Menu
 |
 |
|
|
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
| Search Web Pages
|
|
|
|
|
| Calendar
|
|
|
< September, 2010 >
| S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
| 29 |
30 |
31 |
01 |
02 |
03 |
04 |
| 05 |
06 |
07 |
08 |
09 |
10 |
11 |
| 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
| 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
| 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
01 |
02 |
|
|
|
| sor
|
|
|
Another citizen refuses to sign the SOR
In what may be an act of momentous importance for all those accused and convicted under Operation Ore and all those labeled ‘sex offenders’ in the UK, a second brave individual has refused to sign the Sex Offender’s Register and publishes the reasons here.
Note from editor: This courageous and extremely important document, no less than the first public refusal in the UK by a ‘sex offender’ (in this case one accused under Operation Ore) to sign the sex offender register may have been made possible only by the unusual nature of the individual standing up thus to the Establishment. She is not only a Quaker but a transgender woman.
Objection on grounds of conscience
Dear Heidi Dowson,
I have now recovered sufficiently from the post-traumatic stress caused by two deaths and your organization’s action, and feel able to express myself more clearly. In answer to your recent question, my reasons for being unable to recognize the so-called ‘sex offender register’ are many and various - some relating to my personal situation and others being of a general ethical nature. Some are less ‘crystallized’ than others. I may sound harsh at times but I believe that my treatment has been unprofessional and unjust in so many ways. I must add that I am not anti-police; far from it. Your job is difficult and preventing harm to others is virtuous. I am, however, opposed to incompetence and cover-ups - and I am a passionate advocate of justice to all. I sincerely hope that you are too.
1. Personal reasons
1.1 Incorrect name - To insist on using a name no longer recognized by myself is inconsiderate, impolite, discriminatory, undignified and inflexibly bureaucratic. It contradicts ACPO guidelines concerning a police officer’s duty to uphold human rights. It is the highest personal insult and an affront to, and denial of, my very identity. Besides, how can one sign such a form when it is addressed to a name no longer recognized by the signatory? Could you sign a form addressed to a Harry Dowson? I have now done this twice and realize that it is a ridiculous charade that I cannot morally endorse.
1.2. Religious - The label is an insult to my integrity and this view is shared by those who know me well. My religion places great importance upon high ethical standards - far higher than those generally prevailing in society. Living according to my beliefs entails making many sacrifices and I see this as a price worth paying. These standards are un-negotiable and include a commitment to love, truth, beauty, peace/non-violence, justice, equality, simplicity and compassion. Signing such a form presents a moral dilemma; in my case it is tantamount to being forced to admit to being something one is not, and is therefore a crude form of mind control. Throughout history, forced admissions have always been associated with miscarriages of justice and denial of human rights. Therefore, on grounds of conscience I cannot reconcile the act with my own situation; otherwise I am being dishonest with myself. Put yourself in my position; would you do so?
1.3. Act of signing - Related to this is my Quaker refusal to take oaths for they indicate a double standard of honesty. The process of ‘signing’ essentially symbolizes an act of some gravity - whether it be signing a petition, a cheque, a will, etc. It indicates that the signatory treats the document seriously and accepts the ‘ceremonial’ meaning of the act. It indicates agreement. (Actually, your documentation is the only material I’ve been asked to sign ever since my brother left this world in 2005). Therefore, for the reasons given, I can neither take it seriously - at least not in the way I presume you expect me to - nor can I admit to a lie for it undermines my own integrity, my very being. Would you?
1.4. The label is inapplicable in my case (even assuming its broadest literal or legalistic meaning) for it is based on a false premise. Thankfully, not all of us can be conveniently pigeon-holed - but I accept this must be a difficulty for entrenched bureaucracy.
1.5. My so-called conviction is legally unsafe and has the potential to become politically embarrassing - a virtual rubber-stamped charade, based upon a perfunctory ‘investigation’ by Ore that patently never had any interest whatever in seeking the truth - in fact, there was a coy avoidance of key facts. The police are in denial over their previous acts, and have exploited me as an expendable, convenient scapegoat. It is, it would seem, common practice in Britain’s unethical and avaricious legal system, a case of guilt until proved innocent, blithely brushing aside ‘inconvenient’ facts like dirt. Surely, this makes a mockery of justice.
1.6 Professional assessment - The label was conferred arbitrarily with no evidence of any reasoned assessment, psychiatric or otherwise. Evidently, the system is heavily flawed in this area. Statistically, possession of certain images may well suggest a sexual motivation, but prejudging a person on grounds of probability alone is unscientific and unethical (just take a glance at history!). Only a psychologist or psychiatrist specializing in gender dysphoria is competent at determining motivation in my case. The police are not psychologists - far from it! Less still do they have understanding of transgender and asexual issues (crucial factors), yet it is ‘PC Plod’ who masquerades as witch-finder general, protector-of-the-‘community’, overgrown school bully and amateur psychologist rolled into one unrealistic Superman figure. I feel that I understand the ‘police culture’ only too well, having worked with them for years and known several disenchanted ex-police officers. I have also known some excellent serving officers, too, such as one (of 25 years service) and a Quaker, who admits to be hampered by the ‘blinkered police mentality’ (his words). I, as a member of the public, expect impeccable behaviour and high professional standards - but, sadly, I know this is far from the case. I also know that public confidence in the police is at an all-time low - and understandably. How can anyone endorse the opinion of an uneducated, police officer when it is clearly misinformed and based on no substance?
1.7. In the name of all those who have suffered or died as a result of police injustice and inhumanity, and of their damaged families, I feel that it is my moral duty to stand up for justice and expose injustice in any way I can. I am simply following the call of my conscience, the still, small voice within my soul - that quality that makes us fully human: my humanity. The more I learn of injustice, and the more I experience it myself, the more inspired I become. I suspect that your actions have not had the effect you would have wished. In fact, quite the opposite: they have ‘radicalised’ me and others like me. I am in good company.
2. General reasons
2.1. I, and many other thinkers, essentially view the SOR ritual as a piece of political tokenism rather than a well-prepared measure that genuinely protects children - a cause ever close to my heart. Described by a serving police officer (significantly specializing in this area) as “simply a knee-jerk reaction to the popular media”, which caused him more trouble than it was worth - it was implemented in the wake of the hysteria whipped up by the populist media over the tragedy at Soham where two girls were brutally murdered by a psychopath. (Ironically, a register would not have prevented that tragedy - or even the Dunblane massacre of innocents).
2.2.1 There is no correlation between possession of any form of images and actual harm done to children. Incidentally, neither does correlation itself indicate causation. The term ‘sex offender’ is therefore extremely misleading and vague; there is a world of difference between a rapist and one who simply looks at or possesses pictures - for whatever reason.
2.2.2 In fact, there is mounting evidence to indicate that possessing ‘non-abusive’ images is therapeutic, cathartic and helps prevent such harm. Crime prevention is important. If you consider my acts a crime your organisation could have prevented it years ago! It chose not to. (I am unhappy with all types of images depicting any form of violence or cruelty - despite many millions enjoying violent films, etc. Unlike British law - which reflecting a sexually-repressed, prurient, voyeuristic society has long had a similar unhealthy fixation over all things sexual - I don’t simply draw the line at sexually coercive/abusive images).
2.3.1 The human damage caused by Operation Ore far outweighs any good it may have done - if any. The closer we probe into the ‘102-children-saved’ propaganda, the harder it becomes to actually pin down this elusive chimera. So far, despite the diligent efforts of investigative journalists, there is no hard evidence that a single child has ever been saved through the questionable endeavours of this money-wasting exercise. (It pains me to know that all those millions could have saved thousands of children in poorer parts of our world from starvation, disease or cruelty). However, we do know that Ore has directly caused at least 41 suicides (the true figure could be as high as 200), countless ruined careers, countless broken families and many hundreds of psychologically damaged children. (The Americans back-tracked and saw their error long before the British, but worldwide, the damage done by its parallel operations must be enormous). Ore is associated with the notorious credit-card fraud cover-up and the appalling ‘Protected Names’ list. How can any decent person possibly respect a system tainted by such gratuitous systemic inhumanity and corruption - especially when it masquerades under the emotive banner of ‘child protection’? How can you?
2.3.2. That is bad enough, but the damage done to society itself by short-sighted, self-serving mediocre politicians (who make bad laws possible), by a burgeoning ‘child protection’ industry - who lobby for such laws largely in order to maintain and build their empires, by a voracious legal system and by police forces - who only seem to have their ‘targets’, pay and PR at heart, is far greater still and of a dangerously long-term nature. Propaganda from these groups, devoted to their own vested interests, promulgated by a trashy, ‘dumbed-down’ populist media is sowing the toxic seeds of paranoia, mass hysteria, distrust, suspicion, delusions, sexual neuroses, helplessness, confusion - traits characteristic of mental illness. Furthermore, when the pious pseudo-prudery of our ‘Boys in Blue’ (many of whom are quite the opposite in their socially incestuous police clubs!) and the commercial hypersexualisation of modern western society, clash - as they are doing more and more loudly, then we have a seriously schizoid society in which hypocrisy vies with hedonism as its dominant quality. This is surely one of the worst examples any society can set for its children. Wouldn’t you agree?
2.4.1 The registration process is essentially just another ‘politically correct’ bureaucratic exercise. I accept that protecting the public from potentially dangerous people is vital, but when a register includes the gentle, weak, timid, damaged and inadequate - in large numbers, there’s something seriously wrong. (Such people are particularly vulnerable and surely need help and protection: not crude stigmatisation - which will only exacerbate their problems. I am morally obliged to support the victimised and oppressed - I didn’t become a Samaritan and Victim Support volunteer for fun!) Like all bureaucracy, the SOR is inflexible, petty-minded, short-sighted, prone to bullying and develops a self-fulfilling rationale of its own. Evidence as to whether it achieves its original purpose is still difficult to find and contradictory. It may turn out to be yet another expensive but pointless exercise. There are also real dangers that, by casting the net too wide, terrible mistakes are made. As with all political correctness, questioning it, or the dogma that supports it, amounts to heresy. In the interests of all vulnerable people I feel that it is my moral and intellectual duty to do so.
2.4.2 I cannot understand the thinking that lies behind the perceived need for an annual registration ritual when one’s whereabouts are known perfectly well - especially as I see my PO every two weeks. Surely, to reduce risk, a weekly registration would be more appropriate. I can only assume that no operational need exists at all, and that its true purpose is ritualistic and symbolic - amounting to nothing more than a psychological device intended to demean and stigmatise the stereotypical ‘offender’ - thus providing a vicarious sadistic gratification to holier-than-thou persecutors - all hypocrites at heart, who project their own suppressed demons onto scapegoats, be they witches, Catholics, Quakers, Jews, gypsies, communists, COs, blacks, homosexuals, transsexuals… or those who look at certain pictures, etc.
2.5 Meaning of the label ‘sex offender’. As one who spends much of my time analysing language and semantic trends, I cannot honestly understand what this absurdly broad term means, or even what it is supposed to mean in the eyes of those who pretend to treat it seriously. I even doubt that its creators (The Sun?) and users ever give it much thought at all. I would welcome written clarification of this term’s meaning.
Had I harmed a child in a sexual way, either directly or indirectly, I would be willing to sign as a ‘sex offender’. I would feel great shame; I would worry about the effects of my selfishness; I would wish to make all the reparations I could. But as I have never done this (and have no intention or inclination to do so) and as I am thoroughly asexual, how, in all honesty, can I then sign without sacrificing my integrity? (Whether or not another receives any form of sexual satisfaction from such images, is to me, academic; justice is concerned with harm done to others and with making the appropriate amends). Furthermore, as the police themselves introduced me to these images in 1972/3, returned them to me in 1978 and yet again in 1989 (after the law on possession had been passed), any reasonable person would expect an apology and an explanation for such action - at the very least. Monetary compensation is awarded for far lesser mistakes.
I don’t know how you will deal with my comments, and suspect you may need to seek legal advice - as I have done. If I have said anything that is demonstrably incorrect please let me know, and I will happily apologise. You have a statutory duty to respect my human rights. Writing to you as one human being to another, and on equal terms, I ask that you respect my religious and philosophical views as I would respect yours.
I may be emotionally damaged and weak, but I’m now intellectually strong, and will not and cannot take the lazy route of abandoning that which I hold most dear: my principles. Black is not white; it never will be. In the 17th century, witches were forced to confess to consorting with a non-existent Devil. Plus ça change… Today, forcing me to confess to what I am emphatically not, is comparable, to me, a vegetarian, being forced to eat meat, or as a pacifist, to wield a weapon, or as an aesthete, to denounce ineffable beauty or naturism as ‘indecent’, or as a protectress of all that lives and breathes, being considered a somewhat nebulous ‘danger’ to the very beings that I would instinctively protect!
You asked for my reasons: you now have them. Do with them what you will.
This document is being distributed and will be published
Yours sincerely,
Michaela Hamersley (I happily sign this with conviction.)
Letter from Mother
(Her address removed)
Paul Kerry, Complaints Manager,
West Yorkshire Police HQ,
PO Box 9,
Wakefield
8th January 2010
Dear Paul Kerry,
I am the mother of Michaela Hammersley and I am making a formal complaint about the incompetent, inconsiderate and prolonged way her case has been handled by the Bradford police and by Operation Ore. A previous complaint was made in February 2009 by my solicitor, Chris Saltrese, and your eventual response was totally inadequate for two main reasons.
You decided quite sensibly to split the complaint into two parts - the recent property issue and the 1989 return-of-property issue. Your response to the first part was merely to contact Operation Ore, and naturally they were only concerned with protecting themselves - and I have since learnt a lot about Ore and its shady goings-on. No further investigation was made into this. I wonder why! As this concerns my property (including all my late son’s possessions - furniture, pictures, computer, etc) this can reasonably be considered theft on the part of the police and I will not let this rest. As for the second issue, I have heard nothing at all and I demand a thorough investigation, for it was the 1989 affair that made all this recent futile and money-wasting activity come about. Whether it involves another police force or not, it is surely your responsibility to arrange for this to be done. The facts are that the police were aware of the so-called ‘indecent images’ ever since 1977, and in 1985 they all became my property. (Of course, you realise that the police themselves handed them back in 1989 - and we have proof). I therefore possessed them for 20 years, and the police knew where they were all this time. So how is it that Michaela can magically become labeled a ‘sex offender’ in 2007? If so, then so am I. I have been told that this fact could undermine the spurious conviction, and it is hardly justice to make one a scapegoat for police incompetence.
Why was it that in 2007 the case, being handled by Eccleshill, was transferred to Operation Ore (despite not being computer-related) and yet later, after the appalling acts of DC Riley (also of Eccleshill) it remained in his hands? Surely this is completely inconsistent.
We have suffered continual harassment from the over-zealous and rather inept DC Riley throughout this ridiculous affair and our mental health has deteriorated. A few more questions:
1. How is it that a person can be questioned on a dubious theft allegation by two police forces, within a few days, one without any knowledge of the other - as a voluntary attender on one occasion and arrested at dawn on the other? (And Riley’s pantomime interview came after Sgt Scott of N Yorks police had sensibly agreed not to pursue it).
2. How is it that one officer (Riley) has a totally different approach to another (DC Stainburn) when their supposed jobs are identical?
3. What, if any, training do West Yorks police officers have in psychology and transgender issues? Apparently none.
4. Why is it that Riley ‘searched’ two houses in 2008 and then left such a simple and trivial case over a year before an interview took place - after me being told by his superior that it would take ‘about three weeks’?
5. Why were the searches conducted so appallingly and unprofessionally? (This later harassment was due to the police not properly searching the premises in 2006 and leaving material behind - which Riley later found).
6. Why did a second search ever take place at all? Why did Riley’s superior assure me that thus would never happen again?
7. Why did Riley take it upon himself to use handcuffs without reasonable legal justification?
8. Why did he make a dawn arrest when he had already arranged with Chris Saltrese to wait for a psychiatric report? Why did he break this agreement? Why did he later ask for a police psychiatric report? Why did he not carry this out?
9. Michaela saw a police ‘doctor’ (not a psychiatrist) for a couple of minutes, and who caused great distress and would not give his name. I wish to make a serious complaint about his entire attitude. How do I go about it?
These are just a few more questions that urgently need answering.
Surely it is in the public interest that the police behave in a professional manner, and there are so many aspects to this fiasco that prove without a shadow of doubt that they have behaved atrociously. The public need to be made aware of this case. The police have been inconsistent. Communication has been very poor, records have not been checked, cover-ups have taken place, lies told, promises broken, excuses made and changed, impoliteness, in fact shabby treatment and incompetence all around.
As there are so many serious questions that need answering, a mere letter to you is insufficient, and Chris Saltrese in his letter of 2nd June suggested a face-to-face meeting. Nothing came of this. Why was that?
I expect a clear and speedy response to this letter. If not, I will have to take the matter further.
Yours sincerely,
Ann Hammersley (Mrs)
When she received no reply, she wrote this. 22nd February 2010
Dear DI Brady,
Ref CO/00708/09
I spoke to Sgt Mitchell about a fortnight ago, and I feel that it’s time that I had answers to all my questions. So far, neither myself nor Michaela have been interviewed over this matter, and until this happens how could you possibly feel that you have conducted a thorough and impartial investigation?
Please reply in writing as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Ann Hammersley (Mrs)
Michaela's further thoughts on this subject and related matters can be read it an article here.
coming shortly.
If you support this stand
If you support this stand, please send the above stories and the URL to your local or national newspaper or broadcaster or other web sites. The editor is available for making contact with the author HERE.
If you want to join in a movement against the SOR, you can also contact the editor.
Responses
From P in the UK
I've just read this moving, intelligent and lucid complaint against police thuggery (and the social bigotry which authorises it) and I think it is little short of heroic. That such a gentle, highly educated, ethically evolved human being should find herself degraded and dehumanised by this ritualised labelling shows how closely we have grown to adopting near-Nazi methods of scapegoating: registration on this absurd list is a way of stripping dignity from people, diminishing their status as fellow humans and converting them into expendable 'its'. Yellow Stars of David and Pink Triangles come to mind.
How can a society tolerate such absurd and insane injustices? This valuable, highly educated woman, who is so obviously committed to non-violence and protecting the vulnerable, is being forced to comply with registering on the same list as rapists and sexual murderers, despite the fact that she has never harmed a soul in all her years on this mad planet.
Her dignified, brave refusal is to be commended and celebrated; with ethical courage of this stature, the causes of liberty and sanity are not yet dead, despite the best efforts of vindictive and paranoid child salvationists and ignorant, bullying SOR officers to smother both.
Three cheers!
From W in the UK
Good luck, prepare for them to unleash Hell.
Editor: Being aware of such a possibility, I wondered at the wisdom of agreeing to publish this story. This individual, however, has been in Hell because of the bullying, contempt and intimidation she has been suffering. Her only 'sins' appear to have been her early explorations of her sexuality as she attempted to understand her emerging transgender nature. Another 'sin' is that as an ex-policeperson, she has inside knowledge of police culture. Changing from one of them to critic in addition to being an object of their contempt may have enraged the police and brought down retribution onto her.
Because of upcoming events and new information to be published shortly, I am hoping that the police may for a change be a little more cautious in this case. They must be aware that they already have much to regret.
From D in Belgium
Like a long-awaited spring breeze sweeping into Miss Havisham's rotting room (from 'Great Expectations'), the voice of TRUE, not 'Mock', Puritans comes fresh and clear.
In one heartfelt human expose by two honest decent women, those thousands of inhuman arrogant twerps paid to uphold the law, yet believing they are above it, are seen for the petty little Fascists that they are. While the discriminaTory register that those fascists sadistically enforce is laid bare as one not to monitor so called 'Sex Offenders', but more to justify 'Sense Offenders' - themselves.
One small correction is that the dates of the monstrous hypocritical sex-filled 'Family' Murdoch-ised media appeasing ‘SOR’ Bill were: cynically announced 1 year post-Dunblane in March 1997, and enacted in October of that momentous year.
Too neatly straddling the transition from 18 years of Tory tyranny to the incoming and ongoing Murdoch puppets New Labour, the last Tory Home Secretary, creepy Michael Howard, foisted Britain's first ever peacetime statutory 'registration' of any ex-offender.
As rightly stated in March '97 by, then MP Mathew Paris (paraphrased), “This un-British Sex Offender Register will do no good. It's just a populist ploy, a last hopeless pre-election gasp for votes.” In May 1997 it didn't stop the Tory's long-deserved defeat, but the tabloid-pleasing Blair & Co have since deployed the foul law to the full, for their equally cowardly advantage. In fact the U.S./NeoCON-style UK Register ruse was the brainchild of emasculated Howard’s ex-model feminist wife Sandra - no surprise there.
I would ask one question of the 'unregistered' child-abusing 'Mock' Puritan Murdoch, who also in his career (Sydney Daily Mirror, 1964; UK News Of The World, 1971) uncaringly named two schoolchildren in supposed kid-sex-scandals, and so caused their deaths by suicide.
For 50 years since Kinsey, Child Abuse has been known as 90% familial/non-stranger and 90% non-sexual - so why for 3 decades have you constantly publicised the Stranger Pedophile myth, and more recently 'Sarah's Law'; if not for scare profit - certainly not for true Child Protection?
From M in the UK
So much of the power of police and the protection industry depends on maintaining secrecy and creatively nurturing feelings of shame in any way they can. This applies just as much to victims of sexual abuse as it does to 'sex offenders'.
One should not be ashamed and have no cause to be if one has harmed nobody. I feel that the more 'sex offenders' such as Michaela who are prepared, on grounds of conscience, to put their heads above the parapet, the more difficult it will be for the police to hold onto the big myth that such people are all potentially dangerous monsters. Objectively, simply 'looking at pictures' is no big deal, and it shouldn't be made to appear so, for this trivialises the real harm done to others. (Such images were on display in shop windows in the 70s - including Manchester's Deansgate!) The police, though, have a great deal to feel ashamed about, and they'll do their best to hide behind a dirty veil of secrecy and lies.
First known refusal to sign the register
On Thursday, January 14, 2010, 'This is South Wales' reported that Spencer Murphy of High Street Swansea had refused to comply with the court order to sign the SOR because he does not accept that he is guilty.
He was given a three-year community order for the offences, but was jailed in 2003 for nine months after failing to comply with that.
When police visited him in 2009, he told them that he 'was not receptive to any further visits from them and would have to be arrested if necessary'.
(http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/southwalesnews/Sex-offender-obey-court-order/article-1709274-detail/article.html)
Created on 02/11/2010 11:32 AM by Editor
Updated on 02/24/2010 04:17 PM by Editor
|
|
|
|
|
