Liverpool - woman who distributed indecent images of children over WhatsApp has walked free from court.

Offence analysis
TV licence evasion was the most common offence for which females were convicted in 2019.

In 2019, 74% of those convicted for TV licence evasion were female. This offence accounted for 30% of all female convictions, compared to 4% of male convictions.

Theft from shops was the most common indictable offence for which 34% of females and 14% of males were convicted in 2019.

Of the 34,300 defendants convicted for shoplifting, 9,600 (28%) were female. The custody rate for this offence was lower for female offenders (19%) than for males (26%).

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2019/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2019

Of course, we don't know how many (if any) of those convictions resulted in custodial sentences.

Holy shit.

Am I seriously reading people saying that he didn’t abuse children because he wasn’t physically doing it himself?

What.The.Fuck.

Does anyone happen to know the sex breakdown on people who watch digitalised child abuse? I have never seen a female individual accused of it, but I am sure there are some. Still, this might be yet another crime statistics which tilts heavily male in terms of perpetrators. Or did, when data was collected on the basis of sex.

@Onnabugeisha and @Boiledbeetle, I am so so sorry that you had to have such horrible people in your lives, but I am happy to see your strength afterwards.

Just to remind everyone to give feedback to this IPSO consultation on sex and gender reporting guidance

www.ipso.co.uk/what-we-do/consultations/public-consultation-on-guidance-on-reporting-of-sex-and-gender-identity/

@Onnabugeisha 🍫🍷

This. Over and over.

And that’s fair, Boiled. I think our strategies are quite different, I’m fighting off images of me as Dorothy in Oz in plaits and being forced to….can’t go on. Sorry. But giving you friendly wave, this thread is too hard for me now.

Please can we not refer to this as child pornography? Pornography implies consent, children cannot give consent. They are images of child sexual abuse.

Whose the journo? These people should hang their fecking heads in shame.

Whose the judge?

I know that he got a suspended sentence so is not going to prison but that is another thread on its own.

I'm so sick of all this. Women and children really don't matter do they?

If a person who is born a man (I don't know what is acceptable terminology on here these days) gets off on watching children being abused he should be sent to a male prison and hopefully feel even part of the fear those children felt.

I'm done with being "kind".

That's even before you start to consider the skewing of statistics and the fact that it is not only women prisoners who are at risk but the female prison staff.

The person in the photo is not a woman.

Yes it is necessarily broad. The point of possession charges and the purpose is designed to capture many actions.

A common defence to possession of this material used to be accidental. That is made much harder by the scope of making.

The phrase "making indecent images" is seriously misleading.

The court’s interpretation of ‘making’ indecent images is broad. The following can amount to making indecent images; opening an email attachment, downloading an indecent image, storing an image, and accessing a website where an indecent image “pops up".

That was the only possible defence I could think of yesterday, when as I said upthread the original published version did not include the judge's comment about transition.

But today that comment was included. Indicating the journo indeed had it in his notes the whole time but did not consider it relevant to include. A pretty shocking and misleading omission.

So we know the dysphoria and transition was referred to in court, so there's surely nothing legally wrong in putting trans woman in the headline?

@Onnabugeisha the sharing of sexual images of children is a form of abuse. Non-contact, but abuse

FFS I cannot believe the opinions of what isn't abuse this is too triggering I'm out !

The viewer is complicit in the abuse. Absolutely.

I know Geisha. I think our coping strategies have been different, maybe because our abuse was done differently, maybe our personalities. For me the knowledge that he produced them not for himself but to sell on for others to enjoy is what fuels my feelings of perpetual abuse.

Every time I read of a man like this, or even think of the subject of child abuse images I relive the flashbacks of those photos being taken. I'm back in the room at 7 pleading with him to stop.

It's part of the abuse knowing they exist. Knowing people will be jerking off to them. Knowing that was why he was taking them.

(I've also never watched a beheading video. Why the fuck would anyone want to do that?)

@Onnabugeisha - he made indecent images of children. Why on earth do you think it's right to minimise such repellent crimes? Fgs, think before you post such vile comments.

I don’t need to imagine.

Me too Boiled. You know this about me. Weve spoken on other threads about our common survivorship.

I feel nothing when a paedo clicks on an image of me, because I don’t know when it happens. All I know is the images are out there and will be long after I am dead and gone. I have had to accept this reality.

But to say future people seeing these are just as guilty and just as bad as the abusers who actually did that shit to me as a young child?! No, cannot agree. Living through the abuse and having the nightmares and flashbacks to this day is far far worse than living with the knowledge that people out there are still seeing it.

That is not quite right. Images of children are frequently created to order by paedophiles. It is not reasonable to call such people passive as they are root cause of such material.

Those people may never be "abusers" in a physical sense. But they are not passive.