AVP and Rape

Extend the definition of rape to include female offenders

 

 

"Currently as it stands the legal definition for rape is:

 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape in its first section, which reads:

“(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— 

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, 

(b) B does not consent to the penetration.."

The current definition means that sex without consent does not always constitute rape. When a woman forces another person into sex she is not charged with rape which goes against rape crisis campaigns which state "no consent is rape"."

 

 

The above link is a newly created petition created by "Smash Devon" - please sign and share.

 

There seem to be many similar, but at the same time, different meanings to the term "rape", depending where you look up the meaning of the word. A couple of examples are below:

 

Dictionary.Reference.com states "the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse."

Oxford Dictionary refers to rape as "A crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will". 

 

So, AVP, where does this come in?

 

In UK Law, as defined by the SoA 2003 as stated above, is gender specific, ie "he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis" Under UK Law therefore, only a male can commit the offence of rape on either gender. If a female commits the offense of forcing another person into sex, it is either defined by law as Assault by penetration (even though, again, the SoA 2003 starts their definition with He), or Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (again with the He). By having separate distinction between genders, and by having legislation named as this, it minimises the offense committed by a female from Rape to a more general type of "Sexual Assault".

 

CPS Guidelines have both offenses ("Rape" and "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent", which as stated in this link is "a female equivalent of the offence of rape") as Indictable Only offenses, both which carry a maximum of Life Imprisonment, so why the difference in the naming of the offence?

 

Having the crime of rape described in this way, (ie can only be committed by a male), is prejudicial to any victim that has been raped by a female perpetrator. Having the crime that has been committed against them lumped together with any other type of "sexual assault" minimises the seriousness of the crime and this needs to change.

 

If both the type of offense is the same (indictable only), and the punishment for offenders supposedly being the same (maximum of life), where is the issue with having the one offense of rape which covers both genders of offender?

 

Having a quick search online, brought up this story from 2012 from the USA, which includes "a significant expansion of the FBI’s definition of rape, which will now cover several forms of sexual assault and include male rape.", which shows that this can be done.

 

Rape is rape, rape should legally mean one person (no matter what gender) forcing another person (no matter what gender) into sex. The end result is the same for victims - no difference - so the crime should be the same. Until it is, victims of female rapists will always have the crime committed against them trivialised and society will always view this as a lesser crime.

 

And, if you haven't yet, please sign the petition at the top.

Spared Jail for rape of a three year old, and a petition.

Du Pont Heir Robert Richards IV Spared Jail for Raping Three-Year-Old Daughter

 

Judge J Jurden

 

 

"A multimillionaire who pleaded guilty to raping his three-year-old daughter has been spared jail after a judge in Delaware ruled he would "not fare well" in prison.

Robert H Richards IV, heir to the du Pont chemical business, was given eight years' probation and ordered to seek treatment after he admitted to raping his three-year-old daughter in 2009.

Judge Jan Jurden ruled that Richards, 46, should not be handed a custodial sentence as he would "not fare well in Level 5 [prison] setting".

Details about the sentence only emerged after the defendant's former wife, Tracy, filed a lawsuit against him seeking compensation and punitive damages over the abuse of their daughter and his son.

According to the lawsuit, Richards admitted to assaulting his son and daughter between 2005 and 2007. Richards was originally charged with two counts of second-degree child rape, which carry a 10-year minimum sentence.

Richards hired one of Delaware's top defence lawyers, Eugene Maure, who won a plea bargain.

Richards avoided a jail term after admitting one count of fourth-degree rape – a lesser charge which carries no mandatory minimum jail term.

Delaware public defender Brendan O'Neill, told the Detroit Press: "It's an extremely rare circumstance that prison serves the inmate well.

"Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn't proven to be true in most circumstances."

O'Neil added the sentence "raised questions" about the treatment of wealthy people by the justice system."

 

 

I won't insult you by going through the injustice and appalling sentence this is.

 

As this is in a US Court, there are no schemes as far as I am aware for appealing this ULS as there is in the UK.

 

However, there is a petition to fire the Judge, Jan Jurden, for this disgusting decision. You have the power. Sign this petition, share and RT all you can. This can not and will not be tolerated.

 

Link to petition here Petition to Fire Judge Jan Jurden

 



 

Barnes & Noble, Books, Incest, Sexual Exploitation & Rape

From "Dining for Dignity", link below

 

Dining for Dignity" Facebook

 

 

 

"Tonight it was brought to my attention by @coraliealison twitter account that Barnes & Noble is selling graphic porn books promoting child rape, child exploitation and daddy/ daughter rape! The titles are so filthy, the pictures so graphic and the descriptions so sexual that I can't even post! Will you write B&N via FB, Twitter and email demanding they remove this filth from their site. Our children have easy access to B&N on line, and this is unacceptable. Our young children should be safe when they log into B&N online and not see dozens of books glamorizing INCEST with hard core pictures and filthy descriptions!

 

Having looked at the Barnes & Noble Website, there are some truly disgusting titles available there. Some examples being

 

"Daughter Rape: Sex in the Kitchen with Daddy"

"Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter on the Bus "

"Grandfather Fucks His Unwilling Granddaughter "

 

With at least one of the authors being (according to a Google search) "banned from Amazon".

 

Please join D4D in contacting Barnes & Noble, and asking questions. There are no age restrictions on their site, and apart from the promotion of incest, sexual exploitation and rape, these sort of books should NOT be available for any age to view. They have Twitter & Facebook accounts, or if you are like me & prefer e-mail, this can be found quite easily.

 

 

"Dear Sir,

 

Please can you answer a couple of questions on some books I have found for sale on your website.

A couple of examples are as follows:

Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter and Friend at Home,
The Daughter Rape: Sex in the Kitchen with Daddy, 
Daddy Rapes the Virgin Daughter at the Cemetery, 

These books are all freely available for anyone to view and buy online from your website. Appreciate that they all have "18+" next to them, but what exactly is to stop children accessing them?

Added to this, is the graphic content of the books, namely incest, sexual exploitation and fathers raping their daughters. Please can you let me know what guidelines there are for authors who have their books available to sell on your website. I find it hard to believe, that for example, one of the authors has books "banned by Amazon" (a quick Google search will validate this), yet they are allowed to be freely sold on Barnes & Noble.

 

Obviously Free speech and adult subjects are one thing, but profiting by books that are themed on incest, rape, exploitation and sexual abuse (all illegal) is a completely different thing. Please will you consider removing such titles from your range, or at the very least, have them "hidden" from general view with access being permitted after an age-verification and user-login.

 

 I have discovered that I am not the first person to complain in such a way, and I will be strongly advocating that people boycott your site until action is taken by yourselves to rectify the above.

 

Many thanks."

 

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

 

 

Teaching children rape - the South African way

Small post for today.

Dept defends matric rape question

 

 

 

 

"The Department of Basic Education has stood by its decision to ask drama students to describe how they would stage the rape of a baby. 

The matric exam question has seen teachers, students and parents express outrage over the question, which asks the students to stage the rape of a baby using a loaf of bread and a broomstick as props. 

The question was part of the compulsory section of the dramatic arts exam written earlier this week by government schools. 

The question included an extract from playwright Lara Foot’s play Tshepang, which was reportedly inspired by the 2011 rape of a nine-month-old baby in the Free State. "Baby Tshepang" was raped by her mother's boyfriend. 

Students were asked to describe how they would portray the extract to "maximise the horror of the rape". 

Department of Basic Education spokesperson Elijah Mhlanga said in The Mercury that the subject matter was nothing new to the students 

"By the time pupils are in matric, they have begun to be faced with the realities of adulthood, often beyond the security of their homes and the school system," he said in the report. 

"They will, through media and cinema, have been exposed to many horrific images and reports," said Mhlanga."

 

Couldn't make it up!

 

This comes at the same time as the unfolding depravity of Lost Prophets Ian Watkins.

 

Unbelievable. What is there to say? Words fail...

 

For a look at the most recent, and frankly quite shocking rape statistics in South Africa, please click here and here.

 

If I get a reply to my e-mail to S.A Dept of Education, I'll post it here.

 

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).

 

"I'd probably watch child abuse films/pics, admits former Crimewatch presenter Nick Ross"

                                                  Nick Ross - I'd probably watch child rape

Where to start?

Nick Ross - former presenter of Crimewatch, would "want to see what all the "fuss" was about, if someone came to him and asked him if he wanted to view "child pornography" (his words, not mine - Its NOT Pornography Nick!).

A question for Mr Ross. What exactly do you think "child pornography" is? Do you think this is some 16 year old in a slightly risqué pose? Some old 1980's Sam Fox page 3 spread? No Nick Ross, this is child abuse and child rape, captured on screen for the "enjoyment" of paedophiles. These are films of babies being sexually abused, of young children being gang-raped - a life of misery and suffering for children exploited by disgusting, vile people who fornicate to this wretchedness that has been shared online.

And you would click on and watch it?

And you call child abuse a "fuss"?

As if this story couldn't get any worse, (Nick Ross Wiki), your wife happens to be the secondary founder of Childline.

Unbelievable. Seriously unbelievable!

I must admit, I am totally lost for words, someone of your status - someone who has potentially been in the position of speaking to victims of this hideous crime during your stint as Crimewatch presenter (how must any victims who have appeared on your show feel now?) - admitting that he would view these out of curiosity if asked to?

Please show us the "study" that showed most people would view them if they "stumbled across them".

I will leave you with the normal reaction of anyone who would happen to chance across this.

Disgusted!!