David Lock

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11199226

OK a bit bad but over 30 years ago. 21 years seems a bit on the heavy side.

Agree?

dl

Frosticles

iTrader: (1)

Mint, Gonna now sue the B4stard of a games teacher we had who used to slipper us when we were going over the vaulting horse........

SteveScooby

iTrader: (2)

So you'd prefer to have a sex offender free to do the same again?

+Doc+

There is a mention of child pornography so no not on the heavy side, castration would suffice.

David Lock

No, not in an ideal world but I was just asking the question. I think rapists often get a lot less time and that would seem a more heinous offence. I just thought a bit Mosleyesq. And the culture of schools 30 - 40 years ago was so much different. I am not justifying that for a moment but it is fact nonetheless. I very much doubt that those kids were harmed for life but prosecution is bound to say that. dl

The Zohan

I find raping children and looking at images of children being raped and abused the worst sort of crime there is David. If this bloke was looking at images then he is just as guilty and should be permanently put away - IMHO

David Lock

Fair enough Paul and I am with you on that. May be I am guilty of not reading the article closely enough. I read it as "just" some sadistic spanking but it seems it was much more than that. dl

LG John

Where did it say he raped children?

Also, they ALWAYS "find" child pictures in these cases. I bet 50%+ of scoobynet users would be prosecuted for something similar if the police went through their computer with a fine tooth comb. It is just standard for the police/PF to add such charges as a cherry on top.

It sounds to me like their is more to this case that meets the eyes. 21 years is exceptionally harsh for an extreme take on discapline in an era where it smacking a child wasnt such an issue. As you say, you could rape or murder someone and be out quicker.

I can only assume the abuse in this case was far worse than portrayed in that article. There was talk of molestation and yet it wasnt expanded on. One can only assume that something exceptionally serious was going on there (i.e. lots of boys being touched up sexually over a long period of time?)

cster

No "it didn't do me any harm" types about today?

The Zohan

If and indeed if he was in possession of child **** then likelihood is the child(ren) was a victim ie raped and/or assaulted in the process.

How can you be so sure he did not posses the images?
A lot of pedophiles will try to put themselves in positions of trust just so they have access to children who trust them. It makes perfect sense really so the chances are they are more likely to be in possession of child related ****. No i am not saying all teachers, etc. are child molesters at all.

David Lock

[quote=Paul Habgood;9585832]

If and indeed if he was in possession of child **** then likelihood is the child(ren) was a victim ie raped and/or assaulted in the process.

How can you be so sure he did not posses the images?

..............

quote]

Well the Internet wasn't around 30 years ago for starters and computers weren't up to much either......

I repeat I am NOT justifying these offences just questioning the sentence when I read of so many apparently more serious offences of child abuse - and real paedo 3-year old stuff - than spanking a few naughty 15 year-old kids, no doubt for sexual gratification. dl

LG John

I dont...and I didnt say that. I simply said that it sounds like there is more going on is this case than reported. I cannot see how spanking kids 30 years ago (which was pretty much an accepted form of discapline at the time) merits 21 years in jail. There has to be more to this.....much more.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

The way I read it, is some more detailed facts of this case are being left out.

I think this is far more serious than spanking a few naughty 15 year olds though. He has admitted assault, indecent assault and child pornography offences and has admitted to being a paedophile confirming a sexual motive to the punishments he carried out.

This is what he has admitted, not just been accused of. I'd say the above is pretty serious. I don't think a person would admit to being a paedophile if they'd only spanked a few boys during times where that in itself was allowed.

jasey

"Slade is also alleged to have been in possession of 70,000 indecent images of children on the hard drive of a computer at his home where it is alleged that a false passport was also discovered by police. "

http://www.network54.com/Forum/19883...ckground+links

21 years starting to sound like a light sentence

Aaron1978

iTrader: (12)

It's not that his sentence is too long, it's that more often than not other pedo's sentences are far far too short.

You should be locked up for the remainder of your life if ever found guilty of child abuse etc. Sadly life is a loosely used word in jail terms

David Lock

tbh I am not actually sure what is meant by "paedo". And I am not sure I want to find out anyway. But I expect if you pull a 15 year old boy's pants down and give him the slipper you are just as much a paedo, in jargon terms, as someone who rapes 3 year olds. But surely there is a huge difference or is a paedo a paedo period, as the yanks would say?

dl

LG John

70,000 images!!! Now that is serious. I wonder why that wasn't mentioned in the first report?

Leslie

I read that he used to hit the lads very hard and caused injury to their bare ***** and then used that as an excuse to massage them better!

He is regarded as a dyed in the wool offender and deserves his sentance I think.

Les

The Zohan

+1

should not ever get out of jail - 70,00 images, how many kids abused, raped or even killed to get 70,000 images...

Tidgy

pedo = life without parol to me

bike shed and bullet to save tax payers money springs to mind