7/4/02

Children's Charities Sued for Millions?

or

How to ruin a child's life with just a few words.

A few weeks ago a teacher related an incident to me the type of which has become very common in recent times. 

There is a rule in his school that mobile phones are not to be used in the corridors or the classrooms. 

Anyway. As he was walking along the corridor, a fourteen year old pupil was coming toward him chatting unconcernedly on his mobile phone. The teacher raised his hand and pointed at the phone. The pupil ignored him and continued to walk past.

As he did so, the teacher put his hand on his shoulder to apprehend him and to lecture him over the use of the phone in the building. The pupil wrenched himself round, shook off the teacher's hand, and said loudly, "F''k off! Don't you touch me!" And stalked off. 

Other pupils in the vicinity sneered. There was nothing that the teacher could do. 

I commiserated. He shrugged. 

"What am I supposed to do?" he said.

It's strange how times change, isn't it?

Thirty-six years ago, when I was that lad's age, I wouldn't have batted an eyelid at being apprehended in such a manner by a teacher. Indeed, if I had broken a school rule so blatantly, and so rudely, I would probably have been pinned to the wall by the teacher, who would then, undoubtedly, have confiscated whatever I should not have had in my hand.

And such an incident in those days would have caused no-one any long-term real concern.

These days, of course, teachers are not really allowed to do such things. They have been almost completely disempowered in this respect, which is partly why there is so much bad behaviour in our schools and among our youth in general. 

But, actually, this isn't really the point I am aiming to make!

My point is this.

The pupil with the mobile phone was not just being offensive for the sake of it when he turned aggressively upon the teacher for putting his hand upon his shoulder. 

No. He was genuinely upset!

He was angry that the teacher had the nerve, firstly to apprehend him, and secondly, to touch him.

You see, he has been brought up in a world that has given him certain rights and beliefs. 

These include the 'right' not to be touched in a certain manner and by certain people, and the belief that even the mildest infringements of this 'right' is some justification for hostility, lack of respect and retaliation.

But the young man's brain has also been brought up to FEEL 'assaulted' or 'abused' by such an innocuous action. And this is now exactly how the young man does feel as the teacher tries to apprehend him. He feels as if he has been abused!

This is not an act or a trick by the young man. He genuinely feels abused! Yes, in this case, for sure, he probably exaggerated his response somewhat, for hostile effect - well, maybe not - but there is little doubt that he really felt abused and 'defiled' in some way.

And, had he been black (the teacher was white) or a girl (the teacher was a man) then the insult and the injury that were genuinely experienced might well have been much worse!

It is strange how a touch on the shoulder can lead to such a different response, and to a different feeling, between two individuals - i.e. me, thirty six years ago, and this 14 year old of today.

Strange it might be, but this is how 'psychological' and 'emotional' pain actually develop! They crawl along pathways as the human grows and they develop right throughout life. And the pathways that they follow even after trivial physical instances such as these are based almost entirely on the 'propaganda' of the environment in which the individual is brought up.

There are times, however, where surprising or 'strong' experiences can suddenly alter the way that people might react to the same conditions. For example, being mugged and assaulted in the street at night can completely change one's feeling for the entire neighbourhood and all of its inhabitants. And it can do so immediately. 

On the other hand, discovering one day that the grouchy old man next door is a kindly old soul who lost his wife and four children ten years ago might alter completely your attitude toward the fact that he rarely says Hello to anyone. 

And the same is true for many of the negative feelings and the emotional pains that people experience.

They mostly crawl along pathways - but they can suddenly be made to alter course if some highly-significant event or change in credible 'information' suddenly occurs.

But this does not make them any less real. And they can really hurt.

Here is an example of this.

Imagine that, for some reason, you are determined to ruin a child's life. 

What you could do is this.

You pretend to be very concerned about the child, and continually demonstrate what a trustworthy and credible person you are, and you tell the child, with full solemnity, sadness, and seriousness, that the little brown mole on the child's back is a malignant cancer. You then go on to describe, on a daily basis, how painful and how damaging this cancer is going to be for the child.

The fact that the mole is utterly benign, and causes no sensation at all, is completely irrelevant. If the child is successfully convinced about it being a malignant cancer, and absorbs from you all the horrors that such illnesses entail, and, further, if the child is reminded about this constantly, you will certainly destroy his future well-being to a very large extent.

And yet this is the very kind of thing that the abuse industry does to children and adults, particularly over sexual matters.

In the case of adults, consensual sex can later be made to seem more like rape, and, in the case of 'consensual' child sex abuse, the incidents can later be  'interpreted' similarly, or, more commonly, simply as malicious acts of something akin to a form of psychological violence. And, in both cases, the victims can easily be led to believe that their respective moles are malignant cancers - 'psychological cancers' - with all the pain and misery that this gives rise to.

Anyway, given that this is a sensitive area, let me digress temporarily to say quite categorically that when it comes to adults engaging in 'consensual' sexual activities with young children they are most certainly abusing those children, but NOT because such children will later be traumatised psychologically by the 'consensual' events.

Children cannot possibly consent to the long-term effects that sex can have on them. They can certainly give legitimate consent with regard to how they feel about what is actually happening to them at the time, or to what they, themselves, wish or wish not to be doing, but they cannot possibly give any legitimate consent to the effects that lie beyond their current experience; for they can have no real understanding of the pathways through which their sexual events, psychological or otherwise, might lead them in the future. This is difficult enough for adults in their twenties to understand, and for children it is plainly impossible.

Children also cannot consent to the brain changes that UNDOUBTEDLY occur when they undergo any form of experience - particularly a strong one; which, clearly, engaging in sex produces.

Children are also not aware of how their sexuality can be guided down particular pathways based on the experiences that they have. And, further, they cannot appreciate (and, therefore, avoid) fully the many serious problems and pitfalls that they are likely to encounter by being seduced into being sexually active at an early age. They are also nowhere near developing sufficient understanding of how highly intimate experiences can have lasting emotional and cognitive consequences for them - good or bad. 

And, in all the above respects, 'consensual' sex could hardly be more influencing - given that welcome physical intimacy self-evidently opens very wide the doors that lead deep into the psyches of those who engage in it. 

Further, of course, certain forms of sexual activity can lead to diseases being transmitted, and while it is quite one thing for adults to take the risks of getting them in order to gain pleasure from physical intimacies, it is quite another to impose these risks upon children. And the fact that adults can never really know whether or not they are carrying any such diseases - and these include some very serious ones - makes any actions which might inflict such diseases upon children as negligent with regard to the children's welfare as would be the case if a doctor knowingly risked using unsterilised needles upon them.

Well, the evidence seems to show that there are millions of adults who do not bear any scars from having indulged in consensual sexual antics at an early age, but there are also many millions who do!

And so, for example again, in much the same way that drinking and driving proscriptions are clearly important for the safety of people even though accidents mostly do NOT arise when journeys are undertaken by drivers who have been drinking, so it is that proscriptions in the sexual arena when it comes to children are necessary in order to protect a significant number of them from crashing into walls!

In summary, children cannot possibly consent to any risks or consequences of sexual intimacies (many of which reach into the long term) given that they can have no realistic notions about them. In this respect, they are equivalent to being passengers enticed into cars driven by adult drivers who have drunk too much. 

Nothing bad might happen, but it might! And the high increase of risk entailed in the childhood sexual arena is significant enough to warrant the proscription of activities therein.

Children cannot read nor understand all the small print that goes along with sex.

And there's quite a lot of it!

Also, of course, from society's point of view, and statistically speaking, sexualised children are also going to end up causing an enormous number of problems (disease, teenage pregnancies, abortions, child prostitution, criminality, drugs, loss of education etc).

Indeed, one of the best pieces of advice that one can give to parents regarding their children is to delay, delay, delay. Delay for as long as possible all those things that might more readily lead to unhappiness; the child's first sexual exploit, their first cigarette, their first ecstasy tablet, the first time that they play truant from school, the first time that they have a boyfriend, the first time that they fail to do their homework, their first trip to the nightclub. And so on.

Delay is the best in such areas, so that these growing beings have as much experience, understanding and resilience (mental and physical) as possible, before engaging in activities that might lead to serious and/or long-term negative consequences.

So, in summary, there are very many seriously negative aspects to children engaging in 'consensual' sexual activities. 

But psychological trauma is not one of them!

And I must stress here that I have ONLY been talking about 'consensual sex'.

Where 'psychological trauma' does appear to occur following 'consensual' sex, the major cause of it seems mostly not to derive directly from the events themselves, but from the way in which influential others respond to them. If these give out the message that the mole is a malignant cancer, then the emotional damage can be very great indeed.

It can be positively enormous.

And, quite bluntly, the fact that so many adults in the western world still experience severe emotional discomfort - even anguish - arising from their own 'consensual' acts decades ago, as children, is not only damning evidence with regard to how ineffective their personal 'therapy' has been, it is, in fact, the direct result of the abuse industry having inflicted relentlessly upon them the view that their psychological moles are malignant cancers when, in fact, they are not.

And I must stress again that I have ONLY been talking about 'consensual sex'.

However, when it comes to non-consensual sex or unwilling and forced sex, the negative consequences that arise from the antics of the abuse industry are even worse!

Imagine, for example, the terrible effects on those with cancer if cancer charities persisted in deluging the nation with highly-inflammatory and emotional adverts showing the most appalling cases of suffering and trauma in patients who had ONLY particularly debilitating forms of cancer. Not only would all those with any cancers have their lives completely poisoned, damaged and ruined by such antics, even those who had no cancer at all would live in conscious and unconscious dread of it all.

But this is exactly the sort of thing that children's charities do to the population in order to obtain their funding.

With regard to 'consensual' sex, there is, if you like, no directly resulting 'psychological cancer'. With regard to non-consensual sex there is. But, in both cases, the long-term psychological problems that ostensibly arise from such things MOSTLY arise from the self-serving shenanigans of the very people who claim to be so concerned about them. Indeed, for the MOST part, they are the primary cause of the cancer. And, further, they are also mostly the ones who perpetuate its ill effects.

And, with the help of the most highly professional and most effective emotional manipulators in the land - found in the advertising industry - they are very effective in causing and maintaining an enormous amount of emotional pain throughout the entire nation. 

And when it comes to the UK's National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, MOST of the money that it actually gets from the donations inspired by its huge advertising budget does not even go toward the protection of children. It goes to the media folk in the advertising industry and to accountants and solicitors, and what have you..

It is the most pernicious, widespread and lucrative of scams.

But it is not just in the area of sex abuse that the public is injected with destructive psychological viruses from the abuse industry. The psychological space of the entire nation is very much taken up by even more abuse in relation to matters like domestic violence and child assault. 

But the very same principles apply. And psychological matters for everyone are simply made much worse by the continual onslaught.

One reason for this, of course, is that persistent heavily-emotional psychological attacks through the media or through 'therapists' force people to live through such experiences over and over again (whether or not they have actually occurred in real life) and, in the case of real victims of abuse, to re-experience all the pain of real events that truly went before.

And, indeed, for example, the NSPCC received numerous complaints from abuse survivors when they started their highly-charged Full Stop advertising campaign purportedly in an attempt to stop ALL child abuse.

Every time you focus on the photo of your deceased loved one on the mantelpiece, you're back to being glum. Whenever you remember how hard he or she hit you that night, you're back to being glum. And being continually bombarded with highly-charged material that encourages you constantly to grieve, or to feel guilty for not doing so, or to feel anger and vengeful, when it comes to painful matters from the past, is a recipe for utter misery.

It is surely not surprising that so many people in the west are so depressed, angry, lonely and anxious despite the fact that they should actually feel much safer and far more comfortable than all other peoples ever to have existed. But what can one expect given that huge talents and resources are continually being directed toward ensuring that people feel exactly this way? - and especially those who were once victims of abuse.

And, if all the above was not enough, there is the question of the way in which men, and fathers in particular, are forever being targeted, demonised and turned into objects of fear and hatred by the abuse industry. Thus, for example, while the children's charities know that the objective evidence clearly shows that women are, by far, the main perpetrators of physical assault upon children, nevertheless they continue in their advertising to portray the main perpetrators as being men.

Thus, yet again, the people in the abuse industry are to be found manifestly deceiving, manipulating AND DAMAGING the population simply in order to feather their own nests.

The personal view of many people, including myself, is that the antics of the NSPCC and Saatchi and Saatchi have very severely damaged the emotional well-being of victims of abuse, they have infected the country with hostility, suspicion, hysteria and hatred, and they have horribly demonised men and fathers in the eyes of all.

One day soon, the public, and men especially, will wake up to their game. And when it does, the time will be ripe for the men's movement to step into the forefront of helping their victims to prosecute and claim substantial damages from the people and the businesses concerned.

I started this piece by pointing out how even a physically innocuous gesture by a teacher can nowadays result in pupils genuinely feeling abused because of the way in which the propaganda of the day keeps telling them that this is how they should feel.

But when it comes to all sorts of emotive experiences - and not just the negative ones such as those to do with abuse - the same principles apply, and just as strongly, though we often find it very difficult to appreciate this.

For example, despite all my strenuous efforts to be angered at ALL Bobbit jokes, some of them I find very amusing. Indeed, the whole nation can quite happily laugh at the idea of men's penises being cut off while the idea of hacking away at female breasts does not commonly bring about the same response. We have been trained to see this kind of suffering completely differently depending on whether the victim is a man or a woman.

And so, my point is that even our sense of humour is DEEPLY affected by the 'propaganda' that invades us.

For some people, the killing of foxes in fox-hunts is an emotionally intolerable enterprise. For others it has no significance at all.

For some people, when a relative commits an act of terrorist suicide in furtherance of their cause they are filled with joy and pride. For others, the very thought fills them with horror.

If a Nazi merely spat on a Jew, one imagines that the Jew might have considered that he'd had a good day! But had it been the other way round, the Nazi might have felt so defiled that his whole week was effectively ruined.

The way that people emotionally experience situations depends very much on the ideas with which they have been indoctrinated.

This is what the highly-reputed child development expert Rudolph Schaffer says.

'It has become apparent that, there is no direct relationship between age and the impact which experience has on the individual, that young children are not necessarily more vulnerable even to quite severe adversities than older children, and that considerable variability exists in long-term outcome.' 

The one variable that does help to predict how a traumatic event might impact on children is how the adults around them cope with it.

What Professor Shaffer is saying is that the EVENTS themselves are of no real significance when it comes to long term psychological trauma. What might cause such trauma, however, is the way in which important and significant others react, and continue to react, to the situation.

Or, as a child expert working as a Senior Departmental Head for the social services said to me not so long ago, "You know. If a child falls and grazes its knees, and there is blood, it is up to you if the child feels any pain. If you tell the child it hurts, then it does, and the child cries. If you tell the child that it doesn't hurt, then it doesn't!" 

And she was right. (She then went on to explain to me her view that the attitudes of the social services and the 'professionals' involved in child care in her country were causing far more harm to the children in their care than were the perpetrators of the abuse.)

Well, the NSPCC and Saatchi and Saatchi have spent millions telling children that 'it' hurts, and, further, that 'it' has long term negative psychological consequences. The messages that they keep giving our children is that the moles on their backs will cause them untold psychological damage. The truth, however, is that the messages themselves are the causes of such damage.

Indeed, with the NSPCC's multi-million pound annual advertising budget I could EASILY get the nation's children to feel nauseous and ill, long term, whenever they caught sight of what was once their favourite sweet. And I could easily make them believe that sitting in a classroom all day was an act of appalling abuse.

And, before very long, the nation's children - AND THE ADULTS - would GENUINELY feel sick whenever they encountered those sweets, and they would GENUINELY feel much emotional pain because they were forced to attend their schools.

I would also like to point out that the NSPCC is very much at the forefront of demonising parents who have smacked their children. This, together with the general disempowerment of teachers and parents thanks to the fear that they now have when it comes to disciplining their children is helping to cause monumental problems to society.

Many people who work for the same groups are also very much involved in demanding secrecy with regard to the work that they do, and they also employ intimidatory tactics to silence those who might simply question them.

Thus, the abuse industry is a serious and highly injurious cancer within our society in very, very many ways. It might be doing some good at some level, but, overall, it is causing far more harm to our society and our children than it is curing.

And it needs to be strongly challenged and re-shaped.

Daily Mirror

Mum's fury over school marking ban

By Rod Chaytor

TEACHERS have been banned from marking school work with red ink because it upsets the children, a parent claimed yesterday.

The mum said staff at her child's primary school were ordered to use "neutral" green ink, instead.

The annoyed parent said: "We've been told they won't use red because it's too hard on the children.

... ...

AH ...

In fact, this policy was introduced at least 20 years ago in many schools throughout the UK - and for the same reasons. 

It is nothing new!

However, the interesting thing about this is that regardless of what colour of ink is used, it will eventually become to be disliked by the children.

It is the crosses - as opposed to the ticks - that children do not like to see on their work.

But the point of interest here is this.

The very fact that children will come to hear about the claims that children 'do not like red ink' will actually cause children to dislike red ink!

And this is not a trivial point.

The children are actually being taught to be offended and 'abused' - by the presence of red ink.

Thus, a new generation of permanent victims is being created by politically-corrected nincompoops working in the teaching profession.

Indeed, you can expect some unsuspecting teachers and parents in the future to be prosecuted for ink abuse!

No Counselling Required There have now been over a dozen controlled trials in which people involved in accidents and other traumas were randomly allocated to receive or not receive such counselling. And the results showed conclusively that immediate psychological debriefing did not work. ... Worse, the better studies with the longer follow-ups showed that receiving such counselling increased the rate of later psychological problems. Professor Simon Wessely - to do with the London suicide bombings

Encouraging Murder Felons who calculate they will receive the same punishment for murder as they would for having a third strike, kill their victims to avoid detection and police officers to avoid apprehension

How Social Factors Influence Pain "This is an interesting example showing how social factors can influence pain intensity, pain behaviours and even the physiological processes of pain". This is not something under conscious control, she points out.

"The key point is that the process by which physiological stress responses become embedded in the body is open to conscious restructuring."

10/09/03

How Emotions Affect The Immune System Sad, fearful and angry thoughts can weaken the body's protective immune system and make it more vulnerable to disease, according to a brain scanner study published today. 

Tell this to the workers in the child abuse industry and in the NSPCC who have damaged badly so many children, for so long.

Humour Not Fear Helps Children Recover "Clown doctors" are being introduced into British hospitals to make sick children laugh themselves back to health.

Yes indeed.

Contrast this with the tactics of many of those working in the child abuse industry ...

How The Abuse Industry Targets Those Who Expose Them Elizabeth Loftus was enjoying her life researching the unreliability of memory in adults and children, and was often called as an expert witness in major trials such as that of OJ Simpson. By the mid-1980s those cases increasingly involved sexual abuse. But when her own work questioned the theory of repressed memory of sexual abuse, all hell broke loose. A woman hit her with a rolled-up newspaper. Worse, as she told Wendy M. Grossman, the controversy made her enemies - and propelled her out of her much-loved job. 

Children's Charities Harm Children How children are suffering harm by those with a duty to protect them. Charles Pragnell

Negative Thoughts Produce Poor Health  Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is also the form of therapy with the most academic studies to show that, when carried out properly, treatment success rates can be as high as 90 per cent. ... The basic idea behind CBT is that thoughts or cognitions lead to feelings and actions, and that if those thoughts are negative, the feelings will be bad. Michele Kirsch - 5 min 

Child Abuse Hysteria This year started as last year ended: with society's obsession with child sexual abuse on an ever-upward spiral. Stuart Waiton - March 2001- 10 min

1/8/02 

Persecuting Innocents Two nursery nurses forced to flee their homes in fear of their lives after being accused of sexually abusing dozens of children yesterday won libel damages of £200,000 each at the end of a six-month court case.  

"The judge said the team "clearly fell under the spell" of Camille San Lazaro a paediatrician at the Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle, who examined 53 children and made findings of abuse. She was "unbalanced, obsessive and lacking in judgment" and had given "untrue accounts" to the criminal injuries compensation board ."

+ UK Nurses cleared of child abuse win libel payout - Telegraph version of the same story

+ UK The team were Dr Richard Barker, a social worker in an academic post at the University of Northumbria, Newcastle; Roy Wardell, a former director of social services for Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council; Jacqui Saradjian, a clinical psychologist; and Judith Jones, a senior social worker.

+ UK If we want to prevent more cases of this kind, we need to start asking more questions of those who claim to be protecting children. Jennie Bristow - Brits should read this.

pnoyes@nspcc.org.uk,mmarsh@nspcc.org.uk,jgrounds@nspcc.org.uk, ccloke@nspcc.org.uk,wcuell@nspcc.org.uk

And I do mean EVERYONE.

Hello T (a child-abuse expert)

The reasons why so many paedophiles fail to be convinced about any harmful effects of child sex is because, firstly, there are millions of adults the world over who have not experienced harmful effects, and that includes most of the paedophiles themselves, and, secondly, though they won't readily admit to it, many people and psychologists realise that where psychological 'traumas' arise at a time AFTER the events themselves, then some kind of trauma-inducing indoctrination must have taken place somewhere in the meantime.

In my view, the focus of rebutting the paedophiles' claims is usually in the wrong place - and it is mostly the equivalent of something like telling youngsters that smoking marihuana will turn them into mad killers or that masturbation eventually makes you blind. Too many people just don't believe this; especially when they, themselves, have actually experienced these things

In my opinion, the best way to persuade paedophiles not to indulge themselves is to point out that even 'consensual' child sexual abuse is a bit like drinking and driving. Things might be OK, but there is always far too great a likelihood that the altered future pathways for the child will lead to serious negative consequences. And so, much in the same way that drink drivers are prosecuted because of their negligent attitude toward the higher probability of having an accident, so it is that paedophiles should be prosecuted for inflicting something similar on to children.

What is not tolerable, however, is for men and fathers - and, indeed, for all those whose work brings them into contact with children - to be continually demonised and put under suspicion, either in the process of deterring paedophiles, or in the process of educating the population at large about them, or when it comes to raising funds - especially when the accompanying hysteria is what actually causes MOST of the damage to the victims themselves!

AH