Cambodia crackdown on pedos

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:07:34 GMT, "JosephP"
wrote:


"John Sharman" wrote in message
[..]

"Fair point. I have no direct experience of anti-paedo NGOs in SE Asia,"

Neither do I.
I would presume that some (NGO's in general) are better than others, some
are very good and some are downright bad.

Which means that you need some standard of comparison to distinguish
the good from the bad. Effectiveness and efficiency must be elements
of any such standard.

Doctors without Borders is a NGO, and IMO a very good one.

Yes. I believe that their deserved high reputation has been achieved
by their seeking to do the job (meeting medical needs) rather than
getting their faces on TV.

Compare them with, say, ECPAT who wave a media-attractive banner but
who AFAIK achieve almost nothing at all that has actual impact on the
sexual exploitation of children. They promote talking shops rather
than tackling the problem. They would achieve much much more if they
employed a dozen local under-cover agents in, say, Cambodia to
identify the child-brothels and then spent a similar sum in
subsidising the local Police to arrest and prosecute the owners
instead of taking bribes from the owners.

Regarding the presence or absence of range rovers at a particular
organization, it may be an abuse of funds, but on the other hand, how is one
suppose to get around efficiently in a country with bad or no roads?

By using much cheaper but equally effective locally available
vehicles.

I would hope that the living standards of NGO staff members is not that of
Bill Gates, but I would not expect them to live at the poverty levels of the
constituents. (Although I think the Peace Corps does require their field
members to live in "native conditions").

Even in UK (where Range Rovers are produced) they are regarded as
relatively up-market and expensive vehicles and that is in comparison
with (e.g.) Toyotas that are imported here. I would expect the price
gap to be significantly higher in countries where equivalent Toyotas
or Isuzus are locally produced.
--
Regards,
John Sharman

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:26:09 GMT, "JosephP"
wrote:


"John Sharman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:56:44 GMT, michael wrote:

Chris Blunt wrote:

a smattering of crap showing that he can neither read nor think and that
he's upset at the thought of western pedophiles losing a haven of cheap
kiddie sex... what's a reasonable man to do?

Not misrepresent what other have posted?

Chris has been pointing out that the NGOs aim to punish white
paedophiles for their activities in Cambodia. He suggests that a more
laudable target would be the elimination of the sexual abuse of
children in the relevant territory.

It was such a fair, well-justified and straightforward observation
that your expressed misunderstanding must be deliberate.
--
Regards,
John Sharman



What was also "pointed out", the it was really "all about" securing money to
purchase land rovers for NGO staffers and government officials. Doesn't
sound balanced to me.

It may not sound balanced to you sitting in your comfortable home
there in the US and looking at the world through the media reports you
read, but that's my view from observing the situation on the ground
here in one of the countries these NGO's claim to be helping.

Just 5 minutes walk away from my home in Manila, any day of the week,
you can see small kids with no shoes at the road junction begging for
money from passing motorists until late into the night. Over the other
side of town you have the plush offices of these organisations full of
people apparently doing little more than produce piles of reports on
what they think someone else should be doing about it. And yes, those
SRV's are there for them to ride home in at the end of the day in
air-conditioned comfort, while avoiding any contact with the kids
begging for money as they pass them by.

Its as if the two exist in entirely different worlds. Ask the kids if
they have ever received any help whatsoever from either the government
or the NGO and they look at you in disbelief.

I'm sorry if you would have preferred to hear a happy story about the
NGO's to make you feel good inside, but I don't have one to tell.

Chris

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 04:16:15 GMT, "JosephP"
wrote:

In some underdeveloped countries a great deal of the industrial toxic waste
is indeed imported from rich foreign countries for dumping.

It appears you & michael are intent on attacking Chris on whatever
grounds you can manufacture. You make a great armchair tag team.

What the hell has toxic waste got to do with pedophiles?

John L

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 04:16:15 GMT, "JosephP"
wrote:

In some underdeveloped countries a great deal of the industrial toxic waste
is indeed imported from rich foreign countries for dumping.

It appears you & michael are intent on attacking Chris on whatever
grounds you can manufacture. You make a great armchair tag team.

What the hell has toxic waste got to do with pedophiles?

John L

"John L" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 04:16:15 GMT, "JosephP"
wrote:

In some underdeveloped countries a great deal of the industrial toxic
waste
is indeed imported from rich foreign countries for dumping.

It appears you & michael are intent on attacking Chris on whatever
grounds you can manufacture. You make a great armchair tag team.

What the hell has toxic waste got to do with pedophiles?

John L


There are plenty grounds to question his reasoning.
Nobody has to manufacture anything.

John L wrote:

It appears you & michael are intent on attacking Chris on whatever
grounds you can manufacture. You make a great armchair tag team.

What the hell has toxic waste got to do with pedophiles?

i have no investment whatsoever in "attacking" Chris or anyone else...
Chris has a problem with NGOs so he has taken a thread about a cambodian
crackdown on paedophiles and twisted it to have a go at NGOs...

i quoted a discussion of the definition of paedophile from a website of
a british agency working on the abuse of women and children in order to
demonstrate why his broadening of the topic to "abuse" was
inappropriate... he just accused me of making up definitions to suit
myself (though why anyone would do that is beyond me)...i'm sure that
the cambodian government and whatever agencies are involved are using
the word to mean what i suggested it means; hence the foreign sex
tourist angle...

he rattles on and on about how much better it would be for the cambodian
gov't to go after the sexual abuse situation in cambodia...

i pointed out (as someone who spent eight years working in the
medical/psychiatric system dealing with abused children) that western
countries have mobilised their immense medical infrastructures and
thrown pots of money at the problem with no measurable effect besides
people like Chris who bellow about the superiority or western morals or
whatever... i suggested that it is far more likely that using law
enforcement (which has little or no impact on the commoner forms of
abuse, since they get taken care of within "treatment" modalities rather
than the system of criminal law most of the time) and directing
resources and energy at travelling paedophile johns would result in real
progress being made...

Chris just comes back, ignoring reality, and has another go at NGOs...
he seems not to have a clue as to what "going after" local abusers would
mean, or what it means in those western countries he lauded for doing
so...it will be years and decades before a country like cambodia even
approaches having the infrastucture to begin to do what he just casually
tosses off as a question of making a decision... that is stupid and born
of vast ignorance... to say so is NOT to attack Chris, but his silly
arguments... he should start his own thread about NGOs and i hope he
will share with us what he personally is doing about those situations he
sees right outside his door or wherever in the phillipines... besides
mouth off on usenet, of course...


michael

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 04:00:19 GMT, michael wrote:



John L wrote:

It appears you & michael are intent on attacking Chris on whatever
grounds you can manufacture. You make a great armchair tag team.

What the hell has toxic waste got to do with pedophiles?

i have no investment whatsoever in "attacking" Chris or anyone else...
Chris has a problem with NGOs so he has taken a thread about a cambodian
crackdown on paedophiles and twisted it to have a go at NGOs...

i quoted a discussion of the definition of paedophile from a website of
a british agency working on the abuse of women and children in order to
demonstrate why his broadening of the topic to "abuse" was
inappropriate... he just accused me of making up definitions to suit
myself (though why anyone would do that is beyond me)...i'm sure that
the cambodian government and whatever agencies are involved are using
the word to mean what i suggested it means; hence the foreign sex
tourist angle...

If you had taken your definition of the word pedophile from any
commonly used dictionary, as I did, you would have come up with an
entirely different and more generally accepted meaning. Why is a
dictionary not good enough for you? The agency whose definition you
used clearly wants to limit the meaning of the word to its own scope
of work.

he rattles on and on about how much better it would be for the cambodian
gov't to go after the sexual abuse situation in cambodia...

i pointed out (as someone who spent eight years working in the
medical/psychiatric system dealing with abused children) that western
countries have mobilised their immense medical infrastructures and
thrown pots of money at the problem with no measurable effect besides
people like Chris who bellow about the superiority or western morals or
whatever...

i suggested that it is far more likely that using law
enforcement (which has little or no impact on the commoner forms of
abuse, since they get taken care of within "treatment" modalities rather
than the system of criminal law most of the time) and directing
resources and energy at travelling paedophile johns would result in real
progress being made...

Why is it so much more effective for Cambodian officials to arrest and
prosecute a visiting tourist than it is to arrest and prosecute a
local? If a local is abusing a kid in his village why is that any
different from a foreigner doing the same thing? Its still one more
offender taken care of who will not abuse yet more children. What does
it matter what his nationality is?

Chris

Chris Blunt wrote:

If you had taken your definition of the word pedophile from any
commonly used dictionary, as I did, you would have come up with an
entirely different and more generally accepted meaning. Why is a
dictionary not good enough for you? The agency whose definition you
used clearly wants to limit the meaning of the word to its own scope
of work.


people working in any professional field don't take their definitions
from dictionaries... how old are you?



Why is it so much more effective for Cambodian officials to arrest and
prosecute a visiting tourist than it is to arrest and prosecute a
local?

ok... one more time for the really dumb kid... how much easier is it to
investigate brothels, pimps, go-betweens and suspected offenders with
related charges etc... and travel patterns (why they need the support of
foreign police)...

than someone's dad, living his normal life in the normal way... what do
you suggest, a policeman outside every house listening at the walls? you
clearly have NO CLUE what you are talking about and no capacity for
learning by thinking just a little... so you are welcome to your
neurotic and meaningless opinions; after all, it's usenet, right?

and with all your CONCERN for these victims, what do you do there in the
phillipines while the NGOs guys are doing nothing? besides defend the
rights of white paedophiles to fly in for a week or two of kiddy-****ing
now and again?

michael

"michael" kirjoitti viestissä
...


Chris Blunt wrote:

If you had taken your definition of the word pedophile from any
commonly used dictionary, as I did, you would have come up with an
entirely different and more generally accepted meaning. Why is a
dictionary not good enough for you? The agency whose definition you
used clearly wants to limit the meaning of the word to its own scope
of work.


people working in any professional field don't take their definitions
from dictionaries... how old are you?

I guess they derive definitions from someones's age.

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:03:36 GMT, michael wrote:

people working in any professional field don't take their definitions
from dictionaries... how old are you?

Only smart comment you've made so far. Professionals prefer to make
up their own definitions to justify their own position. Reality is not
always an option for your type.


Why is it so much more effective for Cambodian officials to arrest and
prosecute a visiting tourist than it is to arrest and prosecute a
local?

ok... one more time for the really dumb kid... how much easier is it to
investigate brothels, pimps, go-betweens and suspected offenders with
related charges etc... and travel patterns (why they need the support of
foreign police)...

Again, your personal attacks on Chris only negate any intelligent
comment you may be trying to elucidate.

than someone's dad, living his normal life in the normal way... what do
you suggest, a policeman outside every house listening at the walls? you
clearly have NO CLUE what you are talking about and no capacity for
learning by thinking just a little... so you are welcome to your
neurotic and meaningless opinions; after all, it's usenet, right?

Well said, your comments also apply perfectly to yourself.

and with all your CONCERN for these victims, what do you do there in the
phillipines while the NGOs guys are doing nothing? besides defend the
rights of white paedophiles to fly in for a week or two of kiddy-****ing
now and again?

michael

And with all YOUR so called CONCERN sitting on your arse in your
armchair, why don't you travel to Cambodia & do some REAL work.

John L.