Family and Friends Forum

It was a non-custodial sentence- community order and on probation for 15 months. No media attention and dealt with at the magistrate x

it's the SS side of things that's horrendous x

Yes it was graphic I'm afraid. I wasn't told the full details until after he was charged and SS got back in touch x

SS closed our case until he was charged and put on probation. His probation officer put a referral through to SS which reopened the case. I'm surprised he was even arrested if he just said an age to be honest. Police usually look for more substantial stuff x

I don't think it really matters if the case is closed. I think if probabtion hadn't put a referral through then the school would have done. Everybody was concerned that bail conditions were lifted and he could return home which all the professionals didn't want considering how graphic the conversation was. I'm surprised your OH is even being charged to be honest. It was obscene publication for my OH because no images were involved and there was no intent to meet a child. He stupidly made the conversation so graphic because he knew it was a fake profile and was trying to shock the police decoy as their conversation was just as graphic. He was trying to find out who he was talking to and it backfired! X

When he was arrested the police did the initial referral to SS. I'm not sure if the police contacted the school or if SS did but school are fully aware of everything as daughter is on a CPP and we have to have monthly meetings x

It's such an odd charge. I would be 100% in favour of making 'fantasy' sexual chat about under-18s illegal, but they should just do that rather than bending old legislation.

@SadandScared - why do you say "bending old legislation"? I don't understand.

This is the way I see it:

The conversation my OH got involved in didn't involve images or any intent to meet a child. He was talking directly to an adult about a child. This crime doesn't come under any modern current sex offender offences which is why the charge doesn't come with an SHPO or signing the SOR. The only thing the police could charge him with was communication ie obscene publication. Even this is questionable because the conversation is not in the public domain ie it's not published material. Nobody had access to this conversation apart from my OH or the police. It does question how this fits into obscene publication. DH Lawrence was charged with obscene publication for Lady Chatterleys lover which you can understand because it was a published novel that people could openly buy and access x

Just out of interest, this legal point was discussed in the case of R v Gavin Smith 2012 and the Court of Appeal decided that sending a private message to one person, via the internet, does count as publication.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/398.html

Looking at "obscene publication" literally, the conversation was both obscene and published. I guess.

My ex was charged with obsene publication.

I think if someone has entered into this sort of conversation with someone they should be charged. Never would I engage in talk about abusing children and in my opinion if someone does they obviously have interest in this subject

sorry if you feel I am being blunt but to minimise someone's actions and say they knew it was fake I think is very wrong. Why would anybody speak graphically about abusing children to test someone else.

The ironic thing is if two people met up in person and had this same obscene conversation as far as I can tell no law has been broken.

Thats an interesting point I hadn't even thought about a comedian using child sexual abuse material as part of their act, Jimmy Carr would be the classic example. People seem perfectly content to laugh as he is talking about sleeping with a child, which is persumably why it isnt considered obscene.

Two people meeting up and engaging in a fantasy about abusing children is still very wrong and if the police could police this they should.



A comedian on TV is different to sordid websites and messaging people about child abuse.



Your partner was still talking to someone who wanted to talk about child abuse and replied to them even if they gave an age and then stopped they were still engaging in horrible behaviour.



ive never been on any messaging site that someone has messaged me to say describe how you would abuse a child so I'd say they were already on a dodgy site!!



belive what you want about your partner but they've been discussing child abuse which I think is unforgivable which ever way you choose to look at it.

I agree. It's something I've had to come to terms with regarding my ex's online behaviour. I think you have to be somewhere pretty out there to come into contact with these images or conversations. Even if my ex is 'innocent' of a real sustained interest in children, do I want to be married to someone who by his own admission spent years in the Kik cesspit? Nope, not really.

I guess I think 'fantasy' chat regarding under-18s should be illegal, but it should be legislated against properly.

I really don't buy the 'authors & comedians' line. Sorry.

I guess if you read through every post on this forum it seems they literally all have an excuse, every one of them. And sometimes you'll never actually know if it's true or not, and I incline to 'not'.

Sadandscared

my ex has never made excuses. He confessed his attraction to children the day after his first arrest and old me that he was 12/13 years old when he developed the attraction to children. No excuses or lies, once it all came out.