Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bloo Loo

These Child Victims Of The Latest Abuse Case

Recommended Posts

watching the coverage of the latest nursery scandal, I am struck by the very poor presentation of the FACTS.

We hear that these children were "abused" and the photos taken and passed to two others via a mobile phone.

We dont however hear WHAT the abuse was.

Next we hear that they cant ID the children, but of the 100's that attended the nursery, we, and they, dont know how many were "abused".

Next we see crying parents desparate to know if THEIR child was abused?

Now, these are all young kids. we KNOW that the media likes the word ABUSE for all measure of offences, from smacking to full sex. We are not told what the ABUSE actually was.

Now surely, if the kids needed help, and protection from further ABUSE as they see these photos on the net, surely we would KNOW which ones they were....they'd be acting differently, they'd be nervous about going to school/nursery... yet NO-ONE Knows who they ARE?

so the question I pose is this....As the children seem in the main unaware that they ARE victims of some level of unknown ABUSE, surely telling them, even the ones NOT abused that they possibly WERE victims is going to be more dangerous than what may or may not have taken place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess

watching the coverage of the latest nursery scandal, I am struck by the very poor presentation of the FACTS.

We hear that these children were "abused" and the photos taken and passed to two others via a mobile phone.

We dont however hear WHAT the abuse was.

Next we hear that they cant ID the children, but of the 100's that attended the nursery, we, and they, dont know how many were "abused".

Next we see crying parents desparate to know if THEIR child was abused?

Now, these are all young kids. we KNOW that the media likes the word ABUSE for all measure of offences, from smacking to full sex. We are not told what the ABUSE actually was.

Now surely, if the kids needed help, and protection from further ABUSE as they see these photos on the net, surely we would KNOW which ones they were....they'd be acting differently, they'd be nervous about going to school/nursery... yet NO-ONE Knows who they ARE?

so the question I pose is this....As the children seem in the main unaware that they ARE victims of some level of unknown ABUSE, surely telling them, even the ones NOT abused that they possibly WERE victims is going to be more dangerous than what may or may not have taken place?

Yes. There can be too much secrecy. We need SOME measure of transparency in these cases, to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a difficult one.

I understand why the media say "abuse", look at the way they report anything else even mildly sexual and you'll see why.

There is a thin line between factual reporting and prurience that frankly I don't trust them to be able to observe at this point in time.

A wider problem in cases of sexual abuse is that people often don't know at the time they were abused. So no problems there necessarily. On the other hand, their idea of what is normal is a huge problem if you see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

To answer some of the OPs points, I heard the following things on the radio yesterday. That they've narrowed it down to about 30 families, that experts who have examined the pictures can't determine who the children are, and that the content of the pictures is at the extreme end of child abuse.

To be honest, I really don't want to know what the abuse involved was. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

watching the coverage of the latest nursery scandal, I am struck by the very poor presentation of the FACTS.

We hear that these children were "abused" and the photos taken and passed to two others via a mobile phone.

We dont however hear WHAT the abuse was.

Next we hear that they cant ID the children, but of the 100's that attended the nursery, we, and they, dont know how many were "abused".

Next we see crying parents desparate to know if THEIR child was abused?

Now, these are all young kids. we KNOW that the media likes the word ABUSE for all measure of offences, from smacking to full sex. We are not told what the ABUSE actually was.

Now surely, if the kids needed help, and protection from further ABUSE as they see these photos on the net, surely we would KNOW which ones they were....they'd be acting differently, they'd be nervous about going to school/nursery... yet NO-ONE Knows who they ARE?

so the question I pose is this....As the children seem in the main unaware that they ARE victims of some level of unknown ABUSE, surely telling them, even the ones NOT abused that they possibly WERE victims is going to be more dangerous than what may or may not have taken place?

very good point. it's the same when the recovery of "indecent" images "some including children" are announced in the media, the nature of which go unparticularized. i'd like to know if it's a normal haul of smut with 3 dubious ones or 10,000 images of kiddie rape.

when such caches have been described in the past, i have noticed the inclusion of innocuous items such as "children's clothing catalogues" as part of the mix.

and it's the same with seizures of "terror" materials in terrorism cases, many of which which seem to consist these days of legally available books, videos etc.

full disclosure doesn't always exculpate the accused. ironically, in this nursery abuse case, the coyness of the media in describing the offenses could actually be protecting the offenders. for instance, until i read a more in-depth guardian article online, i had assumed that all the woman George was doing was photographing the kids undressed, when in fact it seems that she was assaulting them with dildos etc and filming that. also the 2 other accused had not only received pictures from george but had staged their own "photo shoots" independently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too sure how the kids were supposed to know they were abused when they were between 18 months and 24 months old..?

Also, the Metro this morning reported that a plastic golf glub, sex toys, a pen and other objects were involved. I hope that explains it for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching this on BBC last night and part of the way through the report it said

"She stood in the dock, head down, her hair no longer dyed and back to its natural blonde"

I'm sorry but what the f*ck does this womans hair colour have to do with anything? I have noticed that the BBC does tend to go waaaay over the top when it comes to irrelevant description, they were positively Shakespearian in their language when reporting the floods the other year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching this on BBC last night and part of the way through the report it said

"She stood in the dock, head down, her hair no longer dyed and back to its natural blonde"

I'm sorry but what the f*ck does this womans hair colour have to do with anything? I have noticed that the BBC does tend to go waaaay over the top when it comes to irrelevant description, they were positively Shakespearian in their language when reporting the floods the other year.

Did they run an old picture previously perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they run an old picture previously perhaps?

Nah, they had plenty of footage from film to still images, pretty sure she was blonde in more than one, I have a feeling that when they don't really have too many facts to hand they tend to pad it out with irrelevancies such as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical but I suspect that some of the parents are anxious to know whether their children were victims so as to enable them to fill in a compo claim form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

Not sure I like the subtext of this thread. Are we saying these kids weren't really abused?!

What do you want to hear...gory details of penetration FFS?

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I like the subtext of this thread. Are we saying these kids weren't really abused?!

What do you want to hear...gory details of penetration FFS?

:angry:

Very bizarre indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

+1

However I think the parents whose children are involved probably need to know.

But not through the BBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very bizarre indeed.

Many moons ago I worked with a guy who had also worked on the Bulger case. He told me that most of what was done to that toddler was never reported in the media as it was considered far too horrific for public consumption and after he told me what some of it was I have got to admit he was right.

To say they were abused is description enough for me, I personally don't want to hear the details about what these sub-humans did to children. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer some of the OPs points, I heard the following things on the radio yesterday. That they've narrowed it down to about 30 families, that experts who have examined the pictures can't determine who the children are, and that the content of the pictures is at the extreme end of child abuse.

To be honest, I really don't want to know what the abuse involved was. :(

+1

However I think the parents whose children are involved probably need to know.

I feel sure the culprits could be persuaded to provide full disclosure, given a little time and a plane trip via Poland. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I like the subtext of this thread. Are we saying these kids weren't really abused?!

What do you want to hear...gory details of penetration FFS?

:angry:

how about it was reported in the media that you had got 10 years for "assaulting" me in the street?

and it turned out that all you had done was shout at me very loudly (technically an assault)

or conversely, you had stabbed me through the eye with a screwdriver (in which case the sentence would have been unduly lenient)

getting the picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about it was reported in the media that you had got 10 years for "assaulting" me in the street?

and it turned out that all you had done was shout at me very loudly (technically an assault)

or conversely, you had stabbed me through the eye with a screwdriver (in which case the sentence would have been unduly lenient)

getting the picture?

I don't see the relevance personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many moons ago I worked with a guy who had also worked on the Bulger case. He told me that most of what was done to that toddler was never reported in the media as it was considered far too horrific for public consumption and after he told me what some of it was I have got to admit he was right.

To say they were abused is description enough for me, I personally don't want to hear the details about what these sub-humans did to children. sad.gif

I would agree with that. Harking back to the sick videos thread - us humans seem to have difficulty in NOT looking at something we know in the end we had kept away from. If the details of these sort of sick crimes were available, many of us would probably read them, and then instantly wish we hadn't. Then again, maybe that is just us sticking our collective heads in the sand ? Would facing up to the depravity of what actually happens help things ?

I am not sure. Not a pleasant thing to think about. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard all I need to hear on the tv yesterday. The reporter said....." The details of the offences were to disturbing to report on national news".. I draw my own horrific conclusions and do not need any more detail..

If I was a parent of a child at that nursery I think I would need to know if my child was involved because I would then know wether or not at some point in the future I will need to kill the fat pig faced c-unt..... Fact.

The issue raised is that children of 18months will possibly not be aware that they have been abused but if the parents find out theys will never be the same and the child will probably find out about it in the future and all the subsequant mental issues that may come of it. I would not be surprised if the Police had a good idea as to what happened to each child but choose not to disclose.

Do they have enough social services, councilors, family liason officers to deal with the numbers involved

We are talking in the region of 300 families...... (Fearing the worst)

OMG..... Humanity at it`s worst and no words can express the anger those parents must feel.....

Sorry for my choice of words but if there was ever a time I could call someone the C-Word.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

how about it was reported in the media that you had got 10 years for "assaulting" me in the street?

and it turned out that all you had done was shout at me very loudly (technically an assault)

or conversely, you had stabbed me through the eye with a screwdriver (in which case the sentence would have been unduly lenient)

getting the picture?

What are you on about? Are you saying that the media decide how serious a crime is rather than the judiciary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you on about? Are you saying that the media decide how serious a crime is rather than the judiciary?

exactly the opposite. i want to know the full facts so that i can decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

exactly the opposite. i want to know the full facts so that i can decide.

Go along to the court house then if you want the full facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

"turns me on"? do you think that's a reasonable response to what i've posted? shame on you mate.

Sorry, that was out of order. I've edited the post.

Such is my disgust and anger over this case, I'm finding it hard to remain civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But not through the BBC.

No, definitely not through the BBC or any other media outlet.

Via the police counsellor or whichever poor soul gets the job of telling them.

I have a feeling, no evidence to support it admittedly, that some crimes can excite interest and even copycat cases when reported in great detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.