..
UK Met Police officer admits to kidnap and rape of Sarah Everard, accepting responsibility for her murder
8 Jun, 2021 11:02
© Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images
Met Police Officer Wayne Couzens has admitted to the kidnapping and rape of Sarah Everard, who went missing while walking home on March 3, accepting responsibility for her death but not entering a plea on the charge of murder.
Appearing at the UK’s Old Bailey court, Couzens, who was a serving police officer at the time he committed the crime, admitted he kidnapped and raped Everard. However, the court did not ask him to enter a plea on the charge of murder, as it is still awaiting medical reports, and so it only heard that he accepted responsibility for her death.
Several members of Everard’s family were in court to hear the 48-year-old former police officer respond “Guilty, sir” when asked by the judge to respond to the charges of kidnapping “unlawfully and by force or fraud” on March 3 and rape between March 3 and 10.
After a significant police investigation, 33-year-old Everard’s body was found hidden in woodland near Ashford, Kent, miles away from where she disappeared walking back from a friend’s house in Clapham, London.
A post-mortem examination conducted at William Harvey Hospital in Ashford found that Everard died from oppression of the neck, according to a statement released by the police last week.
Couzens, who was only seen via video link from Belmarsh prison, where he is being held, will next appear in court on July 9.
Prior to his arrest, Couzens served as a uniformed officer in the Met’s Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command.
The death of Everard sparked anger and outrage throughout the UK, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirming that the government will provide more money for improved street lighting and plain-clothes police officers in pubs and clubs to “identify predatory and suspicious offenders.”
Northland underage sex trafficking: Man jailed for sexual exploitation, assault
Denise Piper
11:35, Jun 15 2021
The principal victim was just 15 when the man started having sex with her, then arranged for her to have sex with other men. (File photo) BEN BLENNERHASSETT/UNSPLASH
A man who was the key organiser of the Northland underage sex trafficking case has been sent to jail for more than seven years.
The 36-year-old, who has temporary name suppression, admitted a total of 21 charges in relation to indecent assault, unlawful sexual connection and sexual exploitation of a young person.
The Far North mechanic was aged 35 when the offending took place, between December 2019 and February 2020.
The first victim was aged just 15 at the time, while a second victim – her close friend – was aged just 14.
In front of a packed courtroom in the High Court in Whangārei on Tuesday, the offender appeared in the docks in a grey jumper with a shaved head, and kept an impassive face throughout the sentencing.
The court heard how the offender was trusted by the 15-year-old and her family, living in the family home.
Huh? He was a convicted rapist!
The family believed the man was helping the teenager with personal issues, but the relationship developed and he began having sex with her.
On one occasion, he also forced himself onto the victim’s 14-year-old friend, who was sleeping over at the time.
Community members protest child sexual exploitation outside Kaikohe District Court in October, when other offenders were sentenced. DENISE PIPER/STUFF
The offender also encouraged the 15-year-old victim to have sex with other men, and arranged for this to happen.
He advertised on a personal website called Locanto, using a photo of the teenager, with the words: “Young couple looking for an older gent to have sex with young girlfriend; rewards or cash could help.”
The ad enticed a total of nine men to reply, with four of them arranging to meet and have sex with the victim, in exchange for cash.
The four men were sentenced to home detention for paying to have sex with the 15-year-old, sentences which enraged the community.
Good grief!
Justice Geoffrey Venning said the offending had a significant impact on the victims and their families, and the victim impact statements were “harrowing” reading.
“It’s difficult to imagine how the principal victim will recover from your abuse, in her home where she should’ve been safe,” the judge told the offender.
The main victim was vulnerable to be exploited, not only because of her age but because of the offender’s ongoing abuse, and the offender cynically used her body for his gain, Venning said.
In sentencing, the judge took into account the difference in ages, breach of trust and abusive nature of the relationship.
He gave a discount of 17.5 per cent because of the offender’s guilty plea, and a discount of 7.5 per cent for the offender’s disconnection with his family, and Aboriginal and Ngāi Tahu cultures.
However, Venning refused to give any discount for remorse, saying nothing in the offender’s statements amounted to true remorse.
The man was sentenced for seven years and 10 months in jail for the principal charge of dealing in a person under 18 for sex.
For seven charges of dealing in a young person for commercial sexual services, and four charges of dealing in a young person for sexual exploitation, he was sentenced to five years in jail, to be served concurrently.
For one charge of indecently assaulting a female under 16, and eight charges of unlawful sexual connection with a young person, he was sentenced to four years, three months in jail, also to be served concurrently.
Venning gave the man a second strike under the three strikes law, because of an earlier conviction for rape.
The second strike means the sentence of seven years, 10 months in prison will be served without parole.
Why the concurrent sentences? He showed no remorse, so we know when he gets out he's going to do it again. It will be his 3rd strike and probably his last, but some girl will have to suffer needlessly because the judge didn't have sense enough to make his sentence consecutive rather than current.
The man was also registered on child sex offenders’ register, with life-long monitoring.
So, how was that working?
Lagos Court Denies Alleged Paedophile, Baba Ijesha Bail
By Ebenezer Olatunji, The Trente
June 16, 2021
A magistrate court sitting in Yaba, Lagos state, on Wednesday, June 16 denied Omiyinka Olanrewaju popularly known as Baba Ijesha, bail.
The Nollywood actor was arrested in April for allegedly defiling the foster daughter of comedienne, Princess, when she was 7-years-ago (7 years old?) and sexually assaulting her again at age 14.
After 25 days in detention, Baba Ijesha was granted bail on May 17 by magistrates in charge of prison decongestion. He however has remained in custody as he failed to meet his bail conditions.
Baba was arraigned before the Magistrate court on Wednesday where his counsel, Kayode Olabiran, prayed the court to release his client on health grounds.
Delivering a ruling in the bail application, the magistrate, P.E Nwaka, held that the court can not grant the actor bail because the matter is beyond its jurisdiction. The judge also explained that the case has already been filed before the high court.
Also speaking, Yetunde Cardoso, the superintendent of police in charge of the case, said the matter is now beyond the police.
She said; “Mr Olanrewaju was actually granted bail during the JUSUN strike and based on the conditions given, he couldn’t meet them and he was properly charged today.
“Just like the court stated, the case has already been filed before the high court and the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) of Lagos State Ministry of Justice has taken over the matter from the police.
“So presently, we have handed over to the DPP so the case is before them (DPP). It has nothing to do with the police anymore, it’s now left for the DPP to handle it.”
Baba Ijesha is facing trial over charges bothering on rape, sexual assault and abuse of a minor. He was charged with indecent treatment of a child, defilement of a child, sexual assault by penetration, attempted sexual assault by penetration and sexual assault which contravenes Sections 135, 137, 261, 202, 262 and 263 of the Lagos State Criminal Law 2015.
He pleaded not guilty when the charges were read out to him.
The case has been adjourned to July 13 for mention.
Paedophile asked dad if he could rape his two-year-old daughter
He also wanted to rape the man's nine-year-old autistic daughter
A paedophile asked a dad if he could rape his two-year-old daughter in a series of sickening messages.
Matthew Parr said he also wanted to rape the man's nine-year-old daughter after being told she was autistic.
So, being autistic somehow made her more desirable to him? What a sicko!
The 46-year-old didn't realise he was actually speaking to an undercover police officer when he requested a description of the children and asked "would it be like a foursome?".
Parr even sent the police officer a disgusting child rape video of a toddler, aged between two and three.
Charlotte Atherton, prosecuting today at Liverpool Crown Court, said on March 12 last year Parr contacted the officer, who was using the name 'MancDad', on Grindr.
Between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020 Parr messaged the officer, who called himself 'Lee', and said he was a dad of two, to which the paedophile replied "that sounded amazing".
They exchanged details for Wickr, an online communication platform, and Parr messaged the officer under the name 'DirtyBiLabourer' and made various sexual suggestions related to the children.
Ms Atherton said: "The officer said he was happy to meet like-minded individuals for what he called 'play time'."
The next day Parr asked if he could perform sex acts on the children and said "do you know any others that play" before he "asked for a description of the children". Parr also asked the officer if he was "free that weekend" and "would it be like a foursome?"
On April 8 Parr again asked "when he would next have his children" to which the officer replied it was "tricky" due to coronavirus restrictions.
Parr continued to ask when he could see the children and said "he'd been having lots of horny talk and 'I'd love to meet'".
Two days later Parr gave the officer his email address and emailed him to say he would "love to get to know the three of them". He told the officer: "Initially he just wanted to meet up and see how he goes because he didn't want to scare the children and would 'like to let them lead'".
When the officer said he would "watch" Parr asked "if the officer was a cop or undercover because he was scared". Ms Atherton said he then sent the officer a video of a toddler, aged between two and three, being raped.
After the officer said the children were "great about it in particular because his eldest was autistic" Parr continued to confirm he "remained interested".
Ms Atherton said there was less communication between May 1 and June 16 and Parr "didn't follow up on the date given by the officer".
Parr was arrested on June 23 and he admitted deleting sickening images of children, chats and mobile numbers. He claimed he had spoken with others who had "admitted to abusing their own children".
Officers discovered 29 images of child rape, 70 other indecent images of children and two images of extreme pornography.
Parr has two previous convictions and in 1994 was fined for soliciting for immoral purposes.
James Heyworth, defending, said it was "unlikely to have materialised in a face-to-face meeting". He said while Parr didn't admit his offending in the first police interview he did admit it in a subsequent interview.
Mr Heyworth said: "So many people in this sort of offending often deny any sexual interest in children. "He is clearly a man who is unwilling to admit he does, when the facts clearly demonstrate he does."
Speaking about a pre-sentence report Mr Heyworth said Parr appears to be in a "type of denial about why he did this and what the underlying motivations were".
In the report Parr also "continues to talk about having online sexual communication" which Parr claimed was in relation to adult sexual activity.
Mr Heyworth stressed Parr didn't have "any recent relevant convictions" and "did make some attempt to contact 'Stop it Now'" but Mr Heyworth added "I accept on his behalf there is a long way to go to fully appreciate what he was doing".
Parr, of Old Wargrave Road, Newton-Le-Willows, admitted; three counts of making indecent images of children, possession of indecent images of children, possession of extreme pornographic images, three counts of distributing indecent images of children and two counts of arranging the commision of a child sex offence in relation to the two fictional children.
Judge Andrew Menary, QC, said the nature of the conversations will "appall and outrage all decent minded people" adding it was "truly outrageous behaviour".
The judge said: "You were planning and largely hoping such a meeting could be arranged and for a time you pushed for such a meeting."
Judge Menary said if a meeting had happened "I have no doubt your expectation was penetrative activity with very young children would occur".
The judge said: "It seems likely you had become suspicious of 'Lee', at one point in fact asked if he was a police officer."
Referring to Parr ceasing contact with the officer Judge Menary said: "I am sure at that point, not because you lost your desire to do what you earlier proposed but because you were fearful because the conversation in the end might not have been real."
Parr was jailed for five years and must sign the Sex Offenders Register for life.
He must also adhere to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for the same period.
Pornhub, parent company MindGeek sued for allegedly profiting off videos of sexual assault
June 18, 2021
A bombshell lawsuit was filed Thursday against Pornhub and its parent company MindGeek, accusing the adult website of hosting and profiting off videos depicting rape and the sexual exploitation of children.
34 women have joined the civil lawsuit, accusing MindGeek of running a “criminal enterprise.”
“MindGeek is the most dominant online pornography company in the world. It is also one of the largest human trafficking ventures in the world. And it is likely the largest non-regulatory repository of child pornography in North America and well beyond,” the lawsuit asserts.
In the lawsuit, it is emphasized that the case against MindGeek is not about porn, but about child exploitation, rape, and coercion.
“This is a case about rape, not pornography,” it reads. “It is a case about the rape and sexual exploitation of children. It is a case about the rape and sexual exploitation of men and women. And it is a case about each of these defendants knowingly and intentionally electing to capitalize and profit from the horrendous exploitation and abuse of tens of thousands of other human beings so they could make more than the enormous sums of money they would have otherwise made anyway.”
CBS News reported that MindGeek owns and operates over 100 pornographic websites, including high-traffic sites such as RedTube, YouPorn, and Xtube. “MindGeek also owns porn production companies that create content, but for years, a majority of the content on Pornhub was uploaded by unverified users. MindGeek operates some paid-subscription sites, but Pornhub is free for anyone to access and earns money through advertising revenue and optional, premium subscriptions.”
“The online porn industry has essentially been the Red Light District of commerce,” said Michael Bowe, who’s representing the dozens of women fighting back against MindGeek. “This new industry of online porn, for the last 10 years, has been allowed by law enforcement, government entities, to operate by a different set of rules. Basically, no rules or oversight.”
The civil case is based on racketeering laws, which CBS notes are typically used to go after mobsters and drug gangs.
Some of the victims, videos of whom have been posted Pornhub without their consent and were as young as 15 at the time, joined the suit after reaching out to activist Laila Mickelwait.
Mickelwait has been relentless in her pursuit against the exploitation and sex trafficking of young men and women, including minors. Mickelwait founded the Traffickinghub movement and started a petition to shut down Pornhub, which has been signed by more than 2.2 million people.
One of the underage victims, known as “Michelle,” told CBS “that she was targeted at age 15 by an abuser who has since been convicted of blackmailing children to sexually abuse themselves on camera.”
She said that the videos’ uploads on Pornhub had “way, way worse” of an impact on her than even her blackmailer’s initial abuse. “It was only when my videos went on sites like Pornhub that my life started to become something that I couldn’t live out properly,” she said, adding that she stopped eating, leaving the house and once attempted suicide.
Michelle reported the videos to Pornhub during the fall of 2018 and continued flagging content for the site to take down throughout 2019. And although Pornhub took down all unverified content last year, Michele said she continues to find images of her abuse re-uploaded on other websites. She said, “Any other place I find my videos there’s some type of mention of Pornhub or where they originated from, and my name was always with them.”
Strangers continue to contact her about her videos, she said, and one man even showed up at her house, telling her that he’d found her through Pornhub.
Speaking to the Daily Wire, advocate and sex-trafficking survivor Eliza Bleu said that she hopes the suit spurs accountability from MindGeek and justice for survivors.
“Every single time I see another lawsuit against Pornhub my heart sinks,” Bleu said in an emailed statement. “Half of me is devastated knowing how much pain and agony the survivors have had to live through in order to even get to the point where the lawsuit is filed.”
“I think about the survivors’ assault or multiple assaults. I think about the survivors finding their sexual exploitation on Pornhub and desperately begging the platform to remove the content. I think about the survivors watching the ‘views’ of their assault reaching the hundreds of thousands on the platform. I think about the child survivors trying to process what is happening, and desperately trying to navigate the removal of the material on their own. I think about the long-term emotional and physical devastation placed on each survivor.”
“The other half of me,” Bleu continued, “is filled with admiration for each of the survivors suing Pornhub.”
“The strength and bravery that it takes to relive some of the worst moments of your life over and over again is beyond comprehension. These survivors have been willing to take on the ‘MindGeek Mafia’ to ensure that the company will no longer be able to knowingly profit off of child sexual abuse material, revenge porn, sexual assault, and human trafficking.”
“It fills me with hope to see survivors willing to be a voice for the voiceless. Each survivor in each lawsuit is the voice for many survivors that either haven’t stepped forward yet, or for those that never will for whatever reason. Some survivors of Pornhub unfortunately are not with us to see this day. Some died by suicide. Some died by self-harm or other causes. In some cases, we will never know what happened.”
“My hope is that each survivor receives the justice that they deserve and that Pornhub/ MindGeek as a whole is held accountable,” Bleu’s statement closed.
MindGeek released a statement concerning the suit which said that “any suggestion” that MindGeek “tolerates or celebrates this material is patently false.”
“The spread of illegal content is an existential threat to the internet, and every platform has the moral obligation to join the fight against it,” the statement said. “Illegal material on the internet harms its victims, internet users, and all platforms that operate online. Any suggestion that the company tolerates or celebrates this material is patently false.”
It appears, for the most part, that PornHub will remove most questionable material at some point after being asked. The problem is, once it is out there, it is out there for good. Questionable material should never be published in the first place.
Adelaide man refused bail over alleged manslaughter of newborn son,
separate child abuse charges
By Sara Tomevska
ABC Australia
An Adelaide man charged with the manslaughter and criminal neglect of his newborn son has been refused bail.
Ashley John McGregor, 31, of Christie Downs, in Adelaide's south, is also facing child sex abuse charges, including maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, having sexual intercourse with a person under 14 years old, and producing and possessing child exploitation material.
Mr. McGregor appeared in the Christies Beach Magistrates Court via video link this afternoon, following his arrest on Friday over the death of his 21-day-old son.
The infant died in April after being taken to Noarlunga Hospital in an unresponsive state.
The court heard the baby had extensive brain bleeding and fractured ribs, and was pronounced dead at the scene.
Mr McGregor's lawyer Andrew Williams told the court his client claimed he had dropped his son when he tripped over his dog, and that he called the baby's mother to inform her of the incident.
Mr Williams said Mr McGregor dropped the baby on April 21, two days before the infant was taken to hospital.
The prosecution told the court a preliminary medical examination of the baby boy suggested his injuries were "inflicted", contradicting Mr McGregor's version of events.
"Those injuries included extensive brain bleeding and fractured ribs," the prosecutor said.
Prosecutors told the court they were also speaking to the baby's mother.
Images 'worst we've seen'
The court also heard that additional charges related to Mr McGregor's alleged child sex offending could be laid, with "thousands of images" of a pornographic nature found on one of four mobile phones seized from him by police.
"There's thousands of images on the phone; they haven't all been categorised as of yet [in terms of severity], but some of the images are some of the worst we've seen," the prosecutor said.
In her remarks on why bail was not granted, Magistrate Sue O'Connor stressed the serious nature of the two sets of charges Mr McGregor faced.
"The complexity of both these investigations, the fact that home detention would allow him to access the internet and phones … is such that I do not consider that it's in the interest of justice … for this man to be released on bail," she said.
Good choice!
Mr McGregor will appear again in court in February next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment