Category
Notifications OFFPost deleted by user
Hi Smile through tears
I agree with you on that, but they will never do so as they see it that a "child" has suffered direct psychological harm (I put "child" in quotation because it seems to be mostly decoys).
personally I feel it should be made illegal to pose as a child in the first place. Whether the police/vigilantes believe so or not they are litterely causing supply and demand, and it's sickening.
A lot of the people who have communicated with a "child" have children and have never harmed them in anyway nor would they dream of it. Now those children will suffer direct psychological harm as a result of a fake correspondence, But that doesn't seem to matter to them.
the mothers/fathers/sisters/brothers/grandparents/aunts/uncles/nieces/nephews/sons and daughters don't seem to matter as long as the police/vigilantes gave their person. It's just the offender and "victim" (again quoting because mostly fake) are all that matter. Supply and demand.
unfortunately the majority of online offences are because the suspect doesn't see it as real. When it can be real, they just don't see it or understand that.
im not going to lie or beat around the bush but I get really irked because no one cares about the families of suspects, we are all collateral damage as far as they are concerned. I also get annoyed that everyone says that 13+ are so innocent and have no idea when it comes to illicit content, when was the last time anyone actually listened to the stuff that comes out of their mouths (they talk about s** more than adults who are actually doing it)? Besides real teens block people over the stupidest of reasons do they not think that a real teen would block someone if they started to say illicit things?
all in all I do agree with you, didn't mean to turn that reply into a bit of a vent
I agree with you on that, but they will never do so as they see it that a "child" has suffered direct psychological harm (I put "child" in quotation because it seems to be mostly decoys).
personally I feel it should be made illegal to pose as a child in the first place. Whether the police/vigilantes believe so or not they are litterely causing supply and demand, and it's sickening.
A lot of the people who have communicated with a "child" have children and have never harmed them in anyway nor would they dream of it. Now those children will suffer direct psychological harm as a result of a fake correspondence, But that doesn't seem to matter to them.
the mothers/fathers/sisters/brothers/grandparents/aunts/uncles/nieces/nephews/sons and daughters don't seem to matter as long as the police/vigilantes gave their person. It's just the offender and "victim" (again quoting because mostly fake) are all that matter. Supply and demand.
unfortunately the majority of online offences are because the suspect doesn't see it as real. When it can be real, they just don't see it or understand that.
im not going to lie or beat around the bush but I get really irked because no one cares about the families of suspects, we are all collateral damage as far as they are concerned. I also get annoyed that everyone says that 13+ are so innocent and have no idea when it comes to illicit content, when was the last time anyone actually listened to the stuff that comes out of their mouths (they talk about s** more than adults who are actually doing it)? Besides real teens block people over the stupidest of reasons do they not think that a real teen would block someone if they started to say illicit things?
all in all I do agree with you, didn't mean to turn that reply into a bit of a vent
The attempting /inciting charges are.
Category 1
Penetration of vagina or anus (using body or object)Penile penetration of mouth
In either case by, or of, the victim
Category 2
Touching, or exposure, of naked genitalia or naked breasts by, or of, the victim
Category3
Other sexual activity
Category 1
Penetration of vagina or anus (using body or object)Penile penetration of mouth
In either case by, or of, the victim
Category 2
Touching, or exposure, of naked genitalia or naked breasts by, or of, the victim
Category3
Other sexual activity
Post deleted by user
If it's communication online (written) how can they say it's catagory a or b? It's not in person they can't say either of those, or does it fall in to c? My person is being charged with catagory A then.
i get so confused by all this
i get so confused by all this
Post deleted by user
I find the term 'communications' on this forum miss leading. It took me a long time to get my head around it, the law do not see that it was 'just' a conversation. They see that there was a real attempt to do these things.
I really struggled to get my head around it until tahf penny dropped.
I really struggled to get my head around it until tahf penny dropped.
Physical contact is categoriesed in this way too.
When I was trying to get my head around the charge, I found myself thinking about what would be classed as Communication without there being perceived to be any intent or attempt and the only scenario I've come up with is one where there is talk of activity with a non specific child.
I hate I even have to question any of these things, because non of it should be accepted or encouraged, but I also think there is no leaway or scope for someone having a conversation and it being purely fictitious. I understand why, it'd be very hard to prove. In my person's case, if you read the dialogue on its own you'd not know whether he thought it was all fictitious or if he had real intent behind it. It would only be through reading all the other stuff he'd engages in conversation about that you'd be able to get a grasp that he was 'just' talking fictitiously about many things. But even this is dangerous. I sometimes feel like I'm making excuses for him because the label he has, the sentence he received seems disproportionate to what I believe he was doing.
I hate I even have to question any of these things, because non of it should be accepted or encouraged, but I also think there is no leaway or scope for someone having a conversation and it being purely fictitious. I understand why, it'd be very hard to prove. In my person's case, if you read the dialogue on its own you'd not know whether he thought it was all fictitious or if he had real intent behind it. It would only be through reading all the other stuff he'd engages in conversation about that you'd be able to get a grasp that he was 'just' talking fictitiously about many things. But even this is dangerous. I sometimes feel like I'm making excuses for him because the label he has, the sentence he received seems disproportionate to what I believe he was doing.
In my husbands case he chatted to a police decoy over a 3 week period. He basically spoke about the act of mastabation. The judge classed that as a cat 1...... He got a 3 year custodial sentence!!!
I've seen people on here that have spoken to actual people on line, agreed to meet and sent pics etc and they got suspended sentences.
I think it all depends on the judge and their interpretation of the offence.
We also had a crap defence barrister (in hind sight).
I've seen people on here that have spoken to actual people on line, agreed to meet and sent pics etc and they got suspended sentences.
I think it all depends on the judge and their interpretation of the offence.
We also had a crap defence barrister (in hind sight).
Mw, how are you both getting on now? Are you the other side of custodial?
Hello Forum Users,
We value all the different opinions and views expressed on the forum and believe this is an important platform for support, information and discussion. The topic raised in this thread is one which is highly thought-provoking and also sensitive. We want to ensure this space remains a safe place for those who utilise it. Therefore, we would like to highlight how the use of language can be highly impactful, and to be mindful of this when discussing these difficult and emotive topics.
It is important to note that when discussing matters regarding the individuals who have committed child sexual offences that children may engage with these individuals due to a number of vulnerabilities including isolation, loneliness, a sense of maturity or sexual risk-taking. Whilst some of your loved one's may have engaged in sexual conversations with an adult presenting themselves as a child, minors are unable to provide consent, therefore, the responsibility for any interaction of this nature lies exclusively with the adult.
We appreciate all stages of this journey can be an incredibly difficult time for those involved, and want to continue to encourage you to use this space to share your thoughts, knowledge and opinions.
Take care,
The Forum Team
We value all the different opinions and views expressed on the forum and believe this is an important platform for support, information and discussion. The topic raised in this thread is one which is highly thought-provoking and also sensitive. We want to ensure this space remains a safe place for those who utilise it. Therefore, we would like to highlight how the use of language can be highly impactful, and to be mindful of this when discussing these difficult and emotive topics.
It is important to note that when discussing matters regarding the individuals who have committed child sexual offences that children may engage with these individuals due to a number of vulnerabilities including isolation, loneliness, a sense of maturity or sexual risk-taking. Whilst some of your loved one's may have engaged in sexual conversations with an adult presenting themselves as a child, minors are unable to provide consent, therefore, the responsibility for any interaction of this nature lies exclusively with the adult.
We appreciate all stages of this journey can be an incredibly difficult time for those involved, and want to continue to encourage you to use this space to share your thoughts, knowledge and opinions.
Take care,
The Forum Team