UK - Man (Jonathan Paul Brewin) admits threatening sex offender neighbour

Original Article

05/02/2013

A Carleton man has been handed a community sentence for threatening to set fire to the flat belonging to a convicted sex offender.

Jonathan Paul Brewin, 29, of Carleton Mill, was annoyed that a man living nearby had not been sent to prison for possessing indecent images of children, Skipton magistrates were told.

Brewin launched a verbal attack on the other man, [name withheld], when their taxis arrived back in Carleton at the same time on February 2 after nights out with friends in Skipton, the court heard.

He told Mr [name withheld], who received a community sentence for possessing indecent images in December, 2011, that people like him should not live in Carleton.

He added that if he saw him in the local pub he would “rip him to pieces” and that if he did not move out within three weeks he would burn his flat down.

Prosecuting, Caroline Midgley said the confrontation lasted about 15 minutes and left Mr [name withheld] feeling shaken.

Brewin, a man of previous good character, felt strongly about convicted sex offenders and had been annoyed to see Mr [name withheld] out enjoying himself.

In mitigation, John Mewies said Mr [name withheld]’s crime was one that caused a lot of emotion among the public.

He said Carleton was a small, tight knit community and word had quickly got around after the court case appeared in the paper.

“On this particular evening, Mr Brewin had been to Skipton and had returned in a taxi unfortunately at the same time as Mr [name withheld].”

“Mr [name withheld] says he was “fresh” and had had six or seven pints and Mr Brewin had also had an enjoyable evening and it was that that affected his judgement.”

He added that the threat to burn Mr [name withheld]’s flat down could not be taken seriously.

Brewin, a keen footballer and in full time employment, had accepted he should not have acted the way he did and admitted threatening behaviour.

He was given a 12-month community order with a specified activity of victim awareness. He will also have to carry out 80 hours unpaid work and pay costs of £85 and victims surcharge of £60.

---

DC - US: More Harm Than Good (Human Rights Watch)

Original Article

Most of what is said below applies to adults offenders as well.

05/01/2013

Exempt Youth Sex Offenders From Registration Laws

Washington - Harsh public registration laws often punish youth sex offenders for life and do little to protect public safety, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. A web of federal and state laws apply to people under 18 who have committed any of a wide range of sex offenses, from the very serious, like rape, to the relatively innocuous, such as public nudity.

The 111-page report (PDF), “Raised on the Registry: The Irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the US,” details the harm public registration laws cause for youth sex offenders. The laws, which can apply for decades or even a lifetime and are layered on top of time in prison or juvenile detention, require placing offenders’ personal information on online registries, often making them targets for harassment, humiliation, and even violence. The laws also severely restrict where, and with whom, youth sex offenders may live, work, attend school, or even spend time.

"Of course anyone responsible for a sexual assault should be held accountable,” said Nicole Pittman, Soros Senior Justice Advocacy Fellow at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “But punishment should fit both the offense and the offender, and placing children who commit sex offenses on a public registry – often for life – can cause more harm than good.”

States and the federal government should exempt people who commit sex offenses when they are under age 18 from public registration laws because the laws violate youth offenders’ basic rights. Available research indicates that youth sex offenders are among the least likely to reoffend.

Video Link

During 16 months of investigation, Human Rights Watch interviewed 281 youth sex offenders, whose median age at offense was 15, across 20 states, as well as hundreds of offenders’ family members, defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officials, experts on the topic, and victims of child-on-child sexual assault.

“I'm a ghost,” said “Dominic G.,” of San Antonio, Texas, who was required to register for an offense he committed when he was 13. “I can’t put my name on a lease, I never receive mail. No one cares if I am alive. In fact, I think they would prefer me dead.”

Throughout the United States, youth sex offenders must comply with a complex array of legal requirements that permeate virtually every aspect of their lives. Under registration laws, they must register with law enforcement, providing their name, home address, place of employment, school address, a current photograph, and other personal information. Under community notification laws, the police make this information accessible to the public, typically via the Internet.

And under residency restriction laws, youth sex offenders are prohibited from living within a designated distance – typically 500 to 2,500 feet – of places where children gather, such as schools, playgrounds, parks, and even bus stops.

There are no comprehensive statistics for the number of people under 18 in the US who are subject to these registration laws, because the national statistics generally do not separate youth sex offenders from others. Each state, US territory, and federally recognized Indian Tribe has its own set of sex offender laws, which can vary considerably, and a number of federal laws also contain requirements affecting youth sex offenders.

In 2011, the last year for which there are complete statistics, the total number of sex offenders nationally was 747,000.

The majority of youth sex offenders interviewed by Human Rights Watch were placed on a registry between 2007 and 2011, but since some state registration laws have been in place for nearly two decades, large numbers of people in the US who began registering as children are now well into adulthood. Their offenses can range from heinous crimes like rape, to consensual sex between children, to relatively innocuous actions like public nudity.

“Many people assume that anyone listed on the sex offender registry must be a rapist or a pedophile,” Pittman said. “But most states spread the net much more widely.”

The report documents the numerous ways in which youth sex offenders are harmed by registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws. Youth sex offenders are stigmatized and publicly humiliated, often causing them to become depressed and even suicidal. They may become targets of harassment and vigilante violence.

Barred from spending time near a school, much less in one, they often struggle to continue their education. Many have a hard time finding – and keeping – a job, or a home. And if they miss a deadline to register, youth sex offenders can find themselves in prison, often for lengthy terms.

Sex offender laws are designed to protect communities from sex offenses by helping police monitor past offenders. But including youth sex offenders on registries assumes that they are highly likely to reoffend, which is not the case. Numerous studies estimate the recidivism rate among children who commit sexual offenses to be between 4 and 10 percent, compared with a 13 percent rate for adult sex offenders and a national rate of 45 percent for all crimes.

The laws further assume that children are essentially younger versions of adults. However, psychological and neuroscientific research confirms that children, including teenagers, act more irrationally and immaturely than adults and should not be held to the same standard of culpability. Likewise, research indicates that children are more likely to respond to rehabilitation and treatment.

Furthermore, requiring a wide range of sex offenders to register overburdens law enforcement with large numbers of people to monitor, undifferentiated by the public safety threat they pose.

States and the federal government should exempt youth sex offenders from both registration and community notification requirements. Short of a full exemption, states should remove all youth sex offenders from registration schemes that are not specifically tailored to take account of the nature of their offense, the risk they pose – if any – to public safety, their particular developmental and cognitive characteristics, their needs for treatment, and their potential for rehabilitation.

“Painting all sex offenders with the same broad brush stymies law enforcement’s attempts to focus on the most dangerous offenders and defeats what every parent knows about how children act and how they mature,” Pittman said. “Exempting youth from harsh registration laws would both respect their rights and ability to change and improve public safety.”

See Also:

• Sex-offender registries: Should kids be listed?

---

The following are quotes from youth sex offenders and others interviewed by Human Rights Watch or contained in documents Human Rights Watch reviewed. Names of registered youth sex offenders and their family members have been abbreviated or replaced with pseudonyms to protect their privacy.

“I live in a general sense of hopelessness, and combat suicidal thoughts almost daily due to the life sentence [registration] and punishment of being a registrant. The stigma and shame will never fully go away, people will always remember.”
– Christian W., who was required to register as a sex offender for an offense committed at age 14. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

“Under the law at the time, he was looking at being put on the public registry when he turned 18. His picture, address and information on the Web.... He just couldn’t bear it.”
– Julia L., mother of Nathan L., who was convicted of a sex offense at 12 and committed suicide at 17. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

“Everyone in the community knew he was on the sex offender registry, it didn’t matter to them that he was removed.... [T]he damage was already done. You can’t un-ring the bell.”
– Elizabeth M., mother of Noah M., who was convicted of a sex offense at 12 and committed suicide at 17, after being removed from the registry in Michigan. Flint, Michigan.

“Suicide [among children placed on sex offender registries] is a possibility ... even predictable.”
– David S. Prescott, a social worker and expert on treatment strategies for youth sex offenders.

“A member of the community made flyers that said ‘Beware - Sex Offender in the Neighborhood.’ The flyers, with my grade school picture, offense, and address, were posted all over the place.”
– Nicholas T., placed on the registry at age 16. Portland, Oregon.

“A few months after [Max] went on the registry the local newspaper ran a Halloween story entitled ‘Know where the Monsters are Hiding,’ warning families to beware of the registered sex offenders in the neighborhood when taking their little ones out to go trick-or-treating. The article listed all the sex offenders in our town. Max’s name and address was listed.”
– Bruce W., father of a youth sex offender who started registering at 10. Weatherford, Texas.

“The police always expect you are the worst of the worst sex offenders and so they treat you that way. Most of them look down on you as if you are the scum of the earth.”
– Elijah B., placed on the registry at age 16. Houston, Texas.

“My son’s life was ruined before he even turned 18 years old. Due to the burden of registration my son dropped out of school, he is afraid to leave the house, and he cannot get a job interview. He has not committed any new crimes yet this is holding him back from becoming a good member of society.”
– Tony K., father of a child placed on the registry at 17. Kansas City, Missouri.

“Once while attempting to register my address, a police officer refused to give me the paperwork and instead stated, ‘We’re just taking your kind out back and shooting them.’”
– Maya R., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 10. Howell, Michigan.

“It makes people very angry. My brother, who looks like me, was once harassed and nearly beaten to death by a drunk neighbor who thought he was me.”
– Isaac E., who started registering at 12. Spokane, Washington.

“One time a man from one of those cars yelled ‘child molester’ at me.” A week later several bullets were fired from a car driving by. “The bullets went through the living room window as my family and me watched T.V.”
– Camilo F., registrant since age 14. Gainesville, Florida.

“I was in the [school] parking lot and this truck drove by and started throwing beer bottles at me. I had to run inside. They yelled, ‘Get out of our school, you child molester! I wish I could kill you!’”
– Joshua G., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 12. Dallas, Texas.

“Neighbors harassed our family. We later found out that one of the neighbors shot our family dog.”
– Jasmine A., mother of Zachary S., who has been on the registry since age 11. Dallas, Texas.

“For sex offenders, our mistake is forever available to the world to see. There is no redemption, no forgiveness. You are never done serving your time. There is never a chance for a fresh start. You are finished. I wish I was executed, because my life is basically over.”
– Austin S., who started registering at age 14. Denham Springs, Louisiana.

“My ten years of registration was supposed to end on September 27, 2012. It is now 2013 and I am still on the state website and all those other registration sites. I feel like it will never end.”
– Diego G., placed on the registry at age 10. Houston, Texas.

“Because of sex offender restrictions my family had to be divided up. I could not live with children. My father stayed in our house with my younger brother. My mother and me moved in with my grandparents two hours away.”
– Sebastian S., youth sex offender who started registering at age 10. Laredo, Texas.

“I worry about my two little children, ages 4 and 2, having to live in a publicly identified house and having to pay this lifelong price for something that happened years before they were born. I want to be involved in their lives but I also want them to be able to live free to be who they are without having to carry such a burden.”
– Jerry M., who started registering at 11. Wilmington, Delaware.

“With parents often the targets of blame for the sins of their children, parents of sex offenders can experience just as much fear, shame, and paranoia as their children.
– David Prescott, a social worker and expert on treatment strategies for youth sex offenders.

“I have found a few places to rent but as soon as we move in the police and neighbors harass us until we get evicted. They keep us homeless. I am banned from living in a homeless shelter.”
– Aaron I., Florida registrant since age 15. Palm Beach, Florida.

“I get hired and fired from so many jobs. I can usually keep a job for a few weeks until the employer’s name and address goes up on the sex offender registry [because registrants must provide this information]. Employers say it’s ‘bad for business’ to keep me on.”
– Elijah B., placed on the registry at 16. Houston, Texas.

“Employment is difficult. I have to support my wife and kids. I estimate that between January to April 2012 I have applied for 250 positions.”
– Joshua G., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 12. Dallas, Texas.

“I have to look at a map before I walk anywhere. I can be arrested if I am walking anywhere near a school or park.”
– Blake G., a registrant for an offense committed at age 15. Citrus, Florida.

“These fees are associated with the registrant wherever he goes for the rest of his life. They are forever a tax on his life.”
– Ethan Ashley, attorney for James O., a youth sex offender.

“The most recent laws dilute the effectiveness of the registry as a public safety tool, by flooding it with thousands of low risk offenders like children, the vast majority of whom will never commit another sex offense.”
– Detective Bob Shilling, a former chief detective in charge of the Seattle Sex Crimes Unit responsible for making home visits to registered sex offenders.

“We cast the net widely to make sure we got all the sex offenders ... it turns out that really only a small percentage of people convicted of sex offenses pose a true danger to the public.”
– Ray Allen, a former Texas legislator and former chairman of the Texas House Corrections Committee– who once helped push tougher sex offender registration bills into law – admitting that he and his colleagues went too far.

“[O]n many state sex-offender web sites, you can find juveniles’ photos, names and addresses, and in some cases their birth dates and maps to their homes, alongside those of pedophiles and adult rapists.”
– Brenda V. Smith, a law professor and the director of the National Institute of Corrections Project on Addressing Prison Rape at American University’s Washington College of Law.

---

Trial by Facebook - Dangerous Trends

Original Article

This kind of stuff happens all the time, and not just on Facebook. Facebook pretty much condones vigilantism. We've seen many photos, comments, etc, and flagged them, and we get a note back from Facebook that it wasn't removed because it doesn't violate their Terms of Service, which is a crock!

04/10/2013

We’ve seen it a lot lately. Posts identifying “guilty” individuals imploring others to identify, condemn, even exact revenge, on the people identified.

It’s called Trial by Facebook, or Trial by Social Media and it involves the posting of content on Facebook or other social media that identifies and condemns individuals allegedly guilty of a crime and implores others to share the content, thus exposing the accused to an angry public.

Such content goes further than to simply lay out the facts of an incident. Trial by Social Media/Facebook content condemns and judges, often unfairly or without proof. And it is for that reason it is potentially dangerous and unjust. Such posts play judge, jury and executioner.

Trial by Facebook content will often explicitly condone vigilante justice, but even if it does not then it will always – to some extent – encourage it implicitly.

Resisting this type of behaviour can often be difficult. Often the people identified in the photos could arguably deserve being shamed in public arena, and users may feel the victims of crimes deserve to see it happen.

Often Trial by Facebook/Social Media posts result from knee-jerk and impassioned reactions where we become the unwitting victims of our own emotions, only seeing what makes up feel better in the short term rather than looking at the big picture.

However we live in a world with legal justice systems, and whether you agree or disagree with your legal system or with a specific sentence handed out, there is still never a place in any civilised world for vigilante justice. And vigilante justice is exactly what Trial by Facebook promotes and encourages.

And if that isn’t reason enough to stop you posting Trial by Social Media content, then here is a whole bunch of other reasons.

Inaccurate Content? Trial by Social media posts can often accumulate thousands, even hundreds of thousands of shares. And sadly the vast majority of people who share this type of content will do so without any verification or proof that it is accurate.

Read the rest of the article

---

UK - Woman’s (Lana Robertson) harassment ‘distressed’ ex-police officer sex offender

Original Article

04/23/2013

By KIRSTY TOPPING

A woman launched a campaign of harassment against a former policeman after finding out he had been convicted of possessing indecent images containing children, a court has heard.

Lana Robertson, 37, was found guilty at Perth Sheriff Court of making abusive remarks to [name withheld] in August and October 2011.

Mr [name withheld] was jailed in 2009 after being found with 14 indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children and 43 indecent videos depicting children as young as three engaged in sexual acts with adults and animals.

He was sentenced to one year in prison, and put on licence for a further two. He was also placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years.

Robertson, formerly of Rannoch Road, denied the charges and claimed the accusations had been fabricated to “get her into trouble”.

The court heard how she had shouted “paedo” and “paedophile” at Mr [name withheld].

Mr [name withheld] and his partner of 14 years, [partner name withheld], told how the abuse had left them “upset” and “fearful”.

Sheriff Lindsay Foulis was told how, on August 23 2011, Robertson screamed abuse at Mr [name withheld] as he and Ms [partner name withheld] drove along with their car windows open.

Mr [name withheld] said: “All I could make out was ‘schools’ and ‘paedophiles’. I was distressed by it.”

On another occasion on October 9 the same year, Mr [name withheld] and Ms [partner name withheld] had returned to their home when Robertson passed by in the passenger seat of a red car, leaned across the driver and yelled “paedo”.

Mr [name withheld] claimed to have a log of 140 other incidents where Robertson had targeted them.

Ms [partner name withheld] said the abuse had prevented the couple from moving on after Mr [name withheld] was released from prison.

Sobbing in the witness box, the 59-year-old said: “Our home’s not our home. We can’t relax there, we are continually watching who walks down the street.”

Asked by Robertson’s defence agent, John McLaughlin, if the incidents had been fabricated, she said: “I wouldn’t go to these lengths just to get someone into trouble.”

Robertson denied either incident had occurred and accused Ms [partner name withheld] of putting on an act for the court.

She said that she had learned of Mr [name withheld]'s conviction from a neighbour and while she thought it was “disgusting” she had no issue with him living nearby.

However, she had an argument with him.

Sheriff Foulis determined that it was “beyond reasonable doubt that (Robertson) shouted abuse at Mr [name withheld].”

Sentence was deferred for 12 months for Robertson to be of good behaviour.

---

IL - Bolingbrook Man Wants Neighbors to Know He's Not a Sex Offender

Original Article

Once again, more proof the registry is used to harass ex-offenders, and in this case, innocent people. And the mug shot sites having outdated information causing innocent people harm. This is why the online registry needs to be taken offline and used by police only, and all the mug shot sites need to be taken down.  This is also why you should not trust any site showing criminal records if they are not government run, and even then things could be wrong!

04/12/2013

By Melissa Sersland

A Bolingbrook resident living in the former home of a registered child sex offender has received verbal insults and obscene gestures from passersby.

When Fred Cook moved into his Bolingbrook home a few years ago, he noticed something very strange.

When he would stand outside his home at Briarcliff Road and Route 53, the passengers in passing cars would give him dirty looks. Some would flip him off.

Over time, he noticed the attention becoming more hostile. People started yelling at him.

Once, while he was playing with his daughter in the front yard, someone shouted out the window, "Run girl, run!"

Cook lives in the former home of a registered child sex offender. This offender, named [name withheld], was charged with aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a 14-year-old when he was 18.

[name withheld] became non-compliant and failed to update Illinois authorities about his whereabouts, as is required by law. Unfortunately for Cook, the Bolingbrook address was still listed in the Illinois Child Sex Offender Registry and other sites that list sex offender records, like "bustedoffenders.com."

On multiple occasions, Cook said, police would arrive at his home looking for [name withheld].  Cook would prove that he was not [name withheld], who is a 5'5" redhead. Then he would have to prove that [name withheld] did not still live in the home.

It took months, he said, of contacting several law enforcement agencies to have the Illinois Child Sex Offender Registry site updated with [name withheld]'s true location -- Gaylord, MI.

Cook said he supports informing the community where sex offenders live, but he wants that information to be correct.

His address is still listed on these websites:

• bustedoffenders.com
• homefacts.com
• sexoffenderin.com
• poedit.org

---

NC - Sen. Thom Goolsby admits sex offender registration is a harassment package, thus proving punitive intent!

Video Description:
Sen. Thom Goolsby provides update on law that will turn sex traffickers (pimps) into sex offenders subject to monitoring and registration with local sheriff's departments. Today, the bill cleared House Judiciary B Committee. (S122, PDF)

Video Link

---

Offendex.com and other mug shot sites are putting ex-sex offenders, families, children and innocent people's lives in danger!

Original Article

07/01/2012

Question:
I just moved to a new house. Shortly after moving in, I found out that a previous tenant had been a registered sex offender with his address (now my address) listed. Although the state sex offender registry rightfully has delisted my address, it is still listed on private Internet registries who have not responded to my request to remove my address. One site, Offendex.com, even wants me to pay them 200 dollars, otherwise they will NEVER take it off! I really don't have the money for a lawyer to fight this, but I've had two windows broken and my car key-scratched, as well as get late-night honks and shouts of "pervert!" all the time, and I'm frankly scared for my family's safety. Local law enforcement is powerless to do anything. What can I do?

Answer:
Contact the attorney general's consumer protection office and see if they can help or point you in the right direction. It is almost extortion to make you pay to have information corrected. The sex offender's name and associated address is supposed to be the information supplied to the public not an address. You may have an injury suit and if a personal injury attorney took the case, they work for a percentage of anything collected, not an upfront fee.

---

NC - Knock and talk should be called stalk and harass!

Original Article

If you are not on probation or parole, then you don't have to answer the door or any of their questions, and we'd recommend you don't either. Just show them your ID, and leave it at that, don't answer any questions.

01/24/2013

By Alicia Banks

SHELBY — A Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office SUV followed close behind an unmarked law enforcement vehicle. Both navigated the tight streets behind Holly Oak Park in Shelby.

Four men emerged from the two vehicles. They walked to the front door of a brick home on Osborne Street. A woman answered the door and spoke briefly to Cleveland County Sheriff Alan Norman.

“I spoke with the registered sex offender’s mom who told us where her son worked,” Norman said. “That information was consistent with our last visit.”

Sheriff’s office deputies conducted surprise “knock-and-talks knock-and-harass” across the county Wednesday. They visited about 104 homes.

The unannounced checks by the sheriff’s office are an effort to make sure registered sex offenders are staying in compliance with state laws.

“We want to ensure more safety from these individuals,” Norman said.

The county has 236 registered sex offenders. Some are currently detained in the county jail or in N.C. Department of Correction facilities in the state.

Multiple visits each year

The sheriff’s office is required, by law, to check on registered sex offenders at least once a year.
- Yes, once a year, after they register, to check that they are living where they say, but that is it, and anything more is harassment.

Deputies focused on three categories of convicted sex offenders during the two-day operation this week: aggravated, those who engaged in violent or forced sexual acts with someone of any age or younger than 12 years old; recidivists, or repeat offenders; and sexually violent predators, persons convicted of violent sexual offense with a mental abnormality or personality disorder.

“We do it multiple times per year,” Norman said.
- Which is basically harassment!

The department conducted a similar operation on Halloween, when sheriff’s deputies visited about 60 registered sex offenders across the county.

There isn’t a specific time when the knock-and-talks knock-and-harass happen, Norman said.

Protecting children

Deputies from various divisions, including community-oriented policing, school resource and patrol officers, assist with the operations.

“We haven’t had an increase in personnel in more than 10 years,” he said. “We can put these operations together in as short as a day and half’s notice.”

Norman said it’s “absolutely necessary” for his department to routinely check on sex offenders living in Cleveland County. He stressed the importance of protecting children through all means possible.
- Whatever you say!  If you really wanted to "protect" children through "all means possible," then you'd be taking the kids away from their parents, since most sexual abuse happens by those the child knows.

A N.C. General Assembly law bans sex offenders from using social networking sites such as Facebook because children are permitted to use them.
- Which is also unconstitutional!

But the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled Wednesday that an Indiana law banning sex offenders from using social networking sites is unconstitutional, noting it restricted free speech.

“I absolutely don’t agree with it,” Norman said. “Once you commit a crime and are on the registry, you give up your rights and any others that put you in contact with juveniles.”
- As long as you are on probation or parole, we would agree, but after that, you get those rights back, and it's unconstitutional, period, doesn't matter what you think, and just because someone is on the registry and lost some rights, doesn't give you the right to do anything you wish to those people, that is called harassment and corruption!

Twenty registered offenders will likely have follow-up visits in the coming days. Norman said fewer restrictions on offenders could cause them to recommit similar crimes.
- It could, that is a no-brainer, but does it?  Not based on the many studies out there which you all are ignoring!

---

The predatory justice of juvenile sex-offender laws

Original Article

01/20/2013

By Michael Zoorob

When lawmakers crafted laws to combat sexual violence, they probably never expected that children as young as 10 would end up on public sex offender registries. Law enforcement probably never expected that they would have to notify neighbors that a 13-year-old sex offender lived nearby. Yet that is the reality of America’s sex offender registration laws: Though the judicial system tends to distinguish between youth and adult offenders, 35 states subject minors convicted of sex crimes to the same registration, notification and restrictions as adults. Seven states require juveniles to stay on the registry for life. These crimes aren't always violent, either: A recent Human Rights Watch report notes that teens have found their way onto sex offender registries for benign acts like sexting, public urination and consensual sex with other teens.

In fact, 36 percent of all sex offenders who victimize children are themselves juveniles — and more than half of these juvenile offenders are 14 years old or younger, according to a recent study commissioned by the Department of Justice. It is understandable that laws should be created to curb sexual violence — but imposing the stigma of longtime and sometimes lifelong sex offender registration on juvenile offenders creates unnecessary harm both to them and their families. Juvenile offenders often experience emotional problems, difficulty securing employment, social ostracization and difficulties at school. There are, incredibly, cases of teens being barred from attending school due to their presence on sex offender registries because they sexted, the act of which the law considers child pornography. As adults, these offenders can expect restrictions on their residency, employment and mobility, and a significant minority will be fired, harassed, assaulted or even murdered because of their sex offender status.

Registration may also hinder crime rehabilitation of youth offenders. Depriving juvenile offenders of access to education, employment, religious services and healthy relationships — all common consequences of sex offender registration — could actually raise the probability that these children become lifelong delinquents. Unfortunately, registration requirements may deter families from reporting sex crimes committed by their child against a sibling for fear of the legal consequences, thus denying access to rehabilitative services.

Registration of juveniles has also been shown not to reduce sex crime. Studies by Elizabeth Letourneau of the University of South Carolina have found that registering juvenile offenders neither reduced overall rates of offenses nor reduced recidivism. This makes sense. It’s hard to argue, for example, that public safety was enhanced by the eviction of a 26-year-old married woman from her home in Georgia because a daycare center opened nearby. Her crime was that she had oral sex with a 15-year-old when she was 17.
- The same applies to adults.  Sex laws do nothing to reduce recidivism.

Moreover, juvenile offenders are distinct from their adult counterparts. Children who commit sex crimes, even violent ones, usually do so as a way of “acting out,” not because they eroticize aggression. Consequently, psychologists have found that rehabilitation is very effective for juvenile sex offenders, and very few juvenile offenders re-offend as adults. Most studies find the recidivism rate of juvenile sex offenders to be less than 5 percent.
- Recidivism rates are the same for adults as well.

Sex offenders deserve special opprobrium in our society. But we shouldn't let our visceral disgust with sex crimes bar us from making sensible public policy. Children are not miniature adults, and the law should not treat them that way.

---

UT - Utah DMV is harassing ex-sex offenders who are trying to renew their licenses?

Posted elsewhere, and here so others can see the harassment of ex-sex offenders who are trying to get their licenses renewed.

So, as I have done over the last few years when I move: I update my drivers license. No big deal, just go online and fill out the information, or mail it in if you don't have internet access.

Went to do it this year, and the online system said, "No record found. Verify your information." Tried a few times to no avail. Giving up I wrote a letter and mailed it in.

State law says there is no need to get a duplicate, as long as their system shows the correct address.

So, in December, I completed my semi-annual registration as I always do. The officer told me that my address on my drivers license did not match up to my new address in the state's database. I responded that I followed procedure, and would call them.

First call, the guy is clueless. Few days later I call again, wondering if my driver's license is valid.

The woman looks a little and then says, "Oh, I'm showing here you are a registered sex offender."

Me: "What does that have to do with my drivers' license?"

Woman: "Well, you cannot update your address online if you are a registered sex offender."

Me: "That's not in the registry law or the drivers license law, is it? In fact, I know it is not. I've updated it online before."

Woman: "It's a new policy with the Division of Motor Vehicles, you'll have to update your address in person."

Me: "I already do that when I register my new addresses with law enforcement, why must I do it again."

Woman: "That's the new policy."

Me: "Let me guess, I'll have to pay the $20.00 for a duplicate, rather than just update the information in the system."

Woman: "That is correct."

Me: "Well, I already have to pay to get a new license each year, plus give law enforcement $25.00 per year, and then the the State Registry $100.00 per year (which I have never paid). So, if I move a lot I now have to pay you guys each time? Let me talk to the person in charge, because I guarantee you that is not in the laws."

I get transferred to a voice-mail and leave a rather pointed message about suing the s*** out of the state again. No response yet.

---

UT - Utah Sheriff Strikes Back At Mug-Shot Websites

Original Article

01/09/2013

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder has become the latest lawman in the country to stop the practice of displaying mug shots online.
- Good, it's about time, all police departments should stop doing this, for the same reason, exploitation. Offendex.com comes to mind.

Winder says booking photos are being exploited by websites for monetary gain — they charge suspects high prices for removing their mug shots and sometimes fail to follow through.

Winder has removed booking photos from his metro jail’s online roster.

The practice has former inmates saying they are paying twice for their crimes. They say it does no good to pay one website operator for the removal of a mug shot when so many are trafficking in the same booking photos.

Utah County responded to the problem by shrinking the size of its online mug shots to prevent them from being easily duplicated on the Web.

See Also:

• No more online mug shots, SL County sheriff says

---

PA - Former guard (Dale Guyer) sentenced in prison sex case

Original Article

12/21/2012

By MICHAEL N. PRICE

WEST CHESTER — A now retired Chester County Prison correctional officer was sentenced to three years of probation Thursday for having a sexual relationship with a female inmate.

Retired Cpl. Dale Guyer, 49, of Coatesville, pleaded guilty to institutional sexual assault earlier this year for engaging in sexual intercourse with an inmate on Oct. 30 and 31 of 2010, according to court documents. Prosecutors said the offenses occurred inside the Prison Work Release Center in an area off limits to inmates.

Prosecutors, who requested a state prison sentence, argued that Guyer, abused his authority to coerce the victim into engaging in the relationship. Officials subsequently asked Guyer to retire from the prison,

“The sexual intercourse was consensual to the extent that a prison inmate can consent to sexual overtures from a corporal employed by the prison in which the inmate is incarcerated,” prosecutors argued in a sentencing memorandum filed in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.

In those letters, the prosecution said Guyer threatened to spread compromising photographs of the victim to her friends and family. The harassment continued to the point that the victim eventually filed for a protection from abuse order against Guyer, court records said.

The relationship between Guyer and his victim continued, consensually, after she was released on parole in December 2010. In February 2011, the victim attempted to break off the relationship, but Guyer continued to contact her with threatening and harassing letters, according to the prosecution’s sentencing memorandum.

Prosecutors argued that though Guyer does not present a threat of physical harm to the public, his offenses could lead to a potential loss of faith in the system that exists to maintain order and justice.

Read the entire article here

---

TX - Considered a Sex Offender Since He Was 12, a Plano Man is Finally Freed from the Registry

Original Article

12/10/2012

By Eric Nicholson

In May, the Texas Observer profiled [name withheld], a 25-year-old Plano man struggling to find a job and otherwise coping with life on the Texas Department of Public Safety's sex offender registry.

His crime? Molesting his 8-year-old sister -- when he was 12.

[name withheld]'s case illustrates a flaw in the state's rules for handling sex offenses perpetrated by juveniles, the absurdity of which has been previously documented. In 2009, when the Houston Chronicle examined the issue, there were 3,600 registered sex offenders who were juveniles when their crime was committed. Eleven of those were required to register at the age of 10.

This all stems from the 1991 law that established sex offender reporting requirements and made registration mandatory for adults and juveniles. Tweaks have since been made to the law, allowing juvenile sex offenders to petition a judge to remove juvenile sex offenders from the registry, but mandatory registration, which lasts for 10 years, under current DPS rules, remains.

The rule is perplexing, both since it means that the punishment for a crime committed as a child extends well into adulthood and because the Texas Department of State Health Services concludes that "there is no compelling evidence to suggest the majority of juveniles with sexual behavior problems are likely to become adult sex offenders."

In [name withheld]' case, his inclusion on the registry has more or less ruined his life. He enrolled at Texas Tech but later dropped out after he began receiving death threats following the inclusion of his name and picture on a local TV news report about sex offenders. He got a job on a construction crew after dropping out but was soon let go. His next gig, traveling around the country and putting up wind turbines, took him to Washington for a month, where he was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender. (It's not directly addressed in the Texas Observer story, but that's presumably why he was required to remain on the registry beyond the 10 years, until the age of 31). He eventually got married and had two kids, but he still couldn't find a job.

The future's a little brighter for [name withheld] now. The Texas Observer reported Friday that [name withheld] successfully petitioned to have his name struck from the list.

See Also:

• Children as sex offenders? What has this world come to?

---

NEW ZEALAND - The tar-and-feathers mob ready

Original Article

08/29/2012

By Brian Rudman

You don't have to be a believer to say amen to Wanganui Catholic priest David Bell's opposition to community leaders' plans to hound paroled sex offender [name withheld] out of town.

Mayor Annette Main's (Facebook) call to shun him was not a message Christians could adopt, said Monsignor Bell, adding that those who are threatening his life are really lowering themselves "to the same level as the person we are dealing with, Mr [name withheld] himself".

Today, as [name withheld] begins three years' parole within the grounds of the local prison, rabble-rousing locals like former mayor and talk-back stirrer Michael Laws have opened a new front and are now trying to starve him out of Wanganui, by encouraging every shopkeeper in town to issue a trespass notice, forbidding him from entering their place of business.

Whether you can trespass someone who has done you or your business no harm is a moot point. But for Mr Laws and his tar-and-feather mob, that's hardly the issue. In a former age, they'd have been the ones readying the faggots to burn the local witch or volunteering to carry the burdensome ailing widow out into the woods to be devoured by wolves.

Instead of whipping their community into a state of unnecessary panic, Wanganui's politicians would have served their people better by highlighting the advice of experts like Victoria University clinical psychologist Tony Ward, who argues that at the age of 65 [name withheld] is unlikely to reoffend. Professor Ward says "the reoffending rate for very high risk people over 60 is about 6 per cent".

He also rejected the scare-mongering scenarios being painted. He said that [name withheld] "in the past had quite elaborate plans and plots. He just doesn't pounce on people". With the stringent parole conditions in place, he is unlikely to have the opportunity.

Mayor Annette Main

Professor Ward says the best way to rehabilitate sex offenders is to keep them in the midst of other people where they can be watched and given support. "Social rejection and antagonism actually makes it much less likely that they can become socially responsible."

As the Parole Board, the Corrections Department and the courts continue to fluff around with last- minute tinkerings to a proposed "reintegration" plan, the "what ifs" come leaping to the fore. What if [name withheld] hadn't had two hopeless alcoholics for parents? What if the psychiatric institutions where he spent a long stretch of his teenage years had been able to do more about his "personality disorders"?

Then there are the what ifs once he started his 21-year incarceration for a horrendous catalogue of sexual offences. What if a programme had been set in place on entering prison to prepare him for his eventual "reintegration" - or in his case, "integration" into society? Instead, [name withheld] was refused a place in in-house treatment programmes for sex offenders or even any counselling, because he wouldn't admit to a psychologist he was guilty. What if the jail-based counsellors, instead of shunning this obviously very damaged person, had bent their rules and seen it as part of their job to assist him over that "guilty" hurdle.

Of course even if they had, that wouldn't have dampened down the lynch mob waiting for his eventual release. It's not just a Wanganui phenomenon. Last Friday in Turangi, a petrol bomb was thrown through the front door of a released paedophile's temporary residence. He'd been placed there a week before by the Corrections Department as a condition of his extended supervision order, after serving his full eight-year sentence for crimes against Aucklander teenagers. The chair of the local safer community council, Mary Smallman, was quoted as saying that known paedophiles had shifted to Turangi in the past without incident but that the Wanganui hysteria had worked people up.

Michael Laws

Just what solutions the vigilantes have in mind I fear to ask. One thing is for certain, if it involves further incarceration and controls, it will be expensive.

In California, for example, sex offender parolees have to wear a GPS anklet at all times. On Halloween night, the police run Operation Boo, which bans the parolees from decorating their homes, leaving any house light showing or offering candy - even though there's no evidence of any increased risk of sexual molestation on trick-or-treat night. Last year, homeless sex offenders had to report to "a designated area" from 5pm to 10pm.

As part of a hardline approach to crime in the 1990s, several American states locked up sex offenders in "treatment" facilities after their jail sentence ended. These new facilities are seen as constitutional as long as their purpose is treatment and not punishment. It's costing New Yorkers $216,000 a year for each "patient" and Californians, $213,000. Across the US, the costs for running these non-jails has reached more than $600 million a year and rising. Is this the cost trail we really want to go down?

---

FL - David Rowe of No Peace For Predators is angry his own words are making him look bad?

Original Article

And you notice, the news media only got his side of the story, not the other side. So much for being fair and balanced! The Campaign for Freedom group is a PUBLIC group, and they only post snapshots of these people's own words, so how can we make them look bad when it's their own words? Other harassment and murder of ex-sex offenders on YouTube and here.

08/07/2012

By Ryan Smith

CLAY COUNTY - A local man who's devoted his life to fighting against child sexual predators is now being targeted by those very offenders.
- He continually goes around claiming people are pedophiles when they are not, and calling for people to be murdered, molested, raped, etc, and that is his own words, which the group linked above was created to show. I do not know of one person who has threatened Mr. Rowe, but a couple people claim he has threatened them.

David Rowe and his team have done a lot in our area to make sure offenders are known to the public. “The way I look at it is somebody has to do something. Pedophilia has become a full blown epidemic."
- Not everyone on the registry is a pedophile, and you continue to use the term as if they all are. It's simply not true. And the registry is there for anyone to freely look at, he is going beyond that, which is pretty much harassment in our book.

He formed No Peace for Predators after Somer Thompson was kidnapped and murdered. Ever since then, the watchdog group works to expose who they call the worst of the worst, sex predators. Just last year, they got an ice cream truck out of the hands of registered sex offender, Jackie Hall. If someone like Hall moves to the area, Rowe and his team spread the word with fliers.

- I agree, a person who has a conviction for sexually abusing a child, should not be driving an ice cream truck, and that is all good, but they also didn't show what exactly happened, which was more harassment and intimidation with pit bulls and the police, who stood by and did nothing. Also, isn't it the job of the police to warn people and spread the word if someone is a "danger," not vigilantes?

“We go to their next door neighbor’s house; we go to the stores they shop in. Everywhere they could possibly lay foot and we put their faces everywhere,” said Rowe.
- Yes, you harass them, you go beyond what the law states and the police do, that is vigilantism!

But now, Rowe says, an underground group of registered sex offenders are trying to do the same thing to him. “They're trying to paint me as this monster."
- Underground? Who is underground? The link to the Facebook group is PUBLIC and all the web sites are as well. Underground means people are hiding, which we are not! And no, I don't think anybody is trying to paint you as a monster, your own words are doing that!

According to Rowe, disgruntled sex predators are distorting his character on blogs and social media sites like Facebook. They call him a violent vigilante. Action News did some digging and discovered that Rowe was recently arrested for fighting at a local bar. But he says that doesn't make him the monster, some are calling him online.
- Again, it's his own words which are being posted, and anybody who cares to see the facts for themselves can clearly see that, if you look, and not all in the group or visiting the Facebook pages are pedophiles or predators, but family members sick and tired of the injustice system and people harassing them and their families, like you have been doing online.

“That we go out and do harm to these people and that's not the case at all. We've never touched anybody,” said Rowe. “We're here to let the people know who these guys are, what they've done and what they're capable of doing."
- Show me one place where someone has said you go out and harm people David! I don't recall seeing anybody say that, but you clearly think people will just take your word for it, and what is sad, is most people do. Also, it's not your job to go around posting fliers and harassing people you claim are predators or pedophiles. If you have a problem with someone, call the police instead of becoming a vigilante!

Rowe says he reported the group, Campaign for Freedom, to Facebook but the content has not been taken down. Campaign for Freedom says it's devoted to ending vigilantism and reforming sex offender laws.
- It's free speech David, and what has been posted is your own words! The group is public, meaning anybody can join, if you want. And even if you don't want to join, if you are logged into Facebook, you can clearly see everything in the group. It was made that way on purpose.

---

LA - FCI Oakdale staff (Gonzales & Childers) harassing inmates?

The following was posted elsewhere and posted with the persons permission.

UPDATE: See the comments for more info.

By Anonymous:
I am so furious right now I am shaking all over. My son just called me from Oakdale, FCI. He had some articles clipped to send to me and was called into the office over them. The officers said the articles he had was perfectly legal but they were curious why he had them saved. The "officers" (Gonzales and Childers) questioned him. He told them that I had a group in [withheld] and I worked with many national groups and he often sends me things and I send him stories as well. The agent shoved him and told him he was a piece of s*** and that no such groups exist. He continued to call him a liar and that there is no activist or groups for RSO's and he is making it up. He has to go back after lunch in this man's office. I am so upset and terrified right now.

---

He told him over and over to look it up or call me. He told him he monitors his calls and we never talk about activism, which is a lie, that is what we always talk about. He doesn't care. I am so scared.

---

He told him "so let me get this straight, you are saying there is a group out there that works to HELP sex offenders??? What about the kids? Do they care about the kids?????" Then he told them there was no way there was such a group. freaking the f out.

---

My son said he is going back in after lunch and If I don't hear from him he will be put in the hole even though he has done nothing wrong. He asked me to wait to see if I hear back before action or calls. I am sure we was being recorded, it even came up a number I had never seen and I made it a point to mention there are thousands of us and we would be writing and calling if anything happened to him. When he calls back and I am going to make it count for anyone who might be listening.

---

08-07-2012 - 7:27pm - I just heard from my son, finally. They have kept him tied up "questioning" him regarding how could there possibly be groups out here that actually work to help sex offenders out on the streets. He asked him over and over what kind of piece of s*** are you???? My son said he got called in over an article he had clipped to send me from a People magazine regarding the show Dance Mom's. I had told him about hearing they had done a "stripper dance" on the show, he clipped the article to show how unfair it was that he was charged with CP for way less graphic pics. It was in an envelope to me. They told him he had done nothing illegal at all and they had nothing to "charge" him with, however they were furious that there are groups fighting to actually help a sex offender??? They insisted we do not exist and he is making it up and the articles were for his own "benefit". He was told finally to get the hell out of their sight.

---

MA - Millbury firefighter and Bikers Against Abusing Kids (BAAK) member (Robert Giannette) charged in theft from Fire Dept and Charity

Robert Giannette

Original Article

And another "for the children" biker thugs busted for a crime!  Also see these posts for Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA).

01/28/2011

By Gary V. Murray

WORCESTER — Bail was set at $1,000 cash for a Millbury call firefighter arrested yesterday on charges of stealing from the Fire Department and a charity he set up, extorting money from a local church, and workers’ compensation fraud.

Robert Giannette, 46, was arrested after what a prosecutor said was an exhaustive police investigation.

Giannette was arraigned in Central District Court on two counts of larceny of more than $250, embezzlement of more than $250 by an association member, extortion by false report of a crime, and workers’ compensation fraud.

Giannette posted $300 cash bail set at the police station after his arrest, but Judge Paul L. McGill increased the bail to $1,000 cash or $10,000 with surety, citing a history of defaults on Giannette’s one-page criminal record.

Giannette was taken into custody by court officers when he was unable to post the increased bail.

Giannette started a motorcycle club charity called Bikers Against Abusing Kids and used money donated to the group for personal expenses, police said. He told members of the charity that he was seeking nonprofit status, police said.

The charity is not a nonprofit organization, police said, asking that anyone who donated to it to contact them.

On Sept. 21, Giannette and several other members of the charity went to the home of a man who was being investigated for indecent assault and battery on a child, but who had not yet been charged, said Detective Kimberly Brothers. Armed with a sword in a sheath, Giannette allegedly knocked on the door and handed the man literature related to the charity’s activities.

The man called police after the visit, and police told Giannette not to interfere, according to the detective. The next day, Giannette went to the man’s place of employment and gave his employer more material from the charity, police said. The man was later fired from his job, Brothers said.

Police also said Giannette, who is receiving workers’ compensation while out on medical leave from the Fire Department, extorted money from a local church he did some painting for. Giannette told the church that if he was not paid money he was owed, he would go to the town and report what he said were code violations and a lack of proper permits at the church, police said.

A search of Giannette’s apartment Wednesday found several items that the Fire Department later said were stolen, including an ax and firefighting “turnout gear,’’ Brothers said.

Giannette’s court-appointed lawyer, Peter B. Clifford, said the Fire Department property police found in Giannette’s apartment was equipment he needed when called upon to fight fires.

Clifford, who asked that his client be released on the previously posted $300 cash bail, said the financial allegations against him may involve “as little as $1,800.’’

He also said Giannette had a legitimate workers’ compensation claim.

---

WI - Court: Woman (Barbara Patterson) abused process in sex offender fight

Original Article

06/20/2012

MADISON (AP) - A state appeals court says a Grafton woman abused the legal process when she filed a complaint against a sex offender's family.

Barbara Patterson put up fliers in 2009 announcing her neighbor, [name withheld], had decided to let her sex offender son move in. The [name withheld] family began receiving prank phone calls and drivers started gawking at their house.

After the family warned Patterson they planned to sue her (PDF), Patterson filed a complaint alleging family members threatened her.

The family filed a lawsuit alleging invasion of privacy, defamation and abuse of process.

A judge dismissed all three claims, but the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that Patterson did abuse the process, saying she exaggerated her threat claims.

Patterson's attorney didn't immediately return a message.

---

UK - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Original Article

06/12/2012

Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

[name withheld] had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.

End to 'scurrilous rumour'

Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material."

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators."

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

Privacy concerns

But Privacy International, an organisation that campaigns at an international level on privacy issues, says that there is a concern that "gun-shy website operators will start automatically divulging user details the moment someone alleges defamation in order to shield themselves from libel actions".

"A great deal of the content posted by internet trolls is not actually defamatory, instead constituting harassment, invasion of privacy or simply unpleasant but lawfully-expressed opinion," said Emma Draper, head of communications at Privacy International.

"However, if the choice is between protecting users' anonymity and avoiding a potentially costly lawsuit, many small operators are not going to be overly concerned about whether or not a user has genuinely defamed the complainant."

---

UK - Facebook forced to reveal trolls' identities

Original Article

06/11/2012

By Emma Woollacott

The British High Court is to force Facebook to hand over the IP addresses of dozens of internet trolls who falsely accused a woman of being a pedophile.

[name withheld] only 'crime' was to post a message showing support for a contestant on the X Factor game show. "Keep your chin up, Frankie, they'll move on to someone else soon," she said.

But unfortunately for [name withheld], the trolls did exactly that. A barrage of abuse about her followed, with the trolls even setting up a fake profile page labelling her a pedophile and drug dealer, which was used to send explicit sexual messages to girls.

The trolls even published her address and a photograph of her daughter.

When an approach to the police failed to get anything done, [name withheld] launched legal action herself to force Facebook to hand over information that could help identify the trolls.

She says that, once their identities are revealed, she plans to launch private prosecutions against at least four of the people concerned.

She's highly critical of Facebook's reporting system, telling the Daily Telegraph that it 'doesn't work'.
- We agree with that!  We've been called pedophiles as well and reported the pages, nothing!

"The abuse is absolutely horrendous and nothing can be done about it and nothing can be stopped. No one in authority is stepping in to say enough. I know that what I am doing is right," she says.

"It might take a while because I am not going to stop until these people are found, exposed and held accountable to what they have done."

The case is a first in the UK. Facebook says it will hand over the IP addresses when it receives the court order, which needs to be phyically delivered to the company's headquarters in the US.

---