The British legal system, or more precisely the English legal system, is failing the victims, not because of the Law, but because of those empowered to administer the law whether they be police officers, lawyers, judges or magistrates. From the investigation of such highly emotive cases as the Yorkshire Ripper, Hindley and Brady, the Hillsborough deaths or the allowing of bail to the murderer of Blackpool nurse Jane Clough, the police have proven themselves inadequate. Poorly supported are the police by a judiciary that cannot understand simple English. In that I mean the ruling that the murderer of Lancashire schoolgirl AmyHouston who died after being hit by Iraqi Kurd Aso Mohammed Ibrahim’s car (for which he had no licence or insurance) in Highercroft, Blackburn, in November 2003, her wholly legal father has no Human Rights but the killer has. Note well, I have not invoked the Race Card just the legal card. How bizarre, at least, for the legal profession to justify this iniquitous situation whereby a child killer can be afforded all the legal niceties and comfort denied the grieving parent of an innocent victim.
What has this to do with yesterday’s revelations that even a prosecution professional can be so amateurish as to stir the bile in the most calm of beasts? Let me answer that by asking, what type of moron can describe the activities of a 13 year old child as Mr Colover, who was representing the CPS at Wilson's sentencing hearing at London's Snaresbrook Crown Court on Monday, did when he said: "The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced"?
Irrespective of what colour you paint her, she will be until her 16th birthday a neutrally hued child and as such cannot consent to a sexual liaison with a 41 year old predatory man. Small wonder that only about 5% of all sex cases get to court. Even more grievous is that so many perpetrators of this evil crime wave are allowed immunity given a prosecution lawyer and the judge, in the case, both use the same inflammatory language, NOT against the perpetrator, but against the victim. What terrible succour this gives to child molesters and inadequate professions!
Lyndon Harris, editor of Banks on Sentencing, has today tried to clarify the legal position. All he has done is emphasised that the vile excess of Stuart Hall and Jim Sa-Vile ought to have been confronted at the time by the authorities in place to protect the victims. He used the expression, taken into consideration at sentencing, “Ostensible Consent”. According to this person Sexual Activity with a Child is not Rape. Let me ram a hand spike (used to handle artillery pieces) up his arse and then listen to him defend my right to violate him. It would not happen because, although I disagree with his legal expertise, I wish him no harm. Paedophiles do not, by their very actions, have any moral concern for the welfare of others, only their own bestial lust.
I have taken this (below) from You Have Not Defeated Me and concur wholeheartedly with the sentiment.
Ostensible consent is plainly wrong, because it blames children for being raped. It does not take into account that children have the right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998, nor the state requirement to protect children from this sort of thing in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are hoping that we can abolish ostensible consent with this campaign; victims are victims no matter what, especially when they are children.
We desperately need to start educating our people and empowering them with the rights to challenge the mediocrity of public office. We desperately have to stop the demonising of Britons who are terrified by senseless enforcement of laws that are promulgated to subjugate and not free a people who have earned their liberties a thousand times over.