WORKING FOR THE CLAMPDOWN

SOME PEOPLE SEEM TSE HSVE GOT THE WRONG END OF THE STICK

ROBERT GREEN RUSTY BELINDA DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT HOLLIE

WAS ABUSED PAID OFF NOT INVESTIGATED THEN COVERED UP

http://akashictimes.co.uk/uk-enforces-law-which-bans-public-from-criticising-the-govt/?fb_action_ids=10154043755320160&fb_action_types=og.likes

UK enforces law which bans public from criticising the govt
in Courts / Law / Legislation / News / UK News — by Janine Griffiths — January 25, 2014

A British citizen was held for days without charge in a London mental hospital under little-known laws which allow the police to arrest and detain anybody who voices criticism against politicians or celebrities.

The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was quietly set up to identify individuals who they claim pose a direct threat to VIPs including the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Royal Family.

It was given sweeping powers to check more than 10,000 suspects’ files to identify mentally unstable potential “killers and stalkers” with a fixation against public figures.

The team’s psychiatrists and psychologists then have the power to order treatment – including forcibly detaining suspects in secure psychiatric units.

Using these powers, the unit can legally detain people for an indefinite period without trial, criminal charges or even evidence of a crime being committed and with very limited rights of appeal.

FTAC is enforced by the police anti-terrorism unit, and so although it technically is a separate branch of law, it is enforced under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act. It works in a similar way to laws in Thailand which ban citizens from saying anything critical of the Thai royal family.

A number of British citizens have already fallen victim to these laws. Activist David Compan was imprisoned without charges in a London mental hospital after he publicly associated himself with the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCC) campaign to hold the Crown of England responsible for crimes against children.

Social worker Elizabeth Scully has confirmed to ITCCS organizer Rhianne Mockridge that David was held for ‘examination’, but Scully initially refused to say where or provide any other details.

David Compan is a friend and supporter of Rhianne and other ITCCS activists in Coventry, who have led occupations of local roman catholic churches and are now convening a common law court to enforce ITCCS warrants against convicted felons and child abusers.

*The Akashic Times recently learned that after tireless campaigning by the ITCCS, David was released*. However, the law which allowed him to be locked up in the first place, is still in full effect.

The FTAC law allows the government to imprison indefinitely without charges anyone who is considered to be “fixated” about public figures, “VIP’s”, or members of the Royal Family.

Currently the law is very vague over what can be considered to be an unhealthy obsession against public figures. Worryingly, no trial is needed to provide evidence of the crime.

Until now, it has been the exclusive decision of doctors and mental health professionals to determine if someone should be forcibly detained.

But the new unit uses the police to identify suspects – increasing fears the line is being blurred between criminal investigation and doctors’ clinical decisions.

Human rights activists fear the team – whose existence has never been publicised – may be being used as a way to detain suspected terrorists without having to put evidence before the courts.

It also comes amid a continuing row over proposed mental health legislation which will make it easier to ‘section’ someone deemed a threat to the public.

MP Andrew Lansley was an outspoken critic of the law and said it could be used to target anybody with a religious, political or cultural belief that goes against the norm. He said: ”The Government is trying to bring in a wider definition of mental disorder and is resisting exclusions which ensure that people cannot be treated as mentally disordered on the grounds of their cultural, political or religious beliefs.

“When you hear they are also setting up something like this police unit, it raises questions about quite what their intentions are.

“The use of mental health powers of detention should be confined to the purposes of treatment. But the Government wants to be able to detain someone who is mentally disordered even when the treatment would have no benefit.

“Combined with the idea that someone could be classed as mentally ill on the grounds of their religious beliefs, it is a very worrying scenario.”

The laws were previously introduced under Tony Blair and are still being used today.

Last year we exposed how the Justice and Security Bill gives British courts the mandate to hold both criminal – and civil – cases in private and prevent suspects from hearing the evidence against them. It also enhances the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee – which was established by the Intelligence Services Act in 1994.

It effectively makes them exempt from having to supply documents under the Freedom of Information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psB0cidB5bg

SOME ADVICE

Advice against corrupt Scotts Law for any Hollie supporter or blogger youtuber etc….
And why HGJ blog has had no posts for the last wee while…
Nothing will be getting posted on the HGJ blog until the middle towards the end of next week as waiting apon the obvious…
Also this carry on with the UK Column is in my view the very start of a massive clamp down coming to all bloggers/youtube or anywhere that is exposing the gooberments… Ima feel massive arrests will be getting carried out soon to create anger…
law is beaten by saying nothing when arrested to the police also in court that is what rusty did wrong he should have taken the 5th rusty spoke to the police when arrested they manipulated his words and used it against him in court that is how they say when arresting you anything you say bla bla will be used against you say nothing they have nothing but their dribble to work apon same as robert he motor mouthed off to them lmao by talking to the police is admittance of guilt… silence is their worst enemy when trying to wrap up a case

ELM HOUSE COVER UP

http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/did-richmond-council-pay-hush-money-to-cover-up-the-elm-guest-house-child-abuse-scandal/

Did Richmond council pay ” hush money” to cover up the Elm Guest House child abuse scandal?

Richmond Council: Not a welcome refuge for children: Pic courtesy: http://www.officespaceinlondon.lnet.

Richmond Council: Not a welcome refuge for children: Pic courtesy: http://www.officespaceinlondon.net.

One of the most disturbing  of the many sordid facts emerging in this tale of a 30 year child sex abuse scandal is the role of Richmond Council.
It is their kids in care who were allegedly procured from their homes – mainly the now closed Grafton Close home – and taken to Elm Guest House – and then sexually abused by prominent people including ministers, and MPs.
Two graphic accounts appeared over the weekend  in the Daily Mail ( http://bit.ly/XE6iCj) and the Sunday People( http://bit.ly/XE6OAf ) from victims about what happened there in the 1980s..
The Exaro News investigation – now involving  the editor, Mark Watts, five reporters  David Pallister, Nick Fielding, Fiona O’Cleirigh, Alex Varley-Winter and me – has produced a fresh spate of articles, including one on Grafton Close children’s home today  See http://bit.ly/WLo45E ,http://bit.ly/Xiw9Om, and http://bit.ly/Y4XFzI   ) for the full stories.
These reveal that Elm House was also on the then Spartacus club network where men attracted to boys could get a discount for staying there. Coming on top of the ” strongly recommended ” rating on the Conservative Group for Homosexual Reform – this again points to the place being used not just for homosexual sex between consenting adults but also with young boys.
They also reveal that  the two managers of Grafton Close,both employees of Richmond Council, were named as part of the paedophile ring at a coroner’s court hearing into the death of Carole Kasir, who co-managed Elm House, in the 1990s.
What is interesting in both reports  is the fact that Richmond Council faced civil proceedings from one of the boys and paid out a ” considerable sum ” of money to him to go away. Why I say fact rather than allegation is that I understand the papers obtained by the police criminal investigation Operation Fernbridge also refer to civil proceedings and a payment.
A statement from Richmond Council said: “Richmond Council considers the safeguarding of all children and young people as an utmost priority and we take any allegations of abuse very seriously.
“As such, we are offering our full support and co-operation to the police during their investigation. As the investigation is ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”
What I find inexplicable and disturbing  is that if this is true -rather than report this to the police in the aftermath of the Elm House scandal- the council secretly paid out taxpayers money to an alleged child abuser victim. I am sure the home owners and tenants of the London borough would be sick to think their money was spent on what was essentially a  sex abuse cover up.
This disclosure also calls into question the extraordinary complacent statement from Sir David Williams, former Liberal Democrat leader of the council:

 “It is all specious rumour as far as I am concerned until someone gives me some hard facts. It is idle speculation as far as I am aware.
If it did involve children I didn’t know. I doubt if it did. I doubt if there is much in this at all.”
 Really, Sir David. You were leader of the council for 18 years and you know nothing about this.
 
 
WHATS THIS GOT TAE DAE WITH HOLLIE YOU ASK…EVERYTHING !
 
 
COVER UP

PLEASE READ AND SHARE

SHARE PLEASE FOR ABUSED CHILDREN Parents Grandparents and Children are being abused by the state with no human rights and too scared to complain well we have events to highlight the issues of child stealing trafficking and child abuse by uk officials we have a conference to show people the evidence of Uk state abuse. Join The UKS Parents and Grandparents Mums and Dads Who are Screaming To Be Heard. Please add to your page website blog or share on your social media friends and groups. London M25 Road Blockade July 24th 10am south mimms services A1/M25 Junction https://www.facebook.com/groups/motorwayblockade/?fref=ts https://www.facebook.com/events/245254805647244/275703505935707/?ref=notif&notif_t=like The Candle Light Vigil (Not Real Candles Please) July 24th 1500 to 2000 https://www.facebook.com/events/823843657627026/?fref=ts https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/come-clean-on-child-abuse-and-child-stealing-tickets-12061055943 The Children Screaming To Be Heard Conference Free Tickets https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/children-screaming-to-be-heard-the-silent-witnesses-conference-tickets-10908400319 9.45 Albina Koumirova will speak of her art exhibition for the children – 15 minutes 10.00 Rosie, the little girl who spoke in the House of Commons last year, told MP’s how she was denied her rights to be with her family as a child – 20 minutes 10.20 Michael Unsworth. Short video from the Australian who wrote and recorded the song Calling Me, Calling You – 10 minutes 10.30 Laura Lian, the sculptress, who has designed the monument for the abused children – 10 minutes 10.40 The Emperor Rosko, famous DJ. A short statement read out on why he is supporting the charity – 5 minutes 10.45 Tim Spearman, author of the book launched at the conference and written for the children – 15 minutes 11.00 John Hemming MP – 30 minutes – with questions and answers 11.30 Vicky Haigh via video link – paedophile’s and the families – 15 minutes 11.45 Coffee Break 12.15 Sonia Poulton, journalist and broadcaster, a voice for the people – 20 minutes 12.35 Brian Daniels, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, speaking on the drugging of children – 25 minutes 13.00 Lunch until 14.30 14.30 Ian Joseph – forced adoption, a punishment without a crime – 30 minutes 15.00 Dr. C. Dennhey, Child Psychiatrist speaking on extended families – 30 minutes 15.30 Michael Bailey, Barrister of Tanfield Chambers – 30 minutes 16.00-17.00 Questions and Answers The Charity http://www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com/ Free Tickets for the conference https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/children-screaming-to-be-heard-the-silent-witnesses-conference-tickets-908400319 Directions http://www.resourceforlondon.org/home Art Exhibition Book Launch https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/art-book-exhibition-depicting-children-screaming-to-be-heard-tickets-11397741953 Albina Koumirova a Russian artist has agreed to show to the world for the first time her paintings which graphically depicts the British Justice and the Closed Family Courts that leave the children screaming to be heard. This is one art exhibition not to be missed you will need a tissue for your tears. The painting shown here Albina has kindly donated for the cover of the forth coming book written by the well known Author Timothy Spearman this book “21st Century Lebensborne children screaming to be heard” will be published and available to order at the conference then the world will read a best selling book and along with Albinas paintings the world will again know the truth of the abuse of the British children and of the powers of the SS who are still ruling on mass in the 21st Century from the days when the SS were put into power by Hitler following on to British Governments in the 21st Century. The Evidence For Protesting Peacefully at all these events. http://www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com/money-keeps-rolling-child-trafficking/ http://www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com/prisoners-human-rights-children-none/ http://theduckshoot.com/mp-will-name-ex-cabinet-minister-paedophile/ http://theduckshoot.com/tory-paedo-ring-cover-up/ http://chrisspivey.org/there-is-right-and-there-is-wrong/ http://chrisspivey.org/the-child-snatchers/ http://www.pienmashfilms.com/index.htm

SPOTLIGHT AND CATH FOX FIGHT AGAINST CHILD ABUSE

 Written by a former social work professional who wishes to remain anonymous.
Local publicity about the connection between children and young people in the care and protection of Newcastle City Council and Bryn Alyn only became public in the 2000 with the publication of the Waterhouse Report following the prosecution of a number of individuals for crimes of physical and sexual violence in residential care in Wales
The Mail on Sunday Feb 13th 2000 reported that the £13 million inquiry stopped short of concluding that the abuse was orchestrated by a ring of paedophiles who helped each other to secure top jobs in in the Welsh Care system and which were said to include policemen, public servants and businessmen- this included a Welsh Office Inspector of Homes who was sentenced to 14 years.
12 former children in care were known to have committed suicide because of their experiences.
Locally the first reference to the Waterhouse Inquiry revelations occurred on Feb 15th when the Sunderland Echo commented on the report noting that two weeks beforehand Sunderland’s “longest running child abuse Inquiry collapsed.” The Echo paper appears to be making the point that the passage of time did not appear to have affected the successful prosecution in Wales and other situations.
The point made by the Sunderland Echo back in 2000 has been strengthened for on April 29th 2013, that is another decade after the third Witherwack trial ended, the Director General of the National Crime Agency issued a Public report on the progress of Operation Pallial covering 140 complainants reporting offences in 18 establishments in North Wales 1963-1992 against 84 named individuals. Operation Pallial continues. The 18 page progress report makes reference to the establishment of a review of the working of the Waterhouse Inquiry conducted for the Ministry of Justice by Lady Justice Macur DBE and which published an Issues Paper on January 8th 2013 which included a call of information.
In October 2013 Cathy Fox used an FOI request to ask the Ministry of Justice when the Macur report would be published. Further requests were made in December and May of this year. No date has been fixed.
On February 16th 2000 under the headline Suffer the Little Children the Newcastle Journal provided the story of one of the victims in Sunderland mentioning that the NSPCC report had referred to a web of institutional abuse and reported that 32 staff had been involved.
The Journal article also refers to the Pin Down regime in Staffordshire, to an investigation in Northumberland and the 300 complaints which has arisen to that date as part of Operation Rose.
On February 16th, the Journal also published an editorial covering the Waterhouse Inquiry and the 1998 Utting report
The Sunderland Echo also published an editorial Two Decades of Horrific Abuse and an article on the movement of staff suspects between local authorities. The Newcastle Spotlight on Abuse article is important drawing attention to the role of the Director of Social Services Roycroft in relation to the 1976 Hugh Bostock Scandal and his alleged opposition to the proposal for a register of dismissed staff. Cathy Fox’s request for Hugh Bostock inquiry info to be published was refused.
On Feb 17th the Newcastle-based Journal published the story of one victim who contacted them among the 28 who were said to have been assaulted after being placed in Bryn Alyn by the City of Newcastle.
NB A subsequent report indicated that only a small number had approached Newcastle Police with complaints.
The Feb 17th complainant mentioned that Director of Social Services Brian Roycroft visited the home to open an extension. “It was almost laughable he was singing the praises of the place yet what was going on there was evil.”
Roycroft was Director of Social Services for Newcastle 1971- 1993 and before then its Children’s officer, who also acted as Director of Education and Chief Executive for short periods, and was appointed a European Social Commissioner by Margaret Thatcher as well as having a controlling influence within the Association of Directors of Social Services and the advisors to the Association of Metropolitan local authorities.
He commented in what appeared to be a prepared statement “ It is fairly common place to send children with behavioural difficulties to homes around the country, here weren’t the facilities available in the North East. It is perfectly possible that some children from Newcastle and the North East did go to some of the homes in North Wales named in the Waterhouse report. I had 42,000 children in my care during my career and I cannot possible remember where they all went. It is also perfectly feasible that I did visit the Bryn Alyn Home “ It is noteworthy that although he left Newcastle a number of years before he knew the total number of children was over 42,000
“I would often visit homes where children from Newcastle were in care as would social service staff from the city” The article includes comments from the then current Director of Social Services for Newcastle.
In 1987, that is a year after the first complaints about the conduct of the owner of Bryn Alyn were made, Roycroft who was then President of the Association of Directors of Social Service recommended colleagues at the North East Region branch meeting the placement of children in care at Bryn Alyn, speaking warmly of the hospitality he had received. He rarely mentioned his national/internationally activities.
Roycroft also made a point of advising colleagues on another occasion that he sometimes invited children in care to his home.
It was then on morning of the 18th that the Journal posed the question Why were 69 of our Children sent to Bryn Alyn? The key sentence in the article (9) is the reference to a Labour MP Chris Ruane Vale of Clwyd (and still there) wanted Prime Minister Tony Blair to assure him that prominent people had not been left out.
Also regarded of significance is the accompanying piece about one former young man how he had been threatened at gun point by a staff member before insisting on sex. Was their proper investigations of residents reported missing from the home who were never found by their placing local authorities? The Editorial demanded the facts and the inquiry report to be published.
The importance of establishing a timeline database to include the various police investigations and other inquiries is reinforced by the Daily Mail front page headline article on the same morning – Even Worse– suggesting the potential of 11,000 victims based on the Lambeth-centred inquiry Operation Middleton and which also referred to Operation Care Merseyside and to an operation in Birmingham. The Newcastle Chronicle that evening asked for one victim placed at Bryn Alyn by North Tyneside – Why did no one listen to me?
On the 19th the Journal again asked the question Why did they keep sending children? The article refers to the 1988 devastating report of its Director on its Children’s Homes and which included Bryn Alyn.
The 19th saw the Journal report the story of Michelle Atkinson in relation to a Newcastle residential care home. On the same date the Journal reported that David Brushett, the Welsh Office Children’s Inspector who had worked at the former Approved School, Aycliffe County Durham joint secure remand centre and community home with education on he premises from 1967 to 1974 when he had become deputy Headmaster at the school part of the establishment.
The Chronicle then disclosed on February 25th that Peter Howarth who was convicted and sentenced to ten years for crimes at the notorious Bryn Estyn Establishment had worked at the former Axwell Park (renamed Clavering House) Newcastle establishment. The then current Director of Social Services called for any victims to come forward in a Journal article on the 26th.
In 1968 following the conviction of Mary Bell aged 11 years for the murder of two boys, Roycroft then Children’s Officer Newcastle became personally involved with her welfare and was widely praised by the author of two books on the murders and the life of Mary as “one of the finest social workers in the country” and referred to “his passion for “social justice.” quoted in the Guardian Obituary.
As already mentioned in 1976 Roycroft was at the centre of concern about the conviction of Newcastle Residential Home officer Hugh Bostock. The Council has refused to publish its internal report via a Cathy Fox FOI request.
Roycroft who died in 2002 during the libel action against the Council and the authors of the report on the Shielfield Nursery Scandal (the Chronicle settled out of court) was also the lead member of the team who investigated the conviction of the Calderdale Social Services Director in 1988 (when he was immediate past President of ADSS) for crimes against children in care and Calderdale director was reported to have links with Peter Righton)
In 1994 Roycroft was part of the part Inquiry into Oxenden House. A Cathy Fox FOI request for a copy of the report to be published has been refused.

MYTHBUSTER NAE HOAX

                                                     

 
 
 
 
 
 
BOOM

EIGHT COMMON MYTHS ABOUT CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

Few people are aware of the true state of the science on child abuse. Instead, most people’s beliefs have been shaped by common misconceptions and popular myths about this hidden crime. Societal acceptance of these myths assists sex offenders by silencing victims and encouraging public denial about the true nature of sexual assaults against children. The Leadership Council prepared this analysis because we believe that society as a whole benefits when the public has access to accurate information regarding child abuse and other forms of interpersonal violence.

Myth 1:  Normal-appearing, well educated, middle-class people don’t molest children.

One of the public’s most dangerous assumptions is the belief that a person who both appears and acts normal could not be a child molester. Sex offenders are well aware of our propensity for making assumptions about private behavior from one’s public presentation. In fact, as recent reports of abuse by priests have shown, child molesters rely on our misassumptions to deliberately and carefully set and gain access to child victims.
According to Dr. Anna Salter, Ph.D., a foremost expert in sex offenders, “a double life is prevalent among all types of sex offenders . . . . The front that offenders typically offer to the outside world is usually a ‘good person,’ someone who the community believes has a good character and would never do such a thing” (Salter, 2003, p. 34).
In her years of work with sex offenders, Dr. Salter has found they commonly employ a variety of tactics which allow them to gain access to children while concealing their activities. For instance, many seek responsible positions that place them in close proximity with children. They also tend to adopt a pattern of socially responsible and caring behavior in public. Many have practiced and perfected their ability to charm, to be likeable and to radiate a facade of sincerity and truthfulness. This causes parents and others to drop their guard, allowing the sex offender easy and recurring access to children.
In fact, Dr. Salter has found that the life a child molester leads in public may be exemplary, almost surreal in its righteousness. In her book, Dr. Salter presents the following description written by a child molester who had used his position as a church choir director to gain access to boys.

I want to describe a child molester I know very well.  This man was raised by devout Christian parents.  As a child he rarely missed church.   Even after he became an adult he was faithful as a church member.  He was a straight A student in high school and college.  He has been married and has a child of his own.  He coached Little League baseball.  He was a Choir Director at his church.   He never used any illegal drugs.  He never had a drink of alcohol.   He was considered a clean-cut, All-American boy.  Everyone seemed to like him.  He was a volunteer in numerous civic community functions.  He had a well-paying career job.  He was considered “well-to-do” in society.   But from the age of 13-years-old he sexually molested little boys.   He never victimized a stranger.  All of his victims were friends.  . . I know this child molester very well because he is me!!!!

Soon after writing this, the author of this confession was released on parole.  Upon release, he quickly infiltrated a church where he molested children until he was again caught and returned to prison” (Salter, 2003, pp. 36-37).

  • Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders: Who they are, how they operate, and how we can protect ourselves and our children . New York: Basic Books.

Myth 2:  People are too quick to believe an abuser is guilty, even if there is no supporting evidence.

In truth, people are too quick to believe that the accused is innocent, even if there is plenty of supporting evidence. According to Dr. Salter, ” Normal , healthy people distort reality to create a kinder, gentler world than actually exists” (p. 177). She notes that in order to find meaning and justice in everyday life, most people assign victims too much blame for their assaults and offenders too little. In truth, it is hard for most people to imagine how any person could sexually abuse a child. Because they can’t imagine a “normal” person doing such a heinous act, they assume that child molesters must be monsters.  If the accused does not fit this stereotype (in other words if he appears to be a normal person), then many people will disbelieve the allegation, believing the accused to be incapable of such act.

  • Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders: Who they are, how they operate, and how we can protect ourselves and our children. New York : Basic Books.

Myth 3:  Child molesters molest indiscriminately. 

Not everyone who comes in contact with a child molester will be abused. Although this finding may seem obvious, some interpret the fact that an abuser didn’t molest a particular child in their care to mean that those children who do allege abuse must be lying. In truth, sex offenders tend to carefully pick and set up their victims Thus while sex offenders may feel driven to molest children, they rarely do so indiscriminately or a plan.
Research with sex offenders confirms that they tend to carefully select and “groom” their victims (Conte, Wolf, & Smith, 1989). For instance, Elliott, Browne and Kilcoyne (1995) interviewed with 91 child molesters, the all-male sample reported that they most often chose children who had family problems, were alone, lacked confidence, and were indiscriminate in their trust of others — especially when the child was also perceived to be pretty, “provocatively” dressed, young, or small.
Rather than being a sudden, initially traumatic occurrence, most sex abuse involves a gradual “grooming” process in which the perpetrator skillfully manipulates the child into participating (Berliner & Conte, 1995). To ensure the child’s continuing compliance, sex offenders report using bribes, threats and force (Elliott et al.,1995).
Below, a young pedophile describes the careful planning that went into finding his next victim.
When a person like myself wants to obtain access to a child, you don’t just go up and get the child and sexually molest the child. There’s a process of obtaining the child’s friendship and, in my case, also obtaining the family’s friendship and their trust.  When you get their trust, that’s when the child becomes vulnerable and you can molest the child. (Salter, 2003, p. 42)

  • Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1995). The effects of disclosure and intervention on sexually abused children. Child Abuse & Neglect , 19 , 371-84.
  • Conte, J. R., Wolf, S., & Smith, T. (1989). What sexual offenders tell us about prevention strategies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 293-301.
  • Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect. 19 , 579-94.
  • Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders . New York : Basic Books.

Myth 4:  Children who are being abused would immediately tell their parents.

The fact victims often fail to disclose their abuse in a timely fashion is frequently used as evidence that an alleged victim’s story should be doubted. Research, however, shows that children who have been sexually assaulted often have considerable difficulty in revealing or discussing their abuse.
Estimates suggest that only 3% of all cases of child sexual abuse (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Timnick, 1985) and only 12% of rapes involving children are ever reported to police (Hanson et al., 1999). A nationally representative survey of over 3,000 women revealed that of those raped during childhood, 47% did not disclose to anyone for over 5 years post-rape. In fact, 28% of the victims reported that they had never told anyone about their childhood rape prior to the research interview. Moreover, the women who never told often suffered the most serious abuse. For instance, younger age at the time of rape, a family relationship with the perpetrator, and experiencing a series of rapes were all associated with delayed disclosure (Smith et al., 2000).
Sex offenders typically seek to make the victim feel as though he or she caused the offender to act inappropriately, and convince the child that they are the guilty party. As a result, children often have great difficulty sorting out who is responsible for the abuse and frequently blame themselves for what happened. In the end, fears of retribution and abandonment, and feelings of complicity, embarrassment, guilt, and shame all conspire to silence children and inhibit their disclosures of abuse (Pipe & Goodman, 1991; Sauzier, 1989).
Boys seem to have a particularly difficult time dealing with sexual abuse and are even less likely to report it than girls. A review of 5 community-based studies revealed that rates of non-disclosure ranged from 42% to 85% in abused men ( Lyons , 2002). Research with abused males has found that the more severe the abuse, the more likely the boy is to blame himself and the less likely he will disclose the abuse (Hunter et al., 1992). In addition to self-blame, reluctance of boys to disclose abuse may be traced to the social stigma attached to victimization, along with fears that they will be disbelieved or labeled homosexual (Watkins & Bentovim, 1992).

  • Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994). Children as Victims of Violence: A National Survey. Pediatrics, 94 (4, :413-420.
  • Hanson, R. F., Resnick H. S., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Best, C. (1999). Factors related to the reporting of childhood rape. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 559-69.
  • Hunter, J. A., Goodwin, D. W., & Wilson, R. J. (1992). Attributions of blame in child sexual abuse victims: An analysis of age and gender influences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1, 75-89.
  • Kilpatrick, D. G., Edmunds, C. N., & Seymour, A. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation . Arlington VA: National Victim Center .
  • Lyon, T.D. (2002). Scientific Support for Expert Testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation. In J.R. Conte (Ed.), Critical issues in child sexual abuse (pp. 107-138). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. (on-line: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?65+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+97+(Winter+2002 )
  • Pipe, M. E., & Goodman, G. S. (1991). Elements of secrecy: Implications for children’s testimony. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9, 33-41.
  • Sauzier, M. (1989). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: For better or for worse. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 455-69.
  • Smith, D. W., Letourneau, E. J., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., & Best, C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 273-87.
  • Watkins, B. & Bentovim, A. (1992).  The sexual abuse of male children and adolescents: A review of current research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 197-248.

Myth 5:  Children who are being abused will show physical evidence of abuse.

A lack of physical evidence of sexual assault is often cited as support that an alleged perpetrator must be innocent. However, research shows that abnormal genital findings are rare even in cases where the abuse has been proven. Some acts, like fondling and oral sex, leave no physical traces. Even injuries from penetration heal very quickly in young children and thus abnormal genital findings are not common, especially if the child is examined more than 48 hours after the abuse. In fact, even with proven penetration in up to 95% of cases, genital examinations will be essentially normal.
In one study, case files and colposcopic photographs of 236 children with perpetrator conviction for sexual abuse, were reviewed. The investigators found that genital findings in the abused girls were normal in 28%, nonspecific in 49%, suspicious in 9%, and abnormal in 14% of cases (Adams, Harper, Knudson, & Revilla, 1994).
An even lower rate of abnormal findings was found in a large scale study of the 2384 children referred for medical evaluation of sexual abuse. The investigators found that only 4% of the children had abnormal examinations at the time of evaluation. Even with a history of severe abuse such as vaginal or anal penetration, the rate of abnormal medical findings was only 5.5% (Heger, Ticson, Velasquez, & Bernier, 2002).
This low rate of abnormal findings was confirmed in a case review of children with proven sexual abuse consisting of 36 pregnant adolescent girls who presented for sexual abuse evaluations. Historical information and photograph documentation were reviewed to determine the presence or absence of genital findings that indicate penetrating trauma. Only 2 of the 36 (5.5%) pregnant girls showed definitive evidence of penetration (Kellogg, Menard, & Santos , 2004).

  • Adams, J. A., Harper, K., Knudson, S., & Revilla, J. (1994). Examination findings in legally confirmed child sexual abuse: It’s normal to be normal. Pediatrics, 94 (3), 310-7.
  • Heger, A., Ticson, L., Velasquez, O., & Bernier, R. (2002). Children referred for possible sexual abuse: medical findings in 2384 children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 645-59.
  • Kellogg, N. D., Menard, S. W., & Santos , A. (2004).  Genital anatomy in pregnant adolescents: ” Normal ” does not mean “nothing happened”. Pediatrics, 113 (1 Pt 1), 67-9.
Myth 6:  Hundreds of innocent men and women have been falsely accused and sent to prison for molesting children.

Over and over again, the media has raised the question whether America is in the midst of a hysterical overreaction to the perceived threat from pedophiles. Actual research, however, shows that, as a whole, our society continues to under-react and under-estimate the scope of the problem.
Prior to the 1980s, child sexual abuse was largely ignored, both by the law and by society as a whole. In the 1980s, when the scope of the problem began to be acknowledged, the police began to arrest adults accused of child abuse. A backlash quickly formed and police and prosecutors were soon accused of conducting “witchhunts.” Although some early cases were handled badly — mainly because the police had little experience in dealing with very young child witnesses — there is little evidence to back the assertion that there was widespread targeting of innocent people.
In fact, research has consistently shown that few abusers are ever identified or incarcerated. Estimates suggest that only 3% of all cases of child sexual abuse (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Timnick, 1985) and only 12% of rapes involving children are ever reported to police (Hanson et al., 1999).
Further research reveals that of the few cases reported to authorities, relatively few accused offenders are ever investigated or charged. For instance, the first National Incidence Study (Finkelhor, 1983) found that criminal action was taken in only 24% of substantiated cases of child sexual abuse — a finding replicated by Sauzier (1989). After reviewing numerous studies, Bolen (2001) noted that in the end, offenders may be convicted in only 1-2% of cases of suspected abuse known to professionals. And even then, most convicted child molesters spend less than one year in jail.
Based on the high prevalence of sexual crimes against children on our society, it strains credulity to assume that the small number of cases that are actually prosecuted constitute a “witchhunt”, or that somehow mostly innocent people are targeted for prosecution. In fact, statistics suggest quite the opposite: child abusers are rarely identified or prosecuted.

  • Bolen. R. M. (2001).  Child sexual abuse: Its scope and our failure . New York: Kluwer Academic.
  • Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). The suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403-39.
  • Finkelhor, D. (1983). Removing the child – prosecuting the offender in cases of child sexual abuse: Evidence from the national reporting system for child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 195-205.
  • Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994). Children as victims of violence: A national survey. Pediatrics, 94, 413-20.
  • Hanson, R. F., Resnick H. S., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Best, C. (1999). Factors related to the reporting of childhood rape. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 559-69.
  • Kilpatrick, D. G., Edmunds, C. N., & Seymour, A. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. Arlington VA : National Victim Center.
  • Sauzier, M. (1989). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: For better or for worse. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 455-69.
  • Timnick, L. (August 15, 1985). The Times poll: Twenty-two percent in survey were child abuse victims. Los Angeles Times, p. 1.

Myth 7:  If asked about abuse, children tend to exaggerate and are prone to making false accusations.

Contrary to the popular misconception that children are prone to exaggerate sexual abuse, research shows that children often minimize and deny, rather than embellish what has happened to them.
In one study, researchers examined 28 cases in which prepubescent children had tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease by forensically accepted procedures. To be included in the study, the children had to have presented for a physical problem with no prior disclosure or suspicion of sexual abuse and were required to have adequate expressive language capabilities. Each of the 28 children was interviewed by a social worker trained in abuse disclosure techniques and use of anatomically correct dolls. Only 12 of the 28 (43%) of the abused children interviewed gave any verbal confirmation of sexual contact (Lawson, & Chaffin, 1992).
Another study involved a perpetrator who pled guilty after videotapes documenting his abuse of ten children were found by authorities. Because of these detailed video recordings, researchers knew exactly what had happened to these children. They were thus able to compare what the children told investigators when they were interviewed to the videotapes. Despite this abundance of hard physical evidence, the researchers found a significant tendency among the children to deny or minimize their experiences. Some children simply did not want to disclose their experiences, some had difficulties remembering them, and one child lacked adequate concepts to understand and describe them. Even when interviews included leading questions, none of the children embellished their accounts or accused the perpetrator of acts that he hadn’t actually committed (Sjoberg & Lindblad, 2002).
Some people believe that recantations are a sure sign that a child lied about the abuse. However, a recent study found that pressure from family members play a significant role in recantations. Mallory et al. (2007) examined the prevalence and predictors of recantation among 2- to 17-year-old child sexual abuse victims. Case files (n = 257) were randomly selected from all substantiated cases resulting in a dependency court filing in a large urban county between 1999 and 2000. Recantation (i.e., denial of abuse postdisclosure) was scored across formal and informal interviews. Cases were also coded for characteristics of the child, family, and abuse. The researchers found a 23.1% recantation rate. The study looked for but did not find evidence that these recantations resulted from potential inclusion of cases involving false allegations. Instead, multivariate analyses supported a filial dependency model of recantation, whereby abuse victims who were more vulnerable to familial adult influences (i.e., younger children, those abused by a parent figure and who lacked support from the nonoffending caregiver) were more likely to recant.

  • Lawson, L., & Chaffin, M. (1992). False negatives in sexual abuse disclosure interviews. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 532-42.
  • Malloy, L.C. , Lyon, T.D. , & Quas, J.A. (2007). Filial dependency and recantation of child sexual abuse allegations. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 162-70.
  • Sjoberg, R. L., & Lindblad, F. (2002). Limited disclosure of sexual abuse in children whose experiences were documented by videotape. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 312-4

Myth 8:  By using repeated interviews, therapists or police can easily implant false memories and cause false accusations among children of any age.

Although research has consistently shown that children rarely confabulate about having been abused and false allegations have been found to be rare (Everson & Boat, 1989; Jones & McGraw, 1987; Oates, et al., 2000), the potential for false allegations continues to be an area of great concern in sex abuse cases.
Whenever prominent adults are accused of abuse, we frequently hear allegations improper questioning and suggestions that the child may have invented molestation stories to please probing authority figures. We also hear concerns that inappropriate, suggestive therapies by overzealous clinicians may have shaped or implanted the allegations.
Recent research suggests that these concerns have been greatly exaggerated ( Lyons , 2001). There is now a substantial body of laboratory research which finds that children are quite reluctant to discuss embarrassing events (Lyon, 1999; 2002). Overall, laboratory research using suggestive questioning has consistently shown that negative events, especially events involving a child’s genitals, are relatively difficult to implant in children’s statements. In fact, research shows that children are more likely to fail to report negative experiences that actually did happen to them, than falsely remember ones that did not.
Saywitz, Goodman, Nicholas, and Moan (1991) studied the memory of 72 five and seven-year-old girls for a standardized medical checkup. Half of the children received a vaginal and anal examination as part of the checkup; while the other half of the children received a scoliosis examination of their back instead. The children’s memories were later solicited through free recall, anatomically detailed doll demonstration, and direct and misleading questions. The vast majority of vaginal and anal touch went unreported in free recall and doll demonstration, and was only disclosed when children were asked direct, doll-aided questions. The children who received a scoliosis exam never falsely reported genital touch in free recall or doll demonstration; and false reports were rare in response to direct questions.
It is also important to point out that many abused children exhibit post-traumatic and behavioral symptoms. To date no laboratory or clinical research supports the notion that children can falsely remember elaborate details of sexual abuse perpetrated by a trusted teacher, corroborate each other’s stories in independent interviews, and develop post-traumatic symptoms — based solely on police interviews or suggestive therapy.

  • Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). The suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113 , 403-39.
  • Everson, M.D., & Boat, B. W. (1989). False allegations of sexual abuse by children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 28 : 230-5.
  • Jones, D. P. H., & McGraw, J. M. (1987). Reliable and fictitious accounts of sexual abuse to children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 27-45.
  • Lawson, L., & Chaffin, M. (1992). False negatives in sexual abuse disclosure interviews. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7 , 532-42.
  • Lyon, T.D. (1999). The new wave of suggestibility research: A critique. Cornell Law Review, 84 , 1004-1087.
  • Lyon, T.D. (2001). Let’s not exaggerate the suggestibility of children. Court Review, 28 (3), 12-14. (on-line: http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr38-3/CR38-3Lyon.pdf )
  • Lyon, T.D. (2002). Scientific Support for Expert Testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation. In J.R. Conte (Ed.), Critical issues in child sexual abuse (pp. 107-138). Newbury Park , CA : Sage. (on-line: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?65+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+97+(Winter+2002 )
  • Oates, R. K., Jones, D. P., Denson, D., Sirotnak, A., Gary, N., & Krugman, R. D. (2000). Erroneous concerns about child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24 , 149-57.
  • Pezdek, K., & C. Roe. (1997). The suggestibility of children’s memory for being touched: Planting, erasing, and changing memories. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 95-106.
  • Saywitz, K. J., Goodman, G. S., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. F. (1991). Children’s memories of a physical examination involving genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 59 , 682-91.
  • Sjoberg, R. L., & Lindblad, F. (2002). Limited disclosure of sexual abuse in children whose experiences were documented by videotape. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159 , 312-4.

 
 

SHAMEFUL

quote

Quotes About Paedophile Ring

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/paedophile-ring

Quotes tagged as “paedophile-ring” (showing 1-27 of 27)
“There is unmistakable proof that abusers do get together in order to share children, abuse more children, and even learn from each other. As more cases have come into the public eye in recent years, this has become increasingly obvious. More and more of this type of abuse is coming to light.
I definitely think it is the word ritual which causes people to question, to feel uncomfortable, or even just disbelieve. It seems almost incredible that such things would happen, but too many of us know exactly how bad the lives of many children are. A great deal of child pornography shows children being abused in a ritualised setting, and many have now come forward to share their experiences, but there is a still tendency to say it just couldn’t happen.
Why not?
Why, given what we now know about paedophiles and about what they do to children? Would they have limits? It was all done to me and I have enough experiences to write many more books than this one, but this will have to do for now. I’ve tried to make sense of it and I’ve tried to tell you my story in a way that will, hopefully, let you understand how it was done, and how they managed to get away with it, but I haven’t told you a big part of it yet. I haven’t told you what happened that finally ended it all for me.
There was something else.
When I was eight, someone else came into my life and made a huge difference to what was happening and how things would turn out. I didn’t know it then, but I see the whole picture now.
Something I have often wondered is whether Andrew was there while I was being abused. Lots of people hide their faces, and there were often masks worn, so he certainly could have been. I have no evidence one way or another though, so I will leave it to the reader to decide whether it would seem in a paedophile’s character to watch abuse continue when it has been masterminded by him. But I do know that it wasn’t just me who he abused – I know that because I saw it.

Andrew was away a lot with the Army until I was at high school, then he left that position. He was instrumental both in my abuse and in setting the scene, but when I was eight, something happened which would distract him and which would, at times, take his attention from me. My mother very kindly provided him with a new victim – my little sister.”
Laurie Matthew, Groomed: An Uncle Who Went Too Far, a Mother Who Didn’t Care, a Little Girl Who Waited for Justice.. by Laurie Matthew

NONCE WATCH SPOT A PEADO

  1. Know that most child molesters are known to the children they abuse. Thirty percent of children who have been sexually abused were abused by a family member, and 60 percent were abused by an adult they knew who was not a family member. That means only 10 percent of children who are sexually abused were targeted by a total stranger.[2]
  2. In most cases, the child molester turns out to be someone known to the child through school or another activity, such as a neighbor, teacher, coach, member of the clergy, music instructor, or babysitter.[3]
  • Family members like fathers, grandfathers, uncles, cousins, stepparents, and so on may also be sexual predators.
 
  • Identify a Pedophile Step 3.jpg
    1. 3
    2. Know the common characteristics of a child molester. While anyone can turn out to be a child molester, the majority of child molesters are men, regardless of whether their victims are male or female.[4] Many sexual predators have a history of abuse in their own past, either physical or sexual.
    3. Some also have mental illness, such as a mood or personality disorder.[5]
    • Heterosexual and homosexual men are equally likely to be child molesters. The idea that homosexual men are more likely to be child molesters is a complete myth.[6]
    • Female child molesters are more likely to abuse boys than girls.
  • Identify a Pedophile Step 4.jpg
    1. 4
    2. Be aware of common behaviours demonstrated by child molesters. Pedophile child molester often don’t display as much interest in adults as they do in children. They may have jobs that allow them to be around children of a certain age group, or contrive other ways to spend time with children by acting as a coach, babysitter or neighbour trying to help.[7]
    3. Child molesters tend to talk about or treat children as though they are adults. They might refer to a child as they would refer to an adult friend or lover. [8]
    • Pedophile child molesters often say they love all children or feel as though they are still children.
  • Identify a Pedophile Step 5.jpg
    1. 5
    2. Look for signs of grooming. The term “grooming” refers to the process the child molester undertakes to gain a child’s trust, and sometimes the parents’ trust as well. Over the course of months or even years, a child molester will increasingly become a trusted friend of the family, offering to babysit, take the child shopping or on trips, or spend time with the child in other ways. Many child molesters won’t actually begin abusing a child until trust has been gained. Some may use others opinions around them to back up their trustworthiness in order to take children shopping.
    3. Child molesters look for children who are vulnerable to their tactics because they lack emotional support or aren’t getting enough attention at home or will try to convince the parents their children are safe with them and that they are not going far. The child molester will attempt to step in as the “parent” figure for the child.
    • Some child molesters prey on the children of single parents who aren’t available to provide as much supervision or convince parents that they are nice enough people to supervise without them.
    • A child molester will often use a range of games, tricks, activities and language to gain trust and/or deceive a child. These include: keeping of secrets (secrets are valuable to most kids, being seen as something “adult” and a source of power), sexually explicit games, fondling, kissing, touching, sexually suggestive behaviour, exposing a child to pornographic material, coercion, bribery, flattery, and—worst of all—affection and love. Be aware that these tactics are ultimately used to isolate and confuse your child.
  •  

    Part 2 of 2: Protecting Your Child from Predators

    1. Identify a Pedophile Step 6.jpg
      1

      Find out whether pedophiles live in your neighborhood. You can use the US Department of Justice National Sex Offender Database (located at www.nsopw.gov/en-US) to determine whether any registered sex offenders live in your area. All you have to do is enter your zip code and do a search, and you’ll be able to see where child molesters might live.

      • You can also do a search for individual names to see if a specific person is a sex offender.
      • It’s good to be aware of potential predators, but realize that it is illegal to take any kind of action against registered sex offender who has served his or her sentence.
    2. Identify a Pedophile Step 7.jpg
      2

      Supervise your child’s extracurricular activities. Being as involved as possible in your child’s life is the best way to guard against child molesters. They will look for a child who is vulnerable and who isn’t getting a lot of attention from his or her parents or will convince parents they are of no danger to their child. Show up at games, practices and rehearsals, chaperone field trips and trips out, and spend time getting to know the adults in your child’s life. Make it clear that you’re an involved, present parent.

      • If you can’t be there for a trip or outing, make sure at least two adults you know well will be chaperoning a trip.
      • Don’t leave your child alone with adults you don’t know well. Even relatives can pose a threat. The key is to be as present as possible.
    3. Identify a Pedophile Step 8.jpg
      3

      Set up a nanny cam if you hire a babysitter. There are times when you won’t be able to be present, so use other tools to make sure your child is safe. Set up a hidden camera in your home so that inappropriate activity will be detected. No matter how well you think you know someone, you need to take precautions for your child’s safety.

    4. Identify a Pedophile Step 9.jpg
      4

      Teach your child about staying safe online. Make sure your child knows that predators often pose as children or teenagers in order to lure children in online. Monitor your child’s use of the internet, keeping rules in place to limit his or her “chat” time. Have regular discussions with your child about whom he or she is communicating with online.

      • Be sure your child knows never to send pictures to a person he or she met online, or meet someone he or she is communicating with online.
      • Know that children are often secretive about online behaviour, especially when encouraged by others to keep secrets, so you’ll need to be vigilant about staying involved in your child’s online activity.
    5. Identify a Pedophile Step 10.jpg
      5

      Make sure your child is feeling emotionally supported. [9]

      • Child molesters will ask the children to keep it secret from their parents.
      • Ensure your children understands that if someone has asked them to keep a secret from you that it isn’t because the child will get into trouble but the person who has asked them to keep the secret knows what they are doing to them is wrong.
      • Since children who don’t get a lot of attention are especially vulnerable to predators, make sure you are spending a lot of time with your child and that he or she feels supported. Take the time to talk to your child every day and work toward building an open, trusting relationship.
      • Express interest in all of your child’s activities, including schoolwork, extracurriculars, hobbies, and other interests.
      • Let your child know that he or she can tell you anything, and that you’re always willing to talk.
    6. Identify a Pedophile Step 11.jpg
      6

      Teach your child to recognize inappropriate touching. Many parents use the “good touch, bad touch, secret touch” method. It involves teaching your child that there are some appropriate touches, like pats on the back or high fives; there are some unwelcome or “bad’ touches, like hits or kicks; and there are also secret touches, which are touches that the child is told to keep a secret. Use this method or another one to teach your child that some touches aren’t good, and when these happen, he or she should tell you immediately.[10]

      • Teach your child that no one is allowed to touch him or her in private areas. Many parents define private areas as those that would be covered by a bathing suit.
      • Tell your child to say “no” and walk away if someone tries to touch him or her in a private area.
      • Tell your child to come to you immediately if someone touches him or her the wrong way.
    7. Identify a Pedophile Step 12.jpg
      7

      Recognize when something is out of sync with your child. If you notice your child is acting differently, pursue the issue to find out what is wrong. Regularly asking your child questions about his or her day, including asking whether any “good,” “bad,” or “secret” touches happened that day, will help open the lines of communication. Never dismiss it if your child tells you he or she was touched inappropriately or doesn’t trust an adult. Trust your child first.

      • Never dismiss a child’s claims because the adult in question is a valued member of society or appears incapable of such things. That’s exactly what a child molester wants.
      • Remember that the most important thing you can do to protect your child is to pay attention to them. Assess their needs and desires, talk to them, and in essence, just be the best parent you possibly can. Bottom line to remember: If you don’t pay attention to your child, someone else will.

    NO REASON NOT TO REINVESTIGATE HOLLIES CASE

    THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO INVESTIGATE HOLLIES CASE

    2 REASONS

    IT WILL EITHER PROVE HOLLIE IS TELLING THE TRUTH OR

    CONFIRM ALL THOSE NAMED ARE INOCCENT

    WIN WIN

    HERE IS A CASE THAT SHOWS WIT CAN BE DONE

    Keith Downend – Tameside/Dukinfield

    May 2014

    Man Jailed For Sexual Offences Over 30 Years Ago

    keith

    A 59 year old man has been sentenced at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court to a total of 19 years in prison for sexual offences committed against young girls between 1979 and 1985 in Tameside, Greater Manchester.

    Keith Downend was found guilty of eight specimen counts of rape and six counts of indecent assault against two girls who were aged under 16 years at the time of the offences.

    Downend raped one girl who was aged under 13 years old over a period of 5 years when she babysat for him. The abuse stopped when the child reached 15 years old

    It was estimated that approx 2000 rapes took place on the first victim. However specimen rape charges were used in court, meaning only a small percentage of the offences/incidents of rape were looked at

    The second victim was aged 12 years old when the sexual abuse started and lasted for approx 13 months.

    At the time of the abuse, Downend lived on Hawthorn street in Audenshaw, Tameside. At the time of arrest, he was living on Thorncliff avenue, Dukinfield.

    Justin Hayhoe, Senior Crown Advocate for CPS North West said: “This case is an example of how the CPS successfully prosecutes cases of non-recent sexual abuse.

    “Keith Downend systematically sexually abused his victims over a number of years.  He took full advantage of their vulnerability and young age, stripping away their innocence for his own selfish desires.

    “He has today been sentenced to a significant jail term where he will now have to face up to the consequences of his deplorable actions.

    “The CPS and police urge anyone who has been the victim of sexual abuse, no matter how long ago the offences took place, to come forward and report it to the police. We understand how traumatic this experience must have been for the victims to testify against their abuser, so I would like to thank them for their courage which has enabled us to bring this sexual predator to justice.”