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 NeonTommy.com, 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 CNSNews.com.
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 correspondence@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk 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 inbox@ojc.gsi.gov.uk (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!!

Saturday, 19 October 2013

A Week in the life of Facebook

From the above article:
"The social networking site announced that users aged from 13 to 17 will now be able to switch their settings to share posts with anyone on the internet, rather than just their "friends" or "friends of friends".
Children's groups and internet safety experts denounced the move, saying it could leave young people more vulnerable to cyber-bullying.
Anthony Smythe, managing director of BeatBullying, told The Times: "We have concerns that this age group can now share information in the public domain.
"Something they think might not be harmful now may come back to haunt them later. This is a move in the wrong direction."
The newspaper also said Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), had expressed "concern" that the move could make youngsters more vulnerable."
This follows the stories earlier this week below
The 'Who can look up your Timeline by name?' feature was applied when people searched for someone's profile using Facebook's search bar.
Depending on the setting chosen, the profile was either completely hidden from everyone who wasn't already a Facebook friend; could only be seen by friends of friends or was only visible to certain groups or networks of people."
"A National Crime Agency spokesman said: "There are many social networking sites and websites used by offenders to target children and young people. The NCA CEOP Command's 2013 Threat Assessment on Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse highlighted that 48.5% of online child sexual exploitation reports received were linked to social networking sites, of which Facebook is only one. "
So, a good week for online predators and groomers, who not only will be able to locate potential victims easier, but also for teens who choose to put status's and photos as "public" instead of being restricted to "Friends" or "Friends of friends". OK, maybe I should put teens or younger, as it is a fact of life that younger children also use Facebook using incorrect DOBs, but if they chose a DOB that "made them" between thirteen and seventeen, at least previously their posts were restricted to FOFs or Friends. Not any more.
As an extra to this post, I thought I'd have a quick check to get a selection of stories, just from the UK, and just from this week, regarding Facebook. If it is like this now, what could it be like with the changes that are being made now?
So Facebook, a big fat


Tuesday, 15 October 2013

AVP, PCC and the usual Waste of Time.

Readers may remember the above post, regarding the Sunday Mirror headline from September "Two Coronation Street Stars investigated over 'four in a bed romp"
Not the sort of story you envisage from this headline, when you consider that this is concerning two girls aged between ten and twelve. How the hell this can a paper justify describing girls of this age "romping" with adults?
Unfortunately it will come as no surprise really, that my complaints went nowhere. Rather than state the bleeding obvious as to why this AVP headline is completely inappropriate, I thought I would share the reasons that the PCC have arrived at as to why no editorial code has been breeched.
"The complainant considered that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The newspaper had reported that two actors had been accused of engaging in sexual activity with two underage girls. The complainant was concerned that the use of the term “four-in-a-bed romp” in the headline gave the misleading impression that there had been mutual consent between all individuals allegedly involved. "
With the limited reasons that one can complain to them, you have to select a clause that highlights the complaint. The PCC does not judge "personal opinions", only the actual facts of the story. Inevitably in a case like this, clause one is one that I normally use - "inaccuracy".
"While the Commission noted the complainant’s concern that the headline had trivialised very serious allegations, it had regard for the fact that the text of the article clearly explained the nature of the allegations. The Commission was satisfied that the headline, taken in the context of the article as a whole, had not been significantly misleading. There was no breach of the Code."
Well, what can you say? A bit  of a "copy & paste" job that matches many of the other complaints that I have made previously.
No surprise there.
With this type of reasoning, any paper can use any headline, no matter how offensive, trivialising and inaccurate it may be. As long as the article itself is fairly accurate and doesn't "mislead you", it doesn't matter a jot.
Imagine the complaints if the above actually read
But wait, wait just a minute.
Using the reasoning of the PCC, and as long as "the headline, taken in the context of the article as a whole, is not significantly misleading, there is no breach of the Code".
And PCC does not take complaints based on 'personal opinions' or 'personal offense'.
Not much you can do.
One of the reasons I don't really bother that much with PCC, Ofcom or similar, although I did hope this time, that this would have been a bit different. There is no system to make complaints like this - one just has to hope that one the media opens their eyes a bit and realises the offensive way that they can report on issues like this. I know, I know, fat chance of that - I have pages of replies from them on various things, and the majority are full of lame excuses. 
One day though ... one day.... until then, we keep going.

Monday, 7 October 2013

Twitter and Child Abuse - No Change


"Estimated value, in its impending IPO? £8bn.
Contribution towards child porn prevention measures? £5,000, and not a penny more."

"Over the past three months, IWF has notified Twitter over 20 times that links to child pornography have been tweeted out using the service."

Ignoring this AVP language for a bit, this does not surprise me a bit.

Having reported to Twitter in the past, I have found their attitude to IIOC totally blasé - no concern whatsoever to my concerns in the past.

"Twitter said: “We are a member of the IWF and plan to continue our membership in 2014. We take this issue extremely seriously and, in addition to affiliations with relevant organisations, we have an internal team committed to child protection and are exploring technology approaches to the problem.”"

Do I believe this for a minute?


Words are one thing, action is another.

IWF do a sterling job in removing IIOC from Online, and any financial requests like this should be accepted and obliged to rid the web of this illegal filth. Whilst other companies like Google, Sky, Virgin Media and Talk Talk have pledged a hell of a lot more, Twitter refuses to increase it's contributions further than a paltry pathetic £5,000.

I will leave you with this reply that I received last year when I reported alleged IIOC, to let you make up your own minds. Remember, IIOC are NOT "free speech", they are illegal and a visual record of child abuse.

We understand that everyone has different levels of sensitivity towards content, and that you may feel uncomfortable with the posted content. However, Twitter provides a communication platform, and users may use our service to discuss controversial subject matter.
If a specific user is posting content that you disagree with or otherwise find offensive, we have provided you with the ability to block the user. For more information on blocking users, see: https://support.twitter.com/entries/117063
Twitter believes strongly in the importance of free speech and works to ensure that such speech is maximized. Limiting speech on Twitter (and other social communication tools) could result in the highly undesirable outcome of speech that is allowed offline being restricted online. We are strongly opposed to this, as this could cause issues with the practical expression of information"