|
|
Post by jojo on Aug 2, 2024 17:47:45 GMT
Maybe more information will be provided at the sentencing. It's all very confusing, and it sounds as if the laws on receiving photos weren't written with Whatsapp in mind. Not making excuses - if you join a group like that you must expect at least some will be iffy in terms of consent, and that some fellow members may have little respect for the age of consent. But my received photos all automatically back-up, and I'm sure I see some for the first time when I scroll through looking for items to delete to create more space. Thankfully images of cats, dogs and dull new homeware purchases are unlikely to land me in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Aug 2, 2024 19:00:58 GMT
Mine are all pictures of the ‘end of day’ report from work that I get sent. Less than thrilling.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Aug 2, 2024 20:10:37 GMT
Maybe more information will be provided at the sentencing. It's all very confusing, and it sounds as if the laws on receiving photos weren't written with Whatsapp in mind. Not making excuses - if you join a group like that you must expect at least some will be iffy in terms of consent, and that some fellow members may have little respect for the age of consent. But my received photos all automatically back-up, and I'm sure I see some for the first time when I scroll through looking for items to delete to create more space. Thankfully images of cats, dogs and dull new homeware purchases are unlikely to land me in court. The sentencing will be instructive.
The case of the convicted Met Police Superintendent says you should have known from the thumbnail in Whatsapp as seen on your phone. You do not need to have clicked on the thumbnail, the judgement that 'you should have known' is sufficient for prosecution and conviction.
|
|
5,119 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 2, 2024 20:30:42 GMT
I read that they are looking into ways to claw that back. Though to be honest I feel a bit ambivalent about that idea. Outrage aside, I don’t think it’s a good idea for employers to be able to retrospectively remove pension entitlement that people have planned to live on at the end of their career. Driving people into poverty does not help them avoid future offending - all the evidence is that financial precarity is a risk factor, as is poor mental health and a lack of social networks. I know people don’t like hearing this, but the research really does show that people who are not paedophiles - not actually sexually attracted to children - can end up committing these kind of offences in the midst of mental health crises. Helping and supporting offenders can be the best way of preventing reoffending that hurts more children. I know the case is very different but Sadiq Khan managed to claw back the employer’s contribution in the pension of the dreadful and ghastly Wayne Cousins, I have to say that I disagree with that, for no other reason - there is a very innocent wife and 3 innocent children that have done absolutely no wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by freedomrights on Aug 15, 2024 20:07:51 GMT
It makes you wonder if Hugh resigned to try and protect his pension. The lump sum has likely been paid and if he is claiming his pension it is different to Couzens who was still a serving PC when he was charged and convicted.
|
|
