Wednesday 5 August 2009

Perhaps Channel 4 Needs To Repeat 'Paedogeddon'...

...it might help to see off this latest moral panic (with added 'it's for the chiiillllldreeeen!' emphasis) by the fakecharity 'Beatbullying' and its extremely well paid CEO:
Emma-Jane Cross, its chief executive, said: "We don't want to stifle young people's sexual development but it is important that parents and schools understand the rise of sexting so together we can act to stop sexual bullying.

"Politicians must pool together organisations like Beatbullying to create an intervention and prevention task force in schools and the local community.

"This needs to be part of the solution if we are to educate our young people about the consequences of their actions and how to keep safe online as well as offline."
An 'intervention and prevention task force', eh...?

God, is there no end to the numbers of these parasites that want to suckle at the government teat?

Oh. Apparently not, because CEOP wants in on the publicity:
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre says it receives daily reports of harassment after private photos have been circulated.

Some "sexts" have ended up on forums used by child sex offenders, it says.
Well, CEOP is a well respected...*cough* Operation Ore *cough*...sorry, got something stuck in my throat...
In theory, teenagers could be arrested for taking naked photos of themselves or their boyfriends or girlfriends.

Although it is legal to have sex at 16 under British law, it is illegal to take, hold or share "indecent" photos of anyone under 18.
Madness. Utter madness...
Helen Penn said in practice it is unlikely the British police would get involved in a consensual case of "sexting" because it would not be in the public interest, although there have been a number of charges brought in both Australia and the US.

But if grooming or sexual abuse of a minor was discovered, there would probably be a prosecution.

"When the police look at this kind of offence, they are going to take it in context.

"So if it is two 17-year-olds and they are in a consensual relationship, they will probably not prosecute those people.
My, there's a lot of qualification going on there, isn't there?

Who thinks we won't see something as utterly stupid as this in the UK soon?

14 comments:

Letters From A Tory said...

First we had laws banning pornography between consenting adults, now this is being extended to cover teenagers in consensual relationships too.

*roll eyes*

Sue said...

Why aren't parents teaching their kids about this sort of stuff?

Why are schools and the government interfering yet again? Of course, the simple answer is, to justify their existences... what would these people do if they had to have proper jobs?

This boils down to parents again. There are parents out there that are not teaching their kids morals, manners and simple decent behaviour. If you sit a young person down and discuss this sort of thing and the potential consequences, most of them will understand it's a pretty stupid thing to do....

On top of this the Harpie now wants to teach five year olds that "wife beating" is wrong!

I am going to move my family to Spain as soon as possible. I will not allow my grandchildren to be dragged through this education system.

Ditherywig said...

BeatBullying received over 200 k from Government i.e taxpayer sources in their last published accounts (2007 ). Another "fake charity" campaigning and lobbying at taxpayers expense. Real charites should a) do real charitable work ( like running orphanages), b) subsist on voluntary donations only from private individuals and organisations and c) be prevented by law from sponging off the taxpayer and paying themselves handsomely in the process.
Campaigning and lobbying in the political arena should be banned.Another one for David Cameron to axe in the first days of a Tory Government, but I don't hold out much hope and expect the taxpayer will continue to unwittingly fund such organisations for the forseeable future.

Tom Paine said...

In fairness to the Americans (a) the judge leaned over backwards mildly to construe a law under which they could have been convicted as pornographers and (b) read the sensible comments beneath the article to which you linked.

James Higham said...

If one combines this and the Statist Sex Education, there's a hell of a lot of misdirected and qualified, relativistic claptrap governing our affairs just now.

NickM said...

Julia,
There have been quite a few cases in the US where teens with camera phones basically played "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" via multimedia messaging and got done for child porn offences and ended-up in a world of pain and on the sex offenders register.

PS Paedogeddon is no longer on Youtube. Do you recall the paeditrician who had his house surrounded by an angry mob. Life and art are sometimes too close to call.

Anonymous said...

On fivelive yesterday evening they interviewed a 14 year old who had sent her 15 yr old boyfirend a topless photo of herself. The "boyfriend" then distributed the photo to all his mates.

Well of course he did. He's 15. His girlfriend sent him a picture of her tits, what did she THINK he was going to do with it?

I despair at the knee-jerk we must dooooooo something reaction. The message should be quite simple.

Girls: If you don't want everyone else to see you naked, then don't photograph yourself naked.

Boys: If the young tart you are currently seeing (I hesitate to use the word relationship here because as teenager they aren't really relationships are they? And anyone who thinks they are is delusional.) sends you a phot of her tits or a picture of herself in skimpy lingerie, keep it to yourself ay.

JuliaM said...

"*roll eyes*"

It's that, or /headdesk these days. And that hurts after a while!

"Why are schools and the government interfering yet again? Of course, the simple answer is, to justify their existences..."

Indeed. And they seem to have ramped up the rhetoric lately, with Harperson in charge. She's doing all women a disservice!

"Another "fake charity" campaigning and lobbying at taxpayers expense."

Yup. There's getting to be more and more of them...

JuliaM said...

"In fairness to the Americans (a) the judge leaned over backwards mildly to construe a law under which they could have been convicted as pornographers and (b) read the sensible comments beneath the article to which you linked."

Yes, and other states have been more sensible about this legislation. But it only takes one, and they WERE convicted...

"Do you recall the paeditrician who had his house surrounded by an angry mob. "

Actually, that's a little bit of an urban myth...

JuliaM said...

"I despair at the knee-jerk we must dooooooo something reaction. The message should be quite simple."

Indeed. This isn't new - kids with access to polaroid cameras were probably doing the same thing. Then along came video cameras, now mobiles and the internet.

But the basic responsibility rests with their parents.

Anonymous said...

The thing we can expect to happen next, is some junior sh*theel gets one of these happysnaps and posts it through the letterbox of his headmaster, having first sent an anonymous tip-off to the police.

Angry Exile said...

Although it is legal to have sex at 16 under British law, it is illegal to take, hold or share "indecent" photos of anyone under 18.

Does this mean Sam Fox is breaking the law if she's kept any of her very early...er, work? I'm sure she was only 16 when she first got her tits out for page 3.

Surreptitious Evil said...

Although it is legal to have sex at 16 under British law, it is illegal to take, hold or share "indecent" photos of anyone under 18.

Actually, it isn't - quite. s45(2) of the SOA 2003 did arbitrarily amend the definition of child from 16 to 18. s45(30 and (4) then allow possession if you were married or living together but not if you were merely consensually shagging. Sharing is (seems) still to be illegal.

I think all of Sam's early work is / would now be illegal - unless it was being kept as part of a police investigation.

JuliaM said...

"Does this mean Sam Fox is breaking the law if she's kept any of her very early...er, work?"

Actually, I remember someone bringing this up on CiF when this new legislation was being debated. The conclusion was, as SE points out: yes, it does.