitely be made more explicit but given what actually happened… ? At least hopefully at this point we are being less aggy with each other and trying to make our points 
    • But THE STORY is about a BBC edit, and its impartiality issues, not about the storming of the capital. And it's not the first time deceitful editing has been a story - there was the whole Queen scandal too.  I love the BBC and hate seeing the corporation frankly unable to remain impartial anymore. It breaks my heart, because we do have a higher standard in this country and that's what keeps us on the right side of history - not people like Trump.  A long time ago I made a film about a Trump supporter. I came into the edit one day and the editor and edited him to say something quite bigoted, which he simply never said. Luckily I spotted it. The editor's excuse was 'well it's the kind of thing he would say'. I made him take it out, because it was dishonest and you have to leave your politics at the door if you want to be a good documentarian. 
    • Showers are still cold today.  When I asked at Reception, I was told that one of the boilers was now repaired and they were just waiting for the water to warm up!  The pool was pretty cold today as well,  Still a load of grit /dirt on the bottom, seems to be getting worse.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...