Option A, apparently he had 400+ images on his pc. Sentanced for 8 months, put on the sex offender’s register and defrocked.
Shame really as he was a good priest.
Pathetic!
The average convicted paedophile down here has somewhere between about fifteen thousand and several hundred thousand images.
Your bloke must have been on dial up internet!
I’m going to drift this way off topic, but one of the things that most people fail to grasp when reactively condemning the latest selectively-presented tabloid monster is that most people, no matter how bad the act they have done, are not all bad all the time.
A simple if unpleasant example is a nasty piece of work and a pillar of the community I acted for many years ago, who subjected his daughter to appalling acts between the ages of about 8 and 14, and who was a bank manager who was a great boss and who demonstrated great courage in tackling an armed bank robber. His courageous action doesn’t begin to atone for what he did to his daughter, but if you didn’t know about that you’d admire him for his courage and if you knew about his public persona you’d think he was a model citizen.
Back to the topic, what pisses me off is that he didn’t even go to gaol. Personally, I would have improved the gene pool by shooting the **** dead.
I think that there are some people whose acts are so repetitive or prolonged or outrageous that they forfeit the right to live among the rest of us, because they are too much of a danger to the rest of us. Whether they should be subject to capital punishment or imprisonment for life is a different issue.
But one of the things that really pisses me off is when the law is changed long after the crime in softer times so that people who were given a life sentence, which meant life, are released after 12 or 15 or 20 years at worst for appalling crimes.
Well currently in UK most convincted felons only do half their sentance if they’re a good boy. According to the most recent figures 0.13% of the British population reside at Her Majesty’s pleasure which I think equates to 84,500 cons (assuming the British population is 65 million).
I find it ridiculous that cons can get away with only doing half the time due to prison overcrowding and chronic underinvestment. What really annoys me is that due to that accursed bit of EU bureaucracy which was foisted upon us - the f**king European Court of Human Rights - the cons now are entitled(!) to telly’s in their cells, internet access and other nice home comforts taking more money away from the Prison budget. And now they’re starting to privatise prisons I can only see it getting worse.
When I started practising back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the standard was one third off the sentence for good behaviour.
The farces with this were that (a) it could be very difficult to behave well if targeted by other prisoners or prison officers and (b) conduct in prison is not a great indicator of conduct outside upon release.
Regardless, since then we’ve had this ‘truth in sentencing’ bullshit which seems not to grasp the belief of the surviving relatives of the victim of brutal murders, rapes, etc that a decade or two in the slammer is not sufficient penalty for someone who deprived a ten or twenty year old of many more decades of life.
I don’t have a problem with prisoners having reasonable comforts in their cells, which includes television and radios nowadays, but internet raises obvious security concerns.
The derprivation of liberty is sufficient punishment, as is the prison environment at the mercy of other prisoners and prison staff although that’s the reality but not part of the theory.
We’ve had privatised prisons here for a while, which I think is outrageous as the State should deal with its prisoners.
I completely agree with your commet on the privatising of prisons. It’s a ludicrous idea as it’s a captive market. Once the private firm have got the state bound into a contract they usually (in the case of the UK) turn round to the state and say ‘we’ve suddenly discovered some hitherto unforseen costs and now you have to stump up for it plus some outrageous fee we’ve arbitarily decided to add for getting us to handle it’. What can the state do other than pay and watch more money being leeched from the Department of Justice budget when they would have been better off running it themselves.
And further to that due to overcrowding they’re now putting cons in open prisons (designed to help low category crime offenders and those near the end of their sentance transist into normal society). It is shameful that high category prisoners are being put in open prisons, and then surprise, suprise they escape!
Personally I do have a problem with cons having telly’s. Radios and books fair enough. But telly’s are expensive and as far as i’m aware prisons don’t get a waiver on TV licences. They’re there to be punished not watch Jeremy Kyle and Trisha!!! :evil:
That or he saw a rugby match and didn’t want to risk his neck.
Not sure if this happens everywhere but here on occasion, the guilty party admits guilt and gets off with a lighter sentence, even serious crimes once guilt is admitted the sentences can be drasticly reduced. All i can think is it’s down to saving the state time and money but come on for f**k sake.
Now there’s an idea, add in some old Kilroy Silk reruns.
A new entry, among the categoryes of people that really piss me off, after what happened last night, is the one that includes hackers:evil: and buggers like that…
Testify!!
Hallelujah brother!! Sing it from the mountain!!
Well done on the correct use of ‘buggers’.
Saving the state time and money is a large part of it.
But isn’t it preferable to penalise, even at 50% of the going rate, a criminal who admits his or her crime than not be able to penalise one who successfully puts the state to trouble and expense in prosecuting a ‘not guilty’ plea?
Here’s a clear and concise summary of the considerations. http://www.cml.com.au/news/2011/03.html
Here’s the sort of stuff that judges and lawyers consider, in their language.
http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/guilty_plea.html#p11-500
And how is this different to any other contract where private enterprise gets its teeth onto the incompetent yet bountiful public tit with its inexhaustible reservoir of taxpayer milk?
Defence contracts; public transport contracts; and police computer contracts (to name only a few of countless) down here cost multiples of the original agreed cost; aren’t delivered within even a few years of the agreed date, if they’re delivered at all; and yet nobody is ever brought to account and nothing is ever done to recover the money from the bozos who don’t perform their part of the contract.
But if we want to see really magnificent examples of this, the American defence industry and in particular its aeroplane manufacturers are the all time experts in converting failure to perform their part of the contract into vast profits extracted from the American taxpayer and taxpayers in other nations, like mine, which sign up to buy these ethereal future marvels of aeronautical technology.
And all of this is something else that seriously pisses me off, because if I **** up I get sued but these ****s get paid more for ****ing up and the longer they **** up the more they get ****ing paid!
Thanx, Iron Yeoman. I’m glad you noticed that. That has been the first time that i used that word. I had the feeling that it may be a good combination. Infact hackers is a sort of rhyme for buggers (or viceversa)… 
If police officers can be unionized (and in the US they are) then I see no reason why prisons can’t be privatised.
Geez. Just use a credit card.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBUU2iJe34k
When this happens to my truck company when responding to a call. I mean hello get the **** out of the way. :evil:
Same sort of problem down here. http://www.news.com.au/national/ambulances-at-risk-from-road-hogs/story-e6frfkvr-1226268995579
It astonishes me that a tiny proportion of drivers have no idea that there is a large vehicle behind them with sirens going and lights flashing, and that they don’t get a clue from all the cars ahead of them which have pulled into the kerb.
Although what really pisses me off is that ambos (ambulance officers) are often abused and even assaulted while trying to help injured people, as are nurses and doctors in emergency rooms and, to a lesser extent, fireys (firemen) trying to do their job.
Didn’t happen until maybe the last twenty years or so. Before then everyone respected ambos and nurses and doctors and fireys and the work they did.
And even if they didn’t respect police, at least they obeyed them unlike today’s arseholes who think nothing of disputing everything with and even fighting police. Which ain’t that hard with the skinny little 5 foot 6 girls they have on the beat now.
It’s probably just part of the general decline in social behaviour over the same period, which also corresponds with hamstringing police and everyone else in authority by a whole lot of well-intentioned but unrealistic bullshit from well-intentioned but unrealistic fcukwits in government or able to influence government. Which, on the military front, leads to this recognition of the consequences of the dominance of the fcukwits.
Gun-shy military - HMAS Success inquiry reveals failures
Ian McPhedran The Daily Telegraph February 10, 2012 12:10AMNAVY officers are too frightened to discipline sailors because of the military’s obsession with individual rights, according to an inquiry into its most controversial ship, HMAS Success.
The report, part three of a multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded inquiry into incidents on the warship, also accused top brass of sweeping allegations of sexual misbehaviour and bullying under the carpet.
Earlier investigations by former judge Robert Gyles QC into the 2009 “sex ship of shame” cruise around Asia found a culture of bullying, sexual harassment and alcohol and drug abuse on board.
In his latest report, Mr Gyles said: "Even if the pendulum has not in fact swung too far, do those in command think it has, and are they consequently ‘gun-shy’ about taking action to maintain discipline?
“The centre of gravity needs to return to the chain of command when it comes to reporting and managing unacceptable behaviour. That ought to be made clear in training and in practice.”
Mr Gyles also wondered if reforms over the past 10-15 years had gone too far, arguing the amount of change and scrutiny must challenge senior command and confuse those lower down the chain.
“Some loss of morale by line commanders would not be surprising,” he said.
The report makes 11 recommendations that will be considered by the government and Defence.
“If implemented, some of my recommendations might help restore that loss of morale without turning back the clock,” he said.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith told parliament discipline recommendations in parts one and two of the Gyles Report were almost completed.
He added action was considered against 55 officers and sailors and initiated against 18 of them - ranging in rank from able seaman to star-ranked officers.
Nine cases had been so far resolved, resulting in loss of rank and formal counselling.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/gun-shy-military-hmas-success-inquiry-reveals-failures/story-e6freuzr-1226267252497
I know I have had bad experiences on some calls for instance one house owner got pissed at us for breaking the windows to his house for venting and he just flipped and started threatening us to shouting insults (it was kind of funny then just got annoying), and mind you this is after we pulled his *** out of his burning house that he set afire while smoking some pot and passed out from.
Somebody might call me a sexist about this but I also get pissed off at SOME of the woman firefighters on are department (not all because most are really good firefighters and cool) that threaten to report you because of a little hazing which we do to all the new probies. Also some of them can’t even push the attack with a 2inch line because they aren’t strong enough. Plus not being strong enough to carry a fellow firefighter out if he gets injured which they made sure all the men could do this in the academy or you failed but they lowered the requirements for the woman.
Okay sorry about that little rant.
As I said earlier, my father was a S. CA Fire Chief. His era was the ‘50’s - the ‘80’s. I never heard him comment on ungrateful subjects or animosity against his people - all that probably came after he retired. But he often spoke about being forced to lower standards to accommodate females.
He said he didn’t have objections to women firefighters - just lowering standards.
In the end standards were lowered, just as I saw standards “adjusted” to accommodate female’s in the US Army.
easy dumbasses