16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

If you think the fact he used SnapChat was the real issue in this case, you might want to check your moral compass.

 

 

The use of social media was definitely a part of how he committed his heinous crimes.

 

The Online Safety Act was used to successfully prosecute him.

 

Great result.

 

My moral compass is functioning well and nothing in the Online Safety Act is a threat to anything I wish to do or say online.

 

Some obviously feel it’s a threat to themselves… I wonder why?!

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Online Safety Act was used to successfully prosecute him.

 

Existing laws and sentencing guidelines would have allowed exactly the same sentence, or even more.

 

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Some obviously feel it’s a threat to themselves… I wonder why?!

 

Ah, the old "if you object to us restricting your freedoms we'll make nasty insinuations about you" tactic.  😄

 

Pathetic, but perfectly in keeping with your underhand nature. 

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Existing laws and sentencing guidelines would have allowed exactly the same sentence, or even more.

 

 

Ah, the old "if you object to us restricting your freedoms we'll make nasty insinuations about you" tactic.  😄

 

Pathetic, but perfectly in keeping with your underhand nature. 

You’ve not demonstrated the same outcome would have been achieved without the Online Safety Act.

 

As I imply above, my freedoms are not impacted by the provisions of the Online Safety Act.

 

I don’t engage in any of the online behaviour it addresses.

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As I imply above, my freedoms are not impacted by the provisions of the Online Safety Act.

Only because you don't live there.

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Only because you don't live there.

I don’t think Jonny does either 🙂

42 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ve not demonstrated the same outcome would have been achieved without the Online Safety Act.

 

 

Of course I have. 😄

 

He was convicted of the following.

• 10 counts of sexual activity with a child
• 4 counts of grooming
• 2 counts of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence

All illegal prior to the online safety act.

 

The article is an attempt to shoehorn the bill into a conviction that obviously would have been made without it, since the offenses were already illegal before it was passed. 

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t think Jonny does either 🙂

 

If we were only allowed to comment on topics where we currently live, your post count would reduce by about 99%.

 

Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. 😄

 

4 hours ago, FlorC said:

20 years is too much.

 

 

It should be life without parole. That at least is one thing the Americans get right.

 

They're seriously going to release that creature at age 62 - or even earlier if he's a 'good boy'?

56 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

If we were only allowed to comment on topics where we currently live, your post count would reduce by about 99%.

 

Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. 😄

 

Calm down, I didn’t even suggest you should not be allowed to comment.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Of course I have. 😄

 

He was convicted of the following.

• 10 counts of sexual activity with a child
• 4 counts of grooming
• 2 counts of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence

All illegal prior to the online safety act.

 

The article is an attempt to shoehorn the bill into a conviction that obviously would have been made without it, since the offenses were already illegal before it was passed. 

Jonny, 

 

the article is not trying to ‘shoehorn’ anything the convictions were obtained under the Online Safety Act.

 

It says so right there in the OP.

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Jonny, 

 

the article is not trying to ‘shoehorn’ anything the convictions were obtained under the Online Safety Act.

 

It says so right there in the OP.

 

The BBC frequently makes errors. This is another one. You do not need the 2023 online safety act to get a conviction for...

• 10 counts of sexual activity with a child
• 4 counts of grooming
• 2 counts of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence

Perhaps they will fact check themselves and make another groveling apology in the coming days?

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The BBC frequently makes errors. This is another one. You do not need the 2023 online safety act to get a conviction for...

• 10 counts of sexual activity with a child
• 4 counts of grooming
• 2 counts of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence

Perhaps they will fact check themselves and make another groveling apology in the coming days?

 

Well the prosecutors got it right.

 

Brought a case of heinous child sexual, physical and online abuse to court and secured a conviction.

 

Well done to the prosecutors.

 

I doubt the BBC will be issuing any apology, though perhaps you ought to backtrack:

 

“A man who groomed a 13-year-old girl using Snapchat so he could sexually abuse her and encourage her to self-harm has been jailed for 20 years at Manchester Crown Court with a five year extended licence – in one of the first cases to be prosecuted under a new offence created by the Online Safety Act.”

https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-west/news/snapchat-predator-jailed-after-grooming-girl-carry-out-sex-acts-and-self-harm

 

Wriggle away.

What scum.

The first comment on this thread was in support of the convicted pervert.

 In the past, there was support for child sex trafficker Maxwell, saying that her 20 year sentence was harsh.

 I wish I could remember who that poster was.

 The BBC was correct in the manner in which they reported this.