Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 33 minutes ago, gemini_man said: You don't have to be a "so called Dom" to want to exert power or control - it's sadly from a misogynistic mindset that still exists in many men that makes them think it's acceptable. . They may "think" it's just an attraction technique, but regardless it's one that comes from a position of wanting to control and exert a level of power to a greater or lesser degree that comes from the caveman chest thumping mindset of, as I said, "me man, you woman". . There's been enough written about it, both in the news, or on sites/threads like this stating quite clearly how unacceptable most women find it - and yet a large enough proportion of men persist in doing it - and that in itself is evidence of them seeking to control and exert power by completely ignoring widely held beliefs about it's unacceptability. A guy sends an unsolicited dick pic to a friend, could be as a joke, or maybe because he wants an opinion on some medical condition. Maybe the friends fall out and the recipient goes to the police and says "x sent me this unsolicited dick pic". Is that a criminal offence or not? Intent to harm/distress is key.
CopperKnob Posted March 20 Posted March 20 16 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: It was never designed or intended to be a catch-all and i imagine it will only be applied in limited circumstances, where for example they are sent to children, or its part of a wider campaign of harassment/stalking etc.... and as shown by this first conviction, if it gives the CPS an extra opportunity to get dangerous people off the streets then it's serving a purpose. I disagree, he would have received a custodial sentence for breaching the previous Order, regardless of what illegal activity he'd involved himself in. . He obviously has no respect for the law or any previous orders. The fact he's now received a SHPO and an RO will mean nothing to him. 52 weeks (+14wks for the breach) is not long enough in the prison system for him to be able to access the programs he needs to be able to do so before release which, given the current prison estate will be well before the end of this year. He's a 'dangerous man' who'll be off the streets for 6mths max.
CopperKnob Posted March 20 Posted March 20 7 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: A guy sends an unsolicited dick pic to a friend, could be as a joke, or maybe because he wants an opinion on some medical condition. Maybe the friends fall out and the recipient goes to the police and says "x sent me this unsolicited dick pic". Is that a criminal offence or not? Intent to harm/distress is key. The wording is "to cause alarm, distress or ***." . There is context to everything, and, as you've pointed out, it's not a catch-all law. You can have all the maybes in the world, but if the police/CPS dont believe that they can secure conviction, on the balance of probabilities, they won't proceed with charges/bail/remand.
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 1 minute ago, CopperKnob said: I disagree, he would have received a custodial sentence for breaching the previous Order, regardless of what illegal activity he'd involved himself in. . He obviously has no respect for the law or any previous orders. The fact he's now received a SHPO and an RO will mean nothing to him. 52 weeks (+14wks for the breach) is not long enough in the prison system for him to be able to access the programs he needs to be able to do so before release which, given the current prison estate will be well before the end of this year. He's a 'dangerous man' who'll be off the streets for 6mths max. But had there not been a breach of the existing order, then he'd still have been facing charges for sending the pics, which he wouldn't have done without the new law.
CopperKnob Posted March 20 Posted March 20 3 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: But had there not been a breach of the existing order, then he'd still have been facing charges for sending the pics, which he wouldn't have done without the new law. We need to remember that it's a new law and that any first case that the CPS took one would be high profile. It would be distasteful for the courts not to respond in the way that they have, the fall out would have been immense.
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 1 minute ago, CopperKnob said: The wording is "to cause alarm, distress or ***." . There is context to everything, and, as you've pointed out, it's not a catch-all law. You can have all the maybes in the world, but if the police/CPS dont believe that they can secure conviction, on the balance of probabilities, they won't proceed with charges/bail/remand. Exactly, context is everything, which is precisely why you need the intention "to cause alarm, distress or ***" in the law.
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 Just now, CopperKnob said: We need to remember that it's a new law and that any first case that the CPS took one would be high profile. It would be distasteful for the courts not to respond in the way that they have, the fall out would have been immense. I agree. And lets hope there are some more high profile cases that bring this to more into the public eye, and hopefully it will result in some of these people changing their behaviour.
ge**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 36 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: A guy sends an unsolicited dick pic to a friend, could be as a joke, or maybe because he wants an opinion on some medical condition. Maybe the friends fall out and the recipient goes to the police and says "x sent me this unsolicited dick pic". Is that a criminal offence or not? Intent to harm/distress is key. There's a world of difference though between what you are stating there and what's being discussed here and the context of our previous posts - which wasn't remotely about medical conditions or jokes. . So to get this back to the point, rather than sidestepping it, as I started off by saying in response to your earlier post it's very arguable, as I have shown, that sending an unsolicited dick pic to a complete stranger on sites like this is precisely to cause "alarm, distress or ***" and indeed exert control and power.
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 7 minutes ago, gemini_man said: There's a world of difference though between what you are stating there and what's being discussed here and the context of our previous posts - which wasn't remotely about medical conditions or jokes. . So to get this back to the point, rather than sidestepping it, as I started off by saying in response to your earlier post it's very arguable, as I have shown, that sending an unsolicited dick pic to a complete stranger on sites like this is precisely to cause "alarm, distress or ***" and indeed exert control and power. You've shown nothing! And simply repeating your point of view proves nothing, so good luck trying to get a prosecution based on your presumptions of intention.
CopperKnob Posted March 20 Posted March 20 49 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: I agree. And lets hope there are some more high profile cases that bring this to more into the public eye, and hopefully it will result in some of these people changing their behaviour. Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. . Absolutely, on a societal level, the new law (in England and Wales) may act as a deterrent and say to some that its unacceptable behaviour to engage in. The fact that the Government want to legislate is certainly progress in itself. . But, for cyberflashing to be a crime, there is a need to demonstrate and evidence that there was the intent of causing alarm, distress or humilation as well as a lack of consent. Wording may seem a small point but it matters to those that require protection. England and Wales should have learnt from our Scottish neighbours because it falls short. Scotland have the same dual threshold. 1 in 20 cases of cyberflashing receive convictions. 95% of cases aren't punished in anyway shape or form. . No other sexual offence requires the threshold of motivation. . Instead of requiring a motivation threshold, the new law should focus soley on a lack of consent on the behalf of the recipient. Without this consent, that should be reason enough for it to be an offence, just as it would be with other sex crime. . Legislation falls flat when there's no action to mitigate against the crime being committed in the first place. There is no discussion around addressing root causes of sexual *** or gender equality or appropriate behaviour online. . And, when I say that this was a high profile case, that's not because of who the perpetrator is, or the fact that they had previous for similar offences. The first to be convicted under this legislation would always have been in the media simply because its the first of its kind. It just so happens that he has the previous which made it easy for CPS to bring about Charges and, like I say, for the Courts not to have acted in the way they did would have caused significant amounts of backlash within society giving the timing of the Hearing. Sadly, I believe that we'll go the same way as Scotland have, rates for both Charges and Convictions will fall whilst reports will increase. The same as any other sexual offence.
CopperKnob Posted March 20 Posted March 20 1 hour ago, HatfieldMaster said: A guy sends an unsolicited dick pic to a friend, could be as a joke, or maybe because he wants an opinion on some medical condition. Maybe the friends fall out and the recipient goes to the police and says "x sent me this unsolicited dick pic". Is that a criminal offence or not? Intent to harm/distress is key. I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse or not, but to make such a comment almost makes light of the actual behaviour by some of sending unsolicited, non-consensual, explicit photographs. Those individuals that aren't engaging in such behaviour have absolutely nothing to worry about do they?
Shilo66 Posted March 20 Posted March 20 (edited) @CopperKnob First, you stated this: 3 hours ago, CopperKnob said: Educating those committing the crime is where the focus should be. Then, you stated this: 1 hour ago, CopperKnob said: He obviously has no respect for the law or any previous orders. The fact he's now received a SHPO and an RO will mean nothing to him. So clearly, by your own admission, trying to "educate" him would be a waste of time and would "mean nothing to him", because, as you've also stated, "he obviously has no respect for the law or any previous orders". And this is why it is so important for "victims" to report these incidents and perpetrators, albeit traumatic. Because not only does it give the authorities and their agents a legal basis for intervention, it also puts that guy on their radars, meaning they can potentially stop him making yet another woman into yet another "victim." But none of this is possible if there are some women encouraging other women to not report. Again, If no reports are made, how are the various authorities and their agents supposed to know who the perpetrators are? or where they are? or what criminal act has been committed? If nothing is reported, then nothing can be done. Edited March 20 by Shilo66
CopperKnob Posted March 20 Posted March 20 20 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: You've shown nothing! And simply repeating your point of view proves nothing, so good luck trying to get a prosecution based on your presumptions of intention. A prosecution only takes a "balance of probabilities" that something did or did not happen 🤷♀️
ge**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 30 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: You've shown nothing! And simply repeating your point of view proves nothing, so good luck trying to get a prosecution based on your presumptions of intention. And sidetracking a conversation/debate into a completely irrelevant situation rather than addressing points being made to you achieves nothing whatsoever. . My point was to show how sending unsolicited dick pics is arguably covered by the points of law - now proving that intent is another matter and something for those wiser and better knowledged than you or I, but my point stands that it's arguable that the simple act of sending unsolicited dick pics on sites like this *is* absolutely with intention to distress, alarm, humiliate, exert control and power and more.
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 9 minutes ago, CopperKnob said: I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse or not, but to make such a comment almost makes light of the actual behaviour by some of sending unsolicited, non-consensual, explicit photographs. Those individuals that aren't engaging in such behaviour have absolutely nothing to worry about do they? Of course i'm not making light of the behaviour that we both want to reduce and eradicate - the only area where we differ is that i believe that the intention to cause harm/distress etc is required in the law as its the only way to separate those who are genuinely guilty of a crime from those who might not be. And the law-makers and people that would be involved in having to en*** and prosecute the law (politicians, civil servants, prosecutors etc) obviously agree.
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 19 minutes ago, gemini_man said: ..... my point stands that it's arguable that the simple act of sending unsolicited dick pics on sites like this *is* absolutely with intention to distress, alarm, humiliate, exert control and power and more. But that's not proof. It's simply your opinion.
CopperKnob Posted March 20 Posted March 20 11 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: Of course i'm not making light of the behaviour that we both want to reduce and eradicate - the only area where we differ is that i believe that the intention to cause harm/distress etc is required in the law as its the only way to separate those who are genuinely guilty of a crime from those who might not be. And the law-makers and people that would be involved in having to en*** and prosecute the law (politicians, civil servants, prosecutors etc) obviously agree. I stole a bottle of wine from the supermarket because it was my birthday and I wanted to celebrate but didn't have the ***. It wasn't my intent to bring any hardship to a multi billion pound grocery store so its not a crime? . And yet I've worked with someone in custody who stole 2x cadbury creme eggs and a bottle of Fanta for which they got 8mths and served 7. . Forgive me if I have very little faith in the Justice system as it stands. As soon as media attention reduces, it'll be a little used law in Court.
ge**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 13 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: But that's not proof. It's simply your opinion. And where did I say it was anything more than opinion, albeit one based on experience and reasoning I see little point in these continual circles however so suggest it's left at that.
Glasgowdom1991 Posted March 20 Posted March 20 4 hours ago, bittenkiss said: No there ok here on the main feed as that's an expected place in a message or would not be acceptable
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 31 minutes ago, gemini_man said: And where did I say it was anything more than opinion, albeit one based on experience and reasoning I see little point in these continual circles however so suggest it's left at that. Oh come on, you're presenting your opinion as if its a proven fact, eg "as I have shown, that sending an unsolicited dick pic to a complete stranger on sites like this is precisely to cause "alarm, distress or ***" and indeed exert control and power."
ge**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 7 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: Oh come on, you're presenting your opinion as if its a proven fact, eg "as I have shown, that sending an unsolicited dick pic to a complete stranger on sites like this is precisely to cause "alarm, distress or ***" and indeed exert control and power." Is your opinion...like I said I'm done with going round in circles for the sake of arguing points so shall leave it there
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 2 minutes ago, gemini_man said: Is your opinion...like I said I'm done with going round in circles for the sake of arguing points so shall leave it there As your good mate would say... thank fuck for that!
CopperKnob Posted March 20 Posted March 20 30 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: Oh come on, you're presenting your opinion as if its a proven fact, eg "as I have shown, that sending an unsolicited dick pic to a complete stranger on sites like this is precisely to cause "alarm, distress or ***" and indeed exert control and power." Let's use some stats shall we? . The Journal or Sex Research published a study of 1087 cis men, of which 48% had sent an unsolicited dick pic. Those that had sent such pictures scored high in hostile sexism. 18% sent them for personal gratification, seeking a sexual thrill, positive feedback, masochistic motivations eg ***. 10% said they sent them as a way of exerting power and control over someone, such as wanting to make the recipient angry after having a disagreement. Similarly, 6% reported misogynistic motivations, such as a general dislike for women. . Something to note however is that the participants were self reporting, I'd suggest that most people wouldn't admit to misogynistic tendencies or sexism etc. . Given that 82% of senders believed their cock shots would arouse the receiver, it proves that a lot of men don’t understand – or don’t care about – the importance of consent. . Which brings me right back to the point that the law, as positive as it is on the surface, lacks substance.
ge**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 22 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: As your good mate would say... thank fuck for that! Have no idea which good mate you're referring to - but nice to see your rudeness shining through for all to see
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 2 minutes ago, CopperKnob said: Let's use some stats shall we? . The Journal or Sex Research published a study of 1087 cis men, of which 48% had sent an unsolicited dick pic. Those that had sent such pictures scored high in hostile sexism. 18% sent them for personal gratification, seeking a sexual thrill, positive feedback, masochistic motivations eg ***. 10% said they sent them as a way of exerting power and control over someone, such as wanting to make the recipient angry after having a disagreement. Similarly, 6% reported misogynistic motivations, such as a general dislike for women. . Something to note however is that the participants were self reporting, I'd suggest that most people wouldn't admit to misogynistic tendencies or sexism etc. . Given that 82% of senders believed their cock shots would arouse the receiver, it proves that a lot of men don’t understand – or don’t care about – the importance of consent. . Which brings me right back to the point that the law, as positive as it is on the surface, lacks substance. I accept and understand all that. And if there was some better legal definition than "intention to cause distress or humiliate" that could be used to separate the dangerous/malicious from the ignorant/uneducated then it would have my total support.
Recommended Posts