We Need to talk about your accidental paedophilia...

Thank heavens I'm not a parent.  The world seems an increasingly dangerous place and like those packets of peanuts with the notice: 'Warning, May Contain Nuts', parents perhaps feel increasingly obliged to warn their children of the perils they might face.  We live, or so it seems, in the age of warnings.

Technology is probably on that list, but what of mobile devices and their cameras?  This little story reports on a recent incident in the US suggests that despite the permeation of warnings about the use of technology, young people act in such a way as to seemingly ignore such caution.

A 21 year old male is accused of distributing paedophile images via Facebook.  The photos were taken at a rave and feature a 16 year old girl having sex with a 'young' man.  According to the story, 'the young man and young women were having sex in a field in open view of the crowd at the rave. Multiple bystanders, upon seeing them in flagrante delicto, rushed over to take pictures, as one witness testified, with such frequency that camera flashes were popping “like lightning.”

The images were arguably not intended to sexually arouse, but rather were part of a joke, but the ease with which child pornography can today be produced is astonishing, and transforms young people - and unwitting viewers (such as this guys friends on Facebook) into paedophiles as far as the law is concerned.

In doing so, this also serves to deconstruct our collective concept of what a paedophile is - and should legally, culturally, politically - be.  Instead, this seems to feed into what seems to be a growing moral panic surrounding the sexting phenomenon (although, see some interesting socio-legal news coming out of Australia today on this).

The Sex(y) Boy and Treasure Island Media

The controversial TIM poster

If you consider yourself the most controversial bareback porn company in the world, how to stay in the news?  How do you remain 'controversial'?  In practical terms this arguably means being ever more outrageous, more shocking and more scandalous.  A remorseless engine of filth and depravity.  Yet, rather like Jaws: The Revenge, there comes a point when things just don't work anymore.  It's a sequel too far.

I'm not sure we're there with Treasure Island Media (TIM) yet - they are a loved brand which continues to operate in the counter-cultural space of bareback sex - but the pressure is undoubtedly there to keep being controversial.

Yet, any such pressure could be ephemeral or indeed, misguided.  As long as legislators and judges keep seeking to use law as a tool to limit, and potentially criminalise bareback sex, TIM will be able to claim the role as counter-cultural icons.  Given the widespread practising of bareback sex within same-sex encounters, they are also able to be 'popular' counter-cultural icons.  A double win.

Moreover, simply being there and being the celebrated stuff of masturbatory sessions across the globe is not, and has never been enough for TIM (NSFW).  I was therefore fascinated to see them seek to associate themselves with another taboo act in recent weeks.  The taboo of taboos.  The big daddy of controversy.  Yes, inter-generation sex.

Legally defined typically as paedophilia when involving children, inter-generational sex remains the social horror of our time.  To label someone as a paedophile is to pronounce them socially and potentially physically dead.  They are transformed into the ultimate evil within society.  Our understanding of paedophilia is increasingly nebulous, encompassing someone who accidentally downloads a paedophile image alongside another who rapes a child.  Whilst we can accept that someone might want to watch The Sopranos and not seek to become a mob boss, Weeds and become a (fairly useless) drug dealer with cute kids or Hung and seek to become a wooden (in every sense) male escort, or indeed, even if we aspire to any of these things, we won't actually do it; we can not contemplate even curiosity around the image of someone under 18 years old.  This is is despite English law finding is acceptable to sleep with someone aged above 16 (shag 'em, just don't take a picture).  It is indeed a curious socio-legal landscape.

The original Edelfelt painting

Yet, despite this, I've been struck by the way in which social media - notable Twitter most recently - has enabled those aged below 18 and indeed, below 16 to express their sexual desires, arrange hook-ups and document their sexual encounters.  Similarly, uncertainty and fears are sometimes expressed.  In short, human beings and their complex sexual awakenings are laid bare.

Into this fascinating cultural maelstrom enters TIM, apparently deliberately seeking to play with the issue of age.

At the start of the month, TIM uploaded a poster on their social media sites promoting a new film release entitled Return to Meat Rack (it's a sequel but hopefully better than Jaws IV).  It depicted two boys playing with boats on a lake or by the sea.  The young boys and the composition evokes innocence, a deliberate counter-point to the function of the poster - promoting a film about men fucking.  To date, the postings on Facebook have resulted in 76 comments from TIM followers and fans with a mix of reactions but many are negative, suggesting that TIM have gone 'too far'.

It's through these comments however that we learn (thanks to one culture vulture fan) that the picture is in fact from Albert Edelfelt and a quick Googling reveals the picture to be dated from around 1885, an oil on canvas production and entitled 'Boys playing on the beach' (Leikkiviä poikia rannalla).  Interestingly, there is a third boy in the original picture (see above) who is edited out of the TIM composition.

An earlier TIM poster depicting a 'child'

None of this is entirely new however. TIM previously published rejected posters from years gone by including one allegedly of a young (rather affluent looking) Paul Morris, aged 8 on a scooter (pictured right).  The slogan - which apparently deliberately evokes inter-generational behaviour - states 'A Better World One Boy at a Time'.  Boy is one of those words that can be taken to mean a male child but which is also used extensively - especially in 'gay' circles - to denote a young male - typically twinkish looking which is to say slim, smooth, well errr, boyish.  A twinkly boy is OK to lust after, whilst a real one isn't.

All of which are broad points I've made before but it is TIM utilising the idea of age and hidden desire as a marketing tool which is fascinating and new.

They apparently believe - and I think they are right - that just as homosexuality, then bareback sex were desires which have had complex social and legal relationships, so too is inter-generational sex.  Put simply, they think that gay men probably quite like boys more than we'd care to admit.  Such is the history of claims that homosexuals were out to 'take your children' that once again a silence is imposed for social and political reasons within the gay community - and the point I accept at the start of this paragraph will be toxic for many.

Jackson Taylor

Yet, leaving that aside, there is the less radical, but perhaps no less controversial idea that children can be sexual beings.  This is the revelation that social media already offers to anyone willing to see it, and raising difficult social and legal questions about consent and contemporary domesticity.

Morris has a Flickr page (NSFW) where he uploads some wonderful images freely available to all those who pass through an age barrier.  What always makes these photos so engaging - at least for me - is the use of captioning.  This allow the viewer to be located in the moment and somehow lends greater power to the image.  Much as when we look at a photo we have taken or were present for, we add an inward dimension to the image - context and emotion  - so too, do these captions add something.  His latest model obsession  -and potentially hit - for the studio is a twenty year old man/boy called Jackson Taylor (pictured left).  Morris has uploaded several pictures of Jackson and he comments under one image: 'I said "I'm thinking of signing you on. What do you think?" He responded "If you get me fucked all the time, I'll sign the contract in blood." If you saw him at the next table in a restaurant you'd think he was the picture of innocence and naivete. But this boy is one of the most voracious sexual predators I've ever met. We signed the contract before he'd even put his clothes back on.'

In this and a number of other comments, Jackson is anchored as a sexual being of today. Seeing Jackson getting fucked in Manfuck Manifesto (see more here, possibly NSFW) viewers of TIM pornography are left in no doubt about that sexual status.  Yet, we also have Morris posting on his photos (under the Jackson image reproduced above) the following fascinating text: 'I asked "How old were you when you started fucking?" He said "I was four. I seduced the 12-year-old twins who lived next door." I responded "Precocious--if it's true." He looked at me like this and said "Believe it or not, but it's true." He's 19 and has an understanding of sex that's truly rare.'

So now Jackson is a sexual being since four, and moreover, a sexual predator since four.  There is no question that he is the abused, or the 'victim'.  Defining him as the predator, and Jackson using the term predator - to denote an encounter with older boys - locate him as the individual with power.

This photo on Morris' Flickr page was uploaded on February 12th but it wouldn't have been a total surprise to TIM fans who might have noticed this post (NSFW) on TIM's Island website (this evolved out of their blog) which appeared on February 8th.  It introduces us to Jackson and his story.  It states:

Born in rural Sicily a scant 19 years ago, JACKSON TAYLOR (born Giuseppe Bontade) began his career as a primo fuckisto at the tender age of four. “I knew what I wanted to do from very early on,” says Mr. TAYLOR. “Our neighbors in Sicily had a pair of twins—they were 12. They gave me my first experience, my prima apertura, my grand opening. The affair lasted nearly a year.” Forced to flee their native village by irate clergy and outraged villagers, Mr. TAYLOR’s family took their precocious son to America, land of the free and willing. “Once we reached the Land of Opportunity, it’s pretty much been a straight-up path to Treasure Island Media for me. Of course it’s been my lifelong dream.” When Mr. TAYLOR approached T.I.M., the welcome was warm. “I know genius when I fuck it,” quipped porn legend PAUL MORRIS. “This boy may be slight of stature, but his bunghole can take anything we give it.” When asked about future dreams, Mr. TAYLOR wrinkled his boyish nose, shrugged coquettishly and said, “I dunno… Donkeys and dogs, maybe! And I like cheerleading.” JACKSON seems to be on a mission to take every load in America. We’re not wasting any time helping him! Watch him getting plowed by Ethan Wolfe in his TIM premiere, MANFUCK MANIFESTO.

So, here we have the 12 year old twins again (yes, incest is subtly hinted at too) and then we move into a blurb that seems to have been written by someone who has spent too long watching bad daytime soaps.  It's hard not to raise an eyebrow or a chuckle at the 'forced to flee' section.  This does of course also serve to cast doubt over the whole story but true or otherwise, TIM are making use of it and as with so many things that TIM do, truth as a fixed permanent concept must be abandoned in favour of a postmodern framework.  In the final section of the Jackson blurb we move into the positioning of Jackson as boyish, with innocence deployed to denote youth.  A sex(y) boy clearly and, his media persona suggests, a slutty one at that.

TIM started 2011 with a determination to push HIV positive porn and that - to my surprise - didn't work out.  This year, they are not stating they re trying to push a new area of controversy but there can be little doubt that like the boys in the Edelfelt picture, they are dipping their toes in the water.  This is one to watch with implications well beyond the world of bareback porn.

Child-on-Child Sex Abuse

ABC News features a fascinating AP report on the subject of child-on-child sex abuse.  It's quite a detailed story with some fascinating academic and research insights, highlighting the complexities of this issue.  Whilst society arguably has a clear idea of the 'pedophile' and 'child abuser', cases of child-on-child abuse  disrupt these pre-conceptions, and challenge that totemic concept: childhood innocence.

Read the full story here.

Child Sex Offender Disclosure (CSOD) Scheme in Operation

It's easy to forget about a story once it's dropped out of the headlines.  The introduction of 'Sarah's Law' (like Megan's Law in the USA) enables parents to seek disclosures on whether their new partner has a record of sex offending.  The theory is to make homes safer for children.

One regional newspaper highlighted this week that 53 people in Lancashire made applications about someone their child has close contact with under the Child Sex Offender Disclosure (CSOD) scheme since it came into force on April 1.  The information was provided under the Freedom of Information Act and it will be interesting to see whether they are representative of the national uptake, and whether over say three years, the figures reflect an initial 'surge' of demand or an ongoing level of demand for information.

What it does show is that the scheme is up and running and potentially making an impact on hundreds of families around the country.

Read the full story here.

Truth, Crime and the Hunt for Paedophiles

The Times carries a fascinating piece today revealing that lie detector tests are being used to help to decide whether to charge suspected criminals for the first time in British policing history.  The Times makes clear elsewhere that whilst the tests are 'reliable', they are not 'perfect'.  Check out the Independent take on the story if you don't have access to The Times.

A pilot was conducted by Herefordshire Police who tested 25 'low level' sex offenders.  According to The Times, 'many were exposed as being a higher risk to children than originally thought. A further 12-month trial has been approved to begin in April.'

A separate piece provides detailed exploration of the pilot through a case analysis of 'Michael'.   He was arrested on suspicion of loitering outside a school and following pupils in his car.  Acts which - the Police would surely argue - suggest the intention to commit an offence with those children.  A predator stalking his prey.  Michael denied the allegations but he did admit that he had accessed indecent images over two years and had used search engines to look for young girls.  However, he insisted he had no physical sexual interest in children.

Michael was, it seems, making a distinction between 'desire' and action, between possessing a fantasy and acting upon it.  Law traditionally focuses upon action rather than desire in sexual offences but paedophilia is something of a peculiarity for English criminal law.  For example, the law accepts a sixteen year old can have sex with a forty-nine year old.  Socially, it might be looked upon with disdain but it is legally tolerated.  However, if that 49yo takes a photograph on his phone or a makes a video of the encounter for subsequent sexual succour he has (thanks to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) become a paedophile.  Ta-dah!  In the curious scenario, the 'desire' is condemned more than the actual consensual act.  Go figure.

In the case of Michael, Detectives found 'low-level' images in his bedroom but a search of his computer and other storage media did not turn up anything on top of admissions that Michael, 56, had already made.  So, the Police strapped him to a polygraph in a bid to obtain further answers.  Arguably, the investigation would have ended there without the polygraph - although it's not entirely clear. Michael disclosed for the first time that he had communicated with children online for a sexual purpose. He said that he had seen young girls on webcam sites, and had asked them to perform sexual acts while he watched. Michael issued denials to a series of questions including whether he had engaged in physical sexual contact with children and whether he had tried to arrange a meeting with someone younger for a sexual purpose. He also denied taking any images of children for a sexual purpose or distributing indecent images of children. The polygraph detected strong deception in his answers to all of those questions. Consequently, Michael was deemed to be a higher risk than first thought and the investigation into his activities was prioritised. He was removed from the polygraph testing trial as it is for low-level offenders only.

What does this mean?  Michael's been deemed a higher risk in the absence of evidence and 'risk' is not an offence per se (although presumably from the material they found, they had enough to charge him anyway).  What subsequently happened to Michael is unknown insofar as it is not explained in the piece.

There is an assumption that having been regarded as a 'higher risk', he will - at the very least - be monitored more closely than he might otherwise be, but quite where that mandate comes from legally is questionable.  Even if one sets that aside, there is an assumption that resources for these support mechanisms are adequate when we know they're not.  Voluntary groups are few and far between as the general public are far more likely to dip their hand in their pocket to support another charity rescuing cuddly animals in a far away land than providing support mechanisms to support paedophiles in their community.  Vital groups such as Circles UK need more support, but volunteers are unlikely to be able to 'admit' to being involved to many employers for fear of raising eyebrows and questions about their own motivations.  It is impressive and encouraging that they do indeed attract volunteers enabling their vital work to continue.

So, we assume - wrongly - that Michael might now get further 'support' or 'monitoring' dependent upon your linguistic spin.

The broader point is, as I touched upon above, the issue of desire.  An attraction to children is a social and legal taboo.  Within gay culture, an attraction towards youth - and attributes we associate with it - smooth hairless bodies, androgynous bodies, smooth faces, boyish smiles, and 'fun' personalities come together in the twink identity.  A label celebrated within gay culture and pornography, and an identity to be found in many a gay club and bar this evening as towns and cities celebrate NYE.   Desiring these figures is acceptable.  Even the more muscular twink can be a symbol of acceptable attraction.  The diver Tom Daley is unusual in being a child that many gay men could openly admit to finding sexually arousing and not feel condemned as a paedophile.  A fascinating development in itself.

Upon turning 16, even more men appeared to admit to a 'long-standing' attraction - which suggests attraction whilst still a child.  At 17, those fantasying men -assuming Daley is mutually attracted - could now have legal sex with Daley.  However, should Daley be photographed in less than his famously figure hugging trunks, his photographer would be in a spot of bother.  Expect a greater outpouring of Daley adoration during the Olympics next year (Daley will have just turned 18 so nude shots will be OK should he have a trunk malfunction at the Olympics).

In the case of Michael, it is this reluctant admittance of desire that seems to have landed him deeper in the crapola than he might have otherwise found himself.   The argument about child pornography is that it is a 'record' of a child being abused and thus to share that image is to create a market and encourage further abuse of children.  Thus if you wish to stop the market, you should stop the images.  You are therefore vicariously abusing a child.

Yet what of pseudo-photographs or cartoons? Bits of multiple images joined together to create a new sexual image, or using a computer or animation technology to create a pornographic image? Legally, this too is treated in the same way as a photograph.  Why?  The market argument is phony in these circumstances.  It is instead about the policing of desire.  From mental desire, to looking at an image is a step, a step to re-enforcing a mental pathway of desire.  Neurons making the connection between images of youth and sexual arousal. The forging of these pathways of desire is of itself a social concern within our society.

However, our criminalisation of such desire - nobody is being harmed - is on the basis that desire is an indicator of potential future risk.  It's like suggesting that viewing a knife-block in Argos denotes you as a future knife armed murderer.

The continued introduction of these polygraphs therefore is about a significant extension in the policing of desire.  Our society can not regard paedophiles as anything other than universally bad - despite our occasional admittance of widespread youthful desire, as in the case of Tom Daley - and thus the criminalisation of this desire is a logical extension that can not be argued without raised eyebrows and agendas questioned.  If a government proposed the mandatory badge wearing by convicted paedophiles would it be opposed?  If gas chambers for paedophiles were advocated, would they be opposed?

These are of course emotive and extreme examples but they serve to highlight the dangers of the road we are on.  In criminalising desire we make black and white assumptions about our own desires; are we really that sure of our own purity?

Beware the Pedobear!

Pedobear, Pedobear, does whatever a Pedobear does...as Homer Simpson didn't quite sing.

Some of you might remember a Brass Eye Paedophile special from a few years back in which they satirised the way the media and politicians were treating the subject of paedophilia.  Readers in the UK can watch that episode via 4OD (check it out here).  Even Chris Morris and Brass Eye couldn't make up a story that appears on the Huffington Post today surrounding the latest twist in the 'Pedobear' saga.

This is a cartoon bear originally intended as a joke on paedophiles, acting as a (strangely cute) representation of a paedophile.  However, the image apparently then became re-owned by paedophiles as a symbol of pride.  However - and you couldn't make this up - the New Mexico Attorney General's Office is now investigating following a surge in sightings of bear depictions on vehicles.  They apparently fear - don't laugh at the back - that this may suggest an increase in sex offender behaviour in the Albuquerque area.  Fascinating and bonkers in equal measure.  Check out the full story here.  The HuffPo piece helpfully points out that 'It is not illegal for people to display the Pedobear image in public.'  Well if it was, there would be an amazing first amendment case to bring.  It could finish poor Justice Scalia off!

The piece also explains that 'Some people may be displaying them as a joke, but the attorney general's office said they are taking the bear images seriously and are trying to get the word out.'  Look out for them in Halfords!

Rebekah Brooks and Fitness to Lead

The phone hacking story is gathering momentum and events will no doubt have moved on in the brief time I sit and write this post. What's curious from the point of view of this blog is the way that Rebekah Brooks has sought to defend herself today. She's been silent (thus far) on the airwaves but did release a written statement which you can read in full here.

About three-quarters of the way through her statement, she seeks to define her tenure at News of the World in the following terms:

'I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew or worse, sanctioned these appalling allegations.

I am proud of the many successful newspaper campaigns at the Sun and the News of the World under my editorship.

In particular, the 10-year fight for Sarah's Law is especially personal to me.

The battle for better protection of children from paedophiles and better rights for the families and the victims of these crimes defined my editorships.'

I heard this with disbelief. During the period that Wade refers to, News of the World shamelessly fuelled a moral panic around paedophilia and inter-generational sex in the name of profits. Together with other tabloid papers (notably fellow Murdoch paper, The Sun - and which she also went on to edit) it sought to dominate the media with endless scare-mongering. It has been widely accepted to have linked to one incident in which vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word 'paedophile'. Remind yourself of that story here.

That moral panic has continued to frame the debate around paedophilia, limiting policy development and hampering intellectual and academic exploration of the complex issues in this area. Few academics are brave to talk about this issue, and fewer still are willing to challenge accepted wisdom in the field thanks to campaigns such as the one run by Brooks and the News of the World. Such was the extreme nature of these fear feeding frenzies that Brass Eye satirised the media's treatment of this issue in 2001 - see that here.

That doesn't sound like something I'd want to highlight as my finest hour, or to define me as the sort of person I am. In fact, it seems to suggest someone who would exploit vulnerable people for their own profitable cause. Whether that applies explicitly to Brooks is for others to decide but her defence today, I would suggest, raises fresh questions about the ethics of media leaders.

What is clear however, is that it is a shameless mischaracterisation of history to now define that period of journalism as anything other than the shameless fuelling of a moral panic for commercial gain.

Sexting Youths

The New York Times carried a fascinating piece at the weekend exploring the challenge that 'sexting' is increasingly posing for US states. Sexting, is where a nude (pornographic) picture of oneself might be sent to someone else over a mobile network. Accoridng to the NY Times, some states have amended their statutes on child pornography, obscenity or Internet crimes. Many allow juvenile offenders to be charged with a misdemeanor or a lesser offense, so they can qualify for diversion programs and have their records expunged. A few states have tried to define a sexting offense. The NY Times also did some interviews with teenagers which you can read here.

It's a nightmare for English lawmakers too, challenging our simplistic notions of who is and who isn't a paedophile. It's perfectly legal for a 16 year old to consent to sexual activity under English law, but if they take a pornographic photograph of themselves, that amounts to child pornography - and such images can easily be circulated beyond their originally intended audience.

Although this story focuses upon 'sexting', it's worth also bearing in mind the growing role that Twitter can potentially have for the distribution of these images - encouraging as it does rapidly evolving networks. I don't have the solution but I do know it means the legal notion of what a paedophile is, and what wider society understands by that term, is increasingly disconnected.

Operation Rescue and the Boy Lover Bust

Thanks to @LawFag for making me aware of this story a few moments ago. The BBC are reporting that Police from around the world say they have broken up the largest Internet paedophile ring yet discovered. According to the report, detectives say 170 people have so far been arrested - and 121 of them were in the UK. Clearly, more arrests are to follow. Some 60 children have been 'protected' in the UK. Interestingly, the report indicates that the whole operation has been based on infiltrating one online site/network. The members of the network apparently went into a private channel, boylover.net, and then used its secret systems to share films and images. The Police were present within these networks and posed as paedophiles to gather intelligence.

The vast spread of ages amongst paedophiles is once again demonstrated with the revelation that in the UK, the 240 suspects are aged between 17 and 82 years old. They include police officers, youth leaders and teachers. No indication is given of gender, but it would be reasonable to assume the majority will be men.

I remarked on Twitter that I know a number of academics who want to question the current policy and policing approach but daren't for fear of being labelled as themselves possessing some 'abnormal' tendencies. I've always steered clear of this area of research but I do find it worthy of comment to observe that the police were active in the network. It will be interesting to see the extent to which the police actively encouraged the sharing of information and photography over this network. Did the Police themselves engage in acts of image distribution and reproduction in order to entice the suspects into exchanging information and images? This is a real sticky wicket for law but such nuances are lost on the public and the media. Consequently, such arguments are unlikely to get very far in a court-room.

Censored transcripts have been published in the US of some investigations. It would be interesting to see similar transcripts of this investigation. Similarly, I'm struck by the high-number of children that seem to have been, in the language of the police 'rescued'. This suggests a far closer linkage between image sharing and 'real-world' criminal activity than is ordinarily assumed. A final aspect that shines out, is the use of 'boylover'. In America thanks to the long-established North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), the term 'boy lover' is much more established in the public consciousness and associated with paedophilia. This is (I think) the first time the term has been used in such a high profile way within the British media. it will be interesting to see the long-standing effect that has.

Clearly, more detail has yet to come out, but I think there's going to be a lot more discussion in the media as we move from investigation into prosecution. The Police will be hoping that the mere news of these arrests and the way the operation has been conducted will scare the hell out of many paedophiles, and those interested (in whatever way) with inter-generational sex. I suspect many boylover sites will see a short-term drop in access but it's foolish to think that people who have a sexual orientation towards children will be 'scared' out of that orientation in a long-term way. This remains a difficult and complex area that lawmakers and the police are barely scratching the surface of.

Sex Offenders and Human Rights

The current media obsession with attacking human rights law appeared to receive a further boost this last week with the announcement by UK Home Secretary, Teresa May, that the government would be introducing the right to request a review as to whether one should remain on the sex offenders register. This followed a decision by the UK Supreme Court last year. Let's begin with May's statement which is worth reading in full:

'The sex offenders' register has existed since 1997. Since that time it has helped the police to protect the public from these most horrific of crimes.

Requiring serious sexual offenders to sign the register for life - as they do now - has broad support from across this House.

However, the Supreme Court ruled last April that not granting sex offenders the opportunity to seek a review is a breach of their human rights – in particular, the right to a private or family life. These are rights, of course, that these offenders have taken away from their victims in the cruelest and most degrading manner possible.

The government is disappointed and appalled by this ruling – it places the rights of sex offenders above the right of the public to be protected from the risk of re-offending - but there is no possibility of further appeal.

This government is determined to do everything we can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders. And so we will make the minimum possible changes to the law in order to comply with this ruling.

I want to make clear that the Court's ruling does not mean that paedophiles and rapists will automatically come off the sex offenders’ register. The Court found only that they must be given the right to to seek a review.

The Scottish government has already implemented a scheme to give offenders an automatic right of appeal for removal from the register after 15 years. We will implement a much tougher scheme.

Offenders can only apply for consideration of removal after waiting 15 years following release from custody – in England and Wales there will be no automatic appeals.

We will deliberately set the bar for those reviews as high as possible. Public protection must come first.

A robust review, led by the police and involving all relevant agencies, will be carried out so that a full picture of the risks to the public can be considered.

The final decision of whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police, not the courts, as in Scotland – the police are best placed to assess the risk of an offender committing another crime, and they will rightly put the public first.

There will be no right of appeal against the police’s decision to keep an offender on the register. That decision will be final.

Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register and will do so for life, if necessary.

• Where we are free to take further action to protect the public, we will do so. We will be shortly launching a targeted consultation aimed at closing down four existing loopholes in the sex offenders register
• We will make it compulsory for sex offenders to report to the authorities before travelling abroad for even one day. This will prevent offenders from being free to travel for up to three days as they are under the existing scheme
• We will force sex offenders to notify the authorities whenever they are living in a household with a child under the age of 18
• We will require sex offenders to notify the authorities weekly as to where they can be found when they have no fixed abode
• And we will tighten the rules so that sex offenders can no longer avoid being on the register when they change their name by deed poll

Finally, I can tell the House today that the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary will shortly announce the establishment of a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights.

It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts; that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals; and above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these.

I commend this statement to the House.'

May's announcement of the Bill of Rights Commission was probably an attempt to throw her own Tory backbenchers some red meat. The decision - which was infinitely sensible - followed the decision in Regina (F (A Child)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and Regina (Thompson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 2 W.L.R. 992. It is worth re-stating the headnote of that case:

The claimant in the first case was convicted of a number of serious sexual offences, including two offences of rape, which he committed when aged 11 and he was sentenced to a period of 30 months' detention. The claimant in the second case, an adult, was convicted on, inter alia, two counts of indecent assault and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. By virtue of the nature of their offences and the length of their sentences the claimants became automatically subject for an indefinite period to the notification requirements in sections 82 to 86 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 1 . By those requirements an offender had to inform the police of certain personal details and by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations 2004 2 , made pursuant to section 86 , an offender had to inform the police of the *993 details of foreign travel plans. The claimants sought judicial review by way of a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that the absence of any mechanism for review of the notification requirements in the 2003 Act was a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private and family life guaranteed by article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 3 . The Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division granted the declarations of incompatibility and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

The Court dismissed the appeal of the Secretary of State, and held that the notification requirements in and under the 2003 Act were capable of causing significant interference with article 8 rights; that if some of those who were subject to lifetime notification requirements were able to demonstrate that they no longer posed any significant risk of committing further sexual offences there was no point in subjecting them to that interference with their article 8 rights and doing so could only impose an unnecessary and unproductive burden on the responsible authorities; that the degree of risk of sexual offenders re-offending had to be assessed in a number of situations and there had to be circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence could be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements was unjustified; that it was open to the legislature to impose an appropriately high threshold for such a review; and that, accordingly, the indefinite notification requirements constituted a disproportionate interference with article 8 rights because they made no provision for individual review of the requirements and the declarations of incompatibility made by the Divisional Court would stand.

No-one is ever going to become popular for defending the rights of sex offenders, especially convicted paedophiles. However, the right to request a review of being on the register is surely a sensible and civilised approach to take. It's also one that is in line with our stated human rights law commitments. It simply enables people to asks the Police to take a 'second look' at whether they should be placed on the Sex Offenders Register. It will be interesting to see how many convicted sex offenders will seek to take advantage of this new right, and how many will have their registration requirements changed as a result of a successful review.

Abuse by Under 18s

The Today Programme on Radio4 carried a fascinating little interview today. It featured an anonymous father and also a spokesman from Stop It Now. The interview comes in the wake of new evidence that shows about one-third of all sexual offences are committed by people under the age of 18.

The anonymous father found himself facing the issues that law and society present when his 12-year-old son was accused of touching inappropriately an eight-year-old girl at a party.

Well worth a listen.

Sexism, Human Rights and Paedophilia

I have to thank Brian for flagging up this story to me. Last week saw an interesting case before the Scottish courts in which a teenager accused of having sex with an under-age girl claimed the law is unfair to heterosexual men, and sought to bring a case case under article 8, read in conjunction with article 14, of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also sought a declaration in terms of section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that section 5(3) of the 1995 Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act is incompatible with the Convention in these respects.

The law does (as the opinion makes clear) seem relatively straight forward in this area but the teen at the centre of this case does raise an interesting question about what he regards as our sexist attitude towards paedophilia. The very words paedophilia or paedophile are avoided in the reports about this case but that is what the law is saying this teen is - as someone 17 or 18 having sex with a girl aged 14. The teens point is that we would be less inclined to prosecute a girl in the same situation. I'm not sure I agree but it's an interesting one to mull over.

The full opinion can be read here.

Shopping with Paedophiles

A Sunderland story went national on Friday. The Sunderland Echo reported that a father who decided to photograph his own son sat on a ride while out shopping with his wife and son at the Bridges mall was stopped by security. The father described what happened:

"That's when the security guard came over and said I couldn't take the picture," said Kevin, 48.

"He said it was the centre's rules because I might be a paedophile.

"I said I was Ben's dad and told the guard he must be exaggerating about the problem.

"He started getting a bit stroppy and radioed his control room.

"I wasn't happy so I took a picture of him, so I could identify him if I wanted to make a complaint.

"When the security guard first came over Ben got a bit upset because he thought I was getting told off because he had got on the ride."

Read the full story here. At first glance, the story might appear just to be a political correctness/lack of common sense story. Of course, a parent should be able to photograph their child on a ride out shopping. That's a normal family experience. Let's change the story. Let's say the Sunderland Echo was a story that a paedophile known to Police was exposed as having regularly been taking photographs of children going about their business in the same shopping centre. How would the readers react? What would the editorial say? We would, I imagine, collectively demand action - "where was security? Why didn't the Police get involved?". So there we are, a shopping centre management and security team that are damned whatever they do.

Our attitudes to paedophilia remain at best confused. If we want to stop these 'lapses in common sense', we need to recognise that somewhere, sometime there is a chance a paedophile might take a photograph of your child for their own gratification. The photograph at the centre of this storm has featured in almost every news report describing the incident. If someone found some sort of satisfaction looking at this image, they now quite easily do so online. Frankly, as we upload more and more of our photographs to photo sites and social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter, people don't need to loiter around in a shopping centre - we're taking the photos for those people. Yet, at the same time, our schools don't include children's photos in their own school prospectuses. Social historians will surely look back at this time and conclude that we must be completely bonkers.

Paedophile Singing Toy Mouse

I was listening to Radio 4 this morning and like the studio presenters, I found myself hugely amused by a story in The Sun this morning. The newspaper reports on a £2.99 Chinese Christmas toy that is supposed to sing 'Jingle Bells' when you squeeze his belly. As one parent discovered, the voice actually sounds like he is singing 'paedophiles, paedophiles'. The Sun wrote: 'The £2.99 Chinese-made novelty is sold in smaller shops and on market stalls. Distributors Humatt, of Ferndown, Dorset, said the man providing the voice could not pronounce certain sounds. His singing was then speeded up to make it higher-pitched - distorting the result further.'

You can see a picture of this charming toy along with listening to the song on The Sun website by clicking here. Given that at the start of the decade, a toy manufacturer would probably have been lynched for producing something like this, it's interesting that we collectively laugh now.

Inter-generational Sex: Brooke Shields and Roman Polanski

Two stories have been peculating away during the last week that both explore the issue of inter-generational sex and our apparently confused response to this controversial subject. The Tate Modern has started a new show called Pop Life but the police turned up ("yet again" I hear you say) and following their appearance one of the exhibits was removed. The exhibit in question was a picture of Brooke Shields taken in 1983 (the top part is pictured right). The Telegraph art critic, Richard Dorment described the picture as: 'it takes the form of a ready-made or found object – a publicity photograph showing the prepubescent actress Brooke Shields naked, her body wet from the bath. What's more, her hair has been elaborately done and she is wearing so much lipstick, mascara and eye shadow that it looks as though the head of a 25-year-old Playmate had been spliced on the body of a child. The original photo was commissioned with the approval of the child's mother who, as her manager, allowed it to be published in the soft porn magazine Sugar n' Spice as a tactic to get her daughter noticed and so further her career'. Read the full review here.

It takes literally seconds to find the full picture online and you are left wondering why the Police felt the need to take this action, whilst recognising that the picture does have a powerful affect. The idea that hoards of paedophiles are going to gather at the Tate Modern for a quick wank is absurd (although that does sound like an intriguing piece of performance art). Given this is also a piece of art that was made in 1983 and has hung quite happily without incident in New York's Guggenheim for years, creates even greater confusion. Are law officials more cultured in New York? Are they more immoral? It's bonkers.

At the same time, the film-maker Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland. Something even the Nazis managed to avoid. The offence, having un-lawful sex with a 13 year old back in 1977. Whoopi-Goldberg's quote "it wasn't rape rape" has been seen as totemic of a Hollywood that rapidly came to his defence but as Paul Harris notes in The Observer today, opinion now seems to be shifting against him, even in Hollywood. Had Roman Polanski been a cleaner or an office worker, you wonder if it would have taken over 30years to catch up with him? He wasn't exactly hiding away.

Both stories, stretching over the decades, reveal shifting attitudes and shifting truths. For Postmodernists, these provide excellent examples of the flawed nature of 'truth' and the difficulties in debating, analysing and resolving issues such as inter-generation sex. Maureen Freely write an excellent thoughtful piece in The Guardian yesterday in which she wrote '[Children's essential rights to express themselves sexually] is an argument I recall hearing from the more radical sectors in pre-AIDS San Francisco in the late 70s. Why should children be left out of the fun? Why was it always left to their uptight parents to set the rules? Couldn't the age of consent be brought down to reflect the actual state of play?'. For me, Freely's most interesting observation was:

'For the past 20 years, we have had child abuse scandals every day for breakfast. That is why the Polanski story looks so much different now. That is why the photograph of Shields nude aged 10 can cause such discomfort, 34 years after the fact. When we look back, what we see first is what we didn't know then.'

The full article can be read here.

Gay Men and the Church

A couple of stories doing the rounds today on the subject of the church. First off, Rev Scot Rennie has been appointed as a minister in Aberdeen. He is the first openly gay clergyman with crucially, a sexually active relationship in the UK. Wowzers I hear you cry. Yes this is significant but fear not, more than 12,000 people including 272 serving Church of Scotland ministers, more than 700 ministers from Protestant and Catholic churches in Britain and more than 500 from oversees signed an online petition protesting. Having been appointed, the question must surely be - how long can he stay appointed? Read more here.

More cheery news from the church, this time from father John Owen, the communications officer (surely some mistake? lol) for the archdiocese of Cardiff who popped up on the BBCs 'Big Questions' show yesterday morning and proclaimed in light of the Ryan Inquiry (published last week) that 'most of these offences [priests having sex with children] are being committed by homosexuals'. Read the full story here.

'Porn addicts, sex offenders, rapists, paedophiles': The Story of Forensic Psychotherapy

The Observer carries a very interesting and informative article today relating to 'forensic psychotherapy' and the Portman Clinic in London. It's an extensive piece and examines a number of cases.

Langham Oxford Union Debate Cancelled

BBC News is reporting that the actor Chris Langham was due to address the Oxford Union next term but the debate has now been cancelled and the invite to Langham been withdrawn. The actor had been jailed for downloading child pornography.

I saw him do an interview on More4 lasting an hour soon after he was released and found it revealing, if at times uncomfortable viewing. I thought it offered important insights and a measured exploration of what is a very complex and controversial area. It seems a shame that the Oxford Union has cancelled and not had the courage to go through with it, not least because I think Langham has something worth saying (whether you agree with him or not).

You can read the story at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7367508.stm

Greek Bloggers Against Discrimination

Another interesting story on Pink News this week concerns Greek Bloggers. It's an interesting development in the campaign for LGBT rights. The story states: 'more than 200 weblogs have joined an initiative called Greek Bloggers Against Discrimination to campaign against proposed new legislation on domestic partnerships that excludes same-sex couples.'

I'm really interested in the way that the Internet appears to be increasingly used to promote rights based agendas and with that, shifts in law. For sexual minorities this enables groups that may have previously found it difficult to communicate and gather in order to organise such campaigns an opportunity to do so. For example, could the Internet be used to shift our perceptions of inter-generational sex or self modification or barebacking and bug chasing? Is it already doing so?

The story can be viewed in full at: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7186.html

The blogs can be viewed here.

Sarah's Law Trial

A number of newspapers broke the story on Sunday that a trial of 'Sarah's Law' is to go ahead in the UK. This news has largely been overshadowed by national economic developments around Northern Rock since yesterday afternoon and so it hasn't had the coverage you might expect. Four regions will take part: Warwickshire, Cambridgeshire, Hampshire and Cleveland. Whilst it isn't exactly Sarah's Law the proposals would enable parents to check that people with regular, unsupervised access to their children including family members or neighbours do not have convictions for paedophile offences. I've always been opposed to Sarah's Law as I think it will merely serve to destablise communities and drive dangerous sex offenders underground together with promoting offending behaviour. I also think that we need, as a society, to grapple with what it is we wish to do with sex offenders. Are all sex offenders the same? Do we want to allow some sex offenders out of jail? If so, we have to deal with the practical consequences of that decision.