I recently posted on Ally Fogg’s blog (a Guardian journalist for those who don’t know him) in his thread “No excuses: Yewtree, the stars and the victim-blaming“. I criticised him because he justified imprisonment for men having consensual relationships with underage girls. His views were made clear in that he supported punishment for consensual sex criminal Jeremy Forrest. I quote him thus:
Even if in any one case there is no reason to believe the victim was in any way coerced, pressurised or damaged by the experience, there is still an overwhelming need to protect children from the risks of predatory exploitation when they are, by definintion, unable to give fully informed and mature consent to anyone, least of all a teacher or another person in a position of authority or respect.
It seems clear to me that his views are based on the principle that “it is better for 10 innocent Witches to be Condemned than for 1 guilty Witch to go free”, the exact opposite of Blackstone’s Formulation which was, until recently, seen as a cornerstone of modern, humane, justice systems.
I’ll give him his due in that he did not immediately delete my comment and did reply. However, this is probably in part because he knew that my response to him would end up on my blog anyway. After a tussle with some of his supporters who kept attacking me, making me feel compelled to reply, he banned me in the end anyway. He chose an interesting moment to ban me as he conveniently waited for one of his supporters to accuse me of paedophilia, at which point I obviously had to accuse him back. Ally of course didn’t like the truth to be revealed that those who claim to be against paedophiles are often paedophiles themselves. So I’ll repost my deleted post here:
No, your problem is that your brain is geared towards finding excuses to put people away. Mine is geared towards not putting people away. So if a so-called ‘victim’ says they are happy with something then it’s obviously WRONG to put the defendant away. If they are not happy then that doesn’t automatically mean it’s OK to put the defendant away – other factors like the defendant’s motivations, criminal intent, evidence as well as proportionality should come into play. Also the RIND study did not mention that those who had negative experiences felt their ‘abusers’ should go to prison – many may have felt that would be inappropriately excessive. Indeed, Richard Dawkins, for instance, has spoken out about his sexual abuse and stated that it did him no harm.
Fundamentally you are doing away with the principle that “It is better that ten guilty Witches escape than one Innocent Person be Condemned” which was previously a key principle underlying a lot of human rights legislation – but today that principle is being forgotton. You would rather throw an obviously harmless man like Jeremy Forrest to the wolves ‘just incase’.
As for your personal attack on me, that sort of thing is childish, pathetic and only proves that I’m right and you’re wrong. Those who try to close down the debate usually have the most to hide. Your kind of attack is all too common and the #1 reason why paedohysteria does not receive wider criticism. Indeed, those who have historically stood up against paedohysteria and tried to call for a more rational debate have been jailed. Take for example Tom O’Carroll who was jailed for ‘corrupting public morals’ in a highly politicised campaign of terror designed to end legitimate debate. Or take for example the police action against Jim Bates for daring to give legal help to those accused of possessing child pornography, which, by the way, included the police deliberately dumping child porn on his hard drive in order to frame him. Or indeed, the case of David Stanley who was also raided and made a police target for daring to help those wrongly accused of child porn possession – in despair at the nightmarish nature of the police state, he committed suicide. Infact, even as we speak, I just wrote an article on how Stephen Fry recently spoke up against Operation Yewtree and quickly the child protection lobby made a veiled threat against him that they would accuse him of paedophilia: https://holocaust21.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/peter-saunders-of-napac-makes-veiled-threat-to-stephen-fry/
If you want to play childish games though, then I can play too. We’ve seen convictions of people like Max Clifford, who was prolific in his jailing of paedophiles like Gary Glitter and Jonathan King. We’ve also seen Rolf Harris jailed who made his documentary ‘Kids Can Say No’ in 1985. And indeed the arrest of Patrick Rock, Cameron’s aide who helped craft anti-pornography legislation. So there’s a growing body of evidence that those who condemn other men as paedophiles are often infact paedophiles themselves. Perhaps that applies to you, too?