For the last 10 years, since the killing of Sarah Payne, we've witnessed a moral panic of epic proportions regarding 'paedophiles' - with the term extended from its historical meaning as the perverted sexual interest in pre-pubescent children to now cover any interest in fully developed teenagers in their late teens. Along with this extended definition has come a raft of new laws and draconian punishments for both the new and exisiting crimes.

Along with paedohysteria has come a wider hysteria over sex offences in general. We've seen the introduction of measures that would have raised serious civil rights concerns at any other point in the 20th century but are now the mere questioning of is seen as a sign of cognitive distortion and mental illness - such as the sex offenders register, or the fact that you can be locked up for a naughty picture of consenting adults in school uniform simply passing briefly through your internet browser.

But some people have been brave enough to question, and even mock paedohysteria, and have suggested that the motives behind it may not be as noble and pure as are widely assumed. People like, for example, Chris Morris. Or, indeed, many of the poseters on this board (one of the few places sex offender hysteria can be questioned).

Last week, the one newspaper - the News of the World - most responsible for the hysteria that has taken hold in the last 10 years was found to have hacked in to the phone of a murdered kid in order to get a better story than its rivals in competing for the lucrative readership of a public obsessed by paedophilia. Not only that, but apparently they also hacked in to the phones of the relatives of Sarah Payne, the little girl whose murder by a psychopath kicked off paedohysteria in the UK.

So this week we few sceptics of paedohysteria and sex offender hysteria have been overwhelmingly vindicated in our questioning of the impure motivations at work here. Journalists should be contacting Veritas and begging him to give interviews in order to explain how all of this could have happened. 'Me Me Me' and 'Vile Pervert' should arguably be screened by the BBC as a public service, and to ensure that the sensationalist purient public appetite for sex offender stories never again leads to the utter and unimaginable violation of a murdered 13 year old girl's privacy.

But what disturbs me, that on this very forum, in this very week, instead of applauding the insight and bravery of people like Veritas and JK, certain posters - namely Robbie, Angel, and Locked Out, don't seem to have even mentioned the News of the World scandal. Instead, they appear to have devoted all their time and engery into actively defending sex offender hysteria and the flimsy assumptions on which it is built. Mainly through use of shaming language and the disturbing use of Soviet Union thought control language such as 'cognitive distortions'.

I genuinely find this extremely disturbing. To be fair, Angel has stated that she wouldn't buy the last copy of the News of the World, but that hardly amounts to the level of input that surely any right minded person here would be contributing during this incredible week.

So I would like to ask these people directly - Robbie, Angel, and Locked Out - what they think about the hacking into a butchered little girl's mobile phone in order to feed the public appetite for such stories. Do you really think it has nothing to say about the public's obsession with padophilia and 'abuse'?

I'm not sure I'm so brave hiding behind a pseudonym..but I haven't yet seen a headline saying..

PEDLLER OF PEDO PORN DINED AT NO TEN-SHOOK QUEEN'S HAND !

well more than one really...Brooks, Murdoch ,Morgan..all the moralizing lot who assisted in the publishing of Page 3 girls of 16..a similar action has seen dozens of teen boys in the USA jailed and labelled "sex offenders" for life for texting similar pics to each other..yet those who do the same in the UK have been lauded at the highest level in the UK.

go figure

(ps : while the FBI investigate News Ltd over 9/11 perhaps they should investigate the prominent US citizen who published under 18 topless pics in England- a crime in the USA with no time limit..as it's an offense for a USA citizen to commit any sexual offense abroad that is a crime in the USA)

Robbie has his own views,but both Angel and LO have been consistently supportive of the idea that 'pedohysteria' or whatever we call it is a bad thing.Of course being a long time contributor/reader here,and having been a victim of this hysteria myself I do follow this type of debate with interest.
I'll leave the rest of this thread for others to add to it if of course they desire,but I think it's a case of taking a narrow range of posts out of context to their general norm.
Just my view,feel free to differ

Veritas and Backit are constantly pointing out the inconsistencies and deficiencies of others when talking about underage sexuality yet their own posts are full of biased exaggerations. Both might be taken a little more seriously if they would at least stick to the same principles they are insisting others keep to and stop making one side assumptions. You both may have valid arguments but the way you are presenting them is more sensationalist than the "red tops" you are attacking.

yes I do think that the hacking into Milly Dowlers phone is related to the paedohysteria that has existed in the last 10 years or so. The public at large are titilated by stories of sex and sleeze, whilst at the same time announcing their disgust with it. This paedo-hysteria has seen parents banned from photographing their own children in school plays and the age at which glamour models can work been raised from 16 to 18.

I can't villify Murdoch for showing girls of 16 topless in his paper 20 years ago, because It was legal then, and I believe it should still be legal at 16. After all girls of 16 can get married and even go to war, surely they're old enough to show their boobs in a newspaper. Their is a big difference between a girl of 16 (over the age of consent) voluntarily posing topless and a girl of 14 been abused against her will.

I'm totally against the introduction of a so called Sarah's law, detailing the whereabouts of sex offenders. This would leave them open to vigilante style attacks and witch hunts, affecting not just them, but those that live close by. Where would it end. Why single out this crime and not others. It is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that they don't associate with strangers and to keep an eye on them.

robbiex wrote:
yes I do think that the hacking into Milly Dowlers phone is related to the paedohysteria that has existed in the last 10 years or so. The public at large are titilated by stories of sex and sleeze, whilst at the same time announcing their disgust with it. This paedo-hysteria has seen parents banned from photographing their own children in school plays and the age at which glamour models can work been raised from 16 to 18.

I can't villify Murdoch for showing girls of 16 topless in his paper 20 years ago, because It was legal then, and I believe it should still be legal at 16. After all girls of 16 can get married and even go to war, surely they're old enough to show their boobs in a newspaper. Their is a big difference between a girl of 16 (over the age of consent) voluntarily posing topless and a girl of 14 been abused against her will.

I'm totally against the introduction of a so called Sarah's law, detailing the whereabouts of sex offenders. This would leave them open to vigilante style attacks and witch hunts, affecting not just them, but those that live close by. Where would it end. Why single out this crime and not others. It is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that they don't associate with strangers and to keep an eye on them.

Well said Robbie,in my view a very balanced statement.
I also don't see anything wrong with the 16yo topless stuff....except this makes him and his papers hypocrites.If you live by the sword etc...
Well at least he's paying a heavy price now,even if it's not covering all the bad things he's responsible for.

robbiex wrote:
yes I do think that the hacking into Milly Dowlers phone is related to the paedohysteria that has existed in the last 10 years or so. The public at large are titilated by stories of sex and sleeze, whilst at the same time announcing their disgust with it. This paedo-hysteria has seen parents banned from photographing their own children in school plays and the age at which glamour models can work been raised from 16 to 18.

I can't villify Murdoch for showing girls of 16 topless in his paper 20 years ago, because It was legal then, and I believe it should still be legal at 16. After all girls of 16 can get married and even go to war, surely they're old enough to show their boobs in a newspaper. Their is a big difference between a girl of 16 (over the age of consent) voluntarily posing topless and a girl of 14 been abused against her will.

I'm totally against the introduction of a so called Sarah's law, detailing the whereabouts of sex offenders. This would leave them open to vigilante style attacks and witch hunts, affecting not just them, but those that live close by. Where would it end. Why single out this crime and not others. It is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that they don't associate with strangers and to keep an eye on them.

Robbie, an excellent post. Truly exceptional. If there is any confusion...I sit with this

Robbie has summed up how I feel. I have avoided the topic as I don't feel i'm well versed to comment compared to other's here, who have far more experience with the media. You had a go at me when I disagreed about the Heart's football player caught misbehaving with school kids. That does not mean I support the Murdoch empire or Sarah's Law. I think Mr Blacklit ought to respect other opinion's on discussion board's without jumping to conclusion's and let it be. Moving on....

I have no intention of being drawn into this beyond this posting and I have resisted the temptation to dismantle Blackit's arguments in the other thread setting, I hope, a better example to myself for the future. But I will say this much. It's clear, to me at least, that Blackit has crossed a line between what he claims is "fascination" {his own word} and obsession {my word} with underage sex, a subject he posts exhaustively, enthusiastically and exclusively on. I have no doubt he not only refute this posting, but will do so in several of his usual fairly short rantings.
The fact that he has made the claim that "many parents of 14 year old girls would allow their daughters to have sex with men in their 30's" shows pretty plainly where his mind is at. He yelps like a kicked puppy, repeating in mocking tones the words "cognitive distortions". And all the while his own words give us a clear impression of his been-through-the-mangling-iron thinking.
The fact is, of course, that the belief he articulates above is bollocks, and his representation is wishful thinking rather than actual fact.

I've never met any parent who has expressed any enthusiasm for the idea of having their 14 year old fucked by a guy in his 30s.

Have any of you?

I'd say probably not, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has.

Should Blackit be in any doubt as to what my own thoughts are on the subject of paedohysteria {and he certainly seems to have no clue what they are, or chooses to ignore them, instead misrepresenting them here as something they are patently not} I'd suggest he takes a look at my posting history. I have no intention of further engaging in discussion with this individual. He'll once again accuse me of trying to take the moral high ground, no doubt, as if I have no right to make judgments about what is wrong or right.

I've learned the difference the hard way.

So it's up to the reader to make up their own mind as to whether I, a {rightfully} convicted sex offender {who shared prison space with other inmates who'd committed all manner of crimes from possession of child porn to rapists and murderers because that's the nature of a sex offenders' wing in a prison} and have come out of the other side repentant, or Blackit, {who claims at the same time to be "speaking out" on behalf of "innocent" people - he isn't - and telling us it's ok for 30-odd year olds to sleep with 14 year olds because "many of their parents would allow it". It isn't and they wouldn't.} is the more reasonable and reasoned poster.

And, addressing for the moment the alleged matter actually at hand, I have made no comment on the NoTW issue because while I'm grateful that the rag has gone to the wall those who owned and operated it have not and will continue to poison the public mind for a depressingly long time still to come. In truth I expect no great ending to this story despite the dramatic overture played out this week.

****************************************************Finis***************************************************************

Locked Out wrote:
I have no intention of being drawn into this beyond this posting and I have resisted the temptation to dismantle Blackit's arguments in the other thread setting, I hope, a better example to myself for the future. But I will say this much. It's clear, to me at least, that Blackit has crossed a line between what he claims is "fascination" {his own word} and obsession {my word} with underage sex, a subject he posts exhaustively, enthusiastically and exclusively on. I have no doubt he not only refute this posting, but will do so in several of his usual fairly short rantings.
The fact that he has made the claim that "many parents of 14 year old girls would allow their daughters to have sex with men in their 30's" shows pretty plainly where his mind is at. He yelps like a kicked puppy, repeating in mocking tones the words "cognitive distortions". And all the while his own words give us a clear impression of his been-through-the-mangling-iron thinking.
The fact is, of course, that the belief he articulates above is bollocks, and his representation is wishful thinking rather than actual fact.

I've never met any parent who has expressed any enthusiasm for the idea of having their 14 year old fucked by a guy in his 30s.

Have any of you?

I'd say probably not, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has.

Should Blackit be in any doubt as to what my own thoughts are on the subject of paedohysteria {and he certainly seems to have no clue what they are, or chooses to ignore them, instead misrepresenting them here as something they are patently not} I'd suggest he takes a look at my posting history. I have no intention of further engaging in discussion with this individual. He'll once again accuse me of trying to take the moral high ground, no doubt, as if I have no right to make judgments about what is wrong or right.

I've learned the difference the hard way.

So it's up to the reader to make up their own mind as to whether I, a {rightfully} convicted sex offender {who shared prison space with other inmates who'd committed all manner of crimes from possession of child porn to rapists and murderers because that's the nature of a sex offenders' wing in a prison} and have come out of the other side repentant, or Blackit, {who claims at the same time to be "speaking out" on behalf of "innocent" people - he isn't - and telling us it's ok for 30-odd year olds to sleep with 14 year olds because "many of their parents would allow it". It isn't and they wouldn't.} is the more reasonable and reasoned poster.

And, addressing for the moment the alleged matter actually at hand, I have made no comment on the NoTW issue because while I'm grateful that the rag has gone to the wall those who owned and operated it have not and will continue to poison the public mind for a depressingly long time still to come. In truth I expect no great ending to this story despite the dramatic overture played out this week.

****************************************************Finis***************************************************************


I was about to post a reply congratulating everybody on how balanced, articulate, and fair, the previous responses to my question have been...then I saw the above hysterical rant by Locked Out.

As far as the rational responses are concerned : as I said, fair and balanced, including Robbie's. Do I exaggerate and sensationalise as much as the red tops? Well if I do at least I'm not in charge of a multi-billion pound industry that poisons the minds of the entire nation. I think half the problem is that what I say is so rarely heard that you're confusing shocking with sensationalist and exaggerated. To defend Veritas here, perhaps you're referring to his accusation that Murdoch and the Sun published child porn with their topless 16 year old page 3 girls. Well it's true that this was legal back then, but it has always been illegal in the USA, and Murdoch is an American citizen, as Veritas pointed out yesterday.

As far as Locked Out's hysterical rant is concerned, I found it a little hard to follow or drag any points out of it that can even be addressed. The age of consent is 16 in the UK, effectively it was 14 (for heterosexuals) as little as a decade ago. The average age of consent in Europe is 14/15. In France it is 15, in Germany it is 14, in Italy it is 14, and in Spain it is 13. In all of these countries it is still fairly common to see girls at that age with men in their late twenties and thirties. I fail to see how it is a 'cognitive distortion' to think that these rather advanced countries, whose newspapers do not hack into murdered kid's phones to satisfy the purient lust of their uneducated nihilistic paedohysteric populations, have probably got it about right.

Is it wishful thinking on my part to see the age of consent at 14? Whether or not it is irrelevant given that fact I'm prepared to argue the issue rationally rather than provoke the wisdom of the mob ("no parent in their right mind...etc") or try to silence any debater with accusations of cognitive distortion.

I'm quite convinced, for example, that a primary motivation behind Angel's wish to see teenage boys lives publicly destroyed over sexy talk with a girl turning 13 is because it is in her, and all middle-aged women's interests, to have these unfortunate idiots held up as scape goats - "this is what any male and any partner of mine will have to go through if he ever get's into a sexual situation with a nubile young girl". And I'm entitled to point this out because she supplies no argument whatsoever to back up her paedohysterics, other than shaming langauge and the appeal to the authority of the mob, or the News of the World. If she comes up with any rational points, I'll certainly take her seriously and to actually debate with her without regard to motivations.

But thankyou Lockedout, your hystical attacks have enlightened me regarding the psychology of certain genuine sex offenders, and why many will have obvious selfish motivations in supporting feminists who continually blur the distinction between real rape and 'regretted sex', or child rape and consensual but underage teenage sex.

Amen to all of you!
Now can we move on and let the personal attacks fade into distant memory please?