The Metropolitan Police haven’t been very popular recently. They have been criticised for arresting peaceful protesters, sometimes using force against women. They have been exposed as being woefully weak against organised gangs in London, faling to prevent the murder of countless children from ethnic minorities. Most recently, they have been condemned for shooting an innocent Brazilian man at a tube station, then covering up the true sequence of events [1].

How do the Metropolitan Police deal with this? Their inability to deal with with actual criminals forces them to target those who they can scapegoat, in order to distract people from their miserable failings in fighting serious crime in London. Let’s have a look at what they’re doing….

The Met recently published a proposal to combat serious violence in London, in response to their failings when dealing with the murder of London’s children [2]. The draft consisted of over 80 pages of repetitive text, designed to merely appease a hysterical public. This proposal mentioned plans to “proactively disrupt” the lives of people “with a sexual interest in children.” If one interprets this literally, it sounds like a clear violation of harassment laws and a gross abuse of powers afforded to a supposedly trustworthy law enforcement organisation.

I e-mailed Scotland Yard in order to enquire as to whether they were planning to monitor convicted offenders, or illegally harass non-offenders who are known to be minor-attracted individuals. My e-mail was forwarded to several departments before it reached its final destination, a senior officer in the Met’s Child Abuse Investigation Command center. The result of this was, unsurprisingly, a reply which informed me that they were not prepared to discuss their (potentially illegal) plans.

The Metropolitan Police are treating non-offending paedophiles as future criminals, despite the fact that less than 1% of paedophiles abuse children. What kind of message does this send to naive non-offenders?

In Los Angeles, the sentiments are almost identical. Jack McClellan, a paedophile who owned a website to which he posted details of events which may interest female-attracted paedophiles, has been subjected to a restraining order. He has been prohibited from coming within 10 yards of any child in California. When one considers that it is virtually impossible for any person - minor-attracted or adult-attracted - to maintain a distance of 10 yards between themselves and all children, it becomes apparent that this order is not a sensible or reasonable measure designed to protect children, rather it is designed to trap and imprison someone who has expressed unpopular beliefs.

One of the lawyers involved in obtaining the order actually told one of my colleagues that they were “fortunate” to obtain such an order, which clearly exposes their true feelings about the legality of it.

Jack was arrested yesterday, due to a breach of this unlawful order. He was then arrested again after being lured into giving an interview at an area which he was not allowed to attend because of his feelings for children. The UCLA website states that his actions apparently constituted a “violation of the stay-away order” and that “UCPD officers observed him giving an interview to a television station in a UCLA parking lot at Veteran Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard.” [3] Yes, Jack is not even allowed to speak at certain locations.

The Signal reports a statement by the University Spokeswoman [4], explaining that “There were children present and he was seen on the other side of a barrier near the center. So, he was in violation of his restraining order. He is now in a holding cell.” Clearly, it would not have been possible for him to abuse children from the other side of a barrier. These people clearly hate Jack for who he is and what he thinks, not because they believe he was threatening the safety of the children.

One of the lawyers responsible for the unconstitutional order against Jack stated, “It serves no one’s interests to have him on the street,” as if being a paedophile means that Jack has no right to legally exist. People don’t even pause to consider that paedophiles should have the same right to a free existence as everyone else, with the exception of those who actually abuse children.

Jack has not violated child protection laws, despite his attraction to children. He is one of the vast majority of paedophiles who do not engage in sexual activity with children. Unfortunately, protecting children was not the important factor in this case. Profiteering lawyers - eager to promote their business - managed to obtain an order against Jack, which criminalised his legal, non-abusive, day-to-day activities, activities which would be legal for everyone else. The paranoid and bigoted people who fought against Jack have supported this order - which I feel was merely a marketing attempt by those involved - and have created a criminal. They have only themselves to blame for this, by supporting an order which could never be followed, regardless of one’s orientation.

Society expects all paedophiles to be criminals. When this stereotype is confronted by a few brave individuals, society desperately seeks to criminalise their thoughts or activities, in order to maintain the stereotype. They are prepared to make the law unequal in order to achieve this. Those involved with the law - either through public or private entities - are keen to encourage this. Lawyers can profit through marketing their business, whereas law enforcement are afforded easy scapegoats to distract from their failings.

While my primary concern here is the prevalence of illegal policing against law-abiding paedophiles, I do feel that someone should raise the frequently asked question; Is anyone genuinely thinking about the welfare of children?

[1] -  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6927140.stm
[2] -  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6363303.stm
[3] -  http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=8151
[4] -  http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=50104&format=html