REPUGNANT - The End!!

Anyone who chooses to use a baby as a sexual toy does not deserve to feel the sun on his skin again. Ever.
I'm well aware of sentencing limitations (before you start, Bernie), and to clarify, it is my purely personal opinion that this waste of oxygen should be placed in general population, in the worst prison possible, and the details of his offenses broadcast over a tannoy.
 
OK Steve

Tell us about the risks specific to this person, and how they will apply in 14 years, and possibly less.

I mean if it's 'risk' based on actions, should you ever be allowed near a car again? You have shown a complete disregard for other people and the road traffic acts. Should you therefore be banned for life? I think we all know your answer.

Your own words in the past have included 'shooting in the face'. In advocating that, you are a danger to the public. Should you be banged up for life?

The obvious answer is no, but the difference is that we are taking your risk to the public at face value. He won't have that, he will be closely monitored, before release, and then only released early if there is no danger to the public. Whenever he does get out, he will again be monitored, probably for the rest of his life.

That probably makes him less of a risk to the public. A bit like this silliness of telling everyone where people convicted of sex with those under 16 live. It's not them you need to worry about, it's the ones that haven't been caught.

Lastly, I'll put money on a large number of people on here being sex offenders. How many people who use this site had sex with someone under 16, when they were over that? A fair number. So they should all be locked up and never let out?
 
Bernie174 said:
Lastly, I'll put money on a large number of people on here being sex offenders. How many people who use this site had sex with someone under 16, when they were over that? A fair number. So they should all be locked up and never let out?
Click to expand...

Sweeping generalisations, with no knowledge of the facts is clearly ok for you though Bernie :rolleyes:
 
Bernie174 said:
Cg Girl.
I presume you mean annoyed, not drunk. Americanisms are so ambiguous, so if you'd like to continue in English please?
His release date is if he responds to treatment and accepts restricts is likely to be around 8 years. If he doesn't, he'll stay inside for the full sentence. On release he will be subject to very close monitoring, so if you're right and he shows any leanings back, he'll be nicked and end up back inside. But like Steve you are trying to fortell the future.
Click to expand...


Firstly you presume wrong... i meant Pi**ed not annoyed... so if you would like to continue without being pompous please.

Bernie174 said:
Lastly, I'll put money on a large number of people on here being sex offenders. How many people who use this site had sex with someone under 16, when they were over that? A fair number. So they should all be locked up and never let out?
Click to expand...

Are you for real? a huge huge leap from small babies and young kiddies don't you think
 
Bernie174 said:
I mean if it's 'risk' based on actions, should you ever be allowed near a car again? You have shown a complete disregard for other people and the road traffic acts. Should you therefore be banned for life? I think we all know your answer.
Click to expand...

Driving at that speed isn't dangerous, nor is it morally as vile an offence as raping a baby. If you think it has, you've spent too much time driving around in bobby cars catching people going a little fast rather than actually thinking about real crimes. Crimes that matter, crimes that change lives. Someone has an off in a car, s*** happens, its not intentional. People that rape babies, morally thats wholly different.

Bernie174 said:
Your own words in the past have included 'shooting in the face'. In advocating that, you are a danger to the public. Should you be banged up for life?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't shoot anyone in the face, except to save my own life if I had a gun. I would advocate shooting in the face as a sentence for crimes. A lot of crimes...:D

Bernie174 said:
The obvious answer is no, but the difference is that we are taking your risk to the public at face value. He won't have that, he will be closely monitored, before release, and then only released early if there is no danger to the public. Whenever he does get out, he will again be monitored, probably for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

Out on licence, on the streets, the risk is too great - even if it isn't. Why should someone who rapes babies ever walk free? Can you tell me that? Doesn't set a good example, doesn't punish enough, and even if there is a tiny risk (and its been proven re-offending does happen) so it is not tiny, there is no reason to have them free.

Bernie174 said:
That probably makes him less of a risk to the public. A bit like this silliness of telling everyone where people convicted of sex with those under 16 live. It's not them you need to worry about, it's the ones that haven't been caught.
Click to expand...

Once a nonce, always a nonce.

Bernie174 said:
Lastly, I'll put money on a large number of people on here being sex offenders. How many people who use this site had sex with someone under 16, when they were over that? A fair number. So they should all be locked up and never let out?
Click to expand...

I haven't, I didn't even have sex until I was 18. She was 18. If you have, thats you're watch.
 
viv1969 said:
That child will physically serve a sentence for her entire life.
Click to expand...

The thirteen year old or baby? Depends, on the support she has in the future, from family, friends, professionals and ultimately the partner she chooses.
 
viv1969 said:
Anyone who chooses to use a baby as a sexual toy does not deserve to feel the sun on his skin again. Ever.
I'm well aware of sentencing limitations (before you start, Bernie), and to clarify, it is my purely personal opinion that this waste of oxygen should be placed in general population, in the worst prison possible, and the details of his offenses broadcast over a tannoy.
Click to expand...

@viv1969 for the next minister of justice post......
 
Byker28i said:
The thirteen year old or baby? Depends, on the support she has in the future, from family, friends, professionals and ultimately the partner she chooses.
Click to expand...

The baby.
The full on rape of an infant must surely compromise her internally...not least the destruction of a still forming cervix.
 
Bernie174 said:
OK Steve

Tell us about the risks specific to this person, and how they will apply in 14 years, and possibly less.

I mean if it's 'risk' based on actions, should you ever be allowed near a car again? You have shown a complete disregard for other people and the road traffic acts. Should you therefore be banned for life? I think we all know your answer.

Your own words in the past have included 'shooting in the face'. In advocating that, you are a danger to the public. Should you be banged up for life?

The obvious answer is no, but the difference is that we are taking your risk to the public at face value. He won't have that, he will be closely monitored, before release, and then only released early if there is no danger to the public. Whenever he does get out, he will again be monitored, probably for the rest of his life.

That probably makes him less of a risk to the public. A bit like this silliness of telling everyone where people convicted of sex with those under 16 live. It's not them you need to worry about, it's the ones that haven't been caught.

Lastly, I'll put money on a large number of people on here being sex offenders. How many people who use this site had sex with someone under 16, when they were over that? A fair number. So they should all be locked up and never let out?
Click to expand...
I have I have. But not in the UK and the age of consent is a different number. So yes, lock them all up please.
 
Firstly you presume wrong... i meant Pi**ed not annoyed... so if you would like to continue without being pompous please.
Click to expand...

Sorry, p***ed in English means you're drunk. If you aren't using the Americanism, then it must be that. Perhaps that explains why you said what you did.

Moving on, the point is this, that you were not present in court for the evidence. You were not there when the victim impact statement was given. You were not in court when mitigation was given. You were not in court, so you don't know if perhaps he grassed up a lot of other people. So you don't know all of the circumstances. In fact, like most people on here, you have read a couple of paragraphs in a press report, decided that is all of it, and leaped to a conclusion.

Neatly forgetting as Steve did, that you conclusion he can never be cured is outside you clearly limited experience and so is the effect on the child. You and Steve have guessed what might happen in the future, with no more knowledge of the facts or the effects than whats written by a hack.

Your words are a good example as to why the public are not part of any sentencing process. Emotion and shock & horror by proxy has nothing to do with it. So stop being 'p***ed' by proxy and get rid of the emotion. You'll find a much more reasoned discussion.

Steve

Speed is dangerous, which is why you were disqualified. There is as much chance of you offending again as not. The same as chummy. Irrespective of how seriously you view each offence, thats the facts. So, if life should mean life for chummy, then should your license stay with DVLA for good?

Now you will say no, you have learned your lesson. How do you know that chummy hasn't?

You don't.

And lastly, USI is a serious secxual offence, the same point applies, should someone who's committed that also be locked up for good? I suspect most people will say no. Why the difference? the idea of prison is reform, if someone committing USI can be reformed why can't a peadophile not be?
 
Bernie174 said:
OK Steve

Lastly, I'll put money on a large number of people on here being sex offenders. How many people who use this site had sex with someone under 16, when they were over that? A fair number. So they should all be locked up and never let out?
Click to expand...

What a stupid comparison. Huge difference between a 16 year old shaggin' a 15 year old and what this reptile did. As an ex cop you should know that and have the sense to phrase your points in a more pertinent manner.
 
Brash

No one is disputing what he is, simply the way that some on here, with the usual howls of proxy outrage pass comment on something they know nothing about simply because they cannot separate emotion for the subject. Difficult though that is for some, and impossible for others, its the only way the discussion is going to go anywhere.

I used a sexual offence comparison to show that the outrage is all emotion based, after all, if one sexual offence should lead to life, why shouldn't another? And that because a person has committed a sexual offence it does not make them a serial offender.

Like I said, people need to take the emotion away, and until you/they do, this is just a baying mob wanting retribution for something that has nothing to do with them.
 
BRASH said:
What a stupid comparison. Huge difference between a 16 year old shaggin' a 15 year old and what this reptile did. As an ex cop you should know that and have the sense to phrase your points in a more pertinent manner.
Click to expand...
Whilst there is from a moral perspective, I didn't take Bernies comment like that. We do have a legal system and can't just change the rules when it suits us or makes us more disgusted about one thing then another. That is why it is such a complex beast. From a mental age there could be a huge gap even at those ages.
 
Bernie174 said:
Brash



I used a sexual offence comparison to show that the outrage is all emotion based, after all, if one sexual offence should lead to life, why shouldn't another? And that because a person has committed a sexual offence it does not make them a serial offender.
Click to expand...

That's a fundamentally flawed argument as well you should know there are different degrees of seriousness. I totally understand the outrage at what he has done but I'm also unaware of any one calling for 'across the board' penalties for all sexual offenders. As for this particular guy, do you really think it's the first offence he's carried out. I appreciate he's been locked up for this but folk can be serial offenders without being caught and prosecuted.
 
Bernie174 said:
Sorry, p***ed in English means you're drunk. If you aren't using the Americanism, then it must be that. Perhaps that explains why you said what you did.

Moving on, the point is this, that you were not present in court for the evidence. You were not there when the victim impact statement was given. You were not in court when mitigation was given. You were not in court, so you don't know if perhaps he grassed up a lot of other people. So you don't know all of the circumstances. In fact, like most people on here, you have read a couple of paragraphs in a press report, decided that is all of it, and leaped to a conclusion.

Neatly forgetting as Steve did, that you conclusion he can never be cured is outside you clearly limited experience and so is the effect on the child. You and Steve have guessed what might happen in the future, with no more knowledge of the facts or the effects than whats written by a hack.

Your words are a good example as to why the public are not part of any sentencing process. Emotion and shock & horror by proxy has nothing to do with it. So stop being 'p***ed' by proxy and get rid of the emotion. You'll find a much more reasoned discussion.

Steve

Speed is dangerous, which is why you were disqualified. There is as much chance of you offending again as not. The same as chummy. Irrespective of how seriously you view each offence, thats the facts. So, if life should mean life for chummy, then should your license stay with DVLA for good?

Now you will say no, you have learned your lesson. How do you know that chummy hasn't?

You don't.

And lastly, USI is a serious secxual offence, the same point applies, should someone who's committed that also be locked up for good? I suspect most people will say no. Why the difference? the idea of prison is reform, if someone committing USI can be reformed why can't a peadophile not be?
Click to expand...

I won't, but had the rules been perm disqual for my offence I wouldn't have done it. I thought the ban would be like 56 days / £500 well worth it for the fun of driving at 138mph (the car wouldn't go faster hence only 138mph) and I'd just take it on the chin. Had I known the punishment I might have pegged it at around 100mph.

Given people drive well north of a ton a lot of the time and the relatively few accidents involving speeds like this to the number of actual events on the road where people breach the ton if say statistically the actual danger is low.

And don't quote the number of accidents involving high speed relative the number of offences detected. Most speeding drivers get caught once or twice but do it countless times. I've been done twice in ten years, or is three times. The amount of times I've sped well over the limit, countless. The amount of collisions or near misses. None.

The fact you're comparing raping an infant and/or a 13 yr old to someone having a jolly in a car on a quiet road is a bit odd.
 
Bernie174 said:
Sorry, p***ed in English means you're drunk. If you aren't using the Americanism, then it must be that. Perhaps that explains why you said what you did.

Moving on, the point is this, that you were not present in court for the evidence. You were not there when the victim impact statement was given.
Click to expand...

Gosh, you really do like the sound (appearance) of your own words.

You might not like the use of the word, but by current definition its perfectly acceptable...unless you're now the language police too.

And there is no one...specialist or not...can accurately define the impact of rape on a six month old infant.
 
Oh...and in my own opinion, anyone taking away the emotion from the sexual defilement of a baby has a whole different set of personal problems.
 
dejongj said:
Whilst there is from a moral perspective, I didn't take Bernies comment like that. We do have a legal system and can't just change the rules when it suits us or makes us more disgusted about one thing then another. That is why it is such a complex beast. From a mental age there could be a huge gap even at those ages.
Click to expand...

Legal system here failed. A baby f***ker out in 8 years. A randy 17yr old pumping a 15yr old. It happens, it's illegal like driving 33 in a 30. It's a non crime. A man f***ing a baby and then a 13yo. That's like driving drunk 110mph down Oxford road in London at Christmas shopping time. Proper looney tunes time.

Whilst I don't condone vigilantism the laws been a bit lenient here. Maybe he grassed up some other nonces. But if we had the death sentence to begin with, it could have been bargained down to life in bars.

And no, randy 17yr olds have a fumble don't deserve death.
 
...
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
...
Click to expand...

That's why I stated it was my opinion and nothing more, or did you miss that part?

And "sigh", as part of a text based discussion is a little futile is it not?
 
viv1969 said:
The baby.
The full on rape of an infant must surely compromise her internally...not least the destruction of a still forming cervix.
Click to expand...

Ah sorry was thinking emotionally not physically, but you'd hope that the human body and it's power to heal would overcome.
 
viv1969 said:
That's why I stated it was my opinion and nothing more, or did you miss that part?

And "sigh", as part of a text based discussion is a little futile is it not?
Click to expand...
Like that makes a difference. It still expresses what you think. Well I am glad that there are people who actually do make a difference without getting all emotional about it ;) pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Byker28i said:
Ah sorry was thinking emotionally not physically, but you'd hope that the human body and it's power to heal would overcome.
Click to expand...

The human body is good. But cannot heal certain (many) things.
 
dejongj said:
Like that makes a difference. It still expresses what you think. Well I am glad that there are people who actually do make a difference without getting all emotional about it ;) pathetic.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but did I miss the part where your opinion became more valid than mine?:thinking:
 
viv1969 said:
The human body is good. But cannot heal certain (many) things.
Click to expand...
Usually it's the physical that heals, but the psychological issues continue. With such a young age that may be reversed, but this isn't my field so I'll bow to your knowledge.
 
Byker28i said:
Usually it's the physical that heals, but the psychological issues continue. With such a young age that may be reversed, but this isn't my field so I'll bow to your knowledge.
Click to expand...

The cervix is physically clamped closed tightly enough to allow the exit of menstrual waste, and the entrance of sperm.
The physisical dimensions of a six month old baby, and the average size of the adult sexually erect penis mean that in the case of a rape of this nature, the chances are that this child's vagina, cervix and possibly uterus were horribly compromised.

The only organs in the body that can truly regenerate (it's not just a matter of "healing"), are the liver and the epidermis.

Happy to be proved wrong.
 
Byker28i said:
Usually it's the physical that heals, but the psychological issues continue. With such a young age that may be reversed, but this isn't my field so I'll bow to your knowledge.
Click to expand...

A baby won't remember it I'd wager, a 13yo though, it would be terrifying for. Such a cruel, sadistic crime IMHO.

I feel the sentence is too lenient.
 
Actually, Bernie put it better than I was trying to.

Bernie174 said:
... with the usual howls of proxy outrage pass comment on something they know nothing about simply because they cannot separate emotion for the subject.
Click to expand...

It does seem to be a growing trend, as it's easy to do on the internet. A quick comment on twitter, drop a comment on the 'we'd like your feedback' page, but often done without thought, jumping on the moral outrage bandwagon. That doesn't mean those emotions are wrong, it's those that set our moral compass as to whats right or wrong (which is usually calibrated by upbringing, religion, peers and then the laws of the land), but the argument is lost and often has no meaning or impact whilst emotions run away.
 
Brash

On most of that we'll have to agree to differ.
Although on this point.

As for this particular guy, do you really think it's the first offence he's carried out. I appreciate he's been locked up for this but folk can be serial offenders without being caught and prosecuted.
Click to expand...

You might be right, but a court cannot sentence on the basis of something someone might have done, but evidence of it wasn't put before them. They can only sentence on the offence charged.

Steve

No, I am not comparing anything! I am simply pointing out that you cannot use one crime as evidence that no matter what the accused will then go onto commit others of the same type. In your case an easy example is speeding. Should a Court have thought when sentencing you for that, that you WILL do it again and banned you for life? You see thats exactly the thought process you have used to justify your point that chummy should be banged up for life.

Again, the same thing applies to USI, the fact some one commits it once, and the office of national statistics says it does happen often, should they be banged up for life because they might do it again?

It doesn't matter what crime it is in reality, it's an example.

A court cannot sentence on the basis of what might happen, they can only do so on the offence for which they have convicted.

So that justification used by you and others for a higher sentence don't make sense. In your case I suspect that it's more about retribution than anything else. Had you stuck to that then yes, you might have a point.

And no, I haven't expressed any opinion about the sentence passed. It's not my place too, as I said, I wasn't in Court, I don't know all the circumstances so saying it's heavily or light isn't a point that has validity. The Judge who did hear it all has made his decision, thats the end of the matter to me.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Brash

On most of that we'll have to agree to differ.
Although on this point.



You might be right, but a court cannot sentence on the basis of something someone might have done, but evidence of it wasn't put before them. They can only sentence on the offence charged.

Steve

No, I am not comparing anything! I am simply pointing out that you cannot use one crime as evidence that no matter what the accused will then go onto commit others of the same type. In your case an easy example is speeding. Should a Court have thought when sentencing you for that, that you WILL do it again and banned you for life? You see thats exactly the thought process you have used to justify your point that chummy should be banged up for life.

Again, the same thing applies to USI, the fact some one commits it once, and the office of national statistics says it does happen often, should they be banged up for life because they might do it again?

It doesn't matter what crime it is in reality, it's an example.

A court cannot sentence on the basis of what might happen, they can only do so on the offence for which they have convicted.

So that justification used by you and others for a higher sentence don't make sense. In your case I suspect that it's more about retribution than anything else. Had you stuck to that then yes, you might have a point.

And no, I haven't expressed any opinion about the sentence passed. It's not my place too, as I said, I wasn't in Court, I don't know all the circumstances so saying it's heavily or light isn't a point that has validity. The Judge who did hear it all has made his decision, thats the end of the matter to me.
Click to expand...

People that f*ck babies don't deserve to be free. It's such a heinous act - the punishment has to reflect that. Surely you can see that.

The risk of public safety needs considered. It's why killers are put away for life, not because of the chances of reoffending, but in the actual potential event of reoffending the outcome is grave.
 
it is irrelevant whether he or anyone else can see that or not. Laws will have to change through the democratic process before such 'freedoms' can be revoked, whilst I agree it is a heinous act, I'm not so sure I would want people locking up on their potential crimes....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top