Sylvia Pearce, 59, from Ivybridge, Devon, admitted three counts of making an indecent image of a child.

Her barrister said she was just a naive woman "finding her way" on the net.

She was sentenced to eight months for each count to run concurrently, suspended for two years, and ordered to sign the sex offenders' register.

'Utterly disgusting'

Plymouth Crown Court heard Pearce downloaded three films, which showed scenes of children as young as eight engaging in sexual acts with adults and each other.

The three films were part of a library of hardcore adult pornography so large it would be impossible to view it all, the court was told.

The three films were part of a library of hardcore adult pornography so large it would be impossible to view it all, the court was told.

How is it being a bastard being attraced to a sexually mature unclothed woman?

Of course, since the ridiculous 2003 sex offences act, anyone between the ages of 16 and 18 is classed as a child for the purposes of laws against indecent images of children, unless it's their spouse taking and viewing the photos. So just because someone has been done for having child porn doesn't necessarily mean they're a nonce.

I'd imagine the police and courts are at least vaguely aware of and take this into consideration

A teenager convicted for having under-age sex with a girl of the same age has failed in a High Court bid that he was discriminated against.

The boy was 15 when he was found guilty by Llandudno magistrates.

But two High Court judges said it was right that girls should not face prosecution "even if the girls are willing - because they may become pregnant, the boys will not"

But dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Pill and Mrs Justice Cox said a law aimed at preventing sexual contact between 15-year-olds, even by consent, did not breach the convention.

It was also justified on the grounds of public morals and the public interest.

But the 21-year old that sees an attractive 15-year old, seduces her and beds her knowing full-well she's only 15 - he's a mostly 'normal' guy, he's attracted to post-pubescents, maybe he has a preference for younger looking girls but that's just in the same way you or I would have a preference for large breasts or red-heads. He'd be perfectly happy going after girls his own age but instead opts to break the law and bed a child. To me that seems somewhat worse. I mean, obviously if we're judgeing based on the effect on the victim, the former case probably causes more damage, but in terms of who the bigger bastard is, I'd go with the latter.

Some girls are just stupid?

14 year old drunk girls deserve to be used by sexual predators?

If you're willing and consenting

Just. Ridiculous. It was ridiculous in 2005 when it happened, and still is, as it's set a precedent.

Is he still a bastard if it happens while he's on holiday on Spain, where she'd be legal?

What if he was in Oregon in the USA, and he bedded a 17 year old, who would be illegal?

Biologically, we're wired to breed as soon as we get through puberty, the age of consent is an artificial construct. It's not a bad one, per se... but it causes all sorts of problems, which the courts should look at carefully when dealing with.

I think there is a point of drunkenness where one can't really consent. Morally, at least, I don't think that's the case legally.

Indeed. However, many people will not care about this, so getting that drunk, especially if one is a teenaged girl in a culture that fetishises slaggish, drunken youth, is very stupid. Especially if you do it while out with people who aren't going to keep you safe and cart you home.

Sorry wasn't very clear: point was, if you're attracted to pre-pubescents, there's something wrong with you - it's a biological issue - something in the human desire to procreate has gone very wrong with you and you don't find post-pubescents sexually appealing.

Yep it does. And if you look at the numbers, the biological 'norm' is clearly attraction to people of the same sex. Being gay is strictly 'abnormal', defined by the dictionary definition of 'different from what is usual'. But you can put a paedophile in therapy for years, few, if any, ever go on to have happy, fulfilling adult relationships. At best you try and kill the attraction to children or help them control it.
Likewise there is no cure for 'gayness' but in that case perfectly possible for them to live a happy, contented life indulging in that preference without hurting anyone, so no harm in it.

That's probably going to upset people isn't it? To put it into perspective, while I'd say paedophilia and homosexuality were both biological abnormalities, so are webbed feet, third nipples, Aspergers and all sorts of other weird things that crop up. Most of us have one or two, it's just that an attraction to kids is potentially dangerous to others and is an impulse that can never be acted on. An attraction to people of the same sex is absolutely fine.

Indeed. However, many people will not care about this, so getting that drunk, especially if one is a teenaged girl in a culture that fetishises slaggish, drunken youth, is very stupid. Especially if you do it while out with people who aren't going to keep you safe and cart you home.

The law's found a pretty reasonable level on this one, and it's: being drunk isn't a fucking excuse for anything.

Given that, in the eyes of the law, even being really really drunk is no excuse to committing a crime, I can't see how it can, logically, be deemed to be a barrier to consent.

If, notwithstanding being shitfaced, you can be said to have decided to do something with sufficient responsibility for legal guilt, you can bloody well have decided to shag someone with sufficient responsibility for it to constitute consent.

However, if you think that, morally, someone can get so drunk they can't consent to sex because they don't know what they're doing, then, by extension, you believe that, morally, someone who stabbed your wife to death shouldn't be found guilty if they were too drunk to know what they were doing.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound right at all.

The law's found a pretty reasonable level on this one, and it's: being drunk isn't a fucking excuse for anything.

Then the criminal is the spiker, not the fucker (presuming he/she doesn't know of the spiking)... so to speak.

Is spiking someone's drink with alcohol when they don't know it actually illegal? Cuntish behaviour generally, I agree, but if it's illegal there's a lot of students in trouble...