Just deserts!

Just heard on 6 o'clock news that the cocky journo from the News and screws who hacked into the Royal Family's voice mail has been sent down for four months. Let's hope that he has to share a cell with a particularly rough and nasty piece of work with a life long hatred of the press.

2BM

 

hear hear

 

Ditto to the above ,

 

Radio 4 has announced that a sex offender has not been given a custodial sentence due to the shortage of space - whilst I respect your right to this opinion on this occasion I think you're all talking rubbish.

How can a phone hacker be more dangerous than a sex offender? :shock:

 

Doesn't neccessarily follow GR that one is more dangerous than the other, just that one came up against a more sensible judge than the other.

2BM

 

Well he wont be sharing a cell with a paedophile. What sort of law do we have in this country. Which of the two men in court is a risk to society.
The Journo should have been given a hefty fine and a suspended sentence, the paedophile should have been given a hefty sentence or suspended by the neck

 

I agree with you Slim. One flew over the cuckoos nest comes to mind.
RoofRat

 

Now hear that the Editor of the News and screws has resigned.
Given the joint low esteem in which journos and politicians are held, should we expect a rash of self inflicted early retirements from senior members of the noo labour club?





Not holding my breath. Can be dangerous for the over 70s !!!!!

2BM

 

It depends upon the type and seriousness of the offence GR. Before 2003 lots of acts that were legal if performed by adult straights were sexual offences if committed by gay men and until recently there were a significant number of men on the sex offenders registers who were guilty of consensual adult-adult gay sex.

In the case of the journo - this shows they are not above the law, whereas we already know that paedophiles can be imprisoned, though for the record most are not, nor are those who aid and abet them in committing their crimes, by for example not reporting them to the police when they know what is going on and instead moving them to a different location where they can work with even more children, say Gatwick Airport... oops, why am I straying on to the actions of the current Archbishop of Westminster and Father Hill? For the record, writing as a criminologist, the harm to vulnerable children caused by Murphy O'Connor's inaction greatly exceeds that of both the journalists and the guy convicted of downloading illegal images - but he still has his liberty and the victims of his inaction still have to live with the psychological harm done to them and the fact that, as former victims, they will remain under suspicion as potential future sex offenders themselves, as former victims of serial sexual abuse are at a increased risk of offending themselves in later life. They have thus been doubly victimised!

 

And your point is 'Always'?

So is the nonce more or less dangerous than the journo (who some would say was doing a public service!)?

And whilst on the subject is not the editor of the 'News of the Screws' Guilty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 Section 2(1) in not looking after the Health Safety etc of those in his employment in that he allowed his 'journo' to get to the state where he went to court for carrying out his duties and got banged up for his pains? MMMmmm

 

In this case the nonce is probably less dangerous than the journo: it depends upon the gravity of the offence. At the end of the day the sex offender was not making or distributing child pornography, though by viewing it he was condoning the distribution. The question in my mind is what scale did the photographs come under? Did for example they depict scenes of the utmost kind of depravity such as rape or did they show a child posing inappropriately before a camera, but fully clothed? On the journalists' behaviour, could their behaviour have compromised the safety, security or psychological well-being of members of the Royal Family in their capacity as private individuals? At the end of the day the judiciary are independent and it is they who choose what they consider to be the appropriate punishment having taken into consideration all the facts presented to them, to which the public may or may not be privy. It is not the responsibility of the judiciary to award non-custodial sentences to offenders simply because of misadministration by the Home Office.

The second case of an alledged sex offender that appeared on the news this evening was, I recall, of a suspect awaiting trial? That is something very different to a convicted paedophile.

I must admit Safewalrus that when it comes to comparing the relative merits (or otherwise) of journos and paedos I think a one-way to the Falkland Islands is merited in both cases!