Friday, 30 August 2013

Sexual Orientation, Mental Disorder, Disability Or Just Plain Perversion.

An interesting and at the same time quite a nauseating article - one from 2011 however one that seems to have reared it's head somewhat over the previous few months.
Reading the article, the comments, and associated forums that have recently been discussing this, it seems that most people that have read and commented seem to be under the impression that this is some sort of attack on homosexuality, and indeed, some seem all to keen to add their bigoted small minded comments onto forums and blogs.
After very little looking around, it was quite easy to find the original Committee Meeting in Canada's parliament from February 2011, and reading through it is far more vomit inducing (to be frank) than the newspaper article in the above link. The full transcript is available here
and for those of you who have the time and the stomach for it, I strongly suggest reading through this, lengthy as it is.
For those of you who may not have the time, one of the main highlights relevant to this posting is here:
        I am concerned, Professor Van Gijseghem—and I know you well as I have heard you testify on a number of other subjects—because you say, if I am not mistaken, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem:
    That is what I said.

    Should it therefore be compared to homosexuality?

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem:
    Yes, or heterosexuality. If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.
Now, please excuse my ignorance (yet again), but I always thought that a Sexual Orientation, was purely a gender thing - i.e. heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals.  Where does anywhere state that anything other than gender attraction is a sexual orientation? Does this also mean that all sexual paraphilia are all "sexual orientations? What about gerontophilia?, what about hebephilia? what about ephphebphilia? What about good old fashioned teleiophilia or adultophilia ? Where does it all stop?
One of the other things to take into account, is discrimination, and this I believe is the scariest part of this whole discussion and the main reason I feel that this is more than likely being pursued as much as possible by every paedophile and paedophile sympathise there is. Society today in the majority of cases and quite rightly so, has a range of laws that are in place to stop discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (example here ECHR Sexual Orientation), and you can bet your bottom dollar that every paedo would want paedophilia to be officially diagnosed as a "sexual orientation" so that they too can be protected by law against being discriminated.
Scary stuff imho.
Anyway, I digress a little.
In the previous few years, I have read many articles stating what paedophilia is.
In Greece, it is classed as a "disability" and no doubt paedophiles can also (as it is a disability) claim disability benefits....
In the UK, it is classed as a Mental Disorder , as it is (I believe) in the US
Now in Canada, it is being pushed as a Sexual Orientation , which as explained briefly above, is possibly the worst of these "options"
Often as well, we hear offenders claim that they were abused themselves, which as caused them to become paedophiles as well (aka The dubious "life cycle of an offender"), although my belief is the majority of these are more likely to be fabrications in order to gain sympathy and therefore get a lesser sentence.
So, what is it?
"Mental disorder", "disability", "sexual orientation", "the result of childhood abuse", a vile "fetish" or something else? Someone tell me please - the world nowadays seems to find an endless supply of excuses for paedophilia, instead of concentrating on dealing with and helping victims of these vile crimes.
Whatever it is, there is never any excuse for any crime associated with paedophilia. No-one forces anyone at gun-point to abuse a child, or download IIOC.
Whatever it is, paedophiles do have their own minds, and are very manipulative and have (or have tried to) groomed everyone for far too long.
Whatever it is, society needs to ungroom itself, to stop looking for and redefining the causes of adults sexually abusing children - it needs to get back to the basics, that abuse is abuse and that offenders have no excuse for what they do.

Sunday, 18 August 2013

Unduly Lenient Sentences, Appeals, and Failures That Seem To Make No Sense.

Back in 2010, Matthew Thane was found guilty of molesting a toddler and a schoolgirl, as well as amassing a library of 766 Indecent Images of Children, some being video clips (read the link above).
At the time, the Judge sentenced him to a three year Supervision Order, a Youth Offending Programme and a residency and Sexual Offenses Prevention Order.
Basically he walked out of court, a free man.
Wish I had known about appealing sentences back then, that is one I definitely would have appealed!
So, fast forward to this year.
From the above article, Daily Mail, 5 July 2013
"A paedophile spared jail for molesting a toddler and a schoolgirl walked free again today despite lying to police about meeting the young sister of a girlfriend.
Matthew Thain, 21, also breached the terms of his suspended sentence by getting in touch with one of his former victims.
Thain, of Camberwell, southeast London, escaped jail in 2010 after a judge ruled intensive supervision would protect other children from the teenage paedophile.
But concerns were raised after he started seeing a woman with a 12-year-old sister.
He had also been in touch with another youngster he was banned from contacting.
Thain admitted attempting to pervert the course of justice and two breaches of a sexual offences prevention order.
Judge Peter Rook QC said: 'This is worrying because it is manipulative behaviour when he thought he was in breach of a court order.
'It's covering up and it's quite hard to argue that it doesn't deserve a custodial sentence.'
He added: 'It seems the breaches do fall into the category where a custodial sentence is appropriate because you were clearly deliberately ignoring a court order and there was a real risk.'
But he agreed he could suspend the sentence to allow Thain to take up a position as an apprentice chef.
The court heard Thain is due back in court tomorrow for posting a Facebook profile under the name 'Dumbo Bray' to try and reel in more victims.

Read the last two line again.

He allowed Matthew Thain to walk from court a free man a second time, so that he could work as an apprentice chef

The court heard Thain is due back in court tomorrow for posting a Facebook profile under the name 'Dumbo Bray' to try and reel in more victims.

You couldn't make this shit up!!

Seriously !!

So, I decided to appeal (as I do, with what I consider to be ULS). The AG agreed to recall the papers etc, so I had hoped that this would be fully reviewed and an appropriate sentence given.


"Thank you for your letter dated the 04 July 2013 in which you expressed dismay at the sentence passed upon Matthew Thain for perverting the course of justice and breach of a sexual offences prevention order.  As you are aware, in certain circumstances, the Law Officers can apply to the Court of Appeal for sentences to be increased on the grounds that they are “unduly lenient”.   
The Law Officers’ power to refer sentences is contained within section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 but it is subject to certain restrictions.  The power is only available in respect of sentences imposed for certain offences, which includes perverting the course of justice but not breaching a sexual offences prevention order.  However, where an offence which is not referable is linked to one that is referable then both offences can be considered.   
The power to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal for consideration as an unduly lenient sentence is not a prosecution right of appeal.  It is a power reserved for the most serious offences in which a sentence falls significantly below the sentence that any judge could reasonably have passed.  Having considered this case very carefully, the Solicitor General decided that it would not be right to refer it to the Court of Appeal as he did not believe they would increase the sentence.  
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to bring this case to the Solicitor General’s attention, I hope this explanation has been of some assistance."

Where is common sense when you need it?

Quite obviously, his original Offenders Treatment Programme did not work.

Quite obviously he still poses a risk.

Quite obviously he should have received a custodial sentence (IMHO)

Quite obviously sentences in the British Isles are more than often a complete joke when it is for paedophile crimes.

Quite obviously, there is little or no deterrence, little or no justice, and little or no "justice being seen to have been done".

Quite obviously, sentences need to be realistic and appropriate, and if they are not, they need to be reviewed.

Friday, 16 August 2013

Media AVP again - Male & Female Paedophiles.


"A 35-year-old woman has been charged with 20 counts of rape and sodomy after she allegedly had an eight-month sexual relationship with an 11-year-old boy, it emerged today."

The media, (rightly or wrongly), describes anyone who sexually assaults or sexually abuses children under the age of consent as a paedophile. Ignoring the literal translation - which we all know, relates to pre-pubescent children - I have no issues with this.

One thing I do have an issue with, is the different way in which male and female paedophiles are reported in the media.

If the above story related to a male, rather than a female, you can be sure that the article would be peppered with such words such as pervert, paedophile, monster, vile etc. However, as is usual with the reporting of females who sexually abuse children, the described crime is lessened greatly by the way that the media refuse to describe women who abuse children as paedophiles.

Instead, as per this story, the descriptions include such blatant AVP as having an "eight month sexual relationship", having a "close relationship", and "she and the victim had been sexually active".

Why is it so hard, for the media, and indeed society as a whole, to make the connection between females who sexually abuse and rape children, and paedophilia?

Paedophiles are paedophiles, full stop.

There is not (or there shouldn't be) any distinction in offenders, between ages, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or anything else. Paedophiles are paedophiles. It should not matter a jot whether they are male, female, young, old, black, white, rich, poor, Christian, Muslim or whatever.

By reporting in this way, the media immediately lessens the crime (a "sexual relationship" ... with an eleven year old.... seriously - wtf?) which therefore makes the impact has on the victim seem far less of an ordeal than if the offender had been a male.

It is about time that no matter who commits this vile offence, the prejudice that is made against victims in this way is stopped, and ALL offenders and their vile crimes are described the same, and that is as paedophiles and paedophile crimes. The crime is exactly the same, the impact on victims and their families and friends are exactly the same, so there should be no distinction between them

"Words are powerful. Be careful how you use them because once you have pronounced them, you cannot remove the scar they leave behind."   Vashti Quiroz-Vega

Saturday, 10 August 2013

Another Victim Blamer Sticks His Oar In.

Former newspaper owner Eddy Shah has said underage girls who engage in consensual sex can be "to blame" for the abuse they experience.
Mr Shah told the BBC: "If we're talking about girls who just go out and have a good time, then they are to blame."
He added rape charges involving girls who "threw themselves" at celebrities could be a legal technicality.
Mr Shah was recently cleared of raping a schoolgirl after telling a jury there had been no contact between them.
The 69-year-old founder of the newspaper Today, who lives in Chippenham, Wiltshire, was found not guilty at the Old Bailey last month of raping a girl at upmarket London hotels when she was between 12 and 15.
His comments to Radio 5 live presenter Stephen Nolan come after a prosecutor was suspended and a judge placed under investigation after it emerged a 13-year-old girl was labelled "predatory" and "sexually experienced" during a Snaresbrook Crown Court case where a man admitted abusing her.
'Witch hunt'
Mr Shah also commented on Scotland Yard's Operation Yewtree investigation, set up in the wake of allegations of sexual abuse by BBC DJ Jimmy Savile and other television stars from the 1970s and 1980s.
Mr Shah said: "Rape was a technical thing - below a certain age. But these girls were going out with pop groups and becoming groupies and throwing themselves at them.
"Young girls and young men have always wanted a bit of excitement when they are young. They want to appear adult and do adult things."
When asked if he was implying that underage victims could themselves be at fault, he said: "If we're talking about girls who just go out and have a good time, then they are to blame
What the hell is wrong with some people?
Are people forgetting the basic, fundamental issue here?
We are not talking about eighteen year olds and above, who, having reached the age they can legally go out, have a "night on the town, on the pull, as some do. We are talking about young teenage girls, thirteen years old or so, and the blame should ALWAYS lie with the person who took advantage, who wielded the power, who SEXUALLY ASAULTED or ABUSED these children.
Note the word children.
Thirteen to sixteen, is under the age of consent for a reason, in case these people aren't aware. These so called "celebrities" who abused their status's and abused these children and young teenagers could quite easily have said NO.
Get it?
What is so difficult with that?
They are (supposed to be) the "responsible" adults here!!
No wonder the culture of Saville and others was allowed to continue, unabated, for so long.
This victim blaming culture needs to stop, and stop now, or we will be stuck in the position we are in for ever and will never be able to move forward.

Thursday, 8 August 2013

"The Real Deal"

Before I start, this is my one and only posting on this subject, am reluctant to give this any airtime, but thought I would let Mic Wright of the Telegraph some information.

Whilst reading some articles about the supposed 13 Year Old Predator  that has been in the news since Monday, I happened across this "interesting" piece by Mic Wright, chief tech blogger of the Telegraph - link and article is here -

"Neil Wilson is 41 years old. He took a 13-year-old girl home, allowed her to strip and then engaged in what we must euphemistically refer to as a “sex act” with her. For this and other offences including the possession of eight images of child sexual abuse and eleven sexual images involving horses and dogs, he received an eight-month suspended sentence. But it’s not the lenience of the punishment that has pushed the case into the headlines. It's the comments of the prosecutor and judge.
The Crown Prosecution Service has disavowed the words used by prosecutor Robert Colover at Snaresbrook crown court as “inappropriate”. That’s far too mild, almost offensively so. Colover told the court: “The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced.” His Honour Judge Nigel Peters said in his judgment: “On these facts, the girl was predatory and was egging you on. That is no defence when dealing with children but I am prepared to impose a suspension.” This should go without saying, but in an encounter between an adult man and a girl of 13, the child is not the predator. Regardless of whether she has been sexualised, she is a victim.
I hadn't thought a great deal about this case before I came into contact with a real predator last night. Popping up in the middle of a conversation on Twitter about my bullying piece, someone called “the OSC” revealed himself (or, less likely, herself) to be a fervent defender of paedophiles. Not only does this individual have a Twitter account dedicated to obsessively pushing distorted views about children, he also has a blog. One which has been relentlessly updated since April 2012. I've since discovered that OSC stands for "Online Sex-Offender Community".
I’m flagging up this particular example not because it is rare or unusual but because there is a whole network of these sites and accounts across the web. Those who identify themselves as part of the Online Sex-Offender Community are brazen. Their behaviour justifies the scepticism I and many others have shown towards David Cameron’s internet filtering proposals.
One of the measures put forward the Prime Minister and his dotty surrogate on the issue, Claire Perry, is a pop-up to tell those who seek child abuse images that they risk their jobs, their lives and their families by doing so. The existence of sick individuals such as the OSC, operating in the open on social networks, puts paid to the notion that these people can be shamed. Among the OSC’s messages about the Wilson case there are several references to the girl as a “Lolita”.
The existence of these dangerous individuals is the reason we need to spend more money on traditional policing and investigations. It’s also why charities such as The Lucy Faithful Foundation, which works to prevent abuse and deal with offenders and potential offenders, are so important. The brashness of the OSC is yet more evidence that desperately clutching at technical solutions is not the way to deal with this evil."
I really think Barbara Hewson (and Robert Colover) should read of this & see who the real predators of this world are - instead of calling thirteen year old victims of paedophiles and sex abusers either "predators" or girls "that are not much better than the men who abuse them". However, there again, as Barbara Hewson is keen to lower the age of consent to thirteen herself, maybe this is the reasoning behind her butting into this particular news this week, who knows?
Anyway to clear a couple of things up for Mic (maybe he has already found this out already) the "real deal" he found the other night, who calls himself "The OSC" (online sex-abusers community") is no other than paedophile Nigel Oldfield. For those of you who are not familiar with him,  he was arrested in Aug 2002 for taking pictures of children and having 11,000 IIOC and videos on his computer. In 2005, he was exposed for running a paedophile website from inside prison
And yup, he is also on Twitter as Mic Wright found out the other day.
And yup, he also has his own sick blog in which he (amongst various other things like pulling apart my blog posts) tries to justify paedophilia and the actions (for example) of downloading IIOC etc.
So maybe Barbara, instead of trying to lower consent to 13, instead of justifying predatory paedophiles like Saville and Hall, instead of describing 13 year old victims of child abuse as "no better than the paedophiles who abuse them", maybe you should start standing up for CSA victims instead, start become more aware of sick minded individuals who are all over the internet, (including Twitter) who are trying to justify their own warped actions & perversions to any like minded paedophiles and paedo-sympathisers, and maybe do a Spiked article about this instead?
One more thing Mic, for you to do if you haven't done so already, also to anyone else who doesn't want this on their list of Twitter followers -
"Don't expect us" - BLOCKED



Monday, 5 August 2013

Another Poor Excuse for an Unduly Lenient and AVP Filled Sentence

Nigel Peters - GROOMED
Apologies for the title of this posting, but the excuses given out by paedophiles and accepted by judges are unbelievable. In this article from today, in which 41 year old Neil Wilson basically walked free from court after "having a two week fling" (?? WTF) with a thirteen year old child, his excuse, and that of the prosecution, that was swallowed hook line and sinker by Judge Nigel Peters, was that his victim was " a sexually experienced predator who egged him on to commit one of the crimes he committed"
Are we to believe this to be a plausible excuse for a forty one year old to submit before court??
Apparently so.
Even worse was the judge who believed this, accepted that Neil Wilson knew that she was underage, and despite him also downloading level three images of child abuse, let him off with an eight month sentence suspended for two years! You seriously couldn't make this crap up!
Seriously, the UK needs to start taking this crime with the seriousness it should be taken with. Being groomed into blaming the victim for being a "13 year old sexual predator" is really taking the proverbial!
Consider this scenario:
An eighty year old tries "egging him on" in the same way (perfectly legal of course) - what would he do?
a) take advantage of her,
b) voice his concerns to Social Services or similar, or
c) ignore & do a fast one?
One would almost guarantee that answer c) would be the majority decision, with some people who have a conscience choosing option b)
What is the difference then?
If an adult male has a thirteen year old girl "trying it on with him", I would hope that the majority would at least raise this with someone like Social Services.
This is no excuse, and should not be bought by the #AVP groomed judges of the UK.
E-mail to AG today.
"I would like to appeal against the sentence handed down to Neil Wilson, Snaresbrook Crown Court today 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." As I have pointed out several times in previous appeals, crimes involving sexually abusing / rape against children should always be dealt with in a custodial manner. Society does not view offenders walking out of court as an adequate punishment for paedophiles, who by their nature will always pose a risk to children. 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).
 Giving paedophiles suspended sentences is absolutely no deterrence, especially as this was not the only offence committed (also the counts of Indecent Images of Children, level three, which should have resulted in a custodial sentence in itself, being level three). Saying that the victim was a "sexual predator" is an appalling thing for a judge to say, and absolutely no relevance to this case - he obviously knew that she was underage, and he still took advantage of a child.  If an eighty year old was to "egg him on" in the same way, would he do the same thing and enter into a sexual relation with her? Of course not, so why would he and the prosecution use this poor excuse -  this was a paedophile that saw an opportunity, and took full advantage 
"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." Someone who was downloading these sort of images, and someone who was prepared to commit the crime he has committed will pose a threat to other girls of a similar age. Letting him walk free from the courtroom is not protecting the public in any way - in plain words, he was a 41 year old who sexually abused a thirteen year, and he should be imprisoned for the protection of children in his area of the UK."