Cautions for 8,000 sex offenders

[Barman]

Almost 8,000 sex offenders have been cautioned across England in the past five years, rather than being charged.
Offences involving children accounted for more than 1,600 of the cautions, while more than 230 were for rape.

Crimes dealt with by a caution included offences as varied as rape, downloading child porn, bigamy, exploitation of prostitution, indecent exposure, sexual offences against animals, sexual grooming and familial sex offences (incest).

Link

 

[Snoopy]

On the surface Shock! Horror!

But the police do not prosecute anyone ~ that task falls to the CPS.
If the police believe that they will not be able to persuade the CPS to prosecute a case then they will not tell the offender that. What they will do is "Offer a Caution". The offender can, of course, refuse to accept a caution but few will do as they believe that they will escape court and subsequent publicity by accepting the caution. A police caution is not a let off as it carries with it a entry on a criminal record (often a first for the offender) and his/her card is then marked for all time. The police, for all we may mock them at times, are not stupid. Rather a caution and a criminal record than have the offender walking away because the CPS says there is "No chance of securing a conviction".
Sensible use of Police Powers is often the best course of action in these cases.

[Darwins Selection]

Crimes dealt with by a caution included offences as varied as rape, downloading child porn, bigamy, exploitation of prostitution, indecent exposure, sexual offences against animals, sexual grooming and familial sex offences (incest).

How does 'bigamy' qualify as a 'sex crime'?

Yes, it is against the law and probably sex is involved, but it is fundamentally 'adultery' with a bit of fraud thrown in.
 

[Snoopy]

Crimes dealt with by a caution included offences as varied as rape, downloading child porn, bigamy, exploitation of prostitution, indecent exposure, sexual offences against animals, sexual grooming and familial sex offences (incest).

How does 'bigamy' qualify as a 'sex crime'?

Yes, it is against the law and probably sex is involved, but it is fundamentally 'adultery' with a bit of fraud thrown in.
 

Surely the punishment of two Mothers in Law would be enough for any offender.

[Darwins Selection]

Crimes dealt with by a caution included offences as varied as rape, downloading child porn, bigamy, exploitation of prostitution, indecent exposure, sexual offences against animals, sexual grooming and familial sex offences (incest).

How does 'bigamy' qualify as a 'sex crime'?

Yes, it is against the law and probably sex is involved, but it is fundamentally 'adultery' with a bit of fraud thrown in.
 

Surely the punishment of two Mothers in Law would be enough for any offender.

very true.

[Grumpmeister]

Almost 8,000 sex offenders have been cautioned across England in the past five years,
Crimes dealt with by a caution included offences as varied as rape, downloading child porn, bigamy, exploitation of prostitution, indecent exposure, sexual offences against animals, sexual grooming and familial sex offences (incest).

Maybe this is just a coincidence but the timing seems rather interesting.

A woman has told a court of her "embarrassment" when one of England's most senior judges exposed himself to her on a rush-hour train.
Lord Justice Richards faces two counts of exposure on trains in south-west London on 16 and 24 October 2006.

On the first occasion, she thought the "presentable" and "very kind" man was accidentally exposed, the court heard.

Sir Stephen Richards, 56, a father of three from Wimbledon, south London, denies the charges.

The victim identified the Court of Appeal judge and even took his pictures on a mobile phone, before picking him out at a video identity parade, City of Westminster Magistrates' Court heard.

Recalling the first incident the woman said he had "boxed" her into a corner against the glass panels in the first carriage on the trip from Raynes Park, south-west London to Waterloo.

"Because I was embarrassed and nothing like this had happened to me before, I assumed this was an accident...so I carried on reading my paper," she said.

"Sometimes the gentleman would adjust himself slightly, sometimes his genitals would be exposed and sometimes not as much."

She said the incident lasted about 15 minutes.

A week later she spotted the judge on the train again, "My gut instinct then led me to believe that this was not an accident."

When she realised he was exposing himself, she took out her mobile phone to unnerve him, the court heard. She then reported the incident following her boyfriend's advice.

'Unfathomable' reasons

The court heard she took four photos of the judge on her mobile phone camera on two other occasions when she spotted him on the train, but this time he recognised her and moved away.

In January she boarded the train with a police officer and identified him.

During his police interview Sir Stephen insisted it was a case of mistaken identity.

Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said Sir Stephen exposed himself "for what must be unfathomable reasons".

The full charges state he was accused of "intentionally exposing his genitals intending that someone would see them and would be caused alarm or distressed".

Sir Stephen has overseen several high-profile hearings, including the case brought by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, seeking action against police officers over the killing of the Brazilian at Stockwell Tube station in south London.

The trial is expected to last two days.

[Snoopy]

A "Moment of Madness" excuse is probably about to be offered ~ but would this have made the news if the offender (alleged at this stage) had not been an "establishment" figure?
So his reputation is ruined, his career finished ~ what else should we do with him?
He has hardly caused any harm to anyone.
Some old fool flashing his walnut sized todger is hardly the crime of the century.

[Grumpmeister]

True, but seeing as he is one of the senior judges in this country you cant help wondring if his 'impulse' would sway his judgement on occaision.

[Snoopy]

True, but seeing as he is one of the senior judges in this country you cant help wondring if his 'impulse' would sway his judgement on occaision.

Oh ~ Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Such behaviour, if true, does cast doubt on his fitness for the position he holds but I am sure many people do such things and nobody plasters it all over the media is all I'm saying.

[Grumpmeister]

Perhaps it should be plastered all over the media, after all suddenly finding their face everywhere with the caption 'flasher' is is bound to have the desired effect on at least some of them.

[Bar Wench]

I find that pointing and laughing tends to make them cover up quite quickly. 

[Grumpmeister]

A lass I used to work with lived in an area plauged with flashers at one time. Apparently getting out a magnifying glass just before laughing is even more effective

[Darwins Selection]

I am told the classic response to " 'Ere darlin', d'you know what this is?" would be: "I looks a bit like a penis, only smaller"

[Snoopy]

"Seems a lot of fuss to make over such a small matter" ~ Mrs Snoopy assures me works well.

[Snoopy]

I see that the Judge accused of exposure on the Tube has shown the court a pair of his underpants. Black Calvin Kleins no less ~ and he claims that it is impossible to get his dick out of such garments without using both hands. Does this mean he is claiming a very big dick or are Calvin Kleins that bloody difficult to get out of. Personally I have never owned any but I would welcome comments from both gentlemen and ladies on the subject. However given where we are I'll have to accept the opinions of you lot and Wench (Steady Girl there's a piccy for you)



Whilst on the subject ...... come on ~ What is your preference men ... with pics please.
 Let's get Wenchy blushing here.