Judge bans a Facebook page exposing paedophiles and awards £20,000 damages to convicted sex offender

An extraordinary ruling by a Northern Ireland judge will lead to a chilling effect on people using the internet to expose convicted paedophiles and give hope to sex offenders that they can make money from people and organisations attacking them for their crimes.

The  Belfast case has been picked up by the excellent Inforrm blog which gives a detailed legal analysis of what happened from Lorna Skinner ,a barrister at Matrix Chambers.

The facts appear to be these. Joseph McCloskey set up a Facebook profile page called ” Keep Our Kids Safe from Predators 2 ” which posted information about a convicted sex offender called CG. A similar page was set up by RS the father of one  of CG’s victims.

CG’s lawyers complained about the postings on both sites.

Inforrm says: ” Broadly speaking, each consisted of the publication of a photograph of CG together with information identifying him as a sex offender. This was followed by further posts and/or comments from viewers of the material consisting of verbal abuse, threats, and information as to identification and location.”

None of the information published  by McCloskey was private, It was all in the public domain at the time of CG’s conviction. CG’s solicitors complained to Mr McCloskey  who immediately removed all postings relating to CG. The postings on RS’s page were removed by Facebook, in each case some time after receipt of a complaint. The posts are said to contain threats of violence against the paedophile which judge took particular exception.

But the lawyers weren’t satisfied and went to court claiming the sex offender had been harassed on Facebook and his human rights breached by the publication on Facebook.

As Inforrm reports his lawyers said” the material posted amounted to a misuse of private information, was in breach of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR, amounted to harassment of him contrary to the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and that each of them were guilty of actionable negligence. For good measure he also asserted that Facebook was in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.”

What is extraordinary is the ruling from Mr Justice Stephens, the judge. Even though the site had been taken down the judge approved an injunction against to protect the privacy of other sex offenders and paedophiles who had been named by contributors to the page.

As Inforrm reports ( my emphasis): “The Judge found that Mr McCloskey’s purpose in setting up the profile/page, which on his evidence had 25,000 friends, was to destroy the family life of sex offenders, to expose them to total humiliation and vilification, to drive them from their homes and expose them to the risk of serious harm.”

Inforrm adds: “As a result, CG was awarded damages totalling £20,000. An anti-harassment injunction was made against Mr McCloskey and a mandatory injunction was made against Facebook requiring it to terminate the entirety of the “Keeping our Kids Safe from Predators 2” profile/page including all material referring to other sex offenders as it “is doing damage to other individuals and is clearly unlawful”.

The full judgement is here for those who want to read it.

Quite rightly the wide terms of such a ban – particularly in relation to the Data Protection Act – is questioned by the Matrix barrister. She points out : “The obvious fallacy of this approach is that sensitive personal data covers areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, for example: “David Cameron is the Conservative Prime Minister, who comes from a traditional English background”. Similarly, it is difficult to see how, absent the application of a DPA-style [data protection act] analysis, CG could sensibly have argued that his image, or the fact of his conviction for sex offences was, or had become, private information.”

I regard this ruling as excessive and dangerous. While the threats of violence against the paedophile seem to have contributed to the judge’s findings, a complete  ban on the site is out of proportion. Also the judgement reveals that Mr McCloskey’s own mother was the subject of repeated child sexual abuse, which led him to set up the site. The site was  comprehensive in tracing all N Ireland paedophiles.

Suppose for example, to take a current case, Tony McSweeney, just convicted  for indecent assault, is sent to prison and subsequently let out on licence. Should the Roman Catholic Church have the right to remove everything from websites about him which was revealed at the time of his conviction? And should he get damages if people reveal this information, I think not.

76 thoughts on “Judge bans a Facebook page exposing paedophiles and awards £20,000 damages to convicted sex offender

    • This judge deserves a bullet in the temple. Along with registered sex offenders. If hell exists well then there’s a special place in hell for them lowlife scumbag trash. A disgrace to the human race and a waste of space and lives. It’s very unfortunate that their mothers never swallowed their father’s load on the night they were unfortunately conceived. Biggest mistake those bitches made in their life. Should’ve been aborted or stillborn. So much for justice for innocent children victims that they very well deserve. Also sad that the criminals gets sympathy and cash rewards. It should be the other way round. Kids should be the ones getting the sympathy and the cash rewards. Fucking trash the judge and and sex offenders are.The judge and the registered sex offenders deserve to be rotting in a cell for the rest of their miserable lives like the crazed animals they are.


      • Judas Priest, am I still signed up for notifications to this ancient post (despite being ‘banned’ for not lying for a living)? I must be, as the charming effort above just shat its way into my inbox… a million thanks, David ‘Dirty’ Hencke! I needed a shower, anyway…

        Swallowing loads, bitches & abortions – welcome to the world you made! Are you proud?

        P.S. I can’t help but notice that you never bothered to update your fans that the brave ‘vigilante’ subject of your eulogy did, indeed, turn out to be a nasty violent criminal (and serial pervert to boot!) making you – and all of your nutter-army – look just a little pathetic.
        Don’t be chowing down on too many Christmas leftovers, now – you’ll have plenty more humble pie to shovel down in the New Year, I’m sure.


      • Obviously the balmy temperatures in the Canary islands and the spirit of Christmas still haven’t worked wonders for your equilibrium Your decision not to comment on this site was your own – you weren’t banned by me – you walked off by yourself. Anyway you have found a nice spiritual home on the Anna Raccoon site for all your views. Peace and Goodwill to you!


      • Ah, you must have confused me when you said that: “This will indeed be your last post!”

        I guessed that you were a bit put-out by the link I included to the likely source of ‘Darren’s’ (previously ‘Michael’) VHS “memory” of the killing fields at Toffington Hall – you know, that big story of yours that no one believes, not even your maddest followers…
        (I’m still waiting for the ‘campaigning’ blusterer, Tom Watson, to make good on his promise to name those attacking ‘Darren’ in Parliament! Must have slipped his mind, eh?)

        Anyway, banned or not I’m not wasting any more time here & besides, I wouldn’t want to draw you away from cracking on with the Savile-nephew Proctor/Heath mega-scoop! His book seems to have not seen the light of day – re-writes necessary, no doubt! Something of a speciality…


        ‘Anna Raccoon’? No longer around I’m afraid – despite the Exaro nutter-magnet attracting crackpots from all around they do occasionally spin off & orbit persistently around anyone who dares question the patently ludicrous fare on offer; I think she’d had enough of being their target.

        But! She has an article in the upcoming magazine from ‘The Justice Gap’, named ‘Proof’. Maybe you should order a copy and re-acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word:



      • Ho ho ho!
        Go on then – one more post ‘for the attention of Owen’, just to bring the curtain down on our planned review of ‘a year of Danczuk’. (How could I possibly resist this one?!?)

        With spectacular timing – the final day of 2015! – the ‘campaigning’ MP who cares so, so deeply about this ‘n’ that, has come a cropper: front-page of The Sun, “MP’s sick sex texts to girl, 17”!

        Knowing Danczuk, I would have previously thought the whole thing was a tabloid-stunt, but the front-page of Exaro’s site sets me straight:

        “Newly-appointed Sun editor Tony Gallagher made a clarion call for investigative journalism while speaking at the inaugural Exaro debacle in Fleet Street.”

        There is a video, apparently: Exaro’s journalists, rubbing shoulders with the editor of Murdoch’s Sun, heeding that ‘clarion call’… great stuff! Anyway, I’m reassured that the Danczuk-tale comes from such an admired source, but what a mucky mess, eh?

        The unemployed tattle-tale teen was “actively bombarded” with a “slew of vile sex messages” when she was angling for a position with the member of Parliament (over his knee if he had any say, by the sounds of it!) & was asked to send him a pic having previously ‘revealed’ her age to be 17. Crikey, the snap – described as “revealing” – could possibly land the spud-headed fool on a register (under 18=child!).

        My giddy aunt! And all lived-out in public, with not a thought for the school-aged children of those involved… If only there had been some way of seeing this coming, eh, Owen?!?

        Happy New Year!


  1. Seems to be a pattern. DONT UPSET CHILD SEX OFFENDERS.
    EG My FOI request on Ralph Alden convicted child sex offender was removed in case it defamed him

    Secondly archive items on colin peters have had closure orders imposed on them because unlocking and revealing archive may cause distress to the subject of the archive

    I rather think this tells you all about establishment attitudes


  2. Pingback: Judge bans a Facebook page exposing paedophiles and awards £20,000 damages to convicted sex offender – David Hencke | Vox Political

  3. The “protection” they afford to abusers, not the victims, is criminal. I’m not saying it should be mob justice etc. but if our MPs and the judges who give the rule of law in the courts, did a better job of protecting children and the people, then no one would feel the NEED to take law into own hands. Lady Justice with scales, sword while blindfolded to ensure no bias, is a bloody farce. All our systems are corrupted by evil ppl, lining pockets. IF we just had a system that was fair, a meritocracy even, oh what a society that could be. Morals, honesty and fair-play is not too much to demand of our politicians. The punishments for being corrupt in office should be so severe they’d never dare act in criminal ways against our nation.

    When will judges award compensation to all the victims abused by the VERY rich? NO, they are conspiring to silence alternative media as we are getting to close to the elites at very top of this pyramid of child rapists/killers. So, they are bullying, fining the small guys as know only us will tell the truth and expose them. They disgust me, all because they can’t control their urges, monsters.

    Pls excuse the rant.


      • Thx Victoria. If a million of us woke up to this evil cabal, we may have justice. This group are putting our society on a one way trip to Armageddon, they seem to WANT this outcome and build deep underground bases with OUR cash to protect themselves when it finally happens. Monsters!


  4. The Westminster Mafia and other Establishment figures should shut the Internet down can’t have all these accusations being put on the internet,. One dreadful thought someone told me that the United Kingdom overtook France in the economic stakes. The reason being that we include the porn industry in our figures. This should come as no surprise, when I was young the UK the country seemed to be living in the Victorian age when it came to sex and morals. Now nearly 70 years later I seem to live in a society that seems to have gone back further to the time of Sodom and Gomorrah. Believe me I am no prude but Judges should be protecting the venerable not the predator. If a predator had and did his time, should he giving the right of privacy and would this allow him to work amongst children, because what the poor deluded man has done is open the flood gates to every sick pervert to apply for anonymity and does this include any files on him.


  5. Are you engaged in a race to the bottom with your former employers? I thought we’d already arrived having read this rubbish…


    … but now I realise there was yet further to fall.

    It was useful of you to include a link to the ruling, but did YOU bother to read it before writing that you “regard this ruling as excessive and dangerous”? Or bother to do the slightest bit of research before twisting the tale to make the ludicrous suggestion that it might “give hope to sex offenders that they can make money from people and organisations attacking them for their crimes”?

    What planet are you on, writing the following:

    “Suppose for example, to take a current case, Tony McSweeney, just convicted for indecent assault, is sent to prison and subsequently let out on licence. Should the Roman Catholic Church have the right to remove everything from websites about him which was revealed at the time of his conviction? And should he get damages if people reveal this information, I think not.”

    What shameless, scaremongering rubbish.
    CG was given a substantial sentence in 2007, released “into the community” in 2012 under strict conditions (“The plaintiff has complied with all the terms of his licence. He has been assessed as not presenting any significant risk to members of the public. He is under supervision in the community by the responsible authorities.”), yet still several years later finds that there is a concerted effort to do him harm & has been repeatedly attacked verbally/physically by nutcases, driven from his home, the chances of him maintaining any kind of normal life reduced to NIL… The notion that the judgement will “remove everything from websites about him which was revealed at the time of his conviction” is patently FALSE.

    These cretins to whom you are pandering will kill some one, and you too will have blood on your hands. (Seeing as they were using a photograph from the 90s they may well have killed someone else entirely, but no matter, eh?). Given your own personal circumstances I’m surprised that you don’t seem to mind that the threats of burning him out of his house might have impacted also on his disabled father with whom he lived. Or that his own disabled child is scared of being attacked and so feels unable to spend time with his father except via telephone.

    In short, a man in his forties, having served his sentence & considered to be an insigificant risk to others has been prevented from being with his child, lives in fear of his life & no doubt is unable to work… and it will never end, because those you are tacitly supporting will never allow him to do anything except suffer until he dies. What great heroes they are.

    A truly deranged post, Mr Hencke. And quite sickening. Go and read the judgement & then hang your head in shame.


    • Ah Bandini and I thought you had retired. Yes the language and threat of violence on his site – including from contributors – was excessive. But he had already taken it down and I am afraid I am not as trusting as you to think people will not re-offend and I definitely don’t see why public information at the time of his trial should become private.
      The danger is that this judgement – and I have talked to a barrister about this – will lead to a chilling effect and be used as a precedent for some convicted paedophiles to get some money through the courts. I put the judgement up in full so people can make up their own minds as you have,
      And I am afraid I don’t share your language to describe people who may be very angry about this as cretins.


      • Retired? I had being trying not to respond to your post prior to this one…


        … but having been provoked may well have to hold you to account tomorrow (so that should give you time to rustle something up to substantiate the ‘directly related to Elm’-claim & – now that that trial is over – there’ll be no holding you/Exaro back!).

        But back to this case, point-by-point:

        “But he had already taken it down…” Yes, like he took it down in the previous court-ruling, you mean. And then it went back up again!

        “I am afraid I am not as trusting as you to think people will not re-offend…” How would you or I know anything about this matter? For better or worse, we have to trust in those whose job it is to make these judgements; if, that is, we want to live in a civilized society with a rule of law. Why don’t you be honest & share with us your Final Solution for ridding the world of its evils? On the one hand you claim to be pushing for police action/criminal prosecutions, but on the other you fail to abide by their results (when it suits you). It would be perfectly valid to campaign for longer sentences, for example, but NOT to have someone persecuted for the rest of their lives AFTER ‘paying the price’ set by Society.

        “I definitely don’t see why public information at the time of his trial should become private.” Really? Well, you didn’t answer the “did you read the judgement” question – you didn’t, did you?!? – which probably explains your muddle-headedness here.

        “The danger is that this judgement… …will lead to a chilling effect and be used as a precedent for some convicted paedophiles to get some money through the courts.” – Oh, please. This is just comical!

        “I have talked to a barrister about this…” – presumably this was after you DIDN’T read the judgement in full?

        “And I am afraid I don’t share your language to describe people who may be very angry about this as cretins…” – oh, lord! Now I KNOW you never read the judgement in full! Why don’t we include here some of the quotes (from said judgement) and let people decide whether or not the word ‘cretin’ is apt? The redactions for ‘strong language’ & identifying details are not mine (and neither are the appalling mistakes from those who are absolutely not cretins):

        “they should bring back the electric chair and fry the dirty rotton c…!!! Hope he rots in hell!!!! Gang raped by a load a men in jail!!!!!!”

        “this pedo is now out after serving only seven years of his ten has been seen in the … area and …”

        “He was in … last week. But he lives in … with his dad and his brother who has also interfered with kids.”

        “this pedo stays in …. on the … Road and is driving a …”

        “deserves everything he gets when he’s in jail, hope the inmates torture him SLOWLY, and he suffers BIG TIME!!!”

        “I would tie him to a tree and put a blow torch where he wouldn’t want it. And enjoy watching him in pain”

        “Keep your eyes open and show your kids his photo to keep them save”

        “If you see kill that c**t”

        And on & on it goes… Cretins? I would say so. You’re welcome to ’em.


      • @BANDINI. You are about as stupid as I had been told you were
        You see in normal land most people hate paedophiles because er they harm children. hence all the anger and hatred
        Whereas on Racoony island paedophiles are heroes and victims are the bad guys
        So here is a tip. Sod off back to paedo land and stay there


      • I’m afraid for once I find myself in agreement with Bandini this time. Publishing CG’s image puts his disabled son at risk. That’s an issue you can be bothered about or not, but it’s an issue that needs to be taken seriously. You believe that the judge accepted the argument that CG was rebuilding his life with his son uncritically and imply that he let himself be deceived. Do you know that?


      • I’m afraid I can’t seem to muster much enthusiasm at the moment to engage in debate at the level evidenced here.

        What do you even mean by writing that the judge “had more empathy for the convicted paedophile than angry victims”? Surely you are not referring to those against whom the judgement was made (er, Facebook & McLoskey) as ‘angry victims’, so I can only guess that you mean those fantasizing about seeing CG gang-raped & tortured to death. Or those posting often inaccurate information about CG’s whereabouts & habits, something that the only person who could make any claim to ‘vicarious victimhood’ – RS – was himself critical of.

        Some people seem incredibly relaxed about violent crackpot ‘vigilantes’ dishing out an abomination of justice. They don’t even seem to care that if this kind of medievalism is allowed to prosper there will inevitably be complete innocents murdered:

        Well, the next time it happens – and it will – give yourselves a big pat on the back, eh? But I want no part of it.

        Regarding one of your contributors’ offensive smears & mad obsession with ‘Anna Raccoon’, a site he believes to be headed by Tom O’Carroll somehow pulling the strings by impersonating an 80s’ electro musician [puts head in hands & simultaneously groans/laughs/despairs] I made it clear why I would not be responding here:

        While I’m here I’ll point out that a week or so ago Mary Moss (of Elm-guestlist infamy) let loose on Twitter. She made it clear that she doesn’t like Fay, doesn’t trust Fay, has had nothing to do with him since 1989 (getting her dates a ‘bit’ wrong there, though!), doesn’t want to be associated with him in anyway whatsoever, that he was turfed out of NAYPIC, that Watson MP ought to have checked his criminal background before dealing with him, and that, astonishingly, she has no idea if the list is even in any way accurate.

        Oh, and she most certainly never caught a glimpse of any of those vanishing photographs!

        (Tom “Puzzled Face” Watson was also seen to be a bit confused by a claim made in some rag regarding Sinn Fein/Elm: from where in the name of Satan’s sweet portion had they copped THAT idea, he asked. A link was provided to an ‘explosive’ Exaro-piece, which had, of course, originated… blah blah blah what’s the point?)

        By the way, ‘Nick”s tale has made it to Spain:

        You might want to contact their London correspondant as all the credit goes to the BBC with no mention of Exaro’s Fleet Street dynamite factory. This seems unfair, regardless of what transpires. The writer also appears to think that Harvey Proctor is the father of five children, which seems unlikely (although not impossible).
        These journos, eh?, spreading facts wherever they go… Add a dash of Dickens & wrap it up with some more Savile hogwash, I do wonder at times if the label ‘Fourth Estate’ shouldn’t cede its position to ‘Fifth Column’.

        Right, I’m off to push off out into the Universe, in search of intelligent life…


    • What an extraordinary outburst.

      Your use of language ‘Bandini’, is curious, personalised, and really very offensive – ‘Final Solutions’, ‘cretins’, ‘nutcases’?

      One must ask why you reserve such fury for those seeking justice for the victims of child sexual abuse, rather than express any sense of revulsion, or indeed anger, for the perpetrators of these appalling crimes.

      From your previous comments it seems you have nothing to say in support of those who have been assaulted and traumatised in this way, and indeed reserve your sympathy for their assailants, obsessively looking for any excuse to discredit the case against them, rather than worrying that those responsible for such terrible suffering will continue to evade justice.


      • @Mrs Angry that’s game they play Bandini if from a bunch of Paedo apologists and supporters who rubbish and discredit victims. They have been at it for ages. They are intent on convincing people that paedophilia is normal and paedos are just innocent victims at the mercy of nasty compensation seeking ‘ so called victims ‘

        In their club are connections to convicted paedophiles


      • .I totally agree with you when these people lose the argument they turn to abuse, one of her colleagues who I have never met described ne as a wife beater on-line. They just want us to provoke us so they can run to their friends in high places and get us arrested, which is used often in police states. These people are part of an overhaul plan to discredit the victims and those supporting them. I am pleased you spotted Bandini, one of the many on the internet who I have to admit write clever pieces that seem to be in support while conclusions could be written by M16 who may have more to lose than their inflated pensions


      • Wonderful! As close as I’m ever likely to come to a childhood dream of being a Bond-type agent of the state, and you get the bloody name wrong!

        It’s MI6, Mr Derbyshire. Your confusion over the letter ‘i’ (which stands for ‘intelligence’) seems extremely apposite, I have to say!

        The M16, on the otherhand, is an abandoned motorway-that-was-never-completed or something. By all accounts it sounds like a tail-chasing roundabout leading absolutely nowhere… and on which I’m afraid you maybe stuck.


        I’m not sure if your first sentence above refers to myself or not. Actually, the second sentence, I suppose, as you chose to start your paragraph with a full-stop, bravely eschewing all grammatical norms. A Joycian flourish!

        Either way, I have no collegues to accuse you of wife-beating. I suggest you report the matter to the authorities. (Neither am I a she.)

        I also suggest you take the information you have claimed to have held about ‘VIP paedophile rings’ to the police. Anyone clicking on the Ian Pace/Desiring Progress link I included above will have seen how your sources correctly indentified to you the members of such a group (which you neglected to do anything about), culminating in 75% of said ‘ring’ being exposed. As you later go on to claim knowledge of Savile’s offending (in a truly bizarre post!) & have also elsewhere suggested you have yet further information about related matters, it really does seem that you could be the key to bringing the whole rotten edifice down!

        Don’t worry too much about being arrested, either. Committed, perhaps…


      • .
        Your email address seems to be either connected or imitate an early Quaker movement promoted by William Penn and you appear to be living abroad or using a server in Spain a long way away from the unfinished M 16 motorway. You obviously don’t want to disclose who you are and yet are happy to engage in critical dialogue with real people.


      • @Bandini you still here? why? Haven’t you got more garbage to spew elsewhere?

        So why don’t you just tell us why you think paedophiles are totally nice people and victims are just greedy liars. Perhaps you could ask your mate tom o Carroll and johnno king why they should all be left alone to rape our kids then?

        Come on I am sure we are all interested in your somewhat misguided views on reality


      • Well, Mr Hencke, I’m rubbing my eyes here, wondering if what I think I have just read can really be true…

        “Well Bandini at least he uses a real name.”
        I have no idea (and no real interest) in whether or not he is using his real name. Is it relevant?

        “Your email address seems to be either connected or imitate an early Quaker movement promoted by William Penn…”
        What in God’s name are you talking about?!? Seriously. I’m not in any way connected to an early Quaker movement! And, er, I’m unsure as to how an email address could ‘imitate’ such a thing anyway. You’ve lost your marbles!

        “… and you appear to be living abroad or using a server in Spain a long way away from the unfinished M 16 motorway.”
        I do indeed live abroad, and have never made the slightest effort to hide the fact. If you were to check your records you would see that I told YOU where I was on the 10th December 2013 (you replied the next day). Whoops!

        “You obviously don’t want to disclose who you are and yet are happy to engage in critical dialogue with real people.”
        My first contact with yourself started like this:

        “Comment: Dear Mr Hencke, [Elm/Chris Fay/Clive Godden/David Hamilton Grant/Mary Moss-related] I hesitate to contact you, but basically a couple of days ago I stumbled across a connection that until then I hadn’t seen made…”

        And finished this way:
        “I’ll close in wishing you well with your continuing investigations, and apologise for using a pseudonym. Thanks for taking the time to read this.”

        Perhaps you should have raised the matter then if you had some problem? At that point I was prepared to “reveal” my identity, and did indeed offer to do so to blog-owners, other journalists, forum moderators, a photographer, etc…

        Of course, that was before the really nasty attacks started. You yourself seem happy to allow smears & lies to appear here (no need to list them, just read the bloody page that carries your name at the top of it) and given the topic of this particular article led to a discussion about the danger of violent vigilante attacks, do you really think that I would now be happy to have the assembled team of unhinged crackpots knocking at my door?

        I pointed out to you before that those faithful Exaro Twitter goons were, actually, not quite as innocent as they would like the world to think.
        The graphic descriptions of death/suicide wished upon me… the determined attempt to convince people that I was an associate of a child kidnapper & abuser…
        [including by a member of the ‘People’s Tribunal’ steering-commitee, which I noticed you gave a little filip to here: “But survivors will be able to speak to the inquiry and also to the new People’s Tribunal now in the process of being set which has survivors on its steering committee” https://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/no-survivors-on-the-goddard-child-sex-abuse-inquiry-panel/ ]

        … the absolute crap I’ve had thrown at me, falsely & KNOWINGLY falsely, and all down to raising that ‘connection’ I mentioned above. Interesting…

        I expect you to publish this reply. If you have any sense you will admit that I made you aware of my location in 2013 (and for your own reputation’s sake you might want to apologise for the bizarre Quaker rubbish). All of the above can be proven (that’s PROOF, not evidence). No disappearing photographs/documents/dossiers here, I assure you!

        After that, think about a holiday. You are obviously in dire need of a break.


      • Well I have published your reply. My reference to the Quakers is that the Sandy Foundation if you Google is one of the earliest Quaker bodies dating from William Penn founder of Pennsylvania.


      • @bandini conveniently avoids the tricky aspect of him hanging out with paedophiles apogists… Typical same mo as paedos. It’s always someone else to blame not them they are always the innocent ones.

        and Moor Larkin that senile idiot made himself look foolish as well
        That’s the fuzzy world of denial and delusion on Racoony island


      • Yes, you have published my reply.
        You have not, however, admitted that I made you aware of my location in 2013. Nor have you apologised.

        ‘Sandy foundation’ comes from a song. ‘Bandini’ comes from a book. Neither have anything to do with Quakerism. Is this what passes for ‘investigative journalism’, a Google-search? Some people like to go a bit deeper, even bothering to read a report before pontificating upon it, for example.

        You have made yourself look very foolish here.


      • If it did happen I had forgotten about it and it appears – despite you having 51 references back to 2014, the admin on my site doesn’t seem to keep references to comments made in 2013 from you so I have no means of knowing what you say is correct.


      • As the following comment seems to have been ‘disappeared’ I am posting it again in the hope that Mr Hencke will now confirm HERE what he has confirmed by email:

        Bandini says:
        Your comment is awaiting moderation.
        March 9, 2015 at 10:54 am
        Mr Hencke, I see that you have seen fit to edit your reply of 3.53pm from yesterday although you do not highlight this fact. (The opening line, “Well Bandini at least he uses a real name” has vanished.)

        As you seem to be having problems locating your files – perhaps a problem provoked by unplugging your site from the internet as described below? – I have helpfully emailed you with all that you need so that now you DO, to paraphrase, “have means of knowing what I say is correct”.

        And I expect you to say as much, here, on this site.


      • Bandini you are not the editor or moderator of this site and frankly cannot demand I publish everything you say. I owe you no explanation if I decide to change,modify or not publish a comment or choose not to signpost whether I have or not. I am pretty tolerant in publishing a wide range of views, including from people who think I am wrong,unfair, daft or unreasonable.
        I had forgotten you had contacted me directly from Spain in 2013 so accept you may indeed be living in Spain – though people have been known to upload material in another country. But given you use pseudonyms – one as a pen name which I don’t have much of problem – and the other in your own email address, you might well expect some speculation about it – particularly when you decide to tell other people what to do. But I see you have plenty of other outlets on other blogs and you could set up one yourself if you feel frustrated that not everybody agrees with you. I have put up your latest comment so people can see the general tenor of your language.


      • Well, Mr Hencke, I did suggest you could reply in as begrudging a manner as you wished, and I see you have taken up my suggestion! No matter!

        This will be my last post on this site, but before I forget: Owen, if you are reading, I did previously suggest that we could meet back ‘here’ for a round-up of 2015:

        You may not have seen it & may well have no interest anyway but, if you did, we’ll have to do so elsewhere. (Also, your forensic analysis of the judgement discussed on this page was appreciated.)

        Back to Mr Hencke…
        The idea of ‘uploading material’ from Spain has actually given me a business-brainwave, but one I’m afraid will have to wait a few years until the technology arrives: the virtual holiday.
        Without ever leaving your Berkhamstead bubble I would be able to offer you that holiday I fear you need, ‘uploading’ sand from the beach & water from the sea straight to your head! The sun might present a greater problem, though; perhaps a sun-lamp will have to do to start with…

        I do have to point out again – as in emails – that your assertion that: “You obviously don’t want to disclose who you are” was simply wrong. You never made the slightest attempt to ask despite having had ample opportunity to do so. Anyone who asked was told. You are in a minority of one.

        You are also stubbornly clinging to your confusion over the difference between a name (pseudonym) & address (email address). My girlfriend’s work email (multi-national) bears no relation to her name – following your logic she is using a pseudonym! Oh well. So, no, I don’t “use pseudonyms” – I use one. (And only one, something of a rarity from what I’ve been able to discover!).

        Set up a blog? ‘Truth-based evidence. Holding journalists to account.’? Hmmm… nah.

        Right-o, I’m off. I’ll leave you with the following, which might help establish a pattern to Righton’s alleged offending, as – at least according to Exaro’s description – he could have cribbed his sick idea from the most notorious scene from one of the most famous cult-movies of the 80s:



    • Is he a convicted paedophile – yes or no? Well there you have your answer – he should NOT be around children and is a danger to them. End of!


    • Your priorities make me want to shake you by the scruff and rub your nose in some of your more ignorant comments but I am thinking maybe you saying ”indecent assault’ instead of ‘sexual abuse’ is your way of lessening the serious nature of the attack? and maybe you are lucky and have never been indecently assaulted and so are unaware of the long term psychological and physical harm sexual attacks can cause. You were not particularly polite in this comment so I don’t know why I am bothering to give you the benefit of the doubt but get one thing quite clear: we don’t want convicted paedophiles living in our communities; not reformed ones, punished ones, chemically castrated ones – NONE. Not ever. The sickness is deep and it is not a sickness from which a spell in prison is going to cure you. It is not a sex crime or a case of underage sex. It is a very dangerous very pervasive psychological illness and needs to be treated as a crime in its own right with the correct sentencing in place which must include intensive psychoanalysis. Do you really think him not spending time with his son is going to make normal people have sympathy? How deluded are you?


  6. Is this the beginning of the Establishments fight back against the paedophile victims success via the media ?
    I hope not !
    There is no successful treatment in curing a paedophile of his or her obsessions & sexual tastes.
    Too suggest or consider that having been caught, prosecuted and served their prison sentence a paedophile is miraculously cured would be an insane suggestion. Like wise to suggest that all paedophiles are murderers is equally stupid & naïve claim. It’s how we protect children & their families that is of the highest consideration in order too prevent such paedophile offences from continuously repeating & destroying lives. Particularly the child killing paedophiles whom I believe have other additional incurable personality defects.
    Awarding paedophiles the right to privacy protection is a farce , particularly when awarded £20,000 by a Member of the Establishment.
    This is an issue that shall not disappear due to threats or promises of a person adorned in strange colourful robes & wearing a wig .


    • IIs not the establishment it is the Intelligence and security services funded by the taxpayer who are running this. The only difference between the East Germans and the British is that the former knew they lived in a police state, the second have no idea whatsoever. Politicians they are just actors on a stage the smokescreen from which a powerful elite control the major decisions with the help of the security services.


  7. If you created a Legal system that will be ineffective then what you need to do his send children to public school teach them that they are special, teach them Plato and educate them not in Marxism or Socialism but in Elite theory, then send them to top universities to study Law, marry them into Establishment families and the end result is some strange creature in a wig who has no idea of real life and no understanding of people at all. Yes of course there is some who don’t fit the mould Lord Armstrong former partner of Justice Goodard. Her present partner may have more credentials as he was well connected in a equestrian activities. Ever felt if you all being taken for a ride. Yes lots of people ride horses in New Zealand, but I am almost certain Mr Pleb of Cook Steet, Auckland, was not vice chairman of the world equestrian Society.


  8. it is insane as we all know and perhaps the judge has some motive of his own in doing this or wanting to make a precedent for future known high profile establishment cases to follow. Either way it is unfortunate for paedophiles that the effect of their crimes are never lost to the victims and their families and are in the public domain as a necessity


    • Nonsense, the point of a blog is to give an opinion. I normally also give a lot of factual detail – that’s why you can read the judgement in full and make up your own mind and have your own opinion and I can have mine.


      • Either you didn’t read the judgment before expressing your opinion or you’re arguing that offenders who believe that the law cannot harm them should be able to break the law persistently with impunity. In this instance breaking the law involves incitement to murder and actions that threaten innocent third parties.

        You say “The posts are said to contain threats of violence against the paedophile which judge took particular exception.”. They are quoted in the judgment. They contain very graphic threats of violence but for some reason you choose to qualify their substance.

        The barrister’s observation that you quote concerning the publication of David Cameron’s personal data that is in the public domain is minimally relevant to the situation described by the judge in his comparison of the principles of US and UK law regarding time-served sex offenders and his summing up of the police officer’s unchallenged evidence.

        You describe the judge’s ruling as “extraordinary”. It is not. It’s clearly and adequately explained in the judgment. You may disagree with it and with the legislation as it stands, but that’s another matter. You’ve chosen to pillory the judge without giving him a fair hearing.

        The posts were not “said to contain” threats of violence against the paedophile which [the] judge took particular exception – they did contain very graphic threats of violence which were quoted verbatim but for your own reason you chose to use language that casts doubt on their substance.

        You’re a journalist with a public reputation. Your posts are linked to approvingly by commenters at for example the #CSAInquiry hashtag on Twitter. The “point” of a blog that’s more than a personal plaything is that you can express an honest and justified opinion, not that you can say whatever you choose.


      • Just to make it clear as you have misunderstood one point. I was not referring to what you call a minor point the barrister made re David Cameron. I did have short exchange with the author of the Inforrm post just to make sure I had got the main point in my intro re this judgement affecting the status of writing about convicted paedophiles could be used to restrict reporting and open the way for them to claim damages. The exchange confirmed my view that this was right.
        I know the language and threats on this site are extreme but I don’t know whether there is a criminal charge of ” incitement to murder”. If there is it would mean every time someone said or tweeted ” I am going to kill you” in anger will end up in jail. I suspect half the population of the country will be behind bars.


  9. Judiciary & Legal system :- I personally prefer to rely on the efforts & commitment of todays current serving Police Officers to bring Paedophiles to court . The questionable judgement by one member of the judiciary is another problem or question, as yet to be resolved. Obviously justice has been a safe haven for many paedophiles in the past for many years, but times they are a changing. Hopefully we may witness an effective cure in justice for this preferred and once silent unique “Social Disease”


  10. You’ve read Paras 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment so you know the law that the judge was applying and you know the rationale behind it.

    You’ve read Para 17, so you know the police’s assessment of the effect of publication of the material on the Facebook page and in particular the relevance in the context of communicating information to paramilitaries (in this regard you’ve also read Paras 36, 37 and 38).

    You’ve read Paras 34 and 35 so you know that the postings had real effects on third parties including CG’s disabled (adult) child.

    You’ve read Paras 72 and 73 of the judgment so you know that the judge considered that “the second defendant” had shown himself to be totally indifferent as to the lawfulness of his conduct safe in the knowledge that he cannot suffer any financial penalty and quite prepared to operate outside the law. You also know that this conduct went very susbtantially beyond a one-off “tweet in anger”.

    You’ve read Para 8 so that you know that the original Facebook profile/page that was taken down by Facebook was replaced by “the second defendant” with a new profile/page which the judge found was operated on exactly the same basis by exactly the same person with exactly the same aims.

    You’ve read Para 58 so you know that CG’s photo was reposted a third time in a posting with equivalent aim and content.

    You’ve read Para 81 so you know that having considered the circumstances of the case the judge found that CG’s right to the privacy of sensitive information was legitimate.

    You’ve read Para 98 so you know that the judge concluded that the information that was being published [including a photograph of CG that could be used to identify exactly where he lives and increased the risks of attacks upon him together with harassment of him, his father, his brother with effects on all of them including effects on his disabled child] harmed the public interest, creating a risk of re-offending., incited violence and hatred, was indiscriminate and lead to the potential for public order situations to develop.

    You’ve read Para 100 so you know that the judge found all of the content of the second profile/page oppressive and unreasonable and “the second defendant”‘s course of conduct over a period of time amounted to what both of the defendants, Facebook and the poster, knew to be unlawful harassment.

    You’ve read Para 81 so you know the grounds on which the judge subsequently determined that the information published should be considered sensitive private information and you’ve read Para 102 so you know that Facebook knew the content published included sensitive private information (resulting in an obvious risk of vigilante violence) and Facebook misused private information in not deleting that information.

    You’ve read Para 106 so you know that the judge determined the amount of damages by reference to the criteria established in case law.

    All the above is set out in black and white. It shows that the judge reached his decision to appy the law of the land carefully, rationally and lawfully. His decision was not extraordinary. It’s hard to see how given the circumstances taken into account by the ruling your barrister regards the decision as equivalent to a threat to your reporting about paedophiles. Perhaps your barrister can explain. In any case there seems litle basis for pillorying the judge and calling the decision extraordinary.


    • This crime needs a whole new set of paragraphs, precedents and legal reforms of its own to incorporate the specific nature of the abuses, the specific and unusual nature of secrecy surrounding this crime, the extent of damage to the victim being also unusually severe and multilayered, the pressing need to remove them from normal society as quickly as possible particularly to give the victim some important sense of safety and of justice being seen to be done and make their identity known as quickly as possible etc etc. although your knowledge of paragraphs is impressive they are not fit for purpose in the case of child sexual abuse in all it’s varying forms


  11. Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
    This judgment against Joseph McCloskey’s Facebook page identifying CG as a convicted paedophile and a danger to children, clearly conflicts with statements made by both Labour and Tory ministers and spokespeople declaring that they wanted to give the public the right to information about convicted criminals residing in their communities. It’s an emotive subject. I know social workers, who were strongly against such policies because of the dangers of vigilante justice and mob violence. While former criminals should have the chance to put the past behind them and move on, in the case of paedophiles people should also have the right to know about dangers to their children. There have been far, far too many cover-ups of appalling abuse for such a far-reaching ban to be acceptable. And as this article points out, all of the information put up by Mr McCloskey was already in the public record. It was not private in anyway, and so should not have been treated as such. For most people, this is thus a gross miscarriage of justice, where the offender apparently is granted more rights and protection than his potential victims.


    • @David Hencke with regard to reporting location of child sex offenders. Have you checked Bbc editorial guidelines on the matter? It makes for some interesting reading


      • EG

        ” infringement of privacy on the offender ”

        ” reporting identifying and location of offender only if police have already made that info available ”

        ” other media sources do not justify reporting on offender ”

        We so if police don’t mention or even refuse to mention it
        It’s OK for BBC not to mention it at all
        OK try telling that to community and anxious parents


  12. Bandini: you are a stickler for detail, clearly – but then so am I … please tell us the song from which ‘sandy foundation’ is from? Damned if I can find one. Or is it perhaps one of your own compositions? I am sure we would all be fascinated to hear more …


    • Is that you, ‘Owen’?!? Ho ho ho!

      It seems unlikely to be the real commentator known as Rabbitaway, so whoever you are you have resorted to pretending to be someone you are not in order to make a statement which is false – the living embodiment of the double negative!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.