Tuesday, 28 January 2014

Barnes & Noble, Books, Incest, Sexual Exploitation & Rape

From "Dining for Dignity", link below
"Tonight it was brought to my attention by @coraliealison twitter account that Barnes & Noble is selling graphic porn books promoting child rape, child exploitation and daddy/ daughter rape! The titles are so filthy, the pictures so graphic and the descriptions so sexual that I can't even post! Will you write B&N via FB, Twitter and email demanding they remove this filth from their site. Our children have easy access to B&N on line, and this is unacceptable. Our young children should be safe when they log into B&N online and not see dozens of books glamorizing INCEST with hard core pictures and filthy descriptions!
Having looked at the Barnes & Noble Website, there are some truly disgusting titles available there. Some examples being
"Daughter Rape: Sex in the Kitchen with Daddy"
"Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter on the Bus "
"Grandfather Fucks His Unwilling Granddaughter "
With at least one of the authors being (according to a Google search) "banned from Amazon".
Please join D4D in contacting Barnes & Noble, and asking questions. There are no age restrictions on their site, and apart from the promotion of incest, sexual exploitation and rape, these sort of books should NOT be available for any age to view. They have Twitter & Facebook accounts, or if you are like me & prefer e-mail, this can be found quite easily.
"Dear Sir,
Please can you answer a couple of questions on some books I have found for sale on your website.

A couple of examples are as follows:

Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter and Friend at Home,
The Daughter Rape: Sex in the Kitchen with Daddy, 
Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter at the Cemetery, 

These books are all freely available for anyone to view and buy online from your website. Appreciate that they all have "18+" next to them, but what exactly is to stop children accessing them?

Added to this, is the graphic content of the books, namely incest, sexual exploitation and fathers raping their daughters. Please can you let me know what guidelines there are for authors who have their books available to sell on your website. I find it hard to believe, that for example, one of the authors has books "banned by Amazon" (a quick Google search will validate this), yet they are allowed to be freely sold on Barnes & Noble.
Obviously Free speech and adult subjects are one thing, but profiting by books that are themed on incest, rape, exploitation and sexual abuse (all illegal) is a completely different thing. Please will you consider removing such titles from your range, or at the very least, have them "hidden" from general view with access being permitted after an age-verification and user-login.
 I have discovered that I am not the first person to complain in such a way, and I will be strongly advocating that people boycott your site until action is taken by yourselves to rectify the above.
Many thanks."

Wednesday, 22 January 2014

The ever continuing normalisation of paedophiia - not "orientation", not "disability", now it's an Illness!

"Paedophilia is an illness and is linked to abnormalities in the brain’s white matter, according to one leading expert.
Clinical psychologist James Cantor, studied MRI scans to look at the brains of paedophiles and believes that there is a literal ‘cross-wiring’ of  the sexual response system and parental, nurturing system, in paedophiles' brains.
He also noticed that people who are sexually drawn to children are more likely to be left-handed, less intelligent and shorter than average men.
Dr Cantor, of the University of Toronto, Canada, was surprised to find ‘huge differences’ in the white matter of paedophiles’ brains when compared to those of typical men.
Talking on The Agenda with Steve Paikin, he explained he had expected to find differences in the brain’s grey matter, where major variations are often found.
He said ‘nothing’s ever in the white matter,’ which he describes as ‘cabling tissue’ that links different parts of the brain together.Dr Cantor said that when men find women sexually attractive, they unconsciously lower their voices and widen their stance, whereas when they talk to children their voices become higher.He explained that instead of evoking the typical responses that men exhibit when seeing a child, ‘it’s as if [paedophiles’] responses are cross-wired’ so that when they see a child, their brain ‘triggers the sex response system instead of the parental, nurturing system’."
Yet another so called "explanation" excuse for paedophilia - yet another attempt to normalise this into another "disease" / "sexual orientation" / "disability" / "mental disorder" / "illness".
Yes, there are people in this world who are quite obviously sexually attracted to children, disgusting as it sounds to the vast majority of us. However, like the rest of us, paedophiles have a choice in what they do. They do not have a proverbial gun pointed at their head, making them abuse children. They abuse children because they want to and because they can. Simple as that.
Why not just do the obvious, and label paedophilia as yet another paraphilia, or disgusting "sexual fetish", similar to any other "fetish"?
(BTW It can't be an orientation - an orientation is based purely on gender (lesbian, gay, bi, trans) and as paedophiles can be any of these, it cannot be an orientation in it's own right.)
If Dr Cantor is saying paedophilia is now an "illness", I assume he will be also redefining gerontophilia in the same way as well? He should do - what is the difference - it is a sexual attraction but to the elderly as opposed th children. Concept is the same... so?
Again, paedophiles CHOOSE TO ABUSE - they may not choose their paraphile/fetish, but a lot of them choose to act on it.
Stop making excuses - stop validating crimes against children, and stop redefining what is just another paraphilia that they CHOOSE to act on.
Start getting proper unprejudicial justice for victims, start punishing those who CHOOSE TO ABUSE and start getting priorities right.

Saturday, 18 January 2014

One Two Three Four - How many times can a Predatory Paedophile be let off?

January 2014
"A predatory paedophile who has repeatedly abused teenage boys and girls he targeted on social network sites was given one last chance today to avoid going to prison.
Callum Evans, 21, was already on a three-year community order for grooming and abusing two 14-year-old boys when he pursued more teenagers after being spared prison in September 2011 having admitted a string of sex charges.
Judge Graham Hume Jones also gave Evans a Sexual Offences Prevention Order which banned him from contacting children online.
But within a few weeks he had breached that order by using a computer and mobile phone to contact teenagers.
He got them to send him indecent images before meeting up with them and carrying out sex attacks, Bristol Crown Court heard"
July 2013
"Judge Graham Hume Jones said banning Callum Evans from using Facebook would be “particularly excessive” after he was caught two years ago using it to groom two teenage boys and meet up with them to molest them.
Despite being found using Facebook again to try and trick 13 boys and one girl to send him pornographic photos, the 21-year-old appeared before the same judge, who allowed him to remain on the site for a second time.
Judge Hume Jones has previously been criticised for his sentencing, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) referred one of his cases to the Attorney General for 'undue leniency.’
Taunton Crown Court heard that in 2011 Judge Hume Jones gave Evans a community order but didn’t ban him from using Facebook after he was caught using the site to encourage boys to send naked photos, as he said this would deprive him of the 'social traffic’ his peers took for granted.
Weeks after being convicted, Evans created a new alias on Facebook, which he used to pose as a teenage girl to convince other teenagers to send him pornographic photos of themselves.
September 2011
"A teenager who used Facebook  to groom young boys, some of whom he later molested, can continue  to use social networking sites, a judge ruled yesterday.
Callum Dower, 19, used the site to encourage youths to send him naked pictures. If they rejected his advances, he would pose as a girl and try again.
He went on to molest one boy in a supermarket toilet, and another in his car after allowing him to drive it in a car park.
Judge Graham Hume Jones sentenced the ‘extremely manipulative’ Dower to a three-year community order for child sex and pornography offences.
However, he agreed with defence barrister Patrick Mason’s claim that a ban from using social networking websites would be ‘particularly excessive’, and deprive the defendant of the ‘social traffic’ taken for granted by his peers.
Dower had admitted six charges of making an indecent image of a child, five charges of causing or inciting a child to take part in pornography and two charges of sexual activity with a child. Taunton Crown Court also heard that he had previously been warned by police about his affection for teenage boys.
Dower was aged 17 and 18 when he carried out the offences. He used Facebook to contact boys as young as 14, and urged them to send him lewd images with their mobile phones. If they refused, he posed as ‘Georgina’, ‘Georgia’, ‘Georgie’ and ‘Jade’, and attempted to trade explicit images."
Could not find any news stories, but according to the articles "The court heard how Evans, described as being from a good middle class family, was first convicted of possessing indecent images in 2009"
One has to wonder if the judge then was also Judge Hume Jones?
One also has to wonder how on earth decisions like this have been made? 
How many times does a "predatory paedophile" have to offend - in the same way - before proper justice is done?
Why the change of name from Dower to Evans?
If there was ever a warning and a reason not to let young children use social media sites alone without any parental supervision, this is it!
Obviously I have appealed this to the AG, and the AG's Office has "asked for further details of the case from the Crown Prosecution Service so that the Law Officers can decide whether or not to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient"
Updates as I get them.

Monday, 13 January 2014

Sarah's Law in Jersey one year on - Success or failure?

It is now a year since Sarah's Law was implemented in Jersey, and in todays JEP (not online) there was a brief section about it's first year. During this year according to the article, it has been used only once (although the article does not state whether this resulted in any disclosure being made made).

So, one request for disclosure in it's first year, does this count as a success or a failure?

For me, the fact that someone has had reason enough to go through the process of formally requesting a disclosure through this scheme ultimately points to it being a success. If this request did result in a disclosure being made, then this has ultimately has been a success in that a child has been able to have been further protected from potential abuse from being in direct contact with someone who does pose a risk to their safety. If this request did not result in a disclosure, then again, this points to it being a success - maybe not in the same way, but in the reassurance that the subject was not a known paedophile who could have posed a risk, and also by getting this formally verified and not relying on third party rumours or "Chinese Whispers".

This news comes a couple of weeks or so after the UK media released figures showing the numbers of requests and disclosures made in the two and a half years since Sarah's Law was introduced into the UK. These figures show a total of 4754 requests for disclosures being made, with a total of 700 disclosures being made.

Whilst the figures for the UK seem far higher than Jersey, one needs to bear in mind the difference in population and length of time this Law has been in place. Taking this in context, with the population of England, Scotland and Wales being approx. 64 million, as opposed to Jersey's 100,000 (approx figures), and the UK figures covering 2.5 years as opposed to one year, if there had been three requests here instead of one during 2013, this would have meant that the scheme would have been used roughly in the same proportion (I think - feel free to correct me if I am wrong).
So - not used quite as often than in the UK, but it has been used, that is the main thing. The fact that we have this if people have the need to make enquiries make a disclosure request going forward, makes this a success.
We should not forget that this Law would not be here now if it were not for a remarkable person, Sara Payne and her persistence and determination to make the UK a safer place for children. Thank you once again Sara, for readers who have not read this posting from July, please take a couple of minutes to read this Sara Payne, a Huge Thank You .
For further information on Sarah's Law, please see How Sarah's Law Works

Sunday, 5 January 2014

AVP and the Mirror Newspaper

Following my last post, of which (surprise surprise) I have had zilch response, I now give you one of the UK's newspapers which continues to use both misleading, inaccurate and offensive headlines.

Two of the latest headlines are below, both are from the last couple of days, so it makes you wonder whether anyone actually reads and e-mails or tweets sent to the Mirror.
A message for the Daily Mirror - Please don't call this crime "Child Porn" or "Child Pornography". These images are of children being either sexually exploited, raped, or sexually abused for the gratification of paedophiles. Children cannot consent, they cannot do "porn", and the only people who would refer to them as "porn" are the paedophiles themselves. Would a victim of this crime describe themselves as taking part in a porn shoot - would they describe themselves as a "child porn star"? Nope. If you were to view such images, would you automatically think "porn"? Nope. Would you deliberately use paedo terms in your newspaper? Hopefully not. So why do you continue to use this offensive and trivialising term? Please don't call it this, the correct legal term is "indecent images of children" (IIOC), although Child Abuse Images is just as good.
Of course, although this is the more common headline used in not only the Mirror, but far too many newspapers, it isn't the only misleading and offensive term that has been seen in the Mirror recently. Here are a few more:
Note to Mirror - What exactly is "Child Sex"? What exactly is an "underage sex party"? As with "child porn", children cannot and do not consent to being raped and abused by adults. Why not call this by the more accurate term, namely "RAPE". Which according to Wiki is "a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent". Rape rape rape.....it really is quite easy to remember.
The two girls in question being 10 and 12. A completely inaccurate and trivialising headline that would not look out of place in some sleazy magazine. Note to Mirror - A four in a bed romp? Underage girls? What utter nonsense. What does the word "romp" imply to you? To me, the words imply a mutually consenting, although illicit, steamy sex session between more than 2 people. Not two adults being caught in a bed with two children. Yes, children, not "underage girls" (technically correct, but the words underage girls indicate a year or two under the age of consent, not children).
There's that "child sex" again. Also, describing a child who has been prostituted out as a "Child Prostitute". Note to Mirror - Calling someone a "prostitute" implies a willingness and consent by the individual. The correct term, and the one that describes this crime properly is a "Prostituted child", which takes away the implied consent and focus's the actions to the adults procuring these children (instead of "prostituting", being "prostituted out").
A "Fling"? As in a "Casual sexual relationship"? Relationship as in "mutually consenting"? Really? a 14 year old? Note to Mirror - A fourteen year old cannot consent to any sort of sexual activity, there is no "relationship", just a one-sided abuse of trust and sexual abuse, pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less. For two abults, yes, a "fling", for an adult and a child, no.
Google the daily Mirror, and you see "Mirror Online: The Intelligent Tabloid"
If you have not read the e-mail I sent to you a few days ago regarding language in the media, please take note of the points raised above. Prove that you are really "The Intelligent Tabloid", and start taking care in your headlines and reporting. There are more important things than trying to sell papers using sleazy inaccurate headlines and styles of reporting - not offending people and trivialising serious crimes should take a higher precedent than this.
Do the right thing - amend your style guide that you use to encompass the above.
“Language is very powerful. Language does not just describe reality. Language creates the reality it describes.”  - Desmond Tutu.

Wednesday, 1 January 2014

2014 - A New Year, New Attitude And New Language.

Sent to all the UK major media outlets. Let's see what we get back.

"Good evening and a Happy New Year to you.

Now that we have a brand new year, please can I ask that we have a brand new attitude to the language that you use to describe child sexual abuse. What I am proposing is as below:

"Child pornography" to be changed to "Child Abuse Images" or "Indecent Images of Children" (the correct legal definition). Reasons are that by definition, children cannot consent to anything sexual under 16 years of age, therefore cannot do "porn". Also, by definition as well, the only people who would refer to images or videos of naked children, or child sex abuse as "porn" are paedophiles - the rest of us would never think this was porn in a million years. Why should we use "paedo talk" to describe such images then?

"Child Prostitutes" to be changed to "Prostituted Children". Reasoning, although it seems that there is very little change, is the way in which the wording of the two relates to the victim of this crime. "Child prostitute" implies consent and a willingness to do this from the child, whereas "Prostituted Child" implies the forcing of this sexual exploitation by a third party (offender) and is therefore the accurate description.

"Child Sex" to be changed to "Child Rape" or "Child Sexual Abuse". Reasoning is the lack of consent between offender and victim. Sex is a natural consensual adult activity - Rape is sexual assault  initiated by someone against the others consent. With the new guidelines coming into force soon, and the removal of ostensible consent, there is no reason to describe the rape of a child as "child sex"

Offenders having "Affairs" with girls (usually when describing teacher-pupil abuse) or "Relationships" to be changed to "sexually abusing". reasoning is similar to the above - affairs are normally described as a romantic and sexual relationship between two people who are not married to each other. As both "affair" and "relationship" imply consent, which is by definition not there as one party is a child under sixteen, this can only be described as Sexual Abuse.

I realise that all of you don't all use all the above, but you do use some of them. To stop trivialising these offenses, facilitating offenders,  and offending victims of these crimes, please can you consider my points as above.

I would be very grateful if you could let me know your thoughts - as I said above, "A new year, a new attitude and a new more accurate way of reporting.

Many thanks"