A nudge and a wink to Wordpress

Dear Sir/Madam

It has come to my attention that you are hosting blogs with pedophile content, and have refused requests from a concerned public to close these blogs down when they have been reported to you.

I am outraged by this, and I hope you will reconsider, and soon. The blogging and Twitter communities are discussing your lax attitude to this on a daily basis. We will make sure that it builds up to a perfect storm if you don't take action. 

I was thinking about migrating from Blogger to Wordpress, but this has made me think twice. 

Kind regards
Concerned Blogger

The Guardian proudly presents "the expert evidence"

I really want to comment on Jon Henley's article in the Guardian, titled "Paedophilia: Bringing dark desires to light". But that means I would have to read the article again first, and I'd much rather roll around in a pile of putrid excrement. So for now, it has to be "hold on Henley", "hello pile of shit".

But wait, it's coming back to me now. Somewhere in the hazy cloud of nausea, disgust and flashbacks that has been following me around since I read the article, there's that word that keeps popping up - "consent". Yes, that what it was about, the article.  "Consent". It's a friendly word. It means everything's OK. No harm done. Consent, in the "child-adult sexual relationship" scenario, goes something like this;

Adult: "hello 8 year old boy/12 year old girl (delete according to preference). Would you like to have sex with me?

Child: Yes kind sir/madam, it would give me great pleasure/no thanks, not today (delete according to preference).

So far, so god. To clarify further I quote the article (OK, I held my nose and read the damn thing again); 
"Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage." As eloquently expressed by the "respectable (and responsible)" (according to Jon Henley) National Council for Civil Liberties now known as Liberty. So, in case you missed it; it's you and me, society, who has ha problem, not the pedophiles. Sorted.

Further down in this "balanced" article, Henley quotes Tom O'Carrol. You know, the pedophile convicted in 2006 of distributing indecent photographs and films, including the rape and torture of six year olds (Henley didn't treat us to that level of detail though.). "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."

And there is evidence, you know! Don't think that this is just something that a bunch of paedophiles made up to justified their behaviour! Here goes; 

" A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them." 

I had a look at said Dutch study. I wondered how they'd identified the boys. In my naivety, I thought it would be interviews with adults about their experiences as boys. But no, the study is based on interviews with 25 boys, some as young as 10 years old, CURRENTLY being abused by paedophiles. The study is called "BOYS ON THEIR CONTACTS WITH MEN: A STUDY OF SEXUALLY EXPRESSED FRIENDSHIPS" by Theo Sandfort. This is what the Guardian refers to as "experts" and "academics".

Here's one of the boys from the Dutch study. Thijs was 10 years and 11 months old when he was interviewed by Sandfort. The "sexually expressed friendship" started when he was 8 years old and living in a children's home. 


First want to ask you how long you have known Joop.

Uh, I don't know--two and a half years, two years, something like that. I don't remember so good any more.

You're almost eleven, aren't you, thus you were around 8 or 9 then, weren't you?Yes.

Can you remember how you first got to know him, how it went?Yes. We were going to play football. I was on my bike and the chain came off and Joop said, "Here, let me put it back on." Well, I could do that myself, but he wanted to do it so I let him. Then he asked, "Would you like to come in?" So I went in and then I started playing football with him more often. And so one day we started doing sex. It happened very quickly. I didn't know anything about sex, but I learned in a hurry. One night I went to the toilet and he started playing with my cock. So we began making out, I mean having sex.

What did you think about that atfirst?I was sort of shy, but later, when I'd been coming there a week or so, I got used to it.

The first time you had sex, that was right at the beginning, you said, you hadn't known him so very long?Two or three days only. That was when I was still in the children's home. I came to his place every weekend, and sometimes during the week, too. I'd tell them in the Home that I was going to go outside and play, and then to my mother.

So it was right at the beginning, you said. Can you tell me what happened that first time?You mean the sex? Well, first he asked me. He said, "If you don't like it you must tell me." And so he started doing it a little with his hand... He did that for a while, for a few days. Because I live close to him-I come over a lot. And finally-I think about a month later--I did it to him, too. And two weeks after that we had complete sex with each other... just about every day. Every day I came. Now I come every day, because I'm back home. Just about every day, but sometimes not.

If you had to say who started the sex that first time, who would it be?Who started sex the first time? He did, of course. I didn't even know what sex was. Okay, I knew what it was but not that.

Even though you'd done it yourself little?No.

How do you like knowing all about it now?I knew all about it when I was ten.

What happens now when you have sex with each other?We just have a little sex, jerk each other off a little, and then we just go to sleep, take a little nap.

Can you say who starts it, when you have sex?Either of us. Sometimes me, yeah, mostly me. But he, too, real often.

Can you tell me how you do it if you want to start?I come up close to him and say, "I want to tell you something." Well, if anyone knew what that meant... that's what he always thinks. But I don't think anyone's figured that out.

And then you go to the bedroom?Yes, but a lot of the kids know, so they say, "Oh, no, not that again! Just hurry up and cum!"

Is it different now from that first time you had sex with Joop?A whole lot. We didn't used to do it together. I didn't know much about him, and now I know just about everything. I didn't used to have much contact with him, but now I do. And that first time wasn't really true sex.

Does anybody know that you have sex with Joop?
Yes, people who come here to the house.

What do those people think about it?They never mention it.

And your mother?I can't let her know anything about it. She does know, but I just say it's not true. But I just keep on coming to Joop.

So really you're lying a little to your mother?Of course. I'm not going to be kept away from Joop.

Why not?
Just because, uh...

What do you think your mother would feel about your having sex with Joop?I guess she'd think it was dirty. She'd think a man doing that with a child was not normal, that you just shouldn't do it. That's what she'd say.

And how do youfeel about her thinking that way?Rotten stupid! Although I wouldn't tell her it was rotten stupid. I mean, what business is it of hers? It's my business what I do.

Do some of your friends know about it, too?Yes, friends from school, they know, because they're always ragging me about it a little. Maybe half the school knows. They talk about "queers" and so on.

They call you queer?No, I don't let on I know they're gossiping about me. I'm not that stupid, because then I'd really get bad-mouthed.

Those boys probably also find it dirty?Well, I don't know. Could be, because they wouldn't say it was dirty if they really didn't think it was.

How do youfeel about your having sex with Joop?It's just really nice.

Its no problem for you?It's just like a man going to bed with a woman--I think it's exactly the same: nice. And the feelings and so on they have, I have too.

What I would be more interested to see than this heart wrenching handbook of grooming and abuse, is a report interviewing these boys today, 25 years after the abuse, to see whether these "sexually expressed friendships" resulted in "no lasting damage". I somehow doubt whether Theo Sandfort has conducted such a study. He has been busy with more "academic research" of pre-teen boys. He later wrote "Pedophile relationships in the Netherlands: Alternative Lifestyles for Children?" I wonder where he finds all his contacts? Actually, no, I don't.

I could go on looking into the credibility of the Guardian "experts" and "academics" and in many cases, I'm sure, their criminal records. Somehow, I don't think I have the stomach for it. 

I'll leave you with this definition of consent. 

"Consent refers to the provision of approval or agreement, particularly and especially after thoughtful consideration". Then think about whether 8 year old Thijs was capable of that, or whether he was afforded that luxury. 

Link to original Guardian article: Paedophilia: Bringing dark desires to light
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light?INTCMP=SRCH

Open letter to Daniel Finkelstein

Dear Mr Finkelstein

Let's look at your article again and do an experiment. In place of the words "Savile" and "Cyril Smith", put "Hitler" and "Stalin", or vice versa, if you prefer. Now, let's see how it reads.

By dying, Adolf Hitler both escaped justice and was denied justice. He can no longer be punished for what he is accused of doing, but he cannot refute the accusations either.
I fear that in our anxiety to put right the mistakes that were made during the lifetimes of people like Hitler, and in our justifiable anger on behalf of victims, we may begin to erode something else that really matters. We may begin to erode the difference between historical accounts and criminal proceedings. We may start to prosecute dead people and find them guilty when they fail to enter a plea.

OR

If Joseph Stalin committed these crimes then he is a monster. But I am still attached to that vital word “if”. 

Do you still like the sound of it? It feels uncomfortable, doesn't it? It does to me. It also sounds ridiculous, because in spite of neither Stalin or Hitler being tried as war criminals, we all know what happened, don't we? 

The thing is, there are times when history can be allowed to judge, faced with overwhelming evidence. I believe that is how most of history is written. I don't think a lot of people in power throughout history have been put on trial for atrocities they have committed. But few people feel the need to defend their reputations. Savile and Smith were people in power. With a bit of luck, just how powerful they were, and how powerful their friends were, will come out. 

The evidence against Savile and Smith amounts to a tidal wave. Hundreds of victims, Mr Finkelstein, probably the tip of the iceberg. Allegations shelved several times for reasons that can't be explained. Corroborated evidence ignored.  Files of evidence carried away by MI5. Where in your article did you discuss these matters? Did I blink and miss it?

You are concerned with the due course of justice. So am I. The difference between yourself and the vast majority of victims of child sexual abuse, is that we have lost all faith in the justice system. In your article, you are asking us to accept as gospel fact that the due process of law was followed in the cases of Savile and Smith, and that that's the reason why there were no prosecutions! But the stench of corruption is so rank, you'd have to wear a nose peg not to smell it. 

The victims of child sexual abuse have so little faith in the justice system, that only a tiny minority try to press charges. And when they do, only about 10% of cases end in conviction. One of these convictions was reported today. A man was sentenced to community service for sexual abuse of an eight year old. A victim of Savile came out on Twitter yesterday to say that she had not yet been properly interviewed by the police, just a brief visit. She has witnessed children being murdered. Yet Yewtree are saying the investigation has been concluded. This is the justice system you ask us to have faith in. 

You say that you don't want to cause distress to victims. You have. I'll tell you how. When I was sexually abused throughout my childhood, it caused injury. When I went to the police and they ignored me, it added insult to injury. When people like yourself believe it's more important to defend the reputations of perpetrators than discuss the coverup of child abuse cases, so glaringly obvious, there is no longer a word in the English language to describe the pain this causes me. 

A word about language you use in your article. Regarding Smith, you said:

" It was felt that there was not a reasonable chance of conviction because the accusations were without corroboration and some of the men would not make good witnesses."

"without corroboration" - Eight victims came forward. How do you define corroboration?

"would not make good witnesses"  - Might it be interesting to discuss why the CPS made this claim instead of accepting it at face value? If they were such bad witnesses, why did MI5 feel it necessary to confiscate the evidence they gave?

What would make for a really interesting article, I think, is how victims are systematically discredited as "bad witnesses" because they are so physically and mentally broken by the abuse. I thinks this adds credibility to the claims of victims, not the opposite. I suffer from PTSD and depression as a result of abuse. I know what I'm talking about.

According to the NCPCC, one in six children are sexually abused. Children in this country, and around the world, are being sacrificed. There is no justice for them, no justice for us the adult survivors. It's happening in plain sight. Those in power and people on the ground are complicit or they ignore it. It's too uncomfortable to deal with, or to dangerous to confront. In terms of history, it sounds so familiar to me, it sends a chill down my spine.