The 'right to reply'

Better than his musings on 'proper' 'fans'..</p>

Anyway, if you note in his right to reply there isn't a single word of apology to those poor unfortunates in the images he viewed. Just anger that his actions got into the paper and were mentioned on the old BBS. </p>

McGinners I think stated at the time that he showed no remorse. His latest reported actions seem to bear that out.
</p>

 

Wait til you read the Chron

Sick to the pit of my stomach.

 

Won't read it until Sunday.

What's (accurately) occured ? Same thing, images on't net ?

 

Has he been convicted?

Should imagine at stint at her Majesty's pleasure is on the cards - sure the cons will make him feel very welcome (battered)

 

Dunno

But it appears he's been caught at it again.</p>

If he's off to Court I can't see a second offence of this nature getting away with a rehab or community service.
</p>

 

He's already been to court and pleaded Guilty

To having pictures of underaged girls in certain poses/positions.</p>

These were rated as level 1 offences which takes into account age of the girls and the level of sexual acts carried out in the pics.</p>

Apparently there wasn't any sexual act but they were of girls 'just' under the age limit.</p>

Well what he's been caught for anyway.</p>

The Chron thinks there will be another community service order given as sentence.</p>

 

RE: He's already been to court and pleaded Guilty

So just under age girls posing 'sexually' ?</p>

That's fine then....
</p>

 

How long ago was he caught originally? Can you remember? nt

 

June 2005 I think nt

 

Cheers

I'm just interested to see how long he 'resisted' outside of his three year reabilitation program. 2005 is three years ago so it would seem not long at all, no resistance at all once they'd stopped actively monitoring him. Was it even INSIDE the period?

 

And last time

I think, someone with the report correct me, but Rosenberg complained that his sentencing powers were too limited, not as Corke tried to make out, let him off with the lightest possible sentence.

 

I seem to remember that as well

Didn't the Judge say something along the lines of the law saying certain photo's could only mean a certain punishment and while he might like to give more he wasnt allowed to. I think that the claim of 'pseudo' images made his sentance lower if i recall.

One thing that I have never been able to work out is why BarnsleyFC.net was never mentioned during the trial. I would have thought that somebody on trial for internet based crimes would have the fact that they finance and run an internet site brought mentioned by the prosecution.

 

can we see the relevant article on here, or is there some legality preventing this

just wondering

 

It's a sticky thread at the top.

 

RE: can we see the relevant article on here, or is there some legality preventing this

Just my retardedness with computers.</p>

It's in the Chron, so I expect someone with more nous than me could put it on here.
</p>

 

Sorry, I misread your question..

 

RE: I seem to remember that as well

Because the site wasn't related to child pornography.

 

Except on days like today! nt

 

RE: Except on days like today! nt

Good point. I bet them paedos are pissed off at having this site as the first recommendation on Google.

 

A total of 144 indecent images were found

more than a slip of the mouse click then.