What Would Be The Odds?
February 9th, 2010I happen to know the name of the person mentioned in the story below. However, a New Zealand blogger is currently facing charges for releasing the name, so I will not publish it here. If you’re reading Cryptogon, you’re more cunning than most, so I’m confident that, if you want to know the name, you can find it.
But wait, there’s more.
What would be the odds that a member of an Australian underground sex network, who is accused of murdering a wealthy friend, “A good, loyal friend,” of New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, would share the same surname as this prominent New Zealand individual who has been given name suppression after being convicted of possession of child pornography?
Wow, that might be the Coincidence of the year.
I apologize for having to leave this to you to piece together, but New Zealand has some f*&%$#@ ridiculous laws, and this is all just a Coincidence anyway…
Via: Scoop:
Name Suppression for Prolific Child Sexual Exploiter Under fire
A decision to grant permanent name suppression to a prominent Manawatu man who downloaded more than 300,000 pornographic images, many of young girls, has come under fire by child advocacy group Stop Demand Foundation.
The man’s prolific offending took place between 2007 and 2009 and ended with his arrest following an FBI investigation. The 25 charges of possession and one of distribution attracted respective prison terms of up to five and ten years.
Instead, Judge Grant Fraser imposed a paltry sentence of four months home detention and granted the “prominent” man permanent name suppression on Friday, in the Palmerston North District Court.
Stop Demand’s founder, Denise Ritchie, says “this man’s sexual interest in young girls and his prolific appetite for more and more images contributed directly to market forces of demand and supply, leading to more children being violated and degraded. Yet Judge Fraser’s decision suggests that if you participate in and fuel the global sexual exploitation of children but you are a prominent member of the New Zealand community, the Courts will protect your interests. This is a disappointing and unacceptable message from our Courts.”
“Naming offenders removes the shroud of secrecy under which they lurk, and increases their future accountability. It acts as a deterrent to others. The public, particularly caregivers and children, are entitled to know who these offenders are. The fact that the Court places more weight on the personal circumstances of ‘prominent’ offenders, than on the serious issue of child sexual exploitation and its long-term impact on victims, is disturbing. Four months home detention and anonymity is an insult to his victims, all of whom will live the rest of their lives without anonymity, fully identifiable to sexually aroused predators.”
“If we are to make significant inroads into stopping this modern-day sexual abuse of children here and overseas, we must crack down heavily on those who fuel demand for such material,” says Denise Ritchie.
