Let me guess, would a fair summary of whatever it is be:
"desperate publicity whore picks controversial topic to make outrageous statement, for use in "most outraged" competition?"

We must as always agree to disagree - I think you are sticking your head in the sand by saying we cannot provide preventative cures we must wait until the problem is so widespread that actually we have to let it continue (in your words its endemic!!) Given that the majority of child abuse is family related stopping it is possible, the problem is the emotional complexities of the aftermath. I take it you have no children if you had you would not take such a casual attitude. Your last paragraph is just plain wrong.

To say you cannot prove you prevented anything again is just wrong. If we could never prove anything why would we take preventative measures against anything - let's just have a free-for-all. In Bradford we have significant issues of infant problems from those children born out of parents who are cousins. If we banned it and we saw a drop off of these issues that would prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it worked.

But I neither said, nor believe, any such thing! I said the oposite. I said that the social services etc agencies have to press on with their work regardless of the inevitable flak they will get, for the reasons I gave. How could you interpret that as meaning the opposite of what it states?


You say this glibly, but I say it isn't possible. Steps coould and should be taken to do what we reasonably can to identify children at risk and to do what we can to try to safeguard them, but "stopping" such abuse is I'm afraid an impossible and extremely naive belief.


That is just one aspect of many, but I'd say from a child's persective the problem at the top of the list is being sexually abused.


Your claim I have a "casual" attitude is unfounded and completely wrong. Where do you get this from? I have both kids and grandkids though don't really see how that fact is relevant.


On the contrary, it is 100% true. For it to be untrue, you would have to be able to prove that, had you not done X, then Y would have happened. Which is self-evidently impossible. The best you could do is say by doing X, you reduced the risk of Y.

You seem to be struggling with the concept so I'll give an example. Let's say the death of Baby P could have been prevented. With hindsight, the agencies could have done this, or could have done that.

But if they HAD done this, or that, and Baby P were still alive, they could not prove that they had prevented his death.

Is that clear enough.


Is that a serious question? OK, if you went to Sierra Leone, would you take preventative measures against contracting Ebola? If so, why? You could never prove that you would have caught it but for your preventative measures.

The reason why zillions of preventative measures are taken, in all areas and walks of life, and why they are sensible, is hidden in that hypothetical little question.


But you are leaping way off the point again, it's like saying widespread MMR vaccination will reduce MMR, of bleedin course it does! You seem incapable of differentiating between
(a) preventative steps reducing the RISK of some eventuality
(b) proving in any individual case that but for your preventative steps a specific individual WOULD have certainly suffered the eventuality.

You are basically saying there is no way of identifying if certain measures are taken that they will result in the desired outcomes e.g. Baby P? I fundamentally disagree with you.

The issues in Rotherham were well known for years - if it had been nipped in the bud it would have saved hundreds of children from abuse in later years. The fact you can't see that defies belief. The same situation occurred in Keighley and if Anne Cryer had been listened to many young girls could have been prevented from being abused. Surely its common sense if you know the perpetrators and you put them behind bars they cannot abuse anymore. If you don't do something they will just continue with impunity believing they are above the law - why you can't see this I don't know.

Why are we trying to stop IS - because if we don't they will continue with their barbaric campaign, are you saying that we can't say that for definite? If we just let them into Kobani there is not going to be significant bloodshed?

This is the truth. It's something that I think most people have a shaky understanding of. I'm a scientist, if you approach a situation like this from a scientific perspective there is no control. It's not possible to have two identical Baby P's - one experimental (in your example where social services intervene and the child is alive) and one control (where we can see the outcome of non action). If you don't have that then any conclusions are a best guess.

You can apply this to many arguments we have today, politicians in particular seem completely detached from the possibilty that the things they do have no actual effect on the things they claim credit for. Is our economy the way it is because of Tory policy or despite Tory policy? Impossible to know for sure without a control (and other countries just don't count - too many variables and non of them start from the same position).

Only because you seem to be incapable of understanding the point.


But IF it HAD been "nipped in the bud - how could you prove that abuse which never happened had been prevented?

The fact you can't see that defies belief.


Wait - you say a man in prison cannot abuse people outside prison; and you think this is a deep insight? Not, like, "bleedin' obvious" at all?.


Oddly enough, I "get" that deep insight too. Your point is that if the police do not catch a serial offender, he is likely to continue to serially offend. No shiit, Sherlock.

And your phrasing weirdly suggests someone might advocate "doing nothing". Who advocates doing nothing, then? I don't recall anyone suggesting leaving abusers to it. Maybe I missed a post, where was this proposed and by whom?


I suggest you try to get your head round basic comprehension before expanding into eliminating international terrorism

I'm glad I never sent out for popcorn