14-Year-Old Boy Placed On Police Register After Sending Naked Picture To Classmate 261
Ewan Palmer reports: A teenage boy in the UK has had a crime of making and distributing indecent images recorded against him after he sent a naked picture of himself to one of his female classmates. The 14-year-old was not formally arrested after he sent the explicit image to a girl of the same age via Snapchat. The police file against the boy will now remain active for 10 years, meaning any future employer conducting an advanced Criminal Records Bureau check will be aware of the incident. However, it is not clear whether a police file was recorded for the girl who saved and shared the image. Under new legislation, if she had been over 18, the girl could have been convicted under the so called 'revenge porn' law in the UK.
Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why bother? Power is power. Destroy one to educate one hundred.
Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother? Power is power. Destroy one to scare and control one hundred
FTFY
Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:4, Funny)
FTFY. :-|
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please? I mean here are two perfectly innocent young children
Huh? One of them is sending unsolicited porn to a girl he knows, the other is spreading that porn to all her friends. Neither is "perfectly innocent."
just BEGGING to be thrown to the judicial wolves, torn apart, consumed, and eaten
One of them is reported to have been put on the list of people who have been accused of crimes. The other we don't know what happened to. Neither one is being charged with anything, neither one is being "thrown to the judicial wolves" or "eaten."
I'm pretty sure that a fourteen year old boy should know it isn't appropriate to send naked pictures of himself
Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm pretty sure that a fourteen year old boy should know it isn't appropriate to send naked pictures of himself to others.
Are you taking the piss?
Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have thought it was common sense for how appropriate it is to be sending naked pictures of oneself, even at the age of 14.
A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word. We don't allow them to vote, drink alcohol, or drive. So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles at a time when they're just entering puberty, usually under the tutelage of adults too terrified of their own sexuality to give them useful advice?
And sign in if you want a response next time, Obfuscant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word. We don't allow them to vote, drink alcohol, or drive. So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles at a time when they're just entering puberty, usually under the tutelage of adults too terrified of their own sexuality to give them useful advice?
I don't know about these days, but when I was fourteen, we were supposed to be adults. No we couldn't vote, drink alcohol or drive, but we were expected to act like young men and women, be respectful, study hard, hold down a job and if we would have been caught sending a naked photo to a girl, if the police had decided to drop the charges our PARENTS would have insisted that they press charges, just to show that life has consequences.
Call me grandpa if you want, but this was the 80s. It was not so very lo
Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know about these days, but when I was fourteen, we were supposed to be adults.
Really, you grew up in the 19th century?
our PARENTS would have insisted that they press charges, just to show that life has consequences.
Oh I see, you grew up in a Stazi gulag, that explains a lot.
Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:3, Informative)
Please don't take offense, but your post is exactly what's wrong with the world today. Discipline is a far cry from being a nazi. I agree with the op. When I was 14 my parents expected me to be a responsible young adult. When I got arrested for vandalism, my parents told the police to keep me. They only came to get me because the police told them they had to. And you know what? I knew they were right. Teaching your kids about the consequences of their actions, and that some actions have big time, life-fucki
Re: (Score:3)
Wow you and the up-modders have managed to completely missed the point.
Yeah, so your parents told the police to keep you. A night in the cells would be sure to have a real effect, and you'd learn a good lesson from that and then move on. First, that's actually treating you kinda like a kid not an adult because it's designed to teach you consequences without screwing up your life, which is great. Kids need to learn that life has consequences.
TFA is about sticking something on his record for 10 years. That's
Re: (Score:2)
Right, which is why we have an entire legal profession dedicated to knowing the laws of the land. And therefore ignorance is no excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what country you lived in. Perhaps Australia? That sounds like stories out of the Ozarks from the 1920's, or perhaps earlier.
I *do* know that in the 1950 many of those things were illegal for 14 year olds in the locales where I lived, except that if your family owned a farm they could use you as unpaid labor. And give you an "allowance" that was de facto payment. I also know that migrant laborers never had that kind of rule applied to them, being expected to work if they were going to be pr
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what country you lived in. Perhaps Australia?
The U.S.A, a country that once existed on the North American continent.
As for what your parents would have insisted on... well, if they never did, all I have is your expectation. If they did I would call them abusive. Paying your debts is one thing, getting something on your record and being subject to the abuse of the "criminal justice" system is something totally else.
They never did, because I was raised right and didn't get into trouble. It is not abusive to allow someone to bear the consequences of their actions. It is abusive NOT to.
Re: (Score:2)
It's abusive when the consequences are highly disproportionate to the actions.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
In many parts of the world, it's actually illegal for a 14-year-old to have a paid position.
It is now illegal in the United States as well, but when I grew up a lot of kids worked. I made good money and was able to afford to go on ski trips and purchase musical equipment, and later pay for car insurance and gas. Yes, most other parents just paid for stuff like that for their kids, but we didn't have much money. My mom was a single mom, and I actually worked at the same restaurant where she worked, so I made about the same per hour as she did. I just was only working about 25 to 30 hours a week, a
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word.
No, you are thinking of "minor", and confusing legal technicality with reality, or euphamisitic uses of the word "adult".
child
noun a young human being below the age of puberty
Most 14 year old boys are past puberty, and so biological adults. Mental maturity takes another 20 years or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are legitimate ways to use the terms, but not the only legitimate ways. Minor does, indeed, have a precise definition that varies from place to place, and is based on the foolish notion that there is a sharp difference (other than legal consequences) between one tick of the clock and another. (Usually in application it isn't quite that absurd, but sometimes it is.) Child, on the other hand is a lot fuzzier.
Childe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Wikipedia
In the Middle Ages, a childe or child [Old English Cild > "Young Lord"] was the son of a nobleman who had not yet attained knighthood, or had not yet won his
Re: (Score:2)
LMGTFY. (Why do all the mouth-breathing morons post as AC? I'm not complaining - it makes them easier to avoid.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.google.com.au/webh... [google.com.au]
( was responding to "A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word.")
Re: (Score:2)
LMGTFY. (Why do all the mouth-breathing morons post as AC?
Hahaha, citations include "theFreeDictionary.com" and Google's wiki scrapings. And even those qualify the definition.
Re: (Score:3)
And even those qualify the definition.
You might learn from that, as you claimed "by every definition of the word." Every one except the primary meaning?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition
Oh yes they fucking are. I seriously don't know what's wrong with you perp-walk-lovin' murcans but I sincerely hope you get to enjoty a taste of your own medicine when those skeletons start peeking out of the closet.
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Yeah pull the other one, it has bells on.
Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:5, Informative)
Working at a maximum security jail that housed young offenders, i can tell you that the youth of today mature much faster maybe due to faster access to information and all that hormone drug ridden food they eat. some of these 14 year olds had the bodies of men ! They were also facing serious charges like murder, assault, rape. Decisions they made were not the same as regular 14 year olds. One kid was in for his 2nd charge of murder. The first time he killed his sister. 2nd time he shot his grandfather. another kid was there because he raped a fellow cellmate...it was his third time. And these "kids" will have their records cleaned after they get out as "young offenders". The only thing that stops them is when they end up in the adult system. Age shouldnt be any reason to excuse criminal actions. Read about the murder of James Bulger and you will think differently about "kids". His murderers were only 10 years old.
Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition...
Oh yes they fucking are.
No they're not. By the biological definition, once a specimen has reached sexual maturity, it is an adult. Is a 14 year old human physically mature? No. Is a 14 year old human emotionally mature? No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes. Effectively every 14 year old girl and damn near all of the 14 year old boys are capable of doing their part of what the species does to make more of their species.
So no, 14 year olds are not children by every definition. We would be better off if we acknowledged that and made allowances for it.
The creation of the category "teenager" should have filled that bill, but too many societies on Earth are positively schizophrenic about acknowledging the sexual realities of being a teenager. On the one hand, they're wishing with all their might that teenagers are still children—asexual, trusting, obedient, happy almost by default—and on the other, commercial advertising and entertainment sexually flaunts teenage bodies as the very peak of desirability and perfection, and it's all downhill after that. The reality is complicated, but it does include sex and sexual things.
So here we have a government getting all up in arms about a naked 14 year old boy. Do they think this is the first time in history a teenage girl saw a naked teenage boy unsolicited? Are they stupid? Teenage boys have been flashing teenage girls and vice versa since the dawn of time, when some near-monkey first said, "Shit, it's cold out here. I'ma wrap this bear skin around my naked ass." A week later, a near-monkey girl flipped up her skirt and mooned a boy, and a near-monkey boy dropped his drawers and waggled his penis at a girl, and it's been happening ever since. The use of the precious cell phone is fucking irrelevant, and the police register is fucking moronic. He didn't do a damn thing that hadn't been done before, and civilization didn't fall because of it, then or now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes.
Being able to generate a sperm and eggs does not make one sexually mature. It makes one sexually capable. There's a very big difference. You got that right in every other one of your examples but for some reason you missed the point in this one.
Although I do give you one very clear point: A child has a biological definition as someone who hasn't met puberty. So while they may be legally considered children, morally we can argue till the cows come up, and biologically they are most definitely no longer child
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if all sexually active non adults are also on the said lists in the UK
Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the age of 16-18, it is legal to have sex in the UK, but not to look at it. Presumably they are supposed to keep their eyes closed.
Re: (Score:3)
None of the laws around porn make much sense.
A 16 year old can have sex, but no-one else (except their partner(s)) can watch or record it.
It is illegal to advertise sex for money (prostitution), unless someone intends to record it (porn).
It's illegal to record the female orgasm in the UK, although having one in private is fine.
Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the same universe where we don't just pat them on the head and say "isn't that sweet" when they do other illegal things that they should know are wrong.
You're an idiot, there's no other way to explain your way of thinking.
A 14-year boy is still a boy. He's still learning how to behave, making mistakes and learning from them. He sent a naked photo of himself to a girl. SO FUCKING WHAT? Talk to the parents and let them explain to him why that's not acceptable. It's their responsibility to raise the child and educate him to be able to function in society.
You're arguing that it's acceptable to have laws that give children who make mistakes a criminal record. No, these laws are not acceptable, and they're a sign of how idiotic and shortsighted our society is becoming. People like you are the problem.
Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh?
1. We don't know that it was unsolicited.
2. We don't know that he's not innocent or normal. I remember when I was a normal-ish 14-year-old boy. I can't honestly say that my mentality at that time would have precluded me sending such pictures in such a way because the technology didn't exist, but I can say that as an adult I've never felt compelled to photograph my bits for sharing with others. But again, at 14: Maybe, if I had the tools.
3. We don't know her intent in distribution. I think that a teenaged girl would likely be all giggles about the thing, without malicious intent. (Have you met a teenaged girl? My own is 14.)
4. We don't know why he chose Snapchat. Perhaps simply because it was convenient, and he was simply familiar with the interface -- we cannot assume, based on what we know, that it was a deliberate decision driven by Snapchat's default nature of deleting things after a short time.
5. We don't know that she's some crypto-savvy script kiddie who went through extensive measures to bypass Snapchat's security. For all we know she did the obvious and simplest thing: She used one handheld device to take a photograph of an image on another handheld device. (The analog hole does not exclude Snapchat.)
That normal, innocent kids might be smart and clever does not mean that their every motivation is evil. Furthermore, normal, innocent kids making unwise decisions is a hallmark of normal, innocent kids: They're kids, FFS.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that a fourteen year old boy should know it isn't appropriate to send naked pictures of himself to others.
Well then whoever should we be sending naked pictures of ourselves to, if not others?
Re: (Score:2)
You can send them to me, as long as you're at least 18.
Re: (Score:2)
One of them is reported to have been put on the list of people who have been accused of crimes.
Societies with 'lists' like this hardly have good track records for justice of any sort. So much for responsibility, right? ..and it looks like the girl wasn't listed for spreading the pic. So much for consequences if you've got the right genitalia, right?
As far as I can see, the only serious consequences are those that people who think like you chose to impose. Perhaps you should consider the consequences of that.
Re: (Score:2)
..and it looks like the girl wasn't listed for spreading the pic. So much for consequences if you've got the right genitalia, right?
Wrong.
[The boy's] details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.
Just more censorship (Score:2)
Hey, Teacher! Leave the kids alone!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Teacher! Leave the kids alone!
Give them a Condom first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
humans with appropriate governmental thought control in place.
So does this mean if the teacher saw it ... (Score:3)
... that they could be classified as a pedophile for viewing child pornography??
Wait till the kids learn how to abuse the law and fuck* every grownup!!
Where the hell is common sense?
* Not literally, but legally
Re: (Score:3)
... that they could be classified as a pedophile for viewing child pornography??
Wait till the kids learn how to abuse the law and fuck* every grownup!!
Where the hell is common sense?
* Not literally, but legally
In the U.S., we would have charged both the boy and the girl with soliciting child pornography and cast them down with the sodomites.
Re: (Score:2)
In the U.S., we would have charged both the boy and the girl with soliciting child pornography and cast them down with the sodomites.
Dang it. I meant distributing. What slashdot? Still no edit button? What is this, 1970? I know, I know, preview. But in preview the brain is still seeing what it thinks it told you to type.
Re: (Score:2)
Dang it. I meant distributing. What slashdot? Still no edit button?
Nope. It fouls up the moderation system.
That's usually where the conversation ends, but we could actually consider that fact a moment. Ok, it fouls up the moderation system. Something that has been modded up could be edited after the fact into something totally different than what was originally modded. (And would be. Don't kid yourself.)
But this observation does uncover a perfectly reasonable modification. Allow editing until a post has been modded. That actually seems completely reasonable. And mo
Re: (Score:2)
Or y'all could use that li'l ol' Preview button...
What if it were not digital? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Just goes to show that abstinence is still far superior birth control than even contraception. Abstinence isn't perfect either. If you are a rich and famous man you can still father children without ever having slept with a girl. However, those cases are as rare as being rich and famous.
Re: (Score:2)
Telling people to not have sex is like trying to address the obesity crisis by telling people to not eat unhealthy foods. It's good advice if they can follow it - but there is a billion years worth of heavily ingrained instinct pushing in the opposite direction, and few have the force of will to resist.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. Exposing yourself makes you pregnant?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it's a start.
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't that she didn't distribute the picture. She did, but women are not responsible for their actions. That's why they have a male guardian and can't vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
But in fairness, the one she unfairly punished was a problem student and did that kind of thing.
No... in "fairness", the girls who threw the object were the problem students. Let the troublemaker boy get punished for his own crimes.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Boy sends a naked picture to a girl, gets a record. She then sends the picture to host of other people with the clear intent to hurt the boy, but that's fine. How was he distributing the picture and she wasn't? That's just... exactly how the world works. Carry on.
Well to punish the girl might dissuade her from working in technology. We can't have that now can we?
Re: (Score:2)
Well to punish the girl might dissuade her from working in technology. We can't have that now can we?
Well, she'll just work in justice then. You don't need an understanding of technology there. And that way, she later can get back at her geeky classmate by punishing him harshly for repairing a friends' computer...
Re: (Score:3)
It's not how the world works, it's how a justice system which has been completely warped by feminist legbeards works. Think I'm kidding? Think again [dailymail.co.uk]. If the degree to which an out and out hate movement has co-opted legislation and law enforcement doesn't appall you, it should.
Re: (Score:3)
However, his mother was told her son's details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
feminist legbeards
new band name. thanks!
(seriously, I never heard that phrase before.)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read the article:
his mother was told her son's details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone was incapable of ignoring facts, there would be fewer grand, heated arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
She then sends the picture to host of other people with the clear intent to hurt the boy, but that's fine.
Nobody said that was fine. They said that were she over 18 she could have been charged with "revenge porn" -- which is saying that it isn't fine, just that she's too young to be charged. And they didn't say she didn't end up on the same list, only that there was no information available to know she had.
How was he distributing the picture and she wasn't?
She was, and the article said she was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore he's a guilty perv and she's completely innocent.
Except he's not guilty of anything and she's also been recorded in the same database.
[The boy's] details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Or y'know, a girl can take pictures of herself, send them to her boyfriend, and be charged for sex crimes against herself. It's not just a gender thing - it's much broader stupidity.
http://www.fayobserver.com/new... [fayobserver.com]
Saved snapchat (Score:3)
Isn't that impossible she must be a hacker. So she distributed kiddy porn and was an evil hacker violating snapchats TOS. Oh thats right the SJW's would call charging her abusing the victim.
It's some young teenage kids trying to figure out sex it should have not made it past the headmaster and parents. It's not like it should have been shocking the UK age of consent is what 16? Mind you the two of them can have sex without legal issue throw snapchat into the mix and now it's a serious crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Mind you the two of them can have sex without legal issue throw snapchat into the mix and now it's a serious crime?
Maybe it's that that's the problem? Kind of defines deviancy down, doesn't it?
Sexting can harm children (Score:2, Interesting)
It's nice that the police said:
"'Sexting' may seem like a harmless or normal activity but there are many risks involved. Once circulated, the sender loses all control of that image and can cause significant distress when it gets into wider hands. It is essential that we work, alone and alongside partners such as schools and families, to intervene early and prevent young people from becoming both the victims and perpetrators of crime."
How nice of the police to recognize that sexting has risks, and then they demonstrate that the police response is the biggest risk by filing a police report that will follow him for the next 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice that the police said:
"'Sexting' may seem like a harmless or normal activity but there are many risks involved. Once circulated, the sender loses all control of that image and can cause significant distress when it gets into wider hands. It is essential that we work, alone and alongside partners such as schools and families, to intervene early and prevent young people from becoming both the victims and perpetrators of crime."
How nice of the police to recognize that sexting has risks, and then they demonstrate that the police response is the biggest risk by filing a police report that will follow him for the next 10 years.
This is really dumb. This is like being arrested for "accessory to burglary" if you fail to lock your door.
Not a Sex Offender's Register (Score:5, Informative)
I RTFA (I know)
He wasn't placed on a sex offender's register (last I heard, the UK declined to implement one), rather a registry of people who have had legal complaints filed with the police agency. Someone (probably a tip from whatever social network the picture was shared on) notified the police about it, and a public record was automatically made about that notification. The police didn't press charges, as they claim to be lenient about teen sexting; an actual modification to the law would be a better option than selective enforcement, however. A bigger problem is that a publicly-searchable registry exists of people who have been accused of a crime, even if the police thought there wasn't enough of a case/cause to arrest or prosecute them. Most people never get called on their 3 felonies per day, so it can be used to single out people no more guilty than typical.
Re: (Score:2)
We do have a sex offenders register but we don't have felonies in the UK. As regards the public searchability of it - it's not exactly public information but might be disclosed to a potential employer, if relevant. So he wanted to become a teacher, it would be a problem but it wouldn't be disclosed to everyone who asked.
On the existance of a 'suspicion' registry - it's a tricky issue. Often people convicted of serious sexual offences leave a trail of prior allegations and suspicions behind them. It's tempti
Re: (Score:3)
It's tempting to take the position that until something is proved in court the only fair thing is to do nothing about it. I'm not sure that gets the balance right - you risk harm to innocent parties in either case, so there is no good solution.
It's not just tempting, it's the right thing to do. The problem here is what's the threshold of proof to get on a list of "suspicion" registry? If it's not just as firm as actual conviction of a crime, then it's punishment without due process, perhaps libel as well.
A free society has no place for public accusations or suspicions without evidence that can be gamed by anyone with a grudge, particularly the authorities.
Obviously, this is over the top in this case - sadly police have got more process driven, and common sense has gone out of the window a bit.
There's one word to describe this situation - unaccountability. Established procedures can be used to insure that some common task, such as arresting someone, is done right. But they can also be used to evade responsibility. Zero tolerance policies and similarly heavy-handed responses no matter how slight the issue are an example of procedure gone wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people never get called on their 3 felonies per day, so it can be used to single out people no more guilty than typical.
Most people don't do 3 felonies a day. I personally haven't done a felony in over 30 years (when I last visited the USA) and 95% of the worlds population seldom if ever visit the "Land of the Free" which is the only place that has felons (a class of people who have their rights curtailed forever, originally so the King could take their property (fief)).
Still better than the US (Score:5, Informative)
This is still better than the US. He would have had to register as a sex offender, which is a life-long sentence. He would not allowed to live near a school or attend a school, and would have to notify his neighbors that he is a registered sex offender...for the rest of his life.
Re: (Score:2)
Pissing outside will also get you on the US sex offender list.
To be fair, that would only happen if you had your twig out.
Mister.
What's with these laws today? (Score:2)
Assistant Chief Constable on the radio this am .. (Score:5, Interesting)
The school raised it with the police, and they are duty bound to record the 'offence'. However, that is no guarantee it would ever surface again. In the future, if young man decides to go for a job in public service - a policeman, teacher, lollypop man, chat show host - whatever, then the process would be:
Potential employer would ask for a Criminal Records Bureau check. Check would come back positive, at which point the police have the right to decide it was too long ago, too trivial etc and can ignore the finding. Second, they would contact the young man and tell him that they have received a request, and that the CRB check has turned something up.
Young man then has the option to challenge the CRB check, and it may at that point go no further. Only if those two hurdles are tripped over would the result return to the potential employer, who themselves might decide it is all bollocks and ignore it.
Who is at fault here? The boy for doing something childish? Hardly. Apart from the inconvenience of a few photons, it is unlikely to be a novel picture that causes a particular offence. The girl for doing something irresponsible as well? Dubious, really. Even if she forwarded it with a bit of libellous writing attached, hardly the crime of the century. The fault surely lay with the teacher for propagating the pain, and not dealing with it sensibly in loco parentis.
Re: (Score:2)
The fault surely lay with the teacher for propagating the pain, and not dealing with it sensibly in loco parentis.
You can't just blame the teacher in isolation. The UK, more than anywhere else, has long been in the grip of a "peds under the bed" hysteria.
It is a society that may have made the teacher afraid for he job if she did not report it.
Re: (Score:2)
The fault surely lay with the teacher for propagating the pain, and not dealing with it sensibly in loco parentis.
The teacher is a single person working in a larger system. I ask you, what would have happened if the teacher didn't propagate this up the chain and news got out? Do you think people would accept the appropriate judgement of the teacher? In much of the Western world we'd be asking for the teacher's head and to remove them from the classroom.
The problem is the wider system that attempts to repress sexuality out of what I can't imagine as being anything other than fear. Remember we're talking about a country
Objectivity, lost. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are 3 things to observe about this case:
1. The kid is a dumb idiot and needs to be punished for sending naked pics.
2. The girl is a dumb idiot and needs to be punished for further forwarding and spreading the pics.
3. The police are dumb idiots who have such a low standard, and such low quality as a police force, that publicizing and making a police statement out of a god damn random teenager over naked pics is something they are more proud of; instead of seeking to publicize and make statements about real crime with real criminals that would actually require effort and principles (in the case of corrupt politicians which there are plenty of).
Captcha: excrete
How fitting.
Law in the UK? (Score:2)
The police determine the guilt/innocence of a suspect? And they determine the remedial and/or punitive measures to be taken?
What did you folks do with your courts? Please don't tell me you closed them. I thought those wigs were cool.
Re: (Score:2)
The police determine the guilt/innocence of a suspect? And they determine the remedial and/or punitive measures to be taken?
No, they don't. What made you think that?
No-one's been found guilty of anything. Events occured. The police were inolved. They have made a record of this.
Huh? (Score:2)
I guess I'm supposed to be shocked by the headline? Oh noos.
If you'd prefer he get an @ss-whupping or psychiatric treatment instead, OK, I guess that would work.
If she shared . . . (Score:2)
If the girl shared the pictures, she's just as guilty and should be treated the same.
Re: (Score:2)
And so she was:
[The boy's] details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.
Knew a person arrested for peeing in public (Score:2)
As out of the way as one does, he was convicted of a sex crime.
Re: (Score:2)
A right is something each individual has against the mob. Government is classified as a Mob.
This kind of thing is what happens when you don't understand what is, and what isn't a right. Rights exist and require nothing. You don't have a "right" to healthcare, because to give you "healthcare" denies the rights of someone else (Dr, Nurses ....) But hey, I'm a big fat mean libertarian who sees the tyranny as it encroaches.
Re: (Score:3)
A right isn't protection. I have the right to keep and bear arms. IT requires NOTHING from anyone to practice. It doesn't require government. It doesn't require anyone else to do anything. It exists on its own, apart from anyone or anything else. I have that right if I am alone on an island.
The point of government is supposed to be to secure(protect) the rights of individuals, NOT rule over men. The moment government compels someone to do something against his conscience, it is necessarily harming him.
Relat
Re: (Score:3)
What else is there to talk about here except for the complete lack of individual human rights?
I'm confused. Are you claiming that it is your "individual human right" to send naked pictures of yourself to any girl you might happen to know? How about her "individual human right" not to have pictures of your junk show up on her phone?
Or is it her "individual human right" to distribute that naked picture of you that you sent with the explicit intent that it be deleted soon after being received?
Whose "individual human rights" are we talking about here? And when did distributing porn to unsuspecting re
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you confused? The issue's simple once you toss aside the legal pedantry. Before we send 14 yos to the gulag (or add them to scarlet letter 'lists') over a picture, there should be responsibility for showing how harm was done. I know if I received a picture of a naked human, I'd laugh and delete. It might be unwanted, yes, but that's not the same thing as harm. I won't be scarred for life and neither will this girl. Now, if the kid didn't want the picture distributed by her, he should've known bett
Re: (Score:2)
As a culture, it seems we need to t
Re:so they should (Score:4, Insightful)
As a culture we need to take a deep breath and figure out when our attempts to "protect" children are significantly more traumatic and damaging than simply leaving them to resolve their problems themselves.
And start by remembering that not so long ago, 14-year old kids would be expected by their elders and the community to have already started raising their own kids. Which takes a lot more than just looking at pictures.
Somehow we managed to survive that for many millennia.
Re:so they should (Score:4, Insightful)
Typically, as societies become more successful and wealthy, women have fewer kids and wait until later in life to have them. And even though we are physically able to produce children at young ages, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Our brains aren't fully developed until around age 25 or so. Because of this many adolescents are practically wired to make crappy decisions. Sometimes the natural consequences are what's necessary to keep them from repeating the same mistakes. Other times some intervention or prevention is necessary. Lots of teens are definitely at risk for suicide. You don't always want to wait for them to work it out themselves.
I have a 15 year old son, and a 12 year old daughter so I'm right in the middle of this. Even though my son's hormones are raging and my daughter's are headed in that direction, they aren't even close to being physically or emotionally mature. They do not have the means to raise a child on their own. Of course, there is such a thing as birth control, but the chemical methods have bad side effects and potential health risks when used for a long time. Non-chemical methods tend not to be that reliable. So delaying full blown sex until their later teens or early twenties is something we'd like to see. Definitely past 14. Past 17 is probably pushing it, but we can hope. 17 is the current average for when kids become sexually active.
Re: (Score:2)
Look into the IUD. Highly reliable, so simple a teenager can use it, minimal side effects.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, I'm not sure that "child pornography for gain" should be decriminalized. And if "child pornography" were sufficiently narrowly and precisely defined it would probably be reasonable. (Nothing wrong with pictures of children, no matter what they aren't wearing. The nude picture of a naked child on a bear rug should only raise the hackles of conservationists. Etc. Pictured of forcible penetration, OTOH, are probably reprehensible outside of academic courses on abnormal psychology...and to be h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
there *must* be consequences
Sorry, why must there be consequences? Why is it being taking as a fundamental truth that the kids did anything wrong here? Why exactly is it that, at the arbitrary age of 16 (this is the UK), suddenly anything and everything sexual is ok, but, before that anything and everything sexual requires "consequences"? Or, what level of sexual activity requires consequences? Does looking at the opposite sex require consequences. Dancing with a good half metre of space between? Dancing with *gasp*... touching? Kissi
Re: (Score:2)
All of which has led to a criminal conviction against the child.
No, it has not. He hasn't been convicted of anything.
Lean to read.
Re: (Score:2)
i know people need false things to worry about but seriously i don't see child molesters behind every shrub in America.
That's because they've learned how not to be seen [youtube.com]!