Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 12 minutes ago, gemini_man said: Have no idea which good mate you're referring to - but nice to see your rudeness shining through for all to see You know very well that that's exactly what "eyemblacksheep" said to me on the discussion about fake profiles on which you were similarly very active.
Glasgowdom1991 Posted March 20 Posted March 20 3 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: 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. Ignorance is no excuse under law
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 Just now, Glasgowdom1991 said: Ignorance is no excuse under law But there is when it comes to this, as the law states that there has to be an intent to cause distress etc.
Ha**** Posted March 20 Posted March 20 3 minutes ago, Glasgowdom1991 said: Ignorance is no excuse under law PS. When i said ignorance, i didn't mean ignorance of the law, but ignorance in terms of behaviours and attitudes towards other people.
CopperKnob Posted March 20 Posted March 20 14 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: 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. There is, its called consent. There is no need for a dual threshold. Ignorance is never going to be an appropriate defence. If we're arguing that it is then we could also argue that mental ill health is and yet, the custodial setting in which I frequent, those detained with mental ill health factor for approx 90% of the population at any given time. All serving a custodial sentence as opposed to being on remand.
Glasgowdom1991 Posted March 20 Posted March 20 54 minutes ago, HatfieldMaster said: PS. When i said ignorance, i didn't mean ignorance of the law, but ignorance in terms of behaviours and attitudes towards other people. Same thing it's no excuse unless there's dimished responsibilities then the law is the law and ignorance of any form is no excuse
ey**** Posted March 20 Author Posted March 20 6 hours ago, HatfieldMaster said: But the same goes for men sending them to women... and i'm guessing that the vast majority that send them probably do so because they have personality disorders and/or are socially inept and think its a way of attracting women, not because they want to distress someone. So there were rejected amendments to the bill which would have it be an offence if sent for ANY reason other than clearly requested - there were a few whataboutisms (the whole not wanting to punish someone for a "genuine mistake") which to me is a bit of a flaw. My general hope is that it being clear in law will make folk think twice especially those where it would have been a "genuine mistake" The thing is mind - if someone is doing something through any form of personality disorder - then, they need to be assed and treat for it - if it is because they think it is a way to attract women, then they need this drilled this does not attract women and that this is not acceptable And yep, the gender of the sender isn't important - sending unsolicited pictures is not acceptable and should be reported as a criminal offence if possible, even if it's "no crime"'d - and that yes, if there's suggestion it was done for distress/harassment/*** etc then it may be investigated further. For me "but women do it to men" doesn't wash here in the sense it's still just as much a criminal offence, so isn't a gotcha
Ar**** Posted March 21 Posted March 21 6 hours ago, Shilo66 said: 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. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you haven't been on the end of a huge amount of sexual and indecent *** in your life, have you? No need to answer that. Sad to say I've gotten somewhat used to seeing a lack of empathy from some fellas in these forums. But putting the word victims in inverted commas during a discussion on this subject? I almost want to commend your ability to take it to this level.
wo**** Posted March 21 Posted March 21 Question couldn’t be having a dick picture as a profile picture be classified as flashing and also if someone requests a picture and then gets pissed off with you how do you prove that you didn’t send it cyber flashing
CopperKnob Posted March 21 Posted March 21 1 hour ago, wolverhampton633 said: Question couldn’t be having a dick picture as a profile picture be classified as flashing and also if someone requests a picture and then gets pissed off with you how do you prove that you didn’t send it cyber flashing Short answers. No and no.
Glasgowdom1991 Posted March 21 Posted March 21 4 minutes ago, phoenix766637 said: Sucks to suck, uk people As with most UK laws I am assuming this is extra territorial and would apply to any one abroad sending pics in to the UK or using a UK based ISP or network provider or sociale media platform
ey**** Posted March 21 Author Posted March 21 5 hours ago, wolverhampton633 said: Question couldn’t be having a dick picture as a profile picture be classified as flashing and also if someone requests a picture and then gets pissed off with you how do you prove that you didn’t send it cyber flashing easy on both on this site you can't have a dick pic profile picture - so no issue on sites which do permit this - it's already bad form anyway. If someone requests a pic then you have proof they requested it. No issue.
Shilo66 Posted March 21 Posted March 21 (edited) 8 hours ago, Aranhis said: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you haven't been on the end of a huge amount of sexual and indecent *** in your life, have you? No need to answer that. Sad to say I've gotten somewhat used to seeing a lack of empathy from some fellas in these forums. But putting the word victims in inverted commas during a discussion on this subject? I almost want to commend your ability to take it to this level. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you've never had to deal with "victims" of domestic *** and battery situations, or with those in Women's Refuges, have you? No need to answer that. Sad to say I've gotten somewhat used to seeing a lack of common sense and asinine comments from some fellas in these forums trying to enable their mates who they know are clearly in the wrong and giving out very bad and dangerous advice to others. So let me educate you, please try and keep up. Extremely little can be done by the authorities and their agents until the "victim" actually presses charges and makes a statement. The police do not require the victim's consent to press charges. However, if the victim is no longer willing to give evidence, the CPS can run into difficulties during the prosecution if the alleged victim becomes what is known as a 'hostile witness'. That means things like 'no injunctions against the victim's assailant', no orders that he must remain a certain distance away, Until then, their hands are tied. They won't even be able to use Clare's law effectively... you're obviously not aware of it, so I'll explain it... Clare's Law, also known as the Domestic *** Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) is a police policy giving people the right to know if their current or ex-partner has any previous history of *** or ***. The scheme is named after Clare Wood, who was ***ed by her abusive ex-boyfriend in 2009. Encouraging "victims" not to report assaults or attacks only leads to more "victims." Had this guy's ( from the OP) "victims" not reported him, he would not have been caught and sentenced. If you know of a better viable way of helping "victims" and future "victims" without reporting, please let's hear it. Share with us all your insight and better understanding of such situations.... I won't hold my breath. Edited March 21 by Shilo66
ey**** Posted March 21 Author Posted March 21 3 hours ago, phoenix766637 said: Sucks to suck, uk people well, I wouldn't say having a law against sexual harassment sucks. But here is the rub The UK isn't the only country pushing through new internet laws - there is a big bill covering the EU also - and also the US has started their own push backs, some states have already implemented Age Verification which is a first phase. Some of the long term proposals in the US are concerning - look up Project 2025 as a starting point. From the UK perspective - one of the big things OFCOM will be looking at is how sites protect users. And that could shape a lot of policies from sites. And, as I say, it's not just the UK pushing back
Je**** Posted March 21 Posted March 21 My god always the same people arguing on every post. Can't one as important as this simply be used to make a point and spread awareness. Awareness being, don't send your bits to people without permission. Report people who send their bits without permission. Or else there's consequences. Being... You go to prison for sending your bits.. Or you don't report, enabling the ejits to continuing harassing others. Just put a stop to it which ever side of the coin you're on. Also, I've received dick pics many a time on here. Always reported them. With this new law in UK... if I reported this to Fet, if it happened again... what do the admin or management do? Do they forward the report to the police? Do they wait for others to report same individual for doing so? Or do they just block said person from the site, allowing them to move on and do it elsewhere?
Ar**** Posted March 21 Posted March 21 3 hours ago, Shilo66 said: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you've never had to deal with "victims" of domestic *** and battery situations, or with those in Women's Refuges, have you? No need to answer that. Alas and alack, when a comment is so far off the mark an answer is indeed needed. To not do so would imply that this baseless and ignorant assumption is correct.
ey**** Posted March 21 Author Posted March 21 39 minutes ago, Jeneral_Whore said: With this new law in UK... if I reported this to Fet, if it happened again... what do the admin or management do? Do they forward the report to the police? Do they wait for others to report same individual for doing so? Or do they just block said person from the site, allowing them to move on and do it elsewhere? this is a good question but from some bits I know reported dick pics on here carry a minimum of a points warning and suspension. I do not know specifics above that, but obviously someone repeating will be banned from the site there is no obligation for the site to forward reports to the police, the onus would be on the person who received/reported to also report to the police - any dealings involve the police and the site may come down to context the site does have an obligation of having suitable controls - however 'suitable' is decided by the regulator (OFCOM) although payment processors may make their own mind also if they do not feel something is sufficient. A suspension and points warning for first time offenders would probably be deemed a suitable control. Equally sending pictures pre-blurred may also be a control.
Je**** Posted March 21 Posted March 21 47 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said: this is a good question but from some bits I know reported dick pics on here carry a minimum of a points warning and suspension. I do not know specifics above that, but obviously someone repeating will be banned from the site there is no obligation for the site to forward reports to the police, the onus would be on the person who received/reported to also report to the police - any dealings involve the police and the site may come down to context the site does have an obligation of having suitable controls - however 'suitable' is decided by the regulator (OFCOM) although payment processors may make their own mind also if they do not feel something is sufficient. A suspension and points warning for first time offenders would probably be deemed a suitable control. Equally sending pictures pre-blurred may also be a control. I mean if its a criminal offence and its happening on their platform, surely they have a duty to yes suspend the account but also to report it. Especially if it is a serial offender. Because this kind of platform will take a blame somewhere of hosting these kinds of people. And to just simply kick them off without an office report leaves them free to terrorise women on other platforms. And if an official investigation is conducted they may also find this platform failed to report it and surely held liable? I am talking if said offenders are kicked off here and go somewhere else and the issues with the offences are just as bad or get worse. When it could have been stopped with this platform. Perhaps maybe all dating sites and apps, like here, tinder, fetlife, swingers sites etc, could have some form of "register", with the offending persons details... history of sending unsolicited pics with dates and complaints, so that other platforms can potentially stop or block these offenders from signing up and repeating behaviours or escalating. Just my opinion
Shilo66 Posted March 21 Posted March 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, Aranhis said: Alas and alack, when a comment is so far off the mark an answer is indeed needed. To not do so would imply that this baseless and ignorant assumption is correct. LOL... Alas and alack, when someone's only argument on a topic concerning the latest laws to protect against unsolicited, unwanted and unwarranted pictures being sent to others is because of.... 13 hours ago, Aranhis said: putting the word victims in inverted commas during a discussion on this subject? Yep, great contribution. And, despite being requested, you still haven't stated a viable working alternative to protect future "victims" that doesn't require 'reporting', despite me giving you just one of many very clear examples of why reporting is so important - Clare's Law. So, I'll remind you again, Clare's Law, also known as the Domestic *** Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) is a police policy giving people the right to know if their current or ex-partner has any previous history of *** or ***. The scheme is named after Clare Wood, who was ***ed by her abusive ex-boyfriend in 2009. Clare's Law only works because previous "victims" bravely reported their assailant and thus, there is a record on file of the assailant's violent, abusive, or both, history Now, if "victims" didn't report their assailants, how is it supposed to work???? The whole premise is that it's a tool to help others - usually women, to NOT get involved with someone who is more than likely to potentially cause them harm - usually some guy. And it does so by allowing them to find out if that guy has a violent or abusive past. EDIT: Just to remind you that the guy mentioned in the OP would NOT have been caught had he NOT been reported by his "victims". Edited March 21 by Shilo66
ey**** Posted March 22 Author Posted March 22 10 hours ago, Jeneral_Whore said: I mean if its a criminal offence and its happening on their platform, surely they have a duty to yes suspend the account but also to report it. Shillo66 above explains that problem. The victim needs to consent to pressing charges. A serial offender will quickly become banned from the platform - but someone has to say, "No, I want to press charges" for there to be any requirement for police involvement. It *may* be that police will ask for other potential victims but they, again, would also have to consent to be a witness and press charges to be involved.
Hy**** Posted March 23 Posted March 23 So I live in the US and because my prison system is so comically exploitative, I am often worried when criminality pops up over decency. I understand that the terms of dick pics tend mean someone being maladjusted, broken-ass men craving engagement and approval, but almost no one looks at this is a systemic issue. Overwhelmingly, I don’t think people send dick pics to harass, I think it’s an outcome of men trying to fight stigma and worthlessness and not really having the emotional or mental capacity to engage with it in a healthy capacity. I don’t think criminalizing it addresses this. What criminalizing does do is give conservative politicians smug satisfaction that they’re reducing degeneracy and, in my country, give private corps government *** to lobby laws that legislate people i to cells for a paycheck. Now I’m a man, so my inbox doesn’t get hit with a 50 Cal hotdog machine gun emplacement daily. Even if I were getting one every day, I would view it more in the same way that I do scammers and bot advertising, a sort of necessary aggregate output of the nature of online spaces. It seems like everyone is lauding the idea that if we are more like countries where sexuality is much more highly regulated, we will somehow be having better sex or more adjusted men. What will reduce dick pics is not criminality. What will reduce dick pics is youth sex education, normalized legalization, regulation, and reduced stigma of sex workers. . Dot, every single sociological shred of evidence that we have points to sex education is being the biggest fighter of maladjusted sexual behavior across-the-board. Given that the UK is making pushes to remove sex education from children, this tells me that these pushes for legislation are not about justice, they are about persecuting. I am wholeheartedly against it.
CopperKnob Posted March 23 Posted March 23 2 hours ago, Hyrrolar said: So I live in the US and because my prison system is so comically exploitative, I am often worried when criminality pops up over decency. I understand that the terms of dick pics tend mean someone being maladjusted, broken-ass men craving engagement and approval, but almost no one looks at this is a systemic issue. Overwhelmingly, I don’t think people send dick pics to harass, I think it’s an outcome of men trying to fight stigma and worthlessness and not really having the emotional or mental capacity to engage with it in a healthy capacity. I don’t think criminalizing it addresses this. What criminalizing does do is give conservative politicians smug satisfaction that they’re reducing degeneracy and, in my country, give private corps government *** to lobby laws that legislate people i to cells for a paycheck. Now I’m a man, so my inbox doesn’t get hit with a 50 Cal hotdog machine gun emplacement daily. Even if I were getting one every day, I would view it more in the same way that I do scammers and bot advertising, a sort of necessary aggregate output of the nature of online spaces. It seems like everyone is lauding the idea that if we are more like countries where sexuality is much more highly regulated, we will somehow be having better sex or more adjusted men. What will reduce dick pics is not criminality. What will reduce dick pics is youth sex education, normalized legalization, regulation, and reduced stigma of sex workers. . Dot, every single sociological shred of evidence that we have points to sex education is being the biggest fighter of maladjusted sexual behavior across-the-board. Given that the UK is making pushes to remove sex education from children, this tells me that these pushes for legislation are not about justice, they are about persecuting. I am wholeheartedly against it. Is the UK pushing to remove sex education?
Hy**** Posted March 24 Posted March 24 9 hours ago, CopperKnob said: Is the UK pushing to remove sex education? MP Andrea Jenkyns. It’s not going as well there as it is the states due to a lack of religious fundamentalism comparatively.
ey**** Posted March 25 Author Posted March 25 On 3/23/2024 at 7:58 PM, Hyrrolar said: Overwhelmingly, I don’t think people send dick pics to harass, there are assorted studies where, it's found actually that the figure who do send for wrong reasons are higher than most people estimate. Folk tend to lean towards giving a benefit of the doubt, and that will be the same when it comes to convictions. A quick google gave me a vague study where 18% of men (sample size 1000) admitted that sending dick pics was for their own benefit, rather than through any naivety, or hope of turning on the other person, or getting pics back in return. 18% is not a majority, but is a lot and there has to be an element of inaccuracy here in the sense a lot of folk are not going to admit this. There are other studies which correlate a lot who do this as expressing a lot of sexist views online - which ties into a likely power play. Unfortunately, I can't post links, but it's worth doing a few googles. Equally the amount of folk who have received a dick pic after telling someone they weren't interested suggests a pic was sent through spite, even if some would argue it was "to show what you're missing" - which is *** anyway. On 3/23/2024 at 7:58 PM, Hyrrolar said: What will reduce dick pics is youth sex education, normalized legalization, regulation, and reduced stigma of sex workers I'm going to say yes, but also... "don't send dick pics" has always been a frequent part of discussions on most adult sites - the info and education is there. Of course, it is better to start education younger, in my case I can't honestly say what is being taught in schools as we didn't have the level of internet we have now when I was at school (sending a dick pic online *was* possible - but required taking a photo with a camera, getting it developed, scanning and then sending...) but certainly anyone my age or above should be mature enough to know it's not right. Should. Ha. I know for example both the UK and US are having push backs on needed sex education - and actual parent protests making things difficult - that education needs to be more thorough and start earlier - but this gets pushed back against "grooming kids" this is a long, slow, fight. What we also need, mind, is people to stop doing it now. And if someone gets a visit from the police saying "you sent an explicit pic without consent" and a response of "I was only trying to impress the recipient" to which a likely outcome of "OK, don't do it again" then most folk aren't going to do it again If something is clear in law that something isn't appropriate then a lot of folk will think twice anyway.
Recommended Posts