Buyer wants smelly shoes ... For children

Road_Hog

Idiophreak wrote: »

They were children's shoes. They were asking for smelly children's shoes.

I'm with those above, I'd certainly be reporting this to the police.

Well, the thought police crime unit has arrived, welcome to 1984.

Personally, I'd think it better to let them buy smelly shoes, than they go hunting for them.

starrybee

I think it would be better to be laughed out of a police station than do nothing and later find out this guy was everything you think he might be.

No harm in sending an email using the link brian suggested and seeing what they say.

Chances are it is an overaction, and 99% of the time it will be, but if you are able to do something about the other 1% it's worth doing imo.

paddyrg

It is certainly unusual behaviour, and may be a part of a bigger picture. We don't know, we can't know, but does that mean we should ignore it Saville style? Or is it better to get a concern on file so those qualified and in a position to see the fuller picture can make sure they have leads to work with?

As you can tell, I'm for saying something. Bad things grow in silences.

Idiophreak

Road_Hog wrote: »

Well, the thought police crime unit has arrived, welcome to 1984.

Personally, I'd think it better to let them buy smelly shoes, than they go hunting for them.

Meh, personally, I think it's better they get some kind of help or flags put on their record before anything escalates.

This is also not a "thought", so the "thought police" won't be necessary...they've not thought about trying to buy smelly children's shoes...they're actually trying to do it.

Using such a thing for sexual gratification is no different to watching child pornography - do you view that as a "thought crime", too? I mean it's better people are at home watching child !!!!!! than out hunting to make some, right?

cootuk

I could understand asking if they were smelly so as NOT to buy them if they were.
Asking for smelly children's shoes certainly crosses the line in my book. I would probably withdraw the whole auction incase the person buys them under another ID and gets our address too.

I would look online to see if I could report it to CEOP (ceop.police.uk) rather than the local police who seem to know little about any laws.

Road_Hog

Idiophreak wrote: »

Meh, personally, I think it's better they get some kind of help or flags put on their record before anything escalates.

This is also not a "thought", so the "thought police" won't be necessary...they've not thought about trying to buy smelly children's shoes...they're actually trying to do it.

Using such a thing for sexual gratification is no different to watching child pornography - do you view that as a "thought crime", too? I mean it's better people are at home watching child !!!!!! than out hunting to make some, right?

Okay, I'm going to make this my last post on the subject, as I seem to be swimming against the tide.

I do worry about the potential buyer's interests. But at the end of the day, it is not a crime, weird yes, a crime no.

I object to you bringing child pornography into this, nowhere did I suggest that this was okay or that I condoned it.

The point that I'm trying to make is, that as a society, we are becoming more and more controlled and our civil liberties restricted. We see social services removing kids (Rotherham) purely because they were UKIP members. I don't want to live in a society where your neighbour is reporting you to the police for any minor infraction (like Germany in the 1930s).

I don't want a police state. I was just pointing out that this person hadn't actually committed a crime and whilst it might be a bit pervy, it is not illegal.

FattyBettyBoo

I've had a look at the CEOP report form and I don't think it's appropriate in this case. I think I will report it to the local police.

This is the question below ... It's the 'specifically wants girls shoes' that worries me

Hi, I'm looking specifically for well worn girls shoes. Please could you tell me if these smell worn? If not, are there any in such a condition you'd be willing to sell? Also, are they from a smoking household? This is a genuine question - thank you.

StumpyPumpy

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, someone has left their computer logged into eBay and someone else, with, shall we say a "strange" sense of humour has noticed this and they have sent the message(s)?

I think most people here are totally over-reacting. Tell the buyer "No", in no uncertain terms if you wish and add them to your block list, job done.

CEOP do not have the resources to follow up what, as Road_Hog has said is not a criminal offence. Can you imagine the time it takes to get a court order to get eBay to release the private details of a user account? Because that is the only way they would be able to "see if they are on the sex offenders register". And quite frankly, this request, if genuine would be highly unlikely to be in breach of any restraining order they may have in place.

Don't misunderstand me, I can understand why you might be a bit freaked out by this but I worked with CEOP and when I did the squad responsible for computer-based crime in the whole of North Wales was one officer, a DC, who had other duties as well. That was a few years ago, but I haven't noticed an influx of funding into this area of Policing, so I doubt the situation has improved. Trying to get them to investigate every "slightly dodgy" action that happens is not going to help them prevent child abuse.

Idiophreak wrote: »

Using such a thing for sexual gratification is no different to watching child pornography - do you view that as a "thought crime", too? I mean it's better people are at home watching child !!!!!! than out hunting to make some, right?

Actually, yes it is. it is absolutely, totally different. And as a general FAQ: no-one in the prevention services calls it "child !!!!!!" it is images of child abuse. That is where the distinction lies, both in law and fact. Otherwise you would be calling for the banning of children on TV and the Mothercare catalogue because as sure as eggs is eggs there will be people getting off on that too.

SP

whitewing

I think the OP will have done her duty as a responsible adult by reporting it.

It is then up to the experts whether they choose to take further action. There may not be the resources but at least a trackable decision has been made if there are further problems later.

It is concerning and it should be flagged.

Idiophreak

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

Actually, yes it is. it is absolutely, totally different. And as a general FAQ: no-one in the prevention services calls it "child !!!!!!" it is images of child abuse. That is where the distinction lies, both in law and fact. Otherwise you would be calling for the banning of children on TV and the Mothercare catalogue because as sure as eggs is eggs there will be people getting off on that too.

So, if you were selling said Mothercare catalogue online and someone sent you a question saying "are there pictures of children in underwear in it? I'm only interested if so.", you'd still not feel the need to report it? All perfectly legal and above board, right? I mean people have their quirks, don't they...but as long as it's legal...may as well make a few quid?

Personally, the second there's a hint that something related to children is to be used for sexual gratification, I'd be reporting it. Whether it's actually illegal or not is a different question...whether any action would/could be taken is something different....but at least I'd know I'd done my part.

Like you suggest, 99/100 it will be some kids pranking each other...but you never know.