Ray Teret, Double Standards & FOI's - an Update

Dear Mr Bougeard

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request

I refer to your Freedom of Information (FOI) request which we received on 22 December 2014.

The FOI Act gives you the right to know whether we hold the information you want and to have it communicated to you, subject to any exemptions which may apply. It is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information disclosed under the FOI Act by definition becomes available to the wider public. 

In your request you referred to the sentencing remarks relating to Ray Teret’s conviction, who was recently sentenced to 25 years for child abuse charges.  You asked the following questions below and I have supplied our answer in bold font next to each question:

 

Please could you let me know: 

 

1)   Was the charge of "intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16" considered to begin with? (Yes or No) Yes

2)   Due to the length of time between the crime and disclosure, was the charge amended to "indecent assault" to guarantee a conviction? (Yes or No) No

3)   If question 1) was "No", why was it No? N/A

4) Ray Teret was cleared of various other sexual offences in relation to six other complainants - a)  did any of these relate to the crime "intercourse with girl between 13 and 15", No 

and b) was he cleared because of the 12 month timescale (Yes or No to 'a' and 'b' ) No

I trust this information assists.

 

Needless to say, one further FOI has been submitted in relation to questions and answers one and two.

 

More to follow when I receive an update.

 

In the meantime, please keep signing & sharing my petition

Timescales and Sexual Offences, an Update

The petition that I started here has now been going for about a month and a half, and now has nearly 400 signatures.

 

Hopefully all who have read my blog have signed it - if not WHY? - sign it now, it only takes a minute!

 

I have managed to find out the history of this disclosure timescale, and include this below.

 

A week or so ago, I had a reply from Mr Chown, head of Criminal Procedure at the Ministry of Justice, outlining where this 12 month limit originated. I will reproduce part of his e-mail below and elaborate a bit on this after:

 

"The time limit was of long standing, dating back to 1885; as Lord Bingham of Cornhill explained in the House of Lords case of R v J, it was originally shorter:

“Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 provided that no prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) (sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16) should be commenced more than three months after the commission of the offence. Section 27 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904 increased the time limit to six months. Section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922 increased the period to nine months. Section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1928 made a further increase to 12 months. That provision was consolidated in the 1956 Act.”

 

The time limit was finally abolished when the 1956 Act was replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but only prospectively, with effect from the date when that Act was brought into force in 2004.  In so legislating, Parliament followed the usual principle of non-retroactivity; Lord Steyn’s speech in R v J simply observed without further comment that “The change in the law is, of course, not of retrospective effect”.  Although retrospective removal of the time limit would not amount to substantive retroactivity in the sense of criminalising conduct that was not previously unlawful, it is clear that the bar to retroactive legislation also applies to fundamental procedural pre-conditions for the bringing of charges against an individual"

 

So, this goes back over 100 years to 1885!!

 

The original Law from 1885 itself an be read here and here (section 5) , and the bit that applies to this is "Provided also, that no prosecution shall de commenced for an offence under sub section one of this section more than 3 months after the commission of this offence".

 

I won't make this post too long, however, I will include a link that does explain further the reasons behind the original 3 month limit, and the reasons for raising it to 12 months. This link can be read here (it is rather long though) and includes the following 2 items:

 

"it was thought then that a girl who fell pregnant, and thus was unquestionably the victim of an offence, was so likely to name the wrong man that the accused needed the exceptional protection of a very short time limit, one which elapsed before her pregnancy had become obvious or even known" (this for the reasons of having the 3 month original timescale),

 

and

 

"it cannot long have been the supposed need to identify a perpetrator before a pregnancy became apparent, because the time limit was soon raised, first to six months by the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1904, then to nine months by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1922, and finally to 12 months by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1928. It was precisely because a pregnancy or childbirth might reveal the offence that the limit was raised. The reasons given for having any limit at all - loss of witnesses and the difficulties of proof - might equally apply to many other offences. But complainants in sexual offences were then still regarded with much more suspicion than other complainants, and so abolition may have been thought too radical to contemplate. However, it is hard to discern any coherent rationale after 1922, because the 1922 Act also provided that consent would no longer be a defence to an indecent assault upon a child or young person under the age of 16. Thus most forms of sexual activity with a girl under 16 became a criminal offence whether or not she consented, but no time limit was prescribed." for the raising of this limit.

 

 

What can be done to remove the 12 months for victims of this crime now disclosing abuse?

I will cover this soon in another posting.

 

Until then, please sign if you haven't yet done so, and please keep sharing and encouraging others to do so - the link is HERE this needs to be removed for the sake of "Sarah", "Sylvie" and "Jane", and all other victims of this crime who have been, and will be denied justice. 

C/O "Jersey Evening Propaganda" - "Seeking the Truth On Abuse"

"Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry - Victims Want To Ask Their Own Questions"

 

 

 

From the JEP Screenshots in the above blog:

 

"Seeking the Truth on Abuse"

 

1) "The Skull Fragment that turned out to be a piece of coconut" (plus picture)

Really?

Yet, from Team Voice ( Jar/6 Voice For Protest ) we have the following e-mail exchanges:

 

"On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.
“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.” 
“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”

“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”
“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”
“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”"

 

and

 

"On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’"

2)  "Public Funds has been misspent on expensive meals, accommodation and first class travel"

Really?

Again, from Team Voice ( "Entirely Accurate" ) we have the following e-mail sent from former DCO Lenny Harper -

 

"The first class flight to Australia. How many times is this nonsense going to be resurrected? Let me make one thing clear first of all. This trip was carried out in perfect accordance with States rules on long haul flights, and the relevant regulations can be found at paragraph 2.5 of the States Travel Policy. Have a look at the trips carried out by States members and Civil Servants to long haul destinations. You will find that NONE of them have travelled economy. Let me once again explain that on 28th May 2008 I submitted a full report to Frank Walker through Steven Austen-Vaughtier which explained all the circumstances of this trip, (which incidentally led directly to the conviction of a child abuser who received a jail sentence.) I will summarise some of the main points in the report.
· The initial quote for the flights was £7,879 for Business Class including the five hour flight from Perth to Brisbane. This was by Emirate Airlines who were by far the cheapest option. However, when it came to making the booking the only option was to return first class at an additional cost of £700. To offset this, the officers opted to fly the five hour journey from Perth to Brisbane by economy class, which meant that the first class journey on the return leg only cost £122 more. Again this was offset by the free chauffer services which saved a further £86. Net cost, £36. Furthermore, whilst away, the officers took NO rest days thus saving on a further eight days hotel and food costs. This was despite lengthy interviews with emotional and nervous victims.

Next, were the “unnecessary trips to London.” There were trips to London for three reasons as I recall. Firstly to interview victims and witnesses, and then record statements. Secondly, to arrange and secure the loan of specialist equipment from the Metropolitan Police such as the sifting machine which was borrowed from Scotland Yard free of charge and at a saving of many thousands of pounds. Thirdly, there were the trips to a department of the Met which advises on the operational security of investigations, both physical and other types of security. Not only was advice given, but Met officers visited the incident room at Jersey and carried out security surveys. Again, all free of charge. The officers from the department concerned at the Yard were all interviewed and provided full information on the services they provided. Funny how none of their statements have ever been mentioned.
And then of course, the revelation that visiting officers were put up in four star hotels in Jersey and in particular the “L’Horizon.” No mention of the fact that because of the hard work of our Admin staff and the fact that we were out of the tourist season and able to guarantee room occupancy, we actually only paid £70 a night at the hotel mentioned. How many States members and Civil Servants stay in hotels costing £70 a night when they go to the UK and other destinations on business? I can safely say that the answer, should CTV care to investigate will be none. Why, when you are at it, don’t you ask the SOJ Police to make the accounts for the hotels available? They will be revealing. Just where did Channel want us to accommodate officers living away from home and carrying out this difficult and important investigation? In tents?"

3) "It also emerged that the Police costs for the three year investigation had reached £7.5 million"

Really?

from Rico Sorda blog ( The Srutiny Sub Panel Review ), we see the following

 

"In reality the budget for expenditure by the States of Jersey Police was £4.5 million. The other £3 million was accounted for by other States Departments. This £7.5 million figure was also never all down to decisions taken by Mr. Power and Mr. Harper. Half of the spending on the inquiry was committed after their time leading the investigation. That such easily researchable facts have consistently been ignored within both the BDO Alto Limited review and local media reporting surely demands the question as to why?"

 

Just a couple of things that jumped out, reading this spin.

Why, especially with the above Scrutiny Sub Panel review from 2011, a COI only just started, and a statement titled "Seeking the Truth on Abuse"is the JEP still spinning these claims? Has the JEP EVER "sought the truth on abuse" regarding the HDLG / child abuse scandal over the years?

 

Answers on a postage stamp.

 

Please follow the below excellent blogs to keep updated on Jersey's COI

 

Rico Sorda

Voice for Children

The Bald Truth

Tony's Musings

Former Deputy Bob Hill

Tom Gruchy

 

 

 



Victim Blaming - Australian Style.

A JUDGE has refused to jail a 21-year-old man for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, saying today’s youth do not realise underage sex is a serious crime.

 

 

"A JUDGE has refused to jail a 21-year-old man for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, saying today’s youth do not realise underage sex is a serious crime.

District Court Judge Rosemary Davey’s comments have sparked calls from child protection authorities to teach all school students about the laws of sex and consent, and that they risk imprisonment for having sex under the age of 17.

The South Australian Association of School Parent Clubs president Jenice Zerna said the state’s education curriculum must work to combat the sexualised imagery bombarding children every day.

“We would also like to see schools provide ‘are you aware’ letters to parents when they contact them about upcoming sex education classes,” she said.

“It is as important that parents know the laws as it is for students and young people.”"

 

 

Just when you thought you'd read it all - seen all the p**s poor excuses under the sun, along comes a story that goes one better. Rather than concentrating on the offense and offender, what does this case concentrate on? Pointing the blame fair and squarely on the thirteen year old victim.

 

The age of consent in S Australia, as highlighted in the article, is 17. The victim, was 13. Four years UNDER the age of consent. Equivalent in the UK of raping a girl of twelve! And he walks free from court, after being told to "be good" !! Couldn't make it up !!

 

The thing that this article and case refuses point blank to acknowledge, let alone even point out, is the responsibility lies 100% with Sasha Pierre Huerta (offender). As a twenty one year old, who is quite obviously old enough to know the illegality of his actions, he and him alone, has the control to get himself out of this sort of situation. Saying "he thought she was 14" is absolutely no excuse whatsoever - this being still three years under the AoC in S Australia. It matters not how she was dressed, it matters not if the thirteen year old victim was "looking for a sexual encounter", it matters not if she was "partying and putting herself out there" - he thought she was fourteen, therefore under the AoC and the blame lies with him and he should have got a proper custodial sentence. If she had been a 73 year old instead of a 13 year old "throwing herself at him" what would he have done? Gone "with the flow", or got out of the situation? No guesses there!

 

As for the rest of Judge Davey's comments, you have to read them to believe them. Rather than blaming the youth of Australia for adults who choose to take advantage of them as she has continually done, maybe she should concentrate on coming down hard of the offenders instead. Of course teenagers will experiment with their sexual development, but to put the onus of the actions of such predators and the burden of criminality on them in this way is inexcusable.

 

 



Amazon and Ethical Shopping

Readers may remember the posting I did a few weeks ago called Child Abuse disguised as religion - To Train up a Child in which I briefly highlighted this book, which has been around since 1994 when it was first published.



If you have not read this post, please take a few minutes out to do so - amongst other items linked in this post is the book itself. If you haven't the time, you can read the book online here

As well as being a book full of such delightful ways to physically and mentally abuse your children into submission and obeying your every command, it has been linked to numerous deaths of young children. A quick Google search in the news will show some of the horrific stories, and whilst ultimately the responsibility of these murders lie with the parents, some also has to be directed at this vile book.

Since this posting, I have been trying to get answers (without a lot off success), from Amazon into why it is still promoting and condoning this "manual of abuse" on it's site, when other retail sites have realised the damaging impact that this book has and have withdrawn it. Obviously I realise that although there have been many public campaigns over the years, Amazon has so far refused to withdraw this book. More recently, MP Nadine Dorris has also called for Amazon to withdraw this book

I was quite surprised last night then, after countless e-mails and completing of forms on their site, to get a reply from Amazon as follows:

"I'm sorry to hear about this. I can understand your concerns.

In this case, I've escalated this issue to the appropriate department in our company and have requested to remove the item "To Train Up a Child: Turning the hearts of the fathers to the children" from the website as soon as possible. Thank you for your feedback.

I'm very sorry for the inconvenience you experienced in this case and I hope you'll give us another chance in the future."

Now, do I believe that this will happen?

As said before, there have been numerous, very public campaigns in the past to get this book banned, and to get Amazon to stop selling it, without success.

Not really sure if I believe they will, but by making part of the reply from Amazon in which they have stated "I've escalated this issue to the appropriate department in our company and have requested to remove the item "To Train Up a Child: Turning the hearts of the fathers to the children" from the website as soon as possible" public in this way, hopefully there will be a better chance of getting this book removed from Amazon for once and for all, or will they GO BACK ON THEIR WORD?. Naturally I have asked Amazon to send me confirmation when they have taken this book down, and in an ideal world it would be great to go on their site, search for this book, and have "no matches found".

I will add their response as a comment under this post if/when I receive it.

In the meantime, please share this - the more people that see the response from Amazon, the more pressure they will be under to remove it, and ultimately, to help prevent any more deaths of children in this way, that is the aim.

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."

Child Abuse disguised as 'Religion' - "to train up a child".

Guilty of murder for parenting by "To Train Up a Child"

 

 

"Two parents in Washington state have been found guilty of murder after allegedly following the abusive parenting techniques advocated in the parenting book "To Train Up a Child" by Michael and Debi Pearl.
Larry and Carri Williams received the maximum prison sentences allowable under the law after being found guilty of beating and starving their adopted daughter Hana to death. The methods they used to "discipline" their daughter were advocated in the controversial Christian book.
Some of the discipline techniques the Pearls teach include:

• Using plastic tubing to beat children, since it is "too light to cause damage to the muscle or the bone”
• Wearing the plastic tubing around the parent's neck as a constant reminder to obey
• "Swatting" babies as young as six months old with instruments such as "a 12-inch willowy branch," thinner plastic tubing or a wooden spoon
• "Blanket training" babies by hitting them with an instrument if they try to crawl off a blanket on the floor
• Beating older children with rulers, paddles, belts and larger tree branches
• "Training" children with pain before they even disobey, in order to teach total obedience
• Giving cold water baths, putting children outside in cold weather and withholding meals as discipline
• Hosing off children who have potty training accidents
• Inflicting punishment until a child is "without breath to complain"

 

Recently, this was brought up in the House of Commons by MP Nadine Dorries, who, amongst others, have urged Amazon to withdraw this book - so far to no avail (it still being available here.)

If you can stomach it, it can be read here To Train Up A Child,- not easy reading !!

Seriously, this book should be removed from all online retailers, especially one like Amazon. Quite a few have already removed this, but not Amazon. Is it morally or ethical right for Amazon to profit from child abuse in this way?

There are two existing petitions, one for the UK and one for the USA , and there is also a new ePetition asking the UK Government to ban the sale of this book. Please add your signatures to one or more of these, and get others to do the same. Tweet Amazon - e-mail them (cis@amazon.com ), do whatever you can and want. This book is nothing to do with "training children to all parents who love their children" as quoted, this is a book filled with various ways of physically abusing babies and children under the supposed "guise" of religion. This book has been the catalyst of a number of deaths of children, and it really should be banned. If you are in any doubt why, read the book itself, or the various news articles of Hanna Williams , Lydia Schatz and Sean Paddock. Thank you

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"

 

AVP and the Sunday Mirror

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

 

Rather than bore you with explaining the AVP in the above article, that the media sometimes reports like this, here is the e-mail I have sent to The Daily Mirror. I have also raised this with the press complaints commission - lets see what (if any) response I get. Knowing Ryan Parry from previous complaints, I will receive either nothing at all, or an e-mail asking me not to waste any of his time on complaints like this.

Anyway - here goes.

"Hi,
 
I have as you will have known, desisted from e-mailing you regarding your continued (but not quite so much) use of the trivialising way that you describe indecent images of children.
 
However, I must complain about the disgusting way that the above story has appeared in Sunday's Mirror.
 
2 points -
 
Firstly the way that the girls are merely described as under aged (before you point out to me, I know they are) rather than as children. Someone seeing a headline about underage girls would assume that they are within a couple of years under the age of consent - not somewhere between ten and twelve years old. These should not be described as "underage", but as children - as children are exactly what they are.
 
Secondly and more importantly, the choice of words by the Mirror "Four in a bed romp".
 
Please - even the Mirror must know that this sort of statement implies some sort of steamy orgy - a mutual sexual consent between all four parties. Reading a headline describing a four in a bed romp, should be best left to some celebrity gossip column, a "Sunday Sport" special maybe, an article in NUTS or ZOO - but never to describe 2 Corrie stars being allegedly caught sexually abusing two 10-12 year old children.
 
I would be very grateful for a reply this time - I realise the last e-mail I received from Mr Parry advised me that I was wasting too much of his precious time by e-mailing him my concerns, but child abuse is a serious issue and should never ever be trivialised and downplayed in the manner you are doing. This has to be one of the worst headlines to describe alleged child abuse I have seen in a long time.
 
Many thanks"

Not holding my breath - it's bad for my health!

 

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

"Paedophilia Is A Treatable Illness"

Paedophilia is a treatable illness

 

 

Telegraph, 1 July 2003

 

"These people need help, and they should be offered it before they seek out child pornography – or, even worse, act out their sick fantasies "

 

Ignoring the highly offensive language that this article contains, (again with the CP term!), this article I feel really needs a posting about it. There are some statements in here and the easiest way for me to write a post about it is to raise them individually - all points and views being my own of course, I speak here based on my own thoughts.

 

The first statement I would question, is the  ''incidental viewers". In the article, Max Pemberton quotes that research shows that they access indecent images through conventional search engines and that they may "harbour underlying paedophiliac fantasies that have been repressed or ignored".

 

Unfortunately, although this statement has been made, Max does not include in the article, the source of the research. It would have been far easier for the public to have been able to have seen the "research" and judge for themselves, instead of accepting this as matter of fact.

 

Whilst some of the paragraph may be true, and a lot of adult pornography may portray adults posing as teenagers, I would imagine that most adult sites found via major search engines have certain controls and would prohibit under eighteens appearing on them. Also, I would imagine, the vast majority of adults who view adult pornography would know if there were illegal images or films on these sites and would avoid them like the proverbial plague - and would (hopefully) report any that were on there.

 

Am I being naïve? Possibly, but I would hope that most people are good people who would do the right thing.

 

And "harbouring paedophiliac fantasies that have been ignored or oppressed"? What on earth does that mean? I'm pretty sure that most adults know what "turns them on" far before they ever searched for porn online, and would look specifically for these things. I find it hard to believe that adults would suddenly discover that by looking for adult porn, that they find out that actually they are attracted to children and are some sort of paedophile? My own opinion of course, but one I am guessing would apply to most people.

 

Now the crux of this post.

 

"Is Paedophile a treatable illness"

 

 

The million dollar question.

 

One that I personally believe, rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly, but hey, what do I know..) is a resounding NO.

 

In my naïve mind, I figure out that paedophilia is just another form of sexual choice - another "fetish" for want of a better mind, that is adults who are attracted to children.

 

Simple as that.

 

What paedophiles decide to do with these thoughts are what makes their actions so despicable - so disgusting. They may not have a choice in having this sexual preference - but they DO have a choice in acting on it.

 

Which is where I disagree with the article According to the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases, paedophilia is a mental illness . By my reckoning above if paedophilia is another sexual preference, another sexual "fetish", then shouldn't any fetish be included as a "mental illness". What about people who have These? What about people who are attracted to legs, feet, leather, PVC - the list is endless? Is every adult with a specific fetish "mentally ill"? Personally I think not. Personally I think this as an excuse to make them look overly harshly treated by society - to make us feel sorry for them, to accept it - "it's not my fault m'lud, I have this mental condition you see.....".

 

More and more, paedophilia is being classified as either a mental illness (DSM5 state this as a "mental disorder", UK Mental Health Act 2007 now classify this as a mental illness since 2007, and Greece have this classified as a disability).

 

How long before your taxes are being paid to these "poor" paedophiles who are afflicted with their "disability / mental illness" by way of benefits? How long before LGBT has another letter added to it - P? The more that society tries to reclassify this crime as a "disorder", the more that society accepts this as an "illness", the nearer this day will come. Mark my words.

 

Apologies for going off tangent towards the end and detracting from the article, but it is time we stop making excuses for paedophiles and their crimes. They alone are responsible for their actions, and thus they alone should pay the price for their actions. No-one has a gun to their head telling them to abuse children or download indecent images.

 

They choose.

 

 

“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

Thirteen - Lucky for some.

Beast beds girl of 13... but it’s not rape

 

 

 

 

An old story, from November last year, but one where the underlying theme of this story is just as applicable today as it was then. As far as I am aware, nothing has changed.

 

Under UK Law as defined by CPS "A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law, (Archbold 2004, 20-152)".

 

Easily done, I know, but I get very confused regarding the issue of consent. On one hand, wherever you look, it is stated "The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women" (taken from Law On Sex), however, taken from the same article - "Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity"

 

I find this very contradictory - If the legal age of consent is sixteen years old, where does does the second part come from? Surely, the second part is obvious & does not need to be in there - if sixteen is the age on consent, then obviously thirteen year olds cannot "legally give consent to any form of sexual activity" (and nor can fourteen or fifteen year olds) either?

 

However, going back to the article from November 2012, it states "Fury erupted last night after prosecutors scrapped a rape charge amid claims the girl consented"

 

How does this work then?

 

How can a thirteen year old have consented in the eye of the law, when "A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law"?

 

There have been other articles I have read, that also refer to sexual consent by under sixteen year olds.

 

According to Weightlifting champion Dylan Scott, 21, jailed for rape, from May this year, "It is plain that the jury must have proceeded on the basis there was consent". This was a 14 year old child.

 

And from the Peterborough Telegraph from June this year - Appeal rejected for teen who got 12-year-old pregnant - "The 17-year-old youth, who cannot be named, said he thought his victim was 13 and had consented to sex" If the legal age of consent is 16, why would someone think this?

Why does the 2003 Sexual Offences act, split offences between Children Under Thirteen and Thirteen to Sixteen if a child of sixteen cannot give consent?

Why are children still made to argue "consent or not consent" in courts when they are thirteen to fifteen years old and have been raped / sexually abused, if the legal age of consent is sixteen?

Is it really a case of "Thirteen - Lucky for Some" if you are a paedophile, have been caught, and have sexually assaulted / raped a child between thirteen to sixteen.

Then, at least, you can argue that the child consented, somehow.

Any answers gratefully received - please feel free to leave a comment below and let me know where I have misinterpreted this.

AVP 5 - "Rent Boys"

Rent Boy Scandal Rocks The Vatican

 

"THE Vatican is bracing itself for a rent boy scandal after a convicted paedophile priest apparently sought vengeance by informing on other child abusers in the Roman clergy.

            

Don Patrizio Poggi, who served a five-year sentence for abusing five 14 and 15-year-old boys at his parish on the outskirts of the Italian capital, has reportedly handed names to police. So far, four people have formally been placed under investigation by Rome magistrates"

Definition of Rent Boy, Wiki - the act or practice of men providing sexual services to either men or women in return for payment

Similarly to my previous post Child Prostitute , it seems that society seems totally incapable of distinguishing between children and adults when it comes down to prostitution. Girls under 16 who are sexually exploited and prostituted out are wrongly and prejudicially called "child prostitutes", and boys under 16 who are in the same position are wrongly and prejudicially referred to as "Rent Boys".

What is wrong with the correct definition for both sexes? Why is it so hard - for the media in particular - to use the term "prostituted child"?

As can be seen by the definition of Rent Boy, it explicitly refers to "Men", not "Boys". Boys of under 16, like girls under 16, do not "provide sexual services in return for payment" - they do not and cannot consent to this - they are prostituted out by child abusers to other child abusers to be sexually abused and raped. Where is the difficulty in understanding this?

I have nothing against this term being used in it's correct capacity, just not in instances where it describes child sexual exploitation. Just because this is a crime against male children, does not mean that it is less of a crime, and it should be referred to with the same seriousness as sexual crimes against female children should be referred to.

Please stop using this term to describe the sexual abuse of boys - by doing this, yet again you are both trivialising and legitimising this crime.

Media AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) 3 - "Affairs"

A brief posting tonight, on another way the media downplays the crime of child abuse.

Definition of affair by The Free Dictionary

"A romantic and sexual relationship, sometimes one of brief duration, between two people who are not married to each other."

 

Teacher jailed for affair with schoolgirl

 

 

 

The age of consent in the UK is 16 (Age of consent).

 

Call me picky, but when I think of the word "affair", I think of an extra-marital sexual relationship between 2 adults who are not married to each other (one or both being married to other people).

 

The key word here, being adults.

 

Not children.

 

If someone has unlawful sex (rape) with a child, it is classed as "sexual assault - it's a criminal offence".

 

Not an affair.

 

In the above story, the "affair" began when the girl was 14.

 

So still a child.

 

This way of reporting is another inaccurate and prejudicial term that is extensively used by media worldwide.

 

Why is this so often described as an "affair" by the media, instead of what it actually is - "Sexual Assault"?

 

What do victims think when their lives have been ruined by sexual assaults by adults, seeing their abuse being downplayed and trivialised in the media, by having it described as merely "having an affair"?

 

"Accuracy of language is one of the bulwarks of truth" - Anna Jameson.

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

 

 

 

 

Media and Legal AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) - "Child Prostitutes"

child prostitute ring groomed and then raped vulnerable girls

 

 

 

'Child' (Wiki) - "The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority"

"Prostitute" (Wiki) - "Prostitution is the business or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment. The person who receives payment for sexual services is called a prostitute or sex worker"



Continuing my "AVP" theme, another inaccurate and offensive term that is in regular use is "child prostitute", as detailed in the above recent report.

Do readers think:

a) Children can voluntarily plaster themselves with make up, dress themselves up with skimpy clothes and tout themselves around red light districts looking to provide sexual services for money?

b) Some children get ensnared in paedophile gangs, get drugged, raped, and passed around other child sex offenders and paedophiles to be raped and abused, for the "pleasure" of these paedophiles and child sex offenders, and for the profit of whoever is leading these gangs.

If you answered a), get off this blog - there are others more 'appropriate' for you elsewhere!

If you answered b), ask yourselves then, after reading the definitions above, why not only the media, but UK legislation itself, calls victims of paedophile gangs "child prostitutes" and not "prostituted children"?

Just two words, swapped around, but a whole heap of difference in their meaning.

Why is it so hard for the media to see this?

Why the hell is legislation itself in the UK still referring to "child prostitutes"?

Reading through the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 , anyone under the age of 18 is considered a "child prostitute" (as opposed to the legal age of consent, 16)!

Would it not be infinitely more accurate, to rename victims of this crime who are under sixteen as a "prostituted child", and other victims who are either sixteen or seventeen (over the legal age of consent) as "underage prostitutes"?

Of course it would - so why again does the media, legislation, and society generally as a whole still call children who are exploited, abused and raped in this way "child prostitutes"?

As a society, we really need to start watching our language

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