If She Hadn't Topped Herself, No Doubt?

Because she can hardly speak for herself now, can she?

Ms Wallace said: "I can speak for Virginia; I know that she would view it as a victory that he was forced, by whatever means, to voluntarily give them up."

If you're forced to do something, then it isn't voluntary at all. Don't words matter anymore? 

She added: "Prince Andrew was on at least one of those jets that I know of, if not more.

Proving he was in one of the jets is not the same as proving he was in one of the underage girls, now, is it? 

"He has to take sort of the measure of his own moral compass - he said in his settlement with Virginia that he now acknowledges the pain that these women and young girls had suffered. If you really feel it, do something about it."

 Do what? He 's given them a settlement, that was 'doing something about it'.

Conservative MP Jenrick also said Prince Andrew should "leave public life forever" and "lead an entirely private life" 

 He's a Prince and he always will be. It's not a title that can ever be stripped away, it's his by right of birth.

"He has to make his own decisions as to what he feels he should do, but I think that he has behaved disgracefully," Jenrick told the BBC 

"The public are sick of Prince Andrew and the damage that he's done to the reputation of our Royal Family and this country."

And who are you to speak for the country? You're just another failed politician, and they are legion. 

That Word 'If' Is Doing A Lot Of Work There....

If Sir Edward Heath were still alive today, I would be his local MP. His famous former home, Arundells, lies in the very heart of my Salisbury constituency.

So I was as appalled as anyone else at the manner in which the inquiry into sex abuse allegations against him began in 2015.

So says John Glen MP.

But over the past year, my anger at that ill-judged approach has given way to greater concerns.

Concerns that are greater than the issues of a man's name being traduced after his death?

I have watched with increasing disquiet as the inquiry has been subjected to repeated attacks seemingly designed to discredit it before it even sees the light of day. And the man who took the difficult decision to launch it, Mike Veale, has been pilloried, his competence and professionalism questioned.

Well, yes. Are you saying they should be beyond question?

If there are victims of historic child sex abuse in this case, they deserve to be heard and have their allegations properly investigated.

Maybe establish if a crime has indeed been committed before starting anything?

Sadly, critics of Operation Conifer have casually conflated it with previous discredited inquiries, as if one set of unfounded allegations automatically disproves others in perpetuity.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus...?

This inquiry was never going to ‘prove’ Sir Edward’s guilt one way or the other. Only a court of law can do that and obviously the former PM can no longer face trial.

Then what's the point? At least medieval witch hunts required a live witch!

But Operation Conifer may at least shed some light on whether he should have done.

To what end? That never seems to be answered. Any more than the question of how it can ever be proven, to the required degree, after so long has passed.

NB: Apologies to commenters - this post was published early on Sunday morning in error!

Like The Bitch She Is, Deborah Orr Demands To Run With The Hare And Hunt With The Hounds..

...because, you see, it's all the media's fault!

It’s crucial that neither those making accusations of abuse, nor those who are mistakenly accused, should feel shame. Lord Bramall’s personal suffering has been for a noble cause. He is the hero of this story, not its victim. It’s awful that the police, the media and the general culture have made him feel like one.

Christ, where to start? Just how lacking in self-awareness do you have to be to fail to recognise your own part in this state of affairs?

We shouldn't be too surprised, of course, she has form for this sort of thing, after all.

Had “Nick”, the man who named Lord Bramall, been listened to as a child, then I daresay his accusations could have been investigated relatively easily. We now know that “Nick” and many other people were dismissed.

And rightly so, because they were fantasists and liars!

Lord Bramall says his treatment has caused him great pain after a lifetime of public service, and that is, of course, regrettable. But co-operating with the police in the course of their investigations is itself a public service, a call we should all be prepared to answer.

Does that include co-operating in stop and search? Or programmes designed to prevent extremist beliefs from taking hold in schools?

If not, why not?

Loudly declaring that there’s nothing more awful than being falsely accused of a sexual crime sends a message that those who report such crimes are the bad guys.

No, those who falsely report such crimes are the bad guys.

Good grief, this floundering is embarrassing! How have people this thick, shameless and dishonest been allowed to lead the public sector and media by the nose for so long?

Claire Hardaker Trolls* Sky News…

Looking over the 5,000-plus tweets from her @sweepyface account, there is clearly a fixation – even an unsettling obsession with the McCanns.

She describes them as neglectful parents, objects to their ongoing media appearances, and complains that they are profiting from their daughter’s disappearance.

All things I agree with – no doubt that makes me a ‘troll’ as well?

In short, her conduct would aggravate some and deeply offend others – but much the same could be said of select comedians, journalists and celebrities who can reach millions.

Indeed it could.

The crucial question is: did she incite others to harm the McCanns? Or threaten to abduct the McCanns’ other children? Or pose any clear menace?

On Twitter at least it doesn’t seem so.

So, like Anna Raccoon, one wonders why she was chosen as the sacrificial lamb in the case. Was it – as Claire intimates – because she was easy to find?

At times, their behaviour may border on loathsome, but a news team with a high-profile journalist at the helm is not the way to bring about justice.

Indeed. And so we must ask – why was a high-profile journalist despatched?

* using the media’s definition of the word

There Should Be Consequences...

...if not for the complainants, then for the CPS officials who overruled the first decision not to prosecute and decided to press ahead, thinking that the tabloid-driven tide of fury wouldn't ever turn against them.

Well, think again:

And yes, it's utterly shameless that, having lead the MSM charge, the 'Mail' is now switching horses mid-stream, but let's not quibble, if the potential headlines are all that the CPS pays any mind to, and it seem they are.

And, for all those tempted to go down the 'Ah, but there was new evidence!' route, well:

The alleged victim was interviewed on video by specialist officers trained to deal with such cases and she told them about the abuse and rape in detail.

...

The girl also returned to the police in March 2012 told them she had forgotten to mention other rapes she had suffered at the hands of the actor.

'Nuff said.

Surely They Could Find Something More Recent?

Children are being summoned to take part in the trial of Ewell's very own witch this month. Bourne Hall Museum Kids Club will re-enact the trial of Joan Butts, which was held in 1682.

You know, I can't quite put my finger on it, but I'm sure we have far more modern examples of credulous fools being led by the nose and seeking out imaginary witches to show the kiddiewinks the folly of hysteria...

On Wednesday, May 29, the club will return to the days when dark magic was blamed for anything unexplained. Professional storyteller Janet Dowling and the children will try to decide if the witch or the trial was more wicked.

A question we might well ask adults.

The Gift That Keeps On Giving....

...that's the Jade Lomas-Anderson saga.

Now we have pious demands for legislation and for the authorities to 'do something' by the relatives:

Jade Lomas-Anderson’s uncle said it made him ‘sick’ that because the law on dog attacks does not cover private property, Bev Concannon will probably not face court.

‘Can everyone spread the word we want justice over these dogs and the owners so this cannot happen again,’ ‘Tucker’ Lomas, 29, wrote on Facebook.

Mr Lomas added: ‘This news is making me sick, saying the owners of these dogs might not be prosecuted because it was a private property. Disgusts me. We want justice for Jade.’

Now, remember, this is a house she'd visited before, despite the dogs apparently being 'notorious in the neighbourhood'. Didn't Tucker raise any objections then?

We have witch-hunts & vigilante justice:

Miss Concannon, who was out shopping at the time of the attack, is said to be ‘distraught’ and co-operating with police.

One friend, Jayne ‘Pandora’ Acton, wrote on Facebook that Miss Concannon was ‘petrified because of muppets going for her to harm her’. She went on: ‘You are all talking about the dogs being dangerous and I have just read there are lynch mobs looking for her.

‘They are just as bad as the dogs, now leave it to the police.

‘We know it’s not right what has happened to Jade, and it could have been one of her own children, don’t forget.’

And best of all, that favourite of the modern police 'service', the easy target and ancillary 'crime':

Police are investigating a posting by a ‘troll’ apparently mocking Jade’s death. The message by ‘Jake Williams’ said: ‘ I'm upset she didn't get raped/murdered; judging by her pics she deserves it.’

There's more wrong here than can ever be fixed by mere dangerous dog legislation...

What Is It They Always Say? Follow The Money!

...and oh, boy, they certainly intend to:

But remember, it's all about 'closure' for the victims (if there really are victims), and justice at last (though a dead man can never be tried, at least under current law, but surely we wouldn't overturn laws to please a mob, would we?). Not about filthy lucre, oh, dear me, no! Perish the thought! How very dare you suggest it!

Nor is it about the rapacious demand for control and surveillance and the burdens of a state that distrusts everyone all the time. Oh, dear me, no.

I look at this circus, this return to the Salem Witch Trials (but hey, they were one up on us, they at least accused live people who could mount a defence!) and I think we've gone stark, staring mad. Maybe it's something in the water? It's a brave blogger or journalist who will swim against this tide.

I'd feel sorry for the BBC, but then I remember they've played their part in fostering a culture which leads to this sort of thing.

And then I remember whose money it is that the BBC will be handing out...

Loathe Him You May, But When Littlejohn's Right, He's Very, Very Right...

I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of the Op Yewtree investigation's veracity; Anna Racoon's excellent series has already done this (and check out today's post for a delightful summation in verse!).

But as Littlejohn points out, the behaviour of the police in all this should concern us all, shouldn't it?

The heavy-handed nature of some of the arrests is also troubling. Why was it necessary to nick Davidson as he arrived at Heathrow Airport, as if he was some kind of international terrorism suspect?

What was the urgency? And if there is an overwhelming case against him, why has he been released without charge until March?

Police also raided one of Davidson’s homes in Hampshire and emerged carrying boxes of ‘evidence’. Were they seriously expecting to find evidence of a 25-year-old sexual assault tucked away in a sock drawer?

This will, no doubt, bring statements such as 'Just doin' our job!' and 'We just gather evidence, it's up to the CPS!'. They should ring hollow.

Stuart Hall, who is 82, was arrested at his Cheshire home in a full-scale dawn raid. What were they expecting him to do — leg it over the back wall or try to blast his way out with a sawn-off, screaming: ‘You’ll never take me alive, copper!’

Just before Christmas, Greater Manchester Police smashed down the front door of Fred Talbot, former weatherman on This Morning with Richard and Judy, in connection with an allegation which dates back to the early Seventies. Talbot was on holiday in the Caribbean.

Given that the police wanted to question him over a complaint about something which is alleged to have taken place when he was working as a teacher 40-odd years ago, couldn’t they just have waited until he got back and invited him in for an interview?

Littlejohn wonders if this high-profile activity (cameras often invited) is related to the US 'perp-walk' procedure. Something you might expect those who claim to be above this all to decry?

Curiously, the scale and methods of these operations seem not to concern the usual Left-wing ‘human rights activists’ who are always ready to howl about police misconduct, abuse of civil liberties and the presumption of innocence.

Quite! Though the 'Guardian' did put up a 'sympathy for the Devil' piece just yesterday, it's unlikely to start to wake up and smell the coffee until a beloved Left-wing figure is arrested by our Theatrical Squad.

The police chiefs are always banging on about the need to have the police farce properly accredited - who knew they meant by RADA?

Now Then, Now Then, Ow's About This Then...?

No, I won't be watching the so-called 'documentary' tonight.

No, not even to see if Esther Rantzen can actually face the camera, unlike the excerpts that have been trailed across every TV show since Sunday, showing her looking down and off to one side as she speaks. I'm no body language expert, but it seemed odd to me, frankly.

Nor am I interested in the tawdry 'revelations' of other has-been media darlings who knew all along, of course they did, yet did nothing at the time. Or the wink-wink, nudge-nudge of tabloid hacks who conveniently forget that 'everyone knew' (and crawled out of the woodwork with 'exclusives') about poor sods like Barry George and Chris Jeffries too.

And I'm especially not interested in the agenda being pushed by the likes of Julie Bindel, with her "Unless we start listening to children, in decades to come we will be hearing the same tragic stories" schtick.

Because the 'children don't lie about abuse!' nonsense got us moral panics like the Orkney debacle, the Cleveland nonsense, the McMartin Preschool case and many, many more, in fact one linked to the 'revelations' about Savile himself, the Haut De Le Garenne skull-fragment-that-never-was...

No, what interests me most are the vested interests that are either pushing this for all they are worth, or benefiting either directly or indirectly from it.

There's those that will be breathing a sigh of relief that the spotlight has shifted from them, just as it was getting uncomfortably hot.

There's the people who profit from setting themselves up as modern Witchfinders General, like Jim Gamble.

There's the control-freaks and authoritarians, who will use it as justification for yet more crackdowns.

So remember, as you lap it up and agree at the office watercooler that 'there's no smoke without fire!' and 'Well, he always looked a bit odd' that this is the sort of stuff that gets us crazy policies in schools and causes reasonable people to see dark shadows in everything. Which while it might make for amusing TV shows, is really no way to live, is it?

So was Sir Jimmy Savile a strange man with dark desires and powerful friends, who presented a persona of good while secretly plotting evil? I don't know. I do know that if he was, he's not the only one in this whole kerfuffle fitting that description.

Not by a long chalk...

Modern Day Moral Panics

Those of you on Twitter will no doubt have heard of @MrKennethTong.

This person holds views (or claims to hold views - many people have suggested he's simply a troll, who is having some absolutely spectacular success) that are considered beyond the pale by many.

Those views? Well, not what you might think, from the fuss. He isn't a racist or a bigot, he isn't advocating the violent overthrow of the State, he isn't an inveterate puppy-strangler who wants to get this sport into the 2012 Olympics.

He claims that Size Zero is the ideal one for a woman, and is claiming to have a magic pill which will help them achieve that.

...


...


Yeah, me too.

But this bizarre attitude (real or fake) is apparently so hideous, so dangerous, so beyond the pale, that a Twittermob has formed, and while most are simply content to mock and rubbish his views, others (even those who should know better) are calling for him to be removed from Twitter.

And then we come to Jack of Kent's post yesterday evening.

In it, he opines:

"...it is not a pleasant account. It is used to relentlessly promote "size zero" body shapes for women and something dangerous and abusive called "managed anorexia". Although one can be sure that the person using the account believes they are exercising free speech, it may well be that promoting such harmful health practices should be prohibited."

Oh, how quickly the mask of reason and calm consideration of all the facts slips when a liberal rubs up against something that he or she doesn't personally like, eh?

But the Tweet that draws Jack of Kent's ire sufficiently to give this chap yet more publicity is one to a woman where he is challenged by her to 'break the law and we'll see what happens.' The person running the Tong account replies with a URL to this case and a smiley face.

And that's all.

"What should we make of this response?

Is @MrKennethTong suggesting that the link is an example of him breaking the law "without penalty"?

Is it even an implicit admission of guilt of the allegation of sexual assault?

It is simply not clear."

No, it certainly isn't. But why this should mean that a man who the Twitterverse reviles should get a starring role in a very well-written and avidly followed legal blog is equally unclear.

"We can go no further than what @MrKennethTong says on the point. Certainly there is no other information available from which one can infer such a view. I certainly make no suggestion that he was guilty of the original allegations, but I do wonder what @MrKennethTong is suggesting.

If the tweet is not an implicit admission of guilt, and there is some other explanation, it still seems to me to be an inappropriate link to post in that context.

To show off like this being cleared of a sexual assault allegation is, on any view, vile."

Ah. Right. Of course.

It couldn't be that he's understandably bitter at being accused of a sexual assault by a woman, and had his name splashed all over the papers (which even for a relentless self-publicist Big Brother contestant can't be welcome), while hers is protected by law, could it?

And so therefore picked something he thought would be an ideal allusion to goad his Twitter tormentors (a lot of whom are women), who are declaring he should have no right to hold his views, and should be hounded off Twitter because of them?

I mean, god forbid the poor sod should feel he has any right to 'show off'.

No, indeed. He should hang his head in shame forevermore, simply because a woman used her legally-granted anonymity to drag his name through the mud and through the legal system because she could, with no repercussions for her at all...

And just to compound this safari into BizzarroWorld, a commenter to Jack of Kent's blog - one 'RM' - leaves this comment:

"For those who are witheringly chastising the author for giving KT the oxygen of publicity... I went through the same thought process on Twitter, and certainly wouldn't have given him the time of day were it not for the series of three tweets highlighted above.

If drawing attention to those three posts only creates outrage, then there's certainly no point in doing so, I agree. I merely highlighted them because I wondered whether they were significant, whether they were anything over and above unpleasant bragging, whether they were interesting to the police.

A friend of mine who first drew my attention to them actually called the police..."

For those who've never heard the name before, Jack of Kent is the lawyer who put in so much time and effort on the Paul Chambers case, where a man who made a joking Tweet about blowing up an airport was hauled through the courts and convicted under anti-terrorism legislation because someone reported his Tweet to the police...

Yeah, I need a new irony meter. Mine's just gone KERBLOOIE!

Can We Have Adults In Charge For A Change?

The leader of Harrogate Borough Council has been suspended from the Conservative Party after being photographed dressed as Adolf Hitler.

Blimey! Council meetings must be a hell of a...

Ah. Wait:

Mike Gardner, who was pictured giving a Nazi salute at a fancy dress party, said he had done "nothing wrong".

To any normal person, he hasn't. As Longrider points out:

"A fancy dress party is just that, dressing up as famous or infamous figures from history or fantasy – the point being, that they are recognisable as such."

And unless I'm pretty much mistaken (and I'm sure some councillors read this and will tell me if I'm wrong) there's no great list of 'People You Must Never, Ever Dress Up As, Even In Your Own Time'. Is there?

Conservative Party headquarters said he had been suspended pending an investigation into his conduct.

They will, of course, have relied upon some woolly rule about 'not bringing the party or council into disrepute by your behaviour' which, frankly, is so vaguely worded and open to subjective reasoning that it might as well say 'Don't do anything we don't like, and we'll decide what we don't like, even after the fact'....

Not that anyone involved comes out too well:

The images were taken from a Facebook page, which Mr Gardner said was a "total violation of my privacy".

/facepalm

Mike, unless the administrators of your Facebook page followed you to this party, encouraged you to pose for the camera and then posted it up under your account, there's only one person responsible for this.

This, of course, is why nothing ever gets done in this country. There's too much activity spent on nonsense like this.

Facebook: The War Continues…

Facebook has come under attack from Britain's most senior police officers, who have criticised the social-networking giant for refusing to adopt a "panic button" which would allow victims of online sexual grooming to report their concerns directly to the authorities.

Which is a little disingenuous – they have agreed to the button, they just aren’t placing it where the odious Jim Gamble, Paedofinder General, thinks they should.

And like every thwarted bully, he’s run to his mates to back him up.

The social-networking site yesterday announced that it would adopt the "button", designed by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), on one page of its site – a page which appears when users have already decided to report abuse. But it is still refusing to adopt the button on every page of its site, as requested by Britian's online protection agency, because it claims that to do so could create "additional complexity" and may result in fewer people reporting grooming.

Which didn’t suit the people who know best:

Yesterday, in a letter signed by chief constables from 43 police forces across Britain, senior police officers said that the steps taken by the social-networking giant are not good enough.

Oh dear, really? How sad.

What do they plan to do about this?

After the four-hour meeting, which both sides said was "constructive", Facebook said that it would introduce a link to CEOP's reporting system which would appear when users decided to report abuse via the site's own measures. It also said it would invest £5m in education about how to stay safe online – a relatively tiny amount for a company valued at more than £9bn.

But more than they are obliged to do! Most blackmailers would be quite happy with £5 million…

While acknowledging the concessions, Mr Gamble said the situation was still not satisfactory. "The critical issues remain unresolved," he said. "We believe that – without the deterrence provided by direct visible access to the CEOP button on every page – children will not be empowered, parents cannot be reassured and the offender will not be deterred.

"During yesterday's constructive meeting with Facebook they did not say 'No' to the button. We are hopeful that, once they have considered their position, they will take the critical final step to make their environment safer by adopting the direct CEOP link."

God! This man’s rampant ego could provide us limitless cheap power, if we could only find some way of harnessing it…

The police officers' letter, sent to Facebook, said: "In the real world we do not filter reports through another organisation or company; the individual simply picks up a phone or visits their local police station. The 'CLICK CEOP' mechanism offers such a reporting service for the 21st-century citizen."

And will you be any more careful with that information than you currently are with other records?

I bet the answer will be ‘No’…

Richard Allen, Facebook's director of policy for Europe, said: "We completely accept that our users should be able to report abuse directly to CEOP but we disagree on the best design solution to implement that.

"From our experience, 'buttons' produce less good results in terms of people actually reporting abuse. They intimidate and confuse people. We think our simple text link is a far more effective solution.

"All we are saying is that when it come to the specifics of how to design online reporting systems we have considerable expertise."

That doesn’t matter. The Righteous have spoken, and you WILL do what they want.

They don’t want to hear from experts in designing online material. They are listening to the experts in shameless self-promotion protecting children…

So what do the kids themselves think? Well, the ‘Indy’ has Rose:An 11 year-old's view:

I was only 10 when I first started using Facebook about a year ago. Like many children in Britain, I lied about my age. It's only supposed to be for those aged 13 and over, but of course many others (and me) ignored this and made ourselves appear years older.

Well, who’dathunkit?

None of the parents really agrees with their children using Facebook, but we still use it anyway. After that incident, my school sent out a letter about Facebook saying we shouldn't be using it.

Ignore the school like you ignore your parents, Rose!

The site now has this new report button: if anyone posts anything rude or mean you can report him or her, and he or she will get banned.

Errr….

Hopefully, that’s not quite how it works! Though, would anyone be surprised?

My mum says I am breaking the law, but to be honest I don't care, because I know I won't be arrested or anything like that.

Out of the mouths of…

My view on children using Facebook is that, as long as they don't make friends with people they don't know, they will be fine – this is all a big fuss about nothing.

Well, one little nugget of wisdom there!

Perhaps we should give Rose Jim’s job? Could an eleven-year-old do any worse?

Pompous Self-Publicist Attacks Website For Pompous Self-Publicists

Yes, it’s everyone’s favourite Peadofinder General, Jim Gamble, who is taking time out from his busy schedule avoiding awkward questions about the total farce that Op Ore turned out to be to launch an attack on Facebook:

Jim Gamble, who heads the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), said he had "real concerns" about the social networking site's work to protect children.

People have ‘real concerns’ about your own organisation, Jim lad.

He challenged the company to reveal evidence that its staff are working to disrupt devious criminals and bullies who lurk online.

‘When did you stop beating your wives?’

Mr Gamble said investigators received 252 complaints about sexual grooming, bullying and hacking from Facebook users in the first three months of this year, but none of these had been provided by the company itself. His comments are the latest salvo in an increasingly bitter feud over Facebook's refusal to add a "panic" button to its site's most popular pages. Ceop wants the button, which enables users to report abuse, to be given prominent use.

Clearly, people are managing to report complaints without the need for a button, so why the fuss?

Mr Gamble was speaking ahead of his crunch meeting with Facebook bosses in Washington DC on Monday, where he will call for them to break the deadlock.

I think the ‘Indy’ hack accidentally typed ‘break the deadlock’ there where he meant to type ‘capitulate to CEOP’s demands’…

"Facebook say their system is robust and we have no reason not to believe them," he said yesterday.

Well, that’s nice of you, Jim lad.

Do I hear a ‘But..’?

"Our reports are increasing monthly. In the first quarter of this year we have had 252 complaints about Facebook. None came direct from Facebook. If their system is so robust and they are receiving so many reports and concerns from young people, then where are they?"

Well – and try to contain yourself when you hear this, I’m positive it’ll come as a big shock – maybe they aren’t reporting them to you but to real enforcement agencies?

I know! Terrible, isn’t it?

He said the company was good at removing pornography and obscene content, as it is required to do so by law in the US.

"I believe Facebook confuse their approach to content with their approach to behaviour and that is the root of the problem," he said. "That is where predators go online, engage the young and vulnerable, and lure them offline where they can abuse them. In many cases young people in the online environment are bullied to the point of suicide."

How many? Facts and figures, Jim lad.

And after Op Ore, we’ll want to look very, very closely at anything you produce….

The 'Daily Fail' Does 'Paedogeddon'...Again!

Google has apologised after its Street View photo mapping service showed a frontal view of a naked child on a family day out.

Oh, dear. Still since they apologised and took it down, what's the pro..

Oh, FFS..!

The photos, showing the child's mother or nanny helping him dress and a man looking on, have sparked fears that paedophiles will have a new way to search for photos or targets online.

Yes, I'm sure Google's Street View is the go-to place for perverts...not!

But is there any way the 'Fail' could ramp the tension a bit higher?

Google had blurred the child's face but not the registration plate of the family's car, making it possible to trace their address.

Because obviously that's what nonces with eyestrain from trawling through Google Street View for a glimpse of a naked kid would do, right?

*sigh*

‘…a mild, well-capsulated medical condition…’

Spicer is unrepentant and claims his behaviour was down to a medical condition.

He said: 'I have never been accused of being a paedophile, but it is obvious that people might wonder.

'I was examined by seven experts in the field of child-sex offences and six out of seven concluded that I'm not a paedophile.

'They concluded that I was suffering from a mild, well-capsulated medical condition, exacerbated by domestic problems.'

Well, that’s a rather original excuse..! You’d think a bunch of doctors wouldn’t fall for it, though…

Child safety groups and even Spicer's wife yesterday condemned the GMC's decision not to strike him off the medical register.

Revolting though his tastes in literature may be, he hasn’t actually broken the law.

Though I’m sure there’s someone in one of the various ministries or departments working on it as I type…

When Will We Three Meet Again..?

...round the back of the stables at 10:30 ok for you two?

At least ten horse-owners in Sussex have reported finding plaits in their horses’ manes over the last two months.

Police have received reports from places as far apart as Westergate in Chichester, Rother and East Grinstead - reflecting similar reports across the country.

And here's where it gets...well, read on:

Officers in Dorset have been contacted by a warlock, or male witch, who claimed the plaits are used in rituals by followers of “knot magick”, also known as “cord magick”.

But Kevin Carlyon, the Hastings-based self-proclaimed High Priest of British White Witches, told The Argus some plaits or knots could be evidence of devil-worship or black magic.

Fantastic! The police can indulge in a real witch hunt for once!

Let's hope they let the SS know too, so they can join in the fun...

PC Peter Child said the possibility of witchcraft has not previously been considered as part of the Sussex Police investigation.

Well, gosh...

No System Is Ever 100% Safe

The screaming headline in this ‘Indy’ report is ‘Flawed Vetting System That Allowed An Abuser To Slip Through The Net’.

Sadly, the headline is totally inaccurate, when you look at the contents of the article:

It is the responsibility of the nursery owner – be it an individual, a charity or local authority – to ensure that CRB checks are made.

Ofsted carries out further assessments to make sure adequate background and employment histories of staff have been obtained.

Yet criminals such as Vanessa George, who had worked for six years as a classroom assistant without raising suspicion, can slip through the net.

How, exactly, did she ‘slip through the net’? Was she not checked? Was the check inadequate?

Yes, she was checked. And at the time, the check did the job it was supposed to do:

Tricia Pritchard, of the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses, said the overwhelming majority of carers, most of whom are paid the minimum wage, were committed to providing a safe environment for their pupils. But she admitted there was little that could be done to stop a determined abuser.

"Like any of these checks they are only any good on the day they are made," she said yesterday.

"Someone might be clear on paper, but this might mean they have just never been caught. With all of these things if someone is committed to carrying out these offences they will do so regardless."

Exactly.

She was a ‘clean skin’, recruited after the fact of her employment by a man skilled in manipulating others and who brought out a weakness in her character that had probably been hidden from even herself.

No vetting system would ever have caught her – she ‘slipped through the net’ along with all the other fish not a target of that net, because at the time, that’s what she was.

And now, in a vain bid to be seen to be doing something, we can expect more bans on the tools used by the people involved:

One further safeguard that is almost certain to gain support now is the call for mobile phones to be banned in some nursery areas.

"Mobile phone [technology has] moved on so quickly," Ms Pritchard added. "They are so small you can hold them in the palm of your hand and they have very powerful cameras, which means you can get pictures on to the internet within minutes."

And if the next one doesn’t want to take pictures? What then?

While Ofsted insists that nurseries operate with an adequate child-to-staff ratio and policies to ensure a pupil's dignity, there will always be times when a member of staff might be alone with a child, such as changing their nappy or giving potty training.

Unless parents are prepared to pay for massive overmanning in nurseries, this is unavoidable. And when the next case happens, and it's two childminders together, what then?

And as for this load of old wibble:

Although Ofsted has the ability to close a nursery that does not meet its criteria, Ms Pritchard claimed that the watchdog rarely did so. She said: "Most professionals would agree that Ofsted's powers are not strong enough and we don't feel inspections are rigorous enough. There is such a demand for places it is often in no one's interest to close a nursery down. While they might slap a notice on somewhere, it is always the last resort to shut it."

This wasn’t a case where there had been complaints about the nursery, or rumours, or representations to Ofsted. The parents were all apparently happy with the care, and happy with George to.

This case came like a bolt out of the blue – it resulted from police action on a person that at the time they believed was unconnected with the nursery. In fact, he first time he ever met George in the flesh was in court.

So how the hell can giving more powers to Ofsted to inspect and close down nurseries help? What ‘inspections’ could have prevented this?

None. But no-one wants to hear that.

Star Chambers - Not Just A Historical Oddity

It seems this story has now progressed further, and Carol Hill has indeed been dismissed for her 'crime' of letting the parents of a child assaulted at her school know what the head would have preferred to cover up:

Mrs Hill, 60, was suspended after the incident in June and yesterday it emerged that she has been fired by a disciplinary tribunal for breaching pupil confidentiality at Great Tey Primary School, near Colchester, Essex.

The decision has been condemned by the girl's family, who were prevented from giving evidence on Mrs Hill's behalf.

It seems this may spark a bit of a fightback:

Other parents at the school are considering withdrawing their children in protest.

Let's hope they do.

Certainly, no-one can have confidence in a head who responds to a sitaution in this fashion. And who gives this statement in response to media interest:

Headmistress Debbie Crabb has insisted that Chloe's parents were told of the incident according to school 'accident and first aid procedures'.

'Accident'...?

This was assault!

“I Am (Above) The Law!”

Says the UK’s answer to Judge Dredd:

A chief constable who is refusing to return computers suspected of holding masses of child abuse images to a controversial expert witness could face jail and the sack.

Colin Port, head of Avon and Somerset police, is accused of defying a High Court order.

He was served with a summons alleging contempt of court at his force headquarters earlier this week.

But he is adamant he will not give back 87 hard drives and 2,500 photographs of abuse seized from the home of Jim Bates, a forensic computer analyst.

Hmmm, this seems a pretty dangerous course of action for a chief constable to take. More detail of the legal wrangling and possible consequences of it can be found here at Bystander’s blog.

But what could prompt such a trenchant refusal to obey the court order?

Ah:

Bates, who is seen by many as one of the founders of forensic computer analysis, fears he is being targeted by police because he has become an outspoken critic of Operation Ore, a police investigation that began in the late 1990s and led to thousands of arrests.

And a great deal of controversy. So much so, that Mr Bates is now a campaigner for those caught in the ‘Ore’ web.

And it seems Port isn’t the only law enforcement officer with a flexible approach to those pesky laws:

Jim Gamble, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, said: 'We fully support the chief constable in this matter.

'In our view it could be argued that the chief constable would be committing an offence by giving abuse images back to this individual, unless he held them as part of an ongoing case.'

Yup, he’d be committing an offence by complying with a lawful court order.

We’re through the looking glass, people!

Update: Bea Campbell has now weighed in on this. Hilarity ensues in the comments...