red baron wrote on May 12^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:



You didn't supply any links that said he had been charged, at that stage.

That's why you were "bashed".

Schu wrote on May 13^th, 2014 at 9:50am:



I think most are in that position... I was in shock when this first came out.. well it started as a whisper...hush hush..yet it would appear from this investigation that celebrity covers up an awful lot...

unless you have walked in a "victims" shoes its hard to understand what it does to them.. some blank it out and they move on without any problems.. others fall apart...

whatever possesses  a man to do this I cannot imagine....do they have no conscience no right or wrong.no self respect..do they believe it would be ok for someone to come up and put the fingers in their private parts..as and when they chose too...

I dont know how anyone can think by any stretch that this is ok..is it a sickness??.. I wish I knew...

is there any research into WHY...I think its time there was as this is happening right now.. somewhere..someones life is being ruined a childhood is being stolen..

I wonder if they ever seek help before it gets so bad they cannot stop?..in the case of harris.. he had put paintings up on his computer after he had been arrested...so he must not be too ashamed of this...he may think its normal.

ian wrote on May 13^th, 2014 at 10:49am:




I'd respond to this, but I'm still trying to work out where the thought has gone into this post.

ian wrote on May 13^th, 2014 at 10:54am:


That would have gone into negative values.

cods wrote on May 13^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

A friend of mine is a psychiatrist who specialised in working with paedophiles for a decade. I'll relay what she has told me, seeing as you seem interested (I find it really interesting when she provides me insight into this). Not to be taken as definitive - research on all this is still a work in progress and the psychological community still debates matters.

First of all, there's a difference between the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child and a child who has entered puberty. It is the former that is paedophilia, so the info only relates to that group (although as far as I understand it there is some cross over and the research on each of paedophilia and abuse of older children can provide insight into the other).

In some cases, it is that the abused becomes the abuser. Children who are themselves victims of child sexual abuse go on to abuse others. There is no definitive understanding as to why some go on to become abusers and some don't. In some cases, it seems that people are born that way (like with anything there are people born with some serious defects). In other cases they just don't know, although a lot of opinion is that these are people who fall into one of the other two categories and that the reason they can't be identified in the first category is because they don't recall their abuse.

It does happen, though it's rare, that someone who is fantasising about children will come forward and seek help beforehand. The main reason for not coming forward appears to be the stigma.

Can paedophiles be cured? This is the most complex question of all. Apparently the majority of the psychological community is in agreement that paedophiles can't be cured. However, because people generally don't come forward when they are merely fantasising and rather are only discovered after they've acted, and because it is nearly impossible to identify children at risk of becoming paedophiles, the psychological community doesn't yet know if early intervention would be able to prevent things developing.

If there is one significant distinction between paedophiles and other child sexual abusers it is that there is more indication that the latter can be cured even once they have acted - that with treatment they can stop the behaviours.

In terms of "acting" that includes both physically doing something and viewing pornographic images of children. Basically, once the fantasy is fed somehow.

Medication has been trialled to treat paedophilia, with no real success so far.

A proportion of the research focuses on the gender of paedophiles - as in, why do so many more men than women become paedophiles (which relates to the general issue of why men who are abused are more likely to become abusers than women who are abused). One theory focuses on whether testosterone plays a part. It looks particularly at whether female paedophiles have high levels of testosterone compared to the general female population. There is an idea that if it can be identified as testosterone, oestrogen therapy might be able to have an impact. There are of course other hormones being looked at as well.

Sounds guilty to me.

Schu wrote on May 13^th, 2014 at 9:50am:



Indeed - we are all shocked at such things.  There are several examples in my near family, and I remain shocked to this day - but I still will not condemn a person without proof.

Well - maybe not entirely - a female relative told me of a case and I accepted her word immediately - it was also corroborated by another family member, so that was a valid response at the time.

Doesn't mean that I grabbed the perpetrator by the throat when I was first told of it and punished him.

But I prefer to wait for the proof before condemning a man to life punishment.

Oh - and a society needs to be very careful about removing legal protections for an accused, lest frivolous complaint become the norm for hangings....

John Adams said it:-  If the ordinary person ever saw that  innocence were of no consequence, and any person could be convicted without proper proof, that would be the end of security in society in every way.

He says it better - but my second HDD is not talking to me...

"It is more important that innocence be protected than that guilt be punished....."

If a society begins to punish people for being accused, and by removing legal protections from them, that society runs the  very real risk of creating a new set of victims who will inevitably one day rise in their anger as well.  The consequences would be incalculable.