Leading Tory Nigel Evans arrested for rape and sexual assault

[LeMaquis]

That’s interesting because it was your partner LeMaquis that picked the subject when and took the topic off topic in post 33.

 

My partner? Wait till I get him home.

 

My post 33 quoted someone mentioning Stuart Hall and his misdemeanours so the subject was already on here. The OP is about rape and I mentioned the tendency for some - including yourself - to downplay the seriousness of sexual crimes. And you jumped at the chance to underline your complacency towards paedophiles, which is hardly my fault.

[Eater Sundae]

Did this go off topic about post 33, and still is?

 

Anyway, back on topic, Evans seems to be well regarded by his colleagues and constituents, so if this turns out to be a false accusation, will he be able to resume his duties without mud sticking?

 

It should be like that, but experience says different. So I personally believe that anyone accused of a crime, whatever it may be, shoplifting/drink driving/murder/violence, should be anonymous until conviction. Any other victims will always be able to come forward after the verdict.

 

I may have misunderstood, but as I read it there was originally only one accusation made against Stuart Hall. This was made via Jasmin Alabi-Brown (Sp?) who forwarded it to the police.

 

It was only after his name was made public that others came forward. All the accusers who came forward gave similar accounts of how he went about abusing them. It was the similarity of these independent accounts that made the accusations more believable, and ultimately led to his admissions of guilt.

 

One accusation alone may have been difficult to prove. Many similar accusations tipped the balance. If Stuart Hall hadn't been named, would the other victims have ever felt able to come forward? If they hadn't, and he had remained anonymous, would he have been brought to book?

[MrSmith]

My partner? Wait till I get him home.

 

My post 33 quoted someone mentioning Stuart Hall and his misdemeanours so the subject was already on here. The OP is about rape and I mentioned the tendency for some - including yourself - to downplay the seriousness of sexual crimes. And you jumped at the chance to underline your complacency towards paedophiles, which is hardly my fault.

 

 

MrSmith likes to defend paedophiles as does his alter ego MaxMaximus.

 

You took it off topic when you made the personal snipe at me, you and your ilk do it all the time, it’s what you do, it’s your contribution to the forum.

[Suffragette1]

Perhaps we should be more tolerant and understanding of sociopaths and psychopaths and their murderous fantasies, that way bigots like me would not drive them underground and into acting out their fantasies?

 

ETA - it is the classic trick of paedophiles and abusers in general to blame anyone and anything rather than take responsibility for their own actions, which they can't help because it's an orientation and they were driven to it, or the abused child enjoys it. Have heard it all. No one other than them is responsible for their behaviour.

---------- Post added 06-05-2013 at 18:26 ----------

 

I may have misunderstood, but as I read it there was originally only one accusation made against Stuart Hall. This was made via Jasmin Alabi-Brown (Sp?) who forwarded it to the police.

 

It was only after his name was made public that others came forward. All the accusers who came forward gave similar accounts of how he went about abusing them. It was the similarity of these independent accounts that made the accusations more believable, and ultimately led to his admissions of guilt.

 

One accusation alone may have been difficult to prove. Many similar accusations tipped the balance. If Stuart Hall hadn't been named, would the other victims have ever felt able to come forward? If they hadn't, and he had remained anonymous, would he have been brought to book?

 

Correct and here is the letter: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-letter-in-full-i-write-to-tell-you-that-stuart-hall-is-another-tv-presenter-you-can-investigate-8601824.html

[mikem8634]

I may have misunderstood, but as I read it there was originally only one accusation made against Stuart Hall. This was made via Jasmin Alabi-Brown (Sp?) who forwarded it to the police.

 

It was only after his name was made public that others came forward. All the accusers who came forward gave similar accounts of how he went about abusing them. It was the similarity of these independent accounts that made the accusations more believable, and ultimately led to his admissions of guilt.

 

One accusation alone may have been difficult to prove. Many similar accusations tipped the balance. If Stuart Hall hadn't been named, would the other victims have ever felt able to come forward? If they hadn't, and he had remained anonymous, would he have been brought to book?

 

It is certainly difficult to argue for anonymity in this context.

[quisquose]

For me this anonymity issue is a lot less complicated than everybody is making it out to be.

 

1. Somebody is arrested for a alleged crime.

2. If the alleged crime is solitary one against a single party, don't name them.

3. If the alleged crime has wider context, with the possibility that there are other victims, then name them.

[MrSmith]

Perhaps we should be more tolerant and understanding of sociopaths and psychopaths and their murderous fantasies, that way bigots like me would not drive them underground and into acting out their fantasies?

 

 

People don't choose to have mental health issues, so yes we should do everything possible to integrate them into society so they can feel a sense of self worth, they often end up violent because society doesn’t understand them, the lucky ones can and do go on to lead a normal life, its estimated that one per cent of people are psychopaths and four per cent of business leaders. Their brains are wired differently with broken links between parts responsible for empathy and guilt which makes a normal life almost impossible, research into the condition does offer hope of a cure one day.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2013 at 20:16 ----------

 

ETA - it is the classic trick of paedophiles and abusers in general to blame anyone and anything rather than take responsibility for their own actions, which they can't help because it's an orientation and they were driven to it, or the abused child enjoys it. Have heard it all. No one other than them is responsible for their behaviour.

 

Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia

Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.

 

As a young boy, Paul Christiano loved the world of girls — the way they danced, how their spindly bodies tumbled in gymnastics.

 

In adolescence, as other boys ogled classmates, he was troubled to find himself fantasizing about 7- to 11-year-olds.

 

His desires remained stuck in time as he neared adulthood. Despite a stable home life in suburban Chicago, he was tortured by urges he knew could land him in prison.

 

For having these feelings, I was destined to become a monster," he said. "I was terrified."

 

In 1999, Christiano was caught buying child pornography. Now 36, he said he has never molested a child, but after five years of state-ordered therapy, the attraction remains.

 

"These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed," he said. "But it's as intrinsic as the next person's heterosexuality."

 

In the laboratory, researchers are coming to the same conclusion.

[Suffragette1]

People don't choose to have mental health issues, so yes we should do everything possible to integrate them into society so they can feel a sense of self worth, they often end up violent because society doesn’t understand them, the lucky ones can and do go on to lead a normal life, its estimated that one per cent of people are psychopaths and four per cent of business leaders. Their brains are wired differently with broken links between parts responsible for empathy and guilt which makes a normal life almost impossible, research into the condition does offer hope of a cure one day.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2013 at 20:16 ----------

 

 

Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia

Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.

 

As a young boy, Paul Christiano loved the world of girls — the way they danced, how their spindly bodies tumbled in gymnastics.

 

In adolescence, as other boys ogled classmates, he was troubled to find himself fantasizing about 7- to 11-year-olds.

 

His desires remained stuck in time as he neared adulthood. Despite a stable home life in suburban Chicago, he was tortured by urges he knew could land him in prison.

 

For having these feelings, I was destined to become a monster," he said. "I was terrified."

 

In 1999, Christiano was caught buying child pornography. Now 36, he said he has never molested a child, but after five years of state-ordered therapy, the attraction remains.

 

"These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed," he said. "But it's as intrinsic as the next person's heterosexuality."

 

In the laboratory, researchers are coming to the same conclusion.

 

Equally, many researchers are of the opposing view. The whole movement behind the 'peadophilia is an immutable sexual orientation/disease and there is no cure" school is trying to make paedophilia legitimate and acceptable and by constantly referring to the homosexuality analogy, trying to normalise it. At the crux of this argument is that it is pointless to lock these people away as they cannot change, therefore, we need to be more tolerant of it and change our attitudes towards paedophilia and not be bigots about it. Many advancing this orientaion theory also seek to lower (and in some cases eliminate totally) the age of consent. In other words, they have a clear agenda.

 

This makes for an intersting read:

 

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/category/pie-paedophile-information-exchange/

 

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2012/09/gawker_pedophil.html

 

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/the_kinsey_coverup.html

 

Child protection agencies and many who work with sex offenders believe that paedophilia is learned behaviour. Donald Findlater, Director of research and Development at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, and, before it closed, manager of leading treatment centre the Wolvercote Clinic states "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."

 

Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."

 

Many who advocate this 'orientation' theory also argue that there is such a thing as "consensual paedophilc relations" which is not only nonsense but abhorrent.

 

You can argue all you like about the 'noble paedophile' who does not contact abuse, but I can tell you, I would not allow anyone like that near my children and I doubt many others would either. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, I couldn't care less. Rather a bigot that a paedophile enabler.

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2013 at 10:06 ----------

 

For me this anonymity issue is a lot less complicated than everybody is making it out to be.

 

1. Somebody is arrested for a alleged crime.

2. If the alleged crime is solitary one against a single party, don't name them.

3. If the alleged crime has wider context, with the possibility that there are other victims, then name them.

 

It is impossible to know 3 if there is only one complainant. Many sex offenders, especially child abusers, are serial offenders. One allegation against one person, especially someone with good standing within the community, in a position of power or with celebrity status, is going to be extremely difficult to prove as these offenders use their fame/wealth/reputation to totally discredit the victim.

[missymoo73]

It’s not showing much sensitivity plastering the allegation all over the press.

 

My thoughts exactly. I for one believe that anonymity should be for both parties until proven guilty !

[MrSmith]

Equally, many researchers are of the opposing view. The whole movement behind the 'peadophilia is an immutable sexual orientation/disease and there is no cure" school is trying to make paedophilia legitimate and acceptable and by constantly referring to the homosexuality analogy, trying to normalise it. At the crux of this argument is that it is pointless to lock these people away as they cannot change, therefore, we need to be more tolerant of it and change our attitudes towards paedophilia and not be bigots about it.

 

This makes for an intersting read:

 

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2012/09/gawker_pedophil.html

 

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/the_kinsey_coverup.html

 

Child protection agencies and many who work with sex offenders believe that paedophilia is learned behaviour. Donald Findlater, Director of research and Development at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, and, before it closed, manager of leading treatment centre the Wolvercote Clinic states "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."

 

Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."

 

Many who advocate this 'orientation' theory also argue that there is such a thing as "consensual paedophilc relations" which is not only nonsense but abhorrent.

 

You can argue all you like about the 'noble paedophile' who does not contact abuse, but I can tell you, I would not allow anyone like that near my children and I doubt many others would either. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, I couldn't care less. Rather a bigot that a paedophile enabler.

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2013 at 10:06 ----------

 

 

It is impossible to know 3 if there is only one complainant. Many sex offenders, especially child abusers, are serial offenders. One allegation against one person, especially someone with good standing within the community, in a position of power or with celebrity status, is going to be extremely difficult to prove as these offenders use their fame/wealth/reputation to totally discredit the victim.

 

You can't stop them because you have no idea who they are, wouldn't it be better to know that your neighbour, friend, relative is a paedophile and treat with respect and caution, rather than not know who the paedophiles are, whilst ever the attitude of the majority is that they are dirty scum that need hanging by the balls, as opposed to people that need help, they will remain unknown and pose a greater risk to children. Attitudes like yours actually put children at greater risk, going back to homosexuals which were once treated just like you know treat paedophilia, the more we learn about it the better it will be for everyone and we can’t learn about them whilst ever they are ostracised and regarded as scum.