Friday, 21 February 2014

PIE - Questions that need answering.

Some good articles this week in the Daily Mail (yes before you say, I know, it's the Mail....).
Links and articles below. Fair play on Guy Adams for bringing this up -and what must happen now is this must not be allowed to once again slip down the list of priorities, slip away under the radar and be forgotten about in a few months or so. Answers are needed.
All good, pertinent legitimate questions - all ones that need to be answered.
Who cares about the names concerned - if these questions were asked to a normal pleb member of the public, there would be a proper full enquiry. What makes MPs so special? What makes them so "special"?
To read the full articles (so far), please read these links.
and this article from December 2013 (Guy Adams again)
Uncomfortable & nauseating reading. If these links are proven between NCCL and PIE, the very least that should happen is unreserved apologies from these three.
For those unfamiliar with P.I.E, take a read of the below, (if you can stomach it).
Now, I have two more questions in addition to the ones that the DM has.
An excerpt from the above link, includes this gem:
"All members of the House of Commons and some Lords have been sent a copy of PIE’s new booklet Paedophilia – some Questions and Answers. This distribution was timed to coincide with a Press Release announcing the publication of the booklet. 180 newspapers and periodicals in the U.K.. received this Press Release."
Question one - as well as focusing (understandably) on Harmen, Hewitt and Dromey, surely questions need to be asked as to why, when all members of the HoC and a selection of Lords were sent this and presumably read it, why this group of disgusting individuals aka P.I.E. were allowed to continue with their perverted views & pro-paedophile group until disbanding 6 years after this was published?
Question two - where are the other media outlets? Why is this just being highlighted in the DM by one journalist (Guy Adams)? Why are there not investigations by ALL the media? Is this not important?
Please Guy Adams, keep digging - keep exploring - keep this going - this cannot be left and forgotten about.

Sunday, 9 February 2014

A "Very Significant Risk To Children" - but released anyway to "test rehabilitation"

"LESLIE Mitchell was described as a “very significant risk to children” before he was jailed for four years in 2010. The 60-year-old's release comes despite ministers warning parole officers just last month that he should not be allowed out of prison.
A PAEDOPHILE doctor has been freed from jail after a parole board rejected a Scottish Government plea to keep him behind bars over fears he will attack children.
Leslie Mitchell, 60, was jailed for four years in 2010 for trying to lure two girls, aged 10 and 11, into his car.
The judge at the High Court said Mitchell had wanted to have sex with the girls and told him he might never be released from prison after imposing a new order that allows the authorities to hold a prisoner indefinitely.
But Mitchell, who told social workers he had sexually abused other girls, got his sentence reduced on appeal and has been freed despite ministers’ opposition.
The doctor, originally from Falkirk, now lives in social housing in nearby Bo’ness.
The Parole Board for Scotland granted his freedom despite the objections by ministers. They said he should be moved to Castle Huntly open prison so he could be monitored before release.
In parole board documents seen by the Sunday Mail, ministers said there was not enough evidence to suggest he would not be a risk to the public.
But Mitchell told the board he needed to go back into the community to “test” whether his rehabilitation had worked.
The documents also showed that Mitchell said he wanted to have sex with a girl aged 10 to 16 but his preferences were those aged 10 to 13.
And he admitted to his psychologist during a risk assessment shortly before his release that he had engaged in sexual activity with young girls three times in the last decade."
What are they playing at?
Absolutely despicable !!
Reading through the article in it's entirety, and reading the previous news stories from 2010, Paedophile doctor preyed on schoolgirls how on earth can anyone consider this predator as being anything but a continued risk? With an original background report that states "that he had carried out his own risk assessment into the chances of him being detected, but he thought "the rewards" were greater", and "posing a high risk of re-offending and causing serious harm, particularly to girls", what on Earth were the Scottish Parole Board thinking of? He already his original four years sentence reduced to sixteen months which is a travesty in itself for his victims, let alone this appalling decision.
Never mind grooming young girls for his own sexual deviancies, maybe the Parole Board should be contemplating how much he has "groomed" themselves, and manipulated them into this decision. They will have themselves to blame, solely, if this predatory paedophile reoffends - particularly through his own admissions of "long-term sexual interest in young girls and revealed previous offending against victims of a similar age in England.".
And "Testing if his "rehabilitation" has worked"? This is partly how they arrived at this decision?
Tell you what, the best way to do this, would to have Leslie Mitchell babysit one of your children whilst you go on a night out. If you really think that paedophilia is a "condition" that can be "rehabilitated" to the degree that a dangerous predatory paedophile who has a sexual preference for "girls aged 10 to 13"can be released into the community like this, prove it and let him be a babysitter for you.
If you wouldn't do this in the proverbial "million years" does this not prove the point that paedophiles like this should not be released?
Again, what are you playing at?