Back some 20 years ago, when the sun still shone in summer time, and young army lads only got beheaded in foreign places so there was no need for a focus group to tell the Prime Minister what to Tweet on the subject, a group of gay young middle aged blades got up one morning and  – simultaneously – thought to themselves, I know what would make this Bank Holiday go with a bang, I’ll get someone to nail my nipples to a bread board. What? You old fuddy duddy, the thought never occurred to you? Still buttering your toast on that bread board? Bor-r-r-ring!

They were so enamoured of this idea, that they made a video of ‘wot I did on my bank hols’. They added a few spicy extras, oh, like putting a fish hook through their penis – sterilised naturally –  and played it back to themselves every time ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ came on. They didn’t sell the video, or even loan it to anyone, but eventually a copy came into the hands of the morality police. Operation Spanner was born.

There cannot be a law student alive who doesn’t remember the details of the subsequent court case; R v Brown. The question of whether an adult of full mental capacity can consent to being injured in the name of pleasure is one we have all argued over. Algolnagnia See? I can still remember the proper name for it. And the fact that you can’t. Consent that is. The full details of the long and drawn out judgment are mercifully lost in the mists of time, but I do recall that it included discussion of just about every sadistic sexual practice in existence. Criminal Law students are made of stern stuff. Or used to be. It seems that today’s students, even the creme de la creme at Cambridge are not so hardy. They reeled away from an exam which asked them to consider:

Vapours all round, not least in the Daily Mail and Telegraph. What could become of young minds asked to contemplate such a ‘horrific question’? An undergraduate identified only as Miranda JP wrote on Twitter:

Eventually Miranda was unmasked as a third year English student who has now wisely protected her Tweets…. English students are not made of such strong stomached material as law students.

It does pose the question of what happens to the minds of those who work in the area of criminal prosecutions for sexual deviancy. Are they not as other men (or women)? Immune to the corrupting influence of viewing and hearing of sexual deviancy?

Today our shy and sensitive Prime Minster, Cammeroid, has emerged, all pink and glistening, from the rear end of yet another focus group to announce that he has discovered the way to prevent further child murders like those of April Jones and Tia Sharp. Not before time – they have been occurring since the beginning of recorded history. Several thousand years ago – and yeah! the cause has been found to be that well known tax dodging global giant, Google, not removing pornographic images from the Internet. That’ll be the same Internet that has just celebrated its 30th birthday…

Apparently it is the Internet which is responsible for the current strange phenomena of geriatric celebrities with a connection to the BBC, however tenuous, suddenly turning into child abusers 30 and 40 years ago. It doesn’t seem to have afflicted geriatric golfers, or geriatric dustmen, or even geriatric policemen, just geriatric artists.

 The Prime Minister told The Mail on Sunday last night: ‘I am sickened by the proliferation of child pornography. It pollutes the internet, twists minds and is quite simply a danger to children.

I don’t doubt for one moment that child pornography is an addition to the ‘fount of human knowledge’ that we could well have done without – like nailing one’s nipples to a bread board – but someone has to be aware that these things occur, and if it is really true that once one has glanced upon such images, one is irredeemably corrupt and on an unstoppable path to being a paedophile and a danger to all children, including one’s own – then what are we saying of the legal profession; the judges, lawyers, specialised policemen both past and present who spend their working lives surrounded by this material?

 This week there has been uproar because a school teacher who is said to have viewed ‘child porn‘ was allowed to return to work (interestingly we are only usually told the severity of this alleged ‘porn’ when it is category 5 on the new SAP scale – Geoffrey was found to have viewed 143 images at level 1 on the old COPINE scale) –

Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.

The consensus of opinion seems to be that even setting eyes on pictures of children in swimming costumes from family albums is sufficient to turn you into a danger that should not be allowed to be near children.

So what of policemen, past and present, who must gaze upon, not once but twice, thrice and analyse,  pictures of level 5 seriousness? Are they immune to the dangers by virtue of being policeman? Obviously not; in just one police force I have discovered a string of policemen who having once viewed child porn have gone on to become deviantly corrupted. In the linked case, after the man had ceased to be a policeman but had chosen to continue working in the field as a private investigator. There is no mention in the article of him being banned from further contact with children – even his own, and statistically it is his own children who will be at greatest risk from him if the connection between viewing ‘child porn’ and being ‘a danger to children’ is proven.

Whilst we are on the subject of protecting children by asking Google to ‘remove all images from the Internet which could corrupt’ (surely about as sensible as asking British Telecom to cease listing the phone numbers of those who like to make indecent phone calls) should we not be more circumspect in removing all children from the environment of those who have professionally viewed ‘child porn’?

How can we be concerned about children being in a supervised environment for 8 hours a day with someone corrupted by having viewed children in their swimming costumes and yet so complacent about children being in an unsupervised environment for 24 hours a day with an authority figure who has viewed the most depraved and illegal images?

I can foresee an outcry when social workers snatch the children from the homes of all policemen, private investigators and judicial figures who have been involved in prosecuting these terrible on-line child porn crimes, but I can see no other solution – no matter how fond of cats they are.

It might not be a popular move amongst those who see this field as their life’s work – but surely the safety of the children comes first?

Kingbingo June 12, 2013 at 18:18

Level 1 is a crime now? Surely that means that half the people in the
country with a Camera (and 100% of people with children, nieces and nephews)
are criminals… sorry.. disgusting perverts??

rabbitaway June 12, 2013 at 14:29

Interesting article in spiked ….’The Victims are taking over the law
courts’ by Luke Gittos (again) …here’s a bit ….

But there are other factors at play. The new policy is symptomatic of a
justice system that is reorientating around the rights of the victim at the
expense of the rights of the defendant.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13700/

miss mildred
June 12, 2013 at 10:29

In my stream at Grammar school(1947-52) 3 lots of pupils in our class
paired up as young as 12/13. All three pairs went off to university. They
later married. I do not know what they got up to before age of consent. There
was no embracing in corners as far as I can recall. They were all consistently
near the top of our year group. As far as I was concerned we were nearly all
very naive sexually. The cleverest girl in the school, with a father in
prison, married an American serviceman at 17/18.Proves that the grammars
crossed the class divide. She was the one who ‘broke the mould’ in the school.
Our very scary French master married a pupil out of sixth form. No one turned
a hair or passed an adverse comment. He must have been in his forties at
marriage. It has been manufactured into a crime in these hedonistic days.
There was no caning. Prefects ruled the corridors and class change overs,
which were quiet and orderly. Our wonderful headmaster lived till over a
hundred….long enough to witness the destruction of the grammars. The longer
children can keep innocence the better. The shortening of childhood at the
lower end and lengthening at the other only leads to trouble.

corevalue June 11, 2013 at 23:27

I’m confused. Is it that if I have pictures of Samantha Fox from her Sun
page three heyday, when she was 16, that I possess articles of level 5 on the
Copine scale (deliberately posed pictures of fully, partially clothed or naked
children in sexualised or provocative poses) , and could be banged up as a
serious perv?

Part of the problem with the law is the infantilisation of adolescents, and
pretending they are “children”. 18 year olds are emphatically not children.
I’d really like to ask these paedo-hunters how old were they were when they
first masturbated, and what did they think about whilst doing it. I’m sure it
would be, er, most revealing.

Ho Hum June 11, 2013 at 23:33

I think my 80+ year old mum would be banged up if they saw the cine film
she and my dad took of my baby sister in the bath in the 1950′s. My sister
and her hubby probably could be now too, for having a copy of it.

Lucozade June 12, 2013 at 07:03

Corevale,

Re: “Part of the problem with the law is the infantilisation of
adolescents, and pretending they are “children”. 18 year olds are
emphatically not children. I’d really like to ask these paedo-hunters how
old were they were when they first masturbated, and what did they think
about whilst doing it. I’m sure it would be, er, most revealing”

I think they are dictating to teenagers how they *should* be at a certain
age rather than either asking them how they want to be or allowing them at
least a little leeway to choose for themselves.

Sure I don’t think anyone under 18 should star in porn, but that’s
because not many people over 18 would want to do that either and it’s a
decision one might later regret if they star in it at any age so it’s
something that you’d really need to take a lot of time to think about, but
all this ‘nice to see so and so daughter dressing ‘age appropriate’ ‘ stuff
gets my goat, what is ‘age appropriate’? How does someone ‘dress older’?
It’s all made up.

If I had a daughter, provided she was happy with what she was wearing and
couldn’t get arrested or cause offence by it (jealous, self righteous old
busy bodies *excluded* here) i’d let her wear what she damn well pleased….

Edna Fletcher
June 12, 2013 at 09:40

At my school girls aged 15-16 were in sexual relationships and in
‘pursuit’ of the opposite sex, hardly innocent. We had sex education
classes, but it was a waste of time. Some even encouraged teachers who
pursed them. A friend actually became pregnant ( boy of similar age) and had
a breakdown before taking major exams. I can recall at another school an
arts teacher always wanting school children to ‘pose’ for his own
gratification (he was married) and I considered him sleazy.

The problem is it is not young people whose innocence has changed, but
the acceptance by those in social power of these kinds of happenings. It is
also a case that there is not an understanding of the need to distinguish
adequately between those who are the subject of degrading paedo attentions
and those who are sexualised in some way that is not an accepted norm for
their age. Whether the latter is a form of deviancy or learnt through
interaction with depraved adults is something which remains unanswered.

It is interesting in some countries where the age of marriage is low
(even if not legally so) there is a recognition that leaving marriage until
later is courting trouble as the young things start to be aware of their
sexuality and may get up to behaviours of which their society
disapproves.

Bot children should be allowed to be children and remain innocent for as
long as realistically possible, the question then becomes at what age is
there a line that is crossed? The other question is what role do the parents
and others have in deciding this?

miss mildred
June 11, 2013 at 09:54

Is it only 18 years ago that digital photography was not so entrenched that
well payed TV personalities were still taking film photos of their naked child
to Boots? Kodak has fallen….amazing!!
Since that time, digital this that
and the other has swept all before it, and facilitated the indulgence of
dubious sexual interests and stimulated the porn industry to ever more
elevated heights of being totally shaved and yukky in front of a digital
gizmo, then broadcast it to the world. No prob, everyone can view with a bit
of typing and a mouse click. The police make straight for your hard drive.
They now have so many excuses to denude a posh property of all its papers and
gizmos and very badly affect the rest of the people who reside in the house.
They had nothing to do with what is alleged a whole era past, when we were
almost a different tribe. No computers/smart mobile phones or digital cameras.
Just a few scratchy cine films and mags under the bed and a few dirty books
hidden under the settee. Now research is telling us more about addictions, not
just heroin, but junk food, the internet, gaming, porn, sex. We have entered
very tricky times for us humans. It seems to indicate to me that it is
beginning to control us and impossible to reign in, as we all like it so
much.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) June 11, 2013 at 07:14

Is history about repeat itself….close your eyes regress almost 20 years to
1995….

“IS IT every parent’s nightmare, or is it simply the best way to protect
children? The arrest of newsreader Julia Somerville over allegedly indecent
photographs of her seven-year-old daughter has opened the debate this weekend
on the law relating to child pornography.

Both Ms Somerville, who regained a top position in news broadcasting after
a brain tumour operation, and Mr Dixon, who designed the extension to the
Royal Opera House, strenuously denied the allegations. They said the pictures,
which reportedly include a picture of Ms Somerville’s daughter naked in the
bath, were innocent. Ms Somerville also said she was “deeply distressed” that
the arrests were made public, leading Scotland Yard to deny last night that it
had leaked the news to the media.

The most recent amendment to the law, outlawing the possession of
pornographic photographs of children, was introduced seven years ago, amid
intense lobbying from campaigners who included Mary Whitehouse.

“Clearly there is a risk innocent parents may be drawn in, and there is
also a grey area here on what indecency means,” said Alan Levy, QC, who
specialises in child law. “This tests the law as to what we consider indecent.
What it must really rely on is common sense. If you are taking naked pictures
of a seven-year-old, which seems older than usual, you are playing with fire –
not because you are necessarily doing anything indecent, but because it might
be construed that way.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/julia-somerville-defends-innocent-family-photos-1538516.html

Googling Justin Beiber will throw up images not just of him but other cocks
as well, which may be classed as Grade 3?

rabbitaway June 10, 2013 at 22:10

@Elena ‘and – and there was me hoping to join the red arraaas ….. myself ……
I’m sure they’ll sneak me in anyways !!!

Elena ‘andcart
June 10, 2013 at 22:16

We will just have to be a bit more outrageous. You know, really sock it
to em. Tell em what a load of old codswallop it all is. That should do
it.

rabbitaway
June 10, 2013 at 23:26

@Elena – I’ve put my tuppence worth on Mail but it’s in limbo land – I
must say I am super surprised at how well Jeremy has been received. Could
it be that we are actually in the majority after all ….. !!! xx

Elena
‘andcart June 10, 2013 at 23:35

This is more than likely. Bunch of bloomin cowards. Afraid of being
called Paedos is what. They think The Mail Comments are an intellechool
excercise is what. xx

ivan June 11, 2013 at 00:03

My last nine comment on the Mail vanished into the black hole they
have for those that do not toe the accepted line. I did manage to get a
comment up several days ago and it got several GREEN arrows – what are
the readers thinking of?

Elena
‘andcart June 11, 2013 at 07:25

My best ever was a totally innocuous comment I made on an article
about Wisteria. Several people complained, my comment was removed and
I got a warning.
Meanwhile, I had clocked up 40 Green Arrows.
Insane or what?

rabbitaway June 10, 2013 at 22:07

PS – my last comment is only valid IF this is what the Judge really said
!!!

rabbitaway June 10, 2013 at 16:52

The price of spanners may be increasing due to demand. Great to see Andrew
Lancel has been cleared by a jury in just 29 minutes ! I wonder, will he now
be compensated for the anguish brought upon him and his family ?

Ho Hum June 10, 2013 at 21:49

Compensation? Not a chance, if the quote below, as it is being reported
by the media, is what now passes for ‘not guilty’. I have no idea what else
the judge may actually have said, but maybe the press now thinks that you’re
really ‘not guilty’ only if they have said so before the trial, or if the
jury takes less than 60 seconds to decide on the verdict afterwards

‘Judge Clement Goldstone QC said: “The defendant was acquitted on the
evidence, and rightly so, but it is important that the complainant, who is
clearly scarred by an experience, should understand that the jury verdicts
does not necessarily involve rejection of his account of a sexual encounter
or encounters with the defendant.

“It is a statement that the prosecution have failed to make the jury sure
that abuse of the type alleged occurred during the period covered by the
indictment and in particular before the complainant’s 16th birthday, now
more than 18 years ago.”‘

rabbitaway
June 10, 2013 at 22:05

@Ho Hum – thanks un – bloody believeable !! Why didn’t he just say … ”
Well mate you got off but I for one, believe that you are guility” – what
a tosser

JuliaM June
11, 2013 at 16:34

I’m amazed that there hasn’t been more of an outcry at his remarks –
since when have judges taken it upon themselves to ‘interpret’ why the
jury reached the verdict it did?

Lucozade
June 11, 2013 at 18:30

JuliaM,

Re: “I’m amazed that there hasn’t been more of an outcry at his
remarks – since when have judges taken it upon themselves to
‘interpret’ why the jury reached the verdict it did?”

I reckon he’s probably been taken out of context, i.e it’s not
nessecerily a rejection of the claim that their was a sexual encounter
or encounters between them – just that he and the prosecution has
failed to show that he was under the age of consent at the time he
claims this/these encounter/s took place….

Ho Hum
June 11, 2013 at 23:42

@ Lucozade

Agreed we haven’t got whole context, but otherwise not quite as you
state. What he said implies that they couldn’t prove that the alleged
‘abuse’, whatever that was, took place in any of the timeframes
involved, either before age of legal consent OR afterwards . Maybe the
prosecution should try again, and just expand the range of dates,
until they do eventually get a conviction?

Anyway, who gives a fig for what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ should
really mean any more?

Rocky Raccoon
(no relation) June 12, 2013 at
00:18

The accuser was asked if he was forced to do anything, he replied:
“I can’t say that I was. It sounds very stupid to say but it felt
impolite to say no.”

Could the Judge’s words reflect the new thinking that an accuser
does not lie, and to avoid a suicide?

Lucozade
June 12, 2013 at 07:48

Ho Hum,

Re: “Maybe the prosecution should try again, and just expand the
range of dates, until they do eventually get a conviction?”

I’m lost. If these things really happened then and he is sure they
did and it is his age that would make it a crime or not – why could
they not state what age he would have been at least down to a 6 month
time frame? It’s his age that’s the significant thing here, if this
thing he has said happened to him means so much to him, would he not
have hung onto that significant part of it?

This guy’s claiming he was in his teens 18 years ago, i’m 28 and I
can probably pick out the age I was with some certainty during
reasonably significant events 18 years ago by considering factors like
what bedroom was I in? Who was my teacher at school? What music/films
were out at the time? What time of year was it? Summer/Chrismas/round
about bonfire night/my birthday? I’m not saying my memory is brilliant
but I can do that and would think that you’d be able to do that for an
event that is supposed to be significant to you and it is your age at
the time that makes it so. Ok if not that’s unfortunate, but to keep
trying Andrew Lancel again until a jury finds him guilty is a horrible
thing to do. Either this guy was under age at the time or he was not,
if that was the issue, surely it’s as simple as that.

What if Andrew Lancel’s innocent?

Ergathones the
Philosopher June 10, 2013 at 13:49

“Laws for the general will never stop the exceptional.”

How true. This brings back to mind the Video Nasty furore of about thirty
years ago, and the “liability to deprave or corrupt” of an assortment of
(mainly) low budget European horror films. Legislation was passed, countless
video retailers were put out of business (and in some cases imprisoned) – and
did this country become a safer place as a result?

Evidently not – for in the wake of the sickening murder of Jamie Bulger a
decade later, it was not just Venables and Thompson who came under scrutiny,
but also “Child’s Play 3″, on the grounds that the two young killers had
apparently re-enacted a scene from the film, and one of their fathers had
rented the video some months earlier. I seem to recall a typically measured,
rational tabloid headline advising us gently to:

“FOR THE SAKE OF **ALL** OUR CHILDREN… **BURN** YOUR VIDEO NASTY”

Interesting that the investigating police ultimately concluded there was NO
link between the film and the Bulger murder.

Now, the majority of films deemed obscene by the DPP in the 1980s are
available on DVD, most of them uncut. And the brand of subsequent knee-jerk
censorship that saw a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film trimmed of a sequence
that saw one of the pizza-loving reptiles using a string of sausages like
nunchakus is, for the most part, a thing of the past.

I wonder how we will look back on the current furore in twenty or thirty
years’ time?

Ho Hum June 10, 2013 at 14:11

Somehow, I think that the signs are that, rather than avoiding going back
to the past, there are many now who would all too readily impose the same,
if not even more drastic, sort or restrictions upon us all in their quest to
perfect others’ moral welfare, and they are going to advance those rapidly
as they take us back to the future

Jonathan Mason
June 10, 2013 at 13:35

The problem is always that politicians want to bend over backwards to
support those who are against paedophilia, and obviously there is no real
lobby in favour of sex with children, but they are still not really aware of
whom they are getting into bed with until it is too late.

We saw the same thing in Florida with the sexual predators program that
sends released sex offenders for compulsory “treatment” after they finish
their prison sentences in another place that looks exactly like a prison,
often for many years to come. While one can see the point of locking up people
who are chronically and persistently dangerous to children, the economics of
the situation demand that huge numbers of men are identified and processed,
otherwise there is no real profit to be made, and suddenly a crunch comes from
an unexpected direction when the taxpayers who supported the general notion
find out that they are paying a huge amount for this feelgood programme
without any measurable results such as an actual reduction in sex
offending.

Duncan
Disorderly June 10, 2013 at 13:40

“We saw the same thing in Florida with the sexual predators program that
sends released sex offenders for compulsory “treatment” after they finish
their prison sentences in another place that looks exactly like a
prison”

There was a Loius Theroux documentary about such an institution in the
US. In practice, the men had to submit to castration before they were
released.

Jonathan
Mason June 10, 2013 at 15:31

That wasn’t the case in Florida, but after about 10 years of the
program(me) only one or two people had actually graduated and been
released. Anyway castration doesn’t work nor does hormone therapy. To some
extent men are less likely to offend as they get older and testosterone
levels drop, but that is by no means the whole picture.

I didn’t mention it above, but one of the things that Florida failed to
take account of was the astronomical cost of providing 24-hour health care
to a closed population of hundreds of middle-aged institutionalized men,
most of whom had a history of smoking, some of whom were in wheelchairs,
diabetics, asthmatics, mentally ill, mentally retarded, amputees, HIV
positive, and so on.

To its credit, the sexual offenders program(me) in Florida does employ
a top researcher in the field of sex offending and tries to have
scientifically based program(me)s.

The whole witch hunt in the UK at the present time seems to have no
basis in any kind of scientific research on sex offending and is
politically driven. One is reminded of the 1980′s Argentine invasion of
the Falklands as a distraction from the domestic woes of the Galtieri
government. Clearly Number 10 would rather have people thinking about
ancients like Savile, Hall, and Roach being ministered to by fresh young
bodies, than ask any probing questions about Cameron’s real relationship
with Rebecca Brooks, Rupert Murdoch, etc.

Duncan
Disorderly June 10, 2013 at 15:48

I do not think the present witch hunt is being driven by the
government. By the State, yes, but not the government. The police and
the CPS operate independently of the government, and it is they who are
driving this.

SagaxSenex June 10, 2013 at 12:56

DP wrote: “With the biggest consumers of child pornography in the police
and various branches of the medical and judicial profession, any sensible
wanna-be viewer of child porn should be seeking work in those professions,
where they will get paid to look at it, all day.”

Stranger than you could make up: loads of kiddieporn was available on the
Dutch Ministry of Justice site. Prosecution evidence. My daughter the legal
trainee could supply precise details. She’s still laughing her socks off about
it.

Duncan Disorderly
June 10, 2013 at 12:51

“…in just one police force I have discovered a string of policemen who
having once viewed child porn have gone on to become deviantly corrupted.”

Are you joking or being serious here?

Anna
Raccoon June 10, 2013 at 12:57

Not at all – do follow the link given. Horrifying!

Duncan
Disorderly June 10, 2013 at 13:35

I read the link, but of all the police officers listed as paedophiles,
it just claims that “[one officer] ended up in the police Professional
Standards Department investigating other suspected paedophiles”. I don’t
see “a string of policemen who having once viewed child porn have gone on
to become deviantly corrupted.” These men may be deviants, but with the
exception of that one officer, there is no claim that any of the other
officers had to look at child abuse material professionally before they
were arrested.

With regard to whether child ‘porn’ increases the chance of a person
committing actual abuse, I found this article suggesting it doesn’t:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090713201446.htm

Frankie June 10, 2013 at 11:16

One only has to watch a few minutes of the excruciating scenes, shown in
the TV series ‘Dirty Sanchez’, made between 2003-2007 to see that the law, per
R v Brown has changed from those principles espoused in the case. The four
subjects either subjected themselves (or each other) to some truly mind
bogglingly painful tortures, for the gratification of the viewing public, some
of which left semi-permanent or permanent damage. None of the presenters or
the film crew/producers were hauled off by the police and thrown in jail. I
can only conclude that the essential difference was that the four intrepid
stars of the TV series were not gay and that the attack by the establishment
on the sixteen men convicted back in 1990 was because they were and being
actively homosexual in 1990 was still something that was to be attacked.

That it is the Conservatives that are now actively pursuing the right for
gay men and women to marry is nothing short of astonishing, given their
antecedents.

Hunny June 10, 2013 at 10:34

Why the obsession over Duncroft/Savile. We all know that you, Ms Raccoon
and many of your posters disagree with his guilt. Problem is the rest of the
country , who show a certain degree of sanity, disagree with you.
I am
struggling to find a link between this article and Duncroft?
I personally
would not boast about going to Duncroft as it meant that you broke the law and
went through the probation system.
You have allowed many to disseminate the
incorrect comments and facts posted and identify those persons who have been
redacted on official documents.
Duncroft/Savile is in the past and that is
where it should stay, time you left your past behind and continue to thrall us
all with contemporary facts, rather than guesses and hearsay.
For what it
is worth I think you should move and blog about current topics. Not many of us
care about what Mr G’s man pad is like or how big your kitchen is. if you
cared about this country (UK), you should live here, or as one of your posters
commented, “either piss or get off the pot”.
I am aware that
Duncroft/Savile is old news and yet you seem to enjoy flogging a dead
horse….why, no one is interested except a few posters who ONLY post when
Duncroft is mentioned! Maybe their sanity is in question as a couple show
symptoms of MPD.
You, nor any of your posters were at Duncroft in the early
1970′s so just leave them to wallow and you can continue to gloat without
their satyrical comments on their own private web site.
Your blogging
obviously has a following but why put something like this under the
Savile/Duncroft section?
I remain a very confused follower!

Anna
Raccoon June 10, 2013 at 10:53

As it happens, my dear, I have in front of me a document loudly
proclaiming that my attendance at Duncroft was ‘a Non-offending committal’.

The link between this article and Duncroft is that it has been as a
result of the mendacious declarations made by a few girls who were at
Duncroft in the 1970s which is resulting in an ocean of unhappiness for many
people – and a perversion of the common law which has operated for centuries
in Britain. As it happens you are quite wrong in claiming that ‘none of the
posters here’ were at Duncroft in the early 1970s – I am well aware of who
my posters are, as I am well aware of who you are, and several of them were
indeed, your contemporaries. They are no more impressed by your claims than
I am. Odd that, for if you were telling the truth, you would expect them to
be backing you to the hilt, wouldn’t you?

Given that you were not a follower of this blog until I first
wrote of Duncroft, I am confused as to why you should want me to write of
other things. Had you been a follower of this blog before, you would be
aware that I have been writing of such subjects for many years!

You would like me to get a divorce, move back to England, just so that I
can write of things you were uninterested in before the Duncroft saga? I
don’t think so!

Ellen June 11, 2013 at 07:26

Good for you Anna! xx

Ellen June 11, 2013 at 07:27

Also liked “As it happens” – made me smile E xx

Duncan
Disorderly June 10, 2013 at 13:07

“I am aware that Duncroft/Savile is old news and yet you seem to enjoy
flogging a dead horse”

This ‘dead horse’ was resuscitated about 18 months ago, and not by
Anna.

JoBlow. June 10, 2013 at 18:26

wow. you know what the rest of the country is thinking ? how ?
I only
know that media proprietors love a good sex story but what the readers or
viewers think is a mystery to me.

Moor
Larkin June 18, 2013 at 09:44

@ I am struggling to find a link between this article and Duncroft? @

The connection seems to be the inexplicable determination of the “State”
and the “Press” to be as one on the “Paedo” story.

Much of the Duncroft core of the Savile Revelations is demonstrably
false; even the slackest journalist must know this. Their totemic Karin Ward
was born in 1958 and so must have been 16 in 1974 yet the papers and the
police are utterly determined to ignore such facts. It’s clear from the
Pollard Report that “Angie” in the Exposure show was also from Duncroft yet
this was entirely passed over in the programme. More peculiarly it was
ignored by every newspaper in the land who were united on the Savile Story
as never before about any story. The British police have completely ignored
the press fabrications and the disregard for accuracy and have actively
amplified the ensuing publicity in conjunction with one of the most
significant Charity Organisations in the land, whilst the CPS has
flip-flopped on it’s own decision like a drowning fish and barristers and
judges cast aspersions on the very structure they administer and insult the
juries that fail to comply with their expectations and dead men have been
convicted of crimes as if the sins of the children must now be passed on to
the fathers.

Objective fact is often ignored in the pursuit of a story. Now it is
nothing unusual for a government to do this (especially in pursuit of War),
it is common for a newspaper to do this (in pursuit of Sales), we have
endless Police Inquiries to demonstrate the police seem to do this
habitually for their own reasons that are often unfathomable, lawyers are
admittedly paid to tell only one side of any story, but when this
Duncroft/Saville/Paedogeddon thing hit the country, all of these pillars of
the Establishment have pursued the same line. It must surely dominate all
‘political’ discourse. I can never remember a time like it.

It also seems like a time of the Looking Glass where the liberal left are
censorious and disapproving of human behaviour, while the conservative right
are the ones wringing their hands in distress about the apparent loss of
civil rights. Twilight Zone.

Ho Hum June 18, 2013 at 09:56

A very good summary. But one minor point, if I may? There is no
‘liberal left’. On reflection, looking back, I doubt if there ever really
was.

Fat Steve June 10, 2013 at 10:14

Gosh Anna —having read the exam paper extracted above , we ought to worry
about those law lecturers both you and I knew having been corrupted by the law
reports they have read —well they certainly seems to have fired up this
examiners imagination !!! —he might try writing fifty shades of pinstrip or
whatever lawyers wear nowadays to supplement his academic income.

Mark June 10, 2013 at 09:58

On this general subject, I find it odd that in today’s society a man could,
if so inclined, find a petite 20 year old prostitute, dress her up as a
schoolgirl and have sex with her. But if he videoed this perfectly legal
activity he could find himself in deep doo – doo. Certainly if he could not
prove her age, and possibly even if he could.

Brentfordian
June 10, 2013 at 09:57

P.S. Nice bread board by the way.

Brentfordian
June 10, 2013 at 09:54

Not so sure about your equalising of the ‘authority figure’ and the
collector of images of children.

Surely the former (whilst undoubtedly human and susceptible to corruption)
is less likely to prove a danger should they supervise children than the
individual who has searched (online or elsewhere) for images of children
(innocently clothed or not) which his preference has sexualised?

Simply put: I know who I’d rather have in loco parentis.

right-writes
June 10, 2013 at 08:02

I turned on the radio in the car the other day, to hear a “phone in”…
before I could get my phone into the cradle and a bit of decent music playing
that is.

I had to listen for a couple of mins… It was about some woman called Amy
(others may know more about this), who having just been devastated to wake in
the morning and find her beautiful baby dead in it’s cot.

Can you imagine what it must have been like for this poor woman to be
“ceremoniously” arrested the next day by a three male and one female police
thugs, who battered her front door down, having first tipped off the local
meeja what was about to happen?

Needless to say, only about one in a million (that figure completely made
up of course, just like those that miasmically seep from government every day)
of these unfortunate deaths is caused by a parent, and her case was one of the
999,999 of the others.

So, if they suspected that she might have had a case to answer, a quiet
investigation in a non-bullying manner, rather than the approach taken, even
though distasteful would have sufficed.

As Anna suggests in a round about way here ,
perhaps these people get off on this sort of thing… Drunk with power and
majesty, they plunder the very depths of people’s profoundest agony. And then
they walk away, apparently proud that they are protecting “the children”… the
bastards… how do they sleep at night?

right-writes
June 10, 2013 at 08:06

Bloody hell, I seem to have lost the power of tense, come to that I have
no idea what I am writing anyway… It might even flow up-hill… Who can
say?

Woman on a
Raft June 10, 2013 at 10:29

Abby Podmore
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/quinton-mum-alfie-podmore-opens-4059027

rabbitaway
June 10, 2013 at 11:28

I am finding it more and more difficult to protect the shape of my face
and avoid spitting half my teeth across the room reading about these ‘no
joe’s’ and their f..king child protection rackets. See, it’s made me use
foul language ! If I was a couldn’t care less, just stick my head in the
sand, it’s not my problem kinda gal, all would be well, but I do care and I
really do feel that something HAS to be done. I’ll wager Jimmy Savile saved
more children and adults (clunk click) than any of these f’er’s ever
will.
As for that silly woman ‘Hunny’ – kindly eff off to the daily mail
or express, sun etc and join the rest of the your kind.

There, I feel better now !

Anna
Raccoon June 10, 2013 at 12:34

The tide definitely seems to be turning, and the current hysteria over
Top of the Pops and everything associated with it is getting a well earned
back lash from the general public, as reflected in the comments on this
piece in the Mail today.

Initial sympathy seems to be evaporating!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338341/Jeremy-Irons-Those-Top-Pops-girls-goers-actor-claims.html

rabbitaway
June 10, 2013 at 16:26

Wowsa Anna – the comments ….. ! and bravo Mr Irons. Now let’s see a
few moor coming out for the guys whose lives are being ruined by this.
This article has made my day

Elena
‘andcart June 10, 2013 at 21:58

Typical. Trust the mood to change now that I’ve got fed up with
commenting. And what’s the point anyway if you aren’t going to get Red
Arrowed? The hoi poloi only read Red Arrow posts.

john malpas June 9, 2013 at 23:32

We are done for – our fridge and shelves have masses of ;photos of
grandchildren etc.
Still we might be aafe as we are well away from the
UK.

davidb June 9, 2013 at 21:38

A friend of mines found a wallet in Germany a few years ago. He
subsequently spent the night in the cells on suspicion of having pickpocketed
it. He was a foreigner in Germany. 18 months ago I noticed a pocket book left
on the seat of a subway carriage. I ignored it but when a group of girls sat
down and “discovered” it, I suggested they hand it over to the authorities,
and since there was clearly an ID card in it, let them do their job of
reuniting it with its owner. Foreigners are assumed to have different motives,
I had learned.

And so with images of children. The semantics of categories are neither
here nor there. We have a paranoia in our society about it. The same paper
which rails against this every day seems to have no problem showing pictures
of Ms Klass in various poses alongside her children every other day. I have
long taken the view that the best thing to do, as in my German experience, is
to leave well alone. What business is it of anyone anyway, to have images of
anyone elses children? So perhaps it is wisest to assume that any man will be
judged to have questionable motives if they come into contact with such
things. And leave well alone.

Society is in constant flux. What was punishable by prison in Oscar Wilde’s
lifetime is paraded as perfectly normal in Stephen Fry’s. Art is subjective.
So there is a strong case for ignoring Botticelli cherubs in our time, just as
we rightly preserve fetish statues from Africa or displays of hedonism from
Herculaneum. We may not want to go along with the norms of our society, but it
is just so much hassle to swim against the tide.

One day society may have different views. But today, the ultimate tabu is
child images. So whatever your opinion, best just leave well alone.

And a big hello btw to the tireless gentlemen of our intelligence
services.

Furor
Teutonicus June 10, 2013 at 11:31

XX A friend of mines found a wallet in Germany a few years ago. He
subsequently spent the night in the cells on suspicion of having
pickpocketed it. XX

Don’t believe it.

A pick pocket does not take his find to the police after emptying it of
cash, and then provide evidence (which is required) of his own I.D. He
throws the wallet away and makes his escape. The police, and more to the
point, the Staatsanwaltschaft, (State attorney, or public prosecuter) know
this., and he would NOT “spend the night in the cells.

UNLESS, of course your “friend” could not produce I.D….then why not?

You must, be able to produce I.D at all times (YET you are not OBLIGED to
carry I.D!!). If you do not have any on you, you will be taken to where you
say it is and produce it. (Home, Hotel room, wherever)

Or there was some other factor involved.

So either the story is bollox, or there is something he is not telling
you.

UK Fred
June 9, 2013 at 21:04

@ Ivan 16:22 June 9

I believe that you left some unnecessary words in the first line of your
post, Ivan. By omitting the phrase “about technology” you would be stating a
universal truth.

DP June 9, 2013 at 19:43

Dear Ms Raccoon

Some have made a case that child pornography relieves pressures on would-be
child molesters. Does the German and Scandinavian experience suggest this is
the case? The Japanese are or were big child pornography viewers. How do they
rank on child abuse?

If our beloved government makes the penalty for possession of child
pornography too severe, the would-be viewer of pornography may be tempted to
skip the images and play with a real child on the basis that you might as well
hang for a lamb as the image of a lamb.

If any image of a naked child is child pornography, the National Gallery is
stuffed with such images. Are not cherubs children? And if not, are they not
sufficiently child-like to be caught by the second order child pornography of
naked women aged 26 who look like they might be 14 3/4? Can we expect a purge
of classical art from our galleries? Can a professional child pornography
practitioner distinguish between the image of a naked child aged 17 years 364
days (illegal), and the adult taken one day later (legal)?

Possession laws have an added bonus of allowing the ‘authorities’ of
totalitarian tyrranies to stitch up anyone they don’t like by seeding their
laptops with child porn or violent porn. Not that I’m suggesting that our
beloved government is a totalitarian tyrrany.

With the biggest consumers of child pornography in the police and various
branches of the medical and judicial profession, any sensible wanna-be viewer
of child porn should be seeking work in those professions, where they will get
paid to look at it, all day. Win-win.

DP

Anna
Raccoon June 9, 2013 at 20:20

“If our beloved government makes the penalty for possession of child
pornography too severe, the would-be viewer of pornography may be tempted to
skip the images and play with a real child on the basis that you might as
well hang for a lamb as the image of a lamb.”

What an excellent point – wasn’t that the justification for abolishing
capital punishment – that if the punishment was too severe, robbers would be
tempted to kill on the grounds that they ‘might as well hang for a sheep or
a lamb’ – and leave no witnesses?

DP June 11, 2013 at 14:45

Dear Ms Raccoon

I thought the argument was the opposite: with the abolition of capital
punishment, armed robbers were more likely to kill because the penalties
for murder and armed robbery were the same or so close as to make little
difference. Pre-abolition it was claimed that, before going out on a
‘job’, leaders of gangs would ‘shake-down’ their more enthusiastic
accomplices to relieve them of firearms and other lethal weapons on the
grounds that if anyone were killed in the course of a robbery, all members
of the gang would face the death penalty, not just the individual pulling
the trigger or plunging the knife in.

Post abolition, if the gang would be more likely to make a clean
getaway by shooting anyone who got in their way, the incentive would be to
carry guns and use them.

DP

Furor
Teutonicus June 10, 2013 at 11:21

XX Some have made a case that child pornography relieves pressures on
would-be child molesters. Does the German and Scandinavian experience
suggest this is the case? XX

Difficult to estimate, due to the fact that the laws all over Europe are
now basically the same.

You would have to go back before 1989, or thereabouts. Such figures in
Germany are obviously then problomatical, in that East Germany was not part
of the stats. And even in the DDR, the stats are about as reliable for these
numberes as the “Mail” is for anything resembeling news.

Lucozade June 10, 2013 at 16:03

DP,

Re: “Some have made a case that child pornography relieves pressures on
would-be child molesters. Does the German and Scandinavian experience
suggest this is the case? The Japanese are or were big child pornography
viewers. How do they rank on child abuse?”

I suppose the problem is that if the ‘pornography’ is filmed or
photographed then real children would probably have posed/starred in it and
it could perhaps only serve to add fuel to their obsessions/tastes rather
than help them over come them. But if we are now living in a world that is
beginning to view pictures of children, and even bloody 17 year olds, or 26
year olds that might look like 17 year olds, in their swimware as ‘child
pornography’, or, ahem, ‘child abuse material’ then god help us….

carol42 June 9, 2013 at 19:02

When I lived in then West Germany child pornography was freely available,
all made in Scandanavia and Holland which surprised me. It seems there were no
legal age limits until the death of a child in Holland who was given drugs. I
couldn’t believe it was legal but these were not countries with any severe
problems as far as I know so I guess it was just down to their very relaxed
attitude to sex compared to the UK.

Mark June 9, 2013 at 18:17

If I remember correctly, the fish hook /penis episode was between
consenting adults in a long-term relationship and the case was decided at a
European level. I distantly know the lawyer. Her case was (in part) that the
courts do not intervene in cases of physical harm between consenting, married
heterosexual couples and should not therefore in the case of gay ones. That
she lost might well now be held to be an injustice.

Mina Field June 9, 2013 at 17:16

These ‘experts’ are so far up themselves now that they can’t see the wood
for the trees. Here’s MW-T’s mate and fellow paedo-finder, Jim Gamble. Any
casual reader would be considering ringing 999 and reporting him right
now:-

Expand
Jgamble ‏@Jgineqe 6h
#Childabuse Mr Cameron’s statement said
he was “sickened by the proliferation of child pornography”.
DISGUSTING
Expand

JimS June 9, 2013 at 16:41

Like Ivan I think it shows that these politicians and ‘Any Question’
commentators have no clue about the internet. Google, of course, is just
search tool and is not ‘the internet’. The chances are that the search terms
that one might use would yield few results, those in the know will have their
own language and abbreviations such as a ‘hacker’ using ‘hax’ or the like.

I have long felt that it is a strange law that makes it illegal to have
knowledge about that which is legal, a bit like the old spy line of “I could
tell you but I would have to kill you!”.

There is certainly a lot of paranoia in this area; TV is becoming more and
more reduced to blurred images and shots cut off at the knee. Surely moving
images of children playing on a school playground doesn’t need to be carefully
filtered before broadcast for instance?

Laws for the general will never stop the exceptional.

Anna
Raccoon June 9, 2013 at 18:17

“Surely moving images of children playing on a school playground doesn’t
need to be carefully filtered before broadcast for instance?”

I take it you’ve just been watching the Sky footage of the children at
the Islamic school where there has just been a fire too. Playing football in
full length dresses with hats on (and that’s just the boys!) but we only got
long distance shots from several fields away, or – as you say – shots from
the knees down. Aren’t they scared of shin fetishists getting excited?

Lucozade June 9, 2013 at 16:39

ivan,

Re: “long before the CPS even considers if there is enough publicity value
in the case to bring it to court”

Good one, lol

JuliaM June 9,
2013 at 16:33

“The consensus of opinion seems to be that even setting eyes on pictures
of children in swimming costumes from family albums is sufficient to turn you
into a danger that should not be allowed to be near children.

So what of policemen, past and present, who must gaze upon, not once but
twice, thrice and analyse, pictures of level 5 seriousness?”

And (before the age of digital, children) what of the people who worked at
Boots and HappySnaps? Monsters, all..?

Moor
Larkin June 18, 2013 at 12:49

@ what of the people who worked at Boots and HappySnaps? Monsters, all..?
@
http://2guyz.com/library/Images/509.jpg

Lucozade June 9, 2013 at 16:27

I see your point. I’ve been wondering myself if being surrounded by
criminals so much of the time perhaps has an influence on the behavior of some
policemen – e.g the one I strongly suspect of stealing my mobile phone when he
was in my house not so long ago….

ivan June 9, 2013 at 16:22

Every time a politician opens his or her mouth about technology they show
their total ignorance and stupidity especially when it comes to the internet.
If Camerloon thinks that Google can remove sites, or anything else, from the
internet is it any wonder the country is in the state it is?

As for pictures of children, what are parents supposed to do, rely on
memory for the things their children did on holiday as well as at home during
birthdays and family events? Because, obviously, having photos of ones
children will bring the wrath of the Peadofinder General, in the guise of an
ex-police detective, down on them. They will have their names splashed all
over the MSM long before the CPS even considers if there is enough publicity
value in the case to bring it to court.

Maybe, just maybe, it would be better if Camerloon and his government
stepped back from the mass hysteria that is sloshing around the MSM and sorted
out the mess of quangos, vested interests and social services first.

Furor
Teutonicus June 10, 2013 at 11:08

xX If Camerloon thinks that Google can remove sites, or anything else,
XX

Or even that he thinks a U.S company could give a twopenny shit, about
what he has to say on the subject.

Joe Public June 9, 2013 at 14:02

If pornography is that ‘which is likely to deprave & corrupt’; and, if
a Judge views evidential pornography, will his judgement be dismissed as
evidently corrupt?

And also Anna, in my innocence, my first thought was that Algolnagnia must
be a fear of early computing languages.

(ALGOL (short for ALGOrithmic Language) being a family of imperative
computer programming languages originally developed in the mid-1950s )

right-writes
June 10, 2013 at 07:45

Fortraneously for you Joe, it’s OK to be innocent…

The problem is…

We are all guilty!

Ho Hum June 9, 2013 at 13:45

Strange this. I had thought exactly the same when I first read that one.
I’m waiting to see what happens to the first person who gets arrested and has
their children confiscated by Social Services because they put a picture of
their kid on Facebook for their relatives.

In fact, I’m also waiting to see who will be the first to claim the prize
for reporting them. I have tabloid journalists, vested intesest charitable
pressure groups and career driven private investigators as the joint
favourites in the betting