Beautiful or outrageous?

[Shaker]

What I think is wrong is putting pictures on the internet of yourself and child naked because everyone, not just close family, can see it and the child had no say in the matter.  I consider it rather exhibitionist but, OK, if someone wants to expose themselves they can, but not expose their child.

I'm not on Facebook (was very briefly years ago; had no use for or interest in it so got rid of it) but in the case of that particular form of social media it's not true that everyone/anyone can see what you post; there are different levels of accessibility so that the user can decide who sees what.

[Shaker]

But again we come back to this idea that nakedness is inherently sexual. It isn't. If you want all photographs that paedophiles are likely to get off on to require the permission of the child before use them you are in effect asking for all photographs of children to be removed from the public domain until a child is old enough to give consent.

Sex on the brain, some people. Even when kids are being washed, fed and changed.

[floo]

But again we come back to this idea that nakedness is inherently sexual. It isn't. If you want all photographs that paedophiles are likely to get off on to require the permission of the child before use them you are in effect asking for all photographs of children to be removed from the public domain until a child is old enough to give consent.

I think it is extremely unwise to post photos of children dressed or undressed on the NET. Paedophiles have been known to superimpose the faces of children featured in this way onto those of kids being abused. As young kids are unable to give consent to having their photos on the net I think it unfair to do so.

[Rhiannon]

So no advertising of nappies? Baby food? Paddling pools? Family holidays?

[Rhiannon]

I remember once being mystified by one of my friend's outrage that the nice lady st the ballet class reception took children to the toilet without being CRB checked. But then I was thrown out of the toilets at the local pre-school when I took my son to wash his hands. No parents allowed in the toilets with their own kids, only staff.

[floo]

So no advertising of nappies? Baby food? Paddling pools? Family holidays?

Good idea, no advertising FULL STOP!

[floo]

I remember once being mystified by one of my friend's outrage that the nice lady st the ballet class reception took children to the toilet without being CRB checked. But then I was thrown out of the toilets at the local pre-school when I took my son to wash his hands. No parents allowed in the toilets with their own kids, only staff.

I think CRB checks are a good idea, of course they don't stop all criminal activity but it is a step in the right direction.

[Shaker]

I think it is extremely unwise to post photos of children dressed or undressed on the NET. Paedophiles have been known to superimpose the faces of children featured in this way onto those of kids being abused. As young kids are unable to give consent to having their photos on the net I think it unfair to do so.

It's Paedogeddon, I tell you.

[Rhiannon]

Ok. So no kids on school websites, family photographer's websites, kids' sports teams' websites, local papers...and no kids on tv either. And no adults allowed anywhere near children without being CRB checked - anyone with a trade, grandparents, parents...

Make children afraid of each and every adult just in case. That's healthy.

[floo]

Ok. So no kids on school websites, family photographer's websites, kids' sports teams' websites, local papers...and no kids on tv either. And no adults allowed anywhere near children without being CRB checked - anyone with a trade, grandparents, parents...

Make children afraid of each and every adult just in case. That's healthy.

I think children should be taught never to trust any adult they don't know well.

[Rhiannon]

No, we're not talking about going to look at someone's puppies. We are talking about going about daily life in fear.

When I was five or six a man tried to abduct me from my back garden (presumably) by sitting in his car and asking me if I wanted some sweets. It didn't mean I then thought every adult I ever saw was a danger.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

I looked at that photo yesterday and thought, so what, but thanks to your link and reading the story behind it, I know think, beautiful but I am still wary about what stuff you should put out on the big WWW.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

Ok. So no kids on school websites, family photographer's websites, kids' sports teams' websites, local papers...and no kids on tv either. And no adults allowed anywhere near children without being CRB checked - anyone with a trade, grandparents, parents...

Make children afraid of each and every adult just in case. That's healthy.

... every bit as healthy (i.e. zero healthy) as the reverse, i.e. making adults too afraid to come to the assistance of a child (especially a lost and/or distressed child) because they'll have their collar felt and be dragged straight down to the nearest cop shop, questioned, charged, tried, convicted and clapped into the nonce wing before you can say Stuart Hall.

[Rhiannon]

Children have died because adults haven't intervened.

[Udayana]

I think the time has come to ban people having children. Put all those "STOP children" signs to good use.

That way none of them can come to harm or be stared at. Isn't conceiving and giving birth a form of child abuse? I'm sure Keith would back this.

[L.A.]

I haven't.
Don't use them.
I would say that I have great difficulty understanding the mentality of you and your fellow travellers, but for the fact that there seems to be precious little mentality on display, only utterly irrational paranoia and for some a level of prudishness about the human body not merely bordering on but over the line into the frankly pathological.

I don't know what kind of life you lead Shaker, but I would be amazed if you have somehow managed to avoid all the routine security stuff that most of us take for granted. Presumably you frequently find that your suitcase has been blown-up in a controlled explosion?


I have not problem with nudity whatsoever, but I would never do anything that might put children at risk - and putting intimate images on the internet is asking for trouble.

[Shaker]

I don't know what kind of life you lead Shaker, but I would be amazed if you have somehow managed to avoid all the routine security stuff that most of us take for granted.

Apparently I have.

Presumably you frequently find that your suitcase has been blown-up in a controlled explosion?

No, never - I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed something like that.

I have not problem with nudity whatsoever, but I would never do anything that might put children at risk - and putting intimate images on the internet is asking for trouble.

No it isn't. It's not asking for any trouble whatever. That's sheer borderline-hysterical paedo-paranoia.

You know, like this: https://goo.gl/m9rNWa

[L.A.]

No it isn't. It's not asking for any trouble whatever. That's sheer borderline-hysterical paedo-paranoia.

You know, like this: https://goo.gl/m9rNWa

You must have have lived a very sheltered life if you haven't read the real stories of young people and children being targeted.

http://www.internetmatters.org/issues/online-grooming/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwjoC6BRDXuvnw4Ym2y8MBEiQACA-jWSx7ul0J4_glL44SeaoWLUr3xY5bIYLI512tI9PJoy0aAmEv8P8HAQ

there are a lot sickos out there and if you have anything to do with children, you'd better be aware of them.

[Rhiannon]

Online grooming doesn't result from the kind of photo we are looking at here.

[floo]

When I was a young teenager I was touched up by the pastor of our Pentecostal church, who was supposed to be a good god fearing bloke.  Therefore it isn't surprising I am wary and don't think a child should trust any adult unless they have reason to do so.

[Shaker]

Nobody denies that such things happen.

What the the leveller of head amongst us are patiently trying to explain is that the fear of such things is ludicrously disproportionate to the actual risk, and that leads to people giving in to what we can only call paedo-paranoia by censoring themselves and refraining from sharing what's special and important to them, which for many people (and by rights all parents, by definition) is their children.

I don't do social media either - I have no interest in it, being resolutely unsocial. But as much as it's a mystery to me, it means something to a hell of a lot of people and their activities shouldn't be and needn't be curtailed by grotesquely overinflated and irrational fears of random hordes of paedophiles wanking themselves into a subarachnoid haemorrhage because they've shared a harmless photo with their online friends of little Philip or Karen in the paddling pool. There is a climate of this sort of feeble-wittedness across society in general these days with all manner of things and people need to stand up to it.

[L.A.]

Online grooming doesn't result from the kind of photo we are looking at here.

Nobody can actually know that, there might well be clues that could allow someone to find the location where the child lives.

[floo]

Nobody can actually know that, there might well be clues that could allow someone to find the location where the child lives.

If there is even the slightest risk a pervert might find a child attractive, and discover their whereabouts, having seen them on the NET, it is better not to take that risk.

[Nearly Sane]

So kids should never be allowed out in public. After all if there is even the slightest chance that they might be seen and it would be so easy to find out where they lived, it is better not to take that risk.

[Shaker]

So kids should never be allowed out in public. After all if there is even the slightest chance that they might be seen and it would be so easy to find out where they lived, it is better not to take that risk.

Far easier to find out where a child lives by following it home than by trying to piece together clues from a snapshot on Facebook, I'd have thought.

An immediate and complete curfew is the only answer to keep our young ones safe. Nobody under 18 allowed on the streets between 8:00am and 8:00am [sic].