KIDS ASSAULTED ON HOLIDAY

I have just been going over the article by Det Ian Horrocks and am curious about his assertion that there were 'numerous instances where a male got into various properties and assaulted young children who were there on holiday'. He then says many of these were not investigated.

Apologies if this has been discussed before, or if I have put it in the wrong place, but I wonder if anyone knows anything about this? I would have thought that anyone with a 'story' would have received similar publicity to that of Gail Cooper for example, but I don't recall seeing anything.

I do remember reading about these claims somewhere on the site but I can't find them now - perhaps someone else will have more luck. They probably originated from The Sun (which says it all) and were found to be groundless.

Jean wrote:I do remember reading about these claims somewhere on the site but I can't find them now - perhaps someone else will have more luck. They probably originated from The Sun (which says it all) and were found to be groundless.

I remember vaguely that Kate McCann mentioned in an interview that after Madeleine was "abducted" she was told of a number of occasions where someone got into some villas and assulted children and if she'd known about it she would never have left her 3 on their own. I can't remember what the source of the information was though.

Jean wrote:I do remember reading about these claims somewhere on the site but I can't find them now - perhaps someone else will have more luck. They probably originated from The Sun (which says it all) and were found to be groundless.

I have heard mention of it before too Jean, but cannot recall any specific cases, if indeed there are any.

Newintown wrote:

Jean wrote:I do remember reading about these claims somewhere on the site but I can't find them now - perhaps someone else will have more luck. They probably originated from The Sun (which says it all) and were found to be groundless.

I remember vaguely that Kate McCann mentioned in an interview that after Madeleine was "abducted" she was told of a number of occasions where someone got into some villas and assulted children and if she'd known about it she would never have left her 3 on their own. I can't remember what the source of the information was though.

I wondered if any families had come forward to verify this claim.

I think it mentions something like this in the bewk. I'll have a look and see I can find it.

Ian Horrocks also dismisses the sighting by the Smith family as irrelevant and not Madeleine, though he doesn't explain why. The evidence of the dogs is also deemed irrelevant. If I were a cynic I might wonder if the article was especially commissioned.

The lack of evidence to support the contention that other young children were assaulted in their holiday apartments, troubles me. I have not read the complete police files in their entirety, but would imagine incidents of this sort would have been investigated by the PJ at the outset. And as it supports the abduction theory, it would have been highlighted at every opportunity. Please do not trouble yourself to check the bewk Ubercoffee, I doubt there is any substantial evidence there, unless there is a chapter or two dedicated to the work of their own private detectives, who surely would have followed up something like this.

p. 295/6

"I was struck by how common it is for such crimes to be repeated over and over again by the same people. If Madeleine’s abductor was a sex offender or a child trafficker, for example, the chances are that he would have offended before. I cast my mind back to what the British consul had told me in the police station in Portimão that first day about the reports there had been of intruders getting into bed with children. I needed to know more about this.
I got in touch with the retired British consul for the Algarve. He told me that he used to have regular monthly meetings with British tour operators along the coast in Albufeira, at which crime was invariably one of the topics covered. At one of these meetings in August 2006 he had been informed by the tour operators of the spate of incidents I’d heard about the day after Madeleine was taken, in which an intruder had got into holiday apartments at night, climbed into children’s beds and subjected them to various forms and degrees of molestation. It seemed the attacker would often lock the door to the parents’ bedroom before assaulting the child. In one case, the paedophile had put on some of the father’s aftershave in an attempt to soothe or deceive the child.
It was believed that this offender (or offenders) watched for patterns and routines in a family’s behaviour, established ‘weaknesses’ in the security of their apartment and determined in advance where parents and children slept. Cold shivers ran down my spine as it hit home that this might have applied to us. The British tour operators had been keen for this information to remain confidential (and you don’t have to be a genius to work out why that might be). I pressed the former British consul on what happened afterwards. Had there been an investigation? Had anybody been convicted? He wasn’t sure but thought that an immigrant construction worker had been arrested and released pending trial, which was likely to take place some years down the line. Unbelievable.

Unbelievable sounds a good word to use under the circumstances.
The Consul had been informed ...
He wasn't sure whether it had been followed up ...
He thought that an immigrant (of course !) ....

In other words an urban myth.
The arrest and charge and court date would be easily verifiable by any journalist or private detective, or indeed by anyone with access to the local newspapers on the internet.
"Some years down the line" from 2007 is now.
Any self respecting parent would have sold the story to the British tabloids for pots of money.

As KM says - "unbelievable".

PeterMac wrote:p. 295/6

"I was struck by how common it is for such crimes to be repeated over and over again by the same people. If Madeleine’s abductor was a sex offender or a child trafficker, for example, the chances are that he would have offended before. I cast my mind back to what the British consul had told me in the police station in Portimão that first day about the reports there had been of intruders getting into bed with children. I needed to know more about this.
I got in touch with the retired British consul for the Algarve. He told me that he used to have regular monthly meetings with British tour operators along the coast in Albufeira, at which crime was invariably one of the topics covered. At one of these meetings in August 2006 he had been informed by the tour operators of the spate of incidents I’d heard about the day after Madeleine was taken, in which an intruder had got into holiday apartments at night, climbed into children’s beds and subjected them to various forms and degrees of molestation. It seemed the attacker would often lock the door to the parents’ bedroom before assaulting the child. In one case, the paedophile had put on some of the father’s aftershave in an attempt to soothe or deceive the child.
It was believed that this offender (or offenders) watched for patterns and routines in a family’s behaviour, established ‘weaknesses’ in the security of their apartment and determined in advance where parents and children slept. Cold shivers ran down my spine as it hit home that this might have applied to us. The British tour operators had been keen for this information to remain confidential (and you don’t have to be a genius to work out why that might be). I pressed the former British consul on what happened afterwards. Had there been an investigation? Had anybody been convicted? He wasn’t sure but thought that an immigrant construction worker had been arrested and released pending trial, which was likely to take place some years down the line. Unbelievable.

Unbelievable sounds a good word to use under the circumstances.
The Consul had been informed ...
He wasn't sure whether it had been followed up ...
He thought that an immigrant (of course !) ....

In other words an urban myth.
The arrest and charge and court date would be easily verifiable by any journalist or private detective, or indeed by anyone with access to the local newspapers on the internet.
"Some years down the line" from 2007 is now.
Any self respecting parent would have sold the story to the British tabloids for pots of money.

As KM says - "unbelievable".

You can take anything KM says with a pinch of salt. I found this on McCannfiles from 27 Aug, 2007 -

"For now, the McCanns will keep doing what they've been doing: hoping, searching, praying. They've vowed not to move back to England until Madeleine is found and have rented an apartment in Praia da Luz, ignoring pressure from Portuguese media to leave. "We're not going to be bullied into going home," said Kate.

Errrm, Kate - why have you been living in Rothley for the past 4 years or more?

Cristobell wrote:Many thanks for that Petermac. Unbelievable indeed. There must have been hundreds, if not thousands of holidymakers familiar with such a story, tour guide monthly meetings etc, it would be easy to verify, and as you saying the Sun's story hotline would indeed have been jammed. This case becomes ever more complex, why add detail that can so easily be checked out?

That has always intrigued me.
Witnesses are often fairly vague about what they saw, and need pushing and probing to get the details.
TM have always given details, timings to within minutes, and strangely came up with many details of the week at PdL which they would have had no reason to remember.
For me it would have rung more "true" if the book had simply said "we had a normal family holiday, nothing much happened in the first five days, the weather was OK, we played a bit of tennis and went to the beach a couple of times, but then suddenly...."

But it doesn't. It is full of details which can be checked and analysed and compared with other witnesses recollections. And this is where it all starts to fall apart for them.
Can you remember what you did last Thursday, with timings down to the nearest 5 minutes ?

We used to call it "over egging". A few minutes later we would get the next signal " I swear on my baby's life..." and start to type the charge sheet.

Cristobell wrote:Ian Horrocks also dismisses the sighting by the Smith family as irrelevant and not Madeleine, though he doesn't explain why. The evidence of the dogs is also deemed irrelevant. If I were a cynic I might wonder if the article was especially commissioned.

The lack of evidence to support the contention that other young children were assaulted in their holiday apartments, troubles me. I have not read the complete police files in their entirety, but would imagine incidents of this sort would have been investigated by the PJ at the outset. And as it supports the abduction theory, it would have been highlighted at every opportunity. Please do not trouble yourself to check the bewk Ubercoffee, I doubt there is any substantial evidence there, unless there is a chapter or two dedicated to the work of their own private detectives, who surely would have followed up something like this.

Re the Smith sighting: Horrocks (or Jorrocks or Rollocks as I like to think of him) is half right imo. 'not Madeleine' but very relevant.

The story of - I think - only children on holiday - being 'interfered' with by men who got 'into' their beds orgininates from Kate imo. It's in the book I'm sure.
On closer inspection some incident(s) took place some 5 or 6 years earlier and more relevant is the fact that these children were early teens and were not alone in the apartment or villa.

I'm not sure whether Kate mentioned it was British children but I remember some such statement.
The whole thing is on a par with the diary when she says that she went to the supermarket because someone had told her there was a paedophile there and wasn't that awful as people should be told. Kate logic, don't ask me....

tigger wrote:

Cristobell wrote:Ian Horrocks also dismisses the sighting by the Smith family as irrelevant and not Madeleine, though he doesn't explain why. The evidence of the dogs is also deemed irrelevant. If I were a cynic I might wonder if the article was especially commissioned.

The lack of evidence to support the contention that other young children were assaulted in their holiday apartments, troubles me. I have not read the complete police files in their entirety, but would imagine incidents of this sort would have been investigated by the PJ at the outset. And as it supports the abduction theory, it would have been highlighted at every opportunity. Please do not trouble yourself to check the bewk Ubercoffee, I doubt there is any substantial evidence there, unless there is a chapter or two dedicated to the work of their own private detectives, who surely would have followed up something like this.

Re the Smith sighting: Horrocks (or Jorrocks or Rollocks as I like to think of him) is half right imo. 'not Madeleine' but very relevant.

The story of - I think - only children on holiday - being 'interfered' with by men who got 'into' their beds orgininates from Kate imo. It's in the book I'm sure.
On closer inspection some incident(s) took place some 5 or 6 years earlier and more relevant is the fact that these children were early teens and were not alone in the apartment or villa.

I'm not sure whether Kate mentioned it was British children but I remember some such statement.
The whole thing is on a par with the diary when she says that she went to the supermarket because someone had told her there was a paedophile there and wasn't that awful as people should be told. Kate logic, don't ask me....

I wonder why she adds things that can be checked out. But as Petermac says, it has become an urban myth. Now that you mention it I do vaguely recall reading something to do with a teenager and a man caught in a bedroom.

Errrm, Kate - why have you been living in Rothley for the past 4 years or more?

This is because they weren't expecting to be made arguidos. When that happened they were on the next plane home. (But the book may have some vague stuff about Gerry saying that they should be thinking about going home - can't be bothered to read the book again to check.)

Miraflores wrote:

Errrm, Kate - why have you been living in Rothley for the past 4 years or more?

This is because they weren't expecting to be made arguidos. When that happened they were on the next plane home. (But the book may have some vague stuff about Gerry saying that they should be thinking about going home - can't be bothered to read the book again to check.)

This is something that has always puzzled me. Why would the police let arguidos leave the country. Be it the McCanns or anyone else. We know from KM's book that arguido means suspect, so how can police allow this. For a start, how can they re-question them again etc. when there are hundreds of miles separating them. It's not quite like living in the next town is it. Is this the case normally or was this an exception?

They weren't charged and even though they said they wouldn't leave Portugal without Maddie, they gave the PJ their UK address as their home address so were free to return home.

candyfloss wrote:

Miraflores wrote:

Errrm, Kate - why have you been living in Rothley for the past 4 years or more?

This is because they weren't expecting to be made arguidos. When that happened they were on the next plane home. (But the book may have some vague stuff about Gerry saying that they should be thinking about going home - can't be bothered to read the book again to check.)

This is something that has always puzzled me. Why would the police let arguidos leave the country. Be it the McCanns or anyone else. We know from KM's book that arguido means suspect, so how can police allow this. For a start, how can they re-question them again etc. when there are hundreds of miles separating them. It's not quite like living in the next town is it. Is this the case normally or was this an exception?

Yes, they abandoned ship early september 2007, though the arguido status remained with them untily July 2008. Quite a long period of time to be away. Was Robert Murat able to leave Portugal during that time I wonder. I had read his passport had been surrendered, however I do not know if this is fact or a myth.

In her novel Kate suggests they had been thinking about it for some time beforehand. So approximately sixteen weeks or so after your child has disappeared you up sticks and return home, away from the Country in which she was last seen and indeed away from the heart of the investigation and the people who I would have thought you would want regular and immediate contact with.

Other than McCanns work committments, on the face of it there was nothing so urgent they would have to return. The twins were not in school and we are told in the novel how happy and settled they had become in Portugal.

Perhaps as an arguido you are only required to be available for questioning, regardless of where that might be ? One thing is for sure, the minute they left they were never going to return while the status remained, unless by armed guard.

sami wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Miraflores wrote:

Errrm, Kate - why have you been living in Rothley for the past 4 years or more?

This is because they weren't expecting to be made arguidos. When that happened they were on the next plane home. (But the book may have some vague stuff about Gerry saying that they should be thinking about going home - can't be bothered to read the book again to check.)

This is something that has always puzzled me. Why would the police let arguidos leave the country. Be it the McCanns or anyone else. We know from KM's book that arguido means suspect, so how can police allow this. For a start, how can they re-question them again etc. when there are hundreds of miles separating them. It's not quite like living in the next town is it. Is this the case normally or was this an exception?

Yes, they abandoned ship early september 2007, though the arguido status remained with them untily July 2008. Quite a long period of time to be away. Was Robert Murat able to leave Portugal during that time I wonder. I had read his passport had been surrendered, however I do not know if this is fact or a myth.

In her novel Kate suggests they had been thinking about it for some time beforehand. So approximately sixteen weeks or so after your child has disappeared you up sticks and return home, away from the Country in which she was last seen and indeed away from the heart of the investigation and the people who I would have thought you would want regular and immediate contact with.

Other than McCanns work committments, on the face of it there was nothing so urgent they would have to return. The twins were not in school and we are told in the novel how happy and settled they had become in Portugal.

Perhaps as an arguido you are only required to be available for questioning, regardless of where that might be ? One thing is for sure, the minute they left they were never going to return while the status remained, unless by armed guard.

It's a very good question you ask here, Sami, what exactly is the normal i.e. the 'non-McCann' procedure for arguido status? I would have thought that surrendering one's passport would be one of the rules.
They were very anxious to have the arguido status lifted, if you look at the timelines from September 07 onwards. In January 08 they were negotiating very lucrative deals some of which could not be closed without this status being lifted. E.g. Oprah Winfrey offer of allegedly 1 million for an interview. Talks about a feature film were also taking place at that point.
There are many false reports in the tabloids about their status being lifted in the early months of 08.

The Portuguese law

Under Portuguese law the legal status of arguido permits the police to treat
someone as a formal suspect, placing under an obligation to answer specific
questions. There is no equivalent in English law but it could be said to be
the preliminary stage before arrest when someone is still "helping police
with their inquiries".

An arguido, or arguida if the suspect is a woman, has the right to remain
silent and the right to be represented by a lawyer. Anyone who is subject to
a police investigation can ask for arguido status which in Portugal is
considered a common course of action and does not denote guilt. It also
means that the police can ask a judge to place restrictions on the suspect's
movement and require them to surrender their passport or reside at a fixed
address. Where there is a real concern that an arguido might abscond the
judge can ask for a substantial surety. But where there is little risk of
the suspect fleeing the country the police can ask the suspect to sign a
residence and identity contract.

If the police believe they have sufficient evidence to support a criminal
case then the suspect will be arrested. Criminal charges normally follow
swiftly.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks for that Bristow.

So it was at the discretion of the judge whether the McCanns would have had to surrender their passports. That must have made it a little easier to pull the right strings. However, they were out of the country within two days - perhaps a small window of opportunity whilst their protection machine swung into action.

It is clear that they weren't out of the woods for many months to come which imo means that the arguido status came out of a blue sky for them and their influential PR. Clearly the fact that Portugal had no problem implementing the due process of law was a surprise.

PeterMac wrote:p. 295/6

"I was struck by how common it is for such crimes to be repeated over and over again by the same people. If Madeleine’s abductor was a sex offender or a child trafficker, for example, the chances are that he would have offended before. I cast my mind back to what the British consul had told me in the police station in Portimão that first day about the reports there had been of intruders getting into bed with children. I needed to know more about this.
I got in touch with the retired British consul for the Algarve. He told me that he used to have regular monthly meetings with British tour operators along the coast in Albufeira, at which crime was invariably one of the topics covered. At one of these meetings in August 2006 he had been informed by the tour operators of the spate of incidents I’d heard about the day after Madeleine was taken, in which an intruder had got into holiday apartments at night, climbed into children’s beds and subjected them to various forms and degrees of molestation. It seemed the attacker would often lock the door to the parents’ bedroom before assaulting the child. In one case, the paedophile had put on some of the father’s aftershave in an attempt to soothe or deceive the child.
It was believed that this offender (or offenders) watched for patterns and routines in a family’s behaviour, established ‘weaknesses’ in the security of their apartment and determined in advance where parents and children slept. Cold shivers ran down my spine as it hit home that this might have applied to us. The British tour operators had been keen for this information to remain confidential (and you don’t have to be a genius to work out why that might be). I pressed the former British consul on what happened afterwards. Had there been an investigation? Had anybody been convicted? He wasn’t sure but thought that an immigrant construction worker had been arrested and released pending trial, which was likely to take place some years down the line. Unbelievable.

Unbelievable sounds a good word to use under the circumstances.
The Consul had been informed ...
He wasn't sure whether it had been followed up ...
He thought that an immigrant (of course !) ....

In other words an urban myth.
The arrest and charge and court date would be easily verifiable by any journalist or private detective, or indeed by anyone with access to the local newspapers on the internet.
"Some years down the line" from 2007 is now.
Any self respecting parent would have sold the story to the British tabloids for pots of money.

As KM says - "unbelievable".

Even though I have been close to succumbing to reading the bewk on a few occasions I have managed to avoid it so far. Obviously I have seen many a quote from it on here and what bothers me more than anything, especially after reading the above quote, is her ease to write in detail about children being abused. It makes my blood run cold when I read it in any environment, tabloids, other books, fiction, horror or truth, but for a mother of a child who is missing in an unknown place to be able to write these things, let alone think them, is very weird and wrong. (I think you will all understand my reference to the 'other' mention of abuse - this time in detail about her own daughter - very wrong)

What is the current scope of child sex tourism?

17. Child sex tourism is a specific form of commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), which has many overlaps with and can foster other forms of CSEC, including child prostitution, child trafficking,2 sale for the purpose of sexual exploitation and child pornography.3

18. Acknowledging the debates regarding the use of the term “child sex tourist”, the term “tourism” is to include any form of travel, whether short or long term, for business or for leisure, including long-term residential stays.

19. The sexual exploitation of children affects an estimated 2 million children worldwide each year.4 However the actual scale of CST is not known due to a lack of existing research and availability of data on the victims and perpetrators. For instance, out of the 35 State contributions received for this report, only four States were able to share some data on prosecutions. The information received was mainly on trafficking and violence. The lack of understanding and misperception of the issue by key actors also implies that CST cases are often not classified as such, which contributes to the shortage of information. The criminal nature of the activity and the fear of the negative repercussions that such disclosures may have on the tourism development also represent major challenges in accessing information.5 The large majority of cases are undoubtedly never reported.

20. In addition, no thorough and comprehensive study on the scope and impact of child sex tourism has been undertaken at national levels. The sporadic information on victims and perpetrators obtained by the Special Rapporteur through NGOs or United Nations entities was outdated, concerned only some particular regions of a country or referred to some isolated cases. These data could not be used to illustrate the current scope of the phenomenon at the global level.

21. Some law enforcement agencies provide information on perpetrators. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) reported, for example, that between 2008 and 2012 a total of 457 United Kingdom nationals were arrested overseas.6 At the beginning of 2011, CEOP received 61 notifications regarding British nationals arrested abroad for offences related to child sexual abuse in 2011.7 Interpol has overall noted an increase in travelling child sex offenders.8

Origin and destination countries

22. Although CST tends to occur more commonly in developing countries, this phenomenon can occur anywhere in the world and no country or tourism destination is exempt. Between the supply generated by low income countries and the demand from industrialized countries, the choice of the destination depends on languages and connections, but also preferences and tastes. While Western Europeans would tend to travel to Eastern Europe to exploit children, 18 out of 50 (36 per cent) American CST cases between 2003 and 2006 involved crimes committed in Mexico.9 According to ECPAT, as a result of the closer contact with Western European countries and the increase in tourism, Estonia has had to contend with the major problem of human trafficking to the West and the growing issue of sexual exploitation of children in tourism. Child sex tourists are particularly attracted to places where their activities will go unnoticed and their motives unsuspected, like countries or communities in crisis, and where the risk is small.10

23. Countries of origin of international child sex tourists vary depending on the regions, but the demand is usually recognized as coming from the industrialized countries, including the richer countries of Europe, North America, the Russian Federation, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.11 Australians, for instance, have been identified as the largest group of sex tourists prosecuted in Thailand (31 per cent of the total).12 Of the 146 cases investigated by Action Pour Les Enfants (APLE) in Cambodia between 2003 and April 2012, 32 were American, 24 French and 20 Vietnamese.13 In the coastal regions of Kenya, for example, 30 per cent were residents and 70 per cent of the abusers were foreign: Italians (18 per cent), Germans (14 per cent), Swiss (12 per cent), with tourists coming from Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania fifth and sixth on the list. In Costa Rica, according to available information, between the 1999 and 2005, the Child Exploitation Unit had arrested a total of 74 persons on suspicion of commercial sexual exploitation of children. Of those arrested, 56 were Costa Rican nationals and 18 foreign nationals.14

24. CST destinations evolve quickly and frequently, as a result of the development of new tourism destinations and economic, social and political developments. As soon as prevention and protection efforts are intensified in a particular country, sex tourists seeking children seem to move on to a neighbouring country. Cambodia and Viet Nam, for instance, seem to have suffered an influx of abusers as a result of increased efforts in Thailand to combat CST. Countries such as Mongolia have also witnessed a growth in the abuse of children by tourists.15

25. Different maps and lists of origin, transit and destination countries have been produced – by ECPAT and the Protection Project, for example.16 It is important to note that these lists are not static or exhaustive. More research and information is needed for these maps to reflect reality more accurately – to the extent possible. Sex tourism involving children is not confined to a few exotic destinations but rampant around the world.

2. Who are the offenders?

26. Despite the common misconception that travelling child sex offenders are mostly middle-aged men, they can have many different profiles. The majority is male, with less than 5 per cent believed to be female.17 Offenders may be married or single, wealthy or not, and of all ages.

27. Over the years, classifications of different profiles have been made to facilitate the development of appropriate interventions. A distinction was therefore made between “situational” and “preferential” child sex tourists. The situational sex tourist was described as not travelling with the intention of being a sex tourist, who is tempted by an opportunity to have sex with children in a country, not usually having a preference for children, abusing children who are pre-pubescent or not, driven by the search for new experiences and justifying their acts on the basis of cultural or economic grounds. The preferential sex tourist travels specifically with the aim of abusing children, can experience sexual attraction for adults, but tends to search for pubescent or adolescent children. In addition, the paedophile, usually considered as someone suffering from a clinical disorder, with an exclusive inclination for pre-pubescent children, who may not show any preference for the gender of the child and may not view sexual contact with children as harmful.18 In contrast to the situational offender, they are notorious reoffenders, seeking out vulnerable children.

28. It has, however, been noted that individuals do not usually fit clearly into one category or another and there may be a real danger in trying to simplify their profiles given the complexity of the issue. Most importantly, one must bear in mind that the exploitation taking place may have different facets. CEOP, for example, has started using the following behavioural typologies, which were developed on the basis of first-hand research and practical work with travelling child sex offenders: “opportunity instigation” (taking advantage of holiday environments to abuse children), “self-contained abuse” (travelling abroad in the company of intended child victims), “speculative exploring” (travelling abroad to locations where children are reported to be available for sex), “informed networking” (arranging in advance to abuse children at a specific location), “resident foreigner abuse”(abuse by foreigner resident in developing countries), “pseudo-care work”(professionals and volunteers abusing the children with whom they work),19 “Internet-facilitated offending overseas” (using the Internet to abuse children in foreign countries).20

How do these offenders obtain access to children?

29. The abusers can gain access to children in a variety of ways: directly approaching the child on the streets, the beach, in schools or centres for children, through the child’s family and relatives or through an intermediary on the beach, in hotels and guesthouses, karaoke clubs and brothels. A more recent phenomenon is accessing children via the Internet, either directly through online chat forums (“grooming”), or through intermediaries. These intermediaries facilitating the contact with children on the ground are often connected to tourism services, including transport and accommodation. Others may be holding a child in a situation of exploitation and make the child available to the tourist in exchange of payment or may themselves be offenders sharing their access or practical information.

30. The process will depend on the length of the stay, the type of accommodation that the abuser is using, the local context and the situation in which the child is at that time. When the abuser is a foreign resident or long-term visitor, he can engage directly in a long grooming process to befriend a child, thereby obtaining his or her trust before exploiting the child sexually. The grooming process can include the family, whereby the abuser either gains their trust or negotiates a mutually agreeable arrangement, whereby the parents may either sell or rent their child.

31. Significant progress has been made in combating CST and, in this regard, big hotel chains are no longer a concern in many locations compared to smaller hotels and guesthouses. In addition, an increasing number of tourists are renting or owning property, thereby having access to a private venue in which to exploit children, reducing the risk of being detected by hotel staff, other tourists or concerned locals.21 Case studies also show that paedophiles seem to operate mostly from private homes. Abusers and facilitators will continue to find alternative solutions when hindered in their undertakings

32. In some cases this phenomenon may be veiled in a “culturally acceptable” practice through, for instance, child marriage. In countries where early marriage is still a common practice, money can be offered to families to marry young girls, despite the marriage only lasting for the length of the stay.22 Visitors may also take the minor back to their country, where the child will be subjected to continual sexual exploitation.23

33. Illegal “adoptions” or temporary custody obtained by foreigners through bribery of both authorities and the child’s family has also provided child sex offenders with a locally acceptable arrangement giving them full access to the child.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Najat Maalla M’jid

United Nations General Assembly
Human Rights Council

Summary

The Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography submits the present report to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-second session, pursuant to Council resolutions 7/13
and 19/37. This report describes the activities carried out by the Special Rapporteur since her last report in March 2012 and provides a thematic study on the protection of children from sexual exploitation in travel and tourism presenting an overview of the current situation of the sexual exploitation of children in travel and tourism and making practical recommendations to ensure the effective protection of children from this phenomenon.


*Reissued for technical reasons on 23 January 2013

Parents jailed for allowing children to go on holiday with convicted paedophile

2 Dec 2013 15:02

The child sex abuser is now serving a life sentence for raping the couple's son during the holiday and other sex offences

Parents who allowed their children to go on holiday with a convicted paedophile have been jailed.

The child sex offender raped one of their children - a boy - while they were away.

The parents, from the Prestatyn area, admitted charges of child neglect arising from the holiday.

Police and social workers had warned them that the paedophile - currently serving a life-sentence for raping the couple’s son and other sex offences - should not accompany the family on holiday.

It emerged that he had also sexually abused two other children when he was allowed to visit their home.

Shockingly, Mold Crown Court heard that the mother had done nothing when one of the children told her what was happening.

Social services were monitoring the family at the time and the couple’s children have since been taken into care.

But defence barristers today said that the children should have been taken into care a lot sooner.

The offences occurred at a time when social services had told the family not to let the sex offender near their children - but he visited on a regular basis.

It was also claimed that support workers from social services had accompanied the family on an earlier holiday when it was claimed the paedophile had sexually abused one of the children.

But on the second holiday there was no supervision - and the rape took place.

The father received four years and the mother three and a half.

The couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted charges of child neglect and cruelty by wilfully exposing them to the dangers of the paedophile.

Prosecuting barrister Duncan Bould said that it had catastrophic results because they had been seriously sexually abused.

Judge Hughes said that both knew that the man was a convicted sex offender.

He had since received a life sentence after what occurred on the holiday.

“You knew full well that you had a responsibility to protect your children from his predatory attentions,” the judge said.

Yet they quite deliberately and repeatedly over a two year period “put them in harm’s way” by allowing him unsupervised access to the children.

“In particular you should not have allowed him to accompany you and the children on holiday," the judge said.

“You let him come, you failed to look after your children, and he raped your son.”

Another of the children had been abused by him at least 30 times and she had also tried to stop it happening to her sister.

The younger sister had told her mother about it “yet still you did nothing to protect your children” the judge said.

Mr Bould said that the paedophile threatened to kill his victims if they said anything.

There was evidence that one victim had shouted “help me” while being abused but the mother did not respond.

Another victim had told her mother what he was doing and she said she would speak to him.

The children were take into care last year but David Williams, defending the father, said: “That should have happened years ago.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Olympicana_Reloaded wrote:

The children were take into care last year but David Williams, defending the father, said: “That should have happened years ago.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And that was the defence speaking!

I started a thread about this supposed paedophile activity in the Algarve, no conclusion either way really. I think if it had been going on in the manner and frequency described it would have been shouted from the rooftops, even pre-McCann.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Olympicana_Reloaded wrote:

The children were take into care last year but David Williams, defending the father, said: “That should have happened years ago.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And that was the defence speaking!

I started a thread about this supposed paedophile activity in the Algarve, no conclusion either way really. I think if it had been going on in the manner and frequency described it would have been shouted from the rooftops, even pre-McCann.

The Foreign Office would have issued warnings, the newspapers would have had a field day, Praia Da Luz would have become a ghost town and tour operators would have gone bankrupt paying out compensation.

Never happened.