West Yorkshire Police - it is we who are the victims, not Jeremy Young the Bradford child pervert

I received a very unprofessional email from a PC at Bradford Police informing me that Young had lodged a complaint against me. Given this pervert's record, it was to be expected.

The email contained what was in effect a "gagging order"on an Australian resident living in Sydney. It was clear the PC had only listened to one side of the story, a fact confirmed by her supervisor when I checked the authenticity of the email. "I have read your official complaint and can see that this is clearly not a one sided matter and that Mr Young has also acted inappropriately with his internet behaviour. Due to this he will be given exactly the same request as you have to be mindful of the posts that both he and those linked to him make." Abusive posts on obscene spoof blogs continue.

This is my response to PS Alan Travis

Dear Alan,

Thank you for confirming the email was genuine. I will make my position
clear.

The Victims

Myself.
My mother
My father
My online and offline friends - including a dear departed friend
My former fiancee
My associates

We are the victims - and we all strongly resent being depicted and treated
as the villains in this issue.

i On Global Trends, had a great community going until Young and his
supporters chose to spoil it. Innocent people suddenly found themselves the
target of the malicious, twisted venom of Young and his supporters. Many
were mature aged females new to blogs and online forums. His victims rightly
felt intimidated and scared.

Example: "Cloning names is the reason why I post as anonymous".

My readers enjoyment of the Internet was spoiled by a systemised and
deliberate hate campaign started and encouraged by Young. Let's not forget,
we were not his first victims - he targeted other blogs before he chose to
target mine. It's what he does. As media here would say - it's how he gets
his rocks off.

Take a look at my blogs. Do you see altered images of others? Do you see
vulgar or obscene language or "adult" images? Do you see false allegations?
Do you see impersonation of other posters?

No.

But I can tell you several places where you will see it - and they all lead
back to Young.

This is just one example of an attempted post to my blog on Nov 27 - shortly
after the harassment began. It was sent in the full knowledge that it would
also go to two female moderators. I have censored certain words. The
original was uncensored. As with all examples I have sent, I hold the
originals, including unclicked, "publish" or "reject" links.

"Your such a (expletive deleted) slut,you big fat (expletive deleted) b*ch,
you and your Captain Paedophile Birdseye. you're too (expletive deleted)
thick to see he is a ar** (expletive deleted)-hole paedophile.it will come
to you as your worst nightmare! shame on you!do you get that dick face
little girls too? you think you're good slut? you just say idiots, is that
the only word you know? or is your (C word expletive deleted) drooling that
much? shut your (expletive deleted) mouth and do what your master has
(expletive deleted) paid for. btw how much does the stinking man pays for
you? Don't bother! What a (expletive deleted) B***h Sucker."

It is nice to know that Young's child will grow up in an environment where
intellectual freedom of expression is actively encouraged.

Messages such as the above were sent night after night in rapid succession.
I have kept 153 of the milder insults and threats. The rest, (apart from the
above example) were not something I wanted to keep. At one stage, there were
over 2,500 in my "Abuse" folder. Can you imagine the effect of having to
cope with high-intensity abuse on a nightly basis?

Distress to his family.

Bulldust. He made remarks about my family, my mother and my father, long
before I made remarks about the daughter whose memory he publicly betrayed
by repeatedly using the child as a sexual tool in his campaign against
myself and anyone remotely connected with me.

I remind you that remarks attributed to me (often altered from the original)
were made in private forums - forums they publicly boast about hacking into
or infiltrating. Posts to my new private forum are still being copied and
pasted to spoof blogs created by his fan club.

* It was Young and his supporters who made remarks public.

* Young not only allowed them to do so, he allowed the comments to stay and
gleefully advertised their presence. Links to the comments were posted on
other blogs.

* If Young was as distressed and worried about his family as he now
conveniently claims, he would have -

(1) asked his "team" to refrain from doing so
(2) removed the comments
(3) ceased the attacks on myself, family and supporters. Instead, he not
only continued the attacks, they gained in intensity and became more
vitriolic.

* Young's alleged distress is of his own making - not mine. It's that
simple.

The touchy-feely stories he now tries to peddle is of no interest to me -
gullibility is something I leave to others. I endured several months of
abuse before I created the latest blog, and the simple truth is that the
bully boy can dish it out, but can't take it. Hard luck.

The day before Christmas Eve, a reader tried to post a comment in my
defence. She mentioned that her father had recently died and his funeral was
on Christmas Eve. Young and his followers made fun of both the poster and
her father.

I don't give a toss about any distress caused to Young. I care about the
distress caused to his innocent victims and their families. He had - and
still has - the power to stop it. He made the call not me.

I have no time for those who make choices then complain about any
undesirable consequences of their actions. Nor am I interested in portrayals
of Young as the poor, innocent, loving family man. He is the one who talked
publicly about others masturbating over his images of his stillborn baby and
"pimping" her out. If he said that to anyone in Sydney, he would soon find
out what distress really is.

It's a pity that Young's concern for his family did not include less time
blogging about others, and more time spent looking after his pregnant wife.

Incidentally, I notice the Constable chose to comment on my remarks, but not
on the utterly distasteful remarks made by Young about myself.

My Actions

I have said nothing in my blogs that is either illegal or unethical. I use
Young's own words and actions - words and actions he himself had already
made public.

PC Thomas's Email

The letter I received from your PC was unprofessional. I have experience
with police media units within NSW, and had that letter been written here,
it would have been tossed in the rubbish bin where it belongs. Not only did
it contain spelling mistakes, lack of punctuation and grammar - it gave the
wrong message to the intended target audience. It was the unprofessional
standard of the letter that caused me to doubt its authenticity.

You describe a "polite request". If it was intended to be a request, PC
Thomas, should have made that fact clear but she failed to do so.

"take note of this letter and refrain from posting any further details about
Mr Young and his family on either your websites or any other forums you
access." would not be perceived as a request - it would be perceived as a
directive. It is the responsibility of the messenger to ensure the recipient
understands the message - not that of the recipient.

"West Yorkshire Police are in contact with Mr Young who will report any
further incidents." would similarly be perceived as a thinly veiled threat.

I take strong exception to PC Thomas's description of my actions as: "some
sort hate campaign". It is totally inaccurate and again unprofessional. The
thousands of comments on Young's own blog, in addition to those on the spoof
blogs, would constitute a hate campaign.

Myself and others were concerned for the welfare of his new child - and
given his long history of bizarre behaviour, we had every right to have such
concerns. I went public to raise awareness of these concerns on behalf of
myself and others.

It appears that those who are vested with the responsibility of protecting
children, allow an atmosphere of intimidation against those who raise
concerns. It's interesting that while the NSPCC and Social Services thanked
me for bringing these issues to their attention - Bradford police have not.
Instead, I have been treated as the offender.

Mediation

Even if we were in the same country, mediation would not be an option. It
incorrectly suggests that I too am to blame. I totally reject any such
suggestion. I exercised my right of reply to Young's actions.

Resolution

There are two options and neither are negotiable.

Option One

* Young makes a public apology to myself, my family, my friends and my
associates. He will specifically mention people I nominate. If the Daily
Express can apologise to suspects in a major crime, Young can apologise to
the innocent victims of his campaign of harassment.

* Young and any party connected to Young, will immediately cease harassment
of myself; family; friends or associates, in any media or form of
communication - electronic or otherwise. This includes but is not limited
to: blogs, websites, public or private forums, chat rooms, attempted posts
to blogs, email, faxes, telephone, text messages, mail (as has been
threatened - "how would your mother like to get this in the mail").

* His blog may remain. The damage is already done. However -

* All spoof blogs are to be taken down. Once removed, they are not to be
reopened in any other guise in any media or form of communication -
electronic or otherwise.

In return -

* I will refrain from commenting on Young and his family.

* I will remove the "Identifying A Child At Risk" blog providing I have
written assurance that child welfare agencies are satisfied Young's child is
not at risk. I reserve the right to keep such an assurance on file.

I should point out that I am under no legal or moral obligation to make such
concessions.

These are quite reasonable conditions. If Young and his associates are as
concerned about the safety and welfare of his family as they claim to be,
compliance should not present a problem.

It is now up to Young to decide his priorities.

If any of the above conditions are not complied with or agreed to -

Option Two

* A CD with all relevant information will be handed to New South Wales
Police, who have already -

(1) expressed their willingness to pursue the matter
(2) expressed willingness to consult with the Australian High Tech Crime
Authority and the Australian Federal Police. Portuguese police already have
a similar CD.

I would assume that in such circumstances, established channels of
cooperation would be used to obtain a court or restraining order, which are
the usual means of addressing issues such as online harassment.

* Currently a documentary on Young and his associates is being made. Non
compliance with Option One will result in completion and widespread media
distribution of the documentary. Given the reputation and profile of the
creator, exposure would be considerable.

* I will continue to raise awareness of the behaviour of Young and those
connected to Young.

PC Thomas advised: "West Yorkshire Police are in contact with Mr Young who
will report any further incidents" I expect the same level of cooperation.

If Young agrees, I will initially accept email confirmation of his
agreement. However, I would require written confirmation signed by a senior
officer. My home address is well known thanks to Young and his cohorts, but
for your convenience it is also contained in my sigline.

I understand the difficult position you are in, and I appreciate that you
realise it is not as clear cut as it may have been presented to you. I thank
you for the opportunity to put not just my side of the story - but that of
other victims of Young's activities.

Regards

Mike Hitchen

Note: In addition to the above, Young and his team's tactics also include:

* Posting a comment in my name to the Sun Herald, then boasting when it was published.

* Inundating online forums such as the Mirror Forum and 3arguidos with comments and personal information about myself and anyone connected with me.

It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that these are organised, systemised attacks on a massive scale - involving full time tracking of my activities. It is systemised stalking. It is up to the British police to (1) Discover who is behind these attacks (2) what is their real agenda. It is up to the police look after the victims of crime - not protect the perpetrators

Young has had since Sunday to consider these reasonable demands, yet I have received no sign of agreement and the attacks continue. His non-acceptance clearly demonstrates his real priorities - and as with his daughter - his priorities do not involve his family's welfare. He is continuing a course of action that he claims leads him to fear for his and his family's safety. He could stop, but he chooses not to.

Is a man who deliberately decides upon a course of action that he believes endangers his family's welfare, a suitable person to be considered a responsible father?

Yes, Bradford Social Services and the beleaguered West Yorkshire Police believe he is. But then again, they admit they believed Young's sad little story without checking the facts. Young misled them over the true nature of my action - did a man who is a proven liar mislead them over other issues as well?

Useful contacts
CEOP