Buyer wants smelly shoes ... For children

whitewing

It bothers me a bit, StumpyPumpy, that you worked with CEOP, albeit some years ago, and you appear to trying to influence what someone may or may not report. To me, it seems to be blurring the professional boundaries somewhat.

steveo3002

next step will be he will try for local collection on someones shoes

RainbowDrops

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

And they are absolutely the same when used as a counterpoint to the statement included in the post I quoted:
"Personally, the second there's a hint that something related to children is to be used for sexual gratification, I'd be reporting it"
In fact, I would say that the Ann Summers range more explicitly fits this description than the smelly shoes does.

SP

So you're saying that you think fantasy teacher roleplay is more related to getting sexual gratification from kids than getting sexual gratification from an actual item of kids clothing?

hermum

I would definitely report it to the police, let them make the judgement.
The thought of someone getting off by the smell of a childs shoe is absolutely sickening.

quidsy

Report what? No crime has been committed & no suggestion that one will be committed. Some of the hysteria on this thread disturbs me no end.

sharpy2010

Idiophreak wrote: »

They were asking for smelly children's shoes.

Perhaps they don't like their own child and want to send them to school stinking lol

nat_85

We have had a few like this or asking us to wear thongs etc before posting

The most bizarre was a person who had bought dozens and dozens of children's school dresses- i am talking everyday buying them and white worn kids socks.

I just block them and carry on

ballisticbrian

I think that some people who have an overly-legalistic outlook and normally contribute well to issues related to eBay buying and selling are coming a cropper somewhat and sounding like they don't have a moral compass.
I'm sure if we dug a little bit, I'm sure we could find laws being broken. The Postal Services Act 2000 section 85, prohibits the sending by post of indecent or obscene articles. Obscenity is an objective test under that Act.

Thinking of the anxiety caused to the OP for a moment; The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1 deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications.

The Communications Act 2003 section 127, covers the sending of improper messages. Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message etc that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character and should be used for indecent phone calls and emails. Section 127(2) targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety

hermum

quidsy wrote: »

Report what? No crime has been committed & no suggestion that one will be committed. Some of the hysteria on this thread disturbs me no end.

Some person has asked if they could buy something belonging to a child presumably to masturbate over & yet some people think that seeing a child or at least their belongings as a sexual object is normal behaviour.
I think a higher level of hysteria is called for.

Beetlemama

Well that's exactly what I think his plan is. I'd be horrified and feel violated but I don't think you can do anything since nothing has actually happened, and even if he did have a Frank over a worn shoe, that's still not a crime unless he does it in public.

I guess at least he's buying them on eBay and not taking them from kids.

People on eBay sell shoes for this purpose, usually ladies or teenagers shoes, socks, sweatpants (search Scally), we had a thread about it: old slipper thread

But little kids stuff sounds and feels awfully wrong to me, I wouldn't sell them, if he bought them under a different id he'd have your home address.