scoobynutta555

Not knowing the full facts of the offender in the OP's statement but it sounds like a bloke was caught with images of kids on his computer, not unlike Operation Ore. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this is the case then no kid was physically molested by this guy and the kid in question would have no knowledge of him at all, and probably sourced the images from a third party.

To have a reaction saying his dick should be cut off and eyes pulled out for this crime is IMHO a bit OTT and reminds me of a foaming at the mouth lynch mob mentality of Sun reader 'mums' who take it upon themselves to decamp outside an alleged paedophile's home shouting and abusing people whilst waving misspelt placards.

Whilst downloading child **** images is quite rightly illegal and morally wrong, I think reactions such as those are quite ignorant. I'll probably get lambasted on this, but there has to be some sort of balance here. There could be a case for not sending these people to prison for a first offence, but 'educating' them as to their behaviour and how wrong it is, like meeting parents of victims in a controlled environment etc. I'd say that the vast majority of such people would not personally go near a kid and act out whatever feelings they have. Prison should be kept for repeat offenders or those that do physical harm to children. The likes of Pete Townsend and M Jackson can buy their way out of trouble, and are still feted by fans, yet Mr Average is demonified.

FFS some offenders would get a more lenient sentence for joyriding down a high street and actually killing a kid.

Jerome

Actually, people are routinely jailed for speeding. Over 120 on an empty motorway could easily lead to a year in jail. Minor motoring offences do not include dangerous driving, drink driving, no insurance etc.

It was the subject of a thread on here recently (and alluded to in this thread), that there are more people in jail for minor motoring offences than for burglary. I can't be arsed to look it up, so do a search if you don't believe me. I've got more important ways of being workshy this afternoon.

Mitchy260

Am i the only person that doesn't think this story is unreasonable?

What is a paedophile?

Someone who actually sexually abuses children or someone who has downloaded a few pictures of that nature out of perversion or general interest?

In no way am i defending this guy, child pornography is sick but i dont think he personally is a threat to society because he downloaded a few illegal images.

Im sure we've all seen sexual pictures of a nasty nature before? (animals/pis*ing etc)

Maybe he just overstretched the mark and went 1 step too far? That doesn't make him a paedophile in my eyes and it doesn't make him a threat either.

Someone who has seen animal farm or something similar doesn't get the urge to go out and fu*k a horse, so can the same be said about child pornography? Was this man going to go out and abuse a child? Who knows? Innocent til proven guilty and all that

Like i said child **** is sick and i am not defending this guy but common sense wins at the end of the day. I dont personally think he's a paedo just because of a few pictures.

He would have got a 6mth custodial sentence and been out in 3. Thats 90 days in prison so not a lot really and a waste of time IMO.

The breakdown of his family/marriage etc is probably a big enough punishment along with being put on the sex offenders register and being supervised.

I bet he wont touch a computer again, his life will be in ruins!

Proper paedophiles, ie those who molest children are the scum of the earth and shouldn't see the light of day however.

Curse of the Rushing Gimp

Lez(your name sounds like a girls) they obviously never taught you a sense of humour in the RAF IF you were ever in it? So Less of the Schoolboy preaching and get back to your sad little cyberworld flying vulcans lol.

jonc

Even though someone has not actually physically cause harm to a child, the download of child **** images is creating a demand and perpetuating this sort of of abuse. Its sickening that this person walks free from court and is not locked up, I feel for those who have children and live near the abuser.

Then we have 2 people who are locked up 6 months for tapping telephone messages messages!!

Mitchy260

Perhaps it may do but i doubt it really.

The sick perverts that indulge in these acts are going to do so, no matter what internet demand there is.
Its hard to link that someone looking at illegal pictures is adding to the demand of child abuse unless of course he is actually paying for them from a child **** website.

Its a touchy subject and a lot of people feel strongly towards it but i dont think a jail term is always neccessary. Its again hard to link the people who download these images to those that abuse them. Curiosity at the end of the day has got them into big trouble!

His life will be ruined now and it does serve him right i agree but jails should be used for violent crimes/repeat offenders and people who actually cause harm to other people.

Like i said before, he would have got a 6mth sentence and out after 3. Not really worth sending someone to prison for that amount of time IMO. No wonder why the jails are clogged up!

Being on the sex offenders register and branded as a paedophile with a supervision order is probably enough punishment. His life will be ruined, family/friends/employment etc. Sometimes prison is not always the best option!

dpb

We're the most pc, eec directive worshippers in the whole continent - we really deserve all we get...!

mpr

it's fine to be a paedo - but don't even think about listening to someone's voicemail ...... (if they're royal that is)

BBC NEWS | UK | Pair jailed over royal phone taps

they've found space for these "seriously dangerous" offenders then?

if this shower of sh!te don't get voted out I'm going to cry......

Vegescoob

So, are we in agreement?
The SN massive is not sure that this country's Criminal Justice system is effective?

KiwiGTI

Read my post again.

Prison isn't the place for them - there are other punishments that should be used.

jonc

Public flogging! Bring back the stocks!!!

Adidas

In that case, I don't question your sentiments. What I do question are the 'facts' that you're referring too on a thread that may or may not be be on here somewhere.

I still maintain there are for more people serving sentences for CRIMINAL , rather than non-imprisonable SUMMARY offences.

carl

I know of someone who got imprisoned for driving down the A414 (Harlow to Stansted Abbotts section, dual carriageway) at 130mph. He posts on Pistonheads. I mentioned this to some colleagues last week and they said "well, it is nearly twice the speed limit". I may "know" other people who have been down that section at a higher speed than that

Mitchy260

He would have only got a 28 day sentence though and would have been out after 2wks. With a decent lawyer, he would have paid a large fine, apologised and he would have received a lengthy ban as opposed to a prison sentence.

He perhaps had a choice? 28 days in the slammer or a large fine and a lengthy ban.

I remember reading a granny got 14 days in prison for refusing to pay her council tax arrears

Adidas

But what was he convicted of? Dangerous driving or excess speed??

Leslie

It is pretty obvious from your particularly immature reply that you do not have an argument against what I said in my post. You made a vile accusation against a couple of sections of people for which you do not have a shred of evidence and there is nothing in the least bit amusing or witty about that.

Your mispelling of my name in an effort to insult me was also extremely childish, I doubt you even know the way it can be spelt to denote gender anyway. You can always look it up of course.

Your insinuation and attempt to denigrate my career is a positive indication of "green eyes" on your part.

Les

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Didn't think you'd even bother rising to it Les.

Alcazar

turboman786

What ARE you on about my friend, like I said speeding is a NON imprisonable offence, FULLSTOP!! YOu cannot EVER EVER EVER be sent away for speeding, unless they charge you with dangerous driving.....so you are 100% WRONG!!

Please please prove me wrong by showing me ONE case of someone who is charged with speeding alone, who has been sent to prison.

jasey

Pendatic ***** alert

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Why can most not see the truth here?

The problem is the judge in question decided to make a political point after the somewhat daft statement from the home secretary about not giving custodial sentences.

While the whole issue of not sending people to prison when they richly deserve it is lamentable surely the fact that the judge in question chose to make a point by not imprisoniong someone convicted under the paedophile laws is even more so (and that despite the fact that we want to blame everything on NL )

Sure it was bound to garner more press coverage, but if said person goes on to re-offend or actually assault a minor then I wonder if the judge in question will feel quite so smug.

jasey

Mirror.co.uk - News - All News Archive - 155MPH WHILE TALKING ON HIS MOBILE PHONE

Speeders jailed.

Diesel

"McAllister, 27, of Manor Road, Aberdeen, had previously admitted driving dangerously, driving while disqualified and without insurance on the Aberdeen to Dundee dual carriageway".

The Scotsman - Driver jailed for 156mph record speed

They should ban BMW's!!!

D

carl

Probably dangerous driving, but the current mantra is that excess speed = dangerous driving by definition.

IIRC he got 3 months, but was out after 6 weeks.

Adidas

Nope, dangerous driver jailed

Leslie

I enjoyed doing it

Les

turboman786

The charge must have been dangerous driving, as explained above, speeding does not carry impriosnment, its laid out black and white in the 1988 Road Traffic Act!!!!

Seems like lots of 'pub talk' prevails on scoobynet, with little or no regard to detail!!

Scoob99

iTrader: (1)

Quite easy really, just shoot the bastid

carl

But what constitute "driving dangerously"?

In the old days there was "without due care and attention", and "recklessly". But, IIRC, they lumped these together under "dangerous" so there was a bit more grey area that could be deemed "dangerous".

Adidas

As taken from the CPS Website:

HTH