The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You may or may not be aware of the UK headlines today. Shevaun Pennington, a 12-year-old girl from Wigan, has run off to France with 31-year-old Toby Studebaker, a former US marine. Apparently the two of them met over the Internet, both pretended that they were in their late teens, and at least one of the two met with the other with thoughts of marriage and children on their minds.
Though it's sorely tempting to comment on the fact that, if a US marine can't tell the difference between a 12 year old girl and a 19 year old woman then what chance have they got distinguishing between an Iraqi civilian and an Iraqi guerilla, I'll leave that subject alone for now. I'll also tactfully avoid mentioning just how disappointed the two 'teenagers' must have been upon first seeing each other in the flesh;
"Gee, you look young for 19"
'Yeah, uh...I'm very petite. Um...you look old for your age. In fact, you look as old as my dad'
"Well...you've seen Dawson’s Creek; all teenagers look at least 21, right?"
'Well...I suppose so...fancy going to Paris?'
Instead I'd rather like to spend a bit of time looking at people's reactions to this story. After all, this is a story that has paedophilia at its centre by pretty much anyone's standards. So whilst the papers are, for once, acting with a certain amount of restraint in that the overwhelming tone of the reports is concern for Shevaun's safety, one would expect the general public to be horrified at this soldier for taking advantage of a naive young girl. One may expect the baying for his blood to begin shortly, and in earnest. One would be wrong.
Maybe it's the "If I don't laugh, I'll cry" defence kicking in, but the main reaction as near as I can tell is "Jesus, look at the STATE of her! I mean, Christ, is he so desperate to get laid that he'll take a statutory rape charge in order to have sex with a kid who looks like she would be improved by having a Siamese twin conjoined to her head?!" Maybe that's a trifle harsh (or maybe my friends and I have just got too vivid and unpleasant an imagination...), but nobody seems to be taking this particularly seriously at all. So why not? How come a man can get beaten up in this country for having the same name as a paedophile, but someone who travels over 3000 miles in order to have sex with a 12-year-old girl becomes the subject of bawdy contempt, if not jocular sympathy?
Well, as the full story of what has happened is not known, there's going to be a certain amount of unsubstantiated guesswork going on here, so bear with me. As I've mentioned, the picture of Shevaun that was released to the media is...well, it's less than flattering. The poor girl is not an oil painting, as many have commented on. Well here's a thing; she's only a child, so why the hell SHOULD she have to have model good looks? I rather though that the point here is that she shouldn't have to worry about whether or not she'll be seen as attractive to a 31 year old, yet we're sniggering and making derogatory comments about someone who is a victim in this situation. I don't get it; I mean, when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were abducted and murdered, no-one was going "Yeah well, a couple of blondes in footy shirts...I mean, any man would, wouldn't they?".
She's just a child, and as such she shouldn't be expected to worry about how sexually attractive she is. Yet here she is, running off with a man whom she doubtless intends to have a sexual relationship with. So whose fault is that? Is it hers, for lying to a man and leading him on? Is it his for taking advantage of someone who is clearly just a kid? Or is it something more? Well, here is where the guesswork comes in; I would say it's about 1% the first explanation, 49% the second, and 50% something else entirely. If this girls photo has caused disbelieving mirth among all and sundry, it's doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to accept that she quite probably got an equal amount of grief at school. After all, we were all schoolkids once and I'm sure we can all recall the abuse heaped upon the ugly girl in our class, and all in the name of ensuring that whomever it was getting picked on, if it wasn't us then who cares? I know I never gave a damn, just so long as my peers weren't laughing at me.
Well, if we can understand that Shevaun was almost certainly on the receiving end of teasing and bullying about, among other things, her looks then why on earth are we so surprised that she's ran off with someone who most likely showered her with compliments and bolstered her ego by telling her how much he liked her? Again I must stress, this is no more than me guessing as to the circumstances, but it doesn't sound so unbelievable does it? Yes, Studebaker is pretty much without doubt a predatory paedophile and as such he richly deserves to have his testes nailed to the inside wall of a Tiger enclosure at the zoo. But what about the fact that she was driven part of the way into his arms? I'm not talking about the specific individuals who teased her, but the fact that (and you all knew this was coming...) society allows it.
Speaking as someone who, if you allow me a moment of uncharacteristic boastfulness, has raised the use of vitriol and bile to something like an art form, it may seems very strange that I'm bemoaning the fact that it was probably teasing that drove Shevaun into this deeply unpleasant situation. And I should clarify, I'm not expecting kids to stop belittling each any time soon; that’s just part of growing up. But I am expecting society as a whole to take a bit more interest in making young people feel valued. There have been enough foaming tabloid rants about what we should do to protect our children from paedophiles. Surely we should start a little closer to home, and try and arm our kids with a greater sense of self worth, so that the honeyed words of a sick b*****d won’t tempt them to throw away their childhood in exchange for underage sex and mental scarring.
Though it's sorely tempting to comment on the fact that, if a US marine can't tell the difference between a 12 year old girl and a 19 year old woman then what chance have they got distinguishing between an Iraqi civilian and an Iraqi guerilla, I'll leave that subject alone for now. I'll also tactfully avoid mentioning just how disappointed the two 'teenagers' must have been upon first seeing each other in the flesh;
"Gee, you look young for 19"
'Yeah, uh...I'm very petite. Um...you look old for your age. In fact, you look as old as my dad'
"Well...you've seen Dawson’s Creek; all teenagers look at least 21, right?"
'Well...I suppose so...fancy going to Paris?'
Instead I'd rather like to spend a bit of time looking at people's reactions to this story. After all, this is a story that has paedophilia at its centre by pretty much anyone's standards. So whilst the papers are, for once, acting with a certain amount of restraint in that the overwhelming tone of the reports is concern for Shevaun's safety, one would expect the general public to be horrified at this soldier for taking advantage of a naive young girl. One may expect the baying for his blood to begin shortly, and in earnest. One would be wrong.
Maybe it's the "If I don't laugh, I'll cry" defence kicking in, but the main reaction as near as I can tell is "Jesus, look at the STATE of her! I mean, Christ, is he so desperate to get laid that he'll take a statutory rape charge in order to have sex with a kid who looks like she would be improved by having a Siamese twin conjoined to her head?!" Maybe that's a trifle harsh (or maybe my friends and I have just got too vivid and unpleasant an imagination...), but nobody seems to be taking this particularly seriously at all. So why not? How come a man can get beaten up in this country for having the same name as a paedophile, but someone who travels over 3000 miles in order to have sex with a 12-year-old girl becomes the subject of bawdy contempt, if not jocular sympathy?
Well, as the full story of what has happened is not known, there's going to be a certain amount of unsubstantiated guesswork going on here, so bear with me. As I've mentioned, the picture of Shevaun that was released to the media is...well, it's less than flattering. The poor girl is not an oil painting, as many have commented on. Well here's a thing; she's only a child, so why the hell SHOULD she have to have model good looks? I rather though that the point here is that she shouldn't have to worry about whether or not she'll be seen as attractive to a 31 year old, yet we're sniggering and making derogatory comments about someone who is a victim in this situation. I don't get it; I mean, when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were abducted and murdered, no-one was going "Yeah well, a couple of blondes in footy shirts...I mean, any man would, wouldn't they?".
She's just a child, and as such she shouldn't be expected to worry about how sexually attractive she is. Yet here she is, running off with a man whom she doubtless intends to have a sexual relationship with. So whose fault is that? Is it hers, for lying to a man and leading him on? Is it his for taking advantage of someone who is clearly just a kid? Or is it something more? Well, here is where the guesswork comes in; I would say it's about 1% the first explanation, 49% the second, and 50% something else entirely. If this girls photo has caused disbelieving mirth among all and sundry, it's doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to accept that she quite probably got an equal amount of grief at school. After all, we were all schoolkids once and I'm sure we can all recall the abuse heaped upon the ugly girl in our class, and all in the name of ensuring that whomever it was getting picked on, if it wasn't us then who cares? I know I never gave a damn, just so long as my peers weren't laughing at me.
Well, if we can understand that Shevaun was almost certainly on the receiving end of teasing and bullying about, among other things, her looks then why on earth are we so surprised that she's ran off with someone who most likely showered her with compliments and bolstered her ego by telling her how much he liked her? Again I must stress, this is no more than me guessing as to the circumstances, but it doesn't sound so unbelievable does it? Yes, Studebaker is pretty much without doubt a predatory paedophile and as such he richly deserves to have his testes nailed to the inside wall of a Tiger enclosure at the zoo. But what about the fact that she was driven part of the way into his arms? I'm not talking about the specific individuals who teased her, but the fact that (and you all knew this was coming...) society allows it.
Speaking as someone who, if you allow me a moment of uncharacteristic boastfulness, has raised the use of vitriol and bile to something like an art form, it may seems very strange that I'm bemoaning the fact that it was probably teasing that drove Shevaun into this deeply unpleasant situation. And I should clarify, I'm not expecting kids to stop belittling each any time soon; that’s just part of growing up. But I am expecting society as a whole to take a bit more interest in making young people feel valued. There have been enough foaming tabloid rants about what we should do to protect our children from paedophiles. Surely we should start a little closer to home, and try and arm our kids with a greater sense of self worth, so that the honeyed words of a sick b*****d won’t tempt them to throw away their childhood in exchange for underage sex and mental scarring.
Page:
Miserableman wrote:
> It's actually really difficult for non-computer literate parents to
> impose limits and checks on what their son/daughter is doing on a
> computer. Would you know how to check who I'd been talking to on MSN?
No it's not: you don't need to know anything about computers, you just need to know how long they are spending on them. Like TV, if your kid is spending a considerable proportion of their time staring at a screen, stop them. It doesn't matter what they are looking at.
> It's actually really difficult for non-computer literate parents to
> impose limits and checks on what their son/daughter is doing on a
> computer. Would you know how to check who I'd been talking to on MSN?
No it's not: you don't need to know anything about computers, you just need to know how long they are spending on them. Like TV, if your kid is spending a considerable proportion of their time staring at a screen, stop them. It doesn't matter what they are looking at.
Miserableman wrote:
>
>
> Complete rubbish. Chances are her parents don't know the first thing
> about computers, and don't stand a hope in hell of being able to trace
> what she does, even if she leaves clues as blatant as emails in her
> Sent Items folder. It's very easy to scoff in hindsight, but it's
> generally not possible to monitor what your 12-year-old does on the
> internet, just as it's not possible to monitor what your 12-year-old
> when he or she is out the house. When you have kids, try asking them
> what they've been doing all day, heh.
True enough; it is difficult. Yet we still have a society where more and more kids (by which I mean 11-16 year olds) feel undervalued and depressed. Ergo they are easy prey for a paedophile.
By the way...."chances are"? Is this where I'm supposed to have a go at you for using the same guesswork you ripped into me for?
Actually, for the record I should declare my own bias on this matter; when I was a solicitor a lot of my criminal clients were paedophiles, and so I like to think I have a certain knowledge of how these sad inadequate men feel. Hence my belief that they'll know how to flatter an inadequate feeling kid.
Not that I expect to change your mind, but it's only fair that you know why I'm saying what I'm saying.
>
>
> Complete rubbish. Chances are her parents don't know the first thing
> about computers, and don't stand a hope in hell of being able to trace
> what she does, even if she leaves clues as blatant as emails in her
> Sent Items folder. It's very easy to scoff in hindsight, but it's
> generally not possible to monitor what your 12-year-old does on the
> internet, just as it's not possible to monitor what your 12-year-old
> when he or she is out the house. When you have kids, try asking them
> what they've been doing all day, heh.
True enough; it is difficult. Yet we still have a society where more and more kids (by which I mean 11-16 year olds) feel undervalued and depressed. Ergo they are easy prey for a paedophile.
By the way...."chances are"? Is this where I'm supposed to have a go at you for using the same guesswork you ripped into me for?
Actually, for the record I should declare my own bias on this matter; when I was a solicitor a lot of my criminal clients were paedophiles, and so I like to think I have a certain knowledge of how these sad inadequate men feel. Hence my belief that they'll know how to flatter an inadequate feeling kid.
Not that I expect to change your mind, but it's only fair that you know why I'm saying what I'm saying.
Miserableman wrote:
I am
> loathe to use the Sun as a news reference as it's even worse than
> Light, but it sinks your argument.
--
No.
If you're that concerned, to the extent you have to limit, then take the computer away from her.
She's a bloody child, tell her "No, it's starting to be a problem".
Having to restrict usage means they've identified the problem.
Besides, y'all are going on like you are suddenly experts in this story from a couple of web sites.
We dont know what the extent is, all I know is I look at this story and think "You stupid little girl", and go outside to play.
She'll either turn up and be welcomed back with tearful hugs, or turn up dead and be buried with mournful sobs.
Either way, that's one less moron using air I can have.
I am
> loathe to use the Sun as a news reference as it's even worse than
> Light, but it sinks your argument.
--
No.
If you're that concerned, to the extent you have to limit, then take the computer away from her.
She's a bloody child, tell her "No, it's starting to be a problem".
Having to restrict usage means they've identified the problem.
Besides, y'all are going on like you are suddenly experts in this story from a couple of web sites.
We dont know what the extent is, all I know is I look at this story and think "You stupid little girl", and go outside to play.
She'll either turn up and be welcomed back with tearful hugs, or turn up dead and be buried with mournful sobs.
Either way, that's one less moron using air I can have.
Miserableman wrote:
> I am
> loathe to use the Sun as a news reference as it's even worse than
> Light, but it sinks your argument.
*L* My, we are in something of a mood today...
Let me get this right; you've used the Sun as your sole piece of evidence, and that totally destroys the other argument?! Come on Miserableman; you've got more brain than that. I mean, I take the point you're trying to argue, but as you've based most of it on an incorrect assumption of what I was saying in the first place...
> I am
> loathe to use the Sun as a news reference as it's even worse than
> Light, but it sinks your argument.
*L* My, we are in something of a mood today...
Let me get this right; you've used the Sun as your sole piece of evidence, and that totally destroys the other argument?! Come on Miserableman; you've got more brain than that. I mean, I take the point you're trying to argue, but as you've based most of it on an incorrect assumption of what I was saying in the first place...
Rosalind wrote:
> *feels smug that she found the info without resorting to the Sun*
Blast you to heck, woman :O/
> *feels smug that she found the info without resorting to the Sun*
Blast you to heck, woman :O/
Blank wrote:
> I hate to sound clichéd, but it's the parent's fault for not
> taking an interest.
Complete rubbish. Chances are her parents don't know the first thing about computers, and don't stand a hope in hell of being able to trace what she does, even if she leaves clues as blatant as emails in her Sent Items folder. It's very easy to scoff in hindsight, but it's generally not possible to monitor what your 12-year-old does on the internet, just as it's not possible to monitor what your 12-year-old when he or she is out the house. When you have kids, try asking them what they've been doing all day, heh.
> I hate to sound clichéd, but it's the parent's fault for not
> taking an interest.
Complete rubbish. Chances are her parents don't know the first thing about computers, and don't stand a hope in hell of being able to trace what she does, even if she leaves clues as blatant as emails in her Sent Items folder. It's very easy to scoff in hindsight, but it's generally not possible to monitor what your 12-year-old does on the internet, just as it's not possible to monitor what your 12-year-old when he or she is out the house. When you have kids, try asking them what they've been doing all day, heh.
Yet despite that, she still runs off with him.
A 12 year old should be outside playing with mates. It's this bloody culture of internet that ruins so many kids, robs them of imagination and internal entertainment.
I dont see kids out playing these days, they're all indoors hammering video games and downloading music. No input needed, kids get bored if it's not handed to them on a plate.
I created worlds with Star Wars toys, invented languages, played football, war, went "over the stream" and wouldn't think about sitting indoors on a console (and yes, they were about).
Lazy, stupid kids that think computers are the answer. Perhaps if she was out and about, or reading, or listening to music then she wouldnt have met this bloke.
And how he can't twig after a year that she's a kid is beyond me. Just look at some of the posters here that are 15-16 yet have the grammatical abilities of tofu.
So she's intelligent enough to lie convincingly about her age? Then she shouldn've known better.
No sympathy. You just don't do it. Where did she get the money? How did she get to the airport to meet him?
I ran away when I was 12. For 3 hours then came home because I was hungry.
No 12yr old should even be thinking about chatting online to boys/men/whatever.
No sympathy.
She gets what's coming and I dont want to see any tearful pleas for her safe return.
Either you are complacent as a parent to not realise or to limit her usage or too stupid to realise what's going on.
Now I'm going outside for a smoke and a coke.
Balls to this idiot kid and balls to the "predatory man". How long before The Daily Mail cranks out another Lynda-Lee Potter piece about the "loss of innocence" and "evils of internet"?
I give it 2 days.
A 12 year old should be outside playing with mates. It's this bloody culture of internet that ruins so many kids, robs them of imagination and internal entertainment.
I dont see kids out playing these days, they're all indoors hammering video games and downloading music. No input needed, kids get bored if it's not handed to them on a plate.
I created worlds with Star Wars toys, invented languages, played football, war, went "over the stream" and wouldn't think about sitting indoors on a console (and yes, they were about).
Lazy, stupid kids that think computers are the answer. Perhaps if she was out and about, or reading, or listening to music then she wouldnt have met this bloke.
And how he can't twig after a year that she's a kid is beyond me. Just look at some of the posters here that are 15-16 yet have the grammatical abilities of tofu.
So she's intelligent enough to lie convincingly about her age? Then she shouldn've known better.
No sympathy. You just don't do it. Where did she get the money? How did she get to the airport to meet him?
I ran away when I was 12. For 3 hours then came home because I was hungry.
No 12yr old should even be thinking about chatting online to boys/men/whatever.
No sympathy.
She gets what's coming and I dont want to see any tearful pleas for her safe return.
Either you are complacent as a parent to not realise or to limit her usage or too stupid to realise what's going on.
Now I'm going outside for a smoke and a coke.
Balls to this idiot kid and balls to the "predatory man". How long before The Daily Mail cranks out another Lynda-Lee Potter piece about the "loss of innocence" and "evils of internet"?
I give it 2 days.
Blank wrote:
>
> I hate to sound clichéd, but it's the parent's fault for not
> taking an interest.
But they're by no means the only parents of whom that could be said, of that I have little doubt. And that's pretty much the point I'm trying to make; if a lot of parents are not paying that much attention to their kids (calm down Miserableman; this is still that guesswork that I mentioned earlier...), then there will be a lot of undervalued kids out there who are easy prey for the small number of predatory paedophiles.
>
> I hate to sound clichéd, but it's the parent's fault for not
> taking an interest.
But they're by no means the only parents of whom that could be said, of that I have little doubt. And that's pretty much the point I'm trying to make; if a lot of parents are not paying that much attention to their kids (calm down Miserableman; this is still that guesswork that I mentioned earlier...), then there will be a lot of undervalued kids out there who are easy prey for the small number of predatory paedophiles.
*feels smug that she found the info without resorting to the Sun*
Goatboy wrote:
> It's not difficult for parents to take an interest in their child
> though.
> I was limited to how much tv I could watch, or what time I had to be
> back etc.
> She's 12, not 16.
> A minor. A child.
> You let your kid spend 11hours in front of a computer? Shame on you
> and I hope you have better luck with the next one.
Generally I accept things people say on this forum as fact, but I decided to investigate this 11 hour claim. The best I could come up with was this:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003321327,00.html
It seems they were worried, and they did impose a limit, and they did move the computer into the kitchen so they could monitor her better, and it was only ONCE that she used it for 11 hours on the trot. I am loathe to use the Sun as a news reference as it's even worse than Light, but it sinks your argument.
> It's not difficult for parents to take an interest in their child
> though.
> I was limited to how much tv I could watch, or what time I had to be
> back etc.
> She's 12, not 16.
> A minor. A child.
> You let your kid spend 11hours in front of a computer? Shame on you
> and I hope you have better luck with the next one.
Generally I accept things people say on this forum as fact, but I decided to investigate this 11 hour claim. The best I could come up with was this:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003321327,00.html
It seems they were worried, and they did impose a limit, and they did move the computer into the kitchen so they could monitor her better, and it was only ONCE that she used it for 11 hours on the trot. I am loathe to use the Sun as a news reference as it's even worse than Light, but it sinks your argument.
Page: