Vicars have the right to be paedos says judge

[Guest nobgobbler]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/vicar-posted-child-sex-fantasies-neighbours-letterboxes-walks/

I'm not one for quoting the news but this put me off my cornflakes. Paedo vicar walks free. Why? Judge said it was because he's previously contributed to his community through his god bothering work. That would be like letting Beverley Allitt off with killing kids in hospital because she'd been a nurse. The judge who is possibly a paedo himself should be fucking struck off, and then crucified along side his new pal, the paedo vicar. What gives him the right to decide that it's ok to be a paedo because you are a god botherer. Cunt.

[Mrs Roops]

The nom title is misleading as the judge said nothing of the sort, furthermore I'm not sure why you think that the Judge is possibly a paedo. You might argue that the sentence was unduly lenient but I suspect he was following guidelines as recommended by the Sentencing Council.

[Guest DingTheRioja]

So far in my life I had had one parking ticket and one speeding ticket, I've helped old ladies across the road and picked stuff from the top shelves in the supermarkets for short arses...

..I think it's about time to go and rape the shit out of the 6th form girls and slaughter all the 6th form boys with a rusty kitchen knife.... I'll definately get away with that one, no jail time, fucking easy....

[Guest nobgobbler]

59 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

The nom title is misleading as the judge said nothing of the sort, furthermore I'm not sure why you think that the Judge is possibly a paedo. You might argue that the sentence was unduly lenient but I suspect he was following guidelines as recommended by the Sentencing Council.

The judge has shown by his actions that he is at the very least a paedo sympathiser and what he did by letting him off makes him an enabler. His actions are condoning paedophelia, that's why I said the judge might be one himself, and why wouldn't he be? Anybody can be a paedo regardless of who they are or what they do for living. Especially when they are in positions of trust, like a vicar or a judge. I'd like to see the guidelines he followed in arriving at his judgement. It often takes years to bring a paedo cunt to court at a huge financial cost to the taxpayer and at a massive personal cost to victims. Just to be let off like that isn't right. Perhaps I'm wrong, he might be a great bloke, but as a judge he hasn't behaved in a way that is fit for purpose and he needs looking at, seriously. If he were brought to the stand for committing a serious crime, by his method of ruling he would he be let off because he did some good work when he was a judge. In which case, why bother having courts at all? Such leniency will only result in people taking the law into their own hands.

[Guest 'eavensabove]

2 minutes ago, nobgobbler said:

The judge has shown by his actions that he is at the very least a paedo sympathiser and what he did by letting him off makes him an enabler. His actions are condoning paedophelia, that's why I said the judge might be one himself, and why wouldn't he be? Anybody can be a paedo regardless of who they are or what they do for living. Especially when they are in positions of trust, like a vicar or a judge. I'd like to see the guidelines he followed in arriving at his judgement. It often takes years to bring a paedo cunt to court at a huge financial cost to the taxpayer and at a massive personal cost to victims. Just to be let off like that isn't right. Perhaps I'm wrong, he might be a great bloke, but as a judge he hasn't behaved in a way that is fit for purpose and he needs looking at, seriously. If he were brought to the stand for committing a serious crime, by his method of ruling he would he be let off because he did some good work when he was a judge. In which case, why bother having courts at all? Such leniency will only result in people taking the law into their own hands.

Courts, in the main, are a place where the guilty are freed, and the innocent are bolted-up. Thank fuck we haven't got the Death Penalty, as without any doubt many hundreds of innocent people throughout my lifetime alone would have hung. The real, proven guilty who many would argue should be put to death, do not deserve death. Shipman and West for example took the first opportunity to kill themselves rather than to languish in prison for years of abuse. Death to these people is their own escape from their categorically proven guilt, whilst can you imagine the mind-set of a person completely innocent and yet strung-up and hung for fuck all?  It goes on in the States 24/7 and the only thing that can possibly help you is dollar bills... Isn't it You Basketball players?

[Guest Drew P Pissflaps]

the term "previous good character" I find very misleading. Is it good that he tries to get people to believe in the big sky fairy? or is he a smart arse cunt but let his guard slip and got caught this time. 

[Guest nobgobbler]

21 minutes ago, Drew P Pissflaps said:

the term "previous good character" I find very misleading. Is it good that he tries to get people to believe in the big sky fairy? or is he a smart arse cunt but let his guard slip and got caught this time. 

It's the opposite end of another favourite of the judiciary, "he is a changed man".

[Guest Lady Penelope]

The retired tax inspector who lived in Wellesley Avenue and drove an Armstrong Siddeley Star Sapphire and was a "good friend" of the Methodist minister .. "They're not a ladies men!", Old Mrs Walmsley the minister's housekeeper would say.

[Mrs Roops]

1 hour ago, nobgobbler said:

The judge has shown by his actions that he is at the very least a paedo sympathiser and what he did by letting him off makes him an enabler. His actions are condoning paedophelia, that's why I said the judge might be one himself, and why wouldn't he be? Anybody can be a paedo regardless of who they are or what they do for living. Especially when they are in positions of trust, like a vicar or a judge. I'd like to see the guidelines he followed in arriving at his judgement. It often takes years to bring a paedo cunt to court at a huge financial cost to the taxpayer and at a massive personal cost to victims. Just to be let off like that isn't right. Perhaps I'm wrong, he might be a great bloke, but as a judge he hasn't behaved in a way that is fit for purpose and he needs looking at, seriously. If he were brought to the stand for committing a serious crime, by his method of ruling he would he be let off because he did some good work when he was a judge. In which case, why bother having courts at all? Such leniency will only result in people taking the law into their own hands.

From the brief details one can see from the newspaper article, the judge was indeed following Sentencing Council guidelines. There appears to be little or no aggravating circumstances whilst in mitigation the church minister has no previous convictions and is of previous good character. Furthermore the judge was obliged to reduce sentence for the early guilty plea. I'm somewhat alarmed by your initial stance - "anybody can be a paedo" therefore they are. That may not what you believe but that what comes across.

[Guest 'eavensabove]

45 minutes ago, nobgobbler said:

It's the opposite end of another favourite of the judiciary, "he is a changed man".

"Of previously good character?"  "He's a changed man?"

What about the little boys, who've had their characters destroyed and their manliness taken...

[PANZER MURPHY]

There are some crimes that are beyond sympathy ..anything involving children fall into that category. .I believe the miscreants penis should be nailed to a table ..and the table set on fire and hand him a boning knife 

Panzerknacker 

[Guest Gong Farmer]

1 hour ago, 'eavensabove said:

Courts, in the main, are a place where the guilty are freed, and the innocent are bolted-up. Thank fuck we haven't got the Death Penalty, as without any doubt many hundreds of innocent people throughout my lifetime alone would have hung. The real, proven guilty who many would argue should be put to death, do not deserve death. Shipman and West for example took the first opportunity to kill themselves rather than to languish in prison for years of abuse. Death to these people is their own escape from their categorically proven guilt, whilst can you imagine the mind-set of a person completely innocent and yet strung-up and hung for fuck all?  It goes on in the States 24/7 and the only thing that can possibly help you is dollar bills... Isn't it You Basketball players?

The death penalty is nothing more than state sanctioned killing and has no place in a modern democratic society.

[Ape™️]

1 minute ago, Panzerknacker said:

There are some crimes that are beyond sympathy ..anything involving children fall into that category. .I believe the miscreants penis should be nailed to a table ..and the table set on fire and hand him a boning knife 

Panzerknacker 

Holy shit! I actually agree with you!

[Guest 'eavensabove]

Just now, Gong Farmer said:

The death penalty is nothing more than state sanctioned killing and has no place in a modern democratic society.

Here Here. 

[Guest 'eavensabove]

7 minutes ago, Gong Farmer said:

The death penalty is nothing more than state sanctioned killing and has no place in a modern democratic society.

Another problem of course, is the prison system itself. A person who repeatedly drives without insurance for example, is treated the same as a paedo or a murderer. They are banged-up in the same place and in many instances lifers etc. get privileges that even people on the out don't get! I dunno what the answer is, but surely different prisons should be allocated for different crimes and their seriousness, and all of this beyond the fact that the old bill and the courts are as corrupt as fuck in the first place.... The police would argue that crime is down. It is only down due to how many people are nicked, and nicked for what? Crime or Innocence? 

[PANZER MURPHY]

10 minutes ago, Ape said:

Holy shit! I actually agree with you!

I may be many things but like most Ive little pity for those who punch downwards and will punish where possible 

Panzerknacker 

[PANZER MURPHY]

15 minutes ago, Gong Farmer said:

The death penalty is nothing more than state sanctioned killing and has no place in a modern democratic society.

I'd normally agree with you gong baby but there are some individuals in society that are beyond redemption. death penalty should not be seen as a punishment but more of a pruning of the threats to society 

Panzerknacker 

[Guest 'eavensabove]

5 minutes ago, Panzerknacker said:

I'd normally agree with you gong baby but there are some individuals in society that are beyond redemption. death penalty should not be seen as a punishment but more of a pruning of the threats to society 

Panzerknacker 

Totally disagree. It only takes one innocent to swing for the death penalty to be a no-go.

Is it not enough already that our armed police get away with cold blooded murder? Taking out innocent sons & fathers without any remorse!

[Guest Lady Penelope]

10 minutes ago, 'eavensabove said:

Another problem of course, is the prison system itself. A person who repeatedly drives without insurance for example, is treated the same as a paedo or a murderer. They are banged-up in the same place and in many instances lifers etc. get privileges that even people on the out don't get! I dunno what the answer is, but surely different prisons should be allocated for different crimes and their seriousness, and all of this beyond the fact that the old bill and the courts are as corrupt as fuck in the first place.... The police would argue that crime is down. It is only down due to how many people are nicked, and nicked for what? Crime or Innocence? 

If you have had the dubious "pleasure" of seeing the broken body of a child killed by a speeding motorist who also happened to be unisured your feelings that they might be treated in the same say as a paedo or murderer tend to be muted. We also have this slightly grey situation where an 18 year old who has had sex with his/her 15 years old girlfriend/boyfriend is treated by the law in the same way that say a 28, 38 or 48 years old would be treated. I can think of quite a few rushed weddings or shildren born out of wedlock in the late 60s up until the mid 1980s at least that would now lead to court cases.

[PANZER MURPHY]

2 minutes ago, 'eavensabove said:

Totally disagree. It only takes one innocent to swing for the death penalty to be a no-go.

You misunderstood me maybe. .I'm not a string em up merchant..capital punishment needs checks and balances..modern forensics and science can prove guilt enough for a life sentence so why not accept it as solid evidence of guilt for the noose. .take that utter scumbag that murdered those two little girls in Soham utterly useless to society except maybe as a landmine detector 

Panzerknacker 

[Guest Lady Penelope]

The last thing we need as a society is our moral values inspired or driven by the likes of The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express etc.

[Guest 'eavensabove]

2 minutes ago, The Lady Penelope said:

If you have had the dubious "pleasure" of seeing the broken body of a child killed by a speeding motorist who also happened to be unisured your feelings that they might be treated in the same say as a paedo or murderer tend to be muted. We also have this slightly grey situation where an 18 year old who has had sex with his/her 15 years old girlfriend/boyfriend is treated by the law in the same way that say a 28, 38 or 48 years old would be treated. I can think of quite a few rushed weddings or shildren born out of wedlock in the late 60s up until the mid 1980s at least that would now lead to court cases.

Point taken, however if we have to have laws, then let them be accurately enforced. A crime is a crime and sure, it's a cunt if you happen to be at the hard end of one, but?

[Guest Lady Penelope]

1 minute ago, Panzerknacker said:

You misunderstood me maybe. .I'm not a string em up merchant..capital punishment needs checks and balances..modern forensics and science can prove guilt enough for a life sentence so why not accept it as solid evidence of guilt for the noose. .take that utter scumbag that murdered those two little girls in Soham utterly useless to society except maybe as a landmine detector 

Panzerknacker 

There is an argument for cases where guilt is absolutely certain and also that there no likelihood of it ever being safe to release the individual back into society. Multiple murder .. highly serious sex crimes and religious fruitcakes who murder are such examples .. we also need to deal with the latter by removing all religious  rights and respect from them.

[Earl of Punkape]

9 minutes ago, The Lady Penelope said:

The last thing we need as a society is our moral values inspired or driven by the likes of The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express etc.

Or the BBC or Peter Tatchell or the Guardian....

[Roadkill]

1 hour ago, Mrs Roops said:

From the brief details one can see from the newspaper article, the judge was indeed following Sentencing Council guidelines. There appears to be little or no aggravating circumstances whilst in mitigation the church minister has no previous convictions and is of previous good character. Furthermore the judge was obliged to reduce sentence for the early guilty plea. I'm somewhat alarmed by your initial stance - "anybody can be a paedo" therefore they are. That may not what you believe but that what comes across.

Honestly though, after someone has shown this kind of interest in a child and been found guilty their past, no matter how good, shouldn't come into it. As a minister he's in a position of power and trust over others and he's betrayed it by doing this. He's not directly harmed a child, but they found shit on his computer and it's clearly been a long held fantasy of his to do so. He shouldn't just be allowed to walk away from this without doing time.

If anything a few years in prison would have made him less of a target from vigilantes who will undoubtedly be after his blood now.