Overreaction to sexual misdeeds

Abuse and predictors behaviour are things that the authorities should go after but I'm really sick of reading about overreactions and the complete stupidity of people applying a rule book for the sake of applying a rule book.

For example a 16 year old girl was dealt with criminally for texting a 16 year old boyfriend a revealing image of herself. This is a private matter between the individuals concerned and does not involve predatory behaviour.

I am sick of reading about court time being used because someone brushed passed someone. I saw a woman at work smack a guy on the bumb today. Should we prosecute the woman for sexual harassment or sue her or the company. Its ridiculous.

The area is now dominated by people who can't see the wood for the trees and people behaving like robots, a bit like the idea of calling everyone racists not so long ago.

Abuse and predictors behaviour are things that the authorities should go after but I'm really sick of reading about overreactions and the complete stupidity of people applying a rule book for the sake of applying a rule book.

For example a 16 year old girl was dealt with criminally for texting a 16 year old boyfriend a revealing image of herself. This is a private matter between the individuals concerned and does not involve predatory behaviour.

I am sick of reading about court time being used because someone brushed passed someone. I saw a woman at work smack a guy on the bumb today. Should we prosecute the woman for sexual harassment or sue her or the company. Its ridiculous.

The area is now dominated by people who can't see the wood for the trees and people behaving like robots, a bit like the idea of calling everyone racists not so long ago.



Posted from TSR Mobile

The point of those two children getting a caution (they won't be prosecuted or fined) is to discourage them and other children from doing it. And it is against the law to send explicit photos of children under 18.

With 1/4 of young people sending these photos, it is almost certain that some are going to end up freely available on the internet, most likely without the consent of the initial sharer. It could then end up in the hands of future employers, or even paedophiles, and that is something that the authorities obviously do not want to happen.

In the case of work, prosecution is not the answer, as long as it is a one-time occurrence and she would stop if the man told her that he didn't like it. However, if she persisted to do it after him saying it was inappropriate/he didn't like it, then it would be sexual harrassment and it is at least worth taking it up with a senior member of staff. People don't go to work to be harassed, and things like that shouldn't be trivialised, but at the same time shouldn't be blown out of proportion.

I agree the cases seem daft but the reality of it, is it's child porn. A 16 year old child in the nude is porn. The law was written with the best intentions in mind to prevent child porn. The law didn't take into account things like 16 year old's nude texting pictures. The CPS are prosecuting based upon law. They can't pick and choose when to apply it. The law needs changing to take into account such a situation.

The CPS can completely choose whether to prosecute or not, by the way.

Usually the CPS operates only a policy whereby they agree to prosecute if there's a reasonable chance of winning the court case. When there is photographic evidence of child porn, it's hard to deny that legally no crime was committed so the CPS prosecute. Yes, they probably shouldn't prosecute in a case like this but allowing an individual to choose whether to prosecute in a crime with strong evidence sets a dangerous president. In the future there may be a crime where I believe the CPS should prosecute and you believe the CPS shouldn't assuming the CPS has enough evidence to feel confident, which decision do they take.

Usually the CPS operates only a policy whereby they agree to prosecute if there's a reasonable chance of winning the court case. When there is photographic evidence of child porn, it's hard to deny that legally no crime was committed so the CPS prosecute. Yes, they probably shouldn't prosecute in a case like this but allowing an individual to choose whether to prosecute in a crime with strong evidence sets a dangerous president. In the future there may be a crime where I believe the CPS should prosecute and you believe the CPS shouldn't assuming the CPS has enough evidence to feel confident, which decision do they take.

These children aren't being prosecuted, they have been issued with a criminal warning which is to act as a deterrent to both them and other children their age.

To prosecute the children would cause outrage and (in my opinion) would be completely wrong. Kids (and young adults) need to be better educated in the dangers of sharing these pictures, and shown how far they can spread once uploaded to the internet.

^ needs a +1 which I am unable to provide

I am unaware of case details. I assumed they were being prosecuted. Even then a criminal warning is unfitting in my opinion. That criminal warning can seriously hurt job opportunities in the future. What if one wanted to be a teacher? Some schools might look down on that. I'm not sure how it works with a CRB check.

With that in mind, the children are complete idiots for doing it. Who in their right mind sends a nude photo. I would never even consider sending a nude to a boy. Would you? It's bad parenting!

A criminal warning won't show up on a CRB, and your record gets wiped at 18 anyway for things like that. It will not affect them at all, except to hopefully show them the seriousness of doing things like this.

Yes, it's not a sensible thing to do, but the fact is that they are children. They need to be protected and educated about doing things like that, especially if their parents are failing to do so. Even so, peer pressure can also encourage them to do things like that.

No, I would never do something like that, but I have always been body-concious and have never been surrounded by people doing it.

I got my first summer job at 16 in a child minding nursery. If I had a caution I'm not sure i would have got the job. Any professional company would do their fair share of background research to see.



Why do they do it? Why does a non body-conscious person happen to send a nude photo. Why does peer pressure form in the first place about sending a nude photo. Why is there a need for a nude photo? it cannot all be blamed on male testosterone pressuring us into sending nudes.

I believe education starts at home. Someone can have the world's greatest teacher but if the parents aren't there to reinforce what is taught at school, or further guide their child, the child will often turn out a failure. It makes us question if we should maybe educate parents how to be better parents.

Why they do it is a question to ask them.

By peer pressure I didn't just mean boys pressuring you, if you are surrounded by people doing it then it may lead you to thinking that it's okay (I have heard young girls say this).
It may also be that they are self-conscious and feel like they need validation by sending nude photographs, whether it be of their chest or genitals.

16 is child pron and its haraam too.

When I was 16 I was prepping for Olympiads and prestiging on the daily damn things have changed

I agree the cases seem daft but the reality of it, is it's child porn. A 16 year old child in the nude is porn. The law was written with the best intentions in mind to prevent child porn. The law didn't take into account things like 16 year old's nude texting pictures. The CPS are prosecuting based upon law. They can't pick and choose when to apply it. The law needs changing to take into account such a situation.

No they havent...
Kids have been at it forever.

Mohammed loved the under 16 didnt he lol.

Haraam indeed lol

I don't agree that this is the case.

The Crown Prosecution Service has a mandate to prosecute crimes only where it is a. in the public interest to do so and b. Where there are reasonable prospects of success regardless of whether the law says an offence has been committed.