h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A674138

I've put the A number in the title.

Geoff

I can't comment on the programme itself and I won't follow the suit of UK ministers

But: an important topic. The statistics are quite the same in Germany, with relatives as the most prominent portion in the statistics. And it is kept outside the headlines too.

As to the entry: only minor comments from my side:
- the entry's title should carry reference to 'paedophile'. From reading the title, I didn't know what I was going to find there.
- the list of celebrities would come out better if you use the tag.
- 'Roy Whiting' turns up without mentioning what the case was. You should perhaps add some description here.



Bossel (now definitely going to put his stuff together for a long RL journey)

Nice entry, Geoff - I personally found the show very funny, especially the 'preconstuction' of 'Robo-paedo'. (For those that didn't see the show, this was the story of a wheelchair-bound paedophile - but what if he was to get bionic legs and arms? The 'preconstruction' showed a man with robot arms and legs walking robot-style towards a children's play-park.)
I've never understood paedophilia - children are non-sexual, so a sexual attraction to them doesn't seem possible. What we need is a greater understanding of why this happens - and such an understanding exists, it needs to be more widely-known.

If you want to lend academic weight to any arguments you want to make, you might want to refer to Becker (I think - I'll have a look when I get home. Also, from here on in I'm going on memory, so there may be errors). His symbolic interactionist theories deal with the internalisation of labels, ie if you label someone as a criminal or mental patient or paedophile, that's how they come to regard themselves, taking on the patient or prisoner roles. I think Becker also deals with 'moral panics', which is very relevant here.

Just a couple of thoughts

Thanks Gents...

I'll incorporate Bossell's changes, and I'll include Robo-Paedo as one of the show's examples; I'd forgotten about that.

I don't want to get into the nature of paedophilia, because this article is about the show itself and the reaction to it.

I think paedophilia would be a fascinating subject for an entry in and of itself.

Good article, Geoff. I'm glad to see you continuing your campaign against wilful ignorance in this area.

I suppose it's a bit off the point to mention that the 'newspaper' that is making the running in all this normally fills its pages with titillation and sex-scandal 'exposures', whilst paying its way with classified adverts for sex phone lines and porn. And still has 'For Sarah' on its masthead.

When you say, did you mean to, or did you mean 'ridiculous'? Either makes sense.

I nearly crashed my car when I heard Beverley Hughes condemning Brass Eye on the Today Programme and in the same interview admitting she hadn't actually seen it. The interviewer (can't remember who it was) could have made her look stupid, but she'd done a very adequate job of that herself.

This needs to be in the Guide.

Excellent stuff! I wrote about the episode myself in 'The h2g2 Post' the week the show was broadcast. My column for that week is on http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A603451 (Please read beyond the first paragraph to avoid a possible major misunderstanding! ) But your piece goes into much greater detail than I did, and - as you mentioned - the 'News Of The World' is once again trying to stir up mob hysteria over paedophilia, so the issue is topical again.

Just a couple of points: I'd suggest rephrasing the line about 'Peter File'. It's probably clear enough from the context that you're not actually supporting vigilante violence , but it might be better to say something like '...but the show's narrator explained that it was his fault for having a silly name.' Also, although I'm sure you're right to say that most child sex abuse is carried out by the victims' relatives, I'd be interested to know the source of that statistic you quote at the end of the Entry. 80 per cent seems a suspiciously neat, round figure.

Great Entry, though. To the Edited Guide with it!

Ormondroyd

I've seen the figure 80% bandied around in several places over the months, but I've yet to see it from a source I'd consider authoritative. So in hindsight I've decided not to use it. I've amended the article to say "The majority of....". I have seen this as a quote in an "Economist" article on the subject, so I'm content with its bona fides.

As for the "Peter File" thing... The sentence was meant to be ironic in itself, but it obviously doesn't come across that way. I've slipped in the word "apparently".

I do like your entry in the post; it's got lots more opinion than I could put in this (hopefully) Edited article. I think the two are quite complementary.

Hmm, I was sure that Furedi might have something, but all I can find is this:
"In comparison to the past, children today are relatively safe. During the years 1983-93, 57 children were killed by strangers in the UK - an average of five a year...when one considers that there are 12 million children in the UK, the risk of murder by a stranger is statistically negligible." Furedi, F., Culture Of Fear, 1997

Oh I like that... I'll use it.
I've also lifted a couple of quotes from the link on Ormondroyd's article.

Geoff

Statistics you may or may not want to incorporate... from the United States:

The typical child sex offender molests an average of 117 children, most of whom do not report the offense. (National Institute of Mental Health, 1988)

Children with disabilities are 4 to 10 times more vulnerable to sexual abuse than their non disabled peers. (National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse, 1992)

It is estimated that approximately 71% of child sex offenders are under 35 and knew the victim at least casually. About 80% of these individuals fall within normal intelligence ranges; 59% gain sexual access to their victims through, seduction or enticement.
Source: Burgess & Groth, 1984.

One in two rape victims are under age 18; one in six are under age 12. (Child Rape Victims, 1992, Dept. of Justice).

In a random sampling of over 900 women, 16% reported at least one experience of intrafamilial sexual abuse before age 18.("The Incidence and Prevalence of Intrafamilial and Extrafamilial Sexual Abuse of Female Children", Diane Russell, Child Abuse & Neglect, 1983).

Sigh... that smiley was accidental. The year of publication was 1988.

Thanks NBY,
The article's UK specific, so I won't actually use any of the stats you provided.

They do however seem to back up the notion that most abusers know their victims.

I'm not comfortable with the figure of 117 average victims. It just doesn't seem to gel with the other figures. How many people know 117 kids casually? Shall we just castrate all teachers to be on the safe side? Besides, if most of the incidents go unreported, then surely this must be an estimate? No... that one just doesn't ring true.

OK...slight changes
I've included Dr Gonzo's Furendi quote, added a little to the Tessa Jowell/ITC para and added 2 quotes from Ormondroyd's link.

It's 6am on Christmas morning, and I've already been awake 2 hours. I can't sleep because of a stinking cold so I might as well do something useful here.

Have a good'un, folks! (Better than mine, at any rate)

Geoff

Hi Geoff,

Given the source of the 117 figure, I suspect that it just includes abusers who have an 'official', clinical diagnosis of pedophilia. We also don't know how big a group that average came from. Two? Twenty? Twenty thousand?

It almost certainly doesn't include people who just have "daddy's little girl" and keep in in the family.

I don't think that a background check of potential employees of schools, day-care providers, churches or any youth-realted organizations would be out of line.

NBY

I agree; it sounds like a sound idea.

But we're straying off-topic onto a tangent. Tell me true, good NBY, what do you think of the entry?

Hope you had a good Christmas, BTW



Geoff

The entry itself is well-written. I'd prefer it if you had some statistics from a reputable source to back up your assertation that most child sexual abuse happens in the home. I agree with the assertation entirely, but there are people who deny the possibility.

Other than that, I think it's ready for the Edited Guide now.

Ahhh....The Ghost of Orson Welles visits again...

Of what rantest thou?

'The War of the Worlds' broadcast got Welles in trouble but it presaged the invasion mania that would plague the coasts of the US during WWII.
If these buffoons are reacting to this broadcast this way, then the programme must be very useful.
In both cases, the ability of otherwise 'normal' people to rely on an 'entertainment' medium for 'information' led them to consider an absurdity and then be upset for being caught with their neurons down.

Hi Geoff,

I see you have your towel on a chair in the Edited Guide for this entry!

I loved this program, and I like this article. I also loved the Brasseye series; perhaps you could mention that this episode was a one-off special. (The original series nearly never got broadcast because of its 'ridiculing' of MPs, i.e. getting someone to raise a white paper in Parliament asking about the dangers of a new drug called 'Cake').

You might also make passing mention to The News of the World supporting "Sarah's Law", despite the police's opposition due to paedophiles going underground or to vigilante attacks. Or perhaps that's outside the scope of this article.

It might also be fair to describe the 5 second scene that caused so much offence - as I recall, it was Chris Morris (the presenter)forcing a paedophile to confront his (Morris') son, then getting offended when the paedophile wasn't attracted to him (the son).

Good luck with getting this edited,

Gif