A TOP security expert admitted downloading 90,000 child porn files from the internet. Former Home Office security chief, David Tracey, 48, admitted accessing more than 60,000 photos and 30,000 movies of children while holed up in the bedroom of the house he shared with his ex-wife. Basildon Crown Court heard Tracey, from Billericay, attempted suicide twice after cops found the images on his computer in December 2010. Judge Ian Graham told Tracey he would not be jailed so he could attend internet sex offender rehabilitation classes. He was handed a three-year community order, a sex offences prevention order and ordered to pay £750 costs and a victim surcharge. Tracey was suspended and later dismissed from his job as an anti terror officer when the allegations came to light. He was in charge of overseeing security for the UKâs royal palaces and part of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism at Whitehall.
The dumbing down gets worse - makes it sound like a gift FFS. The other day when they were talking about the Philpott case on ITV news they referred to the victims as kids rather than children about 20 times. Admittedly it probably says something abourt me that i picked up on that rather than the fact the **** had killed his own flesh and blood
Being named and shamed is punishment enough for downloading it. What we really need to focus on is catching and properly punishing those who physically sexually abuse children and those that cover for them.
I agree. Stop me is of course right in that those who commit the abuse are the ones that need to be stopped as they provide the "product" but the bastards who keep the market going deserve to be punished severely as well. Of copurse bu focussing on them they might even grass up the ones doing the abuse...... Anyway, this ****er was in the home office and supposed to be doing soemthing about it rather than watching it.....
Yes, anything that perpetuates this sort of behaviour deserves a little more thn just a naming and shaming. I used to do a spot of work alongside computer forensic guys. The **** they had to look at was a lot more prevalent than one might think. Just FYI. 3.1 Sexual Offences Prevention Order 3.1.1 What is a SOPO? A Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) is a civil order created by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to replace Restraining Orders and Sex Offender Orders available through the Sex Offenders Act 1997. An order may be made against any ‘qualifying offender’ defined by section 106(5) as a person who before or after the commencement of the Act has been convicted of a schedule 3 or schedule 5 offence, found not guilty by insanity or disability and to have done the act charged, or cautioned of such an offence under the Act. An order can only be made: “If the court is satisfied that it is necessary to make an order for the purpose of protecting the public or any particular members of the public from serious sexual harm from the defendant.” (Section 104, Sexual Offences Act 2003). A court may make an order when it deals with a defendant at the point of sentencing or upon an application by the police to a magistrate’s court. In order to secure an order in this way, the police will need to demonstrate that the individual in question is both a ‘qualifying offender’ (as outlined above) and that since the ‘appropriate date’ has ‘acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for such an order to be made’. The term ‘appropriate date’ usually means the date of a first conviction or caution for a relevant offence. An order can be based solely on alleged behaviour not resulting in any prosecution. To secure an order by way of application a structured risk assessment will often be produced by way of a report provided by the relevant agencies involved in MAPPA, which can include police, probation, social services and healthcare professionals. 3.1.2 What can it include? A SOPO contains prohibitions on an individual doing any of the things stipulated. These might include having unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 18 or being present in certain places such as schools or play parks. Any prohibition contained needs to be justified in relation to the risk posed by the individual and must be capable of being policed effectively. A breach of any of the prohibitions in an order is a criminal offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. The imposition of a SOPO also requires the named individual to comply with the notification requirements (see above) for the duration of the order. The prohibitions contained in SOPOs are not standard and are drafted by local police or prosecutors dealing with a case. Guidance to police and prosecutors regarding the use of SOPOs states: “Care needs to be taken that the prohibitions in the order can be justified by the assessment of risk. The questions that need to be asked when considering an order are: • Would an order minimise the risk of harm to the public or to any particular members of the public? • Is it proportionate? • Can it be policed effectively?” (Home Office, 2004).
