The media are all over Carl and Jackie today. Strange that they are leaving the mother of this girl alone, after all the mother knew exactly what she was doing.

It was the mother of this girl who abused her daughters trust on air. Sure Carls comments were extremely inappropriate, yet is the mother who exposed her daughters rape on air.

It was the mother who bullied her daughter on air.

the case raises the issue of rape...the current system is designed to rape and rape victim 4 times miniumum

..first the police questioning process raped the victim..again...then the pre trial when the lawyer has his go...then the actual trial when the barroster has his go...

one has only to watch the process once to realise the penalties for those doing..[setting of this series of rape.. is getting off too lightly...and its far worse when the victim is a child

now we have the next stage..[just for the titilation of ego and the dreaded listeners..we have shock jocks raping the innocence...great one...see you lot back on air next week...

wow all that publicity ...
you will have a new crop of fools listening/to titilate next week

In the 70's, at Monash, a study was started on Violence against males. When the first report was submitted after 12 months it was found that at least 12.5% of males had been sexually abused at some times & not always by males. The womens lobby got their funding squashed. Apparently womens groups would lose some of their funding to study on violence on women if the study went ahead. The study was dropped.

JamesH, you are right. It was the mother who put her unidentified 14 year old daughter up to it and asked her the questions. But of course we can't rap a woman over the knuckles...can we Ms Funnell?

So this part of Ms Funnell's article is wrong:"... the radio presenter should have known better than to ever ask a minor to talk about their sex life while broadcasting live to the nation"

It wasn't the presenter who asked the questions...it was the mother asking her feral daughter. The daughter according to the mother smoked marijuana and was brought home by undercover cops at 2:30am the previous Thursday. Just given that much information would put her in a cohort of females who have had plenty of sexual experience at a young age.

Of course all the outrage is based on the notion that the young girl was telling the truth. As we all should know by now, in a good many instances young women don't tell the truth about their alleged sexual assault/rape experiences. The trauma that the girl went through because of rape experience, couldn't have been too great otherwise her mother who was told about it only two months earlier, would have had it more to the forefront of her memory as she was asking her daughter about her sexual experiences.

http://www.livenews.com.au/multimedia/audio/kyle-jackie-o-goad-teen-rape-victim/771

Roscop, as this case unfolded, it would demonstrate that it is always wise to wait until all the infomation is in.

Mind you other info about Kyle has also emerged, and I guess this case was used as the excuse to get him, (mind you he does not seem to be of impecible character).

I was reading in magazine where a woman who was interviewed admitted that she had been sexually assault when she was 11 by her 16 year old baby sister. Who happened to be female.

It was written in such a matter of fact way, yet is the gender of the babysitter was reversed, I suspect the magazine would have tarred and feather the poor bloke.

James a 16 year old who sexually assaults an 11 year old is not a "poor bloke".

R0bert

RObert, I think you completely missed James's point.

As I have stated before, if a woman does it it OK. She was just having a bad hair day. If a man does it he is villifyed. There is a double standard here. Both should be condemnded equally. Not just the bloke.

When I was a single father and reported that one of my daughters then 7-years old I suspected had been sexual abused while on access to her mother, I found no support. I then took my daughter to the children hospital where a doctor concluded that the hearing process was consistent with the time lapse of the last access visit to her mother. Unbeknown to me her half sibling then was in the children court claiming her mothers husband had sexual abused her and the Court ordered the husband to stay away from the matrimonial home.

Some 15-years later I found to be targeted with sexual abuse claim and the moment the police opened their mouth with the first question it was clear they hadn’t bothered to investigate anything because they referred to a situation that turned out the mothers boyfriend had in fact been the person there. I have since published a book about it also!

I know what it is on both sides and on 31 July 2009 then already wrote to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to stay out of it, as he didn’t even know if the rape allegation was true.

Regretfully too many know-it-all give their verdict but I for one who have suffered as the accused and as the father of a victim knows reality and what is needed is all those professionals to but out and reorganise the entire system so that victims can get appropriate help and we not just have a employment for social workers and others all dealing with sexual abuse but none really having a clue how to appropriately deal with it.

Do consider what it is when a person is wrongly accused, he/she is also a victim and marked for life because of the scandelous fabricated allegations, evenso never charged or convicted! Those who make false rape allegation are making it worse for those who are really subjected to rape!
Again my book deals with that and a lot more.

I may not like Kyle Sandilands general conduct but in this case I view he is wrongly criticised!