1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Not long enough or harsh enough

Discussion in 'Personal' started by monicabilongame, Nov 30, 2015.

  1. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    He was vice principle and child protection officer in a special needs school.

    Mr Whillock would call and text her late at night requesting naked images.

    On one occasion, she provided a photo of her genitals and said: "Here's wat u ordered."

    Mr Whillock replied: "That's so lovely. Meanwhile you can use your imagination to send me some more when you want."


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34716852

    And he got 3 years community service!
     
    kent1 likes this.
  2. Weald56

    Weald56 Established commenter

  3. VanEyssen

    VanEyssen Established commenter

    [This comment/section has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions]
     
  4. Middlemarch

    Middlemarch Star commenter

    I don't understand why his sentence was so low.
     
  5. RedQuilt

    RedQuilt Star commenter

    I imagine he's been disbarred from the profession too.

    What a slime ball.
     
  6. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    The sentence was for 'Possession of Indecent Images'.

    Possession of a large amount of level 1 material and/or no more than a small amount of level 2, and the material is for personal use and has not been distributed or shown to others


    Hence the community order. His was the 'lowest level'. Least serious. That was 2010. The criminal case.

    The civil damages case has only just been concluded.

    Two separate things.
     
  7. Middlemarch

    Middlemarch Star commenter

    But why wasn't he prosecuted for grooming a vulnerable person whilst in a position of trust?
     
    monicabilongame, lindenlea and kent1 like this.
  8. TheoGriff

    TheoGriff Star commenter

    .

    Exactly my thoughts!

    Not that I usually ever agree with @Middlemarch of course.

    ;)

    This is an appalling example if every parent's worse nightmare of a communication between a teacher and a pupil.

    The reason for all those school policies on never giving pupils your personal contact details, nor having any contacts with them on social media. All contacts with pupils must be open and professional.

    Best wishes

    .
     
    snowyhead likes this.
  9. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    Don't know. Is that an offence? In the absence of sexual assault? I don't think it is unless it culminates in a physical act.

    Help! Someone put us right on this.
     
  10. Lascarina

    Lascarina Star commenter

    If it isn't then it downright ought to be.
     
    bombaysapphire and Duke of York like this.
  11. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    I find it offensive and that ought to be good enough for anyone.
     
    Lascarina likes this.
  12. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    Isn't this why the online vigilantes exist? The adults who lure paedophiles/ephebophiles into a meeting by pretending to be young girls. That's when the offence occurs. On meeting. As I understand it.

    If he didn't suggest they meet then he didn't commit the offence that's on the statute book?

    This was 2010.
     
  13. Lascarina

    Lascarina Star commenter

    It wasn't any less reprehensible then than it is now.
     
  14. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    No. My point being that the law (as is usual) is somewhat late to the cyber-party. The judiciary has only just heard of the Rolling Stones so cyber-crime is hardly going to be a well-regulated area.
     
  15. Lascarina

    Lascarina Star commenter

    They're on to it already in Corrie!
     
  16. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    It might 'only have been images' but for every image there is child abuse behind it because the images are of actual children. It's never just 'only images'. NEVER.
     
    snowyhead and FolkFan like this.
  17. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    It's even more reprehensible that he was in a position of trust and that she had learning difficulties but the law simply hasn't caught up with the technology.
     
    snowyhead likes this.
  18. HelenREMfan

    HelenREMfan Star commenter

    Who is to say that he didn't put this image onto the Net? It is often the action of someone into abuse and grooming. I find this case beyond belied in that he has not received a custodial sentence or been charged with an imprisonable offence !
    When is this country going to act to protect the young and vulnerable?

    For the first time since I have been on this site I have reported a comment on it to the Mods. I am really quite angry right now.
     
  19. Lascarina

    Lascarina Star commenter

    What an indictment on the law!
     
  20. cissy3

    cissy3 Star commenter

    It makes you wonder if it had been a child of theirs would they have been so flippant.

    btw I am in two minds on the reporting bit. Sometimes I think some comments are best left so that people can see what a person is like. (Dunno really)
     

Share This Page