Police raid in Melksham found sex crime

3:00pm Saturday 16th March 2013 in News

Christopher Julius Rowland Christopher Julius Rowland

Christopher Julius Rowland has been placed on the sex offenders’ register for five years after police found hundreds of sex images in his home involving bestiality and girls aged under 13.

Rowland, 22, of Scotland Road, Melksham, pleaded guilty to six counts of making and two counts of possessing indecent images of a child, between September 2010 and June 2012, when he appeared at North West Wiltshire Magistrates Court on Friday.

Pauline Lambert, prosecuting, said police seized his computer after searching the house where he lived with his mother and two young children last June.

Rowland, who suffers from Asperger’s, admitted in interview he was responsible for the pictures. Magistrates gave him a 36-month community order, supervised by a probation officer, and sent him on an internet sex offender programme.

Comments(45)

trowbridge52 says...
7:29am Mon 18 Mar 13

named, shamed and even better a picture of him surely just in case he should not be allowed to own a computer or even go near one .

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
8:01am Mon 18 Mar 13

trowbridge52 wrote:
named, shamed and even better a picture of him surely just in case he should not be allowed to own a computer or even go near one .
Is that right trowbridge52? Obviously the chap has mental health issues - a subject you have touched on in previous posts - and naming and "shaming him" and publishing his picture for the gratification of readers such as yourself is not necessarily in anyone's best interest.

Report this post »

frankie007 says...
10:19am Mon 18 Mar 13

It seems that everybody who goes before the courts can prove mental health problems in order to get away with it.
Time to take a closer look at the lunatic "iatrists & ologists"

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
8:29pm Mon 18 Mar 13

frankie007 wrote:
It seems that everybody who goes before the courts can prove mental health problems in order to get away with it.
Time to take a closer look at the lunatic "iatrists & ologists"
No they can't.

Report this post »

yeold6x says...
11:09pm Mon 18 Mar 13

Mental Health Problems or not he still committed a sick offence with youg girls and animals. This is not just one or two snaps but hundreds and he should be named, shamed and pictured so that parients can shield their children from this vile monster. Mrs. D you should be ashamed defending him.

Report this post »

trowbridge52 says...
3:35am Tue 19 Mar 13

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
trowbridge52 wrote:
named, shamed and even better a picture of him surely just in case he should not be allowed to own a computer or even go near one .
Is that right trowbridge52? Obviously the chap has mental health issues - a subject you have touched on in previous posts - and naming and "shaming him" and publishing his picture for the gratification of readers such as yourself is not necessarily in anyone's best interest.
yes that is right ,as i have mental health problems myself, it does not give anyone an excuse if they have mental health problems to be treated any different from the so called 'normal' people of society ,you would not of said the same had it not be known about his mental health, most of us with mental health want to be treated like every one else in society when it comes down to everything else ,so we should be when it comes to wrong doing we cant shout unfairness for some things and not others, that is why i put what i did ,him having those issues does not condone what he has done.

Report this post »

notscot says...
6:28am Tue 19 Mar 13

His picture is in the public domain. Not for anyone's gratification but because - MH issues or not - he was found guilty of possessing indecent images of CHILDREN - and not having received a custodial sentence the photographer was free to take the picture.
Now he needs to be monitored for the rest of his natural - and I don't give a rat's backside how uncomfortable that makes him or anyone else.
Too often the defence team will attempt to use MH as a cause or reason for a persons conduct. And at times IT DOES affect the sentencing.
It shouldn't.
I'd rather see these creeps serve a minimum prison sentence as a matter of course. THEN keep them on the Sex Offenders register. Then you can put them through any hoops - er shall we say courses the court wants.
Of no use to society whatsoever. Vile creatures.

Report this post »

sat all back of the bus says...
2:16pm Tue 19 Mar 13

If you think that is bad check out the like to his uncle .

http://www.wiltshire
times.co.uk/news/152
2972.Child_porn_perv
ert__blamed_son_/

Report this post »

sat all back of the bus says...
2:23pm Tue 19 Mar 13

Wondering whohe takes after , check out his uncle. Raymond Mcdermid Wiltshire times 2007

Report this post »

redrum says...
3:49pm Tue 19 Mar 13

Do not use mental health problems as an excuse, there are many people with mental health problems in the world who do not do this sort of thing. Donnifly how can you defend the rights of someone after what he has done with peoples children, if you are a parent you would see this. Why should his name and picture be protected? Your comment is a concern.

Report this post »

notscot says...
6:32am Wed 20 Mar 13

redrum wrote:
Do not use mental health problems as an excuse, there are many people with mental health problems in the world who do not do this sort of thing. Donnifly how can you defend the rights of someone after what he has done with peoples children, if you are a parent you would see this. Why should his name and picture be protected? Your comment is a concern.
You comment is a concern?
pot, kettle, black.

Report this post »

trowbridge52 says...
7:28am Wed 20 Mar 13

notscot wrote:
redrum wrote:
Do not use mental health problems as an excuse, there are many people with mental health problems in the world who do not do this sort of thing. Donnifly how can you defend the rights of someone after what he has done with peoples children, if you are a parent you would see this. Why should his name and picture be protected? Your comment is a concern.
You comment is a concern?
pot, kettle, black.
he was saying i think that she was saying as he had mental health problems he should be defended of his actions , he was agreeing with you first comment notscot not disagreeing she was stating that and he was concerned as he should face up to what he has done whether he has mental health problems or not.

Report this post »

notscot says...
1:32pm Wed 20 Mar 13

trowbridge52 wrote:
notscot wrote:
redrum wrote: Do not use mental health problems as an excuse, there are many people with mental health problems in the world who do not do this sort of thing. Donnifly how can you defend the rights of someone after what he has done with peoples children, if you are a parent you would see this. Why should his name and picture be protected? Your comment is a concern.
You comment is a concern? pot, kettle, black.
he was saying i think that she was saying as he had mental health problems he should be defended of his actions , he was agreeing with you first comment notscot not disagreeing she was stating that and he was concerned as he should face up to what he has done whether he has mental health problems or not.
And I was stating that some of the comments redrum has made have concerned me.

Report this post »

trowbridge52 says...
4:55pm Wed 20 Mar 13

why would they concern you he was not defending him in any way i dont understand why you were concerned

Report this post »

notscot says...
7:04pm Wed 20 Mar 13

trowbridge52 wrote:
why would they concern you he was not defending him in any way i dont understand why you were concerned
You've missed the boat, mate.

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
7:20pm Wed 20 Mar 13

@yeold6x

You say I should be ashamed defending him...hmmmm! Please explain to me how saying it is "not necessarily" in anyone's interest to publish the name and picture of someone charged with an offence in which a mental illness may have been a contributory factor equates to a defence of him or his actions?

So, no, I am not ashamed - and if anyone should be ashamed it is you... of your ridiculous logic.

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
7:24pm Wed 20 Mar 13

@redrum

You say you are concerned with my comment. So in a similar vein to my above post to yeold6x, perhaps you should be more concerned with your logical process. Thank you.

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
7:41pm Wed 20 Mar 13

@trowbridge52

I agree with you in that there are some with mental health issues that should be treated equally with "normal" members of society. But there are also some who have mental health issues where there problems should be taken into account when explining their actions and can't always be treated the same. I'm no expert on Asbergers, but it may be possible his condition was a factor in what he did.

I'm sure we wouldn't expect people with certain mental health issues to sit on a jury, so why should those same people be tried in a court as though their condition was irrelevant because what they did the rest of society find morally repugnant.

Report this post »

notscot says...
8:21pm Wed 20 Mar 13

His "ism" doesn't lessen his risk to young girls. I'd have preferred him to have been incarcerated - with a plan of action to keep him on the radar for the rest of his natural when he got out. Little creep.

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
9:33pm Wed 20 Mar 13

I haven't said his "ism" lessens his risk to young girls - presuming there is evidence that he would be a physical risk. I initially commented that naming him, and so-called shaming him, and publishing his picture might not necessarily be in the public interest.

Report this post »

yeold6x says...
11:10pm Wed 20 Mar 13

The article states "police found hundreds of sex images in his home involving **** and girls aged under 13." and "admitted in interview he was responsible for the pictures"
Is that not evidence of a high physical risk. Surely that makes it in the public interest to identify him. I understand that he has mental issues but that doesn't mean that he should be allowed to remin un-named and god forbid commit the same again.

We should really be thinking about the victims in this situation and how his actions have impacted their lives?

Report this post »

redrum says...
6:04am Thu 21 Mar 13

Afraid not Donnifly, i am just on the victims side and not the person who has done these sick things which involve young girls, as any parent who has children would understand.

Report this post »

trowbridge52 says...
6:44am Thu 21 Mar 13

notscot wrote:
trowbridge52 wrote:
notscot wrote:
redrum wrote: Do not use mental health problems as an excuse, there are many people with mental health problems in the world who do not do this sort of thing. Donnifly how can you defend the rights of someone after what he has done with peoples children, if you are a parent you would see this. Why should his name and picture be protected? Your comment is a concern.
You comment is a concern? pot, kettle, black.
he was saying i think that she was saying as he had mental health problems he should be defended of his actions , he was agreeing with you first comment notscot not disagreeing she was stating that and he was concerned as he should face up to what he has done whether he has mental health problems or not.
And I was stating that some of the comments redrum has made have concerned me.
sorry i understand now not just these comments but others sorry having just had a family bereavement my mind is not totally on it at timesi do apolokgise, if he were to be given the a[[ropriaATE HELP LIKE NOT ALLOWING HIM ON A PC HE WOULD BE A little safer even if he has Aspergers he still has committed a crime and should be dealt with appropri\ately surely making the public aware of his crime will make them aware of the gravity of peoples concern if he is around children which he will be .

Report this post »

notscot says...
7:11am Thu 21 Mar 13

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
I haven't said his "ism" lessens his risk to young girls - presuming there is evidence that he would be a physical risk. I initially commented that naming him, and so-called shaming him, and publishing his picture might not necessarily be in the public interest.
Mrs D - you're not usually off-centre. ANYONE who views kiddie **** is not just a risk - as a customer of this vile trade they ensure the CONTINUANCE of the the lucrative "market" that exists for those who abuse children.
Those who take enjoyment in the viewing of others abusing children are no less guilty - no customers - no trade. It wouldn't end the abuse of children - but it would ensure that these perverts wouldn't amass a fortune from their activities - they may also be less willing to be involved in the trafficking of kids - less willing to abuse so many - if it costs them more.

Report this post »

misssy says...
8:59am Thu 21 Mar 13

He should be strung up there is no excuses 4 what he's done he's just a sick perv made me feel sick when I read this don't understand why he looks so smug in this photo.

Report this post »

notscot says...
1:02pm Thu 21 Mar 13

misssy wrote:
He should be strung up there is no excuses 4 what he's done he's just a sick perv made me feel sick when I read this don't understand why he looks so smug in this photo.
Wind your neck in. Where was your grannie - knitting below the guillotine?
Lynch mobs went out with the ark. Don't behave like an uncivilised yob - it serves no purpose.
Smug? You're not too bright.

Report this post »

JenBob says...
1:54pm Thu 21 Mar 13

I agree a mandatory sentence for all who do this, plus being tracked for life. Be sure the other inmates know what they are in for so they get the appropriate reception. Mental health issues or no, everybody knows this is illegal and the means by which he would've had to go about obtaining these images would have I'm sure emphasised this. If he has taken the photos himself then I'm sure he would have been locked up, but he certainly went to the trouble of getting his grubby hands on them and what's to say it wouldn't escalate to taking his own, given the opportunity? Let's hope the two young kids who were in the same house were not affected too.

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
9:19pm Thu 21 Mar 13

redrum wrote:
Afraid not Donnifly, i am just on the victims side and not the person who has done these sick things which involve young girls, as any parent who has children would understand.
Who said anything about taking sides? I certainly didn't. And why do you harp on about parents as though revulsion at these crimes is exclusive to them.

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
10:06pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Is there any evidence that publishing the pictures of sex offenders actually protects children?

For the benefit of those with stunted logic... by not joining in with the "string ''em up" language of the lynch mob or not falling over oneself
to let everyone know how outraged you are by it all does NOT equate to defending the kiddie fiddler.

Report this post »

notscot says...
10:23pm Thu 21 Mar 13

Yes - put their pictures in the public domain - ANYTHING that makes it difficult for them to fade into the background - for them to generate trust or be overlooked will assist a child somewhere.

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
10:34pm Thu 21 Mar 13

This assumes that once a sex offender always a sex offender.

Report this post »

JenBob says...
12:11am Fri 22 Mar 13

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
This assumes that once a sex offender always a sex offender.
It depends on the type of sexual crime. If a 17 year old sleeps with their 15 year old girl/boyfriend that's technically an offence, the parents can get police etc involved and if it goes as far as court they will be put on the register. Rape is again dependant on circumstances, frequency, number of offences. Child molestation, images and ****, this is something that turns this type of person on. Not intending to cause any offence by this next statement in any way shape or form and definitely not siding, but - you can tell a gay person to go straight and they may be able to do the 'straight' thing for a while, but deep down they know what they really want. Reoffending rate is around 25% (those who are caught, anyway. I'm sure some slip through the net). Recidivism rates (related misdemeanors such as hanging around schools, playgrounds, places where generally there are lots of kids) are much higher.
It's in the best interests of the public to know this face, so if he is in an area he could be a threat the police should be notified and he can be dealt with appropriately.

Report this post »

trowbridge52 says...
4:34am Fri 22 Mar 13

The other thing he was capable of using the internet to find these vile pictures so there for he is capable of understanding that he was doing wrong , naming him and showing his picture will make others aware of him and that way he can be kept away from targeting kids not saying he has but in case he ever gets that in his head to act out any of his vile sexual preferences and approaches a child anyone around will know his history better to be forewarned than not aware of what he has done.

Report this post »

notscot says...
6:33am Fri 22 Mar 13

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
This assumes that once a sex offender always a sex offender.
Come on - don't be trite. THERE IS NO CURE for paedophilia. You can't retrain them, you can't rewire them. All you can HOPE for is a massive amount of self-control - and intense monitoring.
These people believe they love children.

Report this post »

mtrewew says...
10:15am Fri 22 Mar 13

you are all sad i am related to this scum bag unfortunately and you are all wrong its not his uncle its his nans ex husband (no relation) and he has got asperges syndrome which is not an excuse its just the facts perhaps you sh*t stirring people who have nothing to do with your lives should consider the family of the scumbag because we are the ones that are going to get the brunt of this story!!!!

Report this post »

mtrewew says...
10:20am Fri 22 Mar 13

sat all back of the bus wrote:
Wondering whohe takes after , check out his uncle. Raymond Mcdermid Wiltshire times 2007
get your facts straight!!!! its not his uncle its his nans ex husband!!! what do you get from sh*t stirring get a life!

Report this post »

JenBob says...
11:01am Fri 22 Mar 13

mtrewew wrote:
sat all back of the bus wrote:
Wondering whohe takes after , check out his uncle. Raymond Mcdermid Wiltshire times 2007
get your facts straight!!!! its not his uncle its his nans ex husband!!! what do you get from sh*t stirring get a life!
Don't feed the trolls and they will look for grub elsewhere, whoever wrote this hasn't thought of the implications of naming a 7 year old case which will pull in trouble for anyone of that name also. This will follow anyone related and people should really think before they cause trouble for those innocent in the story.
I hope your family is holding up as best as can be expected.

Report this post »

mtrewew says...
1:00pm Fri 22 Mar 13

JenBob wrote:
mtrewew wrote:
sat all back of the bus wrote:
Wondering whohe takes after , check out his uncle. Raymond Mcdermid Wiltshire times 2007
get your facts straight!!!! its not his uncle its his nans ex husband!!! what do you get from sh*t stirring get a life!
Don't feed the trolls and they will look for grub elsewhere, whoever wrote this hasn't thought of the implications of naming a 7 year old case which will pull in trouble for anyone of that name also. This will follow anyone related and people should really think before they cause trouble for those innocent in the story.
I hope your family is holding up as best as can be expected.
thank you jenbob we are all discusted with him and had no contact with him since october last year personally i think he should of been sent to prison but whats done is done and it doesnt help us being his family seeing what people are saying and knowing people are talking about us.

Report this post »

notscot says...
6:18pm Fri 22 Mar 13

mtrewew wrote:
you are all sad i am related to this scum bag unfortunately and you are all wrong its not his uncle its his nans ex husband (no relation) and he has got asperges syndrome which is not an excuse its just the facts perhaps you sh*t stirring people who have nothing to do with your lives should consider the family of the scumbag because we are the ones that are going to get the brunt of this story!!!!
`We're all sad?
I don't remember saying a darned thing about your family. Direct your comments at those who did.
My consideration is for the victims of people like him - first and foremost the abused children.
And you really believe we have no right to comment on an article in a freely available newspaper? Get a life.

Report this post »

notscot says...
6:20pm Fri 22 Mar 13

mtrewew wrote:
JenBob wrote:
mtrewew wrote:
sat all back of the bus wrote:
Wondering whohe takes after , check out his uncle. Raymond Mcdermid Wiltshire times 2007
get your facts straight!!!! its not his uncle its his nans ex husband!!! what do you get from sh*t stirring get a life!
Don't feed the trolls and they will look for grub elsewhere, whoever wrote this hasn't thought of the implications of naming a 7 year old case which will pull in trouble for anyone of that name also. This will follow anyone related and people should really think before they cause trouble for those innocent in the story.
I hope your family is holding up as best as can be expected.
thank you jenbob we are all discusted with him and had no contact with him since october last year personally i think he should of been sent to prison but whats done is done and it doesnt help us being his family seeing what people are saying and knowing people are talking about us.
So don't go LOOKING for responses. DON'T read the article - then deliberately look at the reaction.
Good grief.

Report this post »

trowbridge52 says...
12:04am Sat 23 Mar 13

mtrewew wrote:
you are all sad i am related to this scum bag unfortunately and you are all wrong its not his uncle its his nans ex husband (no relation) and he has got asperges syndrome which is not an excuse its just the facts perhaps you sh*t stirring people who have nothing to do with your lives should consider the family of the scumbag because we are the ones that are going to get the brunt of this story!!!!
i have never once slated your family and i am sure you are as disgusted as me unfortunately we cant choose our family and anyone who slates any member of your family except him obviously are not worth listening ttoo as he was the culprit no one else and so therefore no one else is to blame t but please its not aimed at you or any other member of your family what i wrote personally i dontknow any off you but idfi have in anyway offended you or any other memberof your family i apologise .

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
1:48am Sat 23 Mar 13

mtrewew wrote:
you are all sad i am related to this scum bag unfortunately and you are all wrong its not his uncle its his nans ex husband (no relation) and he has got asperges syndrome which is not an excuse its just the facts perhaps you sh*t stirring people who have nothing to do with your lives should consider the family of the scumbag because we are the ones that are going to get the brunt of this story!!!!
An unhinged rant if ever there was one.

Report this post »

JenBob says...
3:37am Sat 23 Mar 13

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
mtrewew wrote:
you are all sad i am related to this scum bag unfortunately and you are all wrong its not his uncle its his nans ex husband (no relation) and he has got asperges syndrome which is not an excuse its just the facts perhaps you sh*t stirring people who have nothing to do with your lives should consider the family of the scumbag because we are the ones that are going to get the brunt of this story!!!!
An unhinged rant if ever there was one.
Are you a psychiatrist, Mrs. Donnefly? That's quite the diagnosis. In my naïvety, I read this as the upset lashing out of a teenager who, upon being told their relative is in the paper, came online to read and was met with some difficult to take in comments.
I'm sure they realised after posting that they ha. erroneously blamed all for the comments of one troublemaker, hence their second post shortly afterwards. What's your excuse for goading a kid with a vile comment such as this? Maybe we should excuse you due to mental illness. If that should be the case, maybe you should excuse the commenter also.

Report this post »

Mrs Donnyfly says...
3:51pm Sat 23 Mar 13

JenBob, perhaps you should learn to differentiate between a comment on what someone has said and a personal attack on the person who said it.

Report this post »

moonraker77 says...
9:08pm Sun 24 Mar 13

Clearly the boy, maybe of diminished responsibility and very vulnerable, has been drawn in by the perils of certain corrupt parts of the internet and certainly the perpetrators of the images he downloaded should be dealt with severely. They are the also the guilty ones. Luckily it appears that it did not progress to physical molestation. I don't think that the barrack room lawyers on here quite grasp the extent of the problem.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree