Judge Mental: The Pathetic Judge Nigel Peters

General View Of The Old Bailey

Adding insult to injury, Judge Nigel Peters has reviewed his own sentencing of the convicted paedophile Neil Wilson.

He has increased the sentence from an 8 month suspended sentence to a 12 month suspended sentence, this for a man who raped a 13 year old girl.

In doing so, he has increased the amount of time this arsehole will not spend in prison by four months. A real victory for justice then…

The sentence is still to be reviewed by the Attorney General.

A man whose conviction over serious sexual offences prompted outrage has had his sentence slightly increased.

Neil Wilson, 41, was handed an eight month suspended sentence last week in a case which saw his 13-year-old victim described in court as “predatory”.

Appearing via video link at Snaresbrook crown court in east London, Wilson was handed a 12 month suspended sentence – an increase of four months.

The judge amended the sentence due to a sentencing technicality rather than the reaction to the language used in court last week.

Wilson’s original sentence for sexual activity with a child remained unchanged, further counts over indecent photographs prompted the increased punishment.

Last Monday prosecution barrister Robert Colover had described the 13-year-old in court, he said: “The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced.”

Passing his original sentence, Judge Nigel Peters then said he had taken into account that the girl looked and behaved “a little bit older” than she was.

Sky News


Filed under Abuse, Judge Mental !, News

13 responses to “Judge Mental: The Pathetic Judge Nigel Peters


    Mr McKenzie,
    I do hope that your son is never in the situation that he is abused or raped by a sexual beast in the community, You say at the end of your comment the guy deserves what he gets, ! he got a suspended sentence, Until today he has been sent to prison for 2 yrs, he will prob do about 8 months, its not just girls that are victims, and as you have said your son has been kept away from this type of thing, many do not have the upbringing that all children should have, NOT the childs fault,NO CHILD IS A SEXUAL PREDATOR TO A 41 YR OLD MAN!

    • Kevin McKenzie

      I totally agree with your comments but I think you and lot of people are missing the point for a judge and barrister to make comments as they have they must see evidence of this girls behaviour. To call her a predator can only mean they have seen evidence of her pursual. Of course it doesn’t mean it is right for a 41 year old to take advantage but their point is she has offered and he has not said no. That is the difference of raping someone and it being consensual.

      • Gia Huntington

        I might be a bit late to this post but Kevin, you are evil. Thank God you don’t have a daughter. You’re probably a pedophile too, you people always protect each other.


        No I’m not evil or anything else its plain obvious this girl is not completely innocent and has behaved with immoral behaviour herself and that was the point the judge and barrister recognized. Its not rocket science.

  2. Kev

    Everyone appears to be making comments re Judge Nigel Peter’s remarks. Surely a highly paid and no doubt highly intelligent man in his position has made comments on evidence of the girl’s reputation and not hearsay. In general conversation in everyday life most people I speak to always comment girls mature far faster than males and this has become a well known and accepted fact. I know many girls through families live by their sexual reputation and if a male is labeled a pedophile then a girl who looks and live for her sexual desires is a trollop. Not that I care what they get up to or how they want to perceive themselves as. The plain fact is, the law is well and truly behind the times and though I don’t believe a girl’s reputation should be put forward before a regular pedophile, if there is evidence that any girl behaves in this way and the parents know of her reputation, then they must understand these situations are going to come up. I have seen facebook evidence of a 12 year with some disgusting things said even I as an adult would not use and find un-comfy. Yet it seems the law allows this. It also appears to allow girls under 16 who look and act much older to get away with it. I have seen comments on what some girls get up to at such a young age so it is not unethical for them to be labeled as a predator themselves. As the Police, CPs and the Judges are not allowed to address the problem amongst young teenagers how will it ever go away? Let’s take Facebook and Twitter the 2 biggest trouble making websites that are good in respect of communicating but have no moral standards. I think the easiest and simplest way to assist to cut down abuse on these sites should come from the internet providers to block both sites and only allow people to sign up if they make a declaration and warning of what traumas they may find by joining such sites. The obvious ones are Pedophiles, Bullies and False Profiles.
    I know this can be done because when we first signed up to a talktalk Broadband we could not connect to facebook and had to ask TalkTalk to remove the block. So why hasn’t this been implemented. First you must agree to a declaration of your authenticity and age. Maybe only allow a parent to agree to this and not their sibling. If a false declaration and/or age are given then for me the onus is on them for lying about this. I know for a fact young girl’s lie often on facebook about their age to attract older boys, yet if they met and had sex under age it’s always on average the male is the one in the wrong. Some young lads (facts) are labeled as rapists even without having sex with an underage girl simply because she has performed a sexual act on him. I am not speaking in fiction here these are facts that I know. I never believe what I read or hear only what I know, sadly the law seems to be swayed towards hearsay rather than fact and until proved guilty. The police and cps I know use this to frighten young teenagers in to confessions but that’s another debate. If you are a teenager for me you are still a child. Even at 21 some people are immature and have not had the upbringing of an educated streetwise teenager but at least by 21 you should have some adult in you to tell you what is commonsense. There are too many cases coming up now where young girls are alleged raped victims and yes I am sure some are genuine but we need to study these cases much closer and work on the theory of what we know not what we are told.
    It’s the only true way to evaluate a situation. It cannot continue to sentence people on hearsay. Police should be showing both sides of the story whereby a judge can give an accurate opinion and not a one sided affair which the guide tells him/her this is what you should do. Sorry this is so long winded but it became that way as one thing lead to another. To sum up what the Judge and Barrister said should be scorned ‘if’ the evidence of the girl’s behavior is of immoral standing. What are we going to do about it? Leave it for the next generation to sort? Probably, but personally I applaud the Judge and Barrister for pointing out what really has been going on under our noses for years. I never read anything and believe it to be true because as we have seen time and again the Police are not all working perfectly to the letter of the law themselves.

    • Victoria

      Yet another misogynist pig who turns to victim blaming. Disgusting. You shoudl be ashamed of yourself for rationalizing the judge’s sentence.

      • Kevin Mckenzie

        Not at all. I think my answer was a fair assumption on the up bringing of these young girls who we see time and time again in areas they should not be. My son was sheltered from this behaviour and was not allowed to mix with girls who you seem to protect and from what I see from your comments are blameless. ‘IF’ the girl has got this reputation and I am assuming the judge and the barrister have seen such evidence then she must be taught to respect herself. I have no qualms at all with a man being punished for his wrong doing but unless you address the whole situation this will never subside. I am open minded to both arguments but I have seen such evidence of young girls vile behaviour via facebook wall comments that disgust me. Victoria I am sure you are an intelligent woman and all I am saying it’s not as black and white as it seems. However I have no sympathy for reoccurring paedophiles and at his age he has no excuse. My argument is that there are a lot of young girls who know exactly what they are doing and the court should be allowed to demonstrate it’s no tolerance to them also. That sides of things need to be addressed for the girls sake as much as anyone else. We are all brought up differently with different morals and just because at this moment in time the law cannot act upon a person under the age of 16 mark my word the law will be changing in the next few years having spoke to experts in the field, they see and hear this kind of thing all the time whereby young girls find themselves in these positions and a lot of them are taking advantage of a court that cannot yet deal with a certain age group appropriately.

      • I’m not allowing this comment up be cause I agree with it. Quite the opposite.

        A girl under 16 can not legally give consent and any man who takes advantage of an underaged girl’s vulnerability is guilty of abuse

        It is not the responsibility of the girl in law but the man.

      • Kevin Mckenzie

        That’s no problem I understand and I agree in this case but I am afraid in fact that it is not all black and white and only due to the current law it stands but it will change for sure having spoke to people in the know. Having said that I find it a little disillusioning that you don’t allow it as an opinion because the actual article we are commenting on has already opened up the debate and I thought the idea was to make comments on it? I am sure people will disagree with my comments but just as many will and at the end of the day it’s opinion that forms answers and eventually rules the outcome. In this case as stated I agree that a known paedophile is completely to blame my comments were in general as to what has been said by a judge and a barrister and their comments are not made up and I have to assume they have seen evidence of her behaviour. For you and I to ignore the girls behaviour will never address the underlined problem of young girls being in this position. The guy deserves what he gets but I am saying it is not all black and white as some seem to think. Either way I respect your decision.

  3. LJMT

    OK so we can take it you don’t have thin lips!! Frankly it is mostly genetic and we don’t want people going around judging others based on facial features. “Oh, you’ve got thin lips, that means you are more likely to have murdered your wife, Mr XYZ as you are “likely to keep secrets” thus we don’t believe a word you say”….mmm…not exactly justice, is it??

  4. Judge Nigel Peters has the thin lips of a man who keeps secrets; a feature shared by Neil Wilson. Jimmy Saville had the same thin lips. Just an observation.. not saying everyone with thin lips is a paedo, but it does seem to be a common feature when you compare their faces.. as does that molester’s leer that seems to say, “You’ll never prove it.”

    It is not my place to insinuate that Judge Peters might be a paedophile.. he has done that all by himself.

  5. Pingback: Alternative News Network – Judge Mental: The Pathetic Judge Nigel Peters