City Watch owner sentenced to 28 months in prison

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I would love to know how he made your mates life a living hell? What kind of stuff did he do? I just can't get my head around how someone would go about doing that? If you dont want to share it publicly pm me? Just want to understand it more

The MEN covers the broad strokes. Why do you need to understand it more?

It's unpalatable. It's also not my place.

Hope you can appreciate that.

 

[Mayor West]

The MEN covers the broad strokes. Why do you need to understand it more?

It's unpalatable. It's also not my place.

Hope you can appreciate that.

Ok mate no worries. I simply wouldn't even know how to make someone's life a living hell, it's just totally the opposite of who I am, was just interested that's all.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Ok mate no worries. I simply wouldn't even know how to make someone's life a living hell, it's just totally the opposite of who I am, was just interested that's all.

No worries.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What's the usual for that then? Suspended sentence? It's prison over here unless there's restricting circumstances.

A Community Order, a load of requirements (including a targeted programme), a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, going on the Sex Offenders Register and costs. Either that, or a suspended sentence with the same requirements and ancillary Orders.

Even for a first offence, however, if there’s clear evidence of distribution of images, that tends to up the ante considerably.

For most, the stigma that is attached to committing such offences has far more impact on their lives than a short prison sentence ever would, and the courts recognise that, through the prism of prison numbers and the fact that the foregoing sentences are more likely to lead to a change in future behaviour than sending them to prison for a few months.

One of the worst aspects of such offending is the victims of these crimes knowing images of themselves, having their childhoods destroyed, in the most wicked of ways, are ’out there’, ad infinitum. It must be a hugely violating (and enduring) experience, that probably never leaves them.

Human beings can be (and frequently are) such cunts.

 

[BillyShears]

A Community Order, a load of requirements (including a targeted programme), a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, going on the Sex Offenders Register and costs. Either that, or a suspended sentence with the same requirements and ancillary Orders.

Even for a first offence, however, if there’s clear evidence of distribution of images, that tends to up the ante considerably.

For most, the stigma that is attached to committing such offences has far more impact on their lives than a short prison sentence ever would, and the courts recognise that, through the prism of prison numbers and the fact that the foregoing sentences are more likely to lead to a change in future behaviour than sending them to prison for a few months.

One of the worst aspects of such offending is the victims of these crimes knowing images of themselves, having their childhoods destroyed, in the most wicked of ways, are ’out there’, ad infinitum. It must be a hugely violating (and enduring) experience, that probably never leaves them.

Human beings can be (and frequently are) such cunts.

I don't think any of us really expected he'd get a custodial sentence - but what did give us hope was the cyber crime officer who investigated him said at the time that the online harassment was maybe the worst he'd ever seen and he would make that plain to the court.

In the end he got what he deserved IMO. He said and did a lot of reprehensible stuff to people who ultimately did nothing to him but give up their time for free to help him build a 'brand'. Been one of the more surreal experiences in my life and I was lucky in comparison to the two lads whose personal lives he really turned upside down.

City have known about it since he pled guilty (which was towards the back end of last year). I'm as surprised as a few others that the PR department didn't have a word with the players about the account back then. I suspect they'll all have the memo by Monday morning!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I don't think any of us really expected he'd get a custodial sentence - but what did give us hope was the cyber crime officer who investigated him said at the time that the online harassment was maybe the worst he'd ever seen and he would make that plain to the court.

In the end he got what he deserved IMO. He said and did a lot of reprehensible stuff to people who ultimately did nothing to him but give up their time for free to help him build a 'brand'. Been one of the more surreal experiences in my life and I was lucky in comparison to the two lads whose personal lives he really turned upside down.

City have known about it since he pled guilty (which was towards the back end of last year). I'm as surprised as a few others that the PR department didn't have a word with the players about the account back then. I suspect they'll all have the memo by Monday morning!

Assuming the indecent images were his first such offence, then his sentence of immediate custody would almost certainly have been for the online harassment, which certainly sounds egregious and pernicious. A wicked course of conduct with the clear intent to cause real harm to the victims.

He sounds like a horrible ****, mate. Sorry you (and others) had to endure the way his severe insecurities manifest themselves. Some people are simply malign, I’m afraid.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I broke the story about UEFA having changed the rules on FFP and our subsequent punishment on City Watch. He seemed a decent bloke but then I heard stories about the bitterness of the split between him and the 93:20 guys. Even then I thought it was maybe more a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other but one of the people involved in 93:20 often used to say "You don't know the half of it". But I had no real idea and it didn't affect me so I had no great issue with him.

I did stuff for the 93:20 pod but couldn't understand why City Watch never asked me for stuff when we'd published our accounts and I saw someone else not even connected to City had done stories for the site on financial affairs but thought no more of it.

Then he published a story from a media outlet that was very uncomplimentary and almost certainly untrue and I emailed him to say why it was incorrect and that, even though I knew he was just an aggregator of other sources, I thought he was out of order putting that story out there. I got quite a nasty, self-justifying email back from him which I thought was well out of order and saw, for the first time, how nasty he could be when challenged. I mentioned something to Ahsan about it when I next spoke to him and he told me that was what he was like and that because I'd done stuff for 93:20, that disbarred me from doing anything for City Watch even though I had no personal beef or issue with Stuart Marshall. It sank in then how petty and vindictive he could be and just a few days later I heard about his arrest and charge.

Clearly a very disturbed individual.

 

[Centurions]

His Mum is using it while he’s away.

Is it really her that's keeping the Twitter and main site still going? It's certainly still active. Down to 145,000 followers now so keep up the good work everybody.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The final thing for me is the importance of remembering that whilst the child images will always be the first thing people remember or go to, there were victims of his stalking who went through hell. I’m absolutely buzzing for them that they got some justice.

Well said. All his offending is deeply unappealing, but to target specific people in that way suggests he is a deeply malign individual, rather than just a hugely troubled and selfish one.

 

[SWP's back]

@Ric could we get the title changed as it appears he was sent away for stalking and the indecent images just added to that.