| What a dreadful punishment on 19:02 - Sep 14 with 3791 views | BLAZE |
Well I think there's something wrong with the law when you're allowed a sexual relationship with a 16 year old, but if that same 16 year old sends you a naughty pic or two you're convicted a paedophile and placed on the sex offenders register for 5 years |  | |  |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:05 - Sep 14 with 3781 views | Darran |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:02 - Sep 14 by BLAZE |
Well I think there's something wrong with the law when you're allowed a sexual relationship with a 16 year old, but if that same 16 year old sends you a naughty pic or two you're convicted a paedophile and placed on the sex offenders register for 5 years |
You make a great point my friend. |  |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:17 - Sep 14 with 3750 views | Jango |
If it’s not a current or former pupil then what exactly has she done wrong? |  | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:22 - Sep 14 with 3739 views | BLAZE |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:17 - Sep 14 by Jango |
If it’s not a current or former pupil then what exactly has she done wrong? |
From the Daily Mail;
HOW THE LAW WORKS
Rhian Desouza's relationship with her 16-year-old female lover was legal, because she was over the age of consent.
There was also no breach of trust because the girl had never been a pupil of Desouza or attended a school she had worked at.
But the law was broken because the Protection of Children Act 1978 prohibits sexual images being made or circulated of anyone aged under 18.
Thus receiving the images via Snapchat meant she had committed the offense.
Desouza admitted the crime at the first opportunity and her barrister told the court the case was an 'anomaly' because of the unusual circumstances.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6167973/Primary-school-headteacher-chil | | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:24 - Sep 14 with 3730 views | Wingstandwood |
I actually have sympathy for the lady in this case! |  |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:27 - Sep 14 with 3720 views | LeonWasGod |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:02 - Sep 14 by BLAZE |
Well I think there's something wrong with the law when you're allowed a sexual relationship with a 16 year old, but if that same 16 year old sends you a naughty pic or two you're convicted a paedophile and placed on the sex offenders register for 5 years |
Is that what happened? Only skimmed the article but it confused the hell out of me. Not sure how she can get done for “making images” when they were sent to her. It’s a bit like us automatically getting sogned up to the RSPB because Darren posted some pics of birds in his garden (kind of).
Thoroughly embarrassing yes, but a surprise it’s illegal if she received them and the other person was at least 16.
Must be more to it?
Yours, confused |  | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:27 - Sep 14 with 3720 views | Darran |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:22 - Sep 14 by BLAZE |
From the Daily Mail;
HOW THE LAW WORKS
Rhian Desouza's relationship with her 16-year-old female lover was legal, because she was over the age of consent.
There was also no breach of trust because the girl had never been a pupil of Desouza or attended a school she had worked at.
But the law was broken because the Protection of Children Act 1978 prohibits sexual images being made or circulated of anyone aged under 18.
Thus receiving the images via Snapchat meant she had committed the offense.
Desouza admitted the crime at the first opportunity and her barrister told the court the case was an 'anomaly' because of the unusual circumstances.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6167973/Primary-school-headteacher-chil |
Yep the more it’s delved into the crazier it sounds doesn’t it? | |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:34 - Sep 14 with 3710 views | BLAZE |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:27 - Sep 14 by LeonWasGod |
Is that what happened? Only skimmed the article but it confused the hell out of me. Not sure how she can get done for “making images” when they were sent to her. It’s a bit like us automatically getting sogned up to the RSPB because Darren posted some pics of birds in his garden (kind of).
Thoroughly embarrassing yes, but a surprise it’s illegal if she received them and the other person was at least 16.
Must be more to it?
Yours, confused |
Maybe she requested the pics, thus guilty of 'making'? I don't know. The Daily Mail article does a much better job of describing what happened | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:36 - Sep 14 with 3705 views | Jango |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:22 - Sep 14 by BLAZE |
From the Daily Mail;
HOW THE LAW WORKS
Rhian Desouza's relationship with her 16-year-old female lover was legal, because she was over the age of consent.
There was also no breach of trust because the girl had never been a pupil of Desouza or attended a school she had worked at.
But the law was broken because the Protection of Children Act 1978 prohibits sexual images being made or circulated of anyone aged under 18.
Thus receiving the images via Snapchat meant she had committed the offense.
Desouza admitted the crime at the first opportunity and her barrister told the court the case was an 'anomaly' because of the unusual circumstances.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6167973/Primary-school-headteacher-chil |
Bit of a stupid law that. Ludicrous situation to get herself in though consideration her position. | | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:40 - Sep 14 with 3692 views | LeonWasGod |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:34 - Sep 14 by BLAZE |
Maybe she requested the pics, thus guilty of 'making'? I don't know. The Daily Mail article does a much better job of describing what happened |
Yeah, just seen your post about that now. Thanks, all makes sense now.
What a fecking stupid law! | | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 20:08 - Sep 14 with 3600 views | Dr_Winston |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:05 - Sep 14 by Darran |
You make a great point my friend. |
Seems utterly idiotic. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 20:48 - Sep 14 with 3530 views | Sirjohnalot |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:34 - Sep 14 by BLAZE |
Maybe she requested the pics, thus guilty of 'making'? I don't know. The Daily Mail article does a much better job of describing what happened |
‘Making ‘ in this context refers to downloading. It’s normally in the context of downloading from child porn sites. It’s confusing as it doesn’t mean ‘making’ in the ordinary, dictionary definition of the word.
As far as why she’s been charged with the offence, I’ll link the CPS website...
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-images-children-iioc
It’s also aggravated as she’s a teacher (albeit not the girl’s teacher) but she’s still in a position of trust, interestingly the age of consent, had she been a teacher, with one of her pupils is 18. |  | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 20:53 - Sep 14 with 3510 views | Sirjohnalot |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:02 - Sep 14 by BLAZE |
Well I think there's something wrong with the law when you're allowed a sexual relationship with a 16 year old, but if that same 16 year old sends you a naughty pic or two you're convicted a paedophile and placed on the sex offenders register for 5 years |
If they were two 16 year olds or a similar age, even though it’s illegsl, in order lo charge, the CPS also have to be sure it’s in the Interests of Justice as technically, the person who sent it is also guilty of distributing, as the law doesn’t distinguish between whether or not the picture of your phone is you or another.
I once had a client arrested for having indecent images of himself on his phone. CPS wouldn’t charge. | | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 21:02 - Sep 14 with 3487 views | Loyal |
| What a dreadful punishment on 19:02 - Sep 14 by BLAZE |
Well I think there's something wrong with the law when you're allowed a sexual relationship with a 16 year old, but if that same 16 year old sends you a naughty pic or two you're convicted a paedophile and placed on the sex offenders register for 5 years |
Position of trust though mate... |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 00:00 - Sep 15 with 3343 views | Dyfnant |
What if it was a 43 year old male head teacher receiving the pictures off a 16 year old. |  |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 07:50 - Sep 15 with 3219 views | Dr_Winston |
| What a dreadful punishment on 00:00 - Sep 15 by Dyfnant |
What if it was a 43 year old male head teacher receiving the pictures off a 16 year old. |
If he wasn't in a position of power over that sixteen year old then they'd be over the age of consent. Distasteful perhaps but shouldn't be illegal. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 07:57 - Sep 15 with 3203 views | Mo_Wives |
| What a dreadful punishment on 20:48 - Sep 14 by Sirjohnalot |
‘Making ‘ in this context refers to downloading. It’s normally in the context of downloading from child porn sites. It’s confusing as it doesn’t mean ‘making’ in the ordinary, dictionary definition of the word.
As far as why she’s been charged with the offence, I’ll link the CPS website...
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-images-children-iioc
It’s also aggravated as she’s a teacher (albeit not the girl’s teacher) but she’s still in a position of trust, interestingly the age of consent, had she been a teacher, with one of her pupils is 18. |
Thank you, Sir John. It's good to have an experts explanation. |  |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 08:18 - Sep 15 with 3181 views | sainthelens |
Then you really have to question her legal team in advising her to plead guilty. If all she did was receive them then surely a decent defence lawyer could work with that.
Mind you...I've sat on a jury and there are some real thick cvnts about. |  | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 11:31 - Sep 15 with 3075 views | Sirjohnalot |
| What a dreadful punishment on 08:18 - Sep 15 by sainthelens |
Then you really have to question her legal team in advising her to plead guilty. If all she did was receive them then surely a decent defence lawyer could work with that.
Mind you...I've sat on a jury and there are some real thick cvnts about. |
Hi Saint.
She’s guilty of the offence as she received and opened the pictures. That’s classified as ‘making’ as you are effectively making a new picture by opening it.
Law is in place to protect vulnerable children. An adult teacher dating a child ? | | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 12:18 - Sep 15 with 3021 views | Catullus |
| What a dreadful punishment on 11:31 - Sep 15 by Sirjohnalot |
Hi Saint.
She’s guilty of the offence as she received and opened the pictures. That’s classified as ‘making’ as you are effectively making a new picture by opening it.
Law is in place to protect vulnerable children. An adult teacher dating a child ? |
It still begs the question, if at 16 you are a child why is it legal to have sex? If you are too young to send your sexual partner pictures of yourself, aren't you too young to have sexual relations?
Morally it looks bad but legally, isn't it yet more proof the law is an ass? | |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 12:25 - Sep 15 with 3017 views | BLAZE |
| What a dreadful punishment on 11:31 - Sep 15 by Sirjohnalot |
Hi Saint.
She’s guilty of the offence as she received and opened the pictures. That’s classified as ‘making’ as you are effectively making a new picture by opening it.
Law is in place to protect vulnerable children. An adult teacher dating a child ? |
It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with this particular judgement, or whether it’s correct in the eyes of the law (I don’t think anybody has disputed that, or doubts your explanation), but surely you can see the two laws clash? How can someone be old enough to consent to sex, but not old enough to consent to sharing a picture or two!? Seems ridiculous to me | | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 12:51 - Sep 15 with 2984 views | Wingstandwood |
Another bit of lunacy? A 17 year old from 2 Para that died on Mount Longdon would have been refused entry to both a pub and an adult X rated film showing far less horror than the real horror he and other 17 year old comrades faced. He would have also been stopped from buying sparklers on Nov 5th but despite that?.....Been allowed to throw high explosive grenades and fire high explosive mortar rounds. | |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 14:23 - Sep 15 with 2932 views | Sirjohnalot |
| What a dreadful punishment on 12:25 - Sep 15 by BLAZE |
It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with this particular judgement, or whether it’s correct in the eyes of the law (I don’t think anybody has disputed that, or doubts your explanation), but surely you can see the two laws clash? How can someone be old enough to consent to sex, but not old enough to consent to sharing a picture or two!? Seems ridiculous to me |
I agree, on the face of it, it clashes. However the CPS charging standards say that there are two hurdles which must be overcome before charge is authorised.
1. Evidential....has the law been broken on the evidence ?
2. Public Intetest....if a couple, married with parental consent, eg,send each other pictures, technically, they’ve broken the law so the first hurdle is overcome but it would not be in the interest of justice to charge them.
Difference in this case is the disparity in ages and the vulnerability of the child | | | |
| What a dreadful punishment on 15:07 - Sep 15 with 2901 views | sherpajacob |
Page 3 regularly used to have 16 year old girls.
Even had countdowns till their 16.th birthday.
If you change your carpets and find an old copy of the sun lining the floor, you could be going to jail.? |  |
| |
| What a dreadful punishment on 15:17 - Sep 15 with 2884 views | BLAZE |
| What a dreadful punishment on 14:23 - Sep 15 by Sirjohnalot |
I agree, on the face of it, it clashes. However the CPS charging standards say that there are two hurdles which must be overcome before charge is authorised.
1. Evidential....has the law been broken on the evidence ?
2. Public Intetest....if a couple, married with parental consent, eg,send each other pictures, technically, they’ve broken the law so the first hurdle is overcome but it would not be in the interest of justice to charge them.
Difference in this case is the disparity in ages and the vulnerability of the child |
Thanks for the explanation
At the risk of going around in circles however, I don’t understand why age disparity and vulnerability counts when it comes to sending pictures, but doesn’t matter when it comes to having a physical relationship
I’ll leave it at that, before you send me an invoice  | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
