Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Daggers

Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

By Daggers, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

GaelicFox

GaelicFox

Posted
Posted

Second guy. I didn't really know him, he was a few years older, just tagged along with us sometimes.

His parents in fairness made a very strong statement this morning and most of that has been the case maybe the rest is the case as well

Shocking story , I still can't understand how you drop a 15yo girl to the school and no idea where she is going or who she is going with and don't wait around to see

Whole thing is very strange

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

'Monster' given 30 year prison sentence for sex crimes against two schoolgirls and baby

By Leicester Mercury  |  Posted: November 21, 2015

By Suzy Gibson


 
 
What a sick world we live in.
 
 

LeicesterCrownCourt2

 
 Comments (1)

A "monster" who committed a catalogue of degrading sex crimes against two schoolgirls and a baby girl was given a 30 year jail sentence.

Paedophile, Alan Peter Wormleighton, 60, filmed himself abusing the youngsters, including the infant, between ages of five months and three-years-old.

His historic sex crimes were discovered when he was caught downloading child pornography whilst at work, as an engineer, at the Spires Hospital in Oadby.

The matter was reported to the police, in July.

 
 

A search of his home revealed illegal internet pictures on his computer, DVDs, and camcorder home-movies - amounting to a total of 62,415 indecent images of children, mainly of girls between three and 15-years-old.

They included incriminating footage of him committing sex offences.

Wormleighton, formerly of the Narborough Road area of Leicester, was given a 22 year jail sentence with an eight year extended licence period, making an overall total of 30 years.

He will only be eligible for parole after serving a minimum of 14 years and eight months.

Recorder Lance Ashworth QC said: "You've admitted 33 sex offences spanning a 41 year period.

"This is at the very top end of the scale.

"It was behaviour of the worst imaginable sort.

"Your attitude towards the victims is totally shocking and depraved.

"In an impact statement, one victim says her entire life has been blighted.

"She remained silent for very many years about what you forced her to do.

"She describes you as a monster.

"She has flashbacks and there are times when she can't cope.

"It's been said you expressed remorse and there's no greater sign of remorse than you pleading guilty – I don't accept that.

ADVERTISEMENT
 

"I watched you as the prosecution opened the case and you displayed no emotion at all.

"You have, at least, spared them from having to give evidence."

The recorder said Wormleighton presented a risk of danger to the public and added: "Should the opportunity arise you wouldn't hesitate to have sexual activity with a child of pre-pubescent age."

The abuse offences - involving a wide range of sexual activity - took place on various dates between 1974 and 2005.

In relation to the baby, the defendant admitted eight indecent assaults and two of indecency with a child.

He pleaded guilty to four counts of accessing child pornography on the internet, involving images in category A, B and C.

Wormleighton admitted possessing extreme pornographic images relating to bestiality.

In relation to one girl, he admitted attempted rape when she was eight, two indecent assaults, six of sexual activity or indecency with a child, four of causing a child to engage in sexual activity, and one of causing her to watch a sexual act for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Regarding the second girl, he admitted to two counts of indecent assault and two of indecency with a child under 14.

Victoria Rose, prosecuting, said the defendant targeted the first victim, a youngster, when he was in his 20's and it continued until she was 11-years-old.

Miss Rose described him committing a series of shocking acts, including making one victim – whom he introduced to pornography at the age of five - watch him abusing the baby.

The recorder made a restraining order banning the defendant from ever contacting the victims.

James Keeley, mitigating, said: "He should receive maximum credit for his guilty pleas, which reflect his remorse."

He said Wormleighton wanted to undergo whatever rehabilitation courses available while serving his sentence.

"He wants to ensure he understands why he's done what he's done so it never happens again," said Mr Keeley.

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Monster-given-30-year-prison-sentence-sex-crimes/story-28213904-detail/story.html#ixzz3s7IvZe2M 
Follow us: @@leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GaelicFox

GaelicFox

Posted
Posted (edited)

'Monster' given 30 year prison sentence for sex crimes against two schoolgirls and baby

By Leicester Mercury | Posted: November 21, 2015

By Suzy Gibson

MY GOD !!!! bath of acid only cure !

What a sick world we live in.

LeicesterCrownCourt2

Comments (1)

A "monster" who committed a catalogue of degrading sex crimes against two schoolgirls and a baby girl was given a 30 year jail sentence.

Paedophile, Alan Peter Wormleighton, 60, filmed himself abusing the youngsters, including the infant, between ages of five months and three-years-old.

His historic sex crimes were discovered when he was caught downloading child pornography whilst at work, as an engineer, at the Spires Hospital in Oadby.

The matter was reported to the police, in July.

A search of his home revealed illegal internet pictures on his computer, DVDs, and camcorder home-movies - amounting to a total of 62,415 indecent images of children, mainly of girls between three and 15-years-old.

They included incriminating footage of him committing sex offences.

Wormleighton, formerly of the Narborough Road area of Leicester, was given a 22 year jail sentence with an eight year extended licence period, making an overall total of 30 years.

He will only be eligible for parole after serving a minimum of 14 years and eight months.

Recorder Lance Ashworth QC said: "You've admitted 33 sex offences spanning a 41 year period.

"This is at the very top end of the scale.

"It was behaviour of the worst imaginable sort.

"Your attitude towards the victims is totally shocking and depraved.

"In an impact statement, one victim says her entire life has been blighted.

"She remained silent for very many years about what you forced her to do.

"She describes you as a monster.

"She has flashbacks and there are times when she can't cope.

"It's been said you expressed remorse and there's no greater sign of remorse than you pleading guilty – I don't accept that.

ADVERTISEMENT

"I watched you as the prosecution opened the case and you displayed no emotion at all.

"You have, at least, spared them from having to give evidence."

The recorder said Wormleighton presented a risk of danger to the public and added: "Should the opportunity arise you wouldn't hesitate to have sexual activity with a child of pre-pubescent age."

The abuse offences - involving a wide range of sexual activity - took place on various dates between 1974 and 2005.

In relation to the baby, the defendant admitted eight indecent assaults and two of indecency with a child.

He pleaded guilty to four counts of accessing child pornography on the internet, involving images in category A, B and C.

Wormleighton admitted possessing extreme pornographic images relating to bestiality.

In relation to one girl, he admitted attempted rape when she was eight, two indecent assaults, six of sexual activity or indecency with a child, four of causing a child to engage in sexual activity, and one of causing her to watch a sexual act for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Regarding the second girl, he admitted to two counts of indecent assault and two of indecency with a child under 14.

Victoria Rose, prosecuting, said the defendant targeted the first victim, a youngster, when he was in his 20's and it continued until she was 11-years-old.

Miss Rose described him committing a series of shocking acts, including making one victim – whom he introduced to pornography at the age of five - watch him abusing the baby.

The recorder made a restraining order banning the defendant from ever contacting the victims.

James Keeley, mitigating, said: "He should receive maximum credit for his guilty pleas, which reflect his remorse."

He said Wormleighton wanted to undergo whatever rehabilitation courses available while serving his sentence.

"He wants to ensure he understands why he's done what he's done so it never happens again," said Mr Keeley.

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Monster-given-30-year-prison-sentence-sex-crimes/story-28213904-detail/story.html#ixzz3s7IvZe2M

Follow us: @@leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook[/size]

BATH OF ACID !!!!!!!!!!! Bastard

Edited by dropofclaridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

What's people's views on this?

 

 

Judge was right to not jail teenager who raped child, says law chief

By Ciaranfagan  |  Posted: December 04, 2015

11522131-large.jpg
 

The judge at Leicester Crown Court was correct not to jail the teenager, the Attorney General believes.

 
 Comments (2)

A judge's decision not to imprison a teenager who raped a five-year-old girl should not be reversed, the Government's senior legal adviser has ruled.

Attorney General Jeremy Wright was asked to review the case of the 17-year-old rapist who was spared jail by a judge at Leicester Crown Court last month.

Instead, the teenager – who cannot be named for legal reasons – was placed on a community rehabilitation order.

The child's mother, of Burbage, said she was devastated by the announcement.

  •  

Her daughter, she said, has become shy and withdraw, in contrast to the "bright, outgoing, confident child" she was before she was assaulted by the-then 16-year-old last December.

She said: "I don't understand why my daughter's feelings and welfare have been ignored. Yes, she is only six, but this has affected her and will continue to as she grows up.

"When she is older she will realise more what happened to her and she will see that the person who raped her was not sent to prison.

"The decision was sent to me by e-mail at 3.45pm on Wednesday, but I didn't see it until 1am because my boy was poorly and I'd taken him to hospital.

"I was extremely upset and cried when I read their decision. I'm still trying to come to terms with it. I don't know if I ever will."

The 17-year-old appeared at Leicester Crown Court in September to admit raping the child.

Last month, at the same court, he was given a two-year youth rehabilitation order with a requirement to attend the sex offender programme, a £15 victim surcharge and ordered to sign on to the sex offender register for two-and-a-half years.

Almost 18,000 people had signed an online petition set up by friends of the victim's family to call for a tougher sentence. A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said: "Following a number of referrals, the Attorney General Jeremy Wright, QC, MP, carefully considered the papers in this case and concluded the Court of Appeal would not find the sentence to be unduly lenient.

"The sentencing judge was required to take into account a number of other factors, including the defendant's age and his early admissions of guilt.

"When sentencing youths, judges have to follow guidelines which indicate priority should be given to rehabilitation and a custodial sentence must be imposed as a measure of a last resort."

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Teenager-raped-girl-6/story-28293707-detail/story.html#ixzz3tLZR6Mbs 
Follow us: @@leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook

 

Whether he should have been jailed is one thing but only 2.5 years on the sex offenders register surely with this sort of sick crime it should be much longer like decades?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

I expect we'll know just how awful that decision is when he rapes another child in a few years time.

If he doesn't nothing will be heard as to how good the decision was. I am not defending the decision but unfortunately the likes of you and  I are not the ones making it. Would you be able change your mind if you had access to all the information that the court had?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thracian

Thracian

Posted
Posted

If he doesn't nothing will be heard as to how good the decision was. I am not defending the decision but unfortunately the likes of you and  I are not the ones making it. Would you be able change your mind if you had access to all the information that the court had?

 

If he doesn't nothing will be heard as to how good the decision was. I am not defending the decision but unfortunately the likes of you and  I are not the ones making it. Would you be able change your mind if you had access to all the information that the court had?

 

 

Do you mean all the excuses presented to them? 

There is no excuse for raping a five-year-old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

There is not and the judge probably felt the same and would have liked to have given him a good kicking. But unfortunately they have to follow a lawbook. If they give a wrong sentence and there is an appeal the bloke could  get off.

We'll can all visit him. I'll keep watch while the rest of you chp his bolox off with a blunt penknife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
Finnaldo

Finnaldo

Posted
Posted

Whichever scumbag editor-in-chief (or higher up) at the Sun who came up with yesterdays front page.

 

To a lesser degree, the spineless cowards beneath them that either agreed with it or just let it go out of fear or indifference - though they're not massively to blame.

 

 

What was it? Haven't seen it to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

What was it? Haven't seen it to be honest.

 

The usual grotesque generalisations to be fair, but this time aimed at NHS junior doctors - apparently they're all 'champagne-swilling socialists' as opposed to, you know, people who work pretty hard in a thankless job helping people?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

Ken give "Full Disclosure" a read by Andrew Neil, Murdoch actually gives his editors pretty much a free reign.

He certainly wouldn't interfere with a front page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

The usual grotesque generalisations to be fair, but this time aimed at NHS junior doctors - apparently they're all 'champagne-swilling socialists' as opposed to, you know, people who work pretty hard in a thankless job helping people?

It is in response to challenges against privatisation and selling  off of some of the NHS sectors.

Only the Sun readers will take any notice of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...