22nd June, 2015
Suspected paedophile lured to house and had phone forcibly inserted into his bottom
"TWO people from East Lancashire have confessed to plotting to carry out an attack on a suspected paedophile in Burnley.
The victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is said to have confessed to having indecent thoughts regarding a young girl.
He then suffered a serious assault as a consequence.
Sophie Louise Cooke, 21, of HS, Nelson, was originally charged with encouraging the commission of a scheduled offence, namely sexual assault, by sending a text to the victim, luring him to an address, to which she had pleaded not guilty.
But prosecutor Emma Kehoe was given permission at Burnley Crown Court to add an offence of conspiracy to commit assault, between March 5 and March 8 this year, to the indictment, which Cook admitted.
Her co-defendant Stephen Daniel Holmes, 23 of no fixed address, appeared before the court via a video link to Forest Bank Prison, near Salford.
Holmes, who was represented in court by defence counsel Simon Gurney, also admitted the conspiracy to assault charge and the theft of a mobile phone from the same victim."
Permission-giving thoughts relating to child sexual exploitation material offending
“The children in the images were not harmed”:
"Following on from the recent blog post detailing the development of the Children, Internet, and Sex Cognitions (CISC) scale, this post will further explore the findings from this research, focusing on the permission-giving thoughts endorsed by individuals with an offence related to child sexual exploitation material (CSEM).
The figure below provides examples of permission-giving thoughts endorsed by individuals with a child sex offence, as identified by Ward and Keenan (1999). A starting point in the research that colleagues and I carried out was to explore whether these thoughts can be applied to individuals with a CSEM related offence."
***** Published 24 Dec 2010; DOI: 10.1348/135532506X114608; Volume 11 Issue 2 (September 2006), Pages 155-339
A Fundamental Attribution Error? Rethinking Cognitive Distortions
"The notion of ‘cognitive distortion’ has become enshrined in the offender treatment literature over the last 20 years, yet the concept still suffers from a lack of definitional clarity.
In particular, the umbrella term is often used to refer to offence‐supportive attitudes, cognitive processing during an offence sequence, as well as post‐hoc neutralisations or excuses for offending.
Of these very different processes, the last one might be the most popular and problematic.
Treatment programmes for offenders often aim to eliminate excuse‐making as a primary aim, and decision‐makers place great weight on the degree to which an offender “takes responsibility” for his or her offending.
Yet, the relationship between these after‐the‐fact explanations and future crime is not at all clear. Indeed, the designation of post hoc excuses as criminogenic may itself be an example of fallacious thinking. After all, outside of the criminal context, post hoc excuse‐making is widely viewed as normal, healthy, and socially rewarded behaviour.
We argue that the open exploration of contextual risk factors leading to offending can help in the identification of criminogenic factors as well as strengthen the therapeutic experience.
Rather than insist that offenders take “responsibility” for the past, we suggest that efforts should focus on helping them take responsibility for the future, shifting the therapeutic focus from post hoc excuses to offence‐supportive attitudes and underlying cognitive schemas that are empirically linked to re‐offending."
March 20, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0306624X11402945 Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol May 2012 vol. 56 no. 3 465-482
Making Sense, Making Good, or Making Meaning? Cognitive Distortions as Targets of Change in Offender Treatment
"Abstract
Most structured sex-offender programs are based on a cognitive-behavioural model of behaviour change.
Within this overarching theoretical paradigm, extensive use of cognitive distortions is seen as a central core symptom among sex offenders.
However, the literature on cognitive distortions lacks a clear and consistent definition of the term.
It is unclear whether cognitive distortions are consciously employed excuses or unconscious processes serving to protect the offender from feelings of guilt or shame.
In this article, the dominant cognitive-behavioural interpretation of cognitive distortions is contrasted with two alternative interpretations.
One is based on an attributional perspective and the notion of attributional biases.
The other explanation is based on a narrative approach focusing on the action elements of cognitive distortions, that is, as something people do rather than something they have.
Clinical implications of these alternative conceptualizations are discussed and illustrated throughout by a case example."
Received: 20 Aug 2012 Accepted: 28 Feb 2014 Published online: 07 Apr 2014
The Endorsement of Cognitive Distortions: Comparing Child Pornography Offenders and Contact Sex Offenders
Friday, 5 June, 2015 A DECENT NEW FILM BY DAVID KENNERLY
"There’s a fantastic new film out today but I have a bit of a problem if I try to big it up too much. It’s the greatest thing you’ll ever see but I can’t say so on account of an embarrassing personal detail, namely that I have an – ahem, excuse me – starring role! So that’s why I am mentioning it only down-page rather than giving it top billing. On this occasion I am quite happy to play second fiddle even to Stinson Hunter!
The real star of A Decent Life: The Dissenting Narrative of Tom O’Carroll, is the director, David Kennerly, who has miraculously managed to turn the pig’s ear of my discarded interview last year for Testimony Films into the silk purse of a 11-part, all-singing, all-dancing (well, not by me!) epic, which is launched today and can be seen on YouTube. The segments are each just a few minutes long, hence easily viewed at separate sittings, while the complete work is a little over 68 minutes.
David, as those who have been around at Heretic TOC since the inception will know, has been a guest blogger here a couple of times, debuting in 2013 with a piece about his childhood in the American Midwest and returning last year to warn about the menacing advance of securocratic government.
He studied at film school and has been involved professionally in film production. I didn’t know this background, but when he was liaising with me to make A Decent Life (his title not mine, in case you’re wondering, and I like it) it became obvious to me he has the relevant skills.
David first went to work on the audio of the Testimony Films interview last year, producing Stitching Up Steve Humphries, Humphries being the guy who conducted an interview on behalf of Testimony, which, in the light of what happened later, appears to have been designed to stitch me up as the interviewee. In making his pitch to me, Humphries had come across as a very sympathetic figure, emphasising his background as a social historian, and his interest in hearing a diverse range of views on sexuality, including mine.
The interview was to be part of a documentary on paedophilia he was making for Channel 4 called The Paedophile New Door. When this was aired, however – without any footage from his interview with me – it became overwhelmingly clear his position had all along been fundamentally hostile to mine. It looks as though he ditched my contribution because he had failed to trick me into saying anything that would discredit me: his would-be stitch-up had unravelled.
What David did was to turn the tables on Humphries, stringing together the audio of all his questions but without giving a word of my responses. This cleverly exposed his stitch-up tactics for what they were.
In A Decent Life, by contrast, he has done the exact opposite. This time we hear not a peep from Humphries. Instead, he has given full rein to my responses without them being butchered to quote me out of context or otherwise discredit my contribution.
I like the result and I hope you will. If you agree A Decent Life is a good film, please Tweet about it or give it a plug wherever you can, online via the social media or elsewhere. Thanks!"
Ms Lewis said that while she could “really understand the concern parents might have if there were convicted sex offenders living in the community” it was still important to resist any temptations to give in to mob mentality.
“I think we need to take a deep breath and stand back and a look at what is the best way to protect children,” she said.
The man attacked in the video has been widely identified in the press and on social media – by radio show hosts to politicians in recent weeks – and Chris asked Ms Lewis what the knock on effect of that could be.
“I suspect what will happen is that man is going to go underground and that is when he will be most dangerous,” she said.
“All the research shows right around the world that if we are to keep children safe, the sex offenders we know, be they convicted or not, need a number of things – they need not to be living in isolation.
“They need support from the community, they need to have meaningful work and they need to be managed by the statutory services.
“The guards, the probation officers, social workers need to know where they are and keep an eye on them.”"
Stinson Hunter style vigilante paedophile-hunting gangs increase - leading figures speak out
"LEADING figures from around the area have spoken out over the rise of vigilante paedophile [sic] hunting groups.
The group Dark Justice has been making headlines recently in Newcastle upon Tyne, by posing as 13-year-old girls to trick men into meeting with them.
By working with the police, they have been able to secure several prosecutions against paedophiles [sic].
The practice is not illegal, though some have questioned its morality while others have warned about the risks to the people involved and of jeopardising prosecutions."
First published Monday 2 March 2015: Last updated 08:22 Tuesday 3 March 2015
Photographer acquitted of trying to make money by taking pictures of convicted sex offenders
"A PHOTGRAPHER accused of trying to take pictures of two convicted sex offenders in Bradford and Keighley to make money has been acquitted.
Andrew Stone was found not guilty on charges of fraud and blackmail by a judge after prosecutors offered no evidence on the day he was due to stand trial, having denied the offences.
However, he was given an indefinite restraining order and criticised by the judge for his behaviour.
"Under the terms of the restraining order, Mr Stone cannot make direct or indirect contact with certain people or take or publish their photograph."
"Despite Mr Stone’s acquittal, Judge Pearson refused his application for £600 costs, saying “his behaviour is such that in my view it offends against principles of fairness and justice” and described his behaviour as “questionable”, “reprehensible” and “far from blameless”."
"“His behaviour in attempting to obtain photographs in some cases was devious,” he added."
"Judge Pearson also said he was not convinced that Mr Stone, of AR, St D, Southampton, was motivated solely by reasons of public good."
"Judge Pearson told Portsmouth Crown Court today that punishment of sex offenders was for the courts."
"“It’s right and proper that the public is protected from sex offenders,” he added.
“It’s also right and proper that all offenders including sex offenders have the right to be rehabilitated, providing the public isn’t put at risk.”"
"Andrew Stone, 46, of AR, St D, has been charged with two counts of handling stolen goods and will appear before Southampton Magistrates on December 7."
'What a sly b**** making money off my back': Gazza rages at ex in 12-hour Twitter meltdown
"Yesterday, during online rants that went on for more than 12-hours, he also poured scorn on photographer Andy Stone who he accused of “stalking” and being in cahoots with his ex.
Gazza claimed he had called the police about the pair but last night officers said they were not involved in any enquiries concerning the star."
Published: 10:25, 21 May 2015 | Updated: 00:51, 22 May 2015
Paul Gascoigne, Sadie Frost and Shane Ritchie win big payouts from Mirror Group Newspapers as judge awards eight phone-hacking victims more than £1.2million damages
Restraining Orders - Section 5, Protection from Harassment Act 1997
"Principles
"Following the implementation of section 12 of the DVCVA 2004, restraining orders may be made on conviction or acquittal for any criminal offence. These orders are intended to be preventative and protective. The guiding principle is that there must be a need for the order to protect a person or persons. A restraining order is therefore preventative, not punitive.
Restraining orders can only be made in respect of the defendant (not the victim or any witness), even if evidence in the course of a trial indicates that the behaviour of both the defendant and the victim requires addressing.
The test to be applied by the court before making an order is whether an order is necessary to protect the persons named in it from harassment or conduct that will put them in fear of violence. This necessitates an evaluation by the court of the evidence before it. It will require the court to determine whether there is sufficient evidence in front of it to enable it to form a view that an order is necessary. Restraining orders are civil behaviour orders and therefore the standard of proof is a civil one (R v Major [2010] EWCA Crim 3016)."
As Mr Stone is now, indefinitely and officially, potentially dangerous, to members of the public, he will be continued to be monitored, as we do for any such person.
