‘Lonely’ Boscombe man confesses to having more than 1,000 indecent images of children

‘Lonely’ Boscombe man confesses to having more than 1,000 indecent images of children

‘Lonely’ Boscombe man confesses to having more than 1,000 indecent images of children

First published in News by

A LONELY Boscombe man confessed to possessing more than 1,000 indecent images of children, a court heard.

Lionel Plowman, 67, was found to have 1,137 images at level one – depicting nudity – with a handful at levels three to five – depicting penetration – when police raided his home in The Crescent and confiscated 13 electronic devices in 2012.

Prosecutor Nicholas Robinson told Bournemouth Crown Court on Friday that Plowman had confessed to the offences at the earliest opportunity.

“The officer who analysed the devices found evidence of search phrases including ‘nude pre-teens’ and ‘pre-teen nudism’,” he said.

Defending, David Richards said: “He committed these offences when, he says, he was in a bad place personally.

“Clearly he is an isolated individual, he was looking at adult pornography generally, and he fell into looking at some of this material.

“He is of previous good character, and according to the assessment of the probation officer is at a low risk of reoffending.”

He said Plowman, a “lonely old man” with no family, had not looked at pornography since his arrest, and that the experience of passing through the criminal justice system had had “a salutary effect on him”.

Sentencing him to a three-year community order, and three years on the Thames Valley Sex Offenders programme, judge Samuel Wiggs said: “This may seem like a lenient sentence. It is not.”

He said Plowman faced a sentence of around four months imprisonment under the guidelines, but through the community order he would be compelled to attend the sex offenders’ programme for three years, and would be punished with a longer jail term if he reoffended.

Plowman was also ordered to sign the sex offenders register for five years.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:13pm Wed 14 May 14

retry69 says...

So Judge Wiggs it is not a lenient sentence, I wonder how many will agree?
So Judge Wiggs it is not a lenient sentence, I wonder how many will agree? retry69
  • Score: 8

1:54pm Wed 14 May 14

Huey says...

Samuel Wiggs said: “This may seem like a lenient sentence. It is not.”
He may seem like a judge. He is not.
Samuel Wiggs said: “This may seem like a lenient sentence. It is not.” He may seem like a judge. He is not. Huey
  • Score: -79

2:29pm Wed 14 May 14

burgerboy says...

I bet Ploughman was over the moon when he discovered he had got Wiggs AKA" Mr softee" to judge his case.......
I bet Ploughman was over the moon when he discovered he had got Wiggs AKA" Mr softee" to judge his case....... burgerboy
  • Score: 9

2:46pm Wed 14 May 14

nothingtofear says...

It seems to me as if Judge Wiggs's comments are aimed at his critics as much as at the defendant but we won't have the wool pulled over our eyes.
It seems to me as if Judge Wiggs's comments are aimed at his critics as much as at the defendant but we won't have the wool pulled over our eyes. nothingtofear
  • Score: 7

3:03pm Wed 14 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Seems a fair sentence really.
Seems a fair sentence really. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -7

5:12pm Wed 14 May 14

Rasta dude says...

There is no such thing as a fair sentence for nonces they should be put in Chernobyl to die what rights should they have after destroying young children who have to live with it forever if the sentences were fair they wouldn't do it through fear and don't put them on the 43s special wing put them in with rest
There is no such thing as a fair sentence for nonces they should be put in Chernobyl to die what rights should they have after destroying young children who have to live with it forever if the sentences were fair they wouldn't do it through fear and don't put them on the 43s special wing put them in with rest Rasta dude
  • Score: 3

5:14pm Wed 14 May 14

Rasta dude says...

burgerboy wrote:
I bet Ploughman was over the moon when he discovered he had got Wiggs AKA" Mr softee" to judge his case.......
I think someone needs to look at judge wiggs PC and other devices to friendly to the plight of the child sex offenders
[quote][p][bold]burgerboy[/bold] wrote: I bet Ploughman was over the moon when he discovered he had got Wiggs AKA" Mr softee" to judge his case.......[/p][/quote]I think someone needs to look at judge wiggs PC and other devices to friendly to the plight of the child sex offenders Rasta dude
  • Score: 7

5:16pm Wed 14 May 14

Rasta dude says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Seems a fair sentence really.
Yeh right tell that to kids in the pics you idiot
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: Seems a fair sentence really.[/p][/quote]Yeh right tell that to kids in the pics you idiot Rasta dude
  • Score: 5

5:32pm Wed 14 May 14

Adrian XX says...

The sentence seems fair to me. I think a lot of people who comment here would hang someone just for dropping litter.

I think custodial sentences are only appropriate for violent offenders and for serious repeat offenders. If he had actually abused children, then a custodial sentence would definitely be appropriate, but it might be more useful to society if "downloaders" were able to work with the police (as part of their sentence) to uncover the identities of producers of abuse images.

I would also point out that nude images per se are not illegal - they have to be in some way sexually suggestive in order to be illegal. I have nude images of myself at the age of 3 and I am confident that they are not illegal.
The sentence seems fair to me. I think a lot of people who comment here would hang someone just for dropping litter. I think custodial sentences are only appropriate for violent offenders and for serious repeat offenders. If he had actually abused children, then a custodial sentence would definitely be appropriate, but it might be more useful to society if "downloaders" were able to work with the police (as part of their sentence) to uncover the identities of producers of abuse images. I would also point out that nude images per se are not illegal - they have to be in some way sexually suggestive in order to be illegal. I have nude images of myself at the age of 3 and I am confident that they are not illegal. Adrian XX
  • Score: 4

6:05pm Wed 14 May 14

Rasta dude says...

Adrian XX wrote:
The sentence seems fair to me. I think a lot of people who comment here would hang someone just for dropping litter.

I think custodial sentences are only appropriate for violent offenders and for serious repeat offenders. If he had actually abused children, then a custodial sentence would definitely be appropriate, but it might be more useful to society if "downloaders" were able to work with the police (as part of their sentence) to uncover the identities of producers of abuse images.

I would also point out that nude images per se are not illegal - they have to be in some way sexually suggestive in order to be illegal. I have nude images of myself at the age of 3 and I am confident that they are not illegal.
But the other pics weren't though and that's the problem
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: The sentence seems fair to me. I think a lot of people who comment here would hang someone just for dropping litter. I think custodial sentences are only appropriate for violent offenders and for serious repeat offenders. If he had actually abused children, then a custodial sentence would definitely be appropriate, but it might be more useful to society if "downloaders" were able to work with the police (as part of their sentence) to uncover the identities of producers of abuse images. I would also point out that nude images per se are not illegal - they have to be in some way sexually suggestive in order to be illegal. I have nude images of myself at the age of 3 and I am confident that they are not illegal.[/p][/quote]But the other pics weren't though and that's the problem Rasta dude
  • Score: 7

6:09pm Wed 14 May 14

crazybird says...

How can Judge Wiggs be taken off the bench? He is ridiculous!
How can Judge Wiggs be taken off the bench? He is ridiculous! crazybird
  • Score: 7

6:12pm Wed 14 May 14

Adrian XX says...

Rasta dude wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
The sentence seems fair to me. I think a lot of people who comment here would hang someone just for dropping litter.

I think custodial sentences are only appropriate for violent offenders and for serious repeat offenders. If he had actually abused children, then a custodial sentence would definitely be appropriate, but it might be more useful to society if "downloaders" were able to work with the police (as part of their sentence) to uncover the identities of producers of abuse images.

I would also point out that nude images per se are not illegal - they have to be in some way sexually suggestive in order to be illegal. I have nude images of myself at the age of 3 and I am confident that they are not illegal.
But the other pics weren't though and that's the problem
I am not denying there is a problem and I suspect the "level one" images actually were sexually suggestive and not just "nude" as the article reports.

On another point, the number of images should not really matter. One can be as bad as a thousand, since multiple images are often distributed in zip or rar files.
[quote][p][bold]Rasta dude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: The sentence seems fair to me. I think a lot of people who comment here would hang someone just for dropping litter. I think custodial sentences are only appropriate for violent offenders and for serious repeat offenders. If he had actually abused children, then a custodial sentence would definitely be appropriate, but it might be more useful to society if "downloaders" were able to work with the police (as part of their sentence) to uncover the identities of producers of abuse images. I would also point out that nude images per se are not illegal - they have to be in some way sexually suggestive in order to be illegal. I have nude images of myself at the age of 3 and I am confident that they are not illegal.[/p][/quote]But the other pics weren't though and that's the problem[/p][/quote]I am not denying there is a problem and I suspect the "level one" images actually were sexually suggestive and not just "nude" as the article reports. On another point, the number of images should not really matter. One can be as bad as a thousand, since multiple images are often distributed in zip or rar files. Adrian XX
  • Score: 1

9:36pm Wed 14 May 14

whataboutthat says...

"On another point, the number of images should not really matter. One can be as bad as a thousand, since multiple images are often distributed in zip or rar files....

You seem to know a lot about files and compression formats Adrian XX
"On another point, the number of images should not really matter. One can be as bad as a thousand, since multiple images are often distributed in zip or rar files.... You seem to know a lot about files and compression formats Adrian XX whataboutthat
  • Score: -2

9:54pm Wed 14 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

I thing generally Adrian speaks well of his views on the law. I usually agree with his points.

Lets not forget, this man looked at a computer, on his own, and involved nobody else in his action.
I thing generally Adrian speaks well of his views on the law. I usually agree with his points. Lets not forget, this man looked at a computer, on his own, and involved nobody else in his action. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -10

10:10pm Wed 14 May 14

Rasta dude says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I thing generally Adrian speaks well of his views on the law. I usually agree with his points.

Lets not forget, this man looked at a computer, on his own, and involved nobody else in his action.
It's naked kids mate if you think that's ok your as bad as the man in the court it is never ok to except this sort of thing it's that sort of ignorance that get pointless jail terms
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I thing generally Adrian speaks well of his views on the law. I usually agree with his points. Lets not forget, this man looked at a computer, on his own, and involved nobody else in his action.[/p][/quote]It's naked kids mate if you think that's ok your as bad as the man in the court it is never ok to except this sort of thing it's that sort of ignorance that get pointless jail terms Rasta dude
  • Score: 8

12:29am Thu 15 May 14

ragj195 says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I thing generally Adrian speaks well of his views on the law. I usually agree with his points.

Lets not forget, this man looked at a computer, on his own, and involved nobody else in his action.
"He involved nobody else"???? Are you for real? He was partly responsible for the abuse of every child in every photo he downloaded. He is the customer base of the sick people that actually take these photo's. He searched "pre-teen nudity" that's under 12 years old and under. Some of the pictures included penetration but hand on, he didn't involve anyone else did he?

As for Adrian XX, did he even bother to read the article because I doubt he has pictures of himself as a 3 year old being subjected to what these kids are put through to satisfy this sick persons fantasies.

The Echo have written this up as if they are part of the defendants legal team. Our legal system is a mess when a person can get 8 months for getting their wife to take 3 points for a speeding offense yet this guy doesn't even go down.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I thing generally Adrian speaks well of his views on the law. I usually agree with his points. Lets not forget, this man looked at a computer, on his own, and involved nobody else in his action.[/p][/quote]"He involved nobody else"???? Are you for real? He was partly responsible for the abuse of every child in every photo he downloaded. He is the customer base of the sick people that actually take these photo's. He searched "pre-teen nudity" that's under 12 years old and under. Some of the pictures included penetration but hand on, he didn't involve anyone else did he? As for Adrian XX, did he even bother to read the article because I doubt he has pictures of himself as a 3 year old being subjected to what these kids are put through to satisfy this sick persons fantasies. The Echo have written this up as if they are part of the defendants legal team. Our legal system is a mess when a person can get 8 months for getting their wife to take 3 points for a speeding offense yet this guy doesn't even go down. ragj195
  • Score: 11

1:26am Thu 15 May 14

boscombemum says...

How as a single mum of a toddler on this road was I not notified- nor the rest of the parents that live on this road with children of different ages. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the trouble round here at the moment. For those saying its accidental, it was 1137 images, you try to see if you can "accidentally download" that many images of anything such as a bouncy ball etc.. Its absurd and think as to how many years in therapy those poor children will spend thanks to people like this
How as a single mum of a toddler on this road was I not notified- nor the rest of the parents that live on this road with children of different ages. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the trouble round here at the moment. For those saying its accidental, it was 1137 images, you try to see if you can "accidentally download" that many images of anything such as a bouncy ball etc.. Its absurd and think as to how many years in therapy those poor children will spend thanks to people like this boscombemum
  • Score: 7

4:13am Thu 15 May 14

NudistSinigle.net says...

Nudism is about de-stressing, relaxing, and returning to innocence. It's about accepting yourself and others for who you are, how you act, and what you say, rather than what you look like, wear, or own.
Nudism is about de-stressing, relaxing, and returning to innocence. It's about accepting yourself and others for who you are, how you act, and what you say, rather than what you look like, wear, or own. NudistSinigle.net
  • Score: -6

7:57am Thu 15 May 14

ragj195 says...

NudistSinigle.net wrote:
Nudism is about de-stressing, relaxing, and returning to innocence. It's about accepting yourself and others for who you are, how you act, and what you say, rather than what you look like, wear, or own.
Go away weirdo. This case mentions the penetration of children and you come out with a comment like that.
[quote][p][bold]NudistSinigle.net[/bold] wrote: Nudism is about de-stressing, relaxing, and returning to innocence. It's about accepting yourself and others for who you are, how you act, and what you say, rather than what you look like, wear, or own.[/p][/quote]Go away weirdo. This case mentions the penetration of children and you come out with a comment like that. ragj195
  • Score: 9

1:18pm Thu 15 May 14

stevobath says...

NudistSinigle.net wrote:
Nudism is about de-stressing, relaxing, and returning to innocence. It's about accepting yourself and others for who you are, how you act, and what you say, rather than what you look like, wear, or own.
You weirdo. This is about looking at small kids for sexual gratification.

It's not looking at pictures of CONSENTING ADULTS in the 'noddy'.
or indeed feeing oneself of clothes.
[quote][p][bold]NudistSinigle.net[/bold] wrote: Nudism is about de-stressing, relaxing, and returning to innocence. It's about accepting yourself and others for who you are, how you act, and what you say, rather than what you look like, wear, or own.[/p][/quote]You weirdo. This is about looking at small kids for sexual gratification. It's not looking at pictures of CONSENTING ADULTS in the 'noddy'. or indeed feeing oneself of clothes. stevobath
  • Score: 2

1:19pm Thu 15 May 14

spooki says...

Adrian XX wrote:
The sentence seems fair to me. I think a lot of people who comment here would hang someone just for dropping litter.

I think custodial sentences are only appropriate for violent offenders and for serious repeat offenders. If he had actually abused children, then a custodial sentence would definitely be appropriate, but it might be more useful to society if "downloaders" were able to work with the police (as part of their sentence) to uncover the identities of producers of abuse images.

I would also point out that nude images per se are not illegal - they have to be in some way sexually suggestive in order to be illegal. I have nude images of myself at the age of 3 and I am confident that they are not illegal.
Yes but you might not get aroused or sexually excited by looking at them.
Children are children not mini adults, Lolitas or in any way supposed to be looked upon by pervs.
You do not 'accidentally' find over 1000 images of this kind. I don't care if you're lonely, introverted or whatever.
Yes he "just" looked at pictures but who made those pictures? Why did they think it was ok to do so? What happened to the children in the pictures?
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: The sentence seems fair to me. I think a lot of people who comment here would hang someone just for dropping litter. I think custodial sentences are only appropriate for violent offenders and for serious repeat offenders. If he had actually abused children, then a custodial sentence would definitely be appropriate, but it might be more useful to society if "downloaders" were able to work with the police (as part of their sentence) to uncover the identities of producers of abuse images. I would also point out that nude images per se are not illegal - they have to be in some way sexually suggestive in order to be illegal. I have nude images of myself at the age of 3 and I am confident that they are not illegal.[/p][/quote]Yes but you might not get aroused or sexually excited by looking at them. Children are children not mini adults, Lolitas or in any way supposed to be looked upon by pervs. You do not 'accidentally' find over 1000 images of this kind. I don't care if you're lonely, introverted or whatever. Yes he "just" looked at pictures but who made those pictures? Why did they think it was ok to do so? What happened to the children in the pictures? spooki
  • Score: 4

5:30pm Thu 15 May 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Seems a fair sentence really.
Would you think that if it was your kids in the pictures he was looking at? Disgusting attitude!
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: Seems a fair sentence really.[/p][/quote]Would you think that if it was your kids in the pictures he was looking at? Disgusting attitude! HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: -9

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