From Thread: https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/141773032#p141800757
Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,
As you are most likely aware, there is a huge public backlash currently underway regarding comments made by one Justice Pauffley of the family courts division, regarding special allowances being made for immigrants when it comes to issues of child abuse (as considered under English Law.)
Phillip Hollobone MP on Pauffley: “I really do wonder sometimes whether judges in our senior courts have adequate training for some of the cases that come before them.”
Alan Wood, a former president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, ‘It seems a very unusual comment by the judge and I’d be surprised if the matter isn’t looked into at the Ministry of Justice.’
“A press spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office said it was not yet looking into the matter but would do if it received formal complaints.” Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/i...
I wish to bring your attention to this publicly released court document, in which Justice Pauffley states bestiality and incest are "normal childhood behaviours". https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/...
In order to contest this point, I wish to bring your attention to paragraph 100 from the judgement:
As for the very first indication of sexual abuse. Mr Christie's account to Mr Yahaouri is both extraordinary and significant. To entertain suspicions about Mr Dearman from the tone of his voice over a Skype call defies reason. Moreover senseless assumptions would seem to have been made by Mr Christie and the mother if, in fact, the children had touched the dog and were "touching each other." To believe that children who demonstrate curiosity about and touch their own, the dog's and their siblings genital areas must have, or probably have, been sexually abused is plainly ridiculous. It shows alarming ignorance about normal childhood behaviours or, as is likely here, wilful determination to distort innocent activities into something sinister and depraved.
I wish to further bring to your attention the following pieces of academic and governmental literature highlighting the grave mistake in Justice Pauffley's assumptions.
Sibling Sexual Abuse — Uncovering the Secret By Margaret Ballantine, PhD, MSW, LCSW-R, and Lynne Soine, DSW, MSW, LMSW Sibling sexual abuse has been dismissed as “child’s play” in many cases and/or as a normal aspect of sexual development. More recent research has documented the traumatic, long-lasting, and damaging effects of sibling incest (Carlson, Maciol, & Schneider, 2006; Weihe, 1997). http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/111312p18.shtml
National Criminal Justice Reference Service One form of cruelty to animals that has received scant attention in the literature is the sexual abuse of animals, or bestiality. Bestiality may range from touching or fondling the genitals of animals to sexual intercourse and violent sexual abuse. https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_9_2/page7.html
Further research on this matter serves to highlight naivety on the part of Justice Pauffley or wilful determination to normalise to the abnormal. Which academics in the fields of psychology and social work as well as international governmental bodies, would abhor.
I do hope you will not take lightly the grave seriousness of this matter, regarding children whom a respected and inured paediatrician has confirmed were sexually abused and suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.
Curiously, the father mentioned in the above court document who has received non-molestation orders for violence against the children's mother (which occurred in front of the children) was given increased access to the children. The father's violent history was not once mentioned by Justice Pauffley. I am compelled to ask why?
Dr Hodes, who's report on Baby P was scandalously not disclosed (please see media http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/londo... ) confirmed that the children had been sexually abused, a fact which was seemingly mocked by Justice Pauffley as causing her "bemusement" and dismissed in favour of a psychiatrist, who has become rather notorious on the internet to parents who feel their children have been unfairly removed by social services.
The experienced and respected paediatrician Dr Hodes is quoted as saying: "Despite the confusing picture we must take the children's allegations very seriously"
She further confirmed the children's scarring was related to sexual abuse and pointed to the high incidence in which children's retractions were falsified, whether under duress or through what can only be deemed to be the result of a psychological trauma bond to their abuser - especially in instances where the abuser is a family friend or family member.
Furthermore, both children's detailed descriptions of distinguishing marks on intimate areas of their alleged abusers bodies, were never investigated nor considered by Justice Pauffley in court. One would think accusations of such gravity would merit escalation to a criminal court, wherein they might be thoroughly proven or disproven in the presence of a public jury.
I do hope you will have the opportunity to examine this situation more deeply, as I feel a great injustice has committed, to both the Mother in this case and her two children.
Thank you for your time in reading about this most pertinent issue, in light of the current media backlash.