16 year old exposes himself in graduation photo.

Hotale.com

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hundreds-school-yearbooks-recalled-after-3599966

Wish I thought of doing this the other night

Gran Hermano

Hotale.com wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hundreds-school-yearbooks-recalled-after-3599966

Wish I thought of doing this the other night

Exposing yourself to other students,some of whom may be minors.
Sure way to get yourself on the kiddie fiddlers list.

Hotale.com

Gran Hermano wrote: »

Exposing yourself to other students,some of whom may be minors.
Sure way to get yourself on the kiddie fiddlers list.

Or maybe I just made a sarcastic comment about graduating the other night????



Some people could really do with a f*cking chill pill.

CarrickMcJoe

TOOL!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gran Hermano wrote: »

Exposing yourself to other students,some of whom may be minors.
Sure way to get yourself on the kiddie fiddlers list.

Seriously? You think this equates to pedophilia?

Kylo Ren

The prank was not spotted until after hundreds of the yearbooks had been handed out to students, prompting head teacher Stephen Cox to recall them all

You'd think he would be cool about the whole thing.

Skill Magill

"Mr Cox told the paper: "We recalled our school leavers' yearbooks when we realised that a pupil had made an unwise decision to play a practical joke in one of the group shots.:pac::pac::pac::pac:

yawhat!

Its a willy, not anal rape

Hotale.com

How didn't they notice it though? Was it that small?

Santa Cruz

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seriously? You think this equates to pedophilia?

Maybe not but bet you enjoyed looking at it

Gran Hermano

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seriously? You think this equates to pedophilia?

Where did I state that ?

Exposing yourself to minors can be enough to get listed on sex offenders list.
Might be worth while highlighting this to those immature enough to think its a harmless prank.

Muise...

I lolled. He should have turned his pockets inside out and gone full elephant. Cocks are funny! Especially in Ribblesdale High School in Clitheroe, which now sounds rather naughty.

Pawn

He's grown a pair for sure...

Czarcasm

Where are all these Cox's coming from lately? There was a woman the other day in the media whose surname was also Cox! Is Cox the new Jones?

Ribblesworth, Clit heroe...


Right lads, not made up names at all :pac:

Hotale.com

Czarcasm wrote: »

Where are all these Cox's coming from lately? There was a woman the other day in the media whose surname was also Cox! Is Cox the new Jones?

Ribblesworth, Clit heroe...


Right lads, not made up names at all :pac:

Ah Jesus you might be on to something Czar :pac:

Maphisto

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seriously? You think this equates to pedophilia?

No, but you'd be surprised the way the law works.

There was a recent story (Somewhere in UK - don't ask me where) and there was a complaint from a girl about Sexting. Apparently the girl 13 or14 had sent pics of her bits to bf. BF promptly shares with everyone.

The Head tells the deputy head to investigate and to make sure "we retain all the evidence". So Dep Head arranges for said pics to be transferred to his official pc.

When he reports it to police, he is arrested for having, manipulated, stored, saved, whathaveyou, sexual images of children.

As far as I'm aware the offence is complete, no matter his intentions, and it was only through political intervention that he is not now on the register and behind bars.

UCDVet

At least they are calling it a prank and not 'Attempted sexual assault' or some other such non-sense.

Hotale.com

Yes, he's a f*cking idiot. No need to put him on a sex offenders list though, maybe if he was 54 and whipped it out he should be but at 16 he could be doing much worse.

Maphisto

Hotale.com wrote: »

Yes, he's a f*cking idiot. No need to put him on a sex offenders list though, maybe if he was 54 and whipped it out he should be but at 16 he could be doing much worse.

You know that and I know that but .... the law works in strange ways sometimes.

Easy on the 54 year olds :pac:

mrsbyrne

Odious little toad.

Vito Corleone

Fair play to the guy. We need more people like him in the Dail.

suicide_circus

This guy deserves a medal.

Hotale.com

Vito Corleone wrote: »

Fair play to the guy. We need more people like him in the Dail.

16 year old Brits?

Maphisto

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Odious little toad.

What's a willy between friends?

arse..biscuits

I can't stop laughing at that. That kid has brightened up my day.

umop.episdn

He can get a small part in the remake of Teen Wolf

wandatowell

Too late

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gran Hermano wrote: »

Where did I state that ?

Exposing yourself to minors can be enough to get listed on sex offenders list.
Might be worth while highlighting this to those immature enough to think its a harmless prank.

He's exposing himself in a photo. Whoever showed the photo to kids would be the one who would wind up on the list.

Or perhaps we should just put everone on the "kiddie fiddlers" list and be done with it?

There was absolutely no connection, but you somehow managed to make one.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Maphisto wrote: »

No, but you'd be surprised the way the law works.

There was a recent story (Somewhere in UK - don't ask me where) and there was a complaint from a girl about Sexting. Apparently the girl 13 or14 had sent pics of her bits to bf. BF promptly shares with everyone.

The Head tells the deputy head to investigate and to make sure "we retain all the evidence". So Dep Head arranges for said pics to be transferred to his official pc. At that point, he could have easily copied them for his own personal use and, given his position, is most certainly going to be investigated.

When he reports it to police, he is arrested for having, manipulated, stored, saved, whathaveyou, sexual images of children.

As far as I'm aware was offence is complete, no matter his intentions, and it was only through political intervention that he is not now on the register and behind bars.

Different case altogether - the Head made a massive error in judgement. "Send me pictures of the 13 year old half naked, please?" - while I accept he's more than likely inncoent, he should have goen t othe police first.


It's like saying anyone who ever made or starred in a porn movie should be placed on the register if a child ever saw the movie.

wazky

It's a knob, half the world has one and the other half have probably seen a few too, what's the big deal?

Gran Hermano

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He's exposing himself in a photo. Whoever showed the photo to kids would be the one who would wind up on the list.

Or perhaps we should just put everone on the "kiddie fiddlers" list and be done with it?

There was absolutely no connection, but you somehow managed to make one.

He exposed himself in the middle of a group of classmates when the photo was taken.
As he is 16 it is likely some of his classmates also jn the photo are under the age of consent.
The law doesn't care whether it is a 16 year old playing a prank or a 66 year old having a tug on the bus whilst watching schoolgirls.

Boskowski

But in fairness the law has a long time ago left the path of common sense and veered off on the road to insanity on such matters

My name is URL

Wasn't there a teenage girl in the US placed on the sex offenders register after she posted nude pics of herself on Facebook? =/

Boskowski

Ye or say a 17 year old boy is on the list and whatnot for life for having relations with a 16 year old girl. When in reality the younger girl is probably streets ahead of him with regards to everything.

Maphisto

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Different case altogether - the Head made a massive error in judgement. "Send me pictures of the 13 year old half naked, please?" - while I accept he's more than likely inncoent, he should have goen t othe police first.

Yes but hindsight is 20/20 and there's nothing quite like a knowledge of the appropriate law after you've already fallen foul of it.

It's like saying anyone who ever made or starred in a porn movie should be placed on the register if a child ever saw the movie.

Really, its not.

Maphisto

My name is URL wrote: »

Wasn't there a teenage girl in the US placed on the sex offenders register after she posted nude pics of herself on Facebook? =/

I'm not sure do you have the link :P

ryan101

What a dick eh ?

deseil

This made me laugh its funny.

I hope the young fella won't get in too much troublethe way things are these days there ll probably b a lynch mob calling for his imprisonment.

Hotale.com

Gran Hermano wrote: »

He exposed himself in the middle of a group of classmates when the photo was taken.
As he is 16 it is likely some of his classmates also jn the photo are under the age of consent.
The law doesn't care whether it is a 16 year old playing a prank or a 66 year old having a tug on the bus whilst watching schoolgirls.

I thought the DPP (or equivalent body) had to assess the case and decide whether there was any case to answer for? Like, if a 17 year old and a 16 year old have consensual sex isn't it true that there'll be no legal problems unless the DPP decided there was something harmful about it? Or am I completely wrong? :P

Hotale.com

ryan101 wrote: »

What a dick eh ?

Christians are less intelligent that atheists.

ryan101

Hotale.com wrote: »

Christians are less intelligent that atheists.

Can you explain what you're talking about and what it has to do with this thread ?

StinkyMunkey

Simple prank, I'd imagine his only worry is getting in trouble with the school. No matter how hard you want it to be, it's not the act of a deviant. Younger kids are seeing a lot more explicit imagines these days on line. It's a mine field leaving your kid alone with a PC.

mad muffin

Someone's been playing too much Rust.

Semele

Muise... wrote: »

I lolled. He should have turned his pockets inside out and gone full elephant. Cocks are funny! Especially in Ribblesdale High School in Clitheroe, which now sounds rather naughty.

Ugh:o. I work near there and I can't bring myself to say the name! It's vaguely dirty sounding and people round here say it with a horrible tongue-smacking wet sound.. VILE!

Hotale.com

ryan101 wrote: »

Can you explain what you're talking about and what it has to do with this thread ?

Remember?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057196740

ryan101

Hotale.com wrote: »

Remember?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057196740

What are you talking about, and what has it to do with this thread ?

Hotale.com

ryan101 wrote: »

What are you talking about, and what has it to do with this thread ?

I'm upset that you don't remember.

Czarcasm

Semele wrote: »

Ugh:o. I work near there and I can't bring myself to say the name! It's vaguely dirty sounding and people round here say it with a horrible tongue-smacking wet sound.. VILE!

You mean it's a real place? :eek:


*packs suitcase, checks passport*

Maphisto

Hotale.com wrote: »

I thought the DPP (or equivalent body) had to assess the case and decide whether there was any case to answer for? Like, if a 17 year old and a 16 year old have consensual sex isn't it true that there'll be no legal problems unless the DPP decided there was something harmful about it? Or am I completely wrong? :P

Supposing, just supposing the DPP is after making a name for himself? Suppose the DPP (and in a case like this we're talking of a lowly assistant) is down on his targets, workflow, thruputs - whatever fancy name they put on it.

You see there is always the pressure on a prosecutor or investigator, that if you spend time on a case and then it goes no where - what have you achieved? Whereas if you prosecute and lose it was hardly your fault and if you put enough of them through, you'll get lucky on some.

I have quite a jaded view of the justice system, sadly learnt from working within it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gran Hermano wrote: »

He exposed himself in the middle of a group of classmates when the photo was taken.
As he is 16 it is likely some of his classmates also jn the photo are under the age of consent.
The law doesn't care whether it is a 16 year old playing a prank or a 66 year old having a tug on the bus whilst watching schoolgirls.

A bit like saying I peed up against a tree therefore, I must have been exposing myself to kids?

I get what you're saying, but in no sane way - not even an over-enthusiastic child-protectionist way - could this ever be considered something for a sex offenders register.

Maphisto wrote: »

Yes but hindsight is 20/20 and there's nothing quite like a knowledge of the appropriate law after you've already fallen foul of it.

Really, its not.

The head shouldn't have needed hindsight. I see where your coming from, but the Head put himself in a more more suspicious posisiotn than rthe kid.

regarding the second point, I take your point completely, as I thought this was refering to the actual photo, not the act (infleunced, I think by the "yearbooks have been recalled" line)

... or perhaps I'm too innocent?

Arthur Beesley

They should cut his 'frank and beans' off. That'd learn him.