Could those other offences include things like ch*ld po*n?
Those two words aren't used together anymore as they imply that the child has consented which is impossible.Could those other offences include things like ch*ld po*n?
Thank you for the correction. I wasn't sure what the right term was so thank you for letting me know this.Those two words aren't used together anymore as they imply that the child has consented which is impossible.
It's called child sexual abuse material or CSAM.
I have heard a rumour from someone who knows someone at Sky that he’s passed. Absolutely no idea if truth in it.
No worries, it's hard to know what's wrong or right sometimes if we're used to seeing or saying certain words. I know you had no ill intentions.T
Thank you for the correction. I wasn't sure what the right term was so thank you for letting me know this.
If this is true, I’m well aware some people will probably be jumping for joy, but not me. He should live to face the consequences of his actions, and think of his poor son. I imagine his son will already be getting quite the ribbing at school as is given this week’s news.I have heard a rumour from someone who knows someone at Sky that he’s passed. Absolutely no idea if truth in it.
Yes, although the law has a defence if they were married (age for marriage was 16 when the law was written) or "living together in an enduring family relationship".I’m not familiar with all the laws, but would is it the case that while it’s “legal” for him to have a sexual relationship with a 16yo, if he were to keep video or images of the act that would be illegal?
I agree. If he takes the cowards way out and avoids justice, and leaves his poor son, I’ll think even less of him. POS that he is.If this is true, I’m well aware some people will probably be jumping for joy, but not me. He should live to face the consequences of his actions, and think of his poor son. I imagine his son will already be getting quite the ribbing at school as is given this week’s news.
And if he did pass away I don’t doubt that people would turn around and blame the victims, say they drove a poor innocent man to suicide with their lies. The usual kind of victim blaming and misogyny they come out with.If this is true, I’m well aware some people will probably be jumping for joy, but not me. He should live to face the consequences of his actions, and think of his poor son. I imagine his son will already be getting quite the ribbing at school as is given this week’s news.
Yes. The weird law where a 70 year old man can legally duck a 16 year old girl on her birthday. But if the same girl sent a 18 year old lad dirty photos/videos he would get in way more bother.I’m not familiar with all the laws, but would is it the case that while it’s “legal” for him to have a sexual relationship with a 16yo, if he were to keep video or images of the act that would be illegal?
Exactly. It must be BS.That rumour was doing the rounds on most social media sites last night. Surely if it was true it would have been reported in the news by now. And the Met wouldn’t have put that statement out today.
Maybe not. When Rolf Harris passed away it was talked about on Tattle but wasn't officially announced until two weeks later. They reported it after he was buried.That rumour was doing the rounds on most social media sites last night. Surely if it was true it would have been reported in the news by now. And the Met wouldn’t have put that statement out today.
Interesting, because that seems like a real possibility. These narcissistic men love to watch themselves.Yes. The weird law where a 70 year old man can legally duck a 16 year old girl on her birthday. But if the same girl sent a 18 year old lad dirty photos/videos he would get in way more bother.
I think staggered consent is good.
Yes, it’s illegal to make indecent images of a child under 18.I’m not familiar with all the laws, but would is it the case that while it’s “legal” for him to have a sexual relationship with a 16yo, if he were to keep video or images of the act that would be illegal?