Primary school teacher Simon Clannachan sentenced to six months over child abuse images and extreme animal porn

Simon Clannachan

Simon Clannachan

First published in News
Last updated
by

A primary school teacher shopped to the police for child and animal porn offences by his wife hung his head as he was sentenced to six months in prison this afternoon.

Simon Clannachan, 40, of Richmond Park Avenue, admitted 21 counts relating to making indecent images of children and possessing extreme animal pornography when he appeared before Bournemouth Crown Court earlier this month.

The Kingsleigh Primary School teacher, who was suspended when the offences came to light and handed in his resignation in June, was caught when his wife spotted images of children in their underwear on the family computer. She called a friend, who advised her to call the police. Later, she discovered a disc with more serious images on it.

She consulted an IT professional who confirmed that the files were suspicious, and the content made him "feel sick".

She then took the computer to the police.

Clannachan, described as a "perfectly respectable member of staff" by colleagues, was found to have searched for "pre-teens", although he initially told police the images had "piggy-backed" onto legitimate downloads.

He also admitted searching for images under "Lolita" and "young model", but says he expected to find 18-year-olds in bikinis.

Seven of the charges relate to animal pornography, with the rest concerning 236 images of children of varying levels of severity.

Images are graded from one to five with five being the most serious.

Clannachan was found to have 213 stills at level one, nine stills at level two, six stills and one moving image at level three, six stills and one moving image at level four, and 101 stills and 12 moving images at level seven, which relates to animal pornography.

None of the images are of children taught by him, and there is no evidence that he behaved inappropriately with students, Sentencing, Judge Peter Johnson said Clannachan had "harboured a dark secret".

"You were a successful teacher - you have lost your family, you have lost your job," he said, adding that the defendant had led a "double life".

Kevin Hill, defending, said his client's life had been left in "ruins".

"He is utterly devastated to have found himself in court for these abhorrent offences," he said.

"He is adamant he was not motivated by sexual attraction to children."

But Judge Johnson said he disagreed.

He added: "For many years you have been addicted to, or keenly interested in, pornography.

"Over part of the last four years or so you started to have an interest in child pornography, and that is where your problems started."

Clannachan, who looked as if he might faint when the sentence was read out, has a "hitherto unblemished record", the judge said. Kevin Hill, defending, said Clannachan using pornography and alcohol as a "sort if escapism".

Mr Hill told the judge "He needs help. He wants help."

Richard Gower, Head Teacher of Kingsleigh Primary School said:

"Our school accepts the six-month sentence that has been given. This brings closure of the matter and allows everyone in our school community to continue to move on. We have much to be proud of at Kingsleigh and look forward to staff and pupils returning in September.”

Comments (48)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:24am Fri 26 Jul 13

Adrian XX says...

I still can't help wondering what extreme animal pr0n is and how it might be different to normal animal pr0n. This animal pr0n does involve humans doesn't it? It's not just a zebra with a donkey? Tell me I am right.
I still can't help wondering what extreme animal pr0n is and how it might be different to normal animal pr0n. This animal pr0n does involve humans doesn't it? It's not just a zebra with a donkey? Tell me I am right. Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

8:40am Fri 26 Jul 13

AmsterdamMan says...

Extreme animal **** is fornication between animals and humans.
Extreme animal **** is fornication between animals and humans. AmsterdamMan
  • Score: 0

9:06am Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake retry69
  • Score: 0

9:11am Fri 26 Jul 13

Adrian XX says...

AmsterdamMan wrote:
Extreme animal **** is fornication between animals and humans.
Fornication suggests they are not married. I guess it's OK to view this kind of thing if the humans involved are actually married to the animals - like the Sudanese man married to his goat: http://bbc.in/rsWZn
[quote][p][bold]AmsterdamMan[/bold] wrote: Extreme animal **** is fornication between animals and humans.[/p][/quote]Fornication suggests they are not married. I guess it's OK to view this kind of thing if the humans involved are actually married to the animals - like the Sudanese man married to his goat: http://bbc.in/rsWZn Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

9:15am Fri 26 Jul 13

Hessenford says...

retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment. Hessenford
  • Score: -1

9:51am Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

Hessenford wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.
Of course you are right, although your punishment is far too lenient in my opinion, but if you had read previous comments about this case and others you would know that there are people among us who seem to give people that have indecent images of children the benefit of the doubt,which I find slightly worrying
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.[/p][/quote]Of course you are right, although your punishment is far too lenient in my opinion, but if you had read previous comments about this case and others you would know that there are people among us who seem to give people that have indecent images of children the benefit of the doubt,which I find slightly worrying retry69
  • Score: -1

9:56am Fri 26 Jul 13

muscliffman says...

retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
No doubt, or that the animals were consenting - so it's a lower grade offence.

This is pretty grim to read about though.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]No doubt, or that the animals were consenting - so it's a lower grade offence. This is pretty grim to read about though. muscliffman
  • Score: 0

10:03am Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

muscliffman wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
No doubt, or that the animals were consenting - so it's a lower grade offence.

This is pretty grim to read about though.
Yes it is and regarding the child images its not an isolated case as in recent months there have been several,and yet as I have already stated there are people among us who leapt to their defence,it raises concern with me.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]No doubt, or that the animals were consenting - so it's a lower grade offence. This is pretty grim to read about though.[/p][/quote]Yes it is and regarding the child images its not an isolated case as in recent months there have been several,and yet as I have already stated there are people among us who leapt to their defence,it raises concern with me. retry69
  • Score: -1

10:05am Fri 26 Jul 13

muscliffman says...

Hessenford wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.
Well yes, he was a modern teacher so your spelling of the word should do!
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.[/p][/quote]Well yes, he was a modern teacher so your spelling of the word should do! muscliffman
  • Score: -1

10:11am Fri 26 Jul 13

BIGTONE says...

Adrian XX wrote:
I still can't help wondering what extreme animal pr0n is and how it might be different to normal animal pr0n. This animal pr0n does involve humans doesn't it? It's not just a zebra with a donkey? Tell me I am right.
He woke up to a horse head in his bed...........
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: I still can't help wondering what extreme animal pr0n is and how it might be different to normal animal pr0n. This animal pr0n does involve humans doesn't it? It's not just a zebra with a donkey? Tell me I am right.[/p][/quote]He woke up to a horse head in his bed........... BIGTONE
  • Score: 0

10:12am Fri 26 Jul 13

BournemouthMum says...

Adrian XX wrote:
I still can't help wondering what extreme animal pr0n is and how it might be different to normal animal pr0n. This animal pr0n does involve humans doesn't it? It's not just a zebra with a donkey? Tell me I am right.
Or a mouse with an elephant...!
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: I still can't help wondering what extreme animal pr0n is and how it might be different to normal animal pr0n. This animal pr0n does involve humans doesn't it? It's not just a zebra with a donkey? Tell me I am right.[/p][/quote]Or a mouse with an elephant...! BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

10:15am Fri 26 Jul 13

Hessenford says...

muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.
Well yes, he was a modern teacher so your spelling of the word should do!
Come on, slight typo with the "A"
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.[/p][/quote]Well yes, he was a modern teacher so your spelling of the word should do![/p][/quote]Come on, slight typo with the "A" Hessenford
  • Score: 0

10:16am Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.
Well yes, he was a modern teacher so your spelling of the word should do!
You are so picky lately, whats the matter with you, Sir Ron upsetting you?
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.[/p][/quote]Well yes, he was a modern teacher so your spelling of the word should do![/p][/quote]You are so picky lately, whats the matter with you, Sir Ron upsetting you? retry69
  • Score: 0

10:58am Fri 26 Jul 13

Beckyb123 says...

What's worse is I understand he's married with a young child. Lock him up and throw away the key!
What's worse is I understand he's married with a young child. Lock him up and throw away the key! Beckyb123
  • Score: 0

11:05am Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

Hessenford wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.
Well yes, he was a modern teacher so your spelling of the word should do!
Come on, slight typo with the "A"
Just sent my daughter and son-in law the comments, both modern teachers ,both wound up now tx lol
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.[/p][/quote]Well yes, he was a modern teacher so your spelling of the word should do![/p][/quote]Come on, slight typo with the "A"[/p][/quote]Just sent my daughter and son-in law the comments, both modern teachers ,both wound up now tx lol retry69
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Fri 26 Jul 13

rozmister says...

retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain. rozmister
  • Score: -1

12:15pm Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles. retry69
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Fri 26 Jul 13

rozmister says...

retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake. rozmister
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.
Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.[/p][/quote]Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :). retry69
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Fri 26 Jul 13

rozmister says...

retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.
Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).
I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute.

I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions.

If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.[/p][/quote]Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).[/p][/quote]I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute. I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions. If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time. rozmister
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Fri 26 Jul 13

rozmister says...

retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.
Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).
And why would you put a smiley face on a comment about a paedophile?!?! Who thinks that this kind of comment section is an acceptable place for happy faces?
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.[/p][/quote]Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).[/p][/quote]And why would you put a smiley face on a comment about a paedophile?!?! Who thinks that this kind of comment section is an acceptable place for happy faces? rozmister
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.
Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).
I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute.

I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions.

If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.
read comments July 2 again you were accused of offering a defence for this individual not by me :) because im a happy chappy
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.[/p][/quote]Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).[/p][/quote]I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute. I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions. If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.[/p][/quote]read comments July 2 again you were accused of offering a defence for this individual not by me :) because im a happy chappy retry69
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Fri 26 Jul 13

BournemouthMum says...

rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.
Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).
I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute.

I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions.

If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.
Yes you did last time. Can't be a*sed to find the story but I was saying there is no excuse for this type of behaviour and that they deserve to be locked up indefinitely, and you were countering that by saying that they 'need treatment' or go on a sex offender's programme. Like that's going to stop them! They go into these programmes solely to get a more lenient sentence, then they say all the right things and show that they're 'cured' and show remorse blah blah blah and do the same thing over again.

Lock the b*stards up and throw the key away. These people do not deserve to walk among us.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.[/p][/quote]Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).[/p][/quote]I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute. I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions. If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.[/p][/quote]Yes you did last time. Can't be a*sed to find the story but I was saying there is no excuse for this type of behaviour and that they deserve to be locked up indefinitely, and you were countering that by saying that they 'need treatment' or go on a sex offender's programme. Like that's going to stop them! They go into these programmes solely to get a more lenient sentence, then they say all the right things and show that they're 'cured' and show remorse blah blah blah and do the same thing over again. Lock the b*stards up and throw the key away. These people do not deserve to walk among us. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

BournemouthMum you remember also, but there was more than one who seemed to offer some sort of defence to this guys behaviour and no doubt they will show their faces later
BournemouthMum you remember also, but there was more than one who seemed to offer some sort of defence to this guys behaviour and no doubt they will show their faces later retry69
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Fri 26 Jul 13

rozmister says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.
Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).
I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute.

I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions.

If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.
Yes you did last time. Can't be a*sed to find the story but I was saying there is no excuse for this type of behaviour and that they deserve to be locked up indefinitely, and you were countering that by saying that they 'need treatment' or go on a sex offender's programme. Like that's going to stop them! They go into these programmes solely to get a more lenient sentence, then they say all the right things and show that they're 'cured' and show remorse blah blah blah and do the same thing over again.

Lock the b*stards up and throw the key away. These people do not deserve to walk among us.
Believing in psychological rehabilitation for sex offenders isn't defending their behaviour. That's a punishment/justice/r
ehabilitation debate not a defence of their behaviour. Discussing how you deal with someone's behaviour isn't excusing what they've done it's trying to protect society in the future.

I don't believe that every single sex offender should be locked up indefinitely. That doesn't mean I think there is any defence for abusing children.

Try to actually comprehend the comment instead of accusing me of defending paedophiles because I don't agree with your choice of punishment.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.[/p][/quote]Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).[/p][/quote]I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute. I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions. If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.[/p][/quote]Yes you did last time. Can't be a*sed to find the story but I was saying there is no excuse for this type of behaviour and that they deserve to be locked up indefinitely, and you were countering that by saying that they 'need treatment' or go on a sex offender's programme. Like that's going to stop them! They go into these programmes solely to get a more lenient sentence, then they say all the right things and show that they're 'cured' and show remorse blah blah blah and do the same thing over again. Lock the b*stards up and throw the key away. These people do not deserve to walk among us.[/p][/quote]Believing in psychological rehabilitation for sex offenders isn't defending their behaviour. That's a punishment/justice/r ehabilitation debate not a defence of their behaviour. Discussing how you deal with someone's behaviour isn't excusing what they've done it's trying to protect society in the future. I don't believe that every single sex offender should be locked up indefinitely. That doesn't mean I think there is any defence for abusing children. Try to actually comprehend the comment instead of accusing me of defending paedophiles because I don't agree with your choice of punishment. rozmister
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Fri 26 Jul 13

rozmister says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.
Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).
I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute.

I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions.

If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.
Yes you did last time. Can't be a*sed to find the story but I was saying there is no excuse for this type of behaviour and that they deserve to be locked up indefinitely, and you were countering that by saying that they 'need treatment' or go on a sex offender's programme. Like that's going to stop them! They go into these programmes solely to get a more lenient sentence, then they say all the right things and show that they're 'cured' and show remorse blah blah blah and do the same thing over again.

Lock the b*stards up and throw the key away. These people do not deserve to walk among us.
Also the reoffending rate for sex offenders is much lower than other offences. So they don't all do the same thing over again. That's a fact but I suppose that isn't something we should discuss, eh?
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.[/p][/quote]Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).[/p][/quote]I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute. I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions. If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.[/p][/quote]Yes you did last time. Can't be a*sed to find the story but I was saying there is no excuse for this type of behaviour and that they deserve to be locked up indefinitely, and you were countering that by saying that they 'need treatment' or go on a sex offender's programme. Like that's going to stop them! They go into these programmes solely to get a more lenient sentence, then they say all the right things and show that they're 'cured' and show remorse blah blah blah and do the same thing over again. Lock the b*stards up and throw the key away. These people do not deserve to walk among us.[/p][/quote]Also the reoffending rate for sex offenders is much lower than other offences. So they don't all do the same thing over again. That's a fact but I suppose that isn't something we should discuss, eh? rozmister
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Fri 26 Jul 13

rozmister says...

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/192631
/proven-reoffending-
jul-10-jun-11.pdf

Please see page 12 of this government report for reoffending rates of offenders. You will see the bar for sexual offences (children) sits at approx. 12% (there's no numbers attached to each bar to indicate the exact amount) for proven reoffending in 2010 - 2011.

Adults who commit sexual offences against children shouldn't be allowed close contact with children again in their lifetime in my view but the idea that they all reoffend is an absolute myth.
https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/192631 /proven-reoffending- jul-10-jun-11.pdf Please see page 12 of this government report for reoffending rates of offenders. You will see the bar for sexual offences (children) sits at approx. 12% (there's no numbers attached to each bar to indicate the exact amount) for proven reoffending in 2010 - 2011. Adults who commit sexual offences against children shouldn't be allowed close contact with children again in their lifetime in my view but the idea that they all reoffend is an absolute myth. rozmister
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Fri 26 Jul 13

rozmister says...

rozmister wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/192631

/proven-reoffending-

jul-10-jun-11.pdf

Please see page 12 of this government report for reoffending rates of offenders. You will see the bar for sexual offences (children) sits at approx. 12% (there's no numbers attached to each bar to indicate the exact amount) for proven reoffending in 2010 - 2011.

Adults who commit sexual offences against children shouldn't be allowed close contact with children again in their lifetime in my view but the idea that they all reoffend is an absolute myth.
19% of adults even. 12% of juveniles.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/192631 /proven-reoffending- jul-10-jun-11.pdf Please see page 12 of this government report for reoffending rates of offenders. You will see the bar for sexual offences (children) sits at approx. 12% (there's no numbers attached to each bar to indicate the exact amount) for proven reoffending in 2010 - 2011. Adults who commit sexual offences against children shouldn't be allowed close contact with children again in their lifetime in my view but the idea that they all reoffend is an absolute myth.[/p][/quote]19% of adults even. 12% of juveniles. rozmister
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Fri 26 Jul 13

BournemouthMum says...

retry69 wrote:
BournemouthMum you remember also, but there was more than one who seemed to offer some sort of defence to this guys behaviour and no doubt they will show their faces later
Yes I do remember. It's quite worrying really to think that there are people willing to defend these deviants.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: BournemouthMum you remember also, but there was more than one who seemed to offer some sort of defence to this guys behaviour and no doubt they will show their faces later[/p][/quote]Yes I do remember. It's quite worrying really to think that there are people willing to defend these deviants. BournemouthMum
  • Score: -1

3:04pm Fri 26 Jul 13

BournemouthMum says...

rozmister wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.
Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).
I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute.

I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions.

If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.
Yes you did last time. Can't be a*sed to find the story but I was saying there is no excuse for this type of behaviour and that they deserve to be locked up indefinitely, and you were countering that by saying that they 'need treatment' or go on a sex offender's programme. Like that's going to stop them! They go into these programmes solely to get a more lenient sentence, then they say all the right things and show that they're 'cured' and show remorse blah blah blah and do the same thing over again.

Lock the b*stards up and throw the key away. These people do not deserve to walk among us.
Also the reoffending rate for sex offenders is much lower than other offences. So they don't all do the same thing over again. That's a fact but I suppose that isn't something we should discuss, eh?
By 'reoffending' you mean presumably those who offend again AND GET CAUGHT? I suspect many offenders reoffend without getting caught, so those figures are pretty meaningless really. Like CRB checks, they only show recorded offences, not offences where the person hasn't been caught.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.[/p][/quote]Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).[/p][/quote]I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute. I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions. If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.[/p][/quote]Yes you did last time. Can't be a*sed to find the story but I was saying there is no excuse for this type of behaviour and that they deserve to be locked up indefinitely, and you were countering that by saying that they 'need treatment' or go on a sex offender's programme. Like that's going to stop them! They go into these programmes solely to get a more lenient sentence, then they say all the right things and show that they're 'cured' and show remorse blah blah blah and do the same thing over again. Lock the b*stards up and throw the key away. These people do not deserve to walk among us.[/p][/quote]Also the reoffending rate for sex offenders is much lower than other offences. So they don't all do the same thing over again. That's a fact but I suppose that isn't something we should discuss, eh?[/p][/quote]By 'reoffending' you mean presumably those who offend again AND GET CAUGHT? I suspect many offenders reoffend without getting caught, so those figures are pretty meaningless really. Like CRB checks, they only show recorded offences, not offences where the person hasn't been caught. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Fri 26 Jul 13

High Treason says...

Hessenford wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.
He should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment."

Why, so he can abuse the animals in care. Better to drop his sort head first down a disused mine shaft.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]Far from it, he should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment.[/p][/quote]He should have pedophile tattooed across his forehead and be made to do community service in the R.S.P.C.A as a further punishment." Why, so he can abuse the animals in care. Better to drop his sort head first down a disused mine shaft. High Treason
  • Score: -1

4:01pm Fri 26 Jul 13

rozmister says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
retry69 wrote:
BournemouthMum you remember also, but there was more than one who seemed to offer some sort of defence to this guys behaviour and no doubt they will show their faces later
Yes I do remember. It's quite worrying really to think that there are people willing to defend these deviants.
If defend means try to discuss reasonably what the best way is to protect children from paedophile a basing that discussion on fact and logic then I'm guilty. That's all I've ever done because a knee jerk reaction based on emotion causes more damage than good. What paedophiles do is disgusting but its something that keeps happening across britain so we need to look at realistic ways to prevent and stop it instead of continuing to be emotional and hysterical about it which achieves nothing.

If one indecent picture meant a paedophile was jailed for life you'd see many more children being sexually abused. Because if theyre going to go to prison for life whatever there's no reason to stop at downloading images. Is that really the best thing for society and the children who live in it?
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: BournemouthMum you remember also, but there was more than one who seemed to offer some sort of defence to this guys behaviour and no doubt they will show their faces later[/p][/quote]Yes I do remember. It's quite worrying really to think that there are people willing to defend these deviants.[/p][/quote]If defend means try to discuss reasonably what the best way is to protect children from paedophile a basing that discussion on fact and logic then I'm guilty. That's all I've ever done because a knee jerk reaction based on emotion causes more damage than good. What paedophiles do is disgusting but its something that keeps happening across britain so we need to look at realistic ways to prevent and stop it instead of continuing to be emotional and hysterical about it which achieves nothing. If one indecent picture meant a paedophile was jailed for life you'd see many more children being sexually abused. Because if theyre going to go to prison for life whatever there's no reason to stop at downloading images. Is that really the best thing for society and the children who live in it? rozmister
  • Score: 1

5:41pm Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

UN-believable,total farce
UN-believable,total farce retry69
  • Score: 0

6:48pm Fri 26 Jul 13

abc100 says...

Incredible decision, out in 3 months
Incredible decision, out in 3 months abc100
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Fri 26 Jul 13

retry69 says...

What sort of message does that sentence send out?
What sort of message does that sentence send out? retry69
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Fri 26 Jul 13

john the baptest says...

BIGTONE wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
I still can't help wondering what extreme animal pr0n is and how it might be different to normal animal pr0n. This animal pr0n does involve humans doesn't it? It's not just a zebra with a donkey? Tell me I am right.
He woke up to a horse head in his bed...........
Could have been a scapegoat you know
[quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: I still can't help wondering what extreme animal pr0n is and how it might be different to normal animal pr0n. This animal pr0n does involve humans doesn't it? It's not just a zebra with a donkey? Tell me I am right.[/p][/quote]He woke up to a horse head in his bed...........[/p][/quote]Could have been a scapegoat you know john the baptest
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Fri 26 Jul 13

spooki says...

Six months? I know of someone who was given six months for viewing child **** (no animals involved thankfully) and he just worked in a shop.
This weirdo was actually working with young children. How is six months enough? Lock him up and let him rot with the other paedos.
Six months? I know of someone who was given six months for viewing child **** (no animals involved thankfully) and he just worked in a shop. This weirdo was actually working with young children. How is six months enough? Lock him up and let him rot with the other paedos. spooki
  • Score: 1

9:34pm Fri 26 Jul 13

Beth888 says...

retry69 wrote:
BournemouthMum you remember also, but there was more than one who seemed to offer some sort of defence to this guys behaviour and no doubt they will show their faces later
Retry69, I am with you on this! I commented on how sick and twisted this individual is and quite a few people jumped to his defence saying how easy it was to do this and that it was only a few pictures!!! Like you, I fear that there are a lot more sick and twisted B******* that need locking up along with him! Mind you I think they have crawled back under their rock this time round!!! Too afraid to comment this time!,
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: BournemouthMum you remember also, but there was more than one who seemed to offer some sort of defence to this guys behaviour and no doubt they will show their faces later[/p][/quote]Retry69, I am with you on this! I commented on how sick and twisted this individual is and quite a few people jumped to his defence saying how easy it was to do this and that it was only a few pictures!!! Like you, I fear that there are a lot more sick and twisted B******* that need locking up along with him! Mind you I think they have crawled back under their rock this time round!!! Too afraid to comment this time!, Beth888
  • Score: 0

9:59pm Fri 26 Jul 13

Bournehammer68 says...

so 3 months for a filthy nonce. lets hope he gets proper justice meted out in prison.
so 3 months for a filthy nonce. lets hope he gets proper justice meted out in prison. Bournehammer68
  • Score: -2

10:50pm Fri 26 Jul 13

gameon says...

Bournehammer68 wrote:
so 3 months for a filthy nonce. lets hope he gets proper justice meted out in prison.
Hel be on Rule 43 with the other Nonce cases but the chaps will give him a tune up before he gets on that wing the screws will mark there card while there having a tea break 3 months Pathetic no wonder theres so many of them at it with that sort of sentence .
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: so 3 months for a filthy nonce. lets hope he gets proper justice meted out in prison.[/p][/quote]Hel be on Rule 43 with the other Nonce cases but the chaps will give him a tune up before he gets on that wing the screws will mark there card while there having a tea break 3 months Pathetic no wonder theres so many of them at it with that sort of sentence . gameon
  • Score: 0

4:42am Sat 27 Jul 13

colbel says...

Six months, what a bleeding joke, should of been six years.
Six months, what a bleeding joke, should of been six years. colbel
  • Score: 0

7:36am Sat 27 Jul 13

Huey says...

If images are graded one to five how did he have twelve images at level seven?
Is he so sick they invented a couple of new categories for him?
If images are graded one to five how did he have twelve images at level seven? Is he so sick they invented a couple of new categories for him? Huey
  • Score: 0

8:18am Sat 27 Jul 13

rudestickers says...

That's Bull£££t 6 months!!!!! These sicko's should be locked away for a lot longer! But Probably when he turns into a child killer he'll get a proper sentence! Ridiculous!! are the Judges all perverts aswell???? would explain such pathetic sentences!!
That's Bull£££t 6 months!!!!! These sicko's should be locked away for a lot longer! But Probably when he turns into a child killer he'll get a proper sentence! Ridiculous!! are the Judges all perverts aswell???? would explain such pathetic sentences!! rudestickers
  • Score: 0

8:26am Sat 27 Jul 13

retry69 says...

rudestickers wrote:
That's Bull£££t 6 months!!!!! These sicko's should be locked away for a lot longer! But Probably when he turns into a child killer he'll get a proper sentence! Ridiculous!! are the Judges all perverts aswell???? would explain such pathetic sentences!!
A bit over the top but you obviously share my disbelief,the way this sort of activity is treated by our legal services and even some commenters on this website does concern me very much.
[quote][p][bold]rudestickers[/bold] wrote: That's Bull£££t 6 months!!!!! These sicko's should be locked away for a lot longer! But Probably when he turns into a child killer he'll get a proper sentence! Ridiculous!! are the Judges all perverts aswell???? would explain such pathetic sentences!![/p][/quote]A bit over the top but you obviously share my disbelief,the way this sort of activity is treated by our legal services and even some commenters on this website does concern me very much. retry69
  • Score: 0

9:53am Sat 27 Jul 13

Pablo23 says...

Adrian XX wrote:
AmsterdamMan wrote:
Extreme animal **** is fornication between animals and humans.
Fornication suggests they are not married. I guess it's OK to view this kind of thing if the humans involved are actually married to the animals - like the Sudanese man married to his goat: http://bbc.in/rsWZn
If you are suggesting sex with animals is ok if you are married I would have to take issue due to the mutual consent issue.

If I suddenly decided I wanted to have intimate relations with my pet goat Leslie (female by the way, I'm not gay!) I don't think getting married first would make it alright.
Leslie has trouble making sensible decisions at the best of times (I won't bore you with some of the items she has eaten for example).

There is also the issue of compatibility. A Twiglett in a welly boot springs to mind. Although I am not a Twiglett I hasten to add, but you get my point.
Or is there some form of biological adapter plug that I am unaware of, similar to what we take on holiday each year to plug in our hair dryers.

Anyway, lets leave such dark issues to the grimey corners of the internet and get back to talking about the weather, the council and the dirty protests in Whitecliff
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmsterdamMan[/bold] wrote: Extreme animal **** is fornication between animals and humans.[/p][/quote]Fornication suggests they are not married. I guess it's OK to view this kind of thing if the humans involved are actually married to the animals - like the Sudanese man married to his goat: http://bbc.in/rsWZn[/p][/quote]If you are suggesting sex with animals is ok if you are married I would have to take issue due to the mutual consent issue. If I suddenly decided I wanted to have intimate relations with my pet goat Leslie (female by the way, I'm not gay!) I don't think getting married first would make it alright. Leslie has trouble making sensible decisions at the best of times (I won't bore you with some of the items she has eaten for example). There is also the issue of compatibility. A Twiglett in a welly boot springs to mind. Although I am not a Twiglett I hasten to add, but you get my point. Or is there some form of biological adapter plug that I am unaware of, similar to what we take on holiday each year to plug in our hair dryers. Anyway, lets leave such dark issues to the grimey corners of the internet and get back to talking about the weather, the council and the dirty protests in Whitecliff Pablo23
  • Score: 0

11:14am Sat 27 Jul 13

scrumpyjack says...

rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
rozmister wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake
I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.
I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.
I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.
Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).
I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute.

I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions.

If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.
I agree.

Nobody has ever supported him on these threads.

Despite what some people openly manipulate and lie.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Im sure we will be inundated by those commenters who insist the actions of this individual may all have been a silly mistake[/p][/quote]I don't think you can describe 21 counts of looking at this kind of material as a silly mistake - a silly mistake isn't something you do repeatedly over a prolonged period of time. For that many counts of those types of offences he should hopefully be sent to jail and placed on some kind of long term programme while he's there that tries to retrain his brain.[/p][/quote]I haven't others have as you know from previous articles.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying you said that although I can see looking back how you could interpret it like that. I mean you in general and was trying to say that even people who in past threads have said about low level cases that it could be a silly mistake wouldn't say it about this case. As I said previously it doesn't meet the definition of a mistake.[/p][/quote]Yeah well im not getting into discussion with you on this as the last one went nowhere, as In my opinion anyone who has any amount of child images either 1 or 101 are as bad as each other, you disagree and you were also accused by some (not just me) as offering defence to this person and the like :).[/p][/quote]I have offered no defence of this teacher ever that's a bare faced lie. What a surprise that you have to make things up as you have nothing valid to contribute. I've never defended any sex offender I've said that they should be punished in line with the seriousness of the offence and that also context is extremely relevant to judgement. As per usual you know very little about a case but think you know it all and that you can pass judgement on anyone who would prefer to work from facts than assumptions. If you don't want to have discussions with people get off the comments section of the Echo. You're clogging it up with this kind of petty rubbish and wasting people's time.[/p][/quote]I agree. Nobody has ever supported him on these threads. Despite what some people openly manipulate and lie. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Sat 27 Jul 13

miniminime says...

Really do feel that the Echo should have made this story a no comment one. He'll be out in 6 weeks !
Really do feel that the Echo should have made this story a no comment one. He'll be out in 6 weeks ! miniminime
  • Score: 0

11:49am Sun 28 Jul 13

scrumpyjack says...

miniminime wrote:
Really do feel that the Echo should have made this story a no comment one. He'll be out in 6 weeks !
Why?
[quote][p][bold]miniminime[/bold] wrote: Really do feel that the Echo should have made this story a no comment one. He'll be out in 6 weeks ![/p][/quote]Why? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree