Forum menu
Sex offenders register? Are you mad?
No one has called for that. TJ has suggested that police involvement can only lead to that. No one else is making that assumption. Most people think the police should be involved... and you seem to agree...
a good talking to by the local police with his parents
The comments have been very useful thank you indeed.
Vengeful? My point there was just that; the right and wrong of this incident is different to how angry you feel and how far you would want your anger to drive retribution. It's precisely why we don't let victims have a say in sentencing, because vengence is a terrible thing that needs tempering.
I do not know the nuance in this case, just that making and sharing an image of someone in a place where they have a right to privacy is a crime (I am certain of this because of my photography work); it is entirely possible that the video is not indecent in anyway, just deeply shaming. If it is indecent, then that is a whole other issue but I just don't know and to be honest neither does the mother.
A crime has definitely been committed and it needs to be treated very seriously. How seriously is dependent on the nature of the video captured and shared I guess but even at it's most benign, I think it needs to be treated for what it is.
I think something important needs to be considered here - by the school and everyone involved. The long term impact this sort of thing can have on a 13 year old boy is profound - that sort of thing being seen by almost everyone a kid knows is traumatic.
The kid and everyone else who has seen that video needs to know it’s absolutely not ok. I’d also consider a session or two with a therapist.
The kid should be given a week long suspension, a real bollocking and a good talking to by the local police with his parents.
That's almost exactly what happened to a kid who did the same in Madame's school. Seemed resaonable to me.
Tbh I'm amazed the school allow phones into the changing rooms. Asking for all sorts of trouble. How you would control this I have no idea but the head teacher needs an ear full too.
When I was at school I witnessed someone pull an air pistol on another student and say “I’m going to shoot you” before lodging an air dart in his eyebrow. The offending child had thought the safety lock was on. The response was a lecture in assembly from the headmaster.
Which decade was this in??! If you'd brought an air pistol into my school, never mind point it at someone, you'd have been in far worse trouble. What a nuts story.. for a start... why would you load an air pistol if you didn't intend firing it? The safety lock line makes no sense at all.
Yeah, we're going back to stories from the 70s and 80s now, where you'd be beaten to death and then made to lick the lead paint of the walls.
As stated earlier in this thread, the school will have liaison officers at the police, OFSTED safeguarding, etc, for every 'you don't want to cause too much problems for 13 year old' you have to remember the flip side of horrific bullying that can lead to horrible endings, without context we know nothing, hence why going through the proper channels is important.
I would never leave it with just the school, as that means there is no record in reality, what happens the next time this happens, the old 'hindsight is a wonderful thing' will be a bit pointless.
Some kid brought and air gun into my school and shot a few people too. 1974 IIRC. Probably yet another caning, the headmaster loved that, any excuse would do. As the brightest kid in the school I regularly got attacked and then got caned for defending myself too well.
I got smashed over the head with a metal pipe when i was 7 in 1985, the kid that did it was sent to a youth detention place, but that was after a few more incidents, he was expelled for the pipe incident though.
I'd say contact the police directly if the school isn't taking it very seriously (it's pretty serious if you ask me.. If this child is allowed to think there are no repercussions for this sort of behaviour).
Even if the police just do a pretend arrest and interview at the station coupled with a good talking to.
It's obvious it would be a sex crime if they were over 16, so they need to be taught some boundaries.
Even if the police just do a pretend arrest and interview at the station coupled with a good talking to
I'm pretty sure that this sort of thing isn't a thing these days if in fact it ever was.
Skimmed this thread and I’m not sure that any criminal offence has been committed , voyerism needs a sexual gratification nexus under SOA, apart from up skirting, which seems to be missing, nor is there anything to indicate an indecent image has been created. Therefore it may not actually be a police matter. (IANAL and been out of the Csea ambit for a while)
The quite understandable sensitivity over sexual offences involving children – and this involves the creation and distribution of indecent images of a child – means that the police don’t necessarily have the discretion to just make the perpetrator sweat a bit then let him off with a warning. I’m not sure a caution is available for this offence, so it would need to be referred to the CPS for a charging decision.
If the school has a statutory responsibility to report this, then the police may get involved anyway.
If I were the parent though, I think I’d be looking for the child responsible to be removed from the school, both so the victim doesn’t have to share classes with him, and for the message it sends both to him and his peer group about this kind of behaviour.
This is pretty much my opinion too.
There's a balance to be struck between proportionate punishment, deterrence for others and the impact to the victim.
If an offence has been committed (or is even suspected) then it should be reported, the police/CPS may not feel prosecution or Sex offenders register is appropriate, they will have to liaise with the school/LEA and social services not just make the call in isolation. But it's not a decision for the school to take without other agencies being fully involved.
A days exclusion and the ensuing bollocking from Mum and dad isn't really enough is it, they need to know just how unacceptable what they did was and how close they came to damaging their future prospects. a full blown investigation and interview under caution may be sufficient to properly scare the shit out of the perpetrator.
On top of all of this the Social media platform(s) concerned need to be informed and pushed for action, bannings and restrictions, etc could well help to curb such behaviour further...
When our lad was year 5 or 6, so 9 or 10 years ago, one of his friends was ambushed in the primary school toilets by a lad who pulled out a screwdriver and threatened to stab him.
The kid got a one day suspension - general view was that even at that age more should have been done.
Seem to recall that when I was at primary school back in the 70s, one of the "smelly kids" as they were known at the time came in to school with a bayonet he said his grandad had got in the war.
Was the last time he was seen at school. He lived in a rundown cottage up the road from us and around the same time they suddenly moved out. Rumour had it social services were involved and the kids had gone into care. So hopefully some good came from it all.
voyerism needs a sexual gratification
This sounds right but the taking and publishing without consent, of an image in a place where the subject has a reasonable right to privacy, is a criminal act.
This is one of the reasons why we don't allow phones in our school...
As someone who deals with incidents like this (thankfully not very often) as part of their job, it all depends on context which is always tough to understand from the outside, and also from one version of events as in the OP.
In general, my/our approach would be...
- Gather as much evidence as possible from all parties.
- Refer to our Safer Schools Officer - would take his advice on whether 'full' Police involvement would be necessary. Would also always advise parents to contact the Police themselves.
- Decide on appropriate school sanction for the perpetrator. Unless there are massive mitigating circumstances, this would be likely to be pretty severe in this case but permanent exclusion would be a last resort. I suspect that we would look for either a long term placement in our on site referral unit or a managed move to another local school.
- Put into place a plan of support for the victim. This is not just the right thing to do but a central part of the current Peer-On-Peer abuse process (that most schools with any sense are all over at the moment).
apologies if this has been mentioned, but I recently did a safeguarding course that was run by someone from the police, from my understanding this should have been reported by the school and phone taken, the police can wipe the video from the phone and also traces of it from elsewhere.
This sounds right but the taking and publishing without consent, of an image in a place where the subject has a reasonable right to privacy, is a criminal act.
Curious, under what act?
I dare say it will vary, but don’t be too surprised if the local police don’t have a huge appetite for dishing out a bollocking/stern talking to etc.
Last time I did that, at the express request of the parents of a 10 year old child who had been stealing other kids stuff, they came in the next day and made a formal complaint because the kid had wet his bed that night and was now scared of the police. Hence it was the last time. I didn’t even shout, just a hard stare and a stern voice.
I'm on the side of the victim here having been on the receiving end in my school years. It can affect you for a long time and the ribbing they will receive will eat away at their confidence among other things.
Full police intervention may not be proportionate but the whole party of sharers need to understand the issue. As we have discussed so far, how that message is communicated is the real challenge. Needs lasting impact.
I'm down for the full weight of the law being involved. I think half of today's societal problems are down to perpetrators knowing they'll get away with it, so the earlier we can nip that in the bud the better.
If it was my kid as the victim I'd be asking the school exactly what universe they think dealing with a child sex crime internally was suitable, and what the fact they've decided to do just that might say about the private peccadilloes of the school board.
The victim needs to know he matters. Police should be involved.
This.
Curious, under what act?
Well, it’s under review by the government, but it says in the review document below:
”in many cases this behaviour will already be caught by a number of existing offences such as ‘voyeurism’ under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”
Without bothering to look it up I was pretty sure that there was legislation that covers this sort of situation, because, and I hate to have to point this out, this isn’t exactly a new phenomenon, it’s just that modern technology enables it so much easier.
I agree with the thoughts about the victim, they might brush it off but they might have to live with this for the rest of their school life. There needs to be serious repercussions to ensure there are no ongoing issues otherwise the victim will struggle to feel safe at school.
from my understanding... the police can wipe the video from the phone and also traces of it from elsewhere.
I hope you didn't pay actual money for that course.
Once it's out there you can't 'wipe traces' any more than you can ban Welsh. And in any case if that were possible, the police aren't equipped to wipe much beyond their own arses. That would be a specialist task.
I've only skimmed a few posts.
Angry and upset? Yes.
Vengeful? No.
IIRC in Scotland this couldn't be internal, the police would have to be involved. Under any safeguarding policy, this is one that would be referred upwards to police.
I also think the bigger issue as a couple have said on this page is the victim. They need huge support now and ongoing, and to feel that the system supported them, not covered something up.
From that link above (my bold of the if).
"It's a criminal offence to create or share explicit images of a child, even if the person doing it is a child. If sexting is reported to the police, they will make a record but may decide not take any formal action against a young person"
I'm sorry if it's a criminal offence then it's reported as such. Police investigate CPS/fiscal decide whether to prosecute. There are consequences to actions and we may not like them but we live by them. Pour encourager Les autres.
”in many cases this behaviour will already be caught by a number of existing offences such as ‘voyeurism’ under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
As mentioned above the voyeurism under SOA requires a sexual gratification act, likewise an indecent image of a child (IIOC)tends to requires a degree of sexuality to meet the threshold for being indecent, how the photo was taken doesn’t matter it is the image itself which is tested for indecency. From the ops vague description, a child getting dressed / undressed, this does not seem to constitute an indecent image nor voyeurism.
So we’re still waiting for what criminal offence has been committed for the years police to act under.
straight over to the police, can't believe anything else is being suggested, report as criminal offence, parents of the kid doing the filming are responsible for their child, right?
the school cover up approach stinks.
I might be over reacting
Yes, i think you may be. While the victim is a child, so is the perpetrator, vengefulness has no place in this
So we’re still waiting for what criminal offence has been committed for the years police to act under.
I think the point being made by many on this thread is not whether or not the police should act (we don't have enough evidence to judge) but that based on the info given, the police and not the school should be making that decision.
explicit images of a child,
Nobody has said that the video contains explicit images, for all we know the video could just show a child taking their shirt off. We also don't know the sexes of the children or the context.
A girl at a friends school filmed a 13 year old boy taking his shirt off and shared it along with descriptions along the line of 'look at his six pack'. As far as I know (from what I heard) the school dealt with it quite sensibly and responsibly, no need to involve the police.
n, the police can wipe the video from the phone and also traces of it from elsewhere.
this is trolling?
Nobody has said that the video contains explicit images
This is seemingly true. Which rather renders the entire discussion little more than pointless guesswork. "Getting changed" could be full-frontal nudity or putting his shoes on.
We also don’t know the sexes of the children
We do if we read the OP.
It's a fairly reasonable assumption, given the OP, that the video in question does not show him doing up his tie.
I think the point being made by many on this thread is not whether or not the police should act (we don’t have enough evidence to judge) but that based on the info given, the police and not the school should be making that decision
My replies have been to a specific statement by the op that a criminal offence has been carried out by taking a photo in a private scenario and asking what actual offence has been committed rather than referring to the general hue and cry on this thread.
However a school with safeguarding trained staff, policies and more knowledge of what actually occurred may be perfectly capable of deciding that no crime has been committed and it’s not a police matter as has the kid’s father. The details are sparse in this story.
It’s a fairly reasonable assumption, given the OP, that the video in question does not show him doing up his tie.
Yes but the image, for a criminal offence in Protection of childrens act has to be indecent. That is judged, ultimately, by a jury of magistrate on the image alone. Therefore a child dressing is unlikely to be indecent, hence why people aren’t arrested for pictures of their kids getting dressed, in the bath etc - the image isn’t indecent.
My replies have been to a specific statement by the op that a criminal offence has been carried out
You're abslutely right to point this out - there are several levels at which an offence might have been committed, ranging from the relatively benign - a picture of someone made and shared without permission in a place where they have a right to privacy - through to an indecent picture of a child, made and shared through a public communications network.
The question you ask is important; I cannot give you the specific legislation that covers it but it falls under the Human Rights Act and is explained here:
To reiterate, I do not know if the video footage was 'indecent' (and I do not know what the legal definition of that term even is though of course, at the extreme end, it is fairly obvious), and neither does my friend. We just know that a video was made of her son in the changing rooms whilst he was getting changed.
It might not show nudity but it most definitely has humiliated him to the point where he does not want to attend school.
there are several levels at which an offence might have been committed, ranging from the relatively benign – a picture of someone made and shared without permission in a place where they have a right to privacy
Slightly misquoted, my view is that a picture of someone made and shared without permission in a place where they have a right to privacy , without a sexual / indecency element, does not constitute a criminal offence. It may be /probably is a breach of article 8;
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
IANAL and happy to be corrected
It’s a fairly reasonable assumption, given the OP, that the video in question does not show him doing up his tie.
Experience would suggest that assuming anything would be a mistake. It took until page 2 for the OP to admit they didn't know. Meanwhile in the interim half the forum had leapt to conclusions and were talking about arresting a 13-year old and putting him on the sex offenders' register.
it most definitely has humiliated him to the point where he does not want to attend school.
Want vengeance? Spread the rumour that the other kid is the gaylord who goes around filming other boys' willies.
😁
Wow.
I would offer the following.
1. child removed from the school.
2. if not removed referred to the police.
what were the phones doing in the changing area anyway? School needs to review this imo.
Phone checked in at registration and handed back at the end of the day would be one rule I enact if I were the head teacher along with a zero tolerance and, bordering on heavy handed, approach to bullying. Like I say, it's a trigger for me as it's something I experienced as a child at school also.
Slightly misquoted,
You know you're probably right; it might not be a criminal offence so much as it is some other type of offence I don't know the legal definition of.
what were the phones doing in the changing area anyway? School needs to review this imo.
Whilst I don't disagree, I'd imagine that would incredibly difficult to enforce.
Plus you'll almost certainly get pushback from a section of parents whose little Hermione absolutely must have her phone on her at all times Just In Case.
It might not show nudity but it most definitely has humiliated him to the point where he does not want to attend school.
This is critical for me, along with earlier comments about the victim of this needs to know 100% that he should not feel this way.
Regardless of criminality, the lad who did this gets a day off of school while the victim doesn’t want to go.
If this happened to any of my kids I would be livid and would at the very least be looking to understand why the school has taken this course of action.