Magistrate jailed for child porn

2:50pm Saturday 11th October 2008

By Emily Walker

A YOUTH magistrate who downloaded pornographic pictures of children
could be freed from jail in just six weeks.

Former Justice of the Peace Alan Jennings had his sentenced slashed by
pleading guilty to his despicable crimes at the first opportunity.

Jennings’ colleagues at Bournemouth Crown Court yesterday sentenced
him to 12 weeks in prison, but he will be back in his Walcot home in
half that time.

His case was dealt with in Dorset because of his position as a
magistrate in Wiltshire.

Last month, Jennings, pictured, who is also a former teaching
assistant at a Swindon school, admitted three counts of making
indecent images of children. He also pleaded guilty to three counts of
possessing indecent images of children.

Jennings was caught after a DVD containing pornographic images of
children was intercepted by HM Customs and Excise after it was posted
to his Darnley Close address.

When child protection officers from Swindon police searched his home
they found 330 indecent pictures of children, including 18 level four
images – one level below the most graphic.

Stuart Ellacott, prosecuting, said: “Some 281 were level one, 31 were
level two and 18 were level four. Four of the children were under 13.”

Jonathan Simpson, defending the 59-year-old former Royal Mail
accountant, said: “He said to me, unprompted, that he did obtain these
images, had looked at the images and derived some sexual satisfaction
from the images.”

Christopher Harvey Clark QC, sentencing, said: “The public has an
abhorrence of these offences involving, as they do, indecent images of
children.

“The particularly serious feature of this case is that you had in your
possession on you computer 18 images at level four.

“And it’s clear that you obtained some private and covert sexual
pleasure from those images.”

He accepted that Jennings had suffered a “humiliating fall from grace”
but that he had to pass a custodial sentence.

Det Sgt Mike Selbie, who was in charge of the case, said Jennings’
position as a magistrate made his contribution to the horrific abuse
of children even more shocking.

“This isn’t child pornography. This is very much child abuse,” said
Det Sgt Selbie.

“These children are being horrifically abused somewhere. Every
photograph captures an actual situation where children have been
abused.

“It is quite clear he is someone who will be upheld in the community.
As a magistrate who has committed these offences it is even more
disturbing “But we do know people who have a sexual interest with
children look to have contact with children.”

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/3748473.Magistrate_jailed_for_child_porn/

****

"Christopher Harvey Clark QC, sentencing, said: “The public has an
abhorrence of these offences involving, as they do, indecent images of
children.""

Except when they are jacking off to them.

"Jennings was caught after a DVD containing pornographic images of
children was intercepted by HM Customs and Excise after it was posted
to his Darnley Close address."

No, No, NO !!!! "You don't want do it like that."

Det Sgt Selbie and wiggy squawk like good 'uns.

WM
www.critest.com

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> Magistrate jailed for child porn
>
> 2:50pm Saturday 11th October 2008
>
> By Emily Walker
>
> A YOUTH magistrate who downloaded pornographic pictures of children
> could be freed from jail in just six weeks.
>
> Former Justice of the Peace Alan Jennings had his sentenced slashed by
> pleading guilty to his despicable crimes at the first opportunity.
>
> Jennings’ colleagues at Bournemouth Crown Court yesterday sentenced
> him to 12 weeks in prison, but he will be back in his Walcot home in
> half that time.
>
> His case was dealt with in Dorset because of his position as a
> magistrate in Wiltshire.
>
> Last month, Jennings, pictured, who is also a former teaching
> assistant at a Swindon school, admitted three counts of making
> indecent images of children. He also pleaded guilty to three counts of
> possessing indecent images of children.
>
> Jennings was caught after a DVD containing pornographic images of
> children was intercepted by HM Customs and Excise after it was posted
> to his Darnley Close address.
>
> When child protection officers from Swindon police searched his home
> they found 330 indecent pictures of children, including 18 level four
> images – one level below the most graphic.
>
> Stuart Ellacott, prosecuting, said: “Some 281 were level one, 31 were
> level two and 18 were level four. Four of the children were under 13.”

Ah, we get a breakdown. So of the '330 indecent pictures' 281 of them werent 
indecent at all, 31 might be in context, of the severe ones four where under 
13. The fact that this was emphasised, suggests to me, that the massive bulk 
of the pics are of adult material that is legal in some countries, and was 
here until a few years ago.

I am wondering about the news report, if we really look at this, the police 
found a total of four pictures of children been abused. Four more then 
should be on his computer however, but it was four. Four could be explained 
by unfortunate pop ups.

Gaz

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:40:08 +0100, "Gaz"  wrote:

>
>Ah, we get a breakdown. So of the '330 indecent pictures' 281 of them werent 
>indecent at all, 31 might be in context, of the severe ones four where under 
>13. The fact that this was emphasised, suggests to me, that the massive bulk 
>of the pics are of adult material that is legal in some countries, and was 
>here until a few years ago.
>
>I am wondering about the news report, if we really look at this, the police 
>found a total of four pictures of children been abused. Four more then 
>should be on his computer however, but it was four. Four could be explained 
>by unfortunate pop ups.
>
>Gaz
>

What's more, I will lay money that the intercepted DVD was a legal
adult movie with a word like Teen or Schoolgirl in the title. 

Expect more of this sort of thing in the future, especially when the
extreme porn laws come in to effect. They are basically carrying out
illegal arrests but the victim can't challenge it because inevitably
there will be something chargeable found on the computer.

Expect more of this sort of thing in the future, especially when the
extreme porn laws come in to effect. They are basically carrying out
illegal arrests but the victim can't challenge it because inevitably
there will be something chargeable found on the computer.

I remember, many years ago, Tom Robinson once remarking that if
everyone in the UK who had ever had a homosexual thought or experience
turned green overnight, by morning two third of the country would be
green. I think the new laws on what constitutes an 'indecent' image (I
won't even say 'photo' as the Witchfinder Generals seem intent on
criminalising drawings and CG images, too - surely the very definition
of a 'victimless crime'?) would yield an even higher number.

Why else do the authorities seem so keen on 'fishing trips'? The odds,
they know, are stacked in their favour. If you looked hard enough, for
long enough, on the vast majority of PCs I'm sure you would find
something - anything - likely to contravene the new taboos. That's the
subtle beauty of the system.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:03:02 -0700 (PDT), ocean_breakup@yahoo.com
wrote:

>Expect more of this sort of thing in the future, especially when the
>extreme porn laws come in to effect. They are basically carrying out
>illegal arrests but the victim can't challenge it because inevitably
>there will be something chargeable found on the computer.
>
>I remember, many years ago, Tom Robinson once remarking that if
>everyone in the UK who had ever had a homosexual thought or experience
>turned green overnight, by morning two third of the country would be
>green. I think the new laws on what constitutes an 'indecent' image (I
>won't even say 'photo' as the Witchfinder Generals seem intent on
>criminalising drawings and CG images, too - surely the very definition
>of a 'victimless crime'?) would yield an even higher number.
>
>Why else do the authorities seem so keen on 'fishing trips'? The odds,
>they know, are stacked in their favour. If you looked hard enough, for
>long enough, on the vast majority of PCs I'm sure you would find
>something - anything - likely to contravene the new taboos. That's the
>subtle beauty of the system.

Just what is level 1 ?

D

On Oct 13, 11:47 pm, Darcy <> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:03:02 -0700 (PDT), ocean_brea...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Expect more of this sort of thing in the future, especially when the
> >extreme porn laws come in to effect. They are basically carrying out
> >illegal arrests but the victim can't challenge it because inevitably
> >there will be something chargeable found on the computer.
>
> >I remember, many years ago, Tom Robinson once remarking that if
> >everyone in the UK who had ever had a homosexual thought or experience
> >turned green overnight, by morning two third of the country would be
> >green. I think the new laws on what constitutes an 'indecent' image (I
> >won't even say 'photo' as the Witchfinder Generals seem intent on
> >criminalising drawings and CG images, too - surely the very definition
> >of a 'victimless crime'?) would yield an even higher number.
>
> >Why else do the authorities seem so keen on 'fishing trips'? The odds,
> >they know, are stacked in their favour. If you looked hard enough, for
> >long enough, on the vast majority of PCs I'm sure you would find
> >something - anything - likely to contravene the new taboos. That's the
> >subtle beauty of the system.
>
> Just what is level 1 ?
>
> D

In looking at the nature of the material the Sentencing Guidelines
Council has categorised such material into five levels of seriousness
with level five being the most serious.

Level one - Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity,
Level two - non -penetrative sexual activities between children, or
solo masturbation by a child;
Level three - non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and
children;
Level four - penetrative sexual activity involving a child or
children, or both children and adults;
Level five - sadism or involving the penetration of, or by, an animal.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/index.html

WM

<Darcy> wrote in message news:dtj7f45tce8durqfl4a305h5j82b6f4met@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:03:02 -0700 (PDT), ocean_breakup@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>>Expect more of this sort of thing in the future, especially when the
>>extreme porn laws come in to effect. They are basically carrying out
>>illegal arrests but the victim can't challenge it because inevitably
>>there will be something chargeable found on the computer.
>>
>>I remember, many years ago, Tom Robinson once remarking that if
>>everyone in the UK who had ever had a homosexual thought or experience
>>turned green overnight, by morning two third of the country would be
>>green. I think the new laws on what constitutes an 'indecent' image (I
>>won't even say 'photo' as the Witchfinder Generals seem intent on
>>criminalising drawings and CG images, too - surely the very definition
>>of a 'victimless crime'?) would yield an even higher number.
>>
>>Why else do the authorities seem so keen on 'fishing trips'? The odds,
>>they know, are stacked in their favour. If you looked hard enough, for
>>long enough, on the vast majority of PCs I'm sure you would find
>>something - anything - likely to contravene the new taboos. That's the
>>subtle beauty of the system.
>
> Just what is level 1 ?
>
> D

Pretty much any picture of a child.

Gaz

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:

>>
>> D
> 
> In looking at the nature of the material the Sentencing Guidelines
> Council has categorised such material into five levels of seriousness
> with level five being the most serious.
> 
> Level one - Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity,
> Level two - non -penetrative sexual activities between children, or
> solo masturbation by a child;
> Level three - non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and
> children;
> Level four - penetrative sexual activity involving a child or
> children, or both children and adults;
> Level five - sadism or involving the penetration of, or by, an animal.
> 
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/index.html
> 
> WM
Hmm, so where does just pics of (nekkid) kids on the beach fall into 
this scheme? And why would someone get nicked?

Dude wrote:
> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>
>>>
>>> D
>>
>> In looking at the nature of the material the Sentencing Guidelines
>> Council has categorised such material into five levels of seriousness
>> with level five being the most serious.
>>
>> Level one - Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity,
>> Level two - non -penetrative sexual activities between children, or
>> solo masturbation by a child;
>> Level three - non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and
>> children;
>> Level four - penetrative sexual activity involving a child or
>> children, or both children and adults;
>> Level five - sadism or involving the penetration of, or by, an
>> animal. 
>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/index.html
>>
>> WM
> Hmm, so where does just pics of (nekkid) kids on the beach fall into
> this scheme? And why would someone get nicked?

In theory, they don't, as not being "erotic posing"; that doesn't mean the 
plods approve of them, of course. However, if you see some of the images 
that have been investigated (Julia Somerville's kids in the bath, Robert 
Mapplethorpe nudes, Nan Goldin's photographs, discussed here: 
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography), you'd think that 
the police imagine every image of a nude, or semi-clad child, to amount to a 
criminal offence. But of course, they don't- unless they can put a suitable 
number of them- and it doesn't have to be that many- in front of a jury. 
That's when it becomes chilling, and really chilling, and the true measure 
of paranoia, that even parents can be frightened of taking pictures of their 
kids as they grow up.

Google "Graham Ovenden" and "Ron Oliver" for two reasons why this should be 
stopped, and right now.

On Oct 14, 1:02 am, Dude  wrote:
> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>
> >> D
>
> > In looking at the nature of the material the Sentencing Guidelines
> > Council has categorised such material into five levels of seriousness
> > with level five being the most serious.
>
> > Level one - Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity,
> > Level two - non -penetrative sexual activities between children, or
> > solo masturbation by a child;
> > Level three - non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and
> > children;
> > Level four - penetrative sexual activity involving a child or
> > children, or both children and adults;
> > Level five - sadism or involving the penetration of, or by, an animal.
>
> >http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/i...
>
> > WM
>
> Hmm, so where does just pics of (nekkid) kids on the beach fall into
> this scheme? And why would someone get nicked?

Many people plead guilty, or accept the caution, through fear of the
exposed jury trial.

A jury could find 'pics of (nekkid) kids on the beach' indecent.

These levels are not a measure of indecency, they are a guide to
sentencing.

WM

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:04:01 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
 wrote:

>On Oct 13, 11:47 pm, Darcy <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:03:02 -0700 (PDT), ocean_brea...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Expect more of this sort of thing in the future, especially when the
>> >extreme porn laws come in to effect. They are basically carrying out
>> >illegal arrests but the victim can't challenge it because inevitably
>> >there will be something chargeable found on the computer.
>>
>> >I remember, many years ago, Tom Robinson once remarking that if
>> >everyone in the UK who had ever had a homosexual thought or experience
>> >turned green overnight, by morning two third of the country would be
>> >green. I think the new laws on what constitutes an 'indecent' image (I
>> >won't even say 'photo' as the Witchfinder Generals seem intent on
>> >criminalising drawings and CG images, too - surely the very definition
>> >of a 'victimless crime'?) would yield an even higher number.
>>
>> >Why else do the authorities seem so keen on 'fishing trips'? The odds,
>> >they know, are stacked in their favour. If you looked hard enough, for
>> >long enough, on the vast majority of PCs I'm sure you would find
>> >something - anything - likely to contravene the new taboos. That's the
>> >subtle beauty of the system.
>>
>> Just what is level 1 ?
>>
>> D
>
>In looking at the nature of the material the Sentencing Guidelines
>Council has categorised such material into five levels of seriousness
>with level five being the most serious.
>
>Level one - Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity,
>Level two - non -penetrative sexual activities between children, or
>solo masturbation by a child;
>Level three - non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and
>children;
>Level four - penetrative sexual activity involving a child or
>children, or both children and adults;
>Level five - sadism or involving the penetration of, or by, an animal.
>
>http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/index.html
>
>WM

I would like to thank the regulars here for their serious replies to
my question lol
Here`s a couple more,thank you for your indulgance.

1.For many years now on the news groups there have been hundreds of
thousands of pictures posted of :
1. Under`Alt.Binaries Models`,These are pictures taken from pay
websites that promote young ladies seeking a modelling career aged
14-18 and are usually non nude with the girls in atractive sometimes
skimpy clothes or swimwear.They seem to be largly American based
and have a large following and don`t seem to be bothered by the
American authorities.There must be many 1,000`s of people in the UK
who posses some of these pictures.Do you think these will considered
CP ?
2.In Japanese picture groups on Usenet a large part of the  pics
posted consist of models in school uniform aka Jap style sort of
salior suits showing usually their white knickers(a popular Japanese
fetish) Many have anjelic faces and look years younger than they
really are.Again their must be many UK guys who have some of these
pictures collected over the last 10 years.So i guess these are illegal
as well.
And if we include the pics covered by the extreme porn nonsense ?

D

On Oct 14, 8:16 pm, Darcy <> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:04:01 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Oct 13, 11:47 pm, Darcy <> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 05:03:02 -0700 (PDT), ocean_brea...@yahoo.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Expect more of this sort of thing in the future, especially when the
> >> >extreme porn laws come in to effect. They are basically carrying out
> >> >illegal arrests but the victim can't challenge it because inevitably
> >> >there will be something chargeable found on the computer.
>
> >> >I remember, many years ago, Tom Robinson once remarking that if
> >> >everyone in the UK who had ever had a homosexual thought or experience
> >> >turned green overnight, by morning two third of the country would be
> >> >green. I think the new laws on what constitutes an 'indecent' image (I
> >> >won't even say 'photo' as the Witchfinder Generals seem intent on
> >> >criminalising drawings and CG images, too - surely the very definition
> >> >of a 'victimless crime'?) would yield an even higher number.
>
> >> >Why else do the authorities seem so keen on 'fishing trips'? The odds> >> >they know, are stacked in their favour. If you looked hard enough, for
> >> >long enough, on the vast majority of PCs I'm sure you would find
> >> >something - anything - likely to contravene the new taboos. That's the
> >> >subtle beauty of the system.
>
> >> Just what is level 1 ?
>
> >> D
>
> >In looking at the nature of the material the Sentencing Guidelines
> >Council has categorised such material into five levels of seriousness
> >with level five being the most serious.
>
> >Level one - Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity,
> >Level two - non -penetrative sexual activities between children, or
> >solo masturbation by a child;
> >Level three - non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and
> >children;
> >Level four - penetrative sexual activity involving a child or
> >children, or both children and adults;
> >Level five - sadism or involving the penetration of, or by, an animal.
>
> >http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/i...
>
> >WM
>
> I would like to thank the regulars here for their serious replies to
> my question lol
> Here`s a couple more,thank you for your indulgance.
>
> 1.For many years now on the news groups there have been hundreds of
> thousands of pictures posted of :
> 1. Under`Alt.Binaries Models`,These are pictures taken from pay
> websites that promote young ladies seeking a modelling career aged
> 14-18 and are usually non nude with the girls in atractive sometimes
> skimpy clothes or swimwear.They seem to be largly American based
> and have a large following and don`t seem to be bothered by the
> American authorities.There must be many 1,000`s of people in the UK
> who posses some of these pictures.Do you think these will considered
> CP ?
> 2.In Japanese picture groups on Usenet a large part of the  pics
> posted consist of models in school uniform aka Jap style sort of
> salior suits showing usually their white knickers(a popular Japanese
> fetish) Many have anjelic faces and look years younger than they
> really are.Again their must be many UK guys who have some of these
> pictures collected over the last 10 years.So i guess these are illegal
> as well.
> And if we include the pics covered by the extreme porn nonsense ?
>
> D

The best one can say, is, they could be indecent.

WM