Nigel Peters - GROOMED
Apologies for the title of this posting, but the excuses given out by paedophiles and accepted by judges are unbelievable. In this article from today, in which 41 year old Neil Wilson basically walked free from court after "having a two week fling" (?? WTF) with a thirteen year old child, his excuse, and that of the prosecution, that was swallowed hook line and sinker by Judge Nigel Peters, was that his victim was " a sexually experienced predator who egged him on to commit one of the crimes he committed"
Seriously??
Are we to believe this to be a plausible excuse for a forty one year old to submit before court??
Apparently so.
Even worse was the judge who believed this, accepted that Neil Wilson knew that she was underage, and despite him also downloading level three images of child abuse, let him off with an eight month sentence suspended for two years! You seriously couldn't make this crap up!
Seriously, the UK needs to start taking this crime with the seriousness it should be taken with. Being groomed into blaming the victim for being a "13 year old sexual predator" is really taking the proverbial!
Consider this scenario:
An eighty year old tries "egging him on" in the same way (perfectly legal of course) - what would he do?
a) take advantage of her,
b) voice his concerns to Social Services or similar, or
c) ignore & do a fast one?
One would almost guarantee that answer c) would be the majority decision, with some people who have a conscience choosing option b)
What is the difference then?
If an adult male has a thirteen year old girl "trying it on with him", I would hope that the majority would at least raise this with someone like Social Services.
This is no excuse, and should not be bought by the #AVP groomed judges of the UK.
E-mail to AG today.
"I would like to appeal against the sentence handed down to Neil Wilson, Snaresbrook Crown Court today as being unduly lenient, the reasons being as below: "The punishment of offenders This shows society’s unhappiness with the offence committed. Punishment can include loss of, or restrictions to, a person’s liberty or the payment of a fine." As I have pointed out several times in previous appeals, crimes involving sexually abusing / rape against children should always be dealt with in a custodial manner. Society does not view offenders walking out of court as an adequate punishment for paedophiles, who by their nature will always pose a risk to children. the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence). Giving paedophiles suspended sentences is absolutely no deterrence, especially as this was not the only offence committed (also the counts of Indecent Images of Children, level three, which should have resulted in a custodial sentence in itself, being level three). Saying that the victim was a "sexual predator" is an appalling thing for a judge to say, and absolutely no relevance to this case - he obviously knew that she was underage, and he still took advantage of a child. If an eighty year old was to "egg him on" in the same way, would he do the same thing and enter into a sexual relation with her? Of course not, so why would he and the prosecution use this poor excuse - this was a paedophile that saw an opportunity, and took full advantage "the protection of the public This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation." Someone who was downloading these sort of images, and someone who was prepared to commit the crime he has committed will pose a threat to other girls of a similar age. Letting him walk free from the courtroom is not protecting the public in any way - in plain words, he was a 41 year old who sexually abused a thirteen year, and he should be imprisoned for the protection of children in his area of the UK."
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence). Giving paedophiles suspended sentences is absolutely no deterrence, especially as this was not the only offence committed (also the counts of Indecent Images of Children, level three, which should have resulted in a custodial sentence in itself, being level three). Saying that the victim was a "sexual predator" is an appalling thing for a judge to say, and absolutely no relevance to this case - he obviously knew that she was underage, and he still took advantage of a child. If an eighty year old was to "egg him on" in the same way, would he do the same thing and enter into a sexual relation with her? Of course not, so why would he and the prosecution use this poor excuse - this was a paedophile that saw an opportunity, and took full advantage "the protection of the public This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation." Someone who was downloading these sort of images, and someone who was prepared to commit the crime he has committed will pose a threat to other girls of a similar age. Letting him walk free from the courtroom is not protecting the public in any way - in plain words, he was a 41 year old who sexually abused a thirteen year, and he should be imprisoned for the protection of children in his area of the UK."
Good on you for appealing this dreadful court decision, Richard. I dare say the paedophile would not have accepted the predatory attentions of any adult, much less an 80 year old. Paedophilia is paedophilia is paedophilia..
ReplyDeleteElle
Thank you Elle, I will always challenge sentences that are as disgusting as this. There is a petition that has been started to try to rid the CPS of the awful prejudice that has been shown in this case - I would be very grateful if readers could click here petition sign it & share it.
ReplyDeleteSentence increased from a 12 month suspended sentence, to a two year jail sentence. Good result Unduly Lenient
ReplyDelete