ARMY NONCES

David Hollyoake/Keith Fricker – Cardiff/Coventry

June 2017

Friends who met in the Army carried out ‘vile’ child abuse together

David Hollyoake (left) and Keith Fricker (right)

A man who was sexually abused by two adults while he was a schoolboy says his life has been destroyed by their “vile” offending.

Friends David Hollyoake and Keith Fricker, who met during their time in the Army, denied child sexual offences but were found guilty following a trial at Cardiff Crown Court.

Judge Philip Harris-Jenkins told the defendants: “I find it to be the case, on the evidence, that you shared a common interest in the sexual abuse of young males.”

Hollyoake, 59, from Romilly Road in Cardiff, was found guilty of 30 counts – including rape, indecent assault, and gross indecency.

His “old friend” Fricker, 62, from Taunton Way in Coventry, was found guilty of one count of indecent assault.

The court heard the offences involved two boys, who were teenagers at the time, and related to the 1990s and early 2000s.

In his sentencing remarks the judge noted Hollyoake used “classic predatory paedophile grooming techniques”.

Prosecutor James Wilson said the first victim was vulnerable and “isolated” due to his family circumstances and was bullied at school. Hollyoake befriended the boy and bought him cigarettes.

Judge Harris-Jenkins told the defendant: “You used his vulnerability to your own ends.”

Prosecutors said Hollyoake developed the boy’s trust before taking him to Fricker’s home where they sexually abused him together.

Mr Wilson read out a personal statement from the first victim, who described the abuse as “disgusting, vile and sick”.

He said: “The abuse I suffered as a child has destroyed my life. I still see those images of abuse in my mind.”

The victim stated he turned to alcohol and drugs to try and help him cope and also harmed himself and tried to kill himself.

He explained he had suffered from mental health problems and still finds it difficult to form relationships.

His statement concluded: “I can’t change the past – I just hope there is still a future in my life.”

Judge Harris-Jenkins told the defendants: “There is no doubt that the abuse perpetrated by you has blighted his life.”

Prosecutors said Hollyoake gave the second victim “hush money”.

The court heard he asked the second boy to go to Fricker’s house with him but the boy said no.

Prosecutors argued the aggravating features in Hollyoake’s case included the fact there were two victims and the offending took place over a number of years.

Prosecutors said Fricker had relevant previous convictions for abusing boys dating back to 1986 and 2001.

Judge Harris-Jenkins said: “This is a case where only an immediate custodial sentence can meet the gravity of the offending.”

Hollyoake was jailed for 22 years and Fricker for three years.

May 2017

Men found guilty of multiple sex offences

TWO men have appeared in court and were found guilty of child sex offences dating back more than 20 years.

David Hollyoake, 58, from Romilly Road in Canton, Cardiff, and Keith Fricker, 62, from Taunton Way in Coventry, each face 22 counts.

Each defendant was charged with eight counts of indecent assault, 10 counts of gross indecency, one count of a serious sexual assault and three counts of rape.

Both men will sentenced at Cardiff Crown Court on 27 June

Advertisements

ALLAN BRYANTS DAD HARASSED BY COPS…WONDER WHY

Allan Bryant Snr charged after incident outside house in police search Allan Bryant Snr with his son Allan who has been missing since November 3, 2013. NEIL HENDERSON Email 17:27Monday 26 June 2017 1 HAVE YOUR SAY The father of missing Glenrothes Allan Bryant, has been charged following an alleged incident outside the house police are continuing to search. ADVERTISING Allan Bryant Snr went to the property in Barton Place in the Newcastle area of Glenrothes this morning to speak to officers where officer have been searching for the last 11 days Mr Bryant Snr was later visited at his home by officers where he was then charged. A Police Scotland spokesman said: “Police in Glenrothes have charged a 51-year-old man in connection with a breach of the peace that happened in Barnton Place, Glenrothes. “The incident happened on Monday 26th June. He will appear in court at a later date.” Mr Bryant’s son Allan, 23-years old at the time of his disappearance, has not been seen since he was captured on CCTV leaving Styx nightclub in the town in the early hours of November 3, 2013. Where to find the perfect beach holiday You’ve a world to choose from, so which sunshine destination is right for your family? Read More Promoted by Uncover quality tyres that your car deserves on eBay From an everyday drive to high performance find the best tyres that fit from eBay. Promoted by eBay by TaboolaSponsored LinksPromoted Stories People Born Between 1953 & 1979 With No Life Insurance Must Read This QuoteSearch.com People Don’t Know about this Superfast PPI Check iSmart Consumer Solutions Don’t Trust Anyone. Is Vikings Really #1 in Strategy Games? Vikings: Free Online Game Supporting careers in fashion and the creative industry Your Future Career I bet you’re gonna love this game 🙂 Play with 3 million Players now! Elvenar – Free Online Game Discover The Secret To Luxury Mediterranean Breaks Secret Escapes Find Great Value Pet Insurance Cover BuzzVine Search Put A Stop To Animal Suffering! Sign The Petition Against Plastics Pollution! Greenpeace How Well Is Your Local Business Marketing Working? MKT LDFE Get involved in the discussion and have your say … Sign in 1 comment Sort by: (12) (61)   Martin Keatings 6:51 AM on 27/06/2017 Any Lawyer with his salt will speak with the procurator and argue that Mr. Bryant was extremely upset (for obvious reasons) and the procurator and sheriff will more than likely drop this because in such a state he would be lacking intent to have committed any offence he was accused of. I doubt very much that the procurator or a sheriff would proceed with this case on that basis. That being said, the officer who charged him with this deserves a quite word from his boss. They should have de-arrested him after he had calmed down. Charging a man who is clearly very worried about his son and upset by the only lead/search in recent times about his son is seriously bad tact from the officer in question.

Read more at: http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/crime/allan-bryant-snr-charged-after-incident-outside-house-in-police-search-1-4487037

nonce coach

Barry Bennell: Ex-football coach in court on 14 further abuse charges

  • 4 hours ago
  • From the sectionUK
Barry Bennell

Ex-football coach Barry Bennell has appeared in court charged with a further 14 counts of sexual abuse.

The charges, which include indecent assault and serious sexual assault, involve four boys who were aged between 11 and 14 at the time.

The former Crewe Alexandra youth coach now faces a total of 55 charges, relating to alleged offences between 1979 and 1991.

The 63-year-old denied all accusations during previous court appearances.

He appeared via video link for the hearing at South Cheshire Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, speaking only to confirm his name, age and that he understood the charges.

He was remanded in custody and will appear at Liverpool Crown Court on 17 July.

Mr Bennell coached a number of junior teams in north-west England and the Midlands, some with associations to Manchester City and Stoke City.

as we said Google you tube loves Nonces hates HGJ

youtube

It’s probably going to take emerging artificial intelligence technologies in order for Youtube and Google to read the minds of its viewers while balancing the advertising campaigns from its sponsors. But as we first reported this week, there’s a lot of questionable content on Youtube.

On Sunday, we pointed our readers’ attention to Seven Super Girls, a channel of videos created by kids, for kids — so so goes the facade. The only problem with the channel is it’s incredibly exciting to pedophiles — and seems to be geared that way intentionally — something we documented thoroughly.

Compounding problems for Youtube, its selective censorship of far-right, far-left, and alt-media organizations has created an Us versus Them atmosphere where content creators often feel they’ve been discriminated against, simply because someone flagged their content.

Here are a few examples of the dilemma Youtube began facing once it decided to begin censoring videos to please advertisers as well as concerned viewers.

On the right, Michelle Malkin said her two-minute video accurately portraying the victims of fundamentalist Islamists was yanked when her production was deemed offensive. Warriors for free speech began embedding her video in an attempt to get around Youtube’s censorship campaign against her video. Here’s how she described her film in an op-ed piece for the National Review;

My two-minute clip, which I titled “First, They Came,” spotlighted authors, editors, politicians, and other targets of Islamic intolerance and violence. Among those featured in the video on radical Islam’s war on Western free speech: Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker murdered by jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri for his outspoken criticism of Muslim misogyny; Salman Rushdie, whom the Ayatollah Khomeini cast a fatwa upon after he published the “blasphemous” The Satanic Verses; Oriana Fallaci, the fiery journalist put on trial in Italy for “defaming Islam;” and the editors of the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper, who faced death threats for publishing cartoons of Mohammed, which prompted violent riots and terror plots around the world.

Malkin explained what happened next;

YouTube yanked the innocuous, harmless, nonviolent, non-profane, non-hateful, and nonthreatening mini-film. The company informed me that the video contained “inappropriate content.” I complained across social media — posting additional YouTube videos calling attention to the ban. But “First, They Came” stayed deep-sixed on my YouTube channel. Other bloggers and video consumers tried to subvert the censors by posting the clip on their sites; it became a game of whack-a-mole as the YouTube police hunted it down.

Malkin’s story comes from the right, but the left was also not immune to Youtube censorship. As the Guardian documented, the LBGTQ community has also suffered from First Amendment censorship.

YouTube creators are lambasting the site after the discovery that its “restricted mode”, a feature intended to let schools, parents and libraries filter out content not appropriate for children, also removed a vast amount of LGBT content. Some videos from pop duo Tegan and Sara, who are gay, were hidden from view, as were videos from bisexual YouTuber NeonFiona – but only those which talked about her sexuality.

But what about those that are neither right nor left, those who are a part of the alternative media? In 2016, Assistant Professor Melissa “Mish” Zimdars of Merrimack College in Massachusetts compiled a running list of what she considered “fake news” outlets, and invited some of her colleagues to join her.

READ MORE:  Elite Private School Attended by JFK, Exposed as Long-Time Haven for Child Sex

The Free Thought Project, an independent news and commentary outlet made the list. Shortly after the list surfaced, Facebook implemented a temporary ban of our site, lasting nearly a month, and affecting our operations. We’ve sent numerous cease and desist orders as our appearance on this list is entirely slanderous. While the mainstream media seemed to applaud the publication, Facebook acted on it, and as a result became one of the world’s most powerful censors.

Google followed suit, and announced it, too, would begin censoring ‘fake’ news. But why should free speech have to be throttled? Why is the truth, even if it’s a subjective truth, have to be silenced? The answer may lie at the organizations, entities, and individuals who pull the strings behind the scenes.

In April, Google’s attempts to help searchers, and investigators determine fact from fiction went global. Searches now contain labels which convey whether a site is legit. According to ZDNet, “Google has started showing a ‘fact check’ label in search results next to articles containing claims that have been vetted for veracity.” The label, like all determinations of whether something is fake or not, is also subjective and open to determination. But that hasn’t stopped the search engine from labeling.

If content producers want to have the seal of approval, so to speak, of Google, it will have to conform to certain rules. Does that sound like censorship to you? Here’s how ZDNet explained it;

Publishers will need to conform to several rules to have their articles displayed with the fact-check label. Google will only display the label for publishers that have used the Schema.org ClaimReview markup on each page where they have checked the facts of a public statement, or if they use the Share the Factswidget.

It’s a war no one can win, really. Content creators (whatever their political leanings), even though they may spend hours ensuring their sources are credible, still run the risk of being deemed “Fake News.”

On This Day

Check Out History’s Best in Show

Benjamin Miller
Jun
28
1926

Mercedes-Benz is formed by Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz merging their two companies.

The Treaty of Versailles is signed in Paris, bringing fighting to an end in between Germany and the Allies of World War I.

READ MORE:  Pastors Advocating for Foster Kids Caught Running Child Sex Trafficking Ring

And we haven’t even begun to address the political motivations, alliances, secret deals, and opinions to which some of the thousands of fact-checkers may ascribe. All of this leaves us with the firm belief that people owe it to themselves to get educated, inform themselves, and draw their own conclusions. Readers should also prepare for a day when there’s a media blackout, when state-funded MSM and only pre-approved content creators are allowed to create new content.

Make no mistake, this is something the owners of the 5 largest media companies in the world would love nothing better to see.

To us, at The Free Thought Project, we have determined that it is a statistical improbability that Google, Facebook, or an entire nation of professors, cannot and will not be able to effectively censor every page of content which is offensive to a particular audience. But they all can, at least, try to pose a solution to the videos on their networks featuring little girls in depraved and sexually stimulating scenarios upon which pedophiles may indulge — as this sort of thing is far more damaging to society than alternative views on political subjects.

%d bloggers like this: