UK Paedophile Victim Whistleblower & Witness Melanie Shaw Arrested Again

Dear Karen Lumley Conservative MP,

Is Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May able to explain why it is reported that  victim of and witness to horrific child abuse (est 150 children were abused ) and possibly murder already suffering from PTSD is being repeatedly hounded, intimidated and persecuted by so called authorities under her control.  This included an extended spell in solitary confinement, a cruel form of psychological torture designed to break Melanie Shaw the victim. Also denied to Melanie Shaw in the  same timeframe was medical treatment. Those actions are criminal.

Solitary confinement is banned under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions as it amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Also applicable is The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As your constituent ( you work for us remember ) I assert that this is a matter of both local and national importance. I demand that you raise the matter in Parliament forthwith and that you call for the so called authorities and their “partners” to cease and desist in their campaign of soviet style ( KGB ) intimidation of this brave woman, a victim of crime(s) who spoke out in the hope of preventing the abuse of others and belated justice for the multiple victims. A woman  who has already been put though Hell and tortured reportedly by members of an establishment that you as an MP are part of.


Why attempt to silence a Nottingham child abuse witness ? As your former Conservative colleague  William Hague once said

“if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”.


Child rapists you are either with them or against them, what say ye Karen Lumley MP ?


The latest sordid details of the Melanie Shaw case are below.

 

yours sincerely Adrian Waller

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/beechwood-child-abuse-survivor-melanie-shaw-arrested-again

Beechwood Child Abuse Survivor Melanie Shaw Arrested Again

by

Brian Gerrish ( Lt Cdr Brian Gerrish Royal Navy Rtd )

| Wednesday, 22nd July 2015

The intimidation recently led to Melanie leaving her house in Nottingham and travelling to Plymouth where she hoped to find refuge from the harassing actions of Nottingham police.

UKColumn was informed by child abuse survivor Mickey Summers early this evening that Melanie Shaw was arrested today 22 July 2015 at about 1745, in a public place in Nottingham. It is alleged that the arrest of Melanie was in connection with a charge of harassment concerning Nottingham Police Superintendent Helen Chamberlain, police Head of Public Protection, including Child Abuse.

It is understood that Superintendent Chamberlain was originally allocated as Melanie Shaw’s police point of contact following Melanie’s whistleblowing on abuse of children at Beechwood children’s home Nottingham, and during the subsequent police investigation under Operation Day Break.

The charge appears highly questionable when Melanie, who suffers PTSD following her abuse and has required mental health support over many years, has consistently reported over many months a catalogue of harassment and victimisation by Nottingham police officers, including officers smashing into her house, following her, detaining her and making telephone calls to her suggesting that they were sat in her house whilst she was out shopping.

The intimidation recently led to Melanie leaving her house in Nottingham and travelling to Plymouth where she hoped to find refuge from the frightening actions of Nottingham police. This was not to be the case however, as four Devon and Cornwall Police Officers were aggressively banging on the door of the UKColumn offices at 0730 in the morning, the day after her arrival in Plymouth. Desperate to know Melanie’s location, and following aggressive questioning of two members of the UKColumn staff, they ultimately left empty handed.

Just a few days later Melanie Shaw was arrested by two DCC constables and taken to Charles Cross Police Station Plymouth for questioning. It is understood this action was also in connection with a charge of harassment against Melanie, but she was subsequently released to report to the same police station in September later this year.

Following a move to new friends in Peterborough, a further four police from Cambridgeshire police were sent to apprehend Melanie at her new home with an elderly lady in sheltered accomodation. Arriving some hours after Melanie had again moved to yet another location, these officers also left empty handed, but were also intimidating in their questioning of the elderly lady.

Many people will be astonished at the immense police effort to track a highly vulnerable child abuse victim across UK. What the wider public will not understand is that having blown the whistle on substantial child abuse in Beechwood children’s home Nottingham, where it is already believed some 150 children were abused and some likely murdered, Melanie Shaw has now allegedly been designated a Multi Agency Public Protection MAPPA Category 3 target – a person who is designated a “seriously dangerous criminal.”

It is reported this designation was determined behind closed doors by the Nottinghamshire MAPPA multi agency board, during procedings in which Melanie Shaw, or her legal and medical professionals were not present and therefore had no right of challenge or reply. Following the MAPPA determination however, all police and public agencies in Nottingham and throughout UK can call upon considerable assets to assist her apprehension and / or arrest.

This excessive and deeply worrying classification of a highly vulnerable child abuse victim as a ‘dangerous criminal’ must surely bring into question every part of our rights, freedoms and common sense under common law. For three police forces to employ excessive police assets to hunt and detain Melanie Shaw at a time when Senior Police Officers claim insufficient public money to conduct day by day policing is an outrage, if not Misconduct in Public Office.

Tonight, abused and frightened Melanie Shaw is again in the hands of Nottingham police – the very men and women who have failed to protect Melanie, Mickey Summers and hundreds of other child abuse victims in Nottingham. Detained in the Bridewell Custody Suite the immediate future for Melanie is uncertain. Will she be safe in the hands of a police force that has already failed her, brutalised and intimidated her?

The abuse of Melanie Shaw by the British State is obscene. Whilst she again suffers, the Home Secretary Theresa May has allocated some £17.5 million to a child abuse inquiry that can afford to pay £500,000 p.a. salaries to NZ Judge Goddard – to do what? Sit in a plush office sifting paper whilst the real child abuse victims receive little or nothing in terms of state support, metal health care in the community and financial support. Her inquiry has already been labelled the ‘most transparent cover-up in British history’, and will surely seek to bury the truth of political establishment child abuse in the long grass of passing years. Few if any victims speaking to the UKColumn trust her or her appointment. We share their immense suspicion and concern.

We also watch as Lord Janner receives protective and beneficial treatment at the hands of Alison Saunders, the same Head of the Crown Prosecution Service that found unlimited time and effort to press criminal charges against Melanie Shaw.

This perversion of justice is not accidental. This is the inverted victimisation of victims that comes with the application of a deep evil. That evil is now clearly deeply entrenched in a criminal paedophilic British political system. It is an evil that makes me ashamed to be British – that we, the public, have alowed this rot to infest the very people and organisations that govern us.

I, for one, am not about to forget Melanie Shaw and the thousands of other child abuse victims and survivors. It is the duty of each and every good man and women to stand up for these most vulnerable of people, and it is our duty to bring the criminals abusing them, and covering-up that abuse, to justice. We must start not tomorrow, but now. The future of our own children depends on our actions from this very moment.


Superintendent Helen Chamberlain – Background Info ( Bold Mine )

As the latest crime survey figures reveal public attitudes towards sexual assault, Superintendent Helen Chamberlain from Notts Police says we need to tackle myths around consent.As the head of Public Protection for Nottinghamshire Police, I see horrendous cases of people who have been subjected to incidents of violence, physical, emotional, mental and sexual abuse.

There has been much discussion recently about who is ‘to blame’ for a rape of sexual assault. Recent figures released by the Office for National Statistics and Home Office, based on interviews carried out from the Crime Survey for England and Wales for 2013/14, showed that 26% of people thought victims of rape or sexual assault were “completely, mostly or a little bit” responsible for the attack if they were drunk, and 36% thought this was the case if the victim had been flirting heavily with the attacker beforehand.

There is never any question in my mind that the only person responsible for a rape or a sexual offence is the person committing that offence. Victims should not have to feel they have to justify what happened to them, they should have the confidence to report the crime and be supported throughout the investigation and any subsequent court process.

Challenging assumptions about consent and the associated victim-blaming myths and stereotypes is a vital part of this. Proving that the suspect’s behaviour and motives meant they reasonably believed the victim was consenting can prove difficult, particularly when allegations of rape often involve the word of the complainant against that of the suspect.

Given that generally there are only two people present when it happens, consent can be very difficult to prove or disprove. During an investigation, it must be established what steps, if any, the suspect took to obtain the complainant’s consent, and the prosecution must prove that the suspect did not have a reasonable belief that the complainant was consenting. A police investigation would focus on what the perpetrator and the victim have said to try and support or negate those assertions.

So what is consent? The law states that consent is defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is where someone consents to sexual activity only if they agree by choice for it to happen and they have the freedom and capacity to make that choice.

Consent is a difficult and well-publicised area of discussion. The clothes that someone is wearing, whether they have drunk alcohol, whether they are in a relationship with the suspect, are not an indicator of consent. Consent can be withdrawn at any time and each time activity occurs.

Children under 16 cannot in law consent to sexual activity; however, we are aware that some young people may believe they are consenting because they want to enter into a relationship. But this will still be unlawful if the perpetrator is over 16.

Recently, at the Government Commons Education Committee, it was discussed about introducing age-appropriate relationships and sex education into primary and secondary schools.

Young people have to deal with the issue of negotiating their way through a complex web of influences – from peer pressure to media representation. Most people understand what is meant by giving consent but there is a very limited sense as to what getting consent might involve.

We need to tackle the myths and stereotypes that can make people think it is difficult to know if someone has consented, and which can put victims off from coming forward and reporting what has happened. These include:

• The form of dress a person wears does not mean they should expect to be raped.

• The majority of rape cases are where the offender and complainant know each other.

• Trauma can affect memory and create inconsistency.

• Being drunk makes the complainant vulnerable. It does not mean they were ‘asking for it’;

• Most victims do not fight; resistance and self-protection/defence can be through dissociation, freezing or trying to befriend the defendant – in fact any effort to prevent, stop or limit the event. It does not have to succeed to be an ‘effort’.

• Late reporting may be due to inability to cope with the trauma of the incident, fear of repercussions, maturity with age recognising the abuse, control of the complainant, fear of going to court.

• In cases of adult survivors of child abuse the complainant may regress and behave or speak as a child.

There is a lot of support out there for victims, whether they are reporting an offence that has happened recently or that occurred many years before. We will ensure our investigation teams support the victim and can help to put them into contact with the right services that can assist them to deal with the trauma of what happened. 

Latest statistics

The Crime Survey for England and Wales, released by the Office for National Statistics, includes crimes which do not come to the attention of the police.

It is based on face-to-face surveys in which people in households in England and Wales are asked about whether they have been victims of a selected number of offences. The latest survey covers the 12 months up to September 2014. According to the survey:

*The total number of sexual offences in Notts over this period was 1,347 – up 19% on the previous year.

*The total number of sexual offences in England & Wales over this period was 72,977 – up 22% on the previous year.

As part of the survey the Office for National Statistics also asks people about their attitudes to some crimes. Following analysis of these responses, the ONS and Home Office released information earlier this month on people’s attitudes to rape and sexual assault.

It showed that the percentage of people believing the victim is “completely, mostly, or a little bit” responsible for the crime is as follows:

*26% if the victim is drunk;

*31% if the victim is under the influence of drugs;

*36% if the victim has been flirting heavily with the person beforehand.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.