Or how the likes of HankScorpio, BeautifulBurnout, Backtothepoint, martillo, monkeyfish and their foul mouthed host Montana Wildhack, so debased the accusation of paedophilia, that they contributed to the likes of Savile being able to avoid detection for so many years.
I have no hesitation in re-posting this from the library:
HankScorpio, BeautifulBurnout martillo Monkeyfish and Backtothepoint & their False Accusations of Paedophilia
For almost three years members of The Untrusted have accused me of paedophilia both on that site and on Comment is Free. Taking the lead in these accusations have been HankScorpio and BeautifulBurnout. I have written this article to counter these accusations.
But unlike the accusers in the report above, HankScorpio and BeautifulBurnout are not six year olds but one a Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Officer and the other a UK Bar Council Barrister. The very minimum standard we should expect from the latter is that she condemns the bigotry of the former. But no:
I’m not surprised it has been shunted aside, tbh. Given the position that BTH is taking on that thread it might well have developed into the kind of thread that would have attracted that awful paedophile apologist chap who was posting a few weeks back. Ugh.
This is in response to martillo complaining
Grrr! Those cowardly cif bastards have closed down the waddya where BTH defends lesbian paedophilia. No fucking shame.
Time zones, BB. I’m pretty sure BTH is in Thailand. Not sure what the time difference is, but I’m guessing that he posts on Cif after another fruitless night of trying to entice ladyboys to come home with him and his mate, Mr Glitter, for a two-and-a-half-some.
Any chance anyone can explain to me where my post about Bitey, Gary Glitter and the Boy Scouts went?
Seriously, though, habib, who died and decided that you had the right to delete posts on here, whether they suited you, Montana, or both of you?
Fuck off, you self-important little twat.
If Montana says this is a place for open expression, then it’s a place for open expression. You don’t then get to delete posts as and when it suits you.
I don’t get to delete posts which paint me in a bad light. So, on the same basis neither does she. And neither do you get to delete posts on the off chance you might get a shag.
Grow up and get a fucking backbone, habib.
Hank – your post about Gary Glitter was up and running when I just checked it out, as well as a good few other of your posts. Maybe you were just in the UT black hole for a while, as sometimes happens. I had a whole evening of that a while ago before I sussed it. Try clearing your caches and cookies and you should be able to see them.
“Like most paedophiles, I’m guessing that you’re a bully full of shit. I’d love to meet you face to face. I’d happily kick the fucking shit out of you. As would monkeyfish.”
These statements were made by BeautifulBurnout, martillo and HanksScorpio following the conviction of Helen Goddard and Madeleine Martin. Neither of whom were accused of, tried for or found guilty of paedophilia.
ragingbill wrote about Helen Goddard’s imprisonment:
As a parent of two girls at the school in question, I would like to make 2 points based on information in the public domain:
1. This was categorically not a relationship based on or initiated through any predatory behaviour. It was a mutual and loving relationship between two people who were perfectly capable of knowing their own emotional states. The 15 year old girl will be 16 next week.
2. Helen Goddard’s professional life is destroyed, and she has been paraded across the country’s newspapers. To send her to prison on top of that is worse than cruel – it is inhuman.
I am appalled by the vindictiveness of some of the reactions (though interestingly not many on this blog – though it is the Guardian). We are surely more civilised than this. Most of the parents i know feel similarly.
Looking at the case of Madeleine Martin, the 39-year-old RE teacher and mother of two, jailed for 32 months and placed on the sex offenders’ register for sleeping with a 15-year-old male pupil, do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don’t. And neither, I’d wager, would most 15-year-old boys.
The issue shouldn’t be taken lightly. All teachers, male and female, are in a position of trust and should not abuse it, though reading of Martin and the boy having sex in car parks, of her buying him mobile phones and tattoos with her name on “so he wouldn’t forget her”, of her failing marriage and terminally ill sister, Martin seems more pathetic than predatory.
Certainly, she has been severely punished for her nine-day tryst with the teenager, who, his mother says, has been mocked by peers. If anything, one would have thought they might be jealous. The internet is awash with sites dealing with “older woman teacher-pupil” fantasies. And there lies the rub – should the law be treating male and female pupil victims equally when male and female teenagers are so different?
We can’t help but be revolted by any tales of older people having sex with minors, yet this one is a real curio. A court has ruled that the couple are in love. Judge Anthony Pitts sent the Jazz Lady to prison for 15 months, but agreed she may retain contact with her schoolgirl lover, write regular letters and meet again on release.
What sort of crime is that? Goddard has done something so wrong that she must be jailed, but so right that it must continue at the first available opportunity.
Judges never tell burglars: “You are sentenced to prison, but you may plan your next robbery from there, such break-in to be conducted with my blessing in January 2011.”
Bitethehand wrote responding to Ally Fogg who favoured a custodial sentence:
Actually Ally I was too nice to you. You say:
You think a responsible adult who has sex with a 15 year old girl who is under their authority, their position of influence and their care should be treated leniently and non-custodially, because those relationships are healthy and romantic.
I didn’t say anything about romance or health, but what I did say was:
“If you think taking away someone’s career, her salary, her pension, her reputation, which was significant and international, giving her a suspended sentence, putting her on probation and on the register, but not sending her to prison, all of which were options for the judge, is treating her leniently, what would you want for someone who needs an ordinary, rather than a lenient punishment?”
“Flogging in public?”
“Burying to her neck and stoning to death?”
“Care to reconsider?”
“People like Helen Goddard need people like you on her side – not deserting her to stand with the baying mob.”
Bitethehand responding to BeautifulBurnout who also favoured a custodial sentence wrote:
And no I’m not arguing that the trust aspects should be scrapped. And incidentally my understanding is that these don’t just apply to teachers, but anyone with a position of control / management over someone under the age of 18. You might be able to advise.
What I am saying is that in the case of Helen Goddard, a custodial sentence is neither necessary or advisable and is highly vindictive.
The word ephebophile derives from Greek, with the individual root meanings of ephebo-, “youth”, and phile, “one who is attracted to”. In this case, “youth” does not mean “child”, but rather a young adult, such as they are capable of reproduction and are biologically an adult regardless of the arbitrary age of adulthood defined by the government of ones country.
So not only are BeautifulBurnout, martillo and HanksScorpio making false accusations, they are doing so maliciously.
Re the posts by Fencewalker, mschin and LordSummerisle.
When I was fifteen, and if I’d had a sexual relationship with someone just eleven years older than me I’d have been horrified that this would have resulted in a prosecution and a jail sentence. This is an abuse of the legal system in order to express a misplaced moral outrage. Had the teacher been a man, I very much doubt he’d have received a custodial sentence. I hope Helen Goddard appeals successfully.
Secondly were we able to persuade all girls to engage in lesbian relationships we’d be able to solve the problem of teenage pregnancies overnight and that really would be an achievement.
Thirdly as the age of consent is probably one of the most widely ignored laws, isn’t it time it was revised to a more realistic minimum?
Time for something above the line I think.
LordSummisle, AllyF, Fencewalker you write:
The lesbian angle was of no relevance to the case or the verdict. The teacher was jailed for having sex with a 15 year old, that’s the start and end of it. Please stop being such hypocrites.
“Or for abusing a position of trust and simply having “sex”?”
The court heard:
The relationship continued for five months but remained secret until an anonymous tip-off to the school, which cannot be named for legal reasons.
Goddard wept today as the judge, Anthony Pitts, sentenced her to 15 months.
Pitts said the girl had made it clear she consented to sex. The judge said it had been a “difficult case”.
So once again men in the shape of the judge, AllyF and LordSummerisle are deciding how women should be running their lives and their relationships.
After five months in a relationship that would in all probability have continued had not some nosy busybody interfered, I’d have thought the two would have resolved the question of whether they trusted each other.
Instead the two of you on your moral high horses are on the side of those who’ve wrecked the career of one woman and a very popular teacher at that and probably marred the future life of another.
Congratulations for nailing your true colours to the mast so clearly.
rubyinwonderland, despite your yawn yawn yawn…oh yes…here comes another yawn… you managed to stay awake long enough to put together a decent argument about teenage girls, binge drinking and pregnancy, where quite rightly in my opinion, you think there’s a causal link.
What is interesting to me is the way the men on this thread have completely ignored your post and instead used the case of Helen Goddard to puff out their chests and deny that we all have a problem with the occurrence of underage sex, the resulting pregnancies and the fact that large numbers of under 16 year olds are regularly engaged in what the law deems to be criminal activity. As you say:
“The fact is that it’s teenage girls who get pregnant and then have to deal with the consequences. Which can be pretty dire. It seems to me that parents and schools are really having difficulty grasping the nettle.”
As adults we have created a society that comes close to being obsessed with sex, what wiser heads than mine have called the pornification of society, yet the only response some can make is to pretend that this has nothing to do with why a talented music teacher is now in prison and her 15 year old, very soon to be sixteen lover, must now be forcibly separated from her for the same period. What is even more pathetic is that now Goddard is no longer a teacher, once she is released, they will both be able to renew their relationship, should that be what they want, with the full blessing of the law.
Gosh, this site is wayyyyy different from the Environment / Climate Change blogs.
Just about everything here would have been wiped in that domain. I was a 70 year old High School teacher with 39 years’ experience, a short bit of which was in the UK and the rest in Australia. One thing all teachers discover is that a small number of teachers is married to their ex-pupils. That is hardly surprising when the age difference between young teachers and their pupils can be as little as six to 8 years. Girls flirt with male teachers all the time. It’s part of our culture. They flirt with uncles, cousins, granddads in an innocent sort of way at home and the habit continues at school. For a young, inexperienced teacher that can be hard to cope with, especially as extra-curricular and sporting activities take you outside the school environment where classroom formality is replaced with informality and closeness. As for the pupils, they are often infatuated and have no means of controlling their impulses. The best thing a teacher can do is to push them away, invent a permanent relationship if they haven’t actually got one and insist on only meeting in situations which are closely observed by other teachers and other pupils. Despite that, some teachers and some pupils inevitably discover, surprise, surprise, that love and sex are more potent than the law. Undoubtedly, this happens to homosexual children, too, as happened here. They are more vulnerable than heterosexuals because there are fewer participants, the same drives and less opportunity to express affection. Girls, especially, are rumoured to have crushes on their PE teacher. Trumpeters are obviously even more irresistible. It’s easy to be judgmental but I feel sorry for both of the people here. It’s just one of those Juliet and Juliet things.
The Helen Goddard case is very sad
We live in a country where if you commit violence or knife crime the chances are you will not go to prison
Yet 2 people in love where no one was hurt in a consensual relationship?
I wish them both best of luck in the future and all the happiness they can hold
@MickGJ who posted to my comment 2 people in love where no one was hurt in a consensual relationship?
You can’t be in a “consensual relationship” until you’ve reached the age of consent. That’s why it’s called the age of consent.
So on your 16th birthday it is consensual but the day before it was not.
Everyone matures at different ages that is why the age of consent is a joke in this country – just look at the number of teenage pregnancies
I remember when this story broke in one of the London papers I have to confess to being drawn to it because of the photo of the teacher involved. Sort of teacher I would have had a crush on when I was at school. And a Japanese female colleague of mine also reading the story only comment on this was the teacher and pupil are nearly the same age. I also laughed because the story in
the paper went onto say how the police stormed a residence to find incrimintaing evidence. I thought yeah I bet they did. Seems an awful alot of us are voyeurs in this and if so are we complicit in somehow breaking the law. 15 months does sound harsh given some violent crimes get a far les sentence but if a male teacher been involved would I of said the same. Hmmm, complex issue indeed or maybe not.
… Confessions of an unemployed Guardian reader
4. A teacher would be sacked for this offence, but hardly jailed anywhere else in Europe. It is outrageous legislative control-freakery to jail the teacher AND put her on a sex offenders’ register for life – I hope she can appeal the latter through the European courts.
If I hosted a website on which I allowed posters, some of whom were my personal friends, to post accusations of paedophilia and threats of violence against an individual, me, who’d never posted there, would that be among other things, an incitement to violence?
If I were a regular poster on that website who had made accusations of paedophilia, in the full knowledge that I had no evidence to support that accusation, nor had I attempted to counter others who made those accusations, but on the contrary encouraged them; and if I were one of the UK Bar Council’s Barristers, would that be considered an act of professional misconduct worthy of disciplinary action?
Answers to MICHAEL TODD QC, Chairman of the Bar
These are not rhetorical questions as here is the evidence.
The site concerned is Montana Wildhack’s The Untrusted and the Barrister, BeautifulBurnout. The former might find that she is protected by the relevant US legislation but unprofessional conduct is of course a separate issue.
And by way of corroboration, here’s some more evidence:
Grrr! Those cowardly cif bastards have closed down the waddya where BTH defends lesbian paedophilia. No fucking shame.
Second of all, a paedophile apologist chap? Thank god I missed him, that sounds awful. Did he write anything that survived moderation?
OTOH, I hope BTH’s statutory rape apologia will find itself deleted by the mods …
Not that everyone on the Untrusted had quite the same prejudice:
Ick, I actually kinda agree with BTH. Given the couple are still together and the teacher has lost her job and registration, I don’t see that this prosecution was particularily in the public interest. Losing a career is a good deterrent, the principle of consent in British law is an unholy mess, and now there’s a jail space full that would be better used on someone causing actual harm.
Thoroughly agree with your last sentence though. I see no good reason for actually jailing the woman.
Hiya, Bitey, how’s it working out with you and Gary Glitter?
You still banned from Cif and orphanages?
unfortunately I invested my ‘pile’ in Fucked-up-interweb-stalkers-R-Us a couple of years back, only their CEO, Mr Hand, didn’t live up to his initial promise…useless cunt failed to take advantage of the expanding Asian market. Spends most of his time looking after Gary Glitter’s PR these days…so insiders tell me.
Who is this guest who regularly recommends your posts, bitey?
To which I answered:
No it’s probably another comfortably off, respectable civil servant like you Hank – albeit with considerably more taste and political sense.
Backtothepoint, Shallcross / Spike – who incidentally made no posts on any of the threads about Helen Goddard and Madeleine Martin.
There are plenty of people who remember your defences of child sexual abuse, though.
Well, if he starts drawing poisonous “conclusions” from my posts again, I may draw the “conclusion” that he’s an advocate of child sex abuse.
I suspect that this comment and others will be reported back to him by his only friend, one particular regular poster here. Fine by me.
So there it is HankScorpio, BeautifulBurnout, Backtothepoint, martillo, monkeyfish; accusations they’d condemn everyday were they to appear in the Sun, the Express or the Mail.
What did The Times report after the trial:
A music teacher who had a lesbian affair with a 15-year-old pupil will be allowed to continue to see the girl after she is released from jail. Despite the parents fears that Helen Goddard, 26, will try to rekindle her relationship with their daughter, a judge rejected a prosecution request to ban the teacher from seeing the girl for five years.
As Goddard sat crying in the dock, Judge Anthony Pitt said that it would be draconian on the girl, who turns 16 next week, to impose a sexual prevention order banning the teacher from seeing her. The court was told that the pair were still in love.
I would not dispute that what this young woman did was wrong in the context of her position as a teacher. However, I would question the severity of the sentence. A sentence serves several functions. It is a punishment for the crime and a deterrent to others. It also offers the possibility of rehabilitation. Finally, it can provide society protection in terms of keeping the criminal away from society at large.
At a time when our prisons are bulging at the seams I question whether a custodial sentence was necessary? Should the teacher be punished? Yes – but being labelled a sex offender and losing any chance of continuing her teaching career seems to be a pretty severe punishment. Anyone else who might contemplate such a crime would be deterred. Incarceration seems unnecessary.
Could she be rehabilitated? Being a lesbian is not a ‘failure that can be remedied in a prison. She suffered a serious lapse in judgement that has cost her her reputation and career. That seems sufficient.
Does society need protection? Well she will not teach again so the wider risk is removed. Does the girl in question need protecting? She will shortly turn 16 and will be free to make up her own mind. By all accounts she has not been traumatised or ‘hurt by the experience and may well seek to continue the relationship – which she is entitled to do. So in my view sending this woman to prison is unnecessary, costly and unduly punitive.
and from The Times’ comments thread:
What a wonderful country – muggers, burglars and people who bite policemen remain free (no room in the prisons!) but a woman who has an affair with another woman gets jailed.
The Law seems to be digitilised now – speed camaras are set for 33 in a 30 zone –so do 33 and you are a potential child murderer – do 32 and you are a law abiding citizen, salt of the earth. No arguements.
A young woman of 15 years 11 months 30 days is a babe in arms – anyone who looks at her is labled a paedophile by the tabloids. A day later, when she is 16 and those same tabloids are showing her half naked on page three, complete with salacious innuendo.
It’s a nonsense to say an immutable line must exist and you are either one side or the other – that is why we have courts and judges – to look at the context and take other considerations into account. In some case speeding is justified – to avoid an accident for example. And in this case the judge should have avoided a custodial sentence as there appears to have been no harm done to either party.
Let me continue with a reply to Backtothepoint:
Bitey, have you stopped interfering with children? Yes or no?
It’s one thing for anonymous drunks to post such malicious accusations in the early hours of the morning. But it’s another matter Shallcross when you publicly libel your fellow Guardian writers who have written exactly the same things that I have. Writers like:
Barbara Ellen in “This shameful liaison does not deserve prison”
Victoria Coren in – “Even now I’d not be confident enough to sleep with a teacher”
A court has ruled that the couple are in love. Judge Anthony Pitts sent the Jazz Lady to prison for 15 months, but agreed she may retain contact with her schoolgirl lover, write regular letters and meet again on release.
What sort of crime is that? Goddard has done something so wrong that she must be jailed, but so right that it must continue at the first available opportunity.
So when you make accusations against me of being a “nonce”, a paedophile and of interfering with children, you also make the same accusation against Barbara Ellen and Victoria Coren. And I like them, have a record of every word I’ve publish on the crimes of Helen Goddard and Madeline Martin. Like them, I condemned the crimes and said their actions were criminal, but considered the prison sentences to be disproportionate and unnecessary.
But it seems to me and the evidence of your own words provides the proof, that you’re the one who should be answering your own question. Here you are in April of last year defending child rape:
So while we may be appalled at the idea of a man in his fifties having sex with a girl of nine, it seems to have been perfectly acceptable according to the local customs of the time.
You were challenged at the time, but still you continued to maintain that it was normal behaviour. You continue:
Actually, from what I’ve read, child brides were not the norm in that culture at that time. They certainly aren’t now, and lets face it you’ll be hard pushed to find anywhere that accepts marriage at 6 and sex aged 9. Anywhere that is that doesn’t use this specific example as a guide.
And here you are again writing about a 55 year old friend of yours ogling 15 year old girls:
Looking at and even fantasising about anyone is not wrong or a problem in itself, unless you are doing it in such a way that the person feels harassed. While we may not share this man’s interest in teenage girls, he’s quite entitled to it as long as he doesn’t harm them. You may find it distasteful, but that’s your problem, not his.
A little live and let live, please, people.
As long as it doesn’t harm them?
Maybe Shallcross you need to consult some of your counsellor / psychiatrist associates about the harm and distress this kind of attention causes some 15 year olds.
Let me continue with a reply to Annetan’s post:
Atom the notion of absolute.free speech implies that ‘names can never hurt’. As someone who reduced to a comfort eating wreck by constant verbal bullying I know that is not true.
Absolute free speech results in dominance by the bully and the loud mouth. Free speech as a political principle does imply the right to disagree and disagree robustly but not the right to slander bully and stalk.
There is a case in extreme cases of slander bullying and stalking for censorship. No society should countenance harm to another and speech can be very damaging, especially when it occurs over a long time.
We can argue about how bad its got to be before you censor but no-one has the right to damage another by what they say. If they did their victims have no rights.
Why all this pussy-footing around with abstract concepts Anne when the concrete evidence exists before your very eyes?
If you think MrsBootstraps, a trained barrister, highly experienced in taking on the might of the legal profession and the bourgeois state, needs to be protected from facing the reality of her own published statements about feminists, possible rapists like Julian Assange and possible attempted rapists like Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then maybe you should have shouted a little louder when she was calling me a “paedo” or when the delightful Mr Scorpio was saying the same or making threats like this:
Your silence on those occasions was deafening. I wrote:
We could all play it easy to depict ourselves as victims.
Well to paraphrase Lucien Goldmann, you and me do not make we. You regularly claim the role of CiF’s best poster, victimised by spiteful, ignorant moderators. I never complain and at best state my case and my point of view.
We could all claim to be able to defend ourselves against charges of paedophilia on the grounds that it couldn’t be proven, which is fair enough but doesn’t actually address the fact that the accusation isn’t being a paedophile but being an apologist for paedophilia, which can be proven.
I posted a well evidenced refutation of your accusation last month so I’ll just post the link here:
So I think MrsB might advise you against any hasty resort to law, or to be more precise proposals for laws. And here’s just one more quote from my varied posting history that your brief would have to deal with on decidiing my attitude towards the protection of children:
Comment on: Baby P: Just how culpable is his mother?
If you’d read the articles the Guardian has made available and not just this article, you’d have found that the social workers involved in this case twice sought legal advice about taking Baby P into care but were advised by the council’s legal team that the law did not allow it. This taken with the ease with which the mother and her male partner were able to deceive the social workers, means that the only real solution is to give social workers unfettered authority to storm into any parent’s house at any time of the day or night, to minutely examine children, conduct a thorough seach of the premises and take any children suspected of being abused in any way into care until the matter is resolved.
Personally I have no problem with this but I suspect you and others might.
You really need to be very careful about what you post on here or elsewhere in the future because I’ve got plenty to pass on to my friends in SOCA.
Oh HankScorpio the policeman’s friend, and I always thought that was Jim Callaghan. Remember him?
I like Hank. I’ve met him. He has a towering intellect, a glowering sense of injustice, an inestimable reading list and a true hero’s capability.
To which I replied:
In which case you should try to persuade him that it does him no good to accuse a fellow poster of paedophilia without a shred of evidence. And maybe you have. His anger, outrage and self-pity are doing him no good and if you are his friend you should convince him to amend his ways.
So there it is – and next time anyone needs to check on the validity of any accusations made against me, the evidence is all here.