Was the VIP paedophile ring a fantasy?

March 27th, 2016 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The Guardian reports:

The police investigation into an alleged VIP paedophile ring that was accused of killing three children has collapsed.

The Metropolitan police confirmed on Monday afternoon that Operation Midland had closed after 16 months of investigation.

The force made a statement shortly after the last living suspect in the inquiry said he had been told he would face no charges. Harvey Proctor, the former Conservative MP, was given the news on Monday afternoon following a conversation between his solicitors and a senior Met officer. …

It is understood the police found no evidence to substantiate claims from a single witness, known only as Nick, that Proctor had murdered two boys and helped to organise the murder of another.

The decision to clear Proctor is a humiliating admission for the Met, which had previously described his accuser’s allegations as “credible and true”.

The high-profile investigation has involved raids on the homes of Proctor, the late Lord Brittan and the war hero Lord Bramall.

While all allegations must be investigated, the huge publicity given to the claims of Nick always seemed baffling to me.

It is quite possible that a British MP or MPs have been pedophiles.

But the idea of an organised ring is the stuff of fantasy. If you are a pedophile, you are unlikely to share your secret with your opponents (or colleagues).

Operation Midland has been running for 16 months and has cost in excess of £2m as it examines the allegations of one complainant, known as Nick, that a paedophile ring containing powerful establishment figures abused him from the age of seven until he was 16 and was responsible for the murders of three young boys.

It took 2 million pounds to investigate??

As a result of Nick’s allegations officers opened murder inquiries into the killing of three young boys. But they never established the identities of the victims, recovered any bodies or linked the allegations to reports of young boys who had gone missing in the period in question.

So it may all be fantasy. I can’t imagine three kids get murdered and no one notices.

In December 2014, Scotland Yard held a press conference in which they revealed they were investigating the murders of three young boys and the abuse of children which had taken place over a decade at the various locations. Most significantly a senior officer on the homicide command, detective superintendent Kenny McDonald, said the claims by the witness Nick were “credible and true”.

Or incredible and false.

Alfred Vincent

July 30th, 2015 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s longest serving inmate has spent more time behind bars than infamous Nazi Rudolf Hess.

Now 77-year-old Alfred Vincent’s case is heading to the United Nations amid claims he has been wrongly jailed for 40 of the past 47 years.

Auckland-based human rights lawyer Tony Ellis wrote to Vincent last week with news he planned to lodge his case to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention by September.

He said Vincent had spent a disproportionally long stretch behind bars in Canterbury prisons for seven convictions in September 1968 of indecent assault on five boys aged 12 to 14 – offending that carried a maximum jail sentence of seven years. 

At the time, he was sentenced to preventive detention because of six previous convictions for indecencies with boys, which saw him jailed for several years in the mid-1960s.

Well he wasn’t sentenced to seven years. He was sentenced to preventive detention. That’s basically a life sentence.

And note that he has been convicted 13 times of sexual assault on young boys. That to me seems to indicate that preventive detention was the appropriate sentence – there was little indication he would stop if not locked up.

“I think it is appalling in a civil society such as ours that you can lock someone up for 47 years when the finite sentence was for seven years. If you do a double murder, you don’t stay in for half that long. It’s absurd,” Ellis said.

I think it is appalling he molested 13 boys before the community was made safe from him.

A psychologist planned to reassess Vincent this monthfor Ellis’ case, and an Auckland University law student was helping Ellis to wade through about 2000 pages that the Department of Corrections had released on Vincent.

Vincent was due to appear in front of the Parole Board in late August, three years after his last appearance, when the board imposed a three-year postponement order.

“I do want to be released from prison,” he said in his parole assessment report in 2012.

“I don’t have sexual thoughts any more. I get locked up at 7pm every night, I keep to myself and I stay in my cell.”

If he is no longer a threat, he should be released. That is how preventive detention works. But I presume there is a reason the Parole Board have not granted him parole. The fact they have scheduled him to appear only every three years indicates he was not seen as a close call.

In 2012, Fairfax contacted all four of his surviving victims from the 1968 preventive detention charges. Three supported his release.

They’re unlikely to now be his targets.

But as I said if he is truly no longer a risk to the community he should of course be released. But the Parole Board needs to judge that off more that his own assertion that he is safe.

The Westminster allegations

December 19th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Scotland Yard is investigating the alleged murders of three young boys by a VIP paedophile ring after a “credible” witness came forward to detail his abuse at the hands of Conservative politician, police said today.

The man – known only as Nick -has claimed that a Conservative MP murdered a boy during a sex attack, and a second boy was killed by a ring of abusers active in the late 1970s and 80s.

He claims that a third boy was deliberately run down in a car, which he said was a direct warning to him to keep quiet, according to an account given to investigative journalism website Exaro.

Police yesterday appealed for more witnesses to come forward. Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald, the lead officer for the operation, said that Nick had been spoken to by murder detectives and specialist child abuse investigators.

“They and I believe what Nick is saying to be credible and true hence why we are investigating the allegations he has made to us.

“I appeal to men who were subjected to abuse 30 years ago to come forward. We are also investigating the murder of three young boys – we are determined to find answers.”

Nick – whose real name has not been disclosed – has claimed that he was abused from the age of seven to 16 by groups of men, including at parties and at places across London and the Home Counties including military bases.

It sounds too horrific to be true, but you can never be certain. There’s a long history to these allegations, with files having been destroyed etc.

The UK Labour paedophile controversy

March 1st, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Telegraph reports:

Labour deputy leader’s insistence that she has ‘nothing to apologise for’ undermined by former colleague Hewitt’s frank apology

Harriet Harman appeared increasingly isolated over her links to a paedophile group after Patricia Hewitt apologised for her own role in the controversy, saying she had been “naïve and wrong”.

The Labour deputy leader has repeatedly refused to say sorry after it emerged that the National Council for Civil Liberties, where both she and Miss Hewitt worked in the 1970s, had given support to the Paedophile Information Exchange.

Harman is the current Deputy Leader of the UK Labour Party. Hewitt is a former Health Secretary.

Former minister Miss Hewitt’s frank admission that she had “got it wrong” on PIE contrasts sharply with Miss Harman’s insistence that she has “nothing to apologise for”.

As fresh evidence of the NCCL’s support for PIE emerged, Miss Hewitt, who has been abroad for the past 12 days, responded for the first time to criticism of her own role by saying she accepted the blame.

Miss Hewitt, who was general secretary of the NCCL from 1974 to 1983, said: “I take responsibility for the mistakes we made. I got it wrong on PIE and I apologise for having done so.

“NCCL in the 1970s, along with many others, was naive and wrong to accept PIE’s claim to be a ‘campaigning and counselling organisation’ that ‘does not promote unlawful acts’.

“I should have urged the executive committee to take stronger measures to protect NCCL’s integrity from the activities of PIE members and sympathisers and I deeply regret not having done so.”

Hewitt admitting she was wrong is the way to do it.

Meanwhile it emerged that the former Labour MP Bryan Gould was invited to become an honorary vice-president of PIE and said that he had a “good deal of sympathy” for the group’s objectives, despite turning down their offer.

BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme discovered that Mr Gould, a shadow minister during Neil Kinnock’s leadership, was contacted by PIE in the 1970s. He was approached following a speech he made to the Campaign for Homosexual Equality.

In a 1977 letter published by PIE’s in-house magazine, he said: “Yours is an unpopular cause and whilst I have a good deal of sympathy for your objectives, I do not think it would be fair to my wife and family for me to take a public stand on it… I’m sorry to have to send you such a disappointing reply.”

So in the letter he wrote at the time, he said he has a good deal of sympathy for the objectives of the Paedophile Information Exchange. Astonishing. Their aim was to abolish the age of consent to legalise sex between adults and children.

Mr Gould told the BBC that he did not remember the correspondence but had never had the slightest sympathy for paedophiles or any involvement with PIE

If he has never had any sympathy why did he write a letter saying he had a good deal of sympathy for their objectives? Is he saying the letter is a fake?

So very wrong

September 7th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Phil Kitchin at Stuff writes:

Two victims of a serial paedophile fighting to keep his name secret will ask a judge to lift suppression of their names, as they join a legal battle to prevent the man getting compensation for an alleged privacy breach.

The women are furious that taxpayers will fund the Office of Human Rights Proceedings’ prosecution of the Sensible Sentencing Trust for revealing the predator’s name – but it won’t fund a lawyer to represent them.

One victim said she and fellow taxpayers were paying for a paedophile to continue “the abuse”, because he still denied his guilt, despite his multiple sex convictions.

It beggared belief that an independent office from within the Human Rights Commission was fighting to protect his privacy – and wanted him compensated – when no court record existed of him having final name suppression, the women said.

“He robbed me of my childhood and murdered my innocence,” one of them told The Dominion Post.

They believed the man was “cowardly” for trying to keep his name secret, saying paedophiles who did not admit their crimes usually reoffended, and there could be other victims who had not spoken to police.

“Robbers and murderers don’t get name suppression, so it’s just as important that these people are stopped,” one victim said. “He has no privacy – he gave up his right to privacy when he abused innocent young girls and was convicted in a court of law.”

The paedophile – who was earning about $150,000 a year in a chief executive role until he was outed – said in a sworn statement that he did not commit the crimes for which he was convicted in the mid-1990s and sentenced to a year’s jail.

If there is no court record of name suppression, I do not see how one can just assume the man had name suppression, and hence assume that the sensible Sentencing Trust have breached his privacy.

Hopefully never to be seen again

May 8th, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A judge has condemned a serial paedophile’s offending as horrific and utterly depraved as he sentenced him to preventive detention for at least 20 years.

Justice Edwin Wylie said a finite prison sentence would not be sufficient to protect society from Aaron Ellmers, and “I have no confidence that you are motivated to try to rehabilitate yourself”.

He said Ellmers, 41, had failed to address his offending, lacked remorse and there was a very real risk that he would continue to sexually assault young boys.

The Hastings truck driver sat motionless, his head bowed throughout his sentencing in the High Court at Napier yesterday.

Crown lawyer Steve Manning said Ellmers’ offending was “so serious and so disturbing” that preventive detention – an indefinite sentence that can be imposed on offenders convicted of serious sexual or violent offences – was required to protect the public.

Mr Manning read from a psychiatric report which said Ellmers’ “benign presentation conceals a callous nature where his focus is on solely satisfying his own deviant sexual needs with no consideration for the rights of his victims”.

His skill at obtaining trust and grooming victims probably “provides him with a measure of pride and satisfaction”.

Ellmers befriended parents with the intention of obtaining their trust and grooming their sons for sex. His victims were aged 3 and 9 when he began abusing them.

He crushed sleeping pills on their desserts to stupefy them. He used a camera to record his offending and emailed it to others. Many charges relate to objectionable material involving children as young as 6 months.

Ellmers is the type of offender preventive detention was invented for. The minimum non-release period will see him inside until he is at least 61, but I would not be surprised if he is not released until he is extremely old and feeble as he seems unable or at least unwilling to change.

Clarification on the paedophile privacy case

April 15th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Steven Price blogs:

I confess I’m entirely befuddled by the Dominion Post’s front-page lead on Saturday, “Prosecution for breaching paedophile’s rights”. Can someone help me out here?

Isn’t the story conflating the Commission with the Office of Human Rights Proceedings, an independent office within the HRC? But why is the Office of Human Rights Proceedings bringing a “prosecution”? Does the DomPost mean a claim before the Human Rights Review Tribunal (it seems so, since it mentions the Tribunal later on)? That’s not a prosecution, which is a criminal action.

Or is it a charge that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has breached name suppression? Now, that would be a criminal prosecution, but why isn’t it being brought by the police?

If it’s a Human Rights Proceedings Office case, it sounds like a Privacy Act claim, and not a charge for breach of name suppression at all (some of the language in the story suggests it’s about the Privacy Act, though the Act gets barely a mention in the story). That would also suggest that the Privacy Commissioner has already been involved and either refused to uphold the complaint or couldn’t reach a settlement with the Sensible Sentencing Trust. That would be interesting to know.

And the Human Rights Commission has clarified:

A story published by The Dominion Post on Saturday 6 April “Prosecution for breaching pervert’s rights” and on Stuff.co.nz requires clarification.

The statement that the Human Rights Commission plans to prosecute the Sensible Sentencing Trust needs to be clarified.

The Director of Human Rights Proceedings is instituting proceedings under the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act requires the Director, at his discretion, to make the decision as to whether to institute proceedings.

The Director of Human Rights Proceedings is acting on a referral from the Privacy Commissioner that the Sensible Sentencing Trust interfered with an individual’s privacy.

This is quite important info. As far as I can tell, this matter doesn’t involve any of the Human Rights Commissioners. The agency that appears to be behind this issue is the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

This whole issue is quite convoluted. The man’s identity was actually published in Truth in 2009, and I believe again last week.

A winner for the most repugnant letter

April 15th, 2013 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

I blogged on Friday a collection of the more bizarre and offensives letters against same sex marriage. I thought they were pretty bad, but we have an unparalleled winner in this one:

And what about the current discrimination of paedophiles?  It is a “natural” to them and genuine belief that it is beneficial to young children to experience sex at an early stage and certainly a condition that is definitely “not their fault”. 

First compares homosexuality to pedophilia. The idea of consenting adults seems lost on him or her.

I have met paedophiles who very genuinely love children and can be very caring people. One, whom I’ve known since childhood and who turned himself in to the police then would not visit my home because he was worried that people in the community would smash my windows or attack me for “harbouring” him.

I really don’t think I can add a comment on here.

Deviations from the “norm” are apparent in many conditions. The Dunedin man Weatherston was treated abominably as a mentally ill person. I actually looked up the Oxford dictionary at the time  and found “frenzy”means temporary insanity. Of course it was a dreadful tragedy for the victim and her family but, as matters are with psychiatric illness in N.Z. ,he could not have received medical attention anyway without having come to the attention of the police.

Now they effectively compares homosexuality as a deviation, just like Clayton Weatherston. In fact they are upset about how poor old Clayton was treated. You can’t make this up!

“Understanding” and compassion towards those in society with deviant conditions should apply to ALL conditions -not just homosexuals.”

So the problem is that homosexuals get too much understanding and compassion, and pedophiles and Clayton Weatherston don’t get enough.

I don’t think you could top this letter, if you tried.

Is he a paedophile and a liar?

April 14th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The SST report:

The serial paedophile at the centre of a name suppression stoush between the Human Rights Commission and the Sensible Sentencing Trust appears to have lied on oath about his job status and where he was living.

The man also lied about his identity when approached by the Sunday Star-Times last week.

The paedophile, who claims he has name suppression for sexually assaulting young girls but cannot produce a court record to prove it, denied he was the man in question when confronted at his workplace.

The man’s lie may be an attempt at damage control because it contradicts a sworn statement he made in support of a bid for interim name suppression being sought by the commission.

Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the paedophile’s statement, sworn earlier this month, said he was living in the Wellington region and was unemployed.

But a source said the man and his partner took over the running of a central North Island motel about 14 months ago.

Company records show the man described himself as the “manager” of a company believed to be leasing the motel. Other records list his contact phone number as the same as the motel’s.

Yet the Human Rights Commission is using taxpayer money to take legal action against the Sensible Sentencing Trust for revealing he is a paedophile.

If there was some proof of a suppression order, then of course it should be obeyed. But to take action against the Sensible Sentencing Trust purely on the basis of the paedophile’s allegations that he has name supression is outraegous.

The fact that there is now evidence that the paedophile is also a liar, may cause the Human Rights Commission to reconsider the wisdom of taking him at his word.

Neither the commission nor the paedophile have been able to produce a court record to show the man was granted name suppression but documents from the commission show it is largely relying on the paedophile’s word that his name is suppressed.

The commission said a newspaper report of the man’s sentence of a year’s jail in 1995, for five counts of doing indecent acts on girls aged 10 and 14, did not name him.

The man had interim name suppression, but there is no record of it having been made permanent.

An interim name suppression application for the man, who, it is understood, has already received a payout of about $15,000 from police after his police record was anonymously sent to the trust, will be heard on Wednesday in the Auckland District Court.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust repeatedly told the commission it would not publish the man’s details if he could show he had name suppression.

A very reasonable position.

The Human Wrongs Commission?

April 6th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Phil Kitchin at Stuff reports:

The Human Rights Commission plans to prosecute the Sensible Sentencing Trust for breaching a serial paedophile’s privacy.

I’m speechless.

It stems from the trust printing the man’s name and details of his offending on its website. The commission says this breaches his privacy because the trust does not mention that he has name suppression.

However, neither the paedophile nor the commission have been able to supply a court record to prove he has name suppression.

Which is rather important. I don’t think taking the paedophile’s word for it is a good idea.

In January, the present commission director, Robert Kee, wrote to the trust saying it had not ensured it was publishing accurate information when it put the paedophile’s convictions on its website.

Publishing the information without referring to “the fact there is a suppression order” breached the man’s privacy, Mr Kee said.

But three paragraphs later, Mr Kee said he agreed with a judge’s minute that said there is “no record on the file of a final suppression order” being made.

He said the sentencing judge’s written decision was missing, but he believed the Human Rights Review Tribunal “could find on the balance of probabilities that there was a suppression order”.

Balance of probabilities? Not good enough. If you can’t find one, there isn’t one.

On one side of the case is the taxpayer-funded Human Rights Commission, which includes the Office of Human Rights Proceedings and prosecutes cases under the Privacy Act.

On the other side is the Sensible Sentencing Trust, staffed by volunteers and funded by donations.

In the middle is the convicted paedophile, a 58-year-old Wellington man whose offending is alleged to have spanned 14 years.

He was jailed for a year in 1995 on five counts of committing indecent acts on two girls aged 10 and 14.

At the same trial he was acquitted of a further two charges of rape and four charges of indecent assault on young girls.

Twenty years earlier he was charged and acquitted in three separate rape trials.

He also has a conviction for careless driving causing death.

The man lost his job as a chief executive when members of his organisation learned of his sex offending. Documents obtained by The Dominion Post from members of the organisation said he had access to children in his work and had lied about being employed when he was in prison.

I know which side I am on. If this proceeds, I’ll be happy to solicit donations from readers for the Sensible Sentencing Trust on this issue. You don’t have to agree with everything the SST says or does to be appalled by this prosecution.

Beyond belief

February 6th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A paedophile caught in a nationwide operation offered to pay a man $500 to experience ”sexual gratification” with a young boy, according to a police court summary.

The paedophile, Aaron Ellmers, 41, appeared in Hastings District Court this morning and pleaded guilty to a raft of child sex offences that the Crown has described amongst the country’s worst.

One of the offences involved Ellmers travelling to Christchurch where a man had offered an 18-month-old boy to him for $500.

The father was arrested and is facing charges related to the incident. He has name suppression.

I almost can’t believe that a father could sell sexual favours with his infant son. That is a degree of inhumanity that I just can not fathom.

I hope the father gets a jail sentence as long as the paedophile.

Ellmers had served a prison sentence in Australia before being deported to New Zealand.

He lived in Australia between 1999 and 2008. In 2004 he sexually abused an 8-year-old boy, whom he had groomed after befriending his parents.

He served five years in prison and was deported back to New Zealand in 2008.

In court this morning Crown lawyer Steve Manning said it was among the worst offending of its kind. He asked for the matter to be moved to the High Court as an application for preventative detention would be made.

Good. Sounds like a no brainer.

I was debating with my flatmate this morning which of the two is more evil and should be tortured for longer before being executed. We agreed the father is slightly more evil.

Jimmy Savile

October 29th, 2012 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

I’ve not blogged on this to date, as the media has been all over it. But the sheer scale of the revelations are worth commenting on.

Saville, or Sir James as he was a Knight Commander of the Order of St Gregory (Papal Knight).  He was also a member of Mensa.

A journalist tweeted that the UK Police has 10 officers investigating his alleged 400 cases of sexual abuse, and over 100 officers investigating journalists for listening to voicemail messages!

He is dead now, but the question is how he got away with it for so long. The Police interviewed him in 2007 oevr allegations, and in 2000 he talked about how some people claim he is a pedophile. A pity his denials did not get investigated. Likewise his defence of Gary Glitter in 2009 should have rung warning bells. He was first investigated back in 1958 it seems!

The BBC first heard of the rumours in 1973, and asked for a report on them. Nothing happened. And of course the BBC canned one of its own programmes in late 2011 that would have reported on the allegations.

There are half a dozen different investigations into Saville, the BBC and the health service (he has access to young patients and often abused them). I suspect in today’s Internet age, he would have been called out much sooner on.



We need a unique identifier number

August 27th, 2012 at 6:52 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Severe deficiencies in the law are giving criminals “a simple means for identity theft” by making it easy to change their names, an investigation has revealed.

Former ombudsman Mel Smith uncovered the loopholes while investigating how convicted paedophile Te Rito Henry Miki was able to teach at six schools. …

The inquiry into the employment of Miki found he was easily able to steal the identity of a registered teacher friend, who emigrated to Australia in 2009, and to adopt his teacher registration.

Miki – who accumulated 53 separate aliases – subsequently applied to the office of the registrar-general to change his friend’s name to another identity.

Name change applicants only have to supply a statutory declaration, sworn before a court official, lawyer or justice of the peace – who needs only to ask if the contents are accurate. The applicant is not required to present verification of authentication or any other supporting documents to the registrar-general. …

The registrar-general is not required to inform the Passport Office, Customs or Immigration of a name change. If the relevant agencies had been notified, then when the friend first returned to New Zealand in September 2009 “the theft of identity would have become known and acted on at that time”, the report said.

Miki was arrested in February and was jailed for about four years.

Mr Smith said an average of 7375 people changed their name every year.

“Most of those, I’m sure, would be for perfectly proper and lawful reasons but . . . unfortunately New Zealand society is not as honest as it used to be.”

There was anecdotal evidence an official name change was available to people who wanted to get past the border “having legal obligations here, whether that’s child support, unpaid fines or even something much more serious”, he said.

I think there is a simple solution – like in the US. Every individual is assigned a unique identity number. Then you can change your name to whatever you like, but it will be linked to your UIN, which means pedophiles will not be able to get jobs in schools no matter what name they change to.

You’d need some privacy restrictions on which government agencies can access your UIN and identity for which reasons, but that shouldn’t be a reason not to allow the Government to accurately identify people for legitimate reasons.

Hopefully not approved treatment

August 21st, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The West Auckland resident said he recorded the meeting because he did not like some of the probation officer’s comments.

In the recording the officer talks about the difficulty of managing people on home detention for ”pretty sick crimes” who ”still have a need for, for instance, child sex”.

Referring to one case he says: ”I’m not able to supply them with child sex but we’ve worked out a plan where, hey, we’ll go out to get a prostitute who comes to the house and she dresses up as a child.”

I’m glad the probation service doesn’t actually provide child sex to pedophiles – just prostitutes dressed up as children. That makes me feel so much better about paying my taxes.

I guess if the offender was in for bestiality, the officer would hire a prostitute to dress up as a horse, and if for necrophilia he’d try to hire a zombie prostitute.

Note I’ve got no problem with paedophiles hiring consenting adult prostitutes dressed up as whatever they want. But I’d rather it wasn’t taxpayer funded!

A disgusting headline

November 19th, 2010 at 4:12 pm by David Farrar

In contrast to his useful policy focused post, a more recent blog post goes down to the depths from Trevor:

Anne Tolley doesn’t care about sex criminals looking after children

From the Shadow Education Minister, this is disgusting and a reminder as to why Labour should not be in Government – if this is their idea of debate.

The Education Amendment Bill currently before the house removes the obligation to get a Police check for people who look after babies and young children unsupervised at gyms and mall childcare services.

Labour may have over-regulated but this goes too far.

Labour massively over-regulated. They forced creches at gyms to register as early childhood education centres, have qualified teaching staff etc – including the Police check.

The reality is a creche at a gym is not a school, or part of the educational infrastructure. They are a babysitting service. They allow a mum to use the gym and have someone look after their kids for 60 minutes.

One can have a sensible debate about whether or not gym creches should be required by law to do police checks on their creche staff. But to effectively accuse the Minister of being indifferent to paedophilia is again disgusting.

Personally I’m not at all sure there is a need. Labour sounds like they want to go down the route of the UK where you can’t even be an occassional parent helper for sports or scouts without a Police check.

Have any kids ever been molested by a staff member while their mother is exercising at the gym? I mean, what is the problem to be solved here?

Do we only require police checks for babysitters at gyms? How about for all babysitters and nannys? Maybe we need a Department of Babysitters to register and monitor them?

The Scouts have a policy of getting police checks on all new leaders. This is very sensible, as sadly youth groups do attract paedophiles. But Scouts are not required to do this by law. Are gym creche staff a bigger risk than scout leaders?

If there is evidence that not having mandatory police checks on gym creche staff has led to children being molested, then I can be persuaded that it may be a sensible idea. But can’t we hold that debate without Labour MPs asserting that the Minister of Education (herself a parent) doesn’t care if sex criminals look after children.

Now it gets really dirty

September 14th, 2008 at 1:41 pm by David Farrar

Prog Blog is an unofficial blog on behalf of Jim Anderton’s Progressives.

Last week they did a blog post about a quote from John Key saying “Young people are a group I’m passionate about”.

They commented beneath that

“So is Gary Glitter”

The post has now been deleted but it is still in Google Cache.

Someone e-mailed me this a few days ago but I only noticed the e-mail today. Some other blogs highlighted this earlier.

Hmmn, and even though the page has been deleted, it still shows up on their main site.

I think media should be asking the Hon Jim Anderton who writes Prog Blog for them, and does he condone comparing John Key to paedophile? Will someone offer an apology at the very least?

People said this would be a very dirty campaign, but not even I thought it would be that dirty.

Words fail me

June 8th, 2008 at 7:26 am by David Farrar

The Herald on Sunday reports on paedophile Graham Capill:

Before being sentenced, Capill emailed friends arguing that sex with one victim was “consensual” and he hoped to be released a third of the way into his sentence.

But supporter and Richmond New Life Church elder Chris Baigent told the Herald on Sunday that was no longer Capill’s view.

It never is as parole hearings loom.

There had been some talk his offending could be categorised as “adultery” but that was more people twisting the situation rather than any view Capill held himself, Baigent said.

I think words fail me.

Capill kept in regular touch with his wife and she and some of his children were regular visitors to the prison.

“She is standing alongside him all the way. She has kept the family going and he will be welcome back into the marriage relationship when he gets out,” he said.

“The younger children miss him terribly. They are really neat kids – you couldn’t wish for a better family of kids.”

Words fail me even more.

Baigent said that two of Capill’s older children had got married while he was in prison, which had been “really tough” for the former Christian leader who wasn’t able to attend the weddings.

And am now in stunned silence.