Protecting paedophiles. First the Catholic Church. How can they possibly claim to be Christian when they abuse little children and protect the abusers. Now NSW Education has done the same. Do you think the government should sack and permanently ban from any school, people who subscribe to child pornography sites, or advise parents of their names?

Voterland

Unfortunately with non Christian values (modesty) child abuse will only continue to increase. People that feed on any porn are desensitized to perversion and child molestion.

Repeat child abuses whether they be Catholic Priests or Art teachers should be jailed for life or castrated. That might prevent a few more children having their lives wrecked.

btw I had no knowledege that people could subscribe to child porn sites. Surely the promoters of this filfth should be easily tracked if money passes hands online.

Interesting WA now publish photos of sex offenders who have not fulfilled reporting requirements on a Government website.

<<Do you think the government should sack and permanently ban from any school, people who subscribe to child pornography sites, or advise parents of their names?>>

No: moving a plastic device on one's table, pressing sections of it and other plastic keys, causing bits of magnetic information to move around inside an electronic device within one's own home, does not necessarily indicate that the person doing so is actually inclined to molest real, flesh and blood, children.

Voter land welcome back, first time I saw you I had concerns.
You proved them wrong.
You have introduced some great threads.
I tried this one, under a few different titles, all failed to gather pace.
First,yes I doubt, without Change and soon the Catholic Church can survive.
Not for the Century,s of fostering child molestation alone, but the recent evidence of Corruption in the Vatican too.
We should inform people who down load such we are aware of their actions, but sack them?
No sending them out of sight may be more dangerous.
I however am repelled at Every Church hiding the offenders, even letting them offend again.
Church.s try to control normal sex but seem to hide abnormal sex by the so called non sexual who as can be expected are often tracked to?
The Church.

Paedophilia has a slant that is just as abhorrent as the desire to commit the act.

There is a “power and control” aspect to it that concerns me as much as the physical violation. I have a deep seated set of moral scales on what is fair. Fighters must be equally weighted and somewhat equally skilled, a mob against a loner is wrong, a man against a woman is wrong…and an adult’s physique and psyche against a child’s is the ultimate violation.

About 4% of the population has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. It is predominantly a male personality and behaviour disorder. Treatment consists of behavioral modification by attempting to stimulate the patient and redirect their desire towards adults in conjunction with libido controlling pharmaceuticals, chemical castration. None of it works effectively as shown by the recidivism rate.

So up to 4% of priests must be paedophiles, as are 4% of mechanics, computer programmers, baristas, teachers, cops and scout masters. But the number of priests molesting children may be higher given the celibate aspect to Catholicism. A figure of 10% has been recently posted in regard to the modern day church. These violators by opportunity are called “Pseudopaedophiles” and are driven by the sexual gratification aspect, but the preference may not be for prepubescents.

The Catholic church was run by the Medici’s for centuries, they managed to get four Medici popes in. A family that exhibited the seven deadly sins in spades. The Catholic Church has been corrupt since the 12th century. I actually think they have a cleaner more benevolent act than ever before in many aspects, but I consider the religion a corporation from bishop level up.

The first world has evolved too far to set the clock back on porn. The laws in regard to this heinous crime are dramatically lax in Australia. Sometimes I honestly believe that the paedophiles have a friend in the judiciary. The judges see it as open slather on the most vulnerable in our society and statistically 4% of them have a preference for children.

"So up to 4% of priests must be paedophiles, as are 4% of mechanics, computer programmers, baristas, teachers, cops and scout masters"

I don't think that logic works. It's likely that paedophiles will be drawn to occupations or roles that give them easier access to children. You'd expect that the rates amongst priests, teachers and scout masters would be higher than in jobs and roles with little or no access to children (ignoring the effect that blue cards etc might of removing known paedophiles from some areas).

Whilst it's off topic for this thread "Fighters must be equally weighted and somewhat equally skilled, a mob against a loner is wrong, a man against a woman is wrong" - not really the way the world works.

Any time the government takes sides with an opponent the fight is unequal. I've suffered enough at the hands of bullies who were both smaller and weaker than me hiding behind the protection that gives to be a little sceptical of it in practice. If it is valid should those more verbally skilled restrain themselves in an argument with someone a little more plain spoken?

R0bert

RObert>> I've suffered enough at the hands of bullies who were both smaller and weaker than me<<

RObert your line reminds me of the Groucho Marx quip "Hey you big bully, leave that little bully alone". There is a lot of truth in that.

"No: moving a plastic device on one's table, pressing sections of it and other plastic keys, causing bits of magnetic.yuda,yuda, yuda"
Yuyutsu, such action as you describe and accessing 'the spring garden guide' is seen as acceptable in society, however the same actions and accessing child pornography is not.
I have a granddaughter and if I was informed, that a worker at her day care was found to have accessed child pornography on their home pc I don't think my son and daughter-in-law would be too happy about that person working at baby's day care. Do you have young children? If you have I don't think you would post what you did.
I attended catholic schools in the 1960's and I know of many cases of catholic scum molesting young boys and other catholic scum who covered it up. I was never a victim myself as these predictors mostly preyed on the weaker children. Fortunately or unfortunately depending how you view justice most of this catholic scum is dead. However the catholic organization, starting with Ratzinger in Rome and Pell closer to home must take responsibility for the past and present pedophiles that did, and still do, infest their corrupt business empire.

Dear Paul,

<<accessing 'the spring garden guide' is seen as acceptable in society, however the same actions and accessing child pornography is not>>

Factually you are correct: current society does not accept this practice.

But is current society's acceptance or nonacceptance a valid measure for anything? do I need to give you examples of things that societies used not-to-accept throughout the ages? Whence this conviction that current society is "better" than its predecessors?

The fact is that the vast majority of those who access child pornography online, have never and will never touch a real child. Similarly, there must be many real-life paedophiles who never access child pornography online (and others that access, but are not caught).

Sonofgloin wrote: "Paedophilia has a slant that is just as abhorrent as the desire to commit the act.", implying that the desire to commit the act is abhorrent: I disagree - the act may be abhorrent, but the desire to commit it is not. In fact, those who have the desire but manage to suppress it, willfully (as I believe that most of them do) in order to avoid hurting children, are commendable and deserve every respect. As for those who access child pornography, many of them do not even have that desire and among those who do, most would not act on it - not just because it's illegal, but simply because they do not wish to hurt anyone.

In centuries ahead, the attitude of 21st-century society toward paedophiles will be remembered alongside the 15th-century society's attitude toward witches.

"The fact is that the vast majority of those who access child pornography online, have never and will never touch a real child. Similarly, there must be many real-life paedophiles who never access child pornography online (and others that access, but are not caught."

Yuyutsu. Since there wasn't any questions in the last census in relation to pedophilia its difficult to agree or disagree with the above, my gut feeling is you are most likely correct. I also agree with you on what is socially acceptable changes over time. Pedophilia I do believe was once acceptable in ancient Greece I have a friend who is totally opposed to any form of censorship and believes "anything goes". He has never been able to convince me on the 'kiddy porn' issue as I always retort with the question of harm and consent. Likewise bestiality again harm and consent from the animal that is.

I dunno i must be weird. I reckon this paedo thing is blown all out of proportion. You should be more worried about the sleazy uncle than the trench coat brigade for a start.

One Example:

If some guy takes pictures of my kids on the beach with a zoom lens, and wacks off at home to them, I see that as a victim-less crime. It affects me in no way whatsoever and it doesn't affect my kids.

People have weird kinks and fetishes, but as long as they keep it in their sexual fantasy land then that's fine with me. So the act of corrupting a child is terrible, but to me the viewing of this by a third party is neither here nor there, and akin to someone enjoying a violent film, or having a morbid curiosity of car crashes.

Houellebecq "So the act of corrupting a child is terrible, but to me the viewing of this by a third party is neither here nor there"

The third party is guilty of aiding and abetting the exploitation of the child.
I'm totally opposed to the slaughter of tigers, but I look great in my new tiger skin coat. I didn't actually kill the tiger, someone else did that, besides the tiger was dead when they made my coat. This is just as logical as your statement.

Where are these child porn sites that everyone here is talking about?

A few months ago, a group of friends and I were having a discussion about the best way to combat child molestation. My point was that child molestation exists, and has ALWAYS existed, irrespective of whether child pornography exists ... my point being that child pornography doesn't cause people to molest children, but that sexual interest in children causes child pornography. In other words, if someone is interested in children sexually, that interest is there anyway.

Someone then said that child pornography sites were now all banned and blocked. I didn't believe her. She insisted it was true. So, we all (7 of us) gathered around a computer, and then attempted to locate a child pornography website. The 7 of us tried for nearly an hour and were 100% unsuccessful.

The moral of this story is that if someone successfully watches child pornography on the internet, then they must have EXTREMELY advanced insider knowledge of where to go and what to do. It would, based on our experience, be near impossible to "accidentally" or "innocently" access child pornography on the internet.

PS: We however did learn about some disgusting websites that are not "hard" pornography sites, that use children. These sites go only "so far" and thus seemingly avoid the legal ramifications. Personally, if I had the power, the owners of such websites would be instantly jailed for a minimum of 20 years. They are perverts, deserving no sympathy. But they obviously work the legal loopholes, and are currently getting away with it.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/scouts-ignored-complaints-about-paedophile-20121016-27p4z.html
I offer the link to put two thoughts, make it three.
First it talks about pedophilia in the Scouts not just here but in very big numbers in America.
Once again availability of contact with kids brings the wrong folk.
Second the inability of those in charge to act, maybe believe it could be happening.
Great numbers of parents have refused to believe their own child, leaving them to suffer again.
Priest,s, Police, no part of society is not represented, but eve3dence clearly, says close exposure to kids is a magnet for some.

Belly, you are absolutely right the pedophile looks for opportunity to be around children. He could be a school teacher or a footy coach. Often outwardly putting forward rightest conservative views on the subject whilst being on the lookout for opportunity. I find these kinds of people shameful.

“My flirtations with children soon acquired an erotic character … On several occasions certain kids (5-8 years of age) would open my fly and start to stroke me. I reacted differently according to circumstances, but their desire posed a problem for me. I asked them: 'Why don't you play together? Why have you chosen me, and not the other kids?' But if they insisted, I caressed them still. … The problem with liberals is that they only tried to recognize sexuality in then, whereas I was aiming at this sexuality. (Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Le Grand Bazar, 1975).

As much as abhorrent are pedophiles (and perhaps even more those who covered them), they inherently knew what they were doing was wrong - they certainly would not think of boasting about it (thus indirectly vindicating, if not encouraging, others who were thus afflicted).

The French-German Daniel Cohn Bendit (certainly not a Catholic) is currently a respectable EU parliamentarian, co-president of the group European Greens–European Free Alliance, and except perhaps for the extremist Le Pen Party nobody seems to hold his self-confessed pedophile (though non-violent) past against him.

It's my opinion that probably 95% or so of males, in these modern times, are quite easily capable of various types of pedophile activity.

In any society where pedophile sexual activity has been permitted (eg. underage marriage and many other activities) , and there's been hundreds of such societies/cultures throughout the pages of history, the VAST majority if adult men have willingly and gleefully participated in this pedophilia.

So let's not moralize too much, and "pretend" that most men don't have pedophilia inclinations. Most men have little trouble controlling their urges in this matter when strong legal restrictions are in place. I suspect that MANY of the men moralizing against pedophilia in modern, civilized times would themselves be doing some version of what they're complaining about .... if it was legal and socially/culturally acceptable, as indeed it has been in many societies and cultures throughout history.

Sometimes, anti pedophilia activity is used as a political/social/cultural weapon against a person or group of people.

There's no doubt that pedophilia is evil, and it's clear from a simple look at history's pages that it's very much a part of male DNA.

A human race without men would be a MUCH more peaceful and moral society ... not perfect BUT much better. If only it was biologically possible. With scientific advance, it may very well be possible one day to 100% artificially manufacture sperm.

'This is just as logical as your statement.'

Not so Paul. If nobody is buying the images, nobody is contributing to a market.

You might as well say if you view a picture of a poverty stricken village, you have created that poverty.

'So let's not moralize too much, and "pretend" that most men don't have pedophilia inclinations.'

That's just BS, I hope not a self justification. Pedophilia is the attraction to non-sexually mature persons.

Now if you said men have an attraction to developed 14yo girls I could understand, but I don't think it's at all widespread for men to be attracted to 6 year olds.

Houl, we know you have no argument when you descend into direct personal abuse.

any comments on Bernard Finnegan, South Australian Labour MP and child-porn enthusiast?

DiamondPete,

Please highlight the alleged direct personal abuse.

Austin Powerless,

He did something against the law.

I would agree with the law if he paid for the images, or if he took them.

I am in favor of laws against sexual assault and abuse of children, or the financial support of such activities.

I am not in favor of laws against pedophilia per se; ie I am generally not in favor of thought crimes.

Houel, you choose to not admit to your personal abuse. So be it.

Also, regarding Houel's last post. According to him "thought" crimes should be legal. Therefore, according to him, planning a murder or robbery or child rape etc etc etc, as long as it's not written down, should be a perfectly ok and legal activity.

Pete, you choose not to attempt to quote my so called 'personal abuse', because it doesn't exist. So be it.

'planning a murder or robbery or child rape etc etc etc, as long as it's not written down, should be a perfectly ok and legal activity.'

Definitely.

It can be written down too though.

Do you seriously think that anyone who has ever entertained the idea of a crime but has not actually gone through with it should be arrested?

Of all the posts DP has put here that is the strangest.
Women have baby,s without men.
Who would wash the dishes mow the lawn provide the food and look after the kids while mum put the make up on?

And people ask why I'm an atheist ? Ok, I guess we can't level blame at the Christian religion per se. Rather it's those who seek to advise, lead and subsequently interpret the gospal for us all, who really should bear the guilt. Don't you think ?

I've not had much to do with those individuals charged with offences pertaining to children, so I can't speak with any real authority.

However, another crime, that I consider ranks right up there with these vile offenders, are those in the Church who conceal, engage in obfuscation of police enquiry, and generally 'blindside' the coppers from doing their job, thus protecting the malefactor. To me, they're a real piece of work.

In the old days, there was a serious offence attached to this type of behaviour. Called a 'misprison of a felony'. So serious in fact, it was said, that a misprison is contained in every treason and felony, and if the Crown so please, the offender may be proceeded against for misprison offence alone.

It's my understanding this stuff has now been repealed altogether, and replaced by other statute(s) ?

Why the Church needs to protect and generally harbour these dreadful people, has me stumped ? Aren't young children entitled to, and in fact, worthy of both respect and protection from clergy ? And aren't these clergy directly under the aegis and discipline of the Church hierarchy ?

I've got to say, nothing and I mean nothing surprises me in this pitifully weak, and wretched (once great) country anymore ?

We've been blessed, with...

(a) An impotent police force;

(b)'Jelly' Judges; and

(c) A new, socially decrepit, and tender hearted, Prisons boss, for NSW.

Sorry, did I hear you ask, do I ever despair ? Hell no, I've just got to teach my grandchildren how to fight, is all. But despair, never !

Cheers...

Yuyutsu>> the act may be abhorrent, but the desire to commit it is not. In fact, those who have the desire but manage to suppress it, willfully (as I believe that most of them do) in order to avoid hurting children, are commendable and deserve every respect.<<

I agree in principal Y.
The compulsion is psychological and as I said treatments don't have a decent strike rate.

The virtue of compassion over desire should be recognized, it is not an easily managed compulsion given libido is the furnace that needs to be stoked.

But overwhelmingly paedophiles are recidivists and because of this are constant predators of our children, the ones too young to protect themselves and too naive to accuse an adult after they have been groomed.

Very emotive subject, the preying on the defenseless and my view is that we were born with free will so regardless of the desire it is a willful choice.

I would class paedophiles I the same category as sociopaths for one single reason, they are exclusively interested in themselves. All others they interact with are meaningless interpersonally to them unless they can be used to satiate their sexual needs.

So even though I agree in principal Y this line concerns me:

" In centuries ahead, the attitude of 21st-century society toward paedophiles will be remembered alongside the 15th-century society's attitude toward witches."

Is it to be kindergarten sex in yor minds brave new world sport?

DiamondPete I'm finding the seeming contrast between your views on thought crimes here and the views you express on the thread about Julia and the Carbon tax Lie/Broken Promise interesting.

Care to elaborate on that.

I can see why you might take Houellebecq comment as an insult but maybe time to step back a bit.

- You admit to having looked for child porn on the internet (an experiment I won't be replicating).
- You express the view that a sexual interest in young children is very normal.

You then seem to suggest that thought crimes should be illegal.

By that argument and based on your other admissions you should be on the way to the nearest police station to hand yourself in. No one can prove for sure your motives when you went looking for child porn but the act of looking for it combined with the other view would seem to put you in a difficult position.

I do wonder what happens if the police come across your search records. Is it a crime to look even if you don't find? If you go searching for a hitman leaving a record of doing so but don't find one
then I suspect that you can still do time for it.

As to the earlier point "So let's not moralize too much, and "pretend" that most men don't have pedophilia inclinations."
I wonder how many men have readily embraced sex with pre-pubescent children when it's been culturally accepted. I can understand a degree of socialisation about it, I can accept that some actively want it, that for some any hole will do (eg the rates of "hetrosexuals" in prison who engage in what the rest of us consider homosexual acts). I can accept that sometimes people in war situations have been so brutalised and deprived of intimacy for so long that any substitute will do.

I still don't think it follows that all else being equal most adult men will find young kids sexually appealing if the legal restraints are lifted.

R0bert

'By that argument and based on your other admissions you should be on the way to the nearest police station to hand yourself in. No one can prove for sure your motives when you went looking for child porn but the act of looking for it combined with the other view would seem to put you in a difficult position.'

'difficult position' . Lmao! Wonderful dry understatement.

That's made my night.

Houellebecq, I'm trying to tread carefully in the hope that what I say is the focus rather than an assumed insult. Don't know how that will go, it often does not work but you've seen enough of my posts to know I can't help myself ;) I have to try.

R0bert

Dear Sonofgloin,

<<The compulsion is psychological>>

Not every paedophile has a compulsion. It may simply be just a sexual preference.

<<But overwhelmingly paedophiles are recidivists>>

Those who offended once - but what about the majority who never did, nor would?

<<the ones too young to protect themselves and too naive to accuse an adult>>

Regarding "naivety" and the assumption that children are asexual, I once received sexual advances from a group of 10-year old boys (naturally I told them to stop and took their hands off, they tried again and I had to tell them again to stop). They are not such little angels as you assume.

<<Is it to be kindergarten sex in yor minds brave new world sport?>>

Future generations will view the zeal of governments to eliminate paedophilia as we now view the zeal of the Inquisition to eliminate witches.

It's not about right or wrong, but the concern about paedophiles under the bed and inside the socks is simply over the top, out of any proportion.

As a result of the hysteria around paedophilia, children can no longer have adult friends. Adults (especially males but not exclusively) run away from children, fearing to get in trouble even when they have no sexual thoughts in mind. Many good people refuse to become teachers or scout-masters and those who still do avoid situations when they may be considered suspect, even when it deprives the child of warmth and private support. Also, children are no longer allowed to be left alone outdoors, to play and explore.

I have a little friend, up the street, she was about 3 when she came and asked for a lemon from my tree, now she must be around 5. Today when I passed in my car she was smiling and I waved to her, but then I thought: "Oh No, I may get in trouble for this!"

Compared with the actual damage of paedophilia, the damage of the FEAR of paedophilia is greater and the big losers are... THE CHILDREN!

Houllebeck, I was just wondering how you would identify those paedophiles with 'thoughts only' of pedophilia?

Would they be the ones who access child pornography online or in photos etc, but that never actually sexually abused children?
Aren't those activities also illegal?

Should young children be used on porn films and in photos to provide sexual please for these disgusting creatures, whether they act on it in real life or not?
Of course not!

ALL forms of even the consideration of sex with children should be rigorously prosecuted.
These creatures would be my choice as a cause for the installation of capital punishment laws.

'how you would identify those paedophiles with 'thoughts only' of pedophilia?'

All of them. It's the very definition of pedophilia; the ATTRACTION to prepubescents. It makes me laugh all these posters stating pedophilia is the crime. It's no more a crime than arachnophobia. Underage sex with sexually mature females also ISN'T pedophilia, but is a crime.

'Aren't those activities also illegal?'

As I said, yes, it's illegal, though I don't agree with the law if they didn't buy the pictures, and financially support the abuse. You really don't read properly do you.

'Should young children be used on porn films and in photos to provide sexual please for these disgusting creatures, whether they act on it in real life or not?'

If it doesn't affect the child, as I said, I see it as a victim-less crime. If some pedo takes pictures of my kids naked at the beach and goes home to wack off, what of it. What I don't know cant have any effect on me, and I think this fear of pedos around every corner is absurd.

'ALL forms of even the consideration of sex with children should be rigorously prosecuted.'

Well the internal sexual fantasy world of individuals is not really a problem to me, one persons kink is another's abomination. People are complex.

I don't believe in thought crimes

In order for your so called 'thought crimes' to occur Houlebecke, those sicko's need some sort of visual stimulation at least.

Are you seriously suggesting that pictures of adults having sex with children would not 'affect' the children depicted in the pictures?
Are you sure you read my post properly?

It's people with apathetic views on paedophilia that allow this evil practice to go on...

'Are you seriously suggesting that pictures of adults having sex with children would not 'affect' the children depicted in the pictures?'

Originally, when they are taken, sure it will affect them. But the horse has bolted by the time some other random stranger gets off on them Suze. The third party and any of their activities is unbeknownst to the child. It's not as if it's published in a national newspaper or something. It's distasteful sure, but so is grief-porn, people getting off on watching people on TV crying about the death of loved ones in a bush fire. That's legal, that's also getting entertainment from someone else's tragedy, and that's on national TV.

The only caveat is if they pay for the picture and so are funding the illegal activities.

'It's people with apathetic views on paedophilia that allow this evil practice to go on'

That's a bizarre statement. How does that work in practice? How have the strict laws against child abuse changed by apathy? I don't think there is any apathy in the community about child abuse.

I remind you again pedophilia is not the actual child abuse, it's the sexual attraction to children.

I'm far from apathetic about child abuse.

I'd just prefer we don't lock people up on their potential to commit crime. Many people who fantasize about infidelity would never dream of actually cheating on their spouse. But you assume anyone who is interested in children will definitely act it out.

I suppose the reason for the law is a risk management exercise. Like terrorism, it's the only case where people are arrested before they've actually committed any crime. It's a just in case law.

I'm against the terrorism laws too BTW. Someone could plan to bomb the Harbour bridge, and then back out. They could be doing it as exercise in fantasy too. But they can be arrested and charged and in jail just for daring to think about it.

Who hasn't thought about murdering someone in traffic? What if they're in the car and they verbalized this and someone picked it up, and just for daring to express their anger in this way, in the private confines of their car, they could be arrested and charged as if they had actually killed someone.

Dear Houellebecq,

Thanks for bringing up the connection between paedophilia and terrorism.

What brings these in common is that governments need to constantly find arch-enemies, to locate the Satan(s) outside in order to divert public attention from the real enemy - themselves!

Traditionally, the problem was solved by having wars with other countries, but the government of a country like Australia that is not in war with any other country and where even the forces of nature are not harsh enough to declare war on, must simply find other outlets in order to justify its existence.

My understanding is that if someone even discusses murdering someone else, even in the privacy of their own car (for example being heard on a listening device), they can be charged with conspiracy to murder?

Why is that any different to charging a disgusting person checking out kiddy porn?
The average person doesn't go onto these dreadful sites unless it turns them on.
How do the authorities KNOW this sicko hasn't actually followed through on their 'fantasies'?

At least if they are charged for looking at illegal child pornography sites the police can keep a closer eye on them, and they will know they are being watched.
That alone may stop them from abusing children...

I've often wondered if the release from the use of image based porn reduces the incidence of physical abuse amongst those with limited self control.

Not much chance with those who just don't care but I assume that like most things there is a spectrum, that in the case of paedophiles there are some who don't want to hurt kids or who don't want to face the legal penalties of doing so but who still struggle with yearnings which they can't get rid of.

Given we don't appear to have cures for them are there options which don't involve harm to children or demanding complete abstinence?
At the moment the only legal solution appear to be complete abstinence and we should be asking ourselves how well does work for most addicts.

I wonder if there has been any serious research done to determine if the impact of the use of child porn on rates of physical abuse of kids.

I'm reminded of the case of a man jailed "after sexually explicit pictures of children characters from The Simpsons were found on his computer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors

On the other hand there is the slippery slope argument when it comes to any "acceptable" forms of paedophilia.

There are the significant issues involved if children can be identified from the images.

There is clearly an issue with sourcing of any images in that any real image involving physical abuse of children involves physical abuse of children.

The question I'm asking might boil down to something like this - is there a chance that we are letting our revulsion for paedophiles get in the way of reducing the harm to actual children?

R0ber

Someone high up somewhere is protecting paedophiles who so far have never been charged. Anyone got any ideas? Anyone else who has suffered at their hands? All reporting hits a brick wall and falls into a black hole.

Funny how my questions managed to bring the conversation to an abrupt halt.

There are all sorts of child protection agencies. Yet we hear more and more about child sexual assault, kids are shut inside with their computers instead of playing outdoors, because its just not safe out there.

Law needs to be changed. Chemical castration doesn't seem to do it. Maybe we should go back to the barbaric custom of castration. One for the first offence, etc.
The trouble is they're not afraid enough of the consequences. They think such activity is normal, probably because many of them were themselves victims, and learned to like it. It ruins lives, causes severe personality disorders, post traumatic stress that can last a lifetime.

Just about the only times paedophiles are charged is if the victim complains or the AFP is tipped off by Interpol.

What we'll end up with eventually is social chaos, the country ripe for takeover.

I believe there is enough evidence to declare the Catholic Church in Australia a criminal organization, like the Hells Angles. Church property should be confiscated without compensation, sub sects within the organization should be disbanded with the church leadership jailed.
An person found guilty of clandestinely practicing Catholicism should be subject to a long term of imprisonment.
There is enough evidence to declare the Catholic Church world wide a criminal organization. They operate as a Mafia type organization with Joe ( The Bible Basher) Ratzinger as the 'Godfather'.

Paul that would be a disaster, the govt in NSW is in the process of transferring even more children into the arms of the Catholic Church. We can’t stop that progress just because it’s been corrupt (thankyou sonofgloin) since the 12 century.

PAUL1405, When you look at the history of the Catholic Church, you may well be right. I believe the priests think they have a loophole, the vow says no women. While they must know it is wrong, they are not actually breaking their vows! Add to that the fact that they themselves were raised and educated by priests and had probably suffered the same abuse. As I said, it perpetuates itself. But its not just Catholicism, its Boy Scouts, mentors and teachers, (and it also happens in protestant boarding schools), uncles and stepfathers, close family friends. Always has been except now we speak out. Its the very nature of the human male, and not all learn to get a grip, so to speak. These people have no self control whatsoever. Its only society and its needs that keeps most men under control.