Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

Force said it is a crime for a child to take or share an explicit image or video of themselves or anyone else under 18, and parents could be liable.

A charity has hit out at a police force which warned parents could face arrest and have their homes raided if their children are caught "sexting".

Kent Police says it is a crime for a child to take or share an explicit image or video of themselves or anyone else under 18, and parents could be liable if their name is on the contract of the phone used.

But the NSPCC said the children should be supported, not criminalised.

Detective Superintendent Susie Harper said: "If a child's mobile phone contract is in his or her parent's name, then the parent can be liable for what the phone is used for, and any indecent material that is saved or sent from it.

"That could mean police turning up at the family home with a search warrant, property being seized, potential arrests and innocent people being suspected of serious offences".

Her comments were published by the force as part of a press release warning of a growing trend of "bait out" pages on social media - where young people are encouraged to share sexual images but are then shamed and bullied.

Police said officers are investigating after more than 40 children in Thanet alone had fallen victim to such a group on Snapchat since the beginning of January.

The release said: "Whilst the police do not wish to unnecessarily criminalise young people, this could potentially affect a child's reputation, education and future employment prospects; for example, if they are named on a crime report or receive a caution or other criminal sanction."

An NSPCC spokeswoman said: "Children who share a naked image of themselves should be taught why it's a bad idea, supported and safeguarded - certainly not branded criminals.

"We don't want to see the unnecessary criminalising of children, or parents whose son or daughter has been sexting.

"Once a child sends a picture of themselves they have no control over where it is shared or who sees it. That can leave a child feeling humiliated and even lead to them being bullied or blackmailed".

DS Harper added: "I'm not raising awareness to scaremonger, and our first priority is to safeguard young people and protect them from harm, and there are many places we can signpost then to for independent help and advice.

"I also think it's important for parents to be aware about the ways their children might be vulnerable to these things and what they can do about it".

While the force said it was working with schools on the subject and urged parents to talk to children, DS Harper said she appreciated it was a "very sensitive issue" to raise.

View On Police Oracle

[SimonT + 1,185]

The charity can moan all they like but crime is a crime and it fundamentally has to be recorded. 

That is the very stict edict from on high and I'm not dropping myself in it. 

The crime chain from a child sending an image to someone and it spreading is incredible. 

Children shouldn't be criminalised, but they are and we don't get a choice. So unless the government changes the rules, it's tough. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

The NPCC should acept that sending those images is a criminal offence, and that acts have consequence . 

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

That's why I'm wary about 'named suspects' now when considering someone's previous...you can be a named suspect on 10 reports of violence ...and when you read them in detail all 10 were false allegations.

Scary really.

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

Children shouldn't be criminalised, but they are and we don't get a choice. So unless the government changes the rules, it's tough. 

What does 'criminalised' mean?

[Chaos + 151]

The NPCC should acept that sending those images is a criminal offence, and that acts have consequence . 

There is no way that I would be locking a 14 year old boy / girl up for sending an incessant image to their boyfriend/girlfriend the same age...

Nor would I be arresting a13 year old for sending indecent images after being groomed by an older guy online.

( yes still has to be crimed I know [emoji19])

There may be incidences where an arrest is appropriate, but the majority of the time it's a safeguarding issue and the kids need education, plus it's not really in the public interest.

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

There is no way that I would be locking a 14 year old boy / girl up for sending an incessant image to their boyfriend/girlfriend the same age...

Nor would I be arresting a13 year old for sending indecent images after being groomed by an older guy online.

( yes still has to be crimed I know [emoji19])

There may be incidences where an arrest is appropriate, but the majority of the time it's a safeguarding issue and the kids need education, plus it's not really in the public interest.

That's exactly what the NPCC, Dept of Education, NSPCC guidance says. Record the crime, check for any aggravating factors, complete safeguarding actions and close the crime as Outcome Type 21 - further investigation against a named suspect is not in the public interest.

[Hyphen + 693]

I saw this story yesterday and it being discussed on the TV. As usual many of the TV types and charities miss the point of the article and the warning within it.

What it’s saying is if Mr Bloggs who is 40 years old has a contract in his name and a computer with broadband account in his name and his 13 year old daughter is sending and receiving indecent images this may lead to Mr Bloggs being arrested and a warrant executed etc. This of course could have huge implications for all involved.

Of course once everything came to light he would likely be NFAd. I think it’s good to give both parents and teenagers a boot up the backside to start taking responsibility for their actions.

It may also sound harsh but there is a lot of eduction and awareness around this, at 14 for example people are old enough to know what they are doing. That doesn’t necessarily mean they should be immediately hauled before the courts, of course they need to be supported and safeguarded as mentioned, at the same time we need to be little more robust with these individuals when explaining what they are doing is a crime.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Hyphen