NSPCC Threatens Music Teachers

Fury of music teachers over 'no touching' diktat

Looks like the NSPCC are at it again, ostensibly protecting children by persecuting innocent adults. Well, they have to do something to keep all that lovely public money pouring in.

Music teachers have been told to avoid physical contact with pupils because of fears of accusations of paedophilia.

The Musicians’ Union has released a video, backed by the NSPCC, calling on members not to touch students.

It said the policy would protect tutors, who face immediate suspension if an accusation of inappropriate touching is made and often have their careers destroyed even if they are found to be innocent.

But teachers have branded the film a ‘hysterical overreaction’ and say it is likely only to heighten children’s anxiety about paedophilia.

They point out that touching pupils is often the only way to straighten backs, reposition hands or correct other common errors made by developing musicians.

The film, Keeping Children Safe In Music, shows a sinister-looking music teacher helping a boy to play the violin. As the teacher intervenes to correct his play by putting his hand on his shoulder and his fingers in the correct place on the strings, the youngster looks concerned.

A voiceover says: ‘There are times when you need to demonstrate particular techniques.

‘In the past, this has been done by touching students, but this can make them feel uncomfortable, and can leave teachers open to accusations of inappropriate behaviour.

‘It isn’t necessary to touch children in order to demonstrate: there’s always a better way.’

The scene is then replayed, with the teacher demonstrating on his own violin rather than touching the boy.

The film, which is also posted on YouTube, describes itself as an ‘online resource allowing anyone teaching music to children to gain a better understanding of their child protection responsibilities and avoid situations that could lead to accusations of misconduct’.

Music teachers writing on the website of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, which also backed the film, called it ‘madness’.

One wrote: ‘It’s much better to steer a child into position than spend ten minutes trying to get them [there] without touching them. It’s also far from protecting children. It’s bringing them up to think that there is something dirty about touch and to be suspicious.’

A mother who teaches piano wrote: ‘If a child slouches while playing, a small prod in the small of their back will make them sit up without disrupting the flow.

‘Child protection vital but we’ve lost sight of the wood for the trees.’

The head of a music school posted: ‘Those who have turned caring adults into teachers and relations scared stiff to touch a child are the ones who should be told “hands off”.’

Josie Appleton, of the Manifesto Club, which campaigns against over-regulation of everyday life, said: ‘This official video makes everyone paranoid about touch and the creepy tone makes out that all violin teachers are like paedophiles and presents all touching as lecherous.’

A Musicians’ Union spokesman said: ‘Having to be more creative and find alternatives to touching reinforces the learning process. We would be being irresponsible if we did not advise our members of the risks they are taking if they do make physical contact with children.’

An NSPCC spokesman said: ‘The NSPCC works with many organisations helping develop policies and guidelines. The aim is for these to be proportionate to the circumstances.’

Must Read: Pedohysterical Operation Ore Imprisons Innocent Men

‘Massive miscarriage of justice’

By Louise Shorter, from insidetime issue November 2010

Legal action set to take place in the Court of Appeal in London could pave the way for hundreds of child pornography convictions, secured during Operation Ore, to be overturned in what is being described by campaigners as a ‘massive miscarriage of justice’

Operation Ore, the codename for the police investigation which began in 2002, was launched after information supplied by US law enforcement agencies purported to show that more than 7,000 UK men used their credit cards to access online child pornography sites. It netted high profile figures such as The Who guitarist Pete Townshend and fed the nation’s fear that paedophilia is endemic throughout modern cyber-savvy society.

But the police operation which ran for more than five years is steeped in controversy, with critics claiming the computer database of users’ names and credit card details was riddled with fraud. Defence experts say the fraud being perpetuated was simple and effective: owners of websites including legal adult pornography re-used credit card details supplied to them to sign up for their illegal services, child pornography. Chris Saltrese, the solicitor representing Anthony O’Shea whose case will be heard at the Appeal Court this month, says: “there are hundreds of people who’ve been convicted of one of the worst crimes imaginable. Lives and families have been destroyed. But the evidence now shows that many of those convicted weren’t paedophiles at all. They were victims of straightforward online credit card fraud.”

Anthony O’Shea’s house was one of more than 4,000 homes raided during the police operation which ultimately led to 2,000 convictions and 140 children being removed from their homes. Though no illegal paedophile material was found on Mr O’Shea’s computer, his credit card had been used attempting to pay for access to sites. In 2005 he was convicted, sentenced to 5 months in jail and placed on the sex offender register for 7 years. His life, he says, and that of his wife, children, sibling and parents have all been destroyed.

Throughout all of the original trials, defence teams were denied access to the full computer database which provided the list of credit card details on which the Ore prosecutions were brought. Taking more than 5 years to secure sight of the database, a defence expert who has examined it now claims ‘indicators of fraud are present in abundance.’ Those indicators include evidence that subscribers paid to access these illegal sites but then failed to view the material paid for, and that credit cards were used to pay for multiple subscriptions even though only one was required.

Last month, in a separate case, a London based businessman, Chris Singam, was awarded £180,000 damages after charges of downloading child pornography were thrown out two weeks before the case was due to be heard in court. Having lost his business, been threatened and ostracised, Mr Singam was eventually told the computer evidence the CPS relied on was “flawed” – his computer had been infected with a virus.

To date, 39 men caught up in Operation Ore are said to have committed suicide.

UK Government Plans to Censor Internet: Won't Somebody Think of The Children!

Telegraph: Internet pornography curb by the Government

Internet pornography could be blocked from entering the homes of people with children, under plans being considered by the Government.

Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, has called a meeting with the country’s biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, to explore changing how pornography gets into homes.

Instead of using parents having to choose to stop access to explicit websites, through parental controls, a block will be placed at source, meaning adults will have to specifically opt-in to receive the images.

The move is designed to prevent children from being exposed to sex at an early age and follows warnings about the hidden impact of pornography.

However many technology experts said the plans were unworkable even if the broadband providers signed up to a voluntary code.

It relies upon the Government or the internet service providers themselves having a comprehensive and up-to-date list of pornographic websites.

Critics also argued that the move would be "censorship through the back door" and could end up restricting access to many legitimate websites.

The attempt by Mr Vaizey to curb access to online pornography comes as an increasing number of televisions are being sold which allow viewers to watch internet sites through the screens.

Mr Vaizey said: “This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it’s the ISPs (internet service providers) that come up with solutions to protect children.” “I’m hoping they will get their acts together so we don’t have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years.”

A spokesman for Virgin Media said: “We already have an opt-in approach on mobiles. We’re able to block sites, so it would be possible to do the same on the internet. It is just about finding the right approach.”

Daily Mail: Porn, keep out! Parents to be allowed to block computers from receiving sexual imagery

Internet pornography sites will be automatically blocked from home computers unless households request access under an ‘opt-in’ system.

Ministers want to reverse the current situation in which such sites are accessible to anyone surfing the internet, including children, unless a lock is installed.

Under the plans, those who want access to pornography sites would have to ask their broadband firm to make them available.

The Coalition is hoping to persuade Internet firms to devise this system voluntarily, but would legislate if they fail to comply.

The move, under discussion at the Business, Innovation and Skills Department comes as families are increasingly using the family TV set to view websites.

Ministers are to meet broadband providers including BT, Virgin Media, and TalkTalk in the new year.

The plan is to allow parents to 'opt out' of the sites and they will then be blocked at the source, rather than using conventional parental controls.

Adults who wish to view the material would have to choose to 'opt in'.

Following their decision, homeowners would then be able to choose what sites they receive in a cinema style guide, such as U for all ages, or 18 for adults.

The move comes as some of Britain's biggest broadband providers prepare for talks with Communications Minister Ed Vaizey.

Representatives from TalkTalk, BT and Virgin Media are to meet Mr Vaizey to discuss how they can stop pornography being seen by youngsters.

The Communications Minister told the Sunday Times: ' This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) come up with solutions to protect children.

'I am hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years.'

The initiative comes following a successful trial by British ISPs to stop innocent people accessing child pornography websites.

Ministers now want companies to use the same technology to stop children accessing adult images. A survey earlier this year said one in three ten-year-olds has viewed pornography.

Tory MP for Devizes Claire Perry, who has campaigned for restrictions said: 'Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get ISPs together and say "either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you".

'We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure children aren't stumbling across things we don't want them to see.'

Previously the providers had said implementing the scheme would cost too much and be technically difficult.

However some internet providers now seem happy to implement the scheme voluntarily.

Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk's executive director of strategy and regulation, said: 'Our objective was not to do what the politicians want us but to do what is right for our customers.'

'If other companies aren't going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on.'

A Virgin Media spokesman said they had already implemented the technology on their mobile service, as they can leave the home, but said that parents can control what their children see at home and online.

And a BT spokesman said they had a 'clean feed' system to stop access to illegal sites.

The Internet being what it is, I find it unlikely that online pornography can be eradicated any more than music and film pirating. E.g. here is a tale of a company which produces online adult films, and is ecstatic that its movies are being pirated, because it actually allows them to make more money.

Also, I completely fail to see the link between protecting children from sexual abuse and the prevalence of adult pornography. I can't be the only one, can I?

And naturally, there is a lot of hang-wringing about the 'violence' and 'exploitation' inherent to pornography, and how any man who watches it is some kind of crazed sex fiend who shall surely be inspired to act out what he sees on the screen.

Yes, this is surely the first step onto a slippery slope - while men may be ashamed of having to 'opt in' under the proposed law, how long until this is not even an option any more?

No restrictions on erotica (porn for women), I notice - only images.

Strange, because erotica can get very explicit indeed, and if we were really hoping to protect children, I'd think this would be just as high a priority.

Perhaps it's time to stock up on free porn while it's all still out there and available for easy download; for Men Going Their Own Way, it will help you through the tough times ahead.

I intend to purchase several external hard drives for the purpose. LOL!

Seeing All Men as Predators

Tarring Men
by Nicole Sprinkle

When it comes to our kids, men get a pretty bad rap. As a society we talk ad nauseum about racism and other forms of discrimination. But when it comes to men, no one seems to have much to say.

Ms Sprinkle goes on to describe how she needed a babysitter.

there was also this 23-year-old young man who responded to my ad on our neighborhood’s Listserv. He was well spoken and exuded a quiet friendliness over the phone. He was studying to become a paramedic (great to have around in case of emergencies), lived his whole life in the neighborhood, had a mother who owned a local daycare, and worked as a summer camp counselor at the very preschool my daughter was now attending – and got rave reviews from his supervisor there. In his e-mail to me, he said he would be interested in the job if my child was a boy. When I spoke to him on the phone and asked why he’d stipulated the male gender, he openly explained that he understood that many parents felt uncomfortable having a man watch a young girl. Touché. And extra points for sensitivity. I told him I did, indeed, have a 3-year-old daughter. He replied that he had no problem with that. Hmmm, but did I? Well, yeah, I did. Or at least I was learning that I did.

Since he was being so forthright with me, I told him frankly that I liked him best of all and yet still wasn’t sure I could make the leap of letting a man watch my daughter: one who might have to help her wipe, clean her up in case of an accident, who would be alone with her everyday for several hours.

I also told him that I felt really awful about having to feel this way, and that it was such a shame that society forced us to discriminate against kind, competent men as caregivers for our kids.

Nobody forced you to discriminate, Ms Sprinkle, any more than whites were 'forced to discriminate' against blacks in the early twentieth century Deep South. Society does not 'force' a prejudice upon you as if you are merely an empty vessel without moral or critical autonomy.

Yes, I know that statistically a man is far more likely to molest a child than a woman but,

It's statistically more likely to be reported, and statistically more likely to make headlines, I think that's about all we can say regarding that particular can of worms.

I told him I needed to think about it for a day or two.

He very kindly told me he understood and would wait for and respect my decision. Two days later I called him to tell him I was so sorry but I was going with the local mom. Again, he pleasantly told me he completely understood but to feel free to call him if it didn’t work out. I hung up the phone feeling sheepish.

You should feel more then sheepish, Ms Sprinkle. You are a prejudiced human being who judges other people as child molestors for no reason other than their sex. You acted on the very same forces that give rise to racist lynchings and homophobic murders.

Finally, to round out the week, a big brouhaha broke out on my neighborhood’s parent’s Listserv. A number of men playing chess on the stone chess tables inside one of our local playgrounds were given citations by the police. The reasoning? No adults allowed in a children’s playground without a child. (That’s the rule in all city playgrounds.)

Parents online became incensed – most felt the police were doing their job. The men didn’t belong there and a law’s a law.

A law's a law? Separate but equal, right? To draw another parallel to the early twentieth century US, white privilege was upheld through laws being laws. What we learn from those experiences is that it takes brave people to challenge unjust laws, and privileged, moralising chatterers to defend them.

And of course - the police are just doing their job. Adolf Eichmann merely 'did his job' too. Ms Sprinkle apparently believes that, when it comes to the most crucial moral questions of our time, it is best to disdain our critical faculties and perform the tasks we have been allocated.

'The men didn't belong there' - can anyone tell me where we think men do belong? There are women-only spaces that women fought hard for; they simultaneously fought to open up men-only spaces to everyone. The result is that men have nowhere of their own. As Ms Sprinkle herself admits:

I couldn’t help thinking that had it been a group of women playing chess, the police nor the parents would have given it a second thought.

I just know that as a mom who was faced with a tough decision along the gender divide, I can’t help feeling saddened by my well-meaning bias

I am sure that white men too thought it was 'well-meaning bias' when they 'protected' white women by persecuting black men.

Ms Sprinkle is cognizant enough to understand that men are being similarly persecuted, but ultimately doesn't care enough to do a thing to fix this situation; and, it seems, would prefer that it remains this way.

With this kind of anti-male discrimination being so widespread, is it any wonder that so many false accusations against men are made?

On that note, the False Rape Society weighs in:

What is both infuriating and chilling is that Sprinkle doesn't have the first clue how offensive it is ... Sprinkle ended up hiring a woman over the best candidate, solely because the best candidate is male.

After this unpardonable display of misandric pyrotechnics, Sprinkle feigns sensitivity toward the plight of good men ...

I can just hear Sprinkle telling a black person in the 1950s: "It's really awful that I have to feel this way, and it is such a shame society forces us to discriminate against good people like you, but I really don't want my daughter being in the same school as your child."

Sprinkle backs up her unbridled prejudice with an offhand comment that "statistically a man is far more likely to molest a child than a woman," blinking at the fact that the vast majority of child abuse is committed by women, and that a child is more likely to choke on pretzels than to be sexually molested by a man. But of course, we ban men, not pretzels, from our children's lives.

Sprinkle ends her hateful piece with the following attempt to paint her as an enlightened good parent: "I can’t help feeling saddened by my well-meaning bias . . . ."

As one comment under the story astutely pointed out, there is no such thing as "well-meaning bias." It is either bias or it isn't. You can't gussy up bigotry as good parenting by hiding behind the argument "but it's for the kids!"

In an era when we are telling men that they need to unshackle themselves from their masculine stereotypes and spend less time being breadwinners and more time being fathers, somehow Ms. Sprinkle, and a number of women commentators under the story, are perfectly OK with the view that men can't be trusted around children ...

If men are legitimately scary, Ms. Sprinkle, shouldn't we make it a crime for fathers to be alone with their own children? Logically, that has to be the next step, doesn't it?

Frankly, I fear for Ms. Sprinkle's daughter. It's not the new babysitter who is a concern, it's Ms.Sprinkle herself. She can't help but pass on to her daughter a wildly unreasonable fear of almost half the population of planet earth.

Pedophiles Target Cartoon Characters

Facebook cartoon character campaign 'nothing to do with the NSPCC', charity says

A Facebook campaign which purports to fight child abuse by asking users to change their profile picture to that of their favourite cartoon character has run into controversy.

The campaign, which urges the image swap, has swept the social networking site and boasts a group page of nearly 90,000 fans. While many believe the viral originated from the children's charity the NSPCC, it has denied any involvement, although welcomes the focus on the work it does.

However, disturbingly, rumours are now sweeping the net that the campaign is actually a smokescreen for paedophiles hoping to narrow down which users are children.

... one Facebooker asked: ‘How is this gonna help stop child abuse? Sounds like something a paedophile would do!’

Another user posted the following warning: ‘The paedophiles have it easy finding the kids this way from a cartoon in your past! Obviously if someone posts Spongebob Square Pants it’s probably a kid, now Betty Boop an adult!’

The reason I post this kind of thing is because the level of sheer hysteria surrounding pedophiles has the unfortunate side effect of doing a great deal of harm to innocent men and women.

Yes, that this kind of thing is connected to feminism is not immediately obvious - and I am the first to admit that it has caused terrible suffering to innocent women as well as men.

Children, too, end up harmed indirectly when their innocent parents or relatives are targeted by misinformed lynch mobs.

How much crazier can the pedophile craze get than the rationalisations above? Surely, if everyone had a cartoon as an avatar, it would be much more difficult to tell what their ages are, than if they had their own pictures.

To me, that just seems obvious.

But perhaps, to some people, that's "just what a pedophile would say!" Ha.

How many of these people who froth and rage about child abuse actually do a damn thing in the interests of children - and how many just want to persecute others?

You might think that it's not such a bad thing even if pedophiles do get persecuted.

Fair enough.

But if these people really want to persecute more than they want to protect, then they are more likely to act on their urge to persecute than their urge to protect. No?

Then, a simple accusation will often be enough to wind up an excited mob, and it will be impossible to sway them from persecuting somebody who may very well be innocent, or even the victim of a malicious accusation.

Lives have been destroyed this way.

FBI's Warning Over Barbie Doll

FBI issues warning over Barbie 'Video Girl' which could be used by paedophiles to make child pornography

Parents are being warned that a new Barbie doll that features a built-in video camera could be used as a tool by paedophiles to make child pornography.

The Barbie 'Video Girl', which is on sale in the UK and the U.S., has a hidden camera in the chest and a small LCD screen video display in her back.

A 'cyber crime alert' from the FBI has said the doll, which went on sale in July, could be used to record footage used for distribution by paedophiles.

It said: 'FBI investigation has revealed instances where an individual convicted of distributing child pornography had given a Barbie doll to a six-year-old girl.

The document went on to cite the findings of another investigation which found 'examples where a concealed video camera had recorded child pornography'.

That camera did not involve a doll, FBI agent Frederick Gutt said, but the possible combination of the two in a single device presents concerns for investigators.

There have been no recorded incidents of paedophiles using the Barbie 'Video Girl' to prey on young children.

Now, it is true, that a pedophile could give one of these dolls to a child that he or she is grooming, in order to secretly film them.

It is also true that pedophiles could just use their own cameras, as they must do already, since the article mentions that there have been no recorded incidents of pedophiles using this doll to record children.

My concern is that adults - fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, and so on - might present a child with one of these dolls with no ulterior motive whatsoever (it is intended as a toy, after all), but they will now be suspected of the most disgusting crimes imaginable.

Pedohysteria Kills

Protecting children from abuse is good.

But when the laws designed to protect children from abuse no longer really do this, and seem to be used more to persecute innocent people, they are not so good.

Innocent grandfather gassed himself hours after child porn police raided his home

A grandfather gassed himself just hours after child porn police raided his home - even though he was innocent.

Michael Curtis's home was raided and three laptop computers seized after intelligence led officers to his address after he stumbled upon one indecent picture and viewed it for a matter of seconds.

It's also worth noting that the one indecent picture that he stumbled upon was viewed a year before the police raid.

The very implication, however, is enough to destroy a person's life and reputation.