Andrew Norfolk returns to the fray!

Andrew Norfolk the Times Chief Investigative Reporter returns from his break with this interesting front page article:

Child sexual predators to face fast-track justice plan

Sexual predators who target children face up to five years in jail under tough new powers that can be enforced even if they have not been convicted of an offence.

The move to clamp down on the sexual grooming and exploitation of children would allow police to act on the basis of strong intelligence or evidence, even if a victim refuses to speak to officers and a criminal prosecution is not yet possible. Read on…


6 thoughts on “Andrew Norfolk returns to the fray!

  1. This is excellent news, let’s hope anyone who is convicted under this new law doesn’t start bleating about and abusing the ECHR claiming spurious ‘abuses’ of processes or their ‘rights’.
    Congratulations to Andrew Norfolk for keeping these vile crimes and the perpetrators in the public eye.


  2. ‘Fast-track justice’ isn’t justice, it’s state convenience. Surely ‘detailed intelligence and evidence’ is enough for the CPS already? I’ve been so impressed with Andrew Norfolk on this issue but to say child protection services will benefit as they have ‘seemed powerless to confront the criminals responsible’ is a bit generous to child protection services here in Rotherham as it implies that their hands were tied, they truly wanted to prevent young girls being raped, if only they and the police had had Sexual Risk Orders everything would have been fine with free unicorns for everyone. You get what I mean. It’s an easy let off as far as I’m concerned… A ‘get out of jail free’ card if you will.

    On Sexual Risk Orders, the phrase, ‘… for which no prior conviction would be required…’ should make everyone nervous, particularly the Rothpol gang because although this may be just a pre-election headline grabber – if it’s not, and it flies, no-one on this site should imagine that it will only apply to suspected and alleged paedophiles. Is this a case of ‘careful what you wish for?’ This has legislation creep potential – it would be perfect for dealing with those pesky political dissenters (ie everybody outside of Westminster) where you have enough ‘evidence’ to claim a credible risk, but not enough ‘evidence’ to prosecute even in Ken Clarke’s secret courts.

    “First they came for the paedos and I did nothing cos it’s paedos innit?… then they came for the political bloggers and peaceful protestors and I didn’t really care because I’m not that bothered… etc etc… then they came for me cos I was the only one left – all the rest were living in the new G4S and Serco superprisons.” Can’t happen?

    All that being said, I’ll take all my qualms back if any of this would apply to the lying, covering-up, paedophile-enabling wastes of DNA that lurk under the rocks of RMBC and SYP… I’ll not hold my breath.


  3. You are right Warren you only have to look at the case of a council prosecuting a woman over her wheely bin, they used the terrorism laws.
    Dave Smith


  4. Before condemning I’m prepared to see the actual Bill.
    However personally I tend towards agreeing with those who are concerned about additional legislation.
    A few weeks ago I criticised a currently circulating suggestion that the past is a somehow a different country, a place where we weren’t aware that sex with girls below the age of 16 was illegal, where drug dealers aged 24 were OK to prostitute girls aged 14 and below, because the Police were unaware of the psychology of grooming, and thought the girsl were “slappers” who got what they asked for.
    That was never the case in the world I lived in, there are and has been plenty of legal backing to prosecute child sex abusers. The issue is one of attitude and culture among some Police and the judiciary, along with sexist and misogynistic attitudes among many men.
    We don’t necessarily need more laws; maybe a less confrontational court sytem, where parties are charged with achieving justice as against the current battle of the cojones where young victims are left open to any form accusation that comes to a defence lawyers mind; where children are interrogated as if they themselves are the predators.

    Extra legislation canbe the exscuse of those who simply failed.


  5. Will, I don’t very often disagree with your opinions but in this case, I’m afraid I do. I was a police officer in Sheffield from 1961 to 1993 and spent most of my service as an operational detective. I can say that all kinds of child abuse were investigated most vigorously and many prosecutions followed. Unfortunately, in those days, our biggest stumbling block was the intervention of the Social Services who covered up many, many cases and more often than not in those cases, refused to give us information and the evidence they had for us to reach a successful prosecution.
    However, I do agree with you about the judicial system where defence and prosecution lawyers are allowed to use any form of accusation and made up stories to divert juries away from the truth. One of the worst offenders of this was Michael Mansfield QC who, in my opinion was the biggest liar ever to enter a British Court room. As you know, lawyers do not have to take the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and they abuse this privilege.


Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.