This Legistation is an Utter Ass & Needs Changing.

 

 

11 April 2014

 

Anger As Paedophile Demands Victim Photos

 

 

"A paedophile is allowed to have intimate photos of a young girl he abused because the police cannot erase them from his confiscated laptop before they return it to him.

The man was jailed for nine years in 2013 after admitting a number of sex offences including assaulting a child under the age of 13.

He has formally asked for a laptop and a mobile telephone to be handed back, according to human rights campaigner Liberty, which is representing the victim and her family.

Photos of the victim dressed in swimwear and leotards are on the computer, but Dorset Police say they cannot delete them because they are not legally classified as indecent or prohibited.

Consequently, the man, who is in his 50s and cannot be named for legal reasons, will still have access to a large number of personal photos of one girl when he is freed"

 

 

23 April 2014

 

Dorset paedophile to lose images of abuse victim after police U-turn

 

 

"Dorset Police will delete images of sex attack victims from an offender’s laptop despite being told it would be against the law to do so. Earlier this year, officers were asked to refuse the return of a laptop and other electronic devices to a man who had been convicted of sexual offences. The equipment was seized during the initial stages of the investigation, but was not used during court proceedings as it contained no indecent images.

Current legislation indicates the police should return all equipment to its owner in its original condition. However, Dorset Police believe returning the images would be incompatible with the victims’ privacy rights under European law"

 

 

Good news you may think, and in this case, a resounding YES.

 

However, current legislation that was used to seize this offenders laptop & phones states that if nothing illegal is found on them they need to be returned in their original condition - despite there being photographs of his victim on them in leotards and swimwear (not considered "Indecent" under categories A to C of IIOC).

 

Staggering isn't it?

 

The (in)human rights of the offender yet again outweighs the rights of the victim.

 

Ask yourself, should someone who abuses a child and has images / films of them stored on his/her computer be allowed to keep these images? These images may not be "indecent" in themselves, but the purpose of them being kept is certainly "indecent".

 

Should victims have to simply acknowledge legislation as it stands and put up with it?

 

No, of course not. Legislation as it stands is wrong. Sex offenders and paedophiles should not be allowed to keep images/films of their victims.

 

And this is where YOU come in.

 

Martyn Underhill, Dorset's Police & Crime Commissioner has started a petition to get this legislation changed.

 

Please click Here to add your name to this petition to stop sex offenders retaining photo's of their victims.

 

Please please share this as well - please help Martyn get this to 100,000 signatures and therefore considered for debate in the House of Commons. This needs to change and change ASAP!

 

Imagine if your child was a victim of a paedophile.

 

Imagine if the offender had photographs or films of your child on their computer.

 

Would YOU be happy for them to legally keep these photographs.........?

 

 

***** Small update from Jersey - please see below reply from the relevant authorities here: 

"In any proceedings locally the court will make an order for destruction of devices containing Indecent Images of Children (IIOC) OR relevant material.

We would ensure that in these circumstances, as you set out below, the court were asked to make a complete destruction order. Any image of a victim we would argue is ‘relevant’."

Good news here then! ******

New sentencing guidelines - April 2014.

New sentencing guideline gives greater focus to impact of sex offences on victims

 

 

"The Sentencing Council has published a new sentencing guideline for sexual offences which will help ensure appropriate and consistent sentences for sex offenders.

The guideline covers more than 50 offences including rape, child sex offences, indecent images of children, trafficking and voyeurism, and brings significant changes to how offences are considered by the courts."

"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."

"The new guideline also brings increases in sentencing starting points and sentencing ranges for some offences. For example, in relation to rape, the new guideline allows top category sentences with a starting point of 15 years. The previous guideline only allowed sentences with this starting point for multiple rapes. Sentences of 20 years and above are also now recommended for campaigns of rape. In addition, the worst cases of assault by penetration can now receive the same sentences as rape.
The guideline simplifies the system for assessing indecent images of children which will make analysis of imagery much easier when evidence is being compiled against someone being prosecuted. The new guideline moves away from concentrating on just the number of images and gives more emphasis to what the offender is doing with the images – possessing, distributing or creating – to help assess the offending behaviour and appropriate sentence level. "

"The guideline will come into force in courts in England and Wales in April 2014 and replace existing guidance which was issued by the Sentencing Council’s predecessor body following the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  Sentencing levels for sexual offences have been increasing since the Act, and existing sentencing guideline, came into force, and the new guideline reflects these increases. They do not include any reductions in sentences from current sentencing."

So, a step forward it seems in sentencing guidelines for child sexual abuse crimes.

Some good bits that stand out for me:

 - Ostensible Consent. Where a child over thirteen "consents" to their own abuse. Hopefully this will mean an end to the stories like this here and here - children under the age of consent cannot consent, simple as that. It will be interesting to see if the excuse of consent is used after April 2014 in child sex abuse cases. If it is - it will be challenged - I will make sure of that.

 -  Good character being redefined as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. By redefining this as an aggravating factor, shows that the Sentencing Council seem to be swaying to the notion that paedophiles, have previously groomed the judicial system into reducing sentences on the basis of their previous good character & good deeds - hopefully no more as from April 2014.

 - Abuse of Trust, especially relating to high profile paedophiles. At last. Are people waking up to the fact that some paedophiles become "famous" (or infamous), with the probability that they can and do have unfettered access to children. Not the other way around. Less of the "famous becoming a paedophile" and getting a lesser sentence. More of the "paedophile deliberately becoming famous in order to get access to children" and getting a longer sentence. Common sense!

 - Addition of todays online technology such as webcams, grooming via social media, getting children to share indecent photos of themselves, and subsequent future technological advances. Longer sentences for encryption and recording of offenses.

 - Simpler definitions for accessing IIOC.

I do however have a couple of questions of my own.

 - Regarding IIOC, are the new guidelines going to make much of an impact on the sentences given and the length (if any) of any custodial sentences. We keep reading about Chris Graylings "toughening up" of this crime, yet more and more we see offenders getting fines, community orders and suspended sentences. If he wants to get tough on offenders of this crime, sentences need to increase as well. No deterrent at the moment. Increase the sentence, make the crime Indictable Only, then let the public appeal ULS for "slap on the wrist" sentences. As it stands (from an e-mail I received today from SPPU),
"The taking, making, permitting to take, possessing, possessing with intent to distribute, distributing or advertising indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children under 18 are offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.  These are indictable offences, but not indictable only offences, meaning that they are triable both in the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court and either the court or the defendant can choose the which court hears the case.  Where the magistrates' court considers that it has insufficient sentencing powers to deal with a triable either way case it can send the case to the Crown Court"

Is this good enough? Why is it not "indictable only"? This is not a "pixels on a screen" crime with no victims! Children are sexually exploited and abused to create these for the benefit of paedophiles and child sex abusers, and the crime should be equally as serious as all other child sexual abuse crimes, and in my eyes should be an indictable only offense.

 - As the sentencing guidelines are going to be more victim orientated, will this mean that there may be a chance that the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 will be updated to reflect this? If so, what chance that they replace the prejudicial wording in it relating to children being involved in pornography and being child prostitutes with something more akin to the actual crimes, namely child sexual exploitation, and children being prostituted? What chance of this being amended? I have e-mailed to find out & will keep you updated. Chance of this, 0.00% I think, but if you don't ask questions and don't try, you will never know.

But, nevertheless all in all, a step forward in the right direction by the Sentencing Council.



Soft Judges and short sentences equals more reoffending - Who'd have thunk that?

Sex attackers and violent ex-inmates go back to crime after short jail stints

 

"SEX attackers and violent criminals given short sentences offend again at a rate of more than 50 a week within a year of being released."

 

"According to figures revealed by the Ministry of Justice, there were 356 sex offences or serious violent crimes together with 2,482 robberies carried out by convicts who had served for less than a year."

 

"During the course of a decade the Ministry of Justice figures show 35,835 offenders jailed for short- term sentences went on to reoffend, including 3,914 committing violent or sexual crimes. The proposed new Bill aims to drive down Britain’s high reoffending rates, which currently account for 600,000 crimes committed every year."

 

 

Blimey! No shit, Sherlock! Talk about stating the blindingly obvious. Someone commits a serious crime, gets a suspended sentence or a pathetically small sentence of a few months, then reoffends when they are released. Who would have guessed that? Of course giving offenders sentences like this, will end up with a greater chance of re-offending - it doesn't take a genius to figure that out!!

 

Lets have a quick look at the five purposes of sentencing in brief, used supposedly by judges when determining an appropriate sentence for a crime:

 

1) 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.

2) 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).

3) The reform and rehabilitation of offenders This is aimed at reforming the offender and changing their behaviour. It also links to the purpose of reducing crime. An example of reform and rehabilitation includes a drug and/or alcohol treatment requirement.    

4) 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. the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences

5) The making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences This requires the offender to make amends to those who have been affected by their criminal behaviour. This may be achieved, for example, by the payment of compensation or through restorative justice.  

 

Mr Grayling, 2 questions:

1) Using these guidelines, how on earth can someone who has committed a violent or a sexual offense NOT get a sentence that runs into years? What goes through judges minds when they pass, for example, a suspended sentence for offenders who Abducted a thirteen year old child , Downloaded eighteen thousand IIOC, Abused boys during the 70s, 80s, and 90s etc?

 

2)  With the above crimes, (paedophile crimes), there is no excuse whatsoever for dishing out any sort of soft sentences if this crimes is to be taken seriously. Taking Jailed: Paedophile Who Claimed Appalling Abuse Was 'Benefit' To His Victims as a prime example, shows that paedophilia is a different type of crime to the norm. You can "treat" paedophiles, but there is no cure, it isn't a disease - it is a long standing fetish/sexual attraction to children & the only proper way to protect the public from offenders who commit these crimes is a proper, long custodial sentence. Not suspended sentences. Not sentences that are a matter of a few months. Proper ones that reflect the above guidelines, "Protection of the public", "Punishment of Offenders", "Reduction of Crime". When will you take this crime seriously? When will you realise that "once a paedophile, always a paedophile", and put in place proper sentencing guidelines and a proper deterrence that will reduce this crime, and make paedophiles who claim "they can't help themselves" think twice before committing these offences?

 

This is your second "promise" in just over a month, remember Tough justice for those who watch IIOC: Grayling announces perverts will no longer escape with 'slap on the wrist' in crackdown on soft punishments from September this year? So Mr Grayling, will we see anything from either of these "promises", or are these both the usual empty ones? Words are one thing, but taking action is another? We will be watching.

Twitter and Child Abuse - No Change

#Cheap! Twitter refuses to increase £5,000 donation to fight images of child abuse

 

 

"Estimated value, in its impending IPO? £8bn.
Contribution towards child porn prevention measures? £5,000, and not a penny more."

"Over the past three months, IWF has notified Twitter over 20 times that links to child pornography have been tweeted out using the service."

Ignoring this AVP language for a bit, this does not surprise me a bit.

Having reported to Twitter in the past, I have found their attitude to IIOC totally blasé - no concern whatsoever to my concerns in the past.

"Twitter said: “We are a member of the IWF and plan to continue our membership in 2014. We take this issue extremely seriously and, in addition to affiliations with relevant organisations, we have an internal team committed to child protection and are exploring technology approaches to the problem.”"

Do I believe this for a minute?

Nope.

Words are one thing, action is another.

IWF do a sterling job in removing IIOC from Online, and any financial requests like this should be accepted and obliged to rid the web of this illegal filth. Whilst other companies like Google, Sky, Virgin Media and Talk Talk have pledged a hell of a lot more, Twitter refuses to increase it's contributions further than a paltry pathetic £5,000.

I will leave you with this reply that I received last year when I reported alleged IIOC, to let you make up your own minds. Remember, IIOC are NOT "free speech", they are illegal and a visual record of child abuse.

"Hello,
We understand that everyone has different levels of sensitivity towards content, and that you may feel uncomfortable with the posted content. However, Twitter provides a communication platform, and users may use our service to discuss controversial subject matter.
If a specific user is posting content that you disagree with or otherwise find offensive, we have provided you with the ability to block the user. For more information on blocking users, see: https://support.twitter.com/entries/117063
Twitter believes strongly in the importance of free speech and works to ensure that such speech is maximized. Limiting speech on Twitter (and other social communication tools) could result in the highly undesirable outcome of speech that is allowed offline being restricted online. We are strongly opposed to this, as this could cause issues with the practical expression of information"

 

IIOC vs ULS vs Indictable Offenses - An Open Question

Tough justice for those who watch child porn: Grayling announces perverts will no longer escape with 'slap on the wrist' in crackdown on soft punishments

 

 

 

A quick update on my post from a couple of days ago.

 

Following the above article published yesterday, the below has been sent, with the question asked if the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and Police Minister Damian Green would be happy for me to publish their responses here.

 

awaiting their replies with interest ...

 

"Dear Mr Grayling, Mr Green,

 I read with interest the article in the subject of this e-mail, regarding "Tough justice for those who watch child porn" (not my choice of words, these images or videos are images of children being abused and exploited by paedophiles, not pornography, but that's another issue that I continually take up with the media).

As you can see by the below, I have been trying to find out why some offences are able to be appealed against under the "Unduly Lenient Sentences" scheme, whilst others are not.

I received a reply from the Sentencing Policy and Penalties Unit this week, with the gist of their e-mail reply being it all depends on the classification of offences. It seems that only sentences that are considered "indictable only" can be considered under the ULS scheme, and as the crime of making/downloading of Indecent Images of Children is not an "Indictable Only" crime, this is why it cannot be considered when appealed against.

I have blogged a little on this, the link is here http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/09/indecent-images-of-children-unduly.html, please feel free to read this, I have included in there a small part of the e-mail I received.

My question to both of you, is if the British Justice system is to get tougher on crimes, this one in particular, why is it not considered "indictable only"? I would have thought that all paedophile crimes or crimes against children would automatically be classified as this, not as a "Summary" or "Either Way" offence. As more people become aware of the ULS scheme, surely having this crime included as Indictable Only, and letting the public be able to appeal under the ULS scheme if sentences are too light, would eventually affect the sentences that are passed down going forward if enough people complained?

Thank you & look forward to your reply.

Richard Bougeard"



We are far too lenient with online sex offenders (JEP 11/06/2013)

Whilst reading through todays online edition of the JEP, I happened on an excellent article by Richard Heath, that impressed me so much I thought I'd include this in my newly started blog.

We are far too lenient with online sex offenders

 

 

In this piece Richard refers to the link between viewing child abuse images/videos, and the sexually motivated murders of children, following the convictions of Stuart Hazel and Mark Bridger.

 

To any normal person, it seems perfectly plausible that someone who has a sexual "fetish" (for want of a better word) for children and looks at such images online, will, quite probably, eventually get bored of merely viewing these vile images or films, and go to the next step of actual sexual abuse of children.

 

Indeed, this seems to be further corroborated by Sunday's article in The Sun, by Jim Gamble, former Chied Executive of CEOP, who writes "a study was carried out on 155 US prisoners jailed for viewing child abuse images. At the beginning, 26 per cent admitted a physical contact offence with 75 children. By the end of the study, which used a lie detector test, 85 per cent had admitted to contact offences with 1,777 children."

 

These stats have been taken from page thirteen of The Butner study from 2005.

 

If such a link is there, it really does offer the question, why are we so lenient with offenders who make, download and share such images? It seems far to often, in the UK at least, that no matter how many images are amassed by paedophiles, all they get is a suspended sentence for a matter of months.

 

One case springs to mind to support this (in amongst the thousands that have escaped jail over the years), and that is the case of Toren Smith who had downloaded 94,000 (yes, ninety four thousand!!) images and videos of child abuse, and ended up with a 2 year suspended sentence, believe it or not.

 

Unfortunately, as well, this was also the time when I discovered that you cannot appeal against this crime as "Unduly Lenient" as per one of my previous posts, as the AGs office will not look into this crime (Although in certain circumstances the Attorney General does have the power to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal if he considers that it is unduly lenient, the power only applies to a limited number of offences.  It does not apply to  the  offences  in this case which, we understand, concern making indecent images of children.  This means that it is not possible for the Attorney General to ask the Court of Appeal to look at the sentence in  this  case)

 

It really is time that this crime is taken more seriously than it is currently. The only people who would search for and download these images are people who are inclined towards children, i.e. paedophiles. Once a paedo, always a paedo, there is no cure, and in my opinion, sentences should be the same for downloading child abuse images as actual child abuse. Just because they may not have sexually abused a child (yet) before being caught, does not mean they won't once released. The real crime here, is not taking this seriously enough!!

 

"In times of trouble leniency becomes crime." - proverb