London Zoo: 'All men are paedophiles.'

I'm not sure about the prevalence of male sex offenders regarding children. In the overwhelming cases of sexual assault towards adults, the abuser tends to be males. Not sure if it's correct or incorrect to extrapolate that fact.

Yes the majority of children are never abused (thank god). But when talking about helpless young children having sexual acts forced upon them, any number is too much, especially when it ruins the lives of tens of thousands.

1 in 20 is merely a conservative estimate. An ONS survey in 2016 found that say 1 in 10 women in England & Wales say they were sexually abused as child.

Re my comment about the convert crime. It is completely relevant to mention children abuse is a covert crime. It's covert not only in the sense that sexual child abuse takes places in private, but victims are often so ashamed that they don't report it. Theft of property often takes place covertly, but a victim is unlikely to feel so ashamed that they won't go to the police.

In a perfect world they should go on with their lives as before but just because the evidence wasn't there to prove beyond reasonable doubt, it doesn't mean that they didn't do it. The rights of the adult have to be weighed against the safety of the children.

You could have a situation where a pedophile avoided a conviction on a legal technicality even though it was clear they did it. Would you then be happy leaving your child alone in their care?

Socially services take kids of their parents frequently without the parents being convicted of abusing the children. I would argue telling someone they need to find a different line of work is much less extreme than tearing families apart and taking kids into care.

It is bad that it is possible that before anything has been proven in court, perfectly loving parents get their kids removed by the state. However, the consequence of inaction is equally horrendous. Children are abused when something could have been done to prevent it which is why difficult decisions have to be taken.

Policy based on (what I thought anyway, but judging by this thread maybe not) an obvious understanding that it is more appropriate and comfortable for young females to be looked after by an older female adult. I can't remember if I said this to you or someone else, but imagine if a young girl starts her period and needs to speak to someone about it. Of course she'd rather go to a female member of staff wouldn't she.

London Zoo have written this guidance because they are obliged to under Safeguarding legislation/best practice. I've run a similar facility and we had to have the same type of rules.

In the case of a family relationship, then the rules do not apply - a father can bring sons, if he is acting in the capacity solely of a father. He cannt of he is acting as, say a scout leader, and all his sons are scouts.

London Zoo have written this guidance because they are obliged to under Safeguarding legislation/best practice. I've run a similar facility and we had to have the same type of rules.

London Zoo have written this guidance because they are obliged to under Safeguarding legislation/best practice. I've run a similar facility and we had to have the same type of rules.

In the case of a family relationship, then the rules do not apply - a father can bring sons, if he is acting in the capacity solely of a father. He cannt of he is acting as, say a scout leader, and all his sons are scouts.

But can he bring daughters?

Can you specify exactly what they are obliged to do? Are they obliged to let female teachers sleep with male pupils? Or would they be within their rights to only have male teachers sleep with them?

London Zoo have written this guidance because they are obliged to under Safeguarding legislation/best practice. I've run a similar facility and we had to have the same type of rules.

Can you specify exactly what they are obliged to do? Are they obliged to let female teachers sleep with male pupils? Or would they be within their rights to only have male teachers sleep with them?

......

Agreed. Although, having worked in an youth organisation that had experience of finding an active paedophile in their midst, the working environment is never the same again, and everyone's approach to risk and the rules was markedly changed. "Don't ask yourself 'what if I'm wrong?', ask yourself 'what if I'm right?'" held a whole new meaning to those who had been colleagues of the individual.

...

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of child sex abusers are men. That is the statistical reality. I think you have got to make decisions based on the world as it is not how you wish it was. I don't think children should be put at risk for ideological reasons.

And the majority of child abuse is committed by women, so why is it okay to let female staff watch kids for the same reasons then?

That is USA data. Have you no data from a civilised country?

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of child sex abusers are men. That is the statistical reality. I think you have got to make decisions based on the world as it is not how you wish it was. I don't think children should be put at risk for ideological reasons.

An example is when authorities in Rotherham covered up sex abuse because they didn't want to acknowledge that is was Pakistani men. It is dangerous to think just because you wish it wasn't true that isn't.

It reminds me of when people say women should be able to walk home alone at night without getting raped. Of course they should but by doing so, they put themselves at risk.