observer Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 A guy gets 18 months in prison for filming a 3 year old with a fag - is it proportionate to the crime? Yes he's a Richard Head, an even bigger idiot for filming it - but peadohiles are getting away with less than 18months. And where do we stop, jail for the woman who smokes when pregnant? BTW - the kid didn't inhale! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 That sentence did surprise me so much so that I reckon we didn?t get to hear the full story. Clearly the guy?s an absolute idiot pulling a stunt like that but an instant prison sentence does seem a bit strong. Maybe the bloke had some previous issues involving a suspended sentence, who knows? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Bill, an instant prison sentence is exactly what people should be getting; not liberal toga wearing community service nonsense that they never bother turning up to. Zero tolerence would certainly help to curb some of the idiots in the country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Oh I agree wholeheartedly but at the same time there has to be some cut off point and I don?t mean just below the chin, that distinguishes between stupid pranks and jailable criminal activity. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Precisely my point Baz: if this crass incident is worthy of 18months prison, then kicking someone's head in and turning them into a zombie, should be worth 20 years or more - problem is, it's not working like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 From the article: "A man forced a girl of three to smoke a chain of cigarettes and then filmed her begging: 'Can I have another one?' A court was shown a series of shocking images of Graeme Conroy handing the crying child cigarette after cigarette. The 31-year-old was seen laughing and cracking jokes as his tiny victim repeatedly inhaled." Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220625/Man-forced-year-old-girl-smoke-cigarettes-jailed-18-months.html#ixzz0UBsWWZKp It wasn't the first time, it wasn't a prank. He thought filming it was a joke. He was jailed after admitting child neglect. He is a junkie and also claimed he had made her smoke cannabis, although tests on her hair didn't support that claim. Proportionate? No. 18months is not long enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Are you trying to tell us, that a 3 year old was inhaling the smoke, and not choking and turning green - go and have a lie down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I wasn't there. According to the article, the defendant and the teenager he made record it on her mobile phone, it was not the first time, the child knew exactly what to do, had done it many times before and was begging for more. She'd smoked two before the older girl arrived and smoked three more on film. The matter was reported by another parent who was shown the video because the offender thought they'd find it funny too. I find it quite stunning. To do it is bad enough, but to think other people will laugh and appreciate your wit..... just bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Smoking - is inhaling in my book, and evidently in Bill Clinton's too! I'm not defending this pathetic episode, but eaqually I'm not going over the top with pompous indignation, when there are much more serious offences around with lighter sentencing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 She was inhaling, Obs. He had taught a three year old to chainsmoke. Properly. Not mucking about holding a fag or just taking smoke into her mouth. This was not an isolated episode, it was that child's daily life. He pleaded guilty to child neglect, so he got sentenced for that, and I suspect 18months is at the shorter end of the available term for it. He didn't get hammered for a prank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Well if there was a history, where were Social Services? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Otherwise occupied filling in reports and tick boxes. Rather than prison, might be better if the stocks were reintroduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Need to scrap the HR Act first! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Well if there was a history, where were Social Services? There was no history, nobody knew until he passed round his home movie - and Social Services aren't the SS you're thinking of there, Obs. They are not actually empowered to kick in doors and interrogate people without evidence. How were they to know if the neighbours didn't? ESP? Covert surveillance of every home? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Seems there was a similar case earlier this year when a three-year-old that had been reported missing, was found by the authorities under the bed smoking a fag. Shortly afterwards, while the mother was on the phone, the child apparently picked up a fag end out of an ashtray and lit it and this was recorded and used in evidence. The mother didn?t actually see this happening but none the less ended up with a criminal record for child neglect. The thing is that children do tend to copy adults and a child can so easily end up doing this and I should know because it?s happened with my youngest grandchild. Fortunately for him he?s too young to use a lighter and fortunately for me there was no health visitor with a videophone, otherwise I?d probably be posting this from my cell. But before anyone starts, no I don?t normally smoke inside the house and especially if the kids are here, this was down to an unusual set of circumstances. But back to proportionality and what constitutes a crime that merits a jail term. By all accounts, I could go out, get blind drunk, get involved in fights, urinate in public, cause a public nuisance and when the police arrive I can even be abusive to them and get away with it. On the other hand I could go out for a family meal and have someone video one of the kids drinking my pint while I?m not looking and I?m in very serious trouble. Child neglect is serious and the druggie with the video in my opinion should have been put down rather than sent down but I do have some sympathy for the woman whose kid got hold of the fags in front of the social worker. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Think it was YOU who said this was a regular event, who knew? If they knew, why wasn't it reported to the SS? Or could it be, that it wasn't a regular event? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Think it was YOU who said this was a regular event, who knew? If they knew, why wasn't it reported to the SS? Or could it be, that it wasn't a regular event? I go to the toilet regularly - but the neighbours do not observe it. I eat meals regularly, but the local authorities do not monitor it. A man teaches a three year old to smoke on a regular basis in his own living room - who will see it? The evidence is that on the day it was filmed, the child inhaled, smoked at least five cigarettes and knew exactly how to go about it. Then, the offender admitted teaching her to smoke, the evidence went to court and he was found guilty of child neglect and given 18 months. You don't get 18 months and comments like the ones made by the judge if you're just some poor bloke whose judgement was a bit off on that occasion. And why are you defending this? You're usually pretty vocal on the subject of girls who smoke, drink, dope and get pregnant. He had this child smoking at three - how long before she was smoking his dope and sharing his beer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Not defending it - merely trying to get it in proportion to the host of other crimes that are inflicted on children and others these days, which receive lenient sentencing. As for "the history", there doesn't appear to be any proof of such, and fail to see how a 3 year old can be "trained" to inhale smoke - but perhaps the give away was the smoke issuing from the pram?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 He boasted about the history, admitted it in court and pleaded guilty to neglect. He wasn't accused of anything he didn't announce he'd done. You can teach a three year old to do almost anything - they learn by imitation. You can get them to swear, spit, hit people, drink beer and smoke. They don't know it's wrong. That's why what he did is so awful - it's a complete betrayal of trust. And yes, there's a lot worse going on out there, but that just means other people should get locked up for a lot longer!! 18 months will only mean 9 months of enjoying bed, board and gardening privileges whilst the PC brigade sympathise with his tough childhood! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Well he's obviously a complete Richard Head, and the SS presumably have taken the kid into care? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Obs When your Bullsh*t is found out please move on and do not try to defend it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Obs When your Bullsh*t is found out please move on and do not try to defend it Blimey - he'd be awful quiet if that was enforceable!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 No need Kyje, when we've got you to wipe it up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Have you seen the size of my shovel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Have you seen the size of my shovel No but apparently when presented with two shovels and told to take your pick; you were seen to be scratching your head for a while!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.