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.

 





The BBC, the term "Child Porn" and why complaints of this nature are a waste of time.

Star Trek fan Anthony Alleyne jailed for child porn offences

 

A brief posting on the BBC's stance on their use of the term "Child Porn". The one organisation I no longer bother to complain to about this - hopefully the below will explain why.

In a nutshell they have no objection to using this phrase in their reporting as long as they also include "indecent images of children" somewhere else in the articles. Not sure why they think this acceptable - by their reasoning one could use the term n****r as well as long as you include the words "black person" - no sense I know, but one that they have used.

Below is a PDF from the BBC Trust complaints section, detailing my complaints and their responses. It is from page 41 to 44, so not that long. It is worth a read, below in blue, to see both my points and their (pretty rubbish to be honest) answers.

Use of the word "child porn", BBC News Online

The complainant appealed to the Trust following the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards, BBC Trust, not to accept his complaint on appeal.

Complaint

Stage 1

 

The complainant contacted the BBC on 28 April 2011 to complain about the use of the phrase "child porn" in a BBC News Online headline. The complainant said that this was not an acceptable phrase as

"To suggest these are ‘porn’ implies both a mutual consent (non-existent) and legality, (again, non-existent)."

The complainant said this was an offensive expression and was not used by the child protection agencies.

BBC News replied, agreeing that "indecent images" might be a better term but adding:

"in headlines -where the number of characters we can use is limited –‘child porn’ is a widely-understood term and can be used as long as the story itself spells out the nature of the material or offence."

The complainant contacted the BBC again in June 2011 regarding another article which had the headline "Norfolk minister Philip Hilstrop sentenced over child porn". The complainant said this was both offensive and trivialising. He said that neither the courts nor the child protection agencies used this term and that he would like the BBC to stop doing so and to amend its style guide accordingly.

The BBC responded saying that, it understood the complainant’s preference for use of the term "indecent images" as a suitable description.BBC News Online thought it acceptable to use the expression "child porn" in headlines as long as the story itself spelt out the nature of the material or offence. The response said that the style guide is refreshed periodically and that the complainant’s comments would be borne in mind.

Stage 2

 

The complainant escalated his complaint to the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit on 28 June 2011, saying he had complained several times about the use of the term "child porn" and asking to see the BBC’s policy on this. He repeated his view that the term is offensive, and said that it has implications of having "child porn stars", implies mutual consent and a business interest, and trivialises and legitimises the offences as related to art. The complainant said the term in law is "indecent photographs or films of children" and that other media and the child protection agencies do not use the term "child porn".

The complainant repeated his statement that the BBC should review its style guide to reflect this.

The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit replied on 7 July 2011. He said he would be considering specifically the second article the complainant had mentioned but that any finding might be expected to have general application. He said that he intended to consider the complaint as being about misleading content under the Accuracy guideline.

 

The Head of the ECU then responded substantively, saying that he had understood the complainant to be objecting to the use of the term on the grounds that it diminished the severity of the crime and implied consent or voluntary participation. However, the Head of the ECU said he had checked a number of sources and definitions and did not find

support for that view. He added that the principle that children could not give informed consent also militated against this view. The Head of the ECU concluded that for this reason he could not uphold the complaint.

The complainant replied, asking the Head of the ECU to respond to the specific points in the complainant’s first communication with him. The complainant asked the Head of the ECU to consult the links he enclosed and reconsider his decision.

Having visited the sites suggested by the complainant, the Head of the ECU said he agreed there was evidence some people found the term "child porn" offensive. He apologised for not specifically addressing each of the points the complainant had made originally but said this was because he thought them all a subset of the complaint as he had summarised it. He mentioned an Editor’s Blog by Mary Hockaday6, written in 2007, which addressed the very point the complainant was making and said he hoped this reassured the complainant that these matters were kept under consideration.

 

Appeal to the Trust

 

The complainant wrote to the BBC Trust on 21 August 2011, saying he had persuaded a number of media outlets to stop using the term "child pornography" or "child porn" and he hoped the BBC would stop doing so likewise.

The complainant said that "victims of this crime find this a deeply offensive term to use" and that "Paedophiles will always try to justify their actions to others". The complainant’s third reason was that:

"The actual crime, as detailed in the UK sexual offences act 2003, is ‘taking or making an indecent photograph of a child’."

The complainant said that taken in literal context, the words "child" and "porn" do not go together. He stated that a number of child protection agencies –such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Internet Watch Foundation, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and Phoenix Chief Advocates –state that this is the incorrect way of referring to these images; primarily on the basis that it trivialises the crime committed.

The complainant noted that terms and language that are deemed acceptable change over time. He asked the Trustees to review the material and links he had attached and to conclude that the term should not have been or continue to be used by the BBC.

The BBC Trust’s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser replied on behalf of the Head of Editorial Standards, explaining that the Trust does not adjudicate on every appeal that is brought to it, and part of the role of the BBC Trust’s Head of Editorial Standards is to check that appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework.

The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the Head of Editorial Standards had read the relevant correspondence, and the articles in question, and had concluded that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and should not proceed to the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust.

The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser informed the complainant of the Head of Editorial Standards’ reasons for her decision.

She said that the Head of Editorial Standards understood that this is a matter the complainant felt very strongly about. She explained that in general the BBC is not

expected to ban specific words or phrases. In the case of the phrase "child porn", the Head of Editorial Standards believed the BBC was correct in the position it had explained to the complainant; that this is a phrase that is well understood by the public and that they are likely to appreciate that it signifies an act of abuse.

The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the Head of Editorial Standards understood that for some people this is a particularly offensive term and acknowledges that the BBC should be sensitive to that.

The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser noted that the complainant had been directed to the Head of the Newsroom’s blog, and had included a link to it in his appeal. She said that the Head of Editorial Standards’ view was that the piece was thoughtful and explained the BBC’s view and the continued use of the phrase.

The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser noted that the headline on the article originally complained about had been changed to read, "Former West Yorkshire PC jailed for child sex offences". She also noted that the second article included a very clear explanation of what was meant by the phrase used in the headline:

"A Methodist minister from Norfolk has been given a four-month jail sentence suspended for two years after admitting possessing indecent images of children."

She explained that the Head of Editorial Standards therefore did not believe that there was a reasonable prospect of success for the appeal and did not propose to put it to the ESC.

The complainant replied with a request for the Trustees to review the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards not to proceed with his appeal.

The Committee’s decision

 

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Trust’s Head of Editorial Standards, and the complainant’s appeal against the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision. The Committee was also provided with the Stage 2 response from the Editorial Complaints Unit.

The Committee noted that the complainant felt very strongly that the term "child porn" should not be used by the BBC, and it noted his reasons for this view. The Committee also noted the Head of Editorial Standards’ statement that the BBC is not expected to ban specific words or phrases. The Committee noted that the Head of the BBC’s Newsroom had addressed the issue raised by the complainant in her blog. The Committee was satisfied that the BBC had demonstrated that it was sensitive to the offence that the use of the phrase could cause, and that, while the BBC would not enforce a ban on the use of the word, it had removed it from the headline of the article about which the complainant originally complained and that context was given in the second article. The Committee agreed that there was not a reasonable prospect of success for this appeal.

The Committee was therefore satisfied that the decision not to proceed with the appeal was correct.

 

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.

Be Offended.....be really offended

BROWN: BABY PORN PERVERT FACES JAIL

 

 

 

Believe it or not, the headline in the link above is the actual headline that appears in the article that this posting is about.

 

Believe it or not, the article appears in a UK publication.

 

Believe it or not, the publication in question describes itself as "the only specialist courts and tribunals agency operating within the UK. - we have been supplying the national, regional and local press for more than 20 years and have built a hard fought reputation as one of the country's best news agencies"

 

If indeed they supply the nationals and locals, no wonder it is so hard to change the language that the UK media use!

 

Unfortunately, having spotted this disgusting headline, and pointed out the offense that this causes , Court News UK seem not able to grasp that images of "one-year-old babies being sexually abused" (from the article) are not pornography.

 

Their argument to me, was that they were merely quoting the dictionary definition, namely

 

"Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity' (involving babies)".

 

Really? I have never seen this in any dictionary I have seen.

 

Surely a publication that reports on court cases in the UK would (or should) know that the correct legal definition is "Indecent Photographs of Children" (UK Sexual Offences Act 2003)?

 

Surely a publication like "Court news UK" would (or should) realise the offense, the trivialisation, the paedo-friendly language that "porn" implies to when referring to images of children (and babies) being sexually abused?

 

Apparently not.

 

Am I to think that, by their reasoning, they would refer to black people using the "n****r" term, as this also appears in the dictionary? Would they refer to gypsies as "p*k*ys" as that too is in the dictionary?

 

Would they be happy, if hypothetically one of them had a young child, that was raped, abused, and filmed, seeing this being reported in the media as "pornography"? Looking through their site, there does seem to be a large amount of stories, all using the "child porn" or "baby porn" headlines, so maybe being offensive to victims of this dreadful crime means nothing to them?

 

So Court News UK, you take the honours of being my first Name and Shame

 

If you have any comment to make, please feel free to comment (anonymously if you wish).

 

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'

Media AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) 1, "Indecent Images Of Children - a follow up"

Following my first post, (Media Prejudice), now that we all know that images and films of child abuse and child rape should never be referred to as any sort of "porn", the question now is what exactly should they be called?

Legally (in the UK and Jersey at least) they are referred to "Indecent Photographs of Children" (Protection of Children Act 1978, UK Sexual Offences act 2003, and Protection of Children Jersey Law),  so if we want to be 100% accurate, we should always be using this term. However these laws only relate to the UK and Jersey - there is a big world out there, a world that in many places uses the term "child porn" not only in it's media, but in it's laws as well.

From a personal perspective, as these images and films depict either the sexual exploitation (at the lower end of the copine scale), or actual sexual abuse (mid to high end of this scale), I would use the term "child abuse images". This term covers both ends of the scale, actual abuse and abuse of privacy of the child. Whilst some images may not portray actual abuse, having a collection of images in the lower end of the copine scale for self-gratification and distribution by paedophiles would be considered in itself a type of abuse for the vast majority of people - especially if your image was in amongst such a collection.

Calling these "child abuse images" (shortened to "child abuse pics") would also help the media in another way. A lot of the replies I have received, particularly from the BBC, state that they only have a certain number of characters that can be used in a headline and "indecent images of children" simply would not fit, meaning that they prefer to use "child porn". Whilst personally I think that this is just a poor excuse, calling them "child abuse pics" is a much shorter and snappier way of describing this crime.

My challenge ( to the UK at least to start with) is to stop using this phrase. People have been highlighting this for years now, and so far it falls on deaf ears in far too many cases. Listen and try to understand views like this. Listen not only to people like myself who have not had to live through this hideous crime, but from actual victims of this crime who have had to grow up being re-abused continually by seeing their abuse described as "pornography" by prejudicial UK media organisations.

Child abuse is exactly what it says... child abuse, and a visual recording of this should be described the same.

Not Pornography.

Media AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) 1 - "Indecent Images of Children"

Having spent a bit of time thinking about a relevant article in the media that best describes how not to report the crime of downloading / making indecent images of children, one tabloid immediately came to mind. Not that I am singling this particular paper out, but out of all the UK tabloids, this one uses the term that I am highlighting in this post, namely "child porn" on almost a daily basis.

My journey into the hell that is internet child porn

I wish the media would stop using this phrase. In reality, these are images of children who have been sexually exploited or abused - "crime scene photos". Using this phrase trivialises this crime hugely by labelling it as just another type of porn. We already have "food porn", "car porn" "poverty porn" - indeed anything and everything can be labelled as "porn". Should we be trivialising pictures and videos of child abuse by labelling them as just another "porn"?

Expanding on this a little, it could be said "yes", however we really need to be asking ourselves, would any normal person refer to these images and films as porn? My guess would be no, we wouldn't. Pornography is defined as "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction", however the only people who would actively look at these images and describe it as such are paedophiles. Why should the media use such paedo-friendly language in their reporting - facilitating and helping paedophiles somehow justify their crimes? Answer - they shouldn't and they need to stop!

And what of people who have been abused and filmed? How do they feel having their abuse described as porn? Did they consent? Did they get paid to produce these abuse images and films for the sexual gratification of paedophiles? Of course not, and I am again taking a well educated guess that most take great offence having their abuse described as "porn".

Despite the fact that most child protection agencies actively discourage the use of this term, it is frustrating and disappointing that the media refuses to accept the prejudicial way that they report this crime.

The NSPCC state "The term child pornography remains a legal term in many jurisdictions and is commonly used in the media. However the NSPCC favours the term "child abuse images" as the NSPCC considers that to refer to images of child abuse as "pornography" detracts from the seriousness of the crime by implying that there is consent from the children involved and that it is neither abusive or harmful"

The IWF state "Please note that 'child pornography', 'child porn' and 'kiddie porn' are not acceptable terms. The use of such language acts to legitimise images which are not pornography, rather, they are permanent records of children being sexually abused and as such should be referred to as child sexual abuse images" (IWF).

The Phoenix Post state "Calling Indecent Images of Children ‘child porn’ is deeply offensive to the victims, it undermines their justice and recovery, it facilitates the paedophiles denial and helps them and the perverts to sell what are in fact ‘crime scene images’ on their own dark online market" (The Phoenix Pledge)

The excuses that I have been given by the various UK media are inexcusable and ignorant. Apart from the few that took time to think and see sense, the rest need to wake up and 'smell the coffee' I will be publishing some of the responses in my comments for you all to see.

As a post note, one paper has been particularly good in listening, hearing and taking action, and that is the Guardian. Not only did they agree to stop calling these images "porn", they went as far as to amend their style guide to reflect this as well (Guardian and Child Porn), one day it would be good to see all the UK media taking this stance.