Jail for birthday paedo (From Warrington Guardian)
Text us your news! Start your message Warrington News and send any photos or videos to 80360
Jail for birthday paedo
11:00am Thursday 28th February 2013 in News
Jail for birthday paedo
A PAEDOPHILE was jailed on his 65th birthday for abusing two young girls.
Terence Norman, of Redshank Lane, Birchwood, was handed a total of 12 months in prison for his assaults on the two girls dating back to the late 90s.
Warrington Crown Court heard on Monday how Norman had assaulted the two girls who were then aged between eight and 10 by kissing them.
Mike Stephenson, prosecuting, said one of his victims told police: “He would kiss her feet and legs, he would also kiss her on the mouth and she concedes she would sometimes respond to that but on other occasions she hated it and would bit his tongue.”
While his other victim describes him kissing her on her neck while she was playing on a computer game and would also kiss her on her legs and the girl would pretend to be asleep to avoid having to speak to him.
Norman, of previous good character, pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault and two charges of sexual assault.
Sentencing him Judge Roger Dutton said of Norman’s victims: “It’s an experience which has remained with them and will remain with them for some time.”
He was handed eight months in prison for the charges of indecent assault to run concurrently with a further four month sentence added consecutively for the sexual assault charges.
He was also ordered to sign the Sex offenders Register for the next 10 years.
Comments(31)
willlie
says...
4:16pm Thu 28 Feb 13
willlie
says...
5:22pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Godly
says...
3:18am Fri 1 Mar 13
Cleopatra
says...
6:29am Fri 1 Mar 13
A paedophile is an adult who has sexual contact with an underaged child - CONVICTED OR NOT.
chunkymunky
says...
9:23am Fri 1 Mar 13
Cleopatra wrote:i take your point cleo, but how, if someone is not convicted, be called a paedo if not proven? do we decide? do we go vigilante style? do we listen to rumours from others?
Willie you are very wrong in your observation about paedophiles. It is definately NOT a conviction that makes one a paedophile. A paedophile is an adult who has sexual contact with an underaged child - CONVICTED OR NOT.
i understand what youer saying about the use of the word 'paedophile' but lets be careful how we use it, becuase there has been many cases when over use of this word and linking it to someone innocent has gone very wrong!!
Cleopatra
says...
10:02am Fri 1 Mar 13
Greek in origin the the word is derived from paidos (meaning child) and philos (the love of).
However you look at it the word still means an adult who is sexually attracted to a child.The every day use, or misuse, of the word does not alter that fact.
Proving or disproving that someone is a paedophile is another thing but there does not need to be a conviction for an adult to be a paedophile.
willlie
says...
11:50am Fri 1 Mar 13
mr_BLUNT
says...
8:17pm Fri 1 Mar 13
http://imageshack.us
/photo/my-images/6/w
gpedo.jpg/
miss.opinion
says...
9:39pm Fri 1 Mar 13
willlie
says...
9:58am Sat 2 Mar 13
willlie
says...
11:16am Sat 2 Mar 13
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
8:50pm Sat 2 Mar 13
willlie wrote:I don't think you will convince any of his victims with that point and rather flippant remark!
Jimmy Saville wasn't a paedophile because he wasn't convicted at a court of law. And just because someone is charged or found guilty, it means nothing. The law is an **** and it stinks !
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
9:00pm Sat 2 Mar 13
willlie wrote:Yes, I completely understand that everyone you may know or on your planet may well know such things. Not everyone in Warrington thinks as you suggest! I thought that I would ouote the definition of everyone: A common misconception, not a typographical error. (C'mon little willie, you should have learnt this in your primary school).
People only plead guilty, even though everyone knows they are not guilty, to get a lesser more lenient sentence. Everyone knows the police, courts, authority is corrupt from top to bottom and it's all about stitching poor innocent people up and figures.
1. The word "Everyone" refers to everybody; such as when talking about a group of people.
2. The phrase "Every one" refers to each individual item or thing within a group.
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
9:09pm Sat 2 Mar 13
willlie wrote:At last a written admission of a mistake from mister perfect our little willlie! Once again using his back to front logic.
oh, sorry folks, i missed out the press in that list of whose corrupt from top to bottom. My mistake ! Silly me !
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
9:21pm Sat 2 Mar 13
chunkymunky wrote:Because someone following up on the factual and witnessed based information from an investigation by people involved in the local children's safeguarding board. They would have come to a consensus opinion sufficient enough, to have classified such behaviour as being consistent with that of a pedophile or more accurately a pederast.
Cleopatra wrote:i take your point cleo, but how, if someone is not convicted, be called a paedo if not proven? do we decide? do we go vigilante style? do we listen to rumours from others?
Willie you are very wrong in your observation about paedophiles. It is definately NOT a conviction that makes one a paedophile. A paedophile is an adult who has sexual contact with an underaged child - CONVICTED OR NOT.
i understand what youer saying about the use of the word 'paedophile' but lets be careful how we use it, becuase there has been many cases when over use of this word and linking it to someone innocent has gone very wrong!!
willlie
says...
12:13pm Sun 3 Mar 13
willlie
says...
12:14pm Sun 3 Mar 13
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
1:46pm Sun 3 Mar 13
willlie wrote:Yes, little willlie, but we are not in our own La La La Land like you. We are in the real world that you seem to make so much effort to avoid.
You lot don't half talk a load of old billy ****. At least i know what i'm talking about !
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
1:51pm Sun 3 Mar 13
willlie wrote:Your explanation or your personal definition of the despicable act described as pedophile is not fully or correctly explained. Pedophile activity has a much broader criteria when coming to the conclusion as to whenever it has been committed or not.
You can only be a sex offender / peadophile if you have touched, threatened, or harmed someone - fact !
jitterbug
says...
12:43pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Some of you need to give your head a tickle.
willlie
says...
12:50pm Mon 4 Mar 13
jitterbug
says...
1:03pm Mon 4 Mar 13
willlie wrote:Are you for real???
For example, someone who has used a camera to take a photo of someone is only doing what you can see with the naked eye and it is non contact. This does not make someone a peedophile or sex offender !
I think what they are actually capturing on that photograph would determine whether they are a paedo or not. Not whether they had physical contact!
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
1:40pm Mon 4 Mar 13
jitterbug wrote:To which comment are you refering?
What an absolute load of sh**!!
Some of you need to give your head a tickle.
jitterbug
says...
2:08pm Mon 4 Mar 13
SAC_in_Warrington wrote:The ones that seem to think you are guilty IF convicted! Some folk perplex me
jitterbug wrote: What an absolute load of sh**!! Some of you need to give your head a tickle.To which comment are you refering?
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
2:19pm Mon 4 Mar 13
jitterbug wrote:Do you mean not guilty as in willlie's comment?
SAC_in_Warrington wrote:The ones that seem to think you are guilty IF convicted! Some folk perplex me
jitterbug wrote: What an absolute load of sh**!! Some of you need to give your head a tickle.To which comment are you refering?
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
2:23pm Mon 4 Mar 13
SAC_in_Warrington wrote:Obviously you can't convict a person posthumously. However their is certainly more than enough for him to have stood trial for it.
willlie wrote:I don't think you will convince any of his victims with that point and rather flippant remark!
Jimmy Saville wasn't a paedophile because he wasn't convicted at a court of law. And just because someone is charged or found guilty, it means nothing. The law is an **** and it stinks !
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
2:29pm Mon 4 Mar 13
willlie wrote:Photographs and video are taken selectively and are capable of being edited, so your theory on that issue doesn't work.
For example, someone who has used a camera to take a photo of someone is only doing what you can see with the naked eye and it is non contact. This does not make someone a peedophile or sex offender !
SAC_in_Warrington
says...
2:36pm Mon 4 Mar 13
willlie wrote:On the other hand you can be very offensive also by not doing any of these things. Sometimes just being present in a situation is enough to be offensive just like a pig at a Jewish or an Islamic wedding.
You can only be a sex offender / peadophile if you have touched, threatened, or harmed someone - fact !
the equaliser
says...
11:02am Tue 5 Mar 13
Whilst the behaviour of this man is awful and deserves punishment (the sentence is about right in my book - he pleaded guilty and that thankfully saved the distress of more lengthy proceedings) we should all consider that whilst this man did engage in behaviour that was sexual in nature he did NOT engage in overtly sexual acts with these girls. Undoubtedly these girls were almost certainly harmed emotionallly but he did not engage in extreme or even naked acts of sex. This suggests to me that he was restrained at least to some degree and this should be acknowledged. Maybe we should all put this into perspective - if we brand all child sex offenders the same - 'paedo' , 'monster' , 'sick' and the like - we run out of adjectives to call those offenders who perpetrate far more damaging sexual abuse on children including those who murder their victims to cover up their sordid behaviour.
Thankfully in this case punishment has been administered and I hope the girls can get closure and get over this. I do not think that the arguement about who is (technically) and who is not a paedophile is relevant or helpful.
Cleopatra
says...
8:08am Thu 7 Mar 13
mr_BLUNT says...
11:13am Thu 28 Feb 13