Sailor jailed for filming Wrens in changing room

#5
The chap in question is an ex mate of mine! This case has been ongoing for a while, I'm suprised its taken so lng to get to RR.
 
#8
Hope this does not put young Tim off making the vid he promised us.

Ps wondering about the light sentence for the paedo bit,wonder if he was "helpful" ?
 
#10
Oil_Slick said:
Any pictures?
Are you serious? We are talking here about a sick-minded pervert who can't relate properly to the world; he should be put inside and treated so that his fetish doesn't escalate into something more serious. However, he wil have to survive in choky where "nonces" are given a very hard time. This is not an area for "Jack" humour.
 
#11
wardmaster said:
Oil_Slick said:
Any pictures?
Are you serious? We are talking here about a sick-minded pervert who can't relate properly to the world; he should be put inside and treated so that his fetish doesn't escalate into something more serious. However, he wil have to survive in choky where "nonces" are given a very hard time. This is not an area for "Jack" humour.
Oh, FFS come on! Where would we be otherwise? Anyway, I think he was referring to phots of the Wrens not the kid.

I hope....
 
#12
Without wishing to defend the indefensible, those complaining about a lenient sentence might pause to remember the additional financial penalties popeye is facing, compared to Joe Civvy getting done for the same offence.

Apparently, letting your kid take your laptop to school is a really bad idea.
 
#13
Montigny_La_Palisse said:
wardmaster said:
Oil_Slick said:
Any pictures?
Are you serious? We are talking here about a sick-minded pervert who can't relate properly to the world; he should be put inside and treated so that his fetish doesn't escalate into something more serious. However, he wil have to survive in choky where "nonces" are given a very hard time. This is not an area for "Jack" humour.
Oh, FFS come on! Where would we be otherwise? Anyway, I think he was referring to phots of the Wrens not the kid.

I hope....

There ya go… the WREN.


From the thread title: "Sailor jailed for filming Wrens in changing room"

Methinks some people have too much sand in their manginas this morning. :wink:
 
#14
clanky said:
Without wishing to defend the indefensible, those complaining about a lenient sentence might pause to remember the additional financial penalties popeye is facing,
Financial penalties my shiny metal arse.That perve will be out hurting kids again in no time,assuming he survives the comfort of prison. Are you suggesting that the money is important a la that other bollox Gadd?
 
#16
Montigny_La_Palisse said:
wardmaster said:
Oil_Slick said:
Any pictures?
Are you serious? We are talking here about a sick-minded pervert who can't relate properly to the world; he should be put inside and treated so that his fetish doesn't escalate into something more serious. However, he wil have to survive in choky where "nonces" are given a very hard time. This is not an area for "Jack" humour.
Oh, FFS come on! Where would we be otherwise? Anyway, I think he was referring to phots of the Wrens not the kid.

I hope....
We would be on another forum, not Current Affairs.
 
#17
The sentence will have been for both the voyeurism which was criminalised in the most recent Sexual Offences Act and the possession of prohibited images. The sentence he received suggests that the images he possessed of girls must have been pretty serious as the sentence for possession normally attracts a much lower sentence (of a matter of months for an offender who confesses to the crime). On the voyeurism front it looks like possessing any Carry On films may also constitute a criminal offence..... :roll:

I am shocked though. I though only Stewards were into funny sexual practices, and definitely NOT Stokers! o_O

The two year sentence will be harsh given that he will need to seek the protection of segregation under Rule 43, and the 10 years on the SOR will mean that he will be monitored by the police. It's a pity such provisions don't exist for ex-terrorists, murderers, political and religious fundamentalists.
 
#18
wardmaster said:
Montigny_La_Palisse said:
wardmaster said:
Oil_Slick said:
Any pictures?
Are you serious? We are talking here about a sick-minded pervert who can't relate properly to the world; he should be put inside and treated so that his fetish doesn't escalate into something more serious. However, he wil have to survive in choky where "nonces" are given a very hard time. This is not an area for "Jack" humour.
Oh, FFS come on! Where would we be otherwise? Anyway, I think he was referring to phots of the Wrens not the kid.

I hope....
We would be on another forum, not Current Affairs.
Oh bore off you throbber, it may be current affairs but its still RumRation. Fcuk off to The Daily Mail online if you don't like it you humourless tart.
 
#19
thingy said:
The sentence will have been for both the voyeurism which was criminalised in the most recent Sexual Offences Act and the possession of prohibited images. The sentence he received suggests that the images he possessed of girls must have been pretty serious as the sentence for possession normally attracts a much lower sentence (of a matter of months for an offender who confesses to the crime). On the voyeurism front it looks like possessing any Carry On films may also constitute a criminal offence..... :roll:

I am shocked though. I though only Stewards were into funny sexual practices, and definitely NOT Stokers! o_O

The two year sentence will be harsh given that he will need to seek the protection of segregation under Rule 43, and the 10 years on the SOR will mean that he will be monitored by the police. It's a pity such provisions don't exist for ex-terrorists, murderers, political and religious fundamentalists.

'NOT stokers' Mmmm...sorry but you are very wrong mate :lol: :lol:
 

dixie_gooner

Lantern Swinger
#20
4to8 said:
clanky said:
Without wishing to defend the indefensible, those complaining about a lenient sentence might pause to remember the additional financial penalties popeye is facing,
Financial penalties my shiny metal arse.That perve will be out hurting kids again in no time,assuming he survives the comfort of prison. Are you suggesting that the money is important a la that other bollox Gadd?
Surely he has been kicked out, although the last 2 paragraphs are a bit ambiguous

A Navy spokesman confirmed following a custodial sentence: "It would be normal to consider the administrative discharge of the individual."
The spokesman added: "It would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome of this review, which will in any case remain a matter between the individual and the Royal Navy, his employer."
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
BreathingOutOnTheWayUp Current Affairs 19
slim Blue Jokes 0
sgtpepperband Current Affairs 0

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top