A Right AVP Devon Mash-up

 

 

Locked Up - part 1

 

 

Locked Up - part 2

 

 

Locked Up - part 3

 

Locked Up - part 4

 

 

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.

 

Aided and abetted by "Selfish Mum" and TPTB - Devon MASH.

 

Proof (as if any is needed), that nothing will ever change in the UK when it comes to safeguarding and protecting children.

 

I will leave you to read the articles, if you haven't already, and contemplate the facts of the story.

 

Devon MASH have a website, which includes several amazingly bold statements which counteract this decision totally - one of the best being "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" Unbelievable isn't it.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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? "Ensure early identification of potential significant harm and trigger interventions to prevent further harm" - don't make me laugh - how does living with a paedophile stepfather and being imprisoned each night constitute this??

 

In 1991, the UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of a child. Included in the charter are the below articles:

 

• Article 3

  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.

  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.

  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.
• Article 9

  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.

  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
• Article 19

  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.

  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.
• Article 27

  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.

  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.
• Article 34

  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:

  (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity

 

 

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".

 

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.

The ULS (Unduly Lenient Sentences) Scheme - an Update

In 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.

However it appears that Scotland does not have the same sort of scheme as England.

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.

The old cliché "couldn't make it up" comes to mind.

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.

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).

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.

"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.
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. 
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. 
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. 
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 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.".

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.

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! ******

Male vs Female Paedophiles Round 2

Mother jailed for having sex with eight-year-old boy more than 50 times

 

 

 

 

"A mother of one has been jailed for having sex with an eight-year-old boy more than 50 times.

Loren Morris, 21, slept with the boy for about two years starting when she was 16, a court heard.

She was charged after the boy, now 14, was overheard bragging to classmates he had slept with her.

Antoine Mullers, defending, said Morris, of Lyde, Herefordshire, stopped having sex with him when she realised it was ‘wrong’.

Judge Robert Juckes QC added: ‘I have come to the conclusion that due to the concern and embarrassment caused to both you and your family that you will not be offending again, let alone committing sexual offences.’

She was seen smiling and smoking at Worcester crown court yesterday where she was jailed for two years after being convicted of three counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 16.

Morris was also banned from contact with a child under 16 without the permission of a parent and put on the sex offenders’ register for ten years"

 

Following my post last year here AVP - Male vs Female Paedophiles, and ignoring the disgusting language used in this case (how the hell can anyone "have sex with" an eight year old?), here is a classic example of the way that female paedophiles are treated differently to male ones.

 

Imagine a male paedophile, sexually abusing or raping an eight year old more than FIFTY times, and getting a mere TWO YEARS custodial sentence. Chances are, the sentence would be nearer to one in double figures. Chances are, that if he did get a mere TWO YEARS there would be plenty of complaints to the AG's office, and the sentence would be dramatically increased.

 

But a female paedophile? How are complaints dealt with for a sentence of TWO YEARS for the sexual assault (equivalent of RAPE) of an EIGHT year old MORE THAN FIFTY TIMES?

 

I'll show you -

 

"Thank you for your email below regarding the sentence passed on Loren Morris.

 

The Law Officers, (the Attorney and Solicitor General) have the power to refer sentences for a limited number of offences to the Court of Appeal when they consider the sentence to be unduly lenient. This means more than lenient. A sentence will only be unduly lenient if it falls significantly below the sentence that any judge could reasonably have imposed in the circumstances of the particular case. Even then, the Court of Appeal has a wide discretion as to whether it should actually increase a sentence in a case.

 

Following a very careful review of this case the Solicitor General, Oliver Heald QC MP has decided not to refer the sentence of Loren Morris to the Court of Appeal, as he did not believe that the sentence for the offences would be increased"

 

As I said at the beginning, another classic example of how female paedophiles are treated far more leniently than male ones.

 

Disgusting - why is there such a difference - the offense is exactly the same. Same type of offender, same type of offence, same end result regarding there being a victim of child sexual abuse. Someone really needs to look & find out why there is such a sentence differential. The judicial outcome should be exactly the same - male / female / young / old.

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?





One Two Three Four - How many times can a Predatory Paedophile be let off?

 

 

January 2014

 

Judge gives paedophile Callum Evans ‘last chance’

 

 

"A predatory paedophile who has repeatedly abused teenage boys and girls he targeted on social network sites was given one last chance today to avoid going to prison.

Callum Evans, 21, was already on a three-year community order for grooming and abusing two 14-year-old boys when he pursued more teenagers after being spared prison in September 2011 having admitted a string of sex charges.

Judge Graham Hume Jones also gave Evans a Sexual Offences Prevention Order which banned him from contacting children online.

But within a few weeks he had breached that order by using a computer and mobile phone to contact teenagers.

He got them to send him indecent images before meeting up with them and carrying out sex attacks, Bristol Crown Court heard"

 

July 2013

 

Paedophile freed and not banned from Facebook despite using it to groom victims

 

"Judge Graham Hume Jones said banning Callum Evans from using Facebook would be “particularly excessive” after he was caught two years ago using it to groom two teenage boys and meet up with them to molest them.

Despite being found using Facebook again to try and trick 13 boys and one girl to send him pornographic photos, the 21-year-old appeared before the same judge, who allowed him to remain on the site for a second time.

Judge Hume Jones has previously been criticised for his sentencing, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) referred one of his cases to the Attorney General for 'undue leniency.’

Taunton Crown Court heard that in 2011 Judge Hume Jones gave Evans a community order but didn’t ban him from using Facebook after he was caught using the site to encourage boys to send naked photos, as he said this would deprive him of the 'social traffic’ his peers took for granted.

Weeks after being convicted, Evans created a new alias on Facebook, which he used to pose as a teenage girl to convince other teenagers to send him pornographic photos of themselves.

 

 

September 2011

 

 

Judge lets net sex predator keep Facebook... to preserve his social life

 

 

"A teenager who used Facebook  to groom young boys, some of whom he later molested, can continue  to use social networking sites, a judge ruled yesterday.

Callum Dower, 19, used the site to encourage youths to send him naked pictures. If they rejected his advances, he would pose as a girl and try again.

He went on to molest one boy in a supermarket toilet, and another in his car after allowing him to drive it in a car park.

Judge Graham Hume Jones sentenced the ‘extremely manipulative’ Dower to a three-year community order for child sex and pornography offences.

However, he agreed with defence barrister Patrick Mason’s claim that a ban from using social networking websites would be ‘particularly excessive’, and deprive the defendant of the ‘social traffic’ taken for granted by his peers.

Dower had admitted six charges of making an indecent image of a child, five charges of causing or inciting a child to take part in pornography and two charges of sexual activity with a child. Taunton Crown Court also heard that he had previously been warned by police about his affection for teenage boys.

Dower was aged 17 and 18 when he carried out the offences. He used Facebook to contact boys as young as 14, and urged them to send him lewd images with their mobile phones. If they refused, he posed as ‘Georgina’, ‘Georgia’, ‘Georgie’ and ‘Jade’, and attempted to trade explicit images."

 

2009

 

Could not find any news stories, but according to the articles "The court heard how Evans, described as being from a good middle class family, was first convicted of possessing indecent images in 2009"

 

One has to wonder if the judge then was also Judge Hume Jones?

 

One also has to wonder how on earth decisions like this have been made? 

 

How many times does a "predatory paedophile" have to offend - in the same way - before proper justice is done?

 

Why the change of name from Dower to Evans?

 

If there was ever a warning and a reason not to let young children use social media sites alone without any parental supervision, this is it!

 

Obviously I have appealed this to the AG, and the AG's Office has "asked for further details of the case from the Crown Prosecution Service so that the Law Officers can decide whether or not to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient"

 

Updates as I get them.

 





Russia - Getting it right

Proposed Russian law bans online speech promoting paedophilia

 

 

"MOSCOW, RUSSIA (BNO NEWS) — A Russian legislator submitted a bill Wednesday that would allow the government’s internet watchdog to block access to websites that contain texts which are deemed to favour paedophilia, strengthening current laws that allow the blocking of websites containing child pornography.

The bill was submitted to the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, by Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) member of parliament Mikhail Degtyarev. It contains a number of amendments to the federal law on information that was last changed in 2012 to allow the government’s internet watchdog to block child pornography websites.
But Degtyarev said the current law does not allow the government to block other content written or distributed by paedophiles. “Since the federal legislation makes emphasis on banning visual images and doesn’t regulate in any way the freedom of paedophilic speech and ideas, amoral texts and messages of a paedophilic character are circulated quite legally,” he said, as quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency.
The legislator said he believes his bill will help to prevent future crimes against children and will limit access to internet sources used by paedophiles. It was not immediately clear whether the bill was likely to gather sufficient support or when a vote in parliament may take place.
More than 9,500 sex crimes against children were reported in Russia in 2009, including more than 960 cases that involved rape. But despite the authorities’ declared fight against the sexual abuse of minors, police are often slow to respond to allegations of child abuse, according to activists.
Pavel Astakhov, Russia’s Children’s Rights Commissioner to President Vladimir Putin, has in the past suggested the existence of a “paedophile lobby” in the country’s lower house of parliament, which he believes is responsible for the blocking of legislation that would have aided the fight against child sex abuse. "

So, Ignoring the AVP language, Russia can do this -why not the UK?

How many places online do YOU know that promote paedophilia and paedophilic activities?

How many places online do YOU know make excuses for paedophiles, what they do, and try to justify it?

How many Twitter/Facebook/Blog accounts etc. have YOU seen that are either run by paedophiles, or try to legitimise what they do?

Can this be done here in the UK?

If not, why not?

Thoughts .....


 

Italy & Child Ab .... sorry "Love"

From the makers of "WTF" and "You couldn't make this shit up", comes this.

Paedophilia Is Love According to Italy Court

 

"According to an Italy court, paedophilia is love. In the case of a 60-year-old man who took in an 11-year-old disadvantaged girl, the Italian court has annulled the man’s five-year jail sentence for rape of a minor.
The reason for the annulment, the court says, is because the older man and the prepubescent girl had a “romantic relationship,” and the girl claimed she is in love with the much older man. In Italy, the age of consent is 14, but in cases where one person is an authority figure or caring for the other, the age of consent is 16.
The 60-year-old man works in social services in the Italian town of Catanzaro, and had taken responsibility for the 11-year-old girl’s care. The illicit relationship was discovered when the police raided the man’s home and found the pair naked in bed.
The annulment by the court will be appealed for a new sentence, and a retrial will take place. According to the Italy court, paedophilia is love.
According to a published study in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Italy is experiencing a rising trend in child abuse. In the first large-scale study of its kind, between 1996 and 2003, 200 children under the age of 14 who visited the Soccorso Violenza Sessuale (SVS) Centre in Milan were seen for suspicion of child sexual abuse. This retrospective study showed about 80% of cases were normal or nonspecific, according to Joyce Adams’ Classification Scale. This study, however, focuses on suspicion of child sexual abuse in Italy, not confirmed child sexual abuse cases. The data from this study confirm similarities in other non-European countries, especially in terms of clinical signs of child sexual abuse."

In other Italian news ........

One in every 100 children in Italy is abused

 

Cases of child abuse increase in Italy

 

 

Paedophile teacher has sentence more than doubled. "Unduly Lenient" Works Again.

Richard Oldham

 

 

 

"A PAEDOPHILE teacher who preyed on his own pupils has had his jail term more than doubled after his original sentence was judged to have been “unduly lenient”.

Richard Oldham, 32, was jailed for just six months in September when he admitted a catalogue of offences while teaching in York - including sexual assaults against two 10-year-old boys, voyeurism and making and possessing indecent images of children."

 

Proof again that appealing against sentences that are "unduly lenient" gets results. Sitting on your bums moaning about sentences that are rubbish, or moaning on Twitter / Facebook or on media articles etc gets you nowhere,

If you too would like to get involved the next time you see a sentence that is completely unreflective of the crime, please read my posting from earlier this year - How to appeal against Unduly Lenient Sentences.

It works.

Yours could be the appeal that increases an unduly lenient sentence. Go for it.

Sent 19 September 2013

"Dear Sir, 
I would like to appeal against the sentence handed down to Richard Oldham, Leeds Crown Court 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." This was a paedophile teacher who has committed a variety of offences against children for eight years across primary schools, including making IIOC up to level four (I realise I cannot appeal against this), touching children and voyeurism. Receiving a six month sentence for eight years of sexual offences is merely a slap on the wrist, and send out a message that this crime is not taken seriously, and in no way does it show society's unhappiness.
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). As per the above reasons, a six month sentence is no deterrent whatsoever for his behaviour. If anything, the fact that he was a teacher and had responsibility for primary school children on a daily basis, should demand a slightly longer sentence than a paedophile who was not in his position of responsibility.
"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 fact that he has committed various crimes over a period of eight years, must mean that there is a strong possibility (or probability) that he is very likely to offend again. Locking him up for six months, minus parole / good behaviour, is no protection to the public, especially with the contact he has had with children. 

I have already contacted the CPS regarding Judge Jameson's anti-victim comments regarding Richard Oldham being such a good teacher and a loss to the community - I hope that there is some way that they will be able to address this as this language is unacceptable."

Ireland, Sarah's Law and "Confused.Com"

Paedophilia: is name and shame the best solution?

 

 

 

 

Both a good and a bad article at the same time.

 

The good news is, that Ireland is to get a version of Sarah's Law by the end of the month. The version will incorporate most of the elements of Sarah's Law that the UK and Jersey have. The only difference is, according to the response from Barnardos, is that only certain people will be able to request disclosure, these being parents, guardians, school principles and club leaders. I must admit to being a bit bemused about this, bearing in mind that it matters not who makes the disclosure requests, the thing that matters with Sarah's Law is that disclosures are only ever made to those who have direct responsibility for the child(ren) involved. Quite what the end achievement will be by having this restriction in place - who knows?

 

Response from Barnardos

 

Anyway, back to the article in the Irish Times.

 

In essence quite a balanced article, however the author seems to be bringing up a few assumptions, and writing about a few things that is not relevant with Sarah's Law as it stands in the UK and Jersey.



 

Going back a year and a half or so,  when we set up the Facebook page for Sarah's Law for the Islands, and the associated groups, and when contact was made with Home Affairs here in Jersey, there were quite a few misconceptions about Sarah's Law and how it worked, Thankfully these were explained away, and we now have this law here.

 

The first misleading part of this piece  / misconception is the headline itself. If you glanced quickly at this, you would automatically think that Sarah's Law was the same as Megan's Law - some sort of "Name and Shame" scheme, where names of known paedophiles and child sex offenders were in the public domain somewhere and could be accessed by anyone and everyone.

 

Simply not true.

 

The whole purpose of Sarah's Law, is to provide a controlled disclosure to the person best placed to protect the child(ren) involved - this normally being parents or guardians. No disclosure is ever made to just anyone, no information is ever released into the public domain, and before a disclosure is made, the parents / guardians have to sign an agreement stating that they will not release this information to anyone else. If they do, there are repercussions by law.

 

This in itself, renders the rest of the assumptions in the article obsolete.

 

As there is no public disclosure, no "name and shame", no passing information to third parties", then there is no reason to either "driving offenders underground" or "encouraging vigilantism". From what I know when I was campaigning for Sarah's Law in Jersey, there have been no confirmations of these happening in the UK, so I do not think that Ireland should be worrying about this.

 

One of the most informative articles written about the CSODS is enclosed below - this is a link that I have shared previously on our facebook groups, and explains the law in a plain and easy to understand format.

 

Sarah's Law Explained

 

 

Hopefully Ireland will get this Law passed, hopefully it will help to protect children from potential abuse, and hopefully all the fears in the article will prove unfounded.





AVP and Judge Peter Bowers. Again. And Again.

Judge tells historic sex abuser: 'It's water under the bridge'

 



 

"A MAN who sexually abused a child walked free from court after a controversial judge told him his historic offence was “water under the bridge”.

Judge Peter Bowers was at the centre of a media storm in 2012 after telling a serial burglar it took a huge amount of courage to steal from homes.
Following complaints, his comments were investigated by the judicial watchdog, with Prime Minister David Cameron publicly criticising the remarks. Yesterday (Friday October 18), Judge Bowers attracted further criticism when he handed 35-year-old Gary Flynn a community order after he admitted indecently assaulting a young girl more than 15 years ago.
Flynn, of Belle Vue Court, Norton, near Stockton, admitted touching the younger girl’s genitals and forcing her to have oral sex when he was aged between 16 and 18.
Judge Bowers praised Flynn – previously cautioned for a similar offence - for pleading guilty and sparing his victim the ordeal of giving evidence before handing him a three year community supervision order. He told him: “You were a teenager suffering from the effects of a head injury which made your maturity and responsibility less than somebody of your age.
“This is water under the bridge. You have lived 15 or 17 years without other convictions and there is no reason to think you will be committing offences in the future.” 

 

Sorry?

Is this for real?

"Water under the bridge"

Does this victim see this as just Water under the bridge?

Google this phrase & see what the top meaning is.

 

"water under the bridge (<lg>or <ge>N. Amer.</ge></lg> water over the dam)

phrase of water

1. 1.

   used to refer to events that are in the past and consequently no longer to be regarded as important.

   
   

   "I don't want to talk about that—it's all water under the bridge now"

 

"All in the past and no longer to be regarded as important"

 

"Judge Bowers praised Flynn – previously cautioned for a similar offence - for pleading guilty"

 

With attitudes like this, is it any wonder that adult (and child) victims of child abuse don't find it easy to come forward and disclose. With attitudes like this, no wonder the Saville culture flourishes even up until this day. With attitudes like this, no wonder people have no faith whatsoever in the justice system. This sort of AVP language has no place in the judicial process, and should NOT be tolerated.

 

So, let's have a closer look at Judge Bowers, as it seems this isn't the first time he has caused "controversy"

 

Reprimand for judge who told burglar he needed 'a huge amount of courage' to steal from homes and set him free

 

Paedophile let off by Judge Peter Bowers 

 

( in this case Judge Peter Bowers actually said (believe it or not) 'I have read with some concern about you, and this addiction you have had of looking at pornography of little children.") so as well as letting him off, he thinks (or describes) IIOC as "pornography of little children!!!!



 



So, readers of this blog posting have two things to do instead of moaning about this :)

 

One - Unduly Lenient - e-mail correspondence@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk and appeal this as Unduly Lenient. Does it matter if the offenses were committed in the 1990's? Nope, this should have still resulted in a custodial sentence.

 

Two - make a complaint about the appalling AVP language used by Judge Bowers. E-mail inbox@ojc.gsi.gov.uk (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office) and let them know your feelings about "historical" child sex abuse being considered "Water under a bridge". This AVP Culture needs to stop. NOW!!

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.

Unduly Lenient Sentences, Appeals, and Failures That Seem To Make No Sense.

Matthew Thain

 

 

Back in 2010, Matthew Thane was found guilty of molesting a toddler and a schoolgirl, as well as amassing a library of 766 Indecent Images of Children, some being video clips (read the link above).

 

At the time, the Judge sentenced him to a three year Supervision Order, a Youth Offending Programme and a residency and Sexual Offenses Prevention Order.

 

Basically he walked out of court, a free man.

 

Disgusting!

 

Wish I had known about appealing sentences back then, that is one I definitely would have appealed!

 

So, fast forward to this year.

 

Matthew Thain

 

 

 

 

From the above article, Daily Mail, 5 July 2013

 

"A paedophile spared jail for molesting a toddler and a schoolgirl walked free again today despite lying to police about meeting the young sister of a girlfriend.

Matthew Thain, 21, also breached the terms of his suspended sentence by getting in touch with one of his former victims.
Thain, of Camberwell, southeast London, escaped jail in 2010 after a judge ruled intensive supervision would protect other children from the teenage paedophile.
But concerns were raised after he started seeing a woman with a 12-year-old sister.
He had also been in touch with another youngster he was banned from contacting.
Thain admitted attempting to pervert the course of justice and two breaches of a sexual offences prevention order.
Judge Peter Rook QC said: 'This is worrying because it is manipulative behaviour when he thought he was in breach of a court order.
'It's covering up and it's quite hard to argue that it doesn't deserve a custodial sentence.'
He added: 'It seems the breaches do fall into the category where a custodial sentence is appropriate because you were clearly deliberately ignoring a court order and there was a real risk.'
But he agreed he could suspend the sentence to allow Thain to take up a position as an apprentice chef.
The court heard Thain is due back in court tomorrow for posting a Facebook profile under the name 'Dumbo Bray' to try and reel in more victims.

Read the last two line again.

He allowed Matthew Thain to walk from court a free man a second time, so that he could work as an apprentice chef

The court heard Thain is due back in court tomorrow for posting a Facebook profile under the name 'Dumbo Bray' to try and reel in more victims.

You couldn't make this shit up!!

Seriously !!

So, I decided to appeal (as I do, with what I consider to be ULS). The AG agreed to recall the papers etc, so I had hoped that this would be fully reviewed and an appropriate sentence given.

But...

"Thank you for your letter dated the 04 July 2013 in which you expressed dismay at the sentence passed upon Matthew Thain for perverting the course of justice and breach of a sexual offences prevention order.  As you are aware, in certain circumstances, the Law Officers can apply to the Court of Appeal for sentences to be increased on the grounds that they are “unduly lenient”.   

The Law Officers’ power to refer sentences is contained within section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 but it is subject to certain restrictions.  The power is only available in respect of sentences imposed for certain offences, which includes perverting the course of justice but not breaching a sexual offences prevention order.  However, where an offence which is not referable is linked to one that is referable then both offences can be considered.   

The power to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal for consideration as an unduly lenient sentence is not a prosecution right of appeal.  It is a power reserved for the most serious offences in which a sentence falls significantly below the sentence that any judge could reasonably have passed.  Having considered this case very carefully, the Solicitor General decided that it would not be right to refer it to the Court of Appeal as he did not believe they would increase the sentence.  

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to bring this case to the Solicitor General’s attention, I hope this explanation has been of some assistance."

Where is common sense when you need it?

Quite obviously, his original Offenders Treatment Programme did not work.

Quite obviously he still poses a risk.

Quite obviously he should have received a custodial sentence (IMHO)

Quite obviously sentences in the British Isles are more than often a complete joke when it is for paedophile crimes.

Quite obviously, there is little or no deterrence, little or no justice, and little or no "justice being seen to have been done".

Quite obviously, sentences need to be realistic and appropriate, and if they are not, they need to be reviewed.

Media AVP again - Male & Female Paedophiles.

Woman 'had an eight-month sexual relationship with son, 11, of family friend'

 

 

 

 



 

"A 35-year-old woman has been charged with 20 counts of rape and sodomy after she allegedly had an eight-month sexual relationship with an 11-year-old boy, it emerged today."

The media, (rightly or wrongly), describes anyone who sexually assaults or sexually abuses children under the age of consent as a paedophile. Ignoring the literal translation - which we all know, relates to pre-pubescent children - I have no issues with this.

One thing I do have an issue with, is the different way in which male and female paedophiles are reported in the media.

If the above story related to a male, rather than a female, you can be sure that the article would be peppered with such words such as pervert, paedophile, monster, vile etc. However, as is usual with the reporting of females who sexually abuse children, the described crime is lessened greatly by the way that the media refuse to describe women who abuse children as paedophiles.

Instead, as per this story, the descriptions include such blatant AVP as having an "eight month sexual relationship", having a "close relationship", and "she and the victim had been sexually active".

Why is it so hard, for the media, and indeed society as a whole, to make the connection between females who sexually abuse and rape children, and paedophilia?

Paedophiles are paedophiles, full stop.

There is not (or there shouldn't be) any distinction in offenders, between ages, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or anything else. Paedophiles are paedophiles. It should not matter a jot whether they are male, female, young, old, black, white, rich, poor, Christian, Muslim or whatever.

By reporting in this way, the media immediately lessens the crime (a "sexual relationship" ... with an eleven year old.... seriously - wtf?) which therefore makes the impact has on the victim seem far less of an ordeal than if the offender had been a male.

It is about time that no matter who commits this vile offence, the prejudice that is made against victims in this way is stopped, and ALL offenders and their vile crimes are described the same, and that is as paedophiles and paedophile crimes. The crime is exactly the same, the impact on victims and their families and friends are exactly the same, so there should be no distinction between them

"Words are powerful. Be careful how you use them because once you have pronounced them, you cannot remove the scar they leave behind."   Vashti Quiroz-Vega