I met Europe's sickest paedos after they were castrated – a dark confession proved exactly why it WILL work in UK
Listening to depraved monster Rafael Josef was stomach-churning - but his doctor was convinced he would never reoffend
TWISTED BEASTS I met Europe's sickest paedos after they were castrated – a dark confession proved exactly why it WILL work in UK
HIS leg twitching as he described to me his savage crimes, violent paedophile Rafael Josef admitted a nine-year-old girl was 'terrified' when he raped her.
Then, he calmly revealed that after being released from prison for that act of barbarism, he'd bludgeoned and forced himself on an older woman who later died.
Advertisement
8
Murderer and rapist Pavel Tomam, sex attacker and killer Rafael Josef, serial rapist Karel Havlovec and paedophile Ledek Jirak in a cell in the Havlickuv Brod psychiatric clinic
Credit: Lee Thompson
8
Rafael Josef admitted a nine-year-old girl was 'terrified' when he raped her
Credit: Lee Thompson
8
Rapist and murderer Pavel Tomam volunteered to be castrated at the secure psychiatric unit
Credit: Lee Thompson
It was utterly stomach-churning to listen to this depraved monster, who was seemingly beyond redemption.
Yet, Josef's doctor was convinced he wouldn't reoffend when he walked free from the secure psychiatric unit where he was being held in the Czech Republic.
Advertisement
That's because the former labourer - like dozens of the central European nation's most dangerous sex offenders - had been castrated.
In a 30-minute operation, he had part of his testicles removed to repress his paedophilic urges.
Josef had even volunteered for the operation himself - and advised offenders in Britain to undergo the same process.
Speaking through a translator, he told me: 'I wish I had been castrated years ago and would advise other repeat violent sex offenders to have the operation.
"It was painful but afterwards I felt calmer, more balanced. I was able to think more about my life and how sorry I am for my crimes.'
Advertisement
Despite the self-confessed violent paedophile choosing to undergo the op, human rights advocates have labelled the procedure 'degrading' for the prisoner.
Never mind the rights of the nine-year-old who was raped or future victims that an uncastrated Josef might have later attacked.
Expect a similar outcry from liberal lobbying groups as Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood ponders mandatory castration for the most serious sex offenders in Britain.
Government exploring mandatory chemical castration for sex offenders
A chemical - rather than physical - castration method will be used here. Some will undoubtedly believe that the worst of the worst deserve to go under the knife.
Making the procedure compulsory would be deeply controversial with the British medical profession, where consent is a long-standing principle of treatment with any procedure.
Advertisement
But chemical castration is mandatory for some men in several US states, including California.
'Dangerous deviants'
Locked inside the Havlickuv Brod psychiatric clinic, 60 miles south-east of Prague, I was met with the beady-eyed glare of other paedophiles and rapists who had also volunteered to be castrated.
The Czech Republic is the only country in Europe to surgically castrate sex offenders. Dr Zelmira Herrova had overseen around 40 operations at the time of my 2009 visit.
The medic revealed: "Surgical castration is only carried out on dangerous deviants who have to request it themselves.
"They find castration a relief. The rate of re-offending among my patients is zero."
Advertisement
Yet when the Council of Europe anti-torture Committee (CPT) visited the Czech Republic last year, it called for an end to physical castration.
8
Dr Zelmira Herrova had overseen around 40 operations at the time of The Sun's visit and said she had seen a re-offending rate of zero
Credit: Lee Thompson
8
Sun reporter Oliver Harvey, right, was left sickened by stories of the group's horrendous crimes
Credit: Lee Thompson
Its report said: 'The number of approved applications for surgical castration continues to be relatively low, in comparison with the number of interventions actually carried out some two decades ago.
'However, that in itself cannot remove the Committee's fundamental objection to surgical castration, which could easily be considered as amounting to degrading treatment.
Advertisement
'The CPT once again urges the Czech authorities to put a definitive end to surgical castration as a means of treatment of sex offenders.'
For too long, we have turned a blind eye to the threat sex offenders pose, considering the solutions too difficult or unpalatable
Government source
In Britain, a voluntary chemical castration pilot scheme in the South West will be expanded to 20 prisons in England and Wales ahead of a planned roll-out nationwide.
Drugs are used to inhibit the action of the sex hormone testosterone, which aims to lower sex drive.
Studies have shown using drugs to dull sex urges can slash offending by up to 60 per cent.
A government source said: 'For too long, we have turned a blind eye to the threat sex offenders pose, considering the solutions too difficult or unpalatable.
Advertisement
'Shabana isn't squeamish about doing what it takes to protect the public.
'As always, she will grab this problem by the proverbials.'
8
Havlickuv Brod psychiatric clinic, 60 miles south east of Prague
Credit: Lee Thompson
8
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood is looking at plans to make chemical castration mandatory
Credit: PA
8
Studies have shown using drugs to dull sex urges can slash offending by up to 60 per cent
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Evening Standard
39 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Napoleonic prisoner of war camp buried under field bought from farmer
Located near Peterborough, it contains the remains of around 1,770 French, Dutch and German soldiers captured in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars fought between the French and other European nations.
Spectator
42 minutes ago
- Spectator
Has deporting illegals become illegal?
The circus around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia – whose full name the New York Times likes to trot out as if citing an old-school English aristocrat – speaks volumes about the immigration battle roiling the US. Our friend Kilmar is what we fuddy-duddies insist on calling an illegal immigrant. The Salvadoran crossed clandestinely into the US in 2012. As for what he's done since, that depends on whom you ask. According to his GoFundMe page, Kilmar is a 'husband, union worker and father of a disabled five-year-old'. Left-wing media portray 'the Maryland man' – a tag akin to Axel Rudakubana's 'a Welshman' – as an industrious metalworker devoted to his family. His wife has rowed back on the temporary protective order she once requested, claiming she'd been over-cautious. Yet according to the Trump administration, Kilmar is a member of the notoriously violent street gang MS-13 who's derived his primary source of income from smuggling hundreds of illegals over the southern border for several years. Choose A or B. In 2019, Kilmar was arrested for loitering along with three other men, one a suspected MS-13 member. He was carrying marijuana, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. From his clothing, tattoos and, more persuasively, a 'past proven and reliable' confidential source who verified he was an active gang member using the moniker 'Chele', police adjudged that Kilmar was a gangbanger, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. He was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement – whose acronym, ICE, reinforces its rep as cold-hearted – which moved to deport him. Kilmar (of course) contested his removal. The immigration judge hearing Kilmar's case concurred that the defendant was indeed a gang member and deportable; the Salvadoran (of course) appealed the decision, which nevertheless was upheld. Kilmar (of course) then filed for asylum, as well as for a 'withholding of removal'. A subsequent immigration judge stayed his deportation to his home country, where his wellbeing might be endangered by local gangs. Now, you might suppose that putting yourself in the way of other famously rivalrous gangs would come with the territory when you join one yourself. Like, inter-gang violence seems a natural hazard of this line of work. But it's not only British immigration judges who are soft touches. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the millions of gate-crashers Kilmar (of course) remained in the US. In 2022, he was pulled over for speeding while driving eight other Hispanic men of uncertain immigration status in an SUV altered to add a third row of seats for extra passengers. The officers suspected human-trafficking; Kilmar's driving licence had expired; a run of his number plate through the database turned up a federal note on likely membership of MS-13. Yet when the patrolmen contacted the feds, ICE (of course) declined to pick him up. So Kilmar was (of course) released without charge. Even so, his claim that he was merely transporting construction workers between jobs did not, under investigation, hold up. Fast-forward to 2025 and why this otherwise obscure Salvadoran who is or is not a thug merits such a detailed lowdown. Meaning (of course) that this case has to do with Donald Trump – whose evil minions in March flew more than 230 purported criminals to a Salvadoran prison, including none other than Kilmar, whom ICE did finally pick up (no 'of course' there). The flights' timing was judicially dodgy. The planes did or didn't take off after a federal judge ruled that the flights could not proceed until the deportees were given the opportunity to challenge their removal. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed Trump to 'facilitate' Kilmar's return to the US. Because, remember, there was only one country to which he could not be deported because of that credulous 2019 decision: his own. Hence the Justice Department's acceptance that Kilmar's deportation was an 'administrative error'. During this proxy war with Trump, Democrats have pretended to hair-tear over poor Kilmar, mouldering away in a nasty foreign prison and deprived of due process. But the story I just laid out has due process, not to mention leniency or even dereliction on the part of the authorities, up the wazoo. Meanwhile, after slyly getting their jurisprudential ducks in a row, last week Trump and co finally got Kilmar flown back to the US, only to arrest him immediately for human-trafficking – with every intention of convicting the guy and then deporting him right back to El Salvador. What do we make of this farce? The American commentariat has focused on a potential showdown between Trump and the judiciary, claiming to fear a flat-out executive refusal to follow court orders but secretly rather hoping that Trump does defy the courts and thus reveals himself as an unconstitutional tyrant. I view this absurd tale through a different lens. All these trials and flights for a lone illegal alien are expensive. The amount of 'due process' the American justice system affords every single illegal makes deportation at any scale impossible. There isn't enough time and money and there aren't nearly enough judges to make any but a token gesture toward the mass deportation of illegals that Trump has promised. That amounts to a victory not just for Democrats but also for disorder. I'd assess the odds that Kilmar is a thug at about 90 per cent. But proving membership of unofficial allegiances in court is a bastard. If every individual deportation case must be adjudicated according to exacting evidentiary rules and appeal procedures, America's drastic, undemocratic demographic change will proceed inexorably. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the staggering ten million gate-crashers during the Biden administration alone. What are the chances of that? In New York at the weekend, ICE raids were impeded by LA-style crowds of righteously indignant protestors screaming: 'Let them go! Let them go!' The officers just doing their jobs looked beleaguered, tired, numb and pre-defeated. After all the ICE agents' thankless labours, what proportion of their detainees will still get to stay in the country in the end? I'll take another stab at 90 per cent.
Spectator
42 minutes ago
- Spectator
My plan for Prevent
In the autumn of 1940, British cities were being bombed every night by large aeroplanes whose provenance was apparently of some considerable doubt. While the public almost unanimously believed the conflagrations to have been caused by the Luftwaffe, the authorities – right up to the government – refused to speculate. Indeed, when certain members of the public raised their voices and said 'This is all down to Hitler and Goering and the bloody Germans!', they received visits from the police who either prosecuted them for disturbing the peace or put their names on a list of possible extremists. The nights grew darker. The number of towns and cities subjected to these nightly bombardments widened. Very soon everybody in the country knew somebody whose home had been destroyed or who had themselves been killed. The government was forced to take action, and so in November 1940 it came up with what it called its 'Prevent' strategy, which aimed to protect British cities from further destruction. In the introduction to this new policy, civil servants listed possible vectors for these bombing raids and top of the list, by some margin, were the Slovaks. A senior intelligence officer told the public: 'The greatest threat to our nation today is from the Slovaks. We must train our people in how to spot Slovaks and report them to the police whenever they can.' The Germans were also mentioned, further down the list of possible perps, but the wording here was heavily caveated. Yes, some Germans may have been involved, but over all the German population was utterly devoted to peace and regretted the nightly infernos every bit as much as did the people who suffered under them. Our own air force was directed to drop its bombs on Bratislava, Kosice, Poprad and (the consequence of an understandable confusion over the names of the two countries) Maribor. And yet for some mystifying reason, the raids on Britain did not lessen. This seems to me exactly the response of our government(s) and most importantly of Prevent to the threat from Islamic terrorism. Let me be clear: I am not remotely comparing Muslims with Germans or Islam with National Socialism – I am simply saying that, in effect, this is what our government would have done in 1940 if it had been gripped by the same cringing witlessness and outright lying that possesses seemingly all of our authorities today when it comes to terrorist attacks upon the British people. You may be aware of the manifestly stupid quote from the Prevent halfwits that people who believe that 'western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups' are cultural nationalists at risk of becoming the kind of extremists who end up murdering people. People who believe the above probably consist of 70 per cent of the British population and, if his latest speeches are anything to go by, include the Prime Minister. And yet this stuff pervades everything Prevent puts out, while at the same time exonerating Islam and in some cases even those Muslims who do become terrorists (because they have suffered, you see). If people who support Brexit or worry about immigration are extremists, you're going to get pretty high figures So, for example, Bolton council's useful 'Prevent' handbook singles out 'right-wing extremists' as being at the forefront of terror attacks in the UK, and these extremists include people who are cultural nationalists: 'Cultural nationalism is ideology characterised by anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, anti-establishment narratives, often emphasising British/English 'victimhood' and identity under attack from a perceived 'other'.' Islamic terrorism is also mentioned – but, again, heavily caveated. Then there's Prevent's own list of people who were picked up under its guidelines: 45 per cent were related to extreme right-wing radicalisation (230); 23 per cent were linked to Islamist radicalisation (118); the rest were related to other radicalisation concerns, including incels and those at risk of carrying out school shootings. But then I suppose if people who proclaim their support for Brexit or worry a bit about immigration are extremists, you are going to get pretty high arrest figures. If you add into the mix the fact that simply to associate Islam with terrorism you are guilty of Islamophobia, then you can see why we're in the state we're in. Incidentally, when she was Prime Minister, Theresa May, to her credit, drafted a new introduction to the Prevent guidelines which made it clear that the biggest threat to British security was al Qaeda, not Tommy Robinson et al. But that message does not seem to have sunk in with those in Prevent. It seems almost pointless to run through the facts. The truth is that almost every fatal terrorist attack in Britain since 2001 has been perpetrated by Islamists. All bar three. Have these people got a twisted or perverted understanding of Islam, as Prevent insists? I haven't a clue. I am no Quranic expert. I'm just, y'know, taking their word for it. Further, 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Policing network's investigations are related to Islamism (2023). Some 75 per cent of MI5's surveillance cases are Islamists. There are around 40,000 potential jihadis being monitored by our security services. There is not the remotest doubt as to the provenance of the gravest terror threats to our country. It's not the shaven-headed nutters with swastika armbands. It is Islamists. Nigel Farage's answer is to sack everyone working in Prevent. That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion. But I may have a better one. Scrap Prevent entirely and initiate a new network of monitoring and reporting which focuses solely on Islamic terrorism. Junk the sixth-form philosophising over what is meant by the term 'extremist' and locate the problem precisely where it is: somewhere within our Muslim communities, even if we accept that our Muslim communities may not want them there. In short, get real and tell the truth. This kind of approach worked pretty well 85 years ago.
