Philip Pickett sentenced to 11 years imprisonment

[doversoul1]

I think part of the problem with some of these cases is that folks such as Robert King are allowed to work with children after their release (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-23248200).
Like many involved in education there are people who have I known who have gone to prison for downloading things and as a consequence will never be able to work with children again.
Rehabilitation and recovering "a life" is to be desired BUT (as in the case of the footballer) maybe this means NOT being in the public eye?

If that means we miss on the great skills of some footballer or conductor then I think its a small price to pay for the victims not have to see their abusers in the media as successful people.

I entirely agree.

ff #72

the answer is for ourselves in our own hearts and heads

I don’t think this is enough when children were abused by the person whom they trusted in his professional capacity. A car accident is not intentional and a supermarket supervisor is hardly a successful public figure. As for rehabilitation, there are plenty of jobs an ex-abuser could take up but it may be much harder to be employed outside the world of classical music if his past is known. I find this very odd.

[french frank]

ff has now suggested one way in which the BBC and R3 really should be involved - whether we agree or not. If any performances by the various convicted persons are played on BBC channels, should there be any money paid over to the criminal?

I wasn't suggesting that the offenders SHOULD be deprived - I was posing the question of the ramifications, if one were to do so. I don't want any organisation but the judicial system exacting a penalty on my behalf!

[ahinton]

ff has now suggested one way in which the BBC and R3 really should be involved - whether we agree or not. If any performances by the various convicted persons are played on BBC channels, should there be any money paid over to the criminal? Since in many cases, other musicians and artists who were not charged and convicted were involved in the production, would it be right to deprive them of any (small) income they might receive by having participated in a production?

One severe problem which I feel our criminal justice system has is that too often there is nothing returned to the victims which could really help them. Fines don't help victims AFAIK, and putting people in prison or making them do community service might make victims feel slightly better (though perhaps not) but doesn't do much at all to help the victims in any other practical sense.

One problem with this is that victims will be aware that pædophiles who have committed criminal acts against them and others whom they know will in any case be having their work disseminated and be able to remain active as performers, conductors, composers et al (and derive income therefrom including fees and royalties) until such time as they are charged, tried and convicted of those crimes and, as we know, this might be a period of anything from a few weeks to 30 years and more, so I'm not convinced that sequestration of royalty income from such criminals during their prison terms would do anything much for victims who will have had to live with the ignominy of those acts committed against them, in some cases for a substantial proportion of their lives up to the point of incarceration of the perpetrators; it might also provide yet another extra administrative headache for PRS/MCPS and, as it would not likely not affect royalty collection in and distribution (to PRS/MCPS) by any other administrations, much of the point might get lost in the mix, I suspect.

Moreover, not all such royalty payments will in any case be made directly to the perpetrators; some will go to their publishers or to their agents on their behalf. Would it be fair that those publishers and agents be denied their shares even were they universally to agree to withhold the perpetrators' shares from said perpatrators? Others might get diverted to trusts in such circumstances and preventing that might prove to be rather harder to achieve.

[ahinton]

As for rehabilitation, there are plenty of jobs an ex-abuser could take up but it may be much harder to be employed outside the world of classical music if his past is known

Mr King seems not to have done so badly, though - and it remains to be seen how Mr Pickett and others similarly convicted fare following their release.

[Dave2002]

One problem with this is that victims will be aware that pædophiles who have committed criminal acts against them and others whom they know will in any case be having their work disseminated and be able to remain active as performers, conductors, composers et al (and derive income therefrom including fees and royalties) until such time as they are charged, tried and convicted of those crimes and, as we know, this might be a period of anything from a few weeks to 30 years and more, so I'm not convinced that sequestration of royalty income from such criminals during their prison terms would do anything much for victims who will have had to live with the ignominy of those acts committed against them, in some cases for a substantial proportion of their lives up to the point of incarceration of the perpetrators; it might also provide yet another extra administrative headache for PRS/MCPS and, as it would not likely not affect royalty collection in and distribution (to PRS/MCPS) by any other administrations, much of the point might get lost in the mix, I suspect.

Moreover, not all such royalty payments will in any case be made directly to the perpetrators; some will go to their publishers or to their agents on their behalf. Would it be fair that those publishers and agents be denied their shares even were they universally to agree to withhold the perpetrators' shares from said perpatrators? Others might get diverted to trusts in such circumstances and preventing that might prove to be rather harder to achieve.

Fair points, though not all criminals have committed sexual or violent crimes. In the case of fraud it seems wrong that often the victim gets nothing back at all AFAIK, and the fraudster may still profit in the longer term.

[LeMartinPecheur]

One severe problem which I feel our criminal justice system has is that too often there is nothing returned to the victims which could really help them. Fines don't help victims AFAIK, and putting people in prison or making them do community service might make victims feel slightly better (though perhaps not) but doesn't do much at all to help the victims in any other practical sense.

It is indeed the case that a criminal conviction doesn't automatically secure compensation for the victim, but provided the criminal has assets it will certainly help.

Criminal courts can make compensation orders, but these have to be for indisputable sums. Such courts don't enter into the very complex process of assessing general damages. So if I thump you on the head and nick your wallet with £100 in it, a criminal court sentencing me for theft and GBH is very likely to make me pay £100 in compensation but will leave the issue of determining the proper damages for your injuries to a civil court.

There, the fact of my conviction for GBH prevents me claiming that I didn't harm you (either that it wasn't me wot dun it, or that I didn't reely lay a finger on you). Previous proof of this to a criminal standard is taken as conclusive proof to the lesser civil standard, balance of probabilities. But you will still have to produce evidence showing how serious your injuries were, and any lasting effects.

So civil proceedings are much more likely to succeed if there's a prior conviction, but probably the biggest bar is the defendant having no assets. Not the case in the matter under discussion in this thread of course.

In the case of fraud, this may well trigger the dreaded Proceeds of Crime Act. If so, payment of compensation to victims IIRC has first call, before the authorities (investigators and prosecutors) get their cut. Then if there's anything left from the illegal gains (strictly, from the defendant's unexplainable current assets), it goes into the big national pot to pay the national budget. So it saves us all a bit of tax, or gives us better public services

It's all so grossly unfair on our criminal classes that investigators and prosecutors are often seen crying in sympathy - NOT

[teamsaint]

Hampshire County council employees are now being told to give details of other members of their household on CRB checks, and new forms are being issued for the purpose.
This isn't daily mail scaremongering,it is a fact.

But Robert King is free to work with children.

What a mad world is being created.

[Beef Oven!]

Hampshire County council employees are now being told to give details of other members of their household on CRB checks, and new forms are being issues for the purpose.
This isn't daily mail scaremongering,it is a fact.

But Robert King is free to work with children.

What a mad world is being created.

How do we know that other members of the household of Hampshire council workers aren't ax-weilding homicidal maniac death-metal fans? These CRB checks are only to protect vulnerable people.

Hasn't Robert King paid his debt to society? He's done his time inside and is on the register.

[teamsaint]

How do we know that other members of the household of Hampshire council workers aren't ax-weilding homicidal maniac death-metal fans? These CRB checks are only to protect vulnerable people.

Hasn't Robert King paid his debt to society? He's done his time inside and is on the register.

I agree that he is on the " free to work with children" register.

Do axe wielding homicidal maniac AOR fans get off more lightly re the checks?

Perhaps REO speedwagon fans have their own register. Prolly should,actually.

[teamsaint]

Here is more info about the regulations.

http://www.essex.gov.uk/Business-Partners/Partners/Schools/school-governors/Latest-Updates/Documents/ChildcareDisqualificationRequirements.pdf

So,if you are a teacher,youn could be barred from working anywhere,because,for example, you live in the same household as a person who has a conviction for a violent offence, which may have no connection to children , or the teacher involved.

But high ranking politicians and others get away with a blind eye turned at best.

Quite appalling.

[Beef Oven!]

I agree that he is on the " free to work with children" register.

Do axe wielding homicidal maniac AOR fans get off more lightly re the checks?

Perhaps REO speedwagon fans have their own register. Prolly should,actually.

Yeah, come to think of it, I'd be more concerned about fans of Reo Speedforeigner.

[teamsaint]

American AOR aside, it is a spectacular outrage,an d something this country should be ashamed of.

But everybody is too scared to stand up to our masters, it seems.

[ahinton]

ax-weilding homicidal maniac death-metal fans

I presume that this is not Emanuel Ax to whom you refer here...

[Barbirollians]

In the light of the content of the article in the Guardian by Tom Yarwood on 1 Feb I hope nobody will ever defend Robert King again in light of the effects of his abuse.

[Tony Halstead]

In the light of the content of the article in the Guardian by Tom Yarwood on 1 Feb I hope nobody will ever defend Robert King again in light of the effects of his abuse.

Is King actually named in the article? ( I haven't seen it)