Scott Fleming, 27, was found with vile movies showing adults engaging in sexual activity with animals including a horse, a pig and a dog when police raided his home two years ago.
Another deranged pervert is caught! This one more of a voyeur than an active participant, but still...
Will this one get his just desserts? Reader, read on...
During the search, Fleming was also found to have downloaded a shocking film depicting a man having a 'live moving drill' inserted into his penis.
Oooh, I can hear the wincing and crossing of legs from here, gentlemen!
Fleming pleaded guilty to a charge of possessing extreme pornographic material between March 19 and May 10, 2021 when he appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court last month. He was back in the dock for sentencing last week where Sheriff Adrian Fraser said the terms of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 'do not apply to the circumstances of this offence'.
The court previously heard offenders who are convicted of possessing extreme pornography can only be placed on the Sex Offenders Register if they are jailed for more than 12 months. Fleming appeared at court on a summary complaint meaning he could not receive a custodial sentence of more than 12 months.
*sigh* Catch 22 is alive and well beyond The Wall, it seems...
Fleming, from Prestonpans, East Lothian, was instead sentenced to a nine month supervision order and ordered to carry out 162 hours of unpaid work in the community.
Hopefully not 'odd jobs' with power tools!
Jay MacAskill, Fleming's defence, said her client was currently unemployed and there had been 'no sexual gratification in possessing such videos'.
Was he trying to get DIY tips then?
You clearly think that people who watch movies of people having sex with animals should be imprisoned, preferably for more than 12 months. Why?
ReplyDeleteI wasn't going to comment on this because I've already stated my views on videos.
ReplyDeleteI was interested in the Sex Register issue, With the justice systems preference for minimum sentencing I wondered why the bar was set at 12 months imprisonment before you went on the register. It should be up to he jury if they do so. Note I don't say judge because they all seem to be soft on punishment.
Our justice system needs a major revamp. Maybe next time around we will get it right but this time we failed.
And Lord T (in drag as is "his" wont) enters the discussion.
ReplyDeleteAnswer, if you're too stupid, corrupted and perverted to understand, you're to stupid, corrupted and perverted to understand the explanation.
You seem 'invested' in this particular perversion (I wonder why), so, as someone who supports such 'actions', why don't you stand in the street and declare your support openly?
We all know why, because despite your claims you know it's an unacceptable deviant perversion (secretly you are ashamed, but can't stop), and you also know what the reaction of everyone around you would be (i.e. you'd have the life-expectancy of a mayfly ... in a furnace).
I do wonder at what point you would, could, set a limit on your sexual debauchery and deviancy? Why do I suspect you're also a member of a NAMBLA type organisation/pressure group too.
I’m unconvinced that the sex offenders register has any real effect on the conduct of sex offenders so I can’t get too hot under the collar about this case.
ReplyDeleteLOL. Looks like I have a stalker. A particularly thick one as well.
ReplyDelete"Lord" T
ReplyDeleteAh no, a stalker would be mentioning your real name/address, perhaps forwarding copies of your "opinions" to your neighbours, family, friends and employer. (or possibly just quietly using a shovel in a number of ways).
I 'do' find it somewhat "amusing" that you felt you had to post anonymously so as to then 'respond' to ... yourself, though.
The valid point that you 'do' seem 'very' invested in challenging any punishment for those performing, or watching ("getting off" to), bestiality, is I suspect ... indicative of your own behaviours though.
So, stalking no, but there are apparently a number of us who 'will' call you on, and challenge, your perversion though.
"Why?"
ReplyDeleteWhy not?
" It should be up to he jury if they do so. Note I don't say judge because they all seem to be soft on punishment."
Indeed, I agree with you there.
"I’m unconvinced that the sex offenders register has any real effect on the conduct of sex offenders so I can’t get too hot under the collar about this case."
Probably not, indeed...