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

Some years ago one of the senior doctors at my surgery was found to have child porn on his computer. He was jailed for 6 months and put on sex offenders list and struck off.

Has it been hushed up paddyanne? The Courts try peadophiles with horrific frequency.

I wouldn't have seen this if I hadn't been looking at a news site for something not connected to it.I'm amazed this happened and slipped under the wire .I spoke to my daughter about it and she hadn't seen anything about it anywhere.If I was the parent of one of the children involved I'd be baying for his blood...I dont understand why they aren't or why its been hushed up as it has .

Doodledog is right to say we don't have the full facts. It isn't community service,its a suspended prison sentence with a treatment order.
I share the speculation about whether any of the treatments we currently have do anything to change the sexual attraction to children. What they hope to do is to help the offender change their behaviour. The sexual attraction to children remains so far as I understand paedophilia.
The extent of child sexual abuse is much higher than many people believe. It's shockingly prevalent in all societies. I am certain that easy access to extreme images of the sexual abuse of children is increasing the amount of abuse.
Our prisons are over crowded. We imprison people who do not pose a threat yet we often don't imprison those who do.

How awful for those children who had their image used. I can't imagine how anybody could think this is not an offence which doesn't deserve a long, custodial sentence. I just don't believe you do this sort of thing without having an interest in child porn and a recent experience has just shown me that you are never to old to abuse a child. He may not have acted upon his instincts yet but I doubt he is free of the thoughts.
We should be up in arms campaigning for justice.
DiscoDancer1975, that is what I wonder too. No right thinking person could possibly believe this is non sentence is acceptable. All offences against children, sexual or not, should have long sentences. I despair of a society that doesn't do its utmost to protect it's children.

Here’s another one getting away with it. www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/court/unpaid-work-for-north-east-man-who-confessed-to-downloading-indecent-images-of-children/

He should be in jail for life ?. Was the judge involved too we have to ask ourselves? What goes around comes around though, and I hope he spends the rest of his life looking over his shoulder. What a waste of police time and effort. Why do we even bother having laws to protect vulnerable people?

On the face of it, the judgment does seem bonkers (a little-known legal term )and the sentence inadequate, but sometimes there are factors that are not made public but are taken into consideration when sentence is passed.

Are we sure that this is not the case here? If not, then I'd like to see the parents apply for a review of the sentencing if that is possible.

After working in child protection in the past and having contact with paedophiles believe me they don’t change, they see no wrong in what they do.

The judge is an ass and should have a complaint made against him. Children carry their abuse forever, I have spoken to adult victims in my work as a counsellor

I despair, I really do!!!

I can't understand the judge's thinking. People go to prison for far less serious crimes than this. Any abuse of children should be dealt with severely.

Roald Dahl had the answer.

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

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.

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?

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.

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!!

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

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 !

Judges are paedophiles too you know.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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