Judge tells teacher sex offender: I don't criticise you for being attracted to children

Judge tells teacher sex offender:

w ww.telegraph.co.uk

David Armstrong, a supply teacher, escaped jail with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.

As she allowed the 63-year-old to walk free from court, Judge Mary Jane Mowat told him: “I don't criticise you for being a teacher who's attracted to children.

“Many teachers are but they keep their urges under control both when it comes to children and when it comes to images of children."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Can someone please help me understand this? I'm speechless - when is sexual attraction to children acceptable or normal? Is there someone in the UK who knows about this judge? This judge needs to be investigated for mental illness. I know nothing about judicial appointments in the UK, but this one seems to have a seriously bad track record, that is blatantly obvious. Corrupt judges I've read about are usually a bit more discrete.

w ww.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

wow. ummmm....not even anything? the judge makes it sound like she sees a lot of cases like this.

4,500 pictures means he has a problem, and is pretty sick in the head, yet hes going free?!

Originally posted by Maluhia

Judge tells teacher sex offender:

w ww.telegraph.co.uk

David Armstrong, a supply teacher, escaped jail with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.

As she allowed the 63-year-old to walk free from court, Judge Mary Jane Mowat told him: “I don't criticise you for being a teacher who's attracted to children.

“Many teachers are but they keep their urges under control both when it comes to children and when it comes to images of children."

(visit the link for the full news article)

What she's implying is that teachers are pedophiles. Obviously, she's nuts.

reply to post by 9Nania


Yes - seems she is NUTS. Why is she still on the bench?? Hopefully this will be the straw that breaks............

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Yep - almost like its normal!?!?

Which is more disturbing?

Walking out of court free after being found with 4,500 kiddie porn pics

Keeping the teaching job despite the kiddie porn

The judge implying that many teachers like little kids in a sexual way

I can't which one bothers me more, it's a quandary.

How old were the kids? If they are the 7-8 variety, then ya, there is a issue with the judges comment overall.

If we are talking about like 15+ year olds, well, they are attractive at that age..problem is, a child is anyone under 18, which means 17 years, 11 months 29 days is a child, and the next day, is a playboy model...

So, will reserve judgement until I know the facts overall..as far as a collectionist tendency...well, the guy needs therapy, thats for sure...again, more info is needed (admittedly, I didn't read the article)..but if we are talking about mid to mid/late teen pics, then its not as disturbing as an -actual- child...but its still the law.

meh.

I dont criticize until I know the facts personally

ok, read a fairly critical part

Police arrested Armstrong and found 4,500 indecent images and videos on two laptops and an external hard drive. More than 300 of the images were in the two most serious categories, some involving children as young as two.

300 pics of obviously under the 12 mark or whatever it is..that is disturbing. Still withholding judgement, but I probably wouldn't let him babysit my nieces.

You know, these files are marked with distinct signatures...if government (or savvy virus makers) really cared about stopping these pics, they could simply design a virus that targets and destroys the specific signatures..but I guess there is more money in prosecuting people verses stopping the problem

Originally posted by Maluhia

Judge tells teacher sex offender:

w ww.telegraph.co.uk

David Armstrong, a supply teacher, escaped jail with a suspended sentence after admitting possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.

As she allowed the 63-year-old to walk free from court, Judge Mary Jane Mowat told him: “I don't criticise you for being a teacher who's attracted to children.

“Many teachers are but they keep their urges under control both when it comes to children and when it comes to images of children."

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 30-7-2011 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)

This is a legal court system based upon maritime law, it is not a place for justice, but is a place for business. Once authority has been given in this court, then the judge has a free hand pretty much.

We in the uk need to take control of the courts again as we are still under common law officially(law of the land), however the whole system is using admiralty law(law of the sea).

I am sure you are aware, that there are many judges that lean towards young children in a way that they should not, sounds to me like this is one of them.

I think we need a good ole revolution , like in the old days when people used to get mad and actually do something about the things that were unjust. Too many people are too afraid of losing whatever small amount of anything they have left nowadays, which will mean even less for our children.

First let me admit that I have not read the article, just the summary and the OP. But from what I gather I'm guessing the judge simply met that being attracted to children is a disease and therefore uncontrollable, therefore not to be criticized, what you do with that attraction is how you should be criticized.

I really have a feeling I'm gonna get bashed for this post.

EDIT: After reading the article I determined that he did not walk free, rather his sentence was shortened to 12 months after spending 10 years with his name on the sexual offender list and not being able to own any internet capable devices (every device made in the last 5 years)

reply to post by Maluhia


This is pretty bizarre. I mean I could see being attracted to your students if you're teaching a class full of high school juniors/seniors ... but she uses the word children, not teenagers...

The article mentions that victims of abuse might be upset but I see this more as upsetting the parents of children in the UK school system. They're going to be eying their child's school teacher with a bit more scrutiny after hearing a claim like this. Maybe parents'll even raise some awkward questions at the next parent teacher conference.

Edit to add: Read the whole article, so a bunch of the pics were of VERY young children... makes it even more bizarre to see the judges sympathetic statements...

reply to post by AGWskeptic


i was thinking the exact same thing. i work in the Texas courts and have seen an 18 year old do jail time, get probation AND have to register with the state's sex offender list, for having a couple of naked pictures of his 17 year old girlfriend (which she emailed to him) on his computer. He took his computer to Geek Squad for repair if I am remembering correctly, and they, of course, found the images and reported it.

Meanwhile, in the UK.... Chester Child Molester gets to cruise on out of court and go back to school to try and pick up some dates in D-Hall, with his collection of 478579847384754 kiddie porn pics.

what. a. mess.

Having been a victim..I am speechless! The judge has no judgement skills. Lets throw her and the victimiser in jail to rot.

What if that judge were preceding over a serial murder case.

He might say something like this: "I don't criticize you for wanting to hack people up and put them in your freezer. A lot of people want to do that kind of thing, but they keep their urges under control."

reply to post by Maluhia

possessing 4,500 indecent images of children.

It seems to me like the key word here is "indecent", meaning it probably wasn't child pornography, but questionable pictures of children in adult poses or with small amounts of clothing etc. I'm sure if it were actual child pornography he wouldn't have walked out of court a free man.

reply to post by Gibbon


Actually this is more like the man having actual pictures of children that have been hacked to death, which I admit would be even more disturbing but still not as bad as if he was actually hacking people to death.

It doesn't appear that this guy took any of the pictures himself far as I can tell, though it does say that he made some of them on his computer. It's not like he's actually hurting anyone if he isn't the one taking the pictures and is just storing them and editing them with his computer. Of course he should still be in prison, or at least face some kind of psychological treatment while kept sequestered from the public, the whole suspended sentence thing is just crazy.

He admitted five charges of making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children between 2007 and 2010. The court heard that some of the images were not of real children but Japanese cartoons depicting youngsters in sexual scenes.

So I don't think your quite analogy works. What this guy did is sick but it isn't anywhere near the same caliber as actually going out and hacking people to death. Now the judges comment would fit perfectly if he had images of his students being stabbed to death and she said, "Most teachers have urges to stab their students"... I wonder which would raise the most eyebrows...

I'd like to talk about that last sentence in the excerpt. The idea that someone can get in trouble for possessing scenes of underage fictional cartoon characters engaged in sex seems crazy. Imagine getting arrested for possessing photos of violence against underage fictional characters, it wouldn't make any sense. Do they now want to see a fictional anime character and an actual child as equals?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I'd like to talk about that last sentence in the excerpt. The idea that someone can get in trouble for possessing scenes of underage fictional cartoon characters engaged in sex seems crazy. Imagine getting arrested for possessing photos of violence against underage fictional characters, it wouldn't make any sense.

It has already happened in Australia. A man was charged for being in possession of Simpsons porn.

www.theherald.com.au...

LOL...look at this quote from the article I linked in my last post:

That ruling extended the legal definition of "person" to include cartoon characters.

Cartoon characters are now people. So if I were to draw a cartoon character it can be classed as a person? That truly is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

my true thoughts wont be conveyed in this post because they would be an extreme violation of ats terms and conditions.

a pedo is a pedo but a teacher is the worst kind and yeah kiddie porn amounts to being a pedo at least for me.

the judge should be fired the teacher should be fired and those pictures burned and parents notified and his pic be place at every location where he lives.

that is inviting disaster..

utterly ridiculous