Teen who accessed child sexual images 'out of curiosity' wins appeal...

[NotBadConsidering]

...and won’t be placed on a register of any sort.

Never happens of course.

www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/teen-who-accessed-child-sexual-images-out-of-curiosity-wins-appeal-20191017-p531ro.html

I’m not commenting on the gender or sex of this individual. 18 is old enough to know it’s wrong.

Struggling with sexuality - why look for this sort of thing then? It’s not related. How many people are let off like this - and is it reported/counted? It’s scary.

Accessed out of “curiosity” when aged 17 but still on phone aged 18 . Not a risk to children apparently.

They look at your records - a bounce (assuming your see something that disgusts you) is very different from a long gawp and further searches.

Ffs I’m so sick of this

Hate the twee way they say the child was 'engaging in anal intercourse' like it was consensual and there is no such thing as child pornography, pornography is what consenting adults do. I do feel child abuse is getting almost sanitised and normalised lately,

I think I've heard 'struggling with gender identity' used as a defence before.

So... This sets a precedent for what you have to say if you want to look at images of child abuse without having a recorded conviction. Handy for some people!

She does not present as a person who is a risk to children
Does not present as? Odd phrasing.

Five

If I posted what I think I'd probably be banned

Not presenting a person who is a risk to children? The pictures of abused 5 year olds on their phone not bloody good enough? Sheesh, you know that free pass we've been talking about on other threads if you utter the magic T word? Here you go, a nice example.

I'm assuming the probation was also ended which means no monitoring at all of this person and no restrictions on using the internet or social media.

The fact the newspaper chose not to name them is also an odd stance since it means they will not face any of the social consequences of viewing child abuse images.

She does not present as a person who is a risk to children

so if they still presented as male they would've got a stronger punishment? Or is it that sex offenders walk around with a big sign around their necks?

This person who is born male was looking at young boys being abused and now hates their male body. Wonder why.

she had committed the crime as a child and did not pose a risk to children.

I was abused by a 16 year old.

How can they say she's not a risk to children?

James Bulger was murdered by kids. Mary Bell was a kid...

disgusting

There were a total of 15 images depicting young boys between the age of five years and 16 years posing naked, performing oral sex or engaging in anal intercourse, either with other young people or adults," a Court of Appeal judgement read.

Fixed: "There were a total of 15 images depicting young boys between the age of five years and 16 years posing naked, being raped orally and anally, either by other young people or adults," a Court of Appeal judgement read.

This adult human male (man) who wants to be addressed as a woman, IS a risk to children. Judges who let paedophiles go should be accountable when they go on to harm other children.