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
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Transgender woman found with a collection of CSA images of toddlers escapes prison sentence - how?!

40 replies

blackgingerlily · 10/01/2022 20:03

I’ve just read this article and am gobsmacked and horrified that a judge decided not to lock this person up. As if possessing a collection of sadistic toddler sexual abuse videos wasn’t bad enough, this person had previously also imprisoned a woman and sexually assaulted her (and was sent to prison for that in 2018, yet is out already causing more harm to others).

Although there are certainly going to be issues about where this person should be locked up, how tf can anyone look at the list of offences and think it’s ok for such a person to be out and free in our society? What is wrong with our judicial system?

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/19837391.colchester-sex-offender-21-sick-child-images/

“A transgender woman who was found in possession of indecent images depicting the abuse of toddlers has been spared an immediate prison sentence.
Registered sex offender Louise Foord, 21, who appeared at Ipswich Crown Court under her birth name Lewis Foord, was found by police to have breached notification requirements last year.

…

The investigation revealed indecent images on both devices.
On the iPad, 39 images of children at the most serious Category A were found, 39 at Category B and 19 at Category C.
Also found on the device were 22 moving images and videos at Category A, eight at Category B and three at Category C.
On the iPhone, 49 images at Category A were found, 43 at Category B and 28 at Category C.
The court was told some of the most serious images had “hallmarks of sadism” and involved the abuse of toddlers.

…

Judge Levett said: “You’ve got several previous convictions for what I count up to be effectively 19 offences, most of which were for violence on an adult who was either supervising you or in a position of authority.”
The court was told Foord was jailed in June 2019 after sexually assaulting and falsely imprisoning a woman.”

OP posts:
Goatsaregreat · 10/01/2022 20:37

There are so many of these cases it's hard to keep up.
19 previous offences, not just in possession of sexually abusive images of toddlers but admitted ten counts of making indecent images of children Yet doesn't justify a prison sentence.
And our wonderful police and judicial system have recorded these as the crimes of a woman!

WomanStillNotAFeeling · 10/01/2022 20:39

Horrifying that they are so young & commiting these sorts of crimes

BrideofAberdeen · 10/01/2022 20:46

I know people have written somewhere to appeal sentences, is that possible here? How did they get such a short sentence for the first offence?? This is surely one of the most severe crimes. I feel sick

thinkingaboutLangCleg · 10/01/2022 20:58

some of the most serious images had “hallmarks of sadism” and involved the abuse of toddlers.

The images aren't fiction. Real children are raped and traumatised for these people to enjoy watching. What the hell do they have to do to get a prison sentence??

Original poster
blackgingerlily · 10/01/2022 21:01

And in the meantime, the main offences for which women are regularly sent to prison are shoplifting, non-payment of council tax, and non-payment of the TV licence fee. Yet this person does all this utterly horrific stuff and gets away without going to prison. Just to repeat: sadistic child sexual abuse images of toddlers. I feel sick too.

I would be very interested to support a campaign to get this sentence addressed as being unduly lenient. How do we go about something like that? (Apologies if not allowed to talk about that on here - am new and not au fait with any unwritten rules on discussions.) Can this be brought to wider attention? Which politicians should be aware of this?

IMO it's not right to just shake our heads and go "oh well, there's another one" ... there has to be a point at which the general public stands up and goes "no, judges, we want to live in a safe and civilised society, thank you, and that doesn't include having known and proven sadistic paedophiles wandering our streets" however they choose to "identify" themselves.

I'm so upset by this.

OP posts:
Original poster
blackgingerlily · 10/01/2022 21:04

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

some of the most serious images had “hallmarks of sadism” and involved the abuse of toddlers.

The images aren't fiction. Real children are raped and traumatised for these people to enjoy watching. What the hell do they have to do to get a prison sentence??

"Real children are raped and traumatised for these people to enjoy watching."

Exactly! It's very definitely not a victimless crime, it creates lifelong victims of the poor kids who suffer this horrific abuse. And to have their trauma videoed and put on the internet to be circulated forever. How was this not a factor in the sentencing?

OP posts:
Lovelyricepudding · 10/01/2022 21:06

You can complain about sentencing - does anyone have the link for this?

Goatsaregreat · 10/01/2022 21:11

Here's the link to ask for a sentence to be reviewed. Anyone can do it by email or phone and it only takes one person for it to be reviewed.

www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review

Goatsaregreat · 10/01/2022 21:13

I've done it for similar cases and thank you for drawing attention to this blackgingerlily.

I'm going to complain.

PaleGreenGhost · 10/01/2022 21:13

Oh fuck this shit.

Disgusting.

A very transphobic outcome as well - if this vile human was actually a woman their face would be all over the papers by now, because we're horrified when women commit sex crimes. A shame society is resigned to men doing it.

ArabellaScott · 10/01/2022 21:25

I only have swearing.

Linguini · 10/01/2022 22:32

This is really upsetting

JustcameoutGC · 10/01/2022 22:44

I think he is the british barbie kardashian. The parallels are remarkable.

Bonhex · 10/01/2022 22:46

This person is resident at Cygnet Hospital which is for mental health needs.

ArabellaScott · 10/01/2022 22:58

He has a personality disorder.

'the defendant, who had pleaded guilty, was a vulnerable individual who had a moderate to severe personality disorder.'

Unihorn · 10/01/2022 23:01

If he appeared under his birth name in court I would assume the crimes were recorded under that name also?

Original poster
blackgingerlily · 10/01/2022 23:07

I'm not clear whether that's supposed to be an excuse? There are thousands and thousands of people in the UK with personality disorders and the vast majority of them don't commit crimes, don't download child sexual abuse videos and keep them in a collection, don't imprison women and sexually assault them.

It's not fair on the wider population of people with personality disorders to offer "oh but so and so has a personality disorder" as a mitigation for them doing horrific things - as though a mild to moderate personality disorder stops someone being able to know right from wrong. I don't think anything in the world could convince me that it's possible to watch the sadistic rape of a toddler and not know it's wrong. But if there's evidence of it that's so convincing that this person ended up with a suspended sentence instead of being locked away securely to protect society, I think the judge should share it with the class.

Seems especially inappropriate considering personality disorder is often a label given to women, often undiagnosed autistic women, who have experienced significant trauma and have maladaptive coping strategies. Which don't, as a rule, involve vile paedophilia and false imprisonment etc.

OP posts:
Original poster
blackgingerlily · 10/01/2022 23:09

Also, the defendant was vulnerable were they? Erm what about the children being sexually abused for that person's pleasure?! Who exactly was vulnerable in this case? Christ

OP posts:
hedgehogger1 · 10/01/2022 23:12

@Unihorn

If he appeared under his birth name in court I would assume the crimes were recorded under that name also?
I think that was their earlier appearance not this one?
Florabritannica · 10/01/2022 23:14

The Cygnet Hospital is a male-only psychiatric institution. While I absolutely support most of the general points made on this thread, I suspect there is more to this particular case than meets the eye.

JudyGemstone · 10/01/2022 23:17

I work in a connected field and it’s rare for anyone to get custodial sentence for CSA images. ‘Making images’ usually means copying/distributing them, not actually committing the rape/abuse.

Not saying that makes anything ok! Justvthat it’s not unusual at all not to get prison for this type of offence on its own.

The previous history does make it less typical though, I mean he’s obviously a danger to women and children.

TheHairyDinosaur · 10/01/2022 23:26

Looking more in to this, o think there is more to it.

Cygnet Hospital is a "institution" for want of a better word, his licence states he must live where probation dictate. Meaning probation are keeping him in this hospital and could do so till the end of his licence.

And even then he can be detained under the mental health act after his licence has expired if professionals believe he would be a danger to himself or others.

Unfortunately possession of this type of image, never gets a custodial. He also plead guilty, which would have given him a reduction and mitigation on his mental health (I mean he is living in a psychiatric hospital)

Do I think it's "right" or "just" no. Can I see why the CJS have made the decisions they have, yes.

CheeseMmmm · 11/01/2022 04:10

Got a link re cygnet?

That history at only 21.
Violence, sexual violence, breaching probation conditions, and if I've read correctly has stated sexual interest in young children, girls I think it was, grabbing a young child on street and starting to go off with them..

Screams vvv dangerous person.

CheeseMmmm · 11/01/2022 05:15

Vv little googling and tried variations on search terms. The court when 19 fair bit.

This recent one vv not much at all. Please link about cygnet and this person?

From your comment:

'Unfortunately possession of this type of image, never gets a custodial. He also plead guilty, which would have given him a reduction and mitigation on his mental health (I mean he is living in a psychiatric hospital).

Do I think it's "right" or "just" no. Can I see why the CJS have made the decisions they have'.

Never ever gets custodial even with this number and the types of crimes.. And the admitted sexual interest in little kids and the starting to make off with on snatched on street, plus the previous false imprisoned + sexual assault... breach probation conditions...

You can see why this judgement?
I thought judge took previous offences into account. Is that not correct, or would you say understandable judge decision?

Also interested on phrasing at end. The right or just bit.

In general I'm not sure what you are trying to get across.

The major concern for me here is public protection. To do with risk he presents.

Everyone has different ideas of what's right (essentially same meaning as just in the way you express). And I don't understand why that choice of words, or why speech marks, unless it's a quote from thread or news items?

Bottom line, thinking bloody hell this person is obviously dangerous is not a value judgement. It's taking in the info and concluding high risk, surely risk needs to be vv closely managed.

Anyway link will clear up, if in secure MH facility then I have different opinion.