Vicars have the right to be paedos says judge

[Guest 'eavensabove]

5 hours ago, The Lady Penelope said:

The example I saw was a fuckwit who had fitted bull bars to a tatty old Nissan 4x4 and then went racing along the street at 50mph. He later tried to claim that the 4x4 was a farm vehicle and he did not need specific insurance to drive it on the road and it was covered by the insurance condition of the tractors on his parents farm! It was late 1980s, he was fined £500 and had a three year driving ban .. should have been done for murder.

Well, it's plain to see that the cunt should have been hung.

Just for the record, I haven't got a licence and yet I still drive. Mind you, in my defence I aint got a dog. 

[Stubby Pecker]

3 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Don't write him off just yet, 'Scrote. With newbie Gary joining the site, and with Pansy, Pen and Punkers still attempting to post something worth reading, Bubba still has a future here.  

Bubba is finished. His spiteful, humourless crap doesn't work now decs and Quincy aren't here to hold his hand, plus he's very busy closing out some massive business deal. After the terry tibbs incident, decs won't be back unless he can accept a massive cunting, the tit. 

[Guest 'eavensabove]

1 minute ago, Stubby Pecker said:

Bubba is finished. His spiteful, humourless crap doesn't work now decs and Quincy aren't here to hold his hand, plus he's very busy closing out some massive business deal. After the terry tibbs incident, decs won't be back unless he can accept a massive cunting, the tit. 

But surely, all are welcome on this site... save for me.

[Guest Lady Penelope]

5 minutes ago, 'eavensabove said:

But surely, all are welcome on this site... save for me.

And me

[Guest Mingeeta]

7 hours 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 

Wow something we agree on.

No punishment is too lenient for paedo scumbuckets.

When my eldest daughter was 10, I travelled 3 hours to Bristol to sort out this worthless piece of shit of a teacher that I was told, and believe did, touch my daughter up. When I got there, there were 4 other sets of parents there aswell, and between us all, and the gates, were the coppers. Wouldn't let us in, and what was more annoying, the school didn't believe any of us.

That twat stayed employed for another two years before he was eventually caught.

 

[Wolfie]

8 hours 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 

It pains me to say it, but I wholly agree with your statement, Pansy baby. If modern technology can prove enough for a life sentence, it can also justify death in extreme circumstances.

Ps. Get fucked, you freeloading, sponging, lazy cunt.

[Guest 'eavensabove]

8 hours 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 

Yes, but Huntley, want's to die. That cunt suffers, each and every day, and too fucking right he should. He deserves to live a life of hell, and only then go to it. Should we allow him to die, or even condemn him too? Nah, let the cunt live, day in and day out within his very own living nightmare.

[Mrs Roops]

10 hours ago, DingTheRioja said:

Bollocks.

• 9  category A,
• 25 category B images,
• 21 category C images
• 124 prohibited images of children.

Sentencing....

  Hide contents

	Possession	Distribution	Production
Category A	Starting point 1 year’s custody Category range 26 weeks’ – 3 years’ custody	Starting point 3 years’ custody Category range 2 – 5 years’ custody	Starting point 6 years’ custody Category range 4 – 9 years’ custody
Category B	Starting point 26 weeks’ custody Category range High level community order – 18 months’ custody	Starting point 1 year’s custody Category range 26 weeks’ – 2 years’ custody	Starting point 2 years’ custody Category range 1 – 4 years’ custody
Category C	Starting point High level community order Category range Medium level community order – 26 weeks’ custody	Starting point 13 weeks’ custody Category range High level community order – 26 weeks’ custody	Starting point 18 months’ custody Category range 1 – 3 years’ custody

Add to that..

So, he has numerous high category images, shit loads of other category images, and he has distributed prohibited images along with paedophilic stories, ones that he fucking well hand wrote.

He posted these stories to his neighbours for fucks sake, that's not just distribution, thats' sick distribution, terrorising the people he's been put there to fucking well look after!

Looking at those sentencing guidelines, a starting point is at least one year, with the "good character" possibly mitigating it to just one year, or if the cunt with the wig on inists, 26 weeks porridge.

 

Oh, and I like this bit...

Fucking church... he should be sacked instantly, what do you think will happen to any football coaches or school teachers caught with this shit? Sacked and jailed, but no, because the cunt wears a fucking skirt with that dodgy 'tache he walks.

 

The judge is an enabler, and that is as bad.  Just as the owners/mods on here can be held responsible for any shit we post, the judge is responsible if this cunt ever does anything ever again,  he's excused the cunt from this.

5% of the images found on Low's computer were category A. As your own quote from the Sentencing Council says, "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." Factor in mitigating elements and the absence of aggravating features together with the reduction in sentence for the early guilty plea (a quarter to a third discount) then its clear the judge was right on the money within the terms of the guidelines. Now it's possible that you have received a better legal training, have more experience and a keener mind than Judge Benson, a highly regarded QC and judicial tutor, but I doubt it.

[Mrs Roops]

9 hours ago, nobgobbler said:

I believe the judge is a sympathetic enabler and therefore not fit for purpose in his roll. How would you feel if some cunt murdered someone you care about and the judge let him off because of his previous good character? It's not a good enough reason is it? Yes there are guidelines, and I agree there is a difference between a perpetual criminal and someone who commits a crime for the first time in some misguided way. I've heard it takes time and perseverance to find kiddie porn, that it's not that easy to get hold of, if that's true, then the vicar surely would have had to have gone out of his way to find it. And posting stuff through peoples letterboxes - vicar or not, he's a pervert and should have been sufficiently dealt with. Don't drink diet coke it causes blood clots. 

Convicted murderers receive a mandatory life sentence. The judge in the Low case sentenced him within terms of the sentencing guidelines and has to give his reasoning in court and provide a written report as to how he arrived at his decision. The judge is obviously not an "enabler" let alone a possible paedophile. Your problem lies not with the judge but with the Sentencing Council who lay down guidelines framed by various acts of parliament and the politicians who drafted same.

[Guest DingTheRioja]

8 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

5% of the images found on Low's computer were category A. As your own quote from the Sentencing Council says, "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." Factor in mitigating elements and the absence of aggravating features together with the reduction in sentence for the early guilty plea (a quarter to a third discount) then its clear the judge was right on the money within the terms of the guidelines. Now it's possible that you have received a better legal training, have more experience and a keener mind than Judge Benson, a highly regarded QC and judicial tutor, but I doubt it.

Distribution?

 

And as for legal training, the judiciary is there to represent the will and morals of the time, how often are judges castigated for being out of touch?

[Stubby Pecker]

8 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

5% of the images found on Low's computer were category A. As your own quote from the Sentencing Council says, "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." Factor in mitigating elements and the absence of aggravating features together with the reduction in sentence for the early guilty plea (a quarter to a third discount) then its clear the judge was right on the money within the terms of the guidelines. Now it's possible that you have received a better legal training, have more experience and a keener mind than Judge Benson, a highly regarded QC and judicial tutor, but I doubt it.

Are you purposely trying to get the corner frothing at the areshole? Rules applied to sentencing are all well and good but I suspect 99% of cunts will see this as extremely an lenient sentence for someone in a position of trust and would rightly question the judges reasoning for not being much, much harsher. It's reasonable to suggest that he represents a serious danger to children and should be kept well away from the public. Or maybe the judge thought "I'll give this cunt a short jail term and when he gets out someone will do the real job of punishment". But I doubt it. What example does this set for a similar case? Shall I report it with a good chance his "good character" will ensure a slap on the wrist and don't do it again naughty boy or shall I go round to see him at 3am and make absolutely certain he can't harm a child and destroy a family?

[Guest Lady Penelope]

I wonder just whos' letterboxes he was posting his fantasies through? There is also the matter of the burglary at his house that he was daft enough to report. There seems to be much more to this case than is being made public.

[Guest nobgobbler]

10 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

Convicted murderers receive a mandatory life sentence. The judge in the Low case sentenced him within terms of the sentencing guidelines and has to give his reasoning in court and provide a written report as to how he arrived at his decision. The judge is obviously not an "enabler" let alone a possible paedophile. Your problem lies not with the judge but with the Sentencing Council who lay down guidelines framed by various acts of parliament and the politicians who drafted same.

"Enabler - a person who makes something possible". 

[Wolfie]

1 hour ago, Stubby Pecker said:

Are you purposely trying to get the corner frothing at the areshole? Rules applied to sentencing are all well and good but I suspect 99% of cunts will see this as extremely an lenient sentence for someone in a position of trust and would rightly question the judges reasoning for not being much, much harsher. It's reasonable to suggest that he represents a serious danger to children and should be kept well away from the public. Or maybe the judge thought "I'll give this cunt a short jail term and when he gets out someone will do the real job of punishment". But I doubt it. What example does this set for a similar case? Shall I report it with a good chance his "good character" will ensure a slap on the wrist and don't do it again naughty boy or shall I go round to see him at 3am and make absolutely certain he can't harm a child and destroy a family?

You've hit the nail on the head, Stubbs. Making an example of a situation, and one undoubtedly of many in future, serves as the greatest possible deterrent. 

[Guest nobgobbler]

On 03/05/2017 at 9:02 AM, DingTheRioja said:

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....

You'll be alright if you get Judge Roops.

[Stubby Pecker]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

You've hit the nail on the head, Stubbs. Making an example of a situation, and one undoubtedly of many in future, serves as the greatest possible deterrent. 

The nation has just voted to leave the EU, on the back of some lies from the leave campaign, by a very slender margin. I'd put my nuts on the line and say if we had a vote on whether paedos, violent rapists and murders should be hung, or at the very least made to suffer for the rest of their lives, the yes vote would be more that 55%

[Wolfie]

17 minutes ago, Stubby Pecker said:

The nation has just voted to leave the EU, on the back of some lies from the leave campaign, by a very slender margin. I'd put my nuts on the line and say if we had a vote on whether paedos, violent rapists and murders should be hung, or at the very least made to suffer for the rest of their lives, the yes vote would be more that 55%

Concurred – to a point. In my opinion, the world would be a better place without such people in it. That said, those who fit this character and commit such crimes, such as Ian Brady, who has time and again said he wants to die because he can no longer tolerate prison, and Ian Huntley, to whom Pansy referred and has tried to hang himself on more than one occasion, have been proven to suffer terribly in jail. Likewise, Harold Shipman took the easy way out by suicide. In hindsight, knowing he had been raped in the showers would remind us perhaps more euphemistically of the pain and heartache suffered by the families of his victims. Could this serve as a better deterrent than a straightforward death penalty? America, and Ohio and Texas in particular, are good examples of the death penalty not always proving successful. 

There's a good argument here to allow them suffer a life term.

[Mrs Roops]

3 hours ago, DingTheRioja said:

Distribution?

 

And as for legal training, the judiciary is there to represent the will and morals of the time, how often are judges castigated for being out of touch?

From the newspaper report Low enclosed prohibited images with his penned fantasies. For the sake of argument if he had enclosed Category C images then according to the guidelines matrix this would incur a staring point of 13 weeks custody (usually suspended as per the guidelines) but within a range of a high level community order to 26 weeks custody. As I said before, the judge was right on the money with his judgement.

As for your final paragraph, a quick perusal of MoJ stats show that Magistrates Courts dispose between 350,000 to 400,000 criminal cases per quarter and Crown Courts dispose 30,000 to 40,000 criminal cases per quarter. Considering the volume, instances of Judges being accused of "being out of touch" are remarkably low. The press when reporting, cherry pick some cases with misleading head and by-lines and are oft followed up with Richard Littlejohn type "why oh why" outrage. If one looks at the facts of such cases, more often than not the judge's hands were tied as to what he/she can do. I don't wish to labour the point, but judges have a statutory duty to comply within the scope of the law. One often hears that the judiciary must be independent and to a certain extent that is true but like it or not parliament must reign supreme and rightly so.

[The Beast]

The sentences for many crimes are, in the view of some, lenient, We have one of the highest incarceration rates per capita in Europe, but in the middle compared to the rest of the world. I understand mistrust of our learned friends in the judiciary, but if guidelines are issued by the ministry of justice, he or she must consider them when sentencing. We simply don't have the resources to lock up the number of people we sometimes would like. I don't blame the judge. The perpetrator of the crime and HM government are the cunts.

[Guest Lady Penelope]

7 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Concurred – to a point. In my opinion, the world would be a better place without such people in it. That said, those who fit this character and commit such crimes, such as Ian Brady, who has time and again said he wants to die because he can no longer tolerate prison, and Ian Huntley, to whom Pansy referred and has tried to hang himself on more than one occasion, have been proven to suffer terribly in jail. Likewise, Harold Shipman took the easy way out by suicide. In hindsight, knowing he had been raped in the showers would remind us perhaps more euphemistically of the pain and heartache suffered by the families of his victims. Could this serve as a better deterrent than a straightforward death penalty? America, and Ohio and Texas in particular, are good examples of the death penalty not always proving successful. 

There's a good argument here to allow them suffer a life term.

I think that much of the problem in america is that they keep them on death ow for many years in some cases more than 20 years whilst yes they do eventually get executed n the meantime they often have what might look to be a cushy time by some litle oik with a gun who is robbing a petrol station or store and realises that if he gets caught it might still be a long time before he pays the penalty often I would think that the thought of facing a life sentence without the cushy extras of 20 years on death row might be more of a deterrent.

 

[Guest Lady Penelope]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

 Richard Littlejohn type "why oh why" outrage.

Richard Littlejohn does of course have blood on his hands.

[Mrs Roops]

3 hours ago, Stubby Pecker said:

Are you purposely trying to get the corner frothing at the areshole? Rules applied to sentencing are all well and good but I suspect 99% of cunts will see this as extremely an lenient sentence for someone in a position of trust and would rightly question the judges reasoning for not being much, much harsher. It's reasonable to suggest that he represents a serious danger to children and should be kept well away from the public. Or maybe the judge thought "I'll give this cunt a short jail term and when he gets out someone will do the real job of punishment". But I doubt it. What example does this set for a similar case? Shall I report it with a good chance his "good character" will ensure a slap on the wrist and don't do it again naughty boy or shall I go round to see him at 3am and make absolutely certain he can't harm a child and destroy a family?

Lets be clear Stubbs, one paedo image, just one, represents an unmitigated disaster for the child and immeasurable anguish for the child's family. There is no reliable figure as to the number of paedo images on the net, the highest figure I've seen is 30 million. Whilst people may joke about my detached, Vulcan manner, I am a human being and a mother. Now of course I share the same sentiments with any decent person about paedophilia. That said, vigilante justice does not work, there has been too many cases of innocent lives being utterly ruined by self-appointed judges who more often than not are motivated by fear and ignorance.

[Guest Lady Penelope]

11 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

 That said, vigilante justice does not work, there has been too many cases of innocent lives being utterly ruined by self-appointed judges who more often than not are motivated by fear and ignorance.

There have also I believe been a number of cases where some of the  vigilantes have themselves turned out to have had serious criminal records including a case of one of them being a convicted rapist and another having been prosecuted for child sex offences.

[Guest 'eavensabove]

Well, I for one, wouldn't live in a country that enforced the death penalty. On the other hand, I'd have no fear of taking some cunt out if he/she messed with my kids. There are times when the law sucks, and one has to take matters into their own hands to gain 'proper' justice. Manky, previously mentioned his own experience with the 'law' when it comes down to 'proven guilty' perv's, and although its easier said than done, I'd have followed the cunt home or would still track the cunt down and quite simply snuff him out. Job done and without depending on so-called law. I'd not be able to rest otherwise. Amen. 

[Guest 'eavensabove]

1 hour ago, The Lady Penelope said:

There have also I believe been a number of cases where some of the  vigilantes have themselves turned out to have had serious criminal records including a case of one of them being a convicted rapist and another having been prosecuted for child sex offences.

 Whatever it is that we've been doing with these paedo's in terms of 'punishment' is obviously not working. That much is true. More should be done to prevent these cunts, as punishment is of little consequence. Many of them don't give two fucks about getting caught, and they'll still deny having done anything wrong. Are they ill? Who fucking knows, but we should at least care to eradicate this problem from happening. It goes on too much and has done for too long and simply locking the cunts up or even hanging the bastards will not address the bigger issue.