In today’s Daily Telegraph, there is a report (which I have checked out fully) about how Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules automatically banning sex offenders from caring for children. The usual bollocks is applied, viz: such a ban “could breach their human rights”.
In an article in the somehow ‘respected’ Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”
Ah, right: children abused, not many dead. OK, that is unpleasantly insouciant….but the ‘low reoffending rates’ assertion is simply a lie. Why tell a lie?
Last November, Jon Brown of the NSPCC said: “Reoffending rates for sex offenders have risen in recent years, but until now we did not know how many of these involved the sexual abuse of children. From now on, we want a separate tab kept on the number of child sex offenders in this country and how many go on to abuse again….Any offender with a history of child sex abuse should be considered a risk to children’s safety for the rest of their lives. This is why it is so important they are closely tracked and monitored by the police once they are back in the community.”
Miss Reece, by contrast, suggests that the law should be reviewed to introduce an assumption that child abusers pose no threat once they’ve served their sentence. Unbelievable: every last iota of field evidence suggests the diametric opposite. But Reece concludes, “There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.”
This simply isn’t true. In 2007, child sex-abuse researcher Adrian Powell wrote as follows in his book Paedophiles, child abuse and the Internet:
‘The rate of reoffending is of major concern, as it is estimated that a paedophile offender is 90% likely to reoffend…once a paedophile chooses to offend against a victim, the desire becomes compulsive.’
In the US, the standard medical definition of paedophiliac behaviour records that such people have ‘a mental abnormality defined as a congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses to the degree that such person is a menace to the health and safety of others’.
In 2000, the Guardian erroneously suggested , ‘Another popular fear – that all sex offenders will reoffend again and again – is not borne out by the facts. One study that followed up some 4,000 offenders against children over a period of 21 years found that 16% were reconvicted of a child sex offence.’
But cursory research could’ve told this Guardianista author that his conclusion was bollocks: several studies support the hypothesis that sexual offence recidivism rates are under-reported. Marshall and Barbaree (1990) compared official records of a sample of sex offenders with “unofficial” sources of data. They found that the number of subsequent sex offences revealed through unofficial sources was 2.4 times higher than the number that was recorded in official reports. Also, of course, many paedophiles reoffend but get off, and some 23% of all offences go undetected because the child is frightened to reveal the act to adults.
It’s not the first time Helen Reece has pushed claptrap forward as truth. In 2010, she wrote a research report drawing this mind-bogglingly stupid conclusion (my emphasis):
‘Sex offenders should not automatically be banned from adopting, fostering or working with children, according to new research which also backs government plans to relax strict vetting procedures introduced after the Soham murders. It points out that co-habiting couples are much more likely to split up than married couples, with potentially harmful emotional consequences for children, yet they are not banned from adopting and fostering.‘
Here Reece is, staggeringly, comparing sex offenders to cohabiting couples. Is anyone really that crazy, or might there be a hidden agenda here? I mean, the Soham murderer killed two girls because of lax vetting, and an obvious black operation by a paedophile within the Humberside police authority to erase the killer’s rape and persistent abuse from the records.
Well, lets look at the magazine where this lady wrote the 2013 article referred to in the Telegraph. Here is a guide to child-napping featured in the current issue: a publication entitled ‘Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts’. Fulsome in its praise, the CFLQ recommends the pamphlet for its ‘practical guidance on how all emergency applications should be made. Turn to this module for practical guidance when making emergency applications in the family courts on behalf of vulnerable adults or children….’
In 2008-9, I spent nearly seven months investigating these disgraceful lettres de cachet, which turn out over and over again to be backed by dubious cod psychology, put forward by social workers with a suspicious track record of separating parents from children at the drop of a hat, and likely to deliver already traumatised children into the clutches of sexual sadists working in the care and fostering system. But these mad Harmanite loons have learned nothing from the scandals of recent years. In fact – dare I suggest this – they seem to actively support the continuation of a profoundly depraved production line.
Some will object to my reference above to ‘Harmanite’, but it still seems to me that Harriet Harman (the Minister for Families on whose watch not a single reform was brought into the Secret Family Courts – despite endless promises from her office) has a secret factory assembling the parts and then churning out clones like Helen Reece. This is what Helen is studying currently:
‘Current research is concerned with the regulation of intimacy. The main research project at present, Violence to Feminism, is a theoretical probing of the contemporary feminist approach to violence against women. The two main research questions are first, why contemporary feminist theory has celebrated ever-widening conceptions of violence and secondly, why the contemporary feminist approach to violence against women has permeated legal development. Another current research project focuses on changing conceptions of parental responsibility.’
I shudder to imagine what what the regulation of theoretically probed intimacy might be about, but it is clear from this drivel that Miss Reece is from the same Cathedral of warped observation as Harman herself. But do not write the lady off as a fringe lunatic: she is influential. Reece is Reviews Editor for International Journal of Law in Context, a Member of the editorial committee of the Modern Law Review, and a Member of the editorial board of Law, Probability and Risk.
It gets worse, because Helen Reece soon emerges from her previous writings as a science denier. Follow this link, and then lie down somewhere to bring your blood pressure back under control. Here’s a taster from her book Law and Science, Current Legal Issues: ‘Scientific evidence impinges on a wide range of legal issues, including, for example, risk assessment in mental health and child abuse, criminal investigations, chemical and medical products, mass tort cases and the attribution of paternity. Science promises to reduce (or even eliminate) uncertainty; how should lawyers respond to such ambitious claims?’
That dangerous nonsense might well explain Reece’s complete cobblers about unimportant paedophile reoffending earlier in this piece. In another book Science in Court, she explores how ‘Science plays an ever-increasing part in the development of legislation and the adjudication of cases. Its limitations and its value are explored in these essays..’.
What does she want instead, tealeaves? Snake entrails? Here’s her objection to stricter V&B:
‘She explains that the Vetting and Barring Scheme and other legislative measures single out sex offenders for unfair special treatment and destroy the principle that a prisoner pays his debt by serving his sentence before re-entering society on equal terms.’
Insane extrapolation based on zero science: hardly any paedophiles pay their debt to re-enter society on equal terms: some 55% of them, on release, restart exactly where they left off five years earlier.
Does any of this matter? Of course it does. Take two contemporary cases at random, and you must surely see why I think so.
A Sheffield vicar was jailed for sex crimes against minors yesterday. With appalling predictability, Church leaders and social services were condemned in Court for a cover-up of the attacks – on a teenage girl in Sheffield 26 years ago – by John Yallop, now 65. He admitted to a social worker at the time that he was guilty, but rather than informing the police, social services met with church leaders – and between them they decided the married father-of-two should resign. Police were never told about the case, and it wasn’t until 2012 (when she saw a newspaper article wherein the defendant suggested he was about to foster) that the victim felt she had to make a formal complaint.
Jailing Yallop for three years, the Judge Simon Lawler QC told Yallop: “You mercilessly abused her for your own sexual gratification. Now, there would have been an immediate complaint to police and the church would have taken swift action. Then, it was swept under the carpet. The church were more concerned about what a formal complaint would do to its reputation. It was a cover-up.”
I’m glad Judge Lawler has such faith in the ability of our justice system “now” to catch these profoundly sick people. I don’t share it. Even in the case upon which Lawler just adjudicated, there is not the slightest chance that the original clergy and social workers involved will be brought to book. There seems to be some kind of feeling in our deranged society that a ‘statute of limitations’ should apply to abuse against children. Well, there isn’t one: the ‘authorities’ were accessories to a heinous crime, and should be brought to book. The following is typical of emails I get from victims every week: it demonstrates yet again that these lost souls enjoy no statute of limitations on their nightmare memories:
‘I have been reading your blogs and find them to be of some interest. As regards the above subject, I have to tell you that I am one of the victims that was abused by this monster Peter Righton his partner Richard Alston, and Charles Napier, for 5 years from 1977- 1982.
I have had some contact with a reporter who has run a story, as part of the investigation, and limited contact with Tom Watson MP, who reopened the case. Also, I have had one brief e-mail from the Police investigating these cases, however they have failed to follow up or even interview me regarding the incidents. I have emailed the reporter, who assured me that ‘It was the right thing to do.’ However I still haven’t heard back from them. Nor have I heard back from Tom Watson, who promised to send me his e-mail address and details so I can contact him personally.
As a victim, I once again feel let down, by the system, and by people, with ‘good intention.’ I am at my wits end, as I had buried this for 31 years, and it has now affected me badly, with the disgusting memories who have come back to haunt me.’
I never cease to be amazed by the consistency of these cases: social workers who either do nothing or cover things up, clerics trying to avoid scandal, police doing nothing or simply not being told, cases reopened that go quiet….and prosecutions that are promised yet vapourise like mirages in the desert heat. No matter how much heat is applied, the modus operandi are always the same.
But it doesn’t stop there….and this is the truly pernicious part: there are still thousands of apologists for paedophilia like Helen Reece willfully ignoring the mountains of evidence about the irredeemable nature of almost all child-sex offenders, while pressing the case for minimising their crimes. With every year that passes, it gets harder and harder to view some of these people as merely idiots.
I am not just baffled by the inability of the paedophilephiles to stop presenting the ‘case’ for kid-f**king: I am dismayed by it. The dismay is the exact same emotion I feel about to defenders of other indefensibles like lying tabloid culture-f**kers, greedy banking customer-f**kers, and imperialist Cyprus-f**kers. It leads me to ask, “Why are they doing it?”
The answer is rarely as simple as it should be, and this makes me increasingly suspicious about the true nature of the British Establishment. That an abnormally high percentage of its members are depraved can no longer be the subject of any doubt; but the connection between feminist anti-empiricism and paedophilia on the Left – or between sociopathically unethical economics and sexual sadism against children on the Right – is truly disturbing.
Regrettably, I keep returning to my enduring theory about this: that control is at the core of it. Harriet Harman’s control freakery is something that I have followed for years, as indeed I have that of Boris Johnson. That’s why four years ago, I identified both of them as the two most dangerous politicians in Britain. One worships the State, the other the Market: both are false Gods, but the insistence of their followers that they represent the pinnacle of deserving worship is shocking and ridiculous at one and the same time.
However, the extraordinary part is the commonality they share in relation to The Big Lie. Josef Goebbels was the first twisted genius to summarise the nature of the planet-sized con, and his frighteningly accurate belief in how to do it lives on nearly seventy years after his tragically late death. The Mighty Mendacity that joins the Dystopian Left and the Cruel Right is how they view paedophilia. One lies about the reality of its mortal damage to young lives, while the other denies its organised self-protection: but there is no real difference between these apparently opposed ideologies. What they desire to the point of nihilist destruction is the employment of false analysis to further their dictatorial aspirations.
Consider the mad idea that economic stimulation using monies that deepen unrepayable debt can lift one out of a trap into which one fell due to poor budgetary control; or the opposite yet equally potty contention that scorched-earth austerity can restore economic growth; or again, the alchemic assertion that 3% of citizens must be fabulously wealthy in order to trickle down wealth to the remaining 97%; or barmier still, the proposition that forced equality can somehow remain meritocratically sound.
These and many, many other anti-scientific fantasies are put forward by mass media, politicians, economists, social workers, spin doctors and psychiatrists on a daily basis. Without that stream of delusional illusion setting a psychopathic ‘example’, the risible denial and approval of perverse and ruinous sexual practice could not possibly be either believed or tolerated.
I cannot say for certain why or how we have reached this sorry state of poor discernment – but reach it we undoubtedly have. I do not know why David Cameron says we should report sexual criminality to the police when he knows perfectly well that this advice is poor. I have little notion of why Harriet Harman remains tight-lipped about her youthful approval of paedophilia when she is totally aware of the mental damage it causes. I can’t hazard any kind of focused guess as to the motives of Human Rights lawyers in promoting blatant statistical lies about the dangers of sick men who think their preference for child-sex is normal, whereas the procreational sexual desire of the rest of us is a minor variation on their theme.
All I can record is that the gender-obsessed tendency thinks unpunished child-destruction is just fine, and the greed-obsessed tendency believes organised paedophile rings are a myth.
There is a darkness to it all that reminds me of gulags and death camps and libor rates and derivative salamis and Nazi euthanasia and Soviet mental institutions and George Orwell and Aldous Huxley and Pol Pot and Newscorp and the Stasi and Oligarchic money. All of it goes hand in hand with a quasi-religious belief in something that was once a good idea, but is now an evil aspiration. We have reached a stage where books will be burned, past news erased, judicial decisions doctored, and corruption idealised.
Sexual vultures are real, not imaginary creatures invented by neurotic trouble-makers. Sexual vultures are horribly carnivorous, not unfairly maligned vegetarians. Decent citizens want these predators put on trial, not rendered innocent or ignored.
But obscene Establishment hypocrisy prefers sanitised secrecy. This is – surely – the ultimate reason why we should destroy that ruling class forever.