Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be surprised the lady that stabbed the paedophile got 3 and a half years?

183 replies

m1nniedriver · 29/09/2015 17:51

Just that really. I thought she would get longer. The world is a better place without him but still .... She murdered him.

OP posts:
HermioneWeasley · 29/09/2015 18:29

hopeful why don't you go first. Find the unbiased research that shows 100% of paedophiles can be rehabilitated 100% of the time (because any child at risk to preserve paedophile rights is unacceptable to me) then tell me what other services you would cut to provide this rehabilitation as it certainly isn't being provided now

KissingFish · 29/09/2015 18:30

A paedophile and a child abuser are not the same thing.
Pretty irrelevent in this case but think it's important for people to realise this.

Don't think either of these people were in the right with what they did.

Andrewofgg · 29/09/2015 18:31

The register system began in 1997 and no attempt was made to include previously convicted offenders - and it would be hopeless now.

This man was 77, she was 32, he was at his own door, she was armed, having taken a knife with her. She was the aggressor, he was the victim. In her words she "poked him with [the knife] in the front" - a.k.a. stabbed him. Eight times. Yes, he was scum, but she was lucky not to be convicted of murder and it appears:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34390935

that the judge gave her half as long as if she had not had young children.

I would not be surprised if the Attorney General referred it to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient.

Booyaka · 29/09/2015 18:36

He committed his offences pre-1997 when the sex offenders register didn't exist so he wasn't on it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out why her sentence was so short. The identity of the children involved is heavily protected in these cases and the reason for her mitigation is a secret. Just think about it.

Booyaka · 29/09/2015 18:38

I seriously doubt that AndrewFogg. I think her mitigation would have been fairly compelling. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people wouldn't think it was too long.

Branleuse · 29/09/2015 18:40

she deserves a medal.

ThroughThickAndThin01 · 29/09/2015 18:42

Yes I was surprised, I thought it lenient, you can't just go round killing people for their crimes, taking the law into your own hands, and get away with it. There must be more we dont know.

grimbletart · 29/09/2015 18:43

Some of the pathetic sentences handed out to abusers are an invitation to vigilante justice (which I don't condone) unfortunately.

Looking at his list of convictions he should never be out on the street. The man was clearly a menace to boys and "incurable".

I don't know about her sentence being "unduly lenient" - seems like the man's sentences in the past were unduly lenient.

ThroughThickAndThin01 · 29/09/2015 18:44

Do you know that Booyaka, or putting 2 and 2 together? I didn't think that from the news reports I've listened to, although I guess it might make sense.

beardsrock · 29/09/2015 18:44

I kind of agree. But then he had 26 convictions against children, so i'm kind of glad the judge was lenient.

What always surprised me is that there doesn't seem to be much retribution in these types of cases: little boys grow up to be big men and why there are not more reports of victims seeking out their perpetrator when they are older is baffling.

I worked briefly for the Probation Service and heard some horrific stories: victims often went on to commit serious violent crimes but never directed towards the abuser.

MrsTedCrilly · 29/09/2015 18:48

Hope she gets out sooner, she's done a good thing for society. There is no place for child abusers on this earth. I would slowly torture anyone who touched my child and many, many people feel the same.

sproketmx · 29/09/2015 18:49

I'd have given her a flippin medal. 24 convictions for child sex offences and he's allowed back out into the community to make it 25! The judicial system here is fucked.

Lemith · 29/09/2015 18:50

I think the fact of who he is should not be relevant. She killed someone who should of got a trial.

People that commit murder get less time if they have children?

Booyaka · 29/09/2015 18:51

Apparently this woman befriended him, considered him a good role model for young boys and defended him from other people calling him a paedo. So this doesn't seem like a case of a swivel eyed vigilante seeing paedos on every corner. It seems like he bertrayes that trust and friendship in the most horrible way.

I think the authorities really have to answer here why they sent him back to live amongst his victims on the estate where the attacks took place. It must have been horrendous for his victims and obviously wasn't safe for him either.

Booyaka · 29/09/2015 18:53

I'm putting two and two together from an informed position and knowledge of previous cases. In cases like this you really have to look at what they're not saying rather than what they are saying. And I am fairly certain that's the case here too.

ThroughThickAndThin01 · 29/09/2015 18:55

I don't think she'll get out sooner MrsTed, it was reduced from 7 years.

I'm not sure how I feel about it all tbh.

Palomb · 29/09/2015 18:57

Good for her.

LurcioAgain · 29/09/2015 19:02

Beardsrock - I think you're underestimating the long term effects of abuse and ptsd , and the complex ways victims react to their abuse in later life. One thing that doesn't get a lot of air time is that theffamous "fight or flight" reflex is inffact a "fight, flight or freeze" reflex, and when victims have frozen (often in the case of long term abuse associated with dissociation) they may carry around a lot of onternalised guilt - "why didn't I fight back", which is of course irrational but this isn't typically the sort of life experience one reacts to rationally.

I had a very sad conversation with a relative of mine about the sexual abuse he suffered as a child. He disociated to the extent of falling asleep (or possibly simply having memory blackouts). Years later he encountered his abuser in a youth hostel dormitory. His first response was to feel fear, but he then simply fell asleep - that's how strong the instinctual response his mind developed as a child was.

The film Oranges and Sunshine is very good on the range of responses of adult survivors of child abuse. The response is very unlikely to be "go out and beat seven shades of shit out of my abuser now I'm an adult and he's an old man".

RomComPhooey · 29/09/2015 19:02

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out why her sentence was so short. The identity of the children involved is heavily protected in these cases and the reason for her mitigation is a secret. Just think about it.

I had exactly the same thought. She is a single mother of 5 kids and had been befriended by him. You have to wonder what so "incensed" (as reported) her that she went round and stabbed him after he was bailed back to the same estate following new sex offence charges.

SmallLegsOrSmallEggs · 29/09/2015 19:03

I came to similar conclusion to booyaka although it may just be that she knew the lads involved as otherwise her going to his house would not have been accepted as an attempt to talk to him. The mitigation may have been that she herself was a survivor.

Plus - she handed herself in immediately
And it was found not to be premeditated despite her being armed. She went there to try to convince him not to force the kids to testify.

And he did not show up.on dbs because they cannot do a crb check without your consent. The police cannot pnc someone without reason. And a crb check is not a requirement of his job as he does not have unsupervised access to kids.

So when the council asked the police can only check SOR. And they cannot dismiss him without grounds.

They couldn't touch him until it went to court. He knew it. Hence the smirking.

Booyaka · 29/09/2015 19:05

She admitted it and has shown remorse. She'll likely serve half her sentence in prison and the rest on licence. She's already served 10 months on remand so she's likely to be released early next year.

sproketmx · 29/09/2015 19:05

Even if her children weren't abused by him she probably flipped when she realised what he was and that he'd been in contact with her kids. Why would a convicted paedo befriend a mother of five? Clearly not for her friendship. I honestly can't say I wouldn't have done the same in her position. The thought of someone like that breathing the same air as my kids makes me want to heave

IamtheDevilsAvocado · 29/09/2015 19:08

Horrid, horrid situation. It should never have happened.
Shows the massive holes in the sex offending /sec offenders' register/historic offences/probation /.... There are cracks where certain very horrible and vile offenders are in positions that have access to children.

The reality of these situations is there are too many dangerous people, many who are in the older adult population. They have a lifetime's skill at grooming people, more worryingly they are now the sweet pleasant old man that you can feel sorry for ?

It takes continual overseeing, surveillance and intelligence to sucessfully keep these people in society. Sadly, it only takes one chance for the abuser, for a child to be abused.

I worked on one case - an 85 year old man with a zimmer frame, managed to abuse a 6 year old, in sight of his family, in the middle of an amusement arcade. Horrific, and sickening, and so, so sad for the kid and their family.

SmallLegsOrSmallEggs · 29/09/2015 19:09

Whatever, her poor childrenSad

And having children is often taken as a mitugating factor in sentencing. Outrageously in the past in some cases for handing out short sentences for serious domestic abuse as the perp had kids to support. The same kids he'd been assaulting.

Sometimes it is taken into account.
Other times as in ludicrous cases of jailing lps for shoplifting it isn't.

But it is more likely to be taken into account if the kids have no other family and or have been through a traumatic event.

Booyaka · 29/09/2015 19:13

I don't want to say too much as I think it's legally dicey. But when they make a point of not specifying someone's relationship to victims it's normally because specifying what that relationship is will identify a victim. Two cases I can think of just off the top of my head are the current Marie Black case and the two women tried alongside Ian Watkins. If it was just boys she knew from around the estate that would be specified because it wouldn't identify anyone in particular.