Pervert optician avoids jail despite downloading child porn
A PERVERTED optician who downloaded child porn has avoided a jail sentence.
Stephen Kimberley, aged 52, worked as an optician for a high street chain when police executed a search warrant at his home in Keble Way, Blurton, at 9.10am on May 24 last year.
-

His computer was seized and examined by Staffordshire Police's hi-tech crime unit.
Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court was told yesterday that four indecent movies of children were found which were accessible without any specialist software.
Prosecutor David Bennett said the movies were level four on the scale, with level five being the most serious.
"They lasted for between 10 and 20 minutes and one child as young as seven was having sex with an adult male," said Mr Bennett.
In his police interview Kimberley, a married father, said he regularly visited two adult porn sites and received "pop ups" containing images of children.
He said he had no interest in child porn and denied seeking out such material.
The court was told experts confirmed there was evidence of "pop ups" on the computer.
Kimberley pleaded guilty to one charge of making indecent images of a child between August 5, 2007 and May 24, 2009.
Richard Dewsbery, mitigating, said Kimberley accepted downloading the images while looking for other material.
But he said the defendant did not view the images repeatedly, there was very small number of images compared to the thousands of items of adult porn Kimberley had viewed, and he did not distribute the images to anyone else.
Mr Dewsbery said: "He is still in a sort of denial. He is obviously struggling to come to terms with this matter but he recognises the very real impact this has on those depicted on the material."
He added the conviction has cost Kimberley his job.
"He has been without employment since February and won't be going back to the job he used to hold."
Judge Paul Glenn sentenced Kimberley to a three year community order with three years' supervision and a requirement to attend a sex offenders' group work programme for internet users.
He must also pay £500 prosecution costs and will be on the sex offenders' register for five years.
Judge Glenn told the defendant: "I have seen stills from the videos, they are disgusting.
"They depict male and female children being abused. These were real children being abused. The actions of people like you who search and access that material encourage those who abuse the children.
"You are trying to minimise responsibility, you are trying to put the best gloss on events as you can.
"You are preoccupied with sex and you have some form of sexual attraction to young children. But there is no suggestion you sought to embark on any contact offending."
#styleBox {
-moz-border-radius: 5px;
border: #CCCCCC solid 1px;
float: left;
width: 656px;
margin-top: 10px;
margin-bottom: 10px;
}
#styleBox p{
color: #cccccc;
display:inline;
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
}
.shareBox {
float: left;
display: inline;
width: 58px;
margin: auto;
padding: 10px;
}
$(document).ready(function(){
var imageFile = $('#likeButton').attr( 'src');
eval("imageFile = imageFile +"+"window.location.href;");
eval("$('#likeButton').attr( 'src', function(){return imageFile +"+"window.location.href;});");
(function() {
var s = document.createElement('SCRIPT'), s1 = document.getElementsByTagName('SCRIPT')[0];
s.type = 'text/javascript';
s.async = true;
s.src = 'http://widgets.digg.com/buttons.js';
eval("s1.parentNode."+"insertBefore(s, s1);");
})();
});
Like this story? Share it with friends







8 Comments
by Matt, Tunstall
Tuesday, September 14 2010, 12:56PM
“What do you have to do to get a jail sentence around here?
Brilliant message our judges are sending out.”
by Anon, Stoke
Saturday, September 11 2010, 3:50PM
“If he is on the Sex Offenders Register he won't be able to work with children. Just because its not mentioned doesn't mean it won't happen...”
by norm, newcastle
Friday, September 10 2010, 8:34PM
“Bob, spot on.”
by magneto, shelton
Friday, September 10 2010, 7:03PM
“Surely a simple castration is called for, as 'concerned parent' suggests. If he had any decency he would volunteer for this anyway to rid himself of the urge.”
by harry, longton
Friday, September 10 2010, 5:44PM
“deport him”
by bob, stockton brook
Friday, September 10 2010, 5:32PM
“How could they be certain that the optician had not been "framed", you have to ask yourself what is being done about the real pervs making these films ?, watching is pretty sick but ,it does look a bit like punishing the alcoholic/smoker/junkie .With the nanny state interfering in so many places its not actually needed its a shame it cannot control certain aspects of the internet in the way that the chinese government seems to manage to control Google etc.”
by Lewis, Hanley
Friday, September 10 2010, 3:17PM
“Disgusting man. His punishment is hardly a deterrant to others.”
by concerned parent, weston coyney
Friday, September 10 2010, 9:47AM
“This story made my stomach turn.
The fella is 'sexually attracted to children'??????? He has movies of children as young as 7 having sex????
WTF????
Absolute scum.
He shouldn't be allowed to mix with the public.
So he gets off scott free does he???
Why is there no mention of the judge banning him from working with children????
He's an optician!!!! He must be working with children.
I am absolutely disgusted with the judges attitude of this case. There is so much more that could have been done.
Of course one of the options is castration!!!!!!”