Paedophile placed babysitter advert on Gumtree website and abused two children after he was spared j
56 replies, posted
[quote][B]A convicted paedophile who advertised himself as a babysitter on the Gumtree website so he could film himself sexually abusing children faces being jailed indefinitely.
Red Saunders, 23, was spared jail in 2005 after he admitted molesting a five-year-old girl while working as a playgroup organiser at a gym in Surrey.
He was placed on a two-year supervision order and his name was placed on the Sex Offenders Register, but it was not enough to stop him re-offending six years later.[/B]
Following his arrest earlier this year [B]detectives found a 'chilling' diary in which Saunders detailed his sickening plans to abuse children.[/B]
He placed an advert under his brother's name offering his services on Gumtree and then [B]fobbed off parents when they asked to see a Criminal Record Bureau check.[/B]
[B]Saunders then installed cameras in the rooms of two children aged seven and eight he was paid to look after and made videos of himself abusing them using the title 'Paedo Productions'. He also had a stash of more than 5,000 indecent images, films and cartoons.[/B]
Today at the Old Bailey he pleaded guilty to a string of charges including rape, sexual assault and making indecent photos of a child.
Judge Charles Wide QC expressed surprise at the original sentence passed by the Southeast Surrey Juvenile Court at Guildford Crown Court in 2005.
‘On the face of it something has gone terribly wrong. I cannot know what the Crown Court knew, and I’m not criticising them, but something has gone wrong in some way.’
Prosecutor Edward Lucas said: ‘I just cannot believe what occurred.
'In 2005, a full investigation, including a psychological report, was carried out independent of the sentencing exercise.
'I am staggered from what I have read that nothing was done in 2005. It was available to all to look at.
He has been left free to do it again.'
The judge told Saunders that the court was considering a sentence of indefinite imprisonment for public protection and adjourned sentence until November 23.
He added: 'The defendant has pleaded guilty to a very large number of serious sexual offences relating to two young complainants. He has a previous conviction for sexual assault on a young child.
'The court will be considering imprisonment for public protection and the sentencing judge will be most concerned with the issue of dangerousness.'
Saunders, of Merstham, Redhill, Surrey, has admitted one count of rape, three of sexual assault on a child, two of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, three counts of possessing prohibited images of a child and fourteen counts of making indecent photographs of a child.
The court heard he was convicted of sexual assault of a five year old child in 2005 while working as a playgroup organiser at a local gym.
Mr Lucas said: 'The young girl was playing hide and seek. This girl was left in the dark area of the gym and he asked her to show him her knickers.'
He then took a photograph of her and sexually assaulted her. Saunders was given a two year supervision order.
Mr Lucas said: ‘There was a full investigation done in 2005 and nothing resulted from it.
'Can I say I am staggered at what I have read and nothing was done about it in 2005 despite the material being available to all, the indecent images and comments made by the defendant about his interests.
'It was all catalogued and he has been free effectively to do it again.'
The court heard the investigation uncovered a film in which Saunders made clear his plan to film indecent images of a girl aged between 10 and 12.
Mr Lucas added: 'I don’t understand why the parents [of that alleged victim] were not told about the contents of that video.'
Saunders was due to stand trial for sexually assaulting this child between 2002 and 2004 but the charges were left to lie on the film after his pleas to the other counts.
Outside court the prosecutor explained that Saunders had advertised himself as a babysitter in Gumtree before abusing a seven year-old girl in October 2011 and an eight year-old girl in April 2012.
He admitted two counts of sexual assault and one of making indecent images of a child in relation to the seven year-old and rape, sexual assault, two counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, and one of making indecent photos relating to the eight year-old.
Saunders admitted a further seven counts of making indecent photos relating to his filming of children playing in the street between February 2011 and April 2012.
He admitted five counts of making indecent photos of a child relating to 2886 images at level one, 154 at level 2, 1350 at level 3, 1028 at level 4 and 25 at level 5. The most serious is level five which involves sadistic sex or bestiality involving children.
Saunders also admitted three counts of possessing prohibited images of a child between November 2011 and April 2012 relating to 13 cartoon movie images at level 1, 174 cartoon movie images at level 3 and 35 cartoon movie images at level 4.
Mr Lucas said: 'The court is going to have to see a lot of material, not least the particular acts against the children.
'They are professionally created films made by himself which show the abuse.'
Seven counts of voyeurism, one count of attempted rape on the eight year old girl, and two counts of sexual assault relating to a third alleged victim between 2002 and 2004 were left to lie on the file.
Detective Constable Sam Renwick-Foster said later: 'Red Saunders is a predatory pedophile who specifically targeted families with the intention of abusing their children.
'He poses an obvious danger to young children.'
In April, Saunders had gone to work for a couple looking for a childminder, but after a few days he made his excuses and left.
Following his departure the eight-year-old girl told her parents that Saunders had abused her.
Saunders was arrested and a search of his home address revealed large quantities of images and footage depicting child abuse.
As a result of this material further offences he committed against another girl were discovered.
Detectives traced that child and discovered that at the time of the abuse he was also working as a childminder for that family.
Saunders was remanded into custody.
Read more: [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221511/Paedophile-placed-babysitter-advert-Gumtree-website-abused-children-spared-jail-molesting-year-old.html#ixzz2D6Wi8i9h[/url]
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
[/quote]
The parents really should of persisted to see the background checks.
well that's not good
There's....really not much to say, here. Sick, sick man getting what he deserves, although I think any punishment on this plane of existence would be too lenient.
or he should have been more severely punished after the first incident and/or given proper mental reevaluating
Retard.
[quote]Red Saunders, 23, was spared jail in 2005 after he admitted molesting a five-year-old girl while working as a playgroup organiser at a gym in Surrey.[/quote]
Why in the fuck wasn't he imprisoned for this?
[QUOTE=Paramud;38570601]Why in the fuck wasn't he imprisoned for this?[/QUOTE]
child rapist apologists are the scorn of the earth
here comes the rush of the resident fp pedo apologists to say this guy shouldn't be punished but "treated"
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;38570659]here comes the rush of the resident fp pedo apologists to say this guy shouldn't be punished but "treated"[/QUOTE]
He should be both punished and treated, one not affecting the other.
Everybody wins here.
Thankfully we don't have those "Blame the victims" assholes in FP.
[QUOTE=J!NX;38570630]Pedo apologists are the scorn of the earth[/QUOTE]
Don't you mean child rapist apologist
[QUOTE=J!NX;38570675]Thankfully we don't have those "Blame the victims" assholes in FP.[/QUOTE]
I thought we do.
I am drinking a cup of tea waiting for someone to say "OH IT'S THE PARENT'S FAULT" or "IT'S THE CHILD'S FAULT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TELL THEIR PARENTS"
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;38570659]here comes the rush of the resident fp pedo apologists to say this guy shouldn't be punished but "treated"[/QUOTE]
pretty sure its a brain thing to be this funky.
Not to sound insensitive here, but aren't the parents partly at fault here for not following up with a background check. If you cared for the safety of your children why would you leave them in he care of someone you hardly know?
[QUOTE=lemonskunk;38570738]Not to sound insensitive here, but aren't the parents partly at fault here for not following up with a background check. If you cared for the safety of your children why would you leave them in he care of someone you hardly know?[/QUOTE]
there it is
god DAMN IT why do the psychopaths get let loose all the fucking time? its so stupid. i'd like justice to be served against this idiot. you'd think he would learn after almost going to jail once.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;38570745]there it is[/QUOTE]
isn't it amazing how the parents stupidity isn't taken into account? at all. yes it is 100% the pedo's fault, but they were dumb enough to not do a background check on a babysitter. leaving your children in the hands of a stranger is the stupidest thing to do, you may as well make sure he isn't a sicko
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;38570710]I thought we do.
I am drinking a cup of tea waiting for someone to say "OH IT'S THE PARENT'S FAULT" or "IT'S THE CHILD'S FAULT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TELL THEIR PARENTS"[/QUOTE]
It's always the kids fault
their fault for being sexy
[sp]joking, that felt wrong and tainted to type[/sp]
[QUOTE=lemonskunk;38570738]Not to sound insensitive here, but aren't the parents partly at fault here for not following up with a background check. If you cared for the safety of your children why would you leave them in he care of someone you hardly know?[/QUOTE]
very fair point, at least your thinking and aren't blindly arguing against the parents without any actual argument.
Never thought of it that way, but, still, he's the one who did it, to be fair. It's not their fault but that safety measure is a big need.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;38570745]there it is[/QUOTE]
i'm inclined to agree with him, but it doesn't mean i'm sympathizing with the child molester
Well yeah I kinda agree that the parents should of persisted with background checks, but we don't know how the situation went.
I would put most of the blame on the pedophile, and the rest on the 2005 justice system for not sentencing a proper treatment.
[QUOTE=Paramud;38570601]Why in the fuck wasn't he imprisoned for this?[/QUOTE]
He was only 17/18 so they probably were more lenient
[quote=The very best]He was only 17/18 so they probably were more lenient[/quote]
He hardly got any punishment at all.
Burn him!
The main crime here, however, is commited by his parents, for naming their son Red for fuck's sake
[QUOTE=J!NX;38570675]He should be both punished and treated, one not affecting the other.
Everybody wins here.
Thankfully we don't have those "Blame the victims" assholes in FP.[/QUOTE]
those assholes are everywhere. even here.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38571022]The main crime here, however, is commited by his parents, for naming their son Red for fuck's sake[/QUOTE]
Hey now, Red's an alright name. Kid's gonna be a Pokemon master someday, just you wait.
[editline]23rd November 2012[/editline]
Oops, I didn't read all of the article, throw boxes at me please.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38571022]The main crime here, however, is commited by his parents, for naming their son Red for fuck's sake[/QUOTE]
Hey, Red is a pretty cool name
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8d0iqhRUw1rawb5do1_500.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;38570686]Don't you mean child rapist apologist[/QUOTE]
do you know anything about child sexual or mental development
i'm pretty sure it's rape a good fraction of the time if you actually carry it out
[QUOTE=Ownederd;38571117]do you know anything about child sexual or mental development
i'm pretty sure it's rape a good fraction of the time[/QUOTE]
Pedophile does not mean child molester.
[QUOTE=Paramud;38571129]Pedophile does not mean child molester.[/QUOTE]
uh yeah that's pretty obvious ???
[QUOTE=Ownederd;38571140]uh yeah that's pretty obvious ???[/QUOTE]
J!nx originally said pedo apologist, Mr. Smartass corrected him with Child Rapist.
Meaning your post doesn't make much sense in context.
[QUOTE=lemonskunk;38570738]Not to sound insensitive here, but aren't the parents partly at fault here for not following up with a background check. If you cared for the safety of your children why would you leave them in he care of someone you hardly know?[/QUOTE]
Did you even read?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.