Ann Coffey MP Rids Legislation of AVP - Will the Media Follow Suit?



MP Ann Coffey

 

Excellent news.

 

Will the media now follow suit & stop their never-ending AVP?

 

If I get any replies, will keep this post updated (sent to all the major media outlets).

 

 

"Good evening all,

 

You are probably aware, that last week Ann Coffey MP was successful last week, in her campaign to remove the term "Child Prostitute" from all legislation in the UK (see link in subject - http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/victory-mps-campaign-rid-laws-8637437).

 

Also, as tweeted, she has also stated that the term "Child Pornography" is also to be banished from any legislation.

 

I realise, that I have on numerous occasions, e-mailed all the UK national newspapers to both complain when they have used such terms and also to request that they stop using them, however it has always been somewhat difficult to put my case across when they are used in legislation (although The Sun, following the regular columns by Dr Sara Payne & Shy Keenan stopped using "Child Porn" a couple of years ago, and The Guardian amended their style guide a few years ago following an earlier e-mail from myself, and no longer use the term "Child Porn").

 

Now that MP Ann Coffey has been successful, and these prejudicial terms are finally being removed from legislation, I have one last plea.

 

Please could you, like the Sun & Guardian, pledge to stop using these  two terms, namely "Child Porn / Child Pornography", and "Child Prostitute" in any reporting, going forward. These are two awful phrases, which both force the onus onto the Child (i.e. "child prostitute", which indicates the child prostituting themselves as opposed to a "prostituted child", which places the onus squarely on the offender), and describe disgusting crimes in paedophile-friendly speak (only someone sexually attracted to children would refer to images of child abuse / child exploitation as any sort of "pornography", the rest of the populace would see them as images of child abuse - visual evidence of sexual exploitation or crimes against a child).

 

 As I have said, I have asked this of you numerous time previously with very little positive responses, however with this soon to be change in legislation, this is the perfect time for the major UK media outlets to follow Ann Coffey's lead and show that they have at least some understanding of the power of language, and for them to amend their style guides to remove both these terms once and for all. I know there are lots more awful terms used when describing child abuse, but these are the main two.

 

http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-media-and-child-porn.html

 

http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/06/media-and-legal-avp-anti-victim.html

 

If you disagree, please could you let me know why you disagree - if you agree, it would be a huge step forward for you and it would be great to get acknowledgement of this from yourselves.

 

Many thanks"

 

I have no doubt, that I will receive very few (if any) replies. The national media have a habit of not responding (I will re-email this next week), unlike local media throughout the UK who are more than willing to discuss (good or bad).

 

But we keep on trying. One day it will "click".

Child Prostitutes - Rotherham MP in fight to change the law

Sarah Champion MP

 

Rotherham MP in fight to change the law

 

"A South Yorkshire MP is celebrating after ministers agreed to consider removing the term ‘child prostitutes’ from Government legislation concerning victims of child sexual exploitation.

Sarah Champion, who represents Rotherham, has been lobbying for the removal of the terminology since her involvement in a major study into the sexual exploitation of children by children’s charity Barnardo’s.

The work was commissioned after it emerged that victims in Rotherham had been failed by the authorities for years, with leaked reports revealing a lack of action and prosecutions of culprits despite allegations of abuse and of gangs of men grooming vulnerable youngsters for sex.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Ms Champion urged ministers to take action and to remove archaic references to ‘child prostitutes’ from British law.

“There are currently 16 pieces of legislation that use the term ‘child prostitute’,” the Labour MP said.

“I have spoken to young people who have been victims of child sexual exploitation, and they say the expression makes them feel dirty and complicit.”

Home Affairs Minister Norman Baker said he was ‘very sympathetic’ to proposals recommended in the Barnardo’s report published last month.

He praised Ms Champion’s work and said he will consider how best to alter existing legislation.

“I am very sympathetic to that suggestion,” he said.

“Children who are sexually exploited, whether for commercial or other reasons, should not be referred to as prostitutes. They are victims.

“We will consider references in all legislation and guidance as opportunities arise, as well as considering carefully the wording used in any new legislation or guidance.”"

 

Fantastic news!

 

Regular readers will know that amongst other things, I have highlighted some of the appalling language both used in the media and in UK Legislation when it comes to describing sexual crimes committed against children. However whilst I have had success in the last few years in getting (some of) the media to see the offense they cause to victims, and the way in which they trivialise these crimes, so far I have had less success with regards to getting legislation changed.

 

Until March, it has been a case of banging a head against a brick wall - I have lost count of the amount of e-mails that have been sent from person to person to various departments & back again, just to get a small amount of wording changed in a few small pieces of legislation!! In March however I did manage to get contact with a Labour MP (not Sarah in the above article) who would help me take this forward.

 

Obviously as well as getting this particular part of wording changed (Child Prostitutes), it would be even better to at the same time get the rest changed (Children and Pornography), so I will be contacting both to see if this is something that can be achieved. With so much news over the last couple of year, being on child abuse and (supposedly) "victims rights", hopefully this is something that can once and for all be taken seriously, looked into and amended accordingly.



Judge Bowers - Conclusion.

AVP and Judge Peter Bowers. Again. And Again.



 

 

Readers may recall the above posting from last year regarding Judge Peter Bowers and his comments during the case of sex offender Gary Flynn, who walked free from court in October 2013 after he admitted indecently assaulting and forcing a young girl into oral sex over 15 years ago.

 

To recall, this is from the article in the Northern Echo at the time -

 

"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.”"

 

As well as appealing this sentence as "Unduly Lenient" (which as readers will know is something that anyone can do - if not please click on the link & find out how), I also registered a complaint about the language used.

 

Describing sexual abuse, "historic" or current, as "water under the bridge" is simply not acceptable, and is a prime example of why victims can be reluctant to come forward. Was Judge Bowers implying that as the sexual abuse was "Historic" it was less important & it didn't matter as much?

 

Anyway, I have two updates on this, as below.

 

Firstly the "unduly lenient" appeal

 

"After careful consideration the Solicitor General  decided not to refer the sentence imposed on Gary Flynn to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. The sentencing judge took account of the fact that the offender was sixteen when he committed the offence and that his maturity had been affected by a head injury. He had not offended in the intervening years and he pleaded guilty, so the victim did not have to give evidence. The judge explained that he was imposing a sentence which would enable the offender to engage in sex offender treatment. The Solicitor General concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range, bearing in mind the relevant sentencing guidelines"

 

Not sure I really agree with this, but the decision is final following an appeal, so not a lot can be done.

 

Secondly the language used by Judge Bowers. I received a response from JCIO (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office), which indicates the following -

 

The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice considered my complaint, and have concluded no disciplinary action was necessary. However, they were both concerned about the impact of the comments made during the sentencing of Mr Flynn and consider that all judges must be very mindful of how they express themselves when dealing with sensitive issues. Judge Bowers received informal advice on the matter.

 

 

As I said in This posting, If you have any complaints against the conduct of the judiciary, including language like this, you also can complain to The Judicial Conduct's Office by letter or e-mail - and you don't have to be directly involved in the individual cases.

 

Anyone can make a difference. You included.



AVP - The Judiciary - An Update.

 

 

A small update on a couple of previous posts.

 

 

Readers may have read a couple of my posts before, namely the ones concerning Judge Jameson who describe paedophile Richard Oldham as "a good teacher who should be treasured", and Judge Bowers, who amongst other things, described child abuse as "Water under the bridge".

 

 

Thankfully, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has taken the complaints I made seriously, and I have an update on each.

 

 

A submission is being prepared for presentation to a Nominated Judge regarding my complaint against Judge Jameson, and I should hear back by 9 April.

 

Regarding Judge Bowers and my complaint against him, the JCIO are preparing a submission to be put forward to the Lord Chancellor & Lord Chief Justice, who will be making a decision on this matter. I should hear back by 11 April from them.

 

A small update I know, but wanted to keep readers updated. Anti victim language like this in unacceptable, and it is good that this is being taken seriously.

 

If you have any complaints against the conduct of the judiciary, including language like this, you also can complain to The Judicial Conduct's Office by letter or e-mail - and you don't have to be directly involved in the individual cases.

 

Anyone can make a difference.

 

You included.

 





AVP and the Mirror Newspaper

Following my last post, of which (surprise surprise) I have had zilch response, I now give you one of the UK's newspapers which continues to use both misleading, inaccurate and offensive headlines.

The Daily Mirror

 

 

 

Two of the latest headlines are below, both are from the last couple of days, so it makes you wonder whether anyone actually reads and e-mails or tweets sent to the Mirror.

 

Paedophile who used Skype to share vile images of child porn jailed

 

Paedophile pensioner caught with huge stash of child porn spared jail

 

 

A message for the Daily Mirror - Please don't call this crime "Child Porn" or "Child Pornography". These images are of children being either sexually exploited, raped, or sexually abused for the gratification of paedophiles. Children cannot consent, they cannot do "porn", and the only people who would refer to them as "porn" are the paedophiles themselves. Would a victim of this crime describe themselves as taking part in a porn shoot - would they describe themselves as a "child porn star"? Nope. If you were to view such images, would you automatically think "porn"? Nope. Would you deliberately use paedo terms in your newspaper? Hopefully not. So why do you continue to use this offensive and trivialising term? Please don't call it this, the correct legal term is "indecent images of children" (IIOC), although Child Abuse Images is just as good.

 

Of course, although this is the more common headline used in not only the Mirror, but far too many newspapers, it isn't the only misleading and offensive term that has been seen in the Mirror recently. Here are a few more:

 

Ex Tory Cabinet minister 'caught on camera at child sex party'

 

 

Note to Mirror - What exactly is "Child Sex"? What exactly is an "underage sex party"? As with "child porn", children cannot and do not consent to being raped and abused by adults. Why not call this by the more accurate term, namely "RAPE". Which according to Wiki is "a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent". Rape rape rape.....it really is quite easy to remember.

 

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

 

 

The two girls in question being 10 and 12. A completely inaccurate and trivialising headline that would not look out of place in some sleazy magazine. Note to Mirror - A four in a bed romp? Underage girls? What utter nonsense. What does the word "romp" imply to you? To me, the words imply a mutually consenting, although illicit, steamy sex session between more than 2 people. Not two adults being caught in a bed with two children. Yes, children, not "underage girls" (technically correct, but the words underage girls indicate a year or two under the age of consent, not children).

 

 Child sex shame of Brazil: Prostitute aged 14 used by workers at England World Cup venue

 

 

There's that "child sex" again. Also, describing a child who has been prostituted out as a "Child Prostitute". Note to Mirror - Calling someone a "prostitute" implies a willingness and consent by the individual. The correct term, and the one that describes this crime properly is a "Prostituted child", which takes away the implied consent and focus's the actions to the adults procuring these children (instead of "prostituting", being "prostituted out").

 

 

 

Teacher jailed for four-year lesbian fling

 

 

A "Fling"? As in a "Casual sexual relationship"? Relationship as in "mutually consenting"? Really? a 14 year old? Note to Mirror - A fourteen year old cannot consent to any sort of sexual activity, there is no "relationship", just a one-sided abuse of trust and sexual abuse, pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less. For two abults, yes, a "fling", for an adult and a child, no.

 

 

Google the daily Mirror, and you see "Mirror Online: The Intelligent Tabloid"

 

 

If you have not read the e-mail I sent to you a few days ago regarding language in the media, please take note of the points raised above. Prove that you are really "The Intelligent Tabloid", and start taking care in your headlines and reporting. There are more important things than trying to sell papers using sleazy inaccurate headlines and styles of reporting - not offending people and trivialising serious crimes should take a higher precedent than this.

 

Do the right thing - amend your style guide that you use to encompass the above.

 

 

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

2014 - A New Year, New Attitude And New Language.

Sent to all the UK major media outlets. Let's see what we get back.

"Good evening and a Happy New Year to you.

Now that we have a brand new year, please can I ask that we have a brand new attitude to the language that you use to describe child sexual abuse. What I am proposing is as below:

"Child pornography" to be changed to "Child Abuse Images" or "Indecent Images of Children" (the correct legal definition). Reasons are that by definition, children cannot consent to anything sexual under 16 years of age, therefore cannot do "porn". Also, by definition as well, the only people who would refer to images or videos of naked children, or child sex abuse as "porn" are paedophiles - the rest of us would never think this was porn in a million years. Why should we use "paedo talk" to describe such images then?

"Child Prostitutes" to be changed to "Prostituted Children". Reasoning, although it seems that there is very little change, is the way in which the wording of the two relates to the victim of this crime. "Child prostitute" implies consent and a willingness to do this from the child, whereas "Prostituted Child" implies the forcing of this sexual exploitation by a third party (offender) and is therefore the accurate description.

"Child Sex" to be changed to "Child Rape" or "Child Sexual Abuse". Reasoning is the lack of consent between offender and victim. Sex is a natural consensual adult activity - Rape is sexual assault  initiated by someone against the others consent. With the new guidelines coming into force soon, and the removal of ostensible consent, there is no reason to describe the rape of a child as "child sex"

Offenders having "Affairs" with girls (usually when describing teacher-pupil abuse) or "Relationships" to be changed to "sexually abusing". reasoning is similar to the above - affairs are normally described as a romantic and sexual relationship between two people who are not married to each other. As both "affair" and "relationship" imply consent, which is by definition not there as one party is a child under sixteen, this can only be described as Sexual Abuse.

I realise that all of you don't all use all the above, but you do use some of them. To stop trivialising these offenses, facilitating offenders,  and offending victims of these crimes, please can you consider my points as above.

I would be very grateful if you could let me know your thoughts - as I said above, "A new year, a new attitude and a new more accurate way of reporting.

Many thanks"

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!!

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'