Can I provide screen recordings of search history to the police?
Notifications OFF
My ex partner gave my child an old phone and didn't wipe it. In checking it had the correct safeguarding settings on it I saw a large amount of pornography on it saved as images and recordings of live sex cams. There were no safeguarding settings on the phone so I immediately looked at the search history. In it I saw hundreds of searches and viewed images every day. Some of these contained references to teens and schoolgirls, what was showing was thumbnail images and then live urls next to these, and things like image viewed, image search and then there was text search. I sought advice from LFF and was advised to hand it to the police which I did.
This is when the nightmare began. Instead of just taking it securely and investigating what I'd seen they first of all said school girl p was a thing at the moment, and not to worry about it, then they told me to just call my ex and tell him not to be so stupid next time, and then they told me to factory reset the phone and tried to leave without taking it. They really did not want to take it and even that first call to my house were saying things like "It will be very hard to prove intent" trying to say that I was saying he intentionally was getting my child to view pornography, which I wasnt. I was just very concerned for the children depicted as I know this to be illegal as well as concerning.
After a very short time they NFA saying I was a vindictive ex partner (I had not shown anything for them to come to that conclusion, Id been rational and polite in all interactions). They said there was no evidence of there being IIOC because I could not verify what I had seen was of children...which sounded very strange to me. It separately went to the family court because of having a child and being advised by duty social worker I needed to exercise parental responsibility and pause contact until the family court had dealt with it.
I made screen recordings of what I had seen as I was concerned that the police weren't concerned. When I received the police report of why they NFA it was shocking the things they said and it was based on what they thought my motivation was rather than the actual facts of what I was presening. The fact I also experienced domestic abuse was very heavily relied on too, in a negative way, which is just flabbergasting.
I can't put too much detail in about the intervening time as it will identify us but where I am at is a year and a half later I have had to revisit the recordings. The police have declined to take them and examine them this whole time. The phone was examined and returned no IIOC but they never examined the Cloud which is where the search history must have been located. Looking at it in greater detail and magnification I am 99.9% sure I am looking at 12/13 year olds in these images.
So my question is, how do I get the police to take this seriously, and to understand what I am saying, and why is it they are not hearing what I am saying? Is this a thing in this world that the police just do not deal with this and want it off their desks asap? There have been a further two NFAs despite social services and school safeguarding referrals. I have been messaging a fairly high up officer in our local force to ask what to do today and I have had a response. I intend to go to the station tomorrow morning with everything I have and try again. I am so shocked at how this has transpired. Is this normal? I assumed they would immediately deal with it and investigate. Im shocked they haven't so long after it being reported. I imagine all evidence has been destroyed as of course ex has had sight of all police reports through the family court.
Lastly I feel broken at having to examine and look at this stuff myself in the course of the family court proceedings, has anyone else been through this? It feels next level wrong to make me document it for them when there should be professional police officers trained to do it looking at it, not me. I just feel I have stepped into some sort of parrallel universe. No idea where to get help and support from anymore, the world seems to have gone upside down.
This is when the nightmare began. Instead of just taking it securely and investigating what I'd seen they first of all said school girl p was a thing at the moment, and not to worry about it, then they told me to just call my ex and tell him not to be so stupid next time, and then they told me to factory reset the phone and tried to leave without taking it. They really did not want to take it and even that first call to my house were saying things like "It will be very hard to prove intent" trying to say that I was saying he intentionally was getting my child to view pornography, which I wasnt. I was just very concerned for the children depicted as I know this to be illegal as well as concerning.
After a very short time they NFA saying I was a vindictive ex partner (I had not shown anything for them to come to that conclusion, Id been rational and polite in all interactions). They said there was no evidence of there being IIOC because I could not verify what I had seen was of children...which sounded very strange to me. It separately went to the family court because of having a child and being advised by duty social worker I needed to exercise parental responsibility and pause contact until the family court had dealt with it.
I made screen recordings of what I had seen as I was concerned that the police weren't concerned. When I received the police report of why they NFA it was shocking the things they said and it was based on what they thought my motivation was rather than the actual facts of what I was presening. The fact I also experienced domestic abuse was very heavily relied on too, in a negative way, which is just flabbergasting.
I can't put too much detail in about the intervening time as it will identify us but where I am at is a year and a half later I have had to revisit the recordings. The police have declined to take them and examine them this whole time. The phone was examined and returned no IIOC but they never examined the Cloud which is where the search history must have been located. Looking at it in greater detail and magnification I am 99.9% sure I am looking at 12/13 year olds in these images.
So my question is, how do I get the police to take this seriously, and to understand what I am saying, and why is it they are not hearing what I am saying? Is this a thing in this world that the police just do not deal with this and want it off their desks asap? There have been a further two NFAs despite social services and school safeguarding referrals. I have been messaging a fairly high up officer in our local force to ask what to do today and I have had a response. I intend to go to the station tomorrow morning with everything I have and try again. I am so shocked at how this has transpired. Is this normal? I assumed they would immediately deal with it and investigate. Im shocked they haven't so long after it being reported. I imagine all evidence has been destroyed as of course ex has had sight of all police reports through the family court.
Lastly I feel broken at having to examine and look at this stuff myself in the course of the family court proceedings, has anyone else been through this? It feels next level wrong to make me document it for them when there should be professional police officers trained to do it looking at it, not me. I just feel I have stepped into some sort of parrallel universe. No idea where to get help and support from anymore, the world seems to have gone upside down.
Wow wtaf?! I'm starting to think this sort of offence is being effectively decriminalised, horrific. I just wanted to say well done for trying to get this looked into. It must be horrific and I hope it's taken seriously. I think the schoolgirl thing is sick and we don't seem to have moved on from sexualising young teens in this country. Whomever brushed off your complaint should have their hard drive looked into frankly.
Judging by what we see on this forum, these offences have certainly not been decriminalised!
In fact, the law is due to changed fairly soon to make it illegal to possess images of adults purporting to be children. That would cover the schoolgirl thing, which is and always has been, a recurring feature in pornography.
But even the Internet Watch Foundation admit that a lot of what is referred to them as being illegal, is not actually illegal. The definition of a Category C image is quite broad, but it would not cover schoolgirls, even if they were under 18, unless they were posing indecently, which is a difficult thing to determine legally.
In fact, the law is due to changed fairly soon to make it illegal to possess images of adults purporting to be children. That would cover the schoolgirl thing, which is and always has been, a recurring feature in pornography.
But even the Internet Watch Foundation admit that a lot of what is referred to them as being illegal, is not actually illegal. The definition of a Category C image is quite broad, but it would not cover schoolgirls, even if they were under 18, unless they were posing indecently, which is a difficult thing to determine legally.
Good luck to all the reporters and leavers out there, I hope I find a place for those of us who do not care about the perpetrators because I certainly don't. One day they might get more than a slap on the wrist and more support than the actual victims.
H34rtbr0k3n
I think that if you look across the whole spectrum of perpetrators, you will see more than just older men looking at pictures of schoolgirls, which is the stereotype of offenders perpetuated by the media.
The official figures from police forces appear to show that as many as 50% of those arrested for iioc are under 18. The overwhelming majority of those children will not be prosecuted, because as a society, we have decided it is not a good idea to criminalise children. That could be described as a slap on the wrist, but for a good reason.
There are also quite a lot of autistic adults being prosecuted. Their autism is not permitted to be used as a defence for what they did, but that is also controversial. Their friends and family would probably argue that they deserve support, not punishment.
So overall, I would say the picture is more diverse and complicated than it might appear.
I think that if you look across the whole spectrum of perpetrators, you will see more than just older men looking at pictures of schoolgirls, which is the stereotype of offenders perpetuated by the media.
The official figures from police forces appear to show that as many as 50% of those arrested for iioc are under 18. The overwhelming majority of those children will not be prosecuted, because as a society, we have decided it is not a good idea to criminalise children. That could be described as a slap on the wrist, but for a good reason.
There are also quite a lot of autistic adults being prosecuted. Their autism is not permitted to be used as a defence for what they did, but that is also controversial. Their friends and family would probably argue that they deserve support, not punishment.
So overall, I would say the picture is more diverse and complicated than it might appear.
Hi, I'm not sure if the last reply was for my post, it doesn't seem related. My ex is in 50s and I saw images of girls I would say were 12/13 no older. The police NFA very quickly, to get it off their desk and have provided many excuses over a long period of time for not investigating it properly. One of the main ones being it is difficult to get permission to examine cloud data. However I made extensive recordings and took photos using my own phone and have provided these to them. We shall see what happens. There was still a lot of push back. I don't understand why. Is it just the work involved or is it because it relates to historic images? It is very very confusing. It is straightforward to prove it is of the device in question. Obviously can't see here how.
singlemum
I cannot explain why the police are taking no action, because if you look elsewhere on this forum you will see they do not normally hesitate to prosecute people for image offences.
The only conclusion I can reach is that they judged the images to be legal, in other words not indecent. In the case of the girls you say were aged 12 or 13, can I ask, were they fully clothed, partially clothed or naked?
Age itself is not enough for a prosecution. the law says they must be posing in an "erotic" way to be indecent. That is obviously quite hard to determine. As for the searches, it is not a crime to search for the words teen or schoolgirl and as for cloud offences, it is difficult for them to get access to those accounts, although not impossible and harder to prove possession. They do tend to focus on what is actually on the devices.
But if you are not happy with the way the investigation has been handled, you should put in an official complaint.
I cannot explain why the police are taking no action, because if you look elsewhere on this forum you will see they do not normally hesitate to prosecute people for image offences.
The only conclusion I can reach is that they judged the images to be legal, in other words not indecent. In the case of the girls you say were aged 12 or 13, can I ask, were they fully clothed, partially clothed or naked?
Age itself is not enough for a prosecution. the law says they must be posing in an "erotic" way to be indecent. That is obviously quite hard to determine. As for the searches, it is not a crime to search for the words teen or schoolgirl and as for cloud offences, it is difficult for them to get access to those accounts, although not impossible and harder to prove possession. They do tend to focus on what is actually on the devices.
But if you are not happy with the way the investigation has been handled, you should put in an official complaint.
Hi, naked and adult men having sex with them, as well as them having sex with each other. Not just posing. It seems to be my apparent "motive" they've been focussed on instead of looking at the images. I have no motive except they are wrong and should not be on the internet. Bureaucratic paperwork has prevented any professionals from examining them this far. It has been really shocking. It feels like noone wants to do the work.
I have children of this age and I am more than capable of working out that the girls shown are 12/13 years old. They are flat chested or with underdeveloped breasts, they are caucasian so cannot be justified as being to do with their country of origin. They are definitely children. I have no idea why you keep on replying with this type of reply and I can only think you are either work for the police or you are a man. I am finding it utterly bizarre the attempt to gaslight me on my own experience and observations. Perhaps it would be better not to post as it is extremely misleading to anyone who is reading these posts because you are immediately dismissing what I have seen, and what the police have done and commented on. You of course also do not know the full story as I need to keep this confidential. But all I can tell you is I am absolutely certain the girls depicted are not 18, they are naked and it is extremely straightforward to work out.
