A paedophile is free to return to his new home in York after he broke the rules designed to protect children from him.What?
… in May last year, he showed a police officer charged with keeping an eye on him pornographic pictures featuring adults on his phone that he was not allowed to have under the order. There were a further two photos so extreme they were illegal for anyone to possess./facepalm
Still, first slip-up?
No. Fourth:
It was the fourth time he had breached the order, having previously talked to a child, tickled another child and made sexual requests.*sigh*
Recorder Guy Kearl QC said that as the latest breach did not involve children he could spare Fox a return to prison.Oh, how good of him!
“You do appear to be making significant progress,” he told Fox. “One part of this court’s job is to reward progress and punish misdemeanours.”Errrr, yes, you mean like possessing illegal pornography?
He gave Fox a community order with two years’ supervision and relaxed the sex offenders’ order so Fox could have adult pornography.It’s only a surprise that he didn’t give him a couple of pounds out of the poor box to buy some, isn’t it?
" There were a further two photos so extreme they were illegal for anyone to possess."
ReplyDeleteOH NO! You don't mean...surely not...tell me it is ain't so...not that imfamous picture of a woman getting it 'for and aft' WHILE SMOKING A CIGARETTE???!
Is there no end to man's depravity! Sweet Jesus, will no one think of the children?
What if a kid got hold of such an image??! They might think that smoking is ok or worse still be encouraged to smoke!
Well, yeah, if the lass is smoking that means it's an activity likely to endanger her life and so it's Extreme Pornography.
ReplyDeleteJust be thankful she wasn't being taken roughly from behind by Scooby Doo or we'd probably all be going to jail just for the production of mental images.
"photos so extreme they were illegal for anyone to possess"
ReplyDeleteA lot of people seem unaware that, after decades of gradual relaxation, porn censorship has become a lot more strict.
And an order which forbids adult porn to a convicted paedophile seems bloody stupid to me. To the judge too, apparently.
This is a non-story.
"Just be thankful she wasn't being taken roughly from behind by Scooby Doo ... "
ReplyDeleteOr worse yet, whilst Scooby was engaged in puffing away on a Capstan Extra Strength at the time ..
Seriously though .. some of these Judges need to be hung by their toe-nails for the sheer perversity of their decisions ..
ReplyDeleteAnyone for a Scooby Snak? Shaggy?
ReplyDeleteI assume that allowing him adult pornography is supposed to normalise his sexual urges ? In the same way that teenagers learn the true value of love, sex and relationships from pornography...yes ?
ReplyDelete.....
Oh ...well that's alright then...*rolls eyes*. Honestly...was the best they could come up with ? We pay people for this...
Continuing the same old - supporting the crim and laying into the innocent.
ReplyDeleteHis Lordship seems to labouring under a false assumption: You can't change or 'cure' someone's sexuality.
ReplyDeleteIf the Child Molestor thinks that by looking at adult porn he will somehow 'cure' his paedophilia then he is sadly mistaken.
I thought society had learnt that lesson back when we were trying to 'cure' homosexuals.
@Tattyfalarr,
ReplyDeleteIs forbiddinging him adult pornography likely to normalise his sexual urges? Thats what his original judge appeared to believe. You too? I don't.
Zaphod, nothing will 'normalize' his sexual urges. Just like viewing dyke porn won't turn you into a lesbian....however much fun it is to try :P
ReplyDeleteZaphod...uh no I don't think it would normalise his urges. I do think that was the thinking behind the judges decision though. I note you agree.
ReplyDelete@Tattyfalarr,
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of labouring the point:-
I used the word "forbidding", not "allowing".
See what I did there?
Pay attention, please.
Whenever I read about attempts to "cure" someone of sexual perversions, I'm reminded of the hilarious bit of Tom Sharpe's "Riotous Assembly" ..
ReplyDeleteWhere Constable Els has his genitalia wired up to an electrical source, whilst being shown pictures of, what were (in the context of the book) .. the "wrong" sort of people ..
There's only one certain "cure" for Paedophiles .. a lethal injection .. And this bloke deserves to be at the front of the queue ..
Zaphod...You appear horribly confused by straight answers. Now...sit up straight...deep breath...pay attention and and focus on the next two sentences.
ReplyDelete...
You asked: Is forbiddinging him adult pornography likely to normalise his sexual urges?
and you were answered: uh no I don't think it would normalise his urges.
...
Now...if you still genuinely fail to comprehend then perhaps you would care to explain what your point is, exactly.
@Tattyfalarr,
ReplyDeleteSo, what are you disapproving of?
1 Forbidding him adult porn?
2 Allowing him adult porn?
3 Both?
4 Neither, you're just making meaningless noises?
5 Don't know, it depends what day it it?
6 Er, that's it.
What a disappointment - I had imagined such a risqué thread would represent a major attraction for the Gadget undead.
ReplyDeleteHowever, should it one day prove irresistible to take a fetid shower, I must return to immerse myself in these comments, JuliaM.
@SBC: of course this kind of assholeness is curable with the gelding shears.
ReplyDeleteHeh...Zaphod...You're labouring to the point of an emergency C-section now. Let's see if we can deliver you of your confusion in one hit...
ReplyDelete...
I don't agree with the judges apparent theorising that *allowing* ...or *forbidding*...access to adult pornography will normalise this paedophile's sexual urges.
...
Capiche ?
@Tattyfalarr,
ReplyDeleteI see. Your comments actually were meant to show that, apart from not agreeing with anything at all that you assume anyone apparently theorised, you have no opinion.
Yes, that's clear now.
So, did you have anything to say, or were you just craving attention?
I see a troll called Zaphod...duly noted for future reference and automatic dismissal.
ReplyDeleteOh no! Tattyfalarr is not talking to me anymore! Was it something I said?
ReplyDeleteMy apologies to our host Julia if I've been ill-mannered or boring.
I first glanced at this post and thought the man was from NEW York, thinking 'crazy Yanks'.
ReplyDeleteMore fool me.
"@SBC: of course this kind of assholeness is curable with the gelding shears."
ReplyDeleteActually Hex, no it isn't. Cut off the genitals of a rapist/child molestor, either physically or chemically, and they simply use a coke bottle or something else....or whatever else their freaky imagination can come up with.
It isn't about sex, it's about power.
"There's only one certain "cure" for Paedophiles .. a lethal injection"
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying the cure for rape is killing heterosexual males.
You're not usually that sloppy in your comments....unlike many here.
Paedophilia isn't an illness nor a crime, it's a sexual preference and as 'valid' as any other.
People need to stop confusing sexuality with criminality otherwise we're on the run up to pink badges and Zyklon B for all.
However, if you want to contend that raping a child should carry the death penalty then pass me your coat.
@SBC
ReplyDeleteYou're not supposed to say things like that. The word "Paedophile" must automatically generate spluttering demands for cruel and unusual punishment, or you will be a suspect yourself. Critical thinking and reason is strongly frowned upon.
"The word "Paedophile" must automatically generate spluttering demands for cruel and unusual punishment, or you will be a suspect yourself."
ReplyDeleteYou mean like the that other taboo word: SMOKER ?
Not sure which is worse these days...
It would appear that ground-state sexuality, one's basic underpinning, is very refractory to societal conditioning. I like girls. That is who I am. Nothing will make me like boys. I also like girls that have successfully navigated puberty. Some people do not. They are paedophiles or ephebophiles. My libertarian beliefs start to strike sparks when they rub up against the notion of child molestation. I have a platoon of pretty dancing pixies who will be kept from any creepy interference even if I have to behead someone.
ReplyDelete"...not that imfamous picture of a woman getting it 'for and aft' WHILE SMOKING A CIGARETTE???!"
ReplyDeleteWell., porn has to cater for all tastes... ;)
"A lot of people seem unaware that, after decades of gradual relaxation, porn censorship has become a lot more strict."
Indeed! A lot of people probably don't care, or think it scaremongering that they could theoretically go to jail for a still from a commercially-available film, even one shown on tv, if it's violent and they use it for sexual gratification...
"I assume that allowing him adult pornography is supposed to normalise his sexual urges ?"
I wonder if the prison service (and now the judge) has fallen for some hogwash report on the efficacy of this method?
It seems like bunk to me.
"Is forbiddinging him adult pornography likely to normalise his sexual urges? "
Probably not, no. But neither would forbidding him access to children; he seems to have broken that as well, just before this incident.
"I first glanced at this post and thought the man was from NEW York, thinking 'crazy Yanks'.
ReplyDeleteMore fool me."
We do seem to be engaged in a race to the bottom with the US, sometimes, don't we?
@SBC ..
ReplyDeleteThe sexual molestation of a child (of either gender) by an adult (of either gender) can never, under any circumstances be described as being a "valid" sexual preference ..
It is, to most right-thinking people, perhaps the most abhorrent of crimes & its commission needs to be dealt with in a singularly robust manner ..
I don't for one minute expect that the majority of people would support my standpoint for the execution of convicted paedophiles ..
But how else are we to ensure that these perverts (and wanting sexual relations with a child can only be described as a perversion) can no longer commit these horrendous offences ?
I've heard all the arguments regarding "cures", "rehabilitation", "helping", "understanding" & "treating" these people & yet, events show us that not a single one of these pie-in-the-sky notions has prevented the determined sexual predator from pursuing their chosen prey ..
You're entirely right when you say that its all about power .. but that power needs to reside with the Law .. Not with the Law-breaker ..
The benefit of the doubt needs to be vested in the protection of innocent children .. Not in the so-called "rights" of those who would deliberately seek to abuse them ..
Children, who are in no position to make informed choices need & deserve the fullest protection which the Law can provide for them ..
We need a radical, root & branch reform of how we, as a society deal with these people ..
We either incarcerate them for the rest of their natural lives, so that they never have the opportunity to re-offend .. or we remove them from the equation completely .. but humanely ..
My personal preference is for the latter, if on no other grounds than it being cost effective ..
If anyone can come up with a better, more effective idea .. I'm always ready to listen ..
"Children, who are in no position to make informed choices"
ReplyDelete...
Well for one thing The State sex education program aimed specifically at pre-teens...which this coalition has yet to adress so we can assume all parties are favour right now... attempts to rectify that. Why else do 5 year olds need to know what orgasms are or what they feel like ?
...
The last place you are going to find any support for seriously tackling the issue of paedophilia is from the government.
...
The last lot had 13 years to do so and deliberately failed for many reasons. Labour25...google it. Harriet Harman's blatant attempts to legalise child porn...and subsequent denial...might surprise some.
...
The best you can do as a parent is protect your child yourself in any way you can because the simple fact is that the law will not do it for you. Not yet.