Northern Ireland and Sarah's Law (Not)

 

Sarah Payne

 

 

Sarah's Law is no panacea for scourge of paedophilia

 

 

So says the title of this article, which was published in the Belfast telegraph last week. Rather a misleading assumption imho, has anyone ever stated that Sarah's Law was a one-stop remedy for paedophilia?

 

This is a very anti-Sarah's Law article from start to finish, and is filled with the usual misconceptions and unproven myths about the scheme, and also seems to be confusing Sarah's Law with online vigilantism. I am not sure how much about the workings of Sarah's law the author knows - not a lot by reading through it.

 

"Our Justice Minister, David Ford, is against introducing the legislation here. He fears it could lead to vigilante-type attacks". I would like to know why and how exactly Mr Ford thinks this? In the first place, any disclosures that are made (if necessary), are made in strictest confidence, only to the person/people directly responsible for the child or children concerned, and with the condition that they do not pass any information onto third parties. Secondly, sites on social networking that "name and shame" paedophiles and sex offenders, are far more likely to lead to vigilante-type attacks, where names, (potentially) addresses and all details are available for all and sundry to see, and more often than not are seemingly there just for the purpose of people venting their hatred towards this crime.

 

"Sarah's Law allows information to be given not just on those convicted of a sexual offence, but those against whom unproven allegations have been made" Really? Is this really the case? Sarah's Law is there as a "right to know", for parents to be able to better protect their child against someone who their child is in contact with who could pose a risk to the child's safety. From the guidelines "If police checks show that the individual has a record for child sexual offences, or other offences that might put the child at risk, the police will consider sharing this information with the person(s) best placed to protect the child," Note the "Has a record" bit. Obviously people who have had unproven allegations made against them will not fall into this category. Why has the author assumed this? Where has the author gotten this from?

 

"Another danger is that the sex offender register lists a 16-year-old, who had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend and who poses no threat to children" And? If a disclosure request is made, would the police disclose such information? Would this person pose a risk towards children? Again, from the guidelines "If the checks show that the individual you are asking about has a record for child sexual offences or other information that indicates they pose a risk of serious harm to the child, the police may disclose this to the person who is most able to protect the child. It should be noted that details about a person’s previous convictions are treated as confidential and that the police will disclose information only if it is lawful, necessary and proportionate to do so in the interests of protecting a child from harm" As per my previous point, note the highlighted part. "Only if it is lawful, necessary and proportionate". Using the example given by the author, this would be none of the three and I am sure a disclosure would not be made in this case.

 

"Under Sarah's Law I foresee a flood of requests for information about the sad, lonely bachelor who lives in the most run-down house in the neighbourhood." Quite possibly. However, with the aim of the scheme being "to give parents, carer, guardians and other interested parties a more formal mechanism for requesting information about an individual who has contact with their child or a child close to them if they are concerned that the individual is a child sexual offender", anyone who made such requests would be sent away with no information. Sarah's Law does not allow for such requests to be made (made maybe, but action taken, nope). Maybe the author should read These five scenarios, particularly the fourth one, to understand a bit better. And a "flood"? Jersey has had Sarah's Law for two years now, and rather than a flood, requests have been a trickle. Two requests in two years so far (as far as I know). There may not have been a "flood" of requests, but this Law is there for those who need it. If it helps  safeguard one child, that is a positive result.

 

"I don't know the answers but I do know it's time we held our noses and dealt comprehensively with this issue. Because hysteria, ranting, or opting for gimmicks, does nothing to enhance child safety." Agree 100% with the first point. I wonder what Sara Payne would think, hearing the scheme she fought for being called a "gimmick"? I wonder what the people who have requested and received disclosures, being better able to protect their children from know child sex offenders would think - would they think this "a gimmick"?

 

I could go on, but you get the gist. Every unproven excuse there is. You'd think, with the success of Sarah's Law in the UK, these myths would have been put to bed a long time ago. Not so it seems.

 

Northern Ireland have been campaigning for Sarah's Law (along with Isle of Man) for a lot longer than we did here in Jersey. Quite why the NI Government (and IOM as well) are so reluctant (or scared?) to implement this scheme is a mystery to me. Sarah's Law is not the be-all and end-all in protecting children, but is one way that parents can protect their children . I hope that David Ford will one day realise this, and get this introduced in NI. Thankfully not all people are as negative as Suzanne Breen is (author of this article), the vast majority are, like me, fully supportive of this scheme.

 

For more information, please read these comprehensive guidelines on Sarah's Law

 

 

 





Third Time Lucky for "GPS Monitoring" of Sex Offenders?

Sex offenders to face compulsory lie detector tests to stop them breaching parole 

 

"Sex offenders could be forced to take lie detector tests when they are freed from jail to prove they pose no risk.

Probation officers have begun rigorous training to become lie detector examiners, under new plans by the Ministry of Justice.

Around 1,000 serious offenders released into the community will be put under stringent tests to ensure they are sticking to their licence conditions.

Justice Minister Jeremy Wright claims the move will give Britain one of the world's toughest approaches to Freed sex offenders.

The compulsory lie detector tests are the latest idea to tighten up controls on sex offenders, which will also see their every movement tracked by satellite tags, when the technology is available, the Ministry of Justice said."

 

Hang on, haven't we been here before? 

 

Paedophiles will be forced to wear GPS tags to track their movements after release from prison, says Justice minister 

 

"Convicted child abusers will be forced to wear tracking devices upon their release, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has promised.

Paedophiles will be equipped with GPS ankle tags so police can track their whereabouts after they have served their prison sentence.

The new scheme will be rolled out across Britain early next year, the Ministry of Justice confirmed today." (ie Spring 2013.... hmmm what happened then?)

 

These ideas are well behind the times of course, as this news item from 2003 shows - 

 

Home Office considers tracking sex offenders

 

"The Home Office is considering using tracking technology to monitor sex offenders, BBC Newsnight has learnt. As public pressure mounts on the Government to find new ways of dealing with child abusers, a report for the programme revealed that ministers are considering the possibility of using technology to electronically track convicted child abusers every minute of the day.

Newsnight gained exclusive access to one of a number of satellite tracking systems being considered by the Home Office Electronic Monitoring Unit, which could follow paedophiles wherever they go.

The Sky Guardian system is the culmination of years of work by Shy Keenan, a victim of child sex abuse.

Speaking to the programme she said: "I spoke to one of the child molesters. I asked him straight, 'what kind of treatment would stop you?', and his response to me was, 'I like molesting children, it's great. I love doing it. The only thing that would actually stop me would be if you cellotaped a policeman and a probation officer to my arse'.

"And as blunt and straight as that was, it sat with me for ages."               

The Sky Guardian system Keenan created with Clive Crosby and the satellite tracking company Tracker involves a tag attached to the offender's ankle and a mobile phone that alarms if he fails to carry it with him.

He can be tracked 24 hours a day via a computer at a monitoring centre and certain areas like schools or playgrounds can be 'geo-fenced'.       

If the offender approaches these areas he can be contacted directly by a probation or police office on an automatic voice channel on the phone."

 

and this one from 2006

 

a 24-hour, state-of-the-art surveillance tagging system for paedophiles.

 

"According to Keenan, who has developed the satellite tracking system with firm Sky Guardian, the Home Office is enthusiastic about conducting trials for the scheme. Under the system - dubbed SG-Rom (Sky Guardian Remote Offender Management) - paedophiles would wear an almost indestructible bracelet and be given a mobile phone fitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) technology so police can constantly track the offender and pinpoint their exact location in the UK.

On the phone there is a "panic button" which offenders can press, linking them to trained counsellors if they are feeling vulnerable or believe they are in danger of re-offending.

If there are concerns about an offender's whereabouts, they can also be contacted via the mobile phone.

The location of schools can be "geo-fenced", meaning that an alert would be sent to the police if an offender approached. Police would be called immediately if the mobile phone and tag were separated."

 

Personally, I prefer the GPS device in the last two articles -"Phoenix R.O.M. as it was known (Remote Offender Management). Not only the device itself, but the added extra's such as a "talk-down" option, the alerts & mobile devices.

 

Why was this not taken seriously & implemented by the Government at the time, between 2002 and 2006, it really should have been!!

 

Will it be third time lucky?

 

Will the MoJ include, as part of this, the options that Phoenix ROM had?

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.

 





PIE - Questions that need answering.

 

Some good articles this week in the Daily Mail (yes before you say, I know, it's the Mail....).

 

Links and articles below. Fair play on Guy Adams for bringing this up -and what must happen now is this must not be allowed to once again slip down the list of priorities, slip away under the radar and be forgotten about in a few months or so. Answers are needed.

 

Vital questions these Labour apologists for child sex MUST now answer

 

 

All good, pertinent legitimate questions - all ones that need to be answered.

 

Who cares about the names concerned - if these questions were asked to a normal pleb member of the public, there would be a proper full enquiry. What makes MPs so special? What makes them so "special"?

 

To read the full articles (so far), please read these links.

 

 

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: The Labour elite who gave succour to paedophiles

 

How three of the party's most senior figures campaigned for a vile paedophile group now being probed by police for 'abusing children on an industrial scale'

 

Inexcusable: Leading abuse charity demands apology from Labour trio with links to vile paedophile group

 

Daily Mail puts pressure on trio over NCCL's former paedophile links

 

Now say sorry! Ex-Yard chief calls on Labour trio to admit backing paedophilia was a 'huge mistake'

 

 

and this article from December 2013 (Guy Adams again)

 

Apologists for paedophiles: How Labour Deputy Harriet Harman, her shadow minister husband and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt were all linked to a group lobbying for the right to have sex with children

 

Uncomfortable & nauseating reading. If these links are proven between NCCL and PIE, the very least that should happen is unreserved apologies from these three.

 

For those unfamiliar with P.I.E, take a read of the below, (if you can stomach it).

 

 

Magpie: The journal of P.I.E issue 11 May 1978

 

 

Now, I have two more questions in addition to the ones that the DM has.

 

An excerpt from the above link, includes this gem:

 

"All members of the House of Commons and some Lords have been sent a copy of PIE’s new booklet Paedophilia – some Questions and Answers. This distribution was timed to coincide with a Press Release announcing the publication of the booklet. 180 newspapers and periodicals in the U.K.. received this Press Release."

 

Question one - as well as focusing (understandably) on Harmen, Hewitt and Dromey, surely questions need to be asked as to why, when all members of the HoC and a selection of Lords were sent this and presumably read it, why this group of disgusting individuals aka P.I.E. were allowed to continue with their perverted views & pro-paedophile group until disbanding 6 years after this was published?

 

Question two - where are the other media outlets? Why is this just being highlighted in the DM by one journalist (Guy Adams)? Why are there not investigations by ALL the media? Is this not important?

 

Please Guy Adams, keep digging - keep exploring - keep this going - this cannot be left and forgotten about.


New sentencing guidelines - April 2014.

New sentencing guideline gives greater focus to impact of sex offences on victims

 

 

"The Sentencing Council has published a new sentencing guideline for sexual offences which will help ensure appropriate and consistent sentences for sex offenders.

The guideline covers more than 50 offences including rape, child sex offences, indecent images of children, trafficking and voyeurism, and brings significant changes to how offences are considered by the courts."

"The guideline makes it clear that victims are not responsible for what has happened to them. This is particularly emphasised in relation to offences committed against children. In the previous guideline there were child sex offences labelled as involving ‘ostensible consent’ – that is, where a child over 13 has apparently agreed to sexual activity. The Council believes that this is the wrong way of looking at these offences as children do not consent to their own abuse. The new guideline therefore looks more at the offender’s actions and behaviour towards the victim."

"The new guideline also brings increases in sentencing starting points and sentencing ranges for some offences. For example, in relation to rape, the new guideline allows top category sentences with a starting point of 15 years. The previous guideline only allowed sentences with this starting point for multiple rapes. Sentences of 20 years and above are also now recommended for campaigns of rape. In addition, the worst cases of assault by penetration can now receive the same sentences as rape.
The guideline simplifies the system for assessing indecent images of children which will make analysis of imagery much easier when evidence is being compiled against someone being prosecuted. The new guideline moves away from concentrating on just the number of images and gives more emphasis to what the offender is doing with the images – possessing, distributing or creating – to help assess the offending behaviour and appropriate sentence level. "

"The guideline will come into force in courts in England and Wales in April 2014 and replace existing guidance which was issued by the Sentencing Council’s predecessor body following the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  Sentencing levels for sexual offences have been increasing since the Act, and existing sentencing guideline, came into force, and the new guideline reflects these increases. They do not include any reductions in sentences from current sentencing."

So, a step forward it seems in sentencing guidelines for child sexual abuse crimes.

Some good bits that stand out for me:

 - Ostensible Consent. Where a child over thirteen "consents" to their own abuse. Hopefully this will mean an end to the stories like this here and here - children under the age of consent cannot consent, simple as that. It will be interesting to see if the excuse of consent is used after April 2014 in child sex abuse cases. If it is - it will be challenged - I will make sure of that.

 -  Good character being redefined as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. By redefining this as an aggravating factor, shows that the Sentencing Council seem to be swaying to the notion that paedophiles, have previously groomed the judicial system into reducing sentences on the basis of their previous good character & good deeds - hopefully no more as from April 2014.

 - Abuse of Trust, especially relating to high profile paedophiles. At last. Are people waking up to the fact that some paedophiles become "famous" (or infamous), with the probability that they can and do have unfettered access to children. Not the other way around. Less of the "famous becoming a paedophile" and getting a lesser sentence. More of the "paedophile deliberately becoming famous in order to get access to children" and getting a longer sentence. Common sense!

 - Addition of todays online technology such as webcams, grooming via social media, getting children to share indecent photos of themselves, and subsequent future technological advances. Longer sentences for encryption and recording of offenses.

 - Simpler definitions for accessing IIOC.

I do however have a couple of questions of my own.

 - Regarding IIOC, are the new guidelines going to make much of an impact on the sentences given and the length (if any) of any custodial sentences. We keep reading about Chris Graylings "toughening up" of this crime, yet more and more we see offenders getting fines, community orders and suspended sentences. If he wants to get tough on offenders of this crime, sentences need to increase as well. No deterrent at the moment. Increase the sentence, make the crime Indictable Only, then let the public appeal ULS for "slap on the wrist" sentences. As it stands (from an e-mail I received today from SPPU),
"The taking, making, permitting to take, possessing, possessing with intent to distribute, distributing or advertising indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children under 18 are offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.  These are indictable offences, but not indictable only offences, meaning that they are triable both in the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court and either the court or the defendant can choose the which court hears the case.  Where the magistrates' court considers that it has insufficient sentencing powers to deal with a triable either way case it can send the case to the Crown Court"

Is this good enough? Why is it not "indictable only"? This is not a "pixels on a screen" crime with no victims! Children are sexually exploited and abused to create these for the benefit of paedophiles and child sex abusers, and the crime should be equally as serious as all other child sexual abuse crimes, and in my eyes should be an indictable only offense.

 - As the sentencing guidelines are going to be more victim orientated, will this mean that there may be a chance that the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 will be updated to reflect this? If so, what chance that they replace the prejudicial wording in it relating to children being involved in pornography and being child prostitutes with something more akin to the actual crimes, namely child sexual exploitation, and children being prostituted? What chance of this being amended? I have e-mailed to find out & will keep you updated. Chance of this, 0.00% I think, but if you don't ask questions and don't try, you will never know.

But, nevertheless all in all, a step forward in the right direction by the Sentencing Council.



Soft Judges and short sentences equals more reoffending - Who'd have thunk that?

Sex attackers and violent ex-inmates go back to crime after short jail stints

 

"SEX attackers and violent criminals given short sentences offend again at a rate of more than 50 a week within a year of being released."

 

"According to figures revealed by the Ministry of Justice, there were 356 sex offences or serious violent crimes together with 2,482 robberies carried out by convicts who had served for less than a year."

 

"During the course of a decade the Ministry of Justice figures show 35,835 offenders jailed for short- term sentences went on to reoffend, including 3,914 committing violent or sexual crimes. The proposed new Bill aims to drive down Britain’s high reoffending rates, which currently account for 600,000 crimes committed every year."

 

 

Blimey! No shit, Sherlock! Talk about stating the blindingly obvious. Someone commits a serious crime, gets a suspended sentence or a pathetically small sentence of a few months, then reoffends when they are released. Who would have guessed that? Of course giving offenders sentences like this, will end up with a greater chance of re-offending - it doesn't take a genius to figure that out!!

 

Lets have a quick look at the five purposes of sentencing in brief, used supposedly by judges when determining an appropriate sentence for a crime:

 

1) 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.

2) 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).

3) The reform and rehabilitation of offenders This is aimed at reforming the offender and changing their behaviour. It also links to the purpose of reducing crime. An example of reform and rehabilitation includes a drug and/or alcohol treatment requirement.    

4) 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 making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences

5) The making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences This requires the offender to make amends to those who have been affected by their criminal behaviour. This may be achieved, for example, by the payment of compensation or through restorative justice.  

 

Mr Grayling, 2 questions:

1) Using these guidelines, how on earth can someone who has committed a violent or a sexual offense NOT get a sentence that runs into years? What goes through judges minds when they pass, for example, a suspended sentence for offenders who Abducted a thirteen year old child , Downloaded eighteen thousand IIOC, Abused boys during the 70s, 80s, and 90s etc?

 

2)  With the above crimes, (paedophile crimes), there is no excuse whatsoever for dishing out any sort of soft sentences if this crimes is to be taken seriously. Taking Jailed: Paedophile Who Claimed Appalling Abuse Was 'Benefit' To His Victims as a prime example, shows that paedophilia is a different type of crime to the norm. You can "treat" paedophiles, but there is no cure, it isn't a disease - it is a long standing fetish/sexual attraction to children & the only proper way to protect the public from offenders who commit these crimes is a proper, long custodial sentence. Not suspended sentences. Not sentences that are a matter of a few months. Proper ones that reflect the above guidelines, "Protection of the public", "Punishment of Offenders", "Reduction of Crime". When will you take this crime seriously? When will you realise that "once a paedophile, always a paedophile", and put in place proper sentencing guidelines and a proper deterrence that will reduce this crime, and make paedophiles who claim "they can't help themselves" think twice before committing these offences?

 

This is your second "promise" in just over a month, remember Tough justice for those who watch IIOC: Grayling announces perverts will no longer escape with 'slap on the wrist' in crackdown on soft punishments from September this year? So Mr Grayling, will we see anything from either of these "promises", or are these both the usual empty ones? Words are one thing, but taking action is another? We will be watching.

A Week in the life of Facebook

Facebook in child safety backlash

 

 

 

From the above article:

 

"The social networking site announced that users aged from 13 to 17 will now be able to switch their settings to share posts with anyone on the internet, rather than just their "friends" or "friends of friends".

Children's groups and internet safety experts denounced the move, saying it could leave young people more vulnerable to cyber-bullying.
Anthony Smythe, managing director of BeatBullying, told The Times: "We have concerns that this age group can now share information in the public domain.
"Something they think might not be harmful now may come back to haunt them later. This is a move in the wrong direction."
The newspaper also said Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), had expressed "concern" that the move could make youngsters more vulnerable."

 

 

This follows the stories earlier this week below

 

Now ANYONE can find you on Facebook: Outrage as site removes privacy option for users to hide their profile in search results

"

The 'Who can look up your Timeline by name?' feature was applied when people searched for someone's profile using Facebook's search bar.
Depending on the setting chosen, the profile was either completely hidden from everyone who wasn't already a Facebook friend; could only be seen by friends of friends or was only visible to certain groups or networks of people."

and

 

Facebook is a 'major location for online child sexual grooming', head of child protection agency says

 

 

"A National Crime Agency spokesman said: "There are many social networking sites and websites used by offenders to target children and young people. The NCA CEOP Command's 2013 Threat Assessment on Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse highlighted that 48.5% of online child sexual exploitation reports received were linked to social networking sites, of which Facebook is only one. "

 

 

So, a good week for online predators and groomers, who not only will be able to locate potential victims easier, but also for teens who choose to put status's and photos as "public" instead of being restricted to "Friends" or "Friends of friends". OK, maybe I should put teens or younger, as it is a fact of life that younger children also use Facebook using incorrect DOBs, but if they chose a DOB that "made them" between thirteen and seventeen, at least previously their posts were restricted to FOFs or Friends. Not any more.

 

As an extra to this post, I thought I'd have a quick check to get a selection of stories, just from the UK, and just from this week, regarding Facebook. If it is like this now, what could it be like with the changes that are being made now?

 

Man jailed for attempted rape

 

Reclusive man preyed on teenage girl through Facebook

 

How a mum snared the Facebook paedophile preying on her daughter

 

Sex offender who targeted young boys on websites is HIV positive

 

Online games pervert jailed

 

So Facebook, a big fat

 



 

 

Sara Payne - A Huge "Thank you"

Dr Sara Payne describes her agonising 13 year ordeal following the loss of her daughter

 

 

When Sarah's Law is mentioned, how many of us think of the recently introduced Law that helps parents keep their children safe from known paedophiles? How many people really sit down and think of the human cost that this Law originated from?

 

The above article from last Sunday's Sun, is a heart-breaking, emotional read of the thoughts and feelings of one inspirational woman - Sara Payne. Without Sara, England, Wales and Jersey would not have the benefit of being able to further protect our children from known paedophiles. As a parent, I would like to add my sincere thanks to Sara for her selfless determination in bringing this Law to fruition to help safeguard our children for the future.

 

I will add some links further down, which highlight how this works, how to use it, and two further jurisdictions where there are on-going campaigns to implement Sarah's Law. Please read the below from The Sun, and if you are unsure how it works, please click and real the link at the bottom of this post.

 

 

 

" For most people, July is the month they most look forward to. Sunshine, barbecues and family gatherings. 

Soon enough, schools will break up for the summer holidays and thousands of children will play in the streets outside their homes enjoying the longer evenings.
Sometimes when I see them giggling and laughing without a care in the world, it makes me smile.
Then, suddenly, I'm jolted back to reality. I find myself worried about their safety, desperately hoping they get home, back into the arms of their loving parents and families.
It has been 13 years since my daughter Sarah was taken from us but the pain of losing her doesn’t change — the pain of missing her, her bubbly voice, her happy smile.

This aching pain feels exactly the same as it did on the day she was taken.
Since that day, as a family we’ve been left traumatised and I now live with severe post-traumatic stress disorder.
Each day, I wake up and I am flooded with memories that I don’t want.
I’m currently recovering from a massive stroke, I have an active, growing family and work that keeps me busy.
But as soon as July hits, ordinary day-to-day things become difficult and I start to react in a strange way.
I suffer with flashbacks constantly — invasive thoughts that I can’t handle and everything feels so raw.
This time of year is an incredibly difficult time for me and I long for August.
Although my memory of that time is hazy, it feels like I’m back there, reliving each painful moment.
I cope however I can to get through it — it’s just about getting past it to the other side.
Once it is over, I feel such a sense of relief to know that I’ve managed to pull myself through it again.
There are no rules or guidelines on how to cope with grief.
One thing I’ve found is that time does not make things easier — it just makes me more capable of enduring the pain that losing Sarah has caused.
Sometimes, talking about the death of my little girl feels strange, as if it never happened, and other times it feels cathartic.

She would have been turning 22 this year, a grown woman. It hurts too much to think about what she would have been like as an adult.
There is no one particular thing that I miss about my beautiful girl, I just miss her.
I miss her presence in my family. Everything about her.
I try not to let darkness touch my life too much as I want to remember Sarah in a positive way.
As for my other children, we all cope with the pain at this time of year differently.
My boys, Luke and Lee, are grown men now, with their own families but all of us know that if we are needed, then we will be there for one another. They no longer need Mummy to pick up the pieces and we tend to leave each other alone to deal with our own feelings.
Since her death, working on Sarah’s Law has given me much-needed focus and positivity in my life.
I feel encouraged by the fact that change can happen in this country and I’m always overwhelmed by the amount of support I receive from families across the UK. But what means the most to me is that Sarah’s name and her picture now mean hope. She isn’t just a statistic — and that means everything.
All Sarah’s Law has ever tried to do is give parents information about people who could possibly hurt children.
To me, not having this information is just part of a secret-keeping culture. I feel so strongly that it is a parent’s right to have this information.
Sarah’s Law makes sure that no sex offenders are able to forget about what they have done and simply walk away, brushing their past under the carpet.
Their actions will follow them around, wherever they go.
They don’t deserve the gift of a clean slate and why should they?
Why should these monsters get to move from one family to another?
Before, it must have been easy for them to do this as parents could not check on them.
And I’m glad that it is uncomfortable for them now — they can’t just move on and hurt other innocent children.
Just as my own pain never leaves me, the same will be true of James Bulger’s mum Denise.
The news that Jon Venables, one of the young killers of her toddler son will be released again is horrendous. She must be going through absolute hell. Twenty years have passed since two-year-old James was abducted and murdered by Venables and Robert Thompson, but I know only too well the agony she must feel every day since losing him.
It will not have dwindled or dulled. It’s a constant ache, especially in February, the time of year he was taken from her.

Since Sarah’s Law was rolled out to police forces across England and Wales, it has become a part of everyday life.
The only negativity I ever encountered during the campaign was from suspected paedophiles.
And I take heart that if I’m upsetting them then I must be doing something right.
Sarah’s Law was received so gently by police across the country that it is just a part of ordinary business — almost as if it was always there.
But to hear the recent news that George St Angeli, a convicted paedophile, has become the first man to have his name taken off the Sex Offenders Register in a landmark court ruling — and that nearly 50 other sex offenders are applying to have the same thing done — makes me feel disgusted.
It undoes a lot of work I have toiled so hard and long on.
I know there is much more to be done. I’d like to see Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man roll out Sarah’s Law so parents there no longer have to fight for it.
I am furious they are still having the same old, tired arguments.
These arguments have been resolved and it’s been proven that Sarah’s Law works. There are thousands of children out there who have been taken out of possible harm thanks to it and I just want the same for all children, wherever they live.
I know I’m lucky that, as a result of the campaign, Sarah’s name has not been forgotten.
It is so rare that victims are remembered for good and it’s always been so important to me to make sure Sarah’s name is bigger than his.
What makes me carry on at this time of year is the knowledge that my daughter is now remembered for helping to protect other children — rather than the way she was brutally taken from me.
I don’t know what Sarah would have made of my work.
She was a very gentle little girl and sometimes I think it might have been too dark for her.
But I hope she would have been proud to see just how far we’ve been able to move forward."


Since Sarah's Law was rolled out across England and Wales, 4,229 applications have been made, and 635 children have been further safeguarded due to disclosures made to their parents/guardians because their children were in contact with adults who would pose a risk to their safety (paedophiles). Since Jan 2013, Sarah's Law has been in force in Jersey as well - hopefully anyone who needs to use it will do.

How Sarah's Law works?

Rather than a long post detailing the ins and outs, this very informative guide is probably the most in depth I have found. If you are unfamiliar with this, or want to find out more, please check this out.

There are two on-going campaigns for Sarah's Law - please pop over to offer your support. Gibraltar have a campaign on-going since earlier this year, and Isle of Man have been campaigning for the last two years. Hopefully the respective Governments will realise the benefits that this offers, see sense and implement this in the future.

A huge thank you once again Sara, a true inspiration.