Paedophile travelled to Cambodia to abuse children
1 Nov 2021

A perverted tourist who travelled to Cambodia to sexually abuse children as young as four has been jailed for nearly two and a half years. Gary Cosgrove, 59, travelled to an area called Sihanoukville in the southeast Asian country in early 2018 for the purpose of grooming and sexually exploiting children.
After reports that a London man had been meeting with children in Cambodia and sexually assaulting them, Cosgrove was arrested at Heathrow Airport on 31 May 2018.
https://courtnewsuk.co.uk/paedophile-tr ... -children/

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 6:38 am

nerdlinger wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:49 am

bittermelon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:38 am Crazy short.
There has been some debate on other threads about vigilante justice, some, that to my mind seem a little naive and idealistic saying there is never a place for it, and others saying that with a dysfunctional criminal justice system it's a necessary evil.
It's possibly inappropriate and illegal but if it wasn't I would suggest some kind of a fundraising effort, a mama noodle fund for some of his new neighbors.

The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its stupidest member divided by the number of people in the mob.

Then divide that number by the age of the abuse victim to calculate the IQ of someone who thinks a 29 month jail sentence is suitable punishment for a crime of this nature (bear in mind that in the UK a prisoner usually only serves half of that sentence in jail, in this instance less than 15 months)

Gary Cosgrove and all of his kind should be put to death, and if the state won’t do it, then Ive got no problem with vigilantes who will.

I’ve said it before, anyone who chooses to harm children, has stepped over a line from which there is no returning. Paedophiles cannot be, nor deserve to be rehabilitated, and children deserve better than being put at risk by convicted paedophiles being released back in to society.

Cue the cries of “what if an innocent person is mistakenly targeted by a vigilante mob?”
To that I say, unfortunate as it may be, if it acts as a deterrent to actual child abusing predators, then that’s a risk we should be prepared to accept. A ‘mob’ doing the wrong thing for the right reason, is preferable to a state treating paedophiles (and anyone else who intentionally hurts children) with kid gloves.

“The sentence given in a case I haven’t actually read any details of, is too low” and “everyone get out the flaming torches and noose” are not things that automatically follow.

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:37 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 2:54 pm

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 2:25 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 1:48 pm

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 1:42 pm

You must be a Kiddie Sniffer Biden supporter. Your TDS is showing.

What an intelligent comeback. Part of a mob, by any chance, .. [Mod edit: no need for name calling]. Don't know what TDS means, Total Disregard of Sexington?

Don’t talk about intelligence, when your knee jerk reaction to an opinion that differs to your own is to spout “Trump” bullshit.
FYI (for your information) I’m far from being part of a mob, I can get done the things I choose to do fine by myself.

Anyone condoning violence lacks intelligence and is neanderthalic in their thinking. Particularly violence against the innocent. I don't want to engage anymore however, I will give you the last word, as is the right of the defendant.

I wonder if you’d write that first sentence if you as a child, or one of your children, had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of an adult, especially an adult who had been convicted of such an offense earlier and been released to abuse again?
In no way shape or form am I condoning violence against the innocent, the exact opposite actually. My whole point is regarding the soft treatment of those who choose to abuse and harm children, and how the UK state, by refusing to punish them appropriately, could justify vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.
Yes, as already mentioned, that could lead to the possibility of innocent people being targeted by vigilantes (that possibility is greatly increased when paedophiles are being covertly released back into the general public under anonymity on completion of the usual lenient sentence, if actually sentenced at all)
When real justice is served there’s no need for vigilantes.

I wasn't going to respond however, it seems impolite not to reply when you are being civil, and I may have added to the unconstructive barrage, with school yard skills.

I still argue violence is not the answer. It is not going to help the victim (who is probably in therapy and seeking peace), nor stop the predator. It is, on the other hand a jailable offence and a possible means of compensation for the rock spider.

The worst part is that, from what you are saying, there is a chance that someone who was set up and whose life is not worth living, now gets the crap beaten out of him for good measure. Probably thinking "finish this nightmare".

Victims are advised not to hold vengeful feelings because it is them that suffers most by doing so.

Restraint must be instilled by whoever, or I am sure we would hear of many more pedos "disappearing".

The law has always been what is written, as opposed to true justice, and what charges can be proven - that's why some cases are months and years in the making, because the cops only get one chance. I would think in the case of the sick fucks preying on... they get them off the streets ASAP and I guess maybe a case could be a bit weak.

This topic needs to be discussed, but that's enough for me. I need a beer. I can see your POV.

So many things wrong with this story.

If it took them 3 years to convict this guy, surely they let him out on bail. Why?

They arrested him at the airport. Surely that wasn't just a random search but they deliberately targeted this guy. So why couldn't the Cambodian officials have searched him before he boarded the plane?

So many questions that seem unanswered.

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:37 pm When real justice is served there’s no need for vigilantes.

Normally the courts serve justice. If the laws or the implementation of them is lacking, then voting in better representatives is the way to go. Not overriding the legal process.

Also there is the aspect of perspectives, not talking about any specific case, but in most trials one side think he did it the other no he didn't. That's part of the process, and very few trials end up with everybody agreeing the outcome was the right decision.

I don't even like reading about this shit, but what makes a man find gratification with a 4-year old? Usually rapists of ladies (not children) are driven by control and dominance over a female, not sexual gratification. I think. But this is a baby. As discussed I am not sure what an appropriate sentence should be but certainly making sure he does not have the opportunity to do this again. In Cambodia or anywhere.

cambo swa wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:48 am I don't even like reading about this shit, but what makes a man find gratification with a 4-year old? Usually rapists of ladies (not children) are driven by control and dominance over a female, not sexual gratification. I think. But this is a baby. As discussed I am not sure what an appropriate sentence should be but certainly making sure he does not have the opportunity to do this again. In Cambodia or anywhere.

Yeah I can’t understand it either, which is why I’m inclined to let the professionals handle it.
The only thing I am confident about is that literally nobody participating in this thread has read the court transcript.

xandreu wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:41 am A lot of talk about vigilantism on here, and with such an emotive subject and lackluster justice system, it's understandable.

Unfortunately, it's not a solution in the civilized world, no matter the crime, even the most despicable ones, which is why no civilized country has condoned it for a very long time. And the idea that it's worth a few innocent people getting wrongly accused if it acts as a deterrent is just ill-thought out at best. It's all well and good until that innocent person who's trapped inside a burning tyre, with dozens of marauding onlookers - including children - applauding the spectacle like some medieval ritual is you, or one of your loved ones, screaming their innocence while the skin on their face melts off.

We abolished this kind of behavior, including capital punishment - in case someone was wrongly accused - a long time ago, and I think most people would agree that it belongs in the past. If this is justice for you, there are plenty of places you can go and live, namely some African states or perhaps a country dominated by radical Islam? There are plenty to choose from.

Or you could just stay here and campaign for a big change in the justice system when dealing with this sort of crime.

Are you including the UK when you talk of ‘civilized countries? Where convicted child murderers and child rapists are freed (ever so quietly though, so that the neighbors don’t kick up a fuss) into the general public (is it any wonder the members of a community, on finding out they have a monster who is a proven danger to children living amongst them, may consider taking the law into their own hands to keep their kids safe?)
Is it civilized when Asian grooming gangs are allowed to rape young white girls, in the full knowledge of the police and local authorities, because those authorities would rather turn a blind eye to the crimes than arrest the perpetrators and risk being accused of racism?
What kind of justice system puts the feelings of criminals above the safety of their child victims?

And it isn’t just crimes against children (though they are by far the most serious) people are being stabbed and murdered on an almost daily basis, house break ins that police don’t even bother to investigate, muggings so frequent that they no longer make the headlines, the list goes on.

Where is the deterrent when those convicted of violent crime and assault are for the most part ‘punished’ with Community Service Orders (of which compliance with, is left to the criminals own discretion, namely ignored) or suspended sentences (sentences that are not actioned when those convicted reoffend, often repeatedly, supposedly because the prisons are all full)?

These days the justice system in the UK is operated mainly for the benefit of those employed in it, why spend taxpayers money on building more jails (when they are built, it’s only to replace existing jails whose levels of comfort are deemed unacceptable for the convicts) when that money could be paid out in legal aid for repeat offenders, the cash cows of the legal system, if they’re locked up they’re not bringing in revenue (and not being punished in the first place increases the likelihood of them reoffending) catch and release for the benefit of lawyers.

I suspect many more people support the idea of capital punishment than you think. Criminal forensics have come a long way since capital punishment was banned, the chances of being wrongly convicted are very small, and there are many cases where guilt is proven beyond any doubt, for despicable crimes that most consider should warrant capital punishment.
Unfortunately, a referendum on the reintroduction of capital punishment will probably never be allowed by those in power, because they know what the result would be (and perhaps they fear themselves or their friends may fall foul of it?)

Is the UK a civilized country these days? Or has it become a dangerous, crime ridden toilet thats getting worse by the day?

I think they should be offered a discounted sentence for voluntary castration. This would need to be emasculation castration, where the meat and 2 veg are all removed, because while there is no testosterone build up sans the family jewels, you can still sleep in a tent without nuts, which is all the "nuts" need as they aren't interested in the climax - it's a power thing.

"Long sentence, cut short (off)": Remove the demon weapons, as is the procedure with other infected organs. They are then given a strapadictomy to facilitate pissing. Based on fact.