+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/23/2018 01:39 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.785 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/07/2009 12:01 AM ID: 76840 Permalink   

Bride to be Discovers Her fiancé is a Pedophile


Richard Manley, 38 & his fiancée, a 35-year-old mother from Cardiff were in a serious relationship, they were only days away from being married when a bomb shell fell on their plans in the form of a text accusing Manley of being Pedophile

His future wife immediately called the police, when questioned Manley admitted to taking an indecent photograph of a child in her underwear and inappropriately touching a little girl a while back and he had text it to his friends.

Afterwards he confessed more in a letter to his now ex-partner. Lawyer Huw Evans detailed on how Manley was led into pedophilia via the internet. He was sentenced never to work near children & added to the sex register.

    WebReporter: captainJane Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
saddens me.
  by: lockon   02/07/2009 12:27 AM     
LOL @ Richard Manley.

But yes, sad story. Fortunately he won't have a chance to abuse his own children.
  by: teh_epic     02/07/2009 12:59 AM     
  Cardiff right?  
Set Torchwood on him.
  by: VermiciousG     02/07/2009 01:02 AM     
  Ya know, In hid sight  
That comment makes sense in and out of context.
  by: VermiciousG     02/07/2009 01:06 AM     
"Hindsight". I meant "Hindsight".
  by: VermiciousG     02/07/2009 01:08 AM     
  Remember this @ VG  
some day some where I will get you for this. :P
  by: captainJane     02/07/2009 01:13 AM     
  What if...?  
This man, without confessing anything else, admitted to his bride-to-be that he was a paedophile. Nothing about inappropriate photos, nothing about molestation. Just that kids turned him on. Makes you wonder what his potential partner would have done.
But the dummy had to go and touch the kid and share her pictures with his buddies on the internet. I find it confusing when someone is photographed in their underwear and it is called indecent. How old is the kid? Inappropriate, yeah. Exploitive, if he shares it, well, duh. But indecent? What does that mean? If a parent takes a picture of the kid in their skivvies, it is cute. If a stranger, or even closer, like an uncle, it is inappropriate. Does the second example make it indecent and kiddie porn?

But what does it matter, he touched the kid in a personal area, and he's a molester. But stories like this bring everyone out with their pitchforks and torches.
  by: escalus84   02/07/2009 01:40 AM     
One part timing, one part proximity, and one part lies.
  by: Trevelyan   02/07/2009 01:41 AM     
news flash- yes, if a stranger takes a picture of a young child in her underwear for sexual reasons and shares it with his similarly-minded friends, yes, it is indecent. The fact that you are going through all kinds of mental contortions to think of ways it could be considered ok makes me wonder.
  by: gryphon50a   02/07/2009 03:00 AM     
  @gryph: Thanks for that.  
If someone's looking for ways to justify sexual gratification by means of taking/distributing photographs children in their undergarments then that someone is just looking for a loophole.
  by: VermiciousG     02/07/2009 03:22 AM     
  @gryphon and vermicious  
I've posted on this subject before. Viewpoint - movies like "Pretty Baby," "Angela," "Mixed Company." What do all these movies have in common? Naked kids. Even the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had young Indy skinny dip with his dad. Are these movies and shows sexualizing the kids? No. Are we going to ban Walmart ads and JCPenney catalogs because of this? So again, you tell me, what is indecent? The taking of the photo, the photo itself or the act of distribution? Let me ask you this, are we going start having the feds bust in the naturist camps to collect the family photos?
You might say,they aren't distributing those pictures for sexual intent.
But the pictures are being distributed for sexual intent. The walmart and JCPenney ads. The nudist photos. The screencaps of the movies I had mentioned. I've read articles by sexual predators serving time for various lewd acts. And they say it doesn't matter if a child is clothed or naked. Their feelings are the same toward what they are seeing.
Is the picture illegal? Based on what is out there and legal, I don't see how it could be.
Is the guy's behavior illegal, taking an unappropriate picture of a minor, and distributing to others (why? money? acceptance from others? or more than likely to get pictures in trade). Yes. Definitely. Is the picture indecent?
  by: escalus84   02/07/2009 04:11 AM     
I see, so your very simple position is that "if it CAN be captured on film" it is in some way protected.

Call me when you have children. And don't bother pretending that you do. We know you'd be lying.
  by: VermiciousG     02/07/2009 06:08 AM     
As stated to cJ in another article, I am not a parent. I do not hold respect for people necessarily because they are parents. It doesn't grant anyone special rights. It does not make them better than any other individual on the face of the earth. I was once a child. That's gotta count for something.
  by: escalus84   02/07/2009 06:21 AM     
I said in a previous comment "Does the second example make it indecent and kiddie porn?" without mentioning what I meant by "it." It should read , "Does the second example make the picture indecent and kiddie porn?" I know that isn't going to eliminate a lot of tension associated with the post, just wanted to clarify the actual picture and not his act(which I do consider "indecent" - exploitive).
  by: escalus84   02/07/2009 07:05 AM     
Reason and logic become a 'passing fad' when you're talking about children to a parent. I wouldn't bother getting too invested having a real discussion the topic. There isn't much that can be gotten that isn't pitchforks and calls for stoning.
  by: velger   02/07/2009 01:08 PM     
  About Escalus84  
Haha guys come on, don't you see what this "escalus84" is all about ?

For him, everything is "intellectualizable" and thus, to some extent, understandable and excusable. Those are the worst people... Zero empathy. Everything goes as long as it doesn't happen to them. I'd like to hear what he'd think of rape if he got raped over and over in a basment for a week, Pulp Fiction style.

There's a saying that goes like this : "Don't argue with an idiot because he will bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience."

It applies very well here, even though our friend is not an "intellectual" idiot but an idiot on the level of "heart".
And actually, when identified, those people are very interesting to watch and observe. Human pathology can take many shapes.
  by: pi022   02/07/2009 02:41 PM     
  So you got through your life with no worries.  
"I was once a child. That's gotta count for something"

Yes it does you were probably spoilt and this is why you have no thought for any other soul that may be defenceless.
Which comes to my mind an old saying here, I am alright Jack so sod any one else.
  by: captainJane     02/07/2009 06:25 PM     
The amount of stupidity surrounding this topic saddens me dearly. We're given scant details about the situation here - nobody knows how old she was, if she willingly did it, or how old he/she even was at the time - yet you all want to burn him at the stake. It's just madness. I'm not trying to endorse pedophilia - it's sick that someone would try to take advantage of a young child. But if nobody was taken advantage of and we don't know any REAL details about what happened, how can you say these awful things about him in good faith?

You mention the word pedophile and people come out from the word work to try and make you seem inhuman for even speaking the word. escalus84 was trying to provide some insight into the situation from a different perspective and you people are even taking shots at him for it? It's disgusting that ShortNews, a medium for reporting, discussion and debate, allows their members to chastise and attack someone for a point of view.

pi022, it's ironic that you want to criticize his viewpoint of everything being "intellectualizable" (a word that doesn't even exist), and claim he has zero empathy at the same the same time. Yet, escalus84 specifically says that the guy in the story is wrong, a pedophile and a molester. The guy in the story came forward about what he did and wants help - what more do you want? I fear the answer to that question because I think I already know in your feeble mind what you wish would happen to him. Quite honestly, I'd rather trust my intellect than my empathy because emotions are irrational, something you have a hard time grasping it seems.

And captainJane, did it ever cross your mind that the girl may not have been "defenseless" as you claim? We're never told anything about the girl, just in specific that it happened a few times and she was a school girl. You're adding details to the story to try and find a reason to rally people into hating this guy - yes, he is a molester, yes he deserves to go to jail because she was under aged. But inserting fallacies and, frankly, lies into your comments in an effort to attack escalus84 is down right immature. Get off your high horse, the air must be a little thin up there.
  by: z3r0_t0L3r4nc3   02/07/2009 10:08 PM     
  : z3r0_t0L3r4nc3  
All children are defenceless against an adult, unless they are wised up street kids, but men like that don't pick on those. They play it safe.

And I can say what I think it is not hard to come up with what is in front of my nose. And if that was anyone I know I would make sure he would not get off so easily.

Abusers see kids as fair game for a sex object, Fact!
  by: captainJane     02/07/2009 11:15 PM     
No one here has suggested his comments be stricken.

Many of us are of the opinion that he is wrong. That he is attempting to rationalize behavior that is clearly repugnant. That even though it maybe somehow be possible to do some of what this enormous ass has done and have it not be utterly contemptible that is surely not the case here and is therefore unconscionable to tolerate it.

Now, he is entitled to his opinion and we are entitled to ours. Censorship is a governments business and has no place here.
  by: VermiciousG     02/07/2009 11:16 PM     
Z3r0-blabla = Escalus84

Same person.
Come on dude, you're pathetic.
  by: pi022   02/07/2009 11:17 PM     
' but men like that don't pick on those.'

MEN? What about women, also?

  by: theironboard     02/07/2009 11:32 PM     
  So let me get this straight.  
She loved him and his personality, but actually we need to execute him because of some speculation about him. Sounds good! </sarcasm>
  by: H. W. Hutchins   02/07/2009 11:48 PM     
  Pardon me please..  
Yes those too I stand corrected!

And know well about abusive women I could write a book on that one.
  by: captainJane     02/08/2009 12:24 AM     
You make a lot of faulty assertions because you're being irrational. I respect your right to have an opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it. I disagree with HOW you reach the conclusion and I think you want to punish him too harshly, but I agree he does deserve jail time for breaking the law.

I'm not say that you guys are wrong in arguing with him, I'm saying that you're wrong in approach. People like pi022 are outright attacking him for his opinion. No matter how different it is than your own, I don't think it's grounds to insult someone personally. escalus84 even says, and I quote "just wanted to clarify the actual picture and not his act(which I do consider "indecent" - exploitive).". Nobody is trying to say it's right, but is it so wrong to rationalize? I don't think so personally.

I'm a long time reader of ShortNews, I just rarely comment. This may be the first time ever. If you look, you can even see I signed up all the way back on 07/04/2002. Nice try, you only managed to make yourself appear foolish though. Commendable, really.
  by: z3r0_t0L3r4nc3   02/08/2009 12:24 AM     
  @ z3r0_t0L3r4nc3  
True! I think I got more angry about this summary and his light heartd view of it.

But will come back to this one tomorrow. :)

Lights out here.
  by: captainJane     02/08/2009 12:35 AM     
I think my problem is, I can't stand the way our laws do not actually deter these guys doing it again, this mans only concern is the fact he was caught out and lost the chance to be married, he got no punishment just added to a register. My view is he should have been warned and given a sentence then given guidance.
All he wanted was help for him self, what about wanting to help the kid he exposed and touched up, how does she feel? Does he even care about that?
That s not irrational is it? For Gods sake is it irrational to be angry about such things? I think it is a problem when people do not care and defend such actions; this is condoning abuse they are making it normality.
  by: captainJane     02/08/2009 05:58 PM     
The law does very little to deter anybody from doing any crimes if they're motivated to do them. Why would people commit crimes if they knew they would be caught? Nobody things they'll get busted. If you read the source article, he expresses resentment for what he did and actually confessed to everything (supposedly) he had done.

The article is very brief - we don't know what he wants to do for the kid involved, but we can't simply assume that because it makes no mention of him trying to find the person and help her that he doesn't want it. It's a fallacy to think that way. Lack of information does not give us room to make wild assumptions. You ask if that's not irrational to think those things: I think it is, personally. If he came out and said he felt no remorse about what he did then yes, I would be angry as well - but we can't take the absence of a statement and assume it means something else.

The article is actually unclear on his punishment. Upon rereading it, it doesn't mention the prison time, but if you look under the picture caption it said he'll be serving for six years. Barring that, he still came under a lot of punishment if you ask me. He lost the woman he loves, he lost his job, he got put on the sex offender's list (a very debilitating thing really, it shows up on background checks and any number of things. This guy will be lucky to ever work again) and everybody who he knows has heard about this so I'm sure his personal life has been damaged a great deal and probably lost friends and family over it. Deserving? Possibly, especially if he did indeed scar the child (no mention is made of this either - I think there's a big difference between statutory rape versus molestation. We don't know which this was a case of).
  by: z3r0_t0L3r4nc3   02/08/2009 08:45 PM     
  Welcome back  
Now perhaps we can talk sensibly.

The guy is going to legal judgments placed on him. The girl is more than likely going to go through counseling. Neither is going to be left alone in their situation. But after all is said and done, who else is going to be affected by the actions of this one bad apple. Photographers. Single middle age men. Or just "pathological" humans that you watch and observe like animals in a zoo. When you hire a videographer for your kid's wedding, are you going to use discretion and only hire companies that have women or married men as employees? Are you going to advertise to your friends to avoid the companies that don't?

"I think it is a problem when people do not care and defend such actions; this is condoning abuse"

This comment scares me, because if you take out defend such actions, you make it sound like it should be illegal if someone doesn't feel like you. And look how everybody has interpreted an opinion as a defense of an action.
  by: escalus84   02/08/2009 09:13 PM     
  @ escalus84 and z3r0_t0L3r4nc3  
“Why would people commit crimes if they knew they would be caught?” Part of the thrill, something that should not be done plus another stimulation of the possibility of them actually be caught, then another kick on escaping the punishment of that act.

Well let us start with the facts, what we do know through the original source; he admitted to “indecent assault”, (can damage that Childs mind for life) taking an indecent picture of a child,(intrusion and bearing the feeling of shame and maybe can’t talk about it so a feeling of isolation ) and finally distributing child pornography. Publicly humiliating her, and those pictures may be passed around for years. Maybe causing an imbalance in her world for the remainder of her life, unless she has a strong mind and lot of help.
Surely it is insane to condone this he assaulted a child?
As for prison time, there was none!
From the source.
He said his client feels 'real remorse', and added: 'It is to his great credit that he has come forward before the world, and that has been a very difficult thing for him to do.
'The hardest thing was confessing all to his partner, the woman he loved and still loves deeply, and who perhaps will never forgive him.
'But he thought it was for the best that everything he did should come into the open, so he could try to get the help he needs.'
In one of the letters, Manley wrote: 'It was a time of life I regret, and I don't intend to repeat it.'
Judge Stephen Hopkins QC told Manley he suffered from 'perverted lust'.
He banned Manley from working with children for life, and ordered him to be placed on the sex offenders register.
He does how ever in his own words feel 'real remorse' how does his Victim or maybe even victims feel?
When no time is served or punishment dealt by the law, it gives out a green light, this is not a good thing at all. This country stinks for law and I wonder sentences here are so compassionate when dealing child abusers.
  by: captainJane     02/08/2009 10:22 PM     
Looking into this story is somewhat frustrating, because so many articles are giving bits and pieces. Just google it and see. Some websites say he is jailed for six years, others say he only needs to serve four of six. Most websites say the child was in her own underwear, one website says she was in her mother's (which may turn over the "indecent" comment I made earlier. The type of undies does come into question here.)
  by: escalus84   02/08/2009 11:35 PM     
  @ escalus84  
Right, I get you now!

If a paper give false information on the court procedure or the sentence, they will be pulled up, I was going on what the finale out come was by the court then having my usual rant, because this subject gets to us Mom’s and Dad’s well most of us anyway. :)
  by: captainJane     02/08/2009 11:46 PM     
  I don't get why everyone is so against escalus  
He isn't endorsing paedophilia, nor is he condoning people taking inappropriate pictures of children.

All he really pointed out is that it is difficult to say what is appropriate and what isn't when it comes to things such as pictures of children. Parents have photos of their own kids in their undies or with no clothes on - this is perfectly normal and not classed as paedophilia. You can get a clothing catalogue with photos of children modelling underwear and swimming costumes, this is also fine. But, how would the parents of those model kids feel if they knew someone was getting off to pictures of their kid in underwear? The picture is perfectly innocent and is available for anyone to look at, so for one picture of a child in underwear to be indecent and another to be fine seems a bit strange if you think about it logically.

Clearly this case is different as the guy has admitted to touching a girl inappropriately, but we still don't know the full story. The girl could be 15 years old and sexually experienced or she could be a 5-year-old who has just started school. 2 completely different situations, both illegal, but definitely not the same. For a start, I don't think that having sex with fully developed teenagers is paedophilia, even if they are only 14 or 15. It's illegal and should remain that way, but I view paedophilia as being attracted to children who are not fully developed sexually as opposed to kids who are physically adults and just happen to be below the age of consent.
  by: TabbyCool     02/09/2009 02:36 PM     
I'm with you on this one.
  by: Anthrox   02/10/2009 09:29 PM     
  It makes me sick  
These pedophiles get off because in the U.S. justice system they are not considered violent offenders in most states(although some states are making tougher laws against pedophiles).i was a victim of people like this till i hit puberty and they no longer found me attractive and not one of the many who used me for these gruesome sexual acts did anytime the legal system did nothing and most got away with it scott free, if i hadn't as a teen sought out revenge on the ones i could find.i know plenty of guys who are serving time in county(jail) for bar fights and pedophiles who ruin these poor children FOR LIFE get minimal legal consequences because they did commit a violent i can emotionally destroy some-one for life but punch some-one in the face for "disrespecting me" and i'm doing time?
  by: mopboydeus   02/14/2009 06:17 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: