Donate SIGN UP

Answers

1 to 20 of 34rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by -Talbot-. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
he should be allowed anywhere near kids, even his own.
I am disturbed to read that this man is being spared punishment (or treatment) for paedophilia - in order to start a family which will involve ... small children.

It rather brings to mind the idea of the poacher being let off poaching, and given the job of gamekeeper.

As to his wife sticking by him - and obviously agreeing to have children with him - I cannot begin to say I understand how her mind works.
she must be radio rental.
"His previous good character"...!!! What? His character was *not* good during the-who-knows-how-many years he was collecting those images. What was the judge thinking??
pastafreak - //"His previous good character"...!!! What? His character was *not* good during the-who-knows-how-many years he was collecting those images. What was the judge thinking?? //

An unarguable point I would suggest.
This must be a joke surely? mind you bloody good defence lawyer.
"...bloody good defence lawyer. " - and complete idiot of a judge! What price we read about this guy in a few years getting arrested for abusing his own children?
I always thought in any court case children's safety was paramount, apparently this doesn't apply to children yet to be born.
No...it's sick.
You do have to question why his wife would even consider having children with him ?
Well it boils down to the points I have been making lately. May is going to have real problems weeding out these right on lefty liberal judges. The whole Establishment is riddled with misguided do-gooders.

And yes TTT, she must be totally radio.
Children....speak English!
anneasquith - //You do have to question why his wife would even consider having children with him ? //

I would question why his wife wants to occupy the same planet as him, but you cannot legislate for the way some minds work.
Unfortunately "previous good character" has a definite legal meaning which means "no previous convictions". Although I cant help agreeing with Pasta on a more literal construction.

It beggars belief that this perverted man who had a significant number of the worst level of child porn (Category A is the absolute worst of the worst) has been spared jail which also seems to fly in the face of the sentencing guidelines.

As for his wife, she needs to think very hard about having children with him - I'll imagine Social Services will be taking a very keen interest.
I always have it in the back of my mind, when reading ludicrous sentences such as this, that the sentencing Judge may be worthy of having his hobbies looked at in depth....
His punishment should have included a trip to the hospital for a quick snip! I wouldn't let him within a mile of any child.
Question Author
That's very controversial, Jack. (but that always crosses my mind too)
"I'll imagine Social Services will be taking a very keen interest. " - they probably won't, that's the sad thing.
-- answer removed --
don't get your Alans in a Brahms ummmm.

1 to 20 of 34rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Will Having Kids Somehow Transform This Scumbag?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.