In the 21st century, it should be mandatory for everyone to have proof of ID, in the form of a passport, drivers' licence or birth certificate, to avoid this kind of situation - because even if you ask for a person's age, there is no guarantee that they will be honest. Honestly, a poor man's life is ruined beyond repair because of some stupid 14 year old girl - who certainly wasn't groomed, and knew full well what she was doing. 14 year olds can be convicted for murder - the person who gets murdered certainly isn't the one who gets the blame for enticing them.
It's certainly an accurate portrayal of the law, but the law can be an ass at times. A 17 year old boy was placed on the register for 4 weeks because he had sex with a 15 year old girl. The judge handing the sentence even apologised because it wasn't in the public's interest to place such a person on the register.
The law needs serious examination. Children wont be protected by people like Jay being on the register, all the while serious offenders who abuse children get away with it. Jay is definitely not a pedophile - which, by definition, is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, not 21 year old men having explicit images of 14/15 year old girls (not that a 21 year old man doing 'stuff' with a 14 year old girl is right, but there is a big difference between that, and pedophilia).
I mean, the people who gave Jay a kicking - they are the type of scum the world needs less off. They are the ones who need banging up.
No it doesn't. Protecting children comes first which is why this is law. The victim always comes first. We know Jay is innocent but in the eyes of the law he is not the victim, Linzi is as she is a child and he pleaded guilty to having indecent images of a child on his phone...
I'm still shocked people don't understand any of this.
Yet Star deliberately deceived Jay with a false name and said she deliberately acted older because she wanted Jay to like her. She sent the photos to Jay, who had no awareness or control. He ended it as soon as he found out the truth and deleted the photos. Yet he is the one completely responsible. Is that justice?
In the 21st century, it should be mandatory for everyone to have proof of ID, in the form of a passport, drivers' licence or birth certificate, to avoid this kind of situation - because even if you ask for a person's age, there is no guarantee that they will be honest. Honestly, a poor man's life is ruined beyond repair because of some stupid 14 year old girl - who certainly wasn't groomed, and knew full well what she was doing. 14 year olds can be convicted for murder - the person who gets murdered certainly isn't the one who gets the blame for enticing them.
It's certainly an accurate portrayal of the law, but the law can be an ass at times. A 17 year old boy was placed on the register for 4 weeks because he had sex with a 15 year old girl. The judge handing the sentence even apologised because it wasn't in the public's interest to place such a person on the register.
The law needs serious examination. Children wont be protected by people like Jay being on the register, all the while serious offenders who abuse children get away with it. Jay is definitely not a pedophile - which, by definition, is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, not 21 year old men having explicit images of 14/15 year old girls (not that a 21 year old man doing 'stuff' with a 14 year old girl is right, but there is a big difference between that, and pedophilia).
I mean, the people who gave Jay a kicking - they are the type of scum the world needs less off. They are the ones who need banging up.
He wouldn't have been charged, his phone wouldn't have been checked that quick. He would have been arrested and bailed pending further enquires as the police cant investigate a case like that that quickly.
Did you not see 24 hours in police custody this week? The guy on there was held and charged with in 24 hours. He was not bailed while further inquires were carried out, as the offence he'd been charged with meant he was at danger from members of the public, as well as him being a danger to other girls and himself.
So they blown all what you have said out of the water.
Jay pleaded guilty..... so in the eyes of the law he wasn't innocent..
Its like banging your head against a brick wall in this topic.
it really isn't, people are saying he's innocent because we as the viewer know he is
he pleaded guilty because he felt he had to
that doesn't actually make him guilty just in the eyes of the law he is
In the 21st century, it should be mandatory for everyone to have proof of ID, in the form of a passport, drivers' licence or birth certificate, to avoid this kind of situation - because even if you ask for a person's age, there is no guarantee that they will be honest. Honestly, a poor man's life is ruined beyond repair because of some stupid 14 year old girl - who certainly wasn't groomed, and knew full well what she was doing. 14 year olds can be convicted for murder - the person who gets murdered certainly isn't the one who gets the blame for enticing them.
It's certainly an accurate portrayal of the law, but the law can be an ass at times. A 17 year old boy was placed on the register for 4 weeks because he had sex with a 15 year old girl. The judge handing the sentence even apologised because it wasn't in the public's interest to place such a person on the register.
The law needs serious examination. Children wont be protected by people like Jay being on the register, all the while serious offenders who abuse children get away with it. Jay is definitely not a pedophile - which, by definition, is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, not 21 year old men having explicit images of 14/15 year old girls (not that a 21 year old man doing 'stuff' with a 14 year old girl is right, but there is a big difference between that, and pedophilia).
I mean, the people who gave Jay a kicking - they are the type of scum the world needs less off. They are the ones who need banging up.
You sound like a New Labour Home Secretary. We're not living in some kind of 1940s State of Emergency where everyone has to carry and produce their "papers".
All very well BUT if Jay had pleaded not guilty to having sexual images on his phone he would have been guaranteed a worse sentence. He will have been told that by the duty solicitor. The simple fact that he had those explicit images of a child on his phone makes him guilty. No ifs / no buts. If he'd gone to trial and made a 14 year old take the witness box the judge would not have the mitigating factors used to reduce his sentence. The judge ACCEPTED that he didn't ask her age. That he engaged in this from a point of ignorance but it doesn't matter.
Jay is an adult. Star a child.
This is even what Jay said - they found sexual images of 14 year old Star on his phone so he did have child pornography. He was banged to rights on that and by pleading guilty he spared Star a trial where those photos would have been shown to other people.
The judge accepted that Jay honestly didn't know her age and the other mitigating circumstances along with his remorse - which is what a guilty plea is seen as - so gave the minimum possible sentence.
Someone earlier asked about Mick and Linda's relationship in regard to the law given Lee would have been born when they were under 16; Elaine could have reported Mick to the police (indeed Sally Webster in Corrie reported Rosie's boyfriend Craig when they had underage sex) but it's unlikely the CPS would have prosecuted as consensual sex between a 14-15 year old and another teenager who is not in a position of authority over them is seen as punishing both parties unnecessarily.
Receiving images without proof of having procured them is not an offence, so in cases where images are found on PCs, the search history, the act of saving and filing them and often the use of password protected encryption is used to demonstrate in court that the person in question sought the images rather than just received them.
If someone emailed me images of child pornography right now I would not have committed an offence, I would be required to report it as the sender would have committed a crime. Saving, storing and not reporting the receipt of these images would constitute a crime.
Use of credit cards and encryption is particularly important in demonstrating intent.
Comments
All of it it seems .
It's certainly an accurate portrayal of the law, but the law can be an ass at times. A 17 year old boy was placed on the register for 4 weeks because he had sex with a 15 year old girl. The judge handing the sentence even apologised because it wasn't in the public's interest to place such a person on the register.
The law needs serious examination. Children wont be protected by people like Jay being on the register, all the while serious offenders who abuse children get away with it. Jay is definitely not a pedophile - which, by definition, is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, not 21 year old men having explicit images of 14/15 year old girls (not that a 21 year old man doing 'stuff' with a 14 year old girl is right, but there is a big difference between that, and pedophilia).
I mean, the people who gave Jay a kicking - they are the type of scum the world needs less off. They are the ones who need banging up.
Yet Star deliberately deceived Jay with a false name and said she deliberately acted older because she wanted Jay to like her. She sent the photos to Jay, who had no awareness or control. He ended it as soon as he found out the truth and deleted the photos. Yet he is the one completely responsible. Is that justice?
yes
hmm - because they cant be faked at all can they!
Did you not see 24 hours in police custody this week? The guy on there was held and charged with in 24 hours. He was not bailed while further inquires were carried out, as the offence he'd been charged with meant he was at danger from members of the public, as well as him being a danger to other girls and himself.
So they blown all what you have said out of the water.
it really isn't, people are saying he's innocent because we as the viewer know he is
he pleaded guilty because he felt he had to
that doesn't actually make him guilty just in the eyes of the law he is
You sound like a New Labour Home Secretary. We're not living in some kind of 1940s State of Emergency where everyone has to carry and produce their "papers".
This is even what Jay said - they found sexual images of 14 year old Star on his phone so he did have child pornography. He was banged to rights on that and by pleading guilty he spared Star a trial where those photos would have been shown to other people.
The judge accepted that Jay honestly didn't know her age and the other mitigating circumstances along with his remorse - which is what a guilty plea is seen as - so gave the minimum possible sentence.
Someone earlier asked about Mick and Linda's relationship in regard to the law given Lee would have been born when they were under 16; Elaine could have reported Mick to the police (indeed Sally Webster in Corrie reported Rosie's boyfriend Craig when they had underage sex) but it's unlikely the CPS would have prosecuted as consensual sex between a 14-15 year old and another teenager who is not in a position of authority over them is seen as punishing both parties unnecessarily.
If someone emailed me images of child pornography right now I would not have committed an offence, I would be required to report it as the sender would have committed a crime. Saving, storing and not reporting the receipt of these images would constitute a crime.
Use of credit cards and encryption is particularly important in demonstrating intent.