Dad who raped his daughter from the age of 7 brags she was the best sex ever.

So sad we dont have the death penalty here anymore.  

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sick-dad-who-abused-daughter-10453215

"A twisted father who abused his daughter from the age of seven is finally behind bars after she secretly recorded him boasting that sex with her was "the best he'd ever had".
Sick Raymond Prescott, 54, of Clifton, Nottingham, abused Layla Bell for 20 years and told her it was "their little secret".
Now brave Layla, 31, has spoken out about her abuse and how she finally got Prescott to confess to his crimes.
Layla, the youngest of five siblings, said she was her father's "favourite" and her dad was like "Jekyll and Hyde", turning suddenly from her best friend to a "sexual predator".
She told how he would brazenly grope her while screaming: "I'm having sex with my own daughter".

Hope he rots in jail.

He has been given a 12 year sentence...a pittance in the circumstances.
Lets hope his inmates are looking for good sex too.

Syl wrote:He has been given a 12 year sentence...a pittance in the circumstances.
Lets hope his inmates are looking for good sex too.

Hi Syl

Nice to see you, hope you are well?

Its pathetic the sentence and something has to change in the laws regarding such an appalling crime.

To me it should be life in jail. As she has now a traumatic scar, mentally for life, for what he did.

Twelve years? Only in great fucking Britain.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:He has been given a 12 year sentence...a pittance in the circumstances.
Lets hope his inmates are looking for good sex too.

Hi Syl

Nice to see you, hope you are well?

Its pathetic the sentence and something has to change in the laws regarding such an appalling crime.

To me it should be life in jail. As she has now a traumatic scar, mentally for life, for what he did.

Hi Thor...thanks, I'm very well . x

I agree life would be a fitting sentence.
Peple like him are not fit to walk the streets...he got away with it for decades, he should now be locked up for life.
He will probably be out in a lot less than 12 years...and once a paedophile always a paedophile.

eddie wrote:Twelve years? Only in great fucking Britain.

Well seeing what goes on in this country re the rape and abuse of young girls its a wonder the judge didn't blame the daughter.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Hi Syl

Nice to see you, hope you are well?

Its pathetic the sentence and something has to change in the laws regarding such an appalling crime.

To me it should be life in jail. As she has now a traumatic scar, mentally for life, for what he did.

Hi Thor...thanks, I'm very well . x

I agree life would be a fitting sentence.
Peple like him are not fit to walk the streets...he got away with it for decades, he should now be locked up for life.
He will probably be out in a lot less than 12 years...and once a paedophile always a paedophile.

Well I see Rolf Harris is out already and he has served only a few years.

Seriously, that is wrong on every level and agree he should serve for life.

he will be out in at most 6 years

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Hi Thor...thanks, I'm very well . x

I agree life would be a fitting sentence.
Peple like him are not fit to walk the streets...he got away with it for decades, he should now be locked up for life.
He will probably be out in a lot less than 12 years...and once a paedophile always a paedophile.

Well I see Rolf Harris is out already and he has served only a few years.
m
Seriously, that is wrong on every level and agree he should serve for life.

He served less than three years.
He is now facing a further trial for different sex abuse accusations.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Hi Thor...thanks, I'm very well . x

I agree life would be a fitting sentence.
Peple like him are not fit to walk the streets...he got away with it for decades, he should now be locked up for life.
He will probably be out in a lot less than 12 years...and once a paedophile always a paedophile.

Well I see Rolf Harris is out already and he has served only a few years.

Seriously, that is wrong on every level and agree he should serve for life.

The sentences for rape, child abuse, or any sexual abuse should be life. Bloody paedos come out and carry on where they left off!

Hi Syl, hope you had a great hols x

Lord Foul wrote:he will be out in at most 6 years

Yet his daughter suffered his abuse for over 20 years, starting when she was 7 years old.

Rape alone is an offence with a possible life sentence, yet this animal will be out in a few scant years.

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:he will be out in at most 6 years

Yet his daughter suffered his abuse for over 20 years, starting when she was 7 years old.

Rape alone is an offence with a possible life sentence, yet this animal will be out in a few scant years.

So bloody unfair Syl. Why are these vile creatures treated with silk gloves grrr

magica wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yet his daughter suffered his abuse for over 20 years, starting when she was 7 years old.

Rape alone is an offence with a possible life sentence, yet this animal will be out in a few scant years.

So bloody unfair Syl. Why are these vile creatures treated with silk gloves grrr

Maybe the judges who decide on the sentencing don't think along the same lines as us Mags.

Maybe the judges who go soft on child sex crimes are also paedophiles.

eddie wrote:Maybe the judges who go soft on child sex crimes are also paedophiles.

Cd be. That's what they say about church ecclesiastical officials who hid the truth about priests who preyed upon the children of their parish.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Maybe the judges who go soft on child sex crimes are also paedophiles.

Cd be.  That's what they say about church ecclesiastical officials who hid the truth about priests who preyed upon the children of their parish.

I'd say they're probably correct.

eddie wrote:Maybe the judges who go soft on child sex crimes are also paedophiles.

Many have been proven to be in the past and in other countries. Also top cops, politicians, showbiz et el. You don't know who is and who isn't there's so many.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Maybe the judges who go soft on child sex crimes are also paedophiles.

Cd be.  That's what they say about church ecclesiastical officials who hid the truth about priests who preyed upon the children of their parish.

I'd say they're probably correct.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Maybe the judges who go soft on child sex crimes are also paedophiles.

Cd be.  That's what they say about church ecclesiastical officials who hid the truth about priests who preyed upon the children of their parish.

Image was why they disgustingly covered it up.
The image of the church.
The Catholic Church has to go down as one of the worst in history for what it has done in its name.

This kind of thing makes my skin crawl. That poor girl.

magica wrote:

eddie wrote:Maybe the judges who go soft on child sex crimes are also paedophiles.

Many have been proven to be in the past and in other countries. Also top cops, politicians, showbiz et el.  You don't know who is and who isn't there's so many.

I think many judges live on a different planet to the rest of us.

They cover up for each other.....I despair at the decadence in this country, its always been there obviously, we just hear about it more now.

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:

Many have been proven to be in the past and in other countries. Also top cops, politicians, showbiz et el.  You don't know who is and who isn't there's so many.

I think many judges live on a different planet to the rest of us.

They cover up for each other.....I despair at the decadence in this country, its always been there obviously, we just hear about it more now.

Judges covering up child abuse? An ignorant and emotional response.


Maybe judges aim to be dispassionate about the law. Did you ever think about that? No, you didn't.

You think twelve years was enough, Zack?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think many judges live on a different planet to the rest of us.

They cover up for each other.....I despair at the decadence in this country, its always been there obviously, we just hear about it more now.

Judges covering up child abuse? An ignorant and emotional response.


Maybe judges aim to be dispassionate about the law. Did you ever think about that? No, you didn't.

If you think it 'ignorant and emotional' to question why a judge would pass such a paltry sentence to a man who bragged that having sex with his daughter for 20 years, from the age of seven was 'the best sex he ever had' .....then I cant give much thought to your opinion tbh.

eddie wrote:You think twelve years was enough, Zack?

I accept that was the decision

I'm neither judge or jury - none of us were.

Syl wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Judges covering up child abuse? An ignorant and emotional response.


Maybe judges aim to be dispassionate about the law. Did you ever think about that? No, you didn't.

If you think it 'ignorant and emotional' to question why a judge would pass such a paltry sentence to a man who bragged that having sex with his daughter for 20 years, from the age of seven was 'the best sex he ever had' .....then I cant give much thought to your opinion tbh.

Another emotional reply. And a reason why you're not a judge

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:You think twelve years was enough, Zack?

I accept that was the decision

I'm neither judge or jury - none of us were.

But that's not what I asked.

Syl wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Judges covering up child abuse? An ignorant and emotional response.


Maybe judges aim to be dispassionate about the law. Did you ever think about that? No, you didn't.

If you think it 'ignorant and emotional' to question why a judge would pass such a paltry sentence to a man who bragged that having sex with his daughter for 20 years, from the age of seven was 'the best sex he ever had' .....then I cant give much thought to your opinion tbh.

Zack has a point. Its not a case of a judge letting them off, as they are convicted. Its based on the sentencing guidelines around that specific crime. What needs to change is the sentencing laws itself around child rape.

Maximum for child rape is 10 years Syl, unless there is other factors

The maximum would be for repeated rape, that of 15 years

So was the judge lenient here?

I do not know without reading the judges reasons. To me it should have been the maximum of 15 years.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Syl wrote:

If you think it 'ignorant and emotional' to question why a judge would pass such a paltry sentence to a man who bragged that having sex with his daughter for 20 years, from the age of seven was 'the best sex he ever had' .....then I cant give much thought to your opinion tbh.

Another emotional reply. And a reason why you're not a judge

And neither are you.
We are both offering opinions.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If you think it 'ignorant and emotional' to question why a judge would pass such a paltry sentence to a man who bragged that having sex with his daughter for 20 years, from the age of seven was 'the best sex he ever had' .....then I cant give much thought to your opinion tbh.

Zack has a point. Its not a case of a judge letting them off, as they are convicted. Its based on the sentencing guidelines around that specific crime. What needs to change is the sentencing laws itself around child rape.

Maximum for child rape is 10 years Syl, unless there is other factors

The maximum would be for repeated rape, that of 15 years

So was the judge lenient here?

I do not know without reading the judges reasons. To me it should have been the maximum of 15 years.

Rape of a child under 13 years old...maximum sentence is life .....add in incest if you need any other factor.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Zack has a point. Its not a case of a judge letting them off, as they are convicted. Its based on the sentencing guidelines around that specific crime. What needs to change is the sentencing laws itself around child rape.

Maximum for child rape is 10 years Syl, unless there is other factors

The maximum would be for repeated rape, that of 15 years

So was the judge lenient here?

I do not know without reading the judges reasons. To me it should have been the maximum of 15 years.

Rape of a child under 13 years old...maximum sentence is life .....add in incest if you need any other factor.

You are wrong.

• Single offence of rape by single offender: 5 years custody - victim 16 or over 
  8 years custody - victim 13 or over but under 16 
  10 years custody - victim under 13
  
  
• Rape accompanied by aggravating factor: 8 years custody - victim 16 or over 
  10 years custody- victim aged 13 or over but under 16 
  13 years custody - victim under 13
  
  
• Repeated Rape of same victim by single offender or rape involving multiple victims: 
  15 years custody
  
  
• http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/
  
  Also if two consenting closely related adults love each other and have sex, I do not see that as a crime nor should it be. We allow cousins to marry and the only reason its illegal is based around the complications around offspring.
  
  
  

eddie wrote:Maybe the judges who go soft on child sex crimes are also paedophiles.

Not just the judges, but the entire judiciary and penal system and the police authorities, of old. I have no idea if they were paedophiles but I have to say, they were all inexplicably soft on paedophile crimes. One has to wonder why they are so understanding, and accommodating and lenient towards this particular category of crime.

Jules wrote:

eddie wrote:Maybe the judges who go soft on child sex crimes are also paedophiles.

Not just the judges, but the entire judiciary and penal system and the police authorities, of old. I have no idea if they were paedophiles but I have to say, they were all inexplicably soft on paedophile crimes. One has to wonder why they are so understanding, and accommodating and lenient towards this particular category of crime.      

Are they Jules?

Based on what statistical evidence?

Whilst we're on the subject, the authorities did not just cover up sex abuse committed by Pakistani gangs, they equally covered up sex abuse at the heart of British politics, and in the media (the BBC) and in showbiz - for many decades. It was tolerated everywhere, we cannot just pretend that it was only tolerated among Muslim taxi drivers.


Let me summarise this succinctly: child sex abuse was covered up EVERYWHERE in society.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think many judges live on a different planet to the rest of us.

They cover up for each other.....I despair at the decadence in this country, its always been there obviously, we just hear about it more now.

Judges covering up child abuse? An ignorant and emotional response.


Maybe judges aim to be dispassionate about the law. Did you ever think about that? No, you didn't.

Let's cut to the chase. This depraved deviant had no remorse. They should have locked him up and melted the key.

Jules wrote:Whilst we're on the subject, the authorities did not just cover up sex abuse committed by Pakistani gangs, they equally covered up sex abuse at the heart of British politics, and in the media (the BBC) and in showbiz - for many decades. It was tolerated everywhere, we cannot just pretend that it was only tolerated among Muslim taxi drivers.


Let me summarise this succinctly: child sex abuse was covered up EVERYWHERE where in society.

I agree that many victims have been left down because they have not been believed, which is appalling.

The view here though is based upon whether judges are being lenient on child rape, based on the conspiracy view they are also all child rapists.

Now there is certainly a case of some peado judges being convicted and even studies on sentencing bias racially.

But the view here to claim judges are lenient on child rapists is based not off any figures, but off where they read an appalling case and think they should serve far more years. failing to understand the guideline set on years on sentencing for this crime.

Now to me he should have gotten the maximum, 15 years, he got 12, which I think is wrong, but does that mean the judge here is then lenient on this rapist here, when not seeing his rulling?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Rape of a child under 13 years old...maximum sentence is life .....add in incest if you need any other factor.

You are wrong.

• Single offence of rape by single offender: 5 years custody - victim 16 or over 
  8 years custody - victim 13 or over but under 16 
  10 years custody - victim under 13
  
  
• Rape accompanied by aggravating factor: 8 years custody - victim 16 or over 
  10 years custody- victim aged 13 or over but under 16 
  13 years custody - victim under 13
  
  
• Repeated Rape of same victim by single offender or rape involving multiple victims: 
  15 years custody
  
  
• http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/
  
  Also if two consenting closely related adults love each other and have sex, I do not see that as a crime nor should it be. We allow cousins to marry and the only reason its illegal is based around the complications around offspring.
  
  
  

No...you are wrong Thor.

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php

Serious Sexual Offences
Rape
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.1(1)
Life
Sexual intercourse with girl under 13
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.5
Life

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You are wrong.

• Single offence of rape by single offender: 5 years custody - victim 16 or over 
  8 years custody - victim 13 or over but under 16 
  10 years custody - victim under 13
  
  
• Rape accompanied by aggravating factor: 8 years custody - victim 16 or over 
  10 years custody- victim aged 13 or over but under 16 
  13 years custody - victim under 13
  
  
• Repeated Rape of same victim by single offender or rape involving multiple victims: 
  15 years custody
  
  
• http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/
  
  Also if two consenting closely related adults love each other and have sex, I do not see that as a crime nor should it be. We allow cousins to marry and the only reason its illegal is based around the complications around offspring.
  
  
  

No...you are wrong Thor.

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php

Serious Sexual Offences
Rape
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.1(1)
Life
Sexual intercourse with girl under 13
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.5
Life

How am i wrong?

A life sentence in the UK is 15 years.

I suggest you read back

And 15 years is not a life sentence by any stretch of the imagination.

Syl wrote:So sad we dont have the death penalty here anymore.  

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sick-dad-who-abused-daughter-10453215

"A twisted father who abused his daughter from the age of seven is finally behind bars after she secretly recorded him boasting that sex with her was "the best he'd ever had".
Sick Raymond Prescott, 54, of Clifton, Nottingham, abused Layla Bell for 20 years and told her it was "their little secret".
Now brave Layla, 31, has spoken out about her abuse and how she finally got Prescott to confess to his crimes.
Layla, the youngest of five siblings, said she was her father's "favourite" and her dad was like "Jekyll and Hyde", turning suddenly from her best friend to a "sexual predator".
She told how he would brazenly grope her while screaming: "I'm having sex with my own daughter".

He should have got at least 20 years. Judges have to comply with maximum tariffs BUT they still have a lot of scope - they can give separate sentence for aggravating factors. For rape + paedophila + incest + lack of remorse, I'd have given him 20 yrs and if he successfully appealed against it, I would have symbolically resigned.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:So sad we dont have the death penalty here anymore.  

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sick-dad-who-abused-daughter-10453215

"A twisted father who abused his daughter from the age of seven is finally behind bars after she secretly recorded him boasting that sex with her was "the best he'd ever had".
Sick Raymond Prescott, 54, of Clifton, Nottingham, abused Layla Bell for 20 years and told her it was "their little secret".
Now brave Layla, 31, has spoken out about her abuse and how she finally got Prescott to confess to his crimes.
Layla, the youngest of five siblings, said she was her father's "favourite" and her dad was like "Jekyll and Hyde", turning suddenly from her best friend to a "sexual predator".
She told how he would brazenly grope her while screaming: "I'm having sex with my own daughter".

He should have got at least 20 years. Judges have to comply with maximum tariffs BUT they still have a lot of scope - they can give separate sentence for aggravating factors. For rape + paedophila + incest + lack of remorse, I'd have given him 20 yrs and if he successfully appealed against it, I would have symbolically resigned.

But the law only allows 15 years, maximum for what he did.
So sentencing needs to change here on such crimes

On that I agree.

What I find poor is claims to conspiracies on sentencing, which has limitations.

Jules wrote:Whilst we're on the subject, the authorities did not just cover up sex abuse committed by Pakistani gangs, they equally covered up sex abuse at the heart of British politics, and in the media (the BBC) and in showbiz - for many decades. It was tolerated everywhere, we cannot just pretend that it was only tolerated among Muslim taxi drivers.


Let me summarise this succinctly: child sex abuse was covered up EVERYWHERE in society.

This sort of comment comes up everytime the Pakistani grooming gangs are in the news.
I think everyone knows that the vast majority of paedophiles in the UK are white non Muslim males.
Not sure what the % are re the % of the population....I think the Pakistani gangs have swelled the % quite a lot in the last couple of decades.

However, what made the Pakistani gangs (and they were certainly not all taxi drivers) different from the rest of the scum who abuse children is they targeted white none Muslim girls, which made this a hate crime as well as a crime against vulnerable kids.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:Whilst we're on the subject, the authorities did not just cover up sex abuse committed by Pakistani gangs, they equally covered up sex abuse at the heart of British politics, and in the media (the BBC) and in showbiz - for many decades. It was tolerated everywhere, we cannot just pretend that it was only tolerated among Muslim taxi drivers.


Let me summarise this succinctly: child sex abuse was covered up EVERYWHERE in society.

However, what made the Pakistani gangs (and they were certainly not all taxi drivers) different from the rest of the scum who abuse children is they targeted white none Muslim girls, which made this a hate crime as well as a crime against vulnerable kids.

Incorrect

They targeted Asian girls as well and where even worse, the Asian girls were within families, who did not speak out, due to fear of shame.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

No...you are wrong Thor.

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php

Serious Sexual Offences
Rape
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.1(1)
Life
Sexual intercourse with girl under 13
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.5
Life

How am i wrong?

A life sentence in the UK is 15 years.

I suggest you read back

And 15 years is not a life sentence by any stretch of the imagination.

No....a judge can award someone a life sentence meaning a whole life sentence, ie the offender will never be released.

A person serving life may not apply for parole until he has served the minimum of 15 years....which he may or may not be granted.

I think you are getting mixed up.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How am i wrong?

A life sentence in the UK is 15 years.

I suggest you read back

And 15 years is not a life sentence by any stretch of the imagination.

No....a judge can award someone a life sentence meaning a whole life sentence, ie the offender will never be released.

A person serving life may not apply for parole until he has served the minimum of 15 years....which he may or may not be granted.

I think you are getting mixed up.

Sorry you are talking rubbish Syl

A life sentence is 15 years

Hence why judges award consecutive life sentences

I think you must be smoking crack

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:



However, what made the Pakistani gangs (and they were certainly not all taxi drivers) different from the rest of the scum who abuse children is they targeted white none Muslim girls, which made this a hate crime as well as a crime against vulnerable kids.

Incorrect

They targeted Asian girls as well and where even worse, the Asian girls were within families, who did not speak out, due to fear of shame.

The vast majority (I have only read of one black girl who was groomed in this way) of girls they targeted were white.
The victims of the grooming gangs all said the men they were passed around to were Pakistani.
The men chose white girls because they considered them to be pieces of meat, asking for it... and prostitutes, even the 12 and 13 year olds.

The abuse of Asian girls is in a different category, I don't believe they were groomed, but they were definitely ill treated.
I don't know enough about this to comment really, as you say, the girls themselves kept quiet....it'll all come out eventually.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Incorrect

They targeted Asian girls as well and where even worse, the Asian girls were within families, who did not speak out, due to fear of shame.

The vast majority (I have only read of one black girl who was groomed in this way) of girls they targeted were white.
The victims of the grooming gangs all said the men they were passed around to were Pakistani.
The men chose white girls because they considered them to be pieces of meat, asking for it... and prostitutes, even the 12 and 13 year olds.

The abuse of Asian girls is in a different category, I don't believe they were groomed, but they were definitely ill treated.
I don't know enough about this to comment really, as you say, the girls themselves kept quiet....it'll all come out eventually.

Where there is your problem Syl.
You have not read about this and its based on the reasons I gave as to why.

You then based off admitting you have never read claim they have not been groomed, even though in the vast majority of child sex abuse children are groomed. Whether in gangs or not. To then claim its just ill treatment is trying to render Asian girls as of less worth. 

I find that disgusting

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/10/abuse-asian-girls-missed-white-victims

Well done to this lady for finally finding the courage to report this pervert.

However there are many aspects of this narrative that are very odd indeed. She had 4 older siblings - why are none of them even mentioned? They must have been aware of this abuse and some of them were most likely abused too.


The mother should be in a prison cell alongside the dad, for the way she did nothing when she was told many years previously. She allowed her child to continue to suffer. The other relatives knew and they also covered it up, and even threatened the poor girl.


I also find it very odd that the woman herself, upon reaching 18 years of age, did not flee the family home, and permanently cut off all ties from this monster. Especially in an environment that was so unsympathetic to her. [Many kids in similar circumstances would have run away from home at 13/14/15 yrs - and then become so called vulnerable children and fallen prey to predators in the community like Asian paedo's - but that's another story altogether.]

Instead she remained in his life, right up to 27yo, this afforded him further opportunities to carry on with his attacks. Strange story!

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

No....a judge can award someone a life sentence meaning a whole life sentence, ie the offender will never be released.

A person serving life may not apply for parole until he has served the minimum of 15 years....which he may or may not be granted.

I think you are getting mixed up.

Sorry you are talking rubbish Syl

A life sentence is 15 years

Hence why judges award consecutive life sentences

I think you must be smoking crack

Not yet....but a couple more threads debating with you might be the trigger I need.

Read the bloody link.

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Sorry you are talking rubbish Syl

A life sentence is 15 years

Hence why judges award consecutive life sentences

I think you must be smoking crack

Not yet....but a couple more threads debating with you might be the trigger I need.

Read the bloody link.

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php

Read the CPS UK gov link I gave you

That is a lawyers link which states the maximum for a crime, not the levels of which the CPS link does

Ge wizz