Forums Forums Local News Liverpool dad jailed for abuse towards 12yo

Absolutely!!!!

i have to say, this is appauling, this guy shouldn`t be allowed around children ever again! that sentence is pathetic! shame on our judges.
no doubt about it this guy will be hurt in prison, the guards won`t keep their mouths shut on this guy!

This is a tricky one, not releasing the fathers name to protect the child i can understand. When i was at school, a girl i knew was sexually assaulted and abused by her father, the judicial system didn't release the names or information but the neighbours did. This made the girls life, the innocent party, a life of misery, other children can be so cruel and yet not understanding the full facts, the family had to leave the area, i can understand the importance in witholding names to protect the innocents.

Maybe they should put the Mum & Kid(s) in something like a 'Witness Protection Program' so they will no longer be associated with the father's name - then, the father could be named & shamed and not jepopardize anyone...

Sorry, I just can't see how it protects the child by witholding the fathers name. Supposing the father was prosecuted for an offence outside his own family, would his own child still not have the same problem (whether or not he abused his own child).

Also it opens up the ridiculous possibility of "plea bargaining" to keep their name quiet.

well said andy

It protects the child who has been offended against, in the case of the girl i went to school with, it ruined her early life and probably her whole life. I don't know her now, she would not of wanted it known what her father done to her. Had her father committed the same crime with someone else, that would have been bad enough to live with, having had it done to her and it getting out into the open and having to put up with the jibes, bullying and innuendos is a bit different i think.

Just because the Father's name is not published in newspapers does not mean that it is not known about in the local community - the jungle drums are bound to start rattling, unfortunately sometimes incorrectly and the wrong family get the stick.

I still don't understand how it protects the child, given the choice, most people would say they don't want others to know, but does the attempted secrecy make that much difference in reality? - I very much doubt it, and I would guess not at a fair cost of some monster becoming icognito.

The attempts at secrecy probably worsen the position of the child - other kids find the "secret" and they are bound to taunt. If it was up-front, perhaps there would be more sympathy.

If an innocent person is not allowed to protect their identity, why should a guilty person?

The basis of our legal system is visibility, without visibility its almost meaningless. Justice has got to be seen to be done!

I have no interest in protecting the anonymity of the guilty but not at the expense of the innocent. If it means the guilty party not being known to the general public, then so be it.
Rather that than have a child have a rough passage through their early life. The child does have the option when their older to divulge whats happened to them, should they feel the need.

I agree and have said so in the past that it is wrong to name anyone who has yet to be proven guilty, so why is it wrong to withhold names to protect the innocent victim. I prefer to know justice has been done and a suitable sentence given out, not really interested in names, maybe i would if i wanted to take the law into my own hands, but that is not the case.

Imagine how the kid feels having his dad tell him he hates him! What a thoroughly nasty person.

Hope he gets the same treatment while he's doing his porridge. Judge was right, if he behaves like this in public, how the hell does he abuse the child in private?

Something I have noticed reading this thread. Why are the majority of posts about whether the victim (via the father) should be afforded anonimity, yet few talk about the pathetic sentence handed down.

The sentence is a bit difficult because it is only effectively ABH, not GBH. These days it is unusual for police to prosecute for ABH, it is only because it is a child in this case.

It would appear that it is also only for one time period that the court is using, any parent that can honestly say they have NEVER lost it with their kids at some point in their life are possibly not parenting enough!

A 40 week prison sentence is a tough penalty, and for what the father is actually charged with, is above what I would have expected.

Don't forget the fall-out effects of this sentence for the whole family, the future earning potential of the father etc.

In reality, the protection agencies will be on the families back, bearing this in mind, for first offence I would have though a warning would have been appropriate - the father then has a clear choice, this may benefit the whole family better than criminalising him.

Second offence - throw away the key or just knee-cap him!