Adult sharing inappropriate content

pollypenny

Guest101 wrote: »

Yes punish the children for this....

More like protecting the children. :cool:

This guy's behaviour is way beyond the pale. And leads me to wonder about the potential for abuse.

elsien

k3lvc wrote: »

But she'll still allow him access to Facebook despite him not fulfilling T&C's -


If she wants full control of son then either stay with father and raise him together or approach this officially through the courts


All that todays outburst (and your sexist support of it) shows is an inability to engage and talk about this in a grown up way without 'running to teacher'


There's no winner in this 'game' but the serious risk of a kid !!!!ed up by a weak/controlling Mother and rebellious/immature Father

What is sexist about wanting children to understand that !!!!!! is not real life? The actors are being paid to pretend they're enjoying something, whether they are or not.
!!!!!! exists and teenagers watch it. That doesn't mean that there should be an acceptance that everything shown is ok and shouldn't be challenged. Especially when it involves a supposedly responsible adult showing it to a pre teen child. And you know perfectly well that the images shown on the news bear little relation to the graphic imagery shown on the web.
You are being disingenuous. And displaying your own prejudices along the way.

LannieDuck

Guest101 wrote: »

No, i'm not. I'm saying that theres a difference between some harmless memes and HC death !!!!!! or whatever the OP claims is next (oh look I used a buzzword... see we can all do it, it's easy.)

We really don't need to judge whether or not OP is exaggerating because social services decided that the memes/p*rn were serious enough to report it to the police.

That's an independent third party who looked at the actual material being discussed and decided that it needed to be investigated further.

ThatIsLUSH

k3lvc wrote: »

Nice first post :rotfl:


I don't think there's any disagreement that if the situation is as stated then the Fathers actions are inappropriate and maybe illegal but presumably not 'illegal enough' for the Police/Social Services to be massively concerned


Instead OP is absolving her role as a parent, allowing the age inappropriate use of FB/Social Media to continue and moaning about how nasty the ex is

Not the way I see it I'm afraid. I don't see the OP as trying to absolve or moan about the ex, but more trying to get a feel for how people see the act of showing this sort of material to someone underage. By making it all about the facebook issue, it makes it seem that that is the primary concern rather than the act itself.

Guest101

LannieDuck wrote: »

We really don't need to judge whether or not OP is exaggerating because social services decided that the memes/p*rn were serious enough to report it to the police.

That's an independent third party who looked at the actual material being discussed and decided that it needed to be investigated further.

2 issues with that:


1: There are clearly defined pathways and protocols that SS have to follow. There's a good chance that the person who referred it never saw the images. Simply received a report, it ticked a box and got sent to the police.


2: The OP has a friend who works in SS who could easily 'suggest' a referral.

LannieDuck

Guest101 wrote: »

2 issues with that:


1: There are clearly defined pathways and protocols that SS have to follow. There's a good chance that the person who referred it never saw the images. Simply received a report, it ticked a box and got sent to the police.


2: The OP has a friend who works in SS who could easily 'suggest' a referral.

Nah, i don't believe SS protocols mandate that every complaint like this would be sent straight to the police without initial filtering. The police would get the serious ones to examine further and decide whether they met the level of criminality.

As for the second suggestion, none of us have any insight into whether OP's friend abused their position. And neither do you.

Guest101

LannieDuck wrote: »

Nah, i don't believe SS protocols mandate that every complaint like this would be sent straight to the police without initial filtering. The police would get the serious ones to examine further and decide whether they met the level of criminality.

As for the second suggestion, none of us have any insight into whether OP's friend abused their position. And neither do you.

You've given the public sector far too much credit. SS aren't qualified to judge, so there are clear pathways, bear in mind that a complaint like this is typically an official statement.


(for example if I said next door were dealing drugs, whilst their children were there with no evidence. SS would report this to the police without any further investigation.


A friend could easily give someone a couple of 'buzz words' to trigger the same reaction. Hell I could do it.


Use the words pre-teen, not 12 year old. - Did no-one pick that up?!

k3lvc

elsien wrote: »

What is sexist about wanting children to understand that !!!!!! is not real life? The actors are being paid to pretend they're enjoying something, whether they are or not.
!!!!!! exists and teenagers watch it. That doesn't mean that there should be an acceptance that everything shown is ok and shouldn't be challenged. Especially when it involves a supposedly responsible adult showing it to a pre teen child. And you know perfectly well that the images shown on the news bear little relation to the graphic imagery shown on the web.
You are being disingenuous. And displaying your own prejudices along the way.

OK - I'm male - !!!!!! in the circumstances is wrong - no prejudice from me on that sense


Parental control (from both parents) is however key and in this situation I see both parents as being wrong - one has shown it/engaged child with it (very wrong but up to far greater legal brains to decide if illegal) whereas the other is now rounding up the female troops on how bad this is whilst at the same time relinquishing parental responsibility (also very wrong) rather than (wo)manning up and discussing face to face


p.s. just to demonstrate my experience not all !!!!!! is provided by actors - many willing (and sadly unwilling) amateur participants in real life situations - I hear some of it's actually quite good

k3lvc

ThatIsLUSH wrote: »

Not the way I see it I'm afraid. I don't see the OP as trying to absolve or moan about the ex, but more trying to get a feel for how people see the act of showing this sort of material to someone underage. By making it all about the facebook issue, it makes it seem that that is the primary concern rather than the act itself.

And no-one yet has said the Father is in the right however there's a whole load of defending of the OP going on

settlerofcatan

To be honest I downplayed the situation to my social worker friend. There were bits I left out. She still recommended escalating it. It took me two days to actually report it because I was fearful of the fallout and the affect on my sons.

Not 100% sure what the problem with using "pre-teen" is. Didn't want to give away too many identifying factors.