Mason Greenwood

Since when are grooming gangs not referred to as *****philes/predators? They definitely are.

 

Think the point is that some are vilified and others are swept under the carpet depending on their popular status in wider society.

I don't think anyone is condoning this kind of behaviour at all just pointing out inconsistencies.

I also doubt this kind of thing is more prevalent these days, just it gets talked about and reported more, which is a good thing IMHO.

 

This is like watching a pile up happening three cars ahead in a motorway queue. Can someone please make it stop.

 

Mate, it's not the 1920's anymore.

 

Yes, it was inbetween listening to jazz and doing the Charlestone. Things changed after talkies came in.

 

Actually, at the risk of being a pedant, the term *****philes is usually misapplied. There is a precise definition for one, and it relates to prepubescents, those attracted to older children would be classified as hebephiles.

I heard a prominent Minister declaring someone as ill-informed, yet they themselves used that term incorrectly.

 

Yes. Epstein is always referred to as a *****phile. But the youngest one is alleged to have relations with was 14. So he wasn't.

 

Johnson is routinely, incorrectly, referred to as one. So is Epstein in every article where his name is mentioned. No mention of the word for this lot guilty of worse crimes against younger girls.

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...gang-members-continue-their-deportation-fight

 

If these individuals are still subject to legal action (ie deportation) then there are probably reporting restrictions based around not prejudicing the outcome.

 

There are a load of articles about grooming gangs which refer to vulnerable children and similar so why not refer to them as *****philes,though technically they are not. Neither were Johnson or Epstein but they are referred to that way. Surely articles about Prince Andrew which always refer to "his *****phile friend Epstein" will prejudice any proceedings against him?

 

Suspect the press have to be careful in the language they use whilst there is ongoing litigation.

A high profile racist got done for prejudicing the outcome of a trial not so long ago. I'd think they could be accused of similar in relation to a deportation appeal.

 

No offence, but it’s irrelevant really. The root of the word in Ancient Greek means ‘lover of children’. Paediatricians still treat children up to the age of 16. I guess you could call doctors who specialise in treating adolescents ‘hebiatricians’ if you wanted but few people do. *****phile is entirely appropriate to describe people who are attracted to underage adolescents as they are legally still classed as children.

 

As it means an attraction to prepubescents it is the wrong word entirely.

 

I'm not getting into an argument about it, and the English language does tend to morph the meaning of words far from their original use, but it's not really irrelevant, as their is a difference between sex with a prepubescent, and sex with someone just under the age of consent, so the correct terms help to show the nature of the crime and therefore the offender.

It's extremely unlikely a *****phile would pick their victim up in a pub and as someone else mentioned, as teenagers ourselves, many on here could have had sex with their girlfriend when one or both were below the age of consent, and I hardly think that makes them *****philes.

 

It means attraction to children.παῖς means ‘child’. Split hairs all you want but *****phile has been used more generally to describe adults attracted to any child younger than 16 far longer than the more narrow psychiatric definition of attraction to prepubescents.

 

Would a *****phile object to being called a hebephile and vice versa? Not sure that's their main concern tbh. Probably not getting caught is top of their list.

 

Legal definition of 'child' varies depending where or when you lived. Hence the technical distinction.
Traditionally, throughout most of human history/societal evolution(including ancient Greece) 'child' would relate to someone below the age of sexual maturity.
The way in Britain is to declare 16 as the age of consent but that is not the same the world over.

 

I once had the privilege of sharing a very chance conversation with a mental health practitioner that specialised in sex offenders, and a very experienced probation officer, and it was quite an education to hear things from their perspectives, as well as their knowledge of the views of offenders.

They mentioned some that were fully aware that their attraction was wrong, and many of those didn't follow up on what for them are natural urges, but those sort got very little help until they actually offended.

It's certainly a complex area, as the needs of the offenders should not ever over shadow support for the victims, but so often it appears that they do.

I think that is off topic for the sort of offences the footballers and 'celebs' commit though, as in my view, that's more about egos being massaged through manipulating star struck youngsters that don't realise they're actually vulnerable.

 

The difference being there isn't ongoing litigation in relation to Epstein.

 

It makes my physically sick watching you argue that a man abusing a 14 year old isn't a ****.

I know you are a pedantic twat but what the **** are you on about.

If I caught you with my 14 year old you'd die a ****ing painful death. A very slow painful death.

**** me for ****s sake "the wrong word".