PETER GOLD FROM FARINGDON SENTENCED FOR SEXUAL COMMUNICATION WITH A MINOR IN OXFORD
| Red Rose Database
Faringdon Child Sexual Abuser
In March 2018, a disturbing case unfolded involving Peter Gold, a resident of Folly View Road in Faringdon, who was ultimately convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a minor. The incident came to light after a group of three friends, suspicious of Gold's online behavior, took matters into their own hands by creating a fake social media profile to catch him in the act.
Initially, Gold was scheduled to face trial in connection with these allegations. However, in a surprising turn of events, he decided to plead guilty to one count of attempted sexual communication with a child, avoiding a lengthy court process. The case was heard at Oxford Crown Court, where the court was informed of the circumstances leading to his conviction.
According to court records, the three friends became suspicious after noticing a lewd comment allegedly made by Gold on another social media platform. Concerned about his intentions, they devised a plan to expose him by creating a fictitious Facebook profile of a 14-year-old boy, whom they named James Andrews. This fake profile was used to engage Gold in online conversations between June 1 and June 12 of the previous year.
During this period, Gold engaged in multiple conversations with the fake profile, unaware that it was operated by his friends. The court heard that Gold encouraged the fictional 14-year-old to skip school to meet him in person and repeatedly made inappropriate comments, including telling the boy that he ‘looked sexy’.
Further, Gold made explicit remarks, telling the fictional minor that ‘you would be naked in my bed’. When the boy responded that he was a virgin, Gold replied, “You would love it,” indicating a clear intent to pursue sexual activity. Prosecutor Jonathan Stone emphasized that Gold’s actions appeared to be motivated by an ego boost, seeking validation through these inappropriate exchanges.
Judge Ian Pringle QC delivered the sentence, expressing his disapproval of Gold’s conduct. He stated, “I suspect you were rather comforted that someone of that age might take an interest in you. You must not communicate with people underage on the internet, it’s as simple as that. If you do, you will be seriously punished.”
As a result, Peter Gold was sentenced to four months in prison. Additionally, he is required to sign the sex offenders register for a period of seven years, reflecting the seriousness of his actions and the potential risk posed to minors.
Initially, Gold was scheduled to face trial in connection with these allegations. However, in a surprising turn of events, he decided to plead guilty to one count of attempted sexual communication with a child, avoiding a lengthy court process. The case was heard at Oxford Crown Court, where the court was informed of the circumstances leading to his conviction.
According to court records, the three friends became suspicious after noticing a lewd comment allegedly made by Gold on another social media platform. Concerned about his intentions, they devised a plan to expose him by creating a fictitious Facebook profile of a 14-year-old boy, whom they named James Andrews. This fake profile was used to engage Gold in online conversations between June 1 and June 12 of the previous year.
During this period, Gold engaged in multiple conversations with the fake profile, unaware that it was operated by his friends. The court heard that Gold encouraged the fictional 14-year-old to skip school to meet him in person and repeatedly made inappropriate comments, including telling the boy that he ‘looked sexy’.
Further, Gold made explicit remarks, telling the fictional minor that ‘you would be naked in my bed’. When the boy responded that he was a virgin, Gold replied, “You would love it,” indicating a clear intent to pursue sexual activity. Prosecutor Jonathan Stone emphasized that Gold’s actions appeared to be motivated by an ego boost, seeking validation through these inappropriate exchanges.
Judge Ian Pringle QC delivered the sentence, expressing his disapproval of Gold’s conduct. He stated, “I suspect you were rather comforted that someone of that age might take an interest in you. You must not communicate with people underage on the internet, it’s as simple as that. If you do, you will be seriously punished.”
As a result, Peter Gold was sentenced to four months in prison. Additionally, he is required to sign the sex offenders register for a period of seven years, reflecting the seriousness of his actions and the potential risk posed to minors.