Article/thoughts on fantasy offenders
Notifications OFF
Morning all,
Well as the emotional rollercoaster ebbs and flows, I have to say, I found real strength in reading through your posts on the forum yesterday. I know we all say it so often, but I genuinely don't know what I would do without knowing you're all out there - and having the courage to share your experiences - and importantly creating a judgement free space where we feel safe and understood. So incredibly powerful for family and friends to have access to this space.
I came across this interesting article this morning and I think so many of of our people fall under the category of fantasy offenders. Much more research and work needs to be done as soon as possible to help inform the judicial system and the public.
I also read another article this morning from Scotland that says they regard approx 600 images as a low number and approx 160 as small. My OH is awaiting charges on possession of 3 cat B and a fantasy chat with an adult. Why on earth we are not using conditional cautions with rehabilitation programmes and SHPO's for internet restrictions is beyond me.
Given the scale and growth of this problem and the sheer numbers of secondary victims, I think it's imperative (where people feel comfortable/able) to become the voices for LLF. I noticed LLF are looking for us to anonymously 'tell our story' and think that's a critical part of the work we can all do to help towards a better understanding and change in public perception.
My OH is not a monster, and I strongly believe that many of our people are not. Sending love and hugs to you all.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213418300851
Well as the emotional rollercoaster ebbs and flows, I have to say, I found real strength in reading through your posts on the forum yesterday. I know we all say it so often, but I genuinely don't know what I would do without knowing you're all out there - and having the courage to share your experiences - and importantly creating a judgement free space where we feel safe and understood. So incredibly powerful for family and friends to have access to this space.
I came across this interesting article this morning and I think so many of of our people fall under the category of fantasy offenders. Much more research and work needs to be done as soon as possible to help inform the judicial system and the public.
I also read another article this morning from Scotland that says they regard approx 600 images as a low number and approx 160 as small. My OH is awaiting charges on possession of 3 cat B and a fantasy chat with an adult. Why on earth we are not using conditional cautions with rehabilitation programmes and SHPO's for internet restrictions is beyond me.
Given the scale and growth of this problem and the sheer numbers of secondary victims, I think it's imperative (where people feel comfortable/able) to become the voices for LLF. I noticed LLF are looking for us to anonymously 'tell our story' and think that's a critical part of the work we can all do to help towards a better understanding and change in public perception.
My OH is not a monster, and I strongly believe that many of our people are not. Sending love and hugs to you all.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213418300851
I think the problem with the article is that it doesn't consider the effect on the victim. A fantasy driven offender may have no intention of meeting a child in real life, but they may still have harmed their victim, just by engaging with them online.
So there is a range of offences, with higher sentences for arranging to meet in real life and less for just engaging online.
So there is a range of offences, with higher sentences for arranging to meet in real life and less for just engaging online.
What if there's no victim? What if the fantasy chat was between two adults? If the fantasy chat involved children would that be tried under the Obscene Publications Act?
Hi, in my person's case there was no victim. He was knowingly communicating with another adult (later revealed to be an undercover police officer) about a ficticious child. Of course the correspondence was appalling, abhorrent, revolting, shocking, horrible and not anything that a responsible adult should contemplate. BUT the things described were not humanly possible - total fantasy. And who knows if the coversation would have continued if not engineered, encouraged and propogated by a police officer acting in the role of a very willing perpetrator of the same offences being discussed.
My person was sentenced to three years in prison (first offence of any kind and had every possible mitigating factor). I read yesterday about a man who was convicted of 22 in-person, contact offences with children under 13. He received 2 years 4 months in prison. None of it is excusable or defendable, but that disparity in sentencing is unfathomable.
AND he had to pay a 'victim surcharge fine'. There was no victim. Who did the fine go to?!
My person was sentenced to three years in prison (first offence of any kind and had every possible mitigating factor). I read yesterday about a man who was convicted of 22 in-person, contact offences with children under 13. He received 2 years 4 months in prison. None of it is excusable or defendable, but that disparity in sentencing is unfathomable.
AND he had to pay a 'victim surcharge fine'. There was no victim. Who did the fine go to?!
My person also was speaking to other adults and was all fantasy but think he will get a prison sentence too.
There have been a lot of these cases and it usually comes down to what evidence do the CPS have, to demonstrate that the person believed there really was a child and that they really intended to do something illegal.
It usually emerges that there was much more to the conversation than just a fantasy. Once the person discusses the possibility of meeting up in real life, even if they never actually meet, then that is usually enough to prove intent.
It usually emerges that there was much more to the conversation than just a fantasy. Once the person discusses the possibility of meeting up in real life, even if they never actually meet, then that is usually enough to prove intent.
Understood and agreed, Edel. I am in no way trying to justify, minimise or excuse this behaviour. However, some key points from my perspective:
- When my person was admitted to prison, the receiving staff asking him if his offence was 'vigilante or decoy' as if these are the only two options they see. It didn't seem an option that the scenario could have been genuine.
- It's notable that both police decoys and vigilantes actively choose to create scenarios with very young ages. Technically 17 years and 11 months would be illegal, but we never see decoys at that age. Why? Is the implication that the police are incentivised to create platforms for 'more serious' offences?
- The police are spending tons of tax payers' money (police resource, court, prison, rehoming, families left behind having to claim benefits, being made homeless, unemployment, societal stigma, monumental trauma and life-long mental health challenges for both perpetrators and their family and friends) as a result of engineering, propogating, facilitating and encouraging these offences. What's the benefit? I have not seen anywhere any evidence that catching offenders in decoy situations prevents any real-life offending.
LFF - perhaps you can provide the supporting data that proves that catching people via decoys/vigilantes has any impact whatsoever on reducing offences. In fact, the data is that these crimes are rapidly escalating - with the vast majority engineered, facilitated and encouraged by police actors - paid for by the tax payer (and when our people lose their livelihoods, they become an even greater burden on the taxpayer rather than being rehabilitated as contributing members of society). Clearly the current approach is not working. At all. I bet there's a direct corellation between the number of active police decoys and the number of offences.
I don't deny that genuine offences against actual children really do happen, but my guess is that the starting point for these situations is probably not free, easily available, totally open social media sites, like f*cking Kik, Insta, Facebook and porn sites where this stuff is rife. Spend the money instead on shutting down the chats. Shutting down the sites. Sending warnings. Raise awareness that even communicating about this stuff is illegal. Keeping the sites live and active is like catching fish in a barrel. It's not a solution to anything,
I am a REAL person. My children are REAL people. My relationships with REAL people have been eradicated through their perception that I am guilty by association. Nobody cares that my and my REAL children's REAL lives have been destroyed by this. I am a shell, and live in the shadows now - haunted by eternal shame and stigma and subject to scrutiny in every part of my REAL life even though I have done nothing wrong. I blame noone but my person for putting us in this situation, but all the authorities focus and care more about a totally fictional and non-existent 'victim' than we actual REAL living, breathing and suffering people. My sadness is off the scale.
- When my person was admitted to prison, the receiving staff asking him if his offence was 'vigilante or decoy' as if these are the only two options they see. It didn't seem an option that the scenario could have been genuine.
- It's notable that both police decoys and vigilantes actively choose to create scenarios with very young ages. Technically 17 years and 11 months would be illegal, but we never see decoys at that age. Why? Is the implication that the police are incentivised to create platforms for 'more serious' offences?
- The police are spending tons of tax payers' money (police resource, court, prison, rehoming, families left behind having to claim benefits, being made homeless, unemployment, societal stigma, monumental trauma and life-long mental health challenges for both perpetrators and their family and friends) as a result of engineering, propogating, facilitating and encouraging these offences. What's the benefit? I have not seen anywhere any evidence that catching offenders in decoy situations prevents any real-life offending.
LFF - perhaps you can provide the supporting data that proves that catching people via decoys/vigilantes has any impact whatsoever on reducing offences. In fact, the data is that these crimes are rapidly escalating - with the vast majority engineered, facilitated and encouraged by police actors - paid for by the tax payer (and when our people lose their livelihoods, they become an even greater burden on the taxpayer rather than being rehabilitated as contributing members of society). Clearly the current approach is not working. At all. I bet there's a direct corellation between the number of active police decoys and the number of offences.
I don't deny that genuine offences against actual children really do happen, but my guess is that the starting point for these situations is probably not free, easily available, totally open social media sites, like f*cking Kik, Insta, Facebook and porn sites where this stuff is rife. Spend the money instead on shutting down the chats. Shutting down the sites. Sending warnings. Raise awareness that even communicating about this stuff is illegal. Keeping the sites live and active is like catching fish in a barrel. It's not a solution to anything,
I am a REAL person. My children are REAL people. My relationships with REAL people have been eradicated through their perception that I am guilty by association. Nobody cares that my and my REAL children's REAL lives have been destroyed by this. I am a shell, and live in the shadows now - haunted by eternal shame and stigma and subject to scrutiny in every part of my REAL life even though I have done nothing wrong. I blame noone but my person for putting us in this situation, but all the authorities focus and care more about a totally fictional and non-existent 'victim' than we actual REAL living, breathing and suffering people. My sadness is off the scale.
@InTatters – I’m shocked and horrified that your person got three years for fantasy conversations with another adult. Can I ask what the charges were please?
The sentencing seems extremely harsh in the circumstances. That's just so unfair.
@Tryingtobebrave – Why do you think it will be a prison sentence? Has someone said something?
The sentencing seems extremely harsh in the circumstances. That's just so unfair.
@Tryingtobebrave – Why do you think it will be a prison sentence? Has someone said something?
In Tatters
I couldnt agree with you more.
My OH was talking to an undercover police officer he says originally he thought he was talking to a much older woman but as the conversation went on they said they were 13.
Yes he was wrong to continue the conversation and I'm not condoning his actions but this did not involve a real child. Yet our family have been ripped apart. He lives hundreds of miles from his family and grand child yet the police insisted they be informed . Now they have disowned him.
His Brothers and sisters have turned there back on him.
And I feel ashamed of whats happend . We are now living apart . Something needs to be done to support the families that are falling apart through this. If it were not for this Forum I dont know what I would do .
I couldnt agree with you more.
My OH was talking to an undercover police officer he says originally he thought he was talking to a much older woman but as the conversation went on they said they were 13.
Yes he was wrong to continue the conversation and I'm not condoning his actions but this did not involve a real child. Yet our family have been ripped apart. He lives hundreds of miles from his family and grand child yet the police insisted they be informed . Now they have disowned him.
His Brothers and sisters have turned there back on him.
And I feel ashamed of whats happend . We are now living apart . Something needs to be done to support the families that are falling apart through this. If it were not for this Forum I dont know what I would do .
I agree with everything that's been said, and I empathise with everyone on this forum. Please don't for a minute think that I condone what my OH has done, I'm just trying to make sense of it all from a psychological perspective. What are the drivers and motivators for these offences to occur....it's such a murky grey area and until the topic and its correlation to the accessibilty for dangerous sharing, viewing and conversations on the internet is fully researched and addressed - then I dread to think how many poor souls will find themselves joining this forum. Especially as the police seem to think that resourcing decoys to weed offenders out is a credible strategy - or do we call it entrapment!? The numbers of offenders grow each month expedentionally and it's simply terrifying to know that so many others, like us, will soon find themselves in the taboo club that no-one wants to be in.
I've been a year bumbling through life, one minute laughing the next sobbing. The uncertainty and the trauma is crippling at times, there are simply too many unknowns. We are currently waiting on CPS to outline charging decisions with the next bail date end of November. The police think that the CPS decision will be in before then, so it's a living hell at the minute. Family and friends have started making plans for Christmas and they have no idea in my head I'm taking literally one day, one week at a time. Staying upbeat for the kids and trying to look after myself but it's far from easy. I might start to look like a terrys chocolate orange in the not too distant future!
I've been a year bumbling through life, one minute laughing the next sobbing. The uncertainty and the trauma is crippling at times, there are simply too many unknowns. We are currently waiting on CPS to outline charging decisions with the next bail date end of November. The police think that the CPS decision will be in before then, so it's a living hell at the minute. Family and friends have started making plans for Christmas and they have no idea in my head I'm taking literally one day, one week at a time. Staying upbeat for the kids and trying to look after myself but it's far from easy. I might start to look like a terrys chocolate orange in the not too distant future!
I think another thing which the study doesn't mention is the fact that you cannot tell which people are which, except at the point you catch them going one way or the other or escalating. The motivation or the reason isn't always taken into account, it's such a horrendous shocking and taboo subject that someone who takes part in a fantasy chat between two adults is viewed as equal to someone (please excuse the crude description) who tries to abduct kids in their car with the promise of sweets or puppies. Both are equally illegal, harmful and dangerous but until we have more research we can't tell pr prove which of the fantasy chatters actually would escalate.
i totally agree the focus should be on shutting these sites down, prevent the children accessing them and the adults for misusing them.
i totally agree the focus should be on shutting these sites down, prevent the children accessing them and the adults for misusing them.
The fantasy defence has been around since 2009 and the CPS are well aware of it. That's why they will gather evidence to prove there was more to it than just fantasy, for example by asking whether the person is serious, or if they want to meet up.
But even if they don't, they can still be charged with publishing an obscene article, just for discussing their fantasy online.
As for warnings, I expect all of these apps will contain warnings in their T&C, which everyone ignores of course, saying don't misuse our app, don't do anything illegal, and so on.
Recently, I was made aware of a person whose OH was given an NFA for 5 cat C images. The OH is now having online conversations with a prostitute, who dresses as a schoolgirl and even though she reported this to the police, they say they can do nothing because that is all legal. Not only that, but he is applying for a job as a teacher and there is nothing on his DBS to stop him, because he was given an NFA.
So, the OH had a warning and he ignored it. Warnings might seem like a good idea, but as this lady found out, they don't solve the underlying problems.
But even if they don't, they can still be charged with publishing an obscene article, just for discussing their fantasy online.
As for warnings, I expect all of these apps will contain warnings in their T&C, which everyone ignores of course, saying don't misuse our app, don't do anything illegal, and so on.
Recently, I was made aware of a person whose OH was given an NFA for 5 cat C images. The OH is now having online conversations with a prostitute, who dresses as a schoolgirl and even though she reported this to the police, they say they can do nothing because that is all legal. Not only that, but he is applying for a job as a teacher and there is nothing on his DBS to stop him, because he was given an NFA.
So, the OH had a warning and he ignored it. Warnings might seem like a good idea, but as this lady found out, they don't solve the underlying problems.
Dear Forum Users,
We understand that there is some confusion and conflicting emotions regarding police practices on the internet and the use of decoys, more specifically in cases of fantasy chats. Some of you have expressed concern that the current practices are encouraging inappropriate conversations, and if this is the most efficient way to prevent offending and protect children from harm. Due to the growing scale of online sexual offending towards children in recent years, and recognition of the importance of safeguarding children from harm before it happens, more police resources are now dedicated towards proactive policing as opposed to reactive policing. We know that many of you have experienced the impact of proactive policing through loved one’s communicating with police decoys. In situations where the police present as a decoy (e.g., a child, or an adult wanting to discuss children inappropriately with other adults), we hope you will find it helpful to know that proactive policing, through the use of decoys, is regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), ensuring that guidelines are in place to prevent situations of entrapment. Proactive policing is not only limited to decoys, but also includes the implementation of warning messages and removal of platforms hosting CSAM material on the internet to deter individuals from offending, and to reduce the situational opportunities that may act as a pathway to offending.
InTatters, you asked if we could provide some data that proves that this type of proactive policing can help reduce offending. We would like to thank you for involving us in this discussion and apologise for our delay in responding to this thread. Due to there being very limited research available on this specific topic, we are unfortunately not able to directly answer your question, However, we have found some research which compares the risk levels between individuals who have been detected through proactive police investigations and those who have been reported by other people, research which looks at the differences in online conversations between adults and police decoys/vigilante’s presenting as children, and adults and real child victims, the scale of online sexual offending, proactive policing and police practices.
When reading these articles, please note that these studies may have limitations such as the chosen method, sample or design. Additionally, policing practices can vary significantly by country or region, so findings from one area may not fully reflect those in the UK. We hope that these articles can be of help for those of you who are interested and contribute to further interesting discussions around this topic of conversation. You can find links to the articles below:
Seto & Eke (2024) Child sexual exploitation material offences: differences in individual and case characteristics based on how they came to the attention of police. Available here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15614263.2024.2342782
Ringenberg, Seigfried-Spellar and Rayz (2024) Assessing differences in grooming stages and strategies in decoy, victim, and law enforcement conversations. Available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563223004223
Skidmore, Aitkenhead and Muir (2022) Turning the Tide Against Online Child Sexual Abuse. Available here: https://www.police-foundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/turning_the_tide_FINAL-.pdf
Martellozzo (2015) Policing Online Sexual Abuse: The British Experience. Available here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282848194_Policing_Online_Child_Sexual_Abuse_The_British_Experience
We hope this helps!
Take care,
The Forum Team
We understand that there is some confusion and conflicting emotions regarding police practices on the internet and the use of decoys, more specifically in cases of fantasy chats. Some of you have expressed concern that the current practices are encouraging inappropriate conversations, and if this is the most efficient way to prevent offending and protect children from harm. Due to the growing scale of online sexual offending towards children in recent years, and recognition of the importance of safeguarding children from harm before it happens, more police resources are now dedicated towards proactive policing as opposed to reactive policing. We know that many of you have experienced the impact of proactive policing through loved one’s communicating with police decoys. In situations where the police present as a decoy (e.g., a child, or an adult wanting to discuss children inappropriately with other adults), we hope you will find it helpful to know that proactive policing, through the use of decoys, is regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), ensuring that guidelines are in place to prevent situations of entrapment. Proactive policing is not only limited to decoys, but also includes the implementation of warning messages and removal of platforms hosting CSAM material on the internet to deter individuals from offending, and to reduce the situational opportunities that may act as a pathway to offending.
InTatters, you asked if we could provide some data that proves that this type of proactive policing can help reduce offending. We would like to thank you for involving us in this discussion and apologise for our delay in responding to this thread. Due to there being very limited research available on this specific topic, we are unfortunately not able to directly answer your question, However, we have found some research which compares the risk levels between individuals who have been detected through proactive police investigations and those who have been reported by other people, research which looks at the differences in online conversations between adults and police decoys/vigilante’s presenting as children, and adults and real child victims, the scale of online sexual offending, proactive policing and police practices.
When reading these articles, please note that these studies may have limitations such as the chosen method, sample or design. Additionally, policing practices can vary significantly by country or region, so findings from one area may not fully reflect those in the UK. We hope that these articles can be of help for those of you who are interested and contribute to further interesting discussions around this topic of conversation. You can find links to the articles below:
Seto & Eke (2024) Child sexual exploitation material offences: differences in individual and case characteristics based on how they came to the attention of police. Available here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15614263.2024.2342782
Ringenberg, Seigfried-Spellar and Rayz (2024) Assessing differences in grooming stages and strategies in decoy, victim, and law enforcement conversations. Available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563223004223
Skidmore, Aitkenhead and Muir (2022) Turning the Tide Against Online Child Sexual Abuse. Available here: https://www.police-foundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/turning_the_tide_FINAL-.pdf
Martellozzo (2015) Policing Online Sexual Abuse: The British Experience. Available here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282848194_Policing_Online_Child_Sexual_Abuse_The_British_Experience
We hope this helps!
Take care,
The Forum Team
Just one thing to bear in mind when looking at research. Some of the articles are behind paywalls. You can get free access to most of them by using the 'Access to research' project at your local library. That allows you to read for free on the library computers.
Do not pay £30+ to read these articles.
Do not pay £30+ to read these articles.
I'm going through the second knock. This time, he's downloaded "pseudo" images. They're not real children. He's going to get 3 years in prison again. It's hard to wrap your head around. They think, I mean the courts, Police etc, that if an adult engages in this sort of thing then it's probably the tip of the iceberg and must lead to contact offending. This doesn't appear to be The case though from what I've read. It's all such a nightmarish mess. X
I think there's a difference between entrapment and what the Police are trying to do. From what I've seen, where a documentary follows the Police activity with this, they spot someone already in a chat who appears to already looking for iioc etc and that's where they start?