Thursday, 26 December 2013

Russia - Getting it right

"MOSCOW, RUSSIA (BNO NEWS) — A Russian legislator submitted a bill Wednesday that would allow the government’s internet watchdog to block access to websites that contain texts which are deemed to favour paedophilia, strengthening current laws that allow the blocking of websites containing child pornography.
The bill was submitted to the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, by Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) member of parliament Mikhail Degtyarev. It contains a number of amendments to the federal law on information that was last changed in 2012 to allow the government’s internet watchdog to block child pornography websites.
But Degtyarev said the current law does not allow the government to block other content written or distributed by paedophiles. “Since the federal legislation makes emphasis on banning visual images and doesn’t regulate in any way the freedom of paedophilic speech and ideas, amoral texts and messages of a paedophilic character are circulated quite legally,” he said, as quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency.
The legislator said he believes his bill will help to prevent future crimes against children and will limit access to internet sources used by paedophiles. It was not immediately clear whether the bill was likely to gather sufficient support or when a vote in parliament may take place.
More than 9,500 sex crimes against children were reported in Russia in 2009, including more than 960 cases that involved rape. But despite the authorities’ declared fight against the sexual abuse of minors, police are often slow to respond to allegations of child abuse, according to activists.
Pavel Astakhov, Russia’s Children’s Rights Commissioner to President Vladimir Putin, has in the past suggested the existence of a “paedophile lobby” in the country’s lower house of parliament, which he believes is responsible for the blocking of legislation that would have aided the fight against child sex abuse. "

So, Ignoring the AVP language, Russia can do this -why not the UK?

How many places online do YOU know that promote paedophilia and paedophilic activities?

How many places online do YOU know make excuses for paedophiles, what they do, and try to justify it?

How many Twitter/Facebook/Blog accounts etc. have YOU seen that are either run by paedophiles, or try to legitimise what they do?

Can this be done here in the UK?

If not, why not?

Thoughts .....


Saturday, 21 December 2013

Amazon and Ethical Shopping

Readers may remember the posting I did a few weeks ago called Child Abuse disguised as religion - To Train up a Child in which I briefly highlighted this book, which has been around since 1994 when it was first published.

If you have not read this post, please take a few minutes out to do so - amongst other items linked in this post is the book itself. If you haven't the time, you can read the book online here

As well as being a book full of such delightful ways to physically and mentally abuse your children into submission and obeying your every command, it has been linked to numerous deaths of young children. A quick Google search in the news will show some of the horrific stories, and whilst ultimately the responsibility of these murders lie with the parents, some also has to be directed at this vile book.

Since this posting, I have been trying to get answers (without a lot off success), from Amazon into why it is still promoting and condoning this "manual of abuse" on it's site, when other retail sites have realised the damaging impact that this book has and have withdrawn it. Obviously I realise that although there have been many public campaigns over the years, Amazon has so far refused to withdraw this book. More recently, MP Nadine Dorris has also called for Amazon to withdraw this book

I was quite surprised last night then, after countless e-mails and completing of forms on their site, to get a reply from Amazon as follows:

"I'm sorry to hear about this. I can understand your concerns.

In this case, I've escalated this issue to the appropriate department in our company and have requested to remove the item "To Train Up a Child: Turning the hearts of the fathers to the children" from the website as soon as possible. Thank you for your feedback.

I'm very sorry for the inconvenience you experienced in this case and I hope you'll give us another chance in the future."

Now, do I believe that this will happen?

As said before, there have been numerous, very public campaigns in the past to get this book banned, and to get Amazon to stop selling it, without success.

Not really sure if I believe they will, but by making part of the reply from Amazon in which they have stated "I've escalated this issue to the appropriate department in our company and have requested to remove the item "To Train Up a Child: Turning the hearts of the fathers to the children" from the website as soon as possible" public in this way, hopefully there will be a better chance of getting this book removed from Amazon for once and for all, or will they GO BACK ON THEIR WORD?. Naturally I have asked Amazon to send me confirmation when they have taken this book down, and in an ideal world it would be great to go on their site, search for this book, and have "no matches found".

I will add their response as a comment under this post if/when I receive it.

In the meantime, please share this - the more people that see the response from Amazon, the more pressure they will be under to remove it, and ultimately, to help prevent any more deaths of children in this way, that is the aim.

Saturday, 14 December 2013

Italy & Child Ab .... sorry "Love"

From the makers of "WTF" and "You couldn't make this shit up", comes this.


"According to an Italy court, paedophilia is love. In the case of a 60-year-old man who took in an 11-year-old disadvantaged girl, the Italian court has annulled the man’s five-year jail sentence for rape of a minor.
The reason for the annulment, the court says, is because the older man and the prepubescent girl had a “romantic relationship,” and the girl claimed she is in love with the much older man. In Italy, the age of consent is 14, but in cases where one person is an authority figure or caring for the other, the age of consent is 16.
The 60-year-old man works in social services in the Italian town of Catanzaro, and had taken responsibility for the 11-year-old girl’s care. The illicit relationship was discovered when the police raided the man’s home and found the pair naked in bed.
The annulment by the court will be appealed for a new sentence, and a retrial will take place. According to the Italy court, paedophilia is love.
According to a published study in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Italy is experiencing a rising trend in child abuse. In the first large-scale study of its kind, between 1996 and 2003, 200 children under the age of 14 who visited the Soccorso Violenza Sessuale (SVS) Centre in Milan were seen for suspicion of child sexual abuse. This retrospective study showed about 80% of cases were normal or nonspecific, according to Joyce Adams’ Classification Scale. This study, however, focuses on suspicion of child sexual abuse in Italy, not confirmed child sexual abuse cases. The data from this study confirm similarities in other non-European countries, especially in terms of clinical signs of child sexual abuse."

In other Italian news ........


Friday, 13 December 2013

New sentencing guidelines - April 2014.

"The Sentencing Council has published a new sentencing guideline for sexual offences which will help ensure appropriate and consistent sentences for sex offenders.
The guideline covers more than 50 offences including rape, child sex offences, indecent images of children, trafficking and voyeurism, and brings significant changes to how offences are considered by the courts."

"The guideline makes it clear that victims are not responsible for what has happened to them. This is particularly emphasised in relation to offences committed against children. In the previous guideline there were child sex offences labelled as involving ‘ostensible consent’ – that is, where a child over 13 has apparently agreed to sexual activity. The Council believes that this is the wrong way of looking at these offences as children do not consent to their own abuse. The new guideline therefore looks more at the offender’s actions and behaviour towards the victim."

"The new guideline also brings increases in sentencing starting points and sentencing ranges for some offences. For example, in relation to rape, the new guideline allows top category sentences with a starting point of 15 years. The previous guideline only allowed sentences with this starting point for multiple rapes. Sentences of 20 years and above are also now recommended for campaigns of rape. In addition, the worst cases of assault by penetration can now receive the same sentences as rape.
The guideline simplifies the system for assessing indecent images of children which will make analysis of imagery much easier when evidence is being compiled against someone being prosecuted. The new guideline moves away from concentrating on just the number of images and gives more emphasis to what the offender is doing with the images – possessing, distributing or creating – to help assess the offending behaviour and appropriate sentence level. "

"The guideline will come into force in courts in England and Wales in April 2014 and replace existing guidance which was issued by the Sentencing Council’s predecessor body following the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  Sentencing levels for sexual offences have been increasing since the Act, and existing sentencing guideline, came into force, and the new guideline reflects these increases. They do not include any reductions in sentences from current sentencing."

So, a step forward it seems in sentencing guidelines for child sexual abuse crimes.

Some good bits that stand out for me:

 - Ostensible Consent. Where a child over thirteen "consents" to their own abuse. Hopefully this will mean an end to the stories like this here and here - children under the age of consent cannot consent, simple as that. It will be interesting to see if the excuse of consent is used after April 2014 in child sex abuse cases. If it is - it will be challenged - I will make sure of that.

 -  Good character being redefined as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. By redefining this as an aggravating factor, shows that the Sentencing Council seem to be swaying to the notion that paedophiles, have previously groomed the judicial system into reducing sentences on the basis of their previous good character & good deeds - hopefully no more as from April 2014.

 - Abuse of Trust, especially relating to high profile paedophiles. At last. Are people waking up to the fact that some paedophiles become "famous" (or infamous), with the probability that they can and do have unfettered access to children. Not the other way around. Less of the "famous becoming a paedophile" and getting a lesser sentence. More of the "paedophile deliberately becoming famous in order to get access to children" and getting a longer sentence. Common sense!

 - Addition of todays online technology such as webcams, grooming via social media, getting children to share indecent photos of themselves, and subsequent future technological advances. Longer sentences for encryption and recording of offenses.

 - Simpler definitions for accessing IIOC.

I do however have a couple of questions of my own.

 - Regarding IIOC, are the new guidelines going to make much of an impact on the sentences given and the length (if any) of any custodial sentences. We keep reading about Chris Graylings "toughening up" of this crime, yet more and more we see offenders getting fines, community orders and suspended sentences. If he wants to get tough on offenders of this crime, sentences need to increase as well. No deterrent at the moment. Increase the sentence, make the crime Indictable Only, then let the public appeal ULS for "slap on the wrist" sentences. As it stands (from an e-mail I received today from SPPU),
"The taking, making, permitting to take, possessing, possessing with intent to distribute, distributing or advertising indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children under 18 are offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.  These are indictable offences, but not indictable only offences, meaning that they are triable both in the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court and either the court or the defendant can choose the which court hears the case.  Where the magistrates' court considers that it has insufficient sentencing powers to deal with a triable either way case it can send the case to the Crown Court"

Is this good enough? Why is it not "indictable only"? This is not a "pixels on a screen" crime with no victims! Children are sexually exploited and abused to create these for the benefit of paedophiles and child sex abusers, and the crime should be equally as serious as all other child sexual abuse crimes, and in my eyes should be an indictable only offense.

 - As the sentencing guidelines are going to be more victim orientated, will this mean that there may be a chance that the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 will be updated to reflect this? If so, what chance that they replace the prejudicial wording in it relating to children being involved in pornography and being child prostitutes with something more akin to the actual crimes, namely child sexual exploitation, and children being prostituted? What chance of this being amended? I have e-mailed to find out & will keep you updated. Chance of this, 0.00% I think, but if you don't ask questions and don't try, you will never know.

But, nevertheless all in all, a step forward in the right direction by the Sentencing Council.

Thursday, 5 December 2013

Paedophile teacher has sentence more than doubled. "Unduly Lenient" Works Again.

"A PAEDOPHILE teacher who preyed on his own pupils has had his jail term more than doubled after his original sentence was judged to have been “unduly lenient”.
Richard Oldham, 32, was jailed for just six months in September when he admitted a catalogue of offences while teaching in York - including sexual assaults against two 10-year-old boys, voyeurism and making and possessing indecent images of children."
Proof again that appealing against sentences that are "unduly lenient" gets results. Sitting on your bums moaning about sentences that are rubbish, or moaning on Twitter / Facebook or on media articles etc gets you nowhere,

If you too would like to get involved the next time you see a sentence that is completely unreflective of the crime, please read my posting from earlier this year - How to appeal against Unduly Lenient Sentences.

It works.

Yours could be the appeal that increases an unduly lenient sentence. Go for it.

Sent 19 September 2013

"Dear Sir, 
I would like to appeal against the sentence handed down to Richard Oldham, Leeds Crown Court as being unduly lenient, the reasons being as below:

"The punishment of offenders

This shows society’s unhappiness with the offence committed. Punishment can include loss of, or restrictions to, a person’s liberty or the payment of a fine." This was a paedophile teacher who has committed a variety of offences against children for eight years across primary schools, including making IIOC up to level four (I realise I cannot appeal against this), touching children and voyeurism. Receiving a six month sentence for eight years of sexual offences is merely a slap on the wrist, and send out a message that this crime is not taken seriously, and in no way does it show society's unhappiness.

the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence
(using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence).
 As per the above reasons, a six month sentence is no deterrent whatsoever for his behaviour. If anything, the fact that he was a teacher and had responsibility for primary school children on a daily basis, should demand a slightly longer sentence than a paedophile who was not in his position of responsibility.

"the protection of the public
This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation." The fact that he has committed various crimes over a period of eight years, must mean that there is a strong possibility (or probability) that he is very likely to offend again. Locking him up for six months, minus parole / good behaviour, is no protection to the public, especially with the contact he has had with children.

I have already contacted the CPS regarding Judge Jameson's anti-victim comments regarding Richard Oldham being such a good teacher and a loss to the community - I hope that there is some way that they will be able to address this as this language is unacceptable."

Tuesday, 3 December 2013

Child Abuse disguised as 'Religion' - "to train up a child".


"Two parents in Washington state have been found guilty of murder after allegedly following the abusive parenting techniques advocated in the parenting book "To Train Up a Child" by Michael and Debi Pearl.
Larry and Carri Williams received the maximum prison sentences allowable under the law after being found guilty of beating and starving their adopted daughter Hana to death. The methods they used to "discipline" their daughter were advocated in the controversial Christian book.
Some of the discipline techniques the Pearls teach include:
  • Using plastic tubing to beat children, since it is "too light to cause damage to the muscle or the bone”
  • Wearing the plastic tubing around the parent's neck as a constant reminder to obey
  • "Swatting" babies as young as six months old with instruments such as "a 12-inch willowy branch," thinner plastic tubing or a wooden spoon
  • "Blanket training" babies by hitting them with an instrument if they try to crawl off a blanket on the floor
  • Beating older children with rulers, paddles, belts and larger tree branches
  • "Training" children with pain before they even disobey, in order to teach total obedience
  • Giving cold water baths, putting children outside in cold weather and withholding meals as discipline
  • Hosing off children who have potty training accidents
  • Inflicting punishment until a child is "without breath to complain"
Recently, this was brought up in the House of Commons by MP Nadine Dorries, who, amongst others, have urged Amazon to withdraw this book - so far to no avail (it still being available here.)

If you can stomach it, it can be read here To Train Up A Child,- not easy reading !!

Seriously, this book should be removed from all online retailers, especially one like Amazon. Quite a few have already removed this, but not Amazon. Is it morally or ethical right for Amazon to profit from child abuse in this way?

There are two existing petitions, one for the UK and one for the USA , and there is also a new ePetition asking the UK Government to ban the sale of this book. Please add your signatures to one or more of these, and get others to do the same. Tweet Amazon - e-mail them ( ), do whatever you can and want. This book is nothing to do with "training children to all parents who love their children" as quoted, this is a book filled with various ways of physically abusing babies and children under the supposed "guise" of religion. This book has been the catalyst of a number of deaths of children, and it really should be banned. If you are in any doubt why, read the book itself, or the various news articles of Hanna Williams , Lydia Schatz and Sean Paddock. Thank you

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Teaching children rape - the South African way

Small post for today.

Dept defends matric rape question

"The Department of Basic Education has stood by its decision to ask drama students to describe how they would stage the rape of a baby. 
The matric exam question has seen teachers, students and parents express outrage over the question, which asks the students to stage the rape of a baby using a loaf of bread and a broomstick as props. 
The question was part of the compulsory section of the dramatic arts exam written earlier this week by government schools. 
The question included an extract from playwright Lara Foot’s play Tshepang, which was reportedly inspired by the 2011 rape of a nine-month-old baby in the Free State. "Baby Tshepang" was raped by her mother's boyfriend. 
Students were asked to describe how they would portray the extract to "maximise the horror of the rape". 
Department of Basic Education spokesperson Elijah Mhlanga said in The Mercury that the subject matter was nothing new to the students 
"By the time pupils are in matric, they have begun to be faced with the realities of adulthood, often beyond the security of their homes and the school system," he said in the report. 
"They will, through media and cinema, have been exposed to many horrific images and reports," said Mhlanga."
Couldn't make it up!
This comes at the same time as the unfolding depravity of Lost Prophets Ian Watkins.
Unbelievable. What is there to say? Words fail...
For a look at the most recent, and frankly quite shocking rape statistics in South Africa, please click here and here.

If I get a reply to my e-mail to S.A Dept of Education, I'll post it here.

Friday, 22 November 2013

The Never-ending Debate on the Age of Consent - a Countdown.

John Ashton
"He claims that lowering the age would make it easier for 15 year-olds to seek contraception and sexual health advice from the NHS and would "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 and younger. "My own view is there is an argument for reducing it to 15 but you cannot do it without the public supporting the idea and we need to get a sense of public opinion about this," he said in the interview."
Peter Tatchell
"The existing consent at 16 law was introduced over 100 years ago in a puritanical Victorian era. Since then, society has moved on to more informed and enlightened attitudes about sex. Most importantly, the average age of puberty and sexual arousal has fallen dramatically to around ten to 11. In the light of new evidence, the issue should be revisited and re-examined."
"Any review of the consent laws should be premised on five aims. First, ending the criminalisation of consenting relationships between teens of similar ages. Second, protecting young people against sex abuse. Third, empowering them to make responsible sexual and emotional choices. Fourth, removing the legal obstacles to earlier, more effective sex and relationship education. Fifth, ensuring better contraception and condom provision to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions and to cut the spread of sexual infections like HIV."

Luke Bozier

"Lower the Age of Consent to 13, which is the current average age of puberty onset + 2 years. This standard should be tested every ten years, with the Department of Health being required to produce a standard definition of the average age of puberty each decade."
Barbara Hewson
"As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are: remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13."
The past few months have seen quite a few news articles concerning the existing age of consent in the UK, and calls for it to be lowered. Firstly by Barbara Hewson back in May, then in the past couple of weeks by John Ashton and Peter Tatchell. In amongst these three, the gem of a blog by Luke Bozier in which he discusses legalising prostitution for anyone over the age of consent (ie 13 in his ideal world), redefining "child pornography" (his words not mine), and legalising necrophilia (with prior consent of both parties prior to death) - not going into this though, you'll have to read his blog if you want to find out more.
Now, regarding the ever present AoC debate, why is it continually being brought up on a regular basis? What is the problem with leaving it as it is - ie 16?
In all the above articles, the underlying reasons for this call to lower the age of consent seems to be the fact that teenagers are having their first sexual experience when they are under 16. In my opinion, just because teenagers are experimenting prior to the age of consent is not a good reason for lowering it.
So, questions -
  • Using this methodology then, shouldn't we be reducing the age of consent for alcohol and tobacco to maybe 13 or 14 as well? After all, a lot of teenagers are drinking and smoking as well. What's the difference? Just because teenagers are experimenting prior to the age of consent is not a reason for lowering it. Thoughts anyone?
  • Peter Tatchell implies in his article that teenagers are "being criminalised" and are ending up on the Sexual Offenders register and getting criminal records for this - "being lumped together with paedophiles and rapists". Over the past decade in the UK, exactly how many teenagers have been criminalised in this way? Rather than generalising in this manner & (deliberately?) scaremongering, perhaps Mr Tatchell could provide accurate figures for this as I don't know of any that I have seen.
  • Three out of the four people above have purely called for the age of consent to be lowered. No indication of whether plans would be put in place to protect 13-16 year olds from child abusers and paedophiles. Only Mr Tatchell has indicated putting measures in place to protect this age group by having a two tiered system similar to other countries. The other three have basically opened to door to exploitation and abuse - and therefore cannot and should not be taken seriously in any way.
  • Regarding the above statement, and although he has indicated a two tiered system, I disagree with Mr Tatchells argument as although it seemingly closes the door to the potential exploitation by older predators, it opens the door to the pressure of having sex at an earlier age. I would imagine that there are plenty of teenagers of 14 or 15 who use the age of consent as a valid argument - a reason for them not to be pressured into having sex by slightly older peers until they are 16. I would also imagine that this reason does work in a lot of cases. By lowering the AoC to 14, this removes this protective barrier and will result in more pressure for youngsters.
  • Professor Ashton indicates in his article that "lowering the age would make it easier for 15 year-olds to seek contraception and sexual health advice from the NHS and would "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 and younger". Has professor Ashton never heard of Brook here and here? I am sure there are other equally good organisations that offer the same advice as Brook does. Poor argument in my opinion.
  • The other underlying justification in the articles is that teenagers are reaching puberty at an earlier age. Is this a good enough reason? What about emotional and mental readiness - are younger teenagers developing earlier mentally and emotionally as well as physically?
  • Lastly are there any other reasons such as more peer pressure, the greater accessibility of pornography and the sexualisation of youngsters, drinking etc that are contributing to teenagers having sexual experiences at an earlier age than they might have been years or decades ago? If there are, is this a good enough reason to just lower the AoC on this basis?
So here is the simple solution. Leave it at 16. Why the need to change it? Personally I think that we have it about right here in the UK.

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

The Promotion of Paedophilia Chinese Style - Part Two - AliExpress

"Each Member further represents, warrants and agrees that the User Content that you submit, post or display shall:    
c) not contain information that is defamatory, libelous, threatening or harassing, obscene, objectionable, offensive, sexually explicit or harmful to minors; "
So it states in the Terms and Conditions of Alibaba and AliExpress.
So, again, we have another company - another Chinese company - that has goods for sale that promote paedophilia. Sexually explicit certainly, and 100% definitely "harmful to minors"
So, again, we have another company - another Chinese company - that has what appears to be child sex dolls for sale.
In this case however, there seems to be no contact details for AliExpress anywhere on their website where these items are openly being sold. Their Twitter account is very rarely used, their Facebook page is non-existent, and there are no e-mail contacts. Just Google "Contact AliExpress" and you will see.
One example
One example is above - there are others though. A couple of the ones are here and here - sorry ... there's no way you can say that these are adult ones, these are child ones.
As described in a facebook message in Dining for Dignity - "Ali Express has young girl sex dolls. One is 4 ft. tall with underdeveloped body. Another looks like a tween with a teddy bear. Both have great sexual description"
Nice - not.
Now, after a bit of digging, I have managed to find 3 different e-mail contacts for people at Alibaba including AliExpress (this very elusive company), and include them here:
And as per my previous posting would be extremely grateful for your two minutes in e-mailing them to try to get these products removed. There is no reason whatsoever for such blatant promoting of paedophilia in this way, and although this is probably a miniscule drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things, every little helps. 

Saturday, 16 November 2013

Normalising Paedophilia - the Chinese Way

"Sex dolls look a bit creepy at the best of times, but this is just plain wrong.
A Chinese website is under fire for selling disturbingly life-like child-size, sex dolls.
The disturbing advert, spotted by an advocacy group on Facebook, called Dining for Dignity shows the model of a girl, who does not look much older than 9 or 10.
Described as a “beautiful young girl sex doll for men,” the item costs $178 and is available to ship worldwide.
Worryingly 57 of them have been sold so far to customers in the US, UK, Japan, Germany, and more, the advert shows.
The product listing boasts that it is highly flexible, and that "all three holes can be used."

"Wrong" is the biggest understatement I can think of at this monstrosity. What the hell is anyone anywhere doing openly promoting and selling items like this on their site? The ONLY reason that such a disgusting thing is on their site, can only be to attract paedophile buyers for them to use them and imagine themselves having sex with a real child in any way, disgusting as this sounds. That is of course, until the novelty wears off and they go the next step.....

Surely this cannot be legal?

Surely it cannot be legal to have these shipped anywhere in the world, including the UK? Are there not laws that prevent this type of product/material being sent here?

Personally I have never heard of DHGate before reading the story in the Huffington Post, linked above. Now that I have, I would urge all readers to do two things.

1) Share either the link, or this post, and ask everyone to BOYCOTT DHGate if they use it, or if they come across this site and are tempted to use it. DHGate cannot be allowed to sell items aimed at normalising paedophilia in this blatant way. They cannot be allowed to do this. This is morally and ethically WRONG.

2) Contact DHGate on this link - Message DHGate and make your feelings known. Tell them you will be boycotting their site, and that you will be recommending to everyone you know that they too boycott it. Word will get around - 'The more the merrier' as the well known saying goes. (Unfortunately, unless you have an account with DHGate, you cannot directly message the seller, and I am not doing that).

With the ever increasing global fight against child sexual exploitation and child abuse, it makes no sense whatsoever that with a couple of clicks, paedophiles can be buying themselves a sex doll that appears to be of a pre-pubescent child. We should be standing up against child sexual abuse, not normalising and encouraging it in this disgusting way.

Monday, 11 November 2013

Soft Judges and short sentences equals more reoffending - Who'd have thunk that?

"SEX attackers and violent criminals given short sentences offend again at a rate of more than 50 a week within a year of being released."
"According to figures revealed by the Ministry of Justice, there were 356 sex offences or serious violent crimes together with 2,482 robberies carried out by convicts who had served for less than a year."
"During the course of a decade the Ministry of Justice figures show 35,835 offenders jailed for short- term sentences went on to reoffend, including 3,914 committing violent or sexual crimes. The proposed new Bill aims to drive down Britain’s high reoffending rates, which currently account for 600,000 crimes committed every year."
Blimey! No shit, Sherlock! Talk about stating the blindingly obvious. Someone commits a serious crime, gets a suspended sentence or a pathetically small sentence of a few months, then reoffends when they are released. Who would have guessed that? Of course giving offenders sentences like this, will end up with a greater chance of re-offending - it doesn't take a genius to figure that out!!
Lets have a quick look at the five purposes of sentencing in brief, used supposedly by judges when determining an appropriate sentence for a crime:
1) The punishment of offenders This shows society’s unhappiness with the offence committed. Punishment can include loss of, or restrictions to, a person’s liberty or the payment of a fine.
2) The reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence).
3) The reform and rehabilitation of offenders This is aimed at reforming the offender and changing their behaviour. It also links to the purpose of reducing crime. An example of reform and rehabilitation includes a drug and/or alcohol treatment requirement.    
4) The protection of the public. This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation. the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences
5) The making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences This requires the offender to make amends to those who have been affected by their criminal behaviour. This may be achieved, for example, by the payment of compensation or through restorative justice.  
Mr Grayling, 2 questions:

1) Using these guidelines, how on earth can someone who has committed a violent or a sexual offense NOT get a sentence that runs into years? What goes through judges minds when they pass, for example, a suspended sentence for offenders who Abducted a thirteen year old child , Downloaded eighteen thousand IIOC, Abused boys during the 70s, 80s, and 90s etc?
2)  With the above crimes, (paedophile crimes), there is no excuse whatsoever for dishing out any sort of soft sentences if this crimes is to be taken seriously. Taking Jailed: Paedophile Who Claimed Appalling Abuse Was 'Benefit' To His Victims as a prime example, shows that paedophilia is a different type of crime to the norm. You can "treat" paedophiles, but there is no cure, it isn't a disease - it is a long standing fetish/sexual attraction to children & the only proper way to protect the public from offenders who commit these crimes is a proper, long custodial sentence. Not suspended sentences. Not sentences that are a matter of a few months. Proper ones that reflect the above guidelines, "Protection of the public", "Punishment of Offenders", "Reduction of Crime". When will you take this crime seriously? When will you realise that "once a paedophile, always a paedophile", and put in place proper sentencing guidelines and a proper deterrence that will reduce this crime, and make paedophiles who claim "they can't help themselves" think twice before committing these offences?
This is your second "promise" in just over a month, remember Tough justice for those who watch IIOC: Grayling announces perverts will no longer escape with 'slap on the wrist' in crackdown on soft punishments from September this year? So Mr Grayling, will we see anything from either of these "promises", or are these both the usual empty ones? Words are one thing, but taking action is another? We will be watching.

Saturday, 2 November 2013

Whopping Pedophilia 'Sexual Orientation' Error Sparks Common Sense Freakout

So, further to my previous posting, it looks like (unfortunately to all the paedophiles and their supporters - unlucky!!), LGBT is to stay as LGTB and not with the added "P" in it.

"In a text discussion of changes it made to the way it refers to sexually deviant behaviours in its updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM, for short), the APA accidentally called paedophilia a "sexual orientation." Conservative media outlets and pundits pounced on the statement and disseminated it on blogs and social networks.
The APA issued a statement to the press on Thursday, saying it had acted in "error," and clarifying that the only difference in how paedophilia is referred to from the last DSM is that "the disorder name was changed from 'paedophilia' to 'paedophilic disorder'" in order to "maintain consistency with the chapter’s other disorder listings.""

So common sense prevails, this makes complete sense - orientation being "an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender" (Wiki). Thus meaning you can (quite obviously I would have thought) have paedophiles of any orientation - whether they be LGB or T.

So, if it doesn't sit as an orientation, where does it sit within the DSM / APA? Quite rightly now in DSM-5 it is listed in their "Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet". For those who are not sure what exactly this means, according to the Free Online Dictionary, paraphilia  is described as a group of psychosexual disorders characterized by sexual fantasies, feelings, or activities involving a nonhuman object, a nonconsenting partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner

One of the key words here being "nonconsenting". Nonconsenting in layman's language being rape. And rape being illegal. Thus no longer being "normalised", no longer being legitimised by DSM-5 or APA. The way it should be now, and the way it should always be going forward. Instead of over-analysing the cause of paedophilia and trying to find excuses for those who sexually abuse children, we should be accepting that some people are sexually inclined this way, and be concentrating more on both catching offenders who actively practise it, getting sentencing and future deterrence correct, and be providing proper, non-prejudicial justice and support for it's victims.

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

APA and DSM-V Confirm Paedophilia as a "Sexual Orientation"

"Modern Western society views the expression of sexuality as a primary component of human identity. As each autonomous individual can form his own happiness and welfare, sex is an essential component of human flourishing. 
As sex leads to the creation of life, it is indeed an essential human act. Yet the West is currently trying to isolate sex as a pleasurable, inconsequential form of recreation. The paradox rests in the very fact that it becomes banal, while also life-affirming and essential to our identities.
The issue rears its head in the latest definition of “pedophila” in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V). In it: 
the American Psychological Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality. 
Now, “unconsummated pedophila” is just an orientation. As Father Z clarifies, when a society changes the language, they are also affecting the definition. It is now imperative that we tolerate “pedophilia.”
The reason we must accept such perversion is that “people must be allowed to celebrate sex and sexuality, ‘one of the few freely-given pleasures in life,’” as spokesperson Paul Christiano of B4U-ACT said to, a university news site for the USC Annenberg School of Communications. The group advocates for “‘minor-attracted persons’ to be open about their sexual preferences in a supportive atmosphere.”
Christiano insisted that the group doesn’t advocate illegal activity. I’d certainly hope not. 
Yet if being attracted toward minors is only an orientation now, how soon until we must accept the practice of pedophilia as a right to define oneself? After all, sex is one of the “few freely-given” pleasures in life. 
For now, the law of the land stands. But how long until statutory rape becomes another form of institutional oppression by the majority against a vulnerable minority?"

Now, tell me I am being paranoid, but I find this a very alarming prospect going forward.

Think about this for one minute.  Paedophilia as a sexual orientation.

Sexual Orientation, as highlighted here is defined as "an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender" We all know this better as "LGBT" (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender) - these are the four different sexual orientations there are (you can be straight, gay, bi or trans - there are no other that I am aware of).

I presume then - please feel free to correct my ignorance - that there is no such thing as a gay or straight paedophile? Assuming for one moment, that it is actually an orientation, people fall into one type of sexual orientation. You cannot be both heterosexual and homosexual for example. It doesn't work.

How the hell does paedophilia fall into a "sexual orientation" - does this mean then, disgusting as it sounds, that paedophiles have no preference between male and female children? (I look forward to see if anyone chooses to comment and answer this - being as quite a few of my posts are picked apart on other blogs including OSC for example. Leave a comment, I'd be interested to see). How has the DSM/APA reached this (quite bizarre) conclusion? Children as a whole do not fall onto a single gender, so how has this happened? Does this mean that every sexual preference, every sexual attraction, no matter what, can from now on be referred to as a specific "orientation"? What about an attraction to overweight people, to tall, short, skinny, black, white, big bums, the elderly, blondes - the list goes on. None of these can really be called a "sexual orientation", yet using the method that the APA / DSM have used, they could all be classified as separate sexual orientations. What's the difference, for example, between a 30 year old being sexually attracted to a child, and a 30 year old being attracted to an 80 year old? One is now classified as a "sexual orientation" (according to APA), and one is not.

Does this mean then, disgusting as it sounds, that paedophiles have no preference between male and female children? I look forward to see if anyone chooses to comment and answer this - being as quite a few of my posts are picked apart on other blogs including OSC for example. Leave a comment, I'd be interested to see.

So, what else does this mean, what can we expect next?

Well, of course, as this has now officially been reclassified (in the US at least), can we now assume that as well as being LGBTP), that the same Human Rights concerned with sexual orientation that all people quite rightly have, will now be used by paedophiles as well? Can we assume, going forward, that there will one day be no discrimination against paedophiles, who for example, apply to be teachers? Can we assume, for example, that there will one day be no discrimination against paedophiles, who apply to work in any profession with children?

No I hear you say?

Want a bet?

Read the link again "Human Rights" and in particular this part:

"The right to work is the most affected among the economic rights, many lesbians, gays and bisexuals being fired because of their sexual orientation or discriminated in employment policies and practices."

Once upon a time in the
There are rules and regulations against discriminating against specific sexual orientations. You can bet your bottom dollar that such organisations as B4U-ACT and similar will be pushing all the way to make sure that paedophilia will enjoy exactly the same rights as any other sexual orientation in this way.

Saturday, 26 October 2013

The Continued Attempted Grooming of Society to Normalise Paedophilia.

A good and interesting piece article in one of the US papers last week, and one that highlights precisely just how paedophiles are trying to groom us into accepting their vile actions.


Some of the article I have highlighted below - please take a few minutes to read the piece in it's entirety & follow some of the links in it.

"Pedophilia advocacy groups, including the tax-exempt B4U-ACT founded by a convicted sex offender, are trying to “groom the public” into accepting adult-child sexual relationships, child trauma expert Dr. Joyanna Silberg told
B4U-ACT, a nonprofit organization established in 2003 to support “minor-attracted” clients, recently volunteered “to serve as a research gateway” for members of the DSM-V committee that develops and updates APA standards for classifying mental disorders, according to spokesperson Paul Christiano, who is a registered sex offender,
He criticized the studies used by the APA to determine diagnostic criteria because they “were conducted on people under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, many of whom boasted aggressive offense histories,” rather than highlighting “private citizens who responsibly manage such attractions.”
Christiano, whose personal website features essays arguing for the “sexual autonomy" of children that would allow them to "embrace sensual pleasure as a birthright," says his organization is “invested in dispelling the vitriol which serves only to prevent minor-attracted people from coming to terms with that challenging aspect of themselves and responsibly integrating it into everyday life."

So .. Paul Christiano, spokesman for B4U-ACT, who is he? A quick Google reveals the enclosed Blog from 2005 -
which briefly details his "challenges", his crimes and his views. That a registered sex offender like Paul Christiano, together with the views he has is also a spokesperson for B4U-ACT says it all really about this organisation and it's stance on "minor attracted adults" (paedophiles to you and me).

Recently in the news as well, is a conference given by Dr James Kincaid on the subject of "Bodies at Play: Sexuality, Childhood and Classroom Life". According to this article, "Kincaid is an American academic whose studies into the sexualization of children have led him to the conclusion that all adults are secretly sexually attracted to children but use revulsion at the actions of overt pedophiles to hide their inner feelings"

"All adults are attracted to children"? Is he serious? Can anyone really hold such views as this and be expected to be taken seriously?

Two questions here.

As a supposed "educated" society in the 21st century, more-so especially following the revelations of the previous few years (Saville, Hall and the whole Yewtree investigation, Operations Fernbridge & Fairbank, Haut de la Garenne & the continued Jersey HDLG farce/disaster, etc etc etc), why are we allowing a platform - such a public platform - for pro-paedophiles and their supporters to air their perverted views? Why are we so "anti child abuse" on one hand, and on the other hand, allowing perverts, pro-paedophiles and their supporters such a public voice for them to spread their perverse ideology? If we were really serious in protecting children from sexual abuse, why are we not stopping this public grooming of us as a whole, in permitting those who hold such these disgusting views to freely flaunt them in our faces?

Why also, are these views being allowed to be aired in public, by those who are known sex offenders? People like Paul Christiano, spokesperson for B4U-ACT and known sex offender. Known sex offenders who are allowed to share their distorted views on public platforms like Blogs, Facebook and Twitter. Sex offenders who try to legitimise what they do. Sex offenders who try to justify, for example, that IIOC is a victimless crime. Sex offenders who are more than happy to try to groom us into believing that everyone has an element of paedophilia in them. Sex offenders who promote all the above, knowing that it is a criminal offence to abuse children. Should sex offenders who try to normalise crimes like this, who try to justify crimes like this by trying to decriminalise their acts, be allowed to speak so freely like this?

Would we allow for example, adult rapists to organise conferences to try to justify and legitimise their acts? Would we let them have a free speech on public platforms like Blogger, Facebook & Twitter to spread their views and argue that they have some sort of mental disorder or that what they have is a sexual orientation that makes them unable to control what they do.. (aaah poor rapists, it's not their fault, it's just the way they are, they can't help it) ?

Of course we wouldn't, so why exactly are we allowing paedophiles and child sex offenders such a public platform?

Isn't it about time that we stopped allowing paedophiles and child sex offenders to have this free-reign public voice to make pathetic excuse after excuse about why they do what they do? After all, no-one puts a gun to their head and tells them to abuse a child, or to download/distribute IIOC, they have self-control like everyone else does. Free speech is one thing, but when it is making up excuses to promote or justify the sexual abuse of children and the actions of the people who abuse them, (either physically or by IIOC), this goes too far

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

Ireland, Sarah's Law and "Confused.Com"

Both a good and a bad article at the same time.
The good news is, that Ireland is to get a version of Sarah's Law by the end of the month. The version will incorporate most of the elements of Sarah's Law that the UK and Jersey have. The only difference is, according to the response from Barnardos, is that only certain people will be able to request disclosure, these being parents, guardians, school principles and club leaders. I must admit to being a bit bemused about this, bearing in mind that it matters not who makes the disclosure requests, the thing that matters with Sarah's Law is that disclosures are only ever made to those who have direct responsibility for the child(ren) involved. Quite what the end achievement will be by having this restriction in place - who knows?
Anyway, back to the article in the Irish Times.
In essence quite a balanced article, however the author seems to be bringing up a few assumptions, and writing about a few things that is not relevant with Sarah's Law as it stands in the UK and Jersey.

Going back a year and a half or so,  when we set up the Facebook page for Sarah's Law for the Islands, and the associated groups, and when contact was made with Home Affairs here in Jersey, there were quite a few misconceptions about Sarah's Law and how it worked, Thankfully these were explained away, and we now have this law here.
The first misleading part of this piece  / misconception is the headline itself. If you glanced quickly at this, you would automatically think that Sarah's Law was the same as Megan's Law - some sort of "Name and Shame" scheme, where names of known paedophiles and child sex offenders were in the public domain somewhere and could be accessed by anyone and everyone.
Simply not true.
The whole purpose of Sarah's Law, is to provide a controlled disclosure to the person best placed to protect the child(ren) involved - this normally being parents or guardians. No disclosure is ever made to just anyone, no information is ever released into the public domain, and before a disclosure is made, the parents / guardians have to sign an agreement stating that they will not release this information to anyone else. If they do, there are repercussions by law.
This in itself, renders the rest of the assumptions in the article obsolete.
As there is no public disclosure, no "name and shame", no passing information to third parties", then there is no reason to either "driving offenders underground" or "encouraging vigilantism". From what I know when I was campaigning for Sarah's Law in Jersey, there have been no confirmations of these happening in the UK, so I do not think that Ireland should be worrying about this.
One of the most informative articles written about the CSODS is enclosed below - this is a link that I have shared previously on our facebook groups, and explains the law in a plain and easy to understand format.
Hopefully Ireland will get this Law passed, hopefully it will help to protect children from potential abuse, and hopefully all the fears in the article will prove unfounded.

Sunday, 20 October 2013

AVP and Judge Peter Bowers. Again. And Again.


"A MAN who sexually abused a child walked free from court after a controversial judge told him his historic offence was “water under the bridge”.
Judge Peter Bowers was at the centre of a media storm in 2012 after telling a serial burglar it took a huge amount of courage to steal from homes.
Following complaints, his comments were investigated by the judicial watchdog, with Prime Minister David Cameron publicly criticising the remarks. Yesterday (Friday October 18), Judge Bowers attracted further criticism when he handed 35-year-old Gary Flynn a community order after he admitted indecently assaulting a young girl more than 15 years ago.
Flynn, of Belle Vue Court, Norton, near Stockton, admitted touching the younger girl’s genitals and forcing her to have oral sex when he was aged between 16 and 18.
Judge Bowers praised Flynn – previously cautioned for a similar offence - for pleading guilty and sparing his victim the ordeal of giving evidence before handing him a three year community supervision order. He told him: “You were a teenager suffering from the effects of a head injury which made your maturity and responsibility less than somebody of your age.
“This is water under the bridge. You have lived 15 or 17 years without other convictions and there is no reason to think you will be committing offences in the future.” 
Is this for real?
"Water under the bridge"
Does this victim see this as just Water under the bridge?
Google this phrase & see what the top meaning is.
"water under the bridge (<lg>or <ge>N. Amer.</ge></lg> water over the dam)
phrase of water
  1. 1.
    used to refer to events that are in the past and consequently no longer to be regarded as important.

    "I don't want to talk about that—it's all water under the bridge now"
"All in the past and no longer to be regarded as important"
"Judge Bowers praised Flynn – previously cautioned for a similar offence - for pleading guilty"
With attitudes like this, is it any wonder that adult (and child) victims of child abuse don't find it easy to come forward and disclose. With attitudes like this, no wonder the Saville culture flourishes even up until this day. With attitudes like this, no wonder people have no faith whatsoever in the justice system. This sort of AVP language has no place in the judicial process, and should NOT be tolerated.
So, let's have a closer look at Judge Bowers, as it seems this isn't the first time he has caused "controversy"
( in this case Judge Peter Bowers actually said (believe it or not) 'I have read with some concern about you, and this addiction you have had of looking at pornography of little children.") so as well as letting him off, he thinks (or describes) IIOC as "pornography of little children!!!!


So, readers of this blog posting have two things to do instead of moaning about this :)
One - Unduly Lenient - e-mail and appeal this as Unduly Lenient. Does it matter if the offenses were committed in the 1990's? Nope, this should have still resulted in a custodial sentence.
Two - make a complaint about the appalling AVP language used by Judge Bowers. E-mail (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office) and let them know your feelings about "historical" child sex abuse being considered "Water under a bridge". This AVP Culture needs to stop. NOW!!