Thread: Men are advised not to approach lost children

Yeah it's pretty stupid when things get so extreme that people become 'scared' to 'help'. This is the system feminism has created; so much for the children's interests, eh.:nono:

I recall the bricklayer case, it wasn't that long ago. The loss of a child's life, the shame on his part, the loss to the parents -but other men understand his reasons. I suspect other men have thought similar themselves prior to reading his account.

Thanks feminism!!!>

I....left my calling card on the reply column at that website, here:

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100n...s&siteid=50082

Elsewhere on the website, I noted an interesting article about using
"fast-growing willow" to generate hydrogen for fuel (in Wales).

I think cottonwood is even faster growing than willow...

At the end of the article your instructed over and over again to find some other authority to do this job for you. It is so demeaning! You are too harry and dumb to be able to help some lost kid without, "assistance."

An NSPCC spokesman said that as a charity it did not condone any bias against men as being more likely to abuse children.

The bias against men at the NSPCC is institutionalized, and as a consequence a tangible prejudice is very apparent to anybody not harboring an ideological influence.

He said, "The NSPCC's advertising isn't an attack on men or fathers. Our fundraising and previous advertising have equally shown both men and women as abusers."

The sole purpose of the NSPCC's advertising is to attack men (who least abuse children) so that the gullible recipients of their fraudulent depictions - are hoodwinked into believing men are the biggest abusers, when in actuality women are.

"Equally shown both men and women as abusers," they don't even acheive this claim in their advertising, let alone "rightfully" portray women as the biggest abusers. The feminists at NSPCC care more about protecting women who abuse children, than the children these women have abused. It's ludicrous they have the audacity to pretend otherwise!

Quote from Celtic Druid

"Equally shown both men and women as abusers," they don't even acheive this claim in their advertising, let alone "rightfully" portray women as the biggest abusers. The feminists at NSPCC care more about protecting women who abuse children, than the children these women have abused. It's ludicrous they have the audacity to pretend otherwise!

On most of the NSPCC TV adverts I have seen, most of the abusers of the kids are either men or are not given a gender. I think I may have seen one where a baby is meant to be in hospital and it has been assaulted, but I don't remember if it gives a gender to the abuser.

The NSPCC advert that I can remember that comes closest to actually portraying a women as an abuser is this one -
-but even then it isn't the same as some of the other ads that openly say the kids dad or uncle abuses them.

Quote from phunket

Here's one, i'm not sure where it's come from, but found it lurking on the youtube page for the above post.

That was good!

"...feminists...protect...women who abuse children..."
~Celtic Druid

I would substitute the word protect with enable.

Thanks a lot guys, for those links.

While most of us should still be deeply suspicious of the NSPCC, those clips could be signs of a turning tide.
Outright misandry doesn't seem to pull in the funds anymore. I wonder why not? :-)
Notice also the more subtle slant:
Woman in caravan park - father reading newspaper, not interested - get ready for classic "man's fault" defence.
Rosie's Mother - she has problems (eg. divorce, hence unspecified man's fault).

The NSPCC may have hired some better advertising agencies but it's still run by the same crowd.

I know this very well, just last year I tried helping a lost, crying child find his parents in the middle of my home town. It turns out that his mother was a good 15ft ahead walking away from the child and as I started speaking to him, asking where his mother was, she turned right around and marched in my direction. Threatening legal action against me for speaking {NOT TOUCHING} her child. Of course I slated her for her misandry, dared her to take me to court, and also slated her for causing psychological harm to her child by walking away from him; such an irresponsible parent. Its apparently the right thing to do when your child is demanding attention, leave them in the middle of a crowded town!

Quote from Mr.Lomax

Its apparently the right thing to do when your child is demanding attention, leave them in the middle of a crowded town!

Yeah, just like it's the right thing to mentally abuse anyone who needs a little authority, right?

"Yeah, just like it's the right thing to mentally abuse anyone who needs a little authority, right? "

Damn right

Quote from Mr.Lomax

I know this very well, just last year I tried helping a lost, crying child find his parents in the middle of my home town. It turns out that his mother was a good 15ft ahead walking away from the child and as I started speaking to him, asking where his mother was, she turned right around and marched in my direction. Threatening legal action against me for speaking {NOT TOUCHING} her child. Of course I slated her for her misandry, dared her to take me to court, and also slated her for causing psychological harm to her child by walking away from him; such an irresponsible parent. Its apparently the right thing to do when your child is demanding attention, leave them in the middle of a crowded town!

I'd be like, well, shoot, lady, if you were actually keeping an eye on your child, you wouldn't have issues with a stranger TALKING to him!

I keep my child in sight at all times.

Maybe the best thing to do is, instead of going over to the child, go to a policeman and ask HIM to approach the child.

With the way things are today, if I were a guy, its what I'd do.

But what if there is no policeman or anyone nearby?

I avoid children on the street, it's just not safe to approach. If the child eventually dies, that sucks, but I'm not risking it.