Showing posts with label Beaney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beaney. Show all posts

Saturday, 19 November 2016

Unintended Idiocy




(Embedded Tweet, click date)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Lawyers And Judges Are Rubbish At Mathematics - The Voodoo Harm Claims




*****

(A) The, still, unproven proposition, which we will accept, for now,

Awareness (A1) = Harm 1 (H1),

thus,

Awareness (A1) + Awareness (A2) = Harm 2 (H2),

let A2 = 0, particularly, where Awareness is impossible,

Additional Harm (Hadd) = H2 - H1 = 0,

hence, in the absence of awareness, no harm occurs.*

(B) Now,

Viewer 1 (V1) = Harm 1 (H1) = Additional Harm (Hadd) = 0, as shown above,

Viewer 1 (V1) + Viewer 2 (V2) = Harm 2 (H2),

when no nexus is present, H2 = 0,

hence, there is no harm, from viewing material provided by another viewer, when no nexus to the alleged act, is present.*

 QED

 *except those real harms, created by insane laws.

*****




Sexual Offences Guideline Consultation

Section six: Indecent images of children

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/indecent-images-children/supporting_documents/sexual%20offences_Indecent%20images%20of%20children.pdf

Response to “A Reluctant Rebellion”

Alexandra Gelber, Assistant Deputy Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, July 1, 2009.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ceos/legacy/2012/03/19/ReluctantRebellionResponse.pdf 

A Reluctant Rebellion

Mark Hansen, Jun 02, 2009

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_reluctant_rebellion

A Response to Alexandra Gelber’s, “Response to “A Reluctant Rebellion,””

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield, Researcher and Ex-offender in This Field.

http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/p/response-to-alexandra-gelbers-response.html




http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2010/009c_Reluctant_Rebellion_Response.pdf





[2008] 2 All ER 1065, [2008] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 49, [2007]
EWCA Crim 3079, [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 49

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F



*****

April 2017 

The Unjust, Irrational, and Unconstitutional Consequences of Pedophilia Panic

"The fear and disgust triggered by this subject help explain why laws dealing with sex offenses involving minors frequently lead to bizarre results."

https://reason.com/archives/2017/03/15/sex-and-kids

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/4/29/1295551/-Defendants-rights-victims-rights-child-pornography-and-the-Court 


https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/petitions/93882-2%20COA%20Resp%20brief.pdf

*****

3rd April 2017

Working with sex offenders and paedophiles


NO nexus = NO culpability = NO harm = NO victim

"The typical client is dealing with intense shame regarding their behaviour, the shattering impact of police officers arriving at the door early in the morning with a search warrant, the distress of their family and friends and the threat of losing their job. So initially I work with these issues and I describe the experiences of other clients, whilst of course maintaining strict confidentiality. This helps them understand that they are not unique. I also look at the triggers for their offending behaviour, as this awareness helps them change their behaviour to avoid being triggered.

Viewing indecent child images is not a victimless crime – others have directly abused children in order to feed the offender’s appetite.

Unless the offender is able to acknowledge this harm then therapy will not succeed. I am aware that the quality of my work will influence whether the offender recovers or continues to harm others, including children. This pressure is particularly intense when dealing with offenders who have harmed children directly."

https://www.hippocraticpost.com/medico-legal/working-sex-offenders-paedophiles

Michael Stock

"Michael Stock is a counsellor and psychosexual therapist from StopSO: The Specialist Treatment Organisation for the Prevention of Sexual Offending works to prevent sexual offending through therapy. StopSO is an agency that connects clients asking for help with a specially trained, experienced psychotherapist (or counsellor) who is geographically close. This service is available to anyone who feels at risk of committing a sexual offence, as well as those who have already committed a sexual offence. StopSO also offers therapy to the family members of sexual offenders. StopSO's aim is to reduce sexual offending by offering therapy to the (potential and actual) perpetrators in order to prevent harm, and thus protect society. www.stopso.org.uk; Telephone: 07533 996 906; info@stopso.org.uk "

http://sexualandcoupletherapy.co.uk

http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor_22437.html

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07957640/officers

 *****









(Embedded Tweets - click date).

*****


(Embedded Tweets - click date).



 *****






(Embedded Tweets - click date)

*****

(Embedded Tweets - click date)


Seek 'help', by all means, but, never lie, for redemption.
*****










(Embedded Tweets - click date).

*****



(Embedded Tweets - click date).

*****

(Embedded Tweets - click date).

February 1, 2018

One More Suicide Is One Too Many 

"He was just 35 yrs old.

A young man is dead.

Mark could have been any one of our sons, brothers, nephews, husbands or fathers."

https://blog.womenagainstregistry.org/one-more-suicide-is-one-too-many

*****




(Embedded Tweets - click date).

*****




(Embedded Tweets - click date).

*****

When Judges Talk Rubbish - Voodoo Obiter Dicta

http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/when-judges-talk-rubbish-time-to-start.html

*****

More to follow.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 22 January 2015

On Proximity, Harm, Culpability and Potentially-Dangerous Offenders


*****

 
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/indecent_images_of_children

(Dangerous provision changes - http://www.onepaper.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/N10_Sentencing-dangerous-offenders.pdf)

R v Terrell [2007] EWCA Crim 3079

"26. The serious harm [sic] thus relied on here is the harm to children through the perpetuation of the market [sic] or distribution networks for indecent images. This puts children at risk of being forced to participate in the activities leading to such images [sic], or causes psychological harm to a child who realises either at the time or later that images of him or her are being used as objects of perverted sexual gratification [do we have some verifiable, peer-reviewed, research, on this claim?]. There is no suggestion here however that the Appellant has any contact with children whom he might seek to photograph or to commission others to photograph, for himself, for sharing or for using as a means of gaining access to a network.

27. In all these circumstances, the re-offending which is at risk would make a direct [sic] but small contribution to the market or distribution of such indecent images [and if one makes none, as most do?]; that in turn would make an indirect but small contribution to the risk that indecent images of children would be taken [no risk then]. A child groomed or made to participate in sexual acts for those purposes may suffer serious harm of one sort or another, depending on the activity [fine, they are offences, perhaps worth having [and exist], in the puritanical regime we have, presently]. A child who becomes aware that he or she has been photographed for the sexual gratification of an adult, who may not even be known to them, may suffer serious psychological harm [see above].

28. In our judgment it cannot reasonably be said, in the context of these particular statutory provisions, that there is a significant risk of this Appellant's re-offending occasioning harm to a child or children whether through perpetuating the market, or through further indecent images being taken, or through a child becoming aware of the indecent purposes to which photographs might be put. The link between the offending act of downloading these indecent images and the possible harm which might be done to children is too remote to satisfy the requirement that it be this Appellant's re-offending which causes the serious harm. At worst there would be an indirect and small contribution to a harm which might or might not occur, depending on whether further photographs were taken in part as a result of the Appellant's contribution to the market [and if none?], or depending on whether a child found out about the uses to which they were put as a result [proximity to/culpability of, the non-contributory, unknown, offender?]. The imprisonment for public protection provisions of the CJA do not apply in the circumstances here, where simply as a matter of generalisation, a small, uncertain and indirect contribution to harm may be made by a repeat of this offender's offending. No significant risk of serious harm of the requisite gravity, occasioned by a repetition of the offending in this case by this offender can reasonably be said to exist."

"34. The potential utility of a SOPO in a case such as this does not mean that the tests of section 104 are necessarily satisfied. A sentencing judge however, could have been satisfied in these circumstances that a SOPO was necessary, but would not have been driven to such a conclusion.

Perpetuating the market [sic; the trouble is, that is not what we have, in the main] or distribution network for indecent images encourages [sic] others to commission, take or create indecent images [fine, they are offences, perhaps worth having [and exist], in the puritanical regime we have, presently] of a level which may [?] be capable of causing "serious" harm to children [see above], and the child or children who might be photographed could well become aware of the use to which those photographs would be put [and?].

The indirect and uncertain harm arising from the contribution to the harm which any downloading of indecent images may have does not necessarily fall outside the scope of the SOA provisions, as discussed in Beaney and Collard." [legal logic, stretched to its farcical and failing limits]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/3079.html

(R v Beaney [2004] EWCA Crim 449

http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2004/february/r-v-beaney

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/449.html

 R v Collard [2004] EWCA Crim 1664

http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2004/may/r-v-collard

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/1664.html)

 

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/1883134.child_porn_man_has_sentence_overturned

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/1802271.child_porn_student_challenges_sentence


http://trixresources.proceduresonline.com/nat_key/keywords/a_potential_danger_pers.html


http://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk/media/117392/management-of-potentially-dangerous-persons-policy.pdf

*****

March 1st, 2015 

  

103B Section 103A: supplemental

"“sexual harm” from a person means physical or psychological harm caused—

(a) by the person committing one or more offences listed in Schedule 3, or

(b) (in the context of harm outside the United Kingdom) by the person doing, outside the United Kingdom, anything which would constitute an offence listed in Schedule 3 if done in any part of the United Kingdom;"

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/schedule/5

*****  

More to follow.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)