Wednesday, 30 April 2014

Child Prostitutes - Rotherham MP in fight to change the law

Sarah Champion MP
"A South Yorkshire MP is celebrating after ministers agreed to consider removing the term ‘child prostitutes’ from Government legislation concerning victims of child sexual exploitation.
Sarah Champion, who represents Rotherham, has been lobbying for the removal of the terminology since her involvement in a major study into the sexual exploitation of children by children’s charity Barnardo’s.
The work was commissioned after it emerged that victims in Rotherham had been failed by the authorities for years, with leaked reports revealing a lack of action and prosecutions of culprits despite allegations of abuse and of gangs of men grooming vulnerable youngsters for sex.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Ms Champion urged ministers to take action and to remove archaic references to ‘child prostitutes’ from British law.
“There are currently 16 pieces of legislation that use the term ‘child prostitute’,” the Labour MP said.
“I have spoken to young people who have been victims of child sexual exploitation, and they say the expression makes them feel dirty and complicit.”
Home Affairs Minister Norman Baker said he was ‘very sympathetic’ to proposals recommended in the Barnardo’s report published last month.
He praised Ms Champion’s work and said he will consider how best to alter existing legislation.
“I am very sympathetic to that suggestion,” he said.
“Children who are sexually exploited, whether for commercial or other reasons, should not be referred to as prostitutes. They are victims.
“We will consider references in all legislation and guidance as opportunities arise, as well as considering carefully the wording used in any new legislation or guidance.”"
Fantastic news!
Regular readers will know that amongst other things, I have highlighted some of the appalling language both used in the media and in UK Legislation when it comes to describing sexual crimes committed against children. However whilst I have had success in the last few years in getting (some of) the media to see the offense they cause to victims, and the way in which they trivialise these crimes, so far I have had less success with regards to getting legislation changed.
Until March, it has been a case of banging a head against a brick wall - I have lost count of the amount of e-mails that have been sent from person to person to various departments & back again, just to get a small amount of wording changed in a few small pieces of legislation!! In March however I did manage to get contact with a Labour MP (not Sarah in the above article) who would help me take this forward.
Obviously as well as getting this particular part of wording changed (Child Prostitutes), it would be even better to at the same time get the rest changed (Children and Pornography), so I will be contacting both to see if this is something that can be achieved. With so much news over the last couple of year, being on child abuse and (supposedly) "victims rights", hopefully this is something that can once and for all be taken seriously, looked into and amended accordingly.

Thursday, 24 April 2014

This Legistation is an Utter Ass & Needs Changing.

11 April 2014
"A paedophile is allowed to have intimate photos of a young girl he abused because the police cannot erase them from his confiscated laptop before they return it to him.
The man was jailed for nine years in 2013 after admitting a number of sex offences including assaulting a child under the age of 13.
He has formally asked for a laptop and a mobile telephone to be handed back, according to human rights campaigner Liberty, which is representing the victim and her family.
Photos of the victim dressed in swimwear and leotards are on the computer, but Dorset Police say they cannot delete them because they are not legally classified as indecent or prohibited.
Consequently, the man, who is in his 50s and cannot be named for legal reasons, will still have access to a large number of personal photos of one girl when he is freed"
23 April 2014
"Dorset Police will delete images of sex attack victims from an offender’s laptop despite being told it would be against the law to do so. Earlier this year, officers were asked to refuse the return of a laptop and other electronic devices to a man who had been convicted of sexual offences. The equipment was seized during the initial stages of the investigation, but was not used during court proceedings as it contained no indecent images.
Current legislation indicates the police should return all equipment to its owner in its original condition. However, Dorset Police believe returning the images would be incompatible with the victims’ privacy rights under European law"
Good news you may think, and in this case, a resounding YES.
However, current legislation that was used to seize this offenders laptop & phones states that if nothing illegal is found on them they need to be returned in their original condition - despite there being photographs of his victim on them in leotards and swimwear (not considered "Indecent" under categories A to C of IIOC).
Staggering isn't it?
The (in)human rights of the offender yet again outweighs the rights of the victim.
Ask yourself, should someone who abuses a child and has images / films of them stored on his/her computer be allowed to keep these images? These images may not be "indecent" in themselves, but the purpose of them being kept is certainly "indecent".
Should victims have to simply acknowledge legislation as it stands and put up with it?
No, of course not. Legislation as it stands is wrong. Sex offenders and paedophiles should not be allowed to keep images/films of their victims.
And this is where YOU come in.
Martyn Underhill, Dorset's Police & Crime Commissioner has started a petition to get this legislation changed.
Please click Here to add your name to this petition to stop sex offenders retaining photo's of their victims.
Please please share this as well - please help Martyn get this to 100,000 signatures and therefore considered for debate in the House of Commons. This needs to change and change ASAP!
Imagine if your child was a victim of a paedophile.
Imagine if the offender had photographs or films of your child on their computer.
Would YOU be happy for them to legally keep these photographs.........?
***** Small update from Jersey - please see below reply from the relevant authorities here: 
"In any proceedings locally the court will make an order for destruction of devices containing Indecent Images of Children (IIOC) OR relevant material.
We would ensure that in these circumstances, as you set out below, the court were asked to make a complete destruction order. Any image of a victim we would argue is ‘relevant’."
Good news here then! ******

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Judge Bowers - Conclusion.

Readers may recall the above posting from last year regarding Judge Peter Bowers and his comments during the case of sex offender Gary Flynn, who walked free from court in October 2013 after he admitted indecently assaulting and forcing a young girl into oral sex over 15 years ago.
To recall, this is from the article in the Northern Echo at the time -
"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.”"
As well as appealing this sentence as "Unduly Lenient" (which as readers will know is something that anyone can do - if not please click on the link & find out how), I also registered a complaint about the language used.
Describing sexual abuse, "historic" or current, as "water under the bridge" is simply not acceptable, and is a prime example of why victims can be reluctant to come forward. Was Judge Bowers implying that as the sexual abuse was "Historic" it was less important & it didn't matter as much?
Anyway, I have two updates on this, as below.
Firstly the "unduly lenient" appeal
"After careful consideration the Solicitor General  decided not to refer the sentence imposed on Gary Flynn to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. The sentencing judge took account of the fact that the offender was sixteen when he committed the offence and that his maturity had been affected by a head injury. He had not offended in the intervening years and he pleaded guilty, so the victim did not have to give evidence. The judge explained that he was imposing a sentence which would enable the offender to engage in sex offender treatment. The Solicitor General concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range, bearing in mind the relevant sentencing guidelines"
Not sure I really agree with this, but the decision is final following an appeal, so not a lot can be done.
Secondly the language used by Judge Bowers. I received a response from JCIO (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office), which indicates the following -
The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice considered my complaint, and have concluded no disciplinary action was necessary. However, they were both concerned about the impact of the comments made during the sentencing of Mr Flynn and consider that all judges must be very mindful of how they express themselves when dealing with sensitive issues. Judge Bowers received informal advice on the matter.
As I said in This posting, If you have any complaints against the conduct of the judiciary, including language like this, you also can complain to The Judicial Conduct's Office by letter or e-mail - and you don't have to be directly involved in the individual cases.
Anyone can make a difference. You included.

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Male vs Female Paedophiles Round 2

"A mother of one has been jailed for having sex with an eight-year-old boy more than 50 times.
Loren Morris, 21, slept with the boy for about two years starting when she was 16, a court heard.
She was charged after the boy, now 14, was overheard bragging to classmates he had slept with her.
Antoine Mullers, defending, said Morris, of Lyde, Herefordshire, stopped having sex with him when she realised it was ‘wrong’.
Judge Robert Juckes QC added: ‘I have come to the conclusion that due to the concern and embarrassment caused to both you and your family that you will not be offending again, let alone committing sexual offences.’
She was seen smiling and smoking at Worcester crown court yesterday where she was jailed for two years after being convicted of three counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 16.
Morris was also banned from contact with a child under 16 without the permission of a parent and put on the sex offenders’ register for ten years"
Following my post last year here AVP - Male vs Female Paedophiles, and ignoring the disgusting language used in this case (how the hell can anyone "have sex with" an eight year old?), here is a classic example of the way that female paedophiles are treated differently to male ones.
Imagine a male paedophile, sexually abusing or raping an eight year old more than FIFTY times, and getting a mere TWO YEARS custodial sentence. Chances are, the sentence would be nearer to one in double figures. Chances are, that if he did get a mere TWO YEARS there would be plenty of complaints to the AG's office, and the sentence would be dramatically increased.
But a female paedophile? How are complaints dealt with for a sentence of TWO YEARS for the sexual assault (equivalent of RAPE) of an EIGHT year old MORE THAN FIFTY TIMES?
I'll show you -
"Thank you for your email below regarding the sentence passed on Loren Morris.
The Law Officers, (the Attorney and Solicitor General) have the power to refer sentences for a limited number of offences to the Court of Appeal when they consider the sentence to be unduly lenient. This means more than lenient. A sentence will only be unduly lenient if it falls significantly below the sentence that any judge could reasonably have imposed in the circumstances of the particular case. Even then, the Court of Appeal has a wide discretion as to whether it should actually increase a sentence in a case.
Following a very careful review of this case the Solicitor General, Oliver Heald QC MP has decided not to refer the sentence of Loren Morris to the Court of Appeal, as he did not believe that the sentence for the offences would be increased"
As I said at the beginning, another classic example of how female paedophiles are treated far more leniently than male ones.
Disgusting - why is there such a difference - the offense is exactly the same. Same type of offender, same type of offence, same end result regarding there being a victim of child sexual abuse. Someone really needs to look & find out why there is such a sentence differential. The judicial outcome should be exactly the same - male / female / young / old.

Monday, 7 April 2014

C/O "Jersey Evening Propaganda" - "Seeking the Truth On Abuse"

From the JEP Screenshots in the above blog:
"Seeking the Truth on Abuse"
1) "The Skull Fragment that turned out to be a piece of coconut" (plus picture)
Yet, from Team Voice ( Jar/6 Voice For Protest ) we have the following e-mail exchanges:
"On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.
“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.” 
“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”
“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”
“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”
“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”"
"On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’"

2)  "Public Funds has been misspent on expensive meals, accommodation and first class travel"
Again, from Team Voice ( "Entirely Accurate" ) we have the following e-mail sent from former DCO Lenny Harper -
"The first class flight to Australia. How many times is this nonsense going to be resurrected? Let me make one thing clear first of all. This trip was carried out in perfect accordance with States rules on long haul flights, and the relevant regulations can be found at paragraph 2.5 of the States Travel Policy. Have a look at the trips carried out by States members and Civil Servants to long haul destinations. You will find that NONE of them have travelled economy. Let me once again explain that on 28th May 2008 I submitted a full report to Frank Walker through Steven Austen-Vaughtier which explained all the circumstances of this trip, (which incidentally led directly to the conviction of a child abuser who received a jail sentence.) I will summarise some of the main points in the report.
· The initial quote for the flights was £7,879 for Business Class including the five hour flight from Perth to Brisbane. This was by Emirate Airlines who were by far the cheapest option. However, when it came to making the booking the only option was to return first class at an additional cost of £700. To offset this, the officers opted to fly the five hour journey from Perth to Brisbane by economy class, which meant that the first class journey on the return leg only cost £122 more. Again this was offset by the free chauffer services which saved a further £86. Net cost, £36. Furthermore, whilst away, the officers took NO rest days thus saving on a further eight days hotel and food costs. This was despite lengthy interviews with emotional and nervous victims.
Next, were the “unnecessary trips to London.” There were trips to London for three reasons as I recall. Firstly to interview victims and witnesses, and then record statements. Secondly, to arrange and secure the loan of specialist equipment from the Metropolitan Police such as the sifting machine which was borrowed from Scotland Yard free of charge and at a saving of many thousands of pounds. Thirdly, there were the trips to a department of the Met which advises on the operational security of investigations, both physical and other types of security. Not only was advice given, but Met officers visited the incident room at Jersey and carried out security surveys. Again, all free of charge. The officers from the department concerned at the Yard were all interviewed and provided full information on the services they provided. Funny how none of their statements have ever been mentioned.
And then of course, the revelation that visiting officers were put up in four star hotels in Jersey and in particular the “L’Horizon.” No mention of the fact that because of the hard work of our Admin staff and the fact that we were out of the tourist season and able to guarantee room occupancy, we actually only paid £70 a night at the hotel mentioned. How many States members and Civil Servants stay in hotels costing £70 a night when they go to the UK and other destinations on business? I can safely say that the answer, should CTV care to investigate will be none. Why, when you are at it, don’t you ask the SOJ Police to make the accounts for the hotels available? They will be revealing. Just where did Channel want us to accommodate officers living away from home and carrying out this difficult and important investigation? In tents?

3) "It also emerged that the Police costs for the three year investigation had reached £7.5 million"
from Rico Sorda blog ( The Srutiny Sub Panel Review ), we see the following
"In reality the budget for expenditure by the States of Jersey Police was £4.5 million. The other £3 million was accounted for by other States Departments. This £7.5 million figure was also never all down to decisions taken by Mr. Power and Mr. Harper. Half of the spending on the inquiry was committed after their time leading the investigation. That such easily researchable facts have consistently been ignored within both the BDO Alto Limited review and local media reporting surely demands the question as to why?"
Just a couple of things that jumped out, reading this spin.
Why, especially with the above Scrutiny Sub Panel review from 2011, a COI only just started, and a statement titled "Seeking the Truth on Abuse"is the JEP still spinning these claims? Has the JEP EVER "sought the truth on abuse" regarding the HDLG / child abuse scandal over the years?
Answers on a postage stamp.
Please follow the below excellent blogs to keep updated on Jersey's COI