Pine End School, Reigate

I have received information that there was sexual abuse at Pine End School, Colley Lane, Reigate, a special school for ‘maladjusted’ children in care run by the old “Inner London Education Authority” ( ILEA). Lambeth Social Services sent people there.

One head teacher was Mr Gwillam Slimm, who was investigated for sexual misconduct, sometime in the 1980s I think. He was suspended for 2 years while there was an investigation but was later reinstated.

Mr Slimm came to the school with his wife Julie who had actually been a pupil of his at a former school.  He also brought a male member of staff with him from his previous school.  It is believed that there is a  teacher with the same name in at least two other special schools in the north of England where he has been the head teacher.

There seems no information regarding the investigation into Gwillam Slimm or even if the other teacher was cited. Has anyone got any more information? You can leave comments anonymously below or email in confidence to PineEndMar17@cathyfox.33mail.com

Many of the girls had problems with a female teacher called Judy Rappaport (spelling?) who was brought in to restrain pupils when things ‘kicked off.’  Her actions were extremely heavy handed and she used unnecessary and extreme force in some cases.

Any information gratefully received.

If people were under the control of Lambeth Council or at Shirley Oaks they may be interested in this article 2007 Feb 6 Cathy Fox Blog Looking for a Place Called Home – Report of Shirley Oaks Survivors [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] Old Reigate .com https://www.oldreigate.com/?goto=colleylane

[2] 2007 Feb 6 Cathy Fox Blog Looking for a Place Called Home – Report of Shirley Oaks Survivors https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/06/looking-for-a-place-called-home-report-of-shirley-oaks-survivors/

 

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Lambeth, London, physical abuse, Schools / teachers, South East | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

CIA – DIA Mind Control and Sex Slavery of Children by Sue Arrigo MD

More from Sue Arrigo on Child Abuse and the CIA – c. <June 2007 CIA – DIA Mind Control and Sex Slavery of Children also available here Page 1 [1] Page 2 [2]

Various links are now broken.

Where there are archived links or occasionally alternative ones I have placed them in square brackets following the broken link. Usually there is a link from the approximate date of the article if available.

The other articles already published on this blog by Sue Arrigo are

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo [8]

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 by Sue Arrigo MD [9] 

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 3 by Sue Arrigo MD [10]

CIA – DIA Mind Control & Sex Slavery of Children 
    by SUE ARRIGO, MD

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” — J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI.

As a survivor of torture in the United States, I am a California physician with over forty years of recurrent torture and continuous enslavement by CIA and US military agencies.

My father was a US military advisor, a “counterinsurgency specialist,” in Korea and Taiwan. Many of the children, like myself, who were trained as child spies by the US government had fathers in the military.

As unbelievable as it sounds, the documentation that the US used American children as mind-controlled spies against their will is quite extensive (See “MKULTRA : The CIA’s Top Secret Program in Human Experimentation and Behavior Modification” by George Andrews. [ https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0961647582/sr=8-1-fkmr0/qid=1490195817/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1490195817&sr=8-1-fkmr0 ]

Or see an online overview of MKULTRA at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA [ http://web.archive.org/web/20070704111747/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA or recent http://web.archive.org/web/20170320153709/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra%5D)

“In 1951, the CIA decided to coordinate efforts with the US Army, Navy, and Air Force, and Project Artichoke was born.

A 1952 memorandum describes its mission as follows: Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against such fundamental laws of nature such as self-preservation?” (Pg 128 “Psychiatry and the CIA” by Harvey M. Weinstein, MD) [ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychiatry-CIA-Victims-Mind-Control/dp/0880483636/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490198974&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Psychiatry+and+the+CIA%22+by+Harvey+M.+Weinstein%2C+MD ]

“In a May 13, 1968 article in the Providence Evening Bulletin 31, Estabrooks is described as a former consultant for the FBI and CIA, and is quoted as saying that, “the key to creating an effective spy or assassin rests in splitting a man’s personality, or creating multi-personality, with the aid of hypnotism.This is not science fiction. This has and is being done. I have done it. ” (pg. 162.)

The Canadian psychiatrist Colin Ross, MD had a number of mind control survivors as patients.

After he received 15,000 pages of CIA documents under a Freedom of Information Act Request he concluded that, alas, his patients were telling him the truth.

See his book “BLUEBIRD: the deliberate creation of multipersonality disorder by psychiatrists”

Therapist Valerie Wolf brought two of her patients with similar memories to mine to testify before President Clinton’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments in Washington, D.C. to testify on Mind Control Experimentation on Children.

She wrote to that Committee “In preparation for my testimony at these hearings, I called nearly 40 therapists across the country to find out what they knew about the link between radiation and mind control and to get what other therapists were seeing in clients who had been used in mind control experiments… therapists across the country are finding clients who have been subjected to mind control techniques. The consistency of their stories about the purpose of the mind control and torture techniques, such as electric shock, use of hallucinogens, sensory deprivation, spinning, hypnosis, dislocation of limbs and sexual abuse is remarkable.

“There is almost nothing published on this aspect of mind control used with children, and these clients come from all over the country, having had no contact with each other…We need the glare of publicity to stop the continuing harassment of people who were subjects in mind control experiments. [See more of the testimony online at http://www.tulanelink.com/mind/testimony_04a.htm ]

A radio station in Toronto ran a year-long series on mind control, interviewing experts and survivors, the transcripts of which can be viewed at http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/radio/ckln-hm.htm

[ http://web.archive.org/web/20051125153037/http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/radio/ckln-hm.htm ]

[ http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/radio/*  ]

There has been a systemic campaign of disinformation by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation to discredit people having recovered memories of trauma based mind control.

Dr. Ross in “Bluebird” shows that most of the people on that Foundation are CIA researchers engaged in mind control research. (see appendix)[?]

Project MKULTRA alone in the late 1950’s used 80 institutions of higher learning to do the research.

Dr. Ewen Cameron, a mind control researcher for the CIA, was head of the American and Canadian Psychiatry and Psychology Associations. Dr. Cameron’s experiments in causing amnesia and mind control at Allen Memorial Hospital associated with McGill University in Toronto left patients near vegetables.

It was not just that a patient could not remember who her husband was, she no longer knew what a husband was. It took one victim 2 years to figure out how to cook an egg afterwards.

When 9 Canadians brought suit the CIA settled out of court for $750.000 in order to avoid admitting responsibility for these atrocious crimes committed against innocent civilians in peacetime.

(See Psychiatrist Harvey Weinstein’s “The CIA and Psychiatry”)  [ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychiatry-CIA-Victims-Mind-Control/dp/0880483636/ref=sr_1_1_twi_har_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490199165&sr=8-1&keywords=HARVEY+WEINSTEIN+-+Psychiatry+and+the+CIA%3A+Victims+of+Mind+Control ]

Addressing the issue of whether memories recovered after trauma are accurate, law professor Scheflin in “Ground Lost: The False Memory/Recovered Memory Therapy Debate” (www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991137.html) [ http://web.archive.org/web/20020819234137/http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991137.html ] notes that all memories are recovered and that the three relevant studies on the matter show that post traumatic memories are as accurate as regular memories; namely details may be wrong but the memories are remarkably accurate for the gist of the events.

Thus he concludes that for the purposes of the courts, all memories should be treated the same—as eye-witness testimony.

(Also see the tome Brown D, Scheflin AW, Hammond DC (1998), “Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law”

Scheflin is a professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law in Santa Clara, Calif.)

Starting at age ten I was sent into the USSR as a street child to spy.

In WWI, Germany arrested parents and told their children to go into Russia as street children and report back on railway troop movement, failure to return with the required information would result in the parent’s torture or execution.

[ See http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/27/40030.html ].

[ http://web.archive.org/web/20030218000603/http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/27/40030.html ]

I did my assignments under the same threats and had been tortured by the CIA and DIA since I was 3 to 4 years old using electroshocks, drugs, cold, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and even water.

For decades all of my spare time during so-called vacations was spent on CIA assignment that I was forced into.

Later as an adult, if I had a partner, I was forced to break up with him, under the threat that he would be killed, if I refused.

None of my life was truly my own.

At a moment’s notice I would have to make excuses and go off on an espionage assignment.

My work as a doctor had to be part-time and flexible. Most of my work involved going into the Soviet Union to assess their nuclear missile arsenals, as well as to garner related documents.

It was very dangerous work and I was tortured on more than one occasion by the KGB as well. I was also tortured by the CIA in the basement of their HQs for failing to force a KGB official, Konstantinov, in New York City in 1983 to become an agent for the CIA as a “double agent”.

My memory was later confirmed by an old newspaper account of Konstantinov expelled from New York as a KGB spy in 1983.

At the time, I was an occupational medical resident at Columbia University and already extremely overworked and sleep deprived from being on-call.

The CIA was unwilling to hear any reasons for failing at an assignment. I was last tortured by the US government in August of 2004 for refusing an assignment.

I was living in Virginia within commuting distance of CIA HQs at the time. In this instance, I was approached directly by Dick Cheney of the White House who wanted the assignment to be off the record because he feared leaks within the CIA.

I was given the assignment to go to Iran as a doctor “volunteering” to treat Iranian children as a humanitarian gesture.

A TV crew would “happen by” and start filming, then in would rush a CIA agent of Iranian features announcing he knew of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons development lab in an underground bunker.

I was told that the rest of the filming with that agent and myself would occur in Hollywood with a mock up of said weapon’s lab. It would be a made for TV news propaganda piece like in the movie “Wag the Dog”.

When I refused to do the assignment on the grounds that it was immoral, he threatened my mother’s life. Since my mother had recently told me to not to give my torturers demands, even if she paid for it with her life, I held to my “no.”

Within a week I was taken hostage, drugged, raped and tortured for 4 days. I overheard the men who raped me talking about their duties guarding the same White House official who had given me the Iranian assignment.

They said that if I ever talked that I would be locked up in a mental ward, drugged, tied down and raped nightly. While being injected one of my torturers said, “With this in your blood, baby, no one will ever believe a word you say.”

The standard CIA “cocktail” is a long lasting hallucinogen, like BZ (see http://www.levity.com/aciddreams/samples/bz.html), [ http://web.archive.org/web/20070208053142/http://www.levity.com/aciddreams/samples/bz.html ] with an amphetamine to prevent sleep, and indeed I had a sudden severe problem with insomnia.

Within days I was thrown into a mental hospital against my will and told again that I might never get out to make the threat credible.

Fortunately, as a Christian Science believer I was given no medications at the hospital and managed to get out after the 5-day observation period because the medical doctor recognized my symptoms as sleep deprivation and metabolic imbalance.

The threat that I would be thrown into a mental facility for the rest of my life, drugged up and tied down still exists and could be executed.

And that is in spite of the fact that I have never attempted suicide, and never will as it is against my religious convictions. Russ Tice, an NSA analyst who blew the whistle on US domestic spying was similarly thrown in a mental hospital to give him a record of being “crazy”.

According to CIA documents quoted in Bluebird this is the standard procedure that the CIA uses to discredit people or even to “dispose” of them by throwing away the key.

Had I actually been crazy, I never could have held a stable job as a medical director in California for 14 years.

I coped with severe torture by using a skill called dissociative denial, which is the opposite of making things up. The treatment for it is not drugs, it is telling the truth about what really happened, instead of pretending that it didn’t happen.

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” Abraham Lincoln

Before the American Catholic Church was exposed as being a haven for pedophilic priests, no one would have believed that priests could molest children in large numbers and not be caught for it.

We now know differently; the Catholic Church has paid out millions of dollars in settlements to the victims. That was an abuse that went uncorrected for decades until finally some of the victims were believed.

When the dust settled it turned out that there were many more victims than anyone had expected. Yet few people know that that network of priests were linked to pedophilic American politicians.

The politicians had more ability to cover up their crimes. They were in a position to halt police and FBI investigations. They had the political influence to kill major news exposes of it.

And they had the money and power to buy up and order destroyed all the copies of a TV documentary called Conspiracy of Silence hours before it was to air. Only one poor quality copy survived.

But survive it did and you can watch it and judge for yourself the facts of the matter. (See webcast video: “Conspiracy of Silence,” the Franklin cover-up video, by xx (Tuesday March 04, 2003) [RealVideo: stream with RealPlayer]

[ http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/conspiracyofsilence56k.ram, http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/conspiracyofsilence56k.rm ]

or RM file (33.3 megabytes, [MB]) of same video in a higher resolution format for downloading: http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/conspiracyofsilence2.wmv .It is also available online at http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/ listed under the title “Pedophilic Politicians”. Conspiracy of Silence, a documentary listed for viewing in TV Guide Magazine was to be aired on the Discovery Channel, on May 3, 1994.

[ http://web.archive.org/web/20050504063659/http://911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/ ]

[ http://web.archive.org/web/20051126010357/http://911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/ ]

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBSIDQt5Dwc ]

Researched and documented by a British journalistic team who came to the United States just for the story, it was censored at the last minute.

This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies. http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/10/1538670_comment.php [ http://web.archive.org/web/20071031102919/http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/10/24/15386701.php  ]

The former CIA director [Colby] acknowledged to Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp that the scenario described in the documentary, Conspiracy of Silence, is real, which tells of a sex ring that had links to political conservatives in Washington D.C.

Not long thereafter Colby turned up dead under suspicious circumstances.

John DeCamp has since authored “The Franklin Coverup.” This all came to public view on the morning of June 29, 1989, when the Washington Times headline was “Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House” [ http://educate-yourself.org/tg/franklincoverupexcerptwashtimesphoto.shtml ]

Dr. Dekov states that the former FBI Director Louis Freeh killed Colby.

Dr.Dekov states that he is a witness.

Dr.Dekov has alarmed President Bush, US Senators and the Supreme Court of the USA for the murder.

In 2005, Dr.Dekov presented to the International Criminal Court at The Hague a set of documents concerning the killing of Colby by the FBI Director Louis Freeh.

See * The Ames-Colby story. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Colby [ http://web.archive.org/web/20070926094900/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Colby ]

Although the story of a kidnapped 9 year-old paperboy, Johnny Gosch, is not mentioned on that video, it should be mentioned here (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Gosch for more details). [ http://web.archive.org/web/20071128155254/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Gosch ]

Paul Bonacci later won a million dollar lawsuit against one of his abusers, a Republican National Committee go-getter, who procured children for prostitution for their after- parties.

The Washington Post carried a full front page exposé titled “Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensares VIPs with Reagan, Bush”, (June 29, 1989) (See photo of front page at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/309481.shtml). [ http://web.archive.org/web/20170320124449/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/309481.shtml ]

Then the story was killed. Who had the motive and the power to do that? There are several adult survivors that have written books about their being used by the White House as sex slaves, both as children or young adults.

In fact, there were so many sex slaves made for that purpose by the CIA as mind control subjects that they were given the title of “Presidential Models”.

(See Brice Taylor’s book Thank You for the Memories for one such example. A radio interview of her can be read online for free at http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/radio/ckln-hm.htm CKLN42A.tx  [Link not available nor archive, Book available http://archive.is/7Za1i  or [ pdf download Thanks for the Memories pdf  ]

Sue Arrigo, MD California Medical License G 50197

Former member of the AFIO (Association of Former Intelligence Officers)

My cover was blown within international intelligence organizations over 5 years ago.

Only the public has been kept in the dark, as per usual.

I am a non-violent activist, currently attending the UN Disarmament Conference as an indepedent observer to protest the US’s first strike pre-emptive war policy.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.geocities.com/intuitivemd/  [ http://web.archive.org/web/20091026213631/http://geocities.com/intuitivemd/ ]

Let me say a little about my own background. As a native-born US child and daughter of an undercover intelligence officer, I was forced into intelligence operations.

A congressional hearing exposed a CIA interrogation experiment on the drugged clients of prostitutes, headed by George Hunter White, at the San Francisco Safe House [See MKULTRA : The CIA’s Top Secret Program in Human Experimentation and Behavior Modification by George Andrews or view the 1977 Congressional Hearings on MKULTRA online at http://www.parascope.com/ds/documentslibrary/documents/mkultrahearing/index.htm . [ http://web.archive.org/web/20090814215823/http://www.parascope.com/ds/documentslibrary/documents/mkultrahearing/index.htm ]

This is one of the places I was trained at the age of 9 in 1961.

The CIA did not the tell most of the truth at what happened at that “Safe House” that was anything but safe for children.

But it did confirm my written memories as to its location, décor, prostitution, the expensive alcoholic habits of George Hunter White, and the LSD experiments and the filming for of the johns.

Later, White would say of his job: “I was a very minor missionary, actually a heretic, but I toiled wholeheartedly in the vineyards because it was fun, fun, fun. Where else could a red-blooded American boy lie, kill, cheat, steal, rape, and pillage with the sanction and blessing of the All-Highest?”

(See http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=481520) [ http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=481520 ]

MKULTRA was a joint CIA-DIA project to train children as spies and assassins, as is documented in CIA files released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

As a child in this project, I was tortured and threatened with the death of my mother to force me to comply. The torture was extensive, with episodes lasting weeks and repeated over many years.

It included sleep deprivation, chronic cold exposure, deprivation of food, disorienting drugs, mock executions, and electroshocks to mouth and vaginal areas.

In short it was unbelievable hell.

It was done in conjunction with psychiatrists as mind control and to spilt my consciousness into a multiple personality, in which they would have control of all the personalities except the cover one.

Other survivors also report the systematic use of torture (see U.S. Government Mind-Control Experiments On Children by Jon Rappoport or (www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=10&ID=1518) [ http://web.archive.org/web/20070429043451/http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=10&ID=1518 ]

[ http://web.archive.org/web/20130311130947/http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/e1950/mkultra/Hearing05.htm ]

My torturers under this project included three military officers trained in brainwashing techniques by the Pentagon.

One of these was my father, although most of the years I was tortured he was not present.

As an adult my father told me he had been trained at the Pentagon in brainwashing, so this is not just the memory of a child here.

My father was in the Korean War as a US Army Officer (probably in the DIA), and involved in a torture scandal there.

My father also told me in detail tortures he and other military officers had done in Korea, to frighten me.

The US govt. had an officially approved project to torture US children to force them into spying – MKULTRA and related projects.

Many survivors report the same type of torture as I remember.

Since there have been so many different survivor’s accounts remembered independently, all in agreement as to the methods used, there is no longer room for reasonable doubt that the US government engaged in the sexual torture of innocent American children.

(See survivors’ accounts —
“A Nation Betrayed” by Carol Ruiz,
“Unshackled” by Kathleen Sullivan,
“Secret Weapons” by Cheryl Hersha,
“Thanks for the Memories” by Brice Taylor,
and the talks by experts and survivors at CKLN-FM Mind Control Series
(http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/radio/ckln-hm.htm) [ http://web.archive.org/web/20051124165856/http://mindcontrolforums.com/radio/ckln-hm.htm ]

For more information see the UNICEF site on children of war at
http://www.unicef.org/sowc96/ciwcont.htm , [ http://web.archive.org/web/20070630141237/http://www.unicef.org/sowc96/ciwcont.htm ]
or a radio broadcast on Children of War at http://www.warchildren.org/ , [ http://web.archive.org/web/20070701074041/http://www.warchildren.org/ ]
or Amnesty International’s site at http://www.amnestyusa.org/children/soldiers/agenda.html .

[ http://web.archive.org/web/20040803111459/http://www.amnestyusa.org/children/soldiers/agenda.html ]

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.geocities.com/intuitivemd/ChildSpies.html [ http://web.archive.org/web/20080626145406/http://www.geocities.com/intuitivemd/ChildSpies.html ]
1

CIA – DIA Mind Control and Sex Slavery of Children Page 1 [1] Page 2 [2]

See also

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo [8]

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 by Sue Arrigo MD [9] 

Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 3 by Sue Arrigo MD [10]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] c.< 2007 Jun 8 Conspiracy Planet Sue Arrigo MD CIA – DIA Mind Control and Sex Slavery of Children Page 1 http://web.archive.org/web/20080608092403/http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=137&contentid=4450

[2] c.< 2007 Jun 8 Conspiracy Planet Sue Arrigo MD CIA – DIA Mind Control and Sex Slavery of Children Page 2 http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=137&contentid=4450&page=2 [save on wayback]

[3] Full Scans of the Washington Post Story http://web.archive.org/web/20070702235121/http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/WashingtonTimes.htm

[4] U.S. Government-Sponsored Mind Control and Tulane http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/twoviews_04a.htmhttp://web.archive.org/web/20051125153037/

[5]  CKLN-FM Mind Control Series http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/radio/ckln-hm.htm

[6] http://web.archive.org/web/20080308003852/http://www.tulanelink.com/mind/interview_04a.htm

[7] 1997 Probe Magazine A.B.H. Alexander Sex, Drugs, the CIA, MIND CONTROL and Your Children http://www.whale.to/b/alexander.html

[8] 2015 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/secrets-of-the-cias-global-sex-slave-industry-by-dr-sue-arrigo-june-15-2007/

[9] 2017 Mar 17 Cathy fox Blog Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 2 by Sue Arrigo MD https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/secrets-of-the-cias-global-sex-slave-industry-2-by-sue-arrigo-md/

[10] 2017 Mar 19 Cathy fox Blog Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry 3 by Sue Arrigo MD https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/19/secrets-of-the-cias-global-sex-slave-industry-3-by-sue-arrigo-md/

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, #pedogate, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, CIA, Controlling Prostitution, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, pedophile, US of America Child Abuse | 3 Comments

Glasgow Herald 10 Oct 1989 Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner

My interest in publishing these, is not the case per se but in what the police were doing investigating it in the first place, any child sexual abuse claimed on the outskirts of the case and the legal judgement about consent not being a defence.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

1989 Oct 19 Glasgow Herald 15 charged after Operation Spanner [7]

FIFTEEN men, including a United Nations lawyer and a lay preacher,

appeared before magistrates yesterday on charges arising from a two-year

investigation by Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Squad.

They were arrested last month after an investigation called Operation

Spanner which also involved 11 provincial forces.

The men, appearing before Camberwell magistrates in south-east London,

faced a total of more than 100 charges including assault on

co-defendants, drug charges and obscene publication offences.

Eight of the accused face charges of running or aiding and abetting

the running of disorderly houses at which numerous persons resorted to

”acts of sadistic and masochistic violence and in accompanying acts of

a lewd, immoral and unnatural kind”.

New Zealand-born Donald Anderson, 60, a retired pig breeder of

Harford, Llanwdra Lampeter, Dyfed, is charged with being concerned with

the running of a disorderly house and indecent sexual acts.

John Patrick Atkinson, 48, an antiques restorer and restaurateur, of

Broadway, Hereford and Worcester, is charged with aiding and abetting

grievous bodily harm on himself.

Anthony Joseph Brown, 54, unemployed, of Yardley, Birmingham, is

charged with conspiracy to commit assault, keeping a disorderly house,

aiding and abetting the running of a disorderly house, and six assaults.

Graham William Cadman, 52, an ice cream salesman, of Horwich,

Lancashire, faces seven charges of keeping a disorderly house, aiding

and abetting the keeping of a disorderly house, conspiracy to assault,

two charges of aiding and abetting actual bodily harm, publishing two

indecent articles, and taking an indecent photograph of a child.

Paul Jason Kelly, 22, unemployed, of Horwich, is charged with aiding

and abetting the running of a disorderly house, causing actual bodily

harm and aiding and abetting actual bodily harm.

Christopher Robert Carter, 37, a fancy dress hire proprietor, of

Frankwell, Shrewsbury, is charged with aiding and abetting the keeping

of a disorderly house and two cases of aiding and abetting assault.

Peter John Grindley, 41, a care assistant in a home for the mentally

handicapped, of Prees Green, Whitchurch, Shropshire, faces 15 charges of

keeping a disorderly house, aiding and abetting the running of another

disorderly house, nine assault charges, conspiracy to assault, and three

drug offences.

Ian Wilkinson, 56, a forester, of Prees Green, also faces 15 charges

of keeping a disorderly house, aiding and abetting the running of

another disorderly house, seven actual bodily harm charges, aiding and

abetting to assault, possession of cannabis and LSD, and publishing an

obscene photograph of a child.

Roland Jaggard, 42, a missile design engineer with British Aerospace,

of Welwyn Garden City, Herts, faces six charges of conspiracy to assault

and grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on

himself and others.

Colin Laskey, 46, a computer programmer, of Macsycoed, Pontypridd,

Mid-Glamorgan, faces 17 charges of conspiring to cause actual bodily

harm, aiding and abetting the running of two disorderly houses, grievous

bodily harm, nine cases of actual bodily harm, one case of malicious

wounding, publication of indecent video tapes and articles, and having

an indecent photograph of a child.

John Henry Lofthouse, 49, of Oulton Broad, Lowestoft, Suffolk, a

station officer with Suffolk Fire Service, faces two charges of aiding

and abetting actual bodily harm on himself, assaulting a co-defendant

and stealing a gas cylinder from his employers.

Saxon Lucas, 57, a restaurateur and lay-preacher, of Evesham, Hereford

and Worcester, is charged with grievous bodily harm and actual bodily

harm.

Alan Oversby, 56, a tattooist, of Bayswater, London, faces 14 charges

of malicious wounding, causing bodily harm to two men and an unnamed

woman, grievous bodily harm with intent, having an obscene photograph

and administering illegal drugs.

Christopher Alexander Zimmerli, 51, a Swiss-born lawyer of Hampstead,

London, faces one charge of causing actual bodily harm to a co-defendant

at the Zimmerli home.

Graham Murray Sharp, 39, a photographic developer of Coalpit Heath,

Bristol, faces three charges involving the distribution of indecent

material.

Mr Oversby was remanded to reappear at Camberwell on October 18. The

others will appear before Lambeth magistrates on November 20.

A sixteenth defendant, Albert Edward Groom, 54, a hotel porter, of

Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, was remanded in his absence until

November 20 on four charges of conspiring to send and have indecent

material, and aiding and abetting an assault on himself.

Reporting restrictions were not lifted.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner [3]

1992 Feb 21 Times Law Reports  Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman – Court of Appeal (Spanner) [6]

1993 Mar 12 Times Law Reports Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter – House of Lords (Spanner) [7]

1997 Feb 20 Times Law Report Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR (Operation Spanner) [4]

1997 Times Law Report Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – EHCR (Spanner) [5]

all related to this post  2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   [8]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/

[2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[3]  2017 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog 1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/glasgow-herald-10-oct-1989-fifteen-charged-after-operation-spanner/

[4] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR Times Law Report 1997 Feb 20 (Operation Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-echr-times-law-report-operation-spanner/

[5] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – Times Law Report 1997 EHCR (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-times-law-report-1997-ehcr-spanner/

[6] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman 21 February 1992 Times Law Reports Court of Appeal (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-laskey-jaggard-lucas-carter-cadman-21-february-1992-times-law-reports-court-of-appeal-spanner/

[7] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter 12 March 1993 Times Law Reports House of Lords (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-lucas-jaggard-laskey-carter-12-march-1993-times-law-reports-house-of-lords/

[8] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Dirty-Squad-Michael-Hames/0316853216/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1490120494&sr=8-3&keywords=Michael+hames

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Court, physical abuse | Tagged , , , , | 12 Comments

Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter 12 March 1993 Times Law Reports House of Lords (Spanner)

My interest in publishing these, is not the case per se but in what the police were doing investigating it in the first place, any child sexual abuse claimed on the outskirts of the case and the legal judgement about consent not being a defence.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

12 March 1993 Times Law Reports

House of Lords

  • Regina v.Brown (Anthony)
  • Regina v Lucas (Saxon)
  • Regina v Jaggard
  • Regina v Laskey (Colin)
  • Regina v Carter

Before Lord Templeman, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lowry, Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley

Crime – assault – sado-masochism – consent no defence

Consent is no defence to sado-masochistic assault
The consent of the willing recipient of sado-masochistic acts of violence did not constitute a defence to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and of wounding contrary to section 20 of the Act.

The House of Lords so held, Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn dissenting, in dismissing appeals by five men from a dismissal by the Court of Appeal (Lord Lane, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Rose and Mr Justice Potts) (The Times February 21, 1992) of their appeals against conviction on pleas of guilty following a ruling by Judge Rant, QC, at the Central Criminal Court on November 7, 1990.

The House answered in the negative the question certified by the Court of Appeal: “Where A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm in the course of a sado-masochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove lack of consent on the part of B before they can establish A’s guilt under section 20 and section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861?”

Mr Lawrence Kershaw, QC, Mrs Pauline Hendy and Miss Eleanor Sharpston for Brown; Lady Mallalieu, QC, Mr Adrian Fulford and Miss Eleanor Sharpston for Lucas and Jaggard; Miss Anna Worrall, QC, Mr Gibson Grenfell and Miss Eleanor Sharpston for Laskey; Mr Ronald Thwaites, QC, Mr Jonathan Lurie and Miss Eleanor Sharpston for Carter; Mr Nicholas Purnell, QC and Mr David Spens for the Crown.

LORD TEMPLEMAN said that the authorities dealing with the intentional infliction of bodily harm did not establish that consent was a defence to a charge under the 1861 Act. They established that the courts had accepted that consent was a defence to the infliction of bodily harm in the course of some lawful activities.

The question was whether the defence should be extended to the infliction of bodily harm in the course of sado-masochistic encounters.

Counsel for the appellants argued that consent should provide a defence because every person had a right to deal with his body as he pleased. That did not provide a sufficient guide to the policy decision which now had to be made. It was an offence for a person to abuse his own body by taking drugs.

In any events the appellants did not mutilate their own bodies. They inflicted bodily harm on willing victims. Suicide was no longer an offence but a person who assisted another to commit suicide was guilty of murder or manslaughter.

There was no evidence to support the assertion that sado-masochistic activities were essential to the happiness of the appellants or any other


participants but the argument would be acceptable if sado-masochism were only concerned with sex, as the appellants contended. In his Lordship’s opinion, it was not only concerned with sex it was also concerned with violence.

The evidence disclosed that the practices of the appellants were unpredictably dangerous and degrading to body and mind and were developed with increasing barbarity and taught to persons whose consents were dubious or worthless.

Drink and drugs were employed to obtain consent and increase enthusiasm. The victim was usually manacled so that the sadist could enjoy the thrill of power and the victim could enjoy the thrill of helplessness. The victim had no control over the harm which the sadist, also stimulated by drink and drugs might inflict. In one case a victim was branded twice on the thigh and there was some doubt as to whether he consented to or protested against the second branding.

The dangers involved in administering violence must have been appreciated by the appellants because, so it was said, each victim was given a code word which he could pronounce when excessive harm or pain was caused. The efficiency of that precaution, when taken, depended on the circumstances and the personalities involved. No one could feel the pain of another.

The charges against the appellants were based on genital torture and violence to the buttocks, anus, penis, testicles and nipples.

The victims were degraded and humiliated, sometimes beaten, sometimes wounded with instruments and sometimes branded. Bloodletting and the smearing of human blood produced excitement. There were obvious dangers of serious personal injury and blood infection.

Prosecuting counsel informed the trial judge against the protests of defence counsel that although the appellants had not contracted AIDS, two other members of the group had died from AIDS and one other had contracted an HIV infection although not necessarily from the practices of the group.

Some activities involved excrement. The assertion that the instruments employed by the sadists were clean and sterilised could not have removed the danger of infection and the assertion that care was taken demonstrated the possibility of infection. Cruelty to human beings was on occasions supplemented by cruelty to animals in the form of bestiality.

It was fortunate that there were no permanent injuries to a victim although no one knew the extent of harm inflicted in other cases.

It was not surprising that a victim did not complain to the police when the complaint would involve him in giving details of acts in which he had participated. Doctors of course were subject of a code of confidentiality.

In principle there was a difference between violence which was incidental and violence which was inflicted in the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sado-masochistic encounters involved the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims.

Such violence was injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. His Lordship was not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sado-masochistic encounters which bred and glorified cruelty and resulted in offences under sections 47 and 20 of the 1861 Act.

Counsel had submitted that since gross indecency charges were time barred the police acted unfairly when they charged the appellants with offences


under the 1861 Act. But there was no reason for the police to refrain from pursuing the charges under the 1861 Act merely because other charges could not be pursued.

Indecency charges were connected with sex. Charges under the 1861 Act were concerned with violence. The violence of sadists and the degradations of the victims had sexual motives but sex was no excuse for violence.

His Lordship rejected the argument that the activities of the appellants were exercises of rights in respect of private and family life as protected by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or that article 7 was of any relevance. Article 8 did not invalidate a law which forbade violence which was intentionally harmful to body and mind.

Society was entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain was an evil thing. Cruelty was uncivilised.

LORD JAUNCEY , agreeing, said that although the reasoning in  R v Donovan ([1934] 2 KB 498) and  Attorney General’s Reference  (No 6 of 1980) ([1981] QB 715) differed, the conclusion from each of them was clear: that the infliction of bodily harm without good reason was unlawful and that the consent of the victim was irrelevant.

 Wilson v Pringle  ([1987] QB 237) showed that if the appellants’ activities in relation to the victims were unlawful they were also hostile and the necessary ingredient of assault was present.

A line had to be drawn somewhere between those injuries which a person could consent to have inflicted upon himself and those which were so serious that consent was immaterial.

In his Lordship’s view, that line properly fell to be drawn between assault at common law and the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm created by section 47 of the 1861 Act with the result that the consent of the victim was no answer to anyone charged with the latter offence or with contravention of section 20 unless the circumstances fell within one of the known exceptions such as organised sport, parental chastisement or reasonable surgery.

There was nothing in either section 20 or 47 to suggest that consent was either an essential ingredient of the offence of a defence thereto.

In considering the public interest it would be wrong to look only at the activities of the appellants alone. The House had to consider the possibility that homosexual sado-masochistic activities were practised by others who might not be so controlled and responsible as the appellants were claimed to be.

Wounds could easily become septic, the free flow of blood from a person who was HIV positive or had AIDS could infect another and an inflicter who was carried away by sexual excitement or by drink or drugs could very easily inflict pain and injury beyond the level to which the receiver had consented.

Furthermore, the possibility of proselytisation and corruption of young men was a real danger even in the case of the appellants and the taking of video recordings of such activities suggested that secrecy might not have been as strict as the appellants claimed.

His Lordship had no doubt that it would not be in the public interest that deliberate infliction of actual bodily harm during the course of homosexual


sado-masochistic activities should be held to be lawful.

When Parliament passed the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which made buggery and acts of gross indecency between consenting males lawful it had available the Wolfenden Report (1957) (Cmnd 247) which was the product of an exhaustive research into the problem.

If it was to be decided that such activities as the nailing by A of B’s foreskin or scrotum to a board or the insertion of hot wax into C’s urethra followed by the burning of his penis with a candle or the incising of D’s scrotum with a scalpel to the effusion of blood were injurious to neither B, C and D nor to the public interest, it was for Parliament with its accumulated wisdom and sources of information to declare them lawful.

LORD LOWRY , agreeing, said that the question of consent was immaterial, there were prima facie offences against sections 20 and 47 and the next question was whether there was good reason to add sado-masochistic acts to the list of exceptions contemplated in  Attorney General’s Reference (No 6 of 1980) . The answer was “No”.

Sado-masochistic homosexual activities could not be regarded as conducive to the enhancement or enjoyment of family life or conducive to the welfare of society. A relaxation of the prohibitions in sections 20 and 47 could only encourage the practice of homosexual sado-masochism and the physical cruelty that it must involve by withdrawing the legal penalty and giving the activity a judicial imprimatur.

A proposed general exemption was to be tested by considering the proposed general effect. That had to include the possibility that some sado-masochistic activity, under the powerful influence of the sexual instinct, would get out of hand and result in serious physical damage to the participants and that some activity would involve a danger of infection.

LORD MUSTILL , dissenting, said that the case was about the criminal law of violence and in his opinion should have been a case about the criminal law of private sexual relations.

The conduct of the appellants and of other co-accused had been treated by the prosecuting authorities in three ways.

First there were those acts which fell squarely within the legislation governing sexual offences. Thus four of the men pleaded guilty to charges of keeping a disorderly house and one pleaded guilty to publishing obscene articles, namely video tapes.

The two remaining categories of conduct comprised private acts. Some were prosecuted and were now before the House. Others were not. If repugnance to general public sentiments of morality and propriety were the test, one would have expected proceedings in respect of the most disgusting conduct to be prosecuted with the greater vigour. Yet the opposite was the case.

Why was that so? Obviously because the prosecuting authorities could find no statutory provision apt to cover that conduct, whereas the sexual conduct which underlay the present appeals, although less extreme, could at least arguably be brought within sections 20 and 47 of the 1861 Act because it involved the breaking of skin and the infliction of more than trifling hurt.

That distribution of charges against the appellants at once sounded a note of warning. It suggested that the involvement of the 1861 Act was


adventitious. That impression was reinforced when one considered the title of the statute.

Of course the House had to give effect to the statute if its words captured what the appellants had done, but in deciding whether that was really so it was legitimate to assume that the choice of the 1861 Act as the basis for the relevant counts in the indictment was made only because no other statute was found which could conceivably be brought to bear upon them.

His Lordship therefore approached the appeal on the basis that the convictions on charges which seemed so inapposite could not be upheld unless the language of the statute or the logic of the decided cases positively so demanded. Unfortunately the language of the statute was opaque and the cases few and unhelpful.

His Lordship concluded, upon consideration of the case law, that the House was free, as the Court of Appeal had not been, being bound by  Attorney General’s Reference (No 6 of 1980) , to consider entirely afresh whether the public interest demanded the interpretation of the 1861 Act in such a way as to render criminal under section 47 the acts done by the appellants.

It had to be emphasised that the issue before the House was not whether the appellant’s conduct was morally right but whether it was properly charged under the 1861 Act.

Thus while many people if asked whether the appellants conduct was wrong would reply “Yes, repulsively wrong” that did not of itself mean that the prosecution of the appellants under the 1861 Act was well founded.

The question to be asked was whether there was a good reason to impress upon section 47 an interpretation which penalised the relevant level of harm irrespective of consent. That formulation of the question was very important for if it were differently stated it might yield a different answer.

In particular, if it were to be held that as a matter of law all infliction of bodily harm above the level of common assault was incapable of being legitimised by consent, except in special circumstances, then it would be necessary to consider whether the public interest required the recognition of private sexual activities as being in a specially exempt category.

That would be an altogether more difficult question and one which his Lordship would not be prepared to answer in favour of the appellants because it was a task which the courts were not suited to perform and which should be carried out, if at all, by Parliament after a thorough review of all the issues.

In the event, the question was not whether as a result of the decision of the instant appeal activities such as those of the appellants should cease to be criminal but rather whether the 1861 Act, a statute which was clearly intended to penalise conduct of a different nature, should in this new situation be interpreted so as to make it criminal.

His Lordship did not advocate the decriminalisation of conduct which had hitherto been a crime. The only question was whether those consensual private acts were offences against the existing law of violence. To that he returned a negative response.

LORD SLYNN , dissenting, said that he did not consider that any of the existing cases was conclusive in resolving the instant question. Those decisions were not in any event binding upon the House so the matter had to


be considered as one of principle.

Consent could not be said simply to be a defence to any act which one person did to another. A line had to be drawn as to what could and could not be the subject of consent. That line had to be workable. It could not be allowed to fluctuate within particular charges and, in the interests of legal certainty, it had to be accepted that consent could be given to acts which were said to constitute actual bodily harm and wounding.

Accordingly, other than for offences of grievous bodily harm or death, consent could be a defence. That in no way meant that the acts done were approved of or encouraged. It meant no more than that they did not constitute an assault within the meaning of those two specific sections of the 1861 Act.

In the present case there was no doubt that there was consent; indeed there was more than mere consent. Astonishing though it might seem, the persons involved positively wanted, asked for, the acts to be done to them. All the accused were old enough to know what they were doing. The acts were done in private.

No one complained as to what was done. The matter came to the attention of the police coincidentally. The acts did not result in any permanent or serious injury or disability or any infection and no medical assistance was required even though there may have been some risk of infection, even injury.

The onus was on the prosecution to prove that there was no consent on the part of the person said to have been assaulted.

His Lordship concluded that as the law stood, adults could consent to acts done in private which did not result in serious bodily harm, so that such acts did not constitute criminal assaults for the purposes of the 1861 Act.

In the end it was a matter of policy in an area where social and moral factors were extremely important and where attitudes could change. It was a matter of policy for the legislature to decide.

It was not for the courts in the interests of paternalism or in order to protect people from themselves to introduce into existing statutory crimes relating to offences against the person, concepts which did not properly fit there.

Solicitors: Geffens, Walsall; J P Malnick & Co, Islington; Hughmans; Shakespeares, Birmingham; CPS, HQ.

12/03/1993 Times Law Reports

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner [3]

1992 Feb 21 Times Law Reports  Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman – Court of Appeal (Spanner) [6]

1993 Mar 12 Times Law Reports Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter – House of Lords (Spanner) [7]

1997 Feb 20 Times Law Report Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR (Operation Spanner) [4]

1997 Times Law Report Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – EHCR (Spanner) [5]

all related to this post  2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   [8]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/

[2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[3]  2017 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog 1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/glasgow-herald-10-oct-1989-fifteen-charged-after-operation-spanner/

[4] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR Times Law Report 1997 Feb 20 (Operation Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-echr-times-law-report-operation-spanner/

[5] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – Times Law Report 1997 EHCR (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-times-law-report-1997-ehcr-spanner/

[6] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman 21 February 1992 Times Law Reports Court of Appeal (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-laskey-jaggard-lucas-carter-cadman-21-february-1992-times-law-reports-court-of-appeal-spanner/

[7] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter 12 March 1993 Times Law Reports House of Lords (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-lucas-jaggard-laskey-carter-12-march-1993-times-law-reports-house-of-lords/

[8] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Dirty-Squad-Michael-Hames/0316853216/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1490120494&sr=8-3&keywords=Michael+hames

Cathy Fox Blog Relevant Article Posts

 

Posted in Child Abuse | 6 Comments

Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman 21 February 1992 Times Law Reports Court of Appeal (Spanner)

My interest in publishing these, is not the case per se but in what the police were doing investigating it in the first place, any child sexual abuse claimed on the outskirts of the case and the legal judgement about consent not being a defence.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

21 February 1992 Times Law Reports
Court of Appeal

  • Regina v Brown (Anthony)
  • Regina v Laskey (Colin)
  • Regina v Jaggard
  • Regina v Lucas (Saxon)
  • Regina v Carter
  • Regina v Cadman

Before Lord Lane, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Rose and Mr Justice Potts


Crime – assault – sado-masochism – consent no defence

Consent no defence to sado-masochistic assault
Willing and enthusiastic participation in sado-masochistic acts of violence against each other by a group of homosexuals for the sexual pleasure it engendered in the giving and receiving of pain provided no defence to charges of assault and wounding under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment dismissing appeals against conviction by five men on pleas of guilty following re-arraignment on November 7, 1990 after a ruling at the Central Criminal Court by Judge Rant, QC, that, in the particular circumstances, it was unnecessary for the prosecution to prove that the victim did not consent to the infliction of bodily harm or wounding on him.

The appeals were also against sentences passed totalling on Brown of two years nine months, reduced on appeal to three months; on Laskey of four and a half years reduced on appeal to two years; on Jaggard of three years, reduced on appeal to six months; on Lucas of three years reduced to six months; and on Cadman, who appealed only against sentence of four and a half years, reduced to three years.

The court certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved, namely: “When A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm in the course of a sado-masochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove lack of consent on the part of B before it can establish A’s guilt under section 20 or section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861?” Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted.

Mr Lawrence Kershen for Brown; Miss Anna Worrall, QC and Mr Gibson Grenfell for Laskey; Lady Mallalieu, QC and Mr Adrian Fulford for Jaggard; Mr Adrian Fulford for Lucas; Mr Jonathan Lurie for Carter; Mr Russell Davies for Cadman; all assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals; Mr Michael Worsley, QC and Mr David Spens for the Crown.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE , giving the judgment of the court, said that the basis of the appeals against conviction was the contention that the judge was wrong in ruling as he did.

The appellants belonged to a group of sado-masochistic homosexuals who willingly and enthusiastically participated in the commission of acts of violence against each other for the sexual pleasure which it engendered in the giving and receiving of pain. Some who had been convicted had not appealed.

The activities took place at a number of different locations including rooms equipped as torture chambers at the homes of co-defendants Ian Wilkinson and Peter John Grindley, who had abandoned their appeals, and the appellant Cadman. Video cameras were used to record the activities and the resulting tapes were then copied and distributed among members of the group.

The prosecution case was based largely on the contents of the video tapes. There was no suggestion that the tapes had been sold or used other than for the delectation of members of the group. The group activities extended over a 10-year period from 1978.

His Lordship reviewed details of some 19 counts. Included among them was count 7, involving Laskey. It charged assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Stinging nettles were applied around the genital area and buttocks of the victim. He was hit with a cat of nine tails and the inside of his thighs was caned.

Count 17 alleged unlawful wounding against Lucas and Jaggard. A co-defendant named Atkinson had his penis nailed to a bench; he was caned, hit and rubbed with a spiked strap, then cut with a scalpel by Lucas. There were five lateral cuts together with further cuts to the victim’s scrotum and there was a free flow of blood.

It was common ground that all the actions to which the appellants pleaded guilty were done with the consent of the passive partner or victim.

There was no permanent injury; no infection of the wounds; no evidence of any medical attention being sought. There was no complaint to the police. The facts came to light by chance during investigation of other matters. The actions were carried out in private. There was no profit motive and no sale of the video tapes.

It was submitted that there could be no assault unless the prosecution proved that there was a “hostile” act by the defendant. That submission was based on dicta in  Fairclough v Whipp  ([1951] 2 All ER 834), where it was held that an invitation to a child to commit an indecent act, even if the invitation was accepted was not an assault, indecent or otherwise.

His Lordship said that, if hostile meant aggressive or intentional, then that definition was satisfied in the instant case. If it meant without the consent of the other party, then it added nothing to the arguments about consent which were at the heart of the appeal.

At the lowest, the intention in the present case to inflict pain and suffering was in the circumstances a sufficient degree of hostility to constitute an assault, subject to the question of consent.

Another submission was that it was inappropriate to lay charges under the 1861 Act which, it was said, was not intended to apply to consensual actions in private not causing serious injury, particularly where such actions were merely incidents of private sexual behaviour.

His Lordship said that if the events had been merely incidents in the course of private activities, whether homo- or heterosexual, then doubtless different considerations would have been applied.

Where, however, as in this case, there had admittedly been inflicted either wounding or actual bodily harm, it was in their Lordships’ judgment both permissible and correct to lay charges under the 1861 Act.

References had been made to Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution, the Wolfenden Report ((1957) Cmnd 247) and to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in  Dudgeon v United Kingdom ((1982) 4 EHRR 149), but they did not seem to be relevant, as they did not apply when wounds or actual bodily harm were actually suffered.

The real nub of the appeal was the contention that the consent of the victim in the circumstances prevented the prosecution from proving an essential element of the offences, whether charged under section 20 or section 47 of the 1861 Act.

Section 47 provided for liability to imprisonment for five years for conviction on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Such harm was defined in  R v Miller  ([1954] 2 QB 282, 292) as any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort.

Section 20 provided “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be liable … to imprisonment … for not more than five years.”

By their pleas to various counts, therefore, Laskey, Jaggard and Lucas, so far as the section 20 allegations were concerned, admitted that they had wounded the victim and, so far as section 47 was concerned, all the appellants admitted to having caused hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the other party.

Generally speaking, for the prosecution to bring home a charge of assault, they had to prove that the victim did not consent to the defendant’s actions, an assault being any unlawful touching of another without that other’s consent.

In certain circumstances the law did not permit a defendant to rely, so to speak, on the victim’s consent. Consent to being killed would provide no excuse for the killer. Where the assault involved permanent injury or maiming, for example, severing of a limb, there was no dispute that the victim’s consent was immaterial.

It was contended that the same considerations did not apply where there was no permanent injury, even though the assault might have amounted to grievous bodily harm or wounding.

His Lordship reviewed the classic authority  R v Coney  ((1882) 8 QBD 534), the prize fight case,  R v Donovan  ([1934] 2 KB 498), in which the reasoning of the court seemed to have been tautologous, as was pointed out in  Attorney General’s Reference (No 6 of 1980)  ([1981] QB 715), referred to Kenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law (19th edition (1966) p209) and Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (43rd edition (1988) paragraph 20/124).

That brought their Lordships to the  Reference , where two youths met in a public street and decided to fight each other, as a result one sustained a bleeding nose and bruising to his face. The other was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was acquitted by the jury.

The question posed by the Attorney General to the court was “Whether, where two persons fight (otherwise than in the course of sport) in a public place, can it be a defence for one of those persons to a charge of assault arising out of the fight that the other consented to fight?”

The court’s answer was that it was not in the public interest that people should try to cause or should cause each other actual bodily harm for no good reason. Minor struggles were another matter. So, it was immaterial whether the act occurred in private or in public. It was an assault if actual bodily harm was intended and/or caused. That meant that most fights would be unlawful regardless of consent.

What might be good reason was unnecessary for their Lordships to decide. It was sufficient to say, so far as the instant case was concerned, that they agreed with the trial judge that the satisfying of sado-masochistic libido did not come within the category of good reason nor could the injuries be described as merely transient or trifling.

In their Lordships’ judgment, the principle as expressed in the Reference  did apply to the instant case.

Consequently, for those reasons the question of consent was immaterial. The judge’s ruling was correct.

Any attempt to distinguish between offences coming within section 18 of the 1861 Act and those coming within section 20 or 47 would, it seemed, be almost impossible to draw. Many of the section 47 charges could equally well have been laid under section 20 and the only distincition between section 20 and section 18 was the intent of the defendant and not the degree of violence.

For those reasons the several appeals against conviction were dismissed.

As to sentences: their Lordships took the view that the function of the court was to mark its disapproval of those activities by imposing short terms of immediate imprisonment. They were prepared to accept that the appellants did not appreciate that their actions in inflicting injuries were criminal and that the sentences upon them therefore should be comparatively lenient.

In future, however, that argument would not be open to a defendant in circumstances such as those obtaining in the instant case.

Solicitors: CPS, Central Courts.

21/02/1992 Times Law Reports

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner [3]

1992 Feb 21 Times Law Reports  Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman – Court of Appeal (Spanner) [6]

1993 Mar 12 Times Law Reports Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter – House of Lords (Spanner) [7]

1997 Feb 20 Times Law Report Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR (Operation Spanner) [4]

1997 Times Law Report Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – EHCR (Spanner) [5]

all related to this post  2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   [8]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/

[2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[3]  2017 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog 1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/glasgow-herald-10-oct-1989-fifteen-charged-after-operation-spanner/

[4] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR Times Law Report 1997 Feb 20 (Operation Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-echr-times-law-report-operation-spanner/

[5] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – Times Law Report 1997 EHCR (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-times-law-report-1997-ehcr-spanner/

[6] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman 21 February 1992 Times Law Reports Court of Appeal (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-laskey-jaggard-lucas-carter-cadman-21-february-1992-times-law-reports-court-of-appeal-spanner/

[7] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter 12 March 1993 Times Law Reports House of Lords (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-lucas-jaggard-laskey-carter-12-march-1993-times-law-reports-house-of-lords/

[8] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Dirty-Squad-Michael-Hames/0316853216/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1490120494&sr=8-3&keywords=Michael+hames

Posted in Court, physical abuse | Tagged , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – Times Law Report 1997 EHCR (Spanner)

My interest in publishing these, is not the case per se but in what the police were doing investigating it in the first place, any child sexual abuse claimed on the outskirts of the case and the legal judgement about consent not being a defence.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom Reports 1997-I p. 120
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

In the case of Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and the relevant provisions of Rules of Court A as a Chamber composed of the following judges:

  • Mr R. Bernhardt, President,
  • Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
  • Mr C. Russo,
  • Mr A. Spielmann,
  • Sir John Freeland,
  • Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha,
  • Mr L. Wildhaber,
  • Mr P. Kuris,
  • Mr E. Levits,
  • and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 28 October 1996 and 20 January 1997,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:

Notes by the Registrar

  1. The case is numbered 109/1995/615/703-705. The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.
  2.  Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9). They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently.

3.PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 11 December 1995, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47). It originated in three applications (nos. 21627/93, 21826/93 and 21974/93) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) on 14 December 1992 by three British nationals, Mr Colin Laskey, Mr Roland Jaggard and Mr Anthony Brown.The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8)
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the late Mr Laskey’s father and the two other applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent them (Rule 30).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officioSir John Freeland, the elected judge of British nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)). On 8 February 1996, in the presence of the Registrar, the President of the Court, Mr R. Ryssdal, drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr C. Russo, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha, Mr L. Wildhaber, Mr P. Kuris and Mr E. Levits (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43).
4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Bernhardt, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”), the applicants’ lawyers and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the orders made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government’s and the applicants’ memorials on 2 and 15 July 1996 respectively.
5. On 17 July 1996, the President granted leave to Rights International, a New York-based non-governmental human rights organisation, to submit written comments on specified aspects of the case (Rule 37 para. 2). The comments were received on 16 August 1996.
6. In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 21 October 1996. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government

Mr I. Christie, Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent,

Mr D. Pannick QC,  Mr M. Shaw, Counsel,

Mr S. Bramley, Ms B. Moxon, Advisers;

(b) for the Commission

Mr G. Ress, Delegate;

(c) for the applicants 

Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Ms A. Worrall QC, Counsel,

Mr D. Jonas, Mr A. Hamilton, Mr I. Geffen, Solicitors,

Mr J. Wadham, Adviser.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Ress, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Ms Worrall and Mr Pannick.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

7. Mr Laskey, Mr Jaggard and Mr Brown, all British citizens, were born in 1943, 1947 and 1935 respectively. Mr Laskey died on 14 May 1996.

8. In 1987, in the course of routine investigations into other matters, the police came into possession of a number of video films which were made during sado-masochistic encounters involving the applicants and as many as forty-four other homosexual men. As a result the applicants, with several other men, were charged with a series of offences, including assault and wounding, relating to sado-masochistic activities that had taken place over a ten-year period. One of the charges involved a defendant who was not yet 21 years old – the age of consent to male homosexual practices at the time. Although the instances of assault were very numerous, the prosecution limited the counts to a small number of exemplary charges.

The acts consisted in the main of maltreatment of the genitalia (with, for example, hot wax, sandpaper, fish hooks and needles) and ritualistic beatings either with the assailant’s bare hands or a variety of implements, including stinging nettles, spiked belts and a cat-o’-nine tails. There were instances of branding and infliction of injuries which resulted in the flow of blood and which left scarring.

These activities were consensual and were conducted in private for no apparent purpose other than the achievement of sexual gratification. The infliction of pain was subject to certain rules including the provision of a code word to be used by any “victim” to stop an “assault”, and did not lead to any instances of infection, permanent injury or the need for medical attention.

9. The activities took place at a number of locations, including rooms equipped as torture chambers. Video cameras were used to record events and the tapes copied and distributed amongst members of the group. The prosecution was largely based on the contents of those videotapes. There was no suggestion that the tapes had been sold or used other than by members of the group.

10. The applicants pleaded guilty to the assault charges after the trial judge ruled that they could not rely on the consent of the “victims” as an answer to the prosecution case.

11. On 19 December 1990, the defendants were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. On passing sentence, the trial judge commented: “… the unlawful conduct now before the court would be dealt with equally in the prosecution of heterosexuals or bisexuals if carried out by them. The homosexuality of the defendants is only the background against which the case must be viewed.”

Mr Laskey was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and six months. This included a sentence of four years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting keeping a disorderly house (see paragraph 31 below) and a consecutive term of six months’ imprisonment for possession of an indecent photograph of a child. Under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (“the 1861 Act” – see paragraph 27 below), Mr Laskey also received concurrent sentences of twelve months’ imprisonment in respect of various counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and aiding and abetting assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

12. Mr Jaggard was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. He received two years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting unlawful wounding – contrary to section 20 of the 1861 Act (see paragraph 25 below) -, and a further twelve months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, aiding and abetting the same offence, and unlawful wounding.

13. Mr Brown was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and nine months. He received twelve months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting assault occasioning actual bodily harm, a further nine months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and a further twelve months’ imprisonment for further assaults occasioning actual bodily harm.

14. The applicants appealed against conviction and sentence.

15. On 19 February 1992, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the appeals against conviction. Since, however, the court found that the applicants did not appreciate that their actions in inflicting injuries were criminal, reduced sentences were imposed.

16. Mr Laskey’s sentence was thus reduced to eighteen months’ imprisonment as regards the charge of aiding and abetting keeping a disorderly house. This sentence was to run concurrently with another three months’ sentence in respect of the various counts of assault and consecutively with six months’ imprisonment for the possession of an indecent photograph of a child, totalling two years’ imprisonment.

17. Mr Jaggard’s and Mr Brown’s sentences were reduced to six months’ and three months’ imprisonment respectively.

18. The applicants appealed to the House of Lords on the following certified point of law of public importance:

“Where A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm in the course of a sado-masochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove lack of consent on the part of B before they can establish A’s guilt under section 20 or section 47 of the 1861 Act?”

19. On 11 March 1993, the appeal, known as the case of R. v. Brown ([1993] 2 All England Law Reports 75), was dismissed by a majority of the House of Lords, two of the five law lords dissenting.

20. Lord Templeman, in the majority, held after reviewing the case-law that:

“… the authorities dealing with the intentional infliction of bodily harm do not establish that consent is a defence to a charge under the Act of 1861. They establish that consent is a defence to the infliction of bodily harm in the course of some lawful activities. The question is whether the defence should be extended to the infliction of bodily harm in the course of sado-masochistic encounters …

Counsel for the appellants argued that consent should provide a defence … because it was said every person has a right to deal with his own body as he chooses. I do not consider that this slogan provides a sufficient guide to the policy decision which must now be taken. It is an offence for a person to abuse his own body and mind by taking drugs. Although the law is often broken, the criminal law restrains a practice which is regarded as dangerous and injurious to individuals and which if allowed and extended is harmful to society generally. In any event the appellants in this case did not mutilate their own bodies. They inflicted harm on willing victims …

In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sado-masochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sado-masochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty …

Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised.”

21. Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle found that:

“In my view the line falls properly to be drawn between assault at common law and the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm created by section 47 of the 1861 Act, with the result that consent of the victim is no answer to anyone charged with the latter offence … unless the circumstances fall within one of the well known exceptions such as organised sporting contests or games, parental chastisement or reasonable surgery … the infliction of actual or more serious bodily harm is an unlawful activity to which consent is no answer.

… Notwithstanding the views which I have come to, I think it right to say something about the submissions that consent to the activity of the appellants would not be injurious to the public interest.

Considerable emphasis was placed by the appellants on the well-ordered and secret manner in which their activities were conducted and upon the fact that these activities had resulted in no injuries which required medical attention. There was, it was said, no question of proselytising by the appellants. This latter submission sits ill with the following passage in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice:

‘They [Laskey and Cadman] recruited new participants; they jointly organised proceedings at the house where much of this activity took place; where much of the pain inflicting equipment was stored.

Cadman was a voyeur rather than a sado-masochist, but both he and Laskey through their operations at the Horwich premises were responsible in part for the corruption of a youth “K” who is now it seems settled into a normal heterosexual relationship.’

Be that as it may, in considering the public interest it would be wrong to look only at the activities of the appellants alone, there being no suggestion that they and their associates are the only practitioners of homosexual sado-masochism in England and Wales. This House must therefore consider the possibility that these activities are practised by others and by others who are not so controlled or responsible as the appellants are claiming to be. Without going into details of all the rather curious activities in which the appellants engaged it would appear to be good luck rather than good judgment which has prevented serious injury from occurring. Wounds can easily become septic if not properly treated, the free flow of blood from a person who is HIV-positive or who has AIDS can infect another and an inflicter who is carried away by sexual excitement or by drink or drugs could very easily inflict pain and injury beyond the level to which the receiver had consented. Your Lordships have no information as to whether such situations have occurred in relation to other sado-masochistic practitioners. It was no doubt these dangers which caused Lady Mallalieu to restrict her propositions in relation to the public interest to the actual rather than the potential result of the activity. In my view such a restriction is quite unjustified. When considering the public interest potential for harm is just as relevant as actual harm. As Mathew J. said in Coney 8 Queen’s Bench 534, 547:

‘There is however abundant authority for saying that no consent can render that innocent which is in fact dangerous.’

Furthermore, the possibility of proselytisation and corruption of young men is a real danger even in the case of these appellants and the taking of video recordings of such activities suggests that secrecy may not be as strict as the appellants claimed to your Lordships.”

22. Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley dissented. The first considered that the case should not be treated as falling within the criminal law of violence but rather within the criminal law of private sexual relations. He gave weight to the arguments of the appellants concerning Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8), finding that the decisions of the European authorities clearly favoured the right of the appellants to conduct their private life undisturbed by the criminal law. He considered after an examination of the relevant case-law that it was appropriate for the House of Lords to tackle afresh the question whether public interest required penalising the infliction of this degree of harm in private on a consenting recipient, where the purpose was not profit but gratification of sexual desire. He found no convincing argument on grounds of health (alleged risk of infections or spread of AIDS), the alleged risk of the activities getting out of hand or any possible risk of corruption of youth which might require the offences under the 1861 Act to be interpreted as applying to this conduct.

23. Lord Slynn of Hadley found that as the law stood adults were able to consent to acts done in private which did not result in serious bodily harm. He agreed that it was in the end a matter of policy in an area where social and moral factors were extremely important and where attitudes could change. It was however for the legislature to decide whether such conduct should be brought within the criminal law and not for the courts in the interests of “paternalism” to introduce into existing statutory crimes relating to offences against the person concepts which did not properly fit there.

24. The proceedings were given widespread press coverage. All the applicants lost their jobs and Mr Jaggard required extensive psychiatric treatment.

II. Relevant domestic law and practice

A. Offences against the persons

1. The Offences against the Person Act 1861

25. Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (“the 1861 Act”) provides:

“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, … shall be liable … to [imprisonment] … for not more than five years.”

26. According to the case-law, to constitute a wound for the purposes of the section, the whole skin must be broken, not merely the outer layer or epidermis.

27. By section 47 of the 1861 Act:

“Whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable … to imprisonment for not more than five years.”

Actual bodily harm is defined as “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort” (Liksey J, in R. v. Miller [1954] 2 Queen’s Bench Reports 282, at 292).

2. Case-law prior to R. v. Brown

28. In the case of R. v. Donovan ([1934] 2 King’s Bench Reports, at 498), the accused had beaten with a cane a girl for the purposes of sexual gratification, with her consent. Swift J held:

“It is an unlawful act to beat another person with such a degree of violence that the infliction of actual bodily harm is a probable consequence, and when such an act is proved, consent is immaterial.”

29. In Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980) ([1980] Queen’s Bench Reports, at 715) where two men quarrelled and decided to fight each other, Lord Lane CJ in the Court of Appeal had held:

“It is not in the public interest that people should try to cause or should cause each other actual bodily harm for no good reason. Minor struggles are another matter. So, in our judgment, it is immaterial whether the act occurs in private or in public; it is an assault if actual bodily harm is intended and/or caused. This means that most fights will be unlawful regardless of consent. Nothing which we have said is intended to cast doubt upon the accepted legality of properly conducted games and sports, lawful chastisement or correction, reasonable surgical interference, dangerous exhibitions, etc. These apparent exceptions can be justified as involving the exercise of a legal right, in the case of chastisement or correction, or as needed in the public interest, in the other cases.”

3. Case-law subsequent to R. v. Brown

30. In R. v. Wilson ([1996] 3 Weekly Law Reports, at 125), where a man had been convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm for having branded his initials with a hot knife on his wife’s buttocks with her consent, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the appeal. In the course of the court’s judgment, Lord Justice Russell stated:

“… there is no factual comparison to be made between the instant case and the facts of either Donovan or Brown: Mrs Wilson not only consented to that which the appellant did, she instigated it. There was no aggressive intent on the part of the appellant …

We do not think that we are entitled to assume that the method adopted by the appellant and his wife was any more dangerous or painful than tattooing …

Consensual activity between husband and wife, in the privacy of the matrimonial home, is not, in our judgment, a proper matter for criminal investigation, let alone criminal prosecution.”

B. Offences against public decency

31. Keeping a “disorderly house” is a common law offence. A disorderly house is defined as

“one which is not regulated by the restraints of morality and which is so conducted as to violate law and good order. There must be an element of ‘open house’, but it does not need to be open for the public at large … Where indecent performances or exhibitions are alleged as rendering the premises a disorderly house, it must be proved that matters are there performed or exhibited of such a character that their performance or exhibition in a place of common resort (a) amounts to an outrage of public decency, or (b) tends to corrupt or deprave, or (c) is otherwise calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment” ([1996] Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 20, at 224).

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

32. Mr Laskey, Mr Jaggard and Mr Brown applied to the Commission on 14 December 1992. They relied on Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention (art. 7, art. 8), complaining that their convictions were the result of an unforeseeable application of a provision of the criminal law which, in any event, amounted to an unlawful and unjustifiable interference with their right to respect for their private life.

33. On 18 January 1995, the Commission declared the applications (nos. 21627/93, 21826/93 and 21974/93) admissible as to the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8). In its report of 26 October 1995 (Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the opinion, by eleven votes to seven, that there had been no violation of that provision (art. 8).

The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the two separate opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment (1).

Note by the Registrar

  1. 1. For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I), but a copy of the Commission’s report is obtainable from the registry.

FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

34. At the hearing, the Government invited the Court to agree with the majority of the Commission that there had been no breach of the Convention in this case.

The applicants, for their part, asked the Court to consider the position of each individual applicant upon the basis of the agreed facts and the charges which were pertinent to them and to find a violation of their right to respect for their private lives through the expression of their sexual personality, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8).

AS TO THE LAW

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 8)

35. The applicants contended that their prosecution and convictions for assault and wounding in the course of consensual sado-masochistic activities between adults was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8), which provides:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

It was common ground among those appearing before the Court that the criminal proceedings against the applicants which resulted in their conviction constituted an “interference by a public authority” with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life. It was similarly undisputed that the interference had been “in accordance with the law”. Furthermore, the Commission and the applicants accepted the Government’s assertion that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of the “protection of health or morals”, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8 (art. 8-2).

36. The Court observes that not every sexual activity carried out behind closed doors necessarily falls within the scope of Article 8 (art. 8). In the present case, the applicants were involved in consensual sado-masochistic activities for purposes of sexual gratification. There can be no doubt that sexual orientation and activity concern an intimate aspect of private life (see, mutatis mutandis, the Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 21, para. 52). However, a considerable number of people were involved in the activities in question which included, inter alia, the recruitment of new “members”, the provision of several specially equipped “chambers”, and the shooting of many videotapes which were distributed among the “members” (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above). It may thus be open to question whether the sexual activities of the applicants fell entirely within the notion of “private life” in the particular circumstances of the case.

However, since this point has not been disputed by those appearing before it, the Court sees no reason to examine it of its own motion in the present case. Assuming, therefore, that the prosecution and conviction of the applicants amounted to an interference with their private life, the question arises whether such an interference was “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8 (art. 8-2).

“Necessary in a democratic society”

37. The applicants maintained that the interference in issue could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”. This submission was contested by the Government and by a majority of the Commission.

38. In support of their submission, the applicants alleged that all those involved in the sado-masochistic encounters were willing adult participants; that participation in the acts complained of was carefully restricted and controlled and was limited to persons with like-minded sado-masochistic proclivities; that the acts were not witnessed by the public at large and that there was no danger or likelihood that they would ever be so witnessed; that no serious or permanent injury had been sustained, no infection had been caused to the wounds, and that no medical treatment had been required. Furthermore, no complaint was ever made to the police – who learnt about the applicants’ activities by chance (see paragraph 8 above).

The potential for severe injury or for moral corruption was regarded by the applicants as a matter of speculation. To the extent that issues of public morality had arisen – with reference to Mr Laskey’s conviction for keeping a disorderly house and for the possession of an indecent photograph of a child (see paragraph 11 above) – these had been dealt with under the relevant sexual offences provisions and appropriately punished. In any event, such issues fell outside the scope of the case as presented before the Court.

39. The applicants submitted that their case should be viewed as one involving matters of sexual expression, rather than violence. With due regard to this consideration, the line beyond which consent is no defence to physical injury should only be drawn at the level of intentional or reckless causing of serious disabling injury.

40. For the Government, the State was entitled to punish acts of violence, such as those for which the applicants were convicted, that could not be considered of a trifling or transient nature, irrespective of the consent of the victim. In fact, in the present case, some of these acts could well be compared to “genital torture” and a Contracting State could not be said to have an obligation to tolerate acts of torture because they are committed in the context of a consenting sexual relationship. The State was moreover entitled to prohibit activities because of their potential danger.

The Government further contended that the criminal law should seek to deter certain forms of behaviour on public-health grounds but also for broader moral reasons. In this respect, acts of torture – such as those in issue in the present case – may be banned also on the ground that they undermine the respect which human beings should confer upon each other. In any event, the whole issue of the role of consent in the criminal law is of great complexity and the Contracting States should enjoy a wide margin of appreciation to consider all the public-policy options.

41. The Commission noted that the injuries that were or could be caused by the applicants’ activities were of a significant nature and degree, and that the conduct in question was, on any view, of an extreme character. The State authorities therefore acted within their margin of appreciation in order to protect its citizens from real risk of serious physical harm or injury.

42. According to the Court’s established case-law, the notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued; in determining whether an interference is “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court will take into account that a margin of appreciation is left to the national authorities (see, inter alia, the Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, pp. 31-32, para. 67), whose decision remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

The scope of this margin of appreciation is not identical in each case but will vary according to the context. Relevant factors include the nature of the Convention right in issue, its importance for the individual and the nature of the activities concerned (see the Buckley v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, pp. 1291-92, para. 74).

43. The Court considers that one of the roles which the State is unquestionably entitled to undertake is to seek to regulate, through the operation of the criminal law, activities which involve the infliction of physical harm. This is so whether the activities in question occur in the course of sexual conduct or otherwise.

44. The determination of the level of harm that should be tolerated by the law in situations where the victim consents is in the first instance a matter for the State concerned since what is at stake is related, on the one hand, to public health considerations and to the general deterrent effect of the criminal law, and, on the other, to the personal autonomy of the individual.

45. The applicants have contended that, in the circumstances of the case, the behaviour in question formed part of private morality which is not the State’s business to regulate. In their submission the matters for which they were prosecuted and convicted concerned only private sexual behaviour.

The Court is not persuaded by this submission. It is evident from the facts established by the national courts that the applicants’ sado-masochistic activities involved a significant degree of injury or wounding which could not be characterised as trifling or transient. This, in itself, suffices to distinguish the present case from those applications which have previously been examined by the Court concerning consensual homosexual behaviour in private between adults where no such feature was present (see the Dudgeon judgment cited above, the Norris v. Ireland judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, and the Modinos v. Cyprus judgment of 22 April 1993, Series A no. 259).

46. Nor does the Court accept the applicants’ submission that no prosecution should have been brought against them since their injuries were not severe and since no medical treatment had been required.

In deciding whether or not to prosecute, the State authorities were entitled to have regard not only to the actual seriousness of the harm caused – which as noted above was considered to be significant – but also, as stated by Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle (see paragraph 21 above), to the potential for harm inherent in the acts in question. In this respect it is recalled that the activities were considered by Lord Templeman to be “unpredictably dangerous” (see paragraph 20 above).

47. The applicants have further submitted that they were singled out partly because of the authorities’ bias against homosexuals. They referred to the recent judgment in the Wilson case (see paragraph 30 above), where, in their view, similar behaviour in the context of a heterosexual couple was not considered to deserve criminal punishment.

The Court finds no evidence in support of the applicants’ allegations in either the conduct of the proceedings against them or the judgment of the House of Lords. In this respect it recalls the remark of the trial judge when passing sentence that “the unlawful conduct now before the court would be dealt with equally in the prosecution of heterosexuals or bisexuals if carried out by them” (see paragraph 11 above).

Moreover, it is clear from the judgment of the House of Lords that the opinions of the majority were based on the extreme nature of the practices involved and not the sexual proclivities of the applicants (see paragraphs 20 and 21 above).

In any event, like the Court of Appeal, the Court does not consider that the facts in the Wilson case were at all comparable in seriousness to those in the present case (see paragraph 30 above).

48. Accordingly, the Court considers that the reasons given by the national authorities for the measures taken in respect of the applicants were relevant and sufficient for the purposes of Article 8 para. 2 (art. 8-2).

49. It remains to be ascertained whether these measures were proportionate to the legitimate aim or aims pursued.

The Court notes that the charges of assault were numerous and referred to illegal activities which had taken place over more than ten years. However, only a few charges were selected for inclusion in the prosecution case. It further notes that, in recognition of the fact that the applicants did not appreciate their actions to be criminal, reduced sentences were imposed on appeal (see paragraphs 15-17 above). In these circumstances, bearing in mind the degree of organisation involved in the offences, the measures taken against the applicants cannot be regarded as disproportionate.

50. In sum, the Court finds that the national authorities were entitled to consider that the prosecution and conviction of the applicants were necessary in a democratic society for the protection of health within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention (art. 8-2).

51. In view of this conclusion the Court, like the Commission, does not find it necessary to determine whether the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life could also be justified on the ground of the protection of morals. This finding, however, should not be understood as calling into question the prerogative of the State on moral grounds to seek to deter acts of the kind in question.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

Holds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8).

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 19 February 1997.

Signed: Rudolf BERNHARDT President

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD Registrar

In accordance with Article 51 para. 2 of the Convention (art. 51-2) and Rule 53 para. 2 of Rules of Court A, the concurring opinion of Mr Pettiti is annexed to this judgment.

Initialled: R. B.

Initialled: H. P.

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE PETTITI

(Translation)

I concurred with all my colleagues in finding that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8). However, my reasoning differs from theirs in some respects.

Firstly, the Court implicitly accepted that Article 8 (art. 8) was applicable since it assumed there had been an interference, and the application referred to State interference under Article 8 (art. 8): “the institution of criminal proceedings infringed that Article (art. 8).”

In my view, that Article (art. 8) was not even applicable in the instant case. The concept of private life cannot be stretched indefinitely.

Not every aspect of private life automatically qualifies for protection under the Convention. The fact that the behaviour concerned takes place on private premises does not suffice to ensure complete immunity and impunity. Not everything that happens behind closed doors is necessarily acceptable. It is already the case in criminal law that the “rape” of a spouse where there is doubt whether consent was given may lead to prosecution. Other types of behaviour may give rise to civil proceedings (internal telephone tapping for example). Sexual acts and abuse, even when not criminal, give rise to liability.

The case could have been looked at differently, both in domestic law and subsequently under the Convention. Can one consider that adolescents taking part in sado-masochistic activities have given their free and informed consent where their elders have used various means of enticement, including financial reward?

In domestic law, sado-masochistic activities could be made the subject of a specific criminal offence without that being contrary to Article 8 (art. 8) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It seems to me that the wording used by the Court in paragraph 42 is too vague. The margin of appreciation has been used by the Court mainly in dealing with issues of morals or problems of civil society, but above all so as to afford better protection to others; consequently, a reference to the Müller and Others v. Switzerland judgment would have been preferable to the reference to the Buckley v. the United Kingdom judgment (see Olivier de Schutter’s commentary on that judgment in Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme, Brussels, 1997, pp. 64-93).

It seemed to me necessary to expand paragraph 43 by noting “to regulate and punish practices of sexual abuse that are demeaning even if they do not involve the infliction of physical harm”.

The dangers of unrestrained permissiveness, which can lead to debauchery, paedophilia (see paragraph 11 of the judgment) or the torture of others, were highlighted at the Stockholm World Conference. The protection of private life means the protection of a person’s intimacy and dignity, not the protection of his baseness or the promotion of criminal immoralism.

Reports 1997-I p. 120

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner [3]

1992 Feb 21 Times Law Reports  Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman – Court of Appeal (Spanner) [6]

1993 Mar 12 Times Law Reports Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter – House of Lords (Spanner) [7]

1997 Feb 20 Times Law Report Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR (Operation Spanner) [4]

1997 Times Law Report Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – EHCR (Spanner) [5]

all related to this post  2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   [8]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/

[2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[3]  2017 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog 1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/glasgow-herald-10-oct-1989-fifteen-charged-after-operation-spanner/

[4] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR Times Law Report 1997 Feb 20 (Operation Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-echr-times-law-report-operation-spanner/

[5] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – Times Law Report 1997 EHCR (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-times-law-report-1997-ehcr-spanner/

[6] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman 21 February 1992 Times Law Reports Court of Appeal (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-laskey-jaggard-lucas-carter-cadman-21-february-1992-times-law-reports-court-of-appeal-spanner/

[7] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter 12 March 1993 Times Law Reports House of Lords (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-lucas-jaggard-laskey-carter-12-march-1993-times-law-reports-house-of-lords/

[8] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Dirty-Squad-Michael-Hames/0316853216/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1490120494&sr=8-3&keywords=Michael+hames

Posted in cathy fox blog, Court, physical abuse | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Michael Hames Dirty Squad Operation Spanner

According to Michael Hames book Dirty Squad, Operation Spanner was mainly to do with consensual but extremely violent sado masochism. One such act was slicing the penis of another with a scalpel.

Some of those arrested in Operation Spanner had links and were charged with offences related to child sexual abuse.

Ian Donaldson appears to have been in charge of Operation Spanner, although it seems DPP coordinated the Inquiry.

82 potential defendants were interviewed and more contacts could have been followed up.

16 were charged

The average age was 50 and jobs varied from missile designer, lawyer, civil servant, forester, care assistant for mentally disabled, 2 restauranteurs, lay preacher, former fire officer, computer operator, retired finance officer, antiques restorer, tattooist, porter, and former pig breeder.

Acts of violence in Whitchurch, Pontypridd,  Birmingham, Bolton, Evesham, Cambridge, London.

Men involved

  • Lucas
  • Johnny Atkinson had been violently raped at a childrens home as a boy
  • Colin Lasky previous conviction for buggery on a boy, 5 years sentence charged with indecent photographs of a child
  • Cadman – ice cream vendor access to boys aged 11/12 was his preference
  • Kelly
  • Wilkinson
  • Grindley
  • Lofthouse – Norfolk
  • Christopher Zimmerli – Hampstead, Lawyer for international company
  • Roland Jaggard – missile designer British Aerospace, sadist with blood interest, liked penile mutilations
  • James Phippen
  • Donald Anderson – charged with bestiality

Bulk of charges related to assault or bodily harm.

  • Colin Lasky 5 years
  • Forester and care worker 3 and half years
  • computer operator and ice cream vendor involved with children, 4 and half years
  • missile engineer and lay preacher 3 years
  • finance officer 33 months
  • pig breeder a year
  • 4 suspended sentences
  • one fine
  • one probation
  • one conditional discharge

See also Times Law Report on European Court of Human Rights Appeal Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR Times Law Report (Operation Spanner) [3]

See also Operation Greenlight Operation Spanner [4] Cadman, Lofthouse, Zimmerli and Lasky

Here is the Mike Hames Chapter on Operation Spanner  The Dirty Squad [1]

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner [3]

1992 Feb 21 Times Law Reports  Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman – Court of Appeal (Spanner) [6]

1993 Mar 12 Times Law Reports Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter – House of Lords (Spanner) [7]

1997 Feb 20 Times Law Report Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR (Operation Spanner) [4]

1997 Times Law Report Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – EHCR (Spanner) [5]

all related to this post  2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   [8]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

 

Links

[1] 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Dirty-Squad-Michael-Hames/0316853216/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1490120494&sr=8-3&keywords=Michael+hames

[2] 2017 Mar 8 Cathy Fox Blog Heroes for Exposing Child Sexual Abuse – Part 1 – Peter McKelvie https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/heroes-for-exposing-child-sexual-abuse-part-1-peter-mckelvie/

[3] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR Times Law Report (Operation Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-echr-times-law-report-operation-spanner/

[4] Operation Greenlight Operation Spanner https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/0FE31538-2121-8495-33A5-86073BE95DE1/thought/918#-10156

[3]  2017 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog 1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/glasgow-herald-10-oct-1989-fifteen-charged-after-operation-spanner/

[4] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR Times Law Report 1997 Feb 20 (Operation Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-echr-times-law-report-operation-spanner/

[5] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – Times Law Report 1997 EHCR (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-times-law-report-1997-ehcr-spanner/

[6] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman 21 February 1992 Times Law Reports Court of Appeal (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-laskey-jaggard-lucas-carter-cadman-21-february-1992-times-law-reports-court-of-appeal-spanner/

[7] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter 12 March 1993 Times Law Reports House of Lords (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-lucas-jaggard-laskey-carter-12-march-1993-times-law-reports-house-of-lords/

[8] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Dirty-Squad-Michael-Hames/0316853216/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1490120494&sr=8-3&keywords=Michael+hames

Many spiders when they unite can tie down a lion – Ethiopean Proverb

Posted in cathy fox blog, Hackney, Herefordshire and Worcestershire | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR Times Law Report 1997 Feb 20 (Operation Spanner)

This Times Report is about an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights by 3 men convicted of consensual sado masochism. The case was brought about through Operation Spanner set up after a raid in Manchester found a video with a man slicing another mans pens with a scalpel.

The men were convicted, the Appeal Court upheld the convictions but lessened the sentences, and the House of Lords dismissed the appeal with two judges dissenting.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

20 February 1997 Times Law Reports

European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg

Laskey, Jaggard and Brown
v.
United Kingdom (Case No 109/1995/615/703-705)

Before R Bernhardt, President and Judges L-E Pettiti, C Russo, A Spielmann, Sir John Freeland, M A Lopes Rocha, L Wildhaber, P Kuris and E Levits

Registrar H Petzold

Deputy Registrar P J Mahoney

(Judgment February 19 )

Human rights – sado-masochistic practices – protection of health justifies conviction

Protection of health justifies conviction

The prosecution and conviction of the applicants for sado-masochistic practices was an interference in their private life which was “necessary in a democratic society”. The European Court of Human Rights so held, unanimously, in finding that there had been no violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) (Cmd 8969).

The applicants, Colin Laskey, Roland Jaggard and Anthony Brown, were born in 1943, 1947 and 1935 respectively. They were members of a group of homosexual men who took pant in sado-masochistic activities, involving maltreatment of the genitals, ritualistic beating and branding.

Those activities were consensual and took place in private between men of full age. The infliction of pain was subject to certain rules, including the use of a code word to call a halt to any activity, and no permanent injury or infection was caused.

The members of the group made videos of those events for private use, and some of those tapes fell into the hands of the police. Laskey, Jaggard and Brown, among others, were charged with a series of offences, primarily causing bodily harm and wounding contrary to sections 47 and 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

They argued that the consent of the alleged “victims” to the assaults provided them with a defence, but on November 19, 1990 the trial judge ruled that it could not. They subsequently pleaded guilty, and on December 19, 1990 were sentenced, in respect of the offences under the above mentioned sections, to imprisonment of twelve months (Laskey), three years (Jaggard) and two years and nine months (Brown).

The applicants appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against conviction but reduced the respective sentences to three months, six months and three months (The Times February 21, 1992; (1992) QB 491). The House of Lords, with two of the five dissenting, dismissed their appeals (The Times March 12, 1993; [1994 1 AC 212). The majority in the House of Lords took the view that, in general, a victim’s consent was no defence to a charge under the 1861 Act and that it would not be in the public interest to create an exception to that general rule to cover sado-masochistic activity.

The proceedings were given widespread press coverage. As a result, all the applicants lost their jobs and Jaggard required extensive psychiatric treatment. Laskey died in 1995.

The application to the European Commission of Human Rights, which was lodged on December 14, 1992, was declared admissible on January 18, 1995 as regarded the applicants’ complaint concerning the alleged violation of their right to respect for private life. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.

Having attempted unsuccessfully to secure a friendly settlement, the Commission drew up a report on October 26, 1995 in which it established the facts and expressed the opinion by eleven votes to seven that there had been no violation of article 8 of the Convention.

In its judgment, the European Court of Human Rights held as follows:

The applicants complained that their prosecution and conviction had violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the European Convention.

Article 8

It was common ground before the Court that the criminal proceedings against the applicants constituted an “interference by a public authority” with their right to respect for private life, that the interference was carried out “in accordance with the law” and that it pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the “protection of health or morals”. The only issue before the Court was therefore whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”.

The Court observed that the State was unquestionably entitled to regulate the infliction of physical harm through the criminal law. The determination of the tolerable level of harm where the victim consented was primarily a matter for the state authorities.

The Court was not persuaded by the applicants’ submission that their behaviour belonged exclusively to the sphere of their private morality and therefore fell outside the scope of state intervention.

It was evident from the facts that the applicants’ activities had involved a significant degree of injury and wounding. Furthermore, state authorities were entitled to consider not only the actual harm but also the potential for more serious injury inherent in the activities.

There was no evidence to support the applicants’ allegation of bias on the part of the authorities against homosexuals. The majority in the House of Lords had based their decision on the extreme nature of the practices.

Accordingly, the reasons given by the national authorities to justify the interference were relevant and sufficient.

In addition, given the degree of organisation involved, the limited number of charges finally selected for inclusion in the prosecution case, and the reduced sentences imposed on appeal, the interference could not be regarded as disproportionate.

The national authorities had been entitled to consider the interference “necessary in a democratic society” for the protection of health and there had therefore been no violation of the Convention.

20/02/1997 Times Law Reports

 

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/

[2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[3]  2017 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog 1989 Oct 10 Glasgow Herald Fifteen charged after Operation Spanner https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/glasgow-herald-10-oct-1989-fifteen-charged-after-operation-spanner/

[4] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK ECHR Times Law Report 1997 Feb 20 (Operation Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-echr-times-law-report-operation-spanner/

[5] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK – Times Law Report 1997 EHCR (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/laskey-jaggard-and-brown-v-uk-times-law-report-1997-ehcr-spanner/

[6] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Laskey, Jaggard, Lucas, Carter, Cadman 21 February 1992 Times Law Reports Court of Appeal (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-laskey-jaggard-lucas-carter-cadman-21-february-1992-times-law-reports-court-of-appeal-spanner/

[7] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog Brown, Lucas, Jaggard, Laskey, Carter 12 March 1993 Times Law Reports House of Lords (Spanner) https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/brown-lucas-jaggard-laskey-carter-12-march-1993-times-law-reports-house-of-lords/

[8] 2017 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Dirty-Squad-Michael-Hames/0316853216/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1490120494&sr=8-3&keywords=Michael+hames

 

 

Posted in cathy fox blog, Indecent Images, Manchester, physical abuse | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Michael Hames The Dirty Squad re Peter Righton

In my post about Peter Mckelvie and his defamation by the Daily Mail, Heroes for Exposing Child Sexual Abuse – Part 1 – Peter McKelvie [2]  I relied on some information from Michael Hames book The Dirty Squad  [1]  which details his time at the Obscene Publications Squad.

I have been provided with the relevant Chapter [HT LD] . This Chapter posted here includes various matters including

  • Operation Clarence
  • Operation Cathedral
  • Herefordshire and Worcestershire Social Services Operations
  • Peter Righton
  • David Bloomfield
  • Charles Napier

[Click on page to enlarge]

Updated 22/3/2017 14.00hrs

My questions were

Was the investigation carried out properly when Hames was Head of the unit? Even he says he was disappointed with the outcome.

  • Was a caution really the best that could be achieved with the wealth of evidence that we now know he had in Righton’s diary? Strangely Hames did not mention such a goldmine find in his book.
  • When did the unit under Hames interview Righton, if at all?
  • Why did they not follow up Righton’s serious offences?
  • Why was no action taken against Richard Alston? Was that Hames’s decision?
  • Was this really the best the investigation into all the other contacts of Righton?
  • Why were no PIE contacts arrested and charged?
  • Was there any interference from Government departments?

For more on this see Heroes for Exposing Child Sexual Abuse – Part 1 – Peter McKelvie [2] 

As a comment below points out, questions must also be asked about Hames being a freemason.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2000 Apr 6  Michael Hames The Dirty Squad   https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Dirty-Squad-Michael-Hames/0316853216/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1490120494&sr=8-3&keywords=Michael+hames

[2] 2017 Mar 8 Cathy Fox Blog Heroes for Exposing Child Sexual Abuse – Part 1 – Peter McKelvie https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/heroes-for-exposing-child-sexual-abuse-part-1-peter-mckelvie/

Many spiders when they unite can tie down a lion – Ethiopean Proverb

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, Child Abuse | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Waplington Report (Youth Justice Board, Hassockfield STC)

Adam Rickwood killed himself 6 hours after use of a restraint by Serco staff using a PCC approved physical restraint at Hassockfield Secure Training Centre in 2004. He was aged just 14.

For more details see

  • Adam Rickwood’s Story by Carolyne Willow [3].
  • Adam Rickwood 1. R v HM Coroner and Others 22 Jan 2009 High Court [1]
  • Adam Rickwood 2. R v HM Coroner and others 3 Feb 2010 [5]
  • Adam Rickwood 3. R v Sec State Justice 6 Feb 2015 Court of Appeal [6]

The monitoring and enforcement of the contract and placement of children was performed by the Youth Justice Board.

David Waplington authored what is called a “Report” on the Use and Effectiveness of Physical Control in Care and this is apparently it. This was obtained through a FOI Request [2]

STC – Secure Training Centre

PCC – Physical Control in Care ie Physical Control in Care Training Manual (2003 edition) developed by the HM Prison Service which was the recognised and approved manual for dealing with physical restraints of young people

The 2 page Report says

  • PCC is less than effective and inadequate method of control and because of that, pain compliance techniques like nose distraction [in practise a hit on the nose] had increased. It should be augmented and strengthened.
  • Despite that fact PCC was not permitted for compliance all SYC but was in fact one of the main reasons for its use. This use should not be dressed up as needed for safety or security.
  • PCC is used too frequently and too soon. Urgent need for improved methods of behaviour management and better staff training.
  • Information on PCC needs reviewing

 

Waplington Report on the Use and Effectiveness of Physical Control in Care [2a]

The Youth Justice Board added this information to their response.

Note that since this report was written (in 2004) a new system of restraint, Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR), has been rolled-out in Secure Training Centres and Young Offender Institutions (with the roll-out due to be completed in the last such establishment, Parc YOI, later this year). More information about MMPR can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/minimising-and-managing-physical-restraint

[archive http://archive.is/TIgRt%5D

[Archive of pdf – http://web.archive.org/web/20170320212034/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456672/minimising-managing-physical-restraint.pdf ]

The Report also mentions other sources of information

  • Report from National Instructors on the use of PCC at Hassockfield
  • Post graduate dissertation on use of PCC at a STC Hassockfield
  • Review of PCC by Bleetman and Boatman
  • Part 2 of the review aiming to find improved methods of behaviour management
  • Louise Bakers Inquiry into death of young person at YTC

It would be interesting also to know the use of force figures and the legislation that allows use of force on children.

There was also a video of the restraint taken.

Due to time pressures I will not be following up the above , but it would be useful for anyone interested to submit a FOI request.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • One in Four [C]
  • Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2017 Feb 14 Cathy Fox Blog Adam Rickwood 1. R v HM Coroner and Others 22 Jan 2009 High Court https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/adam-rickwood-1-r-v-hm-coroner-and-others-22-jan-2009-high-court-of-justice/

[2] 2017 Feb 14 WhatDoTheyKnow FOI Request for Waplington Report https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/waplington_report#incoming-951376

[2a] 2017 Feb 14 WhatDoTheyKnow FOI Request for Waplington Report, Response with Report https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/389791/response/951376/attach/3/Waplington%20report.pdf

[3] 2007 Feb 18 Cathy Fox Blog Adam Rickwood’s Story by Carolyne Willow https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/adam-rickwoods-story-by-carolyne-willow/

[5] 2017 Feb 15 Cathy Fox Blog Adam Rickwood 2. R v HM Coroner and others 3 Feb 2010 High Court https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/adam-rickwood-2-r-v-hm-coroner-and-others-3-feb-2010-high-court/

[6] 2017 Feb 15 Cathy Fox Blog Adam Rickwood 3. R v Sec State Justice 6 Feb 2015 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/adam-rickwood-3-r-v-sec-state-justice-6-feb-2015-court-of-appeal/

Many spiders when they unite can tie down a lion – Ethiopean Proverb

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Childrens home, North east, physical abuse, Prisons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment