News RSS Feed


RAF man jailed for child porn


AN RAF serviceman obsessed with young girls sobbed in the dock as he was handed a two year jail term for child sex offences.

Senior Aircraftman William Craig, who served with the Technical Communications Wing (TWC) at RAF Brize Norton had more than 1,200 images of children on his computer.

Yesterday Oxford Crown Court was told the 22-year-old also bombarded an 11 year old girl with lewd text messages asking for her to pose in pornographic images and surfed the internet visiting sites showing sick images of children.

Craig, who volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, was jailed after the court was told he had an obsession with young girls.

Peter Coombe, prosecuting, said Craig even continued downloading images of underage children and sent messages to girls via the internet after he was charged with inciting an 11-year-old girl into pornography.

He added: “The defendant repeatedly offended, even while on bail.”

The court heard police seized Craig’s computer in July 2007 from the airbase near Carterton, and found hundreds of images of children.

It also revealed Craig cruised dozens of sites showing photos of underage girls and made teenage girls strip naked during webcam conversations.

Four months later officers took away a replacement computer from the airbase and discovered more images had been downloaded.

When asked by police why he continued he replied “everything in life has risks,” Mr Coombe added.

Craig admitted seven counts of making indecent images and one each for inciting a child into pornography, inciting a child to engage in a sexual activity and possessing an indecent image on his mobile phone in March this year.

In total, police found 1,258 indecent images including 1,231 at level one, 16 at level two, six at level three and five at level four – the second most serious classification.

Craig asked for a further two counts of making and one for possessing 502 sick images of children to be taken into account during his sentencing.

Michael Ayno, defending Craig, said: “He accepts he has an addiction and needs help. It’s been a long road for this young man to accept this.”

Judge Mary-Jane Mowat said: “This is an addiction, but I’m not sure whether that is the right word. It’s obsessive, certainly. It would appear compulsive behaviour and without doubt a sexual interest in girls demonstrated by contact with an 11 year old girl, but also your repeated downloading of images of children.

“You are a high risk to children.”

Craig was discharged from the RAF last week and has been living with a girlfriend in Nottingham, who the court heard had pledged to stand by him.

He was sentenced to serve two years in jail for each count to run concurrently and ordered to sign the Sex Offender’s Register for 10 years.

Det Sgt James Marrs, of the Ministry of Defence Police, said: “We hope the sentence will help him to reflect upon the totally unacceptable nature of his behaviour.”

The court also banned Craig from working with children, owning a computer and using on-line chatrooms.

mwilkinson@oxfordmail.co.uk


Your Say YourOxfordshire

Old zimner, Oxford says...
9:44pm Mon 29 Jun 09

What a sad case. At least his girlfriend is standing by him. When he finishes his treatment hopefully he can enter the real world again, and carry on protecting our country against the terrorists threatening our lives

Quentin Walker, Oxford says...
10:46pm Mon 29 Jun 09

RAF man jailed for child ****

"...Craig was discharged from the RAF last week..."

Then he's not an RAF man, is he?

upfront, spa says...
9:03am Tue 30 Jun 09

paedos should be shot

cottage2day, Oxford says...
10:29am Tue 30 Jun 09

upfront wrote:
paedos should be shot
Straight between the eyes with a Shotgun

Tom Daily, oxford says...
12:19pm Tue 30 Jun 09

Old Zimner, as far as I am concerned, the bigger evil out of a peodophile and a terrorist is a peodophile!
As they say a terrorist is for one man a freedom fighter and for another a terrorist, where as a peodophile is just only and just that!

How you can possibly find any amount of sympathy for this guy is astonishing!

jf, Oxfordshire says...
2:31pm Tue 30 Jun 09

Tom Daily wrote:
Old Zimner, as far as I am concerned, the bigger evil out of a peodophile and a terrorist is a peodophile!
As they say a terrorist is for one man a freedom fighter and for another a terrorist, where as a peodophile is just only and just that!

How you can possibly find any amount of sympathy for this guy is astonishing!
I am praying he was being sarcastic Tom.

DanOxford, Oxford says...
3:59pm Tue 30 Jun 09

It's the terrorist paedophiles you want to watch out for.

Old zimner, Oxford says...
7:46pm Tue 30 Jun 09

JF you are right. I wanted to see if all the people who were supporting the pedo (whacko jacko) a couple of days ago would come out of the woodwork now. It seems in Oxford it is ok to sleep with little boys if you are rich and famous, but not if you aren't !!!!!

jf, Oxfordshire says...
9:10pm Tue 30 Jun 09

Old zimner-may I ask why?

Jacko must rest in peace now.Had a troubled life

I have to disagree with you-contray to belief-he was not a pedo-just mis-understood,.

The seamam found was not is own-may probably come from someone else?
He was cleared of all charges.

At 50-was still a child who needed love.

I was not a great fan-but still felt sorry for his bullied/un-loved life

Old zimner, Oxford says...
7:50pm Wed 1 Jul 09

Grow up and smell the coffee jf, you will be supporting Gary Glitter next. P.S. The point of my post, was that the semen DID come from somebody else, so what was it doing in his pants?

jf, Oxfordshire says...
7:56am Thu 2 Jul 09

How dare you get so personal Old zimmer.What makes you such an expert on the subject!

Ofcourse I will not support Gary Glitter!He is a pedo.

I am well aware of your point.However-there was no evidence it was childrens semen was it???
You have your opinion as I have mine.Just don't get so personal about it

Abingdon_born_Cowley, Abingdon says...
10:01am Fri 3 Jul 09

A strange story. It seems a good sentance has been passed. By all accounts he never touched anyone, so maybe there was always something in him that knew it was wrong.

I'm not standing up for the guy, he obviously has issues. It is an interesting point. I remeber ready a very interesting article in the times about these sort of cases. He is both a criminal and yet 'Sick'. so at what point is it a crime or an illness.

I have to say I don't know, I think he is very twisted and obviously very deeply involved because he was on probation and did it again, perhaps he will never be cured, in which case he must be tagged for good you would think to protect these young children.

Old zimner, Oxford says...
12:22pm Fri 3 Jul 09

jf. how do you know that the great gary was a paedo? The word guilty by a foreman of the jury. If whacko had been tried in an English court he would have been found guilty as well. Jacko (whacko) or whatever. Was witnessned blowing off (my american is inproving) a young boy he later paid $20 million, to keep quiet. Hardly the actions of an innocent man. If you support king micheal the 1st, then you must also support Gary the great, You are not allowed to pick and choose which paedo you like, it's against the rules.

jf, Oxfordshire says...
5:47pm Fri 3 Jul 09

I wonder who thinks they are clever now.

I said I had my opinion and you yours.

I will not argue anymore.

I happen to think differently from you and am not a negative person.

Old zimner, Oxford says...
5:14am Sat 4 Jul 09

Cheers JF. I will take that one on points then, or was it throwing in the towel.

tribalamazonian, Oxford says...
5:04pm Sat 4 Jul 09

Old zimner wrote:
jf. how do you know that the great gary was a paedo? The word guilty by a foreman of the jury. If whacko had been tried in an English court he would have been found guilty as well. Jacko (whacko) or whatever. Was witnessned blowing off (my american is inproving) a young boy he later paid $20 million, to keep quiet. Hardly the actions of an innocent man. If you support king micheal the 1st, then you must also support Gary the great, You are not allowed to pick and choose which paedo you like, it's against the rules.
Old zimner's views are archaic, almost always offensive and usual result in twisting articles like this completely away from the subject in question - here he has decided to equate this 22 year old soldier with Michael Jackson and Gary Glitter, both who have been subject to "trial by tabloid" - not that I am condoning any actions either of them have done. He then proceeds to imply that if you liked Michael Jackson you must endorse paedophilia. Frankly time he was banned from this site. I imagine he is a fully paid up subscriber of The Sun or worse still, The Daily Mail.

Regarding the officer mentioned above, then if he "has an obsession with young girls" then he has no place within the Army and isn't fit to serve the Queen in battle.

tribalamazonian, Oxford says...
5:07pm Sat 4 Jul 09

To correct my previous comment, I meant to refer to the man as a 22 year old serviceman and the final paragraph should have read: Regarding the officer mentioned above, then if he "has an obsession with young girls" then he has no place within the RAF and isn't fit to serve the Queen in battle.


jf, Oxfordshire says...
10:02pm Sat 4 Jul 09

tribalamazonian-plea
se don't worry about correction after this one. I agree-Bless you and thank you.

As I stated-not a negative person. I am neither clever nor stupid silly girl.But try not to judge unless-REAL evidance proves otherwise!

Thanks again.


Old zimner, Oxford says...
4:02am Sun 5 Jul 09

tribal, surprisingly The Guardian and The Observer, best crosswords, and the OSM sport monthly is superb

Old zimner, Oxford says...
4:25am Sun 5 Jul 09

P.S. Tribal, Glad you disagree that is your right. A right that a whole generation gave their lives to protect, it would have been easier for us not to have fought, and suffered as we did, can you imagine being able to do this if we had. Free speech is the backbone of our society, so why would you want to curtail it when you don't agree with someones views?

jf, Oxfordshire says...
8:25pm Sun 5 Jul 09

Old zimner wrote:
P.S. Tribal, Glad you disagree that is your right. A right that a whole generation gave their lives to protect, it would have been easier for us not to have fought, and suffered as we did, can you imagine being able to do this if we had. Free speech is the backbone of our society, so why would you want to curtail it when you don't agree with someones views?
Old zimner-as we both felt.Not negitive.Just don't get personal!

I and him have personal opinions,like you do.

Freedom of speech?- goes without saying.1st and 2nd World Wars heroes gave us that freedom.

GREAT MEN AND WOMEN!Who gave theirs lives up for US!

I pray you are not so opinionated and negative for the future.

Going off subjects to suit your aims-is sad to say to say the least!

Bye!!!

Blloyd1986, Bury says...
11:19am Wed 8 Jul 09

I know this person through a friend. He isn't as much as you all make him out to be. You are all entitled to your own opinions. He is only 22 years old like me, Im not saying what he has done is right because it's not and obvioulsy is confused with himself. But you forget that he volunteered to go Afghan as it says in the reports. I been for a drink with this lad and he isn't a sick person as you say. I also know what it is like to be abused aswell. I actually feel sorry for him. I think he is just confused with himeself and needs some help. You can say what you please but I won't fall out with him and just hope he gets the help he needs.

Comments are closed on this article.

William Craig William Craig

Stay with Prague Hotels | Visit Spain with Barcelona Hotels

Local Advertisers

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »