Newsflash

[CopperKnob]

9 minutes ago, sapiosexism said:

The OS bill specifically requires the sender to intend to cause "alarm, distress or ***", unfortunately. Ironically on this site women seem much more liable than men to the offence as it's written right now.

Evidence to back up the statement?

[Deleted Member]

Section 157 of the bill. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

[Tickler101]

15 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

Airdropping a pic allows the receiver to see a preview of it.
Cyber flashing doesn't only occur on kink/dating sites?
One has to wonder why you're so against repurcussions to those who cyber flash 🤔

You said Social Media as well. Not Airdropping. And airdropping, which is specific to Apple (the most secure and restricted phone manufacturer). There is a way to switch it off or block people. That is part of the problem. People not being tech savvy. There is a part that has the ownership on your part as well.

I know. I mentioned IG. That isn't a kink/dating site. But if they adopted the same rules that Eye mentioned, it wouldn't be a problem.

Ah yes, I was a waiting for that comment. And you proven my point. Jumping to conclusions with no evidence or anything. I am not against repercussions of those GUILTY of such acts. Unlike you, I can just see the bigger picture and the other repercussions as a result of such laws. You are just narrowly looking at what you want to happen. Afterall convictions of sending a dick pic could never affect you negatively could it🤷‍♂️😂

[ey****]

3 minutes ago, sapiosexism said:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

"A sends or gives such a photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and is reckless as to whether B will be caused alarm, distress or ***."

so even if it is not the intent 

[CopperKnob]

12 minutes ago, Tickler101 said:

I don't know how you split the quotes like that but I can't be bothered so I will just do it in different paragraphs 😅.

That is good in theory but not in practice. Firsly, you will have lost whatever employment you had. Then upon leaving prison we are always asked in life such as employment and housing what we have done the past 3-5 yrs. How could you explain having no history for 2yrs? Not to mention whatever you have been subjected to IN prison.

And if you were honest about being in prison but didn't want to state the reason why, that could be worse because it would allow people's imagination to run wild. So that wouldn't work either.

 

With the Sex Offenders List you may not lose the job you have (depending on what it is of course) and people at least know what you have done so they know the risk. Like you aren't a ***er.

And that is great. Surely doing that protects everyone right, if all social media platforms adopted the same principle? It seems pretty fool proof. And it doesn't need to involve taking up the time at the courts or prison space. This is exactly my point. It is definitely possible to be protected from such things without such extreme measures.

 

I don't think Manslaughter is not a good example. Because you have still hit someone with your car as the person driving the car.

The person sending the pic did not show the child. It would be more comparable to someone else driving your car and hitting someone with it.

I mean someone who sends a SOLICITED pic has no control over a child seeing at either? Again we seem to be forgetting the solicited part and are just focusing on the pic itself, which isn't the issue. Anyone should be allow to send pics of themselves to another consenting adult 🤷‍♂️

The point of the post is not about who sees the pic but that if the pic is sent without the receivers consent. It's looking at the content of the pic (genitalia) and whether it was un/solicited
Depending on the job, you don't have to disclose convictions/prison time, it's only necessary if the job requires a DBS
For the Sex Offenders Register, it may be a requirement from either the Police or the Probation Service that you have to disclose. Again, it'll come up anyway on a DBS and non disclosure or either may cause the job offer to be revoked

[ey****]

This is the full passage

157 Sending etc photograph or film of genitals In the Sexual Offences Act 2003, after section 66 insert— “66A Sending etc photograph or film of genitals

(1) A person who intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of any person’s genitals to another person (B) commits an offence if— (a) A intends that B will see the genitals and be caused alarm, distress or ***, or (b) A sends or gives such a photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and is reckless as to whether B will be caused alarm, distress or ***. (2) References to sending or giving such a photograph or film to another person include, in particular— (a) sending it to another person by any means, electronically or otherwise, (b) showing it to another person, and (c) placing it for a particular person to find. (3) “Photograph” includes the negative as well as the positive version. (4) “Film” means a moving image. (5) References to a photograph or film also include— (a) an image, whether made by computer graphics or in any other way, which appears to be a photograph or film, (b) a copy of a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a), and (c) data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a). (6) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years

[Tickler101]

22 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

if it's a solicited pic you can prove it was asked for.  it's a non-argument 

Yeah that is what they said about ***. But how many accounts of innocent people are there 😒.

 

If message history was lost, and the conviction was dropped and that could be seen as Just or Unjust, depending on the sincerity of the accuser. 

[CopperKnob]

5 minutes ago, Tickler101 said:

You said Social Media as well. Not Airdropping. And airdropping, which is specific to Apple (the most secure and restricted phone manufacturer). There is a way to switch it off or block people. That is part of the problem. People not being tech savvy. There is a part that has the ownership on your part as well.

I know. I mentioned IG. That isn't a kink/dating site. But if they adopted the same rules that Eye mentioned, it wouldn't be a problem.

Ah yes, I was a waiting for that comment. And you proven my point. Jumping to conclusions with no evidence or anything. I am not against repercussions of those GUILTY of such acts. Unlike you, I can just see the bigger picture and the other repercussions as a result of such laws. You are just narrowly looking at what you want to happen. Afterall convictions of sending a dick pic could never affect you negatively could it🤷‍♂️😂

Apple? As in the company that this week had a security breach???

That's victim blaming, you know that right? No one should 'have' to have measures in place to prevent rando's from violating their consent.

Afterall receiving an unsolicited dick pic couldn't have repercussions for an individuals mental well-being could it?

There's a simple solution here. Don't send unsolicted pictures of genitals to anyone 🤷‍♀️

[CopperKnob]

5 minutes ago, Tickler101 said:

Yeah that is what they said about ***. But how many accounts of innocent people are there 😒.

 

If message history was lost, and the conviction was dropped and that could be seen as Just or Unjust, depending on the sincerity of the accuser. 

Between 2 - 6% of *** allegations are proven to be false and whilst it should be 0% it means that 94-98% aren't
Choose a better argument

[Tickler101]

5 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

This is the full passage

157 Sending etc photograph or film of genitals In the Sexual Offences Act 2003, after section 66 insert— “66A Sending etc photograph or film of genitals

(1) A person who intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of any person’s genitals to another person (B) commits an offence if— (a) A intends that B will see the genitals and be caused alarm, distress or ***, or (b) A sends or gives such a photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and is reckless as to whether B will be caused alarm, distress or ***. (2) References to sending or giving such a photograph or film to another person include, in particular— (a) sending it to another person by any means, electronically or otherwise, (b) showing it to another person, and (c) placing it for a particular person to find. (3) “Photograph” includes the negative as well as the positive version. (4) “Film” means a moving image. (5) References to a photograph or film also include— (a) an image, whether made by computer graphics or in any other way, which appears to be a photograph or film, (b) a copy of a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a), and (c) data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a). (6) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years

This is what I mean. Sounds good in principle. But proving the intent, or lack of it. And sending a pic for sexual gratification - well why else would it be sent, even to someone consenting haha.

"Showing it to another person" sounds like someone receiving the pic and showing it/sending it someone else could also be convicted. So CopperKnobs scenario of a child seeing it when she opens it means SHE would be convicted for the child seeing it, not the sender.

 

This is what I mean. I don't trust it. As always, the intention is good but when carried out it can become something else entirely.

Anyway, I appreciate the sharing of ideas with you guys. We obviously aren't going to agree. And that's fine. At least I have had the chance to say my peace. It is just a shame that we have to go to such measures to protect ourselves from such stupid and inconsiderate people that cause such laws to happen in the first place.

[Tickler101]

9 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

Apple? As in the company that this week had a security breach???

That's victim blaming, you know that right? No one should 'have' to have measures in place to prevent rando's from violating their consent.

Afterall receiving an unsolicited dick pic couldn't have repercussions for an individuals mental well-being could it?

There's a simple solution here. Don't send unsolicted pictures of genitals to anyone 🤷‍♀️

Not on Airdropping pics they didn't 😂😂. I didn't say it was impenetrable. I said it was KNOWN to be more secure than other manufacturers who ironically do NOT have airdropping that is as insecure as you describe 🤷‍♂️.

No it isn't. Victim blaming means it is all their fault. I am not saying that at all. I am talking about the same kind of measures that has us lock our house doors at night, or lock our cars every time we leave it unattended. Or setup alarm systems. Exactly the same principle that I am talking about.

 

If we could trust that people wouldn't steal or enter our properties without our permission then we wouldn't NEED to lock our doors (and amen to that) but because we know there are people out there who do such things, we DO lock our doors. That isn't victim blaming. That is taking whatever measures YOU can do to prevent bad things from happening.

 

Not really, no. You just delete it and move on 🤷‍♂️. But if it does, then you have some other psychological issues that need to be addressed. That would be another matter.

 

Yeah of course. The problem is proving the unsolicited part, or more accurately, that it WAS solicited.

[ey****]

9 minutes ago, Tickler101 said:

This is what I mean. I don't trust it. As always, the intention is good but when carried out it can become something else entirely.

on the whole - the online harms bill is a tyre fire.  There are people and groups fighting sections of it - as there is a lot would severely hurt online kink spaces.

So, while we're fighting some of the bits which threatens to harm kink spaces - you could campaign for your right to cyberflash... your call

[Tickler101]

16 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

Between 2 - 6% of *** allegations are proven to be false and whilst it should be 0% it means that 94-98% aren't
Choose a better argument

Hahaha your stat doesn't even address my point though? That stat isn't the % of cases that were convicted and later turned out to be wrong convictions. And when you are one of those, then come back to me.

 

I have never been in such a case myself but know of others who were innocent but didn't win. The law isn't all about fact or fiction. It is about how good the solicitor is at making their case in convicing the Judge and Jury. You could be innocent, but if the opposing lawyer is better at convincing, you will still lose.

 

But like I said, you don't have to care about being innocent and accused of such a thing, because you can't do it.

[CopperKnob]

10 minutes ago, Tickler101 said:

Not on Airdropping pics they didn't 😂😂. I didn't say it was impenetrable. I said it was KNOWN to be more secure than other manufacturers who ironically do NOT have airdropping that is as insecure as you describe 🤷‍♂️.

No it isn't. Victim blaming means it is all their fault. I am not saying that at all. I am talking about the same kind of measures that has us lock our house doors at night, or lock our cars every time we leave it unattended. Or setup alarm systems. Exactly the same principle that I am talking about.

 

If we could trust that people wouldn't steal or enter our properties without our permission then we wouldn't NEED to lock our doors (and amen to that) but because we know there are people out there who do such things, we DO lock our doors. That isn't victim blaming. That is taking whatever measures YOU can do to prevent bad things from happening.

 

Not really, no. You just delete it and move on 🤷‍♂️. But if it does, then you have some other psychological issues that need to be addressed. That would be another matter.

 

Yeah of course. The problem is proving the unsolicited part, or more accurately, that it WAS solicited.

You actually made a statement that Apple is...

"the most secure and restricted phone manufacturer"
.
Victim blaming is when someone is held, or is suggested to be partially at fault. Not just wholly.

[ey****]

how do you know if someone is innocent if they didn't win?

especially as it's very difficult to get a *** conviction for so many reasons.

[Tickler101]

7 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

on the whole - the online harms bill is a tyre fire.  There are people and groups fighting sections of it - as there is a lot would severely hurt online kink spaces.

So, while we're fighting some of the bits which threatens to harm kink spaces - you could campaign for your right to cyberflash... your call

Haha well no-one has the right to cyberflash? I am talking about sending a SOLICIATED pic without having to worry about being put in front of a Judge!

 

It will open a can of worms.

[ey****]

Just now, Tickler101 said:

Haha well no-one has the right to cyberflash? I am talking about sending a SOLICIATED pic without having to worry about being put in front of a Judge!

 

It will open a can of worms.

you're using straw arguments in bad faith

so how about

if you think the person you send to might take it to the police out of context - don't send it?!

and if they asked for it, then you have evidence they asked for it any way.

[Tickler101]

1 minute ago, CopperKnob said:

You actually made a statement that Apple is...

"the most secure and restricted phone manufacturer"
.
Victim blaming is when someone is held, or is suggested to be partially at fault. Not just wholly.

Ok, apologies. I did say that. I meant to say "known" as I don't like Apple myself. But again, it has no bearing on the discussion at hand 🙄. My point was that Airdropping can be switched off - problem solved 👍.

 

My point was pretty clear. You aren't a child. You are an adult. We all take different meaures to protect ourselves from things we don't want or enjoy. Just like we avoid bad neighbourhoods because we know it isn't safe to go there. It is easy to put a negative spin on anything 🤷‍♂️

[Tickler101]

8 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

you're using straw arguments in bad faith

so how about

if you think the person you send to might take it to the police out of context - don't send it?!

and if they asked for it, then you have evidence they asked for it any way.

Hahaha is that what you would say to someone who is falsely accused of ***? 'If you thought they would accuse you of *** afterwards and they gave consent, why did you do it?' You obviously don't know that until it is too late do you?? We at least all agree that there are nut jobs online. They don't tend to advertise that fact and if it was obvious who they were then they would never be successful would they 🤷‍♂️. I also obviously wouldn't be talking to them in the first place, nevermind sending them pics!

[CopperKnob]

3 minutes ago, Tickler101 said:

Hahaha is that what you would say to someone who is falsely accused of ***? 'If you thought they would accuse you of *** afterwards and they gave consent, why did you do it?' You obviously don't know that until it is too late do you?? We at least all agree that there are nut jobs online. They don't tend to advertise that fact and if it was obvious who they were then they would never be successful would they 🤷‍♂️. I also obviously wouldn't be talking to them in the first place, nevermind sending them pics!

No, because again, that would be victim blaming. However, I'm not certain that I, personally would be having a sexual relationship with someone I didn't trust.
And yeah, there are nut jobs online. Fortunately some do make themselves known.

[ey****]

the 'false ***' strawman is getting tiring.

anyway - this is the bill - it's probably coming. just, well, don't send dick pics as there's no need and yes, in context it's fucking obvious if they were asked for or not.

[Deleted Member]

1 hour ago, eyemblacksheep said:

"A sends or gives such a photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and is reckless as to whether B will be caused alarm, distress or ***."

so even if it is not the intent 

Subjective recklessness in England & Wales means a jury has to decide not whether a reasonable person should have foreseen, but whether I, Randy McFlasherson, actually did foresee it and continued anyway. In the current political climate (see: fragile male responses on this thread) that seems much harder to prove.

[ey****]

2 minutes ago, sapiosexism said:

Subjective recklessness in England & Wales means a jury has to decide not whether a reasonable person should have foreseen, but whether I, Randy McFlasherson, actually did foresee it and continued anyway. In the current political climate (see: fragile male responses on this thread) that seems much harder to prove.

it wouldn't go to jury, the bill literally reads it would go to a magistrate. 

 

[CopperKnob]

10 minutes ago, sapiosexism said:

Subjective recklessness in England & Wales means a jury has to decide not whether a reasonable person should have foreseen, but whether I, Randy McFlasherson, actually did foresee it and continued anyway. In the current political climate (see: fragile male responses on this thread) that seems much harder to prove.

It could also mean having a disregard for how its received by the other party. As in, Randy didn't even consider the other persons reaction/feelings before sending it because it was all about how Randy felt. Which in interview is probably easier to prove than intent to cause harm.

[Deleted Member]

39 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

it wouldn't go to jury, the bill literally reads it would go to a magistrate. 

 

It's "either-way", so can go to a Crown Court "on indictment". 157.6.b in the bill. (Magistrates can't imprison for more than 6 months.)