Child pornographer told "he's not a threat to children"

Yes. He should be in jail. Don't know what the judge could be thinking.

Sigh - how can this be right? There is nothing - absolutely nothing - benign about these activities, however "mild" a perpetrator might claim them to be.

Words fail me! I just can't understand how he is not a high risk to children.

The decisions by some judges nowadays just beggar belief.
That is almost tacit approval, a slap on the wrist for being caught.

Its hard to believe how angry this made me.I read an account of child abuse at a local authority home by a man who has never recovered from that time ,he's 70 years old now and it has affected his whole life and every relationship he had .How this vile man can walk free ...sorry get community service for this, beggars belief I just hope the children involved get all the help they need to deal with it not only in the short term but as they grow up .

This has made me angry too ...for every baby or child in a picture they have suffered untold physical and mental Pain
This man should be in jail out of the way without question
I always think it would be preferable to house child molesters on a nice cold island somewhere, not a cosy prison
The judge needs removing from office

What is it with some elevated to the status of Judge, that they belie the very quality that should underpin that position, judgement. Judgement was clearly lacking here Child pornography is not a victimless crime, how much imagination does one need to realise how those images are made. It's a heinous crime against the child victim, who is being used in the most hideous manner to sate the appetites of the perverted individuals.

Appalling!

Is there a way for representatives of those victims to appeal?

This is absolutely unbelievable.I am furious.How can this man be considered not a risk to children?

Explaining the decision to suspend the jail sentence, the recorder added that he had to consider the best way to protect the public and children

He told Lerigo: 'The pre-sentence report demonstrates that you want help and you have already sought it

That help can only be offered if you remain the subject of some order to be served in the community

Lerigo was given a two year jail-term, suspended for two years, and made the subject of a 40-day rehabilitation activity requirement

Do I understand this correctly, that the only way to protect children is for this man to be spared jail because he can only access appropriate help out in the community? Seems perverse that such a programme is not available in prison.

In my opinion the best way to protect children from scum like this is castration or locking them up and throwing away the key.

Unfortunately there is some very skewed thinking in the judiciary! Like others here I am appalled at this “sentence” I hope the CPS appeal!

Power to refer
Sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 empower the Law Officers to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to refer for review any sentence which:

was passed in respect of an offence to which Part IV of the Act applies;
was passed in a proceeding in the Crown Court; and
appears to be unduly lenient.

It sometime seems that the judiciary inhabit a small pool drawn from the upper echelons of society that seem to view certain matters from a skewed point of view shaped by their own narrow experiences.

Like others I am appalled at this "sentence". He not only distributed these images but also made them! How is he not a threat to children?

I once had a heated discussion with someone, defending a well known celebrity who had been found guilty of viewing such images online. The person I was speaking to said the man had "only looked at images not abused a child" I was shocked that I had to point out that in order for him to view the images a child was abused. I believe anyone viewing such images should be punished as if they were the abuser as they are complicit in the abuse.

I agree Terribull they don't inhabit the real world that the rest of us live in. There will be some exceptions though.
I hope there will be enough outcry for the CPS to appeal, what message does this send out to other abusers.

Anyone involved in making or viewing images of children being sexually exploited should be prosecuted. I share the outrage towards this man.

Riverwalk set out the reasons the Judge gave for suspending this man's prison sentence. This man has already sought help with his offending behaviour. He is less likely to be able to complete a programme aimed at his attraction to children in the prison population. If he fails to co-operate with the community sentence, he'll be returned to Court and from there to serve his sentence.
That seems the least worst option available to the Judge on sentencing.

Judges are paedophiles too you know.

It doesn't surprise me with some judges. They don't live in the real world and haven't a clue, living behind , usually, gated property completely shut off from some of the most heinous of crimes.

In this particular case, if the judge thinks that this monster is going to " change his ways ", he's got another think coming as there's no cure for this depraved behaviour and no doubt, in the future the name will crop up again.

As for the CPS, they too can bury their heads in the sand !

I`m lost for words,or rather ones that can be printed.

Whether jail is the answer or makes any difference, I dont know, but how this bloke can be judged as "not a risk to chikdren" I have no idea!!!! Ridiculous!!

Tickingbird, going by the film I watched the other night based on Cynthia Payne's life, it's not surprising ! Julie Walters starred in it " Personal Services ". Indeed ! Judges, MP's. high-ranking Army officers, the list goes on---all twisted.

Precisely tickingbird!

It's not the first time I've heard of community service for child pornography I'm afraid.

I wonder what the peramiters are in sentencing?

Lerigo admitted two counts of distributing indecent images of children, one count of possessing extreme pornography involving animals, one of possessing prohibited images of children and one of publishing an obscene article.

Real children are made to take part in these films.
Lerigo admitted to three counts of making indecent images of children therefore he knew these children.

He should be in prison.

Roald Dahl had the answer.

Put them on a remote island and drop snozzcumbers on them from time to time.