A "Very Significant Risk To Children" - but released anyway to "test rehabilitation"

 

Paedophile A&E doctor is freed from jail despite judge's warning and ministers' fears

 

 

"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.

 

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.

Leslie Mitchell, 60, was jailed for four years in 2010 for trying to lure two girls, aged 10 and 11, into his car.

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.

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.

The doctor, originally from Falkirk, now lives in social housing in nearby Bo’ness.

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.

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.

But Mitchell told the board he needed to go back into the community to “test” whether his rehabilitation had worked.

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.

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."

 

What are they playing at?

 

Absolutely despicable !!

 

Reading through the article in it's entirety, and reading the previous news stories from 2010, Paedophile doctor preyed on schoolgirls how on earth can anyone consider this predator as being anything but a continued risk? With an original background report that states "that he had carried out his own risk assessment into the chances of him being detected, but he thought "the rewards" were greater", and "posing a high risk of re-offending and causing serious harm, particularly to girls", 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.

 

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 "long-term sexual interest in young girls and revealed previous offending against victims of a similar age in England.".

 

And "Testing if his "rehabilitation" has worked"? This is partly how they arrived at this decision?

 

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.

 

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?

 

Again, what are you playing at?





Sexual Orientation, Mental Disorder, Disability Or Just Plain Perversion.

Paedophiles want same rights as homosexuals

 

An interesting and at the same time quite a nauseating article - one from 2011 however one that seems to have reared it's head somewhat over the previous few months.

 

Reading the article, the comments, and associated forums that have recently been discussing this, it seems that most people that have read and commented seem to be under the impression that this is some sort of attack on homosexuality, and indeed, some seem all to keen to add their bigoted small minded comments onto forums and blogs.

 

After very little looking around, it was quite easy to find the original Committee Meeting in Canada's parliament from February 2011, and reading through it is far more vomit inducing (to be frank) than the newspaper article in the above link. The full transcript is available here

 

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

 

and for those of you who have the time and the stomach for it, I strongly suggest reading through this, lengthy as it is.

 

For those of you who may not have the time, one of the main highlights relevant to this posting is here:

 

Mr. Marc Lemay (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ):

        I am concerned, Professor Van Gijseghem—and I know you well as I have heard you testify on a number of other subjects—because you say, if I am not mistaken, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem:

    That is what I said.

Mr. Marc Lemay:

    Should it therefore be compared to homosexuality?

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem:

    Yes, or heterosexuality. If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.

 

 

Now, please excuse my ignorance (yet again), but I always thought that a Sexual Orientation, was purely a gender thing - i.e. heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals.  Where does anywhere state that anything other than gender attraction is a sexual orientation? Does this also mean that all sexual paraphilia are all "sexual orientations? What about gerontophilia?, what about hebephilia? what about ephphebphilia? What about good old fashioned teleiophilia or adultophilia ? Where does it all stop?

 

One of the other things to take into account, is discrimination, and this I believe is the scariest part of this whole discussion and the main reason I feel that this is more than likely being pursued as much as possible by every paedophile and paedophile sympathise there is. Society today in the majority of cases and quite rightly so, has a range of laws that are in place to stop discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (example here ECHR Sexual Orientation), and you can bet your bottom dollar that every paedo would want paedophilia to be officially diagnosed as a "sexual orientation" so that they too can be protected by law against being discriminated.

 

Scary stuff imho.

 

Anyway, I digress a little.

 

In the previous few years, I have read many articles stating what paedophilia is.

 

In Greece, it is classed as a "disability" and no doubt paedophiles can also (as it is a disability) claim disability benefits....

 

In the UK, it is classed as a Mental Disorder , as it is (I believe) in the US

 

Now in Canada, it is being pushed as a Sexual Orientation , which as explained briefly above, is possibly the worst of these "options"

 

Often as well, we hear offenders claim that they were abused themselves, which as caused them to become paedophiles as well (aka The dubious "life cycle of an offender"), although my belief is the majority of these are more likely to be fabrications in order to gain sympathy and therefore get a lesser sentence.

 

So, what is it?

 

"Mental disorder", "disability", "sexual orientation", "the result of childhood abuse", a vile "fetish" or something else? Someone tell me please - the world nowadays seems to find an endless supply of excuses for paedophilia, instead of concentrating on dealing with and helping victims of these vile crimes.

 

Whatever it is, there is never any excuse for any crime associated with paedophilia. No-one forces anyone at gun-point to abuse a child, or download IIOC.

Whatever it is, paedophiles do have their own minds, and are very manipulative and have (or have tried to) groomed everyone for far too long.

Whatever it is, society needs to ungroom itself, to stop looking for and redefining the causes of adults sexually abusing children - it needs to get back to the basics, that abuse is abuse and that offenders have no excuse for what they do.

Another Poor Excuse for an Unduly Lenient and AVP Filled Sentence

Paedophile spared jail because his 13-year-old victim looked older and was a sexual 'predator and was egging him on'

 

Nigel Peters - GROOMED

 

 

Apologies for the title of this posting, but the excuses given out by paedophiles and accepted by judges are unbelievable. In this article from today, in which 41 year old Neil Wilson basically walked free from court after "having a two week fling" (?? WTF) with a thirteen year old child, his excuse, and that of the prosecution, that was swallowed hook line and sinker by Judge Nigel Peters, was that his victim was " a sexually experienced predator who egged him on to commit one of the crimes he committed"

 

Seriously??

 

Are we to believe this to be a plausible excuse for a forty one year old to submit before court??

 

Apparently so.

 

Even worse was the judge who believed this, accepted that Neil Wilson knew that she was underage, and despite him also downloading level three images of child abuse, let him off with an eight month sentence suspended for two years! You seriously couldn't make this crap up!

 

Seriously, the UK needs to start taking this crime with the seriousness it should be taken with. Being groomed into blaming the victim for being a "13 year old sexual predator" is really taking the proverbial!

 

Consider this scenario:

 

An eighty year old tries "egging him on" in the same way (perfectly legal of course) - what would he do?

a) take advantage of her,

b) voice his concerns to Social Services or similar, or

c) ignore & do a fast one?

 

One would almost guarantee that answer c) would be the majority decision, with some people who have a conscience choosing option b)

 

What is the difference then?

 

If an adult male has a thirteen year old girl "trying it on with him", I would hope that the majority would at least raise this with someone like Social Services.

 

This is no excuse, and should not be bought by the #AVP groomed judges of the UK.

 

E-mail to AG today.

 

 

"I would like to appeal against the sentence handed down to Neil Wilson, Snaresbrook Crown Court today as being unduly lenient, the reasons being as below: "The punishment of offenders This shows society’s unhappiness with the offence committed. Punishment can include loss of, or restrictions to, a person’s liberty or the payment of a fine." As I have pointed out several times in previous appeals, crimes involving sexually abusing / rape against children should always be dealt with in a custodial manner. Society does not view offenders walking out of court as an adequate punishment for paedophiles, who by their nature will always pose a risk to children. the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence). Giving paedophiles suspended sentences is absolutely no deterrence, especially as this was not the only offence committed (also the counts of Indecent Images of Children, level three, which should have resulted in a custodial sentence in itself, being level three). Saying that the victim was a "sexual predator" is an appalling thing for a judge to say, and absolutely no relevance to this case - he obviously knew that she was underage, and he still took advantage of a child.  If an eighty year old was to "egg him on" in the same way, would he do the same thing and enter into a sexual relation with her? Of course not, so why would he and the prosecution use this poor excuse -  this was a paedophile that saw an opportunity, and took full advantage "the protection of the public This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation." Someone who was downloading these sort of images, and someone who was prepared to commit the crime he has committed will pose a threat to other girls of a similar age. Letting him walk free from the courtroom is not protecting the public in any way - in plain words, he was a 41 year old who sexually abused a thirteen year, and he should be imprisoned for the protection of children in his area of the UK."