“At Inner London Crown Court, he pleaded guilty to six counts of making indecent images of children, two counts of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and arranging a child sex offence. He was sentenced to two years and three months behind bars last April. He was also handed a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.” This is a horrifically lenient sentence. HE WAS BUYING A CHILD TO ABUSE. Yet the judge clearly thought that trying to buy a child to abuse and viewing nearly 200 pictures and videos of distressed children being abused (105 of which were Category A) only warrants a 27 month sentence. And then to add insult to injury, the police officer quoted in the article describes this as “a substantial jail sentence”. Who in their right mind considers two years a “substantial sentence” for trying to BUY A CHILD to abuse? Even if we disregard the fact that he’s watched almost 200 other children being abused online, two years for trying to buy a child is nowhere near adequate, and not even close to justice. This nonce will NEVER stop being a threat to children. He is someone who is so comfortable with children being abused he casually watches it for entertainment whilst travelling by train. This pathetic sentence will simply remind him that he is lucky enough to live in a country where a social media post is treated as a bigger threat to society and a more serious crime than buying or abusing a child is. dailymail.com/news/article-1…