To wonder if sexual abuse is even a crime anymore?

[GeidiPrimes]

25,000 indecent images of children, incl many cat A. And "extreme" images of animals being sexually abused/tortured also. £300 towards costs and placed on a SHPO. And that's it! Not even banned from keeping animals.

Like many sex-offenders, he's changed his name by deed poll and started afresh in a new area.

I have some thoughts on this, (he was a prominent businessman in the area and knows the right people ) Our court system sees it fitting to send vulnerable women to prison for petty offences like soliciting or non-payment of household bills. Musn't kink-shame a man though because we must Be Kind.

There has been no mention of his victims that I can see.

Link

But he was a man of previous good character and he openly admitted he was guilty so it's all fine. Plus, he's done a few courses so deserves a pat on the back for that. Maybe even a gold medal. Who cares about the children and animals? No mention of them at all.

It's despicable.

Sentenced to 18 months suspended for 24 months

I really don't understand these suspended sentences.

What does it mean? No jail unless he's caught again??

I despair at our justice system.
There is little long term jail time unless it's serious crime and it's always immediately cut in half somehow

Must be from underfunding and a 'come back when someone's dies attitude'

Unless it's traffic offences

I’ve been told that an apology is sufficient for a mild sexual assault. By a prominent lawyer no less

Sentenced to 18 months suspended for 24 months
I really don't understand these suspended sentences

If he re-offends in the next 24 months, then in theory he would do the 18 months prison. Probably not in practice though.

Funnily enough I had a similar order for possession of class A drugs many years ago. Mine was much stricter, with the rehabilitation order to run for 24 months, not 60 days. This involved having my mouth swabbed every day and providing urine.

Court system, designed by men for men.

@GeidiPrimes

Exactly! Designed for men by men.

As long as it’s not then being raped or women that “belong “ to them then it’s all not a big deal.

I’m hoping for the day roving bands of angry women go on vengeance hunts for these men. I will happily join.

Once enough women take up vigilante justice then perhaps more punishment would be handed down for these perverts.

Funny enough, if we did that then the women would be the monsters, not the rapists.

They save the heavy sentences for the traffickers, producers and distributors of child porn. Being a consumer of images isn’t viewed as seriously. Sad but true.

Similar to being a drug user isn’t as “criminal” as being a drug dealer.

YANBU

I was sexually abused as a kid and it’s one of the things that actually stops me going to the police and reporting the crime. I can’t imagine going through the whole process, reliving it all again, for my abuser to get a legal slap on the wrist. It’s unlikely he would even be jailed let alone jailed for a long time. There are more rapists that go free than actually get a custodial sentence. It’s disgusting

It's fucking disgusting. Possession of those images should be the same sentence as creating those images/performing the assault (in my opinion). He in fact did admit to making some images but OH WELL NEVER MIND.
WTF 'good character'. You aren't judging the person you are punishing a crime. Which he commited. All the other times he 'didnt' commit it (must take a fair while to rack up that many images) means FUCK ALL. 'Good characters' commit crimes. Clearly. It means naff all.
More care given to the disgusting abuser than the children being abused...even though they were male. You just don't feature as a person unless a flawed adult man can identify with you too.
There's more disgust for public incontinence than there is for sex offences. It's staggeringly twisted.

I doubt rapists ever worry about going to jail before they do it. My friend was raped by her ex and the police basically told her not to bother

. You'd have to be extremely unlucky to actually be found guilty of raping only one woman.

I think you're being a little disingenuous with the thread title. Unless I've misread, he hasn't committed, been charged with, or found guilty of sexual assault.

If the confusion comes from his being found guilty of "making" indecent images, that is a very wide ranging definition which includes copying an image or sending it to someone else, for example. It doesn't necessarily mean he actually created the image.

As @EmpressCixi says, possession of images is generally treated much more leniently than being responsible for creating them, a bit like drug possession vs drug trafficking.

Fucking disgraceful. He should have gone to prison. You know like a criminal!
Previous good character means diddly squat.
I find the treatment of these cases infuriating.

Downloading counts as "making"

If he had actually been the abuser (as opposed to being a customer of images of abuse) I think the charges would have been very different.

The name change hasnt exactly worked, as both names are in the article.

What is the maximum sentence for possession of images of abuse?

@RoseAndRose

Downloading counts as "making"

If he had actually been the abuser (as opposed to being a customer of images of abuse) I think the charges would have been very different.

The name change hasnt exactly worked, as both names are in the article.

What is the maximum sentence for possession of images of abuse?

I think it will depend strongly on the nature of the images and how serious they are deemed to be, but CPS guidance suggests a maximum of 10 years if I'm reading it correctly: www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

I think you're being a little disingenuous with the thread title. Unless I've misread, he hasn't committed, been charged with, or found guilty of sexual assault

Perhaps read the thread title again. Are u of the view that viewing images of children and tortured, raped and dying animals isn't sexual abuse (the term I used) then? I can tell u, from past experience, that it certainly feels that way. Victimless crime though init. The animals in the images would have been tortured to death. And you're leaping to defend the fella. Wtf

YANBU and they shouldn't allow him to just change his name and move on.

My DD was sexually assaulted and the police told her that it was just her word against his. I can understand why this wouldn't go to court but they didn't even go to speak to the guy!

@GeidiPrimes

I think you're being a little disingenuous with the thread title. Unless I've misread, he hasn't committed, been charged with, or found guilty of sexual assault

Perhaps read the thread title again. Are u of the view that viewing images of children and tortured, raped and dying animals isn't sexual abuse (the term I used) then? I can tell u, from past experience, that it certainly feels that way. Victimless crime though init. The animals in the images would have been tortured to death. And you're leaping to defend the fella. Wtf

I'm not defending him, I'm criticising your choice of words.

I do not believe it is the case that viewing images of sexual abuse is in and of itself sexual abuse.

@Lockheart

I think you're being a little disingenuous with the thread title. Unless I've misread, he hasn't committed, been charged with, or found guilty of sexual assault.

If the confusion comes from his being found guilty of "making" indecent images, that is a very wide ranging definition which includes copying an image or sending it to someone else, for example. It doesn't necessarily mean he actually created the image.

As @EmpressCixi says, possession of images is generally treated much more leniently than being responsible for creating them, a bit like drug possession vs drug trafficking.

5,000 images/videos of the most serious category of sexual abuse.

I don't think the title is disingenuous.
The man drives the industry in abusing children by acquiring these images/videos. He contributes to its normalisation, by sharing, swapping, consuming, browsing such websites.

If you are a prosecutor, an investigator, then no viewing the images is not sexual abuse.

If you are in anyway choosing to consume images of sexual abuse then you are causing images to be created. Consuming images causes abuse.

Court system, designed by men for men.

Helena Kennedy’s Eve Was Framed was first published in 1993, it’s still (sadly) totally applicable today, almost 30 years later.

Our crime and judicial systems, organisations and laws are not fit for purpose (it’s not just the courts, it’s the whole infrastructure and the culture within it).

Perhaps read the thread title again. Are u of the view that viewing images of children and tortured, raped and dying animals isn't sexual abuse (the term I used) then?

Interesting. So in your view, watching video of someone being raped is exactly the same as committing rape? I have some sympathy for this view, although I think you go to far. Someone once posted about their boyfriend watching ISIS beheading videos, I would argue that people who watch such videos should be charged with terrorism. But I do think their sentences should be less than that of the person who actually swung the sword, it's not exactly the same crime, in my view.

So in your view, watching video of someone being raped is exactly the same as committing rape?

My view is that consuming these images is sexual abuse. It's traumatising to the child knowing these images exist. I guess the person viewing the images soothes their conscience by telling themselves, "just pictures". It seems the court took this view too, there's been no mention of locating the victims to support them.

Also, criminals need to be doing crim stuff for quite a while before getting caught. So I expect there's a lot more he's got away with.

I'm criticising your choice of words

You're just being silly now. You were criticising a word (assault) I didn't even use.

I remember u from another thread Lockheart. Quite the nitpicker

Having your crimes recently uncovered is not the same as previous good character.

Can they even hear themselves?

There are actual women in prison because didnt have a tv licence. But sure look at all the pictures of child and animal sexual abuse you like, just dont watch the BBC without a licence

I’m hoping for the day roving bands of angry women go on vengeance hunts for these men. I will happily join

Yeah, must dig my copy of Scum Manifesto out