Paedo Philo Prof

Harry Shukman

Former Cambridge Prof Peter Smith was charged with downloading images of CHILD PORN on his computer.

A former Cambridge philosophy supervisor was sentenced today on charges of downloading child porn.

Dr Peter Smith was found guilty of downloading 1,143 illegal images of child pornography between 2009 and 2011. The images found reached the highest level on the scale of child porn severity.

Smith, who previously taught philosophy at the Uni, has been sentenced with an internet ban and 180 hours of community service.

In addition to his punishment, he is to be placed on the sex offenders’ register for 5 years.

But this isn’t the first time that Peter Smith, 67, has been found guilty of inappropriate sexual behaviour. Back in 2003 he resigned as a fellow of Jesus after it was revealed he entertained prostitutes in the same room where he supervised students.

Paedo Prof Peter Smith

The news that Smith was sentenced has concerned some of his former students.

A third year from Fitz who wished to remain anonymous said “I am shocked and disgusted to hear about this, and surprised that he hasn’t learned from his widely-known past transgressions.”

A third year Clareite, who also studied under Smith, said she now “wished I hadn’t bought his bloody book.”

  • You

    Look like a paedophile

  • Philosopher

    We all knew he was sleazy but this is a bit shocking!

    But with that internet ban who's going to maintain logicmatters.net now?!

    • because

      logic matters!?

  • umm

    "…has been sentenced with an internet ban and 180 hours of community service"

    It doesn't seem like much of a punishment

    • My thoughts

      180 hours of community service…meh
      5 years on sex offenders register…meh
      internet ban…waaaaaaaaah

    • hummm

      You're right. He deserves nothing less than being beheaded for the heinous crime of saving images of child pornography from the internet.

      • what??

        Are you actually saying this is ok? you realise in buying these pictures/videos he's providing an incentive for sick people somewhere to make them?

        • Or he could be downloading them for free.

      • umm

        Yeah because those are the only two possible options. I mean judges can only pass two sentences: either 180 hours of community service or beheading. Moron.

        • This lad/lass

          speaks the truth.

    • Posh Nosh

      well said, it's not punishment alone he needs, knew what he was doing, did it, exploited children and contributed to this mass market of abusers – feeding the industry by downloading, he needs a Sex Offender programme, 3 years of intensive work which looks at why, when, triggers, etc. so that he is not only punished for his crime, but understands WHY is does this – painting walls, digging and cleaning up parks – well done Judges and Magistrates that will really give him a thorough understanding of why he behaves like an animal ! Should have to face up to his crime/behaviours in a nice group setting with like minded others. For god sake, the criminal justice system sometimes really does not get it. Perhaps the sentencers were taken in by the pillar of society he is and his many contacts and high profile – disgusting.

      • Alan

        For all your supposed "understanding" you sure are naive. However much he understands, the fact remains that downloading child porn in the vast majority of circumstances doesn't so much as put a dent in the demand for its production and may even not change it at all. Waaa, big disincentive there that will totally not override everything he learns on a "sex offender programme", particularly if he say… got horny. Oh, also, you know what he's a PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY. I'd imagine that he understood that long before you knew what child porn was. BTW, if you were a paedo I bet you'd do the same as him.

  • oi oi

    "studied under Smith"

  • Captain Obvious

    "The news..doesn't come as a surprise to some of his former students."

    and then

    "I am SHOCKED and disgusted..SURPRISED he hasn't learned from his widely-known past transgressions".

    So I guess it came as a surprise to that student, huh?

    • Captain Attentive

      So I guess you missed the word 'some,' huh?

      • James

        So I guess you're a pedantic prick, huh? In the original edit, the author used the quote "I am shocked.." immediately after his assertion that the news hadn't come as a surprise to some former students. It was blindingly obvious to everyone here that Captain Obvious was questioning why the author would make a point and then immediately include an irrelevant quote. But yeah, full marks for being attentive..

  • Captain Obvious

    "The news..doesn't come as a surprise to some of his former students."

    and then

    “I am SHOCKED and disgusted to hear about this, and SURPRISED that he hasn’t learned from his widely-known past transgressions.”

    So I guess it did come as a surprise to that student then..

    • Double Post

      Why?

      • Seems to have worked

        He's got four more likes for the second one, so you can't deny it was effective.

  • Irrelevant Quotes

    "The news that Smith was sentenced doesn’t come as a surprise to some of his former students."

    "I am shocked…"

  • Philosophy Student

    Good luck enforcing that internet ban, I doubt that he'll be able to stop tweeting and writing on his bloody blog. We knew he was a bit of a dirty old man what with the prozzies and all, but never thought we were being taught by a paedo. Ugh.

  • TABTCSsittinginatree

    More here – and Tab gets a mention!!
    http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/cambridge-uni

  • Philosoraptor

    logicmatters.net: "Logic, enthusiasms, sceptical thoughts, and a little LaTeX geekery"

    A little less of the latter and maybe Peter wouldn't have got caught…

  • yeah but…

    … his textbook is pretty good.

  • http://www.bapu.org.uk/ Dr Guyk

    have you never heard of human rights and equality? if he wasn't hurting anyone i dont understand what the problem is with Dr Smith expressing his sexuality. maybe if everyone stopped being judgemental he wouldn't have to hide prostitutes in his set.

    • Suspicious

      The battlecry of the fellow paedo

    • Posh Nosh

      What a load of rubbish ! you clearly don't get it, the damage this sort of behaviour does to children and society as a whole. Sounds to me you need a course to raise your awareness of the impact of this sort of behaviour on the public. Surprised at your comments, very surprised.

      • Don't

        It's a comment intended to annoy. Many call it 'trolling'. This person comments on a lot of articles, with hilariously controversial opinions. Ignore them and they'll go away.

        • wtf

          controversial but not really hilarious

          • Don't

            I've never heard of irony either

        • http://www.bapu.org.uk/ Dr Guyk

          I prefer to think of it as "devil's advocacy" (the playing of).

    • no

      I really hope this is ironic and that you don't actually think it's ok to support the child sex industry.

    • wtf

      Images of children being raped don't involve hurting anyone.. huh?

    • Mary

      Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag, tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a baaaag

  • what

    "The Cambridge News report further confirms that the court heard the images found on Smith's computer ranged from level 1 to level 5 in the COPINE scale set which is used to categorise indecent images of children. Level 5 is defined as "deliberately posed pictures of fully, partially clothed or naked children in sexualised or provocative poses."

    Does "child" mean prepubescent child or anyone under the age of 18? Because if it's the latter then simply taking screen caps from most disney and nickelodeon live-action shows would meet the requirements of "level 5 indecent images of children".

    • Just look

      at the recent case of the guy let free by a judge who had loads of pictures of children classed as pornographic, but because they were all taken from mainstream TV, he hadn't committed a crime (can't remember his name, sorry). Am I the only one getting a whiff of the foul double standards in mainstream media???

  • Jamie Patmore

    erk! looks like they're cracking down :s

  • Posh Nosh

    Sad git, hope the embarrassment kills him, probably will deny it until he dies and family will still allow him access to any children within that family. Take Care, he is a liar, most of them are, it's part of their game BEWARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Posh Nosh

    Put him in a cell with all the clergy who have similarly abused children so that they can share their thoughts ! he would love that.

  • Of course it

    would be a philosopher…







    • Philosopher

      Singer does well there, William Crawley comes across as fucking annoying. 'It's just wrong'… What a great contribution.

      • lol

        reading that comment doesn't compare to watching him say it. Singer's actually justifying his position, while Crawley just makes statements without evidence to back them up. What a fucking moron.

  • ISpeakForTheStudents

    Deplorable! How could Jesus hire him!?!? Did they not know he could be a POTENTIAL child pornography collector? I say we occupy Jesus until they come clean! All these rich white men have so much power and they don't think about equality and fairness!

    • haha

      This is funny to start with, but it was made funnier by the fact that it took me about a minute to work out that you meant the college.

  • what

    Guys, guys. You all need to understand what it was the guy had on his computer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale
    The scale starts at level one and increases to level ten.
    level 1: "Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness."
    Level 5: "Deliberately posed pictures of fully, partially clothed or naked children in sexualised or provocative poses"

    For starters, this person did not have any material on his computer where children are shown to being harmed or undergoing any form of sexual intercourse.

  • what

    The most offensive material he had in his possession , level 5, could mean pictures in which the subject has been abused and coerced into posing naked against his or her will, in which case it would be deplorable, but it could equally mean willingly self-taken photographs of teenagers in a state of semi-undress, posing in front of a mirror trying to look sexy.

    Don't you see that it's a bit of an assumption to assume that he has provided demand for the abuse of children? If you have ever saved a picture of a hot girl taking a picture of her own boobs in the mirror who happened to be under the age of 18 then you could be just as guilty as he might be. I myself, of course, do not indulge in any pornography or erotica whatsoever because I am a paragon of virtue.
    So seriously, chill out a bit. In before this gets twenty thumbs down.

    • jkg

      um how do you know this?

      the article says "The images found reached the highest level on the scale of child porn severity"

      • Read what's post

        "what" is talking about the highest level of the scale numbnuts, but he/she is qualifying it, whereas you're just taking it to mean the worst of the worst.

        • jkg

          He says above it goes up to level 10 (read what's other post 'numbnuts'). So how does he know this guy only had up level 5? We're supposed to just take his word for it. Why does everyone believe 'what' knows what was on the prof's harddrive?

          • DO NOT

            QUESTION WHAT!

            • http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brianbutterfield Maybe

              We should.

  • what

    I have replied to jkg 3 times over the past 3 days now but each time it hasn't been approved.

    If you check the TCS link further up the comments section, you'll see the passage that I have alreaddy quoted from it: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/cambridge-uni
    "The Cambridge News report further confirms that the court heard the images found on Smith's computer ranged from level 1 to level 5 in the COPINE scale set which is used to categorise indecent images of children. Level 5 is defined as "deliberately posed pictures of fully, partially clothed or naked children in sexualised or provocative poses."

  • COPINE master

    To clear something up. The grading of levels 1-5 used for sentencing indecent image offences was based on the COPINE scale but is *not the same scale*. The sentencing scale is often incorrectly referred to as the "COPINE scale" anyway. Level 5 in sentencing terms is equivalent to level 10 on the COPINE scale.

    Having said that, in most cases the vast majority of images are level 1, and if level 4 or 5 images are present at all it is often a small number. Comparing the sentence to the sentencing guidelines (http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_SexualOffencesAct_2003.pdf, p. 113) and considering that it was mitigated from custodial to non-custodial, I would suggest that this is the case here.