WHAT'S THE BIGGEST DANGER TO CHILDREN?

 

Because I am trying to host a sane, logical, discussion about the subject of child pornography, I am again being accused of spreading dangerous propaganda and sailing close to the wind.  Apparently my blog is policed regularly for evidence of some kind of misconduct.  Now I feel obliged to give that one regular reader a shout out!  Hiya, hope you're enjoying it thus far, but put your seatbelt on, I'm about to sail a bit closer to the wind. 

 

Firstly, I am as repulsed and disgusted at child pornography as any sane adult, and I'm not trying to legalise it or promote it.  As someone who always takes the side of the vulnerable and who has taken a stand in a courtroom against child abuse, I defy anyone to accuse me of supporting monsters.  My point, again and again, is why aren't the producers of these films, images etc, being arrested?  How about those actually defiling the kids in the images?  We keep hearing about child pornography, but we never hear about kids being rescued?  Why not?  Why aren't the actual victims, the children, the number one priority?

 

Every generation, going back hundreds of years, blames the arts, music, literature, the culture of their time, for society's ills.  I'm not claiming child pornography as an Art by the way, but I am concerned that the hysteria about images crosses so easily into The Arts sphere.  When someone claims an image is responsible for a criminal's behaviour, we should all be worried.   Some even want to criminalise cartoons ffs - there goes Family Guy and Herbert the Pervert!  The Arts are a mirror, not only do they reflect our lives right back at us, they capture the spirit of the times for all eternity.  That's why great writers (and wannabes like moi), carve our words with pride. 

 

Most of us, probably 99% behave with decorum in public, not so much online.  Not because we would be in the dock and held accountable if we didn't, but because that is how we were raised and because that is the right thing to do.  It isn't the Law that keeps us in check, anymore than it is the law that stops obscenities flooding the market?  Free will and the free choice of the majority NOT to view these images or visit these sites, keeps them off our screens.  Nobody wants them. They don't flood the markets because most people have no interest in them.  Supply and demand, the demand isn't there.   

 

With child pornography and child exploitation, the majority of us are so reviled by the it, that even underground suppliers would struggle and whistleblowers would be everywhere.  Ergo, the market is very, very small, very, very sleazy and always will be.  It's not a clear and present danger, just as the 4% of Muslims who make up the British population are not going to make a hostile takeover. 

 

The biggest danger to children comes from the home and from people who know them.  That's a fact.  The smallest danger to children is a predator on the internet.  I feel like Father Ted explaining small and far away to Father Dougal using pictures of cows.  More importantly, why is abuse always thought of as sexual?  Physical and mental abuse are far more prevalent and often prove fatal.  'So you were beaten to within an inch of your life, but did he TOUCH you? .  What of those disciplinarians who move in on young families and enforce inhumane regimes?  Those who think they can break a child's will by beating them or locking them up?  Is it OK to thrash a child, but not hug them?

 

Abuse comes in many forms, but only sexual abuse grabs the headlines.  As if dissecting the graphic details of a 40 year old grope will somehow help those children who are suffering today.  Those children going home to empty larders, empty cupboards and parents pushed to breaking point.  Or how about those refugee children desperately in need of safe home for themselves and their families?

 

As often happens, the discussion from the last blog has spilled over here.  Not least the ludicrous idea of banning whatever it is that turns paedophiles on - experts apparently can see things in pictures, that we regular people can't.  And I'm quite delighted about that.  Actually, I always look for the beauty around me, it keeps me sane(ish) and I think kindly of most people, until they give me good reason not to. 

 

However, the idea of pinpointing one generic trigger that fits all, is batshit crazy.  A movie might trigger one raging maniac to go on a killing spree, but it didn't affect all the millions who saw it in the same way.  And who is to say the movie was the trigger, it might have been one of the adverts?  That advert for Haribo sweets with adults talking like children, sends me demented!   I confess.  I did, as a teen watch 'The Evil Dead' after it was officially declared a 'video nasty', as indeed did everyone I knew, it was being passed on daily.  And no, no-one went on a rampage. 

 

The idea of banning things that MIGHT turn on this very tiny percentage of weirdos is in itself bizarre. How do you compile a  generic list of paedophile turn ons ffs?  would it include ice cream as claimed in the cesspit? How about a saucily shaped banana as cited in the Swedish case of two small cartoon characters?

 

I once looked after an elderly disabled gentleman, who's turn on was school girls in their short skirts.  Not an uncommon turn on, even among men who wouldn't dream of touching a child.  The netball matches in Lincoln's Inn Field had a very large audience of City gents.  My client's problem was he was very vocal about it.  He also used the internet to look up school girls etc, and he would often go out and photograph them.  He was often brought home by the police.

 

He was mentally and physically disabled, and couldn't nor wouldn't, ever hurt anybody.  He shared his home with another gentleman who was wheelchair bound, and during the night, he would check on him and bring him drinks.  He had a kind, caring nature, and just couldn't understand why he shouldn't whistle, leer at or photograph schoolgirls. He would cry and apologise and promise never to do it again, but he always did, he had short term memory loss.  Sadly, he would be just the kind of man an angry mob would take pleasure in hanging from a lamppost, there would be no time to explain or ask for compassion for his condition, that is where this hysteria has taken us.  

 

But going back to banning, should school girls go back to wearing their skirts one inch above the knee, because one poor old guy, couldn't hide his glee?  Should he be lynched?  Or should schoolgirls be aware that there are some unfortunate people in this world who don't know how to behave appropriately. And that they are not necessarily a threat to them.   Is it so difficult to spend a few moments explaining to a child how and why other people are different to them  and they should feel compassion rather than leaving their fears unexplained? 

 

I spent my early childhood in the shadow of the great Holloway Sanatorium in Virginia Water, and both my parents worked there, it cared for the gentrified mentally disabled and exhausted celebrities.  Visitors, including the Queen Mother, arrived in Rolls Royces.  Our small village was dominated by the Sanatorium, hospital workers and residents out for a stroll.  Both my father and mother instilled it in me to show kindness and compassion to the residents, just as they did. And I was happy to, I met some great characters, I feared no-one, and I learned very early in life that most people, especially the lost and lonely, just want a friend to cheer them up.  It breaks my heart when I see families and children flinch at the disabled, they truly don't know what they are missing.

 

Of all the jobs I've had, care work was the most rewarding and indeed most enlightening.  Seeing human behaviour in it's simplest form taught me far more than a study of the more complex characters. It was a huge learning curve.  Take a horrible character and strip them of their motivation, their vanity, their self awareness, their complex schemes, and you are left with the nicest basics and the nicest natures.  I just wish people could understand there is nothing to fear, that just because someone's looks different, it doesn't mean they will harm them.   I loved the time I spent with my clients, unfortunately, as much as they loved my 'big kid' antics, my employers didn't.  

 

I worry that these paedophile hunters and vigilantes do not consider the mental health of those men they go after.  The old guy I looked after wasn't capable of grooming anybody, but imagine if he was lured to a car park by an angry mob?  Unfortunately, history is littered with the mentally disabled being hung in error. 

 

The best way to protect children is by educating the parents about the very real risks.  The new boyfriend, the over helpful neighbour, the always willing babysitter and yes, the professionals.   Like a mummy tiger helping it's cub out into the world, we must teach them how to ward off predators.  But we should also point out to them those most likely to be friends.  

 

Just like the animal world, predators are always on the look-out for the weak and vulnerable and steer away from the strong and confident.  The best gift we can give our children is the confidence to protect themselves.   I wasn't in the least bit perturbed when my 13 year old son began an online relationship with a voluptuous 18 year old called Lollypop Happy (yes the name was that unforgettable). He would keep me updated on his daily chats while I and his big brother teased him mercilessly.  I think what finally burst his bubble, was when I pointed out Lollypop Happy was probably a big auld hairy arsed builder in his fifties. 

 

Kids (mostly) aren't stupid, especially where the internet is concerned.  They have grown up with it, they understand it better than we do, or probably ever will.  Where they are naïve however, is in understanding the behaviour of others, they don't have the life experience to discern what is or isn't appropriate behaviour.  It isn't difficult to teach.  Children are mimics.  They copy everything you do and say.  If you won't allow  yourself to be disrespected, neither will they.  If you treat your child with respect that will be the standard they expect from all others, like the difference between right and wrong   A confident kid will know that it is not OK for an adult to make them feel uncomfortable and they do not have to tolerate it. 

 

It is ridiculous that the subject of child pornography is not open for debate, by and large, because the sane, reasonable and logical, dare not voice their fears out loud because of what people might think of them.   Resulting in the debate being dominated by hysteria and extremists who think mobs can be driven into a sexual frenzy by a cartoon.