London Zoo: 'All men are paedophiles.'

The problem is that it is profiling all men as a threat to children.

It wouldn't be alright to do this with race. Blacks commit most homicides but it's racist to say that blacks are a threat to society. Most pedophiles are men, but it's ok to profile all men as pedophiles? Don't you see the contradiction?

Profiling is wrong.

There is no contradiction.

I am not saying all men are pedophiles. I'm saying that statistically men are more likely to be pedophiles than women. That is a fact.

Put another way, if you put a million men alone with children and a million women alone with children, more children will get abused with the men that the women. Note that I'm not saying that all of the children with the men will be abused or none of the children with the women will be abused.

It is perfectly sensible to use that statistical result when deciding on policy to reduce abuse of children. Of course you may think that is worth sacrificing the children because the ideological reasons are more important but I don't agree.

Black people do commit more homicides than others. That is not to say they are a threat to society. It is just the statistical truth.

The question is how are you going to use that information? May be you avoid walking through a black area on your own at night. That is perfectly sensible.

If you are going to use the stat for national policy for example whether police should use profiling, then you need to weigh up the pros and cons. It may be that it is decided that the damage done to social cohesion of that policy is not worth saving a few people a year.

That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion but we should be aware that is what is going on. What it doesn't do is change the fact that a black person is more likely to commit homicide than a white person. We should deny that.

If you are going to use the stat for national policy for example whether police should use profiling, then you need to weigh up the pros and cons. It may be that it is decided that the damage done to social cohesion of that policy is not worth saving a few people a year.

You might not be saying that all men are pedophiles yourself, but London Zoo are implying that. Men can't be with female or mixed groups because the men will molest the children. Yet women can be with all groups. And that highlights another problem of profiling all women as saints.

I would be absolutely outraged if I was told that I couldn't be with a mixed/female group because the risk that I might molest them is too great.

London Zoo aren't implying that. They are taking steps to reduce risk which is sensible.

I'm sure you would agree that it is a sensible policy to not have convicted pedophiles looking after children. Does that imply that all pedophiles re-offend? No. Clearly they don't all re-offend. However, it is deemed an unacceptably high risk that they will.

Where does it say that the policy only applies to convicted pedophiles? The policy applies to innocent men who are being demonised because they are men.

It was an analogy.

Is it any wonder men won't go into primary school teaching these days? Here's the policy on their website (which they've been compelled to remove after men raised objections - archive link):

"All participants will sleep in BUGS, but boys and girls have separate sleeping areas. For this reason, please ensure the following is adhered to:

1. For an all-girl group, you will need 1 female adult for every 5-6 children
2. For an all-boy group you will 1 female or male adult for every 5-6 children
3. For a mixed sex group you will need 2 female adults or 1 female and 1 male adult for every 5-9 children
4. Female adults may sleep on either side of the gallery however male adults may only sleep in the male area of BUGS.

However, we can accommodate a limited number of mixed groups at each sleepover. Please let us the gender of all participants in your group 14-days before the sleepover, when you receive the 'see you soon' email. Please note: Mixed groups tend to sleep on sloped areas though."

Then again, even the courts agree with them. 21 year old woman molests 11 year old boy; she was declared 'immature' for her age. His maturity narrowed the 'arithmetic' age gap, according to the Judge.

Would it be appropriate to use an analogy about Isis when referring to all muslims?
If not an analogy using paedophiles is not appropriate here.

You might not be saying that all men are pedophiles yourself, but London Zoo are implying that. Men can't be with female or mixed groups because the men will molest the children. Yet women can be with all groups. And that highlights another problem of profiling all women as saints.

I would be absolutely outraged if I was told that I couldn't be with a mixed/female group because the risk that I might molest them is too great.


Profiling should never be used, ever. Again, if I was black and was stopped on the street and searched because 'statistically blacks are more likely to be criminals', I wouldn't just be insulted, I would consider it an inexcusable attack on my liberty.

London Zoo aren't implying that. They are taking steps to reduce risk which is sensible.

I'm sure you would agree that it is a sensible policy to not have convicted pedophiles looking after children. Does that imply that all pedophiles re-offend? No. Clearly they don't all re-offend. However, it is deemed an unacceptably high risk that they will.

Have to say I agree with sternumator on this one and think you have missed the argument. It is simply risk management.


I wouldnt give a monkeys if I was a teacher in this instance . Life is too short to get wound up about things like this. I also wouldnt feel massively insulted becayse i would see the logic of it from a risk management point of view.

It doesn't make sense even from a risk management point of view. The odds of anybody, male or female sexually abusing a child is small. And while from a statistical point of view you can make the argument that children would be safer with a woman than with a man that line of reasoning has quite uncomfortable consequences when we go further with it. It justifies profiling and unfairly stopping and searching black people which we can perfectly legitimately claim to justify on a risk management point of view.

Also back to this point of men and women, whilst most sexual abuse is done by men, most child abuse in general is done by women, so .... what's the risk management strategy there? Seems a little inconsistent with the reality of the situation and it ignores the real implications of the policy. The fact they changed this as well (as observed by it being in an archive) seems to suggest that even London Zoo eventually agreed that their policy was wrong and discriminatory.

A false equivalency. You must be able to see that there's a difference between profiling convicted sex offenders (who have been PROVEN to have sexually abused someone) and men who haven't.

There is no contradiction.

I am not saying all men are pedophiles. I'm saying that statistically men are more likely to be pedophiles than women. That is a fact.

Put another way, if you put a million men alone with children and a million women alone with children, more children will get abused with the men that the women. Note that I'm not saying that all of the children with the men will be abused or none of the children with the women will be abused.

It is perfectly sensible to use that statistical result when deciding on policy to reduce abuse of children. Of course you may think that is worth sacrificing the children because the ideological reasons are more important but I don't agree.

Black people do commit more homicides than others. That is not to say they are a threat to society. It is just the statistical truth.

The question is how are you going to use that information? May be you avoid walking through a black area on your own at night. That is perfectly sensible.

If you are going to use the stat for national policy for example whether police should use profiling, then you need to weigh up the pros and cons. It may be that it is decided that the damage done to social cohesion of that policy is not worth saving a few people a year.

That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion but we should be aware that is what is going on. What it doesn't do is change the fact that a black person is more likely to commit homicide than a white person. We should deny that.

Black people do commit more homicides than others. .

The odds of anybody, male or female sexually abusing a child is small.

London Zoo aren't implying that. They are taking steps to reduce risk which is sensible.

I'm sure you would agree that it is a sensible policy to not have convicted pedophiles looking after children. Does that imply that all pedophiles re-offend? No. Clearly they don't all re-offend. However, it is deemed an unacceptably high risk that they will.

The NSPCC estimates at least that 1 in every 20 children in the U.K. has been sexually abused.