Hacker News Reader

I dispute your words that the island is a "rather sad place". It is a place full of people living in a remote island but the place is a warm and vibrant community full of history. Not just the history of the mutiny, but the history of the Tahitian ancestry pre-mutiny. They have a local government where local laws are enacted but as you say, they are British ruled due to a an encounter in the 1838 of a British ship where the Pitcairners asked for some laws to be drafted. Many administration aspects are managed from New Zealand for convenience but it is not administered by New Zealand. The High Commissioner in Auckland is a represents the UK.

> I dispute your words that the island is a "rather sad place"

I certainly meant no disrespect to you or your family. Maybe it has improved since the court cases? If the people, especially the woman, there are happy I am very glad to hear it. I edited my comment out of respect.

> Many administration aspects are managed from New Zealand

The police are New Zealand police.

Yes, things have improved. The island is very much moving on from the events of the past. Pitcairn is quite possibly the most surveilled place in the world at the moment with the ratio of islanders to government officials whose remit is to report on anything they perceive as suspicious. It's frustrating to us that every time that Pitcairn is mentioned the "You may remember Pitcairn as the island where sex abuse trials happened" comes up. Part of this is due to the media interest in covering events in a remote island - you don't hear with every mention of other places in the world where bad things have happened because that doesn't have the allure of a remote mysterious island.

Yes, the police are often New Zealand police. The Doctor, Teacher and Police positions are advertised in NZ and UK.

officials whose remit is to report on anything they perceive as suspicious.

Oof. That would be crazy making.

If you are actively looking for such, you will find it -- even if you have to read in a lot that isn't really there. Add in cross cultural misunderstanding and this has to be a pretty negative experience for locals.

When I was there I was having lunch with some of my cousins. I was chatting about what a great place it was to grow up, being able to be in the country, swimming, explore the island, etc. One of the officials popped in to say hi and overheard that part. They immediately said "What?! Kids are playing outside unsupervised?! That's how bad things happen, who were they, when did it happen." etc etc. I explained I was talking in the hypothetical and they left. We joked that we'd get a visit by the government social worker soon. Probably a coincidence but 5 minutes later the social worker comes in "Just passing by, thought I'd chat and see how things are going" lol.

One downside, in my opinion, of the way the government jobs are advertised is they attract missionaries and people who want to "save" the islanders from their lives. I remember watching a presentation one official did before going to the island - it was a presentation to their church group, about the opportunity they had to save the islanders, etc which seemed to me inappropriate for someone who is supposed to be there to do a specific job - in this case the teaching position.

I was homeless for a few years. People do the same thing to homeless people: assume you are bad and wrong and stupid and need someone else to fix you.

Nope, no interest in what actually happened to you that you ended up so poor. Nope, it couldn't have anything to do with systemic issues. You just must be a bad person.

I'm sorry we still do this so much throughout the world.

George Orwell dealt with this in the second half, the "London" part, of "Down and Out in Paris and London.". Good read.

I would say a place that is both so small and so riddled with sexual abuse definitely qualifies as "rather sad". I think your bias/passion for its/your heritage might be skewing your perception. If 1/3 of the male population are convicted, I would assume the realities of who partook are actually much worse.

I'm definitely biased, I agree. I don't respond to discussions about the trials for a number of reasons. It's a sensitive issue. It brings out the worst in people. Statements like "riddled with sexual abuse" show your biases. I used to respond to such discussions in the past and I've learnt they're mostly filled with people who have a weird fascination with such events and no good comes from engaging. The trials have taken place, people charged, served their time, and the island is moving on. Just like when similar events happen in other places around the world, and then the world moves on, my belief is that the entire island shouldn't be punished for what happened for all eternity.

> Statements like "riddled with sexual abuse" show your biases.

1/3 of the male population at the time is, what I think most would agree, "riddled with". I'm certainly biased against huge populations of abusers, yes.

> Just like when similar events happen in other places around the world, and then the world moves on, my belief is that the entire island shouldn't be punished for what happened for all eternity.

I guess it's for each individual person to decide how long to be put off by such a (relative to the size of the population) wide-spread issue.

> If 1/3 of the male population are convicted, I would assume the realities of who partook are actually much worse.

And though news articles talk about 1/3 of the males, they usually don't mention what percentage it was of the _adult_ males. According to this Guardian article[1], it was 7/12 of the men on the island (58%), and that's not including the man convicted in 2016. A meeting of women on the island consisting of "almost the entire adult female population of Pitcairn"[2] (13 women) also defended the actions as just being part of the island's way of life.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/former-pitcair...

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/growing...

It won't be for everyone, but I think that for some it's their idea of sanctuary.

Just saying population 53 at present, so we are talking about like 8 guys? Doesn't seem reasonable to assume that long term history of this place will be defined by so few people.

> There has been a long sad history of sexual abuse, with one third of the island's male population being convicted and imprisoned in the early 2000s.

This sounds really bad, until you realise one-third of the male population is 7 people.

You are correct, but its not an accurate use of statistics.

It's absolutely an accurate use of statistics. One third of the male population was imprisoned for sexual abuse. Regardless of how many, wouldn't you want to know if 1/3 of the men around you are sexual abusers?

> It's absolutely an accurate use of statistics

Nope, that's what phrase "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is about. You're a manipulator.

Just because you do not agree with a position does not make it manipulative.

I never said that it's my (dis)agreement with you that makes you a manipulator. It's the way you frame your argument. You said "third of the population" but forgot to mention that it's just 7 people we're talking about which is a crucial addition. I conclude you were writing that in bad faith to promote some kind of agenda of yours (which is confirmed by the history of your posts).

> You said "third of the population" but forgot to mention that it's just 7 people we're talking about which is a crucial addition.

And I propose that it being "just" 7 doesn't change the intent of "1/3" at all.

> I conclude you were writing that in bad faith to promote some kind of agenda of yours (which is confirmed by the history of your posts).

My agenda is to obviously raise awareness that an island that aids sexual abusers is bad. Your agenda must be to suppress the dissemination of information pertaining to sexual abuse, I guess. I'm kind of disgusted at that behavior, tbh.

> My agenda is to obviously raise awareness that an island that aids sexual abusers is bad

This is another example of you using emotive phrases to imply a narrative that is not true. Pitcairn Island does not aid sexual abusers. Abuse is abhorrent. Trials were held, people were convicted. I'm not sure what is different to how this is handled anywhere else in the world.

> This is another example of you using emotive phrases to imply a narrative that is not true

So you're saying the Mayor didn't get convicted, then?

> Pitcairn Island does not aid sexual abusers

The mayor.

> . Abuse is abhorrent. Trials were held, people were convicted. I'm not sure what is different to how this is handled anywhere else in the world.

The difference is the absolutely astounding ratio.

That honestly makes it sound even worse. I’m confused as to how people think it doesn’t.

Also it’s perfectly valid statistics.