news.aol.co.uk/child-abuse-ring-libraria...80818081335426950973

Swindle insurance companies and pension companies and you go to jail for six years.

Ruin the lives of hundreds of children and you go to jail for three years and six months.

Act as the international organiser for paedophiles all over the world and you go to jail for only three years and six months.

I do agree there's something wrong with a justice system which penalises offenders more heavily for crimes against property than for crimes against the person.

This 'Librarian' guy has received an indefinite sentence, which isn't really that clear from the AOL News article. Usually when prison sentences are reported in the media they're maximum terms - so someone sentenced to say, 5 years in jail, will not serve any longer than that, and can be out much earlier with time off for good behaviour etc.

Indefinite sentences were introduced fairly recently. This guy has received 3 years 6 months as the minimum he'll serve on an indefinite sentence. After the 3 years 6 months he'll only be allowed out if he satisfies the authorities that he no longer poses a risk to the public.

He'll certainly serve longer than 3 years and 6 months, quite possibly a lot longer. If the authorities believe he continues to pose a risk, it's even possible that he'll never be let out.

Having said that, it's also still possible he'll be out before the disappearing canoeist.

LYDIA REID wrote:

Ruin the lives of hundreds of children and you go to jail for three years and six months.

Act as the international organiser for paedophiles all over the world and you go to jail for only three years and six months.

NO, that's a minimum (a horribly low one) but he's been jailed for an indefinite period.

It seems if we compare this mans minimum sentence to the others mentioned here he will be out of prison as long as he says “sorry I will never do this again�. It seems this mans crimes do not merit the same tariff as for instance a murderer.

He could easily be out before the canoeist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_sentence#United_Kingdom

United Kingdom
A life sentence is a prison term of indeterminate length and in some exceptionally grave cases, a recommendation can be made that a life sentence should mean life. Formerly, the Home Secretary reserved the right to set the "tariff", or minimum length of term, for prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, but politicians were stripped of this power in November 2002 after a successful challenge by convicted double murderer Anthony Anderson. Anderson had been sentenced to life imprisonment in 1988 with a recommended minimum term of 15 years, but the Home Secretary later informed him that he would have to serve at least 20 years.
Since then, judges have been obliged to recommend a minimum term and only the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords Judicial Committee can make any amendments to the sentence. Though politicians can no longer decide how long a life sentence prisoner spends behind bars, the Attorney General still has the power to petition the Court of Appeal in a bid to increase any prison terms which are seen as unduly lenient.
The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 set out guidelines for how long murderers should spend in prison before being considered for parole. This legislation highlighted the recommendation that multiple murderers (the murder of two or more people) whose crimes involved sexual abuse, pre-planning, abduction or terrorism should never be released from prison, which is known as a whole life tariff, while other multiple murders (two or more) should carry a recommended minimum of 30 years. A 30-year minimum should also apply to the worst single murders, including those with sexual or racial motives, the use of a firearm as well as the murder of police officers. Most other murders should be subject to a 15-year minimum. Inevitably, there have been numerous departures from these guidelines since they were first put into practice. For example, the judge who sentenced police killer David Bieber recommended that he should never be released from prison, whereas government guidelines recommended a 30-year minimum for such crimes. He is currently awaiting the outcome of an appeal to get his sentence reduced. And in the case of Mark Goldstraw, who killed four people in an arson attack on a house in Staffordshire, the trial judge set a recommended minimum of 35 years—as the crime included planning and resulted in the deaths of four people, it might have been expected to come under a category of killings which merited a whole life tariff.
The average sentence is about 15 years before the first parole hearing, although those convicted of exceptionally grave crimes remain behind bars for considerably longer; Ian Huntley was given a tariff of 40 years. Some receive whole life tariffs and die in prison, such as Myra Hindley and Harold Shipman. Various media sources estimate that there are currently between 35 and 50 prisoners in England and Wales who have been issued with whole life tariffs, issued by either the High Court or the Home Office. These include Ian Brady, Donald Neilson, Dennis Nilsen and Robert Black.
Prisoners jailed for life are released on a life licence if the parole board authorises their release. The prisoner must satisfy the parole board that they are remorseful, understand the gravity of their crime and pose no future threat to the public. They are subject to a possible lifelong recall to prison should they breach their parole conditions.

The thing that bothered me most about the man's client group was the way he had access to hidden web sites and the secretive methods used by his clients.
The internet has many clever users well hidden from casual use and search engines.
Then the ease of recruiting despicable users started with borderline attractions, and then could proceed to the hidden sites, furthering new levels of depravity. The ease in which a community can be established, and the recruiting of child abusers is amazing and especially staying well below the rader.
The methods used by these child abusers is also available for criminals and terrorists to further their activities. A sobering thought for us all.

Hi Doricman

I have given thought to the points in your post and I believe you are right a sobering but frightening thought for children.

Until the sentences fit the crime or some way is found to protect children from these people parents must learn to be more vigilant.

If a child is assaulted/abused/raped/murdered, who suffers? The child and his/her family and friends.

If a large conglomerate is defrauded to the tune of millions, who suffers? The board of directors, perhaps the major shareholders.

Just surmising here, but who would have more influence over our Justiciary? Oh, I know they are all impartial, but whose opinion would hold more sway?

Which social circle would they be more likely to move in, who would they have a round of golf with...

Does anyone recall the raid on the Millenium Dome, and the Media furore it caused?

Compare that to the coverage afforded to Joe Bloggs, who was stabbed to death on his way home from work...

Just ruminating aloud mind, we can all draw our own conclusions...