"A judge has been criticised after he described jailing a paedophile primary school teacher as a "tragedy" and a "loss to the community". Richard Oldham, 32, was sentenced to six months after he pleaded guilty to voyeurism, making indecent images of a child and sexually assaulting two boys at Leeds Crown Court. Oldham, now of North Tamerton, Cornwall, admitted to groping his victims and filming children as they changed in the swimming pool. He was described by police as "every parent's worst nightmare". However, despite admitting 23 sex offences over eight years, Judge Jameson said that Oldham was "man enough" to battle his demons and that he is a good teacher who should be "treasured"."
23 sex offenses over eight years, and he was described by the judge as "a good teacher who should be treasured"??
Naturally, there was outrage at these comments.
"David Hines, of the National Victims' Association charity, said he was "gobsmacked" by the judge's remarks."
"An NSPCC spokesman said: "A good teacher commands the unquestioning trust of pupils and parents, however talented they may be at teaching. "We doubt many parents will be sad to see him put in jail." 'Prison is the right place for him'""
What was the judge thinking?
What if it were a fireman who was caught and arrested for arson? Would the judge have possibly described him as "a great fireman"?
What if he were a Police Officer who had been caught in something like an armed robbery. Would the judge have sympathised with him calling him "an exemplary Police Officer"?
Disgusting language from a Judge - the fact was this was a paedophile teacher with eight years of sex offenses. Seems probable that he would have become a teacher purely to get the close contact with children to satisfy his vile fantasies.
Which got me thinking about a slightly closer to home apologist for a paedophile teacher.
Not quite the same - as at the time he was not in the judiciary - but similar all the same.
From the above link (5 parts & well worth a read if you haven't read it already).
"He went on to say that Mr Jervis-Dykes had served the college in an outstandingly competent and conscientious way. He accepted that there was now evidence of misconduct" and "He asked that Mr Jervis-Dykes be allowed to leave with some dignity"
Very similar language.
But where was the outrage at the time this report came out - where were Jersey's "gobsmacked" child protection experts?
OK, at the time he was Vice Principal of the college, not a member of the Judiciary.
But the rest as they say is history.
No real connections - and the main point is the above UK story - but it does get you thinking sometimes about the different reactions between the two areas .........