Jimme Savile, Bryn Estyn v 14-year-old paedophile from Cambridgeshire.

[Lovefruitsandvegs]

I have just read how children were abused at Bryn Estyn where Saville used to be a regular too.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229140/Bryn-Estyn-Victims-tell-horror-inside-North-Wales-care-home--Jimmy-Savile-regular-visitor.html

Then I read about that 14-year-old paedophile from Cambridgeshire. he raped a 4-year-old girl while babysitting. He used to be a family friend. "He was let off with a community order as the judge blamed ?the world and society? for his porn addiction."
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229227/Parents-girl-raped-babysitter-14-sent-prison-fail-bid-thrown-jail.html

I feel rather sad than disgusted that the children need to be protected by adults and they are not. This 14-year-old sicko should go to prison. Letting him free just give a wrong message to other young perverts. Do they want another Jimmy Fix?

chris-ukorg.org/lenient-judges/judge-gareth-hawkesworth/

he appears to have a habbit

Regular event it seems:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/a1594726-Paedophile-babysitter-filmed-child-abuse

Hello there

We're happy for posters to discuss establish facts that are well-covered in the national press, but please be aware that we will have to delete speculation when it's reported to us. We'd be grateful if you could avoid it in your posts.

2009 - A judge has freed a Cambridge University student found with abusive images of children on his computer, claiming sending him to prison would be a ?cruel and pointless? exercise. Judge Gareth Hawkesworth said that jailing the 21-year-old would see his studies ruined if he were jailed. Hammond had more than 1,000 child abuse images on his computer ? some featuring babies just two days old. Five showed children being raped

Yet it wasn't a 'cruel and pointless exercise when sentencing a student to 16 months for hanging off the Cenataph.

I think I better go to bed as I'm going delirious with all this nonsense.

A 14-year-old child is different to a grown man. I feel its wrong to describe any child as a sicko or a pervert. It doesn't neglete what this 14 year old did, but he is in a different category to Jimmy Saville. Often children who commit sexual abuse have been sexually abused themselves. Its complex area and hard to know what to do for the best.

A child needs to be tried as a child and punished as a child whatever crime they are accused of. The wider community do need to protected until the child is rehabilated, and certainly the movements of the child need to be tightly controlled for some time.

I hope it is possible to rehabilate a 14 year old with suitable theraphy and prehaps a residental placement in a severe EBD School would be better than jail. I can understand your feelings that paediophiles should be jailed, but there are experts who believe that jail is counter productive for children.

I have to admit I feel horrified that the 21 year old student was not sent to jail.

I disagree ReallyTired. I think if he is old enough to have sexual urges towards children, and act on those sick urges, then he is old enough to be branded a pedophile and punished for his crimes.

There may be some cases where a 'childs' illegal behavior can be excused, but IMO raping a 4 year old is not one of them.

SouthernComforts I never said that a 14 year old should not be punished. I feel that an adult should be punished far harder than teenager. Certainly a 14 year old who has committed rape needs to go on the sex offender register for life and be punished. A 14 year old paedophile will need to be watched closely for life.

However age should be taken into account when sentencing is considered. A person who is over 18 need to take more responsiblity for their actions. An adult should have the maturity to recongise that they need help before they commit an offense. An adult should under stand the importance of keeping away from tempation.

No one is excusing paedophile behaviour. It is just that some paedophiles are more beyone the pale than others.

There seems to be a missing bit here though. In the case of the 14 year old boy convicted of raping a younger child, the judge specifically cited his consumption of pornography as contributing to his motivation for the attack. There have been other cases where judges have made similar pronouncements including this one involving a 12 year old boy who raped a 9 year old girl.

I agree that sentencing of children for crimes can't follow the same lines as for adults. However, in these cases, the judges have suggested that the reason for the lenient sentences is that the perpetrators can't be held to the same level of "blame" because their use of porn was material to their crimes.

So, if there are legal judgements stacking up, showing that use of pornography by boys can impact on their propensity to carry out sexual assaults. Further evidence is mounting about the influence of porn consumption on attitudes and behaviour of boys and young men towards women which falls sort of breaking the law. There is also evidence showing heavy porn consumption can contribute to failed intimate relationships for young men.

With all this evidence amassing, why is no one calling for some kind of action to deal with this? Why is it only the occasional voice that says there need to be curbs on children's access to porn, or more constraints on suppliers of porn (e.g. harsher restrictions, heavier taxation, etc.) to reduce the volume, or education programmes for young people to counterbalance the influence of porn?

It just seems to be throw-the-hands-in-the-air attitude of, "Well yes, we know heavy use of porn by boys can contribute to their decisions to sexually assault other children, but that's just the way things are."

KRITIQ

I agree with your. Our children need to be protected from porn. There is software that can be used to stop children accessing the internet but is up to parents/ carers to use the software.

I would like ISPs to filter out porn as default. If a customer wants access to soft porn then they should be able to pay for their ISP to unlock certain sites. (ie. adult soft porn NOT child porn). Prehaps website that want to have pornography should be registered with a certain domain ending. Other sites could be banned at an ISP level.

ReallyTired It's not possible for isps to filter out porn.

SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter

It is quite doable to use a proxy to filter out ISP sites. Responsible porn sites could agree to use a domain name like .sex

If there was better international cooperation then it would be quite easy to take a domain from a website. How do you think domains work. There are computers cross the web that direct you to the mumsnet website when you type in www.mumsnet.com

To see how domain names work

www.howstuffworks.com/dns.htm

Google does blacklist websites. Detecting rouge porn websites would difficult but not possible. Prehaps computer scienists could develop an alogorithm for detecting potential porn sites that are not registered. Web engines already have searchbots that craw the web. Maybe image recongition software could intenify possible suspects.

Ofcourse an actually human being would need to check a website before it loses its domain name/ delisted.

The issue is time and money rather than what is technically possible.

"ReallyTired" I know how domains work - I do this stuff for a living.

At some point in the future someone may come up with an algorithm that can filter out porn - and other material that's unsuitable for children - but at the moment it can't be done.

The issue is time and money, but also what is technically possible.

There's a an interesting thread about the subject here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1551182-UK-seriously-considering-opt-in-policy-for-online-pornography