*****
(Embedded Tweet -
click date)
*****
Published: 14:15, 31 October 2014 | Updated: 00:00, 1 November 2014
Child safety [sic]
campaigners blast judge who let father-of-two caught with nearly 2,000 indecent images of children walk free [sic]
after telling him 'you are not a paedophile'
">CG admitted downloading 1,834 obscene [sic] photos of children,
>Police also found 34 videos including extreme pornography involving animals,
>Judge Holt caused outrage for saying G is a voyeur not a paedophile [correct],
>Father-of-two G was given just a two-year community sentence [not 'walk free', then],
>Children's charity Kidscape has questioned the message his sentence gives to other internet sex offenders [sic] and say it doesn't reflect severity of the crime [no, there should be no punishment, at all !!!]."
"Child abuse charities attacked the judge’s decision as ‘dangerous’ ...
*****
"Peter Saunders, of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said: ‘That’s a wonderful message to send to society [we are getting there, Peter :) ] – that someone who pays [did he, are you sure?] to watch children being abused [sic] is given a rap on the knuckles [hardly] and told they are not a danger to children [correct]. ‘This judge has given a very inappropriate, misguided and quite alarming sentence.’[damn right, it should have been an unconditional discharge.]
*****
"John Brown, of the NSPCC, said: ‘Anyone who downloads indecent images of children should be considered capable of posing [sic] a risk [why? evidence? risk of what? Police?], and a custodial sentence is usually an appropriate [weasel word and incorrect] one.’"
*****
"And Claude Knight, of child safety campaigners Kidscape, said: ‘The sheer number [tiny] of images downloaded would certainly lead one to conclude [sic]
predatory tendencies exist.’"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2815837/Judge-lets-man-caught-2-000-indecent-images-children-walk-free.html
****
Think, before you ever give your money or time ...
...
oh, and let us not forget ...
Experts & Judge r wrong Gilland(34) who had child abuse images of children 2 &3 yrs is a child absuser NOT a voyeur
http://t.co/63wPdyFiEs
(Embedded Tweet -
click date)
*****
9/11/2014
Suspended sentence for former Met police officer’s stack of child abuse images
"The way in which the
new guidelines operate is still settling down (they were only ‘in force’ from 1 April 2014), however in relation to image offences it seems rather straightforward. There are 3 categories (formerly the courts used the COPINE scale which placed images into one of 5 categories) A, B and C. The guideline states:
In most cases the intrinsic character of the most serious of the offending images will initially determine the appropriate category. If, however, the most serious images are unrepresentative of the offender’s conduct a lower category may be appropriate.
That places L (almost unarguably) into category A. Not only are those the most serious, but also, the “justice” of the case is done by categorising this as a Cat A case as most of the images are at that level.
The starting point is therefore 12 months custody. Add in the aggravating features such as the use of police property, the fact he was a serving police officer and the number of images – not an extremely high number but it is clear that this is not a case of experimentation which was quickly desisted.
Take account of the mitigation, including the PTSD, the alcoholism and his previous character (serving in the army and the police etc.) and the guilty plea, a sentence of 12 months does not seem inappropriate."
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/11/09/suspended-sentence-for-former-met-police-officers-stack-of-child-abuse-images
