Slashdot Mirror
14-Year-Old Boy Placed On Police Register After Sending Naked Picture To Classmate
Ewan Palmer reports: A teenage boy in the UK has had a crime of making and distributing indecent images recorded against him after he sent a naked picture of himself to one of his female classmates. The 14-year-old was not formally arrested after he sent the explicit image to a girl of the same age via Snapchat. The police file against the boy will now remain active for 10 years, meaning any future employer conducting an advanced Criminal Records Bureau check will be aware of the incident. However, it is not clear whether a police file was recorded for the girl who saved and shared the image. Under new legislation, if she had been over 18, the girl could have been convicted under the so called 'revenge porn' law in the UK.
Please? I mean here are two perfectly innocent young children just BEGGING to be thrown to the judicial wolves, torn apart, consumed, and eaten by ridiculous laws that pretend to protect them.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Hey, Teacher! Leave the kids alone!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It seems like logic and sense has been replaced by fear and pedantry. Kind of like /. replies.
... that they could be classified as a pedophile for viewing child pornography??
Wait till the kids learn how to abuse the law and fuck* every grownup!!
Where the hell is common sense?
* Not literally, but legally
So what would happen if this happened without digital means? What would happen if a boy at age 14 for instance exposed himself to a girl that was 14. What would happen if a girl exposed herself to a boy that was 14. What would happen if the same sex exposed themself to the same sex? What would happen if they both did it at the same time (boy/girl boy/boy girl/girl)? Normally I would think this would be a family issue where the two families would deal with it privately. If there is some conflict and it can not get worked out then the law should be involved.
Whatever the answer is to that it should be the same thing regardless of the medium that it was done.
Boy sends a naked picture to a girl, gets a record. She then sends the picture to host of other people with the clear intent to hurt the boy, but that's fine. How was he distributing the picture and she wasn't? That's just... exactly how the world works. Carry on.
How can you eat any pudding if you don't beat your meat...
So... what's the story here? If someone was just a few years older, they could have also been charged? Let me clear some things up for us here. Parenting failure = Stupid judicial oversight, bizarre scenarios with society, and things blown out of proportion. The state in NO WAY WHATSOEVER have anything to do with this situation. At all. Kid sends picture to another kid. Not only should the boy be disciplined, but maybe the girl's parents should step in and set some limits for their child as well. And did I see that she distributed it? My point is this: We are pathetic. We blame others and at the drop of a hat, we bring civil charges to each other. It's disturbing, costs a LOT, and shows now love and respect to our fellow human beings. It's sad he has a record for the next 10 years. It's also sad he did that in the first place, but there *must* be consequences and if we aren't willing to work out consequences amongst ourselves, as RESPONSIBLE adults, we get stupid crap situations like this. Notice how I'm not directly blaming his parents or her parents, but addressing it as a problem of us. It's because I see this happening FAR too often. /endrant
Isn't that impossible she must be a hacker. So she distributed kiddy porn and was an evil hacker violating snapchats TOS. Oh thats right the SJW's would call charging her abusing the victim.
It's some young teenage kids trying to figure out sex it should have not made it past the headmaster and parents. It's not like it should have been shocking the UK age of consent is what 16? Mind you the two of them can have sex without legal issue throw snapchat into the mix and now it's a serious crime?
No sir I dont like it.
It's nice that the police said:
"'Sexting' may seem like a harmless or normal activity but there are many risks involved. Once circulated, the sender loses all control of that image and can cause significant distress when it gets into wider hands. It is essential that we work, alone and alongside partners such as schools and families, to intervene early and prevent young people from becoming both the victims and perpetrators of crime."
How nice of the police to recognize that sexting has risks, and then they demonstrate that the police response is the biggest risk by filing a police report that will follow him for the next 10 years.
I RTFA (I know)
He wasn't placed on a sex offender's register (last I heard, the UK declined to implement one), rather a registry of people who have had legal complaints filed with the police agency. Someone (probably a tip from whatever social network the picture was shared on) notified the police about it, and a public record was automatically made about that notification. The police didn't press charges, as they claim to be lenient about teen sexting; an actual modification to the law would be a better option than selective enforcement, however. A bigger problem is that a publicly-searchable registry exists of people who have been accused of a crime, even if the police thought there wasn't enough of a case/cause to arrest or prosecute them. Most people never get called on their 3 felonies per day, so it can be used to single out people no more guilty than typical.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
This is still better than the US. He would have had to register as a sex offender, which is a life-long sentence. He would not allowed to live near a school or attend a school, and would have to notify his neighbors that he is a registered sex offender...for the rest of his life.
Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?
-=Lothsahn=-
A right is something each individual has against the mob. Government is classified as a Mob.
This kind of thing is what happens when you don't understand what is, and what isn't a right. Rights exist and require nothing. You don't have a "right" to healthcare, because to give you "healthcare" denies the rights of someone else (Dr, Nurses ....) But hey, I'm a big fat mean libertarian who sees the tyranny as it encroaches.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
.. made some good points.
The school raised it with the police, and they are duty bound to record the 'offence'. However, that is no guarantee it would ever surface again. In the future, if young man decides to go for a job in public service - a policeman, teacher, lollypop man, chat show host - whatever, then the process would be:
Potential employer would ask for a Criminal Records Bureau check. Check would come back positive, at which point the police have the right to decide it was too long ago, too trivial etc and can ignore the finding. Second, they would contact the young man and tell him that they have received a request, and that the CRB check has turned something up.
Young man then has the option to challenge the CRB check, and it may at that point go no further. Only if those two hurdles are tripped over would the result return to the potential employer, who themselves might decide it is all bollocks and ignore it.
Who is at fault here? The boy for doing something childish? Hardly. Apart from the inconvenience of a few photons, it is unlikely to be a novel picture that causes a particular offence. The girl for doing something irresponsible as well? Dubious, really. Even if she forwarded it with a bit of libellous writing attached, hardly the crime of the century. The fault surely lay with the teacher for propagating the pain, and not dealing with it sensibly in loco parentis.
What else is there to talk about here except for the complete lack of individual human rights?
I'm confused. Are you claiming that it is your "individual human right" to send naked pictures of yourself to any girl you might happen to know? How about her "individual human right" not to have pictures of your junk show up on her phone?
Or is it her "individual human right" to distribute that naked picture of you that you sent with the explicit intent that it be deleted soon after being received?
Whose "individual human rights" are we talking about here? And when did distributing porn to unsuspecting recipients, and then distribution of that to others as a way of exacting revenge, become a "human right"?
A right is protection against government oppression, this is a case of government oppressing a 14 year old child...
And I thought the scene with the muck collectors from Monty Python was ridiculous. "Help help, I'm being oppressed because I can't send pictures of my willy to every girl I know..."
There lots of stupid things that 14 year olds can do which can be harmful to themselves and to others without being criminal. This kid may have trouble getting employment when he's 24 because of what he did when he was 14. In my opinion, one 14 year old sending a naked picture of themselves to another 14 year old requires some parental intervention, but it isn't criminal (unless it's in violation of some restraining order) and shouldn't become part of any police record.
As a culture, it seems we need to take a deep breath and figure out what is truly damaging behavior for teenagers and what is normal exploration of sexuality. Technology opens the doors to behaviors that weren't open before. What are the real consequences for those behaviors? Like I said, I don't believe that one boy sending a naked picture of himself to one girl is going to destroy her under most circumstances. However, what if 15 boys in a class thought it would be funny to send a naked pic of themselves to the same girl and they kept doing it over period of weeks and months? That I could see as being extremely traumatic for her.
As a culture we need to take a deep breath and figure out when our attempts to "protect" children are significantly more traumatic and damaging than simply leaving them to resolve their problems themselves.
And start by remembering that not so long ago, 14-year old kids would be expected by their elders and the community to have already started raising their own kids. Which takes a lot more than just looking at pictures.
Somehow we managed to survive that for many millennia.
There are 3 things to observe about this case:
1. The kid is a dumb idiot and needs to be punished for sending naked pics.
2. The girl is a dumb idiot and needs to be punished for further forwarding and spreading the pics.
3. The police are dumb idiots who have such a low standard, and such low quality as a police force, that publicizing and making a police statement out of a god damn random teenager over naked pics is something they are more proud of; instead of seeking to publicize and make statements about real crime with real criminals that would actually require effort and principles (in the case of corrupt politicians which there are plenty of).
Captcha: excrete
How fitting.
To be fair, I'm not sure that "child pornography for gain" should be decriminalized. And if "child pornography" were sufficiently narrowly and precisely defined it would probably be reasonable. (Nothing wrong with pictures of children, no matter what they aren't wearing. The nude picture of a naked child on a bear rug should only raise the hackles of conservationists. Etc. Pictured of forcible penetration, OTOH, are probably reprehensible outside of academic courses on abnormal psychology...and to be handled with restraint even there.)
Then we come to the totally stupid question of whether a drawing of a child engaged in erotic(?) activity is pornography. Unless you can show that the drawing was made from life there's no question of any child being damaged in the creation of the work. So that should totally NOT be considered "child pornography", even though it may clearly be pornography. The sole purpose of child pornography laws should be to protect children, and even then mainly against those who are more powerful than they are. (I am willing to consider mobbing behavior to be criminal, I just think it needs a different class of laws.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The police determine the guilt/innocence of a suspect? And they determine the remedial and/or punitive measures to be taken?
What did you folks do with your courts? Please don't tell me you closed them. I thought those wigs were cool.
Have gnu, will travel.
I guess I'm supposed to be shocked by the headline? Oh noos.
If you'd prefer he get an @ss-whupping or psychiatric treatment instead, OK, I guess that would work.
Why are you confused? The issue's simple once you toss aside the legal pedantry. Before we send 14 yos to the gulag (or add them to scarlet letter 'lists') over a picture, there should be responsibility for showing how harm was done. I know if I received a picture of a naked human, I'd laugh and delete. It might be unwanted, yes, but that's not the same thing as harm. I won't be scarred for life and neither will this girl. Now, if the kid didn't want the picture distributed by her, he should've known better.
Who cares what the lawyers/politicians think. They're only interested in looking like bastions of morality they can't possibly be living up to just to keep their jobs. You have a brain, use it. Justify why you think such a lasting mark like a predator list is warranted for 'a' picture sent probably to a crush. I think a talking to is all that's needed. His pic being spread around is a natural consequence of his choice, and is punishment enough. This seems like a case of 'stupid kid' not a case of a hardened pervert, and should be treated as such.
The fault surely lay with the teacher for propagating the pain, and not dealing with it sensibly in loco parentis.
You can't just blame the teacher in isolation. The UK, more than anywhere else, has long been in the grip of a "peds under the bed" hysteria.
It is a society that may have made the teacher afraid for he job if she did not report it.
If the girl shared the pictures, she's just as guilty and should be treated the same.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
As out of the way as one does, he was convicted of a sex crime.
Just because we survived as a species does not mean that young girls lead idyllic lives when they were married off or sold into slavery at 13. When whole populations could be wiped out by disease, famine, or war, producing lots of babies was important to survival. Even then, there were pretty strict mores regarding sex. Violating them could mean a death sentence or being ostracized.
Typically, as societies become more successful and wealthy, women have fewer kids and wait until later in life to have them. And even though we are physically able to produce children at young ages, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Our brains aren't fully developed until around age 25 or so. Because of this many adolescents are practically wired to make crappy decisions. Sometimes the natural consequences are what's necessary to keep them from repeating the same mistakes. Other times some intervention or prevention is necessary. Lots of teens are definitely at risk for suicide. You don't always want to wait for them to work it out themselves.
I have a 15 year old son, and a 12 year old daughter so I'm right in the middle of this. Even though my son's hormones are raging and my daughter's are headed in that direction, they aren't even close to being physically or emotionally mature. They do not have the means to raise a child on their own. Of course, there is such a thing as birth control, but the chemical methods have bad side effects and potential health risks when used for a long time. Non-chemical methods tend not to be that reliable. So delaying full blown sex until their later teens or early twenties is something we'd like to see. Definitely past 14. Past 17 is probably pushing it, but we can hope. 17 is the current average for when kids become sexually active.
Look into the IUD. Highly reliable, so simple a teenager can use it, minimal side effects.
All of which has led to a criminal conviction against the child.
No, it has not. He hasn't been convicted of anything.
Lean to read.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The fault surely lay with the teacher for propagating the pain, and not dealing with it sensibly in loco parentis.
The teacher is a single person working in a larger system. I ask you, what would have happened if the teacher didn't propagate this up the chain and news got out? Do you think people would accept the appropriate judgement of the teacher? In much of the Western world we'd be asking for the teacher's head and to remove them from the classroom.
The problem is the wider system that attempts to repress sexuality out of what I can't imagine as being anything other than fear. Remember we're talking about a country where two sexual acts between consenting adults is considered illegal (some forms of BDSM, and most forms if recorded.)
i know people need false things to worry about but seriously i don't see child molesters behind every shrub in America.
That's because they've learned how not to be seen!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
A lot of people have leapt to the conclusion that the girl got away scot-free.
From the BBC article on the same story:
[The boy's] details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The Stoney Creek Times-Untelligenser claims that having seen evidence of what the young man has on offer, nearly three hundred of the young lady's closest friends have sent him text messages, five policewomen have suggested he agree to a further interview in more friendly surroundings, and a calls of an undefined nature from the local priest have maxed out his voice mail.
And the Essex Pig Company has invited him to cut the ribbon at their new sausage factory in Swansea.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
10 years on the sex offenders register, article will stay on the internet forever.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
They are either children, and do not know what they're doing, and thus cannot vote, drink, drive, decide what to do with their own bodies or be held responsible for their actions
Or they are NOT children, and DO know what they're doing, and can thus vote, drink, drive, decide what to do with their own bodies and be held responsible for their actions.
What we have here are corrupt monsters having it both ways; holding kids responsible for doing things that they are - by virtue of being too young to know what they are doing - not allowed to do; things they WOULD be allowed to do if they were old enough to know what they are doing.
These disgusting sons of bitches are having it both ways in an unacceptable power-trip.
You know who else has that? those other monsters running dickass cults like the 'tribes'.
I'm not leading an idyllic life. Are you?
It's not about "idyllic", it's about relative levels of psychological damage.
And you can "like to see" sex delayed until 40, for all most teens care. They may not be making mature decisions, but they're still making them.
It's the individual human right to do something harmless, even if somewhat offensive and to have it forgotten.
It is also up to society to decide what is harmless. There is no Platonic Ideal of harmlessness you can refer to.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If you think you are having an argument with me you should re-read my comment. A right is protection against government oppression.
The right to life is the right to not be killed by anyone. If you think only governments kill people then you are wrong.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'm not leading an idyllic life. Are you?
It's not about "idyllic", it's about relative levels of psychological damage.
And you can "like to see" sex delayed until 40, for all most teens care. They may not be making mature decisions, but they're still making them.
Idyllic? No. Pretty good? Yes. Far better than my life would likely have been like 1000 years ago. Very good chance I wouldn't have even lived this long.
Would you prefer to be living back when it was common for girls to be having kids by the time they were 14? How many sane women would want that?
My son has had "girlfriends" fairly regularly since he was 14. One of them from last year had to change schools when she was 12 or 13 because she had a "reputation" at her previous school as a result of various rumors. Some kid ended up groping her. This made her quite skittish around boys. Though you wouldn't expect any relationship among 15 year olds to last very long, the one she had with my son ended partially because of that. She's struggling. He goes to a small school. We know her parents.
I've seen many of his texts and unfortunately some of the pictures that have gotten exchanged between he and his friends. For the most part I consider it normal and harmless but it can very easily go too far and cause some real difficulties. He lost his phone for quite awhile because he made some bad decisions and we discovered them before it got worse.
So yes, they make decisions, and yes they should be allowed to make mistakes, - but there are times when parents need to step in.
We have all been told child pornography is this horrible thing that scars children for life and furthers abuse of children.
That's because it is, and it does, if you're referring to actual pictures/videos of children being raped.
I agree that one teenager sending another teenager a naked pic is not the same thing.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
A right isn't protection. I have the right to keep and bear arms. IT requires NOTHING from anyone to practice. It doesn't require government. It doesn't require anyone else to do anything. It exists on its own, apart from anyone or anything else. I have that right if I am alone on an island.
The point of government is supposed to be to secure(protect) the rights of individuals, NOT rule over men. The moment government compels someone to do something against his conscience, it is necessarily harming him.
Relating this back to the original topic, the "harm" caused by the boy sending dick pic to a girl was miniscule. It may have been unwanted and may have been a threat (implied or directed) or just clumsy flirting (bad taste), but that requires judgment, not rules of absolutes (zero tolerance). I oppose zero tolerance laws simply because the are an over reaction to bad judgements and end up worse position.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Simply enough:
Either
a) At 14 he's a child enough that he shouldn't be facing (long-term life-damaging) adult consequences for his actions
or
b) At 14 he's adult enough to face such consequences. However then he's an adult and therefore the pictures shouldn't be considered underage.
Essentially, they're considering him under-age for the purpose of posting pictures, but of-age for the purpose of being charged/registered. What a crock.
Why are you confused?
Because someone is claiming that basic "human rights" are being violated and the kid is being oppressed. I want to know what "human right" we're talking about. Can you tell me? Is there a basic "human right" to send pictures of your willy to any girl you know? What has the world come to when we make such nonsense a "human right"?
I won't be scarred for life and neither will this girl.
You don't know this, and it isn't your place to judge on her behalf. Nobody was thrown into a gulag over this.
You may personally not mind if someone breaks into your house and takes your television. You think you watch too much TV anyway, and that person obviously needs the money or TV more than you do. But that's not a valid argument for saying that burglary isn't wrong, just as you not minding if people send you naked pictures of themselves is an argument against it being wrong when others are the recipients.
Now, if the kid didn't want the picture distributed by her, he should've known better.
Wait a minute. He can't be expected to "know better" when it comes to whether it is appropriate to send the picture in the first place, but he is supposed to "know better" that the girl would know how to bypass the "delete automatically" feature of snapchat? "Should have known better" is a two-edged sword here.
You have a brain, use it. Justify why you think such a lasting mark like a predator list is warranted
It wasn't a lasting mark on a predator list.
for 'a' picture sent probably to a crush.
I have a "crush" on your teenage daughter. You won't mind if I send her naked pictures of myself, then? She can just delete them if she doesn't want to see them, and it won't cause her any harm, right? It's harmless fun.
This seems like a case of 'stupid kid' not a case of a hardened pervert, and should be treated as such.
That's why he got such a light slap on the wrist and isn't standing in a dock facing a judge. And nobody is saying he should be.
I beg to differ. Rights as I see them are outlined in gross form here:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted ...
Rights exist apart from governance. Governance is supposed to "secure" (protect) these rights. The fact that you don't understand how any of this works makes me sad for our society in the future.
But I understand, you remove "creator" from this, and there is nothing to base "rights" upon, and that leads us to tyranny. If there is no higher power than government, and mobs (power by force) then we are doomed to tyranny and mob rule.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Your view, there are no rights except by convention (legal or otherwise), which are thereby granted by government, which can then take those rights it grants away by any arbitrary reason it can come up with. Which is exactly what Tyranny looks like. You're nothing but a slave to the tyranny you believe in.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Because someone is claiming that basic "human rights" are being violated and the kid is being oppressed. I want to know what "human right" we're talking about. Can you tell me? Is there a basic "human right" to send pictures of your willy to any girl you know? What has the world come to when we make such nonsense a "human right"?
He was put on a registry without trial. As an american looking at this, that is a violation of his liberty. It may not be a 'human right' to send a pic, but it's not an affront to anyone's rights to receive one either. What has the world come to when we insist on breeding oversensitivity into whole generations, then enact crazy punishments on those who 'trigger' them? I also find it interesting that she wasn't charged for 'distributing child pornography.' We've already had a few kids here in the states trampled by those laws..laws that were meant to protect them. I guess now we know the true intentions of the advocates who pushed for them.
You don't know this, and it isn't your place to judge on her behalf. Nobody was thrown into a gulag over this.
It isn't her 'human right' to expect everyone else to give a shit about her feelings over such trivial events either. Despite what happened here, there are plenty of men out there who were thrown into both figurative and literal gulags over shit far less. A registry listing is no minor matter.
But that's not a valid argument for saying that burglary isn't wrong, just as you not minding if people send you naked pictures of themselves is an argument against it being wrong when others are the recipients.
Stealing a tv != sending a picture. One is theft of property, the other is ???
Wait a minute. He can't be expected to "know better" when it comes to whether it is appropriate to send the picture in the first place, but he is supposed to "know better" that the girl would know how to bypass the "delete automatically" feature of snapchat? "Should have known better" is a two-edged sword here.
He should have known the natural consequences of distributing a nude picture of himself over to someone else, yes. Your 'appropriateness' is merely something imposed by people who obviously want others to conform to their moral expectations.
It wasn't a lasting mark on a predator list.
Yes it is. For 10 years. Did you read the article? It's a list that will inform any employer of this incident, so it's close enough.
I have a "crush" on your teenage daughter. You won't mind if I send her naked pictures of myself, then? She can just delete them if she doesn't want to see them, and it won't cause her any harm, right? It's harmless fun.
If that's all you're going to do, go ahead. If she doesn't like it, she'll delete it. If she doesn't know already, I'll explain to her how she shouldn't trust random strangers and how to put you on ignore. Since she's my daughter, she'd hopefully have had that sensibility since childhood. Anyway, this example is not valid either. This issue concerns two adolescents. There's no mention of persistent behavior, which is why I don't agree with him being treated as a predator into his 20s for some stupid impulsive thing he did over an adolescent crush.
That's why he got such a light slap on the wrist and isn't standing in a dock facing a judge. And nobody is saying he should be.
No, but being placed on that list is effectively treating him as someone who has, and was found guilty.