Man gets 10 months for threatening to send personal pics

never did I say ‘ leave the guy off..‘… you are being disingenuous.

to put it in perspective. A repeat offender in this country can get a suspended sentence for assaulting someone. For actually harming someone physically & probably psychologically.

Again, for the 4th time. This criminal had multiple previous convictions.

You are bizarrely arguing that the justice system is too soft whilst at the same time arguing to make it softer.

It's beyond strange. Must be something else at play here.

So you would campaign to have previous convictions removed from judicial guidelines when deciding sentencing?

Thread has descended further into Bizarro world, Nolan is too harsh and multiple previous convictions shouldn't count.

😂

Sentencing guidelines for burglary for example include 'relevant previous convictions'

Epic strawman, we have no idea what his multiple convictions were for, but we need to concede the probation service and Judge does.

But what you seem to be suggesting is if Anto has 220 previous motoring and assault convictions if he robs a house he is seen has a first time offender when it comes to sentencing?

You really sure you want keep digging that hole?

Not irrelevant, appeal incoming…

He plead guilty so the question on if he broke the law is still pretty clear. Let's also remember, you think he had a right to distribute the images..

It's not his personal property it's shared between the participants, and both need to consent.

there really need to be a mechanism to review judges performance and have them removed

I mean Nolan is the prime example of this.

The whole thoughtcrime issue is just nonsense. if he had only thought about phoning the woman and threatening to release the photos then he wouldn't have been convicted

But if the problem is insufficiency in OTHER sentences, why are posters insisting on how minor this one is, or even saying there was no crime?

Maybe you’re saying they’re just sh1te at putting their real point, and accidentally end up making a different one altogether?

Whereas I believe in reading what someone says. Not what I think they should have said.

Even if true, how would this justify a LOWER sentence for this crime, rather than a higher one for other crimes?

Consistent threats isn't a requirement for such a scenario, it's just something you made up. Plenty of people can freak out very carefully after any threat and it depends on plenty of factors. For all she knew, he was about to put them online. One threat can translate into an action very quickly.

You have no idea of the psychological impact this had on the victim. My point also stands, this is a fair sentence for the crime. Inconsistent sentencing is a separate issue. Perhaps people will think twice about threatening to leak private photos as a result of such judgements. It shouldn't be a requirement for them to threaten it multiple times before they face such consequences.

A repeat offender in this country can get a suspended sentence for assaulting someone. For actually harming someone physically & probably psychologically.

…….

Its a real slap in the face for people who have say been the victims of violent crime, seen the criminal justice system do SFA for them only to watch someone get 10 months for threatening to send photos.

This is a frankly dangerous POV for you to hold, and part of the reason why the sentencing in this case is so severe, I reckon, is to drive home that your viewpoint is completely out of kilter with the rest of society.

You are <this> close to admitting you don't think 'revenge porn' is or should be a crime. You're downplaying what this scumbag did and minimising the impact on the victim because you apparently think that, unless she got a box in the nose, no harm was done. No real harm, anyway.

It is ironic that you're bemoaning the psychological impact on one victim while completely whitewashing the psychological impact on another.

A number of people, including yourself, seem to think that this guy pretty much did no wrong. that until he actually sends the stuff on, he's committed no crime. Someone even called it a "flippant remark while drunk" earlier. That it is 'only words' and punishing 'thought crimes' is dystopian. If someone pulled a knife on you and told you to do X or they were going to stab you in your stomach, would you still hold the same opinion? I mean, it's only words, right? Until he's stabbed you, he's not committed any crime, right?

Are you a qualified psychologist?

I have no issues with people having these photos but not everyone wants them shared across the globe or their neighbourhood.

... and just to be clear, I don't think the majority of people have any photos like these.