The youngest was just five when the priest abused him in his primary school.

You clearly know better than us PB as you were there. The jury also clearly believed the person as they found the priest guilty. I have no idea but either way I'm not sure sending an 82 year old man to prison for 9 years makes sense for society, our expenses, our jail space or our decency. Mind you, I felt jailing a 101 year old was ridiculous too. But society must behave as its citizens demand.

Paedophile priest Father Paul Moore 'poisoned my life'

"A man who was sexually abused by Catholic priest Paul Moore when he was just five years old has said the ordeal "poisoned my life".

Andi Lavery, who was Moore's youngest victim, has given BBC Scotland permission to publish a picture of him which was taken in May 1977.

He said: "I was assaulted that day. Moore was present when the picture was taken.""

I think the word 'Priest' conjures media induced images in too many minds. Put that with the words child and abuse, and the guy had little chance of a fair trial unless he could actually produce physical evidence of his innocence.
I was not at the trial, so do not know the level of evidence produced by the prosecution, if any. In many cases the jury is expected to guess what is inside the defendant's heart and mind, which is unfair for both them and the defendant. An admission to liking young boys, is not the same as acting on that 'like'.
I would need more than that before I could effectively send someone to jail for life.

He hasn't been sent to jail for life - he's got 9 years - with remission (ill health etc?) .... (to follow the 92 years abusing little boys?)

I dont see what age has to do with sentence length; surely it is guilt or not...the alleged victims were terribly young...we dont logically want a society where an 80 year old does not get prison for having sex with a child but a 40 year old does do we? Otherwise "pensioners" could statutarily rape with impunity..?

In The Know wrote:
He hasn't been sent to jail for life - he's got 9 years - with remission (ill health etc?) .... (to follow the 92 years abusing little boys?)

9 years for someone aged 82 is basically life. Not many people reach their 90s when they are free and able to get full health care. The chance of one surviving the stress and trauma of prison is slim.
If someone so old is still considered to be a threat, there are more civilised and intelligent ways of treating them, such as house arrest. The technology exists now. Prisons are full enough.

PaulB has partly answered your question Wyot but your point is valid - someone's age should not affect a sentence except when their extreme age (like the 101 year old) makes kindness sensible. And yes, the danger to present society also needs taking into consideration. But the main problem is the verdict and the Judge giving him longer and condemning him further because he fought the allegations and has no remorse. It is bad enough when one person's word is all that is needed (what other proof can there be with a victim who was 5 but, likewise, how can he prove his innocence?). But making it worse if someone denies it takes justice to a new low.

in that video he's accompanied by Ian McFayden who admitted he was a male prostitute and drug addict in the past with a violent temper and history of viciously beating people up.
Now reformed he says.

I'm amazed someone can remember anything of their life at the age of 5.

Yes I would agree that if someone is wrongly found innocent and also given longer because they told the truth - i.e fought it - then justice has doubly failed that person.

I suppose the question is whether sentence length should ever be contingent on plea because of the perverse incentive - particularly for lower level offences that wont attract custody - to plead guilty when innocent to "get it out the way". A danger that will be exacerbated in the current drive to expedite justice using technology - plead guilty using your i-phone and get a fine!

hedda wrote:
in that video he's accompanied by Ian McFayden who admitted he was a male prostitute and drug addict in the past with a violent temper and history of viciously beating people up.
Now reformed he says.

I'm amazed someone can remember anything of their life at the age of 5.
I'm very sceptical about McFadyen's story. In this case, it seems to be a bit of a coincidence that the priest should not only have been present when the photo was taken but have assaulted the boy that very day. Admittedly, he doesn't look happy in the photo. Of course, it could be true. He seems to be a vocal campaigner and Googling his name produces quite a lot of hits, including this:

Duped: What campaigners felt when they found abuse inquiry chief had secretly decided to resign - BEFORE emotional meeting

"I was barely 14 years old when I was first sexually abused by monks at my boarding school in Scotland."

Seems to be very bad luck to have been abused both at five and as a teenager, but not impossible, I suppose. A key accuser in the Medomsley detention centre abuse case, which involved a trial/conviction in 2003 and later generated a huge number of claims ("More than 1000 men report attacks"), claimed to have been abused not only there but at school as a teenager (source) and, reciting a poem in an interview with Bill Maloney in his "Medomsley heroes" film (on YouTube), by a priest as a young child. When I first came across an article about that accuser given a prominent position on the Guardian site around the time of the Savile scandal ("A true horror story: The abuse of teenage boys in a detention centre"), with a reference to Maloney's film at the end, I assumed, as you do, that it must be true. Now, I'm not so sure that it doesn't owe more to an overactive imagination* and perhaps, given that he was approached by police, the thinking described here.

* e.g. he claims in the Guardian article to have physically bumped into his abuser near York Minster "He was there with his full carry-on, his big hat and all his gear". This is echoed in the appeal judgement ("On the evening of 23 December, he was walking in the centre of York when he slipped on some snow and by an extraordinary mischance collided with Neville Husband. This meeting had a dramatic effect on the claimant.") His alleged abuser, Neville Husband, reportedly became a minister with the United Reformed Church after leaving the prison service, so what would he have been doing near York Minster, which is an Anglican church, let alone, as a low church minister, who don't usually wear robes, wearing a big hat and carrying or wearing some kind of "gear"?

Maybe it's wrong to be so sceptical, but I have gone from acceptance to scepticism with this and, in the Cosby case, from scepticism to acceptance that the main accuser, and probably others too, most likely has a case.

Ian McFayden is a delusional lunatic who claims to have had a "difficult life" as a consequence of his "abuse" with dubious claims of suffering from alochol/drug problems etc. Yet I seem to recall in some documentary which included him (the name of which escapes me) he seems to live in some Scottish mansion from what I can tell. Clearly all this life long suffering doesn't seem to have impacted his finances. Curious, hey?

I vaguely recall arguing with the bigot on Twitter a few years ago, I recall he was, like most of these so-called "survivors" quite clear that he supported locking up men for consensual sex with minors. It's ironic, isn't it, that they claim to be survivors of "horrendous abuse" but when you propose a scenario that is clearly nothing like they claim to have been subjected to then these "survivors" are still very much for barbaric punishments all the same. I can't help but feel that it's less to do with them having had a genuinely bad experience, and more to do with their cult like anti-sex ideology.

Personally, I'd show Ian McFayden as much mercy as he has shown the victims of the laws which he has supported, in other words, I'd lock up Ian McFayden and throw away the key.

I tend to give all these people the benefit of the doubt; the majority of those not telling the absolute truth are genuinely deluded and many are simply exaggerating. I blame society which allows innocent people to be convicted and punished for crimes that may well never have taken place. And worst of all, those who encourage, provoke or assist loonies.

To create change you must be specific. You cannot just blame "society" or "everyone" to create change because it is impossible to punish everyone. Instead, one must choose someone to blame and then target them. Make an example out of them. It's how the feminists/police/CPS work and it's something has been proven to work throughout history. Once the public see someone being lynched for certain behaviour then they will begin to see that behaviour as "wrong" and will take actions to avoid enduring the same fate.

Whether Ian McFayden is the best person to exert effort on blaming I don't know. He's certainly a prolific campaigner for "survivors" which is likely to affect public perception and influence laws. Though, he doesn't actually action the laws and nor does he directly make them. It is the police chiefs, the prosecutors and the politicians who make or action the laws. Also the newspaper editors who decide what is "news" and what isn't and how to spin it.

Possibly punishing Jim Gamble/Lynne Owens/Alison Saunders would be more worthwhile. I'd put an MP on my list but they are all such a bunch of hyenas it's hard to figure out which MP is the most loathsome?

agree with holocaust21 on all that.

If memory serves me well, the alleged abusers of both McFayden and Saunders were never prosecuted and details are a mystery.

Some people seem to thrive on a Crusade. Maybe they are getting withdrawals as like all hysterical campaigns, the wind goes out of the sails even for the media while they move on to another sensation.

#Bill Maloney has gone underground. They say he was hauled in twice by The Met for a grilling over "Nick" & questioned re possible perverting the course of justice...not quite so brave now although I see he has revived his falsehood that he won an award at the new York Film Festival which has never heard of him..(he entered his film in a defunct scam festival with a similar name..the US is full of them..where you pay an entry fee and "everyone wins a prize").

## Dr Liz Davies in Jo's link...brrrr.

In the thread I just linked to, the link to the 2008 Caldicott school abuse documentary no longer works, but the documentary is on YouTube.

Chosen (BAFTA AWARD WINNING DOCUMENTARY) - Real Stories