Ann Coffey MP Rids Legislation of AVP - Will the Media Follow Suit?



MP Ann Coffey

 

Excellent news.

 

Will the media now follow suit & stop their never-ending AVP?

 

If I get any replies, will keep this post updated (sent to all the major media outlets).

 

 

"Good evening all,

 

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 - http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/victory-mps-campaign-rid-laws-8637437).

 

Also, as tweeted, she has also stated that the term "Child Pornography" is also to be banished from any legislation.

 

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").

 

Now that MP Ann Coffey has been successful, and these prejudicial terms are finally being removed from legislation, I have one last plea.

 

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).

 

 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.

 

http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-media-and-child-porn.html

 

http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/06/media-and-legal-avp-anti-victim.html

 

If you disagree, please could you let me know why you disagree - if you agree, it would be a huge step forward for you and it would be great to get acknowledgement of this from yourselves.

 

Many thanks"

 

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).

 

But we keep on trying. One day it will "click".

Child Prostitutes - Rotherham MP in fight to change the law

Sarah Champion MP

 

Rotherham MP in fight to change the law

 

"A South Yorkshire MP is celebrating after ministers agreed to consider removing the term ‘child prostitutes’ from Government legislation concerning victims of child sexual exploitation.

Sarah Champion, who represents Rotherham, has been lobbying for the removal of the terminology since her involvement in a major study into the sexual exploitation of children by children’s charity Barnardo’s.

The work was commissioned after it emerged that victims in Rotherham had been failed by the authorities for years, with leaked reports revealing a lack of action and prosecutions of culprits despite allegations of abuse and of gangs of men grooming vulnerable youngsters for sex.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Ms Champion urged ministers to take action and to remove archaic references to ‘child prostitutes’ from British law.

“There are currently 16 pieces of legislation that use the term ‘child prostitute’,” the Labour MP said.

“I have spoken to young people who have been victims of child sexual exploitation, and they say the expression makes them feel dirty and complicit.”

Home Affairs Minister Norman Baker said he was ‘very sympathetic’ to proposals recommended in the Barnardo’s report published last month.

He praised Ms Champion’s work and said he will consider how best to alter existing legislation.

“I am very sympathetic to that suggestion,” he said.

“Children who are sexually exploited, whether for commercial or other reasons, should not be referred to as prostitutes. They are victims.

“We will consider references in all legislation and guidance as opportunities arise, as well as considering carefully the wording used in any new legislation or guidance.”"

 

Fantastic news!

 

Regular readers will know that amongst other things, I have highlighted some of the appalling language both used in the media and in UK Legislation when it comes to describing sexual crimes committed against children. However whilst I have had success in the last few years in getting (some of) the media to see the offense they cause to victims, and the way in which they trivialise these crimes, so far I have had less success with regards to getting legislation changed.

 

Until March, it has been a case of banging a head against a brick wall - I have lost count of the amount of e-mails that have been sent from person to person to various departments & back again, just to get a small amount of wording changed in a few small pieces of legislation!! In March however I did manage to get contact with a Labour MP (not Sarah in the above article) who would help me take this forward.

 

Obviously as well as getting this particular part of wording changed (Child Prostitutes), it would be even better to at the same time get the rest changed (Children and Pornography), so I will be contacting both to see if this is something that can be achieved. With so much news over the last couple of year, being on child abuse and (supposedly) "victims rights", hopefully this is something that can once and for all be taken seriously, looked into and amended accordingly.



AVP and Legislation.

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".

 

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.

 

 

Taken from Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography, Sexual Offences Act 2003

 

Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography sexual exploitation.

 

47 Paying for sexual services abuse/exploitation of a child.

 

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

 

          (a) he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services abuse of another person (B),

          (b) before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services this abuse to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment, and

          (c) either—

               (i) B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

               (ii) B is under 13.

(2) In this section, “payment” means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services abuse/exploitation) gratuitously or at a discount.

 

(3) 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.

 

(4) Unless subsection (3) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 16 is liable—

        (a) where subsection (6) applies, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years;

        (b) in any other case—

           (i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

           (ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

 

(5 ) Unless subsection (3) or (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

 

(6) This subsection applies where the offence involved—

        (a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,

        (b )penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,

        (c) penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or

        (d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis.

 

 

48 Causing or inciting child prostitution prostituted children or pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation.

 

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

        (a) he intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to become a prostitute, prostitutes another person (B), or to be involved in pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation, in any part of the world, and

        (b) either—

           (i) B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

           (ii) B is under 13.

 

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

 

 

49 Controlling a child prostitute prostituted child or a child involved in pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation.

 

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

        (a) he intentionally controls any of the activities of another person (B) relating to B’s prostitution the prostitution of B or involvement in pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation in any part of the world, and

        (b) either—

           (i) B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

           (ii) B is under 13.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

 

 

50 Arranging or facilitating child prostitution prostituted children or pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation.

 

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

        (a) he intentionally arranges or facilitates the prostitution or involvement in pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation in any part of the world of another person (B), and

        (b) either—

           (i) B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

       v  (ii) B is under 13.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

 

 

51 Sections 48 to 50: interpretation

 

(1) For the purposes of sections 48 to 50, a person is involved in pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation if an indecent image of that person is recorded; and similar expressions, and “pornography” "filmed sexual abuse/exploitation", are to be interpreted accordingly.

 

(2) In those sections “prostitute” "prostituted child" means a person (A) who, on at least one occasion and whether or not compelled to do so, offers or provides sexual services is sexually abused by to another person in return for payment or a promise of payment to A or a third person; and “prostitution” "prostituted child" is to be interpreted accordingly.

 

(3) In subsection (2), “payment” 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.

 

Quite simple really.

 

This needs to be challenged.

 

Where is the point in pointing this out to Daily Mail: No 10 aide arrested over child porn (as an example), when one part of UK Legislation refers to "Indecent Photographs of a Child", and one refers to "Child Pornography" and "Child Prostitutes"?

AVP and the Mirror Newspaper

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

The Daily Mirror

 

 

 

Two of the latest headlines are below, both are from the last couple of days, so it makes you wonder whether anyone actually reads and e-mails or tweets sent to the Mirror.

 

Paedophile who used Skype to share vile images of child porn jailed

 

Paedophile pensioner caught with huge stash of child porn spared jail

 

 

A message for the Daily Mirror - Please don't call this crime "Child Porn" or "Child Pornography". These images are of children being either sexually exploited, raped, or sexually abused for the gratification of paedophiles. Children cannot consent, they cannot do "porn", and the only people who would refer to them as "porn" are the paedophiles themselves. Would a victim of this crime describe themselves as taking part in a porn shoot - would they describe themselves as a "child porn star"? Nope. If you were to view such images, would you automatically think "porn"? Nope. Would you deliberately use paedo terms in your newspaper? Hopefully not. So why do you continue to use this offensive and trivialising term? Please don't call it this, the correct legal term is "indecent images of children" (IIOC), although Child Abuse Images is just as good.

 

Of course, although this is the more common headline used in not only the Mirror, but far too many newspapers, it isn't the only misleading and offensive term that has been seen in the Mirror recently. Here are a few more:

 

Ex Tory Cabinet minister 'caught on camera at child sex party'

 

 

Note to Mirror - What exactly is "Child Sex"? What exactly is an "underage sex party"? As with "child porn", children cannot and do not consent to being raped and abused by adults. Why not call this by the more accurate term, namely "RAPE". Which according to Wiki is "a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent". Rape rape rape.....it really is quite easy to remember.

 

Two Coronation Street stars investigated over 'four-in-a-bed romp with two underage girls'

 

 

The two girls in question being 10 and 12. A completely inaccurate and trivialising headline that would not look out of place in some sleazy magazine. Note to Mirror - A four in a bed romp? Underage girls? What utter nonsense. What does the word "romp" imply to you? To me, the words imply a mutually consenting, although illicit, steamy sex session between more than 2 people. Not two adults being caught in a bed with two children. Yes, children, not "underage girls" (technically correct, but the words underage girls indicate a year or two under the age of consent, not children).

 

 Child sex shame of Brazil: Prostitute aged 14 used by workers at England World Cup venue

 

 

There's that "child sex" again. Also, describing a child who has been prostituted out as a "Child Prostitute". Note to Mirror - Calling someone a "prostitute" implies a willingness and consent by the individual. The correct term, and the one that describes this crime properly is a "Prostituted child", which takes away the implied consent and focus's the actions to the adults procuring these children (instead of "prostituting", being "prostituted out").

 

 

 

Teacher jailed for four-year lesbian fling

 

 

A "Fling"? As in a "Casual sexual relationship"? Relationship as in "mutually consenting"? Really? a 14 year old? Note to Mirror - A fourteen year old cannot consent to any sort of sexual activity, there is no "relationship", just a one-sided abuse of trust and sexual abuse, pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less. For two abults, yes, a "fling", for an adult and a child, no.

 

 

Google the daily Mirror, and you see "Mirror Online: The Intelligent Tabloid"

 

 

If you have not read the e-mail I sent to you a few days ago regarding language in the media, please take note of the points raised above. Prove that you are really "The Intelligent Tabloid", and start taking care in your headlines and reporting. There are more important things than trying to sell papers using sleazy inaccurate headlines and styles of reporting - not offending people and trivialising serious crimes should take a higher precedent than this.

 

Do the right thing - amend your style guide that you use to encompass the above.

 

 

“Language is very powerful. Language does not just describe reality. Language creates the reality it describes.”  - Desmond Tutu.