IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What the **** is going on?
TallDarkAndHands...
post Mar 25 2010, 10:05 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,316
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=12816

What do you actually need to do to get prosecuted these days?
It seems to be that unless you commit an act of genocide (or don't pay your Council Tax Bill) then you can get away with anything.

It really does beggar belief. angry.gif angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bloggo
post Mar 25 2010, 10:49 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Mar 25 2010, 10:05 AM) *
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=12816

What do you actually need to do to get prosecuted these days?
It seems to be that unless you commit an act of genocide (or don't pay your Council Tax Bill) then you can get away with anything.

It really does beggar belief. angry.gif angry.gif

I am incandescent. angry.gif
This pervert has been having sex with this girl for 3 years and apparently she is still under age.
Other perverts and addicts will see this and come to the conclusion that they too can get away with it.
It puts our children at huge risk.
I'm glad to see that Richard Benyon is equally appalled at this situation and is asking questions.
The Law in this country has become a sick joke.


--------------------
Bloggo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Mar 25 2010, 12:13 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



The passage reads...

QUOTE
Thames Valley Police spokesman Adam Fisher said: “The CPS took the decision to give him a caution.”
CPS spokesman Lucy Chapman said: “It was agreed with Thames Valley Police that a formal caution was the correct course of action to manage any risk posed by him.”
She said the CPS was not consulted over the decision not to charge Mr Black with offences relating to alleged underage sex.


What the heck does this mean?

Clearly someone in the TVP is confused, or maybe a member of the same lodge as Mr Black!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Good Boy Racer
post Mar 25 2010, 12:15 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 235
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Oldbury
Member No.: 22



This is England. The Government are so polite, they even let you in to the country free of charge, free to stay and not work, you even get paid for not working! Anyway, back to the point... This dude got away with it because he Admitted he was doing wrong and he wanted to seek help. Doesn't matter if you admit to something, such as the sexual relationship with this underage girl, there still needs to be evidence of it and so i would assume there wasn't.

Yes in some ways i believe more should of been done for punishment, to make him feel that he should never ever do anything of the sort again and for people like us to feel happy about what has been done about it... but already he's been humiliated by the media from his local town, he's already on the sex effenders register list and he cannot work with anyone under the age of 16, so he's lost his job, future jobs... What do you think?


--------------------
"Quick, Hide something that looks like fun!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Mar 25 2010, 12:41 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



He was in possession of child porn, that was provable. He was warned to not see person that he consequently ignored. This suggests to me he is a 'problem'. At the end of the day, I don't think it is right that the police make judgements. I also have little faith in the CPS, which is basically an organisation that is there to decide on which cases to spend money on. Rather like NICE in the NHS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Mar 25 2010, 12:42 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Mar 25 2010, 12:41 PM) *
He was in possession of child porn, that was provable. He was warned to not see person that he consequently ignored. This suggests to me he is a 'problem'.
Would pictures of his girlfriend be classed as child porn?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BMR
post Mar 25 2010, 12:45 PM
Post #7


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 29-September 09
Member No.: 372



He doesn't need locking up - not after he has been castrated anyway. Perhaps a singing career is then in order. angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Mar 25 2010, 12:46 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 25 2010, 12:42 PM) *
Would pictures of his girlfriend be classed as child porn?

That depends, but is in any case, irrelevant. He was given a formal caution in respect of child pornography and placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

That's enough to suggest he is dangerous and should face a court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diamond41970
post Mar 25 2010, 01:19 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 19-March 10
Member No.: 785



QUOTE (Iommi @ Mar 25 2010, 12:46 PM) *
That depends, but is in any case, irrelevant. He was given a formal caution in respect of child pornography and placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

That's enough.



I completely disagree. He has admitted that he is fantasising of having sex with CHILDREN my god he needs putting into an asylum. A formal caution is a joke.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gumbo
post Mar 25 2010, 01:41 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 323
Joined: 13-May 09
Member No.: 19



Why is the nursery name not disclosed? my daughters attend a nursery in Newbury and I am very very concerned!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Mar 25 2010, 01:43 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (diamond41970 @ Mar 25 2010, 01:19 PM) *
I completely disagree. He has admitted that he is fantasising of having sex with CHILDREN my god he needs putting into an asylum. A formal caution is a joke.

You have taken my post out of context, which on its own, is ambiguous. I originally posted a reply suggesting he has done enough already to 'merit' a charge. Regrettably, fantasising over children in the way described, "is of concern but not a criminal offence", as stated by his lawyer.

I have edited my previous post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bloggo
post Mar 25 2010, 01:45 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 25 2010, 12:42 PM) *
Would pictures of his girlfriend be classed as child porn?

If his girlfriend is a classified as a child because of her age then I would say yes, wouldn't you?
I would also think that she needs protection from this pervert.


--------------------
Bloggo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Good Boy Racer
post Mar 25 2010, 03:07 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 235
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Oldbury
Member No.: 22



QUOTE
If his girlfriend is a classified as a child because of her age then I would say yes, wouldn't you?
I would also think that she needs protection from this pervert.


I would suggest that if they were together and they 'Loved' each other then i suggest pictures of her would not be included in the child pornography case. That's if there is any consent from the youngster of course...

Edit: and it would only be classed as child porn if the pictures were of a sexual nature... anything to do with just a smile with clothes on is not classed as child porn... unless i can be proven wrong?


--------------------
"Quick, Hide something that looks like fun!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bloggo
post Mar 25 2010, 03:43 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (Good Boy Racer @ Mar 25 2010, 03:07 PM) *
I would suggest that if they were together and they 'Loved' each other then i suggest pictures of her would not be included in the child pornography case. That's if there is any consent from the youngster of course...

You don't care that she is classified as a child then?

QUOTE
Edit: and it would only be classed as child porn if the pictures were of a sexual nature... anything to do with just a smile with clothes on is not classed as child porn... unless i can be proven wrong?

The pictures were classed as "child porn", they were not holiday snaps.


--------------------
Bloggo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Mar 25 2010, 04:00 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,316
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



Bloggo - It beggars belief that people are defending this judgement.

What if it was your 12/13 year old daughter??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Mar 25 2010, 04:47 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Mar 25 2010, 04:00 PM) *
Bloggo - It beggars belief that people are defending this judgement. What if it was your 12/13 year old daughter??

I'm not sure anyone thinks the situation is good, but there might be rational answers as to why the TVP and the CPS acted as they did. I just hope it isn't because of any political or bureaucratic reasons.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Berkshirelad
post Mar 25 2010, 06:48 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271



QUOTE (Good Boy Racer @ Mar 25 2010, 03:07 PM) *
I would suggest that if they were together and they 'Loved' each other then i suggest pictures of her would not be included in the child pornography case. That's if there is any consent from the youngster of course...


As she is under the legal age of consent (16), then by definition, there can be no consent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
x2lls
post Mar 25 2010, 06:51 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,598
Joined: 25-November 09
Member No.: 511



QUOTE (Iommi @ Mar 25 2010, 04:47 PM) *
I'm not sure anyone thinks the situation is good, but there might be rational answers as to why the TVP and the CPS acted as they did. I just hope it isn't because of any political or bureaucratic reasons.


Which would go completely against the principle that kids safety and wellbeing is paramount.



--------------------
There their, loose loser!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Newbury Expat_*
post Mar 25 2010, 08:01 PM
Post #19





Guests






QUOTE
She said the CPS was not consulted over the decision not to charge Mr Black with offences relating to alleged underage sex.


They should call it what they call it in the US: Statutory RAPE. Not as easy for the CPS to brush under the carpet as underage sex, which doesn't sound half as bad.

There are some sick people out there, but I'm not sure if they're as bad as the system that lets them get away without some considerable punishment angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Mar 25 2010, 08:01 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



Mike Davis defending.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th January 2022 - 07:10 AM