- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@dailyecho
Daily Echo on Twitter
@the_saints
Saints News on Twitter
SceneSouth
Leisure news on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
Facebook
Daily Echo on Facebook
Sex pest made 17,000 obscene phone calls (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Sex pest Martin Poulter made 17,000 obscene phone calls from Southampton home
11:54am Tuesday 25th September 2012 in Crime
By Jenny Makin, Crime Reporter
Martin Poulter
HE terrorised almost 17,000 women to satisfy his perverted sexual needs.
Sex pest Martin Poulter would make call after call to random numbers on his mobile phone in the dead of night in the hope a female would answer so he could breathe heavily and make lewd suggestions.
Some of his victims, the youngest of whom was 17, were targeted repeatedly, leaving them scared and even physically sick as he “moaned and groaned” down the phone.
Today the 51-year-old is behind bars after a judge told him only prison was the answer for his “deeply disturbing” campaign against women across the UK.
Southampton Crown Court heard how Poulter, who was married, made a staggering 16,690 calls on his pay-as-you-go mobile phone – 13,346 of which were dialled between 11pm and 6am.
He would spend virtually all of his £440 monthly benefits to buy credit for his phone.
The court was told how he would change digits in mobile numbers and if a man answered he would simply hang up. But if a woman answered he would set about making “disgusting, lewd sexual comments”, he would breathe heavily and describe what he was doing to himself.
Prosecutor Siobhan Linsley told how it was in January 2010 when one woman called her local police in Wiltshire to report that she has received repeated obscene calls in the middle of the night.
Living alone with two young children, she said she felt threatened because she had no idea who was making the calls, which would last for about one minute.
Her mobile phone company provided her with the number that had been calling her, but police could not trace the owner as it was not registered.
Another victim was a student in the middle of her exams , who he would call, using “diabolical language”.
But in October that year police were informed that top-up cards were being bought for the phone at a Coop store in Tickleford Drive, Weston , Southampton .
Detectives in Hampshire began investigating and traced 21 victims around the country, who gave statements, but staff at the store initially were unable to identify the man.
However, when police returned in January 2011 shop workers knew exactly who he was – and told how they even nicknamed him “top up man” because he frequented the shop so often.
Poulter was eventually traced when he used his wife’s Co-op store card and police went to his home. He had made his final nuisance call just moments before they arrived.
After initially denying it was him, Poulter eventually pleaded guilty on the day he was due to stand trial earlier this year.
Defending, Jamie Porter said Poulter, of Atherley Road, Southampton, suffered mild depression and he was sexually frustrated, but agreed that any suggestion he wouldn’t keep offending went “against all common sense”.
Jailing him for 30 months Judge Peter Henry QC told Poulter: “They are deeply disturbing phone calls, they were completely random and you had no idea whether you were going to be talking to a person under 16 or not. They were highly unpleasant and upsetting.
“They had no idea whether you were around the corner, watching them, or just a sad person calling from somewhere else in the country.”
Sick offender who had struck before brought to justice
IT’S not the first time depraved Poulter has struck.
Almost 30 years ago, in 1985, he was before the courts for similar public nuisance offences – having made some 200 calls to women in which he told them he was holding someone they knew hostage.
He then threatened to kill or harm his imaginary hostage unless they complied with his sexual
requests.
Poulter was convicted of four counts of making threats to kill and a further charge of causing a public nuisance.
His sentencing yesterday was a first for Hampshire and is also thought to be a first nationwide after the law changed surrounding public nuisance to include silent and disturbing phone calls.
Speaking after the case Detective Constable Amy Speed, who led the investigation into Poulter, said: “A huge number of women around the country will sleep better tonight knowing that their tormentor has been given a custodial sentence.
“His actions were despicable and cowardly and the impact should not be underestimated as his victims had their privacy and security of their homes invaded.”
Comments(32)
Dasal
says...
12:05pm Tue 25 Sep 12
sparkster
says...
1:08pm Tue 25 Sep 12
bigfella777
says...
1:23pm Tue 25 Sep 12
Georgem
says...
1:43pm Tue 25 Sep 12
bigfella777 wrote:I don't think you're grasping what he was doing.
Why didnt he just ring a sex line it would have been cheaper.
Dasal
says...
1:43pm Tue 25 Sep 12
bigfella777 wrote:But they'd speak to him !!
Why didnt he just ring a sex line it would have been cheaper.
Wouldn't be the same bigfella ..... he couldn't have handled it !!
BenjiWinsor
says...
2:07pm Tue 25 Sep 12
SaintDon13
says...
2:30pm Tue 25 Sep 12
roofspace
says...
3:33pm Tue 25 Sep 12
rich the stitch
says...
4:22pm Tue 25 Sep 12
roofspace wrote:Why should they not state he was on benfits. If he worked somewhere they would of mentioned what job he did.
Par for the course, as usual the Echo complies with its subliminal right-wing message agenda by needing to state he was on benefits and thereby implanting the suggestion in the minds of readers that all people in receipt of benefits are perverts.
rich the stitch
says...
4:23pm Tue 25 Sep 12
rich the stitch wrote:*benefits
roofspace wrote: Par for the course, as usual the Echo complies with its subliminal right-wing message agenda by needing to state he was on benefits and thereby implanting the suggestion in the minds of readers that all people in receipt of benefits are perverts.Why should they not state he was on benfits. If he worked somewhere they would of mentioned what job he did.
Georgem
says...
4:26pm Tue 25 Sep 12
roofspace wrote:Actually, that idea hadn't occurred to me, but now you mention it....
Par for the course, as usual the Echo complies with its subliminal right-wing message agenda by needing to state he was on benefits and thereby implanting the suggestion in the minds of readers that all people in receipt of benefits are perverts.
Shoong
says...
4:48pm Tue 25 Sep 12
roofspace wrote:Oh, absolutely, until I started reading the DE I had a mind of my own and the ability to form my own opinions but now I realise that I've been covertly influenced by the stories it prints.
Par for the course, as usual the Echo complies with its subliminal right-wing message agenda by needing to state he was on benefits and thereby implanting the suggestion in the minds of readers that all people in receipt of benefits are perverts.
A bit like playing Iron Maiden records backwards, it's everywhere and I am afraid.
Masterbates
says...
4:49pm Tue 25 Sep 12
Nicole23
says...
5:18pm Tue 25 Sep 12
Georgem
says...
5:29pm Tue 25 Sep 12
pete01 wrote:I'll set 'em up, you knock 'em down!
Georgem wrote:Clearly, he was though.
bigfella777 wrote: Why didnt he just ring a sex line it would have been cheaper.I don't think you're grasping what he was doing.
Georgem
says...
5:34pm Tue 25 Sep 12
Shoong wrote:Your post has made me think that Iron Maiden are all perverts.
roofspace wrote:Oh, absolutely, until I started reading the DE I had a mind of my own and the ability to form my own opinions but now I realise that I've been covertly influenced by the stories it prints.
Par for the course, as usual the Echo complies with its subliminal right-wing message agenda by needing to state he was on benefits and thereby implanting the suggestion in the minds of readers that all people in receipt of benefits are perverts.
A bit like playing Iron Maiden records backwards, it's everywhere and I am afraid.
Gainer T Gopher
says...
7:02pm Tue 25 Sep 12
and one comment that got me.... "calls would last over a minute".... freaking well hang up.......
SotonGreen
says...
7:24pm Tue 25 Sep 12
sparkster
says...
8:31pm Tue 25 Sep 12
G-man1
says...
9:04pm Tue 25 Sep 12
Georgem
says...
9:26pm Tue 25 Sep 12
G-man1 wrote:Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you an audience. But that's all irrelevant. Neither story is about freedom of speech, unless you have no idea what the term means.
Astonishing. The main headline on this website today is about a racist granny sending 100s of racist letters. This has prompted all sorts of oddballs and inadequates to stand up for her defending her "freedom of speech". Yet not one poster appears to want to defend this gentleman's freedom of speech?? Why is one repulsive act acceptable in some eyes but not not another?
vickyashley27
says...
10:27pm Tue 25 Sep 12
G-man1 wrote:i quite agree with you but all everyone knows on this story is what th press have said dont people need to know FACTS first then add their opinion
Astonishing. The main headline on this website today is about a racist granny sending 100s of racist letters. This has prompted all sorts of oddballs and inadequates to stand up for her defending her "freedom of speech". Yet not one poster appears to want to defend this gentleman's freedom of speech?? Why is one repulsive act acceptable in some eyes but not not another?
jonnyx
says...
11:33pm Tue 25 Sep 12
G-man1 wrote:because lots of people who comment on crappy local paper websites are xenophobic/ homophobic/ racist/ boderline moronic/ sad/ lonely/ frustrated misanthropes who hate the fact that they have hoplessly limited horizons and worldviews and are very, very frightened of the big bad world out there. (oh and they don't like the idea of 'perverts' i guess).
Astonishing. The main headline on this website today is about a racist granny sending 100s of racist letters. This has prompted all sorts of oddballs and inadequates to stand up for her defending her "freedom of speech". Yet not one poster appears to want to defend this gentleman's freedom of speech?? Why is one repulsive act acceptable in some eyes but not not another?
userds5050
says...
8:16am Wed 26 Sep 12
jonnyx wrote:Remind you of anyone?
G-man1 wrote:because lots of people who comment on crappy local paper websites are xenophobic/ homophobic/ racist/ boderline moronic/ sad/ lonely/ frustrated misanthropes who hate the fact that they have hoplessly limited horizons and worldviews and are very, very frightened of the big bad world out there. (oh and they don't like the idea of 'perverts' i guess).
Astonishing. The main headline on this website today is about a racist granny sending 100s of racist letters. This has prompted all sorts of oddballs and inadequates to stand up for her defending her "freedom of speech". Yet not one poster appears to want to defend this gentleman's freedom of speech?? Why is one repulsive act acceptable in some eyes but not not another?
jonnyx
says...
9:09am Wed 26 Sep 12
userds5050 wrote:yes.
jonnyx wrote:Remind you of anyone?
G-man1 wrote:because lots of people who comment on crappy local paper websites are xenophobic/ homophobic/ racist/ boderline moronic/ sad/ lonely/ frustrated misanthropes who hate the fact that they have hoplessly limited horizons and worldviews and are very, very frightened of the big bad world out there. (oh and they don't like the idea of 'perverts' i guess).
Astonishing. The main headline on this website today is about a racist granny sending 100s of racist letters. This has prompted all sorts of oddballs and inadequates to stand up for her defending her "freedom of speech". Yet not one poster appears to want to defend this gentleman's freedom of speech?? Why is one repulsive act acceptable in some eyes but not not another?
it. reminds. me. of. lots. of. people. who. comment. on. crappy. local. paper. websites.
there, i've slowed it down so perhaps you can understand it userds5050.
oh and by the way, if you are trying to comically imply that just because i've commented on a crappy local paper website then that description automatically and de facto applies to me, don't bother. i knew some idiot would come along and say something like that and - congratulations - you're the first. well done. your village must be very proud.
throatwarbler
says...
9:48am Wed 26 Sep 12
roofspace wrote:What is the point of this comment? The newspaper is reporting a fact. Take it or leave it. Newspapers have and always will report the age and occupation of the subject.
Par for the course, as usual the Echo complies with its subliminal right-wing message agenda by needing to state he was on benefits and thereby implanting the suggestion in the minds of readers that all people in receipt of benefits are perverts.
Was it “comical Ali” who went on TV denying allied forces were in Bagdad while in the background you could see an allied tank?
The left are like him.
It's not so much that all people in receipt of benefits are perverts, but more of a concern that perhaps the left-championed "increase in benefits in-line with inflation for all with no questions asked" might throw up a few issues....such as maybe not all of them deserve it?
jonnyx
says...
9:53am Wed 26 Sep 12
ah the concept of the deserving poor. it's back to the 17th century for us.
adkinsredarmy
says...
6:13pm Wed 26 Sep 12
I allways thought they were to live on in times off need but to blow them on nothing. so he must have another income of some kind. so why does he need benefit.
maybe some kind of fraud going on here.
podthegod
says...
7:44pm Wed 26 Sep 12
G-man1 wrote:I am a victim of Martin Poulter and it is not freedom of speech. He used to call me constantly, generally to masturbate. He called me at ridiculous hours of the day and night, when it started happening I was terrified, I thought he might be outside my window, I thought it might be someone I knew. Freedom to voice an opinion is differnt to freedom to make some girl listen to you groan, masturbate and tell her you want her to sit on your truncheon.
Astonishing. The main headline on this website today is about a racist granny sending 100s of racist letters. This has prompted all sorts of oddballs and inadequates to stand up for her defending her "freedom of speech". Yet not one poster appears to want to defend this gentleman's freedom of speech?? Why is one repulsive act acceptable in some eyes but not not another?
CruelDevil
says...
4:59pm Thu 27 Sep 12
podthegod wrote:Sorry - I maybe missing something here, but....
G-man1 wrote: Astonishing. The main headline on this website today is about a racist granny sending 100s of racist letters. This has prompted all sorts of oddballs and inadequates to stand up for her defending her "freedom of speech". Yet not one poster appears to want to defend this gentleman's freedom of speech?? Why is one repulsive act acceptable in some eyes but not not another?I am a victim of Martin Poulter and it is not freedom of speech. He used to call me constantly, generally to masturbate. He called me at ridiculous hours of the day and night, when it started happening I was terrified, I thought he might be outside my window, I thought it might be someone I knew. Freedom to voice an opinion is differnt to freedom to make some girl listen to you groan, masturbate and tell her you want her to sit on your truncheon.
if he was calling you constantly, surely one solution would be to not answer the phone? I do not agree with what he's done and do feel for what you've been through! But unless he was calling from a different number every time? I mean, just hit ignore!
podthegod
says...
2:53pm Wed 3 Oct 12
CruelDevil wrote:Oh yes it's all my fault I was harassed. OBVIOUSLY I attempted to ignore it, but given the constant nature of the calls I tended to give up, answer and try to reason with him. I tried loads of things. Sometimes ignoring him worked, sometimes it did not. He was extremely persistent. It went on for months. And it was a blocked number so I didn't necessarily know whether it was him or, for example, the police, who I was also speaking to at the time. And it still woke me up at night (and no I did not wish to have my phone on silent or off at night as it is my alarm). It's not really for me to go around trying to avoid sex pests, I should be allowed to mind my own business in my opinion. If it was that easy to get rid of him I doubt he would be in jail.
podthegod wrote:Sorry - I maybe missing something here, but....
G-man1 wrote: Astonishing. The main headline on this website today is about a racist granny sending 100s of racist letters. This has prompted all sorts of oddballs and inadequates to stand up for her defending her "freedom of speech". Yet not one poster appears to want to defend this gentleman's freedom of speech?? Why is one repulsive act acceptable in some eyes but not not another?I am a victim of Martin Poulter and it is not freedom of speech. He used to call me constantly, generally to masturbate. He called me at ridiculous hours of the day and night, when it started happening I was terrified, I thought he might be outside my window, I thought it might be someone I knew. Freedom to voice an opinion is differnt to freedom to make some girl listen to you groan, masturbate and tell her you want her to sit on your truncheon.
if he was calling you constantly, surely one solution would be to not answer the phone? I do not agree with what he's done and do feel for what you've been through! But unless he was calling from a different number every time? I mean, just hit ignore!
Huey says...
12:02pm Tue 25 Sep 12
He should be banned from ever getting another penny in benefits, seeing as he has abused the system so badly.
But of course that won't happen.