Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Bill1 Oct 22 2009, 08:44 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=11390

Oh well never mind what he's done, after all as long as he's held down a high level job and had a family then what's the problem with a little pre-teen porn action eh?

Posted by: JeffG Oct 22 2009, 09:21 AM

I'm not defending this person in any way, but aren't the prisons already overcrowded with people who are a danger to the public?

This man is going to be watched like a hawk in the future.

Posted by: Bill1 Oct 22 2009, 09:28 AM

In my view the prisons being overcrowded is no excuse for not jailing such perpetrators, I'm afraid the answer seems to be that we need to build more prisons.

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 22 2009, 10:20 AM

I find it incredible how lax the justice system is.
This man should be jailed, no question about it.
We need more prisons. Without a credible deterent this will happen again and again.

Posted by: Andy Oct 22 2009, 01:43 PM

I don't necessarily agree with this bit, I think it's a sickness that will continue no matter what the punishment in law is put at.

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 22 2009, 01:48 PM

Yes, in some cases I would suspect that you are right however giving out derisory sentences can only send out the message that this a crime that you can get away with.

Posted by: Andy Oct 22 2009, 03:13 PM

I fully agree. At least then those that are caught would be locked up for a VERY long time out of harms way. I personally would like to see compulsory castration put in place, won't kill them but would certainly abate their desires.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 22 2009, 04:25 PM

Sounds like something straight from a BNP manifesto!

Posted by: GMR Oct 22 2009, 05:54 PM

I agree with you.

On the note of prisons; well... if they are over crowed then build more.

Posted by: regor Oct 22 2009, 06:17 PM

How come we are so short of prisons nowadays?

Do we have less prisons or are we sending more people to prison? I think it is the latter so that poses another question "Are we as a nation less law abiding than we used to be or are there lots more things that used to be allowed but are now against the law?"

Perhaps politicians should be forbidden to create a new offence/pass a new law without first estimating how many people are going to fall foul of the new law and enough new prison places created to accommodate all the new offenders.

Posted by: GMR Oct 22 2009, 06:55 PM

Or they are sending the wrong people to jail?

Posted by: Iommi Oct 22 2009, 08:46 PM

I found this: http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/docs/story-prison-population.pdf

It says in summary...

1. What has happened to the prison population since 1995?

Between 1995 and 2009, the prison population in England and Wales grew by 32,500 or 66%. Almost all of this increase took place within two segments of the prison population – those sentenced to immediate custody (78% of the increase) and those recalled to prison for breaking the conditions of their release (16%).

The immediate custodial sentenced population increased after 1995 because the courts sentenced more offenders to prison each year between 1995 and 2002, and because offenders have been staying in prison for longer.

The increase in the recall population reflected both a higher recall rate and longer spent in custody on recall. The higher recall rate was caused by changes to the law making it easier to recall prisoners, and changes introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which lengthened the licence period for most offenders. Recall prisoners have stayed in custody for longer, partly reflecting the increase in licence periods and also because, prior to the introduction of Fixed Term Recalls in 2008, the Parole Board were required to review all recall cases.

Other elements of the prison population accounted for only 6% of the total increase since 1995. The numbers in prison for breach of non-custodial sentences and non-criminals* grew rapidly, but remained small in total. The remand and fine defaulter populations increased and decreased slightly respectively; with the remand population large but relatively stable at around 12-13,000, and the fine defaulter population declining sharply to very low levels (around 100 since 2001).

* Persons held under the Immigration Act plus those held for civil offences such as contempt of court and non-payment of child maintenance

2. What has caused the changes?

Two factors caused the increase in the prison population of England and Wales from 1995 to 2009: tougher sentencing and enforcement outcomes, and a more serious mix of offence groups coming before the courts.

Legislative and policy changes have made sentence lengths longer for certain offences (e.g. through the introduction of indeterminate sentences for public protection, mandatory minimum sentences and increased maximum sentences) and increased the likelihood of offenders being imprisoned for breach of non-custodial sentences or recalled to custody for failure to comply with licence conditions (as imposed on release from prison).

Two offence groups, violence against the person (VATP) and drugs, have had a particular impact on the prison population. Growth in volumes sentenced for VATP and drug offences has been significant, and these groups also saw increases to their custody rates and in the length of time served in prison (with longer determinate sentences for drugs and increased use of indeterminate sentences for VATP).

General trends

While the prison population has grown during most years since World War II, the growth rate increased from an average of 2.5% per year between 1945 and 1995 to an average of 3.8% per year since 1995. The increase in the rate of growth resulted in a 66% increase in the prison population between January 1995 and January 2009 (from 49,500 to 82,100).

This all suggests that the 'threat' of prison, under the present system, isn't a particularly big threat to those that are 'determined' to break the law.

Posted by: ossy1 Oct 23 2009, 10:25 AM

Perhaps the police arent as lazy are you lot accuse them of being then!!!

Posted by: Bill1 Oct 23 2009, 10:31 AM

"You lot" ?

Thats a bit of a generalisation ossy1!

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 23 2009, 10:35 AM

Interesting broad brush comment. A little harsh I think particularly to those that supprt the Police.
Secondly, perhaps you are correct however some of them are lazy, and if I recall correctly, you have endorsed this view yourself.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 23 2009, 10:36 AM

Shows a bit of a 'them and us' mentality...

Posted by: Roost Oct 23 2009, 08:35 PM

Perhaps because that is what Ossy has experienced on here previously......?!!!

On the subject at hand, we as a society seem to have lost sight of the fact that imprisonment is about punishment as well as rehabilitation. The rehab aspect may not always work but is that any reason to leave those of us that break the law unpunished? Perhaps we should actually make our prisons 'punishing' also rather than the easy ride, Playstation providing tax drain that we are always told about1

Posted by: Iommi Oct 23 2009, 10:51 PM

In any case, people are queueing up to get in.

Posted by: Alfred Einstein Oct 24 2009, 08:26 AM

Well I'm clearly not as clever as my smarter relative, because I'm sure the heading of that article says he was "making" child porn, yet as far as I can see there's nothing in the rest of the piece to substantiate that.

In which case, he just downloaded images. A rather sordid thing to be doing I have to admit, but on its own surely not worthy of a custodial sentence. Plus it was mainly low level stuff.

Yup. A bit of a dirty old sod without a doubt, but hardly worth building a new prison for is it? It's not as if he's been outside the school gates waving his todger at the pre-teens after all.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2009, 08:44 AM

Because of the filth this bloke downloaded, there is a victim somewhere being filmed!

Posted by: Alfred Einstein Oct 24 2009, 08:51 AM

Yeah yeah yeah. I know all that. Buy a quarter of hash and you're quite possibly supporting the same thing. Should people be imprisoned for that as well?

Yup. Dirty old bugger without a doubt. Deserves the humiliation. Sticking the guy in prison, however, would be totally pointless other than to make "outraged of Newbury" feel better about his/herself.

Good decision by the judge to apply a bit of common sense.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2009, 09:42 AM

1 It could be your little daughter on the Internet.
2 I don't buy that muck either and those that do are helping to submit countries to deprivation.


The cynical side of feels it is more likely an out of touch judge, or a mutual member of the same lodge, than the application of common sense.

See you latter troll-of-the-day.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 24 2009, 10:39 AM

Why be offensive and call him a troll just for putting the other side of the argument? I thought this was supposed to be a forum for (intelligent) debate. Or should someone be censored for having an opinion that's different from yours?

Posted by: GMR Oct 24 2009, 10:57 AM

I agree. We are all entitled to our opinion without being insulted.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2009, 11:13 AM

Who said anything about censure? Where did I say he shouldn't post?

I just said I think he's a troll. His behaviour was disrespectful and clearly designed to inflame, I never said anything about he shouldn't be entitled to state his opinion.

But spare a thought, for those people who's and sons and daughters have been victims of those that post these vulgar pictures and the people that visit these sites (paying for it mind) encouraging more! How offensive is that!!!

Posted by: Alfred Einstein Oct 24 2009, 11:15 AM

Sure. Could be. An evil trade run by evil people - people who couldn't give a toss one way or the other what happens to Colin Flett of Baydon. These are the people for whom prison sentences would be appropriate.

What the guy did is wrong. He's been shamed by by. He's been totally humiliated by it. But he hasn't actually done anything to anyone. He hasn't directly harmed children, and he's now, rightly, on a sex offenders list.

I think some perspective is needed here. There's a difference between downloading pictures and actually going out and molesting children. Is there an indication that he will ever molest children? No more than suggesting anyone who downloads pornography is a rapist, surely?

It's all well and good ranting and raving and getting on a moral high-horse about this, but some perspective is needed surely? The guy downloading this stuff may well need watching, as he will now be, but the people uploading the stuff are where resources need to be directed.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2009, 11:30 AM

If people didn't download it, people wouldn't upload it (for cash)!

This isn't about moral-high grounding, I'm no saint, but what this bloke did is the thin end of the wedge and for me child pornography is the pits.

The other thing I'd say is, coming bursting on to a forum flippantly describing a paedophile as simply a dirt old man, isn't going to win votes, not that I suggest you were, but you could have put it more sensitively than you did. It is a very emotive subject...

...that and calling someone a troll, which, it seems to JeffG, is even worse!

Posted by: Bill1 Oct 24 2009, 11:53 AM

Not yet he isn't!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 24 2009, 06:10 PM

Interesting debate - which seems to centre on the idea that this has to stop or the offender will do worse, far worse - the thin end of the wedge...umm...might be worth looking at the smaller end of some other wedges whilst we are at it. Drunken behaviour Saturdays nights in town, Anti Social behaviour and so on, need I go further?

Posted by: JeffG Oct 24 2009, 06:42 PM

(Just spotted this.) Nobody. I said "censored" not "censured" which are two entirely different words.

Posted by: Alfred Einstein Oct 24 2009, 09:13 PM

Which is why he isn't in prison.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 25 2009, 08:40 AM

I wonder which one you meant! It looks like you and I used the wrong one!


Meanwhile, yours and our children are being photographed in pornographic pictures and if that's not bad enough, making money from it.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 25 2009, 09:27 AM

Hopefully, to conclude this off-topic discussion:

No - I used the one I meant to use. A troll is someone who posts something just for the sake of winding someone else up, not to add to the discussion, therefore by calling him a troll, you were saying he shouldn't have posted in the first place (= censorship). That's what I understood you to mean