Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

[Of course I have it, why would I be making such bold claims? I>
started, earlier in this thread, illustrating the spin.
Because I belive Stalin said, people are more willing to believe big
lies than small one
I am fatiguing of your straw man rhetoric, my friend.]

[That's not a straw man.]

Yes it is, because I have not yet lied once.

[Your logic goes that 'you would not make these
claims if they were not true', but of course one cannot discern from
that statement alone whether your claims are true, or whether you are
mistaken or whether you are a liar, because all three categories of
people would say the same thing.]

You can know, for sure, they are not lies, because I said them. This
is not about logic, it is about my evidenced integrity and honesty.

Anyways, I said ....

"Of course I have it, why would I be making such bold claims?"

I did not claim truth.

You can be sure they are the nearest thing to the truth, because I
said them. I cannot deal in anything else, except in the most severe
cases.

[http://www.critest.com/documents/SocialResearch MethodsCropped.zip
That paper strikes me as a bit rambling,]

Perhaps you are unsure of the content ;)

[but I'll give you credit that
these are hardly issues that can be dealt with properly in 2000 words.
Still, it makes an argument that I've heard before and which I'm
already familiar with, and which does not cause any change in my point
of view.]

Not so clear on statistics, ether, it seems ;)

[Perhaps partly it's because I already accept that paedophilia
is not some kind of absolute moral sin which has been forbidden since
man came down from the trees, whereas obviously some people do think
that.]

That paper is not about morality. It concerns the 'low quality' (and I
am, being kind) interpretations, which take place, based on barely
significant stats.

I could write the same (and much 'worse') on any related paper.

This tosh is what our laws are created upon.

[Who needs to find any papers?]
Well, you do now, actually, if you wish to remain credible.
I think I already retain a fair amount of credibility here, and I
don't really need to pander to your demands.]

Entirely up to you, demands are not available, here.

[That said, I've previously made my statement on the matter of
evidence
and why reference to it would not help resolve this issue in any way.
But for your benefit, I'll say it once again: I'm *not* aware of *any*
conclusive evidence in respect of which you cannot simply say
"correlation does not indicate causation" or "that research does not
control for social context", and I dare accept that both of those
criticisms would be *perfectly valid*.]

Thank you.

[I can see a lot of things on TV, it does not make them true. In fact,
I have found it to be the opposite, much of the time.
Ah touche. Still, I have no reason overall to disbelieve those who
they have been victims of child sexual abuse, and who say they found
the experience thoroughly unpleasant.]

Who suggested that being 'unpleasant' was the issue? I doubt very few
people enjoyed their first taste of ejaculate.

You do not ... really?

Check what the figures were, before and after, compensation was made
available for 'CSA' ... and that is only one, possible, 'bogus'
reason.

[ Absolutely. The offences I speak of do not mention any motive
requirement. They are sexual offences in their own right.
At the end of the day, a "sexual act" is broadly equivalent to "an act
with a sexual motive".]

*****

Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.78

"Sexual"

20-17 78. For the purposes of this Part (except section 71),
penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable
person would consider that -

(a) whatever its circumstances or any person's purpose in relation to
it, it is because of its nature sexual, or

(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its
circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both)
it is sexual.

Archbold's Criminal Pleading - 2005 Edition, p. 1850.

*****

i.e. motive need not be real, just a circumstance/purpose which may be
perceived. As usual, totally subjective, in the actual (i.e. non-
legal) sense of the word.

Of course, this is circular reasoning, the last bastion of the
fool ... but, such are laws and lawmakers.

[Presumably the risk is implied from your convictions.]
By whom?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a correlation between being
convicted of a sex offence and a higher risk of committing further
sexual offences.]

Not for any *individual* (even if what you say was correct, for such a
new offence, from the whole dataset).

There is no published correlation between my offence and any other
sexual offending. What we do have (and what is now emerging) leads the
reader to the opposite conclusion.

This is where people are confused about risk assessment. One cannot
say, because an individual has done something, that they will do it
again (or anything vaguely related to it, or not related to it). All
that can be said, at best, is in the given dataset, x% may do it
again, based on previous cohorts; this is no measure of any given
individual.

That is why 'bad character' SHOULD NOT be allowed in courts, until
after the verdict.

*Each individual* has their risk assessed (as well as it can be, for
now), according to ratified procedures (some dubious, to say the
least, some not so bad).

Very few people know what the authorities mean by' risk' (in fact,
very few of the authorities do).

[It is a populist facade, for people, such as you, to maintain their
dogma and false sense of security.I wouldn't say I'm dogmatic about the issue at all, and I would also
say my views on the matter are far from populist.]

OK, you are not that bad ;)

[There is no risk and never has been. I have been assessed as the
lowest risk anyone can be, have you?
I assume you mean the lowest risk for a person categorised as a sex
offender?]

My MAPPA risk of re-offending is 'low' (based on Static and Dynamic
factors). I have it in 'writing'.

That is the lowest risk anyone can be.

My risk to minors was never seen as an issue for measuring or
mentioning (however, there is the issue of the PSR myths, which I am
happy to discuss, if need be).

No one is zero risk of committing an offence (hence, CRB checks etc
etc)

[As such I haven't been assessed for risk.]

.... and perhaps you all should be, as most new, sexual offences are
carried out by those without a record ;)

[Do you think that this is a healthy or civilised position for anyone
to be in, bearing in mind, I am the safest anyone can be (not to
mention the loss of my talents, skills and knowledge to society?).
And you call me dogmatic? ]

Do think it is a healthy or civilised position?

Do you think I do not have a spectacular work and social history, up
until 2002 (and since, in real terms)?

WM
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: One more British Double Standard - Harassment Against Sex Offenders Continues
    ... convictions made public, followed by a risk assessment, for selected ... people only and selected offences only. ... SEX OFFENDER DISCLOSURE PILOTS ... longer poses a risk to youngsters. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: One more British Double Standard - Harassment Against Sex Offenders Continues
    ... people only and selected offences only. ... parents with concerns about a neighbour who plays ... longer poses a risk to youngsters. ... concerned publicity around the pilot projects could drive sex ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Paedophile check trials launched
    ... monitoring of those that present a real risk is under-resourced. ... will do more harm in giving her a reason not to act ... information - it is likely to be the employment decision. ... it is possible to stop anyone with these offences (and not only ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Crime and Punishment
    ... I think there is a clear debate to be had here about risk management - ... I'm sure there are offences which are so ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Now Im scared
    ... I was no risk to anyone, not myself, not anyone. ... see no reason for me being kept locked up and let me go. ... A psychiatric nurse is then appointed to monitor ... And you want to make out that I was a violent psycho! ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)