Ex-DJ Chris Denning admits child sex offences, Does Religious Liberty Include the Right to Harass and Harm

Ex-DJ Chris Denning admits child sex offences
22 August 2016

Former BBC DJ Chris Denning has pleaded guilty to 21 child sex offences committed between 1969 and 1986. The 75-year-old, from London, admitted the abuse of 11 boys as young as eight. He denied three other offences.

Former BBC DJ Chris Denning has pleaded guilty to 21 child sex offences committed between 1969 and 1986.

The 75-year-old, from London, admitted the abuse of 11 boys as young as eight. He denied three other offences.

Denning, who was arrested in a police inquiry into the Walton Hop Disco for teenagers in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, will be sentenced on 6 October.

He was part of the original line-up that launched Radio 1 in 1967, but left two years later.

The prosecution said it did not intend to proceed with a trial on the three charges to which Denning had pleaded not guilty.

He is currently serving a 13-year jail term for sexual assaults against 24 victims aged nine to 16 from the 1960s to 1980s....

Denning had a number of previous convictions for abusing young boys.

In 1974, he was convicted of gross indecency and indecent assault but was not imprisoned.

He was then jailed for 18 months in 1985 for gross indecency, and in 1988 he received a three-year sentence, this time for indecent assault and possession of indecent images.

In 1996, he was handed a 10-week sentence for publishing indecent articles.

He was arrested in the Czech Republic in 1997 and eventually jailed in 2000 by a Prague court for four and a half years for having sexual contact with underage teenage boys.

The UK tried and failed to have Denning extradited from the Czech Republic, but in 2005 he was arrested at Heathrow Airport, having arrived from Austria.

In January 2006, a British court jailed him for four years after he admitted five charges of indecent assault on boys under 16 during the 1970s and 80s.

He was then extradited to Slovakia, where he was given a five-year sentence in 2008 for producing indecent images of children.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37154763

Does Religious Liberty Include the Right to Harass and Harm?                                                              
By Marcia A. Hamilton On 8/21/16

The religious liberty movement of this era will go down in infamy as a drive to discriminate against the LGBTQ community and to put women and children in their “places:" subservient to men.

It is time to become more realistic and authentic about the moves being taken by conservative religious lobbyists and the so-called “religious liberty” they demand....

Today, in this era of demands for extreme religious liberty, those seeking extreme protections have made it difficult for elected representatives to protect the potential victims of religious actors, because the religious lobbyists have kept their agendas close to the vest while furiously waving the religious liberty flag. Civil rights organizations fell for the rhetoric in the early 1990s, but since then have recoiled from the discriminatory agendas as they have surfaced.

The battle to keep religiously motivated discriminatory agendas secret while demanding “religious liberty” to discriminate continues. Two recent examples provide further evidence of the contemporary drive by religious entities to discriminate and to do so under the radar, without concern or regard for those they will harm....

The bottom line is that the religious organization is simply being required to state the basis for its claimed need to avoid the law that applies to every other school. If it is not motivated by a religious belief, the exemption is illegitimate anyway....

This is, at base, an argument for absolute autonomy, theocracy and/or anarchy. It is indefensible in a diverse democratic society....

Yet, the government has no obligation to perpetuate any religious entity, and indeed I would argue that the Establishment Clause forbids the government from taking sides to preserve a religious institution. A religious entity must prove its bona fides to believers and the public in the private marketplace in religion or shrivel away. After all, religious institutions are live entities in a dynamic relationship with the culture....
http://www.newsweek.com/does-religious-liberty-include-right-harass-and-harm-491522


Self-Esteem Loosens Mind Control by Wendy Hoffman - Survivorship Conference 2016 Presentation
https://survivorship.org/self-esteem-loosens-mind-control-by-wendy-hoffman-survivorship-conference-2016/

Internal Keys to Safety by Alison Miller - Survivorship Conference 2016 Presentation
https://survivorship.org/internal-keys-to-safety-by-alison-miller-survivorship-conference-2016/

How to Avoid Being Mind Controlled at a Conference by Neil Brick
http://neilbrick.com/articles/how-to-avoid-being-mind-controlled-at-a-conference/

Sex Abuse Cases - Marci Hamilton, Capturing the Friedmans - The Victims speak out

Sex abuse cases: 'I have a personal stake in this' (Video)
Mar 28, 2013  Jeff Blumenthal     Reporter- Philadelphia Business Journal
   
Last week, I interviewed Marci Hamilton, a lawyer representing victims in the Sandusky and Philadelphia Archdiocese child abuse scandals, as part of our Inside the Reporters Notebook series....

Hamilton’s pointed response explained what she says is a personal reason for her involvement. She is a professor at Cardozo School of Law and not a litigator by trade. But she said she was incensed on February 10, 2011, when a Philadelphia Grand Jury released a report following an investigation into allegations that two priests and a teacher sexually abused a 10-year-old boy at St. Jerome Parish in Philadelphia, and that another priest assigned to St. Jerome sexually assaulted a 14-year-old boy.

It was that report, Hamilton said, that caused her to contact her co-counsel Jeff Anderson, and say she wanted to participate in the litigation.

“I have a personal stake in this,” Hamilton said. “My children are Catholic. My daughter was baptized by a pedophile priest. I have family pictures with a pedophile at one of the most important ceremonies of a child’s life. So I am in it, yes, in Philadelphia. Because its the only way to make this Archdiocese to do the right thing.”
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/blog/jeff-blumenthal/2013/03/sex-abuse-cases-i-have-a-personal.html 

Capturing the Friedmans
At a time when child sexual abuse has been identified as a major public health crisis, the new film "Capturing the Friedmans" takes a skeptical attitude regarding believing children. The 1989, Arnold Friedman and his son Jesse plead guilty to multiple charges of sodomy and sexual abuse against young boys who took computer classes taught in the basement of their home. Jesse now claims he was wrongly convicted.

Our research into the case shows that the director of the film sacrificed truth in favor of creating artistic ambiguity. Clear evidence is omitted and facts are distorted. In addition, the film  relies on  popular but erroneous myths about child sexual abuse. As a result, uncertainty is created about the guilt of two confessed pedophiles -- who are recast as victims -- while the real  victims -- the boys and their families -- are portrayed as  untrustworthy.
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/1.html

In Their Own Words:  Jesse's Victims Speak Out
....The Film "Capturing the Friedmans" about a case of child molestation in Great Neck, Long Island has been nominated for an Academy Award.  We are two of the victims of Arnold and Jesse Friedman writing to you, asking you to hear out side of the story, writing on behalf of the other victims and ourselves. We were abused, tortured, and humiliated by Arnold and Jesse Friedman in computer classes in Arnold's basement.  Many of us have physical scars from what was done to us; all of us have psychological scars. Although it has been 16 years, we live with the knowledge of these crimes every day of our lives. Some of us have had bad dreams, some of us slept with baseball bats under our bed for years for fear of reprisals.  Many years ago, we thought we could not tell what was happening to us because we felt too guilty and embarrassed and were constantly threatened. Our parents thought Arnold was calling our houses so often because he was such a concerned teacher. His calls were to make sure we were not telling and to repeat the constant threats.
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/vict.html