To want to slap some sense into this judge

[mrsrat]

Have just read that Shaun Bloomfield, a convicted peopdophile, who was banned from being around young children after being convicted of sexual offences with children 4 times was sentenced to 6 months when he was caught attending a childrens party. He could have been sentenced to 5 years. What the hell is going on ? I really really want to speak to this judge and ask him how he would feel if it was his children or grandchildren that had been at the party. Th happens time and time again why ?

YABU. He attended a 16th birthday party, his court order prevents him approaching or being in contact with females under 16. It doesnt say whose party it was, could have been a niecce. family member etc which would ahve explained his presence more easily. Take tabloid stories like this with a bucketload pinch of salt.

I think 6 months for an error in his judgement was correct, as he should really have left the party when he realised there were younger children attending.

What I find more disturbing is the case mentioned briefly underneath this story, about the man convicted to only 9 months for having over 7000 child porn images on his computer, that he was sharing with other like minded people. Considering that these images allegedly contained images of the rape and torture of children, 9 months is too lenient imo.

Five years for breaking a condition of his probation sounds very strong, I doubt the sun got that right to be honest.

kelly2000 The Sun is right - it happens occasionally - about the maximum, but this was probably not a case for the max or anywhere near it.

Mumbling the scenario with your neighbour is entirely different to the scenario in this thread.

People here are just saying that they cannot make a judgement call, either way, on a piece printed in the tabloid press.

Their cautiousness if you like is based on the fact that they may not have the full picture from what has been printed, nothing more and nothing less.

What's so wrong with that? It's a valid argument is it not?

I personally believe it was right that this chap went to prison. He broke a court order. If he hadn't gone to prison then clearly the order would have had no teeth. And the fact he went to prison is a deterrent to others in terms of breaching any type of court order.