Is the system wrong?
Notifications OFF
This is a long story that has taken me some time to write and unwrite.
It began when my son was in his early teens. He suffered tics which was mimicked by his teacher and classmates. He had no school friends and relied on communication via online.
He developed hyper sexuality behaviour and sought numerous times with the NHS and each time we were advised that his behaviour was normal for his age and that we were denying his privacy. They stated that unless he did something illegal they could not intervene, but our son was more getting more agitated at his CSB.
We restricted his online presence and made sure that we had access to every thing he was doing he was advised to not send images, get consent, and he would be OK by an NHS professional
We then got a knock on the door a group of people had announced he had been talking to a child sexually. I checked the communication logs and found that he had been on an adult chat room, speaking to someone who had created an over 19 profile for several days with no photo to confirm their appearance. The decoy then announced they were 13 and my son continued his standard CSB which he would do after getting'Consent' regardless of gender or age.
The group interviewed him, said he was lying about being the first time offence and told the police he was a repeat offender. Humiliated us and said our lives will not be worth living after social media had finished with us. We said he was being assessed for Autism and how he previously sought advice but could now get help.
The police arrested him and despite us saying he was a vulnerable adult as he was being assessed for Autism. He was still denied an appropriate adult and he was too stunned to request a solicitor.
The press published his details, he lost his job, over 20k messages of hate flooded Facebook and he was planning to take his life in prison. The sentence was quick as he pleaded guilty but was told he had to admit he fancied children which he doesn't. The judge accepted the system was wrong as several times he sought help.
I explained that if the NHS had just directed us to stop it now then none of this would have happened although now it has happened he got help has was diagnosed as having one of the most severe cases of Autism and ADHD
He had no intention to harm children which I believe the system was designed for and I accept that child protection is paramount. I also appreciate the support that our son has had after the effect but if this was an actual child then the lack of support from the NHS could have impacted the child victim as well.
The system needs to be reviewed so that Autistic CSB sufferers don't harm children.
It began when my son was in his early teens. He suffered tics which was mimicked by his teacher and classmates. He had no school friends and relied on communication via online.
He developed hyper sexuality behaviour and sought numerous times with the NHS and each time we were advised that his behaviour was normal for his age and that we were denying his privacy. They stated that unless he did something illegal they could not intervene, but our son was more getting more agitated at his CSB.
We restricted his online presence and made sure that we had access to every thing he was doing he was advised to not send images, get consent, and he would be OK by an NHS professional
We then got a knock on the door a group of people had announced he had been talking to a child sexually. I checked the communication logs and found that he had been on an adult chat room, speaking to someone who had created an over 19 profile for several days with no photo to confirm their appearance. The decoy then announced they were 13 and my son continued his standard CSB which he would do after getting'Consent' regardless of gender or age.
The group interviewed him, said he was lying about being the first time offence and told the police he was a repeat offender. Humiliated us and said our lives will not be worth living after social media had finished with us. We said he was being assessed for Autism and how he previously sought advice but could now get help.
The police arrested him and despite us saying he was a vulnerable adult as he was being assessed for Autism. He was still denied an appropriate adult and he was too stunned to request a solicitor.
The press published his details, he lost his job, over 20k messages of hate flooded Facebook and he was planning to take his life in prison. The sentence was quick as he pleaded guilty but was told he had to admit he fancied children which he doesn't. The judge accepted the system was wrong as several times he sought help.
I explained that if the NHS had just directed us to stop it now then none of this would have happened although now it has happened he got help has was diagnosed as having one of the most severe cases of Autism and ADHD
He had no intention to harm children which I believe the system was designed for and I accept that child protection is paramount. I also appreciate the support that our son has had after the effect but if this was an actual child then the lack of support from the NHS could have impacted the child victim as well.
The system needs to be reviewed so that Autistic CSB sufferers don't harm children.
Hi, sorry to read your post... l agree that the system fails old teens/young adults with neurodivergent conditions..
Our son has had sexual communications online, he has never sent images or arranged to meet, has no interest in under 16's etc.. he just chose to have similar conversations to those he was having with adults... looking back at conversations when he was under 16, adult females were having these conversations with him and he has just never drawn the line as he got older.. he now accepts that these conversations were wrong but never for gratification or grooming.. not sure what the result will be, just got to wait.. at least he is now been assessed for autism..
Our son has had sexual communications online, he has never sent images or arranged to meet, has no interest in under 16's etc.. he just chose to have similar conversations to those he was having with adults... looking back at conversations when he was under 16, adult females were having these conversations with him and he has just never drawn the line as he got older.. he now accepts that these conversations were wrong but never for gratification or grooming.. not sure what the result will be, just got to wait.. at least he is now been assessed for autism..
To both Dads, how I feel for you since I have been in a similar position with my already diagnosed autistic son. We are emerging from the other side now but the trauma and stress will always be with us. The tragic thing is that the help for our young vulnerable sons is only available after the event. The only comfort I take is that no actual 'victim' even existed and also that with all the help he has received, he is in a much better situation .
So as this affects so many groups, can the system change. AI systems should be able to flag potential incidents before they happen and signpost to support with the punishment being more of a next level
It sounds like a good idea, except that the law is not broken, until it is broken. At which point, it is too late to issue a warning.
Other people have suggested a warning system, but that already exists in some form. There are warnings on all these apps, not to misuse them for example.
In the case you mention, the warning was when the person with the profile of a 19 year old, revealed that they were 13. At that point your son should have ended the conversation.
Some porn sites do already issue warnings, if the user searches for particular words.
I suppose you could create an AI that could read every conversation and issue a warning if certain words were used, but then you would have the argument about privacy, especially if it involved encrypted message apps.
Other people have suggested a warning system, but that already exists in some form. There are warnings on all these apps, not to misuse them for example.
In the case you mention, the warning was when the person with the profile of a 19 year old, revealed that they were 13. At that point your son should have ended the conversation.
Some porn sites do already issue warnings, if the user searches for particular words.
I suppose you could create an AI that could read every conversation and issue a warning if certain words were used, but then you would have the argument about privacy, especially if it involved encrypted message apps.
Personally l think we should adopt the Australia system and bring in a ban on under 16's being able to have a social media account... okay yes they will get round them.. but there will be a drop off in conversations between adults and children..
From what I can gather and this is only my experience, yes more direct warnings need to be in place alongside educating our young people specifically about online dangers.
However as it was explained to me by the Clinical Psychologist who assessed my Son (who was already diagnosed autistic and then 23 yrs old), yes, he should have not crossed the red line BUT, as he was already 'sucked in' to a friendly conversation, his autism played a substantial part in explaining why emotionally he was unable to just stop !
He had no friends at the time and was lured in by a false profile on an adult chat site thinking she was 18, once he was already engaging with their leading questions, they suggested WhatsApp whereby they could easily screenshot their 'evidence' he readily disclosed early on that he was autistic, if these Vigilantes had a real wish to be of service, they should have also stopped !
The police and the CJS need in my view to have a different protocol for the way in which they deal these young people where their neurodivergence plays a significant factor in why they offended in the first place.
However as it was explained to me by the Clinical Psychologist who assessed my Son (who was already diagnosed autistic and then 23 yrs old), yes, he should have not crossed the red line BUT, as he was already 'sucked in' to a friendly conversation, his autism played a substantial part in explaining why emotionally he was unable to just stop !
He had no friends at the time and was lured in by a false profile on an adult chat site thinking she was 18, once he was already engaging with their leading questions, they suggested WhatsApp whereby they could easily screenshot their 'evidence' he readily disclosed early on that he was autistic, if these Vigilantes had a real wish to be of service, they should have also stopped !
The police and the CJS need in my view to have a different protocol for the way in which they deal these young people where their neurodivergence plays a significant factor in why they offended in the first place.
This is exactly what happened with our child same age as well and they suggested to go to Whatsapp
It annoys us that he approached the NHS with concerns of his communication habits as he heard of similar conditions elsewhere which were controlled by medications.
additionally his 'interview' with the decoy under PACT was sent to local social media on Facebook, which under code 'C' is highly illegal due to to no appropriate adult being present. It's still doing the rounds and police will not take it down so I will mention it to the police again.
Additionally if I go into a pub and order a pint can I say I am only 13 and get the pub closed down even after showing ID that I am over 50?
It annoys us that he approached the NHS with concerns of his communication habits as he heard of similar conditions elsewhere which were controlled by medications.
additionally his 'interview' with the decoy under PACT was sent to local social media on Facebook, which under code 'C' is highly illegal due to to no appropriate adult being present. It's still doing the rounds and police will not take it down so I will mention it to the police again.
Additionally if I go into a pub and order a pint can I say I am only 13 and get the pub closed down even after showing ID that I am over 50?
PACT only applies if somebody is being interviewed by police officers. If I read your post correctly, he was "interviewed" by vigilantes. Is that right? In which case there are no rules about an appropriate adult having to be present.
On the other thing about age verification. If the vigilantes create an adult profile, pretending to be 19, but then say in a conversation that they are 13, the law would ask, did your son reasonably believe that the person he was speaking to, was 13 or 19.
If there is no profile picture and no other detail in the conversations to identify them, then there is a defence, but the obvious question is why would they lie?
Police decoys operate slightly differently and will mention other things, like being at school, to make it clear to a judge, that there was no "misunderstanding" about the age. Some vigilante groups also ask additional questions, to make certain the person understans they are speaking to a minor, but others do not.
But as I understand it, the issue here is not about warnings or age verification, it is about addiction and obsessive/compulsive beahaviour. If somebody is a porn addict, or exhibiting compulsive sexual behaviours, then no amount of warning signs will ever be able to persuade them to stop.
Medication, like SSRIs for example, might help, but probably therapy is required as well, to get to the root cause of the behaviour.
On the other thing about age verification. If the vigilantes create an adult profile, pretending to be 19, but then say in a conversation that they are 13, the law would ask, did your son reasonably believe that the person he was speaking to, was 13 or 19.
If there is no profile picture and no other detail in the conversations to identify them, then there is a defence, but the obvious question is why would they lie?
Police decoys operate slightly differently and will mention other things, like being at school, to make it clear to a judge, that there was no "misunderstanding" about the age. Some vigilante groups also ask additional questions, to make certain the person understans they are speaking to a minor, but others do not.
But as I understand it, the issue here is not about warnings or age verification, it is about addiction and obsessive/compulsive beahaviour. If somebody is a porn addict, or exhibiting compulsive sexual behaviours, then no amount of warning signs will ever be able to persuade them to stop.
Medication, like SSRIs for example, might help, but probably therapy is required as well, to get to the root cause of the behaviour.
So my son was talking to the decoy way before his CSB kicked in. It happens randomly almost toretts style. He would mention feeling 'anxious' and they would ask to elaborate but didn't His first response to being told they were 13 was so your too young to which he doesn't know why he said it. He just comes out with random sexual sentences and then acts normal.
They asked to meet up after school and he said they were too young, and then they stung him as he wasn't talking sexually anymore.
They asked to meet up after school and he said they were too young, and then they stung him as he wasn't talking sexually anymore.
Sorry I meant PACE section 24a which gives the vigilantes the power to detain an individual as it's a crown court offence, has codes to protect the detainee.
These codes apply to the police and the Vigilante groups and as such the filming of the "interview" and sending to other social media networks will be as per the police. I.e if the police interviewed, filmed it without an appropriate adult and then sent it to Facebook they would have violated PACE codes
I have written to my MP to bring into consideration that new rules could effect neurodivergent offenders
These codes apply to the police and the Vigilante groups and as such the filming of the "interview" and sending to other social media networks will be as per the police. I.e if the police interviewed, filmed it without an appropriate adult and then sent it to Facebook they would have violated PACE codes
I have written to my MP to bring into consideration that new rules could effect neurodivergent offenders
I think you are mixing up two different things. PACE s.24 is about the powers of arrest. A vigilante can detain someone, but must hand them over to the police at the earliest opportunity, otherwise it is a potential kidnapping.
But all the other codes about interviewing someone who is detained, apply to police officers only, not to vigilantes. Unless the police themselves have designated a non police officer to do the interview.
Thats why we talk about a citizens arrest, but there is no such thing as a "citizens interview".
Posting the interview online on the other hand, might be a breach of privacy under GDPR. But I have a feeling that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one. So your son could potentially sue the vigilantes, in a civil court, if they suffered damage as a result of the interview being published.
The vigilantes, I expect, would argue it is in the public interest, for it to be published, which is a possible defence.
But all the other codes about interviewing someone who is detained, apply to police officers only, not to vigilantes. Unless the police themselves have designated a non police officer to do the interview.
Thats why we talk about a citizens arrest, but there is no such thing as a "citizens interview".
Posting the interview online on the other hand, might be a breach of privacy under GDPR. But I have a feeling that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one. So your son could potentially sue the vigilantes, in a civil court, if they suffered damage as a result of the interview being published.
The vigilantes, I expect, would argue it is in the public interest, for it to be published, which is a possible defence.
The only other question I have is why can decoys say the are 19 and then 13? If they said they were 13 from the start my son would have gone to anther 19 year old. Which the NHS said was perfectly normal to do for his age when he wanted to stop
You say that your son would have gone somewhere else, if he knew from the start that they were 13. In which case, why did he not go elsewhere, as soon as the decoy revealed they were 13?
Like I said before, when you are dealing with CSB or porn addiction, these men are not thinking rationally. Thats why warnings do not work for them.
It is like warning an alcoholic not to drink, or warning a smoker not to smoke. They will not listen.
Like I said before, when you are dealing with CSB or porn addiction, these men are not thinking rationally. Thats why warnings do not work for them.
It is like warning an alcoholic not to drink, or warning a smoker not to smoke. They will not listen.
No his online access was restricted to an Apple Watch linked (due to the NHS not supporting us he wanted to go as off grid as possible) using a Child screen time via my IPhone. For him to get approval to speak to her he had to get our consent.
As soon as he had our consent as we saw her age he gave her his email address. If she said she was 13 he would not have got our consent to give his email address
The thing that upsets us was the decoys tried to convince us he was talking to multiple children posted that on Facebook and the CPS said he would get 6 years
The judge was aware of our parential controls and told us to remove them as he was old enough, but as he was AuDHD we were reluctant to until his offender manager said all our own devices would be taken off us unless we gave him his own isolated device that only he could access
As soon as he had our consent as we saw her age he gave her his email address. If she said she was 13 he would not have got our consent to give his email address
The thing that upsets us was the decoys tried to convince us he was talking to multiple children posted that on Facebook and the CPS said he would get 6 years
The judge was aware of our parential controls and told us to remove them as he was old enough, but as he was AuDHD we were reluctant to until his offender manager said all our own devices would be taken off us unless we gave him his own isolated device that only he could access
Also forgot to add that the NHS convinced us that to suppress his behaviour could cause other problems instead.
I am outraged about so much in this case but I will just address the LD issues.
Dad had done absolutely everything right in order to protect/support his son and been told by those in authority that he was doing wrong!!?
And it is horrific that there is so very little understanding of how people with neuro divergent brains so easily get drawn into things which are unwholesome and can't get themselves out... their brains just can't do it for them unless they have all the best support, and no mixed messages.
Fuming!
Dad had done absolutely everything right in order to protect/support his son and been told by those in authority that he was doing wrong!!?
And it is horrific that there is so very little understanding of how people with neuro divergent brains so easily get drawn into things which are unwholesome and can't get themselves out... their brains just can't do it for them unless they have all the best support, and no mixed messages.
Fuming!
6789 - I totally agree !