Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion
Options

Couple cautioned for sexting

Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
Forum Member
✭✭
in General Discussion #1
A teenage girl (doesn't state age other than 'under 18') sent a topless photo of herself to her boyfriend phone. They eventually have a disagreement as most couples do, he then shows her photo to his mates.

Both have now been cautioned by the Police for 'distributing an indecent image'. :o

Just beginning to wonder where all this is going? :confused:
«13456

Comments

  • Options
    anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #2
    It is illegal and I agree entirely. Do you have a link to the story?


    http://www.thinkuknow.co.uk/14_plus/need-advice/sex-and-the-law/

    In this instance the boyfriend showed his friends. If it went any further it's her own fault.
  • Options
    Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    anne_666 wrote: »
    It is illegal and I agree entirely. Do you have a link to the story?


    http://www.thinkuknow.co.uk/14_plus/need-advice/sex-and-the-law/

    In this instance the boyfriend showed his friends. If it went any further it's her own fault.

    However this does show where the strict interpretation of the law can be an ass!

    It is perfectly legal for two 17-year olds, for example, to have a full sexual relationship but if the girl sends the boy a "selfie" with her breasts exposed, which serve no sexual function in the first place, they can both be cautioned for making an illegal photograph of a child. :confused:
  • Options
    ShrikeShrike Posts: 16,608
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #4
    Apparently Notts police have been making people aware of the dangers.
    Selfie sex text teens threatened with child sex charges

    I'm not surprised this has come about - after all 16-18 year olds can have sex, so it does rather seem illogical that they can be prosecuted and go on the sex offenders register for simply having naked photos of themselves on an electronic device. (not even distributing them).

    Also, as far as I can see, its illegal for a 17 year old girl to send out a topless photo of herself, but not for a 17 year old boy to do so.
  • Options
    What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #5
    Daft decision. She shouldn't have accepted the caution. He was guilty. Not because they sent pictures to each other but because when they fell out he shared them with his friends. That us distributing pictures of a minor as common sense would see it.
  • Options
    Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #6
    anne_666 wrote: »
    It is illegal and I agree entirely. Do you have a link to the story?

    In this instance the boyfriend showed his friends. If it went any further it's her own fault.
    http://www.newstalk.ie/Young-couple-get-police-caution-for-sexting-
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schoolgirl-given-police-caution-after-3896649
  • Options
    Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #7
    Shrike wrote: »
    I'm not surprised this has come about - after all 16-18 year olds can have sex, so it does rather seem illogical that they can be prosecuted and go on the sex offenders register for simply having naked photos of themselves on an electronic device. (not even distributing them).

    Also, as far as I can see, its illegal for a 17 year old girl to send out a topless photo of herself, but not for a 17 year old boy to do so.
    If it was...and it seems it's only a matter of time, we will have apprentice bricklayers being forced to wear tops during the summer. :confused:
  • Options
    Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #8
    What name?? wrote: »
    Daft decision. She shouldn't have accepted the caution. He was guilty. Not because they sent pictures to each other but because when they fell out he shared them with his friends. That us distributing pictures of a minor as common sense would see it.
    Eh? :confused:

    She sent a topless photo of herself to him, her boyfriend!

    He didn't send any of himself to her. :confused:

    I agree it's a daft decision........but not for the reasons you've stated.
  • Options
    Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #9
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    http://www.newstalk.ie/Young-couple-get-police-caution-for-sexting-
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schoolgirl-given-police-caution-after-3896649

    On the Daily Mirror survery at the end of the report, 73% said children shouldn't be put on the Sex Offender's Register for this....
  • Options
    Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #10
    Glawster2002 wrote: »
    On the Daily Mirror survery at the end of the report, 73% said children shouldn't be put on the Sex Offender's Register for this....
    Apparently nobody is when cautioned.....only if charged.

    I still think this case is a bit potty though.
  • Options
    jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #11
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    If it was...and it seems it's only a matter of time, we will have apprentice bricklayers being forced to wear tops during the summer. :confused:
    No, because a topless man/teenager is not breaking the indecency laws.
  • Options
    Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    Apparently nobody is when cautioned.....only if charged.

    I still think this case is a bit potty though.

    I believe you can be for a caution as well, although I am happy to be corrected..
  • Options
    ShrikeShrike Posts: 16,608
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #13
    What name?? wrote: »
    Daft decision. She shouldn't have accepted the caution. He was guilty. Not because they sent pictures to each other but because when they fell out he shared them with his friends. That us distributing pictures of a minor as common sense would see it.

    She had no choice as she had broken the law - both in producing the illegal image and distributing it (to her boyfriend)
    I'm sure most of us would think the boyfriend to be morally more culpable, and certainly a prick, but thats not how the law works.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,181
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #14
    tulisa had an excuse when her sex tape went on line, she claims she was just learning the `blow job` technique(plenty on this)


    http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/tv-news/535817/tearful-tulisa-sex-tape-i-was-19-and-just-starting-to-learn-to-give-blow-jobs :blush:
  • Options
    Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #15
    jzee wrote: »
    No, because a topless man/teenager is not violating indecency law.
    I was referring to Shrikes last sentence final para but it does make one wonder how long before that is termed 'indecent'! :confused:

    Glawster makes a very good point in the third post down.
  • Options
    gasheadgashead Posts: 13,822
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #16
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    A teenage girl (doesn't state age other than 'under 18') sent a topless photo of herself to her boyfriend phone. They eventually have a disagreement as most couples do, he then shows her photo to his mates.

    Both have now been cautioned by the Police for 'distributing an indecent image'. :o

    Just beginning to wonder where all this is going? :confused:
    Perhaps the police's aim in this instance was precisely to prevent it going any further? Young girl recklessly sends her bf du jour a pic of her breasts. Bf, arse that he is, inevitably shares it around, as he was always going to do. Police intervene at this relatively early and harmless stage and hopefully they both realise how stupid they've been and neither will do it again. Better just the tits now than a full on Tulisa in five years time.
  • Options
    Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #17
    Shrike wrote: »
    She had no choice as she had broken the law - both in producing the illegal image and distributing it (to her boyfriend)
    I'm sure most of us would think the boyfriend to be morally more culpable, and certainly a prick, but thats not how the law works.

    And yet the same girl can sunbathe topless on a beach all day, where whoever happens to be on the beach can see her breasts, perfectly legally....

    I'm not condoning "sexting" by any means, just highlighting the complete lack of common sense in the law.
  • Options
    CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #18
    Glawster2002 wrote: »
    It is perfectly legal for two 17-year olds, for example, to have a full sexual relationship but if the girl sends the boy a "selfie" with her breasts exposed, which serve no sexual function in the first place, they can both be cautioned for making an illegal photograph of a child. :confused:

    Exactly, that is ridiculous.
  • Options
    anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #19
    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/aug/07/sexting-teenagers-mobile-phones


    A good article from the Guardian.
  • Options
    Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #20
    Glawster2002 wrote: »
    I believe you can be for a caution as well, although I am happy to be corrected..
    It's just what i read from one of those links. Maybe i misinterpreted......i don't know now.

    This part;
    A police caution is not a conviction, but does mean that the two now have a criminal record. The maximum penalty for their crime, if they were charged, is up to 10 years in prison and entry on the Registered Sex Offenders list.
  • Options
    CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #21
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    It's just what i read from one of those links. Maybe i misinterpreted......i don't know now.

    This part;

    How I read it, was that they could only have been put on the sex offenders register if they had been charged and found guilty, since it says that a caution isn't a conviction, but it is a criminal record.
  • Options
    Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #22
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    It's just what i read from one of those links. Maybe i misinterpreted......i don't know now.

    This part;

    I'm not certain either, which is why I am happy to be corrected. :)
  • Options
    Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #23
    Glawster2002 wrote: »
    And yet the same girl can sunbathe topless on a beach all day, where whoever happens to be on the beach can see her breasts, perfectly legally....

    I'm not condoning "sexting" by any means, just highlighting the complete lack of common sense in the law.
    Precisely!!

    This is what i just don't 'get'. :confused::confused:
  • Options
    Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #24
    Cryolemon wrote: »
    How I read it, was that they could only have been put on the sex offenders register if they had been charged and found guilty, since it says that a caution isn't a conviction, but it is a criminal record.
    That's how i read it too. Charged and convicted but not for being cautioned. Still doesn't make this case any better though.

    Crikey, what next......i could be arrested for gross 'indecency' in my own home. :o

    I came in from outside as it got too hot, and now sitting here stark naked with a large fan wafting a nice cool breeze! :D:D
  • Options
    gasheadgashead Posts: 13,822
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #25
    Glawster2002 wrote: »
    And yet the same girl can sunbathe topless on a beach all day, where whoever happens to be on the beach can see her breasts, perfectly legally....
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    Precisely!!

    This is what i just don't 'get'. :confused::confused:
    Well, they're not quite the same, which is not to say the law isn't frequently an ass, but the two aren't really comparable. In the beach scenario, she wouldn't be 'forcing' anyone to see her breasts who didn't want to see them. If you're on a beach where topless bathing is permitted and that offends you, you have the option to leave with your eyes untainted by such filth, whereas if a pic of someone's breasts is sent direct to your phone, you don't have the option not to see them (assuming you didn't know what was in the message when you opened it).

    ETA - which is not to say anyone should necessarily have been charged in this specific instance.
  • Options
    ShrikeShrike Posts: 16,608
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #26
    gashead wrote: »
    Well, they're not quite the same, which is not to say the law isn't frequently an ass, but the two aren't really comparable. In the beach scenario, she wouldn't be 'forcing' anyone to see her breasts who didn't want to see them. If you're on a beach where topless bathing is permitted and that offends you, you have the option to leave with your eyes untainted by such filth, whereas if a pic of someone's breasts is sent direct to your phone, you don't have the option not to see them (assuming you didn't know what was in the message when you opened it).

    ETA - which is not to say anyone should necessarily have been charged in this specific instance.

    The law applies to indecent images of under 18s stored in electronic media. Hence she could be done for simply taking a piccy of her breasts and never sending it to anyone.
Sign In or Register to comment.