Last week, as I'm sure most of us are aware, a radio show called the Kyle and Jackie O Show who regularly held an item featuring a 'lie detector' ran with a mother who had various questions regarding her 14 year old daughter's ... 'extra curricular activities'.

The daughter was forced to admit live on air that she had been raped as a 12 year old. The mother knew of the alleged rape two months before coming on air.

The furore began when Kyle Sandilands stated straight after the admission, "Right, so is that the only experience you've had?".

IMO, the furore began when they approved questioning a minor about illegal activities and passing it off as entertainment to thousands of listeners...

ANYWAY, I personally watched Twitter, where the topic reached number 1 'Trend' for that evening over ANY OTHER topic on Twitter, The Punch (where Sandilands retorted questioning by the public with "Get over it"), and various other websites where coordinated efforts were made to protest the show's sponsors, Austereo, ACMA and others.

The end result is the Kyle and Jackie O Show being taken off air and Sandilands having just been dropped from Australian Idol knocking on the head a 4 million dollar a year career for the foreseeable future.

A GREAT win for people power.

Yeah, thanks for saving us all from the horrible clutches of Kyle Sandilands.

I'm glad you feel happy StG, personally I doubt anyone will notice the difference after he's gone.

I asked this earlier on another thread but no one seemed to be too interested in it: if the girl had not claimed rape would the uproar have been as great? If not, why?

If it turns out the claim is false, does that make it somehow less bad?

While the show is obviously in appalling taste, was the girl genuinely compelled or coerced to take part or was her cooperation gained with some inducement? If coercion, is anyone being charged?

It seems to me that there are lots of assumptions and lots of hot air and a lot of publicity for Kyle and Jackie O...

While we're on the subject of bad behaviour, what to do about Russell Crowe, Gordon Ramsay and Anthony "The Mouth" Mundine?

As long as the public has its addiction to facile in-your-face TV shows like breakfast TV on channel 7 and 9, we're going to keep on getting served up such trashy types. Not to mention the "celebrity" program hosts etc.

I guess this matters to me to the extent that I know (let alone care) who Kyle Sandilands is.

Since I did not know before and am indifferent to knowing now...

maybe the sooner this sad exercise in mediocrity is left to its wandering, aimlessly through the great hall of total oblivion, for all eternity...

the better

Posted by Antiseptic

"If it turns out the claim is false, does that make it somehow less bad?"

No. The issue of whether the alleged rape actually occurred is completely irrelevant to the issue of Sandilands and Jackie O and their show and shouldn't be pursued by anyone other the relevant authorities.

Posted by Col. Rouge

"maybe the sooner this sad exercise in mediocrity is left to its wandering, aimlessly through the great hall of total oblivion, for all eternity..."

It's important that what passes as entertainment gets kept in check and highlighted as not acceptable when the need arises. If we do it then others like The Chasers War on Everything (who are gone too) as well know there IS ACTUALLY a boundary and what happens when you spend too much time pushing it.

If only we did the same with politicians and sports people.

Antiseptic,
I agree with StG you missed the point
Media watch said it best the show breached its own stations guidelines and those of ACMA.
The issue of if the rape took place or not the girl was a minor and should never been subjected to such humiliation.

Can we now expect you to air the chest nut that she probably 'asked for it'.

The rest of bit on MW showed that the K&J show was based on school yard bully mentality humour i.e. t&d and humiliation. The case of the girl who won(?) a comp to have a cousin brought to Aust only to torment and humiliate with threats on sending her back without them meeting... for entertainment? Bad taste is one thing but what they did as every day fare proves the adage "you can take the boy out of the gutter but never the gutter out of the man(?)" He's clearly a man with a chip on both shoulders and an ax to grind.
As for Jackie O (as in Oh dear) where was her morality as an adult? Her compliance/participation about the joke....Man in bar says to a woman "would you sleep with me for $1million?"
Woman: "Sure"
Man: "How about $50"
Woman: "No way what do you think I am?"
Man: "You established what you are now we're negotiating the price."

I wonder how either would react if their off spring were subjected to the same public humiliation. Not that well I'm guessing.
Jackie would cry to the mags and Kyle he'd get ubber agro if he thought it would make good copy. Both would make a $ but the children would be scared.

Although, in Jackie O's defence, she is a vegetarian.

I thought and said the day it happened that is was totally irresponsible for anyone, other than a trainer professional, to ask such questions.

Also, what about the producer, don’t they all have one. What happened to them. After all, I doubt this would have happened without their approval.

I also feel there may be some motive behind the mothers plot. Perhaps an X involved, or maybe a relative. She may well of known about this but needed a way of getting it out in the open.

In any case, I am glad the show has been axed and that he has been dumped from AI. Perhaps now this may send a message to ALL these so called 'gurus' of the airways, that it's time for this type of crap to be replaced with decent material.

Personally, I listen to either the ABC or 4KQ, or occasionally B105, but not the breakfast rubbish, just the music in the arvo.

I've actually never listened to the show either rehctub. Excluding the audio of various controversial "interviews".

Valid points on the producers of the show. I believe Jackie O was the bee behind the scenes, but you're right, they all have producers. Austereo, I believe, have lost multiple advertisers and THAT, I guarantee, will be a warning to all and sundry working at the station. Without advertisers no one gets paid.

I don't listen to the show (I don't even know if it's on air here in Townsville) and I haven't heard the segment. On the news, it was said that the girl was asked by her mother if she had had sex. She reminded her mother that she already KNEW her daughter had been raped. What sort of sick, cruel mother would ask her underaged daughter ON THE RADIO if she had had sex? What sort of sick, cruel mother would do this with the full knowledge that her daughter had been raped? I hope that mother lost a lot of friends that day, as well.

As for Kyle and Jackie O, I understand that their response was to try to make levity of the situation. Maybe they were stunned by the girl's revelation, but their response must have been inadequate. If they are going to use a lie detector on air, they must be prepared for any eventuality.

For once, I don't question the victim here. The victim is a teenaged girl who, coerced by her mother and lured by the opportunity to be on radio, revealed something quite terrible to the whole nation and, undoubtedly, to much of the world. She'll get over it one day, but I hope every other party in the sick farce is haunted by nightmares for the rest of their lives.

Sandilands, being the narcissist that he is will see himself as the victim. HE kinda reminds me of that Sam Newman fella that's always getting himself into trouble as well. Similar sort of attitude.

Sandilands will be hurting, no doubt about that. Hopefully this might jolt him back to earth so he can get on with a fulfilling career.

...time will tell.

STG,

I did read somewhere that KS was on the streets in his early teens hence my reference to the gutter et al. Your Sam Newman narcissist comparison seems to me to be an interesting one. I still wonder if Kyles lack of regard for individuals is somehow linked to his past.

Experience tells me that those who come from dysfunctional or harsh situations in adolescence can often develop a lack of genuine sensitivity towards others. In some circumstances this can be viewed as egocentricity and or narcissist behaviour.

My comment about JO is that she seems to been desensitized by the lure of fame and money.

I hope you're right in that they'll both learn from the experience.

I do however take a larger view and wonder why the TEAM producers etc according to Media Watch were so compliant/willing to to suspend their sensitivities in favour for ratings. I assume now will cry "Nuremberg defense".

I also wonder at the mass public "Circus Maximus" mentality that encouraged such chook yard "pick on the vulnerable for amusement" abuse of power.

Antiseptic

Get over it. No one is very intersted in whether the girl was lying or not. The outrageous disrespect for her personal dignity is enough fuel for this topic.

If you crave attention, perhaps you could try your old conspiracy theory about feminists initiating sex scandals to take over men's positions of authority.

Come to think of it ... perhaps we're onto something here ... there was no 14-year-old girl at the radio station that day. She was a 47-year-old, hairy-armpitted, lesbian truckdriver posing as a 14-year-old.

Feminist truckdrivers want take control of commercial FM radio, because they have to listen to so much of its drivel.

examinator,

We'd probably find, if we had the access, that the ones the top floor of the studios were uncomfy with the likes of KS being on air but in the end ratings rule. Not that that excuses them, they sold their soul, so to speak, for financial gain.

I don't really know if they're learn from it. It isn't really such a personal sort of hit that would change people like that. KS won't see as he did anything wrong and JO will pop up somewhere else I'm sure.

Media owner Harold Mitchell was on TV last night saying that radio audiences' tastes had changed and that the likes of Sandilands are on the way out if for no other reason than sponsors don't want to be associated with such "celebrities".

Programs like MasterChef Australia were cited as examples of what people are tuning into more these days. Anything that goes towards more civilised viewing must be a plus.

RobP

I read similar comments, that family-oriented reality shows are cheap and topical and KS is on the skids for the same reason be was selected in the first place, over-dose of bogan in-your-face sensationalism.

Of course a minor should never have been subjected to a public interrogation about her sexual experiences. However it is interesting that the social commentators who are now scandalised by the recent interview have not previously complained about similar invasions of adolescent and teen privacy and the deliberate public humiliation of them that routinely occurs on other reality TV shows, especially on the Box.

It is easy to imagine that a young person who has been ruthlessly done over on (say) a talent show might ease the pain through cutting or seek a permanent solution for their humiliation. What are most of these reality TV shows and talk shows but an excuse to titillate a cringing bogan audience (and women are well-represented unfortunately), with examples of human weakness, 'sins' and stupidity that can make them feel better through comparison?

So no, the flogging of Kyle is not a triumph of public opinion but more of the same entertainment and for the sexual wowsers it is a heaven-sent opportunity for some lion versus Christians (er, Kyle) blood-letting, catharsis and self-justification.

I will believe that certain self-styled social commentators are truly concerned about youth when they broaden their attack to include all abuses of youth for public entertainment. Do they really think that the kid who has been stripped bare and humiliated on television by a powerful, hand-selected panel of 'experts' is OK when he is cast aside despite his most earnest performance at the insistence of a money-grubbing parent? Or the young teen laid bare by the TV psychologist she can barely understand will not contemplate a large dose of reality relieving drugs that night? What about anger about their rights and some counselling for them too?

RobP
Sorry, my previous post went outside of what you said (which I agreed with) and it should have been divided into two posts - one to you and the much larger part as a general reply.

Dear RobP,

I watched Harold Mitchell on TV last night.
He did say that taste's have changed.
People are no longer amused with things
that "disgust," rather than "entertain."
He did mention that people like - Gordon
Ramsay, and others - were being turned off
by the public. That people were instead
tuning in to feel good programmes like -
"Master Chef," programmes that entertained.

It was inevitable I guess that people like
Kyle and Jackie O (big on shock value -
limited talent) - would sooner or later
outlive their 'entertainment value.'

Still I have to laugh out loud - some people still
don't seem to get it. I read an article
recently in a woman's magazine - that had
the heading, " Would you pay $1,500 for a date
with this man?"

It seems that former AFL star
Warwick Capper has launched a new career as a
male escort and charges a $1,500 fee for the
privilege. The fee by the way buys only "a few
chaste hours," with the flamboyant former AFL
star, "he says he wouldn't rule out sex
on such an outing, 'But I'd have to charge extra
for that,'"

“He did mention that people like - Gordon
Ramsay, and others - were being turned off
by the public. That people were instead
tuning in to feel good programmes like -
"Master Chef," programmes that entertained.”

Who is this Harold Mitchel Foxy?

Sad for people to turn to Master Chef to feel good. Two dudes talking loudly to each other using the same adjectives over and over while the contestants stutter on about being gutted if they lose then they cry if they lose. Poofters. And the final – I’m sure this time they have to cook a three course desert while doing a bungee jump. Oh Hubby and son are telling me there is an Aussie masterchef, who knew.

Gordon – now there is a reason to cry.

Okay so I watch the cooking channel about 8 hours a day. I also like Nigella although don’t watch it if hubby is home – who needs the competition... who could compete?

Kyle and Jack thingi – boring. Kids mum was there and the story was boring, or is right now as husband and son tell me what it was in under ten words. Hope someone made some money.

And slutty AFL players… shocker. Where is Anti?

TPP

You mean, "And slutty AFL players… shocker. Where is C J Morgan?"

That list is C J's, who is keeping it 'just because'.

Kapper did his own XXX home movie so he might already be on C J's list.

I welcome all of the cooking shows, the collectors and so on. I know the networks are only doing it to save money, but my fervent hope is that it will cause more young people at least to leave the Box turned off.

Cornflower,

I agree that humiliation in all its forms should be treated the same way as Sandilands was - it should be ripped to shreds by the public, media proprietors and sponsors. Unfortunately, there are only a few circumstances, it would seem, that press the right buttons to outrage someone sufficiently to precipitate action against belittling behaviour. What has been apparent is that the watchdog for such things (ACMA is it?) is asleep in its kennel most of the time.

Foxy,

Warwick Capper - now there's a guy who didn't need an opposing full-back to give him a wedgie - he gave himself one! He's in the same league as Sam Newman - a self-styled buffoon. These guys are actively looking for new ways to shock/entertain an audience and make some big bucks in the process. Thought bubble to Sam/Warwick: "Hey, why not go where no one has publicly gone before". Sam/Wazza to though bubble: "Hey, yeah!".

BTW, I only meant that Master Chef was better than Kyle and Jackie, not that it was actually that good. There's only so many times the the same pattern of confected personal drama can be recycled before it leaves a sickly sweet taste in the mouth. The manipulation of the contestants to spill their entrails about the way they were feeling was way over the top. But it is Channel Ten.

Piper,

Harold Mitchell is one of the major radio owners as I understand it.

Cornflower,

There's not enough minutes in the day to actively voice personal concerns of all apparent moments of concern regarding the welfare of people being ridiculed in front of millions and being passed off as entertainment, but the more people involved the more chance we have of making some sorta shift in the mentality of the broadcasters.

This one particular 'fight', so to speak, highlighted by me here is one step forward. This comment of yours concerns and saddens me,

"I will believe that certain self-styled social commentators are truly concerned about youth when they broaden their attack to include all abuses of youth for public entertainment."

I don't believe anyone said or suggested that this was the only issue in the media that needs addressing. This example of public opinion making change IS a win but it's also an example that you can make a difference and now more than ever with the use of technology such as Twitter, Youtube, and forums like this we can shut down and control unacceptable content. Those who think they are better than social expectations CAN actually be brought to task, as well. It's a lesson for all those in the industry. Did you know the 'Chasers War on Everything' is gone too?.

Don't sit there and condemn, get involved with those issues that concern you.

Dear Piper,

Harold Mitchell is the head of the Mitchell Communications
Group - Australia's largest independent communications
group. It's the country's largest media buying
agency. As their website says:

"Our Mission is to deliver your communications to
the right people - at the right time, in the right place
with the right message at the best possible price."

According to several sites - "Mitchell has some 700
clients who turn over $900 million using traditional
media including radio stations, newspapers, magazines,
and various forms of advertising..."

I've never watched MasterChef - I have watched Gordon
Ramsay a few times - not a big fan.
Yes - Nigella is divine! I actually encourage my
husband to watch her (as a turn on) :)

Dear RobP,

Newman and Capper - I agree - they're about as
entertaining as running a ten mile marathon through
thick mud.

Foxy I don't think I'd be prepared to pay Warwick Capper $1,500 for a few hours of his company, but I know a few gay guys who might. I don't think I'd pay any man any amount of money for his company. Don't get me wrong, I love men, but not enough to pay for it.

From the SMH this morning

http://www.smh.com.au/national/kyle-and-jackie-o-scandal-alleged-victim-demands-end-to-rape-investigation-20090806-eag0.html

"The 14-year-old girl whose on-air rape claims led to the suspension of the The Kyle And Jackie O radio show has told police she does not want the alleged rape investigated."

hmmmm... now, where does that leave all the "righteous anger" brigade?

As I said, the whole thing would never have even become a matter of public discussion if the girl had not claimed rape. Some may recall I asked "what if she made it up?". Does her refusal to cooperate with police mean that she did? What else could it mean?

Does this mean that Kyle and JackieO are now rehabilitated?

Antiseptic, I don't see that that should make any difference. Sticking a child on a lie detector on a live to air transmission and asking questions about their sex life is not Ok. I think some of the indignation is over stated however that does not make the programming choice Ok.

B105's morning show is currently calling for volunteers for a "freak show" for the Ekka. They have a few people lined up for that and this morning expressed an interest in getting a small person (the guy from Fantasy Island and Garry Coleman were mentioned as examples) or someone with webbed feet or fingers. More tasteful programming. Whilst it might all be fun for those involved I'm guessing that others who share the same conditions and are struggling with body image might not be so keen to be considered freaks.

R0bert

Questioning a 14yr old child about their sex life, is a paedophile crime. I am amazed there are no laws covering this immoral practice.

This incident should be the catalyst, to enact new laws against this abhorrent abuse of children, by adults

the actions of this child's mother, in her questioning were sick. It's possible she was the victim of rape as a child herself, and she actually condones the behaviour, in a perverse way, because she was abused. She definitely has mental issues, and is unfit to be a mother.
She must secretly hate her child, to shame her in such a high profile way.
Kyle has shown he has no parental skills, as well, and has serious pedo issues himself

Not a shred of concern or empathy for a 14 year old child from A-septic. Nothing new there.

Hopefully the suspension of the show and the cancellation of Sandilands TV contract is the beginning of the end of shock jock antics.

I hope the the young girl and her mother are receiving help, the girl for being exploited and the mother for permitting it.

Antiseptic said "now, where does that leave all the "righteous anger" brigade?"

Come on , the primary issue is still the valid...we're talking about child abuse and public humiliation of a child for amusement/entertainment. It's still unacceptable predatory behaviour..

Even if it comes out that the show was a set up from start to finish my condemnation of it and the protagonists wouldn't change. It's a bit like holding up a store with replica for fun .....try it and see if the public/courts see the difference/humour.

Peeing on the fence posts is one thing but the show is a whole other thing. Like we don't have enough powerless victims already that we need to encourage others to go that one step more?

As for her motives well I have seen/heard at least 15 good reasons why a child in this position would lie or now want the whole thing to go away.(she's a Child)

JO and KS justified....Never! Rehabilitated? that depends on them.

The trauma for this child is palpable set up or not let's not extend her pain by making this poorly judged 'Springer program' become currency here.

the media will flog this to death regardless for News(?) we don't need to know. The vultures continue to feed on the baby.

Antiseptic,

You're acting like a troll of the worst kind.

You're talking about a 14 YEAR OLD GIRL. A CHILD. To continue speculating about the alleged rape makes you no better than Sandilands or JO. With all the uproar and with people like you pushing and pushing this child like this I don't blame her. She'll just want it all to go away.

14 years old mate.

If she hadn't made the statement the issue would still be the fact that they intended to use her admissions of illegal activities as entertainment and to use a 'lie detector' on a child is just plain wrong.

“"The 14-year-old girl whose on-air rape claims led to the suspension of the The Kyle And Jackie O radio show has told police she does not want the alleged rape investigated."

hmmmm... now, where does that leave all the "righteous anger" brigade?”

I don’t think it is the girls decision Anti. Wish I’d heard the thing now everyone is going on about it – how old was the dude?

“I welcome all of the cooking shows, the collectors and so on. I know the networks are only doing it to save money, but my fervent hope is that it will cause more young people at least to leave the Box turned off.”

Good idea Cornflower, I do notice no children are ever scrambling to watch my TV.

Foxy: I've never watched MasterChef - I have watched Gordon
Ramsay a few times - not a big fan. “

How can an Englishman abusing Americans not be good TV?[smile]

“Yes - Nigella is divine! I actually encourage my
husband to watch her (as a turn on) :)”

You saucy tart Foxy. If hubby catches a glimpse of her I start rambling off facts like how her first hubby had his tongue removed and then died and how tragic her life has been.

Who cares which chef, many Australian children would be eating out of cardboard while watching. That is if they haven't done the burger, fries and icecream with sprinkles on the way home from school.

Jamie Oliver for PM.

Talking about Jamie, his program on pigs was great watching and a unique educational opportunity for people who have never seen where the bubble wrapped product in Woolworths comes from (and most Australians are so urban that they are afraid of grass that has been untouched by a Victa).

Dear Antiseptic,

I can understand your hesitation in not
judging too quickly on an issue where the
parent obviously gave permission to have
her child interviewed on a show. And where
to everyone's surprise - the child came
out with things that no one could have
anticipated. And perhaps, the child may have
even stretched the truth (that's what teenagers
sometimes do). However, I guess the thing we need to ask
ourselves - is manipulation of this sort, even with
a parent's permission - something that should
be condoned?

That's the moral question. And I guess it depends
on how we view things. I personally think it's
not right - but then I don't approve of photographing
naked 8 to 12 years olds, and calling it art either.

Foxy:"the child may have
even stretched the truth (that's what teenagers
sometimes do). However, I guess the thing we need to ask
ourselves - is manipulation of this sort, even with
a parent's permission - something that should
be condoned?"

And if the girl was making her own protest against her intrusive mother? Would she have gained the attention without the claim of rape? I suspect the answer is "not a chance". There was a flurry of straight polemics centering on the rape allegation but very little that looked at the girl's treatment outside her casting as a rape victim.

IOW, she was used by people like Melinda Tankard-Reist and Nina Funnell every bit as much as by Kyle and Jackie O. Now the rape claim has been withdrawn, the whole thing will go away over the course of a couple of weeks. Kyle and JackieO will get a nice holiday and life will go on.

The girl and her mother will no doubt continue to have a dysfunctional relationship.

Anti,
Sure the girl and the mum will continue to have a dysfunctional relationship..
But you still seem unable to internalize that what took place and the show are wrong and that the one true point of life is to reduce the number of hurdles that the less equipped need to contend.

Antiwomen's right, of course. In fact, I've noticed that he's never, ever, wrong.

The real issue here is neither the exploitation of this child by the execrable Sandilands and Jackie O and her mother, nor the alleged rape of a 12-year old girl, but rather the insidious feminist conspiracy against men.

Forget the appalling judgement and actions of Sandilands, O and her mother - wicked feminists like Tankard-Reist and Funnell actually set the whole thing up as part of their war against men! Just like other feminists set up the gang bangs and assaults against women by NRL players that Antiwomen claimed in another thread were really a dastardly plot by women to take over the NRL.

As Antiwomen has often told us, rape is something that women (and girls, from his latest) mostly invent as a way of attacking men.

Obviously the kid in this case is best off just getting over it and avoiding all that self-indulgent counselling crap. The rape claim was obviously bogus because she's asked for the investigation to be withdrawn.

On the other hand, maybe the poor kid just doesn't want to get raped yet again, by both the media and the criminal justice system.

Finally, I think Sandilands is finished. Not so sure about Jackie O.

Examinator:"you still seem unable to internalize that what took place and the show are wrong"

Do try to keep up. I'm pointing out that the fact that it was wrong only became an issue because the girl made the rape claim. If she hadn't and all had ended with giggles, no one would be jumping up and down about her "appalling treatment". Tankard-Reist and the rest would have kept looking for a better "victim" to hitch a publicity ride on and the girl would have been just as traumatised (or not) with no one giving a toss either way.

Nothing gets up my nose like the stench of sanctimonious hypocrisy.

I note the Pomeranian is still trying to work out what that thing is that keeps he can just keep in sight if he spins around really, really fast. Poor thing, someone should dock that tail.

Wow, you just can't get ya head around it. Amazing.

"I'm pointing out that the fact that it was wrong only became an issue because the girl made the rape claim."

FACT?. Sounds to me like YOUR OWN agenda driven opinion.

"If she hadn't and all had ended with giggles, no one would be jumping up and down about her "appalling treatment"."

Unbelievable....so she was treated fairly?. You're wrong there too. But that won't stop you, I'm sure. I can point you in the direction of hundreds of people whose main issue was with the initial point of the interrogation.

What an ugly soul you have. Where's your compassion?. I haven't come across someone as creepy as you in a long time.

Fractelle said, "not a shred of concern or empathy for a 14 yo child from A-septic". Hello Fractelle, I've noticed that too with what he's written here. He seems like a rather vile person.

Antiseptic.. you must be an excellent fellow if fractelle is criticisng you for "lack of empathy"...

I am an excellent fellow and I have been called the "OLO resident psychopath" for the same reason....

sometimes fractelle displays her lack of vocabulary by the limit and repetition of her slurs and insults.

But she is free to hurl whatever abuse she can dream up and I of course am free to hurl it back at her.... why dont you take a swipe too.. there is year round open season on lefties.

and re "The girl and her mother will no doubt continue to have a dysfunctional relationship."

from the little I have read/heard about the whole matter, the mother sounds like a right skank who, as a community service, should have been sterilised before she was old enough to procreate

MaryE:"He seems like a rather vile person."

Oh dear, another one unable to read simple English. The "vile" people are the ones who got their knees jerking as soon as they heard the word "rape". They're the ones who wouldn't have given a stuff if that word hadn't been used and they're the ones who are doing their best to create well-paying careers out of riding on the bacls of victims of all sorts.

If you support that sort of thing, you're pretty "vile" yourself.

StG:"you just can't get ya head around it."

LOL. I think I "got my head around it" pretty well.

It was all fine and dandy by everyone until the girl said "I was raped". The network approved of it, the mother approved, presumably the audience approved and the sponsors approved.

Well, the girl has stopped the police investigating, which is a pretty strong piece of evidence to support the theory that she made it up. Has anyone heard what the "lie detector" said about it? What could have been her motive in doing so?

Lots of interesting questions could have been discussed around this issue, none of which come from uncritically accepting the words uttered by the girl.

I find something in all this quite fascinating: never have I said I don't support the girl, never have i said I think the stunt was anything but dumb and puerile (not "abusive" per se, because we don't know whether the girl was coerced into appearing), yet merely for raising the possibility that she may have concocted the allegation I'm abused from pillar to post. I'm accused of lacking empathy, even being "vile" simply because I examined a possibility.

It sounds to me as thought there are a lot of would-be "thought-police" in this Brave New World of ours.

The mother had some part of responsibility in displaying her daughter in this circus to begin with. As a parent, she too could have stopped the conversation for her child's welfare. Kyle and the radio station could have cut the conversation if the conversation was moving into abusive and inappropriate terrain. They didn't. In broadcasting there are standards for appropriate journalism when it comes to minors, in terms of exploitation and broadcasting standards. Kyle had the button he could have cut off. He didn't. He milked it further for the circus. That is despicable. Then Kyle ran away to NZ like a little girl he is.

“Well, the girl has stopped the police investigating, which is a pretty strong piece of evidence to support the theory that she made it up. Has anyone heard what the "lie detector" said about it? What could have been her motive in doing so?”

Okay then Anti, if any investigation was allowed to be stopped by a child then I am guessing it was a lie, an exaggeration or she has gone mute and is refusing to name names so they cannot pursue it.

Most often a kid will say something happened and then feel guilty about their part in it the more they think about it and clam up – no one can do anything but it doesn’t prove anything either way.

You’ll get molested children in complete denial anything was wrong. Ignore it and it will go away or worse “but they were nice to me and bought me stuff”.

Teenagers come with egos and to admit to being a victim can leave them devastated, often they seem to want to “own” their role in it and convince others it was all okay and their choice.

This is why it is not a child’s choice whether the police investigate or prosecute.

But I still am at a complete loss as the age of the person she, in the moment, claimed raped her.

I think we're getting a little too personal here.
I agree that Antiseptic's displayed attitude is by somewhat less that objective even vile if you must but to describe the individual as that is somewhat presumptive.

First how do we know that we are seeing the real person and not some argumentative affectation.
Do we know what is causing his seeming lack of compassion or regard for others.

In short what he says may be vile but to attack the person on assumptions in the absence of real information is simply prejudice in another form.

NB this doesn't mean I excuse or accept the attitude simply put such attitudes are simply based on fear of being out of control and or vulnerability but don't necessarily define the person.

Dear Antiseptic,

As I stated previously I can understand your
questioning the rape allegation and whether
this incident would have attracted so much
media attention had this accusation not been
made - however, the fact remains - the manipulation
of a child even with a parent's permission is
something that most people would feel is wrong.
I think this goes to the heart of the matter.

I'm assuming that you won't disagree with that.
As for any personal attacks against you - people
often say things on an open forum such as this
one - that they don't really mean - it's simply
as someone said - a defensive mechanism. We've
all had moments I'm sure when we might say to
ourselves - Gee, I shouldn't have said that, or
maybe I should have said it differently.
Well, okay maybe we all need to work on our
presentation - it's important to be conscious
and compassionate and act with great civility -
but we've got to also remember not to forsake our
own wisdom because of fearing that we'll lose
something. What's more important? Losing your face,
or losing your integrity?

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is - we all have our strong
beliefs as well as our own insecurities. To be less
seasoned is to be less tolerant and much more afraid.
The more seasoned we are, the more willing we are to
let others shine.

To add a bit to Foxy's post, I think this thread shows that some issues are very complex and can exhibit a lot of different facets. When someone raises a point that is thought to be off-topic, it could well be another legitimate facet of a general problem or the flipside of the coin, so to speak.

Without wanting to get involved in the bickering, I don't think Antiseptic is making an invalid point. What he says need not detract from other valid points and explorations of the overall issue; I don't see him doing that.

What might be useful is to remember that for everything society sees as being an issue, there's ten times as much going on in the background or the invisible domain as far as the mainstream debate is concerned. Everyone can come up with valid points and it's only when they are all summed up that we start getting real, holistic solutions to all problems - the simple and the complex.

Hello examinator, you are of course correct in what you've just written. I should never have described antiseptic as a vile man. What I should have done is said that antiseptic has vile opinions on the subject and that what he has written is vile.

I understand your distinction, and I agree with it. We should criticise the viewpoint, not the person. Thank you examinator. Something should be kept in mind however. This approach can actually be used as a tool to hurt people, while at the same time giving one the opportunity to deny responsibility for that hurt. For example, I may think someone is a racist, but instead of calling him a racist I might just repeatedly say "he writes racist things". Then, when someone complains about that I can take the high moral ground and claim "I never called him a racist". But in reality I really am doing just that by repeatedly saying "he writes racist things". Do you see what I'm saying examinator? It can be used as a tool to hurt people, yet gives you a chance to take the high moral ground and deny responsibility.

Nothing in life is totally black and white. Except black and white itself.

Too true MaryE, other permutations are...

Someone uses the phrase 'How Sexist', and another just blindly takes that as 'You're Sexist' and runs with it.

And what about Forest... 'Stupid is as stupid does'. If you say that someone has said something sexist are you saying they are sexist?

Now the original poster could have been deliberately using the term to be abrasive with an easy 'out' as you say, but it's just as possible that the author chose the words quite deliberately, and the reader is looking to take offence, or is just over-sensitive, or just has preconceived ideas about the author.

In the end, I think we should just have to take the words as read. What's the point of language if you're not allowed to use certain words because someone will decide to take it the wrong way.

What's wrong with asking?

'Are you saying I'm racist?'
'Oh no. I just think that phrase is racist'.

but then what if the answer is sarcastic...

'Are you being sarcastic?'.
'Oh No'.

Then what if he's not being sarcastic, but the reader decides he is?

'Do you understand? I'm honestly not being sarcastic'
'I understand.'

Then what if he believes she is now being sarcastic...

I think you get the idea now

Which brings us back to Alexei Sayle...
"Are you being sar-carstic or something, my son? That's one of my least favorite things, that happens to be. Sar-carsm. I was walking a dog, and this bloke, he comes to me and says, "Nice day, innit?" But it wasn't. It wasn't a nice day. It was a little bit cloudy. Which makes him very sar-carstic. So acting as if nothing would happen, I took his head, right, put it in me mouth, right, acting dead casual-like, clamped me teeth, and BIT HIS HEAD OFF!! Cause I hate people being sar-carstic."

Of course, if someone makes comments that are vile and/or creepy repeatedly and over an extended period of time, then reasonable readers can infer that the person who makes such comments is probably vile and/or creepy.

Less enlightened types can infer, of course, that such a vile creep is an "excellent fellow".

Presumably an 'enlightened', 'reasonable' person is one who applies offensive labels to opponents and follows them from thread to thread, dog whistling for the pack as he goes.

It follows that the "less enlightened types" are those who regularly wonder why anyone would waste hours playing such negative little parlour games in cyberspace.

Getting back to the subject, it is unfortunate but probably true that the community needed the extra jolt offered by the rape comment to finally complain in large numbers. Sometimes it takes something outrageously awful to remind the community that the envelope has been stretched too far already.

It is not unusual for young people, some probably minors under Australian law, to be quizzed on television about their sexual, drug and other experiences and all for public titillation and entertainment. Anybody who has ever watched daytime television must have seen programs where children, forced to participate by parents and carers are interrogated, admonished and 'advised' by pop psychologists and 'experts' promoting their books. Yet there are presumably few complaints because the shows (usually US in origin)keep coming.

It did not happen, but it would have been much better the critics who attacked Sandilands had aimed their best shots at the show's producers instead, because that is the appropriate level of accountability to get some lasting change in policy.

It is interesting that The Chaser's critics knew where to aim. Maybe Sandilands copped the full magazine from so many critics because he was 'due for it' for other reasons. Not defending Sandilands but there were better targets.

Foxy:"the manipulation
of a child even with a parent's permission is
something that most people would feel is wrong."

Parents manipulate children all the time. So do teachers, so do advertisers, so do other children, so do all sorts of adults in contact with children.

What I think you're trying to say is that manipulating people who are not in a position to resist the manipulation carries responsibilities for the one doing it.

I would argue that the people who wanted to believe this girl's story and who tried to jump on the rape claim were being just as manipulative as Kyle and JackieO, perhaps even more so. The girl was no doubt induced to appear and knew what would be coming up on the show, whereas she likely had little clue about the furore that would be created by the bandwagon-riders and no choice about being part of it.

Those people, like Melinda Tankard-Reist notably and a few of the other hanger's-on used the girl's outburst for their own self-serving purposes, ascribing motivations to her and trying to make her into the sort of pre-packaged victim they're so expert at marketing. That's the real disgrace - that these people have so conditioned people to thinking in certain ways that any other thought must be "vile"

Foxy:"What's more important? Losing your face,
or losing your integrity?"

Loss of face follows lack of integrity. I regret very few of the things I post because I generally think about them properly before i post and I phrase them as exactly as I can to convey the meaning I intend. It never ceases to amaze me that seemingly intelligent people can still so misread my perfectly clear words.

I think that if anyone was sufficiently motivated to go through my posting history here and elsewhere (easily if time-consumingly done) they'd find no contradictions in what I have said. That's integrity.

Houellebecq I too am a great fan of Alexei Sayle.

I wish he posted here .... more interesting than some of the sad cases we have to contend with

and I see CJ Moron is into the foray...

"Of course, if someone makes comments that are vile and/or creepy repeatedly and over an extended period of time, then reasonable readers can infer that the person who makes such comments is probably vile and/or creepy."

confirming what Houellebecq said from forest G "'Stupid is as stupid does'."

and Anti yes "Melinda Tankard-Reist" is just a megaphone for fairy floss and political niceness all round...

I wonder where she stands on the mothers responsibility for her raped child?

Well according to her OLO listed article old "One-Eye" said

"Suffering the forced violation of her body, her abuser walking free for the past two years, what is she given? An on air mauling on the Kyle and Jackie Oh No show; forced sex followed by a forced confession; her human rights violated a second time.

It didn’t matter that she was scared. Nothing should stand in the way of a young girl’s public shaming."

but managed to hold back on any criticisim of the girls mother....

so I guess thats it

so long as you are a low life skank but a "social victim", prepared to put your child through hell for a couple of Pink tickets... you are alright by our bastion of "righteousness indignation" (what M.T-R accused Sandiland of for his "punch" comments - see M.T-R article here at OLO).

M.T-R - What a load of b**locks

Dear Antiseptic,

I'm pleased that you acknowledge that the young girl
was indeed manipulated - and that this was wrong.

I wasn't questioning your integrity. As I stated -
it is important to be conscious and compassionate
and act with great civility - but not to forget
your own wisdom because you fear you will lose something.
Then I added - What's more important? Losing your face,
or losing your integrity? I didn't mean to imply that
you'd lost yours.

Right or wrong people acquire a reputation.
And I remember someone at work a few years ago,
saying I was difficult to work with. When I heard
what he'd said, I thought I was going to die.
It wasn't just a question of mudslinging, but
a little bit of who I am too. I suppose in my wish
for things to be the best they can be, I didn't play
the game well.

As a child, I was shy, I wasn't comfortable with
my own ideas, never believing they were worthy of
being heard. As I grew older, I was afraid of my
own strength and worried that if I came on too strong
it would make me less attractive to men, and a threat
to women. But now after all this time - I've come into
my own. I realize that the only path to happiness is to
really be all that I can be. The more we can feel
emotionally liberated, the more whole we can be as
people.

About the blame game being played by people here. If someone blames Kyle it does not necessarily mean they are therefore not blaming the mother.

Probably ALL the adults involved in the sorry saga are to blame, and I ask where's the father in all of this, or is he deceased? I get the impression from reading many of the comments here that some people here are just using this incident to push their own personal social barrows here. Any child who says that he/she was raped deserves to be treated with respect and taken seriously, regardless of the circumstances under which the alleged rape was revealed.

We need to respect children. A 14 yo girl is not an adult. She says she was raped as a 12 yo. When I was 12 I was in Year 6 for God's sake, still at primary school. From many comments here I gain the distinct impression that this child is viewed upon with contempt by some people here. Adults can be just horrible sometimes, and it makes me very sad and despondent about our humanity. Some of the insensitive comments written are horrid. I wonder if these people would still blame her, or cast doubts upon her character, if the rape claim is eventually shown to be true with the rapist caught, charged and convicted? I bet they would probably still try to rationalise some way to blame or doubt the child. There's people in our society who see rape upon females as the female's fault, even when the victim is a child.

Dear MaryE,

Children should be protected by adults not used
for whatever reason.

This entire affair was a mis-judgement on so
many levels by the adults involved - and
should never have aired.

We can only hope that this will be a deterrant
to others in future programming - there are some
lines that simply shouldn't be crossed. And, as
another poster pointed out - I wonder if they
didn't break some sort of law?

Excellent posts MaryE and Foxy.

Taking aim with intent to denigrate a 14 YO child is malicious. Any blame needs to be placed, as MaryE said, at the feet of ALL adults (parents, producers & presenters) involved in this piece of trash journalism.

Foxy, if a law of some type was broken, I would think it should have been cited by now, but I simply don't know.

Does the sacking of Sandilands mean that we (the public) hold more contempt for the ill-treatment of children than we do of corruption such as "cash for comment" from Alan Jones and John Laws? Maybe our values are better prioritised than I previously believed.

Regrettably, many of the television shows and magazine articles (no-one has mentioned them) that regularly transgress the privacy and rights of children are aimed at a female audience.

Don't watch the programs or buy the magazines, especially the trashy magazines for girls, which are probably the worst of all, grooming young girls for early sexual experimentation and not just with boys. What a certain way to lose a childhood. How many graphic photos of Britney et al sans undies have graced the mags bought by mothers for their daughters?

Where is the pressure to clean up the magazines for girls, or remove them from the racks of popular chain stores?

Exactly MaryE, were's dad in this sorry saga? Children, since allegedly that one episode some 2000+ years ago, have two parents: a mother and a father. If mother is a skank, as some of you who immediately *knew* where the blame should lie, what is father?

This girl's parents have failed her and the radio station took advantage of this purely for financial gain. How much lower can one get than preying on the most powerless and vulnerable? It's what peadophiles do. They justify what they do too.

I thought my opioion of Sandilands and Jackie O couldn't get any lower, but I was wrong. Not to mention the radiostation. Anybody have a list of advertisers on their programmes? Each and every product I would boycott.

And the school of angry goldfish circles in a discussion pond being drained of interest by the moment. No bold adventurers willing to take a risk and dive over the dam of their prejudices to the stream of ideas, just a starveling band following each other round in circles until the last morsel of interest seeps into the dusty ground where their withered bodies of thought lie dessicated and forgotten.

Mary:” Adults can be just horrible sometimes, and it makes me very sad and despondent about our humanity. Some of the insensitive comments written are horrid.”

Yep agreed. Guilty of it myself but my perception is slightly warped these days.

This is the first thing I found on a google search…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/29/2640057.htm

“Community Services Minister Linda Burney says she is disgusted, and has taken a personal interest in the case.”

Be nice if Linda would take an interest in the children currently under the guardianship of her director general.

Maybe if I go on a radio show someone might listen, take notice and help me with a teenage issue I am dealing with?

Oh – now I probably sound like that girls mum…

I’ll just keep it on the down low. Nothing will change but at least no politician will ride on the back of a child continuing to be damaged due to any past sexual abuse.

Hey Anti, shut the hell up.

Dear Antiseptic,

Your last post reminded me of what the author
Bryce Courtenay said about words:

" Ah, yes - let's talk about words.
About loving, touching, reaching out and grabbing
words.

Words that spread smooth as picnic butter.
And words that job hard and suddenly, leaving your
lips stinging and your head ringing.

Words with big, round, soft, open vowels.

And words with tight, hurtful little orifices...
like 'sneak.'"

The words that we have to be careful of are the words
that stick like burrs and punish at a touch. They're
words that become soiled with improper use. The gift of
words is the gift of imagination - they should be used
to lift up - not put down - as Emily Dickinson illustrates:

"He ate and drank the precious words,
His spirit grew robust,
He knew no more that he was poor,
Or that his frame was dust.
He danced along the dingy ways,
And this bequest of wings
Were but kind words...
What liberty
A loosened spirit brings!"

A kind word doesn't cost anything - yet it honours
both the giver and the receiver.

I have to agree with Antiwomen that the spiteful misogynistic drivel he incessantly posts is consistently vile and/or and creepy.

Foxy (quoting Bryce Courtenay):"The words that we have to be careful of are the words that stick like burrs and punish at a touch. They're
words that become soiled with improper use."

And there's the rub, isn't it Foxy? What some call improper use, others call fair comment. I try to craft my words carefully and I must admit that I am a little chuffed with the thought that you felt them sufficiently well formed to comment on them, even though you idn't like the thought they expressed.

I differ from Mr Courtenay in his preference for words that do not offend. I am happy to admit that I take some pride in crafting words that express dissent well. If "social constructionalism" is a reality, then dissent is essential to create change and it is a social service to express it properly.

Whether all others agree with my purpose is neither here nor there, as long as the words express it well. Sometimes even, the purpose is simply to have a vehicle for the words, so where does that leave "improper use"?

CJ we get that you don't like Antiseptic. That's pretty obvious. You might have a think about the vile things you continue to post about him and ask if that's how you really are. Apart from your attacks on Antseptic I generally have a fairly high regard for you and your views (even where I disagree) as with a number of other posters. The whole snipping from the sidelines at Antiseptic does not do you credit.

I've not tried to keep up to thoroughly with who says what about who so I may miss some but my overall impression is that the comments directed at antiseptic are generally more personal, more directly hateful of the him than the stuff he posts about others.

R0bert

I just followed the link posted by TPP to the ABC story. It seems that the major reason for their interest was that the girl "revealed she had been raped" (not "claimed to have been raped" the keen observer will note, so much for "quality" journalism). Add another one to the list of those who wouldn't have given a stuff if she'd not claimed rape.

They quoted a couple of the usual victim-riders, including Karen Wills of the NSWRCC who said "it's actually the second worst crime that you can commit next to murder" (referring to rape, not the general principle of responsibility to juveniles).

Is non-consensual sex (rape) really the "the second worst crime...next to murder"? Why

Anti: “Sometimes even, the purpose is simply to have a vehicle for the words…”

You mean posts are vehicles for words?

You are incredibly insightful sweat pea. Just ignore that – I had wanted to use “insightful” in a sentence today.

R0bert:”I've not tried to keep up to thoroughly with who says what about who so I may miss some but my overall impression is that the comments directed at antiseptic are generally more personal, more directly hateful of the him than the stuff he posts about others.”

I’ve kept up, it’s pretty even really which is actually quite a task for Anti when occasionally outnumbered but Cornflower has been known to lend him a hand, Rusty kind of slithered off somewhere and Benk doesn’t seem particularly reliable.

I will however start awarding points and maybe let everyone know at a future date who the winner is.

Could we agree on scoring?

5 points for the usual Pomeranian and sock-puppet remarks

7 points for referring to posters as female when they have identified themselves as male

10 points for blanket statements about women

15 points for the predictable “she is female aka wrong or lying and a man trapping, money sucking whore”

2 points for the sometimes muttered “I like women”

300 points every time someone calls him an idiot no matter how many words they use or how subtly implied

Dear Antiseptic,

Social interaction is the process by which people
act toward or respond to other people.

Because we live in a meaningful world, we have to
interpret human behaviour in order to interact
with others. We interact largely through shared
understandings of things like language. That's
why the words we use are so important. If the majority
of posters find the words you use offensive -
then obviously you need to take another look at the
reality you've constructed for yourself. It may not
be accurate.

TPP, "Cornflower has been known to lend him a hand"

No, that misrepresents my position entirely and implies that I take sides, which I aim not to do and have said so on several occasions. I have my own opinion and that is hard enough to represent because I am always in such a hurry. If my view is in part or totally in agreement with others on occasion, so be it.

However I count myself among the many who has had the temerity to occasionally put a view that was different to some and like so many others who have done that I attracted the unwelcome labeling and abuse that goes with it. I hope I gave a reasonable account of myself in return, however baiting and cat calling are not things to which I would normally respond.

Frankly TPP, you should have had enough fair dealings with me not to put me in the position of having to explain myself like this. Perhaps I have have misunderstood your intent and if so I apologise, I have not read all of your post or others apart from a quick scan because I have a lot to do today.

R0bert: << I've not tried to keep up to thoroughly with who says what about who so I may miss some but my overall impression is that the comments directed at antiseptic are generally more personal, more directly hateful of the him than the stuff he posts about others. >>

If you haven't been paying attention, you're not really in a position to make an informed comment then, are you?

I generally have a fairly high regard for you and your views (even where I disagree) as with a number of other posters. Turning a blind eye to the spiteful misogyny and personal insults continuously spewed out by Antiwomen does not do you credit.

Now he apparently wants to diminish the seriousness of the crime of rape - are you going to defend that, too?

Hello Cornflower, in your most recent post you complain you have been labeled and abused, and that baiting and cat calling are not for you. However, I've read a great many posts from you on this site where you have labeled others via cat calling and baiting. Just look at your display on the footy topic, where many of your posts sound remarkably similar to antiseptic's posts. But it's your life, and you can do whatever you want to do. It's seems a shame that you can't see the way you present yourself, either that or you simply don't want to openly admit it. But again, it's your life and you can do what you want. Cornflower, maybe you should look inwards a bit more, and become a bit more gracious towards people here. Or, you can just continue as you have been. It's up to you, but either way it would make little difference to others here but that's not important anyway. What's important is the level of understanding you have about your own behaviour, then maybe that would enable you to better understand other people here. Thank you.

A member questioned whether rape is the second worst crime next to murder, in reply to another member's belief that it was. His question was, "Is non-consensual sex (rape) really the second worst crime next to murder? Why?" Now the question here is not really how the various crimes should be rated. The question is, "why would he even think to ask that question in the first place, in reply to the other member?". I find the member's question to be the most disgusting thing I've read on this site, and I think it says a lot about what he's written on this topic. I believe rape should not be diminished. It's a serious and insidious crime, often committed for the purpose of control and intimidation. The seriousness of rape should not be diminished, regardless of one's personal agenda. The consequences of rape can last an entire lifetime for the victim. Yet there are still people in our society who trivialise rape, or don't see it as a "real" crime.

TPP: “300 points every time someone calls him an idiot no matter how many words they use or how subtly implied”

That’s a bit much. Have you lost all sense of relativity, or are you just trying to encourage that particular behaviour?

Antiseptic: “They quoted a couple of the usual victim-riders, including Karen Wills of the NSWRCC who said "it's actually the second worst crime that you can commit next to murder" (referring to rape, not the general principle of responsibility to juveniles).”

That sounds about right. Termination of human life is generally a more serious crime except perhaps when sanctioned by the state.

“Frankly TPP, you should have had enough fair dealings with me not to put me in the position of having to explain myself like this. Perhaps I have misunderstood your intent and if so I apologise, I have not read all of your post or others apart from a quick scan because I have a lot to do today.”

You got it right, it was a throw away comment in a smart arse message that I didn’t think too deeply about as I rattled it off.

I guess an opinion that ends up supporting another user is inadvertently lending someone a hand/picking sides?

Sorry Cornflower.

Sorry Benk (incase needed soon).

Sorry Anti (incase needed soon).

Sorry Seeker (what’s relativity?).

I still think it’s funny though and I take nothing back!

It seems to me that in many instances some people appear to misunderstand that social conversations have a number of assumed rules.
Amongst them are that not all topics are apposite to all people and all situations.

Likewise like it or not if you ignore the rules you solely bear the consequences.

think of it like this we are all in the animal kingdom. Animals defaecate and fart but while this is natural if someone wantonly did so in the street their behaviour would be considered abhorrent. Functionally it says more about the selfishness of the individual than the point being attempted.

This means that questioning rape as a real offense is a valid question but not in the current context and certainly not by a 'in your face' style.

I have seen reasoned debate on this subject that highlighted inconsistencies in logic and morality BUT it was in a context that those who could be offended could avoid the topic and not be ambushed.

No one should have that right to ambush another by hijacking or injecting a potentially offensive thread out of context in social conversation. The topic should set the assumed parameters.

I am aware that GY allows a wide path for various threads to emerge but corollary of this is that it allows agenda seekers and axe grinders leeway to offend. In my observation this tends to create conversations that spend more time insulting/defending and therefore unproductive rancor than eventually arriving at some meaningful accommodation or understanding.

I have no problem with virtually any topic in CONTEXT but the above axe grinders tend to go a bridge too far. Which is precisely what the KS/Jackie O, shock jocks and Chasers tend to do. Inevitably this just offends and tends to be counterproductive.
It is one thing to challenge current mores but the old adage "softly softly catchee monkey" is far more productive.

MaryE: “The seriousness of rape should not be diminished, regardless of one's personal agenda. The consequences of rape can last an entire lifetime for the victim. Yet there are still people in our society who trivialise rape, or don't see it as a "real" crime.”

Totally agree. So tell us again why the police aren’t investigating it? Just who are they protecting and why?

Hello examinator, what you wrote "questioning rape as a real offence is a vaild question" is a statement that is fundamentally wrong, at all levels of decency, humanity, spirituality and objectivity. I of course realise you added "but not in the current context". But I say that to question that rape should be an offence (in any context) is a statement that in all liklihood comes from someone who has never been, or loved, a rape victim. Rape is a crime, and rightfully so. Rape is bad and is NEVER anything other than bad. There's absolutely nothing to question regarding the evil nature of rape, and whether or not it should be a "real" offence. Thank you.

Hello seeker, only the police can answer your questions. If you "genuinely" want the answers why don't you contact the police and ask them? If you go about it the right way you may even get an answer. Otherwise, you'll just be speculating. And in all probability that speculation will be based on your personal history and experience in life, and not necessarily based on the actual "truth" of the case. The same would apply to me if I speculated on why the police "at this stage" have not charged anyone. Also, because someone has read in the paper, or heard on a current affair show, that the police are not investigating , it does not necessarily mean that the police are not investigating, or will not investigate in either the near or distant future as information comes to light. Thank you.

MaryE

Your posts tend to be rather monocular in that you argue from a personal perspective. It seems to me you missed the thrust of what I was saying. Perhaps you should consider the overall point and not such an out of context minor part.

In every topic there are different ways to look at the subject.
All I said was that challenging rape as a topic was valid as is/are any other topic if one is to be objective.

Socrates held that one should and be able to examine ones most deepest notions if one is to grow. It was his willingness to logically question mores that ended up with a cup of hemlock which didn't prove him wrong just that mob rule dominates. I have no desire to have a similar metaphoric fate.

I therefore don't intend on getting into that debate with you or on this site about the topic of rape.

Experience has shown that objectivity and context are largely just words on OLO.

You must be careful not to assume too much based on your own biases.

Regards

Examinator Ant

"In Australia one in two women will be physically assaulted at some point in their lives and one in three women will be sexually assaulted. We also know that by the time a girl turns 18 there is a one in four chance she will have experienced rape or another form of sexual assault. To put that figure in context we also know that men in prison have a one in four chance of being sexually assaulted, suggesting that when it comes to rape, what young women endure in their everyday lives would for men be considered prison conditions."
http://2mf.net/news158.htm

CJ I don't want to get into a protracted debate over this, as someone who generally values your contributions I tried to find a gentle way of pointing out that I don't think your sniping at Antiseptic does you credit.

In my own defense I think I've been paying enough attention to be very confident that the spiteful sexist comments are not all coming from Antiseptic (or those with similar views). I'm very confident that the personal insults are not just from Antiseptic.

My own impression is that what is directed at Antiseptic is far worse than what he posts, I've tried to allow for the fact that I'm not keeping count and not make definative claims which I can't support.

As for Antiseptics comment regarding rape, I think that he does himself harm by raising the question on this thread but do think that the topic is one which is valid to be discussed (preferably away from the circumstance of claims by a child of having been raped).

R0bert

Pomeranian of little brain:"Now he apparently wants to diminish the seriousness of the crime of rape "

Me (on Sunday, 9 August 2009 9:37:22 AM": Is non-consensual sex (rape) really the "the second worst crime...next to murder"? Why?"

Poor thing, you really aren't very bright at all, even for a Pomeranian with very little brain.

Here's a clue little fella, if it has one of these squiggly things "?" at the end of it, it's a "question" not a "statement" and it means I'm seeking the opinion of others (no, not yours little fella, we already know you don't have any opinions of your own).

I note that no one has had a go at my question. Dear me, is it so difficult?

Foxy:"If the majority
of posters find the words you use offensive -
then obviously you need to take another look at the
reality you've constructed for yourself."

Oh dear, foxy. "Appeal to the majority" is one of the easiest fallacies to fall into and you've just gone headfirst into it.

Discussion requires dissent. We learn nothing from saccharine agreement with each other, even if it does give some people a warm glow to know that they are conforming to what they perceive as the expectations of their group without having to apply any thought at all. It is those people who find their responses to my words difficult to deal with and so they call me "offensive". In fact, I find their constant efforts to channel discussion into well-worn, mindless paths offensive in the extreme.

One of the reasons I engage with you is that while you do tend to Gidget-like positivity, you are open to the consideration of things from other angles. I'd not have expected an "appeal to the majority" from you.

As for "looking at ..reality", what is more likely to lead to improved understanding - asking questions designed to elicit responses (positive or negative doesn't matter, it's the response that's important) or joining in a consensual reality that has no basis in reason?

MaryE:"The question is, "why would he even think to ask that question in the first place, in reply to the other member?""

It wan't another member, it was the managerof the NSW Rape Crisis Centre, Karen Wills, as I said. if you can't even get the attributions right, how much did you read before your knee started jerking too violently for you to continue?

I thought to ask the question because Ms Wills made the statement. My background is in science and engineering and I am trained to do that.

MaryE:"I find the member's question to be the most disgusting thing I've read on this site"

Interesting. Why? it's an obvious follow-on from Ms Wills' statement. If she had said "it's the third most serious crime" would that have made a difference to your response to my question? She has clearly made her statement to give her own organisation, which gets lots of Government money and very little oversight, more "importance". Fair enough, lots of people do that sort of thing, but having done so, their statements become fair game for questioning.

MaryE:"I believe rape should not be diminished."

Should it be exaggerated?

MaryE:"It's a serious and insidious crime, often committed for the purpose of control and intimidation."

Yes, it is serious, but is it "the second worst"? What if the purpose is merely the sex, not the control and intimidation? Does the motivation of the offender change the seriousness of the crime?

MaryE:"The consequences of rape can last an entire lifetime for the victim"

The consequences of an assault can do that whether the assault was sexual or not. What of a young man "king hit" and left paraplegic? Is the consequence of rape greater than the consequence he has to live with?

Examinator:"questioning rape as a real offense is a valid question but not in the current context"

No one has questioned rape as a "real offense". It's quite clearly an offence, the question was whether Ms Wills's statement can be supported. Why is that invalid in the current context?

Anti,

You too make far to many assumptions and wallow in unnecessary offensive rhetoric to be truly interested in find any real truth.

Assertions like "conversations need dissent" (sic) are erroneous and say more about the user's vulnerabilities and needs that the targets. Many good and interesting topics are had in politeness.

Before you run away with another assumption that of me being pompous let me suggest that While I too have antisocial failings that doesn't give justification for deliberately wallowing in my own failings in the assumption that if I spread enough poo around no one will notice my short comings. who wants to communicate with a pig covered in excrement and mud?

It would appear reasonable that you revel in being the centre of attention and that you also subscribe to the concept that any attention is the objective.

Contrary to that reasoning I would suggest such behaviour tend to stifle conversation rather than facilitate it.

Underneath the gratuitous insults and self-righteous rhetoric, Antiseptic has made a serious point. And I don't buy MaryE's attempt to change the subject.

>>His question was, "Is non-consensual sex (rape) really the second worst crime next to murder? Why?" Now the question here is not really how the various crimes should be rated.<<

That's an assertion, MaryE, clearly intended as a distraction from the question itself, which is a real one.

Any attempt to rank crimes in terms of whether one is worse than another is always going to be fruitless, pointless, divisive and ultimately reflective of individual circumstances.

Even such non-violent crimes such as fraud, or slander, can screw up someone's life sufficiently for them to commit suicide, or for them to take vengeance on society with a little mass murder or two.

To say that one is "worse" than another is simply a generalization intended to push a particular point of view, and cannot be justified any other way.

Let's just agree that rape is a crime. It is particularly nasty. It can have serious longterm consequences for the victim. It should be "prosecuted with the full force of the law" etc. etc.

Ok?

Foxy,

'Because we live in a meaningful world...'
Hahaha. Oh foxy, so naive.

'look at the
reality you've constructed for yourself. It may not
be accurate.'
I'd say that there's no such thing as an accurate reality. Y'know I really enjoy the reality I construct for myself every day. As do all people. And you're in no position to judge other people's constructed realities when your own reality is self constructed as well Foxy.

Antiseptic,

Sometimes I think people just don't 'get' you. Now either that, or they find it offensive/impossible to talk logically on an emotive topic. Is it so hard for people to argue objectively from base premises? I think basically what all they're all saying is they want to close their eyes and shut their ears because it's just in bad taste to even question any accusation of rape, or question rape as the second worst crime. Ever. Either that or they are just happy to have someone to hate and tut tut, and any excuse will do.

Now given that I'm a psychopath (Or maybe sociopath now examinator has down/up graded me, although I'd say I'm nowhere near that interesting) but I wonder do they all really know this girl so well to feel what you're interesting in arguing is in such bad taste? Can they no possible separate themselves enough from a complete stranger they heard about in the news?

Maybe we should just never talk about rape, assume every claim true on any sensitive topic and go home in our happy blind state, no richer for examining any further.

You've explained your position 10 times, very clearly, I think it's time to give up.

'MaryE:"I believe rape should not be diminished."

Should it be exaggerated? '

That sir, deserves a round of applause! clap clap clap...

Oh,

Just a side note. I just thought I'd relate my thoughts, Twitter style.

It's occurred to me, apart from the above involving antiseptic, that a lot of the responses to posts seem to have no relation to the original post. I'm trying to work out whether...

a) The school system really is stuffed, and comprehension is a lost skill.

b) It's irrelevant what anyone says, people just like to talk. It's like being in a room of really enthusiastically conversing coke snorters.

c) The aim of OLO for some is to be seen as a superior intellect for self esteem purposes. To achieve this appearance of intellect, it's sometimes necessary to use indignation and misrepresentation, character assassination etc to camouflage a lack of intellect.

d) It's fun to deliberately misinterpret people for your own amusement, watching them bend themselves in knots trying to explain, while you further bend their explanations in knots. I love this one myself.

e) There is a reflex in many to yell things like 'think of the children' brought about by too much ACA watching.

f) Apart from intellect, the second currency in OLO is 'niceness'. If you cant appear really intelligent, and put the 'dumb' ones (those that refuse to pontificate in a pompous manner) in their place, you have to be really really nice, and then you can be superior to the 'neanderthals' with respect to manners rather than faux intellect.

g) Nobody is on my wavelength at all, and I'm really just wasting my time trying to make sense of these OLO beasts. I mean, can examinator really be that pompous? I cant imagine someone that tiresome in real life.

Antiseptic's taboo question has eventually created some high quality discussion. Thank-you Pericles, RObert, Exterminator and Houellebecq. Perhaps if he put more care into not offending others, people might focus more on answering his questions. Perhaps not.

H,
As I've said before we all have issues but that doesn't give us license to wallow in our emotional excrement(vulnerabilities) in public. This site is hardly a good venue for group therapy. It is beholden on all of us to deal with our issues privately and discuss topics here.
It takes no real smarts to play confrontational bombastic games.
Being "Agent provocative" gains nothing least of all understanding.

Just as a personal note perhaps you might benefit from polishing up on being less tautological in your attacks....By the way I don't really care if you see me as pompous why should I? You clearly missed my original point and are now on a revenge trail..... for a non existent slur.

Pompous in your mind is obviously just someone who doesn't agree skill less games, a reminder that you are as I just one of many.

examinator,

'This site is hardly a good venue for group therapy.'
I disagree. I'm doing wonders with Fraccy. Did you know she's starting to become more gender-blind in how she relates to posters!

'You clearly missed my original point and are now on a revenge trail..... for a non existent slur.'
Haha. You HAVE got a massive ego. That you think I would bother to take 'revenge' (for what pretel?). I love my psychopath tag if that's what you think I'd be seeking revenge to my dying day about. Truly! 'Revenge'? What a weird concept. I'm starting to learn what makes you tick here I think.

'Pompous in your mind is obviously just someone who doesn't agree skill less games, a reminder that you are as I just one of many.'

That sentence seriously defies parsing? I prescribe 'eats, shoots and leaves'. Now I'm no word-smith, but I defy anyone to make any sense of that sentence. Any takers?

Tell me, it's something I've long pondered about you. Do you write your posts, then get a thesaurus and change to longer words. That would explain A LOT I'm telling ya!

Perhaps you're an English Teacher

Or maybe you are a psychiatrist. 'emotional excrement' would be a strange phrase to use though in that case. Not much respect for your patients I presume.

Ah,

I get it. You work in the public service don't you? You're afflicted with the same waffle-mania that Kevin Rudd is. I'm sorry, you should have explained, I would have made allowances

Houllie

<< I'm doing wonders with Fraccy. Did you know she's starting to become more gender-blind in how she relates to posters! >>

You gauche, ignorant creep.

You are very recent to this forum, anyone who has followed my posts for a long period of time such as R0bert, CJ and other long time contributors know how consistent I am with my opinions. That the likes of you assume that I am generalising about men because I don't preface every friggin' post with the disclaimer "this post is only about a very small subset of men", when the overall context already indicates the type of people I am referring to, clearly spent too much time hawking spit bombs at the classroom ceiling instead of learning anything.

As for the comments on rape, such as:

<< MaryE:"I believe rape should not be diminished."

Should it be exaggerated? '

That sir, deserves a round of applause! clap clap clap... >>

Comparing rape to murder is ludicrous, oxymoronic - simply a switch and bait tactic - haven't you noticed a pattern to A-septic's posts here? He uses every opportunity to trivialise any woman's POV.

BTW R0bert

I usually hold your opinion in high regard even if I do not agree, but to say you haven't noticed the personalised, insulting malice that accompanies 90 % of A-septic's posts leaves me gob-smacked.

Fractelle:"Comparing rape to murder is ludicrous, oxymoronic"

Do why would Karen Wills (the manager of the NSW Rape Crisis Centre) do so, do you think?

Fractelle, I've noticed Antiseptic doing that (no check on the percentage) but I've also noticed a very high rate of personalised attacks on Antiseptic from a variety of posters. Have a read through CJ's history, especially the posts directed at Antiseptic and try and determine how much is content vs insult. I found the post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2970#68737 particularly gaulling

"Of course, if someone makes comments that are vile and/or creepy repeatedly and over an extended period of time, then reasonable readers can infer that the person who makes such comments is probably vile and/or creepy.

Less enlightened types can infer, of course, that such a vile creep is an "excellent fellow"."

I think better of CJ than that and was hoping that he might consider how his attacks on Antiseptic reflect on himself. I also liked his comments to glorfindel at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9278#148009 and wondered about the parallels with attitudes to Antiseptic.

I've disagreed with Antiseptic with some regularity, I attempt to treat him with the same courtesy which I try and treat other posters who I disagree with who have not gone out of their way to be rude to me. I may not get the balance right but I do try.

I'd tried to ignore the whole to and fro between Antiseptic and others, everyone involved seems to play the game but I've got rather tired of the snipping from the sidelines.

There are far nastier people than Antiseptic around OLO. As I've tried to point out to Antiseptic and others at times and more recently to Formersnag keeping feminists constantly under personal attack is hardly going to bring out the best in them, I also doubt that constantly attacking Antiseptic will bring out the best of him or improve the discussions around here (except for those who delight in brawling).

R0bert

I lost track, I thought exterminator was telling me off but wasn’t sure so went back to the beginning which is probably what I should have done in the first place.

StG “The furore began when Kyle Sandilands stated straight after the admission, "Right, so is that the only experience you've had?". IMO, the furore began when they approved questioning a minor about illegal activities and passing it off as entertainment to thousands of listeners...”

I am very guilty of not reading your original post properly. So it wasn’t the girl saying anything about rape at whatever age etc it was this Kyle dudes lack of compassion and they way he launched in to the next question?

I’m guessing they knew the disclosure was coming? So this was a planned returned question to the disclosure?

Isn’t it a really strange question? I mean really really strange like we’ve seen lawyers on movies asked alleged victims of rape? Is a victim called the “alleged” victim? The kind of question trying to make out alleged victim was a tramp to start with – not quite appropriate when addressing a child.

But your opinion is that it was sensationalizing illegal activities but not her illegal activities? Or had she disclosed some other stuff?

So to be accurate do we blame Kyle and Jacky or whoever the bosses are that approved the show, which is reminding me of the NRL thing and their bosses.

Anti: “If it turns out the claim is false, does that make it somehow less bad?”

Nah I don’t think it would. Unless talking about buttercups and daisies I guess we have to keep kids off the air. The problem I see with protecting children to such a degree is no one ever hears about the *bad things that happen to them and the public forgets *bad things happen to them.

*Rape, Murder, Starvation, Neglect, Emotional Abuse, Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Shaming, Scapegoating, ad infinitum.

PP,
Me tell you off...good grief perish the thought.
Contrary to common misconceptions I "tell" no one off that would assume I feel I'm superior.....I don't.
What I often do is try to inject a little objectivity in to conversations because I can see some people being unnecessarily hurt/offended etc.
Everyone has the right to express their opinions but as I say why does that have to be in terms of a schoolyard bully with name calling, baiting etc. All of which tends to be counter productive and conversation stifling.
I simply make observations the idea being break the angst momentum.
Does this make me supercilious or pompous ? I answer this way
"all evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing." if this brands me as something lessor then so be it at least I won't die wondering "if only"
Yes dear PP, I do over think issues. I am if nothing else consistent to my beliefs that of a secular Humanist and that life simply isn't that simple and I'm alwauys learning.

R0bert: << There are far nastier people than Antiseptic around OLO. >>

Name one.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but you've got a big blind spot there, old son.

Dear Houellebecq,

I'm finally beginning to understand you.
If you can't command attention by your
admirable qualities at least you can be
a nuisance.

Just be careful not to overdo - they may
have to shoot you!

CJ the direct answer - of recent posters attacking feminists Formersnag is in a whole other space.

Without digging back too far

On a personal front Bobtwat (a one post user) put up one of the most personally offensive posts I recall http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9151#146366 It's not the worst but it's fresh in mind.

runner with his utter contempt for those who don't share his faith generally manages a nastier tone than Antiseptic (and I suspect has a far worse opinion of women and feminists than Antiseptic).

I could go one but some of the usuals on race issues can be far viller than Antiseptic generally manages. Philip Tang with "The only solution is for India to nuke Pakistan and claim it for Hindustan." springs to mind.

We may have to disagree but I don't get why Antiseptic rates such ire compared to others nor do I see the abuse being as one sided as other do. By the way excellent comments on the "Not in the name of our Islam" thread.

R0bert

“Me tell you off...good grief perish the thought.”

Hey that “exterminator” thing – completely Freudian, only just noticed it myself. I felt told off. You know what, it’s all me – I know some of you have been in here for years on account of me going back and reading old stuff.

It makes me approach this site as a bit of a neophyte (practicing new words). Since I may never catch up I am weary of being “corrected”.

“Contrary to common misconceptions I "tell" no one off that would assume I feel I'm superior.....I don't”.

Not even when talking to Anti cause I really get a superior feeling around him.[smile]

“…why does that have to be in terms of a schoolyard bully with name calling, baiting etc.”

Just cause.

“Yes dear PP, I do over think issues...”

Me too and I notice I get pugnacious(new word) online if something is bothering me at home, might be unfair but it just happens. And I like people telling me to pull my head in because I often don’t notice I’m in a mood.

"all evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing." if this brands me as something lessor then so be it at least I won't die wondering "if only"

It succeeds anyway. Hence my bad moods. And to give Anti his due – I would only harass someone I thought could take it and fling it back.

TPP: “I lost track, I thought exterminator was telling me off but wasn’t sure so went back to the beginning which is probably what I should have done in the first place.”

Hey PP, you just lost track again and posted your Antigems rant on the wrong thread.

TPP: <<It makes me approach this site as a bit of a neophyte (practicing new words). Since I may never catch up I am weary of being “corrected”.>>

Unfortunate maybe, but that's just what we do to neophytes. Love us anyway.

Indeed, Seeker :)

R0bert, Piper's kindly posted some of the litany of offensive comments that Antiwomen has posted at others whom he attempts to bully at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2883#69067 .

As I've said, consistently vile and creepy comments over an extended period of time.

Yes, we have plenty of other idiots, but none post comments that are quite as personally thuggish and nasty as those that Antiwomen consistently inflicts on those of us who stand up to him.

Just returning to the thread topic for a moment, Kyle and Jackie were slammed and rightly so for interviewing a minor about sex, but what about 60 Minutes trying to screen a story about the suicide of students at a school, thereby risking copy cat suicides elsewhere in the community?

The producers of 60 Minutes say they have the agreement of some of the affected parents and that is enough green light for them. Of course the producers might not agree that they could be seen as taking advantage of very vulnerable parents following the death of their loved ones.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25908263-10229,00.html

Why isn't 60 Minutes also being slammed for its abuse of minors, living and dead and for putting still more at risk? Child abuse is child abuse and a victim is a victim, why does it have to be sexual abuse to raise the clamor of indignation and outrage?

Should the producers of 60 Minutes be counselled or what?

Houellebecq:"Is it so hard for people to argue objectively from base premises?"

Was the premise base? I think that Ms Wills's initial statement was certainly offensive to all those people who have suffered terrible consequences through crimes other than rape.

How would the parents of a young man rendered brain-dmaged or paraplegic by an assault feel to know that she thinks his suffering is not as great as a woman who got pissed and screwed some bloke she wished she hadn't?

However, I don't think that questioning that statement requires any base premise, merely a willingness to look for corollaries. The corollary to her statement was that there is a hierarchy of crimes and "her" victims are the most important (except for the ones who are dead and hence beyond the reach of the victim-riders), so "they" need more [money, support, money, political influence, money, victim-riders]; please send cheques to Ms Wills...

Houellebecq:"Maybe we should just never talk about rape, assume every claim true on any sensitive topic and go home in our happy blind state, no richer for examining any further."

That appears to be the preferred position of the ignoranti, certainly.

For a psycho/sociopath you seem to have captured the zeitgeist here quite well...

Examinator:"It takes no real smarts to play confrontational bombastic games.
Being "Agent provocative" gains nothing least of all understanding."

And "asking questions is bullying" - yes, we've heard that one. Let me ask you, how many "real smarts" does it take to avoid answering simple questions in favour of attacking the person who asked them? Take your time...

BTW, to all, why does every discussion here devolve into the meta-whinge about antiseptic?

Cornflour
Should the producers of 60 Minutes be counselled or what?

I think this is a different issue, more along the lines of 'public awarness' rather than just another 'radio stunt'.

If the 60 minutes program can just make one child speak out to their parents about their problems, then bring it on.

The stunt from the radio show was just that. No intention what so ever to make that childs world a better place.

Seeker: "Unfortunate maybe, but that's just what we do to neophytes. Love us anyway."

Well of course and you all continue to teach me loads of stuff with the odd "correction" as a natural part of learning.

Today I need to figure out an approach to a situation tomorrow. I need to convince authorities that although they are all keen on the experimental nature of a placement it exposes a particular small human to continual and unnaceptable levels of risk.

I wish I could be clearer. Maybe this mum on the radio had better intentions than we give her credit for?

My personal feeling is I will be ignored and be put in my place and then feel powerless and unheard which will fester for a few hours then I'll get angry. I try not to, I try really hard but the authorities do not have to witness or share any associated emotions that go with seeing a child harmed.

Being put in my place and ignored comes with a lot of touchy feely talk that they save for dumb people.
"yes we have taken that onboard"
"we understand what you are saying and it will be adressed"
"what you do is so appreciated and we value your imput"

What do I say to that?

ACA have been advertising that they will have the family involved in this on the show tonight. They went to pains to pint out that the family approached them, that the show did not seek out the family.

Hopefully they will do the segment pre-recorded so that there is some control over what goes to air.

Will this be a stage managed appearance where the family comes up smelling of roses and Kyle is the only villan?

R0bert

TPP: “My personal feeling is I will be ignored and be put in my place and then feel powerless and unheard which will fester for a few hours then I'll get angry. I try not to, I try really hard but the authorities do not have to witness or share any associated emotions that go with seeing a child harmed.

Being put in my place and ignored comes with a lot of touchy feely talk that they save for dumb people.
"yes we have taken that onboard"
"we understand what you are saying and it will be adressed"
"what you do is so appreciated and we value your imput"

What do I say to that?”

TPP, all you can do is present your case and hope for sanity to prevail (someone’s version of it anyway). What you describe is what fathers often feel. Not the few that run off, but the many that are ignored as parents.

Thank them for considering your submission and don’t get emotional or aggressive as some of the fathers tend to do. Just like any father, you too, are not that child’s mother. Don’t lose track of that one (:-)

R0bert: “Will this be a stage managed appearance where the family comes up smelling of roses and Kyle is the only villan?”

I wonder.

R0bert states:

<< Will this be a stage managed appearance where the family comes up smelling of roses and Kyle is the only villan (sic)? >>

I don't think that "the family comes up smelling of roses" at all, the motivation of the girl's parents needs to be and has been questioned by other - although I notice the focus is primarily on the mother.

Both Sandilands and Jacki O were suspended. Unlike the girl's family they have a public voice and therefore have been taken off the air. Surely, R0bert do don't believe these shock jocks should be allowed to continue to create such trash journalism. May this be the end of this type of journalism.

Perhaps Sandilands received greater attention because of this:

"After initially sounding uncomfortable with the questioning, the girl started crying and said she had been raped when she was 12.

Then Kyle Sandilands replied: "Right ... is that the only experience you've had?"

The girl's mother then said she had known about the rape. Jackie O then cut off the segment, saying the station had not known about the rape, and offered free counselling to the family."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/29/2640057.htm

And in complete contradiction this:

"Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O have been nominated for three national radio awards, including their controversial segment Heartless Hotline.

The 2DayFM duo - whose show is on hold following the recent rape revelation scandal - have been named among finalists for the annual Australian Commercial Radio Awards.

Sandilands and Jackie O are up for best on-air team, best networked program for The Kyle And Jackie O Hour Of Power, while the segment Heartless Hotline has been nominated for best station promotion."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/10/2651394.htm?site=local

I notice that both Sandilands and Jackie given equal attention - both pro and con.

rehctub, "If the 60 minutes program can just make one child speak out to their parents about their problems, then bring it on.

The stunt from the radio show was just that. No intention what so ever to make that childs world a better place."

I disagree for three reasons: firstly the end doesn't justify the means, or else privacy and rights are always up for grabs, it is depends on the rationalisation; and secondly, since when were the commercial current affairs shows concerned about making the world a better place? They are about entertainment and ratings; and finally, the likelihood isn't that one child might be saved, in fact the likelihood is that copy cat suicides will occur (refer Beyond Blue's concerns).

By your reasoning, Kyle and Jackie O could argue that their show publicised rape in minors and through increasing public awareness, it was justified. After all, it had already resulted in one child's alleged rape being taken seriously.

It is fallacious to argue that an action is justified because there is a possibility that one person might be saved. Obviously hundreds of young lives could be saved every year by banning backyard swimming pools, or better still, by banning motor vehicles.

Life is about assessing the dangers and managing risk, which is what Jeff Kennett, Chairman of Beyond Blue is trying to convey to the producers of 60 Minutes, who have ratings on their minds.

Foxy,

I'm but a product of the environment. I merely reflect the standard of debate. See, if I saw anything other than a bunch of pretentious tossers trying to sound smart, and predictable 'education is the key', 'think of the children' type narratives, I would find some interest other than messing with posters.

For all his faults, antiseptic at least finds angles on things that haven't been discussed.

'If you can't command attention by your admirable qualities..'
But I don't have any 'admirable' qualities Foxy. Anyway what I most admire is entertainers. The scintilating prose and wit of one Col Rouge is so much more entertaining than the psycho-babble of examinator.

Antiseptic,

Doofus, I was defending you going back to 'base premises' as meaning defining the terms. People always skim over what they are supposed to accept as the base of the argument, but you at least examine the base, often finding it lacking. I like the way you rolled back the assumptions that the girl was raped.

'why does every discussion here devolve into the meta-whinge about antiseptic?'
You love it! Come on man.

Fraccy,

'You gauche, ignorant creep.'
Such personal abuse. I thought you were one of the nice posters. Hey Foxy/examinator, I think the police are needed to bring her in to line.

'such as R0bert, CJ and other long time contributors '
ie: save me fellas, I'm a damzel in distress. Bring this brute into line.

'this post is only about a very small subset of men'
Just changing 'All men' for some men would do, or even just not calling people 'liars' if they say they personally don't fit into the skewed image you have of 'all men'.

'He uses every opportunity to trivialise any woman's POV.'
Oh no. We were making progress. Hey, try this... Think really hard and try to forget the gender of the posters. Is it possible, now I'm going out on a limb here, that sometimes a poster doesn't agree with your point of view, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender? Try hard now.

I think I said at the outset that IMHO the "blame" for this appalling show was wide and included the parents, producers et al. The people who give this sort of show its ratings and the rest of us for not complaining sooner. Surely we can see the difference between freedom of speech/ pursuit of happiness and retrogressive sewer diving.

I could see some value if they were actually reality rather than some misbegotten self fulfilling sewer of dreams...."build them and they will come". Each show becomes more offensive than the last.

Do we really need to see someone who has done their best being humiliated, belittled by some overly nasty self opinionated escapee from the darkest reaches of our id?

As I said the "media watch" replaying of the girl whose parent's family had been separated when they escaped from the killing fields being tormented for public 'entertainment'?

My words might be flowery but one doesn't need to be a rabid Secular Humanist to realize that luxuriating in such human effluence is hardly something we should aspire to.

Like the Monty Python song says. "We'd better hope there's intelligence out there because there's bugger all down here." (at times)

"It is fallacious to argue that an action is justified because there is a possibility that one person might be saved."

Cornflower,

Garbage - it's not fallacious if protecting the human aspects in life is your primary aim. If it's only to make a profit and pretend you're better than the next guy by being better or "superior" to them, then you'd be all for the idea.

Your idea is completely selfish and desultory towards the honest and principled people in society. You've obviously been reading too much of Col Rouge who has a similar detached disinterest on such matters.

I don't agree with the wowerism or political correctness that would see Kyle and Jackie off the air because they are offensive to some people. Vulgarity might offend but censorship is inappropriate. Who wants to return to the Fifties where the sharp-eyed morality officers of the churches told us what we could see and do? For minors there needs to be a line drawn in the sand because self regulation is not working very well.

That should be 'wowserism' and 'morals'.

Seeker:”TPP, all you can do is present your case and hope for sanity to prevail (someone’s version of it anyway). What you describe is what fathers often feel. Not the few that run off, but the many that are ignored as parents.”

I bet a lot of dads feel the same way. I am going in to this meeting quite sure the overall agenda is to indeed pacify me. Liability would fall ultimately at the authorities’ feet and not mine.

So I have a choice to be part of ignoring the harm or throwing my hands in the air and telling them to remove the situation from my household. I am trapped; I would feel guilty and not stop worrying if I chose removal.

“Thank them for considering your submission and don’t get emotional or aggressive as some of the fathers tend to do. Just like any father, you too, are not that child’s mother. Don’t lose track of that one (:-)”

Ah mothers; a label which should not be an assumed job description.

I am always pleasant and polite; I personally react to not having any power with becoming completely despondent. Afterwards I get angry then after awhile just return to acknowledging how powerless I am and how useless it all is. I constantly remind myself it is only in This Moment I can do any good.

examinator,

'assume I feel I'm superior.....I don't.'
"all evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing."
Haha, you're not superior, you're just the good man stopping all the evil posters!

CJ Morgan,
You're obsessed with anti. I really don't know what you'd do if he wasn't around.

TPP,

'Since I may never catch up I am weary of being “corrected”. '
Oh don't worry. You'll be corrected. Look out for FoxyMopHandleMama!

'What do I say to that?'
Throw it back at them. Patronise them. Just use lots of phrases like Gong Forward and 'Key Stakeholders'. Just fit them in anywhere, they wont notice. They do the same.

Then at the end Say, 'I'm taking the child, and his siblings. You can either profit by this, or be destroyed. It's your choice but I warn you not to underestimate my powers.'

cornflower,

wowerism is better. I agree with you. Lets face it, the examinators of this world are not the target audience of Vile and Jacky Ho, and neither am I. But the difference is I accept that my taste is not the be all and end all and that others (those that voted the show an award) might disagree.

I wait for the day when all the target audience for The Footy Show and Vile and Jacky Ho find some journalists that will promote their hatred of 2BL and Insiders. But the 'journalists' and pompous moral crusaders like those shows. It doesn't matter though because the punters know that their marketing dollar is infinitely more powerful than the kill joys of the world listening to bible talk. Safety in numbers and marketing dollar.

Lets face it the main motivation for the witch hunt is that the chattering classes enjoy dumping on the pikeys, as in examinators 'luxuriating in such human effluence '

I suspect he would give a similar label to all he sees as 'below' him.

It looks like ACMA is going to look into regulating similar matters in future according to http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/11/2652462.htm?section=justin.

Cornflower, sure wowsersism went too far in the past. But as people get deluged with more and more public antics that they feel invades their personal space, I bet they'll want the pendulum to swing back in the wowser direction. Best thing is that the media learns to self-regulate if they don't want regulation rammed down their throat. Even better, how about shredding the source of the problem - the producers and announcers that are promoting this stuff? Maybe a surgical annihilation - or the threat of such - of the serial transgressors is in order here.

The public revulsion over this issue will soon wear off.

Particularly as the audience targetted by the station couldn't give the proverbial rat's about political incorrectness. It's a turn-on, not a turn-off.

I well remember a visit a number of years ago to an ad agency, where I offered an adverse opinion on one of their more objectionable TV commercials.

The exec looked at me quizzically for a moment, then said "But it's not aimed at you".

Kyle and Jackie O broadcast to a demographic that is considerably less concerned about the ethics, decency or morality of its content than this thread has exhibited. In much the same way as "rusted-on" listeners to Alan Jones or John Laws couldn't give a stuff about what they were spruiking in the white heat of the cash-for-comment debacle.

Is the broadcasting of exploitative, trashy "contests" any worse, behaviourally, than the lies and pretence of promoting product under the guise of editorial?

Both corrupt the listener, and the broadcaster. Equally, both are willing participants. Co-conspirators against a perceived level of "decency".

Kyle and Jackie O will be back. Their ratings won't have suffered from the layoff. The content won't improve, because that is the formula that attracts the demographic they are aiming at. And the advertisers will be back too, because they are getting the audience they are willing to pay for.

In a few weeks, this will be old news. We live in a world with the attention span of a gnat, one that will latch onto the next "scandal", and make the same huffing and puffing noises about how tawdry it all is.

After all, it's not as if we haven't been here before...

"We should expect the best and the worst from mankind, as from the weather." Vauvenargues

"It will be very generally found that those who will sneer habitually at human nature, and affect to despise it, are among its worst and least pleasant samples." Charles Dickens

"Don't overestimate the decency of the human race." H. L. Mencken

Pericles

Everyone was having sooooo much fun take swipes at each other... and then along you come to state the naked truth.

What will happen to Houllie? Where will A-septic go? What will become of R0bert's attempts to appear fair? Who will Examinator examine?

Alas we are lost in a wilderness of our own making.

PS

Love your work.

:-)

MaryE “Probably ALL the adults involved in the sorry saga are to blame, and I ask where's the father in all of this, or is he deceased? I get the impression from reading many of the comments here that some people here are just using this incident to push their own personal social barrows here.”

And Anansi “Exactly MaryE, were's dad in this sorry saga? Children, since allegedly that one episode some 2000+ years ago, have two parents: a mother and a father. If mother is a skank, as some of you who immediately *knew* where the blame should lie, what is father?”

Maybe the father was out earning an income to support his wife and child(ren).

Maybe the “father” does not know he is a “father” and the skank mother is one of those heroic “single mothers” who likes to spend the bounty of the single parents pension and having screwed up her life, is working on screwing up her daughter’s life too.

Ultimately, I know the “father” WAS NOT in the studio with his daughter, only the mother was there and only the mother was in a position, therefore to intercede or act upon her daughters behalf.

So I suspect it is you who are pushing your own “barrows” MaryE and Anansi.

Pericles “"Don't overestimate the decency of the human race." H. L. Mencken”

Yes, I do not think many people are actually fit to vote but then I prefer to shoulder my own burdens rather than abrogate them to government and others (who are mysteriously appointed to lead and absolve us of individual responsibility by the “human race”)

"(who are mysteriously appointed to lead and absolve us of individual responsibility by the “human race”)"

Couldn't help your self could you, Col.

H,
I find it hard to be superior when I have to look into the mirror each day and see another imperfect person staring back.
But that doesn't stop me from trying to be better than I was yesterday.
Or working towards bring out the good in all of us...starting with understanding.

The problem with the world as I see it we are all too keen to display to look down and see the dirt and enduring the detritus of where we've been in it instead of looking up to see the wonder of the night sky and where we can go.

What's wrong with reminding others to look up and concentrate on the Destination not where we've been. Why go to a new world taking our trash with us...we simply make the journey more difficult. and who needs the extra work?

Fractelle,
So long as there is a brain in this decaying body and the knowledge I'll have lots to reflect on. But as Examinator Ant there will always be issues bigger than me or the rest of us ants. :-O

We aren't necessarily as others perceive us to be but we are defined by where we aim to be. One thing for sure we'll never exceed it.

Examinator

I agree, once we close our minds to both learning and wonder we are lost. I hope you did not take offence to my post - it wasn't meant to be an insult.

A question.

Collectively is the human race greater than the sum of its parts, or are we only as good as the lowest common denominator?

Well my ponderings about the ACA interview were way off the mark.
Two aunties and a cousin interviewed. I'd seen the girl and her mum on TV previously (one of the few times I'd watched a missings persons shows).

Nothing I saw altered the fundamental problem with putting a child on a lie detector and then going live to air without a delay nor with a professional mouth getting it as wrong as Kyle did. Perhaps the offence can be downgraded from reckless driving causing injury to reckless driving.

The aunties claim that the rape claim was a lie, that the sex was consentual (as much as a 12 year old can consent to sex with a 14 year old). There was some discussion as to why the rape claim was not followed up when and if the mother was initially told but nobody seemed to be able to answer that.

The goal may have been much more about getting access to a lie detector to try and cut through the lies than about Pink tickets.

I got the impression of a family struggling with a child who is not doing well. Possibly getting things wrong but trying to deal with a difficult situation.

R0bert

“Oh don't worry. You'll be corrected. Look out for FoxyMopHandleMama!”

When a small child says to me “I’m not your friend anymore” I get that if they could and if they knew the words the emotion would probably equate to a backhander along with a string of abuse. But they don’t and so my usual thought is “oh how cute”.

“Throw it back at them. Patronise them. Just use lots of phrases like Gong Forward and 'Key Stakeholders'. Just fit them in anywhere, they wont notice. They do the same.”

Mostly they throw “this is important casework” at me. No idea what they’re on about half the time and I suspect neither do they but it matters not to the ones who are not around to witness what their casework brings.

“Then at the end Say, 'I'm taking the child, and his siblings. You can either profit by this, or be destroyed. It's your choice but I warn you not to underestimate my powers.'”

They are hardly likely to overestimate my power since they decide when and how much I have at all times. This is backed up by the hostages they have in my home.

Examin’:”We aren't necessarily as others perceive us to be but we are defined by where we aim to be.”

Bollocks. Sorry ‘ator came straight from the amygdale without explanation.

Fractelle:”Collectively is the human race greater than the sum of its parts, or are we only as good as the lowest common denominator?”

Depends how the collective greats treat the collective lows I’m guessing.

R0bert:"...“(as much as a 12 year old can consent to sex with a 14 year old)”

Hahahahaha…

OK, back to what you were all doing. Nothing happened. Well, sex yes, but no rape, not even statutory rape. The police should know. Seems this girl and her mother have more serious problems (and presumably more serious crimes to contend with).

Seems Antiseptic was right all along. Sorry to have doubted you, Anti.

Seeker the choices made by the radio station and it's staff are not changed by this. It's still a really poor choice to put something like that live to air.

All
I heard a part of a segment recently on a radio show which seemed to be about telling a loved one something important on air (and in this case over the phone). My recollection of how it went may have minor detail wrong but I think that the guist of it is as it occurred.
A woman is rung by the man she is dating, she finds out that they are on the radio and he has something to tell her. What he tells her is that he cheated some time back. How does she feel to have that broadcast across the country? To have her reaction broadcast as well, she could have hung up but how many of us would think it through on the spot if put in that position. The guy involved has some serious issues to ever think that was a good idea. A radio station has also chosen to provide a vehicle for that to occur with apparently no regard for the position they placed that woman in. I'm not sure but I think that the DJ's comment was something like "That didn't go well".

At what point do we draw the line about involvement of those who have not actively consented to be involved in entertainers grabs for ratings or content? Is putting a child on a lie detector on air Ok? Are gotcha calls Ok? What about the rights of the members of the Melbourne Club when The Chaser tried to get a model of the Govenor General in?

Some really funny comedy seems to involve the reactions of unwitting participants or mocking groups who seem silly. Some involves abusive treatment of others (I like Hamish and Andy but much of their material seems to be based on denegrating each other). Can we draw meaningful lines around on air stunts and if so who makes the call about what's Ok?

R0bert

Hello Seeker, was your comment the result of you watching the ACA interview with the aunties and cousin? If that's so, then you should know that they were offering an opinion. They actually don't know whether the girl was raped. They weren't there. They witnessed nothing. They don't know whether or not she had consenting sex either, they just offered opinions. Nobody here knows whether the girl was raped, not antiseptic, not you, not me, not anyone else here. We're all offering mere opinions based on what we've read and watched.

You wrote "nothing happened", you don't know that. You wrote "well, sex yes", you don't know that. You wrote "but no rape", you don't know that. You wrote "the police should know", not necessarily. Peoples' comments (all peoples' comments) on this site about whether or not she may have been raped, reflects their philosophical position only. In other words our stance on the topic reflects our philosophy towards whether we think young girls in general, are or are not usually truthful when claiming they were raped. In the case of this girl, not one person here knows for sure. It's all "opinion". But often opinion pretending to be fact, just like your post Seeker. Thank you.

Hello Col Rouge, you don't know whether the girl's father is a good or bad father. Neither do I. You presumption that I was inferring he was a bad father is wrong. Just as your list of assumptions that he was a good father was wrong; you don't know that. Neither do I. That's why I was asking. It was a question about where is the father in all this, because nobody anywhere has mentioned him. A perfectly legitimate question. Your answer was just you barrow pushing, presenting the father as noble and presenting the mother as possibly a "skank" who "likes to spend the bounty of the single parents pension". Yes, your answer to my post was a total barrow push by you. Neither you nor I know anything about the character of the father. Thank you.

the radio station is in clear breach of it's licence
for distributing child pornography, to wit
the public interrogation of a minor for profit about sex.

there is no way the City of Sydney
would allow an entrepeneur to sell tickets
to a show at the SCG where the main act is a minor interrogated about sex.

what occurred is child pornography.

Pericles, self-regulation doesn't work with the demographic?
does with equal rights.

The Pied Piper children in your care will never forget you.

MaryE eloquent.

Well, well, well.

Seeker, I didn't actually say I thought the girl was lying in the first place, I was just interested in the response of others to her claim, which I still feel was the only reason there was a public uproar over this.

I wonder whether we'll get Ms Wills from the NSW Rape Crisis Centre apologising for wasting everyone's time and promising to re-think her organisation's response to rape allegations in the absence of evidence? Perhaps they can run some courses for Ms Tankard-Reist in how to pick genuine victims to ride...

R0bert, the sort of intrusive stuff you're talking about is going on daily in all sorts of media. Some people seem to like it and it is quintessentially trivial and ephemeral. Let's face it, how much time does the average listener spend thinking about these stunts after they're over? A case like the one you've described is somewhat impactful on the two stooges, perhaps, but I suspect their relationship was in trouble well before the stunt you mentioned.

My approach is to listen principally to good old Auntie with the occasional switch to a music station whlie driving and leave the other stuff to those who like it.

MaryE, the girl apparently told both her aunts that there was no rape. IOW, it's the closest thing to a fact there is in this whole mess. You were willing to take her unsubstantiated word she was raped, why won't you accept her claim that she wasn't?

If she wasn't, what should be done to compensate Kyle and Jackie O for the trouble she caused? Kyle lost his well-paying job on TV over it, after all? Does he have a cause of action against those who accused him of abusing a rape victim and agitated for his removal?

Whistler:”The Pied Piper children in your care will never forget you.”

It is best they forget quickly. Most are too little to understand the answer when asking me if I can keep them.

Mary:”Nobody here knows whether the girl was raped, not antiseptic, not you, not me, not anyone else here. We're all offering mere opinions based on what we've read and watched.”

Guilty. In my mind I have an image of a young girl with this drama surrounding her social life trying to make it more interesting under far too much pressure in the moment. I have no idea whether to blame anyone without knowing the intent.

Wether the the rape happened or not is irrelevant.
I reason the issue is "was the program a bridge too far?" and to me it clearly was. Therefore The propagators of the show deserve NO compensation and should bear the consequences of their actions.

I chose these words carefully in that I stress that in everything for every benefit there is a responsibility.
Without this balance weasel words (the legalistic) approach with erode any intellectual justification for anything thus reducing us by reverse paradigms back from whence we come, that of self gratifying animals.

In other words as Fractelle rightfully asked “are we as humans greater than the sum of the whole?” I would certainly hope we are.

The other alternative is we aren't and therefore Yabby is correct we are totally the product of our genes/hormones....chemical mechanistic animals.

Likewise Antiseptic/ H / Col and ilk are justified in their basic assumption that standards are merely affectations. Then base instinctual behaviour (dog eat dog, caveat emptor etc.) are apposite (thanks CJ for the word). Clearly then 40k years of 'human development' is delusional and has been for nought.

On a personal note, I am often criticised for using big words (pompous) to me the language has evolved and often big words say it better. In context I don't subscribe to the concept of reverse snobbery of the news (sic) media that dumbs down. I would raise the topic from blind opinion to something that has a real purpose.

History shows that literal/simplistic languages (e.g. PNG) create both limitations and unnecessary misunderstandings when confronted with complex concepts.
Of course there is a balance.
Occam's razor is most often misused. In that it says two EQUAL explanations the simpler is usually true. Keep in mind that the problem maybe my skill level not attitude.
Like I've said before just because we defecate doesn't mean we should roll in it like some animals..
In conclusion shows like the one under discussion are IMO the equivalent of rolling in our own excrement for entertainment. I'll pass.

MaryE,

Pull the other one! Nice attempted save though.

BTW: I agree with your first two paragraphs. I tried many times in one of the Rugby League sex scandal threads to say the same but nobody would listen. The feminists cry rape, the anti-feminists cry false accusation. Nobody really knows. I would say that the police know a little more than your average ACA watcher though.

which brings me to robert,

Don't you know that by watching ACA you are part of the problem. Whatever your 'reasons', I don't want to hear any examinator-style put downs of the ACA type shows and appeals to the lowest common denominator by radio stations from you forever more.

TPP,

If you use Jedi mind tricks my suggestion will work. Unless they are Jabba the Hut.

whistler,

Hey do you think mens and womens legislatures would fix the problem? Actually, I've got a problem with my computer at the moment, do you think mens and womens legislatures can fix it for me?

anti,

'which I still feel was the only reason there was a public uproar over this. '
Exactly! Nobody would have said anything about the show if that didn't happen. It was already up for an award it seems. Same as the Henson pictures, nobody would have said anything if they used a different picture to promote the exhibition.

All,

Child pornography is a bit of a stretch. If there was a documentary about the sex lives of children on SBS people would say it's quality journalism. So it's not the topic, it's the presentation. So the presentation makes it offensive, just like the lighting decides what's porn and what's art. You cant make laws for that kind of thing. Even good art and good documentaries aim to make a profit.

In the end it's all about taste, and the intellegensia and moral crusaders. Actually the moral crusaders are at least consistent (objecting to Hansen and Kyle). Where's runner...

Kyle had a target on his head anyway, for being a tosser who's to big for his boots.

examinator,

Perhaps it's your skill level in using your big words that's the problem. They really look like they're picked out of a thesaurus after the event, and substituted for other words. I mean I find KRudd boring but most times I can understand him if I stay awake. But you on the other hand...

Maybe you just need to discover commas and stuff.

You do come off as really pompous. All this use of 'we' when you're banging on about your own perspective. How arrogant. And the way you put down the pikeys all the time while using different words for poo.

pericles,

See you made some of the same points I did, and got all that praise. Bloody plagiariser. Maybe it's in the delivery...

robert,

'Some really funny comedy seems to involve the reactions of unwitting participants or mocking groups who seem silly.'

Yes it does!

I still remember this time they called a guys wife up on radio, and asked if they'd had sex in the morning. It was an 'ask the couple the same questions and see if they give the same answers' type thing.

The woman was hesitant to say whether they had sex, wondering if the husband had revealed this to the national audience. She figured he would have, so she answered correctly that they had. Closer to that holiday now...

Then they asked where she had sex. She was really, really hesitant about this answer, and the Jocks and the husband were a bit miffed as to why she was so worried about revealing this, given that she had already answered the previous question. She seemed stressed about whether to answer, but she really wanted that holiday.

After much agonising, finally, she answered.... 'in the back door'!

Comedy gold, and hilarity all-round. The husband answered something like 'in the lounge room'.

I'm not sure whether they won the holiday, but should have just for the comedy value.

MaryE “Just as your list of assumptions that he was a good father was wrong”

I find it a stretch to infer from my comments that I made any assumptions to the fathers worthiness… but you just jump to whatever conclusions you want, you seem to be proficient at that.

“It was a question about where is the father in all this”

All I know is the mother was there with the daughter, the father was not there with the daughter. From that we can conclude,

the father was not available to influence the course of the interview and

the mother was available to influence the course of the interview

therefore

the father was not available to protect his child, presumably having left the safety of the child in the hands of the mother

The failure to protect the child was entirely a failing of the (skank) mother, the opportunity for a few tickets to see "Pink" seemingly overriding all other considerations.

Think what you want, you cannot evade the facts , regardless of your claims to me “barrow pushing”, of which you do not have a clue… but from the rest of your post, I would surmise, having any clue would make no difference to your posturing.

Houellebecq I like your attempts to bring levity to the thread… so many serious people dealing with what.. a bunch of ego junkies polluting the radio airways.. jeez too serious for words…

btw the lady and her last cavort …. an oldie but a goodie

Could be, Houellebecq

>>pericles, See you made some of the same points I did, and got all that praise. Bloody plagiariser. Maybe it's in the delivery...<<

Maybe it is.

Worth considering, anyway.

*The other alternative is we aren't and therefore Yabby is correct we are totally the product of our genes/hormones....chemical mechanistic animals.*

Ok Examinator, let me explain to you where I am really coming from
on this one.

Yes, we are a product of our genes interacting with our environment.
My claim is that our so called "free will" is far less free then
many kid themselves, for subconscious processes interfere at every
level.

So let me give you an example. How free is Osama bin Laden to become a good Catholic tomorrow?

At first glance you would conclude that he is completely free to
do so, but is he really?

Osama is clearly a religious fellow, has been so all his life, even
as a kid. From day one of his life, all he has heard about is the
greatness of Allah. His family taught him that every day, his school
taught him the same, then newspapers he read taught him the same,
the books he read taught him the same.

If his will was completely free, clearly the chances of becoming
a good Catholic would be 50%. But we know that there is a 95%
chance that he will remain a devout Muslim for the rest of his life.

Osama's so called free will is clearly coloured by his genes having
interacted with his environment, with a 95% accuracy of probability
being able to be predicted, about his future behaviour. In other
words, that is not free at all, but quite limited

Yabby,

"How free is Osama bin Laden to become a good Catholic tomorrow?"

Actually the probability is probably more like zero than 5% because, surprise surprise, he has already chosen to be a Muslim.

"Osama's so called free will is clearly coloured by his genes having interacted with his environment,"

Free will is a fundamental desire or choice. Desires do not interact with physical environments. But, how desire is expressed or played out in the physical world is affected by the environment (eg, even though you might want to be rich, your circumstances do not allow it because of social status, ability, personal baggage, competition etc), but the environment does not work backwards and change fundamental human desire.

I think you need to accept that bin Laden is a Muslim because his true desire was already to be one. If he were to change that fundamental desire and become Christian, you're right, he'd certainly have a tough time converting his physical life after all he's done.

With regards to the ACA program.

Rape or no rape, what mother would allow her 12 year old daughter to be out at night, with a 14 year old unsupervised.

Seriously, something has to be done to make parents responsible for their actions, or lack of.

Remember the 12-year-old kid gunned down by police. Why was he at the skate park at that time of night?

Irresponsible patents need to be charged with neglect, and then they may think twice about allowing their kids to run riot, or even better, decide against having kids in the first place.

At least then 'our world' would be a much safer and better place as many of these wayward kids turn out to be the 'scum bags' of society, meaning our kids are afraid to even go to the local mall at night.

Perhaps we need an old fashioned curfew.

Me (on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 6:17:34 AM : "what should be done to compensate Kyle and Jackie O for the trouble she caused? Kyle lost his well-paying job on TV over it, after all? Does he have a cause of action against those who accused him of abusing a rape victim and agitated for his removal?

In the Courier-Mail today http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25918779-952,00.html

"Teen girl 'lied', Kyle is the victim"

"THE family of the girl at the centre of the 2Day FM radio rape scandal has accused the teenager of lying about the sexual assault and defended Kyle Sandilands as the real victim in the on-air ordeal."

Anyone?

Hahaha.

The joy of life. What fun there is in finding a victim and a villain in every situation. Keeps the world going round!

Even better, self righteously pouring out your indignation of what 'society' has become, and your simplistic solutions for the failings of 'those' people.

Jerry Springer was ahead of his time!

*I think you need to accept that bin Laden is a Muslim because his true desire was already to be one*

Exactly, and if he'd been brought up as a good Catholic boy, given
that he's religious, chances are 95% that he'd be a good Catholic.

Genes interacting with environment. So that so called "choice"
is clearly not as free as we claim. That is my point.

Yabby,

Are you now saying that free will is snuffed out by conditioning (the individuals environment)? On the surface there is some element of truth in that BUT in reality not all possibility are ever fully explored scientifically. Therefore the conclusion you have drawn in the past(or my understanding of it) is highly subjective in the individual. Given our current understanding little more than useless for anything other than highly qualified prediction.

Last night I watched a BBC program on learning abilities for of children while I winced at some of my parenting errors it was made abundantly clear that the interplay between the various components were exceedingly individualistic. i.e. that every individual has different componentary inter-reactions and may give different results except in the generality of statistical analysis. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion other than vague or highly qualified prediction for all intents and specific purposes it's interesting but hardly 95% predictive.

In you example of uncle Osama (I reiterate that not all his possible influences is measurable predictable etc.) all that can be said with 95% predictability that in the absence of any major event he will indeed remain an extremist Muslim may Allah give him his 72 white raisins and soon. But still the scientific assurance is problematic in the extreme.

From my personal (quasi scientific stance) while all perceivable influences need to be assessed I find it unproven that individuals can't change their spots given the right inducement etc.
Is prison that right inducement? I have my doubts but in the absence of viable alternatives I favour increasing options before it gets to the consequential phase.

From a moral stance I have to believe that in order to be responsible for our actions we must have some control over our actions.
Failing that what's left? Not a lot unless you can add something.

In context of the topic KS and crew had a choice but actively chose to be predatory...may they get their raisins...soon.

"Genes interacting with environment."

Yabby,

I'd go a little further than this and say that everything that a person experiences moulds them as a person. The biggest influences are how your parents raised you and their values, the "vibe" in the region/country you grew up in, your genetic makeup, your personal predilections and more to boot.

If you're using "Genes interacting with environment" as a catch-all phrase for all of the above interactions, I agree with you.

Anti:"THE family of the girl at the centre of the 2Day FM radio rape scandal has accused the teenager of lying about the sexual assault and defended Kyle Sandilands as the real victim in the on-air ordeal."

"Anyone?"

What a crap family.

TPP: <<"Anyone?"

What a crap family.>>

I don’t think that’s what Anti had in mind, but now that you mention it, yes, quite so.
How did you go with your big meeting today?

Seeker:”I don’t think that’s what Anti had in mind, but now that you mention it, yes, quite so.
How did you go with your big meeting today?”

Thank you for asking Seeker, turned out to be a lovely lady who was some kind of counselor.

It would have been a walk in the park if a manager hadn’t called before her arrival highly annoyed and saying things like “placement wont work coming out to see you Friday with another manager”.

Fair wet myself. Now I’m backtracking through e-mails trying to work out which bit annoyed them the most and if the counselor was some kind of set up.

I am hopeless at this, I like looking after kids and don't cope well with Managers and the way they talk. Half the time I don't even understand what they have said to me until someone else translates.

I did notice that it has been awhile since they offerred me a support person.

Jewels I agree - bloody dreadful family.

The point of the outrage wasn't the rape claim; but that a 14 yr old
was protesting being hooked up to the lie detector and then
asked about sexual activity.

It's astonishing that these family members have blabbed that
the girl was drunk and unsupervised at age 12. She was not only
underaged (a literal child) but drunk and therefore incapable of
consent anyway.

I'd be interested to know who the 14 yr old is and whether the
family is bagging him out in the same way,

Very sad business; I hope that child finds the loving care that
has been denied her so far.

YPP:"What a crap family."

Well, yes, but what does that have to do with the discussion? What do you think about the impact of the false claim of rape? All good as far as you're concerned - all's fair when you're on air and that sort of thing, or does the one person who's suffered a genuine material loss out of this, Kyle Sandilands, deserve some compensation? After all, he was just doing his job until the mother dragged the girl along and she started telling lies. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the job, it's not illegal...

Pynchme:"The point of the outrage wasn't the rape claim; but that a 14 yr old
was protesting being hooked up to the lie detector and then
asked about sexual activity."

As I understand it, the 14 year old was simply repeating the same claim she'd made earlier but had then contradicted to the aunties. I suspect that the mother dragged her along to the show to try to get her claim "disproved" by the "lie detector". No, it's not a very bright way of dealing with it, but she obviously wasn't much chop at dealing with her daughter anyway given the girl's history as trotted out by the family.

If she was doing as you say, is making a false claim of rape a reasonable thing to do? How do you think the boy she falsely accused feels about it? what if she had proceeded with the claim and he had to go to court to prove he didn't do it? Tough luck for him?

What if she was a woman going through a marriage breakdown? Would you be defending her for making the false allegation?

When is it "reasonable" to falsely make an allegation of rape or assault?

The fact remains that no one, on any radio station, with or without delays in place, has the right to ask sexual questions of a minor. Full stop!

He, along with anyone involved from that station, including the producers, deserve everything they get.

One thing for sure, this should send a clear message to all these 'air jocks' that the time has come to stop all this crap they call entertainment.

People are simply sick of this crap they call radio, why else would the ABC hold the top morning spot on radio.

It's time for these heros to go back to the cat walk, or wherever they came from.

rehctub:"The fact remains that no one, on any radio station, with or without delays in place, has the right to ask sexual questions of a minor. Full stop!"

Why? I'm not being argumentative, but it is precisely that sort of absolutism that I find most facinating. What are your grounds for being so certain?

Please note, I don't listen to the show or others like it, but millions (literally) do. Are they all wrong?

Anti:”Well, yes, but what does that have to do with the discussion? What do you think about the impact of the false claim of rape? All good as far as you're concerned - all's fair when you're on air and that sort of thing, or does the one person who's suffered a genuine material loss out of this, Kyle Sandilands, deserve some compensation? After all, he was just doing his job until the mother dragged the girl along and she started telling lies. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the job, it's not illegal...”

In this instance I can’t imagine the 14 year old is too worried about any false claims. Anti I still haven’t read a thing about it after seeing the Linda Burney quote and I am still just reacting to comments here.

Which I think is helping.

False rape claims; devastating and with wide reaching and extremely hurtful consequences for many in a lot of cases.

If the accused had been over 18 I’m sure it would have all been an unholy mess.

But this is still a crap family saying she is lying? What did the lie detector say after all that?

Kyle is a fool if in his profession he couldn’t think better on his feet. The rest of them should have thought more about the entire program before even doing it.

Retchub say it well:” The fact remains that no one, on any radio station, with or without delays in place, has the right to ask sexual questions of a minor. Full stop!”

Anti: [Wonder if KS feels “raped” after this - or would that be too metaphorical here?]

TPP: [We’ll discount the false claims from a 14 year old precisely because she’s 14 – when she’s a woman, there’ll be other reasons – I’ll keep my head firmly in the sand and stay uninformed] “Which I think is helping.”

Seems to me the false claim was not against KS. Not that he would be deemed entitled to any compensation even if it was (which would be unfair). The discussion is about whether Kyle has some responsibility for broadcasting crap.

My concern would be with the girl, and the hundreds of thousands like her, entering adulthood in such states. Any men having anything to do with them would be asking for it too ... men more decent than Kyle possibly.

The irony is that we wouldn’t know about it if it wasn’t for the likes of Kyle. Any of you software engineers out there, designing any lie detecting iPhone apps yet?

Seeker:”TPP: [We’ll discount the false claims from a 14 year old precisely because she’s 14 – when she’s a woman, there’ll be other reasons – I’ll keep my head firmly in the sand and stay uninformed] “Which I think is helping.””

What I said:”In this instance I can’t imagine the 14 year old is too worried about any false claims. Anti I still haven’t read a thing about it after seeing the Linda Burney quote and I am still just reacting to comments here.”

And oops – did look bad. I was referring to the male 14 year old not being too worried.

But yeah if she stays with a family like that I despair for any of her future encounters and given the drama and attention around this incident she is likely to learn a big lesson about attention and maybe take it to new heights next time.

Gawd, or the opposite, or it was true. What a mess.

The Pied Piper “What a crap family”

Yes, epitomized by a skanky mother figure

Rehctub “The fact remains that no one, on any radio station, with or without delays in place, has the right to ask sexual questions of a minor. Full stop!”

Whilst I normally agree with a lot you say I disagree this time.

Making laws which define the only "acceptable topics of conversation" is the antithesis of free speech and the narrow end of the edge which leads toward censorship, like Victoria’s anti-vilification laws..

I would accept the following

I cannot control what is presented by any radio station

I do control whether I listen to that station.

My right to protest any broadcast is to turn it off

Otherwise, I am risking the presentation of the fair and reasonable being banned by nutters like Fred Nile and worse, the left wing swill who sit in the background, intent on stifling every opposing voice.

The Pied Piper “What a crap family”

Yes, epitomized by a skanky mother figure

Rehctub “The fact remains that no one, on any radio station, with or without delays in place, has the right to ask sexual questions of a minor. Full stop!”

Whilst I normally agree with a lot you say I disagree this time.

Making laws which define the only "acceptable topics of conversation" is the antithesis of free speech and the narrow end of the edge which leads toward censorship, like Victoria’s anti-vilification laws..

I would accept the following

I cannot control what is presented by any radio station

I do control whether I listen to that station.

My right to protest any broadcast is to turn it off

Otherwise, I am risking the presentation of the fair and reasonable being banned by nutters like Fred Nile and worse, the left wing swill who sit in the background, intent on stifling any and every opposing voice.

rehctub initially it was not the radio station which asked the question. They provided the vehicle for it to be done on air and were silly enough not to use what used to be a standard tool to give some protection over what went to air. Kyle repeated the question, I'd accept that he could have been caught off guard but for a professional mouth his response was not good enough.

I doubt that the station really considered what they were doing in putting a mother and seemingly protesting daughter on-air in that situation. Careless broadcasting but then not that far from what happens elsewhere to have raised a lot of alarm bells until it went wrong.

The impression I got was not so much a crap family but a family who are struggling with a difficult situation. Some mistakes combined with the stuff that life sometimes throws at people which if you have not walked in their shoes you don't know how you'd go.

The claim on the show was that the daughter had convinced her mum that she was having a sleepover at a friends when the sexual act occured. Perhaps in hindsight she might have checked more thoroughly however if there is existing resentment between mother and daughter making the checks to intrusive possibly just heightens the resentment (and the lengths the daughter might go to feel that she has rebelled).

Maybe the mother is trying her hardest to tread that difficult line between maintaining some kind of relationship with a daughter who not doing well vs clamping down and fostering even greater risk taking
and rebellion. Parenting can be a difficult road and sometimes well meant mistakes early on can come back with a vengance later.

R0bert

Yeah, well I often disagree with rehctub, but I think he's absolutely correct in this case.

Some men here seem to think that there's nothing wrong with interrogating a child on a radio station about her sexual experiences for the vicarious entertainment of others. As a father, I'm appalled at such attitudes. I also think that parents who are willing to have their children abused in this way should only have contact with them under supervision.

Children need to be protected from harm, not exploited by adults. There are very good reasons why having sex with kids is illegal, and sex with a 12-year old is statutory rape.

That there are apparently adults - like the radio personalities, this child's mother, and indeed some odious commenters in this forum - who think that there's nothing wrong with exploiting and abusing a child in this way is exactly why we need laws and regulations that prohibit such vile behaviour.

If adults want to embarrass themselves in public for the 'entertainment' of the baying masses, so be it. However, children should always be protected - particularly from adults who want to abuse, exploit and/or be 'entertained' by them.

'wrong with interrogating a child on a radio station about her sexual experiences for the vicarious entertainment of others.'

I tend to agree with CJ,

But!

As far as I am aware, the mother asked the question about sex. So that was not the aim of the segment. And there is evidence that a lot of people were not entertained. Or were they? This forum could be classed as entertainment! We're all getting entertainment from the situation. Jerry Springer Style!

Secondly, are we now to not allow anyone under 18 in the public space. Not allowed to hear their stories, just in case something unsavoury happens? Let's 'protect' them, and hide all under-age people form the public eye, exclude them from all entertainment. You never know they might reveal something about their life we find uncomfortable.

I find it revealing that people are so keen to assume the worst, based on the class of people that are the target audience, and the pantomime villain that Kyle has personified, and the fact that the radio station, gasp, is attempting to make money.

What if, on a live interview on the seven thirty report, this information somehow came to pass. We'd hear no such shrieks of indignation. As I said in another thread, when I crash my car, I don't blame the road.

You've all got it the wrong way around. Nobody is making 'entertainment' out of rape. Rape interrupted 'entertainment'.

H,
The free speech argument is a red herring.No right I am aware of exists in absolutism they are all conditional on several factors some clear some not so.

As was suggested before....why the lie detector if not to increase the pressure (coercion)? Why the need for pressure if feely given information purpose? Wasn't this coercion robbing the girl of HER FREEDOM OF SPEECH ...her right to say nothing? Where was her right of privacy?
Mum 's actions were that of a twit probably over awed by the attention. clearly she wasn't competent to make a reasoned (able)judgement for her daughter. Greed/ambition overwhelmed the KS AND CREW's judgement "YA more RATINGS"

Is there anyone out there other than Mary Whitehouse, Fred Nile etc that believes sex doesn't happen with girls under 12? and more so in the lower socio- economic stratas (not exclusively)? It also happens that many due to conditioning and lack of opportunities suffer low esteeme and lower judgement skills.

I'd ask how was putting this child specifically under this pressure in this way (clearly done to raise ratings) aiding freedom of speech or adding to the sum total of our needed knowledge?

The subject matter isn't the issue it is both the method and the motive.

Ask your self is it right to do something that will harm others simply because you can and you might benefit?
At some point we must start thinking in terms of morality (which at its base is enlightened self interest).
Society depends on it (sorry Col, Thatcher's definition of society was political not sociological) without such protection of our vulnerable one can ask "are we simply admitting the defeat of Civilization and saying all that counts is law of the jungle?".

Clearly Societies exist for mutual protection, greater than the sum of its parts or else at what point do WE become expendable for the amusement/interests of someone more powerful?

Sir Humphrey,

'Where was her right of privacy? '
Taken by the mother, not the station. She could have refused to turn up.

'wasn't competent to make a reasoned (able)judgement for her daughter.Greed/ambition overwhelmed the KS AND CREW's'

Again, why is the mother to be pitied and excused her poor judgement, but the DJ to be hanged for his poor judgement. The mother owes more responsibility for her own child than some random DJ tosser. That you talk about the frailties of the mother as something of an unfortunate affliction, and the frailties of the DJ as some evil or abusive predilection confirms my point.

'anyone out there that believes sex doesn't happen with girls under 12? '
What's that got to do with anything? Are we never to talk to young people for chance they may talk about sex?

'The subject matter isn't the issue it is both the method and the motive.'
The motive is subjective. As I said, you have gained entertainment from the girls misfortune, and many journalists have made money from the whole saga. Your perception of the motive is coloured by your naturally pompous disposition, and you would undoubtedly be more generous in applying a motive to a different program and DJ.

' right to do something that will harm others simply because you can and you might benefit? '
Ask Sarah Ferguson. I'm sure you'd subscribe different motives to her, but that's where you're going wrong. She gets paid too. She profited from the intentional airing of private misery, KS profited from a careless mistake, and now it seems will profit no more. You can talk about the risks that should have been identified all you like, and line up with all the other masters of hindsight who were silent before this episode.

'we must start thinking in terms of morality'
Whose morality?

'at what point do WE become expendable for the amusement/interests of someone more powerful?'
We never do, if we choose not to expose ourselves for concert tickets.

I leave you now to enjoy your dreams of a Nanny State utopia.

H
Pomposity be damned. The specific characters involved are irrelevant
Are you saying that it's ok for someone in a position of power...i.e. psychological power to abuse that power.
I would suggest you are ignoring some fundamental issues.

An imbalance in power, capacity to make an informed decision and duty of care.
By your reasoning any parent can pass all three to a third party and thereby indemnifying themselves.
Good luck with them under law.
I think the 'crew' ignored all of the above.

H, your reasoning negates 40K years of social development. I suggest you read with a more critical mind rather than Examinator = pomposity= crap....I am simply looking a little wider at the implications of the 'crews'' predatory actions.

Say for example I turned out to be your child's boss and I decided to play a game with their future because I can would I set them up . Theirs/Your compliance is assured because I lead you both to believe it will be in their/your interests. ( agreement) Yet because of my greater experience and my power I know it will be entertaining for me but probably disastrous for you both. Ask yourself are my actions acceptable or not?
KS at al have a duty of care under the assumption that in their experience these people would trust them (an expert).

I don't see that advocating the golden rule(enlightened self interest) is either pompous or cause for ridicule.

If I'm pompous I could level that your reasoning is paper thin/indifferent to others and based on "I'm alright jack."

pontificator,

'Pomposity be damned. '
Then damned you will be.

'By your reasoning any parent can pass all three to a third party and thereby indemnifying themselves.'
Exactly the opposite. The mother or guardian is responsible for the child. Pretty simple really.

As to the rest, it's no surprise to me that you aren't brave enough to answer my questions or examine your prejudice. Your use of 'predatory' is a good hint. As is the fact that you believe there was a 'set up'. You have no proof at all, it's all based on your opinion of the people involved and your likening of any commercial venture with the devils work. Well I say the Devil has a pretty easy job if his bait consists of a free holiday. You talk about the greed of the broadcaster, and totally ignore the greed of the mother.

'probably disastrous for you both.'
As I said, go sit in the line with the other masters of hindsight.

'I don't see that advocating the golden rule(enlightened self interest) is either pompous or cause for ridicule.'
It is when used selectively.

"I'm alright jack."
I am alright, and that is my responsibility. I take no responsibility for a mother who not only decides she wants to use her child for a free holiday, but encourages her to reveal her sexual history to get it. The providers of the medium are neither here nor there either. I fully endorse the law to intervene on my behalf as a citizen, and do what's best for the child.

But you keep on banning things that have any potential for risk. I know which world I'd rather live in. Your Nanny state no personal responsibility attitude is indicative of a lot that is wrong with the society you despise, constantly likening it to faeces, excrement and such as you do with human nature.

As Pericles said,

"It will be very generally found that those who will sneer habitually at human nature, and affect to despise it, are among its worst and least pleasant samples." Charles Dickens

Pontificator “The free speech argument is a red herring.”

That is the common excuse made by those who do not understand the underlying principle of “free speech”, “freedom of the press” and the insidious use of censorship by those who would seek to control us from their lofty heights of their bureaucratic rarity, usurping their position of “Servant” (civil or otherwise) and anointing themselves “Master”

Actually, pontificator, I recall you and your little committee of self appointed arbiters of OLO taste trying to censor the free exchange of views of other posters in the past, so it is understandable why you lay scorn on one of the cherished principles defended by those who have actually lived lives based on principles throughout history .

As to “The subject matter isn't the issue it is both the method and the motive.”

Hmmm strange

Whilst the method.. bring a child into a studio, with her mother and get the mother to then freely questions her daughter, seems to lack any guile or hidden agenda, I would have thought

The “motive” was a subjective issue … and indistinguishable to the “subject matter”

“Clearly Societies exist for mutual protection, greater than the sum of its parts or else at what point do WE become expendable for the amusement/interests of someone more powerful?”

Yes that is why freedom of individual expression is a cherished RIGHT.

Because when it is abandoned, in the manner you have abandoned it, then the interests of someone more powerful are more likely to prevail.. just ask Hitler and Stalin..

If you control freedom of speech, you control your critics.

I further refer you to the poem by pastor Martin Niemöller,
Fortunately, we still have “freedom of speech and expression” along with free access to the internet (until Obersturmbannführer Conroy censors that current freedom (as an the act of a maniacal fascist minded socialist), so you can still look it up for yourself

Houellebecq,
“we must start thinking in terms of morality'
Whose morality?”

And

“'at what point do WE become expendable for the amusement/interests of someone more powerful?'
We never do, if we choose not to expose ourselves for concert tickets.

I leave you now to enjoy your dreams of a Nanny State utopia.”

yes you are definitely a libertarian in the making..

My congratulations H… it is all part of personal growth and development and why some wars have been fought :- )

H and Col,

my bad I did get one thing wrong I meant to say that just because a parent OKs something that doesn't necessarily indemnify the third party. There remains a duty of care. and knowledge of the third party whether all pertinent facts were disclosed and if the acceptee had the capacity to understand the facts as disclosed. Issue like expertise also come into play. That is the basis of consumer affairs legislation.

By your reasoning your approval for a 3rd party to assault your under age daughter would indemnify the 3rd party . Both of you are culpable

BTW these aren't my laws or principals these are yours too unless you believe yourselves above the law.

None of us have ALL the relevant FACTS all Therefore all we can do sensibly is talk in principal. As such the specific personalities and the actual substance are side issues court is the place for them.

I am now as always, expressing an opinion all I have done that is different to you is point out what I understand are associated implications and or considerations that would have some bearing (in this specific, in a court case) oh yes avoiding name calling etc.

The reference of under age sex is in the context of FoS is a furphy.
Issues like methodology, motive have a bearing particularly the well-being of a minor (again not my law).

Is it sneering to acknowledge that not all people have the same knowledge experience which can (not exclusively) be as a result of conditions and lack of opportunity out of their control.

I am as always uncomfortable with what tantamounts to opinions based on emotional bias . Particularly ones that ignore important contextual issues or purport to represent inalienable rights (of the knowing) versus the forgone of the unknowing.

Whose morality? Good point. Do I suggest the golden rule is a good place to start. This is the basis of civilised society. Respect for the laws and their underlying principals also come to mind.

Excuse me gentlemen, if I could just slip in here. Adults have certain freedoms and responsibilities and one is the protection and care of children, this is something we have been doing for 40,000 years (I got this number from you guys). Some don’t manage it and because the damage can be done to an innocent, especially in the case where an innocent has low brow parents, then the rest of society came up with err... laws?

And maybe a Nanny State is something that should operate in regards to our children. Maybe the whole “Nanny” thing makes sense for kids.

Freedom of speech and other freedoms are for the adults and should be for adults and a freedom chosen for only the individual adult embracing it and not chosen for a child, their own or anybody elses.

Now how do you make this not go too far – children and the media... ANNA PAQUIN starred in “The Piano” but couldn’t watch it for years due to the rating. What if she actually decided when older the movie shamed her in some way? Damage done, oops.

Now, slightly off base; this 14 year old girl, if she had a baby due to her “experiences” do we let her keep it? Does she get single mothers benefit and become independent? Get to make choices for her child? Do we say yes to this because she is now officially acknowledged as “parent”?

investigative journalism and time delay are protected by public interest disclosure.
what occurred was child pornography.

DoCS will counsel the mother and the child crimes unit of the NSW Police will consider charging the alleged offenders in the public interest, a certainty should compensation be sought.

The Pied Piper the girl gets her own legislature.

Hello TPP, I agree when you write "adults have certain freedoms and responsibilities and one is the protection and care of children".

All the adults in this sorry saga neglected their duty of protection and care. Also, some people here show a personal disrespect for the young girl and are using the controversy to push their barrows. The people who should be admonished are the adults. They should be admonished because they didn't,or didn't know how to, protect and care for the young girl in question. The adults need to be given a greater awareness of the consequences of their actions, and a better resolution is obtained by helping the adults towards that end.

Ok, my kids are grown up now, but let's say I go to the local primary school to collect one of my nephews.

Now while I'm waiting a twelve-year-old girl sits beside me and I question her about sex.

Would I have done anything wrong?

What do you think the teacher would have done if told of the incident?

Do you think the police would have become involved in the matter if a complaint had been made?

Do you think I would have been branded a paedophile?

I stand by my remarks that no one, other than a trained professional, has the right to ask such questions of a minor. The mother, yes! On a radio station in the form of a 'radio stunt', No!

Again well put rehctub.

Examinator - great posts too. I like the way you take account of power differentials.

Whistler:”DoCS will counsel the mother and the child crimes unit of the NSW Police will consider charging the alleged offenders in the public interest, a certainty should compensation be sought.”

Oh I forgot about VC. It was explained to me once that every foster child is entitled to it – no one makes the claims though.

“The Pied Piper the girl gets her own legislature.”

Nope. She gets single mothers benefit and an independent life. This country, even at 13 would allow a child a baby. Baby bonus, victims compensation payout, 100% subsidised child care etc etc. All the goodies from all the taxpayers.

Retchub; good analogy.

Hey Mary, yes “barrow pushing”, I like the phrase, this is what Linda Burney stepped in to do. DoCS wont do anything for the girl. I can't imagine the police doing anything to the boy either.

At last, some interesting discussion around the subject, well done all.

Jewels, you raise an interesting point about the response of the state if the girl had become pregnant. It leads to the thought that if she is old enough to take on responsibility for a child she conceives, why is she not old enough to take responsibility for a course of action she conceives? Does anyone doubt she conceived the false rape claim? Why is she not being held to account?

Examinator, the girl through her claim of rape caused massive disruption to the lives of others. While she had little personal power in the situation, she chose a lever to multiply that power and she chose cleverly. As soon as the claim was made, the balance of power in that room shifted dramatically, just as it does for any woman who claims rape or violence. The reason it shifted so dramatically is that the massive victim industry has conditioned us to accept such claims uncritically and has created a huge system of state support for those who make them, which they are constantly working to broaden in scope, largely for self-serving motives.

IOW, simply for making the claim, a woman or girl knows she has a "big sister" or "big mama" in the form of State-sponsored organisations who'll come riding in to squash the opposition, never questioning whether she might be telling porkies.

Who has the "power"?

rehctub, if the girl's mum brought her to you and asked you to help get to the bottom of her behaviour you'd be describing a much more analogous situation. What you described is nothing like it.

I'm all in favour of genuine victims being properly assisted, but as Ms Wills from the NSWRCC demonstrated by her statements, she doesn't care if they're genuine, as long as she can use them to help justify her claim for more money from the taxpayer.

'As soon as the claim was made, the balance of power in that room shifted dramatically,'

That's a doozy of a point antiseptic. This kind of stuff is why I support you at times. The rest of the PC brigade just never come up with these angles.

I'm sure you'll get crucified for it though. pynchme et al(just for you Piper;-) looove talking about power differentials when women are the powerless, but I find they never accept a women, let alone a child women, ever has any power in any situation.

Hey Piper,

As to the above, have you ever experienced a kid who has used 'abuse' allegations to 'get back at' their parents for not letting them do something, and realised too late it's all gone pear shaped? I've heard it can happen. Kids can be too cluey for their own good.

Not making any assumptions about this case BTW, just interested in what protections we have to protect kids form their own sillyness.

Anti,

'she doesn't care if they're genuine, as long as she can use them to help justify her claim for more money from the taxpayer.'

You're very cynical (as am I) and that's a lot of assumptions. The way I see it is people who end up in these sort of positions are often there because they have a special interest in stopping abuse, often due to personal experience.

So it's like a cop movie 'this time it's personal!', where the tough cop 'bends' the rules to get the bad guys.

So good intentions Yeah yeah, but you cant tell me some women working at the rape crises centre wouldn't have understandable issues with men from personal hardships.

Obviously not much can be done about this. I'm sure they mostly do a great job but for the above reasons how would you keep their power in check.

This is intended as a fuller explanation for the open minded.
One of the saddest and most frustrating thing I had to deal with as a counsellor was the consequences of power differentials their residual effects in women, children and men. The injustices both real and assumed.

My concern for this girl in the long run will be the corrosive effect this experience will leave and how it will ADD to the eroding of a meaningful sense of worth and the effects on her attitudes and therefore her life.

This will be part of a cumulative effect.

It is too easy to use the 'caveat emptor' stance and then condemn both the girl and the mum holus bolus. On one hand Throw a handful of money then on the other criticise without being prepared their NEEDS. (the same flawed principal is applied to our indigenous peoples).

The reality is a two way street they have to make some effort....but how do they know what when all they see is exploitation...why shouldn't they get in for their chop? big business, polies, the rest of us do.

I see the same all too convenient non-involvement attitude behind our approach to AWG/politics ....god for bid that we as people show a a concerted effort to rein in their profligate consumerism. We want our polies to do it but woe be tide them if they make our toys more expensive.

We are all culpable for the mess and scapegoating it to the least powerful. 'The powerful exploit the weak' might be entrenched in our history but why our future (that isn't written yet.)

PP it might be trite in your mind but unless we aim higher we are doomed to repeat the past...which is what the girl's mother was probably doing....(her 15 mins of fame...being somebody)
That doesn't excuse her. I simply say why do we allow the degradation to be propagated in the next generation...all because those with power skills etc don't want to lose their ability to exploit with nasty laws.
Better laws is a different issue.

the rape controversy is a smokescreen to excuse child pornographers.
there are strict guidelines for interviewing children about sex crimes. the child's evidence carries little weight under the circumstances. what changed in the room was the concern that child pornography had been broadcast. apologists for child pornographers can conjecture all they like but they can't turn back the clock.

Houel:“As to the above, have you ever experienced a kid who has used 'abuse' allegations to 'get back at' their parents...”

I haven’t experienced with regards to their own parents but within the foster care system many kids over 7 get quite savvy and work out what power they have. They will ring their caseworkers and say they don’t feel safe. Child moved. In more extreme cases and I found a few with other carers who have older kids and they will say “he touched me”. Child moved.

I have sat and listened to girls say how they have done this when bored. Some families completely destroyed, up and had to leave town or country after an accusation like this. No – no protection from own sillyness.

Exam:”PP it might be trite in your mind but unless we aim higher we are doomed to repeat the past...which is what the girl's mother was probably doing....(her 15 mins of fame...being somebody)”

I want the ideal, I just keep getting slapped back down when I try back here at home. In about one hour I am going to be sitting here listening to two managers explaining politely how they know more than me and for me to butt out because they have all the power.

Anti:”Jewels, you raise an interesting point about the response of the state if the girl had become pregnant. It leads to the thought that if she is old enough to take on responsibility for a child she conceives, why is she not old enough to take responsibility for a course of action she conceives? Does anyone doubt she conceived the false rape claim? Why is she not being held to account?”

She isn’t in reality old enough for either but that wont stop anyone letting her parent. She is too young to get more than a telling off from whoever. But flip it over Anti – we have a 14 year old rapist floating about, what happens to him?

TPP, "But flip it over Anti – we have a 14 year old rapist floating about, what happens to him?"

No you don't, you have a story told by an oppositional, defiant teen, the truth of which has already been challenged by an independent witness and dismissed by police.

Kyle and Jackie O will be back after the fortnight's rest. A little button has been found that will solve any future problems. The delay/delete button was the win for public opinion, Yay!

"But flip it over Anti – we have a 14 year old rapist floating about, what happens to him?"

Anti:”No you don't, you have a story told by an oppositional, defiant teen, the truth of which has already been challenged by an independent witness and dismissed by police.”

Hey I never met the girl to claim she has ODD but what if they were all wrong, what if it did happen?

Are we worried about the boy? If it was consensual are we worried about both the kids?

One of my darling foster boys parented two children before 16 years old, used to go by and beat the crap out of girlfriend on her benefit day and take the money.

I’ve been surrounded by sexually active teens for about 5 years now, some really young some become mums under 14. Some girls get raped and some boys get wrongfully accused. What I have never seen is anyone doing anything about it or any process in place to do anything. I’m guessing because it's left up to the parents to seek help?

What I don’t do is look at a kid and decide they would tell a lie like that – not without many years of crap proceeding it and same for a kid that would rape another one.

Examinator, Cornflower et al

The thing about Piper is that she sees the reality every day - we can theorise all we like, but Piper is at the coalface dealing with it.

Piper, you sound as though you are very grounded, ready to accept exactly what you see without proselytising. I imagine that you are very clear about boundaries for the children in your care. I hope the meeting went well for you today, people like you are needed.

Regards

Pied Piper,
While not in your league I am a veteran of the coal face....Years as part of a volunteer 'trouble team' crisis intervention and survivor of more suicide counseling calls that I can or want to count.
I feel for you.

One of the problem I see in the world is that management is often promoted on false premises. i.e. A good salesperson/case worker/ teacher doesn't guarantee a good manager....Paul principal often applies (often promoted beyond the level of their competence)
(different skill sets needed).
I often found it useful to remember this and to use the old sales technique of managing ones manager.

I was responding to your "bollocks" comment. Not from any sense of slight etc but to raise the issue that to me one can become so focused on the next step one lose focus on the stars of the objective. In my humble experience some times that's all one has to maintain drive and purpose. Not the usual fortune cookie motivational philosophy by a hard one survival mechanism. Good intentions only go so far sooner or later one has to get down and dirty.

I find the theoretical focus relieves the stultifying effect of day to day slog reality. more colourfully put, a breath of dreams some times is better than a lung full of the stench of day to day reality.

Tpp, "Are we worried about the boy?"

First, 'anti' didn't answer you, I did.

No-one appears worried about the boy, which is rather surprising given that he is in the same environment and most likely is just as at risk. But then again, he may not even exist.

No one is dismissing the girl's claims outright. On the other hand we need to be a bit careful not to jump to confusion. It is worth remembering that children will experiment and that is perfectly normal. It is ridiculous to always call for State intervention. Maybe if our society wasn't so hung up about sex, that could help a lot.

It is the parent/s' role to advise, set realistic and meaningful boundaries, monitor and take corrective action. I don't know what the solution is for kids who keep on falling through the gaps (especially in education) but extra funding for alternative programs could certainly help.

What do you think about the show's solution? Although they would have riding instructions to leave minors alone - regarding sex anyhow.

“Examinator, Cornflower et al”

I am dying to use the et al thing – you know, all nonchalant like.[smile]

Fractelle, that proselytising word? Within minutes children who arrive here are amazing. Ritalin goes in the bin, endless reports about their destructive and disobedient, uncontrollable behavior left at the gutter. My husband told a mum recently when she asked how I do it that I was a child whisperer.

Nah it’s simpler. 2-5’s; I will love you to bits for being you and withdraw in the moments you choose to be something I believe you are not. I will never cause pain and will show you what being absolutely safe is. I notice everything and make time to talk about what I have noticed and what you saw. You will believe without doubt that baddies and monsters are too scared to come here and that a thunder storm is the best fun ever. You will be given choices and some control and you will know that the child next to you has these same things.

I already forgive your mum or dad because then you don’t need to. I tolerate nothing and everything and I understand sometimes it hurts to like me too much.

0-2; I just love you to bits.

All very similar to how I treat my husband really.[grin]

The meeting, ah my head is full… it was weird, they... I dunno, they listened to me. They originally reacted to e-mails and that can be inaccurate when tone is missing. I think my observations had read as complaints.

Exam:”While not in your league I am a veteran of the coal face....Years as part of a volunteer 'trouble team' crisis intervention and survivor of more suicide counseling calls that I can or want to count.”

Examinator, all I can say is I so wish you were here.

Hoellebecq:"how would you keep their power in check."

That's a bit of a doozy itself, isn't it? Feminism derives much of its authority from female victims of violence. This gives the people who work "on the coal face" enormous prestige in feminist circles. They're the ones who provide the ammunition for feminist activists to use to induce guilt in politicians and thereby get laws passed or funding approved that might otherwise be examined more closely. The Queensland Office of Women for example spent 6 times more money last year on administration and wages than it did on actually doing its job, yet that has hardly rated a mention anywhere. Naturally, Ms Struthers, the Minister, mentioned violence against women when responding to the Estimates committee and little more was said.

Other groups of activists use the same methodlogy, from indigenous people to sufferers of some illnesses to some religious groups. Zionist Jews have derived enormous authority from persecution in Europe that has allowed 60 years of atrocity to take place barely questioned in the Middle East.

Part of the central thesis of all these groups is that questions are beyond the pale. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to justify a culture in which every statement is part of a polemic and to question means one is misogynist or racist or anti-semitic or just plain hard-hearted about the plight of their particular group of victims.

The only way to stop the rot then, it seems to me, is to question at every opportunity. When people like Ms Wills make a claim, examine it and ask questions about it. Look at the context, look at the motive and discuss it.

If we had a media that was worth two bob they'd be doing that and claims that failed the test of rational examination would not be published or would be critiqued. However, the media is now dominated by feminist women and men who've decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em", and they know what role they're expected to play in the farce.

TPP:"we have a 14 year old rapist floating about, what happens to him?"

It seems we have a 14 year old boy who had sex with his 12 year old gf. When I was 14 I was desperate to do the same, but she'd never be in it - she was obviously frigid...

However, if we did have a 14 year old rapist, then he would be treated exactly as the Law demands. No doubt he'd be tried and some suitable course of action taken to stop him doing it again and punish him for having done so in the first place, hopefully taking into account the nature of the asault.

TPP:"What I have never seen is anyone doing anything about it or any process in place to do anything."

People seek sex when they think they're ready to, just as dogs or cows or sheep do. Just as with dogs or cows or sheep, sometimes they are going to conceive when they do and sometimes they'll suffer injury of one sort or other if they do it too soon. It is the unintended consequences that are the problem, not the sex, ISTM. If teens are sleeping with teens and not with adults who may be carrying STIs and if they're not bashing each other to do it then whose business is it apart from their own?

The "age of consent" is a nice legal point designed to make it easier for the Law to prevent exploitation of minors by adults. It is arbitrary, but old enough that the majority of people will be sufficiently sexually and intellectually mature to make a decision that they are able to live with. Some will not be and some will have been that way for years. That's the nature of variation within a population.

As soon as the State intervenes to stop average people doing what average people want to do because there are some people who are not average we have authoritarianism and the end of personal freedom.

Far too much of our present law is being created on that basis ISTM.

Cornflower:”First, 'anti' didn't answer you, I did.”

It was too – sorry about that. Spooky though huh?

She wasn’t immediately believed was she? I think at 12 – 14 and consensual it is sex, well acknowledged, know what they’re doing, sex. No playing doctors and nurses just hormones doing what hormones do. If society didn’t blast it from every movie theatre, radio show and magazine it might still be a kind of taboo. Sex is cool, boys are called players, 12 year old girls sit around having conversations more likely to be found in a club with male strippers.

Our boys and girls are more developed young. Hormones in chicken?
“It is the parent/s' role to advise, set realistic and meaningful boundaries, monitor and take corrective action. I don't know what the solution is for kids who keep on falling through the gaps (especially in education) but extra funding for alternative programs could certainly help.”

Fully agree. And fathers should go back to owning shotguns.

“What do you think about the show's solution? Although they would have riding instructions to leave minors alone - regarding sex anyhow.”

What was the solution?

Anti:“As soon as the State intervenes to stop average people doing what average people want to do because there are some people who are not average we have authoritarianism and the end of personal freedom.”

Average people not underage people. Comes natural to 10 years too, like overeating, not considering consequences for actions, wanting to leave school. Lots of rules for our kids – just the way it has to be.

"ISTM"?

PP and others
Why should I be there?....did you want someone to hold the dart board with the pictures of the managers stuck to it....Ouch ...I don't look my best, laying on the floor...I faint at the site of blood particularly mine.... or cringing in a corner whimpering... No physical heroes here...then again I am male. :-(

Seriously though we do have problems with sex generally culturally we (manipulative advertisers/capitalists) have conditioned humans to imbue sex with unrealistic importance to whereby it is arguable that we are all tending to miss the real issues.

I would challenge Antiseptic to examine his assumptions 'average people'...
What does he mean by average? Close analysis of the facts would suggest that the people who need protection aren't average.
The same analysis would also indicate the issue has many causes.
The most likely are substandard education, lack of opportunities, subcultural conditioning etc.

A thumbnail is that about 1-1.5 million per day listen to shock jocks etc but there are 20 million people in Aust how is this the mean average?

I would suggest that birds of a feather...these people are the most susceptible to advertising hyperbole and the psychological manipulation hence the media focuses on them.
e.g. apart from Media Watch I don't know anyone who actually heard the program at the time...and that includes our children and friends etc.

I'm sure PP and other “coal facers” would support most of what I say here. Such generalised notions of 'average Aussie' with average traits are selectively biased to the perceptions of the individual making the judgement and unhelpful. For all practical 'coal face' reasons each case IS essentially different and must be treated as such....one size fits no one.

Average Aussie is creation of a predatory capitalist system that bunches a several emotive triggers together in order to mass consumer market.
In reality Most Aussie may have some of the triggers but the combinations are never identical among the targets hence the attacks are multi pronged.

Sex is just one target but what is missed are the DIFFERENT motivations.

I'd like to see less intrusion of the State into our private lives not more.

There are many people who might not be the sharpest pencil in the box but they nonetheless manage to lead productive, happy lives and are assets to the local communities. Then there are others. Personal choice makes the difference - some choose to take drugs, create uproar, have domestic disturbances and generally occupy a lot of the time of police, ambos and so on.

The baby bonus was a ridiculous idea. The money should have been put into outreach services for maternal and child welfare, and drop in centres for youth.

I'd like to see grey (and many of them are not so grey) volunteers used to help the many troubled but good kids who need someone outside of parents and teachers to relate to. There are many young people who fall through the gaps of the counselling (where) provided by schools. Many sad and depressed children need someone just to be with them, not to 'sort' them - a reliable human who has been around for a while and is mature and patient enough not to always expect a lot in return.

Government should recruit volunteer seniors with a blue card and pay car mileage and a small amount for lunches and sundries. There is an army of potential helpers going to waste out there.

Hey Cornflower

Pretty much agree with you on your last post.

That's made my day.

Examinator:"Close analysis of the facts would suggest that the people who need protection aren't average."

So why does our nation seek to treat average people as though we're all in need of protection?

Examinator:"1-1.5 million per day listen to shock jocks etc but there are 20 million people in Aust "

Given the number of workplaces I visit that have those shows playing at full volume, I'd reckon your estimate is way low. But let's take it as read. How many listen to ABC Radio National, do you reckon?

Which do you listen to?

<"Such generalised notions of 'average Aussie' with average traits are selectively biased to the perceptions of the individual making the judgement and unhelpful. For all practical 'coal face' reasons each case IS essentially different and must be treated as such....one size fits no one.

Average Aussie is creation of a predatory capitalist system that bunches a several emotive triggers together in order to mass consumer market.">

I agree, and I think one of the manifestations that we try to cope with in the human services industry is the focus on one-off and short term interventions that are pushed by accountants trying to quantify and dictate how human misery should be assisted (or more often; ignored). People who have no idea of the range of contributing factors and possible solutions - ardent capitalists making decisions over therapy etc.

Cornflower: That is probably the most sensible thing I have seen you write. All good ideas - I agree. When my children were quite little we ensured that they had an adult outside the immediate family in whom they could confide and who would stand with them (against us, if necessary) as supports and advisers. We nominated people who shared similar world views to us - but our children could always turn to them and know they were safe. Fortunately they never had to face us with anything remarkable; but they did build lovely relationships with these older folk who cared about them. The knowledge and skills of our older generation are vastly underused and wasted.

Exam:”Why should I be there?....did you want someone to hold the dart board with the pictures of the managers stuck to it....Ouch ...I don't look my best, laying on the floor...I faint at the site of blood particularly mine.... or cringing in a corner whimpering... No physical heroes here...then again I am male. :-(“

Hahaha… nah because you said this:

“volunteer 'trouble team' crisis intervention and survivor of more suicide counseling calls that I can or want to count.”

My new situation requires me to be more than I am and know about stuff straight away that I just don’t. I need to know about attachment issues in teens, and my duty of care. I need a grown up that knows this stuff. I am being asked to place boundaries and control someone who has been placed with a very independent status.

I have been asked to respond to things as I would my own daughter – and as you pointed out “one size fits no one”. I want this to be successful and I am worried the things I don’t know will result in failure.

Previous unhealthy and illegal sexual experiences in teenagers and victims coping by claiming no wrong has been done leave me very confused.

Cornflower:”I'd like to see less intrusion of the State into our private lives not more.”

I’d like to see less intrusion of the State into adult private lives.

Antiseptic,
Perhaps the figures are wrong however, they were based on Neilsen figures I read for that bottom dweller dredge Jones a few years back.
What irritated me at the time was Weasel Howard was playing marginal power politics by pandering to Jones etc. even if we double it it still isn't the mean of over 18yos.(voters)
To me the media has too much power to set the agenda given their lack of regard for the public. Rather a case of the tool, tools (you chose your meaning...see I'm democratic) dominating the people instead of serving the people.
Inanimate non voting self-serving entity dictating to those who do.

Logically they weren't the average or majority of Aussies only they were the easiest to get at. Political pragmatics tell you that less than 3% in key seats will change a government.
I rarely listen to radio if I do it's music.
Nor do I read news papers as such. The Sunday paper goes through my hands in 5 minutes....I do read the comics though.
Local paper LTE maybe.
Most of the business sites I contact have music going.

What I say to canvassers is locally legendary...I've elevated(?)it to a blood sport. yep my one genuflect to my bestial origins (guilty pleasure)
I'm such a bad bad examinator.ant at times. I'll stand in the corner now...Ok, I'm back. :-)

Corn flower,and others.
I'd like to see more intrusion by ADULTS into the state!
NB age doesn't necessarily determine maturity or thought...just read some of the lesser posts on any web site. The so called 'average'.
(Usually read chip on shoulder, feelings of not they're not getting the respect they think they deserve. As Pericles put it in context an idea should stand on its own merit without pseudo super structure of group status).

Also most volunteers are greying.
The generalised problem in MO is that we all agree that more people need do something but OTHER PEOPLE. A bit like tax more should be paid to fund more things just not MINE.

You don't learn skills or wisdom on a mountain top being the family home or in a uni alone.

Nothing happens until someone does it is that you?

E.g to volunteer for crisis intervention involves one weekend training an 4 hours on roster per fortnight hardly a biggy.

the Average when I was doing it the men (late night aka suicide shift) were mid range business men/managers etc were members of service clubs i.e. rotary/lions/jaycees as well as had families and other community activities.
The day shift girls were split 50/50 with the 'boilers' over 50s and the 'chooks' ....mums (their terms). Interestingly few business women.
That was some time back.

I bet if pushed I could pick the talkers(it's someone else's job mine is to criticize or find sacrificial lambs) from the doers on OLO by their attitudes. And NO I WON'T.

Of course every one has the right to be involved or not and sadly to criticise those who try.

Shamefully I'm not the most active doer I know but that's because the devil stops me ..... ;-)

Exam:”I bet if pushed I could pick the talkers(it's someone else's job mine is to criticize or find sacrificial lambs) from the doers on OLO by their attitudes. And NO I WON'T.”

Well stink, that would have been interesting. But I like talkers, they help me a lot and if all they do is No Further Harm that has got to be appreciated.

I’m not a doer, or an active one either. I feel doers do step out of their comfort zone to do whatever it is they do.

At training they always ask why foster and you get all the ones going “always wanted to help”, “feel they could do good, save the little children”… usually long winded touch feely stuff. I’m more “yeah I like hanging out with kids and don’t want to work cheers”.

PP
IMHO you are a doer.
Talkers in this context are those who do the talk back radio thing but never foster, HPO, or anything that might take them away from their selfish interests.

There is a difference between those who talk but do and those who attack but do nothing positive.
I talk and talk at times but to my credit I also do in accordance with my ability/opportunity health etc.

Those last two quotes just illustrate why I love TPP and hate pontificator the pompous,high and mighty and judgemental.

Didn't Jesus go on about not making a show of your good deeds or something.

Houellebecq “hate pontificator the pompous,high and mighty and judgemental.”

Oh I know what you mean…. And agree

“Shamefully I'm not the most active doer I know but that's because the devil stops me ..... ;-)”

Don’t worry about that, the Devil will eventually have his turn too and remember there is no "Vaseline" in Hell

“I talk and talk at times but to my credit I also do in accordance with my ability/opportunity health etc.”

And the Devil don’t give “credit” either (not even if you have a brown nose)

I don't have anything whatsoever to add to this thread!!

I just noticed that the total number of posts was 199, so I couldn't resist making it 200.

Chow!!