Truth
Humanity
Justice

Formerly Mad, Bad or Sad?

Ruth Kelly and 'The Paedophiles'

The Background

When Taylor et al informed their readers that the Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, had been responsible for "... personally allowing a self-confessed paedophile to work as a PE teacher", this came as a surprise to a number of people (not least, the teacher). It was clear that Ms Kelly should be applauded, as she had done nothing illegal, and the educational system was becoming pleasingly tolerant and enlightened. Of course, this was not what was being claimed at all. Once again, this label was drawn from the heavy artillery of the 'tabloid' press, to introduce the fact that a man had legally obtained a position within a school, following and proceeding through all the vetting systems which were required in his position. Apparently, the Norfolk Constabulary decided (due to the man's legal obligation to register as a 'Sex Offender' under the requirements of the Sexual Offenders Act (1997), amended by the Sexual Offenders Act (2003)), that he was far too much of a risk to work on their 'patch', and they made a "furious protest to the school". The teacher was suspended and then later resigned. The teacher had received a caution, for 'incitement to make indecent images'. The likelihood that this teacher was guilty of any real crime is now clearly questionable. This offered little succour, when the teacher, his wife and his children (now at a secret location) were provided with panic alarms, due to police fears of vigilante attacks.

Full Essay: The Creation of the Sex Offender and Paedophile Noveau

My first communication to the Press Complaints Commission (13/1/06):

I have enclosed three articles, representing numerous publications, relating to Mr. Reeve's situation. You may be aware that Mr. Reeve, his wife and children have been moved to a secret location and provided with attack alarms, due to potential vigilante action. I could spend all year pointing out inaccuracies in many of the recent publications.

However, I wish to concentrate on one issue, at this time, that of Accuracy.

Mr. Reeve was described as a 'Paedo' and 'Paedophile' in The Daily Mirror and The Daily Mail. There are two accepted definitions of a 'paedophile':

· The first is medico-legal (as defined by the diagnostic manuals ICD10 and DSM-IV). There is no evidence that Mr. Greeve qualifies on this count.

· The second is the popular (and incorrect) usage:

"paedophilia n. (US pedophilia) sexual attraction felt towards children."

Once again, there is no evidence that the press know that Mr. Reeve has admitted to a sexual attraction to children (or if he has), no more than any newspaper reader is attracted to murder, by observing war crime images. Another issue, is that a child is anyone under the age of eighteen, in so far as images are concerned. The facts are that Mr. Reeve registers as a sex offender - no more, no less.

These are clear breaches of your Accuracy (and, possibly, Intrusion into Grief or Shock) guideline (which is not covered by the public interest clause).

These three articles (and others), once again, have brought immense emotional and practical damage to Mr. Reeve and his family. He has done nothing, but followed the letter of the law, in regards to this issue. These inhumane actions, from certain areas of the media, cannot be allowed to continue.

Please act in accord with your Code of Practice, as soon as is possible.

Thank you for your assistance.

The response from the PCC (16/1/06):

... their 'slope', not mine.

My response to the PCC (18/1/06):

As much as I should like to secure Mr. Reeve's 'authorisation' and support him, I choose not to (even if it were possible to do so). As you will appreciate, he and his family will be suffering enough stress and fear, from this unwarranted harassment, without my intervention. Indeed, by definition, my very argument precludes me from doing so. In any regard, my complaint is not on the behalf of Mr. Reeve, per se, it is a complaint from a concerned citizen, about the impact, of recent events, on those ex-offenders (and their partners and children) who are struggling to rebuild their lives.

Having counseled, supported and discussed these issues with many men and women (incidentally, a tiny minority almost certainly being paedophiles, and many of them would support the application of the term, in their cases), I can assure you that my complaint is significantly in the public interest (indeed, the coverage in the newspapers is the de facto proof that it is, if only to parents). Perhaps the 32 (at least) men who committed suicide, as a consequence of Operation Ore, may help you in your decision. If you require further clarification on these issues, I am able to provide you with a copy of the first draft of a paper I have written on the past weeks' events.

I also resent the use of words or phrases such as 'perv' or 'pervert', 'child sex offender', and 'convicted child offenders' in such cases. However, in the present climate, I see it as an impossibility to restrict their usage, as incorrect as some may be, and as damaging as they all are.

Thank you for your assistance.

The response from the PCC (8/2/06):

Further to our correspondence of 26th January the Commission has now considered your complaints about articles in Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, News of the World and the Daily Express and decided that it was not possible, in the circumstances, to examine your complaint further under the Code of Practice.

As you may have seen from our booklet "How to Complain", the Commission usually deals only with complaints from those directly involved and your complaint does not fall into this category. The Commission has to take this position since, in most instances, it cannot adequately assess submissions about the subject matter of a complaint unless the person featured in the article is prepared to comment on the issues raised in any investigation.

Only in exceptional circumstances will the Commission consider a complaint from someone not directly involved. If you believe there are such exceptional reasons in this case, please write to us again clarifying what they are.

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled you should write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner, whose details can be found in our How to Complain leaflet.

We are grateful to you for giving us the opportunity to consider what you have to say.

I have no complaints how the complaint was handled - very efficient, indeed. I am seriously dissatisfied about how it has been dealt with. Further activity here. This was the most recent decision, from the PCC, at the time of writing:
 

Complainant name: A man

Complaint Date: 24/10/2005

Clauses noted: 1

Publication: The Voice

Complaint:

A man complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article published in The Voice in the 24 – 30 October edition, headlined “Gang of 19 rape teen” was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.

The complaint was upheld.

The front page article reported the alleged rape of a fourteen-year-old black girl by 19 men in an Asian-owned shop. The complainant said that the headline was misleading as it stated as fact that a rape had taken place. The word “alleged” was only used once on the front page – the article otherwise reported the rape claim as fact. There had been rioting in Birmingham following reports of a rape – something for which, the complainant said, the newspaper had to bear some responsibility because of its inaccurate reporting.

The newspaper said that the front page story had consisted of five short paragraphs, the first of which included the phrase “the alleged gang rape”. The story was covered in greater depth on inside pages, where a page 4 headline read “Black girl 14 is allegedly gang raped by 19 Asian men”, and the text referred to the “alleged gang rape” and the “alleged attack”. A headline on page 5 referred to the “alleged sex attack”, as had the text in the article. It had also quoted a local businessmen, warning people to be wary of accepting rumours as facts. The newspaper rejected suggestions that it could be responsible for inciting the rioting, as the unrest had occurred before the newspaper went on sale. It also pointed to the fact that the following edition of the paper contained six pages on the story, including extensive coverage of all viewpoints.

Decision: Upheld

Reasons:

The Commission did not consider that sufficient care had been taken to present the story accurately. The facts of matter had not been established, but the headline and parts of the front page article had unequivocally stated that there had been an attack. In the Commission’s opinion, there was insufficient qualification to enable people reading the front page article to realise that the story related only to allegations of an attack. There was therefore a failure to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact in breach of Clause 1 of the Code, something that the Commission did not consider was mitigated by the coverage on inside pages.

Latest Details: 24/02/06

http://www.pcc.org.uk/reports/latestdetails.asp?id=436

 
 

'How To Complain', Press Complaints Commision.

 

'Code of Practice', Press Complaints Commision.

And so to Ms Kelly

I wish to offer my support, with some reservations, to your actions over the 'Reeve' situation.

I enclose a copy of a recent assignment, which I am about to submit. I hope it will be useful, to you, as a reference archive to the articles in the national newspapers, during the period.

More importantly, I do hope you and your colleagues take into consideration the points I allude to, therein, in your present deliberations.

As you will appreciate, notification was supposed to serve an 'administrative' function, not 'punitive'. As you can see, it is creating, de facto, punishing actions, by its association with other statutes (and then impacting on the ROA 1974 etc.).

It is important that, in you deliberations, you continue to appreciate that many ex-offenders have not been given an indefinite/indeterminate, nor a life, sentence. If the function of notification moves us any further into a life sentence situation, where we are unable to secure employment, in any capacity, (even with 17-year-olds and adults, in many cases) and related persecution, due to public ignorance, then we will have no option other than to invoke ECHR actions, in regards to, 'no punishment without law' and/or 'not being punished twice for the same crime', amongst others. For many ex-offenders, it simply means more anger and/or depression and/or recidivism.

I wish you luck in your present deliberations.

No reply at this time (12/2/06).