‘A worrying paradox’: Paedophiles dressed up as ‘whistle-blowers’

The internet has been abuzz in recent days with the latest story about “Nick”, the man who claimed that he had been raped for nine years by a Westminster-based paedophile ring, was discredited, but who was charged in June 2017 with four counts of making indecent images of children, one count of possessing indecent images of children, and one count of voyeurism. In addition, Northumbria police passed a file to the CPS in September, to determine whether “Nick” should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.

Sadly, we weren’t particularly surprised at these various twists and turns.

We’ve noted many times on this blog that a great many of those who style themselves “whistle-blowers” seem to either be, or have close relationships with, convicted paedophiles.

So it came as no shock yesterday to note that Catriona Selvester, aka “WildCat”, aka “Cat Scot”, a director of the Fresh Start Foundation in Scotland, was happily retweeting Twitter messages from a twice-convicted paedophile:

Jason Packer’s first conviction came in 2015, when the “children’s entertainer” was convicted of four counts of possessing extreme pornography and 13 counts of possessing indecent images of children after a six-day trial at Portsmouth Crown Court.

Mr Packer, a self-styled “whistle-blower” (sound familiar?), who calls himself an “anti-paedophile and justice campaigner”, claimed that his former MP, Mike Hancock, had somehow arranged to have the police plant the images on his computer. Uh-huh.

According to the Portsmouth News,

During the trial Packer, a former Justice and Anti-Corruption Party candidate, said police planted images on his computer and four USB sticks after his February 11 arrest at his home last year. When he took the stand he told jurors former Portsmouth South MP Mike Hancock’s agents had put the images on his computer after he uploaded the Pascoe report which was critical of the MP. After the verdict the judge, Recorder Frank Abbott, dismissed Packer’s claims and said that ‘in this case you’ve made allegations against him, not only unfounded and unsupported, but utterly and totally incredible’. Addressing barrister Philip Romans, he said: ‘It seems that your client is beyond any borders of reality.’

After a legal fight to avoid incarceration, Mr Packer was sentenced to a year in prison. At his sentencing, Recorder Frank Abbott was scathing:

Packer, 45, instructed his barrister to tell a judge it was a ‘miscarriage of justice’ and he should not be sentenced.

But jailing him for 12 months, Recorder Frank Abbott said Packer being a ‘staunch campaigner’ combined with his conviction was a ‘worrying paradox’.

He said: ‘At the end of the day, before me is a man who purports to be a person against child pornography, a person who is someone who is against corruption of politicians, various types of child abuse, and has got images of the same on his computer. ‘It seems to me there really isn’t any excuse whatsoever.’

Coming back for more

However, in 2017 Mr Packer was in court again. Had he learned his lesson? Had he fuck.

Again, from the Portsmouth News:

A MAGICIAN has avoided jail after being caught with indecent images of children as young as five-years-old.

Jason Packer, 47, was convicted last month by a jury for making indecent photos of children, relating to 124 category A images, the most serious class of indecent pictures, and of possessing 85 images of extreme pornography.

The ex-member of the Justice and Anti-Corruption Party, a Portsmouth political group that claimed to be trying to stamp out wrong-doing in public office, protested his innocence throughout the trial, claiming the images related to research he had undertaken ahead of appealing a former conviction for having indecent images of children at a previous trial in 2015. The magician, of Balliol Road, Buckland, believed his earlier conviction to have been a ‘miscarriage of justice.’

This time, Judge Linda Sullivan QC handed down an 18-month sentence, suspended for two years. He was also ordered to obey a curfew, wear a tag, and attend 20 days of rehabilitation.

Sarah Dineley, district crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: ‘Jason Packer’s behaviour is simply shocking.

‘He knew very well that possessing extreme pornography and making indecent images of children were crimes.

‘He committed these offences whilst on bail waiting to be sentenced having been convicted of four offences of possessing extreme pornography and 13 offences of making indecent images of children.

‘During his first trial the jury at Portsmouth Crown Court heard how far-fetched Jason Packer’s defence was: He claimed that special agents working for a local MP had planted the images on his computer.

‘Of course, this was a tissue of lies. When he was arrested for these new offences, he said he was researching the images for which he had been convicted, completely ignoring the fact that he was subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

How very convenient.

Mr Packer, like Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill’s friend, convicted paedophile Brian Pead, seems determined to hide behind the claim that he is merely “conducting research” into the horrors of commercial child sexual abuse. Or perhaps he’s following in the august footsteps of (Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill’s friend) Peter Hofschröer, whose computer was found to contain upwards of 60,000 images of child sexual abuse.

We’ve suggested in the past that Hoaxtead promoters’ seeming fondness for people who commit despicable crimes against children could result from some sort of wilful blindness to their friends’ faults, but lately we’ve begun to suspect that the “whistle-blower”/paedophile connection is more deliberate than that.

Rather like arsonists whose fascination with fire leads them to take jobs as fire-fighters, or murderers who are over-eager to “assist police with their enquiries”, it seems that a natural home for certain paedophiles is in the role of whistle-blower.

As “whistle-blowers” seem to be coming out of the woodwork in droves, we wonder: what better way to attempt to hide one’s own predilections than behind a screen of seemingly noble intent?

And what better way to degrade and tarnish the meaning of the term “whistle-blower” than to indelibly associate it with those who commit crimes against children?