Adult sharing inappropriate content

settlerofcatan

mumps wrote: »

OP do you know who looked at this from a Police point of view. I have literally worked in a Police Station where a murderer came in to surrender and was turned away. No joking. Fortunately there was an officer passing through the front office who did take it seriously. There are lazy police officers who will try to wriggle out of dealing with things.

There are specialist departments who look at this sort of thing, if a specialist hasn't looked at it I would suggest you find out who is responsible in your force and refer it to them. If a specialist department has looked at it I am surprised they aren't doing anything to be honest with you, what you describe is worrying and does need looking at properly.

Thanks mumps.

A 'normal' officer (sorry, don't know his rank) came to my house, looked at the content, and took away a copy. He showed it to the child protection team (it has an acronym but not sure if it's the same everywhere and I don't want to give away my location). The next day he came back and said that they had considered two crimes: malicious communication and showing pornography to a minor. Apparently the first one requires proof that somebody was offended and the latter requires proof of sexual intent/gratification or whatever. I am surprised to be honest.

The officer has spoken to social services and suggested that Sam's dad is invited to the station to explain himself to both him and a the social worker.

Guest101

ThatIsLUSH wrote: »

And there was me thinking that you were all for misinterpreting people and not believing what they post as real (it was you that claimed that the OP was exaggerating wasn't it??). If that is the case then adding the word "perceived" would change nothing as everything that people posts can be changed at your whim to reflect the reality that you see.

And there's me thinking the OP does manage multiple accounts really well....

Guest101

settlerofcatan wrote: »

Thanks mumps.

A 'normal' officer (sorry, don't know his rank) came to my house, looked at the content, and took away a copy. He showed it to the child protection team (it has an acronym but not sure if it's the same everywhere and I don't want to give away my location). The next day he came back and said that they had considered two crimes: malicious communication and showing pornography to a minor. Apparently the first one requires proof that somebody was offended and the latter requires proof of sexual intent/gratification or whatever. I am surprised to be honest.

The officer has spoken to social services and suggested that Sam's dad is invited to the station to explain himself to both him and a the social worker.

An invitation he will no doubt politely refuse....


Amazing how the specialists think you're HC Death !!!!!! (there I go again) is fine.....

ThatIsLUSH

Guest101 wrote: »

And there's me thinking the OP does manage multiple accounts really well....

MEEEEEERRRRRRR, wrong answer I'm afraid! The answer we were looking for was Henry VII. That means that you lose the lead and the other person that accused the OP of the same thing wins. better luck next time.


Thanks for joining us on this round of "Distract the People From the Issue that is Being Discussed" next time we see if we can make a grown man cry by accusing him of indecently exposing himself to a Nun!

settlerofcatan

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

I would be pressing the police to act on this personally. Could the conversation and attached articles be considered to be "extreme pornography" in line with Section 63 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008? Further info here:



You also say that the father was encouraging the 15 year old to have sex, I believe this would come under the purview of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - possibly section 10 (Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity) or section 12 - (Causing a child to watch a sexual act). This wiki offers a good breakdown of the various sections:



I would be beyond livid and wouldn't be allowing any contact between child and father without supervision. What the father has done is absolutely not okay, the child is 12.

xxx

I just assumed that the police opinion is final??

With regard to your first link, I am not quite sure if the !!!!!! would fit into any of those categories. They are pictures which show large objects being used in certain ways.

I'm sat here wondering if I should describe some of the others, but I won't.

Guest101

settlerofcatan wrote: »

I just assumed that the police opinion is final??

With regard to your first link, I am not quite sure if the !!!!!! would fit into any of those categories. They are pictures which show large objects being used in certain ways.

I'm sat here wondering if I should describe some of the others, but I won't.

You can bring a private prosecution if you want. It's about 10 - 15,000 initially.

mumps

settlerofcatan wrote: »

Thanks mumps.

A 'normal' officer (sorry, don't know his rank) came to my house, looked at the content, and took away a copy. He showed it to the child protection team (it has an acronym but not sure if it's the same everywhere and I don't want to give away my location). The next day he came back and said that they had considered two crimes: malicious communication and showing pornography to a minor. Apparently the first one requires proof that somebody was offended and the latter requires proof of sexual intent/gratification or whatever. I am surprised to be honest.

The officer has spoken to social services and suggested that Sam's dad is invited to the station to explain himself to both him and a the social worker.

Well you were offended so don't see why that one fails.

I hope they manage to get the message across to him. It all seems very dodgy.

Guest101

mumps wrote: »

Well you were offended so don't see why that one fails.

I hope they manage to get the message across to him. It all seems very dodgy.

Because in law the 'reasonable person' must be offended.


I'm offended by fat people, people who wear hi viz clothing and cyclists. I'm hardly reporting them to the police. (Those are just examples and not an exclusive list of people who offend me. I dislike everyone equally)

Andypandyboy

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone thinks that a father showing his 12 year old son hard core !!!!!!, sharing !!!!!! with other teenagers, and encouraging sexual activity and abuse is not indicative of risk.

The alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear. I would definitely stop all contact.

Guest101

Andypandyboy wrote: »

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone thinks that a father showing his 12 year old son hard core !!!!!!, sharing !!!!!! with other teenagers, and encouraging sexual activity and abuse is not indicative of risk.

The alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear. I would definitely stop all contact.

No I cant understand either why the Child Protection team wouldn't step in if all those things were happening....


There's 2 logical solutions:


1: The child protection team, despite years of experience, failed in their duty


or


2: the OP is being reckless with the truth, using buzz words to entice reaction