Former Judge Admits Porn Charges

[chalice]

I am sick to my stomach.


A former circuit judge has pleaded guilty to child pornography charges.

David Selwood, from Winchester in Hampshire, pleaded guilty to 13 counts of making and possessing indecent images of children.

The 69-year-old admitted the charges at Bow Street Magistrates Court on Wednesday.

The court heard that the case had a "devastating and humiliating" effect on the judge and his family. He will be sentenced on 13 July.

Selwood admitted making or possessing a total of 75 indecent images of children.

What chance do we have? I'm too angry to post an opinion on this. Suffice to say, the bastard should be boiled in his own body fat.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshi...set/3811821.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3811821.stm)

[ilw]

They also fixed it so he gets to keep his £33,000 pension and gets a £74,000 payoff (values might be a slightly wrong). After he was arrested he was allowed to retire due to 'ill health' so that he gets the aforementioned money.

[chalice]

Originally posted by ilw@16 June 2004 - 13:40
They also fixed it so he gets to keep his £33,000 pension and gets a £74,000 payoff (values might be a slightly wrong). After he was arrested he was allowed to retire due to 'ill health' so that he gets the aforementioned money.
I wish you hadn't told me that, Ian.

I think my head is going to explode. :angry:

[vidcc]

i find myself unable to see a debate on this topic. To debate we would need an opposing opinion put forward and quite frankly there is no opposing opinion. child pornographers and paedophiles are evil and as i have said before i would gladly be the one that administers a punishment of burning their genitals off with a blow tourch before locking them up and throwing away the key.

At 75 i suspect he doesn't have long left on this mortal coil to really pay any penalty the courts impose.
As a non believer in God personally i feel he won't rot in hell, but i admit cases like this make me wish there was a hell for these evil people to go to.

[chalice]

Vidcc, I think the debate might arise from Ilw's point.

What kind of loathsome institution could possibly pension this monster off.

How many deviants went free under his scrutiny?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by chalice@16 June 2004 - 10:02
Vidcc, I think the debate might arise from Ilw's point.

What kind of loathsome institution could possibly pension this monster off.

How many deviants went free under his scrutiny?
Well i was refering to a defence of the judge <_< but yes you are correct we can debate attached madness :) hard as it is to defend that attached madness also.
I was just ranting about the bastard and couldn&#39;t possibly imagine anyone being able to come up with a point that would excuse it.
Some circles believe that it is a mental problem and it&#39;s not their fault, they need treatment just like any other person with mental illness, but this is a judge, he deals with this kind of thing on a legal level so he would be aware that it is wrong and even if he had a compulsive disorder the knowledge that it is wrong should have led him to seek help before he follows his compulsions.

[chalice]

Taken from a London news site...


The court heard that Selwood had issued a prepared statement to police, in which he maintained he had never had any sexual interest in young children.

"He gave as the reason for visiting such sites curiosity to see how easy or difficult it was for someone with limited computer skills such as himself to find such images on the internet," prosecutor Amanda Sawetz said.

But, in the statement, Selwood admitted it would be difficult to describe his actions as "research".

He was quoted as saying: "I can see objectively now how foolish this may appear but there must be things going on in the subconscious mind which I need to look at."

All the photographs were described as "level one" - which was understood to mean the least serious category of indecent images of children, containing nudity and semi-naked pictures rather than sexual activity.

Earlier this year, Selwood cleared a world authority on child abuse who pleaded guilty to downloading child pornography of having any illegal intent behind his actions.

The judge described Professor Christopher Bagley, who has written several respected pieces of research into child abuse, as "naive" for accessing the indecent images without seeking legal advice or consulting colleagues.

He ruled that Bagley had viewed the images for research purposes and not for his own sexual needs.

This is the first example that has emerged of his unsound judgement. I wonder how many more of these cases he has had sway over.

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by vidcc@16 June 2004 - 10:57
At 75 i suspect he doesn&#39;t have long left on this mortal coil to really pay any penalty the courts impose.
As a non believer in God personally i feel he won&#39;t rot in hell, but i admit cases like this make me wish there was a hell for these evil people to go to.
at least he won&#39;t be around for much longer

[chalice]

Originally posted by Chame1eon+16 June 2004 - 18:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chame1eon @ 16 June 2004 - 18:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@16 June 2004 - 10:57
At 75 i suspect he doesn&#39;t have long left on this mortal coil to really pay any penalty the courts impose.
As a non believer in God personally i feel he won&#39;t rot in hell, but i admit cases like this make me wish there was a hell for these evil people to go to.
at least he won&#39;t be around for much longer [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s a small mercy, if you ask me.

What are the odds he&#39;ll do six months in a minimum security gazebo with a view?

Pretty much a certainty.

[lynx]

Beacuse of his "position" as a judge, he will probably be regarded as at extreme risk if he goes to prison.

He will probably get a probation order.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by lynx@16 June 2004 - 11:50
Beacuse of his "position" as a judge, he will probably be regarded as at extreme risk if he goes to prison.

He will probably get a probation order.
i would have thought that he would have been in more danger because he is a "sex case" and especially when it involved children, however you may have a point.
On the other hand a case such as this is likely to draw even more attention than if it were just a pervert that mingles in the crowd so justice will have to be seen to be done (not that it always is)

[Rat Faced]

I heard that all Sex related cases he has sat on are to be looked at again, to see if there was any Bias.


It sickens me even more when its those that are meant to protect, are the culprits...eg Police, Judges, Social Workers etc etc


As i dont know the facts, i dont know the truth of the rumours that his curiosity was raised during the aforementioned case...if so, he should have followed his own advice.

[Biggles]

I am sure the News I saw said that the Police were content that there was no need to review any cases he sat on. I suppose, assuming there may have been guilt issues at work here, that there is an equal possibilty that he may have been unduly harsh in such cases.

To further the debate, I am curious as to why his pension is related to his crime? He had a distinguished military career and will have been in receipt of his military pension for some time. One might arbitrarily decide that any criminal may not have this or that, but that would not be rule of law.

Whether he receives a custodial sentence is moot. I am sure there was something in the newspaper today about a similar case, where a short jail sentence was overturned on appeal.

Whilst it is important to protect children, our spleen should be vent on those who are an active threat - not aging voyeurs.

On seperate note, but a related theme (the protection of children), I saw a picture in the Glasgow Herald the other day of a child in the last throes of death through starvation in the Dafur region of Sudan. This, I confess, made me extremely angry. However, perhaps humanitarian peace-keeping and the mis-direction of effort and resources by our leaders only muddies the waters here. :ph34r:

Apologies for all the edits - typing and watching football are, I have decided, mutually exclusive.

[j2k4]

I&#39;m with you, Chalice.

I&#39;m so angry I can&#39;t think about it; I don&#39;t dare.

How is it that the "powers that be" see their way clear to make this individual financially "whole"?

Unreal. :angry:

[Rat Faced]

A pension is defered pay.

I have no trouble with him getting his pension, he did work for it.


A Payoff though... that just sux, if it had been a court clerk he would have got fired, no payoff..... so how come a different rule for the Judge?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@16 June 2004 - 21:12
A pension is defered pay.

I have no trouble with him getting his pension, he did work for it.


A Payoff though... that just sux, if it had been a court clerk he would have got fired, no payoff..... so how come a different rule for the Judge?
It would depend on the terms of his contract and the offer of early retirement. It is unlikely a clerk would be dismissed months before the outcome of a trial, therefore an opportunity to jump at that point would be possible.

I would agree though, in general, those at the top of the tree get all the best breaks. One can lead a company to the brink of destruction as a CEO and still leave early with a huge golden handshake. The reason for this, given the trail of misery, ruined lifes and careers left in the wake, escapes me.

[chalice]

For someone who&#39;s alledgedly been humiliated and shamed, he sure made sure he got his dough to soften the blow.

By his own admission, he is gulity. The details and motivation are moot. He was due to retire next year at the age of 70 but claimed "ill-health" so as not to conflict with his windfall.

Wouldn&#39;t it be some kind of reconcilatory gesture if he were to decline all moneys pertaining to an official capacity, seeing as his behaviour negates any authority he may have been endowed with.

How long has he been a pervert? Nobody knows.

[Voetsek]

if he goes to court he will end up in front of a old friend shame eh justice no way