Give this man a medal, not prison

We could do with having a few bonfires with paedophiles thrown in them, alongside the Islamists, as that way society would be a lot cleaner.

They should have given this guy a medla not prison time, especially as we all know the government and the establishment are riddled with paedophiles that the police, courts and judges protect.

Sexual abuse by homosexual paedophiles destroys children and their whole lives.

Therefore we should destroy the paedophiles.

There is no justice any more in this corrupt shit hole of a country that various governments have created as money and power are more important than justice - so the time has come for people to demand and create their own justice.




http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8255404.Man_jailed_for_dousing_alleged_paedophile_in_petrol/


A SOUTHAMPTON man threw petrol over a alleged paedophile in the middle of a court room, before trying to set him alight.

John Affleck, from Swaythling, pounced on Oliver Gilbart-Smith who had been found innocent of 17 counts of sex assaults on boys at a children's home in the 1960s, just moments before.

Mr Gilbart-Smith, 62, and several barristers were showered in petrol in the middle of Court No. 4 at Reading Crown Court in the drama which happened in full view of Judge Stephen John.

Affleck, who claimed to be one of Mr Gilbart-Smith's child sex victims more than 40 years ago, told lawyers he was going to cover his alleged tormentor in petrol and then hold a cigarette lighter to him until he confessed to his "crimes" in front of the judge.

However, his misguided attempt at summary justice went full circle and just three hours after the dramatic outburst, Judge John had him hauled him into the dock where he immediately jailed him for 12 months.

Earlier Affleck, 52, was restrained as he attacked Mr Gilbart-Smith and shouting: "This is just the beginning for you."

For a video of the top stories in today's Daily Echo, click the front page.

Security guards pounced on Affleck as "exemplary" father-of-four Mr Gilbart-Smith was led away by court staff, his jacket drenched in petrol. His assailant was arrested and thrown into the cells in the basement of the court.

Court No 4 had to be evacuated as pungent petrol vapour fumes filled the room and entered the air conditioning system. A second court was also evacuated as the fumes were pumped in through the ventilation system.

The dramatic outburst happened as Judge John told Mr Gilbart-Smith he was a free man after the Crown Prosecution Service said it did not want to pursue a retrial on two child sex charges which a jury had been unable to decide upon.

The same jury had earlier cleared the defendant on 15 of the 17 charges he faced which alleged sexual abuse on eight boys between 1967 and 1970. They included buggery, indecent assault and conspiracy to commit buggery.

All the allegations were said to have involved Mr Gilbart-Smith and others at Greenfield House children's hostel in Maidenhead, Berkshire.

The hostel, which housed children of primary school age, has since closed.

Affleck had been sitting in the public gallery today to see whether there would be a retrial on the two remaining counts, when Judge John told retired City executive Mr Gilbart-Smith he was a free man.

Affleck then lunged forward with a cannister of petrol he had smuggled into the normally secure court and threw its contents over the grey-haired former defendant.

After spraying the flammable liquid over him he was immediately restrained but shouted: "This is just the beginning for you."

Judge John ordered that Affleck be taken into custody immediately. He then ordered him to be charged with contempt of court and arranged to hear the case himself this afternoon.

An application from the media to name and shame Affleck, who was automatically granted anonymity as an alleged sex attack victim, was granted by Judge John.

The judge explained to Joanna Sear, who was hastily brought in to defend the contempt action: "What happened was that this morning, just after I had discharged the defendant, Mr Gilbart-Smith, an incident took place within my sight, involving your client - one of the complainants in the trial which concluded last month.

"In my presence, he left the public area, he physically attacked Mr Gilbart-Smith, he had to be restrained but not before he had thrown a quantity of petrol over Mr Gilbart-Smith.

In sentencing him, Judge John said: "You, John Affleck, were in court on earlier occasions during the trial of Mr Gilbart-Smith and you heard my warnings about behaviour which would not be tolerated.

"Everyone but you, including eight other men, who all alleged that they had been abused by the man you attacked this morning, behaved with complete restraint throughout.

"You came to court today having clearly planned to attack Mr Gilbart-Smith. You admitted as much and no explanation could there possibly be for arming yourself with a quantity of petrol.

"This was a quite deliberate and planned attack on a man who you knew, 10 days ago, had been acquitted on almost all the charges against him.

"The throwing of petrol over him must have been very frightening. It seems inevitable that he must have feared that it and he would have been set alight.

"I accept that the lighter you had did not work and that you did not intend to set it alight.

"You told the officer that you did what you did in the hope, however vain, that he would confess to the matter of which the jury acquitted him."

The judge added that that it must be obvious that to have petrol in a building such as the crown court, even if he did not intend to light it, posed a risk to the building and the people in it.

"This was, in my judgement, equivalent to taking revenge on a witness," he said.

"It wasn't even in the heat of the moment. I fully understand the emotion which it (the trial) caused.

"There was never any question that you had indeed suffered abuse while at the home, the question being whether Mr Gilbart-Smith was one of the abusers.

"Such a deliberate and potentially dangerous contempt has to be marked in a way which both maintains the dignity of the court and sends a message that attacks on the court will not be tolerated."