Double Standards, Ray Teret, Indecent Assault and Bending the Rules

 

 

 

On December 11 2014, Ray Teret was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for his catalogue of crimes against girls. A sentence well justified.

 

The sentencing remarks by Mr Justice Baker are interesting reading, when comparing them against the petition I started last year.

 

Reading through them, it is apparent that double standards have been applied in this case, when compared to other cases which have involved the same crime.

 

According to Justice Baker here , five out of the eleven victims, aged between thirteen and fifteen "consented" to their abuse (yes I know, AoC is sixteen and to imply consent does not make sense).

 

The paragraphs that interest me in Justice Baker's comments are below, and I have highlighted the "consensual" crimes:

 

"The jury convicted you of having sexually abused 11 different girls during this period
of time, 6 of whom you raped and 5 of whom were, as I have said, so awed by your
celebrity status that they consented to having sexual intercourse with you. Some of
those you raped were forcibly penetrated by you, causing them acute pain and distress,
whilst you ejaculated inside them. However it is clear that all of these girls were used
by you for your own sexual gratification, which in some cases was enhanced by you
encouraging them to masturbate you both manually and orally. In my judgement it is
no mere coincidence that each of these girls was between 13 – 15 years of age when
you abused them in this manner, as I am sure that, despite your protestations to the
contrary, you have a sexual interest in girls of that age."

 

"At the time of the commission of the offences of indecent assault the maximum
sentence for such offences was 2 years’ custody. This court remains bound by that
restriction. Thus on counts 1, 14, 25 31 and 35 there will be sentences of 18 months’
imprisonment, and on counts 6, 8, 18, 22, 23 and 24 there will be sentences of 12
months’ imprisonment. However on each of the convictions for rape, namely counts
5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 27 there will be sentences of 25 years’ imprisonment. All of
those sentences will run concurrently with each other making a total custodial sentence
of 25 years."

 

I say "Interesting" deliberately, because as we know, as detailed in my petition here, and previous posts, the crime of "Intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16" (note "intercourse", not "rape -, thus implying ostensible consent), carried with it a disclosure timescale of 12 months. Both the MoJ and CPS have over the last few months, stuck to their guns and stated repeatedly to me that in the UK, crimes cannot be "retroactively" amended and therefore any victim of this crime, who has disclosed after the 12 months have passed (ie anyone since 2005, as this timescale was removed in 2004) it is a matter of "tough luck".

 

Furthermore, the crime cannot be changed to "indecent assault", as detailed here ("A prosecution for an offence committed under section 6 (or an attempt to commit that offence) must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence. The House of Lords has ruled that a charge of indecent assault cannot be used to bypass the time limit. See R v J [2004] UKHL 42").

 

So, the question is, how have potentially hundreds of victims been so catastrophically failed by the "injustice system", but the Law can seemingly be bent for a high profile case such as this?

 

Was Justice Baker unaware of the time limit?

 

Did Justice Baker deliberately change the crime to "Indecent Assault" from the start, thus eliminating the 12 months?

 

Or, more likely (in my opinion), did the rules get "bent" as this, being Saville related, there had to be a desirable outcome, whatever the path of getting it?

 

Whatever the reason is, this is a totally unacceptable flouting of the Law to fit the crime, and this makes it ten times worse for all the victims of the same crime, who have been so badly let down.

 

 



Another Victim Blamer Sticks His Oar In.

Abused girls can be to blame

 

 

 

Former newspaper owner Eddy Shah has said underage girls who engage in consensual sex can be "to blame" for the abuse they experience.

Mr Shah told the BBC: "If we're talking about girls who just go out and have a good time, then they are to blame."
He added rape charges involving girls who "threw themselves" at celebrities could be a legal technicality.
Mr Shah was recently cleared of raping a schoolgirl after telling a jury there had been no contact between them.
The 69-year-old founder of the newspaper Today, who lives in Chippenham, Wiltshire, was found not guilty at the Old Bailey last month of raping a girl at upmarket London hotels when she was between 12 and 15.
His comments to Radio 5 live presenter Stephen Nolan come after a prosecutor was suspended and a judge placed under investigation after it emerged a 13-year-old girl was labelled "predatory" and "sexually experienced" during a Snaresbrook Crown Court case where a man admitted abusing her.

'Witch hunt'

Mr Shah also commented on Scotland Yard's Operation Yewtree investigation, set up in the wake of allegations of sexual abuse by BBC DJ Jimmy Savile and other television stars from the 1970s and 1980s.
Mr Shah said: "Rape was a technical thing - below a certain age. But these girls were going out with pop groups and becoming groupies and throwing themselves at them.

"Young girls and young men have always wanted a bit of excitement when they are young. They want to appear adult and do adult things."

When asked if he was implying that underage victims could themselves be at fault, he said: "If we're talking about girls who just go out and have a good time, then they are to blame

 

What the hell is wrong with some people?

 

Are people forgetting the basic, fundamental issue here?

 

We are not talking about eighteen year olds and above, who, having reached the age they can legally go out, have a "night on the town, on the pull, as some do. We are talking about young teenage girls, thirteen years old or so, and the blame should ALWAYS lie with the person who took advantage, who wielded the power, who SEXUALLY ASAULTED or ABUSED these children.

 

Note the word children.

 

Thirteen to sixteen, is under the age of consent for a reason, in case these people aren't aware. These so called "celebrities" who abused their status's and abused these children and young teenagers could quite easily have said NO.

 

NO.

 

Get it?

 

What is so difficult with that?

 

They are (supposed to be) the "responsible" adults here!!

 

No wonder the culture of Saville and others was allowed to continue, unabated, for so long.

 

This victim blaming culture needs to stop, and stop now, or we will be stuck in the position we are in for ever and will never be able to move forward.

Jurassic Park, 2013

 "Aiveepeeosauros" - Not a newly discovered species of dinosaur, but one that is becoming ever more prevalent throughout the 21st century.

As if Barbara Hewson's article in May's "Spiked Online", in which she argued the age of consent be lowered to thirteen (yes, thirteen!) was not bad enough, again she has shown herself to be totally on the side of perpetrators and completely anti-victim.

An "AVP Dinosaur" is a very apt way to describe her views (thank you Shy Keenan for this phrase - never has it ever been so apt as in this case).

Never mind the fact that in her previous thoughts, she has stated that the age of consent should be lowered to thirteen to "end the persecution of old men", (a veritable paedo-charter), the end to complainant anonymity, (how to really stop anyone ever coming forward to disclose), and a strict statute of limitations (get away with your crimes after a period of time - how long she doesn't say that I can see), she actually Laughed (yes, laughed, believe it or not) at the claims of victims.

In the above interview, when asked about Savile and satanic ritual abuse, she laughed, admitted she found it funny, and said "Satanic ritual abuse doesn’t exist, it’s like alien abduction.”. Later in the interview, she also said "it’s pointless to conduct an investigation of this kind into someone who is dead, as they can’t answer".

Sorry Barbara, but who the hell are you to make statements like this?

How do you know what exactly Savile did?

Did victims not try to come forward when he was alive?

How were they treated then?

Your attitude is inexcusable - do you really truly believe this nonsense that you say?

As if this isn't bad enough, Barbara then goes on to describe Stuart Hall's assaults as "misdemeanours", that were "displacement tactics" to make up for the fact that Savile was not alive.

Really?

Please don't forget, that paedophile, Stuart Hall's offences included the abuse of a nine year old girl - and Barbara, you describe this as a "misdemeanour"? 

How can you possibly describe predatory paedophile crimes as "misdemeanours"?

Disgusting in the strongest sense of the word.

No wonder victims find it so hard to come forward, and disclose abuse that they have had to endure, when people have attitudes like you have. I only hope that your views are a minority one, what hope if most Barristers have the same views as yourself.

And statutes of Limitations. Just how far back that Barbara Hewson is suggesting as a cut off is a bit of a mystery - there isn't anything that I have found to indicate a timescale.

So, how far then?

20 years?

30 years?

40 years?

According to the above clip, she states "I don’t agree with historic prosecutions".

Does this mean all "historic" prosecutions then?

What about very recent ones from only a few years ago?

Again, no wonder victims are reluctant to come forward - many I am sure would rather keep their abuse to themselves rather than have to relive it to someone who wouldn't take them seriously, that would dismiss them as "historic" and not worth pursuing. Better to live in a life of turmoil and keep it to yourself, than to relive it all in graphic detail to someone like yourself.

And as for the infamous May "age of consent" argument and the "I’m just simply saying the age of consent in this country at the moment is too high.”?

Imagine if the age of consent really was 13 (as opposed to the "unofficial" 13 year old "consent" )?
Imagine if it was legal for a 30, 40 year old plus to be able to use and abuse their position of power to target, groom and abuse children of 13? I presume that Barbara Hewson is not just talking about teenagers of 13 plus experimenting and having sex with each other (as they do), but the age of consent to be 13 full stop. What a disgusting and scary thought. Has she really thought about the implications of this?

The NSPCC may have stated her views as "ill informed" , but I reckon her views go far further than this. Her views, are in my opinion, part of the reason why abuse like Savile's and Hall's is allowed to go on unchecked for so long, and more than part of the reason why victims of "historic" (not that I like this description) abuse are so wary of coming forward, so wary of disclosing because they won't be believed.

"AVP dinosaur" Barbara Hewson's (and no doubt others) views are the problem that needs to be sorted out to allow victims to get proper justice, truth and closures.