I have been vaguely aware of murmurings of outrage about yet another sad old BBC perv being done for something pervy, and calls for 'jail' - but correct me if I am wrong, all this sad old f*ck has done is gaze at pikkies of naked boys.
He hasn't actually fiddled with any.
I suppose being white and male trebles the sentence.
Although he did pay his supplier, feeding the profit motive at the sharp end of the abuse.
Not defending him in any way but do we actually know that he *paid* for these images?
Tim
And as the images become circulated, vastly traumatic for the people in the videos/pictures.
I hadn't heard that at all.
Well so everybody (except the people *in*the images) are *saying*. In fact the virtue signalling machine is in overdrive.
If I think back to my childhood and all the traumatic things that happened that ought to permanently deranged me, I cant say in the end that any did. Life's a bitch and then you die. *shrug*.
I thought he admitted paying for them?
Yes he did £1500 and he's Welsh!
From what I heard on the radio, he did give money to the man supplying the pictures, but not at the time and the court accepted that it was a gift.
Oh dear, who'll be the one to tell him.
FWIW there were plenty of naked pictures taken of me as a child, and it wouldn't make any difference to me if people wanked themselves silly over them.
I also think the link between just looking at pictures of abuse and causing abuse is a very tenuous one. AIUI, this guy didn't solicit the pictures, and said he didn't want them when he saw them.
However, he was a religious, sanctimonious turd. The type of person who enables this distorted justice. So I think he deserves everything he got.
Possession (which is a lesser offence than distribution or production) of Class A images (involving penetration). The guidelines are for a one year custodial sentence. However, no previous convictions and pleading guilty all count towards a reduction is sentence and a community order with a mandatory course is listed as an alternative option where the Court feels that rehabilitation is possible. Hence, within the guidelines and it avoids having to find a space in prison.
Whether you like it or not, or whether you agree with it or not, is irrelevant. What he did was illegal.
Hopefully, what we like and don't like has some effect on what is legal, even if we know it is a small effect.
It feels to me that the justice system promotes the importance of crimes that are easy to detect and prove. Whereas, on the other hand, crimes that seriously affect peoples lives are ignored, because they are more difficult to process.
So internet crimes, that have little effect on real life, become the focus of police activity, and take disproportionate justice system resources.
i.e. It would be better to catch one real life abuser than 100 people who download abuse pictures, or talk s*it on Twitter, but it wouldn't look so good on the performance stats.
Don't forget ThoughtCrime, a real growth area and so easy to pursue.
Ah, so *seriously* pervy pictures then.
Oh, I wasn't commenting about the legality, I was commenting about the nature of the crime and the faux outrage. And the sentence.
They don't call it the Boy Buggering Communists, for nothing. It's full of sad sickos, closet Islamists, outspoken communists, and racists.
On balance, given the guidelines that someone else quoted, that was probably a fair sentence.
How much do you get for possessing videos of Hamas raping and disembowelling Jewish girls?
That is a more precise exposition of the sort of woolly discomfort that I have been feeling...
...That thought crime and talk crime is now much more prosecuted than
*actual* physical crime against a person or their property.
-- “It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
Thomas Sowell
|Only if the children is the pictures are traced and told so they can be "revictimised"?
"Possession" is usually upgraded to "making", which just means downloading.
"A mandatory course". Just STOP DOING IT. (That worked well for the AIDS panic in the 80s, didn't it?)
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required