Total visitors right now: 91

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

UK: Human Rights Legislation Allowed Pedophiles to Share Flat, Abuse Children

Monday, January 26, 2009 • 10:40 am


England. Fork. Some assembly required:

The Probation Service and police were aware the men - both on the Sex Offenders Register - were living together but could only monitor them.

Even if the couple are eventually released they will still be able to move back in together under current laws.

Richard Howarth, prosecuting, said: ‘The Crown would have wanted an order that the defendants do not reside with each other because it is when they are together they are most dangerous, but I believe that may offend human rights legislation.’

The prosecutors said the pair’s victims were lulled into a false sense of security as they were groomed in a ‘deliberate and expert fashion’.

Two of the boys met Carruthers as he asked them to look after his dogs while he popped into a shop to buy cigarettes.

He was soon offering them small amounts of money to carry out odd jobs in his flat before suggesting he could give them ‘a million pound each’ to satisfy his desires.

They also claimed to be former jockeys who knew many famous people and would show a picture of them apparently posing with Sir David Jason in his role as Del Boy from Only Fools and Horses.

One of the victims had learning difficulties which Carruthers exploited to confuse the boy.

In victim impact statements read to the court, one mother said she had ‘gone through hell’ and that her son was still terrified that the pair would escape from prison.

Another mother said her son had talked of committing suicide and was constantly being teased at school after he told classmates about his ordeal.


4 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Does anyone know what this “human rights legislation” is that prevented the police from protecting the young teens from these convicted pedophiles?

[1] Posted by perpetuaofcarthage on 01-26-2009 at 02:35 PM • top

I hope these articles help answer your question PB 1928 Loyalist:

Church raises fears over Human Rights Act
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4279103/Church-raises-fears-over-Human-Rights-Act.html

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

[2] Posted by Lily on 01-26-2009 at 02:51 PM • top

Thank you SjB.

[3] Posted by perpetuaofcarthage on 01-26-2009 at 04:27 PM • top

Included in the article is one clue as to why these recidivists are able to reoffend over a period spanning something like three decades. The clue is in the fourth from last sentence where Blackpool Police D.I. Tony Baxter is quoted as saying that [emphasis added]

[the sentence] sends out a strong message to anyone who commits such offences that when they are caught they will be dealt with robustly by the courts.

This comment demonstrates that the British legal system, like so many others in the modern industrialized nations, including the U. S., seriously misunderstands the meaning of the word robust (in any of its grammatical usages) as applied to the law.

Robust justice would treat barbarous criminal behavior, as which these offences fully qualify, as the barbarities they are. Sentences imposed under a robust system of justice would be sufficient to strongly deter first offenders from ever repeating the offence and would permanently and assuredly preclude repeat offenders from ever again having the opportunity to offend again. This is something we, as a society, have lost sight of. We have forgotten the old adage “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” A system of justice which considers this a just sentence is a system of inadequate justice, which makes it by definition a system of injustice.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist (Keith Toepfer)

[4] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 01-26-2009 at 06:06 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.