THE PAEDOFILE: A Family Courts ruling and two obscure arrests are battles half-won – no more

We’re still losing the war

cameuspCameron’s online porn ban….triumph or Trojan Horse?

When I read The Times piece yesterday about the ‘landmark’ ruling on the Family Courts, I had a sense of part deja vu, and part ennuie. We have been here so many times, and I have come to see how easy it is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In many ways, both the Family Courts ruling and Cameron’s attempt at an online porn ban could have unpleasant consequences.

When, last April, Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, warned Judges throughout England and Wales to “get a grip” regarding the family courts, a few folks got excited. But it was clear Munby had missed the point: he merely wanted to add two gears to the getaway car: he told Judges to “speed things up”.

By May, however, a glimmer of promise was shining under Munby’s office door: he and other senior judiciary gave a guidance that was effectively a ban. It said, unequivocally, no more jailing of people without the media knowing. The judges also specified that ‘anyone found guilty in cases of contempt of court’ could not be sent to prison without the public being told. This time there were no get-out clauses. No more frantic mothers (standing by helplessly as their kids were kidnapped by lettres de cachet Justice) would be in jail without the media knowing. Period.

This put the Family Courts’ status in an anomalous position, for in that part of the secret underground maze known as the British legal system everything and anything could be done secretly. And such is the mess our post-permissive society has produced when it comes to families during the last four decades, we are talking a staggering 95,000 cases a year here.

A ruling was thus vital, and yesterday we got it. Frankly, I’m underwhelmed. Somehow, the Forces of Darkness have lobbied hard to give back the get-out clauses to those bringing care orders and other often ill-considered nonsense into the Family Division. Judgements determining custody battles, care orders and whether children should be rehomed will in future be published unless there are “compelling reasons” not to.

Roll up, roll up, get your compellin’ reasons ‘ere, only ten a penny.

The Times perhaps ‘sexed up’ the ruling because it wanted to claim it as a victory ‘after a campaign by The Times to open up the hearings’. Er, really? You could’ve fooled me: this claim had the usual stink of Newscorp hypocrisy about it, especially as – when I tried to copy a paragraph from the piece – their new gadget (a ‘Subscribe Now’) panel stopped me from doing so. Rupert Murdoch opening things up? I don’t think so.

But as with most things emanating from Roop’s organs, the claim is bollocks anyway. From what I’ve seen of this guidance so far, it gives a conditional right for the media to know a result leading to rulings, not to sit in on the Courts – and report them freely.

If I’ve got this wrong, then please correct me somebody. My problem is I’ve seen so many false dawns in relation to these pernicious Star Chambers, I have to see a chorus line of fat ladies singing to even begin overcoming my cynicism. I’ve read “promises of swift action” (2004), promises from Balls and Harman (2005/6), the ruling that the system was “worse even than the Soviet Union” in its secrecy (2009), and this year sat at a pc emitting the odd sigh as one Judge and senior Minister after another make it clear they have little or no respect for the humanity being trafficked through these proceedings. These people are not giving a judgement in favour of equality before the law: they are being, as usual, judgemental. There is a world of difference between the two, and it is a long, long way from anything even approaching justice.

And lest we forget, even if a “compelling reason” is not produced by some bent shrink or closet paedophile hiding behind “I’m gay, leave me alone”, there is always the infamous gagging order system to shut the file – and shut up everyone involved – for anything up to 20 years. Until you’ve been on the receiving end of one of these, it is hard to comprehend just how ruthless the Establishment can be about its dirty linen.

I have similar feelings about yesterday’s two Hounslow arrests. John Stingemore, a former manager at the Grafton Lodge home run by Richmond Council, and Tony McSweeney, a former trainee Catholic Priest, were charged on multiple counts of sexual assault, buggery, and the production of indecent images. The victims were two boys aged 11 and 15 at the time. Whether these two alleged perverts are felt to have been mavericks working on their own,  or represent merely a snapshot of a larger ring of depravity, remains to be seen.

Grafton Lodge is widely assumed to have been supplying unwilling flesh for the rainbow of sexual experience to be found at Elm House, so there is a clear connection to the ‘main event’ as it were. But the results to date on the Richmond Council affair remain frustratingly peripheral, the arrests somewhat predictably low grade. We have a confusing plethora of operational code-names and some obvious suspects. After years of opening and shutting investigations into this case – and months of “intensive” activity by Plod this time around – we don’t have much to show for it. But Mayor Johnson is pleased, and if he’s pleased then that’s more than enough for me. More than enough for me to conclude that it’s going nowhere very fast.

If I wasn’t becoming so damnably cynical, I’d have welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of a raft of measures aimed at eliminating explicit sexual content and pornography from the Internet in Britain. All new Internet subscribers will encounter a default “porn-off” setting, but will still be able to access the content if they choose to opt in. I’m assuming that everyone from GCHQ to the Met will now be alerted every time someone takes the ‘opt in’ route. Good for our cause, bad for the right of innocent people to privacy: how many more buttons are we likely to get over time?

Cameron plans to install nationwide filters to ban pornographic sites at the network node level, in co-operation with the UK’s largest internet service providers. As he, GCHQ and the key ISPs are hand in glove on routine surveillance anyway, one can understand how he got to this ‘solution’ so quickly. But here too, the obvious extrapolation is that any government can, with the ISPs’ help, ban any site of which they disapprove in short order.

Don’t dismiss me as a cynical old grump too quickly, even if I do: Cameron’s track record on this sort of stuff isn’t good. He is very well connected to Google, his bribe from the construction industry is leading him to do daft things like breaking Greenbelt rules and Help to Buy schemes, he once denied 13 times in the Commons that he had a close relationship with Rebekah Brooks, and he remains unconvincing on the plain cigarette packs/Lynton Crosby connection.

Based on the evidence so far, this Government cares only about supporters, money, spin, power and the defence of the unacceptable face of the Establishment. It would be foolish to suppose that they will do anything substantive to better protect vulnerable children…unless forced to.

Last night at The Slog: Why every baby is royal in the end

26 thoughts on “THE PAEDOFILE: A Family Courts ruling and two obscure arrests are battles half-won – no more

  1. I would like the UK Police to go over to Ukranian and Russian “orphanages” like this one:,d.d2k

    (the one where Elton John tried to buy himself a little blond cutie) and do DNA tests on all the little white slaves to find out whose children they really are.


  2. “Cynical old grump”? You, John?
    Surely not! You would have given up long ago, if that was what you were.
    But you aren’t!
    Carry on grumping!


  3. Because I strongly believe that all the Secret (therefore illegal) Family Courts all over the world including the UK are running an international child trafficking ring, and as one of the Pindown victims I am well aware that not everyone in a Pindown childrens home ended up getting raped, so when the BBC did that program Care Home Kid with Niel Morrissey they chose to be very selective about who they invited to take part in the program.
    Likewise the Secret (illegal) Family Courts. Not every case is a human trafficking forced adoption, but I strongly believe that everyone involved in the Secret (illegal) Family Courts is well aware of what is going on.


  4. The real fun with Cameron is yet to come. The Great Porn Ban will be childishly easy to circumvent either by using a VPN, a web proxy or even just a non-filtered DNS server. Children these days are smart, devious little sods, and knowledge of how to sneak around this silly censorship will rapidly become rife.

    Cameron’s other claim, that he wishes to censor streaming media, is similarly bollocks; if the stream is encrypted then only the website and the customer can see the contents; to everyone else it is merely an encrypted data stream. He can’t even snoop google searches now, as google uses https by default. Hence all the show and noise in this matter; what he wants to do is impossible.


  5. I hope you don’t mind me going off topic here John, but I’m doing catch up of the blogs and I just read the one you did on July 21st 7.40 called OPINION: LABOURS LOVE LOST and one of the bloggers called Salialioli has made a comment about something not being quite right about the threads, so I tried to click onto Salialiolis name and this is what came up:

    ATTENTION – This site has been blocked
    For your security (MY ANTI VIRUS PROVIDER) has blocked access to this page
    The site is listed as a malicious site that may be stealing identity information, plant viruses on your machine or do other harmful things.

    The information we have indicate that this site:
    – Contains web pages that host viruses, exploits and other malware.

    SALIALIOLI. I hope you don’t mind me posting this, I am not in any way accusing you of being a troll, but I can’t understand why your account is being blocked, and I thought you ought to see this.
    I have replaced (MY ANTI VIRUS PROVIDER) for the name of the actual provider, because I don’t think I ought to advertise which one I use, for my own protection. If anyone thinks I am being over paranoid, well, they should try having 7 years of Secret Family Court abuse and see what they think after all that!


  6. Agreed.
    This is simply window dressing trying to make himself look useful. I find politicians woefully inept when dealing with IT issues – remember Stephen Timms and his ‘intellectual property address’ débâcle. The fact is that the real nasty stuff on the internet all happens on ‘dark nets’ which are not only encrypted but also bounced around a network of IP addresses to make tracing almost impossible.


  7. Judgemental: now there’s one for Derivative Meanings.. The motivation to right these wrongs simply does not exist within the system. Like all good sociopaths, the people running things are quite incapable of empathy with those whose lives are being wrecked by the failure of the courts and social services to act in an open, where at all possible, and humane manner. Btw, Richmond Social Services and SEN Service is now being combined with next door Kingston; many at Richmond have already lost their jobs, I am told. I am currently experiencing, first hand, just how inadequate the staff are when it comes to actually DOING ANYTHING meaningful; doing nothing in a loud voice is just far too easy. As a result, I am forced to return to the Family Courts at huge expense, and with an outcome that – despite the merits of the case, which all ‘professionals’ agree on – is, inevitably, uncertain.


  8. The answer to the family courts scandal is simple – give all men guaranteed access to the children by right of law. No weasel words, no stupid excuses, no going back to the courts time and time again, no ignoring the court’s edicts – just GUARANTEED ACCESS, or you are going to the slammer.

    That, would sort things out.

    And further to that, 50% of all custody cases should go to men. Why are family courts so sexist, in this day and age. Just make a law that says any judge who does not achieve at least 60-40 between husbands and wives, in the cases they handle, goes to the slammer as well – for being sexist.

    Job done.


  9. Pingback: John Ward – The Paedofile : A Family Courts Ruling And Two Obscure Arrests Are Battles Half-Won – No More – We’re Still Losing The War – 23 July 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  10. [BLOG: 805d1378-568d-4a68-94d8-c832bbfe6542¤20130723-121758]

    ” The Great Porn Ban will be childishly easy to circumvent either by using a VPN, a web proxy or even just a non-filtered DNS server.”

    As I already have 3 external company servers in Brazil, Switzerland and the UK it is very clear what all this is leading technically. First BT & TalkTalk have been experimenting with DNS interception and faking fro at least one year. It wont work since Destination NAT + Virtual Servers mean you have to do it at the CNAME, not A or AAAA level. Then there are about 10’000 ways of circumventing router filtering, including using using a VPN to a Free country. We begin to see adds for €/$5/month. Once again, clueless Dave collapses in failure.

    After Snowdon, Encrypt everything, and ensure that transit keys are anonymous Diffie Hellman keys, backed by post connection PKI certificate authentication based on GNUPG or X509 keys. This secures your Public Key, since it goes across the ADH link, and defeats MIM attacks.

    Extension support for this, and more arcane methods, eg port knocking.

    As usual creep Cameron didnt do his homework or listen.

    Finally, there is a valid challenge to this under EHRC, denial of freedom of speech.

    MFG, omb


  11. It also completely ignores the fact that most of the evil stuff is actually moved around by file sharing within rings – not accessing dodgey websites.


  12. Pingback: THE PAEDOPHILE: Lust for power and lust for children: the obvious link | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction

  13. John this may not be much help but form what ive seen so far EGH wasnt the only guest house…if it was a paedo brothel set up as a sting operation for blackmail from TPTB i am not sure to be honest..but its seems that spartacus was ‘recommended ‘ by other guest houses what does that mean?.. you know about derek laud and the brighton parties and ian greer connection / dophin square and spartacus ‘recommended’ places in brighton..


  14. I supect that this system is being put in place as a; a smoke screen for all the sleeze being dredged up about the Tories atm and b; so that sites like The Needle can be “accidentally” blocked to prevent people seeing the evidence that is building up.


  15. Thats what I believe as well. It looks like chalking on the pavement will soon be the only way to get the truth out, or flying big things with messages on, ie kites


  16. Guaranteed access eh? Wow! Logic then says that if you are being abused and know your partner is abusing your children, then best to stay in the relationship so that at least you are there to protect them to some degree. If you leave your abuser then you face the prospect of the Courts enacting your ‘guaranteed access’ thereby serving your children up on a plate to the person you have observed abusing them. Great idea! Can’t imagine why no-one else has thought of it before.


    “For more than two decades, protective mothers from every state in the country (as well as overseas) have been ordered to turn their children over into the care, and even the custody, of the children’s abusive fathers. This occurs even when there is adequate evidence of child abuse, domestic violence, and other harmful behaviors on the part of the father. Courts claim to be doing this to ensure that both parents remain involved in their children’s lives after divorce or separation, but in fact, in most of these cases, precisely the opposite happens: mothers are denied any meaningful relationship, or even contact, with their children. In the meantime, male supremacist groups claim unfair treatment in the family courts, seeking shared or total custody in order to avoid paying child support and to maintain men’s traditional control over their partner and their children.”

    “Myths about custody still abound. Most people still believe that the courts favor mothers over fathers—who are discriminated against because they are men—and that this is how it’s always been.

    This is not true.

    For more than five thousand years, men—fathers—were legally *entitled* to sole custody of their children. Women—mothers—were *obliged* to bear, rear, and economically support their children. No mother was ever legally entitled to custody of her own child.”

    Read more:


  18. It is a bloody disgrace the so called justice courts in this country, It makes my blood boil, the audacity of what the Baaaastaaaards are doing to us,I cannot take much more before I shall explode like the ‘Tango’ man did in his drink advert. Every man, woman and child should all go on strike for just one day in our so called ‘home’ country in protest at the corruption and injustice that we are being subjected to,as we would be able to bring the country to a standstill loosing them Baaaaastaaaards millions of pounds, It would just get squandered for funding their army games,charity abroad,and all the other rackets they have going,wheeling and dealing and taking the piss.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s