Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Utterly deplorable. The British justice system has, one again, proven to be an absolute joke.

    I read that in one of his vile videos, there were images of a two year old being subjected to committing a sex act with a dog.

    How the hell has this scum escaped jail? Oh right, daddy is a big city lawyer. Disgraceful.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    More than a bit misguided since the reason this guy got a lenient sentence was probably because he was a child at the time of the offences.
    A child at 17? What a load of nonsense. He's a young adult and if he is incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong at that age then he ought to have 24 hour supervision. He just sounds like another psychopathic ******* that will hurt and destroy for his own selfish interest.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    A child at 17? What a load of nonsense. He's a young adult and if he is incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong at that age then he ought to have 24 hour supervision. He just sounds like another psychopathic ******* that will hurt and destroy for his own selfish interest.
    17 is below the age of criminal responsibility, I've already addressed this. Also he's been given an order that restricts his abilities to re-offend. As for the state of his mental health, that's the job of his doctors and psychiatrists to deduce, not your feelings.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, that is not a good thing at all. If he can be spared of prison time then he is not the only who has been spared. That's is injustice. He did a nasty crime that affected children and got out off the hook. When he done with his "counseling" do not be surprised to see him at it again since he can just bail himself out. I'm 17. If I was to abuse children at this very moment would of you claim I was too underage therefore not aware of how wrong it is? 17 =/= 7, lol. At age 17 I can get a job, drive a car, and own a gun but 17 year old criminals should not be held responsible for child porn? Lol.

    So if he somehow turned 18 the following day, would he be considered an adult aware of his actions? Lol. What really shouldn't happened is that thrown him in prison and destroy the key.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macy1998)
    own a gun
    You can't buy a gun though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    You can't buy a gun though.
    Can't buy one but at least register for one. I live in the US so our gun laws are slightly different.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macy1998)
    Can't buy one but at least register for one. I live in the US so our gun laws are slightly different.
    You can own a shotgun at 15 in the UK if it is gifted to you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I read "Estonian" and was prepared for the inevitable Eastern European bashing...

    Seriously though, these paraphilic desires happen when you abandon your child in a boys-only boarding school for the rest of his life lol

    #poorparenting
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    What about the rotating blade in the butt?
    No, maybe the rotating blade should only be for pedos who have actually abused children. But I would still castrate them if they're distributing child porn.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    You can own a shotgun at 15 in the UK if it is gifted to you.
    Really? Sounds like one interesting gift although using a gun would be a rare moment.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MildredMalone)
    Hmm, I'm on the fence. At 13, he might not have realised the horrific implications of what he was looking at, i.e. he might have just thought "sweet, it's people of around my age rather than oldies!" instead of knowing that the only way those images or videos exist is through abuse.
    Um, looking at toddlers getting abused isn't the same as thinking "sweet, these people are my age". Toddlers are significantly younger than 13 year olds and I don't know about him but most 13 year olds know what abuse looks like. If he could understand that a ****ing toddler was being sexually abused and thought it was cool he's clearly sick in the head and deserves to be castrated.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Should be jailed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merfie)
    Utterly deplorable. The British justice system has, one again, proven to be an absolute joke.

    I read that in one of his vile videos, there were images of a two year old being subjected to committing a sex act with a dog.

    How the hell has this scum escaped jail? Oh right, daddy is a big city lawyer. Disgraceful.
    Christ, a two year old and a dog. And distributing them over skype! Clearly he wasn't concerned with being caught and it seems he's been proven right on that one. Distributing poppers will soon get most people a harsher sentance ffs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Was there a statement from the parents?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    17 is below the age of criminal responsibility, I've already addressed this. Also he's been given an order that restricts his abilities to re-offend. As for the state of his mental health, that's the job of his doctors and psychiatrists to deduce, not your feelings.
    Wrong: https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility

    As he was 17 at the time of the offence I presume the courts treated him as a child, however at 17 he's well above the age of criminal responsibility. I wonder what similar offences would attract as a sentence, they've obviously made a case with his mental illness. The press have obviously jumped on this because of where he went to school. I'd rather a custodial sentence for his crimes, either way though, his life is pretty much ruined before its begun. I doubt even having a well connected father will make people want to employ a convicted paedophile.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    17 is below the age of criminal responsibility, I've already addressed this. Also he's been given an order that restricts his abilities to re-offend. As for the state of his mental health, that's the job of his doctors and psychiatrists to deduce, not your feelings.
    The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10. In Scotland it is 8 though prosecutions can only be brought against 12+
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    His class and wealth proves exactly why he was given a suspended sentence; the Judge doesn't stop referring to it. Furthermore, this guy's crimes are absolutely massive and disgusting - he didn't have ten photos, or 20, he had over a thousand (not that ten or twenty isn't bad - it's horrendous but you get my point).

    This ruling is a joke - he deserves prison. For a very long time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I have words - the offender was under 18 and this is malicious reporting on the part of the Telegraph.
    And forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a 10-month suspended sentence counts as being 'spared' jail.
    You almost sound like you feel sorry for him?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Da RainForest)
    Old news also I don't see the relevance of putting his school in the tread title. All paedophiles are the same, Etonian or not.
    Ah, but are the sentences comparable too?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Death Grips)
    For all of you that didnt know Get out Jail cards dont just exist in Monopoly, they exist in real life too. Here's a few we managed to collect:

    Lol, I don't think it's just money in this case - it's about the attitude to people from certain classes.

    The defence here sounds similar to the 'affluenza' defence now being used widely in the US to claim that any privileged kid who commits an outrageous act only does so because of his/her privilege and therefore cannot be morally judged.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 2, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.