Site Meter

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Sex pervert not charged with sex crime!

Sex pervert not charged with sex crime!

Classroom lab technician knocked out schoolgirl he tricked into wearing chloroform mask

"The reason for Shreeve's plot to drug the sixth-former remains a mystery but there was no known sexual motive, Snaresbrook Crown Court in East London heard".

Why was this pervert not charged with a sex crime? As a result of not charging and convicting him of indecent assault, it means he will not be on any Sex Offender Register when released and will be free to strike again!

Judge William Kennedy said "This was a truly appalling, senseless and unfathomable risk to take with the life of a young woman".

Senseless? Unfathomable? Your Honour, you really do need to get out more...



Photo: sleepingland

I suspect with a name like Jared Shreeve that he is a Muslim. It is an anomaly in prison that Muslims are exempt from Sex Offender Treatment Programmes (SOTP), which other non-Muslim perverts must undergo, on the grounds that it offends against their religion. Er? What about their sex offending against girls and women?

8 comments:

Charles Cowling said...

To be fair - no, that's not the right word - to be forensically accurate, Mr Shreeve's motivation was never actually discovered. To suppose his assault to have been sexual may be the only interpretation acceptable to common sense, but it is nonetheless a subjective interpretation. I think the judge had his hands tied here - worse, you could even find yourself on the wrong end of a gagging order and shafted by the long arm of the law.

Full marks, perhaps, to Mr Shreeve's brief for silencing his client so effectively?

I didn't know that about Muslims and SOTPs.

That's a humdinger of a website you took your pic from!

jailhouselawyer said...

Charles: To be fair it is the right word! But for "Teacher Robert Davies, who arrived soon afterwards..." who spoiled his plan...

It is a recognised sexual kink, and the prosecution should have pushed the issue. It a power thing, get a girl or woman too drunk or drugged to say "No!".

I became aware of this in prison when Channel 5 first started and put on very soft porn. There was a documentary which featured an American website called Sleeping Beauties. As you can see from the link I put up, there are loads of other similar sites.

It begs the question why the prosecution did not pursue the issue? The drugging was the act and not the motive. I would feel safer if he had got a discretionary life sentence and went to Grendon for therapy.

I do recall Lord Justice Scott-Baker, when he was chair of my Parole Board, being very, very, interested in Bubbles Massage Parlour in Derby, and what services are provided and the prices...

Charles Cowling said...

Ah, you hit the nail on the head as only a legal brain can. Yes of course, if only in punishment for his refusal to explain himself, a discretionary life sentence would have been far more appropriate than that inadequate 2 1/2 years.

As to the libido of judges, well, there's a subject for a research student or a muckraking journalist. Bubbles seems quite mainstream for a senior member of the judiciary. I believe a good many enjoy nothing more than a sound and savage thrashing...

Thank you for your illuminating reply on all fronts, John. As to Sleeping Beauties, I guess it takes all sorts - and more's the pity.

jailhouselawyer said...

Charles: To be fair I did not disclose my full reasoning, however, when challenged I was able to back it up with the powder I kept dry...

Charles Cowling said...

And there was I thinking you'd gone out on a bit of a limb. Ought to know better by now.

jailhouselawyer said...

Charles: LOL! Sometimes I take a punt, but usually my research covers the issue before I open my mouth. It was worth a test, because if I cannot back it up I would say so when challenged and not try to bluff my way out of it.

Charles Cowling said...

Quality.

nan99 said...

Wrong on all accounts stop believing the tripe in the papers + you might get a life
He is +was innocent he truly thought it was neutraliser [he had never used chloroform in his life ] he was not alone when the safety equipment was found in the school cupboard but no-one would speak out against the school he worked at this school for 6years why would he do something so out of character then, he is a law abiding citizen thats how he was raised + has never done anything wrong in his whole life he would avoid confrontration if he could he is from a hard working family who with his many friends believe in him solidly
people like you make things up + should really know what you are commenting on first