This is a very thorough blog on what happened in New Zealand about a pedophile cover up of two individuals, Karl Berghan (20) and Sam Brens (21). The story revolves around young girls who were groomed by these two child sexual predators. I was most appalled by one of the young women's therapist who was aware she was sexually active at 14 years old with a man of 20 years old. Her response to this girls parents was that they should be so lucky that she found love so young. The reality is what this therapist did was unethical. A 14 year old can't consent to a sexual relationship. That is why we have age of consent laws. The young girl eventually divorced her parents and received a gag order. This prevented her parents from speaking out about what was happening. Thankfully they won their case and the gag order was dropped.
What is sad is this victim is now in her early twenties and is totally convinced that she wasn't a victim in this. She won't reunite with her parents until they stop pushing justice for what happened to her and them. This is how good pedophiles or child sexual predators (whichever word you choose to use) groom. They have her totally convinced that she was an active participant. What did they have to benefit for convincing this child she was an active participant? Even though these "men" and I use the word loosely, were arrested and brought to trial none of their victims would testify. That meant the case was dropped and justice wasn't severed.
Please take the time to read this blog and view the videos. It is very sad that children are not more protected. Stories like these have to be told. Grateful for this information, Rosie
ST JOHN AMBULANCE NEW ZEALAND
Behind the doors of NZ's most trusted commercial brand.
10/11/2012
Did St John Ambulance NZ conduct a cover-up of a Pedophile Protection Network within their organization?
The following timeline is a summary of a families alleged dealings with St John Ambulance New Zealand, as they attempted to seek justice for the confirmed sexual assault of a minor by two St John Ambulance officers, a Mr Karl Berghan, and a Mr Sam Brens. Additional reports of sexual assault of a minor have allegedly now been made since this situation became public. A comprehensive summary of the entire story is published here:
St John New Zealand child sex crime perpetrators Karl Berghan and Sam Brens
Jan 2004: It is reported to the New Zealand police that a 14-year old girl is victim of grooming and multiple child sex crimes, including group sex, by two St John ambulance employees, Karl Berghan (20) and Sam Brens (21). The sex crimes against this victim occurred over a period of about 6 months commencing soon after she turned 14.
2004: Police discover 5 victims of child sex crimes conducted by these men together with a third St John employee, Fraser Brooke. Police obtain written statements from the victims detailing the sex crimes against them.
6 May 2004: Sam Brens is arrested for the sex crimes. When police arrive to arrest Karl Berghan, he flees, but police find him the next day and issue the warrant of arrest. The men are charged, along with a third member of the paedophile gang, Fraser Brooke, with child sex crimes.
25 July 2005: The three St John ambulance employees, Karl Berghan, Sam Brens and Fraser Brooke, appear in the Auckland criminal court on multiple charges of child sex crimes against the under age girls. However, because they were “too busy”, police failed to notify four of the girls of the court date, so only one victim appears in the court. The now 16-year old girl is seated in court immediately in front of the 3 accused adult men, and unfortunately refuses to testify. Prosecutors fail to produce the victims’ sworn statements to the court, and also fail to call the parents to provide collaborative testimony. In short, no evidence was presented and the trial which was originally planned for two days, is aborted after only a few minutes.
8 August 2005: One of the victims of the men files gagging orders in the Family court against her parents and brothers, Investigate magazine, broadcaster Paul Holmes and counsellor Steve Taylor. She testifies under oath that Karl Berghan and Sam Brens conducted sex crimes against her when she was 14-years old. The court accepts this testimony that the sex crimes occurred and acted by issuing an interim gagging order.
Oct 2005: Investigate magazine flout the interim gagging order and publish a cover story naming the men, Karl Berghan and Sam Brens, as having conducted child sex crimes against the 5 under age girls:
3/investigate_oct.html7 Nov 2011: It is published in the London Gazette, that the Queen has sanctioned an award to Karl Berghan and Sam Brens:
16 Dec 2011: It is reported in the NZ press that Karl Berghan is to receive a Queen’s award from NZ’s Head of State, the Governor General:
18 Dec 2011: The parents of one of the sexual crime victims write to St John NZ expressing their opposition to the Queen’s awards.
8 Jan 2012: The Sunday Star Times publishes an article: “Alleged teen sex groomer in line for top award”:
22 Jan 2012: The Sunday Star Times publishes a second article: “Family furious at second award after sex case”:
22 Jan 2012: A press release is published naming Karl Berghan and Sam Brens as perpetrators of child sex crimes:http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2273
Jan 2012: St John NZ CEO Jaimes Wood writes that St John are going to investigate the men. However, the investigation does not include any of the victims or their families. St John NZ refuse to divulge any details about their investigation, such as who is conducting it, the terms of reference, etc.
30 May 2012: A Close Up programme on TV1 discusses these sex crimes on national TV:
During this TV programme, Alan Bell, national director of ECPAT (End Child Prostitution and the Trafficking of children for sexual purposes) states: “(This) is a crime…..A crime was committed, I am concerned and puzzled as to why there wasn’t a prosecution. It is black-and-white, this was older men having sex with an underage child”.
31 May 2012: NewstalkZB, the country’s largest talk radio station discusses the sex crimes for an unprecedented 6 hours. New Zealanders are outraged.
June 2012: St John NZ CEO Jaimes Wood writes that he will release the results of their investigation on 30 June. However, on 30 June, rather than release the results, he writes that he has resigned as CEO with immediate effect. St John NZ HR Manager, Tom Dodd, takes over as interim CEO. Tom Dodd secretly initiates a second investigation into Karl Berghan and Sam Brens. This second investigation also does not involve any of the victims or their families, and is also surrounded by total secrecy.
Oct 2012: St John NZ write that Peter Bradley is now CEO.
26 Oct 2012: St John NZ announce that the Queen’s awards to Karl Berghan and Sam Brens are to go ahead.
31 Oct 2012: Tom Dodd writes that the investiture for the Queen’s awards will happen in Nov.
1 Nov 2012: Karl Berghan and Sam Brens resign from St John NZ.
8 Nov 2012: Tom Dodd writes that the awards to Karl Berghan and Sam Brens will proceed. He refuses to answer any questions on the subject.
8 Nov 2012: A young girl who was a cadet in St John youth, describes how as a young teenager she attended St John sex parties at the “Farm” with Karl Berghan and Sam Brens. She describes how young teenagers were plied with alcohol and pressured into sex and group sex by these two men, as well as by senior St John managers. She names Peter McDowell the current ICT Director of St John NZ and Dennis Dufty, currently a St John NZ Regional Manager. She details that Sam Brens had a penchant for sex with both young boys and girls. She writes that the sex activities involving St John senior managers and young St John youth cadets at the “Farm” are well known amongst St John employees.
9 Nov 2012: St John International Secretary General in London, Andrew Gough, writes that the St John “internal investigation found no evidence whatever of any misdemeanour by either man (Karl Berghan and Sam Brens)”. Clearly, the St John NZ internal investigation could not have done a Google search on “Karl Berghan” or “Sam Brens”, nor could they have read any of the media articles linked on this page, or watched the TVNZ programme on the subject, or spoken to any of the men’s victims or their families. It is easy to understand now how paedophiles such as Jimmy Savile get away with their crimes for so long, when one witnesses the modus operandi of the paedophile protection network within St John with it’s tentacles that stretch from senior executives in St John NZ, Tom Dodd and Peter Bradley, all the way to the Secretary General of St John International, Andrew Gough, in London. Have this paedophile protection network arranged to give the Queen’s awards to ex-employees Karl Berghan and Sam Brens in return for their silence about the paedophile activities of other St John employees, including senior executives?
I just wanted to point out a few things here. Firstly, I am sorry you were a victim of childhood sexual abuse- many of my friends (and some family members) are survivors and I know how soul destroying it can be.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think you need to be clearer in your terminology. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to PRE-PUBESCENT children. Not kids who are well into puberty. I think it clouds the issue and detracts from the seriousness of paedolphillia.
Therefore, a 19 year old guy who has sex with a 15 year old, no matter how distasteful (or illegal, depending on the country's laws) is NOT an example of paedophillia. If the person is only interested in pubescent teens they are an ephebophile, which is a completely different pathology, however there is no evidence in this case that the men involved were only interested in younger teens, so even labeling them an ephebophile is problematic.
Secondly, I think it's really disrespectful for someone to dismiss another's experience because it doesn't fit their world view- in this case the woman who, in her 20's, still feels as if she was not a victim and is happy with the decisions she made in her teenage years. Do you really want someone to feel victimised when they are happy with their take on events that effect themselves and no others?
Secondly, as a sinlge mum I can assure you I am not at all comfortable with the hypersexualising of pre-teens (or anyone for that matter) but I think you need to draw a big distinction between a child and someone who is in the middle of puberty.
A teen is at an age where they are already exploring their sexuality, the whole slew of hormones is flipping the switches that spur teens on a trip of discovery, much of which is physical.
A child, on the other hand, is not physically or mentally ready for sexual exploration at all. So to draw comparisons risks diminishing the seriousness of paedophilia and the impact it has on its victims.
Just wanted to put that out there, because I feel like conflating teenage sexual activity with paedophilia muddies the waters of legitimate discourse.
You are correct in your definitions of ephebophile. Sometimes it takes people a long time to realize they have been victimized. Due to grooming pedophiles, ebophiles, infantiles, etc all groom victims, their communities and their families. This grooming leads to victims left feeling like they are active participants in their victimization. So for someone in their 20's to come to realize their were victimized isn't so uncommon. Just because some is in mid teens doesn't mean that they are past puberty. That is why their age age of consent laws. Some teens don't progress through puberty until late teens.
DeleteFor teens who consent to sexual activity willingly this topic is completely different. Why does a 19 year old want to have sex with a 15 year old? A 19 year old is out of puberty while a 15 year old is still in puberty. That is my concern. Not to mention a 15 year old is under age. A 19 year old having sex with anyone (willingly or not) under the age of consent is breaking the law. I think more education needs to be done to help young adults understand this. There are a lot of people on the sexual offender registry for having sex with someone one a couple of years younger. It is possible that if they were clearly understanding the risk they might wait to have a sexual relationship. Puberty is hard enough but to throw sex into the mix is even harder. Thanks for stopping by, Rosie