tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28645234803108152262024-03-14T01:19:04.769-07:00JerseyRicRBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-13120620126680127162015-05-02T06:03:00.001-07:002015-05-03T13:12:36.369-07:00A Right AVP Devon Mash-up<div abp="223" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="224" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q8DVQs6kZ1c/VUS9w8mSw0I/AAAAAAAAAS8/A_YRnvL0ypk/s1600/Devon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="225" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q8DVQs6kZ1c/VUS9w8mSw0I/AAAAAAAAAS8/A_YRnvL0ypk/s1600/Devon.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
<div abp="305">
<div abp="1078">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="1080">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" align="center">
<div abp="1082">
<a abp="309" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-locks-young-girls-bedroom-5546343" target="_blank">Locked Up - part 1</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="307" align="center">
<div abp="1085">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" align="center">
<div abp="1087">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" align="center">
<div abp="1089">
<a abp="401" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-girls-locked-bedroom-mum-5551545" target="_blank">Locked Up - part 2</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="307" align="center">
<div abp="1092">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" align="center">
<div abp="1094">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" align="center">
<div abp="1096">
<a abp="457" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/he-strike-again-warning-victim-5584264#ICID=sharebar_twitter" target="_blank">Locked Up - part 3</a></div>
<div abp="1096">
</div>
<div abp="1096">
<a abp="1263" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gran-banned-contacting-daughter-who-5625834" target="_blank">Locked Up - part 4</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="307" align="center">
<div abp="1099">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" align="center">
<div abp="1101">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1103">
From the country that is the UK (Uncaring Kingdom) comes the above story of 2 girls, who have to be locked into their bedroom each night, due to the fact they live with a paedophile for s stepfather. </div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1105">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1107">
Aided and abetted by "Selfish Mum" and TPTB - Devon MASH. </div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1109">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1111">
Proof (as if any is needed), that nothing will ever change in the UK when it comes to safeguarding and protecting children.</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1113">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1115">
I will leave you to read the articles, if you haven't already, and contemplate the facts of the story.</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1117">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1119">
<a abp="767" href="http://www.devon.gov.uk/mash.htm" target="_blank">Devon MASH</a> have a website, which includes several amazingly bold statements which counteract this decision totally - one of the best being "<span abp="768" style="color: blue;">The MASH is staffed with professionals from a range of agencies including police, probation, fire, ambulance, health, education and social care. These professionals share information to ensure early identification of potential significant harm, and trigger interventions to prevent further harm</span>" Unbelievable isn't it.</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1123">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1125">
Several obvious questions have to be asked at the very least. Locking a child in a room is abuse in itself. What happens if case of a fire? What happens if the monitor stops working? What happens if the girls are ill? (vomit out of the window?), what happens when the mother takes a shower or baths(lock-up time again?), what affect will this have on the long term wellbeing and mental health of the girls? Children need the safety and freedom that should come with childhood - not grow up in an extended prison environment - let out for the day then face lock-up each night.</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1127">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1129">
Ultimately of course, the blame is placed squarely with "Selfish Mum" - who in the world would take the side of a new paedophile husband over their own flesh & blood? This goes against all normal human instincts, and if the choice has been made by "Selfish Mum", the children should not have to be in a situation where their childhood and safety is taken away from them in this way. </div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1131">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1133">
Of course, as well as "Selfish Mum" taking the blame, Devon MASH have a huge amount to answer to. With such an arrangement of "experts" (hmmmm), detailed above, how did they come to such a catastrophically awful decision? "<span abp="1134" style="color: blue;">E</span><span abp="769" style="color: blue;">nsure early identification of potential significant harm and trigger interventions to prevent further harm</span><span abp="770" style="color: black;">" - don't make me laugh - how does living with a paedophile stepfather and being imprisoned each night constitute this??</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1138">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1140">
In 1991, the UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of a child. Included in the <a abp="772" href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx" target="_blank">charter</a> are the below articles:</div>
</div>
<div abp="307" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1143">
</div>
</div>
<ul abp="774">
<li abp="775"><div abp="776" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="777">
<div abp="1148">
<em abp="778"><strong abp="779">Article 3 </strong></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="780">
<div abp="1152">
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. </div>
</div>
<div abp="781">
<div abp="1154">
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures. </div>
</div>
<div abp="782">
<div abp="1156">
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision. </div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li abp="775"><div abp="776" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="216">
<div abp="1160">
<em abp="217"><strong abp="218">Article 9 </strong></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="219">
<div abp="1164">
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence. </div>
</div>
<div abp="220">
<div abp="1166">
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li abp="775"><div abp="776" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="277">
<div abp="1170">
<em abp="278"><strong abp="279">Article 19</strong></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="280">
<div abp="1174">
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. </div>
</div>
<div abp="281">
<div abp="1176">
2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li abp="775"><div abp="776" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="331">
<div abp="1180">
<em abp="332"><strong abp="333">Article 27</strong></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="334">
<div abp="1184">
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. </div>
</div>
<div abp="335">
<div abp="1186">
2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child's development. </div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li abp="775"><div abp="776" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="380">
<div abp="1190">
<em abp="381"><strong abp="382">Article 34</strong></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="383">
<div abp="1194">
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: </div>
</div>
<div abp="384">
<div abp="1196">
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div abp="776" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="384">
<div abp="1199">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="384">
<div abp="1201">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="384">
<div abp="1203">
Never mind the Human Rights of "Selfish Mum" and "Paedo Stepfather" - who exactly is looking out for the Human Rights of these 2 girls? Who is representing and advocating for them on their behalf with this situation? Certainly not Devon MASH, who seem more interested in the rights of Selfish Mum & Paedo Stepfather. Certainly not their "Selfish Mum".</div>
</div>
<div abp="384">
<div abp="1205">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="384">
<div abp="1207">
This really needs to be resolved quickly - no child should have to grow up being locked away at night to be protected from a paedophile stepfather who still poses a risk to young girls. Whilst decisions like this are being made, it just proves the point that everyone knows - lessons are NOT being learnt, and nothing will EVER change in this country.</div>
</div>
<div abp="1208">
<br /></div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-64909812048960476382015-04-07T14:48:00.002-07:002015-04-08T12:37:33.066-07:00Northern Ireland and Sarah's Law (Not)<div abp="256" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="257" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SLDVqWYA_ak/VSQ6zJ9nwKI/AAAAAAAAASU/sNIHSY_6jeQ/s1600/Sarah%2BPayne.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="258" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SLDVqWYA_ak/VSQ6zJ9nwKI/AAAAAAAAASU/sNIHSY_6jeQ/s1600/Sarah%2BPayne.jpg" height="320" width="261" /></a></div>
<div abp="256" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="145" align="center">
<div abp="1063">
<div abp="1068">
Sarah Payne</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" align="center">
<div abp="1065">
<div abp="1071">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" align="left">
<div abp="1067">
<div abp="1074">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1069">
<div abp="1077">
<a abp="315" href="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/debateni/blogs/sarahs-law-is-no-panacea-for-scourge-of-paedophilia-31105807.html" target="_blank">Sarah's Law is no panacea for scourge of paedophilia</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1072">
<div abp="1081">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1074">
<div abp="1084">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1076">
<div abp="1087">
So says the title of this article, which was published in the Belfast telegraph last week. Rather a misleading assumption imho, has anyone ever stated that Sarah's Law was a one-stop remedy for paedophilia?</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1078">
<div abp="1090">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1080">
<div abp="1093">
This is a very anti-Sarah's Law article from start to finish, and is filled with the usual misconceptions and unproven myths about the scheme, and also seems to be confusing Sarah's Law with online vigilantism. I am not sure how much about the workings of Sarah's law the author knows - not a lot by reading through it.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1082">
<div abp="1096">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1084">
<div abp="1099">
"<span abp="1085" style="color: red;">Our Justice Minister, David Ford, is against introducing the legislation here. He fears it could lead to vigilante-type attacks</span>". I would like to know why and how exactly Mr Ford thinks this? In the first place, any disclosures that are made (if necessary), are made in strictest confidence, only to the person/people directly responsible for the child or children concerned, and with the condition that they do not pass any information onto third parties. Secondly, sites on social networking that "name and shame" paedophiles and sex offenders, are far more likely to lead to vigilante-type attacks, where names, (potentially) addresses and all details are available for all and sundry to see, and more often than not are seemingly there just for the purpose of people venting their hatred towards this crime.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1087">
<div abp="1103">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1106">
"<span abp="1090" style="color: red;">Sarah's Law allows information to be given not just on those convicted of a sexual offence, but those against whom unproven allegations have been made</span>" Really? Is this really the case? Sarah's Law is there as a "right to know", for parents to be able to better protect their child against someone who their child is in contact with who could pose a risk to the child's safety. From the guidelines "<span abp="1283" style="color: blue;">If police checks show that
the individual <u abp="1284"><strong abp="1285">has a record</strong></u>
for child sexual offences, or
other offences that might put
the child at risk, the police
will consider sharing this
information with the person(s)
best placed to protect the
child,</span>" Note the "Has a record" bit. Obviously people who have had unproven allegations made against them will not fall into this category. Why has the author assumed this? Where has the author gotten this from?</div>
</div>
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1112">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1114">
"<span abp="1485" style="color: red;">Another danger is that the sex offender register lists a 16-year-old, who had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend and who poses no threat to children</span>" And? If a disclosure request is made, would the police disclose such information? Would this person pose a risk towards children? Again, from the guidelines "<span abp="1486" style="color: blue;">If the checks show that the individual you are asking about
has a record for child sexual offences or other information
that indicates they pose a risk of serious harm to the child,
the police may disclose this to the person who is most able
to protect the child. It should be noted that details about a
person’s previous convictions are treated as confidential and
that <strong abp="1487"><u abp="1488">the police will disclose information only if it is lawful,
necessary and proportionate to do so in the interests of
protecting a child from harm</u></strong></span>" As per my previous point, note the highlighted part. "Only if it is lawful, necessary and proportionate". Using the example given by the author, this would be none of the three and I am sure a disclosure would not be made in this case.</div>
</div>
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1120">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1122">
"<span abp="1489" style="color: red;">Under Sarah's Law I foresee a flood of requests for information about the sad, lonely bachelor who lives in the most run-down house in the neighbourhood.</span>" Quite possibly. However, with the aim of the scheme being "<span abp="1490" style="color: blue;">to give parents, carer,
guardians and other interested parties a more formal
mechanism for requesting information about an
individual who has contact with their child or a child
close to them if they are concerned that the individual
is a child sexual offender</span>", anyone who made such requests would be sent away with no information. Sarah's Law does not allow for such requests to be made (made maybe, but action taken, nope). Maybe the author should read <a abp="1492" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-10826350" target="_blank">These five scenarios,</a> particularly the fourth one, to understand a bit better. And a "flood"? Jersey has had Sarah's Law for two years now, and rather than a flood, requests have been a trickle. Two requests in two years so far (as far as I know). There may not have been a "flood" of requests, but this Law is there for those who need it. If it helps safeguard one child, that is a positive result.</div>
</div>
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1127">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1129">
"<span abp="1547" style="color: red;">I don't know the answers but I do know it's time we held our noses and dealt comprehensively with this issue. Because hysteria, ranting, or opting for gimmicks, does nothing to enhance child safety</span>." Agree 100% with the first point. I wonder what Sara Payne would think, hearing the scheme she fought for being called a "gimmick"? I wonder what the people who have requested and received disclosures, being better able to protect their children from know child sex offenders would think - would they think this "a gimmick"?</div>
<div abp="1129">
</div>
<div abp="1129">
I could go on, but you get the gist. Every unproven excuse there is. You'd think, with the success of Sarah's Law in the UK, these myths would have been put to bed a long time ago. Not so it seems.</div>
</div>
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1132">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1134">
Northern Ireland have been campaigning for Sarah's Law (along with Isle of Man) for a lot longer than we did here in Jersey. Quite why the NI Government (and IOM as well) are so reluctant (or scared?) to implement this scheme is a mystery to me. Sarah's Law is not the be-all and end-all in protecting children, but is one way that parents can protect their children . I hope that David Ford will one day realise this, and get this introduced in NI. Thankfully not all people are as negative as Suzanne Breen is (author of this article), the vast majority are, like me, fully supportive of this scheme.</div>
</div>
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1136">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1089">
<div abp="1138">
For more information, please read <a abp="1549" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/communications-guidance/a5-leaflet?view=Binary" target="_blank">these comprehensive guidelines</a> on Sarah's Law</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1092">
<div abp="1142">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1094">
<div abp="1145">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1096">
<div abp="1148">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1098">
<div abp="1151">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1100">
<div abp="1154">
</div>
</div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-65295540529115865552015-02-18T04:20:00.002-08:002015-02-18T04:20:41.047-08:00Ann Coffey MP Rids Legislation of AVP - Will the Media Follow Suit?<div abp="145" align="center">
</div>
<div abp="273" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="274" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jod343CQyow/VOSAq44QRXI/AAAAAAAAAR0/0Uct3OyPbBg/s1600/ann-coffey.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="275" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jod343CQyow/VOSAq44QRXI/AAAAAAAAAR0/0Uct3OyPbBg/s1600/ann-coffey.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
<div abp="273" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
MP Ann Coffey</div>
<div abp="148">
</div>
<div abp="149">
Excellent news.</div>
<div abp="149">
</div>
<div abp="149">
Will the media now follow suit & stop their never-ending AVP?</div>
<div abp="149">
</div>
<div abp="149">
If I get any replies, will keep this post updated (sent to all the major media outlets).</div>
<div abp="149">
</div>
<div abp="149">
</div>
<div abp="150">
"<span style="color: blue;">Good evening all,</span></div>
<div abp="151" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div abp="152" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;">You are probably aware, that last week Ann Coffey MP was successful last week, in her campaign to remove the term "Child Prostitute" from all legislation in the UK (see link in subject - </span><a abp="153" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/victory-mps-campaign-rid-laws-8637437" target="_blank"><span abp="154" style="color: blue;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/victory-mps-campaign-rid-laws-8637437</span></a><span style="color: blue;">).</span></div>
<div abp="155" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div abp="156" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;">Also, as tweeted, she has also stated that the term "Child Pornography" is also to be banished from any legislation.</span></div>
<div abp="157" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div abp="158" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;">I realise, that I have on numerous occasions, e-mailed all the UK national newspapers to both complain when they have used such terms and also to request that they stop using them, however it has always been somewhat difficult to put my case across when they are used in legislation (although The Sun, following the regular columns by Dr Sara Payne & Shy Keenan stopped using "Child Porn" a couple of years ago, and The Guardian amended their style guide a few years ago following an earlier e-mail from myself, and no longer use the term "Child Porn").</span></div>
<div abp="159" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"></span> </div>
<div abp="160" dir="ltr">
<div abp="161" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;">Now that MP Ann Coffey has been successful, and these prejudicial terms are finally being removed from legislation, I have one last plea.</span></div>
<div abp="162" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div abp="163" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;">Please could you, like the Sun & Guardian, pledge to stop using these two terms, namely "Child Porn / Child Pornography", and "Child Prostitute" in any reporting, going forward. These are two awful phrases, which both force the onus onto the Child (i.e. "child prostitute", which indicates the child prostituting themselves as opposed to a "prostituted child", which places the onus squarely on the offender), and describe disgusting crimes in paedophile-friendly speak (only someone sexually attracted to children would refer to images of child abuse / child exploitation as any sort of "pornography", the rest of the populace would see them as images of child abuse - visual evidence of sexual exploitation or crimes against a child).</span></div>
<div abp="164" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div abp="165" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> As I have said, I have asked this of you numerous time previously with very little positive responses, however with this soon to be change in legislation, this is the perfect time for the major UK media outlets to follow Ann Coffey's lead and show that they have at least some understanding of the power of language, and for them to amend their style guides to remove both these terms once and for all. I know there are lots more awful terms used when describing child abuse, but these are the main two. </span></div>
<div abp="166" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div abp="167" dir="ltr">
<a abp="168" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-media-and-child-porn.html" target="_blank"><span abp="169" style="color: blue;">http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-media-and-child-porn.html</span></a></div>
<div abp="170" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div abp="171" dir="ltr">
<a abp="172" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/06/media-and-legal-avp-anti-victim.html" target="_blank"><span abp="173" style="color: blue;">http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/06/media-and-legal-avp-anti-victim.html</span></a></div>
<div abp="174" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div abp="175" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;">If you disagree, please <u abp="176">could you let me know why you disagree</u> - if you agree, it would be a huge step forward for you and it would be great to get acknowledgement of this from yourselves.</span></div>
<div abp="177" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"></span> </div>
<div abp="178" dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;">Many thanks</span><span style="color: black;">"</span></div>
<div abp="178" dir="ltr">
</div>
<div abp="178" dir="ltr">
I have no doubt, that I will receive very few (if any) replies. The national media have a habit of not responding (I will re-email this next week), unlike local media throughout the UK who are more than willing to discuss (good or bad).</div>
<div abp="178" dir="ltr">
</div>
<div abp="178" dir="ltr">
But we keep on trying. One day it will "click".</div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-71870335543720816842015-02-14T05:28:00.001-08:002015-02-14T05:32:44.424-08:00The ULS (Unduly Lenient Sentences) Scheme - an UpdateIn previous posts I have explained how the ULS scheme works in the UK, and how any member of the public can appeal against sentences that appear "unduly lenient", providing the conditions are met (sentence was passed down in a Crown Court, and within 28 days of sentencing). In my previous posts I have indicated the e-mail addresses for England and Scotland, as I understood at the time.<br />
<br />
However it appears that Scotland does not have the same sort of scheme as England.<br />
<br />
In January, there was a story of a paedophile, in Scotland, who molested a nine year old girl in her bed with her six year old brother in a bed next to her. His "punishment" (if that is what it can be called) was 200 hours Community Service over a period of nine months.<br />
<br />
The old cliché "couldn't make it up" comes to mind.<br />
<br />
So, this was a case that I appealed against, in the usual way. I have to admit, I have not appealed against many Scottish cases, most of the ones I have done are for English cases.<br />
<br />
Yesterday I found out, by return e-mail, that for sentences passed down in Scotland the public cannot make a "ULS" appeal (the first time that I have been told of this - normally the e-mails I receive back are acknowledgements and I don't hear anything else).<br />
<br />
It seems that the only people that can appeal, are the offenders (if they consider the sentence to be too severe), and the COPFS (Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service) if they consider sentences to be too lenient.<br />
<br />
"<span style="color: blue;">Thank you for your email dated 10 January 2015 regarding a sentence that was imposed on an offender for child abuse. Your email has been passed to the Criminal Law and Licensing Division and I have been asked to reply.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">I wish to reassure you that the Scottish Government deplores sexual and physical abuse. These deplorable crimes, which can have a devastating effect on victims and their families, are unacceptable and will not be tolerated and our communities must be protected from sex offenders. We are working with all relevant agencies to ensure that children, young people and adults are given the best possible protection from harm. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">I have noted your comments regarding the sentence that was imposed. I must advise you that the Scottish Ministers cannot offer a view on sentences imposed in individual cases. The independence of the judiciary is an essential pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial in any modern civilised country. That is why section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 provides that Scottish Ministers must not seek to influence judicial decisions. Therefore, you will understand why the Scottish Government will not offer a specific view on any individual sentencing decision made by our courts. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">It is the case that judges are best placed to decide on an appropriate sentence for each offender before them as they hear all the facts and circumstances of a case before they then make their sentencing decisions within the overall legal framework provided by Parliament. If the judge considers an offence, based on all the facts of the particular case, merits a tough and lengthy custodial sentence, then this Government fully supports that. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">In relation to your request that an appeal be lodged against the sentence, it may be helpful if I explain more about appeals process within the justice system in Scotland. Anyone who is convicted of a crime in Scotland can appeal against the sentence if they consider it is too severe. Equally, the independent Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) can </span><span style="color: blue;">appeal against a sentence if they feel it is unduly lenient. Crown Counsel will give careful consideration as to whether a sentence was unduly lenient or if the sentence imposed is within the range available to the judge in the exercise of their normal judicial discretion. The decision to appeal against a sentence is a decision for the independent COPFS to make and, as with judicial decisions, the Scottish Government cannot intervene in such decisions. Where COPFS appeal against a sentence as being unduly lenient, it is for the court to decide whether the appeal is successful.</span>".<br />
<br />
So, if there are any "couldn't make this shit up" decisions in Scotland, not much us the plebs can do. Shame, there have been many successful appeals in England, why don't the Scottish Government have a similar scheme.<br />
<br />RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-23170724018975372692015-01-21T14:14:00.005-08:002015-01-21T14:14:43.966-08:00Ray Teret, Double Standards & FOI's - an Update<div abp="314">
<span abp="315" style="color: blue;">Dear Mr Bougeard </span></div>
<div abp="316">
<span abp="317" style="color: blue;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="318">
<span abp="319" style="color: blue;">Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request </span></div>
<div abp="320">
<span abp="321" style="color: blue;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="322">
<span abp="323" style="color: blue;">I refer to your Freedom of Information (FOI) request which we received on 22 December 2014. </span></div>
<div abp="324">
<span abp="325" style="color: blue;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="326">
<span abp="327" style="color: blue;">The FOI Act gives you the right to know whether we hold the information you want and to have it communicated to you, subject to any exemptions which may apply. It is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information disclosed under the FOI Act by definition becomes available to the wider public. </span></div>
<div abp="328">
<span abp="329" style="color: blue;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="330">
<span abp="331" style="color: blue;">In your request you referred to the sentencing remarks relating to Ray Teret’s conviction, who was recently sentenced to 25 years for child abuse charges. You asked the following questions below and I have supplied our answer in bold font next to each question:</span></div>
<div abp="332">
<span abp="333" style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div abp="334">
<span abp="335" style="color: blue;">Please could you let me know: </span></div>
<div abp="336">
<span abp="337" style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div abp="338">
<span abp="339" style="color: blue;">1) Was the charge of "intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16" considered to begin with? (Yes or No) <strong abp="340">Yes</strong> </span></div>
<div abp="341">
<span abp="342" style="color: blue;">2) Due to the length of time between the crime and disclosure, was the charge amended to "indecent assault" to guarantee a conviction? (Yes or No) <strong abp="343">No</strong> </span></div>
<div abp="344">
<span abp="345" style="color: blue;">3) If question 1) was "No", why was it No? <strong abp="346">N/A</strong> </span></div>
<div abp="347">
<span abp="348" style="color: blue;">4) Ray Teret was cleared of various other sexual offences in relation to six other complainants - a) did any of these relate to the crime "intercourse with girl between 13 and 15", <strong abp="349">No</strong> </span></div>
<div abp="350">
<span abp="351" style="color: blue;">and b) was he cleared because of the 12 month timescale (Yes or No to 'a' and 'b' ) No </span></div>
<div abp="352">
<span abp="353" style="color: blue;"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="354">
<span abp="355" style="color: blue;">I trust this information assists.</span> </div>
<div abp="356">
</div>
<div abp="357">
Needless to say, one further FOI has been submitted in relation to questions and answers one and two.</div>
<div abp="358">
</div>
<div abp="359">
More to follow when I receive an update.</div>
<div abp="360">
</div>
<div abp="361">
In the meantime, please keep signing & sharing my <a abp="363" href="https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-state-for-justice-rt-hon-chris-grayling-remove-the-12-month-disclosure-timescale-from-csa-sentencing-guidelines-2" target="_blank"><strong>petition</strong></a></div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-50795992753666815162015-01-17T05:42:00.000-08:002015-01-17T05:42:58.347-08:00Double Standards, Ray Teret, Indecent Assault and Bending the Rules<div abp="263" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="264" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZkBxDm-Frv4/VLpeaYXhobI/AAAAAAAAARk/OJaSuayK_6g/s1600/Teret.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="265" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZkBxDm-Frv4/VLpeaYXhobI/AAAAAAAAARk/OJaSuayK_6g/s1600/Teret.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<div abp="321">
</div>
<div abp="322">
</div>
<div abp="323">
</div>
<div abp="324">
On December 11 2014, Ray Teret was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for his catalogue of crimes against girls. A sentence well justified. </div>
<div abp="325">
</div>
<div abp="326">
The sentencing remarks by Mr Justice Baker are interesting reading, when comparing them against the petition I started last year. </div>
<div abp="327">
</div>
<div abp="328">
Reading through them, it is apparent that double standards have been applied in this case, when compared to other cases which have involved the same crime.</div>
<div abp="329">
</div>
<div abp="330">
According to Justice Baker <a abp="332" href="http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/teret-ray-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> , five out of the eleven victims, aged between thirteen and fifteen "consented" to their abuse (yes I know, AoC is sixteen and to imply consent does not make sense).</div>
<div abp="330">
</div>
<div abp="330">
The paragraphs that interest me in Justice Baker's comments are below, and I have highlighted the "consensual" crimes:</div>
<div abp="330">
</div>
<div abp="330">
"<span abp="571" style="color: blue;">The jury convicted you of having sexually abused 11 different girls during this period<br abp="572" />of time, 6 of whom you raped and </span><span abp="573" style="color: blue;"><strong abp="574">5 of whom were, as I have said, so awed by your<br abp="575" />celebrity status that they consented to having sexual intercourse with you</strong>. Some of<br abp="576" />those you raped were forcibly penetrated by you, causing them acute pain and distress,<br abp="577" />whilst you ejaculated inside them. However it is clear that all of these girls were used<br abp="578" />by you for your own sexual gratification, which in some cases was enhanced by you<br abp="579" />encouraging them to masturbate you both manually and orally. </span><span abp="580" style="color: blue;"><strong abp="581">In my judgement it is<br abp="582" />no mere coincidence that each of these girls was between 13 – 15 years of age when<br abp="583" />you abused them in this manner</strong>, as I am sure that, despite your protestations to the<br abp="584" />contrary, you have a sexual interest in girls of that age</span><span abp="585" style="color: red;">.</span>"</div>
<div abp="330">
</div>
<div abp="330">
"<span abp="586" style="color: blue;">At the time of the commission of <strong abp="587">the offences of indecent assault</strong> the maximum<br abp="588" />sentence for such offences was 2 years’ custody. </span><span abp="589" style="color: blue;"><strong abp="590">This court remains bound by that<br abp="591" />restriction</strong>. Thus on counts 1, 14, 25 31 and 35 there will be sentences of 18 months’<br abp="592" />imprisonment, and on counts 6, 8, 18, 22, 23 and 24 there will be sentences of 12<br abp="593" />months’ imprisonment. However on each of the convictions for rape, namely counts<br abp="594" />5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 27 there will be sentences of 25 years’ imprisonment. All of<br abp="595" />those sentences will run concurrently with each other making a total custodial sentence<br abp="596" />of 25 years</span>."</div>
<div abp="330">
</div>
<div abp="330">
I say "Interesting" deliberately, because as we know, as detailed in my petition <a abp="598" href="https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-state-for-justice-rt-hon-chris-grayling-remove-the-12-month-disclosure-timescale-from-csa-sentencing-guidelines-2" target="_blank">here,</a> and previous posts, the crime of "Intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16" (note "intercourse", not "rape -, thus implying ostensible consent), carried with it a disclosure timescale of 12 months. Both the MoJ and CPS have over the last few months, stuck to their guns and stated repeatedly to me that in the UK, crimes cannot be "retroactively" amended and therefore any victim of this crime, who has disclosed after the 12 months have passed (ie anyone since 2005, as this timescale was removed in 2004) it is a matter of "tough luck". </div>
<div abp="330">
</div>
<div abp="330">
Furthermore, the crime cannot be changed to "indecent assault", as detailed <a abp="654" href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/soa_2003_and_soa_1956/#a43" target="_blank">here</a> ("<span style="color: blue;">A prosecution for an offence committed under section 6 (or an attempt to commit that offence) must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence. The House of Lords has ruled that a charge of indecent assault cannot be used to bypass the time limit. See <em abp="919">R v J </em>[2004] UKHL 42</span>").</div>
<div abp="330">
</div>
<div abp="330">
So, the question is, how have potentially hundreds of victims been so catastrophically failed by the "injustice system", but the Law can seemingly be bent for a high profile case such as this?</div>
<div abp="330">
</div>
<div abp="330">
Was Justice Baker unaware of the time limit?</div>
<div abp="330">
</div>
<div abp="330">
Did Justice Baker deliberately change the crime to "Indecent Assault" from the start, thus eliminating the 12 months?</div>
<div abp="330">
</div>
<div abp="330">
Or, more likely (in my opinion), did the rules get "bent" as this, being Saville related, there had to be a desirable outcome, whatever the path of getting it?</div>
<div abp="330">
</div>
<div abp="330">
Whatever the reason is, this is a totally unacceptable flouting of the Law to fit the crime, and this makes it ten times worse for all the victims of the same crime, who have been so badly let down.</div>
<div abp="334">
</div>
<div abp="335">
</div>
<div abp="145" align="center">
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-35034345116741712102014-09-27T06:59:00.002-07:002014-09-30T12:24:40.432-07:00Timescales and Sexual Offences, an Update<div abp="166">
<div abp="1236">
The petition that I started <a abp="168" href="http://secretary-of-state-for-justice-rt-hon-chris-grayling-remove-the-12-month-disclosure-timescale-from-csa-sentencing-guidelines-2/" target="_blank">here</a> has now been going for about a month and a half, and now has nearly 400 signatures. </div>
<div abp="1236">
</div>
<div abp="1236">
Hopefully all who have read my blog have signed it - if not WHY? - sign it now, it only takes a minute!</div>
<div abp="1236">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166">
<div abp="1241">
I have managed to find out the history of this disclosure timescale, and include this below.</div>
</div>
<div abp="166">
<div abp="1243">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166">
<div abp="1245">
A week or so ago, I had a reply from Mr Chown, head of Criminal Procedure at the Ministry of Justice, outlining where this 12 month limit originated. I will reproduce part of his e-mail below and elaborate a bit on this after:</div>
</div>
<div abp="166">
<div abp="1247">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166">
<div abp="1249">
"<span abp="464" style="color: navy;">The time limit was of long standing, dating back to 1885; as Lord Bingham of Cornhill explained in the House of Lords case of <i abp="465">R </i><i abp="466">v</i><i abp="467"> J</i><i abp="468">, </i>it was originally shorter: </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="469" style="padding-left: 36pt;">
<div abp="1256">
<span abp="470" style="color: navy; font-size: x-small;">“Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 provided that no prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) (sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16) should be commenced more than three months after the commission of the offence. Section 27 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904 increased the time limit to six months. Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922 increased the period to nine months. Section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1928 made a further increase to 12 months. That provision was consolidated in the 1956 Act.”</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="471" style="padding-left: 36pt;">
<div abp="1259">
<span abp="472" style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: small;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="473">
<div abp="1262">
<span abp="474" style="color: navy;">The time limit was finally abolished when the 1956 Act was replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but only prospectively, with effect from the date when that Act was brought into force in 2004. In so legislating, Parliament followed the usual principle of non-retroactivity; Lord Steyn’s speech in <i abp="475">R v J</i> simply observed without further comment that “The change in the law is, of course, not of retrospective effect”. Although retrospective removal of the time limit would not amount to substantive retroactivity in the sense of criminalising conduct that was not previously unlawful, it is clear that the bar to retroactive legislation also applies to fundamental procedural pre-conditions for the bringing of charges against an individual"</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="476">
<div abp="1266">
<span abp="477" style="color: navy;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="478">
<div abp="1269">
<span abp="479" style="color: black;">So, this goes back over 100 years to 1885!! </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="480">
<div abp="1272">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="481">
<div abp="1274">
The original Law from 1885 itself an be read <a abp="483" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A48_and_49_Victoria_Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885.pdf&page=3" target="_blank">here</a> and <a abp="539" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A48_and_49_Victoria_Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885.pdf&page=4" target="_blank">here</a> (section 5) , and the bit that applies to this is "<span abp="1277" style="color: blue;">Provided also, that no prosecution shall de commenced for an offence under sub section one of this section more than 3 months after the commission of this offence</span>".</div>
<div abp="1278">
</div>
<div abp="1279">
I won't make this post too long, however, I will include a link that does explain further the reasons behind the original 3 month limit, and the reasons for raising it to 12 months. This link can be read <a abp="1281" href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd041014/j-3.htm" target="_blank">here</a> (it is rather long though) and includes the following 2 items:</div>
<div abp="1279">
</div>
<div abp="1279">
"<span abp="1375" style="color: red;">it was thought then that a girl who fell pregnant, and thus was unquestionably the victim of an offence, was so likely to name the wrong man that the accused needed the exceptional protection of a very short time limit, one which elapsed before her pregnancy had become obvious or even known</span>" (this for the reasons of having the 3 month original timescale), </div>
<div abp="1279">
</div>
<div abp="1279">
and</div>
<div abp="1279">
</div>
<div abp="1279">
"<span abp="1376" style="color: red;">it cannot long have been the supposed need to identify a perpetrator before a pregnancy became apparent, because the time limit was soon raised, first to six months by the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904, then to nine months by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922, and finally to 12 months by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1928. It was precisely because a pregnancy or childbirth might reveal the offence that the limit was raised. The reasons given for having any limit at all - loss of witnesses and the difficulties of proof - might equally apply to many other offences. But complainants in sexual offences were then still regarded with much more suspicion than other complainants, and so abolition may have been thought too radical to contemplate. However, it is hard to discern any coherent rationale after 1922, because the 1922 Act also provided that consent would no longer be a defence to an indecent assault upon a child or young person under the age of 16. Thus most forms of sexual activity with a girl under 16 became a criminal offence whether or not she consented, but no time limit was prescribed.</span>" for the raising of this limit.</div>
<div abp="1283">
</div>
<div abp="1284">
</div>
<div abp="1285">
What can be done to remove the 12 months for victims of this crime now disclosing abuse? </div>
<div abp="1285">
I will cover this soon in another posting. </div>
<div abp="1285">
</div>
<div abp="1285">
Until then, please sign if you haven't yet done so, and please keep sharing and encouraging others to do so - the link is <a abp="1378" href="https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-state-for-justice-rt-hon-chris-grayling-remove-the-12-month-disclosure-timescale-from-csa-sentencing-guidelines-2" target="_blank"><span style="color: magenta; font-size: x-large;"><strong>HERE</strong></span></a> this needs to be removed for the sake of "Sarah", "Sylvie" and "Jane", and all other victims of this crime who have been, and will be denied justice. </div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-6042667836772155392014-08-16T06:16:00.002-07:002014-08-30T07:36:23.669-07:00Petition - a small update<div abp="356">
<div abp="1091">
<div abp="1440">
<span abp="357" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Up to date petition is here - <a abp="1094" href="https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-state-for-justice-rt-hon-chris-grayling-remove-the-12-month-disclosure-timescale-from-csa-sentencing-guidelines-2" target="_blank"><strong abp="1443"><em abp="1444"><span abp="1445" style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">the petition</span></em></strong></a> - newly created on Change.org so that more people can sign, it isn't restricted to UK people, and (as far as I know) each signature will generate an e-mail to MoJ.</span></div>
<div abp="1440">
<span abp="357" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
<div abp="1440">
<span abp="357" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Please get signing & sharing.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="358">
<div abp="1097">
<div abp="1448">
<span abp="359" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="360">
<div abp="1100">
<div abp="1452">
<span abp="361" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Obviously I am not relying purely on a petition to highlight and to try to change this, I have also contacted various UK media a few times, however unfortunately they too seem disinterested in this as a story. There have been a couple of smaller regional papers who I have spoken to who have been interested in taking this up, however only if there were "local victims of this injustice in their area". Back to the drawing board then.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="360">
<div abp="1103">
<div abp="1456">
<span abp="1104" style="font-family: Arial;"></span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="360">
<div abp="1106">
<div abp="1460">
<span abp="1107" style="font-family: Arial;">There are 17 MPs in "Sarah's" county, and they have all been e-mailed together with CPS. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="360">
<div abp="1109">
<div abp="1464">
<span abp="1110" style="font-family: Arial;"></span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="360">
<div abp="1112">
<div abp="1468">
<span abp="1113" style="font-family: Arial;">Not one has replied.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="362">
<div abp="1115">
<div abp="1472">
<span abp="363" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="364">
<div abp="1118">
<div abp="1476">
<span abp="365" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Not surprisingly, the CPS could not assist me either. Their reply (at least I got one out of the 18 sent), partly reproduced below, passed the onus squarely onto MoJ, (which does make sense I suppose). </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="366">
<div abp="1121">
<div abp="1480">
<span abp="367" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="368">
<div abp="1124">
<div abp="1484">
<span abp="369" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"<span abp="370" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="371" style="color: blue;">It may assist if I explain the role of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS is responsible for reviewing and, where appropriate, prosecuting most criminal cases in England and Wales following an investigation by the police. </span></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="372" class="ecxMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div abp="1129">
<div abp="1490">
<span abp="373" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="374" style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="375" class="ecxMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div abp="1133">
<div abp="1495">
<span abp="376" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="377" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span abp="378" style="color: blue;">I note that your query relates to the SOA 1956 and the sentencing guidelines. These fall within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, who would be best placed to answer your concerns</span>"</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="379" class="ecxMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div abp="1138">
<div abp="1501">
<span abp="380" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="381" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="382" class="ecxMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div abp="1142">
<div abp="1506">
<span abp="383" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="384" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So MoJ, what of them? Obviously I have contacted them as well. Amongst the questions I have asked them are these below:</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1145">
<div abp="1510">
<span abp="385" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"></span><br /></div>
<div abp="386" class="ecxMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div abp="1148">
<div abp="1514">
<span abp="385" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="387" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1517">
<span abp="385" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">
</span></div>
<div abp="388">
<div abp="1153">
<div abp="1521">
<span abp="385" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="389" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) When these guidelines were drawn up, how was this timescale thought up?</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1524">
<span abp="385" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">
</span><div abp="390">
<div abp="1156">
<div abp="1528">
<span abp="385" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="391" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) Who in particular decided that this should be added as a clause to the sentencing guidelines? </span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<span abp="385" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">
<div abp="392">
<div abp="1159">
<div abp="1534">
<span abp="393" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) Who benefits from this 12 month timescale (certainly not any victim of this crime) </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="394">
<div abp="1162">
<div abp="1538">
<span abp="395" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4) How can this be taken forward for "Sarah" and any future victims so that they can get justice and closure to their abuse?</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="396">
<div abp="1165">
<div abp="1542">
<span abp="397" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="398">
<div abp="1168">
<div abp="1546">
<span abp="399" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Their response to me has answered none of these questions, and has in a nutshell said "tough shit, nothing we are going to do". Part of their response is detailed below:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="400">
<div abp="1171">
<div abp="1550">
<span abp="401" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="402">
<div abp="1174">
<div abp="1554">
<span abp="403" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"<span abp="404" style="color: blue;">I regret I am unable to comment on individual cases such as the one you highlighted in your e-mail. However, I can confirm that we have no plans to retrospectively amend the criminal law enabling a prosecution to be brought in a case that pre-dates the commencement of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for the offence of intercourse with a girl between the age of thirteen and sixteen (under section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956) where the allegation was made more than twelve months after the offence charged. </span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="405">
<div abp="1178">
<div abp="1559">
<span abp="406" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span abp="407" style="color: blue;">The general legal position in English law is that a person can only be guilty of a criminal offence according to the law as it was at the time when the offence was committed. Article 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights also prohibits the retroactive application of criminal offences so as to penalise conduct which was not criminal conduct at the time when the act or omission occurred. This prohibits not only the creation of retroactive offences by legislation but also the retroactive application of offences through development of the common law.</span>"</span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="408">
<div abp="1182">
<div abp="1564">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="409">
<div abp="1184">
<div abp="1567">
So there we have it. Not going to give up on this, for "Sarah", for any other victims who are in the same situation, or for any more cases which come up in the future, however the options I have to challenge this are dwindling away. There must be something that can be done? I will need to have a rethink on what to do next, and keep sharing the petition & "Sarah's" story & hope to get somewhere near to the required amount of signatures.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="409">
<div abp="1186">
<div abp="1570">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="409">
<div abp="1188">
<div abp="1573">
Hopefully readers in the UK and CI's that have read my previous post have already signed this. If not, the link is <a abp="411" href="https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-state-for-justice-rt-hon-chris-grayling-remove-the-12-month-disclosure-timescale-from-csa-sentencing-guidelines-2" target="_blank"><span abp="1190" style="color: red; font-size: x-large;"><strong abp="1191"><em abp="1577">HERE</em></strong></span></a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="409">
<div abp="1193">
<div abp="1580">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="409">
<div abp="1195">
<div abp="1583">
Thank you very much.</div>
</div>
</div>
</span><div abp="1584">
<br /></div>
<div abp="1196">
<div abp="1586">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-41576055851820247292014-06-07T05:54:00.001-07:002014-06-22T04:23:16.112-07:00Groomed for sex at 13 - but the law is powerless to do anything.<div abp="183" align="center">
<div abp="1480">
<a abp="185" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-who-13-years-old-groomed-abused-3607865" target="_blank">My dad’s pal groomed me for sex at 13 - but the law is powerless to touch him</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="183" align="center">
<div abp="1483">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="183" align="center">
<div abp="1485">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="183" align="center">
<div abp="1487">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="379" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="380" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8t5TbH0ZGBY/U5MF7apYCqI/AAAAAAAAARU/o_Hb26wxStE/s1600/Letter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="381" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8t5TbH0ZGBY/U5MF7apYCqI/AAAAAAAAARU/o_Hb26wxStE/s1600/Letter.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
<div abp="379" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="379" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="379" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
"<em abp="582"><span abp="583" style="color: blue;">A woman who was 13 when she was groomed and sexually abused by a man twice her age had her case dropped because a controversial legal loophole allowed her attacker to go free.</span></em></div>
<div abp="584">
<div abp="1497">
<em abp="585"><span abp="586" style="color: blue;">Today, she tells her harrowing story of how the six-month relationship “ruined her life”.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="587">
<div abp="1501">
<em abp="588"><span abp="589" style="color: blue;">The woman’s happy family life was destroyed and she was brought up in care, passed around by social services.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="590">
<div abp="1505">
<em abp="591"><span abp="592" style="color: blue;">But when the victim realised she was abused and plucked up the courage to seek justice against the man she once trusted, she was told by the Crown Prosecution Service he could not be charged.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="593">
<div abp="1509">
<em abp="594"><span abp="595" style="color: blue;">A letter from a senior prosecutor, seen by the Mirror, states: “If the law was different, I would have charged [Mr X] with having unlawful sexual intercourse.”</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="596">
<div abp="1513">
<em abp="597"><span abp="598" style="color: blue;">Sexual offence laws were changed in 2004 so an adult who had sex with a child under 16 could be prosecuted with no time limit attached.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="599">
<div abp="1517">
<em abp="600"><span abp="601" style="color: blue;">But charges cannot be brought against anyone for “consensual” sex with a child under 16 if it happened before 2004 and no complaint is made within a year.</span></em>"</div>
</div>
<div abp="602">
<div abp="1521">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="603">
<div abp="1523">
Appalling.</div>
</div>
<div abp="604">
<div abp="1525">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="605">
<div abp="1527">
Yet another failing of victims, by an out of date law that makes no sense at all. </div>
</div>
<div abp="605">
<div abp="1529">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="605">
<div abp="1531">
Firstly children cannot <a abp="607" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/06/thirteen-lucky-for-some.html" target="_blank">consent</a> - that is why we have an age of consent (quite obvious really to the majority of the population). </div>
</div>
<div abp="605">
<div abp="1534">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="605">
<div abp="1536">
Secondly, what idiot drew up this previous Law, that included a "one year timescale" to report "ostensible" consent for 13 to 15 years old? Who could consider that there would be any benefit in doing this at the time? What about victims who didn't disclose until after a year after "ostensibly" consenting to being groomed and abused by an adult?</div>
</div>
<div abp="605">
<div abp="1538">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="605">
<div abp="1540">
Thirdly, what happens now? Another way to stop victims coming forward, if they think their abuser may argue this "consent", therefore making their disclosures "null and void"</div>
</div>
<div abp="609">
<div abp="1542">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="610">
<div abp="1544">
What is the point of reporting abuse that happened prior to 2004, if this is the end result?</div>
</div>
<div abp="610">
<div abp="1546">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="610">
<div abp="1548">
According to the Mirror article, "<em abp="1549"><span abp="1550" style="color: blue;">It is thought to have allowed hundreds of Britain’s worst abusers to walk free as the police are left powerless to charge them</span></em>". Is this good enough? Not in the slightest. As I said firstly, Appalling!</div>
<div abp="1548">
</div>
<div abp="1548">
Proof of this Law is in the enclosed two links. In this link <a abp="1637" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/4-5/69" target="_blank">here</a> the section that refers to this offence is article 6 "<span style="color: blue;">Intercourse with girl between thirteen and sixteen</span>.". Sentencing guidelines relating to this can be found <a abp="1717" href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/soa_2003_and_soa_1956/#a43" target="_blank">here,</a> and this states "<span style="color: red;">A prosecution for an offence committed under section 6 (or an attempt to commit that offence) must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence</span>".</div>
</div>
<div abp="612">
<div abp="1552">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="612">
<div abp="1554">
As-such, I have created a petition on direct.gov to get this one year timescale removed for any future victims that come forward and disclose this type of grooming & rape. Why should victims of this crime, have their cases thrown out because of this unnecessary loophole? Why should some victims be allowed their day in court, and to see their suffering and abuse be dealt with (and hopefully with fair justice), whilst others have their abuse dismissed because of this unjust loophole from 10 years ago?</div>
</div>
<div abp="612">
<div abp="1556">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="612">
<div abp="1558">
Please sign this and share it - 100,000 sigs needed before this can be considered for debate in the House of Commons - end date 10 June 2015. Thank you.</div>
</div>
<div abp="612">
<div abp="1560">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="612" align="center">
<div abp="1562">
<a abp="669" href="http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/65702" target="_blank"><strong abp="1564"><span abp="1565" style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">Petition</span></strong></a></div>
</div>
<div abp="613">
<div abp="1567">
</div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-42819912353701029872014-05-31T06:38:00.002-07:002014-05-31T06:38:22.566-07:00Adam Hulin, Undue Leniency & No Justice.<div abp="168" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="170" href="http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/Headley-man-19-denies-raping-12-year-old-Bookham/story-20858736-detail/story.html" target="_blank">Headley man, 19, plied 12 year old with vodka before committing sex acts</a></div>
<div abp="168" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="168" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="381" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="382" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KF1Y5a5wOVs/U4nPPDLQJwI/AAAAAAAAARE/gzJhV3-wGY8/s1600/Adam+Hulin+4.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="383" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KF1Y5a5wOVs/U4nPPDLQJwI/AAAAAAAAARE/gzJhV3-wGY8/s1600/Adam+Hulin+4.JPG" height="320" width="238" /></a></div>
<div abp="381" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Adam Hulin</div>
<div abp="168" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="168" style="text-align: left;">
"<em abp="585"><span abp="586" style="color: blue;">A TEENAGER plied a 12-year-old girl with vodka so he could sexually assault her on the back seat of his car, a court heard. </span></em><em abp="587"><span abp="588" style="color: blue;">Adam Hulin, of Hurst Lane, Headley, appeared for trial at Guildford Crown Court this week, accused of raping the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in December 2012. </span></em><em abp="589"><span abp="590" style="color: blue;">The 19-year-old admitted driving the alleged victim to several locations in Bookham and performing sex acts with her, but denied having sexual intercourse and said he believed her to be aged 16. </span></em><em abp="591"><span abp="592" style="color: blue;">Opening the case for the prosecution on Monday, Alan Gardner said: "In the middle of 2012, Hulin added the girl as a friend on social media site Facebook. "During conversations they had on Facebook, he asked what school year she was in and, after answering she was in Year 7, his response was 'cute'. It is the prosecution's case that Hulin was well aware of her age.</span></em>"</div>
<div abp="168" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="168" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="594" href="http://www.dorkingandleatherheadadvertiser.co.uk/Man-sentenced-community-order-admitting-sex-acts/story-21000770-detail/story.html" target="_blank">Headley Man sentenced to community order after admitting sex acts with 12 year old girl</a></div>
<div abp="168" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="168" style="text-align: left;">
"<em abp="649"><span abp="650" style="color: blue;">A MAN has been sentenced to a community order for performing sexual acts with a 12-year-old girl.</span></em></div>
<div abp="651">
<em abp="652"><span abp="653" style="color: blue;">Adam Hulin of Hurst Lane, Headley, avoided prison despite admitting charges of oral rape of a child under 13 and assault of a child under 13 by penetration. </span></em><em abp="655"><span abp="656" style="color: blue;">In addition to the 12-month community order handed down at Guildford Crown Court on Wednesday (April 23), the 19-year-old was ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work and attend six sessions on his attitude towards sexual encounters. </span></em><em abp="658"><span abp="659" style="color: blue;">A custodial term is within the sentencing council's guidelines for the offences he committed.</span></em>"</div>
<div abp="660">
</div>
<div abp="661">
"<em abp="662"><span abp="663" style="color: blue;">He was found neither guilty or not guilty of this charge, after the jury was discharged and the judge heard evidence alone in what is known as a Newton hearing. </span></em><em abp="665"><span abp="666" style="color: blue;">During this hearing the judge accepted Hulin’s defence that at the time of the encounter he believed the girl was 16. It was decided the rape charge would remain on file. </span></em><em abp="668"><span abp="669" style="color: blue;">Mitigating at the sentencing hearing, Richard McConaghy said Hulin had engaged in what he had believed was “what most people would ordinarily define as regular sexual activity”. </span></em><em abp="671"><span abp="672" style="color: blue;">He added: “This incident took place in December 2012 and the complainant in this matter turned 13 in February 2013. If this incident had taken place three months later then, because of the matter for which Mr Hulin is now being sentenced, he would have had a complete defence of law. </span></em><em abp="674"><span abp="675" style="color: blue;">“It is simply to do with the fact that she was a couple of months shy of her 13th birthday that Mr Hulin finds himself subject to the law at all</span></em>.”</div>
<div abp="676">
</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="679" href="http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/NEWS/11238849.No_sex_offenders__treatment_programme_for_Adam_Hulin/" target="_blank">No Sex Offenders treatment programme for Adam Hulin</a></div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
"<em abp="791"><span abp="792" style="color: blue;">Convicted oral child rapist Adam Hulin will not take part in any sex offenders’ treatment programme it has emerged - even though sentencing guidelines say this should happen when a judge decides not to impose a jail term. </span></em><em abp="793"><span abp="794" style="color: blue;">Hulin, 19, of Hookwood Cottages, in Hurst Lane, Headley, was given 100 hours of community service, a £60 victim surcharge and the requirement to attend six community reintegration sessions after pleading guilty to oral rape and sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl in Bookham in December 2012. </span></em><em abp="795"><span abp="796" style="color: blue;">The talented runner was only put on the Sex Offenders' Register for five years after he was sentenced by the judge Recorder George Lawson-Rogers QC at Guildford Crown Court last month. </span></em><em abp="797"><span abp="798" style="color: blue;">Last week, the Solicitor General Oliver Heald QC MP decided that the sentence handed to Hulin would not be reviewed - despite calls from the victim’s family and others who believed it was unduly lenient.</span></em>"</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
You seriously couldn't make this up. </div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
Knew she was about 12 by the fact he asked her what year she was in (year 7 = first year at secondary school). Yet somehow the judge was seemingly duped into believing that he believed she was 16! How does that work? There is more than a little difference between a 12 year old child & a 16 year old teenager - surely no-one could ever fall for that? Maybe a 14 or 15 year old, but a 12 year old? </div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
And what of the comments made by Barrister Richard McConaghy? </div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
<span abp="799" style="color: black;"><em abp="800">"This incident took place in December 2012 and the complainant in this matter turned 13 in February 2013. If this incident had taken place three months later then, because of the matter for which Mr Hulin is now being sentenced, he would have had a complete defence of law. <span abp="801">“It is simply to do with the fact that she was a couple of months shy of her 13th birthday that Mr Hulin finds himself subject to the law at all</span>.”</em></span></div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
<em abp="802"></em> </div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
Am I missing something blindingly obvious here, or am I being incredibly stupid in assuming that by Law, the age of consent in the UK is 16, not 13? Children of 12 / 13 cannot consent. New guidelines published this year, as explained <a abp="804" href="http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/media/974.htm" target="_blank">here </a>include the following excert:</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
"<span style="color: blue;"><em>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</em></span>" So again, what is this Barrister going on about?</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="677" style="text-align: left;">
Unfortunately, appeals to the AG as Unduly lenient (yes I did appeal this case) where the AG decides not to review, cannot be re-appealed. It seems then, that for this "talented athlete" (not that this has anything to do with these offences), for sexually assaulting and orally raping a 12 year old child after plying her with vodka, a sentence of 100 hours community service, a £60 victim surcharge and 6 community reintegration sessions (which are NOT designed for sexual offences) is an appropriate sentence! Believe it or not. British Justice at its best again.</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-6959679131799486442014-05-24T14:10:00.004-07:002014-05-24T14:10:27.226-07:00Third Time Lucky for "GPS Monitoring" of Sex Offenders?<div abp="183" align="center">
<div abp="1501">
<a abp="185" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sex-offenders-face-compulsory-lie-3599987" target="_blank"><span abp="1503" style="font-family: inherit;">Sex offenders to face compulsory lie detector tests to stop them breaching parole</span></a><span abp="1509" style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="183" align="center">
<div abp="1511">
<span abp="1512" style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="183" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1514">
<span abp="1515"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"<em abp="422"><span abp="423" style="color: blue;">Sex offenders could be forced to take lie detector tests when they are freed from jail to prove they pose no risk.</span></em></span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="424">
<div abp="1519">
<em abp="425"><span abp="426" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;">Probation officers have begun rigorous training to become lie detector examiners, under new plans by the Ministry of Justice.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="427">
<div abp="1523">
<em abp="428"><span abp="429" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;">Around 1,000 serious offenders released into the community will be put under stringent tests to ensure they are sticking to their licence conditions.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="430">
<div abp="1527">
<em abp="431"><span abp="432" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;">Justice Minister Jeremy Wright claims the move will give Britain one of the world's toughest approaches to Freed sex offenders.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="433">
<div abp="1531">
<span abp="1532"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><em abp="434"><span abp="435" style="color: blue;">The compulsory lie detector tests are the latest idea to tighten up controls on sex offenders, which will also see their every movement tracked by satellite tags, when the technology is available, the Ministry of Justice said.</span></em>"</span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="436">
<div abp="1536">
<span abp="1537" style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="437">
<div abp="1539">
<span abp="1540" style="font-family: inherit;">Hang on, haven't we been here before?</span><span abp="1543" style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="439">
<div abp="1545">
<span abp="1546" style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="440" align="center">
<div abp="1548">
<a abp="442" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221331/Paedophiles-forced-wear-GPS-tags-track-movements-release-prison.html" target="_blank"><span abp="1550" style="font-family: inherit;">Paedophiles will be forced to wear GPS tags to track their movements after release from prison, says Justice minister</span></a><span abp="1553" style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="440" align="center">
<div abp="1555">
<span abp="1556" style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="440" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1558">
<span abp="1559"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"<span abp="286" style="color: blue;"><em abp="1561">Convicted child abusers will be forced to wear tracking devices upon their release, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has promised.</em></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="287">
<div abp="1563">
<span abp="288" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;"><em abp="1565">Paedophiles will be equipped with GPS ankle tags so police can track their whereabouts after they have served their prison sentence.</em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="289">
<span abp="290"><span abp="1568"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><em abp="1569"><span abp="1570" style="color: blue;">The new scheme will be rolled out across Britain early next year, the Ministry of Justice confirmed today</span></em>." (ie Spring 2013.... hmmm what happened then?)</span></span></span></div>
<div abp="289">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div abp="289">
<span abp="1574" style="font-family: inherit;">These ideas are well behind the times of course, as this news item from 2003 shows - </span></div>
<div abp="289">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="1579" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/02_february/25/newsnight.shtml" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Home Office considers tracking sex offenders</span></a></div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"<span abp="1815" style="color: blue;"><em abp="1816"><span abp="1817">The Home Office is considering using tracking technology to monitor sex offenders, BBC Newsnight has learnt. </span><span abp="1818">As public pressure mounts on the Government to find new ways of dealing with child abusers, a report for the programme revealed that ministers are considering the possibility of using technology to electronically track convicted child abusers every minute of the day. </span></em></span></span></div>
<div abp="1819">
<span abp="1820" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;"><em abp="1821">Newsnight gained exclusive access to one of a number of satellite tracking systems being considered by the Home Office Electronic Monitoring Unit, which could follow paedophiles wherever they go.</em></span></div>
<div abp="1822">
<span abp="1823" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;"><em abp="1824"> The Sky Guardian system is the culmination of years of work by Shy Keenan, a victim of child sex abuse. </em></span></div>
<div abp="1825">
<span abp="1826" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;"><em abp="1827">Speaking to the programme she said: "I spoke to one of the child molesters. I asked him straight, 'what kind of treatment would stop you?', and his response to me was, 'I like molesting children, it's great. I love doing it. The only thing that would actually stop me would be if you cellotaped a policeman and a probation officer to my arse'.</em></span></div>
<div abp="1828">
<span abp="1829" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;"><em abp="1830">"And as blunt and straight as that was, it sat with me for ages." </em></span></div>
<div abp="1831">
<span abp="1832" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;"><em abp="1833">The Sky Guardian system Keenan created with Clive Crosby and the satellite tracking company Tracker involves a tag attached to the offender's ankle and a mobile phone that alarms if he fails to carry it with him. </em></span></div>
<div abp="1834">
<span abp="1835" style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;"><em abp="1836">He can be tracked 24 hours a day via a computer at a monitoring centre and certain areas like schools or playgrounds can be 'geo-fenced'. </em></span></div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span abp="1837"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span abp="1838" style="color: blue;"><em abp="1839">If the offender approaches these areas he can be contacted directly by a probation or police office on an automatic voice channel on the phone.</em></span>" </span></span></div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span abp="1837" style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span abp="1837" style="font-family: inherit;">and this one from 2006</span></div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="1842" href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/home-office-reconsiders-megan-s-law-children-safety-minister-meets-victim-s-mother-over-adoption-of-controversial-us-law-1.15900" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">a 24-hour, state-of-the-art surveillance tagging system for paedophiles.</span></a></div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"<em><span style="color: blue;">According to Keenan, who has developed the satellite tracking system with firm Sky Guardian, the Home Office is enthusiastic about conducting trials for the scheme. Under the system - dubbed SG-Rom (Sky Guardian Remote Offender Management) - paedophiles would wear an almost indestructible bracelet and be given a mobile phone fitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) technology so police can constantly track the offender and pinpoint their exact location in the UK.</span></em></span></div>
<div abp="348">
<em><span style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;"> On the phone there is a "panic button" which offenders can press, linking them to trained counsellors if they are feeling vulnerable or believe they are in danger of re-offending.</span></em></div>
<div abp="349">
<em><span style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;"> If there are concerns about an offender's whereabouts, they can also be contacted via the mobile phone.</span></em></div>
<div abp="350">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><em><span style="color: blue;"> The location of schools can be "geo-fenced", meaning that an alert would be sent to the police if an offender approached. Police would be called immediately if the mobile phone and tag were separated."</span></em></span></div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span abp="1844" style="font-family: inherit;">Personally, I prefer the GPS device in the last two articles -"Phoenix R.O.M. as it was known (Remote Offender Management). Not only the device itself, but the added extra's such as a "talk-down" option, the alerts & mobile devices. </span></div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span abp="1844" style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span abp="1844" style="font-family: inherit;">Why was this not taken seriously & implemented by the Government at the time, between 2002 and 2006, it really should have been!!</span></div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Will it be third time lucky? </span></div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div abp="289" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Will the MoJ include, as part of this, the options that Phoenix ROM had?</span></div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-30428819442654417312014-05-11T13:01:00.001-07:002014-05-11T13:01:14.866-07:00AVP and Rape<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1491">
<a abp="168" href="http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-ministry-of-justice-extend-the-definition-of-rape-to-include-female-offenders" target="_blank">Extend the definition of rape to include female offenders</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1494">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1496">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1498">
"<em abp="568"><span abp="569" style="color: blue;">Currently as it stands the legal definition for rape is:</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="570">
<div abp="1502">
<em abp="571"><span abp="572" style="color: blue;"></span></em> </div>
</div>
<div abp="573">
<div abp="1506">
<em abp="574"><span abp="575" style="color: blue;"><a abp="577" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents" target="_blank">The Sexual Offences Act 2003</a> defines rape in its first section, which reads:</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="579">
<div abp="1511">
<em abp="580"><span abp="581" style="color: blue;">“(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— </span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="582">
<div abp="1515">
<em abp="583"><span abp="584" style="color: blue;">(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, </span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="585">
<div abp="1519">
<em abp="586"><span abp="587" style="color: blue;">(b) B does not consent to the penetration.."</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1523">
<em abp="589"><span abp="590" style="color: blue;">The current definition means that sex without consent does not always constitute rape. When a woman forces another person into sex she is not charged with rape which goes against rape crisis campaigns which state "no consent is rape".</span></em>"</div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1527">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1529">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1531">
The above link is a newly created petition created by "Smash Devon" - please sign and share.</div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1533">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1535">
There seem to be many similar, but at the same time, different meanings to the term "rape", depending where you look up the meaning of the word. A couple of examples are below:</div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1537">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1539">
<a abp="701" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape" target="_blank">Dictionary.Reference.com</a> states "<span abp="703" id="hotword"><span abp="704" class="hwc onclk" id="hotword" name="hotword">the</span> <span abp="705" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">unlawful</span> <span abp="706" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">compelling</span> <span abp="707" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">of</span> <span abp="708" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">a</span> <span abp="709" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">person</span> <span abp="710" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">through</span> <span abp="711" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">physical force</span></span><span abp="712" id="hotword"> <span abp="713" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">or</span> <span abp="714" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">duress</span> <span abp="715" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">to</span> <span abp="716" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">have</span> <span abp="717" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">sexual</span> <span abp="718" class="hwc" id="hotword" name="hotword">intercourse." </span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1558">
<span abp="712"><span abp="718" class="hwc" name="hotword"><a abp="775" href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rape" target="_blank">Oxford Dictionary</a> refers to rape as "A<span abp="830" class="definition"> crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will".</span></span></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1569">
<span abp="712"><span abp="718" class="hwc" name="hotword"><span abp="438" class="definition"></span></span></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1574">
<span abp="712"><span abp="718" class="hwc" name="hotword"><span abp="438" class="definition">So, AVP, where does this come in?</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1579">
<span abp="712"><span abp="718" class="hwc" name="hotword"><span abp="438" class="definition"></span></span></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1584">
<span abp="712"><span abp="718" class="hwc" name="hotword"><span abp="832" class="definition">In UK Law, as defined by the SoA 2003 as stated above, is gender specific, ie "<span abp="833" style="color: blue;"><u abp="834">he</u> </span><span abp="835" style="color: black;">intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with
his penis</span>" Under UK Law therefore, only a male can commit the offence of rape on either gender. If a female commits the offense of forcing another person into sex, it is either defined by law as <a abp="837" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/2" target="_blank">Assault by penetration</a> (even though, again, the SoA 2003 starts their definition with <span abp="893" style="color: blue;"><u abp="894">He</u><span abp="895" style="color: black;">), or <a abp="897" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/4" target="_blank">Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent</a> (again with the <u abp="952"><span abp="953" style="color: blue;">He</span></u>). By having separate distinction between genders, and by having legislation named as this, it minimises the offense committed by a female from Rape to a more general type of "Sexual Assault". </span></span></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1599">
<span abp="712"><span abp="718" class="hwc" name="hotword"><span abp="832" class="definition"></span></span></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="588">
<div abp="1604">
<span abp="712"><span abp="718" class="hwc" name="hotword"><span abp="839" class="definition"><a abp="1124" href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/soa_2003_and_soa_1956/#a11" target="_blank">CPS Guidelines</a> have both offenses ("Rape" and "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent", which as stated in this link is "a female equivalent of the offence of rape") as <a abp="1181" href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sending_indictable_only_cases_to_the_crown_court/" target="_blank">Indictable Only</a> offenses, both which carry a maximum of Life Imprisonment, so why the difference in the naming of the offence?</span></span></span></div>
<div abp="1610">
</div>
<div abp="1611">
Having the crime of rape described in this way, (ie can only be committed by a male), is prejudicial to any victim that has been raped by a female perpetrator. Having the crime that has been committed against them lumped together with any other type of "sexual assault" minimises the seriousness of the crime and this needs to change.</div>
<div abp="1612">
</div>
<div abp="1613">
If both the type of offense is the same (indictable only), and the punishment for offenders supposedly being the same (maximum of life), where is the issue with having the one offense of rape which covers both genders of offender?</div>
<div abp="1614">
</div>
<div abp="1615">
Having a quick search online, brought up <a abp="1617" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-expands-definition-of-rape-to-include-other-forms-of-sexual-assault/2012/01/06/gIQAbM7CfP_story.html" target="_blank">this story from 2012</a> from the USA, which includes "<span style="color: blue;">a significant expansion of the FBI’s definition of rape, which will now cover several forms of sexual assault and include male rape.</span>", which shows that this can be done.</div>
<div abp="1615">
</div>
<div abp="1615">
Rape is rape, rape should legally mean one person (no matter what gender) forcing another person (no matter what gender) into sex. The end result is the same for victims - no difference - so the crime should be the same. Until it is, victims of female rapists will always have the crime committed against them trivialised and society will always view this as a lesser crime.</div>
<div abp="1615">
</div>
<div abp="1615">
And, if you haven't yet, please sign the petition at the top.</div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-49044366190230260582014-04-30T02:41:00.002-07:002014-04-30T02:41:44.171-07:00Child Prostitutes - Rotherham MP in fight to change the law<div abp="551" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="552" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fdj5lS9UPsg/U2C7yIzLMwI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/BFBTLr3L4RE/s1600/Sarah+C.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="553" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fdj5lS9UPsg/U2C7yIzLMwI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/BFBTLr3L4RE/s1600/Sarah+C.png" /></a></div>
<div abp="551" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Sarah Champion MP</div>
<div abp="184" align="center">
</div>
<div abp="184" align="center">
<a abp="186" href="http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/rotherham-mp-in-fight-to-change-the-law-1-6587882" target="_blank">Rotherham MP in fight to change the law</a></div>
<div abp="184" align="center">
</div>
<div abp="184" style="text-align: left;">
"<em abp="385"><span abp="386" style="color: blue;">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.</span></em></div>
<div abp="387">
<em abp="388"><span abp="389" style="color: blue;">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. </span></em></div>
<div abp="390">
<em abp="391"><span abp="392" style="color: blue;">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.</span></em></div>
<div abp="393">
<em abp="394"><span abp="395" style="color: blue;">Speaking in the House of Commons, Ms Champion urged ministers to take action and to remove archaic references to ‘child prostitutes’ from British law.</span></em></div>
<div abp="396">
<em abp="397"><span abp="398" style="color: blue;">“There are currently 16 pieces of legislation that use the term ‘child prostitute’,” the Labour MP said. </span></em></div>
<div abp="399">
<em abp="400"><span abp="401" style="color: blue;">“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.”</span></em></div>
<div abp="402">
<em abp="403"><span abp="404" style="color: blue;">Home Affairs Minister Norman Baker said he was ‘very sympathetic’ to proposals recommended in the Barnardo’s report published last month.</span></em></div>
<div abp="405">
<em abp="406"><span abp="407" style="color: blue;">He praised Ms Champion’s work and said he will consider how best to alter existing legislation. </span></em></div>
<div abp="408">
<em abp="409"><span abp="410" style="color: blue;">“I am very sympathetic to that suggestion,” he said. </span></em></div>
<div abp="411">
<em abp="412"><span abp="413" style="color: blue;">“Children who are sexually exploited, whether for commercial or other reasons, should not be referred to as prostitutes. They are victims.</span></em></div>
<div abp="414">
<em abp="415"><span abp="416" style="color: blue;">“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.”</span></em>"</div>
<div abp="414">
</div>
<div abp="414">
Fantastic news!</div>
<div abp="414">
</div>
<div abp="414">
Regular readers will know that amongst other things, I have highlighted some of the appalling language both used in the <a abp="610" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2014/01/2014-new-year-new-attitude-and-new.html" target="_blank">media</a> and in <a abp="666" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2014/03/avp-and-legislation.html" target="_blank">UK Legislation</a> 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.</div>
<div abp="414">
</div>
<div abp="414">
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.</div>
<div abp="414">
</div>
<div abp="414">
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.</div>
<div abp="414">
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-79224184533495034542014-04-24T03:59:00.001-07:002014-05-11T13:38:01.493-07:00This Legistation is an Utter Ass & Needs Changing.<div abp="420" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="421" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--hypsqMvIYA/U1jhTB3PpLI/AAAAAAAAAQk/Qb4nXZ0MrlM/s1600/Dorset.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="422" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--hypsqMvIYA/U1jhTB3PpLI/AAAAAAAAAQk/Qb4nXZ0MrlM/s1600/Dorset.jpg" height="215" width="320" /></a></div>
<div abp="250" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="489">
<div abp="1025">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="250" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="491">
<div abp="1028">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="250" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="493">
<div abp="1031">
<strong abp="251">11 April 2014</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1425" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="496">
<div abp="1035">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1425" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="498">
<div abp="1038">
<a abp="1427" href="http://news.sky.com/story/1240830/anger-as-paedophile-demands-victim-photos" target="_blank">Anger As Paedophile Demands Victim Photos</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1425" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="501">
<div abp="1042">
<strong abp="502"></strong> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1425" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="504">
<div abp="1046">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1425" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="506">
<div abp="1049">
"<em abp="252"><span abp="253" style="color: blue;">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.</span></em></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="254">
<div abp="510">
<div abp="1054">
<em abp="255"><span abp="256" style="color: blue;"> 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.</span></em></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="257">
<div abp="514">
<div abp="1059">
<em abp="258"><span abp="259" style="color: blue;"> 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.</span></em></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="260">
<div abp="518">
<div abp="1064">
<em abp="261"><span abp="262" style="color: blue;"> 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.</span></em></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="263">
<div abp="522">
<div abp="1069">
<em abp="264"><span abp="265" style="color: blue;"> 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</span></em>"</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="266">
<div abp="526">
<div abp="1074">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="267">
<div abp="528">
<div abp="1077">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="268" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="530">
<div abp="1080">
<strong abp="269">23 April 2014</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="270" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="533">
<div abp="1084">
<strong abp="271"></strong> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="272" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="536">
<div abp="1088">
<a abp="274" href="http://www.blackmorevale.co.uk/Dorset-paedophile-lose-images-abuse-victim-police/story-21000522-detail/story.html" target="_blank">Dorset paedophile to lose images of abuse victim after police U-turn</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="276" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="539">
<div abp="1092">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="276" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="541">
<div abp="1095">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="276" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="543">
<div abp="1098">
"<em abp="295"><span abp="296" style="color: blue;">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. </span></em><em abp="297"><span abp="298" style="color: blue;">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.</span></em></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="299">
<div abp="549">
<div abp="1105">
<em abp="300"><span abp="301" style="color: blue;">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</span></em>"</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="302">
<div abp="553">
<div abp="1110">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="303">
<div abp="555">
<div abp="1113">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="304">
<div abp="557">
<div abp="1116">
Good news you may think, and in this case, a resounding YES.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="305">
<div abp="559">
<div abp="1119">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="561">
<div abp="1122">
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). </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="563">
<div abp="1125">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="565">
<div abp="1128">
Staggering isn't it? </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="567">
<div abp="1131">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="569">
<div abp="1134">
The (in)human rights of the offender yet again outweighs the rights of the victim.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="571">
<div abp="1137">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="573">
<div abp="1140">
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". </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="578">
<div abp="1143">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="580">
<div abp="1146">
Should victims have to simply acknowledge legislation as it stands and put up with it?</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="582">
<div abp="1149">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="584">
<div abp="1152">
No, of course not. Legislation as it stands is wrong. Sex offenders and paedophiles should <u abp="585">not</u> be allowed to keep images/films of their victims.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="587">
<div abp="1156">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="589">
<div abp="1159">
And this is where YOU come in.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="591">
<div abp="1162">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="593">
<div abp="1165">
Martyn Underhill, Dorset's Police & Crime Commissioner has started a petition to get this legislation changed.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="595">
<div abp="1168">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="597">
<div abp="1171">
Please click <a abp="495" href="http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/63590" target="_blank"><span abp="599" style="color: red; font-size: large;"><strong abp="600">Here</strong></span></a> to add your name to this petition to stop sex offenders retaining photo's of their victims. </div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="602">
<div abp="1177">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="604">
<div abp="1180">
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!</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="606">
<div abp="1183">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="608">
<div abp="1186">
Imagine if your child was a victim of a paedophile.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="610">
<div abp="1189">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="612">
<div abp="1192">
Imagine if the offender had photographs or films of your child on their computer.</div>
</div>
<div abp="612">
<div abp="1194">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="306">
<div abp="616">
<div abp="1197">
Would YOU be happy for them to legally keep these photographs.........?</div>
<div abp="1197">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="616">
<div abp="1199">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="616">
<div abp="1201">
<span style="color: red;">***** Small update from Jersey - please see below reply from the relevant authorities here:</span><span style="color: red;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="616">
<div abp="1205">
<span style="color: red;">"<span abp="1206" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">In any proceedings locally the court will make an order for destruction of devices containing Indecent Images of Children (IIOC) OR relevant material. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="1207" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1208">
<span abp="1209" style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">We would ensure that in these circumstances, as you set out below, the court were asked to make a complete destruction order. </span><span abp="1214" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"><span style="color: red;">Any image of a victim we would argue is ‘relevant’." </span></span></div>
<div abp="1208">
<span abp="1214" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";"><span style="color: red;">Good news here then! <span abp="1215"><strong>******</strong></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<span abp="1216" style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">
</span><div abp="1217">
<br /></div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-79665216325164385812014-04-22T14:53:00.001-07:002014-04-22T14:54:34.752-07:00Judge Bowers - Conclusion.<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1007">
<a abp="168" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/10/avp-and-judge-peter-bowers-again-and.html" target="_blank">AVP and Judge Peter Bowers. Again. And Again.</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" align="left" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1010">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1012">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1014">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1016">
<span abp="599" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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.</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1019">
<span abp="1020" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1022">
<span abp="1023" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To recall, this is from the article in the Northern Echo at the time - </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1025">
<span abp="1026" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1028">
<span abp="600"><span abp="601" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"<em abp="602"><span abp="603" style="color: blue;">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. </span></em></span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="424">
<div abp="1034">
<em abp="425"><span abp="426" style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 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. </span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="427">
<div abp="1038">
<em abp="428"><span abp="429" style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 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. </span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="430" class="mpu" id="DFP_in_article_mpu" style="display: none;">
<div abp="431" id="google_ads_iframe_/154725070/www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news_8__container__" style="border: 0pt currentColor;">
<div abp="1043">
<iframe abp="432" frameborder="0" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/154725070/www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news_8" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="google_ads_iframe_/154725070/www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news_8" scrolling="no" src="javascript:"<html><body style='background:transparent'></body></html>"" style="border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom;" width="300">&amp;lt;em abp="433"&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color="#0000ff" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" abp="434"&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;</iframe><br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div abp="435">
<div abp="1046">
<em abp="436"><span abp="437" style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> 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. </span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="438">
<div abp="1050">
<span abp="604"><span abp="605" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em abp="606"><span abp="607" style="color: blue;">“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.”</span></em>"</span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="441">
<div abp="1056">
<span abp="608" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="442">
<div abp="1059">
<span abp="609" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As well as appealing this sentence as "</span><a abp="444" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/06/unduly-lenient-sentences-in-uk.html" target="_blank"><span abp="610" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Unduly Lenient</span></a><span abp="611" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">" (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.</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="442">
<div abp="1065">
<span abp="612" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="442">
<div abp="1068">
<span abp="613" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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 "</span><a abp="502" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/07/media-avp-anti-victim-prejudice-6.html" target="_blank"><span abp="614" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Historic</span></a><span abp="615" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">" it was less important & it didn't matter as much?</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="442">
<div abp="1074">
<span abp="616" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="442">
<div abp="1077">
<span abp="1078" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anyway, I have two updates on this, as below.</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="442">
<div abp="1080">
<span abp="1081" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="442">
<div abp="1083">
<span abp="1084" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Firstly the "unduly lenient" appeal</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="442">
<div abp="1086">
<span abp="1087" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="442">
<div abp="1089">
<span abp="617" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"<span abp="618" style="color: blue;"><span abp="619" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><em abp="620">After careful consideration the Solicitor General decided not to refer the sentence imposed on Gary Flynn to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. </em></span><span abp="621" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><em abp="622">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</em></span></span>"</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="623" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1097">
<span abp="624" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="625" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1100">
<span abp="626" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Not sure I really agree with this, but the decision is final following an appeal, so not a lot can be done.</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="627" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1103">
<span abp="628" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="629" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1106">
<span abp="630" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Secondly the language used by Judge Bowers. I received a response from JCIO (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office), which indicates the following - </span></div>
</div>
<div abp="631" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1109">
<span abp="632" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="633">
<div abp="1112">
<span abp="634" style="color: red; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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.</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="635">
<div abp="1115">
<span abp="636" style="color: red; font-family: Arial;"></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="637">
<div abp="1118">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1119">
<span abp="638" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"></span><div abp="637">
<div abp="1122">
<span abp="638" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">As I said in <a abp="640" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2014/03/avp-judiciary-update.html" target="_blank">This posting,</a> If you have any complaints against the conduct of the judiciary, including language like this, you also can complain to <a abp="152" href="http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/" target="_blank"><span abp="1126" style="color: #3778cd;">The Judicial Conduct's Office</span></a> by letter or e-mail - and you don't have to be directly involved in the individual cases. </span></div>
</div>
<span abp="638" style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">
<div abp="153" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="154" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Anyone can make a difference. You included.</div>
</span><div abp="1130">
<br /></div>
<div abp="637">
<div abp="1132">
</div>
</div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-4906026737420216002014-04-09T13:40:00.002-07:002014-04-09T13:40:52.440-07:00Male vs Female Paedophiles Round 2<div abp="326" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="408" href="http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/19/loren-morris-mother-jailed-for-having-sex-with-eight-year-old-boy-4650947/" target="_blank">Mother jailed for having sex with eight-year-old boy more than 50 times</a></div>
<div abp="326" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="326" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="327" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cQK2Yd9Bqh0/U0WsB63HgoI/AAAAAAAAAQU/qSkH5cIIqu8/s1600/Loren.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="328" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cQK2Yd9Bqh0/U0WsB63HgoI/AAAAAAAAAQU/qSkH5cIIqu8/s1600/Loren.png" /></a></div>
<div abp="410">
<div abp="1007">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="411">
<div abp="1009">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166">
<div abp="1011">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166">
<div abp="1013">
"<strong abp="154"><em abp="1015"><span abp="1016" style="color: blue;">A mother of one has been jailed for having sex with an eight-year-old boy more than 50 times.</span></em></strong></div>
</div>
<div abp="155">
<div abp="1018">
<em abp="1019"><span abp="1020" style="color: blue;">Loren Morris, 21, slept with the boy for about two years starting when she was 16, a court heard.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="156">
<div abp="1022">
<em abp="1023"><span abp="1024" style="color: blue;">She was charged after the boy, now 14, was overheard bragging to classmates he had slept with her.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="157">
<div abp="1026">
<em abp="1027"><span abp="1028" style="color: blue;">Antoine Mullers, defending, said Morris, of Lyde, Herefordshire, stopped having sex with him when she realised it was ‘wrong’.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="158">
<div abp="1030">
<em abp="1031"><span abp="1032" style="color: blue;">Judge Robert Juckes QC added</span></em><em abp="1036"><span abp="1037" style="color: blue;">: ‘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.’</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="160">
<div abp="1039">
<em abp="1040"><span abp="1041" style="color: blue;">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.</span></em></div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1043">
<em abp="1044"><span abp="1045" style="color: blue;">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</span></em>"</div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1047">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1049">
Following my post last year here <a abp="168" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/08/media-avp-again-male-female-paedophiles.html" target="_blank">AVP - Male vs Female Paedophiles</a>, 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.</div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1052">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1054">
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.</div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1056">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1058">
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?</div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1060">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1062">
I'll show you - </div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1064">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="1066">
"<span abp="1067" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><em abp="1068"><span abp="1069" style="color: red;">Thank you for your email below regarding the sentence passed on Loren Morris. </span></em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="1070" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1071">
<span abp="1072" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><em abp="1073"><span abp="1074" style="color: red;"> </span></em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="1075" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1076">
<span abp="1077" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><em abp="1078"><span abp="1079" style="color: red;">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. </span></em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="1080" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1081">
<span abp="1082" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><em abp="1083"><span abp="1084" style="color: red;"> </span></em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="1085" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1086">
<span abp="1087" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><em abp="1088"><span abp="1089" style="color: red;">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</span></em>"</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="1090" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1091">
<span abp="1092" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="1093" style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="1094" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1095">
<span abp="1096" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="1097" style="font-family: Times New Roman;">As I said at the beginning, another classic example of how female paedophiles are treated far more leniently than male ones.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="1098" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1099">
<span abp="1100" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="1101" style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="1102" class="ecxMsoNormal">
<div abp="1103">
<span abp="1104" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><span abp="1105" style="font-family: Times New Roman;">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.</span></span></div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-14118354399583906782014-04-07T14:53:00.003-07:002014-04-07T14:53:29.004-07:00C/O "Jersey Evening Propaganda" - "Seeking the Truth On Abuse"<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1030">
<a abp="168" href="http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2014/04/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-victims-want.html" target="_blank">"Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry - Victims Want To Ask Their Own Questions" </a></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1033">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1035">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1037">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1039">
From the JEP Screenshots in the above blog:</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1041">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1043">
"<strong abp="276"><span abp="1045" style="font-size: large;">Seeking the Truth on Abuse</span></strong>"</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="1047">
<strong abp="1372"><span abp="1373" style="color: red;"> </span></strong></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1049">
<strong abp="1374"><span abp="1375" style="color: red;"><span abp="560">1)</span> "The Skull Fragment that turned out to be a piece of coconut" (plus picture)</span></strong></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1053">
Really?</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1055">
Yet, from Team Voice ( <a abp="278" href="http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2010/03/jar6.html" target="_blank">Jar/6 Voice For Protest</a> ) we have the following e-mail exchanges:</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1058">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1060">
"<strong abp="333"><span abp="334" style="color: blue; font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"><em abp="562">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.<br abp="563" />“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.” <br abp="564" />“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.”</em></span></strong></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1067">
<strong abp="333"><span abp="334" style="color: blue; font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"><em abp="1070">“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.”<br abp="342" />“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”<br abp="344" />“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.”"</em></span></strong></div>
</div>
<div abp="345">
<div abp="1074">
<strong abp="346"><span abp="347" style="color: blue; font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"><em abp="565"></em></span></strong> </div>
</div>
<div abp="348">
<div abp="1079">
<span abp="349" style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;">and</span></div>
</div>
<div abp="350">
<div abp="1082">
<span abp="351" style="color: blue; font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"><em abp="566"></em></span> </div>
</div>
<div abp="352">
<div abp="1086">
<span abp="353" style="font-family: Verdana;"><span abp="354" style="font-size: x-small;"><span abp="567" style="color: blue;"><em abp="568">"<strong abp="569">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</strong> </em></span><strong abp="356"><span abp="570" style="color: blue;"><em abp="571">coconut husk.’</em></span>"</strong></span></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1096">
<br /></div>
<div abp="1097">
<strong abp="1377"><span abp="1378" style="color: red;"><span abp="573">2)</span> "Public Funds has been misspent on expensive meals, accommodation and first class travel"</span></strong></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1101">
Really?</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1103">
Again, from Team Voice ( <a abp="359" href="http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/01/entirely-accurate-2.html" target="_blank">"Entirely Accurate"</a> ) we have the following e-mail sent from former DCO Lenny Harper - </div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1106">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1108">
"<strong abp="574"><em abp="575"><span abp="576" style="color: blue;">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.<br abp="577" />· 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.</span></em></strong></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1114">
<strong abp="578"><em abp="579"><span abp="580" style="color: blue;">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.<br abp="581" />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?</span>"</em></strong></div>
<div abp="1119">
<br /></div>
<div abp="1120">
<em abp="584"></em><strong abp="1380"><span abp="586" style="color: red;">3)</span><span abp="1382" style="color: red;"> "It also emerged that the Police costs for the three year investigation had reached £7.5 million"</span></strong></div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1125">
Really?</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1127">
from Rico Sorda blog ( <a abp="588" href="http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2011/11/srutiny-sub-panel-review.html" target="_blank">The Srutiny Sub Panel Review </a>), we see the following</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1130">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="664">
<div abp="1132">
"<span abp="665" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><strong abp="666"><em abp="667"><span abp="668" style="color: blue;">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?</span></em></strong><span abp="669" style="color: black;">"</span></span></div>
<div abp="1132">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="671">
<div abp="1139">
Just a couple of things that jumped out, reading this spin. </div>
<div abp="1139">
Why, especially with the above Scrutiny Sub Panel review from 2011, a COI only just started, and a statement titled "<strong abp="672"><span abp="673" style="color: red;">Seeking the Truth on Abuse</span></strong>"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?</div>
<div abp="1139">
</div>
<div abp="1139">
Answers on a postage stamp.</div>
</div>
<div abp="674">
<div abp="1143">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="675">
<div abp="1145">
Please follow the below excellent blogs to keep updated on Jersey's COI</div>
</div>
<div abp="676">
<div abp="1147">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="677">
<div abp="1149">
<a abp="679" href="http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Rico Sorda</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="677">
<div abp="1152">
<a abp="736" href="http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Voice for Children</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="677">
<div abp="1155">
<a abp="792" href="http://thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">The Bald Truth</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="677">
<div abp="1158">
<a abp="848" href="http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Tony's Musings</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="677">
<div abp="1161">
<a abp="904" href="http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Former Deputy Bob Hill</a></div>
<div abp="1161">
<a abp="1384" href="http://tomgruchy.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Tom Gruchy</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="677">
<div abp="1164">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="677">
<div abp="1166">
<br /></div>
<div abp="1167">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1168">
<em abp="594"></em><br /></div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1171">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="166" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="1173">
</div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-37345680056519661672014-03-31T15:01:00.000-07:002014-03-31T15:01:52.484-07:00Spared Jail for rape of a three year old, and a petition.<div abp="1042" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="1044" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/du-pont-heir-robert-richards-iv-spared-jail-raping-three-year-old-daughter-1442727" target="_blank">Du Pont Heir Robert Richards IV Spared Jail for Raping Three-Year-Old Daughter</a></div>
<div abp="1042" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="428" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="429" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JPxSQlDjGxM/UznlHw4RRrI/AAAAAAAAAPc/beuXOuW8aI8/s1600/Jan.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="430" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JPxSQlDjGxM/UznlHw4RRrI/AAAAAAAAAPc/beuXOuW8aI8/s1600/Jan.png" /></a></div>
<div abp="1042" align="center" style="text-align: center;">
Judge J Jurden</div>
<div abp="1042" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="1042" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="1042" style="text-align: left;">
<em abp="250"><span abp="251" style="color: blue;">"A multimillionaire who pleaded guilty to raping his three-year-old daughter has been spared jail after a judge in Delaware ruled he would "not fare well" in prison.</span></em></div>
<div abp="252">
<em abp="253"><span abp="254" style="color: blue;">Robert H Richards IV, heir to the du Pont chemical business, was given eight years' probation and ordered to seek treatment after he admitted to raping his three-year-old daughter in 2009.</span></em></div>
<div abp="255">
<em abp="256"><span abp="257" style="color: blue;">Judge Jan Jurden ruled that Richards, 46, should not be handed a custodial sentence as he would "not fare well in Level 5 [prison] setting".</span></em></div>
<div abp="258">
<em abp="259"><span abp="260" style="color: blue;">Details about the sentence only emerged after the defendant's former wife, Tracy, filed a lawsuit against him seeking compensation and punitive damages over the abuse of their daughter and his son.</span></em></div>
<div abp="261">
<em abp="262"><span abp="263" style="color: blue;">According to the lawsuit, Richards admitted to assaulting his son and daughter between 2005 and 2007. Richards was originally charged with two counts of second-degree child rape, which carry a 10-year minimum sentence.</span></em></div>
<div abp="264">
<em abp="265"><span abp="266" style="color: blue;">Richards hired one of Delaware's top defence lawyers, Eugene Maure, who won a plea bargain.</span></em></div>
<div abp="267">
<em abp="268"><span abp="269" style="color: blue;">Richards avoided a jail term after admitting one count of fourth-degree rape – a lesser charge which carries no mandatory minimum jail term.</span></em></div>
<div abp="270">
<em abp="271"><span abp="272" style="color: blue;">Delaware public defender Brendan O'Neill,</span></em><a abp="273" href="http://www.freep.com/article/20140330/NEWS07/303300113/Du-Pont-heir-s-sentence-for-raping-daughter-3-raises-questions" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><em abp="274"><span abp="275" style="color: blue;"> told the Detroit Press</span></em></a><em abp="276"><span abp="277" style="color: blue;">: "It's an extremely rare circumstance that prison serves the inmate well.</span></em></div>
<div abp="278">
<em abp="279"><span abp="280" style="color: blue;">"Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn't proven to be true in most circumstances."</span></em></div>
<div abp="281">
<em abp="282"><span abp="283" style="color: blue;">O'Neil added the sentence "raised questions" about the treatment of wealthy people by the justice system."</span></em></div>
<div abp="284">
<em abp="285"><span abp="286" style="color: blue;"></span></em> </div>
<div abp="287">
<em abp="288"><span abp="289" style="color: blue;"></span></em> </div>
<div abp="290">
<span abp="291" style="color: blue;"><span abp="292" style="color: black;">I won't insult you by going through the injustice and appalling sentence this is.</span></span></div>
<div abp="293">
<span abp="294" style="color: blue;"></span> </div>
<div abp="295">
<span abp="296" style="color: blue;"><span abp="297" style="color: black;">As this is in a US Court, there are no schemes as far as I am aware for appealing this ULS as there is in the UK.</span></span></div>
<div abp="298">
</div>
<div abp="299">
However, there is a petition to fire the Judge, Jan Jurden, for this disgusting decision. You have the power. Sign this petition, share and RT all you can. This can not and will not be tolerated.</div>
<div abp="300">
</div>
<div abp="301">
Link to petition here <a abp="303" href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/873/572/063/fire-judge-jan-jurden/" target="_blank">Petition to Fire Judge Jan Jurden</a></div>
<div abp="305">
<span abp="306" style="color: blue;"></span> </div>
<div abp="307">
<span abp="308" style="color: blue;"><em abp="309"></em></span></div>
<div abp="1042" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-14193144703075249332014-03-28T16:44:00.001-07:002014-03-28T16:44:16.751-07:00St Petersburg Bans Child Beauty Pageants<div abp="1039" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="450">
<a abp="1041" href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/27/russian-city-bans-child-beauty-pageants" target="_blank">Russian city bans child beauty pageants</a></div>
</div>
<div abp="1039" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="453">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1039" style="text-align: center;">
<div abp="455">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="1039" style="text-align: left;">
<div abp="457">
<span abp="361" style="color: blue;"><em abp="362">"Lawmakers in Russia's second city of Saint Petersburg have passed legislation banning children's beauty pageants as psychologically damaging to their participants.</em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="363">
<div abp="461">
<span abp="364" style="color: blue;"><em abp="365">The legislation was initiated by controversial lawmaker, Vitaly Milonov, who was a prominent backer of a law banning the "propaganda" of gay relationships to minors.</em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="366">
<div abp="465">
<span abp="367" style="color: blue;"><em abp="368">"Taking part in such contests crushes a child's psyche," Milonov said.</em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="369">
<div abp="469">
<span abp="370" style="color: blue;"><em abp="371">"I think people who hold such contests should be kept away from children. I grew up in a normal era and then no one compared children by their outer appearance, like dogs."</em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="372">
<div abp="473">
<span abp="373" style="color: blue;"><em abp="374">He estimated that around 3000 children's beauty pageants are held every year in Russia, with participants aged from four years old.</em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="375">
<div abp="477">
<span abp="376" style="color: blue;"><em abp="377">Some involve "a catwalk show in swimsuits", he complained.</em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="378">
<div abp="481">
<span abp="379" style="color: blue;"><em abp="380">The law says that beauty pageants "could cause harm to the health and/or physical, intellectual, spiritual and moral development of those under 16".</em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="381">
<div abp="485">
<span abp="382" style="color: blue;"><em abp="383">The local law introduces a fine of up to one million rubles ($A30,635) for the organisers of such contests"</em></span></div>
</div>
<div abp="384">
<div abp="489">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="385">
<div abp="491">
Good. Totally relevant points by Milonov. Whilst I am 100% against his more "well known" feelings, and cannot fathom out his hate-filled bigotry that he shows towards the <a abp="387" href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vitaly-milonov-russia-anti-gay-laws-stephen-509621" target="_blank">LGBT community,</a> he is completely right (in my opinion) with his views in this particular article.</div>
</div>
<div abp="385">
<div abp="494">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="385">
<div abp="496">
Children should not grow up thinking that they need to spray fake tan on themselves, plaster makeup on and wear inappropriate clothes to gain attention and better their self esteem.</div>
<div abp="497">
</div>
<div abp="498">
Children are children, not objects being pimped out by "commodiparents" (sorry for stealing this word Shy, but this is such a spot on description) in this manner. </div>
<div abp="499">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="389">
<div abp="501">
Children should be allowed to enjoy their childhood - these days it seems to disappear all too quick as it is. </div>
<div abp="502">
</div>
<div abp="503">
Children should never be "sexploited" and sexualised in <u>any</u> way - and like it or not, this is exactly what these pageants do.</div>
<div abp="503">
</div>
<div abp="503">
Child beauty pageants should be banned totally, not just in St Petersburg. Recently, the French Senate <a abp="507" href="http://www.examiner.com/article/proposed-beauty-pageant-ban-for-girls-under-age-16" target="_blank">voted on to put a ban on beauty pageants for young girls under the age of 16</a>. When will the rest of the world wake up & follow suit?</div>
<div abp="509">
</div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-40369693961206283662014-03-17T16:14:00.003-07:002014-03-17T16:14:22.541-07:00Victim Blaming - Australian Style.<div abp="185" align="center">
<a abp="187" href="http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/sa-judge-says-teens-do-not-realise-underage-sex-is-a-serious-crime-carrying-a-sevenyear-jail-term/story-fnii5yv4-1226857025724" target="_blank">A JUDGE has refused to jail a 21-year-old man for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, saying today’s youth do not realise underage sex is a serious crime.</a></div>
<div abp="185" align="center">
</div>
<div abp="185" align="center">
<em></em> </div>
<div abp="185" style="text-align: left;">
<em><span style="color: blue;">"A JUDGE has refused to jail a 21-year-old man for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, saying today’s youth do not realise underage sex is a serious crime. <!-- google_ad_section_end(name=story_introduction) --> <!-- // .story-intro --> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=story_body, weight=high) --> </span></em></div>
<div abp="387">
<em><span style="color: blue;">District Court Judge Rosemary Davey’s comments have sparked calls from child protection authorities to teach all school students about the laws of sex and consent, and that they risk imprisonment for having sex under the age of 17.</span></em></div>
<div abp="388">
<em><span style="color: blue;">The South Australian Association of School Parent Clubs president Jenice Zerna said the state’s education curriculum must work to combat the sexualised imagery bombarding children every day.</span></em></div>
<div abp="389">
<em><span style="color: blue;">“We would also like to see schools provide ‘are you aware’ letters to parents when they contact them about upcoming sex education classes,” she said.</span></em></div>
<div abp="390">
<em><span style="color: blue;">“It is as important that parents know the laws as it is for students and young people.”"</span></em></div>
<div abp="390">
</div>
<div abp="390">
</div>
<div abp="390">
<span style="color: black;">Just when you thought you'd read it all - seen all the p**s poor excuses under the sun, along comes a story that goes one better. Rather than concentrating on the offense and offender, what does this case concentrate on? Pointing the blame fair and squarely on the thirteen year old victim.</span></div>
<div abp="390">
</div>
<div abp="390">
The age of consent in S Australia, as highlighted in the article, is 17. The victim, was 13. Four years UNDER the age of consent. Equivalent in the UK of raping a girl of twelve! And he walks free from court, after being told to "be good" !! Couldn't make it up !!</div>
<div abp="390">
</div>
<div abp="390">
The thing that this article and case refuses point blank to acknowledge, let alone even point out, is the responsibility lies 100% with Sasha Pierre Huerta (offender). As a twenty one year old, who is quite obviously old enough to know the illegality of his actions, <strong>he and him alone</strong>, has the control to get himself out of this sort of situation. Saying "he thought she was 14" is absolutely no excuse whatsoever - this being still three years under the AoC in S Australia. It matters not how she was dressed, it matters not if the thirteen year old victim was "looking for a sexual encounter", it matters not if she was "partying and putting herself out there" - he thought she was fourteen, therefore under the AoC and the blame lies with him and he should have got a proper custodial sentence. If she had been a 73 year old instead of a 13 year old "throwing herself at him" what would he have done? Gone "with the flow", or got out of the situation? No guesses there!</div>
<div abp="390">
</div>
<div abp="390">
As for the rest of Judge Davey's comments, you have to read them to believe them. Rather than blaming the youth of Australia for adults who choose to take advantage of them as she has continually done, maybe she should concentrate on coming down hard of the offenders instead. Of course teenagers will experiment with their sexual development, but to put the onus of the actions of such predators and the burden of criminality on them in this way is inexcusable.</div>
<div abp="390">
</div>
<div abp="390">
</div>
<div abp="390">
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-28502619605041850832014-03-15T08:07:00.000-07:002014-03-15T08:07:00.911-07:00AVP - The Judiciary - An Update.<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="250" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_aOBAFHNLmw/UyRnf9-kYbI/AAAAAAAAAPM/8Lfvum0WauQ/s1600/judge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="251" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_aOBAFHNLmw/UyRnf9-kYbI/AAAAAAAAAPM/8Lfvum0WauQ/s1600/judge.jpg" /></a></div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
A small update on a couple of previous posts. </div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Readers may have read a couple of my posts before, namely the ones concerning <a abp="331" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/09/avp-and-small-shade-of-jersey.html" target="_blank">Judge Jameson</a> who describe paedophile Richard Oldham as "a good teacher who should be treasured", and <a abp="422" href="http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/10/avp-and-judge-peter-bowers-again-and.html" target="_blank">Judge Bowers</a>, who amongst other things, described child abuse as "Water under the bridge".</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Thankfully, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has taken the complaints I made seriously, and I have an update on each.</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
A submission is being prepared for presentation to a Nominated Judge regarding my complaint against Judge Jameson, and I should hear back by 9 April.</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Regarding Judge Bowers and my complaint against him, the JCIO are preparing a submission to be put forward to the Lord Chancellor & Lord Chief Justice, who will be making a decision on this matter. I should hear back by 11 April from them.</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
A small update I know, but wanted to keep readers updated. Anti victim language like this in unacceptable, and it is good that this is being taken seriously.</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If you have any complaints against the conduct of the judiciary, including language like this, you also can complain to <a abp="478" href="http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/" target="_blank">The Judicial Conduct's Office</a> by letter or e-mail - and you don't have to be directly involved in the individual cases. </div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Anyone can make a difference. </div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
You included.</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="249" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="143" align="center">
<div abp="1348">
</div>
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-45024934420485979252014-03-05T13:33:00.000-08:002014-03-05T13:33:03.621-08:00AVP and Legislation.<div abp="150">
A bit of an uphill struggle getting the UK Media and others to understand AVP - especially when it appears in UK Legislation. Here is my interpretation of what it shows now, and what it should show in "Richard's world". </div>
<div abp="150">
</div>
<div abp="150">
I won't bore you with the reasoning's behind this - earlier posts from 2013 will explain this & you will probably have read these already.</div>
<div abp="151">
</div>
<div abp="152">
</div>
<div abp="153">
Taken from <a abp="209" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/abuse-of-children-through-prostitution-and-pornography" target="_blank">Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography, Sexual Offences Act 2003</a></div>
<div abp="153">
</div>
<div abp="153">
Abuse of children through <strike abp="556">prostitution and pornography </strike><span abp="557" style="color: blue;">sexual exploitation.</span></div>
<div abp="153">
</div>
<div abp="153">
<span abp="558" class="LegDS LegP1No"><strong abp="559"><u abp="560">47</u></strong> </span><span abp="561" class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitleFirst">Paying for sexual <strike abp="562">services</strike> <span abp="563" style="color: blue;">abuse/exploitation</span> of a child.</span></div>
<div abp="153">
<span abp="564" class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitleFirst"></span> </div>
<div abp="565" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="566" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-47-1"><span abp="567" class="LegRepeal">(1) </span></span><span abp="568" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="569" class="LegRepeal">A person (A) commits an offence if—</span></span></div>
<div abp="570" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="571" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="572" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
<a abp="573" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-1-a"></a><div abp="574" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="575" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-1-a"><span abp="576" class="LegRepeal"> (a) </span></span><span abp="577" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="578" class="LegRepeal">he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual <strike>services</strike> <span style="color: blue;">abuse</span> of another person (B),</span></span></div>
<a abp="579" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-1-b"></a><div abp="580" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="581" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-1-b"><span abp="582" class="LegRepeal"> (b) </span></span><span abp="583" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="584" class="LegRepeal">before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for <strike>those services</strike> <span style="color: blue;">this abuse </span>to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment, and</span></span></div>
<a abp="585" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-1-c"></a><div abp="586" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="587" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-1-c"><span abp="588" class="LegRepeal"> (c) </span></span><span abp="589" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="590" class="LegRepeal">either—</span></span></div>
<a abp="591" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-1-c-i"></a><div abp="592" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="593" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP4No" id="section-47-1-c-i"><span abp="594" class="LegRepeal"> (i) </span></span><span abp="595" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="596" class="LegRepeal">B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or</span></span></div>
<a abp="597" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-1-c-ii"></a><div abp="598" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="599" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP4No" id="section-47-1-c-ii"><span abp="600" class="LegRepeal"> (ii) </span></span><span abp="601" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="602" class="LegRepeal">B is under 13.</span></span></div>
<a abp="603" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-2"></a><div abp="604" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="605" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-47-2"><span abp="606" class="LegRepeal">(2) </span></span><span abp="607" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="608" class="LegRepeal">In this section, “</span><span abp="609" class="LegTerm" id="term-payment"><span abp="610" class="LegRepeal">payment</span></span><span abp="611" class="LegRepeal">” means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual <strike abp="612">services</strike> <span abp="613" style="color: blue;">abuse/exploitation</span>) gratuitously or at a discount.</span></span></div>
<div abp="614" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="615" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="616" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
<a abp="617" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-3"></a><div abp="618" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="619" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-47-3"><span abp="620" class="LegRepeal">(3) </span></span><span abp="621" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="622" class="LegRepeal">A person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 13, where subsection (6) applies, is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.</span></span></div>
<div abp="623" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="624" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="625" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
<a abp="626" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-4"></a><div abp="627" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="628" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-47-4"><span abp="629" class="LegRepeal">(4) </span></span><span abp="630" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="631" class="LegRepeal">Unless subsection (3) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 16 is liable—</span></span></div>
<a abp="632" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-4-a"></a><div abp="633" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="634" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-4-a"><span abp="635" class="LegRepeal"> (a) </span></span><span abp="636" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="637" class="LegRepeal">where subsection (6) applies, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years;</span></span></div>
<a abp="638" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-4-b"></a><div abp="639" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="640" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-4-b"><span abp="641" class="LegRepeal"> (b) </span></span><span abp="642" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="643" class="LegRepeal">in any other case—</span></span></div>
<a abp="644" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-4-b-i"></a><div abp="645" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="646" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP4No" id="section-47-4-b-i"><span abp="647" class="LegRepeal"> (i) </span></span><span abp="648" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="649" class="LegRepeal">on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;</span></span></div>
<a abp="650" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-4-b-ii"></a><div abp="651" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="652" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP4No" id="section-47-4-b-ii"><span abp="653" class="LegRepeal"> (ii) </span></span><span abp="654" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="655" class="LegRepeal">on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.</span></span></div>
<div abp="656" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="657" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="658" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
<a abp="659" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-5"></a><div abp="660" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="661" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-47-5"><span abp="662" class="LegRepeal">(5 ) </span></span><span abp="663" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="664" class="LegRepeal">Unless subsection (3) or (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—</span></span></div>
<a abp="665" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-5-a"></a><div abp="666" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="667" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-5-a"><span abp="668" class="LegRepeal"> (a) </span></span><span abp="669" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="670" class="LegRepeal">on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;</span></span></div>
<a abp="671" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-5-b"></a><div abp="672" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="673" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-5-b"><span abp="674" class="LegRepeal"> (b) </span></span><span abp="675" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="676" class="LegRepeal">on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.</span></span></div>
<div abp="677" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="678" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="679" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
<a abp="680" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-6"></a><div abp="681" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="682" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-47-6"><span abp="683" class="LegRepeal">(6) </span></span><span abp="684" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="685" class="LegRepeal">This subsection applies where the offence involved—</span></span></div>
<a abp="686" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-6-a"></a><div abp="687" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="688" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-6-a"><span abp="689" class="LegRepeal"> (a) </span></span><span abp="690" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="691" class="LegRepeal">penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,</span></span></div>
<a abp="692" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-6-b"></a><div abp="693" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="694" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-6-b"><span abp="695" class="LegRepeal"> (b )</span></span><span abp="696" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="697" class="LegRepeal">penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,</span></span></div>
<a abp="698" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-6-c"></a><div abp="699" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="700" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-6-c"><span abp="701" class="LegRepeal"> (c) </span></span><span abp="702" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="703" class="LegRepeal">penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or</span></span></div>
<a abp="704" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-47-6-d"></a><div abp="705" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="706" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-47-6-d"><span abp="707" class="LegRepeal"> (d) </span></span><span abp="708" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="709" class="LegRepeal">penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis.</span></span></div>
<div abp="710" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
</div>
<span abp="711" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><div abp="712" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
</div>
<span abp="713" class="LegRepeal"><div abp="714" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="715" class="LegDS LegP1No"><strong abp="716"><u abp="717">48</u></strong> </span><span abp="718" class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitle">Causing or inciting <strike abp="719">child prostitution</strike> <span abp="720" style="color: blue;">prostituted children</span> or <strike abp="721">pornography</strike> <span abp="722" style="color: blue;">filmed sexual abuse/exploitation.</span></span></div>
<div abp="723" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="724" class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitle"><span abp="725" style="color: blue;"></span></span> </div>
<div abp="726" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="727" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-48-1"><span abp="728" class="LegRepeal">(1) </span></span><span abp="729" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="730" class="LegRepeal">A person (A) commits an offence if—</span></span></div>
<a abp="731" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-48-1-a"></a><div abp="732" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="733" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-48-1-a"><span abp="734" class="LegRepeal"> (a) </span></span><span abp="735" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="736" class="LegRepeal">he intentionally causes or <strike abp="737">incites another person (B) to become a prostitute</strike>, <span abp="738" style="color: blue;">prostitutes another person (B), </span>or to be involved in <strike abp="739">pornography</strike> <span abp="740" style="color: blue;">filmed sexual abuse/exploitation</span>, in any part of the world, and</span></span></div>
<a abp="741" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-48-1-b"></a><div abp="742" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="743" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-48-1-b"><span abp="744" class="LegRepeal"> (b) </span></span><span abp="745" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="746" class="LegRepeal">either—</span></span></div>
<a abp="747" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-48-1-b-i"></a><div abp="748" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="749" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP4No" id="section-48-1-b-i"><span abp="750" class="LegRepeal"> (i) </span></span><span abp="751" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="752" class="LegRepeal">B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or</span></span></div>
<a abp="753" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-48-1-b-ii"></a><div abp="754" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="755" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP4No" id="section-48-1-b-ii"><span abp="756" class="LegRepeal"> (ii) </span></span><span abp="757" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="758" class="LegRepeal">B is under 13.</span></span></div>
<div abp="759" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="760" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="761" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
<a abp="762" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-48-2"></a><div abp="763" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="764" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-48-2"><span abp="765" class="LegRepeal">(2) </span></span><span abp="766" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="767" class="LegRepeal">A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—</span></span></div>
<a abp="768" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-48-2-a"></a><div abp="769" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="770" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-48-2-a"><span abp="771" class="LegRepeal"> (a) </span></span><span abp="772" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="773" class="LegRepeal">on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;</span></span></div>
<a abp="774" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-48-2-b"></a><div abp="775" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="776" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-48-2-b"><span abp="777" class="LegRepeal"> (b) </span></span><span abp="778" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="779" class="LegRepeal">on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.</span></span></div>
<div abp="780" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="781" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="782" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
<div abp="783" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="784" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="785" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
</span><div abp="786" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="787" class="LegDS LegP1No"><u abp="788"><strong abp="789">49</strong></u> </span><span abp="790" class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitle">Controlling a <strike abp="791">child prostitute</strike> <span abp="792" style="color: blue;">prostituted child </span>or a child involved in <strike abp="793">pornography</strike> <span abp="794" style="color: blue;">filmed sexual abuse/exploitation</span><span abp="795" class="LegExtentRestriction" id="extent-E-W-N.I." title="Applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland">.</span></span></div>
<div abp="796" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="797" class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitle"><span abp="798" class="LegExtentRestriction" title="Applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland"><span abp="799" class="bbl"></span><span abp="800" class="bbr"></span></span></span> </div>
<div abp="801" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="802" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-49-1"><span abp="803" class="LegRepeal">(1) </span></span><span abp="804" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="805" class="LegRepeal">A person (A) commits an offence if—</span></span></div>
<a abp="806" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-49-1-a"></a><div abp="807" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="808" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-49-1-a"><span abp="809" class="LegRepeal"> (a) </span></span><span abp="810" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="811" class="LegRepeal">he intentionally controls any of the activities of another person (B) relating to <strike abp="812">B’s prostitution</strike> <span abp="813" style="color: blue;">the prostitution of B </span>or involvement in <strike abp="814">pornography</strike> <span abp="815" style="color: blue;">filmed sexual abuse/exploitation </span>in any part of the world, and</span></span></div>
<a abp="816" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-49-1-b"></a><div abp="817" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="818" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-49-1-b"><span abp="819" class="LegRepeal"> (b) </span></span><span abp="820" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="821" class="LegRepeal">either—</span></span></div>
<a abp="822" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-49-1-b-i"></a><div abp="823" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="824" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP4No" id="section-49-1-b-i"><span abp="825" class="LegRepeal"> (i) </span></span><span abp="826" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="827" class="LegRepeal">B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or</span></span></div>
<a abp="828" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-49-1-b-ii"></a><div abp="829" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="830" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP4No" id="section-49-1-b-ii"><span abp="831" class="LegRepeal"> (ii) </span></span><span abp="832" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="833" class="LegRepeal">B is under 13.</span></span></div>
<a abp="834" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-49-2"></a><div abp="835" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="836" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-49-2"><span abp="837" class="LegRepeal">(2) </span></span><span abp="838" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="839" class="LegRepeal">A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—</span></span></div>
<a abp="840" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-49-2-a"></a><div abp="841" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="842" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-49-2-a"><span abp="843" class="LegRepeal"> (a) </span></span><span abp="844" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="845" class="LegRepeal">on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;</span></span></div>
<a abp="846" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-49-2-b"></a><div abp="847" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="848" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-49-2-b"><span abp="849" class="LegRepeal"> (b) </span></span><span abp="850" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="851" class="LegRepeal">on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.</span></span></div>
<div abp="852" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
</div>
<span abp="853" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><div abp="854" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
</div>
<span abp="855" class="LegRepeal"><div abp="856" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="857" class="LegDS LegP1No"><strong abp="858"><u abp="859">50</u></strong> </span><span abp="860" class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitle">Arranging or facilitating <strike abp="861">child prostitution</strike> <span abp="862" style="color: blue;">prostituted children</span> or <strike abp="863">pornography</strike> <span abp="864" style="color: blue;">filmed sexual abuse/exploitation</span><span abp="865" class="LegExtentRestriction" id="extent-E-W-N.I." title="Applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland">.</span></span></div>
<div abp="866" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="867" class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitle"><span abp="868" class="LegExtentRestriction" title="Applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland"><span abp="869" class="bbl"></span><span abp="870" class="bbr"></span></span></span> </div>
<div abp="871" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="872" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-50-1"><span abp="873" class="LegRepeal">(1) </span></span><span abp="874" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="875" class="LegRepeal">A person (A) commits an offence if—</span></span></div>
<a abp="876" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-50-1-a"></a><div abp="877" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="878" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-50-1-a"><span abp="879" class="LegRepeal"> (a) </span></span><span abp="880" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="881" class="LegRepeal">he intentionally arranges or facilitates the prostitution or involvement in <strike abp="882">pornography</strike> <span abp="883" style="color: blue;">filmed sexual abuse/exploitation </span>in any part of the world of another person (B), and</span></span></div>
<a abp="884" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-50-1-b"></a><div abp="885" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="886" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-50-1-b"><span abp="887" class="LegRepeal"> (b) </span></span><span abp="888" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="889" class="LegRepeal">either—</span></span></div>
<a abp="890" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-50-1-b-i"></a><div abp="891" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="892" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP4No" id="section-50-1-b-i"><span abp="893" class="LegRepeal"> (i) </span></span><span abp="894" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="895" class="LegRepeal">B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or</span></span></div>
<a abp="896" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-50-1-b-ii"></a><div abp="897" class="LegClearFix LegP4Container">
<span abp="898" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP4No" id="section-50-1-b-ii"><span abp="899" class="LegRepeal"> v (ii) </span></span><span abp="900" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP4Text"><span abp="901" class="LegRepeal">B is under 13.</span></span></div>
<a abp="902" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-50-2"></a><div abp="903" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="904" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-50-2"><span abp="905" class="LegRepeal">(2) </span></span><span abp="906" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="907" class="LegRepeal">A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—</span></span></div>
<a abp="908" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-50-2-a"></a><div abp="909" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="910" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-50-2-a"><span abp="911" class="LegRepeal"> (a) </span></span><span abp="912" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="913" class="LegRepeal">on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;</span></span></div>
<a abp="914" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-50-2-b"></a><div abp="915" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="916" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-50-2-b"><span abp="917" class="LegRepeal"> (b) </span></span><span abp="918" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="919" class="LegRepeal">on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.</span></span></div>
<div abp="920" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="921" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="922" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
<div abp="923" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
</div>
<span abp="924" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text"><span abp="925" class="LegRepeal"><div abp="926" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="927" class="LegDS LegP1No"><strong abp="928"><u abp="929">51</u></strong> </span><span abp="930" class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitle">Sections 48 to 50: interpretation</span></div>
<div abp="931" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
<span abp="932" class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitle"></span> </div>
<div abp="933" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="934" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-51-1"><span abp="935" class="LegRepeal">(1) </span></span><span abp="936" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="937" class="LegRepeal">For the purposes of sections 48 to 50, a person is involved in <strike abp="938">pornography </strike><span abp="939" style="color: blue;">filmed sexual abuse/exploitation</span> if an indecent image of that person is recorded; and similar expressions, and <strike abp="940">“pornography”</strike> <span abp="941" style="color: blue;">"filmed sexual abuse/exploitation"</span>, are to be interpreted accordingly.</span></span></div>
<div abp="942" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="943" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="944" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
<a abp="945" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-51-2"></a><div abp="946" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="947" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-51-2"><span abp="948" class="LegRepeal">(2) </span></span><span abp="949" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="950" class="LegRepeal">In those sections “</span><span abp="951" class="LegTerm" id="term-prostitute"><span abp="952" class="LegRepeal"><strike abp="953">prostitute</strike></span></span><span abp="954" class="LegRepeal">” <span abp="955" style="color: blue;">"prostituted child" </span>means a person (A) who, on at least one occasion and whether or not compelled to do so, <strike>offers or provides sexual services</strike> <span style="color: blue;">is sexually abused by </span><strike>to</strike> another person in return for payment or a promise of payment to A or a third person; and “<strike>prostitution</strike>” <span style="color: blue;">"prostituted child" </span>is to be interpreted accordingly.</span></span></div>
<div abp="956" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="957" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="958" class="LegRepeal"></span></span> </div>
<a abp="959" class="LegAnchorID" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="section-51-3"></a><div abp="960" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
<span abp="961" class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-51-3"><span abp="962" class="LegRepeal">(3) </span></span><span abp="963" class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text"><span abp="964" class="LegRepeal">In subsection (2), “</span><span abp="965" class="LegTerm" id="term-payment"><span abp="966" class="LegRepeal">payment</span></span><span abp="967" class="LegRepeal">” means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount.</span></span></div>
</span></span></span><div abp="968" class="LegClearFix LegP2Container">
</div>
</span></span><div abp="969" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
Quite simple really.</div>
<div abp="970" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
</div>
<div abp="971" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
This <u><strong>needs</strong></u> to be challenged. </div>
<div abp="971" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
</div>
<div abp="971" class="LegClearFix LegP3Container">
Where is the point in pointing this out to <a abp="973" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572495/No-10-aide-arrested-child-porn-Police-quiz-man-advised-Cameron-web-filters.html" target="_blank">Daily Mail: No 10 aide arrested over child porn</a> (as an example), when one part of UK Legislation refers to <a abp="1029" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/indecent-photographs-of-children" target="_blank">"Indecent Photographs of a Child"</a>, and one refers to <a abp="1085" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/abuse-of-children-through-prostitution-and-pornography" target="_blank">"Child Pornography" and "Child Prostitutes"</a>?</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-22067734033103652962014-02-21T14:37:00.000-08:002014-02-21T14:38:39.189-08:00PIE - Questions that need answering.<div abp="277" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="278" style="text-align: left;">
Some good articles this week in the Daily Mail (yes before you say, I know, it's the Mail....).</div>
<div abp="279" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="280" style="text-align: left;">
Links and articles below. Fair play on Guy Adams for bringing this up -and what must happen now is this must <strong abp="393"><u abp="394">not</u></strong> be allowed to once again slip down the list of priorities, slip away under the radar and be forgotten about in a few months or so. Answers are needed.</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="169" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563440/Vital-questions-Labour-apologists-child-sex-MUST-answer.html" target="_blank">Vital questions these Labour apologists for child sex MUST now answer</a></div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
All good, pertinent legitimate questions - all ones that need to be answered. </div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
Who cares about the names concerned - if these questions were asked to a normal pleb member of the public, there would be a proper full enquiry. What makes MPs so special? What makes them so "special"?</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
To read the full articles (so far), please read these links.</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="282" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2562621/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-The-Labour-elite-gave-succour-paedophiles.html" target="_blank">DAILY MAIL COMMENT: The Labour elite who gave succour to paedophiles</a></div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="338" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562555/Labours-child-sex-apologists-How-three-partys-senior-figures-campaigned-vile-paedophile-group-probed-police-abusing-children-industrial-scale.html" target="_blank">How three of the party's most senior figures campaigned for a vile paedophile group now being probed by police for 'abusing children on an industrial scale'</a></div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="560" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564397/Inexcusable-Leading-abuse-charity-demands-apology-Labour-trio-links-vile-paedophile-group.html" target="_blank">Inexcusable: Leading abuse charity demands apology from Labour trio with links to vile paedophile group</a></div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="562" href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/20/dailymail-harrietharman" target="_blank">Daily Mail puts pressure on trio over NCCL's former paedophile links</a></div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="618" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563377/Now-say-sorry-Ex-Yard-chief-calls-Labour-trio-admit-backing-paedophilia-huge-mistake.html" target="_blank">Now say sorry! Ex-Yard chief calls on Labour trio to admit backing paedophilia was a 'huge mistake'</a></div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
and this article from December 2013 (Guy Adams again)</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="876" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523526/How-Labour-Deputy-Harriet-Harman-shadow-minister-husband-Health-Secretary-Patricia-Hewitt-linked-group-lobbying-right-sex-children.html" target="_blank">Apologists for paedophiles: How Labour Deputy Harriet Harman, her shadow minister husband and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt were all linked to a group lobbying for the right to have sex with children</a></div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
Uncomfortable & nauseating reading. If these links are proven between NCCL and PIE, the very least that should happen is unreserved apologies from these three.</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
For those unfamiliar with P.I.E, take a read of the below, (if you can stomach it).</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
<a abp="674" href="http://chrisspivey.org/magpie-issue-11-may-1978/" target="_blank">Magpie: The journal of P.I.E issue 11 May 1978</a></div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
Now, I have two more questions in addition to the ones that the DM has.</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
An excerpt from the above link, includes this gem:</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
"<span abp="878" style="color: blue;">All members of the House of Commons and some Lords have been sent a copy of PIE’s new booklet Paedophilia – some Questions and Answers. This distribution was timed to coincide with a Press Release announcing the publication of the booklet. 180 newspapers and periodicals in the U.K.. received this Press Release.</span>"</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
Question one - as well as focusing (understandably) on Harmen, Hewitt and Dromey, surely questions need to be asked as to why, when all members of the HoC and a selection of Lords were sent this and presumably read it, why this group of disgusting individuals aka P.I.E. were allowed to continue with their perverted views & pro-paedophile group until disbanding 6 years after this was published?</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
Question two - where are the other media outlets? Why is this just being highlighted in the DM by one journalist (Guy Adams)? Why are there not investigations by ALL the media? Is this not important?</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="167" style="text-align: left;">
Please Guy Adams, keep digging - keep exploring - keep this going - this cannot be left and forgotten about.<br />
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-55599685789291798652014-02-09T06:21:00.000-08:002014-02-09T06:21:16.558-08:00A "Very Significant Risk To Children" - but released anyway to "test rehabilitation"<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="283" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y_b_nDV1bto/UveFUqeXJBI/AAAAAAAAAO8/O4fdye6q0k4/s1600/Leslie-Mitchell-3127311.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="284" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y_b_nDV1bto/UveFUqeXJBI/AAAAAAAAAO8/O4fdye6q0k4/s1600/Leslie-Mitchell-3127311.jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="340" href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/paedophile-ae-doctor-leslie-mitchell-3127312" target="_blank">Paedophile A&E doctor is freed from jail despite judge's warning and ministers' fears</a></div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<em abp="576"><span abp="577" style="color: blue;">"LESLIE Mitchell was described as a “very significant risk to children” before he was jailed for four years in 2010. The 60-year-old's release comes despite ministers warning parole officers just last month that he should not be allowed out of prison. </span></em></div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<em><span style="color: blue;"></span></em> </div>
<div abp="578">
<em abp="579"><span abp="580" style="color: blue;">A PAEDOPHILE doctor has been freed from jail after a parole board rejected a Scottish Government plea to keep him behind bars over fears he will attack children.</span></em></div>
<div abp="581">
<em abp="582"><span abp="583" style="color: blue;">Leslie Mitchell, 60, was jailed for four years in 2010 for trying to lure two girls, aged 10 and 11, into his car.</span></em></div>
<div abp="584">
<em abp="585"><span abp="586" style="color: blue;">The judge at the High Court said Mitchell had wanted to have sex with the girls and told him he might never be released from prison after imposing a new order that allows the authorities to hold a prisoner indefinitely.</span></em></div>
<div abp="587">
<em abp="588"><span abp="589" style="color: blue;">But Mitchell, who told social workers he had sexually abused other girls, got his sentence reduced on appeal and has been freed despite ministers’ opposition.</span></em></div>
<div abp="590">
<em abp="591"><span abp="592" style="color: blue;">The doctor, originally from Falkirk, now lives in social housing in nearby Bo’ness.</span></em></div>
<div abp="593">
<em abp="594"><span abp="595" style="color: blue;">The Parole Board for Scotland granted his freedom despite the objections by ministers. They said he should be moved to Castle Huntly open prison so he could be monitored before release.</span></em></div>
<div abp="596">
<em abp="597"><span abp="598" style="color: blue;">In parole board documents seen by the Sunday Mail, ministers said there was not enough evidence to suggest he would not be a risk to the public.</span></em></div>
<div abp="599">
<em abp="600"><span abp="601" style="color: blue;">But Mitchell told the board he needed to go back into the community to “test” whether his rehabilitation had worked.</span></em></div>
<div abp="602">
<em abp="603"><span abp="604" style="color: blue;">The documents also showed that Mitchell said he wanted to have sex with a girl aged 10 to 16 but his preferences were those aged 10 to 13.</span></em></div>
<div abp="605">
<em abp="606"><span abp="607" style="color: blue;">And he admitted to his psychologist during a risk assessment shortly before his release that he had engaged in sexual activity with young girls three times in the last decade."</span></em></div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
What are they playing at?</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Absolutely despicable !!</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Reading through the article in it's entirety, and reading the previous news stories from 2010, <a abp="609" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10367114" target="_blank">Paedophile doctor preyed on schoolgirls</a> how on earth can anyone consider this predator as being anything but a continued risk? With an original background report that states "<span style="color: blue;">that he had carried out his own risk assessment into the chances of him being
detected, but he thought "the rewards" were greater</span>", and "<span style="color: blue;">posing a high risk of re-offending and causing serious harm, particularly to
girls</span>", what on Earth were the Scottish Parole Board thinking of? He already his original four years sentence reduced to sixteen months which is a travesty in itself for his victims, let alone this appalling decision.</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Never mind grooming young girls for his own sexual deviancies, maybe the Parole Board should be contemplating how much he has "groomed" themselves, and manipulated them into this decision. They will have themselves to blame, solely, if this predatory paedophile reoffends - particularly through his own admissions of "<em><span style="color: blue;">long-term sexual interest in young girls and revealed previous offending against victims of a similar age in England.</span></em>". </div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And "Testing if his "rehabilitation" has worked"? This is partly how they arrived at this decision?</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Tell you what, the best way to do this, would to have Leslie Mitchell babysit one of your children whilst you go on a night out. If you really think that paedophilia is a "condition" that can be "rehabilitated" to the degree that a dangerous predatory paedophile who has a sexual preference for "girls aged 10 to 13"can be released into the community like this, prove it and let him be a babysitter for you.</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If you wouldn't do this in the proverbial "million years" does this not prove the point that paedophiles like this should not be released? </div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Again, what are you playing at?</div>
<div abp="282" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div abp="143" align="center">
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2864523480310815226.post-10777767995858428062014-01-28T14:45:00.003-08:002014-01-28T14:45:40.774-08:00Barnes & Noble, Books, Incest, Sexual Exploitation & Rape<div abp="184">
From "Dining for Dignity", link below</div>
<div abp="185">
</div>
<div abp="186" align="center">
<a abp="188" href="https://www.facebook.com/DiningforDignity" target="_blank">Dining for Dignity" Facebook</a></div>
<span abp="190" itemprop="description"><div abp="191">
<span abp="192" class="fsl"><span abp="193" itemprop="description"><span abp="194" class="fsl"></span></span></span> </div>
<span abp="196" class="fsl"><span abp="197" itemprop="description"><span abp="198" class="fsl"><div abp="191">
</div>
<div abp="195">
</div>
<div abp="195">
"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!</div>
<span abp="200" class="text_exposed_show"><div abp="195">
</div>
<div abp="195">
Having looked at the Barnes & Noble Website, there are some truly disgusting titles available there. Some examples being </div>
<div abp="195">
</div>
<div abp="195">
"Daughter Rape: Sex in the Kitchen with Daddy"</div>
<div abp="195">
"Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter on the Bus "</div>
<div abp="195">
"Grandfather Fucks His Unwilling Granddaughter "</div>
<div abp="195">
</div>
<div abp="195">
With at least one of the authors being (according to a Google search) "banned from Amazon".</div>
<div abp="195">
</div>
<div abp="195">
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.</div>
<div abp="195">
</div>
<div abp="195">
</div>
<div abp="195">
<span style="color: blue;">"Dear Sir,</span></div>
<div abp="195">
<span style="color: blue;"></span> </div>
<div abp="195">
<span style="color: blue;">Please can you answer a couple of questions on some books I have found for sale on your website.<br /><br />A couple of examples are as follows:<br /><br />Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter and Friend at Home,<br />The Daughter Rape: Sex in the Kitchen with Daddy, <br />Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter at the Cemetery, <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;">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.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"> 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.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;"></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<span style="color: blue;">Many thanks."</span></div>
</span></span></span></span></span><div abp="204">
</div>
RBougeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627962988409870004noreply@blogger.com2