Male vs Female Paedophiles Round 2

Mother jailed for having sex with eight-year-old boy more than 50 times

 

 

 

 

"A mother of one has been jailed for having sex with an eight-year-old boy more than 50 times.

Loren Morris, 21, slept with the boy for about two years starting when she was 16, a court heard.

She was charged after the boy, now 14, was overheard bragging to classmates he had slept with her.

Antoine Mullers, defending, said Morris, of Lyde, Herefordshire, stopped having sex with him when she realised it was ‘wrong’.

Judge Robert Juckes QC added: ‘I have come to the conclusion that due to the concern and embarrassment caused to both you and your family that you will not be offending again, let alone committing sexual offences.’

She was seen smiling and smoking at Worcester crown court yesterday where she was jailed for two years after being convicted of three counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 16.

Morris was also banned from contact with a child under 16 without the permission of a parent and put on the sex offenders’ register for ten years"

 

Following my post last year here AVP - Male vs Female Paedophiles, and ignoring the disgusting language used in this case (how the hell can anyone "have sex with" an eight year old?), here is a classic example of the way that female paedophiles are treated differently to male ones.

 

Imagine a male paedophile, sexually abusing or raping an eight year old more than FIFTY times, and getting a mere TWO YEARS custodial sentence. Chances are, the sentence would be nearer to one in double figures. Chances are, that if he did get a mere TWO YEARS there would be plenty of complaints to the AG's office, and the sentence would be dramatically increased.

 

But a female paedophile? How are complaints dealt with for a sentence of TWO YEARS for the sexual assault (equivalent of RAPE) of an EIGHT year old MORE THAN FIFTY TIMES?

 

I'll show you -

 

"Thank you for your email below regarding the sentence passed on Loren Morris.

 

The Law Officers, (the Attorney and Solicitor General) have the power to refer sentences for a limited number of offences to the Court of Appeal when they consider the sentence to be unduly lenient. This means more than lenient. A sentence will only be unduly lenient if it falls significantly below the sentence that any judge could reasonably have imposed in the circumstances of the particular case. Even then, the Court of Appeal has a wide discretion as to whether it should actually increase a sentence in a case.

 

Following a very careful review of this case the Solicitor General, Oliver Heald QC MP has decided not to refer the sentence of Loren Morris to the Court of Appeal, as he did not believe that the sentence for the offences would be increased"

 

As I said at the beginning, another classic example of how female paedophiles are treated far more leniently than male ones.

 

Disgusting - why is there such a difference - the offense is exactly the same. Same type of offender, same type of offence, same end result regarding there being a victim of child sexual abuse. Someone really needs to look & find out why there is such a sentence differential. The judicial outcome should be exactly the same - male / female / young / old.

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

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

 

 

 

From the JEP Screenshots in the above blog:

 

"Seeking the Truth on Abuse"

 

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

Really?

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

 

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

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

 

and

 

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

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

Really?

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

 

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

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

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

Really?

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Answers on a postage stamp.

 

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

 

Rico Sorda

Voice for Children

The Bald Truth

Tony's Musings

Former Deputy Bob Hill

Tom Gruchy

 

 

 



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

 



 

St Petersburg Bans Child Beauty Pageants

Russian city bans child beauty pageants

 

 

"Lawmakers in Russia's second city of Saint Petersburg have passed legislation banning children's beauty pageants as psychologically damaging to their participants.

The legislation was initiated by controversial lawmaker, Vitaly Milonov, who was a prominent backer of a law banning the "propaganda" of gay relationships to minors.

"Taking part in such contests crushes a child's psyche," Milonov said.

"I think people who hold such contests should be kept away from children. I grew up in a normal era and then no one compared children by their outer appearance, like dogs."

He estimated that around 3000 children's beauty pageants are held every year in Russia, with participants aged from four years old.

Some involve "a catwalk show in swimsuits", he complained.

The law says that beauty pageants "could cause harm to the health and/or physical, intellectual, spiritual and moral development of those under 16".

The local law introduces a fine of up to one million rubles ($A30,635) for the organisers of such contests"

 

Good. Totally relevant points by Milonov. Whilst I am 100% against his more "well known" feelings, and cannot fathom out his hate-filled bigotry that he shows towards the LGBT community, he is completely right (in my opinion) with his views in this particular article.

 

Children should not grow up thinking that they need to spray fake tan on themselves, plaster makeup on and wear inappropriate clothes to gain attention and better their self esteem.

 

 Children are children, not objects being pimped out by "commodiparents" (sorry for stealing this word Shy, but this is such a spot on description) in this manner.

 

Children should be allowed to enjoy their childhood - these days it seems to disappear all too quick as it is.  

 

Children should never be "sexploited" and sexualised in any way - and like it or not, this is exactly what these pageants do.

 

Child beauty pageants should be banned totally, not just in St Petersburg. Recently, the French Senate voted on to put a ban on beauty pageants for young girls under the age of 16. When will the rest of the world wake up & follow suit?

 

Victim Blaming - Australian Style.

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 



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 Legislation.

A bit of an uphill struggle getting the UK Media and others to understand AVP - especially when it appears in UK Legislation. Here is my interpretation of what it shows now, and what it should show in "Richard's world".

 

I won't bore you with the reasoning's behind this - earlier posts from 2013 will explain this & you will probably have read these already.

 

 

Taken from Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography, Sexual Offences Act 2003

 

Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography sexual exploitation.

 

47 Paying for sexual services abuse/exploitation of a child.

 

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

 

          (a) he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services abuse of another person (B),

          (b) before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services this abuse to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment, and

          (c) either—

               (i) B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

               (ii) B is under 13.

(2) In this section, “payment” means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services abuse/exploitation) gratuitously or at a discount.

 

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 13, where subsection (6) applies, is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

 

(4) Unless subsection (3) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 16 is liable—

        (a) where subsection (6) applies, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years;

        (b) in any other case—

           (i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

           (ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

 

(5 ) Unless subsection (3) or (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

 

(6) This subsection applies where the offence involved—

        (a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,

        (b )penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,

        (c) penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or

        (d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis.

 

 

48 Causing or inciting child prostitution prostituted children or pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation.

 

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

        (a) he intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to become a prostitute, prostitutes another person (B), or to be involved in pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation, in any part of the world, and

        (b) either—

           (i) B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

           (ii) B is under 13.

 

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

 

 

49 Controlling a child prostitute prostituted child or a child involved in pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation.

 

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

        (a) he intentionally controls any of the activities of another person (B) relating to B’s prostitution the prostitution of B or involvement in pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation in any part of the world, and

        (b) either—

           (i) B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

           (ii) B is under 13.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

 

 

50 Arranging or facilitating child prostitution prostituted children or pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation.

 

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

        (a) he intentionally arranges or facilitates the prostitution or involvement in pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation in any part of the world of another person (B), and

        (b) either—

           (i) B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

       v  (ii) B is under 13.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

 

 

51 Sections 48 to 50: interpretation

 

(1) For the purposes of sections 48 to 50, a person is involved in pornography filmed sexual abuse/exploitation if an indecent image of that person is recorded; and similar expressions, and “pornography” "filmed sexual abuse/exploitation", are to be interpreted accordingly.

 

(2) In those sections “prostitute” "prostituted child" means a person (A) who, on at least one occasion and whether or not compelled to do so, offers or provides sexual services is sexually abused by to another person in return for payment or a promise of payment to A or a third person; and “prostitution” "prostituted child" is to be interpreted accordingly.

 

(3) In subsection (2), “payment” means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount.

 

Quite simple really.

 

This needs to be challenged.

 

Where is the point in pointing this out to Daily Mail: No 10 aide arrested over child porn (as an example), when one part of UK Legislation refers to "Indecent Photographs of a Child", and one refers to "Child Pornography" and "Child Prostitutes"?