Sex offender who indecently exposed himself at train stations SEVEN times is fined just £1.43 for each offence

28 comments

1. So like the more you do, the cheaper it gets, like how does it work? Lol

2. * And a one year community order *and* a 5 year Sexual Harm Prevention Order which limits any interactions he has with women and children, and a minimum of 5 years in the registry as that runs in conjunction with the SHPO.

   Now whether that is an appropriate sentence is a different question but he wasn’t just fined a couple of quid as the headline suggests.

3. Despite the fact we know this sort of behavioru is a gateway to far more serious offences, upto and including rape and murder. Top work.

4. He’s also on the Sex Offender register and has a community order limiting his contact with any unknown females

   Not sure why they even bothered with the £10 fine, seems like a weird waste of effort

5. Whether the fine is £10 or £1m it’s irrelevant to public safety, the key bit is:

   >Clarke was also handed a five-year sexual harm prevention order, which means he cannot approach, touch or attempt to communicate with an unknown female in public.

   >The order bars him from taking a seat next to or opposite a lone female or child on public transport or at a station, unless there is no alternative seating available.

   >His name is now on the sex offender register and Clarke will be required to register with the police until 2030.

   How the first two conditions are actually enforced I have no idea…

6. Should be 5 years’ min hard labor prison, and tagged electronically for life.

7. “The order bars him from taking a seat next to or opposite a lone female or child on public transport or at a station, unless there is no alternative seating available.”

   I wonder to what extent this is enforceable.

8. Sure our just system might be a complete joke but these figures will be making the next inflation figures look a bit healthier

9. But god forbid he tweeted something he would have been in trouble then.

10. Yeah, mods of this sub live off of headlines like these

11. At what point will we enforce almost unfairly harsh punishments for such behaviours in order to discourage any future incidents? We need to punish these people almost as if they were not people (which I’d argue they’re not) so that they think twice before even thinking about it. But of course not right because that would just make a little too much sense innit

12. Serial sex offender who the judge believes can’t be trusted to sit near a woman or child is free to be out and about unsupervised.

    The U.K. loves signalling that they condone and encourage this behaviour

13. *Asked for the winning formula of his Daily Mail, Lord Northcliffe replied: ‘I give my readers a daily hate.’*

14. I may have seen him, he appeared to urinate off Finchley Central Platform and I wondered if he could have found somewhere better.

15. I wonder what his sentence would have been if he tweeted his intentions before committing the crime?
    The judicial system in this country is severely broken if committing a crime receives less punishment than a post in social media.

16. Oh wow a sexual offender who has committed seven distinct offences has been fined £10, has to pick up litter for a year and has been given an order telling him not to be naughty for the next 5 years.

    He’s going to give about as much of a damn about that order as he gave when he exposed himself on 7 different occasions.

17. I thought the going rate was £5 per flash and £20 per rape?

18. Tangentially related…
    All fines should be directly related to your ability to pay, with no upper limit.
    They should be calculated to have the same level of financial impact, otherwise fines mean nothing if you’re rich.

19. They focus on the small fine, but conveniently leave out the parts about the 1 year community order, SHPO and entry into the sex offenders register. Daily Heil should be banned on this sub for agenda-driven headlines that are completely bereft of vital information in order to rage bait.

20. This country is irretrievably broken. I cannot wait to gtfoh.

21. How much should he have been fined? Is there a going rate?

22. What is the point in finding them so Little? Like that’s literally just £10.

23. Not the Daily Heil deliberately misleading the public with problematic headlines relating to crimes committed by a person of colour…

24. Didn’t realise fines actually went that low. I thought even the most destitute of people got fined £100+ or nothing at all.

25. You heard of 50 cent but have you heard of 50 pence.

26. Presumably he was fined very little because he had no money. Can’t fine someone who cannot pay.

    I do wonder if perhaps he should have been fined the same amount as anyone else would have been, with a lifelong payment plan, rather like a student loan.

27. We have someone in the community that likes to do this round train stations too, gets arrested then let out back to his ‘hotel’ it’s madness.

28. How do people read this and then jump at the chance to defend the punishment/discredit the source? The title is correct. Yes, he received additional “punishment”, but that really doesn’t change the narrative here. His community order “means he cannot approach, touch or attempt to communicate with an unknown female in public.”

    If the actual impact of his offending is a £10 fine, what’s stopping him from fearing breaching this community order? Or are we suggesting he was unaware that his 7 counts of indecent exposure were illegal?

Comments are closed.