“Woman” fails to attend court: child indecent image charges

[NitroNine]

And the Court fell over itself to be sympathetic to said “woman” about “her” failure to appear due to the fact: “I was terrified. I didn’t know how you were going to address me in court. That played with my anxiety.”

The Magistrates have clearly read, marked, & inwardly digested the Equal Treatment Bench Book, because:
Keith Southward, chair of the magistrates’ panel, told Davies: “You will be addressed as you wish to be addressed, so don’t worry about it.”

And of course it’s just grand for their bail conditions to let them keep their job at ASDA. Because we mustn’t inconvenience paedophiles, must we?

For some reason, it's referred to as "making" images when people download them from the internet; he wasn't necessarily creating new images. Some legal terminology thing, I suppose.

Disgusting, how does he think the poor child he victimised felt? Scared, ashamed, alone??

'Making' doesn't mean physically taking the pictures, it's how they describe accessing pictures on a computer.

But yes, I notice his Damascene conversion was just last year. And now he's changed, your honour!.

Setting aside the absurdity of calling this individual a woman...

When you download an image from the internet, you make a copy on your own computer. That's what the "making" in the charge refers to. It does not mean he has been actually creating new images.

In this case, it's two copies of one image, where the image is in the least serious category, and so will not involve sexual activity.

I am not saying that's okay. I'm not! But whether the risk posed by this individual is sufficient to justify stopping him working is a whole different question. Especially as taking away stable employment is likely to increase rather than reduce the risk of future re-offending. There inevitably will be much higher risk people (with potentially hundreds or thousands of much more offensive images) in that community and in that asda.

What a time to be alive.

Thanks Motorina. You’re right and thanks for putting it so clearly. I’m still feeling a bit pitch forky though.

Thank you for explaining this. I have a friend who works with sex offenders as a probation officer. I can’t deny that I would never be able to do this role and the thought of it makes me sick. But at the end of the day, if the work she does helps to decrease recidivism then that decreases the number of victims. I have very mixed feelings on it all due to the repulsion I feel towards people who hurt children, but I don’t want that to diminish attempts to keep them safe.

On the employment issue, I'm normally the first one to say that offenders should keep their housing and employment if possible because the only thing more dangerous than an offender is a homeless, unemployed offender with nothing to lose.

But somewhere like ASDA is a really bad idea. Offending of this kind has a massive recidivism rate and escalates, and supermarkets are full of children, often unsupervised or poorly supervised. I mean if you can't send your kid to the shops for a first solo outing, where can you?

You can shelf stack at night if you need to keep a job.

I agree with all of this.

A lot of parents' "what to do in the event you get lost" chats with their kids will involve suggesting the kid finds a transport or shop employee in uniform to ask for assistance

This man can work in the warehouse.

The court seems to have colluded with his suggestion that his nonce man self was a different person. How are we to be assured that this new lady won't suddenly have a lapse of judgement and find "herself" acting as a nonce man again? I don't know much about managing the reintegration of paedophiles into society but would guess it starts with owning and facing what you've done?

Yes absolutely, me too. He should be employed somewhere that he will not have access to children, and probation services should be following him very closely.

Agree completely. A known paedophile regardless of the severity should not be representing Asda.

Totally agree. How can a known paedophile be supported by his employers to continue in a public facing role?

It really does seem that if you’re going to break the law, slap on a cheap wig and an M&S frock, change your name from Dave to Destiny and the entire justice system panders to your every whim.

Not in the name of women 😭

happydappy2 · Yesterday 14:43

The ETBB needs serious revision, Ipso reporting guidelines need to be overhauled & then an enquiry into how & why organisations that should know better, have swallowed this ideology.

Ideally, the ETBB should be launched into space, along with its authors.

I agree with posters who say that this excuse of a person ought at least to be suspended. Many supermarkets are full of kids at lunchtime and after school. Who knows what the horrible sod could get up to?

Nice of the curtains twitchers to address him how he wished to be addressed though.

Who said chivalry was dead?