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.