Why, if you’re looking for help against a pervert, the last thing you should do is approach the judiciary or a legislator
A Judge retires to consider his verdict. Judge Alan Goldsack QC (left) of Sheffield Crown Court spoke out last week, as he retired after 43 years in the legal profession. I have added suitably satirical bits in red to his statements in order to demonstrate, with as little didacticism as possible under the circumstances, why he is part of the problem in Britain of dealing with systemic child abuse. Sadly, the bits in black are what he actually did say.
“A frightening thing is the number of people I see who are the grandchildren of the people I have prosecuted and defended 40 years ago – because crime runs in families in the same way that being a doctor, teacher or lawyer does – and despite all of them having been rogered up hill and down dale for three generations by some of my closest colleagues, they continue to offend. It is really quite mystifying. We have to get in on the ground and remove young babies from the families that are going to produce the next generation of criminals, and that is why I did family law right up until the end because I think it is very important work and without it, we’d have sex-starved teachers, care workers and politicians all over Britain, which I think would be tragic. I have read so many pre-sentence reports where I said to myself ‘why was this person not adopted at birth? All the signs were there’…but despite knowing as I do that the self-centred fluffies on Westminster’s Left were in denial about feral crime, I said nothing beyond floating the idea of post-natal strangulation. Family is all important if you want to prevent people becoming criminals – a stable family life prevents most people from becoming criminals but rather than deal with the families what we have decided to do as a society is bugger their children senseless. Sadly, this had proved ineffective….children are removed from dysfunctional homes too late – at an age when it is difficult to find adoptive parents so the youngsters end up in care. And of course when they come before me, utterly without shame, and complain that their bottoms hurt, I am forced to ignore their manipulative lies in favour of some some tosh cooked up by a bent shrink and a care-home perv.
“Children removed from home at 11 or 12 will invariably end up in a children’s home, and that’s a bit too old for the likes of most paedos, which is why we have to get in early. It’s not uncommon for a dysfunctional family to have £250,000 spent on them, but if we got in early and removed children from these homes we could save thousands of sexual sadists from being forced to kidnap happy children and murder them. It all seems very obvious to me. Supervision on release is all important and here in Yorkshire we have the very people to groom them for a life ending abruptly in suicide later, which is a much cheaper solution to the problem.”
Now to be fair to Judge Goldsack, in other parts of his valedictory address he did make a number of telling points about why society is falling apart, and how a combination of do-gooding twits and uncaring psychos in Parliament had been the vital catalysts for managing – in sixty years flat – to turn a generally stable, polite and law-abiding society into the wriggling mass of licentious behaviour and emotional incontinence we are forced to spend each day ploughing through in 2013 Britain. But there are two overriding features of his goodbye note that are utterly reprehensible:
1. His astonishing inability to think of the consequences of some of his proposals in terms of personal liberty. (Taking children away at birth, supervision at every lifestage and so forth).
2. After five decades working in Family Law, the complete omission of any reference whatsoever to the obvious existence of pernicious sexual corruption in the care system. Alan Goldsack freely admits that Britain’s care system is failing, but refuses to even acknowledge the existence of a hard core of the depraved preying on the deprived.
The first point above is so close to being ubiquitous in Britain today, I no longer have the strength to deal with the uncaring naivety that typifies much of it. The Woolwich event brought forth yet more controlling drivel from the Mayor: proposed moves to stop two clowns chopping someone’s head off by introducing ID cards and yet more CCTV is beyond stupid as a suggestion. A better observation might have involved asking the security services why they hadn’t collared the pair long ago. Another might have been to ask the Left why they took no notice, for years, when Islamic demonstrations in the UK carried placards suggesting “Behead infidels” as a form of progressive social action.
On the one hand we have a silk – a Judge – giving the police yet more carte blanche to turn into a Gestapo; on the other, we have muddled and unscrupulous ‘human rights’ lawyers fighting endless orders for the deportation of folks like the Woolwich double-act.
The second point recurs over and over at The Slog, and is a central, critical reason why the vast majority of paedophiles go about their sexual behaviour with something approaching impunity: the parents don’t want to hear what their kids tell them, the police aren’t interested in wading into a sewer of political privilege, the media’s readership are made uncomfortable by the coverage, and the Judges don’t believe the testimony.
The first person to put his literary finger precisely on the power of judges to defend the forces of authority was Charles Dickens. While on occasion such an attitude is essential if a culture’s positive values are to be retained, far too many of the Bench bewigged these days begin with the assumption that they’re dealing, in the case of abuse victims, with incorrigible liars. Sometimes they are, of course. But you can’t be a judge and a bigot: something has to give.
When those above the law make miserable the lives of those who have broken it, it is very hard indeed to engender public sympathy: that, I’m afraid, is human nature. But when those exploiting the law go around at will sodomising the sanity of kids already unlucky by dint of birth, they are committing one of the worst crimes known to our species.
The long-term answer is to put some principles and reality back into social politics…rather than privatising the process of getting feral families to reform (on the Right) or saying such and such “is not a syndrome I recognise on the ground” (on the Left). The short term key to at least starting the process of cleaning up the care system is to stop denying that the problem exists.
Oh look, nothing’s changed in Rochdale after all. That it does exist continues to be obvious on a daily basis. And whereas for some reason it seems to have a Tory bias in national politics, at the local level Labour enjoys a clear majority. Fifty-five year old Garry Layfield hails from Rochdale, and has been active in Kirkholt Labour Party for much of that period. Last Friday 24th May, he was jailed for several sexual offences committed over a number of years involving minors, including two counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault.
Layfield, who had been followed by ugly rumours for a considerable time, was found guilty at Manchester’s Minshull Street Crown Court. He got seven years, and was ordered to sign the Sex Offender’s Register indefinitely. His main victim was eight-years-old when the abuse started….in 1975. It continued for five years. It happened in Rochdale. It went undetected, then ignored, then – when confided by the victim to an appalled relative – resulted in a conviction.
Since taking over as Labour MP in 2010, Rochdale’s Simon Danczuck has been extremely voluble on the subject of systemic paedophilia in the previously incumbent Liberal Democrat Party. The local Member used to be Cyril Smith. Only a few days ago, I posted about Rochdale Council’s former CEO being uninterested in child sex-abuse, along with a tub-thumping insistence from Danczuck that Ellis should be forced “to pay back his enormous pension fund”.
But when it came to things being put right on his own watch, our Simon told the Manchester Evening News that he was confident “Lessons have been learned. There’s no complacency on the part of police about these horrific crimes, and I’m confident every effort is being made to get these predators off our streets”.
Sadly, that doesn’t seem to have included the Labour man himself, allegedly: a comment threader at the Rochdaleonline piece notes, ‘I want to know what Mr Danczuk has to say about this beast? After all, I personally told Mr Danczuk in 2011 about this vile person and what he had done, yet he still remained an active part of the Kirkholt Labour Party, knocking on doors all over the estate. As said by Mr Danczuk, sex offenders are walking the streets, and obviously they are helped around by our councillors.’
Once again, tribalism triumphs over any real sense of justice among our MPs. Be it Tom Watson or David Cameron, Theresa May or David Steel, over the decades the mantra has remained the same: “My Party right or wrong”.
Pompous MP turns out to be full of sh*t. Nothing to see here, move along now please….