This Just In!

[mudsticks]

Deserves its own thread.

It does get raised quite often on the Met Police thread, the 'Who Cares?' too..

And elsewhere, as well.

But no one really seems to find it very interesting, for very long.
Almost as if it's too difficult to address.

Much easier to stick to
"What is technically legal, and what is not" - 🤔

Which is really rather dull imo - as that's fixed (for now) written down already - decided by legal bods elsewhere - it isn't really 'up for discussion' as such.

Talking about how we all could work together
to change attitudes and behaviours around respectful sex and relationships so that everyone has a much nicer, safer, and happier time, with their wellbeing preserved seems more fruitful.

But that seems not to be such a popular discourse.
Curious, isnt it??

 

[Pale Rider]

The only thing that immediately springs to mind is that the parent might not realise that the alleged behaviour amounted to a crime.

That's also my best guess.

You can see why - the parent may think he's old enough to hop into the sack with someone also aged 16 or more, so sending a few naughty pics could be seen as less serious, therefore not an offence.

The parent is wrong about that, sending naughty pics is an offence for a 16 or 17-year-old, even if the teenager is keen to do it.

But the parent still believed the only redress would be via the BBC.

They dragged their feet, so enter the Currant Bun which did its usually excellent job of publicising the story, thereby concentrating the minds of the employer.

Naming the presenter at this time is an ethical and legal can of worms.

The case of Cliff Richard, who got a nice few quid after he was effectively named as a suspect, has at the very least pushed back the name/not to name pendulum.

There remains a public interest justification, but one might think this one falls into the interesting to the public rather than in the public interest category.

Even that's not straightforward, say the presenter worked in children's television or occasionally covered events where members of the public of all ages were present.

It would then be arguably in the public interest to name to enable parents to prevent their children coming into contact with him.

Another thing that has happened, and may yet happen in this case, is that foreign media publish the name, believing they are outside the reach of British regulators and courts.

A quick google suggests this story has gone around the world, suggesting the interest is there.

There is then a 'the cat's out of the bag' argument for British media to publish the name.

 

[Cirrus]

The fact that we don't speak nearly enough in a grown up way about sex, sexual relationships, consent, power imbalances and so forth is the cause of a great deal of harm to human beings.
Especially to younger humans

Talking about that lack of decent discussion might seem like "Morality Police" to you .

But because we don't , we end up with violent pornography, and the likes of Andrew Tate, and his corrosive attitudes, having a place in the minds of young (and some older) people.

As it is many many people suffer real and lasting damage, as a result of their not being clear understanding of what is a healthy relationship with one's own body, and what constitutes a healthy relationship with other people's bodies.

Having raised young boys to men, and having existed as a person in a woman's body, this isn't some idle (or even solely legalese) topic to me.

Don’t disagree with anything you have written above but still prefer it to be legal or not. As per @monkers post, if society believes that laws should evolve or be introduced then that’s what should happen, debated in parliament and enacted.

Trial by media is a shite way to run society.

 

[monkers]

It does get raised quite often on the Met Police thread, the 'Who Cares?' too..

And elsewhere, as well.

But no one really seems to find it very interesting, for very long.
Almost as if it's too difficult to address.

Much easier to stick to
"What is technically legal, and what is not" - 🤔

Which is really rather dull imo - as that's fixed (for now) written down already - decided by legal bods elsewhere - it isn't really 'up for discussion' as such.

Talking about how we all could work together
to change attitudes and behaviours around respectful sex and relationships so that everyone has a much nicer, safer, and happier time, with their wellbeing preserved seems more fruitful.

But that seems not to be such a popular discourse.
Curious, isnt it??

I happen to think people are worn down by the debates between opposing and equally strident voices, which when subjected to any kind of yougov survey or such like produces a near 50/50 result. Maybe a symptom of Brexit fatigue?

The other thing is that such a broad subject results in too many argument going on at the same time, much like the now long-running gender thread, no issue reaches a consensus, the argument just changes. Speaking only for myself, I can't discuss things with the God Squad regardless of their cohort, they do my head in with their visions and version of reality.

It's a group of topics rather than one on its own, but each topic worthy of their own thread I'm sure.

 

[BoldonLad]

Can we stop with the 'but it might have been technically legal' wriggling about to somehow make these actions acceptable in any way shape or form - if the basic premise of the story is true.

A media presenter in a position of social and economic power pays young vulnerable person for explicit pictures.

If they were eighteen, or nineteen, whatever, that would all be lovely right??

The fact that there's lots of 'free*' 🙄 porn on the internet so why would you bother to pay, just adds to the overall sad state of affairs.

*Very rarely free of objectification, coercion, misogyny and or exploitation, though.

Well said.

 

[matticus]

A quick google suggests this story has gone around the world, suggesting the interest is there.

Ah yes, the old "public interest" ...

 

[theclaud]

Trial by media is a shite way to run society.

Yes, it would be, but Mudsticks having an opinion on whether behaviour is exploitative is not 'trial by media', and also most of the victims of actual trial by media are not accused men but complainants and victims.

 

[theclaud]

I am interested by why the family did not make a complaint to the police

Because people trust the police even less than they trust the BBC?

 

[Cirrus]

Yes, it would be, but Mudsticks having an opinion on whether behaviour is exploitative is not 'trial by media', and also most of the victims of actual trial by media are not accused men but complainants and victims.

As I said, trial by media is a shite way to run society

 

[theclaud]

As I said, trial by media is a shite way to run society

Repeating a cliché always makes it more profound, I think.

 

[Cirrus]

Repeating a cliché always makes it more profound, I think.

Glad you agree

 

[mudsticks]

As I said, trial by media is a shite way to run society

It sure is

And I'm not advocating for that either, am I??
Show me please, where I suggested that 'trial by media' was a good idea.

I'm advocating for grown up conservations on things like consent, respect for other peoples bodies, and good sex and relationship education.


So that there are far fewer problems in the first place.

Long before the law, or for that matter 'the media' get involved.

 

[Cirrus]

I thought you seemed to be advocating for judgment based on morality ( your version) rather than the law. Which I think is dangerous hence my comment.

Other people are the victims of people morality judgements, you only have to look at the religious shoot show in the US re abortion rights if you want an example,

So to repeat a cliche… morality police, what could possibly go wrong.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I'm advocating for grown up conservations on things like consent, respect for other peoples bodies, and good sex and relationship education.

That 100000 times over. From primary or before, age appropriate obvs.

No opt outs.

 

[icowden]

You have either been found guilty or you are innocent.

That's not true at all. You cannot be found to be innocent. You can be found not guilty but this does not confer innocence.

If the prosecution cannot prove every element of the offence, then someone is not guilty. That is not a technicality, it is the basis of the criminal legal system and is recognised by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

It is, but as I say, not being guilty is not the same as being innocent.