CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Save/Enslave the Children!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Save/Enslave the Children!

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/...ones_sex_abuse

Quote:
UNITED NATIONS - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed "deep concern" Tuesday after a leading children's charity said it uncovered evidence of widespread sexual abuse of children at the hands of U.N. peacekeepers and international aid workers. The report by Save the Children UK, based on field research in southern Sudan, Ivory Coast and Haiti, describes a litany of sexual crimes against children as young as 6.

It said some children were denied food aid unless they granted sexual favors; others were forced to have sex or to take part in child pornography; many more were subjected to improper touching or kissing. "The report shows sexual abuse has been widely underreported because children are afraid to come forward," Jasmine Whitbread, chief executive of Save the Children UK, told Associated Press Television News.

"A tiny proportion of peacekeepers and aid workers are abusing the children they were sent to protect. It ranges from sex for food to coerced sex. It's despicable." At the U.N. headquarters, spokeswoman Michele Montas said Ban "is deeply concerned" by the report. "We welcome this report. It's fair, and I think it's essentially accurate," Montas said. She noted the report states the United Nations has already undertaken steps designed to tackle the problem, from establishing conduct and discipline units in all U.N. missions to strengthening training for all categories of U.N. personnel. She said the United Nations also needs to strengthen its investigative capacity.

The study was based on research, confidential interviews and focus groups conducted last year. The charity emphasized it did not produce comprehensive statistics about the scale of abuse but did gather enough information to indicate the problem is severe. The report said that more than half the children interviewed knew of cases of sexual abuse and that in many instances children knew of 10 or more such incidents carried out by aid workers or peacekeepers. The Save the Children UK researchers, who met with 129 girls and 121 boys between the ages of 10 and 17, and also with a number of adults, found an "overwhelming" majority of the people interviewed would never report a case of abuse and had never heard of a case being reported.

The threat of retaliation, and the stigma attached to sex abuse, were powerful deterrents to coming forward, the report said. Ann Buchanan, an Oxford University expert in statistical attempts to quantify rates of child abuse, said the topic is so taboo it is virtually impossible to come up with reliable numbers. But she said the new report provides a useful starting point. "This will never be a statistical study," she said. "We'd call it a pilot work exploring the start of an issue. All the research shows kids don't make it up." Buchanan, who directs the Oxford Center for Research into Parenting and Children, said the biggest obstacle to accurate numerical studies of child sexual abuse is the reluctance of children to come forward and tell adults they have been taken advantage of.

"Sexual abuse is a hugely difficult, sensitive area and it's not something that you can usually do surveys about because kids feel terrible shame and are afraid to say what's happened to them," she said. "Given what we know about underreporting of sex abuse, I would say this report is probably true. They've gone about it as sensitively as you can." Save the Children spokesman Dominic Nutt said U.N. peacekeepers are involved in many abuse cases because they are present throughout the world in such large numbers. But he praised the United Nations for improving its reporting and investigative procedures regarding sex abuse.

"We're not singling out the U.N. In some ways they do a good job. It's all peacekeepers and all aid workers, including Save the Children," that are involved in sexual abuses, he said. The report says several Save the Children workers were fired for having sex with 17-year-old girls in violation of agency guidelines.

In its report, Save the Children UK makes three key recommendations: establish a way for people to report abuse locally, create an international watchdog agency this year to deal with the problem, and set up a program to deal with the underlying causes of child abuse. Tom Cargill, Africa program manager at the London think tank Chatham House, said there is no "magic bullet" that can solve the problem quickly. "The governance of U.N. missions has always been a problem because soldiers from individual states are only beholden to those states," he said. "So it's difficult for the U.N. to pursue charges and difficult for the U.N. to investigate them."
My faith in humanity has been restored.

I tend to look askance at any man that wants to work or spend lots of time with young children, particularly if it isn't ostensibly so that they can spend more time with their own child (i.e., coaching their kid's baseball team).

Terrible stereotyping, or gut-level criminal profiling? Weigh in Sewer Chewers!
post #2 of 47
Terrible stereotyping. But then again, I avoid all contact with kids who are not my one and only cousin. The misandry present in the culture is enough to make me run away. It's such a fog that we automatically assume it was all men who did the abusing, though the article states nothing of the sort (though it is implied that the ones having sex with the 17 year old girls aremen). And if it did state that men did it, let me know, I double checked and didn't find anything, but I could be mistaken.

As for the article, not surprised. I know I should be shocked and horrified but...I don't know...just sounds a bit natural. You have someone holding the keys to life over your head, I imagine anyone might get a little power hungry and abuse that power.
post #3 of 47
I feel the same way. I don't trust guys who are super nice with/to kids. Seems to me like they are up to something.
post #4 of 47
But hey, the 12 year old boys who bang their hot teachers, well, they're just damn lucky, aren't they?
post #5 of 47
You got that Goddamned right partner.
post #6 of 47
sigh
post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post
But hey, the 12 year old boys who bang their hot teachers, well, they're just damn lucky, aren't they?
Yes, yes they are.

ETA: Beaten to the punch.
post #8 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica Alba's Ass
I feel the same way. I don't trust guys who are super nice with/to kids. Seems to me like they are up to something.
It's horrible, but yeah, that's how I feel. I know that my entire adult life I've pretty much ignored the presence of other folks's children, and I get a bit suspicious when other [men] people don't do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post
But hey, the 12 year old boys who bang their hot teachers, well, they're just damn lucky, aren't they?
Some double-standards are fully justified!

Quote:
The misandry present in the culture is enough to make me run away. It's such a fog that we automatically assume it was all men who did the abusing, though the article states nothing of the sort (though it is implied that the ones having sex with the 17 year old girls aremen). And if it did state that men did it, let me know, I double checked and didn't find anything, but I could be mistaken.
Unless the culpable U.N. employees somehow managed to buck every sex crime statistic we've compiled over the the last hundred or so years, I think we can safely assume what segment of the population was responsible for most of the abuses. I will bet you any amount of money that the culprits were overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) men.
post #9 of 47
I'll take overwhelmingly to best describe it. Exclusively a) makes me feel like some deranged monster (which I know is what people want) and b) flies in the face of statistics as well: http://www.casanet.org/library/abuse...s98.htm#_edn18

I'm not condoning these actions. Hell, I think anyone who does is a fucked monster. I am merely saying that to say one half of the population is to be blamed while the other half walks away squeaky clean is...sexist? Stupid? Illogical? Still, overwhelmingly men, yes. 'Exclusively men'. No.
post #10 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post
I'm not condoning these actions. Hell, I think anyone wh does is a fucked monster. I am merely saying that to say one half of the population is to be blamed while the other half walks away squeaky clean is...sexist?
Squeaky clean? No way! It's women foisting their unnatural statutory rape, pornography, polygamy, and prostitution laws upon us that cause men to act so despicably!
post #11 of 47
Hey, I like kids AND pets. Yet oddly enough, I have no desire to fuck them.
post #12 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Hey, I like kids AND pets. Yet oddly enough, I have no desire to fuck them.
Yes, but you're not old and cree..... oh .... never mind.
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
I tend to look askance at any man that wants to work or spend lots of time with young children, particularly if it isn't ostensibly so that they can spend more time with their own child (i.e., coaching their kid's baseball team).

Terrible stereotyping, or gut-level criminal profiling? Weigh in Sewer Chewers!
Considering that I've been a preschool teacher for the last fifteen years, I'd have to go with terrible stereotyping. On the other hand, given the statistics, even I have to admit that there's a certain amount of justification to the stereotype. It happens way too much for anyone to get up in arms over the image.
post #14 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Considering that I've been a preschool teacher for the last fifteen years, I'd have to go with terrible stereotyping. On the other hand, given the statistics, even I have to admit that there's a certain amount of justification to the stereotype. It happens way too much for anyone to get up in arms over the image.
Well, the rate isn't 100%, obviously. However, the statistics are pretty overwhelming that men who seek out careers that place them into continuous contact with young children are far more likely to commit certain categories of crime.

Every once in a while I'll pick up a book (or peruse a website) on criminology. It's amazing how closely certain careers are linked with particular crimes. For example: firemen are far, far, far more likely to commit arson. In fact, the connection is so strong that the police should always check the local firehouse when unexplained flames keep leaping around. Yet, they don't, because people don't want to believe it.

Similar connections exist for a host of different careers, including policemen (which is surprising considering that crimes committed by officers of the law are routinely covered up, underplayed, or outright ignored) and priests (guess which crimes?).
post #15 of 47
Garbage men are most likely to litter. I shit you not.
post #16 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
Garbage men are most likely to litter. I shit you not.
You killed Lem, you son of a bitch!

Oh, sorry Moltisanti. That's an instinctive reaction.
post #17 of 47
He did it for the good of the team as a whole. Why can't you all understand that!?!
post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
He did it for the good of the team as a whole. Why can't you all understand that!?!
Debatable. (personally, I lean more towards that is a false statement). It was an individual action, benefiting an individual solely. No team discussion or agreement. Shane must die.
post #19 of 47
Bologna. No way Lem would have kept his mouth shut on the inside. Besides, Vic set the standard for killing one of their own when the team was in jeopardy, and that wasn't a team decision.
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
Bologna. No way Lem would have kept his mouth shut on the inside. Besides, Vic set the standard for killing one of their own when the team was in jeopardy, and that wasn't a team decision.
Vic didn't kill one of their own, he killed an outsider who was added into their team. So not exactly the same situation. No way that Lem would have betrayed the team. Shane was covering his ass not the team's.
post #21 of 47
A cop is a cop. Sure Terry wasn't quite the same as Lem but any way you slice it it's a murder. Plus it basically taught Shane that that's how you solve a problem.

Lem would have cracked. A great guy, no doubt, but he was weak. He burned money train loot!
post #22 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
A cop is a cop. Sure Terry wasn't quite the same as Lem but any way you slice it it's a murder. Plus it basically taught Shane that that's how you solve a problem.

Lem would have cracked. A great guy, no doubt, but he was weak. He burned money train loot!
It needed to be a group decision!
post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
It needed to be a group decision!
I <3 Overlord. That is all.
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
Lem would have cracked. A great guy, no doubt, but he was weak. He burned money train loot!
I don't know, he follows his "moral" code pretty strongly. Even when it puts him in danger. Remember saving Kavanaugh during the raid for the Salvadorian grenades?

Plus Lem was supposed to hide out in Mexico. Do you think he would have been caught or come back?

Oh, and yeah, stuff in OP bad. Is there a Shield thread?
post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by neoolong View Post
Plus Lem was supposed to hide out in Mexico. Do you think he would have been caught or come back?
He backed out of the Mexico plan because he didn't want to end up like Gilroy. He had decided to do his time (and thus would have snitched sooner or later). Shane could not take that chance, not with a baby on the way!
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
He backed out of the Mexico plan because he didn't want to end up like Gilroy. He had decided to do his time (and thus would have snitched sooner or later). Shane could not take that chance, not with a baby on the way!
I just watched this over the weekend. Why did Lem meet up with the others then? To tell them he's turning himself in?
post #27 of 47
Pretty much, he wanted to assure the others that prison was his best option. Oh, and to eat a grenade sandwich.
post #28 of 47
Leave the thread, come back to see such unthruths spoken of the dearly departed Lem. Harsh.

Lem would never have broken in prison. Shane jumped the gun (or grenade). Thus Shane broke the team and the team will end up tearing itself to pieces rather than protect each other.

Speak no evil of the Lem.
post #29 of 47
I don't think I'm speaking evil, just telling it like it is. He was too nice for the Strike Team yet too dirty to to be an honest cop like Claudette or Julian. He was an egg in the Shield omelette.
post #30 of 47
I actually enjoy being around kids and I happen to resent the idea that I'm some kind of a molester (tor? ter?). I just dig hanging around with them, the bizarre thoughts that come out of their heads are always good for a laugh and they give me a reason to dig out Toy Story 1 and 2 time and time again.
post #31 of 47
Huh? What does that have to do with the justified death of Lem?
post #32 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
Huh? What does that have to do with the justified death of Lem?
I think he's saying that Lem's death was an acceptable loss to protect the team. And that he feels that way because he wants to molest children.
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
Huh? What does that have to do with the unjustified and cruel death of the late and great Lem?
Fixed.
post #34 of 47
Cletus VanDamme needs to die. Horribly.
After killing Lem for fear of snitching, he threatens Vic that he's gonna snitch!

He's the worst weasel out there. And Vic has been helping him and looking the other way all their careers.
post #35 of 47
Oh please, look at Lem here:



"I won't talk. Honest Shane, I wouldn't do that. Yeah, so I burned a lot of perfectly good money but really I'm quite level-headed. I've got my hands in my pockets and everything. Now just give me a sandwich because I'm hungry."

KABOOM!
post #36 of 47
What nobody remembers Tavon?

Shane caused the team plenty of problems, yet they all stuck by him.
post #37 of 47
Oh dear, don't get me started on Tavon.
post #38 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neoolong View Post
What nobody remembers Tavon?
Tavon and Alex O'Loughlin are like bad dreams at this point.
post #39 of 47
Same goes for Julian's beard, I mean wife.
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
Tavon and Alex O'Loughlin are like bad dreams at this point.
I didn't get to O'Loughlin yet.
post #41 of 47
I'd just like to point out that you people suck.
post #42 of 47
Says the guy who works all day long with little boys and girls.
post #43 of 47
I think I'm just mad because I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
post #44 of 47
That's alright, I'm just jealous because you get summers off.
post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
That's alright, I'm just jealous because you get summers off.
See, I'm not going to touch that one. Too much class.
post #46 of 47
Summers is a lovely girl.

See, I have no class. And, if anyone where I work reads this thread, no job.
post #47 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Summers is a lovely girl.

See, I have no class. And, if anyone where I work reads this thread, no job.
I'm sure you're not using your real name. But just in case, time to fire up the old public records database and see where you live ...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Save/Enslave the Children!