“Woman” fails to attend court: child indecent image charges

Nice of the curtains twitchers to address him how he wished to be addressed though.

Who said chivalry was dead?

happydappy2 · Yesterday 14:43

The ETBB needs serious revision, Ipso reporting guidelines need to be overhauled & then an enquiry into how & why organisations that should know better, have swallowed this ideology.

Ideally, the ETBB should be launched into space, along with its authors.

I agree with posters who say that this excuse of a person ought at least to be suspended. Many supermarkets are full of kids at lunchtime and after school. Who knows what the horrible sod could get up to?

Not in the name of women 😭

Totally agree. How can a known paedophile be supported by his employers to continue in a public facing role?

It really does seem that if you’re going to break the law, slap on a cheap wig and an M&S frock, change your name from Dave to Destiny and the entire justice system panders to your every whim.

Agree completely. A known paedophile regardless of the severity should not be representing Asda.

Yes absolutely, me too. He should be employed somewhere that he will not have access to children, and probation services should be following him very closely.

I agree with all of this.

A lot of parents' "what to do in the event you get lost" chats with their kids will involve suggesting the kid finds a transport or shop employee in uniform to ask for assistance

This man can work in the warehouse.

The court seems to have colluded with his suggestion that his nonce man self was a different person. How are we to be assured that this new lady won't suddenly have a lapse of judgement and find "herself" acting as a nonce man again? I don't know much about managing the reintegration of paedophiles into society but would guess it starts with owning and facing what you've done?

On the employment issue, I'm normally the first one to say that offenders should keep their housing and employment if possible because the only thing more dangerous than an offender is a homeless, unemployed offender with nothing to lose.

But somewhere like ASDA is a really bad idea. Offending of this kind has a massive recidivism rate and escalates, and supermarkets are full of children, often unsupervised or poorly supervised. I mean if you can't send your kid to the shops for a first solo outing, where can you?

You can shelf stack at night if you need to keep a job.

Thank you for explaining this. I have a friend who works with sex offenders as a probation officer. I can’t deny that I would never be able to do this role and the thought of it makes me sick. But at the end of the day, if the work she does helps to decrease recidivism then that decreases the number of victims. I have very mixed feelings on it all due to the repulsion I feel towards people who hurt children, but I don’t want that to diminish attempts to keep them safe.

Thanks Motorina. You’re right and thanks for putting it so clearly. I’m still feeling a bit pitch forky though.

What a time to be alive.

Setting aside the absurdity of calling this individual a woman...

When you download an image from the internet, you make a copy on your own computer. That's what the "making" in the charge refers to. It does not mean he has been actually creating new images.

In this case, it's two copies of one image, where the image is in the least serious category, and so will not involve sexual activity.

I am not saying that's okay. I'm not! But whether the risk posed by this individual is sufficient to justify stopping him working is a whole different question. Especially as taking away stable employment is likely to increase rather than reduce the risk of future re-offending. There inevitably will be much higher risk people (with potentially hundreds or thousands of much more offensive images) in that community and in that asda.

'Making' doesn't mean physically taking the pictures, it's how they describe accessing pictures on a computer.

But yes, I notice his Damascene conversion was just last year. And now he's changed, your honour!.

Disgusting, how does he think the poor child he victimised felt? Scared, ashamed, alone??

For some reason, it's referred to as "making" images when people download them from the internet; he wasn't necessarily creating new images. Some legal terminology thing, I suppose.

Asda definitely sacked someone for reposting a Billy Connolly video on their own personal facebook page, it was considered "gross misconduct" because it was deemed to be islamophobic and he was dismissed without notice the same day https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/asda-sacks-worker-for-sharing-17113134

Which supermarket was it that sacked a worker for comments he'd made on social media? I can't recall now but what that man did was nothing like as bad as this man. Who gets to keep his job.

Honestly it's an absolute disgrace

He says "facing who I used to be" as if it was decades ago not last year he was making indecent images of children. Making, not just viewing.

This man still has a fucking job. If Asda don't fire him immediately....

Why the fuck are people falling over themselves to protect the feewings of a fucking nonce?

Seething reading how the legal establishment are tripping over themselves to protect the welfare of a paedophile. Who the hell is he fooling when he insinuates this crime was committed when he was a different person? Sorry you creep, changing your name and putting on a wig, a dress and high heels does not change who you really are.

If our legal system is not fit for purpose when it comes to Safeguarding children will it come as any surprise when the general public seek out their own justice?

I’ve left Ito late to edit my post, but wanted to add that his address is about 150 metres from a nursery and primary school. But I guess he’ll now blend right in at the school gates.

He could have changed his name by Deed Poll and that could be what he means by it being legal.

At least he ended up in court with his face in the newspaper.

Is paedophile gender like rapist gender?

“…not to have any unsupervised contact with children under 18, as is unavoidable in the course of everyday life.
This would allow the defendant to continue her job at Asda, the court heard.”

I know that Asda. It’s the only large supermarket in the area. It’s the only place to physically buy cheap kids clothes. It’s got a large children’s clothes area and toys. Just outside the doors there are fixed rides for kids. I cannot understand how he’s been allowed to carry on working at Asda. Surely even if the court said he could (why) he would have broken some contract with Asda and could be suspended with pay until charge.

I wouldn’t particularly like to be a peodophile in Workington though, so there is that.

Referring to a name change, the defendant added: “It’s a legal status now and everything.”

Please tell me that doesn't mean they've got a fucking GRC.