Blogger Nigel Nessling avoids prison after downloading 40,000 indecent images.

[G-Unit]

True....would you totally condemn or try to understand why

Who can tell you why? The man who spent years lying about who and what he was? The 'experts', some of whom get it wrong and recommend releasing people from institutions only for them to reoffend? There's no requirement to condemn, but there's no requirement to understand either.

[kizzy]

I'm just wondering how we would react if it was a member of our family..... would we want them to get therapy or sent to prison to be beaten by other prisoners

I think they are put on what is called protection.

Ironic when you think any vile crime, in prison they are protected

[stephen25000]

This is one of Nessling's blogs.

On there an old friend of his warns him what his actions are leading to. Nessling's response can be viewed as well.

https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/twisting-the-knife-part-two-goncalo-amaral/

[G-Unit]

I'm just wondering how we would react if it was a member of our family..... would we want them to get therapy or sent to prison to be beaten by other prisoners

I don't think I would care. All my care and compassion would be directed at the rest of the family.

[Mr Gray]

I think they are put on what is called protection.

Ironic when you think any vile crime, in prison they are protected

They should...in a civilised society ...be protected from unlawful acts

[kizzy]

I'm just wondering how we would react if it was a member of our family..... would we want them to get therapy or sent to prison to be beaten by other prisoners

He looked at child porn, he was doing it for years.

He was given a SHPO, he should have gone to prison he is not safe to be around imo.

No application is necessary for the court to make a SHPO at the point of sentence although the prosecutor may wish to invite the court to consider making an order in appropriate cases. The court may ask pre-sentence report writers to consider the suitability of a SHPO on a non-prejudicial basis.

In order to make a SHPO, the court must be satisfied that the offender presents a risk of sexual harm to the public (or particular members of the public) and that an order is necessary to protect against this risk. The details of the offence are likely to be a key factor in the court’s decision, together with the offender’s previous convictions and the assessment of risk presented by the national probation service in any pre-sentence report. The court may take into consideration the range of other options available to it in respect of protecting the public. The court may want to consider:

[Brietta]

I think that's a completely different topic. I don't think it adds anything relevant to Nessling's case.

Is this a thread set up specifically to abuse one named criminal?
Why on earth would we wish to do that?

What is there left to discuss regarding that case?
He was charged with a heinous offence.  He was put on trial ~ found guilty ~ and sentenced. Isn't there a wider picture to be considered here?
For instance ...

In my opinion there is a question of rehabilitation for those already convicted and there is a question of awareness and prevention of triggers for susceptible individuals to be considered.
Not forgetting the most important issue of all ... safeguarding children who may already be in contact with those who may be led to believe that video games such as Sony's is normal behaviour.
Not to mention the children themselves who may be exposed to the ethos of aberrant behaviour such as that portrayed in what I would consider to be a step closer to pornography and be desensitised as a result.

This game will no doubt feature in Christmas stockings throughout the country.  It is legal, so why not?  In my opinion the fact that you are insensitive to the implication this could be in making abusers for the future while wishing to continue to excoriate one particular abuser from the past who has been lawfully dealt with shows you are not looking at the bigger picture here.

[kizzy]

Is this a thread set up specifically to abuse one named criminal?
Why on earth would we wish to do that?

What is there left to discuss regarding that case?
He was charged with a heinous offence.  He was put on trial ~ found guilty ~ and sentenced. Isn't there a wider picture to be considered here?
For instance ...

In my opinion there is a question of rehabilitation for those already convicted and there is a question of awareness and prevention of triggers for susceptible individuals to be considered.
Not forgetting the most important issue of all ... safeguarding children who may already be in contact with those who may be led to believe that video games such as Sony's is normal behaviour.
Not to mention the children themselves who may be exposed to the ethos of aberrant behaviour such as that portrayed in what I would consider to be a step closer to pornography and be desensitised as a result.

This game will no doubt feature in Christmas stockings throughout the country.  It is legal, so why not?  In my opinion the fact that you are insensitive to the implication this could be in making abusers for the future while wishing to continue to excoriate one particular abuser from the past who has been lawfully dealt with shows you are not looking at the bigger picture here.

Well it is the Nigel Nessling thread, isn't anything else off topic.

[G-Unit]

Is this a thread set up specifically to abuse one named criminal?
Why on earth would we wish to do that?

What is there left to discuss regarding that case?
He was charged with a heinous offence.  He was put on trial ~ found guilty ~ and sentenced. Isn't there a wider picture to be considered here?
For instance ...

In my opinion there is a question of rehabilitation for those already convicted and there is a question of awareness and prevention of triggers for susceptible individuals to be considered.
Not forgetting the most important issue of all ... safeguarding children who may already be in contact with those who may be led to believe that video games such as Sony's is normal behaviour.
Not to mention the children themselves who may be exposed to the ethos of aberrant behaviour such as that portrayed in what I would consider to be a step closer to pornography and be desensitised as a result.

This game will no doubt feature in Christmas stockings throughout the country.  It is legal, so why not?  In my opinion the fact that you are insensitive to the implication this could be in making abusers for the future while wishing to continue to excoriate one particular abuser from the past who has been lawfully dealt with shows you are not looking at the bigger picture here.

This is a thread to discuss, not to abuse one named criminal.

If you wish to explore the subject of child sex abuse in general a new thread might be appropriate.

[Brietta]

Well it is the Nigel Nessling thread, isn't anything else off topic.

Indeed so.

[Brietta]

My children would eat him for breakfast if there was the least hint of any untoward behaviour; but that situation is not going to arise either for them or for yours, is it?

In common with thousands of others ... sorry scrub that ... he is known and where he is living is known, that in itself is not usual.
Now that he is prime fodder to vigilante attacks I think that is what is more likely to cause harm to his children than anything else.  So when punting the 'rights of children' maybe the rights of his nearest and dearest should be considered.

Or don't you think they have any?

[stephen25000]

My children would eat him for breakfast if there was the least hint of any untoward behaviour; but that situation is not going to arise either for them or for yours, is it?

In common with thousands of others ... sorry scrub that ... he is known and where he is living is known, that in itself is not usual.
Now that he is prime fodder to vigilante attacks I think that is what is more likely to cause harm to his children than anything else.  So when punting the 'rights of children' maybe the rights of his nearest and dearest should be considered.

Or don't you think they have any?

How dare you say he is fodder for vigilante attacks after what he has done ?

[Eleanor]

How dare you say he is fodder for vigilante attacks after what he has done ?

You like a bit of rough justice, do you?

[kizzy]

My children would eat him for breakfast if there was the least hint of any untoward behaviour; but that situation is not going to arise either for them or for yours, is it?

In common with thousands of others ... sorry scrub that ... he is known and where he is living is known, that in itself is not usual.
Now that he is prime fodder to vigilante attacks I think that is what is more likely to cause harm to his children than anything else.  So when punting the 'rights of children' maybe the rights of his nearest and dearest should be considered.

Or don't you think they have any?

LOL, well did he consider them. don't you put this on me.

He is the one that brought there misery, to the door.

[stephen25000]

You like a bit of rough justice, do you?

He is a convicted criminal who admitted to his crimes.

How many times have you attacked Amaral ?