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.