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