Adult sharing inappropriate content

settlerofcatan

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.

Thank you. To be honest it doesn't bother me if he ends up with a conviction or not. All I am concerned about is the boys.

This whole situation has caused me to question his ability to understand normal adult/parenting boundaries. Whether or not it's illegal, it's obviously really inappropriate and potentially damaging for him to share this stuff with children, particularly a 12 year old. If he needs to be told 'don't show p*rn to minors' then what else does he need to be told? How do I pre-empt that?

I don't want Sam or his brother coming away from this thinking that it's normal for adults to show those kind of things to kids.

AnnieO1234

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.

Raise it higher up the chain of command, generally it's not for the police to make decisions like that but investigate and send to the CPS xxx

settlerofcatan

Guest101 wrote: »

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

I am not trying to entice reaction. I just wanted outside opinions. Your outside opinion is that I am making it up. You've made that point. Thank you.

Guest101

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

Raise it higher up the chain of command, generally it's not for the police to make decisions like that but investigate and send to the CPS xxx

Not so, often the decision to charge a suspect falls to the police, and one of a rank (usually an inspector).


They may delegate to specialist teams, like child protection, but that's mainly because those officers understand the law inside and out.


If there are ANY concerns, they will investigate and find 'something' to charge with. They didn't... And there's a good reason for that.

elsien

Spinkz wrote: »

The content of the threads are becoming even more serious and they are designed to make everyone argue. I've seen so many threads by it, which often end up pulled without any action taken against the attack accounts.

I have no idea what or who you are talking about. But even if you are correct, I can't see a particular issue with the debate going on here. Nothing that warrants locking it anyway.
Sometimes even if a thread is designed to provoke certain responses, surely being able to have a conversation about an issue is better than just pulling it or shutting it down completely?

Andypandyboy

Guest101 wrote: »

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

You seem determined to push this point of view, and I am unclear why.

Even if the police decide not to prosecute, that still doesn't mean it is acceptable. There are no excuses for this type of behaviour, none. By his actions as a role model he is normalising this type of stuff and encouraging kids to do the same. I would push it as far as possible with SS and not allow contact until I was satisfied he had learned his lesson.

Guest101

settlerofcatan wrote: »

I am not trying to entice reaction. I just wanted outside opinions. Your outside opinion is that I am making it up. You've made that point. Thank you.

Not making it up, exaggerating.


I believe that there were crude jokes and memes being shared.


Perhaps one or two were risqu!. You still see you child as a little boy, but in many cultures he's less than 12 months from being considered a man.


It's normal for teenagers to be silly, even stupid, push the boundaries of what their parents find acceptable.


You had the opinion of a specialist police team who deal with this type of thing, daily, they don't make such obvious mistakes.


I'd be minded to say it was probably no worse than what page 3 used to be. Suggestive, provocative, but ultimately nothing that a teenager wouldn't see on a dvd.


that's because were it to be worse than that, the police would not decide not to charge without even speaking to him!


On the cusp, you'd give the suspect a chance to explain before deciding. This was a clear NFA from the word go.

Guest101

Andypandyboy wrote: »

You seem determined to push this point of view, and I am unclear why.

Even if the police decide not to prosecute, that still doesn't mean it is acceptable. There are no excuses for this type of behaviour, none. By his actions as a role model he is normalising this type of stuff and encouraging kids to do the same. I would push it as far as possible with SS and not allow contact until I was satisfied he had learned his lesson.

If the police decide not to prosecute that's because the described behaviour didn't happen!


I'm not excusing the behaviour, I'm saying what happened isn't what the OP describes, because if it was, the police WOULD BE TAKING ACTION.


Your last sentence basically says that your own self righteousness is superior to the authorities view point and therefore it's ok to deny contact. That's just sick.


It's not your job to 'punish' your ex. Not the OPs to punish hers. Get a grip of yourselves.

settlerofcatan

I'm not entirely sure what you think I have described because everything I have said is true.

With regards to contact, I have been asked to withdraw contact until this is resolved.

AnnieO1234

Spinkz wrote: »

I have the evidence and i can back it up. You can trust me on that

So either share it or don't comment.