Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Newtown (Powys, Wales)  sex offender Anthony Milsom has sentence cut

Anthony Martin Milsom of Newtown

A "manipulative and predatory" sex offender who was jailed indefinitely for public protection has had his sentence cut to three-and-a-half years.

When he was first sentenced, Mold crown court was told that Milsom's large collection of indecent images revealed his fascination with the murder, abduction and rape of young female children.
Police found in his home more than 5,100 indecent drawings, more than 200 photographs, 127,700 still images, together with 500 films and 188 home-made videos.

He got life.  He would only be let out when he was no longer a threat to the public.  That was in March.  Now the Court of Appeal have said he pleaded guilty so he only gets 3 and a half years.  I guess that means he gets out in less than 2 years, maybe in time for Christmas next year.  That will be nice.

The question is:  Do the judges place any value on the experiences of his victims or the desire of the public to see him rot for his loathsome offences?



Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by suzybean:
Originally Posted by Syd:

All I know for a FACT is........NEVER...to believe everything I read.....

Really? Everything? Like marriage vows, love letters etc.?

I spoke my vows in front of witnesses.....I wrote loves letters and received them, they were very easy to write and full of romantic notions.........

Syd

Here is another gem ................

Judge tells teacher sex offender: 'I don't criticise you for being attracted to children'


A judge has been condemned for telling a teacher convicted of child porn offences that she did not criticise him for being attracted to children. David Armstrong, a supply teacher, escaped jail with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images and videos on two laptops and an external hard drive. More than 300 of the images were in the two most serious categories, some involving children as young as two.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...ted-to-children.html

FM
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by suzybean:
Originally Posted by Syd:

All I know for a FACT is........NEVER...to believe everything I read.....

Really? Everything? Like marriage vows, love letters etc.?

I spoke my vows in front of witnesses.....I wrote loves letters and received them, they were very easy to write and full of romantic notions.........

Me too. And I believed every word, and still do (most of the time).

suzybean
Originally Posted by suzybean:
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by suzybean:
Originally Posted by Syd:

All I know for a FACT is........NEVER...to believe everything I read.....

Really? Everything? Like marriage vows, love letters etc.?

I spoke my vows in front of witnesses.....I wrote loves letters and received them, they were very easy to write and full of romantic notions.........

Me too. And I believed every word, and still do (most of the time).

 I hope to as well one day.

 

Believe every word.  

Ev (Peachy)

Thing that pees me off about the law is most are old laws that have'nt been changed for decades and as for the Judges..most were brought up in affluent upbringings and don't realise how the other half live or tick.

Release the man and see how many judges offer them work or digs, no they throw them back into society to sexually abuse children who are'nt properly protected....

stonks
Originally Posted by suzybean:
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by suzybean:
Originally Posted by Syd:

All I know for a FACT is........NEVER...to believe everything I read.....

Really? Everything? Like marriage vows, love letters etc.?

I spoke my vows in front of witnesses.....I wrote loves letters and received them, they were very easy to write and full of romantic notions.........

Me too. And I believed every word, and still do (most of the time).

stonks
Originally Posted by stonks:

Thing that pees me off about the law is most are old laws that have'nt been changed for decades and as for the Judges..most were brought up in affluent upbringings and don't realise how the other half live or tick.

Release the man and see how many judges offer them work or digs, no they throw them back into society to sexually abuse children who are'nt properly protected....

More or less what I said up there Stonksy ^^   

FM
Originally Posted by stonks:

Thing that pees me off about the law is most are old laws that have'nt been changed for decades and as for the Judges..most were brought up in affluent upbringings and don't realise how the other half live or tick.

Release the man and see how many judges offer them work or digs, no they throw them back into society to sexually abuse children who are'nt properly protected....

There must be more to the story............or the Judge just wanted to cause controversy....or have an early night and could not be bothered.....

Syd
Originally Posted by sprout:
Originally Posted by stonks:

Thing that pees me off about the law is most are old laws that have'nt been changed for decades and as for the Judges..most were brought up in affluent upbringings and don't realise how the other half live or tick.

Release the man and see how many judges offer them work or digs, no they throw them back into society to sexually abuse children who are'nt properly protected....

More or less what I said up there Stonksy ^^   

Soz sprout I was so angry I rambled....

stonks
Originally Posted by stonks:
Originally Posted by sprout:
Originally Posted by stonks:

Thing that pees me off about the law is most are old laws that have'nt been changed for decades and as for the Judges..most were brought up in affluent upbringings and don't realise how the other half live or tick.

Release the man and see how many judges offer them work or digs, no they throw them back into society to sexually abuse children who are'nt properly protected....

More or less what I said up there Stonksy ^^   

Soz sprout I was so angry I rambled....

Not a prob   Just  saying we are on the same page 

FM
Originally Posted by Geordie Lass:

Here is another gem ................

Judge tells teacher sex offender: 'I don't criticise you for being attracted to children'


A judge has been condemned for telling a teacher convicted of child porn offences that she did not criticise him for being attracted to children. David Armstrong, a supply teacher, escaped jail with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images and videos on two laptops and an external hard drive. More than 300 of the images were in the two most serious categories, some involving children as young as two.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...ted-to-children.html

I thinK any Judge who says that should get a sentence IMO

Ev (Peachy)
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by stonks:

Thing that pees me off about the law is most are old laws that have'nt been changed for decades and as for the Judges..most were brought up in affluent upbringings and don't realise how the other half live or tick.

Release the man and see how many judges offer them work or digs, no they throw them back into society to sexually abuse children who are'nt properly protected....

There must be more to the story............or the Judge just wanted to cause controversy....or have an early night and could not be bothered.....

So the judge can't just be an idiot?....

stonks
Originally Posted by sprout:
Originally Posted by stonks:
Originally Posted by sprout:
Originally Posted by stonks:

Thing that pees me off about the law is most are old laws that have'nt been changed for decades and as for the Judges..most were brought up in affluent upbringings and don't realise how the other half live or tick.

Release the man and see how many judges offer them work or digs, no they throw them back into society to sexually abuse children who are'nt properly protected....

More or less what I said up there Stonksy ^^   

Soz sprout I was so angry I rambled....

Not a prob   Just  saying we are on the same page 

stonks
Originally Posted by Syd:

All I know for a FACT is........NEVER...to believe everything I read.....

*Roy Cropper confused face*

 

Can understand if you mean the DM or the Sun or other crappy internet sites reporting on the latest sleb shagging, but as for the baterical fungus in the OP getting his sentence cut for pleading guilty, I can believe that. Am a tad confused as to why you would think that any info in the above wouldn't be true

 

Anyhoo, my thoughts? He's a vile nasty rancid putrid c**t. And yes, slow torture. Every damn day.

Karma_

Judge tells teacher sex offender: 'I don't criticise you for being attracted to children'

A judge has been condemned for telling a teacher convicted of child porn offences that she did not criticise him for being attracted to children.

A judge has been condemned for telling a teacher convicted of child porn offences that she did not criticise him for being attracted to children.
Judge Mary Jane Mowat told him: 'I don't criticise you for being a teacher who's attracted to children. Many teachers are but they keep their urges under control' Photo: INS
 

David Armstrong, a supply teacher, escaped jail with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.

As she allowed the 63-year-old to walk free from court, Judge Mary Jane Mowat told him: “I don't criticise you for being a teacher who's attracted to children.

“Many teachers are but they keep their urges under control both when it comes to children and when it comes to images of children."

Child abuse campaigners yesterday described the comments as “outrageous” and an insult to victims.

Teachers also attacked the remarks, saying they cast a shadow over their profession and sent the wrong message to child sex offenders.

Peter Bradley, deputy director of the children’s charity Kidscape, said: “Children who have been sexually abused would be horrified to read this judges remarks.

“Schools are not places where those attracted to children can work – schools are there to provide learning in a safe environment where children know the people who look after them can be trusted and relied upon.

“This teacher should not have been in the profession and it is outrageous for the judge to say many teachers are sexually attracted to children.

“The message needs to be clear – if you are sexually attracted to children then you don't work with them.”

Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: “Teachers are professionals whose interest is ensuring children and young people achieve their educational potential.

“To suggest their interest in pupils could understandably be anything else is totally unacceptable.”

Jayne Phillips, Senior Legal Advocate at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, added: “It is a very worrying message to send out.

“The judge’s comments do not reflect our knowledge of the UK’s teaching staff – they would be appalled by the suggestion that they are in anyway attracted to children.”

Married Armstrong was caught after a colleague at the Little Heath School in Tilehurst, near Reading, Berks, reported him to police.

Reading Crown Court was told that the teaching assistant became alarmed after noticing files on Armstrong’s laptop with names including “rape wife”, “nude model” and “gay alligator”,

Police arrested Armstrong and found 4,500 indecent images and videos on two laptops and an external hard drive. More than 300 of the images were in the two most serious categories, some involving children as young as two.

He admitted five charges of making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children between 2007 and 2010. The court heard that some of the images were not of real children but Japanese cartoons depicting youngsters in sexual scenes.

Judge Mowat handed Armstrong a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years.

She added: “This was by any standards a substantial collection, with some 300 of the worst kind.”

Armstrong, of Devizes, Wilts, was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register for ten years and served with a sexual prevention order banning him from owning a computer or device capable of connecting to the internet.

He was also ordered to undergo treatment for his attraction to children and is automatically banned from working with youngsters.

Robin Shellard, defending, said his client had worked at many schools and colleges during his career and had an impeccable record.

The case is not the first time Judge Mowat has stirred controversy over sentences handed to sexual offenders.

In 2008, she allowed former headmaster Phillip Carmichael to walk free from court after accepting that medication for Parkinson’s disease had turned him into a paedophile.

Sentencing a bus driver to ten-months in jail in 2006 for abusing a 12-year-old girl, the judge acknowledged that she felt “obliged” to lock him up because of “current views about sentences”.

“I have a record of trying to suspend sentences in cases like this and them ending up in the Court of Appeal,” she told Robert Prout, following a public outcry over the brevity of prison sentences for sex offenders.

 
 
Oh and its not the Daily Mail before anyone moans....
stonks
Originally Posted by stonks:
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by stonks:

Thing that pees me off about the law is most are old laws that have'nt been changed for decades and as for the Judges..most were brought up in affluent upbringings and don't realise how the other half live or tick.

Release the man and see how many judges offer them work or digs, no they throw them back into society to sexually abuse children who are'nt properly protected....

There must be more to the story............or the Judge just wanted to cause controversy....or have an early night and could not be bothered.....

So the judge can't just be an idiot?....

He could be, there are "idiots" in all occupations........all I am saying is, do not believe all you read in the press.............

 

As is most occupations there is somebody watching you.....Judges are no different.......

Syd
 
Originally Posted by Syd:

He could be, there are "idiots" in all occupations........all I am saying is, do not believe all you read in the press.............

 

As is most occupations there is somebody watching you.....Judges are no different.......

I don't understand

 

And as for this:

 

David Armstrong, a supply teacher, escaped jail with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.

As she allowed the 63-year-old to walk free from court, Judge Mary Jane Mowat told him: “I don't criticise you for being a teacher who's attracted to children.

“Many teachers are but they keep their urges under control both when it comes to children and when it comes to images of children."

 

W.T.F.? *blinks*

Karma_
Originally Posted by Karma_:
 
Originally Posted by Syd:

He could be, there are "idiots" in all occupations........all I am saying is, do not believe all you read in the press.............

 

As is most occupations there is somebody watching you.....Judges are no different.......

I don't understand

 

And as for this:

 

David Armstrong, a supply teacher, escaped jail with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.

As she allowed the 63-year-old to walk free from court, Judge Mary Jane Mowat told him: “I don't criticise you for being a teacher who's attracted to children.

“Many teachers are but they keep their urges under control both when it comes to children and when it comes to images of children."

 

W.T.F.? *blinks*

I cannot comment on this case.....I cannot say any more...

Syd
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by stonks:
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by stonks:

Thing that pees me off about the law is most are old laws that have'nt been changed for decades and as for the Judges..most were brought up in affluent upbringings and don't realise how the other half live or tick.

Release the man and see how many judges offer them work or digs, no they throw them back into society to sexually abuse children who are'nt properly protected....

There must be more to the story............or the Judge just wanted to cause controversy....or have an early night and could not be bothered.....

So the judge can't just be an idiot?....

He could be, there are "idiots" in all occupations........all I am saying is, do not believe all you read in the press.............

 

As is most occupations there is somebody watching you.....Judges are no different.......

Noone is watching them unless there's a human outcry which has been proven time and time again over the years and they are still not helt accountable....I always remember a lawyer friend telling me..you can't sue a lawyer cos who's going to take your case....

stonks
Originally Posted by stonks:
 

Noone is watching them unless there's a human outcry which has been proven time and time again over the years and they are still not helt accountable....I always remember a lawyer friend telling me..you can't sue a lawyer cos who's going to take your case....

The outcry is the watching......but, money making, political newspapers, are not the answer......... 

Syd
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by Karma_:
 
Originally Posted by Syd:

He could be, there are "idiots" in all occupations........all I am saying is, do not believe all you read in the press.............

 

As is most occupations there is somebody watching you.....Judges are no different.......

I don't understand

 

And as for this:

 

David Armstrong, a supply teacher, escaped jail with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.

As she allowed the 63-year-old to walk free from court, Judge Mary Jane Mowat told him: “I don't criticise you for being a teacher who's attracted to children.

“Many teachers are but they keep their urges under control both when it comes to children and when it comes to images of children."

 

W.T.F.? *blinks*

I cannot comment on this case.....I cannot say any more...

Ok *confused face again*

 

But the defendant admitted that he was in posession 4,500 indecent images of children and his occupation wasn't questioned. As much as I have troubling courting certain press, I fail to see what could be inaccurate with this report? But hey ho

Karma_
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by stonks:
 

Noone is watching them unless there's a human outcry which has been proven time and time again over the years and they are still not helt accountable....I always remember a lawyer friend telling me..you can't sue a lawyer cos who's going to take your case....

The outcry is the watching......but, money making, political newspapers, are not the answer......... 

He's a paedo..end off..what don't you get?....

stonks
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by stonks:
 

Noone is watching them unless there's a human outcry which has been proven time and time again over the years and they are still not helt accountable....I always remember a lawyer friend telling me..you can't sue a lawyer cos who's going to take your case....

The outcry is the watching......but, money making, political newspapers, are not the answer......... 

Ok, I'll try to make this the last time I quote and reply to you in this thread Syd cos I don't want you to feel that I'm picking on you or anything, I'm really not, I'm just intrigued as to your viewpoint on this. Would you rather that articles involving teachers holding indecent images of children (where they have admitted it), rapists, sexual abusers..etc were not printed at all? Do you not think the public have a right to know about stuff like this?

 

I think any issues regarding the above, or the Sharia Law, or anything of that nature is worthwhile journalism as it's very much in the public interest. If there were to be any inaccuracies within the article(s) then I'm sure that would soon be rectified given the important nature of the issues. I'd be surprised, especially today, if any publication would be so careless as to reiterate the words of a judge or the admittance in a court of law of an act by a paedophile if it wasn't true.

 

Sure, there are news sources that do like to paraphrase and add bits in here and there (and usually on pointless issues like is Zayn from The Wanted shaggin Rebecca from X factor or not), but I think the OP got this from the BBC site, and I've never known them to be wrong.

Karma_

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×