Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 25 2010, 10:05 AM

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

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 25 2010, 10:49 AM

I am incandescent.
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.

Posted by: Iommi Mar 25 2010, 12:13 PM

The passage reads...

What the heck does this mean?

Clearly someone in the TVP is confused, or maybe a member of the same lodge as Mr Black!

Posted by: Good Boy Racer Mar 25 2010, 12:15 PM

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?

Posted by: 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'. 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.

Posted by: user23 Mar 25 2010, 12:42 PM

Would pictures of his girlfriend be classed as child porn?

Posted by: BMR Mar 25 2010, 12:45 PM

He doesn't need locking up - not after he has been castrated anyway. Perhaps a singing career is then in order.

Posted by: 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 to suggest he is dangerous and should face a court.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Gumbo Mar 25 2010, 01:41 PM

Why is the nursery name not disclosed? my daughters attend a nursery in Newbury and I am very very concerned!

Posted by: Iommi Mar 25 2010, 01:43 PM

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.

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 25 2010, 01:45 PM

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.

Posted by: 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...

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?

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 25 2010, 03:43 PM

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


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

Posted by: 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??

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Mar 25 2010, 06:48 PM

As she is under the legal age of consent (16), then by definition, there can be no consent.

Posted by: x2lls Mar 25 2010, 06:51 PM

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

Posted by: Newbury Expat Mar 25 2010, 08:01 PM

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

Posted by: Strafin Mar 25 2010, 08:01 PM

Mike Davis defending.....

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 26 2010, 08:57 AM

This is why we have such a weak and ineffectife justice system. People are willing to accept this sort of behaviour and find reasons to justify it.

I would be looking to ensure that he suffered a suitable punishment.

Posted by: Iommi Mar 26 2010, 09:50 AM

Other than maybe paedophiles, I fail to think of anyone that might justify this behaviour!


And risk being slung in gaol and therefore not being available to protect your child from further harm.

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 26 2010, 10:27 AM

Take a look at post 13. There is a very strong tone of accepability being demonstrated there. Or perhaps I have misunderstood.


You have to do what you think is right and I have always said that if the Law can't or won't protect me or mine, then I will.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 26 2010, 10:49 AM

You have to do what you think is right and I have always said that if the Law can't or won't protect me or mine, then I will.
[/quote]

This is where we are all heading.

Posted by: Iommi Mar 26 2010, 11:00 AM

I understand that, but retaliation, by definition, doesn't protect anyone. Indeed, like I said, if you're banged up, you become even less capable in protecting anyone.

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 26 2010, 11:07 AM

I understand and respect your view but stand by mine.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 26 2010, 11:28 AM

I'm with you Bloggo.

Enough is Enough. There is no justice in the justice system for law abiding citizens anymore.

Posted by: Iommi Mar 26 2010, 11:33 AM

So what is it you are going to do about it Batman?


There still is justice, but it seems there are faults with it. That's my view. The Government, Police and CPS need to take some crime more seriously than they appear to at the moment. The story that sponsored this thread seems, on the surface, particularly stupid.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 26 2010, 11:43 AM

[quote name='Iommi' date='Mar 26 2010, 11:33 AM' post='15652']
So what is it you are going to do about it Batman?

Nothing. Unless someone impinges on my life. I'm just saying that an awful lot of crime is now not reported as people feel that their is little or no point. They would rather address the issues they have themselves than bother with the police / cps / courts. They know it is not worth it.

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 26 2010, 11:47 AM

I'm glad to see that you are coming around to agreeing with the points that TD&H and I are trying to make.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 26 2010, 12:52 PM

I would think this is why he has not been in court. He is ill, not a criminal.

Posted by: x2lls Mar 26 2010, 02:53 PM

In which case we would expect to see some reference to him being recommended for treatment of some kind? That at least would give the public some confidence that something is being done with regard to this particular indvidual.

Posted by: Rachel Mar 27 2010, 09:09 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, (I can hear the buzzer going, QI-esque already!) but I thought sex with a minor was never consentual in law, & therefore considered statutory rape?
If this person did seek help for the symptoms he recognised as improper, he should have been offered treatment, but is there treatment-ie something that will CURE him of these persuassions? I am doubtful, but Joe Public clearly needs protection from him & he from himself, if soley for the "images" issue which seems to be accepted by some (not me) as the lesser evil. All this said, he was already comitting a crime if my inititial comment is correct, so I'm unsure how he escaped the law....can only think I'm not in full possession of the facts?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 4 2010, 12:12 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=13181

I am sorry but what's to stop this kid from doing this again?

Posted by: Andy May 4 2010, 03:48 PM

The fact that he will get some treatment to address his obvious psychological problems.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 4 2010, 04:04 PM

And what about the person thats been subject to the assault? Have there feelings been taken into account? Or are you suggesting that anyone who commits an offence under the consensual age should be 'counselled' and not punished in anyway? I do not claim to be any sort of expert in this area and I'm sure the Professionals that deal with these sorts of cases must have reasons behind what they do. I hust hope they have made the right 'call' and no other person will suffer as a result.

Posted by: Strafin May 4 2010, 04:09 PM

Of course more people will suffer, without punishment there is no regret. That's why we read and see in the media constant re-offending, especially when it comes to abuse.

Posted by: Andy May 4 2010, 08:14 PM

I would guess he mentally imbalanced and therefore probably would not be regretting his actions anyway.

I don't think though that locking him up would assist anyone and is more likely to make him worse and thereby more likely to re-offend when released. Treatment however MAY help him to realise and understand his crime and possibly prevent future problems.

Posted by: Strafin May 4 2010, 09:02 PM

I don't see why being locked up and getting help have to be mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Roost May 4 2010, 10:04 PM

because that would make sense Strafin!

Posted by: Iommi May 4 2010, 10:43 PM

I think the jist is, providing effective help is harder when banged up with all the other loons. It is also possibly more expensive.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 5 2010, 08:19 AM

So the answer is to 'let all the lunatics out of the asylum'?

Posted by: Good Boy Racer May 5 2010, 08:22 AM

Here's another scary fact for you all. He's out of prison because i saw this teenager last night! Seems a bit quick for 5 weeks dont ya think ?

Posted by: Bloggo May 5 2010, 09:25 AM

What would you suggest if the "treatment" does not work and he sexually assaults another child?
How many victims would there have to be before you agree that he should be locked up?

Posted by: Bloggo May 5 2010, 09:29 AM

Spot on Strafin. Remove the risk whilst applying the fix.

Posted by: Iommi May 5 2010, 10:20 AM

Nah, I'd tie them to a back of a horse and drag them through the streets of Newbury until dead!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 5 2010, 10:40 AM

I would have thought 4 horses tied to each limb pointing in different directions and a crack o' the whip would do the trick.

Posted by: Iommi May 5 2010, 10:41 AM

Too quick.

Posted by: Roost May 5 2010, 06:25 PM

I don't believe it, how can you advocate something like this as punishment? Think of the poor horses!!

I think we should lull the poor lambs into a false sense of security and take them on holiday to Africa.

Once there, a bit of chloroform, some honey, a deep hole and 2000 large ants should do the trick.

Of course the taxpayer would also have to bear the cost of the camcorder needed to ensure that it went onto YouTube!

Posted by: Biker1 May 5 2010, 07:19 PM

Did you know it is impossible to get horses to pull against each other?

They found this out when they tried to imitate the Levi Jeans logo a few years back.