Man gets suspended sentence for UK's largest child porn collection

[News_Editor]

Man gets suspended sentence for UK's largest child porn collection

2012-01-10 04:39:59 GMT+7 (ICT)

LONDON (BNO NEWS) -- A 57-year-old man who possessed one of the largest collections of child pornography ever found in the United Kingdom was sentenced to a suspended jail term on Monday, police said. He will also register as a sex offender.

Robert James Barrow, 57, pleaded guilty in July 2011 after police discovered approximately one million images and videos of child pornography on his computer at his home in east London. It was the largest collection ever seized in London from a single individual.

"The seizure of images from Barrow is the largest ever seen by my unit in relation to one individual," said Acting Detective Chief Inspector Noel McHugh of the Pedophile Unit at Scotland Yard. "His activities were on an industrial scale. To put his collection in perspective, it would take 347 days to view the entire collection - allowing 30 seconds per image with no breaks."

According to prosecutors, Barrow amassed the collection from a range of sources over a period of about 15 years. Detectives believe he used the pictures for his own gratification as well as sharing them with other like-minded individuals.

"Possession of indecent images of children is not a victimless crime as each image possessed or distributed represents a child that has been sexually abused in order that the image can exist," McHugh said. "The circulation of those images around the internet magnifies that abuse."

Police said some of the photographs in Barrow's collection were categorized as being Level 5 on the five-level SAP scale which is used to categorize the severity of child pornography. Level 5, the worst of its kind, refers to photographs or videos showing bestiality or sadism.

Barrow was sentenced to a 12-month jail sentence suspended for two years, meaning he will not go to jail unless he commits a crime during the two year period. He was also ordered to register as a sex offender for 10 years, issued a three-month curfew and a sexual offenses prevention order (SOPO).

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-01-10

[koheesti]

So he had the largest child porn collection ever found in the UK, it was rated "level 5" meaning the worst...and they let him go home on probation? I hope they are just using him as bait for others like him because it is physically impossible for him to curb his "appetite". IMO, execute him, sell his possessions and give the proceeds to groups protecting/helping abused children.

[ralphlsasser]

Have him castrated and problem solved.

[chuckd]

Justice gone awry. What a joke.

[maiphedmaiaroi]

i guess the judge is a peedo too.

Shocking.

[GentlemanJim]

I would love to see the Judges rationale for the leniency in the sentencing. This is hardly someone who has accidentally downloaded some images he should not have done. This is an avid, proactive collector and distributor of the stuff. I imagine the Met Police are choking themselves over the sentencing. The guy definitely deserved to go down. The only thing I can think of is that there was some kind of plea bargain and he has provided information on everyone he was sending images to.

[draftvader]

I would love to see the Judges rationale for the leniency in the sentencing. This is hardly someone who has accidentally downloaded some images he should not have done. This is an avid, proactive collector and distributor of the stuff. I imagine the Met Police are choking themselves over the sentencing. The guy definitely deserved to go down. The only thing I can think of is that there was some kind of plea bargain and he has provided information on everyone he was sending images to.

Well, it's safe to grass on cowards I guess!

[Gweiloman]

That's why we love UK, such a wonderful and civilised country, where the law is above everyone, unlike Thailand

[Jingthing]

To put his collection in perspective, it would take 347 days to view the entire collection - allowing 30 seconds per image with no breaks.

So does that mean they took a year's time to categorize all the images? Perfect ploy for his lawyer, how do you know that most of the images weren't about Boston terriers? Yeah, the guy is clearly guilty, but the volume thing is more about his hoarding disorder than porn, per se.

[Credo]

If the guy has no hint of molesting children and no hint of him actually taken any of the pictures, probation may be appropriate.

[transam]

If the guy has no hint of molesting children and no hint of him actually taken any of the pictures, probation may be appropriate.

One thing (usually) leads to another.

[Credo]

But if it hasn't led anywhere in 57 years, then it probably isn't going to.

[transam]

But if it hasn't led anywhere in 57 years, then it probably isn't going to.

How do you or I know what he's been up to in those 57 years ?

[draftvader]

But if it hasn't led anywhere in 57 years, then it probably isn't going to.

How do you or I know what he's been up to in those 57 years ?

In defence of this arguement we do practice "innocent until proven guilty" in England. It's just one of the many things that separates us from the French...and we like ANYTHING that separates us from the French (as much as the French like anything that separates them from us )

[samsiam]

^^^..You sound like Ludditeman...he was supporting this type of activity by saying "what harm does it do"

Well...to quote....""Possession of indecent images of children is not a victimless crime as each image possessed or distributed represents a child that has been sexually abused in order that the image can exist," McHugh said. "The circulation of those images around the internet magnifies that abuse.""

.

Edited January 10, 2012 by samsiam

[transam]

^^^..You sound like Ludditeman...he was supporting this type of activity by saying "what harm does it do"

Well...to quote....""Possession of indecent images of children is not a victimless crime as each image possessed or distributed represents a child that has been sexually abused in order that the image can exist," McHugh said. "The circulation of those images around the internet magnifies that abuse.""

.

+1

[ludditeman]

^^^..You sound like Ludditeman...he was supporting this type of activity by saying "what harm does it do"

Well...to quote....""Possession of indecent images of children is not a victimless crime as each image possessed or distributed represents a child that has been sexually abused in order that the image can exist," McHugh said. "The circulation of those images around the internet magnifies that abuse.""

The judge obviously agreed that he wasn't a danger to children, therefore the suspended sentence.

[Credo]

I am not defending the man. I am explaining why the judge probably didn't give him jail time. There are people who do not engage in sexual activity with others. This includes all kinds of inclinations. I am guessing the judge had a pre-sentencing investigation of the man done.

I am making no inference that child pornography is a victimless crime.

[Credo]

I might add he was given a suspended jail sentence and he will have to register as a sex offender.

[jamescollister]

The article clearly states he is a top of the line kiddy porn collector, that would inducate that the sentence is at the upper end of the punishment scale for these type of people. There is not supposed to be plea bargining in UK law, that's a US thing. Think if he was in the states he would have been looking at life, shows the UKs priorities in these matters. Jim

[Jingthing]

I think it is clear that he got off with a very light sentence given the severity of his crime under the law. However, his crime was the child porn, not actual molestation, so its not fair to label him as something just because you think he might be the type.

[MAJIC]

^^^..You sound like Ludditeman...he was supporting this type of activity by saying "what harm does it do"

Well...to quote....""Possession of indecent images of children is not a victimless crime as each image possessed or distributed represents a child that has been sexually abused in order that the image can exist," McHugh said. "The circulation of those images around the internet magnifies that abuse.""

.

+1

+1

[GentlemanJim]

The article clearly states he is a top of the line kiddy porn collector, that would inducate that the sentence is at the upper end of the punishment scale for these type of people. There is not supposed to be plea bargining in UK law, that's a US thing. Think if he was in the states he would have been looking at life, shows the UKs priorities in these matters. Jim

Law and Order was one of the four or five reasons I moved away James. Of course that particular issue is no better here but I decided to exchange many of those things in return for a much happier, grander lifestyle here, Truth is I don't have run ins with the law so it doesn't effect and I ignore the politics because its non of my business and I have no voting rights so can't change anything, and when I want I just don't turn the news on and can live in ignorant bliss of world issues, until I tune into Thai Visa of course

[Jingthing]

Have him castrated and problem solved.

To stop him from masturbating?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Yes...there's a couple of things about the OP report...

1. Absolutely no explanation of why he was given a suspended sentence.

2. Nothing in the article to indicate he actually abused any children, as opposed to just possessing and sharing child porn. (I'm assuming the later in a crime in the UK, as certainly is the former).

It does kind of make one wonder whether he may have struck a deal to assist the police in going after other people who may have been similarly involved. Note...the article also had no "outraged" comment from police or prosecutor over the sentence.

[Jingthing]

Quite simply -- they are different serious crimes. Both are serious crimes. He was charged and convicted of one. He wasn't even charged with the second. Justice doesn't need to be an irrational witch hunt based on guessing. It should be based on evidence. If you are suggesting that every person guilty of child porn possession charges is automatically also guilty of personally having sex acts with children, just do about a minute's research to educate yourself that is wrong, OK?

Edited January 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[mpoppel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084370/Paedophile-ONE-MILLION-sickening-images-child-abuse-spared-jail.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

That article explains why he was given such a low sentence.

Also, many people there are commenting on the fact he was charged with 'making' those images. However, under UK law, downloading an image counts as creating (making) a copy.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Come on.... this one deserves to be posted directly...

However, Barrow who admitted seven counts of making indecent images of children and two counts of possessing child porn with intent to distribute it was spared jail because he is a full-time carer to his 86-year-old mother who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease and chronic arthritis.

....

Sentencing Barrow, Judge Stephen Robbins told him: 'Normally you could and would expect to receive an immediate custodial sentence, but this case is, in my view, totally exceptional because of the condition of your mother who is nearing the end of her life.

'I therefore can and will temper justice with mercy not to you but to your very sick mother. If you breach this order then you know where you will be going, straight to prison.'

The court heard Barrow, who has never had a sexual relationship and cannot be naked in front of anyone, suffers from obsessive personality disorder.

This causes him to obsessively collect items such as beer cans and bubble gum wrappers, which he also trades with other collectors as part of his own business. He has even kept every ticket for public transport he has ever got.

[Jingthing]

As I suspected. A kind of hoarding related mental illness.

[samsiam]

Quite simply -- they are different serious crimes. Both are serious crimes. He was charged and convicted of one. He wasn't even charged with the second. Justice doesn't need to be an irrational witch hunt based on guessing. It should be based on evidence. If you are suggesting that every person guilty of child porn possession charges is automatically also guilty of personally having sex acts with children, just do about a minute's research to educate yourself that is wrong, OK?

They are different while having the same basis....a child has been abused and regardless of if he did the abuse in person...or bought the photos and video to feed the train....he is guilty of the same.

I never said he is guilty of personal sex acts...he does not need to be, he is an equal....he supported the industry in an over the top way...if there was no demand, the crime would be a hell of a lot less...

I cannot believe anyone giving this guy credit for NOT personally abusing a child...good on him hey !!

Not ok.