A very sensible statement, and one with which I totally agree!

What a great way to be. Only wish we had a few more such types here in Australia,instead of all the controls and a somewhat passive population.
Although not sure when it comes to the roads,driving standards are rather dismil and come to think of it i wonder if a lot of folk would be able to manage over here such freedom?

But, as a parent, the peer group is one that you should control. This is where many parents fail. They let the peer group take over. Or they don't make sure that their childrens' peer group is reflective of their own values.

Which really brings us full circle, because the reason many Brits move to Spain with their families in the first place is because they want to remove them from harmful peer groups back in the UK.

Probably the best post written on BE for a long time.
Graham.

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Tell me exactly how you keep your child away from a group of their peers? Lock them in their room? Take them to and from school under guard? Put a high fence around your garden and not allow your child out of that except to go to school?

Handle it wrong, and the resentment you cause will certainly make the problem even worse.

We had problems with the peer group of one of our children, thankfully just the one, and the problems weren't too bad, and the child concerned had a sound character, but it was a damn close run thing. So, I did some reading on the subject. The consensus of opinion was, that the olny guaranteed way of doing it was to move house far enough away to keep your child out of their reach.

Barring a miracle, there simply is no other solution.

Um. Well, I make that post with a heavy heart, because I don't like the thought of permanent incarceration.

However, this is less a case of imprisonment and more a case of quarantining a serious disease, because that's what it is. A sickness that the abuser often passes onto his victims

I don't think that paedophilia should just be looked at as a crime, more that it is a crime committed by a sick person.

I remember reading what a paedophile once wrote. He said that he knew his desires were wrong, that he had never comitted an offence against a child, and his sole sexual outlet was thru pornography. (Yes, I know that's an an offence against children.) He made sure that he was never put into a position of temptation, - a bit like an alcoholic never going into any shop that sold alcohol.

To me, he was in his own way very commendable, and not undeserving of empathy.

I don't know what we can do about it, because it is clear to me that the population of paedophiles is far, far greater that I thought, especially given that a single network had 70,000 members.

Wether the age of consent makes any difference or not, it should be changed. Gives out the wrong message for a democratic country in the EU.

Sometimes it is the utter stupidity of people. I worked at a multinational company and our section consisted of around 120 people, I do not know how many paedophiles there were within that group but one guy, quite pleasant, brought photos to work of children; the police were called and he was taken into custody. Turned out he had rather a lot of photos in a secret room he had created. He was sentenced to two years.
Looking back it is easy to say that he was a little odd but then all of us are. To all intents and purposes he was a happily married family man. You just cannot tell.
Graham

Doesn't this go against everything you are saying in the terrorism and torture thread?

HBG Sorry, that was my first day here, I did not realise that I was not permitted to show why I thought what you said (when you claimed to be quoting a DC I) was probably incorrect.

Incidentally, if I am allowed to say it, I was not boasting. I am proud to have served the community for almost 30 years.

Was just about to mention that myself, though I'm sure bill will have an excellent explanation.

Have to agree with that, lived on the same urb amongst many SAS etc, but his name was not Julian.

Sorry I am new here, so maybe do not 'appreciate the sense of humour' as expressed to new members!

Oh, and by the way, my name is not Julian either.

I used to work with a group of adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse in a residential unit. One of them (call her Mary) had been abused by her father and his girlfriend from age 4 until he went to prison when she was 14. I met her when she was 19 and cutting her thighs and boobs every day.

Daddy was a clinical psychologist and also led a paedophile ring. He arranged lots of parties where kids, including Mary, were passed around and shared. The kids had to do things to each other, too. Dogs were involved. Films were made. Photos were taken (smile for the camera, sweetie). Mary was encouraged to bring her school friends to the house...

Anyway, Daddy was rumbled and spent a couple of years inside, lost his licence as a psychologist. Came out of prison and started phoning Mary, sending her letters full of love and threats.

Lo! and behold! One afternoon the guy suddenly turns up at the unit, insisting that he has a right to see his only daughter. MickeyTong in charge of things, spoke to Mary who wanted nothing to do with him but was too intimidated to tell him herself. MT (tact and diplomacy personified) advised the guy to leave the premises because there were 18 people (who all knew Mary's story and had similar stories themselves) very keen to rip his nuts off and shove them down his throat. He gave me a smirk, and left.

For a fortnight afterwards my conscience bothered me because I didn't kill him or at least do him serious damage. This is a man who will not (cannot) change his ways. He was probably damaging children when I met him and he is probably damaging children even now.

Some people should be killed as a service to society.

A true professional would not repeat anybodys private and medical history etc on a public forum. Changing a name is not a good enough excuse for doing so.

Also the police would/should be called to such an incident.