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.