Children blackmailed by paedophile via Facebook.

It's 'Minor Attracted Person' now, no?

political analyst

This is a similar case from 2017.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/vile-paedophile-who-blackmailed-victims-into-abusing-other-children-jailed-for-16-years-36098796.html

One 14-year-old from Florida was tricked into believing he was talking to a girl, then blackmailed into repeatedly raping his one-year-old niece.

Leighton threatened the teenager that he would post videos of the abuse online if he did not do more.

The boy has since been charged by the US authorities.

To say the least, that boy had a very skewed set of priorities if he preferred to rape his niece rather than be prepared for indecent images of himself to be put online.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Who lets children have a Facebook, or any social media page anyway?

political analyst wrote: »

But the most sensible thing for parents to do would be to prohibit their children from using social media until they're 14 at the very least - 16 would be even better!

Good luck with that lads

dirk_dangler wrote: »

The parents should be given some type of punishment for letting their children online unsupervised

Ah here.
Some parents don't give a fcuk, but most do. Its a constant battle updating filters and pop up blockers, checking browsing history.
Talking to them about content.

Too much porn and violent crap out there, far too easy to get , because "muh censorship" or some sh1te.

Even worse now with online classes etc.

pah

political analyst wrote: »

This is a similar case from 2017.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/vile-paedophile-who-blackmailed-victims-into-abusing-other-children-jailed-for-16-years-36098796.html



To say the least, that boy had a very skewed set of priorities if he preferred to rape his niece rather than be prepared for indecent images of himself to be put online.

Indeed, exactly the kind of vulnerable person that these types prey on!!! They go through contacting hundreds of kids until they find someone who they can compromise and bend to their will because of certain circumstances. You seem to have a very naive view of the wider world and the multitude of people/personalities/situations/

political analyst

pah wrote: »

Indeed, exactly the kind of vulnerable person that these types prey on!!! They go through contacting hundreds of kids until they find someone who they can compromise and bend to their will because of certain circumstances. You seem to have a very naive view of the wider world and the multitude of people/personalities/situations/

But 'vulnerable' means being weak and thus not having the nerve to do such a thing, doesn't it?

political analyst

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Good luck with that lads




Ah here.
Some parents don't give a fcuk, but most do. Its a constant battle updating filters and pop up blockers, checking browsing history.
Talking to them about content.

Too much porn and violent crap out there, far too easy to get , because "muh censorship" or some sh1te.

Even worse now with online classes etc.

The parents would probably make their own desktops or laptops available to their children for online classes in order to facilitate parental supervision.

If they're going to get mobile phones for their children then they should give them 'dumb phones', i.e. an original-type Nokia with no internet access.

Gatling

Stuff like this has been happening since Web cams became popular much like the various cam based social media sites over the years ,
Kids are niave by nature and generally don't have the skills or sense to know they are being groomed ,send one picture and it will be fine I promise I won't show anyone else , rapidly followed by more and more requests and worse requests and they feel they have no where to turn ,

pah

political analyst wrote: »

But 'vulnerable' means being weak and thus not having the nerve to do such a thing, doesn't it?

Are you asking me or telling me what it means?

You haven't a clue.

political analyst

political analyst wrote: »

The parents would probably make their own desktops or laptops available to their children for online classes in order to facilitate parental supervision.

If they're going to get mobile phones for their children then they should give them 'dumb phones', i.e. an original-type Nokia with no internet access.

Have you kids?

1874

bubblypop wrote: »

Who lets children have a Facebook, or any social media page anyway?

Well parents unfortunately, Ive come across one parent that allowed their child access via a sibling, I can hazard a guess it is many many more.
I had to have a chat with that parent because their child made and put a video of mine online, while they only threatened to put a video online to my child, they actually had done so also, so my child wasn't even sure if it was online. There was nothing sinister sexually but they had pressured my child into saying silly stuff, and my child was sick with worry, I knew something was up when my child came into the house and it actually took some convincing to get what was wrong out of them.
When I found out, I was livid but kept my cool, I went and discussed it with the parent asap, now while the parent didnt seem to know and actually explained it away, I insisted the content be deleted, including the original video files. The explaining it away by the parent I found inexcusable, had they denied, argued or refused I was ready to go to the Gardai, Tulsa, The public Health Nurse, HSE whoever. The fear and worry I saw in my child was real. Prior to that, such a topic only briefly ever came up with my child as there was no reason and I felt too young for them to know, but we had a thorough discussion on content and rights to not have your image taken and displayed without permission, even that children cannot give permission, dont have to feel obliged to say/show/do anything, the worry and upset in my child was real and how they were affected and what was done made me feel sick and angry. In a way, I know while the other child was exploring boundaries imo, it was still wrong, but it was really their parents fault it occurred, having let access be accessible even via a slightly older sibling was wrong for a start, then because access was allowable seemingly with no limits (able to upload content) and because they had obviously never had a sit down and discussion with them about online access/usage/what is allowable and not/permissions/rights, there is so much to cover and it is so important and serious that it is just better to not allow access before children are much older.

Nabber wrote: »

Manipulation, bullying, gaslighting. Everyone reacts differently.
In this case it's an 11year old. There is a reason we don't allow 11 year olds the same freedoms or responsibilities of an an adult.

OP I'm not sure what you don't understand about it, most people have very few memories of being 11. To say that you'd know better at that age I'd be sceptical of.
Being put in such a situation maybe just never happened to you, how you deal with that at 11 only your former 11 year old self would know.

I really think there needs to be laws about parents not allowing their children their own personal mobile devices or accounts before the age of 15, simply should not be allowed. Any accounts necessary or useful for anything should be through a parent who should have full access and admin privileges to limit, suspend, report problems. Parents are responsible for their children, that includes in the online arena.

simongurnick wrote: »

I don't think its about allowing the account. All of these games nowadays life Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft involve a social element, such as live group gaming and chat rooms etc.
I think the important part is having oversight into what your kids are doing online and teaching them off the risks and dangers in an open and frank manner.

I've have big issue with any accounts that give access online, even for children accessing online stuff on youtube, to the point Ive removed a smartphone (no sim but wifi access) and a tablet from my child, massive rows with his mother over this (even after going through the previous thing I mentioned above, which she didn't even what me to take that parent to task over), She see's no problems and is just happy to let our child at it, she herself is constantly on social media, which while I feel is unhealthy for a number of reasons, she is an adult, her attitude to just letting our child (<10yrs) access to pointless and imo addictive games who I also believe it is purposefully an advertising gimmick to reel people in, (but could be used to get access to children to influence them) is imo appallingly poor, I honestly believe she does it just to argue/compete with me. I've had frank and open discussions, but I just feel that it is better for it not to be allowed for all children.

smellyoldboot wrote: »

Fcuk punishment, it's a useless pointless concept. It's about removing from society, things that will never be any use to it and will always pose a significant danger to others. To which end killing the bastards would work perfectly.

While I can understand what you're saying, we dont execute people, I for one and glad of that, I do believe certain people should be removed from society and put away indefinitely if they cannot change and left there if they cannot rehab, be it of persistent criminal problems such as theft/assault or the like, and likewise for anything that preys on children in the online arena (even vulnerable adults or adults who aren't vulnerable, so basically anyone who is being exploited for the benefit/profit/gain of another person where it causes fear or makes them comply with a tormentors demands/requests/will).

grassylawn

In 25 years time he will no doubt be a positive addition to any neighbourhood.

MikeOxsgreen

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Good luck with that lads




Ah here.
Some parents don't give a fcuk, but most do. Its a constant battle updating filters and pop up blockers, checking browsing history.
Talking to them about content.

Too much porn and violent crap out there, far too easy to get , because "muh censorship" or some sh1te.

Even worse now with online classes etc.

Any parent who cannot control their prepubescent child, is going to have a very hard time when they turn teenager

Annasopra

political analyst wrote: »

But 'vulnerable' means being weak and thus not having the nerve to do such a thing, doesn't it?

No

Vulnerable means they would be easily manipulated into doing these things. I think your views are extremely naive and extremely warped that you are victim blaming children.

angel eyes 2012

bubblypop wrote: »

Any parent who cannot control their prepubescent child, is going to have a very hard time when they turn teenager

Most parents don't realise that children are often far knowledgeable about filters and creating fake profiles in the background of a device that parents aren't even aware of. Kids can have secret phones and tablets hidden from parents, a tablet alone can be purchased online for €30 now.

Banning them outright doesn't necessarily work, they can easliy set up profiles on friends devices etc., it's an absolute minefield, and I don't know what the answer is.

political analyst

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

Vulnerable means they would be easily manipulated into doing these things. I think your views are extremely naive and extremely warped that you are victim blaming children.

That's not true. Obviously, in the Wilson case, the 11-year-old boy's parents shouldn't have let him use the internet unsupervised, if at all!

As for the Leighton case, in which the 14-year-old boy in Florida raped his niece at Leighton's behest, I suspect that the boy probably already had that inclination and may well have abused other children before Leighton groomed him.

After all, boys even younger than 14 have committed horrific crimes against children - including in a recent case in Ireland that, because of a recent court judgement, we can't discuss at the moment.

The rape of a toddler would involve a much greater degree of premeditation than a knife attack carried out by a person who is in a psychosis, given the part of the anatomy that is used by a rapist.

In Florida, sexual crimes committed against toddlers by older children seem to be endemic. By the way, in the following cases, there's no evidence of 'grooming' by adults in the following cases.

https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/child-on-child-sexual-abuse-devastates-a-south-florida-family-8145634

In 2010, a confused, baby-faced 14-year-old named Bobby Martinez grabbed a 10-year-old girl on her way to school in Belle Glade. He raped and then urinated on her. Martinez pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual battery on and kidnapping of a child under 12. Prosecutors requested a 40-year prison sentence. Dr. Sheila Rapa, a leading child psychiatrist in Broward, argued in court that juvenile sex offenders can be cured. If Bobby sat in jail without treatment for his sexual behavior problems, she said, those problems would become permanent. The judge sentenced Bobby to 25 years.

I did a further search on that case and learned that the judge also ordered that therapy take place in that boy's case.

Here's an even more recent case.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1647245/baby-raped-boy-foster-care-sexually-aggressive-teen/

Feisar

smellyoldboot wrote: »

Fcuk punishment, it's a useless pointless concept. It's about removing from society, things that will never be any use to it and will always pose a significant danger to others. To which end killing the bastards would work perfectly.

Have you been reading my posts on previous topics! Nothing to do with right/wrong, punishment, morality, etc. just cut out the cancer.

Annasopra

political analyst wrote: »

That's not true. Obviously, in the Wilson case, the 11-year-old boy's parents shouldn't have let him use the internet unsupervised, if at all!

As for the Leighton case, in which the 14-year-old boy in Florida raped his niece at Leighton's behest, I suspect that the boy probably already had that inclination and may well have abused other children before Leighton groomed him.

After all, boys even younger than 14 have committed horrific crimes against children - including in a recent case in Ireland that, because of a recent court judgement, we can't discuss at the moment.

The rape of a toddler would involve a much greater degree of premeditation than a knife attack carried out by a person who is in a psychosis, given the part of the anatomy that is used by a rapist.

In Florida, sexual crimes committed against toddlers by older children seem to be endemic. By the way, in the following cases, there's no evidence of 'grooming' by adults in the following cases.

https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/child-on-child-sexual-abuse-devastates-a-south-florida-family-8145634



I did a further search on that case and learned that the judge also ordered that therapy take place in that boy's case.

Here's an even more recent case.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1647245/baby-raped-boy-foster-care-sexually-aggressive-teen/

No idea how any of what you typed refutes what I said.

stefanovich

wes wrote: »

Life in prison without a chance of getting out, would be a far worse punishment, than a quick death.

I don't think just being one is illegal - you have to act on it. And depending on the action or the age you'd get a punishment far less than life usually unless the crime is very very extreme.

political analyst

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No idea how any of what you typed refutes what I said.

I vehemently deny the 'victim-blaming' accusation, that's for sure!

A vulnerable boy in his early teens wouldn't be able to develop an erection to commit rape.

I mentioned those other cases because they happened in Florida, where the boy in the Leighton online grooming case committed rape.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Any parent who cannot control their prepubescent child, is going to have a very hard time when they turn teenager

Spoken like someone with zero kids.

You can "control" behavior to a certain extent, assuming its not a clinical issue.

You cant control what you don't know about, and if that which you don't know about is affecting behaviour, what is the appropriate "control", throw in hormones, changing social circles, primary/post primary education.

Your best hope is they talk to you, that you trust each other, they know their safe place is home, that you equip them best you can.

People talking about control have already lost.

lucalux

political analyst wrote: »

A vulnerable boy in his early teens wouldn't be able to develop an erection to commit rape.

You are displaying a woeful lack of intelligent analysis here.

Erections aren't down to the presence of ,or lack of, vulnerability. They're a biological response to stimulation.

If you think a vulnerable child (again, I urge you to go learn the definition of vulnerable because it seems you do not understand that to begin with) cannot have an erection, you are wrong.

pah

political analyst wrote: »

A vulnerable boy in his early teens wouldn't be able to develop an erection to commit rape.

I've already said you haven't a clue.

At this stage you are embarrassing yourself.

freshpopcorn

I grew up with social media from about 12/13 some us would have being 11 and they had Bebo accounts.(I know times were different).
There was the strict parents who had web nanny's, had limited use, read messages or banned it all together.
These kids/teenagers were nearly the worst in my experience. They had countless secrets from their parents and they couldn't really talk to them if they got into difficulty. Especially when we'd have progressed onto Facebook, etc.
These parents also thought they knew ever thing their kids were up to and looked down on patents who weren't as good as them.

Then there was those who had a free for all.

Then those who had a bit of balance.

However one thing I do find those of use who would send nude photos when we were young or give away to much personal information are the exact same now as we are approaching thirty.

political analyst

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I grew up with social media from about 12/13 some us would have being 11 and they had Bebo accounts.(I know times were different).
There was the strict parents who had web nanny's, had limited use, read messages or banned it all together.
These kids/teenagers were nearly the worst in my experience. They had countless secrets from their parents and they couldn't really talk to them if they got into difficulty. Especially when we'd have progressed onto Facebook, etc.
These parents also thought they knew ever thing their kids were up to and looked down on patents who weren't as good as them.

Then there was those who had a free for all.

Then those who had a bit of balance.

However one thing I do find those of use who would send nude photos when we were young or give away to much personal information are the exact same now as we are approaching thirty.

Why would they want to put themselves in that position?

Gatling

political analyst wrote: »

Why would they want to put themselves in that position?

Because they are children that's why .


You should really stop at this stage your seriously on a wind up

freshpopcorn

political analyst wrote: »

Why would they want to put themselves in that position?

Well the parents were strict.
The kids/teenagers were online and they shouldn't have been.
If mammy and daddy found out they'd have blown a gasket.
So, it was easier to talk to the stranger online.

political analyst

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well the parents were strict.
The kids/teenagers were online and they shouldn't have been.
If mammy and daddy found out they'd have blown a gasket.
So, it was easier to talk to the stranger online.

Then how did the children get online?

freshpopcorn

political analyst wrote: »

Then how did the children get online?

Used cousins, friends, school, library, etc devices.
Even saving up bits of money and purchasing a cheap smart phone.

pah

OP is trolling for sure.