Sexual Abuse and Prominent People

[jeremyp]

Of course the key thing in this story is that he has a solicitor willing to take his coin to continue his child abuse even though he is a sex offender.

Even a convicted criminal has the right to legal representation. Don't malign the solicitor.

In any case, he's not using a solicitor to continue his child abuse, he's using a solicitor to try to assert his normal parental rights, although, I agree it is disturbing to find that a man who abused his own children still has any normal parental rights and the law should be changed IMO.

[floo]

Even a convicted criminal has the right to legal representation. Don't malign the solicitor.

In any case, he's not using a solicitor to continue his child abuse, he's using a solicitor to try to assert his normal parental rights, although, I agree it is disturbing to find that a man who abused his own children still has any normal parental rights and the law should be changed IMO.

Any parent who has sexually abused their children should lose their parental rights.

[Rhiannon]

Even a convicted criminal has the right to legal representation. Don't malign the solicitor.

In any case, he's not using a solicitor to continue his child abuse, he's using a solicitor to try to assert his normal parental rights, although, I agree it is disturbing to find that a man who abused his own children still has any normal parental rights and the law should be changed IMO.

Solicitors can decline work. New guidelines make it necessary for all involved in the court process to consider whether actions brought are a continuation of existing abuse.

I’m trying to decide whether you are deliberately siding with the father here about his asserting his ‘normal parental rights’ ‘not being a form of abuse’ or whether you are just clueless and naive about how abusers work and how they get their kicks.

[jeremyp]

Solicitors can decline work.

They can, but everybody has the right to legal representation. A solicitor may consider it the more principled stance to represent somebody and thus afford them their right rather than bow to public opinion.

New guidelines make it necessary for all involved in the court process to consider whether actions brought are a continuation of existing abuse.

I’m trying to decide whether you are deliberately siding with the father here about his asserting his ‘normal parental rights’ ‘not being a form of abuse’ or whether you are just clueless and naive about how abusers work and how they get their kicks.

Rhiannon, what part of

I agree it is disturbing to find that a man who abused his own children still has any normal parental rights and the law should be changed IMO.

makes you think I could possibly be siding with the father in this case? Just because I disagree with your characterisation of the situation, does not mean I support him.

A parent asserting a right in whether their children are allowed to leave the country or not would not normally be considered child abuse. You have no evidence of the motive of the father for taking the actions he is taking so you should not be claiming it is continuing the abuse. If you want to say it is a disgrace that he has not been stripped of his parental rights, you have my support 100%. If you say that, in your opinion,  this is continuation of the abuse by other means, I would say fair enough, you are probably right. But you didn't: you made a claim as to the facts that you cannot support.

[Sriram]

Here are some figures about sexual harassment around the world......

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/25/health/sexual-harassment-violence-abuse-global-levels/index.html

************

Any woman, in any country, will most likely be able to relate to this situation:

Walking down the street, alone, past a group of guys hanging out with nowhere to go. Her guard goes up, and preparation takes place. Many things could happen when she passes them.

It may be the words "hey, beautiful" or "hey, sexy," or being instructed to smile. It may be more intentional: standing in the way or blocking the path in hope of some interaction. It may get more aggressive, with hands reaching to inappropriate places.

The spectrum is far and wide, with one end harboring the potential for things to become more violent with physical abuse or rape.

In the streets of London, Mumbai, Washington or Lagos, the recent outpouring of stories from women using #MeToo and its many iterations has showed the uniformity of the problem -- irrespective of country and culture.

In 2017, the world has made one thing clear: Sexual harassment is everywhere.

*************

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-42123304

Former Blue Peter presenter, John Leslie, has been charged with sexually assaulting a woman in June.

[Nearly Sane]

And Garrison Keillor

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42174257

Do i think this is oddly judged or is it Dunning Kruger

[Maeght]

And Garrison Keillor

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42174257

Do i think this is oddly judged or is it Dunning Kruger

Don't know, do you?

[Nearly Sane]

Don't know, do you?

Which is surely an issue?

[Robbie]

From the first bit I read it seemed he had patted a woman on her back to console her - then he said he put his hand up the back of her shirt!  Honestly, not quite the same thing. However he apologised and she forgave him until now.

[Maeght]

Which is surely an issue?

What, that you don't know if it is odd?

The story doesn't really ring true, as has been said.

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42151148

I see Damien Green is back in the spotlight again this morning.

[Nearly Sane]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42151148

I see Damien Green is back in the spotlight again this morning.

Or to be more precise a computer from his office is. It's not been shown to be his computer

[Rhiannon]

Or to be more precise a computer from his office is. It's not been shown to be his computer

And the porn is legal. Viewing porn isn't illegal. As far as I can tell if it was him viewing then it is a misuse of him employers time and resources, not a criminal activity.

I'm concerned that a detective is allowed to give details of activities identified during investigations to the press.

[floo]

And the porn is legal. Viewing porn isn't illegal. As far as I can tell if it was him viewing then it is a misuse of him employers time and resources, not a criminal activity.

I'm concerned that a detective is allowed to give details of activities identified during investigations to the press.

I think porn is ghastly even if it isn't illegal, but when children involved it is evil . Mind you, I do wonder how many of the people taking part in it are doing so willingly, or are coerced into performing?

[Rhiannon]

I think porn is ghastly even if it isn't illegal when children aren't involved. Mind you, I do wonder how many of the people taking part in it are doing so willingly, or are coerced into performing?

The morality of porn is a while other discussion. If Green was viewing it he wasn't doing anything illegal and unless he was forcing staff to view it he wasn't harassing anyone.

[Nearly Sane]

The morality of porn is a while other discussion. If Green was viewing it he wasn't doing anything illegal and unless he was forcing staff to view it he wasn't harassing anyone.

If it was him, he was being very foolish though.

[Rhiannon]

If it was him, he was being very foolish though.

And at the rate he's alleged to have done so it sounds like an addiction.

[floo]

The morality of porn is a while other discussion. If Green was viewing it he wasn't doing anything illegal and unless he was forcing staff to view it he wasn't harassing anyone.

He was supposedly viewing it while he was working, which if true doesn't do him any credit.

[Rhiannon]

He was supposedly viewing it while he was working, which if true doesn't do him any credit.

Yeah, hence my point about this being an employment issue.

[floo]

Yeah, hence my point about this being an employment issue.

I think it is a moral issue too, but this is not the thread for it.

[Harrowby Hall]

Yeah, hence my point about this being an employment issue.

And just who is the employer here, Rhi?  He is a Member of Parliament - he does not have an employer in the sense that you appear to be using.

I think that I am rather more concerned that a retired police officer is setting himself up as some kind of moral arbiter, He seems to be saying that this individual is unfit to be an MP because he has porn on a computer in his parliamentary office. There is something rather unsavoury in the ex-policeman's behaviour. Interference in constitutional matter, perhaps?

[floo]

And just who is the employer here, Rhi?  He is a Member of Parliament - he does not have an employer in the sense that you appear to be using.

I think that I am rather more concerned that a retired police officer is setting himself up as some kind of moral arbiter, He seems to be saying that this individual is unfit to be an MP because he has porn on a computer in his parliamentary office. There is something rather unsavoury in the ex-policeman's behaviour. Interference in constitutional matter, perhaps?

He still gets a salary for services rendered.

[Rhiannon]

And just who is the employer here, Rhi?  He is a Member of Parliament - he does not have an employer in the sense that you appear to be using.

I think that I am rather more concerned that a retired police officer is setting himself up as some kind of moral arbiter, He seems to be saying that this individual is unfit to be an MP because he has porn on a computer in his parliamentary office. There is something rather unsavoury in the ex-policeman's behaviour. Interference in constitutional matter, perhaps?

He has a job and if he is viewing porn at the rate stated he’s not doing it properly.

I made my concern about the police officer’s actions earlier. If this is permissible then it has implications for anyone arrested for anything.

[Harrowby Hall]

Indeed, Rhi, but this was your earlier post:

And the porn is legal. Viewing porn isn't illegal. As far as I can tell if it was him viewing then it is a misuse of him employers time and resources, not a criminal activity.

I'm merely pointing out that the relationship is not an "employment" relationship. As far as I am aware, a Member of Parliament is expected to behave "with probity" - whatever that means. The late John Profumo, Secretary of State for War, was sleeping with a bed-mate of a Soviet naval attache - but it was lying to the House of Commons that was his downfall.

Damien Green had been arrested in 2008, when a member of the Opposition, on charges of Misconduct in a Public Office. The arrest was widely thought to have been politically motivated and had not been carried out according to the normal parliamentary procedures - neither the Speaker not the Home Secretary at the time appeared to know anything about it. Charges were dropped and the Met did not come out of the affair particularly well.

I'm concerned that a detective is allowed to give details of activities identified during investigations to the press.

The "detective" is actually a retired detective. Who knows, he may have an axe or two to grind following this affair. He would seem to have used the recent flowering of complaints against Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and others as an opportunity to stir things up. He is a private citizen now, but seems to have kept a notebook from his employment period.