Ex-monk and headteacher admits having 5,000 indecent images of children

“Plukie2, you say you are confused by the levels of seriousness of indecent images.

Allow me to explain.

Level 1 means "erotic posing" which is usually fully clothed. Furthermore, since an amendment to the law in 2003 (Sexual Offences Act), a child for the purposes of indecent images is defined as anyone under 18. So, a picture of a 17 year old female posing in a bikini, or short shirt, in a manner deemed "erotic" (i.e. pouting or thrusting their pelvis) is classified as an indecent image of a child. (Plenty of people have been convicted and placed on the Sex Offenders Register just for possession of a tiny handful of this kind of image).

Before you say that Level 1 images still constitute abuse because there was obviously a paedophile on the other side of the camera, consider for a moment that some of these images are "self taken" - i.e. teenagers who pose in front of a mirror, wearing a skimpy dress, while holding their mobile phone, purely to impress or titilate their own friends of a similar age. They are hardly victims of abuse, because nobody was abusing them. They went down to Primark or New Look, bought some clothes and decided to model them for their friends or teenage boyfriends. Who, exactly, abused them?

If you happen to have any vintage copies of The Sun newspaper lying in your garage or loft, showing the 16 year old Samantha Fox displaying her breasts on Page 3, then you are in possession of child pornography. No ifs, no buts, the law is crystal clear. She is under 18 in the pictures. You ARE in possession of indecent images of a child. End of story.

Now compare Level 1 images to Level 3, 4 or 5 images which cover sexual activity and sadism between adults and children - i.e. the appalling brutal rape of children, sometimes babies.

I hope I have given you a better understanding of why the law has set out these different levels of seriousness.”

“Undoubtedly a guilty man. One wonders whether this man went 'senile' and could no longer gain physical gratification and so developed mental illness as his mind became enmaddened via confused desire, or whether the man had previously been a headteacher in order to sate his desire, the article does not state. It is perhaps disheartening to Christians as to why some of the comments on this board cite anti-religious sentiment, one would suggest there is no psychological reason that being a teacher or being religious causes paedophilia, although it is true that pyramid marketing cults such as Freemasonry may have (in Victorian times) attempted to de-stabilise religion via extensive processes of psychological torture which caused in effect such crimes to be committed. Professional psychiatric treatment of paedophiles changed tact somewhat around the 1970s or 1980 as it was shown that life-imprisonment gave no scope for rehabilitation and enabled an offender to effectively re-live experience (albeit only in their own mind) when in an isolated environment which gave no scope to see another angle on life as a growing adult; bigotry such as that shown on some of the other comments here has been frowned upon as it has been proven to lead to a situation where offenders believed that as none understood their way of thinking they had the right to band together and form their own 'satanic' cults isolated in secret away from the public eye, thus the decision was made to re-settle offenders into the community where effectively their crimes would be known to the public and the public would be aware of who and where they were – I have been in a situation where parents have been walking children home from school and either the parents or children have mentioned in warning that that was where such a person lived, raising the issue and identifying the problem on what to many is a most unapproachable subject. Some may suggest being enclosed in a Catholic Community prior to trial is a safe environment. Unfortunately in the modern era the political catch-phrase of 'naming and shaming' has largely turned into political lynch-mobbing, and yet the difficulty of such crimes remains in society. Church of Scientology (Scientology) and other cults may lead in with their periods of 'stress-testing' coupled with 'what causes someone to think this way, what causes their mind to tick', in order for a victim to focus on articles such as these and then through a long-process of psychological switching one way and then the other attempt to cause a nervous breakdown which then causes a re-iteration of the phrases spoken to them by Scientology – often to psychologically torture a victim into stopping speaking out against Scientology, under the guise that the Scientology scientific and psychological methods can both prevent and correct such crimes in society, yet are only really symptoms of mental illness caused by the Scientology process in order to subsequently cure in a snake-oil approach of cause a wound, let it heal over time, and then claim credit for the cure; and the psychological approach to treatment of people with such conditions, resulting from bad life-experience as opposed to torture by Scientology, is proven to almost never work as such hypnotism techniques effectively only add an opposing desire to force against which enviably can lead to a snap.

I do personally believe in a loving God and a loving God which does defend victims from their offenders both in the afterlife and in continuation in this world in life and is there at all times.”

“another so called religious person who has used his faith as a cover for what he really is...the catholic church is full of them, religion is like a cult, cant bear it.”

“It seems religion attracts the wrong sort of devotee...”

“Well I seem to have two red arrows for my last comment, that makes me wonder about the mentality of the people that did that, obviously they don't care about children.”

“This where he is supposed to be living ( obviously this is NOT his flat ) Very nice if you can afford it

http://tinyurl.com/ayvs6ha”

“Disgusting old man. What really confuses me is the "Levels" of seriousness. There shouldn't be levels, that to me says that level one is almost acceptable, no "level" is acceptable. We are dealing with adults v children, adults have the total advantage of being more powerful, stronger, craftier and manipulative than any child. A child has no say in the matter at all about being abused whether it's level one or level five, therefore, do away with levels and treat ALL cases as the most serious assault on our little ones, it's a crime to take away their childhood for self gratification, what normal person can look at a child in a sexual way? I just don't understand how people can do that to children. Chemical castration if not physical castration would be a good thing for all these horrible people, male and female that abuse our children.”

“oh and forgot to say is that people who do this really make me sick indeed and should get life in prison!!”

“dirty f*****s i say!!!”

“Miller is now living in Bristol at The Eye, Glass Wharf, as part of a Catholic community"

This line says it all.”