12-year-old girl left 'traumatised' after she was sent naked photo on Facebook

Bournemouth Echo: - -

A MOTHER-of-six has said her 12-year-old daughter was left “traumatised” after she was sent a naked picture on Facebook.

The Bournemouth mother said her daughter was “shocked and devastated” by the photo and remains terrified that it will happen again.

She said: “My daughter is such a gentle, normal 12-year-old so she was completely shocked by the naked picture. I'm just worried that it will happen again, so I will be making sure she can't access Facebook from now on.

“She was so innocent and the sexually explicit photo has completely devastated her. I only let her use Facebook for an hour a day and I closely monitored what she was doing, but I never expected anything like this to happen.”

As part of the testimony process at the police station, the 12-year-old had to draw the picture she was sent.

Her mother said: “She found this so humiliating and felt really degraded and dirty.”

LV=Streetwise Centre in Bournemouth teaches the importance of staying safe online using an online chat room.

Centre manager Alison Shelton said: “Given that someone online might lie about who they are it's best to only use online chat with real world friends and family – and even then young and old should always be prepared to tell a trusted adult if someone or something makes them feel uncomfortable.”

A Dorset police spokesperson said a 17-year-old was arrested and released without charge.

* If young people are being threatened online or they have shared something they regret they can report it to CEOP online by going to www.thinkuknow.co.uk or visiting the CEOP Safety Centre.

Comments (52)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:23pm Sat 7 Dec 13

anigel says...

And why did this 12 year old have a Facebook account (Minimum age is 13) and unsupervised access to the internet?
And why did this 12 year old have a Facebook account (Minimum age is 13) and unsupervised access to the internet? anigel

12:36pm Sat 7 Dec 13

ScottiePoole says...

Why is a 12 year old on Facebook , if you introduce children to adult things at that age then they will come across adult things why not let them grow up first and don't give into peer pressure. This is why I am never friends with any child I know on Facebook as occasionally I have jokes etc sent to me which are very slightly risqué so not age appropriate. If they are not my friend then they don't see the adult content.
Why is a 12 year old on Facebook , if you introduce children to adult things at that age then they will come across adult things why not let them grow up first and don't give into peer pressure. This is why I am never friends with any child I know on Facebook as occasionally I have jokes etc sent to me which are very slightly risqué so not age appropriate. If they are not my friend then they don't see the adult content. ScottiePoole

12:42pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Just_Sayin' says...

If her mother was as stringent as she suggests her 'innocent & now traumatised' 12 year old would only have 'real' (known to her outside of Facebook) friends on her Facebook account, therefore she would know full well who forwarded this image. And yes, the minimum age is 13.

(This is also not news)
If her mother was as stringent as she suggests her 'innocent & now traumatised' 12 year old would only have 'real' (known to her outside of Facebook) friends on her Facebook account, therefore she would know full well who forwarded this image. And yes, the minimum age is 13. (This is also not news) Just_Sayin'

12:44pm Sat 7 Dec 13

yasinac says...

Echo the comments above, minimum age is 13, therefore the parent has consented to her child falsifying the date of birth to access this site. What sort of mixed messages does this send to our young people.
It is our responsibility as parents, to encourage and enforce if necessary healthy rules with regard to our children's access to the internet. Make sure you know your children's passwords and regularly check internet history. If you're not doing this your children run the risk of being exposed to unsuitable material on the internet.
Echo the comments above, minimum age is 13, therefore the parent has consented to her child falsifying the date of birth to access this site. What sort of mixed messages does this send to our young people. It is our responsibility as parents, to encourage and enforce if necessary healthy rules with regard to our children's access to the internet. Make sure you know your children's passwords and regularly check internet history. If you're not doing this your children run the risk of being exposed to unsuitable material on the internet. yasinac

12:56pm Sat 7 Dec 13

RageAgainstTheMachine says...

The problem is nowadays is some parents use computers etc as easy babysitters.
We have always had a family PC in our lounge and my older kids didn't have there own computers/tablets or access to phone internet until age 16/17.
I have been horrified with some of the info my kids have told me over the years especially when they were at secondary school about teens using all sorts of weirdo sites and putting up pictures of themselves half naked etc.
I have a special needs teenager at a special school,and at 15 he asked me if he could have Facebook,luckily he is the most honest and straightest kid going and he would always tell me anything strange or he was unhappy with.
He is only allowed to use it in the lounge and will not accept any friend request I also set it up myself and have complete access as he is a vulnerable young man.
I am disgusted that of his friends also at his special school on Facebook some of them have no restrictions and half the parents wouldn't know what they were doing anyway,some have 1000 so called friends!
The problem is nowadays is some parents use computers etc as easy babysitters. We have always had a family PC in our lounge and my older kids didn't have there own computers/tablets or access to phone internet until age 16/17. I have been horrified with some of the info my kids have told me over the years especially when they were at secondary school about teens using all sorts of weirdo sites and putting up pictures of themselves half naked etc. I have a special needs teenager at a special school,and at 15 he asked me if he could have Facebook,luckily he is the most honest and straightest kid going and he would always tell me anything strange or he was unhappy with. He is only allowed to use it in the lounge and will not accept any friend request I also set it up myself and have complete access as he is a vulnerable young man. I am disgusted that of his friends also at his special school on Facebook some of them have no restrictions and half the parents wouldn't know what they were doing anyway,some have 1000 so called friends! RageAgainstTheMachine

1:12pm Sat 7 Dec 13

hooplaa says...

Wonder why he was released without charge?
Wonder why he was released without charge? hooplaa

1:14pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Phixer says...

Another parent blaming everyone else but themself.
Another parent blaming everyone else but themself. Phixer

1:34pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Suedehead says...

hooplaa wrote:
Wonder why he was released without charge?
Has it occurred to you that the 17-year-old (gender unspecified in the report) may have had nothing to do with it?
[quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: Wonder why he was released without charge?[/p][/quote]Has it occurred to you that the 17-year-old (gender unspecified in the report) may have had nothing to do with it? Suedehead

2:02pm Sat 7 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

Phixer wrote:
Another parent blaming everyone else but themself.
Agreed, this is all about poor parenting, if the child was accessing Facebook she should NOT have been at 12 years of age and if she was unsupervised goodness knows what else she was looking at.

In any case the 'innocence' of children by this age is a parental fantasy, if they have natural human curiosity they will already have learnt an awful lot more than we many wish to believe - mostly from their peers.

The only change in recent times is kids now use the internet to learn adult matters, in my day we were educated by discussions in the playground with practical lessons being offered behind the bike shed (....so I am told!).
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote: Another parent blaming everyone else but themself.[/p][/quote]Agreed, this is all about poor parenting, if the child was accessing Facebook she should NOT have been at 12 years of age and if she was unsupervised goodness knows what else she was looking at. In any case the 'innocence' of children by this age is a parental fantasy, if they have natural human curiosity they will already have learnt an awful lot more than we many wish to believe - mostly from their peers. The only change in recent times is kids now use the internet to learn adult matters, in my day we were educated by discussions in the playground with practical lessons being offered behind the bike shed (....so I am told!). muscliffman

2:33pm Sat 7 Dec 13

skydriver says...

Maybe the mother of 6, should answer some of these comments, .its sad the young girl had to see whatever, she saw , but if supervised , this would never have happend..
Maybe the mother of 6, should answer some of these comments, .its sad the young girl had to see whatever, she saw , but if supervised , this would never have happend.. skydriver

3:13pm Sat 7 Dec 13

X Old Bill says...

hooplaa wrote:
Wonder why he was released without charge?
Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture?

Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter.

Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.
[quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: Wonder why he was released without charge?[/p][/quote]Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture? Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter. Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out. X Old Bill

4:16pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Tictock says...

Stupid mother, I hope she reads the comments on here and Echo - how come this is news? Another slack piece of reporting on a slow day? Still, beats going out of the office and getting cold!
Stupid mother, I hope she reads the comments on here and Echo - how come this is news? Another slack piece of reporting on a slow day? Still, beats going out of the office and getting cold! Tictock

4:34pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Abc1970 says...

Simples, DON'T LET YOUR 12 YR OLD DAUGHTER HAVE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT! There is a minimum age and it is not 12! Mother is just as responsible as person sending the picture for allowing her daughter to use a site as unrestricted as Facebook
Simples, DON'T LET YOUR 12 YR OLD DAUGHTER HAVE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT! There is a minimum age and it is not 12! Mother is just as responsible as person sending the picture for allowing her daughter to use a site as unrestricted as Facebook Abc1970

5:13pm Sat 7 Dec 13

PokesdownMark says...

We are seem to be getting so prudish as a society. There are FAR FAR worse things on the Internet than just nudity. Clearly the parent needs to get a clue about the internet's pros and cons.

Suspect this a typical echo 'half a story', at best. Perhaps mum will be along soon with the additional info that may make sense of it?
We are seem to be getting so prudish as a society. There are FAR FAR worse things on the Internet than just nudity. Clearly the parent needs to get a clue about the internet's pros and cons. Suspect this a typical echo 'half a story', at best. Perhaps mum will be along soon with the additional info that may make sense of it? PokesdownMark

5:45pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Frank28 says...

Only a careless Mother would permit her child to have Carte Blanche access to the internet, and permit her to illegally obtain a social network account.
Only a careless Mother would permit her child to have Carte Blanche access to the internet, and permit her to illegally obtain a social network account. Frank28

6:02pm Sat 7 Dec 13

hooplaa says...

Suedehead wrote:
hooplaa wrote:
Wonder why he was released without charge?
Has it occurred to you that the 17-year-old (gender unspecified in the report) may have had nothing to do with it?
So they just randomly arrested a 17 year old then released them?
[quote][p][bold]Suedehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: Wonder why he was released without charge?[/p][/quote]Has it occurred to you that the 17-year-old (gender unspecified in the report) may have had nothing to do with it?[/p][/quote]So they just randomly arrested a 17 year old then released them? hooplaa

6:07pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Suedehead says...

hooplaa wrote:
Suedehead wrote:
hooplaa wrote:
Wonder why he was released without charge?
Has it occurred to you that the 17-year-old (gender unspecified in the report) may have had nothing to do with it?
So they just randomly arrested a 17 year old then released them?
So you believe that anyone arrested must be guilty? I hope you are never selected for jury service.
[quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Suedehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: Wonder why he was released without charge?[/p][/quote]Has it occurred to you that the 17-year-old (gender unspecified in the report) may have had nothing to do with it?[/p][/quote]So they just randomly arrested a 17 year old then released them?[/p][/quote]So you believe that anyone arrested must be guilty? I hope you are never selected for jury service. Suedehead

6:20pm Sat 7 Dec 13

hooplaa says...

Suedehead wrote:
hooplaa wrote:
Suedehead wrote:
hooplaa wrote:
Wonder why he was released without charge?
Has it occurred to you that the 17-year-old (gender unspecified in the report) may have had nothing to do with it?
So they just randomly arrested a 17 year old then released them?
So you believe that anyone arrested must be guilty? I hope you are never selected for jury service.
Get a life Suedehead
[quote][p][bold]Suedehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Suedehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: Wonder why he was released without charge?[/p][/quote]Has it occurred to you that the 17-year-old (gender unspecified in the report) may have had nothing to do with it?[/p][/quote]So they just randomly arrested a 17 year old then released them?[/p][/quote]So you believe that anyone arrested must be guilty? I hope you are never selected for jury service.[/p][/quote]Get a life Suedehead hooplaa

6:51pm Sat 7 Dec 13

stevobath says...

X Old Bill wrote:
hooplaa wrote:
Wonder why he was released without charge?
Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture?

Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter.

Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.
Most sensible & reasonable comment I've read regarding this pathetic incident.
Maybe the police should be looking into the Mother? She's been complicit in allowing someone underage to open an account. As for being 'traumatised'...when I was at school we watched sexual education films with naked bodies etc. Don't recall anyone being upset. Uncomfortable & red faced laughing at best. Also, most 12 YOlds are bombarded with over sexualised 'musicians & singers' constantly.

Mum, I suggest you've scored an 'own goal'.
[quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: Wonder why he was released without charge?[/p][/quote]Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture? Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter. Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.[/p][/quote]Most sensible & reasonable comment I've read regarding this pathetic incident. Maybe the police should be looking into the Mother? She's been complicit in allowing someone underage to open an account. As for being 'traumatised'...when I was at school we watched sexual education films with naked bodies etc. Don't recall anyone being upset. Uncomfortable & red faced laughing at best. Also, most 12 YOlds are bombarded with over sexualised 'musicians & singers' constantly. Mum, I suggest you've scored an 'own goal'. stevobath

8:16pm Sat 7 Dec 13

BIGTONE says...

Wait until the daughter is 4 years older. Then what will the mother do...follow her around to prevent her from having sex?
Yea right!!!
Wait until the daughter is 4 years older. Then what will the mother do...follow her around to prevent her from having sex? Yea right!!! BIGTONE

9:52pm Sat 7 Dec 13

yasinac says...

BIGTONE wrote:
Wait until the daughter is 4 years older. Then what will the mother do...follow her around to prevent her from having sex?
Yea right!!!
That's not what most commenters are implying. We should bring our children up to respect guidelines and themselves, then in 'four years time' they'd have enough respect for themselves to make good, well informed choices about how they live their lives.
[quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: Wait until the daughter is 4 years older. Then what will the mother do...follow her around to prevent her from having sex? Yea right!!![/p][/quote]That's not what most commenters are implying. We should bring our children up to respect guidelines and themselves, then in 'four years time' they'd have enough respect for themselves to make good, well informed choices about how they live their lives. yasinac

11:48am Sun 8 Dec 13

Chris the plumber says...

from what I read a lot of under ten year olds will be getting Tablets, android and Iphones for Christmas and as every house hold seems to have WiFi connections expect a lot more kids to be looking at things they shouldn't do while mummy and daddy is tucking in to tescos £3.99 wine and watching corrie!!
from what I read a lot of under ten year olds will be getting Tablets, android and Iphones for Christmas and as every house hold seems to have WiFi connections expect a lot more kids to be looking at things they shouldn't do while mummy and daddy is tucking in to tescos £3.99 wine and watching corrie!! Chris the plumber

6:39pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Bob49 says...

Such a shame as by the nature of the subject matter we will not get a photo of a angry person with their arms folded.

Doesn't somehow feel like an Echo story without that picture.
Such a shame as by the nature of the subject matter we will not get a photo of a angry person with their arms folded. Doesn't somehow feel like an Echo story without that picture. Bob49

8:31pm Sun 8 Dec 13

thatguyyouknow says...

You have to be 13 to have an account, children should also be supervised at all times when online not just when the parents can be bothered. Terrible parenting.
You have to be 13 to have an account, children should also be supervised at all times when online not just when the parents can be bothered. Terrible parenting. thatguyyouknow

8:48pm Sun 8 Dec 13

GAHmusic says...

I think there's a lot of context missing from this story I think we should at least know the senders intention, was it a teenage joke or something meant in a sinister way?
I think there's a lot of context missing from this story I think we should at least know the senders intention, was it a teenage joke or something meant in a sinister way? GAHmusic

11:06pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Adrian XX says...

Avenue Q has it right.
Avenue Q has it right. Adrian XX

1:12am Mon 9 Dec 13

Mrs C. A Townend says...

While the minimum age is 13. It is very easy for anybody to create a profile with a fake age as face book does not verify the individuals identity or age properly. I found this out after my own children created an account when I was not looking. My advice, is to do what I have learned. Use your parental controls on your computer to restrict your child's access to certain sites on the web. I have tried many times before to have my children's profiles removed and to report explicit content on face book, it gets ignored. It also gets ignored when you try to report an underage user as well. Facebook do need to do something about this. Its ok having settings of which you can restrict content on, but it is breaking the rules when children can create a profile using a fake age and dangerous.
While the minimum age is 13. It is very easy for anybody to create a profile with a fake age as face book does not verify the individuals identity or age properly. I found this out after my own children created an account when I was not looking. My advice, is to do what I have learned. Use your parental controls on your computer to restrict your child's access to certain sites on the web. I have tried many times before to have my children's profiles removed and to report explicit content on face book, it gets ignored. It also gets ignored when you try to report an underage user as well. Facebook do need to do something about this. Its ok having settings of which you can restrict content on, but it is breaking the rules when children can create a profile using a fake age and dangerous. Mrs C. A Townend

1:17pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Dibbles2 says...

stevobath wrote:
X Old Bill wrote:
hooplaa wrote:
Wonder why he was released without charge?
Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture?

Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter.

Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.
Most sensible & reasonable comment I've read regarding this pathetic incident.
Maybe the police should be looking into the Mother? She's been complicit in allowing someone underage to open an account. As for being 'traumatised'...when I was at school we watched sexual education films with naked bodies etc. Don't recall anyone being upset. Uncomfortable & red faced laughing at best. Also, most 12 YOlds are bombarded with over sexualised 'musicians & singers' constantly.

Mum, I suggest you've scored an 'own goal'.
So your saying its perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old boy to send a little girl a picture of his or someones else genitalia? Jeez its no wonder Bournemouth is the capital for paedos when people accept this as being the norm.

I'm not defending the mum but at the end of the day the boy if he is indeed guilty should not have sent that to anyone let alone a little girl.
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: Wonder why he was released without charge?[/p][/quote]Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture? Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter. Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.[/p][/quote]Most sensible & reasonable comment I've read regarding this pathetic incident. Maybe the police should be looking into the Mother? She's been complicit in allowing someone underage to open an account. As for being 'traumatised'...when I was at school we watched sexual education films with naked bodies etc. Don't recall anyone being upset. Uncomfortable & red faced laughing at best. Also, most 12 YOlds are bombarded with over sexualised 'musicians & singers' constantly. Mum, I suggest you've scored an 'own goal'.[/p][/quote]So your saying its perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old boy to send a little girl a picture of his or someones else genitalia? Jeez its no wonder Bournemouth is the capital for paedos when people accept this as being the norm. I'm not defending the mum but at the end of the day the boy if he is indeed guilty should not have sent that to anyone let alone a little girl. Dibbles2

2:39pm Mon 9 Dec 13

X Old Bill says...

Dibbles2 wrote:
stevobath wrote:
X Old Bill wrote:
hooplaa wrote:
Wonder why he was released without charge?
Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture?

Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter.

Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.
Most sensible & reasonable comment I've read regarding this pathetic incident.
Maybe the police should be looking into the Mother? She's been complicit in allowing someone underage to open an account. As for being 'traumatised'...when I was at school we watched sexual education films with naked bodies etc. Don't recall anyone being upset. Uncomfortable & red faced laughing at best. Also, most 12 YOlds are bombarded with over sexualised 'musicians & singers' constantly.

Mum, I suggest you've scored an 'own goal'.
So your saying its perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old boy to send a little girl a picture of his or someones else genitalia? Jeez its no wonder Bournemouth is the capital for paedos when people accept this as being the norm.

I'm not defending the mum but at the end of the day the boy if he is indeed guilty should not have sent that to anyone let alone a little girl.
Do you know that the 17 year old was a boy?
Do you know what the alleged picture depicted?
Do you know that the picture was directed at a specific person and not just posted for all 'friends' to view?

No, it would not be acceptable to do what you have suggested, but that is not what has been alleged according to the broad terms of the Echo reporting.

Would it surprise you to know that in the numbers of sexual offences against minors reported in 2012 the Dorset Police Area came 30th out of 43? Paedophile capital? Maybe not.
[quote][p][bold]Dibbles2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: Wonder why he was released without charge?[/p][/quote]Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture? Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter. Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.[/p][/quote]Most sensible & reasonable comment I've read regarding this pathetic incident. Maybe the police should be looking into the Mother? She's been complicit in allowing someone underage to open an account. As for being 'traumatised'...when I was at school we watched sexual education films with naked bodies etc. Don't recall anyone being upset. Uncomfortable & red faced laughing at best. Also, most 12 YOlds are bombarded with over sexualised 'musicians & singers' constantly. Mum, I suggest you've scored an 'own goal'.[/p][/quote]So your saying its perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old boy to send a little girl a picture of his or someones else genitalia? Jeez its no wonder Bournemouth is the capital for paedos when people accept this as being the norm. I'm not defending the mum but at the end of the day the boy if he is indeed guilty should not have sent that to anyone let alone a little girl.[/p][/quote]Do you know that the 17 year old was a boy? Do you know what the alleged picture depicted? Do you know that the picture was directed at a specific person and not just posted for all 'friends' to view? No, it would not be acceptable to do what you have suggested, but that is not what has been alleged according to the broad terms of the Echo reporting. Would it surprise you to know that in the numbers of sexual offences against minors reported in 2012 the Dorset Police Area came 30th out of 43? Paedophile capital? Maybe not. X Old Bill

5:01pm Mon 9 Dec 13

mikeymagic says...

Show me a 12 year old that has not seen an explicit picture on the web! I'm sure most actively seek them. The mother is clown. Get off your backside and look at what your children are doing. She's not even old enough to have a FB account. Everyone else is to blame.
Show me a 12 year old that has not seen an explicit picture on the web! I'm sure most actively seek them. The mother is clown. Get off your backside and look at what your children are doing. She's not even old enough to have a FB account. Everyone else is to blame. mikeymagic

12:46pm Sun 15 Dec 13

stevobath says...

Dibbles2 wrote:
stevobath wrote:
X Old Bill wrote:
hooplaa wrote:
Wonder why he was released without charge?
Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture?

Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter.

Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.
Most sensible & reasonable comment I've read regarding this pathetic incident.
Maybe the police should be looking into the Mother? She's been complicit in allowing someone underage to open an account. As for being 'traumatised'...when I was at school we watched sexual education films with naked bodies etc. Don't recall anyone being upset. Uncomfortable & red faced laughing at best. Also, most 12 YOlds are bombarded with over sexualised 'musicians & singers' constantly.

Mum, I suggest you've scored an 'own goal'.
So your saying its perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old boy to send a little girl a picture of his or someones else genitalia? Jeez its no wonder Bournemouth is the capital for paedos when people accept this as being the norm.

I'm not defending the mum but at the end of the day the boy if he is indeed guilty should not have sent that to anyone let alone a little girl.
I suggest you look up the figures & stats regarding your claim.

I also suggest you re-read the article.
No one was charged or anything & it might well have been a subscribed to post?
It doesn't mention male or female either. I could go on...
[quote][p][bold]Dibbles2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: Wonder why he was released without charge?[/p][/quote]Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture? Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter. Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.[/p][/quote]Most sensible & reasonable comment I've read regarding this pathetic incident. Maybe the police should be looking into the Mother? She's been complicit in allowing someone underage to open an account. As for being 'traumatised'...when I was at school we watched sexual education films with naked bodies etc. Don't recall anyone being upset. Uncomfortable & red faced laughing at best. Also, most 12 YOlds are bombarded with over sexualised 'musicians & singers' constantly. Mum, I suggest you've scored an 'own goal'.[/p][/quote]So your saying its perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old boy to send a little girl a picture of his or someones else genitalia? Jeez its no wonder Bournemouth is the capital for paedos when people accept this as being the norm. I'm not defending the mum but at the end of the day the boy if he is indeed guilty should not have sent that to anyone let alone a little girl.[/p][/quote]I suggest you look up the figures & stats regarding your claim. I also suggest you re-read the article. No one was charged or anything & it might well have been a subscribed to post? It doesn't mention male or female either. I could go on... stevobath

7:22pm Thu 19 Dec 13

peace77 says...

So sad by all your comments....the boy is was also re arrested for sending another young girl naked pictures he also has on his wall kill all muslim scum amd I rape 12 year old girls..he is very proud to be part of the jimmy saville gang..blame the parents easy for you all to do..the girl in question who I know w os not perverse like you all think she opened a message from a friend and was sent the nud pic..millions of children are on the internet and instead of pointing fingers and gossiping behind your hidden names and think for once that the girl in question has been affected by this and as a mother myself I think he should be dealt with accordingly
So sad by all your comments....the boy is was also re arrested for sending another young girl naked pictures he also has on his wall kill all muslim scum amd I rape 12 year old girls..he is very proud to be part of the jimmy saville gang..blame the parents easy for you all to do..the girl in question who I know w os not perverse like you all think she opened a message from a friend and was sent the nud pic..millions of children are on the internet and instead of pointing fingers and gossiping behind your hidden names and think for once that the girl in question has been affected by this and as a mother myself I think he should be dealt with accordingly peace77

7:29pm Thu 19 Dec 13

peace77 says...

We live in a society where we find it so easy to judge and criticise yet you all assume that because the girl is on facebook at her age should expect maked pictures from 17 year old boys...the internet whatever site or even apps you go on now hold a danger to us all..walking down the road can even be dangerous but to say the girl or assume the girl has probably seen it all is an assumption from very narrow minded people as we are not all tarred with the same brush..yet again the echo misses out the whole story of the lad in question failing to mention the second case of a younger girl beimg sent them and his sick racial comments and pictures
We live in a society where we find it so easy to judge and criticise yet you all assume that because the girl is on facebook at her age should expect maked pictures from 17 year old boys...the internet whatever site or even apps you go on now hold a danger to us all..walking down the road can even be dangerous but to say the girl or assume the girl has probably seen it all is an assumption from very narrow minded people as we are not all tarred with the same brush..yet again the echo misses out the whole story of the lad in question failing to mention the second case of a younger girl beimg sent them and his sick racial comments and pictures peace77

7:34pm Thu 19 Dec 13

peace77 says...

Also may I add tbe lad was holding the camera himself and had an erect penis..and boasted on his facebook he sent a naked picture of himself to a 12 year old girl..Fact!! So the only one with a brain cell here is the one who said why was he released
Also may I add tbe lad was holding the camera himself and had an erect penis..and boasted on his facebook he sent a naked picture of himself to a 12 year old girl..Fact!! So the only one with a brain cell here is the one who said why was he released peace77

11:35am Fri 20 Dec 13

peace77 says...

Just_Sayin' wrote:
If her mother was as stringent as she suggests her 'innocent & now traumatised' 12 year old would only have 'real' (known to her outside of Facebook) friends on her Facebook account, therefore she would know full well who forwarded this image. And yes, the minimum age is 13. (This is also not news)
She knew who he was idiot doesnt make it any better...if a victim knew their rapist is that ok?
[quote][p][bold]Just_Sayin'[/bold] wrote: If her mother was as stringent as she suggests her 'innocent & now traumatised' 12 year old would only have 'real' (known to her outside of Facebook) friends on her Facebook account, therefore she would know full well who forwarded this image. And yes, the minimum age is 13. (This is also not news)[/p][/quote]She knew who he was idiot doesnt make it any better...if a victim knew their rapist is that ok? peace77

11:35am Fri 20 Dec 13

peace77 says...

Just_Sayin' wrote:
If her mother was as stringent as she suggests her 'innocent & now traumatised' 12 year old would only have 'real' (known to her outside of Facebook) friends on her Facebook account, therefore she would know full well who forwarded this image. And yes, the minimum age is 13. (This is also not news)
She knew who he was idiot doesnt make it any better...if a victim knew their rapist is that ok?
[quote][p][bold]Just_Sayin'[/bold] wrote: If her mother was as stringent as she suggests her 'innocent & now traumatised' 12 year old would only have 'real' (known to her outside of Facebook) friends on her Facebook account, therefore she would know full well who forwarded this image. And yes, the minimum age is 13. (This is also not news)[/p][/quote]She knew who he was idiot doesnt make it any better...if a victim knew their rapist is that ok? peace77

12:23pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Healrightgrandad says...

Minimum age for Facebook is or was 16? So why did she have an account!! Parents need to take more responsibilities! And Children need to understand why things have a age restriction on them and should not abuse it!
Minimum age for Facebook is or was 16? So why did she have an account!! Parents need to take more responsibilities! And Children need to understand why things have a age restriction on them and should not abuse it! Healrightgrandad

4:47pm Fri 20 Dec 13

peace77 says...

Healrightgrandad wrote:
Minimum age for Facebook is or was 16? So why did she have an account!! Parents need to take more responsibilities! And Children need to understand why things have a age restriction on them and should not abuse it!
I understand fully where you are coming from but she paid the ultimate price for it..I can guarantee you there are millions of underage children on facebook. And the boy in question who is 17 and legal to be on it performed an illegal act in my eyes. We are in 2013 and alway blame the victims when infact the whole internet is being abused. You do not know the family personally as I do and I can assure you they are a good hard working family teying there best in life and for them to read these comments is hurtful. We are all human we all makemistakes but it still doesnt make it right for a young mand to send various aroused pictures of himself to any girls of any age even 16 and above
[quote][p][bold]Healrightgrandad[/bold] wrote: Minimum age for Facebook is or was 16? So why did she have an account!! Parents need to take more responsibilities! And Children need to understand why things have a age restriction on them and should not abuse it![/p][/quote]I understand fully where you are coming from but she paid the ultimate price for it..I can guarantee you there are millions of underage children on facebook. And the boy in question who is 17 and legal to be on it performed an illegal act in my eyes. We are in 2013 and alway blame the victims when infact the whole internet is being abused. You do not know the family personally as I do and I can assure you they are a good hard working family teying there best in life and for them to read these comments is hurtful. We are all human we all makemistakes but it still doesnt make it right for a young mand to send various aroused pictures of himself to any girls of any age even 16 and above peace77

4:52pm Fri 20 Dec 13

peace77 says...

peace77 wrote:
Healrightgrandad wrote:
Minimum age for Facebook is or was 16? So why did she have an account!! Parents need to take more responsibilities! And Children need to understand why things have a age restriction on them and should not abuse it!
I understand fully where you are coming from but she paid the ultimate price for it..I can guarantee you there are millions of underage children on facebook. And the boy in question who is 17 and legal to be on it performed an illegal act in my eyes. We are in 2013 and alway blame the victims when infact the whole internet is being abused. You do not know the family personally as I do and I can assure you they are a good hard working family teying there best in life and for them to read these comments is hurtful. We are all human we all makemistakes but it still doesnt make it right for a young mand to send various aroused pictures of himself to any girls of any age even 16 and above
We all know what reporters are like they failed to mention they had seen she had only had facebook for 3 weeks and account was deactivated straight away...she had no photos of herself on there it was a way of her like many to connect with her friends..this certain person crossed a line unfortunately and the only one to suffer was the young girl..not one of you have showed any compassion as a human being instead quick to assume if shes on facebook at this age she deserves it..her mother is bad..she was caught out looking at ****..seriously this is astounding behaviour from adults
[quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Healrightgrandad[/bold] wrote: Minimum age for Facebook is or was 16? So why did she have an account!! Parents need to take more responsibilities! And Children need to understand why things have a age restriction on them and should not abuse it![/p][/quote]I understand fully where you are coming from but she paid the ultimate price for it..I can guarantee you there are millions of underage children on facebook. And the boy in question who is 17 and legal to be on it performed an illegal act in my eyes. We are in 2013 and alway blame the victims when infact the whole internet is being abused. You do not know the family personally as I do and I can assure you they are a good hard working family teying there best in life and for them to read these comments is hurtful. We are all human we all makemistakes but it still doesnt make it right for a young mand to send various aroused pictures of himself to any girls of any age even 16 and above[/p][/quote]We all know what reporters are like they failed to mention they had seen she had only had facebook for 3 weeks and account was deactivated straight away...she had no photos of herself on there it was a way of her like many to connect with her friends..this certain person crossed a line unfortunately and the only one to suffer was the young girl..not one of you have showed any compassion as a human being instead quick to assume if shes on facebook at this age she deserves it..her mother is bad..she was caught out looking at ****..seriously this is astounding behaviour from adults peace77

8:43pm Fri 20 Dec 13

peace77 says...

stevobath wrote:
Dibbles2 wrote:
stevobath wrote:
X Old Bill wrote:
hooplaa wrote:
Wonder why he was released without charge?
Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture?

Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter.

Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.
Most sensible & reasonable comment I've read regarding this pathetic incident.
Maybe the police should be looking into the Mother? She's been complicit in allowing someone underage to open an account. As for being 'traumatised'...when I was at school we watched sexual education films with naked bodies etc. Don't recall anyone being upset. Uncomfortable & red faced laughing at best. Also, most 12 YOlds are bombarded with over sexualised 'musicians & singers' constantly.

Mum, I suggest you've scored an 'own goal'.
So your saying its perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old boy to send a little girl a picture of his or someones else genitalia? Jeez its no wonder Bournemouth is the capital for paedos when people accept this as being the norm.

I'm not defending the mum but at the end of the day the boy if he is indeed guilty should not have sent that to anyone let alone a little girl.
I suggest you look up the figures & stats regarding your claim.

I also suggest you re-read the article.
No one was charged or anything & it might well have been a subscribed to post?
It doesn't mention male or female either. I could go on...
The echo failed yet again to mention the evidence given to them and also the picture..he was aroused hes boasts of raping girls but haha only a joke to him..he believes all muslims are scum and now you all blane the girls mum she called police within 5 miutes of her daughter seeing it..if indeed the mother is as bad as you are all suggesting then I would assume she wouldnt have even called the police
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dibbles2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: Wonder why he was released without charge?[/p][/quote]Maybe, just maybe, the 17 year old person was identified from the picture? Whether or not the picture was 'sexually explicit' and whether it caused shock and devastation are, I would suggest, subjective upon the opinion of the mother and that the reaction is that of the mother rather than the daughter. Perhaps Mum looked over her daughter's shoulder and the girl was 'shocked and devastated' at being caught out.[/p][/quote]Most sensible & reasonable comment I've read regarding this pathetic incident. Maybe the police should be looking into the Mother? She's been complicit in allowing someone underage to open an account. As for being 'traumatised'...when I was at school we watched sexual education films with naked bodies etc. Don't recall anyone being upset. Uncomfortable & red faced laughing at best. Also, most 12 YOlds are bombarded with over sexualised 'musicians & singers' constantly. Mum, I suggest you've scored an 'own goal'.[/p][/quote]So your saying its perfectly acceptable for a 17 year old boy to send a little girl a picture of his or someones else genitalia? Jeez its no wonder Bournemouth is the capital for paedos when people accept this as being the norm. I'm not defending the mum but at the end of the day the boy if he is indeed guilty should not have sent that to anyone let alone a little girl.[/p][/quote]I suggest you look up the figures & stats regarding your claim. I also suggest you re-read the article. No one was charged or anything & it might well have been a subscribed to post? It doesn't mention male or female either. I could go on...[/p][/quote]The echo failed yet again to mention the evidence given to them and also the picture..he was aroused hes boasts of raping girls but haha only a joke to him..he believes all muslims are scum and now you all blane the girls mum she called police within 5 miutes of her daughter seeing it..if indeed the mother is as bad as you are all suggesting then I would assume she wouldnt have even called the police peace77

7:59am Sat 21 Dec 13

peace77 says...

PokesdownMark wrote:
We are seem to be getting so prudish as a society. There are FAR FAR worse things on the Internet than just nudity. Clearly the parent needs to get a clue about the internet's pros and cons.

Suspect this a typical echo 'half a story', at best. Perhaps mum will be along soon with the additional info that may make sense of it?
I agree re nudity lots of pop ups nowadays of busty women looking for fun and also men of course! This was not jist a nude picture it was a of a 17 year of boy holding a camera of nimself infront of a mirror with an erection he also after being arrested sent to another 2 girls. Then going on to boast about it to his friends..he has statuses saying ' I rape 12 year old girls'..extremely racist pictures and also comments from him. This is something the echo had evidence of and also seen the pictures and his facebook comments but chose to leave all that out..blaming the mum and the daughter really is a form of bullying how do you know the girl really wasnt traumatised you dont!! So yet again for the boys behaviour do we blame him mum for not watching over his shoulder at 17 years old???
[quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: We are seem to be getting so prudish as a society. There are FAR FAR worse things on the Internet than just nudity. Clearly the parent needs to get a clue about the internet's pros and cons. Suspect this a typical echo 'half a story', at best. Perhaps mum will be along soon with the additional info that may make sense of it?[/p][/quote]I agree re nudity lots of pop ups nowadays of busty women looking for fun and also men of course! This was not jist a nude picture it was a of a 17 year of boy holding a camera of nimself infront of a mirror with an erection he also after being arrested sent to another 2 girls. Then going on to boast about it to his friends..he has statuses saying ' I rape 12 year old girls'..extremely racist pictures and also comments from him. This is something the echo had evidence of and also seen the pictures and his facebook comments but chose to leave all that out..blaming the mum and the daughter really is a form of bullying how do you know the girl really wasnt traumatised you dont!! So yet again for the boys behaviour do we blame him mum for not watching over his shoulder at 17 years old??? peace77

12:32pm Sat 21 Dec 13

roguetrader666 says...

What makes you think that the 17 year old was male?
What makes you think that the 17 year old was male? roguetrader666

2:20pm Sat 21 Dec 13

peace77 says...

roguetrader666 wrote:
What makes you think that the 17 year old was male?
Id say the fact he had an erect penis in the self picture of himself slightly givesit away..I know the family well and the echo missed lots out
[quote][p][bold]roguetrader666[/bold] wrote: What makes you think that the 17 year old was male?[/p][/quote]Id say the fact he had an erect penis in the self picture of himself slightly givesit away..I know the family well and the echo missed lots out peace77

6:35pm Sat 21 Dec 13

baylin says...

for gods sake what is a twelve year old doing an adults site.
for gods sake what is a twelve year old doing an adults site. baylin

10:04pm Sat 21 Dec 13

peace77 says...

baylin wrote:
for gods sake what is a twelve year old doing an adults site.
Oh thats right as when she is legal to go on facebook at 13 that makes her an adult..I take it your a child for making such a stupid heard it all before comment...YAWN!!
[quote][p][bold]baylin[/bold] wrote: for gods sake what is a twelve year old doing an adults site.[/p][/quote]Oh thats right as when she is legal to go on facebook at 13 that makes her an adult..I take it your a child for making such a stupid heard it all before comment...YAWN!! peace77

10:04pm Sat 21 Dec 13

peace77 says...

baylin wrote:
for gods sake what is a twelve year old doing an adults site.
Oh thats right as when she is legal to go on facebook at 13 that makes her an adult..I take it your a child for making such a stupid heard it all before comment...YAWN!!
[quote][p][bold]baylin[/bold] wrote: for gods sake what is a twelve year old doing an adults site.[/p][/quote]Oh thats right as when she is legal to go on facebook at 13 that makes her an adult..I take it your a child for making such a stupid heard it all before comment...YAWN!! peace77

10:31am Mon 23 Dec 13

Healrightgrandad says...

peace77 wrote:
peace77 wrote:
Healrightgrandad wrote:
Minimum age for Facebook is or was 16? So why did she have an account!! Parents need to take more responsibilities! And Children need to understand why things have a age restriction on them and should not abuse it!
I understand fully where you are coming from but she paid the ultimate price for it..I can guarantee you there are millions of underage children on facebook. And the boy in question who is 17 and legal to be on it performed an illegal act in my eyes. We are in 2013 and alway blame the victims when infact the whole internet is being abused. You do not know the family personally as I do and I can assure you they are a good hard working family teying there best in life and for them to read these comments is hurtful. We are all human we all makemistakes but it still doesnt make it right for a young mand to send various aroused pictures of himself to any girls of any age even 16 and above
We all know what reporters are like they failed to mention they had seen she had only had facebook for 3 weeks and account was deactivated straight away...she had no photos of herself on there it was a way of her like many to connect with her friends..this certain person crossed a line unfortunately and the only one to suffer was the young girl..not one of you have showed any compassion as a human being instead quick to assume if shes on facebook at this age she deserves it..her mother is bad..she was caught out looking at ****..seriously this is astounding behaviour from adults
Yeah I get where you are coming from as well. The problem is there is a lot of messed up people out there and in my eyes it is getting worse! I hope the family are ok and the little girl gets all the support she need!
[quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Healrightgrandad[/bold] wrote: Minimum age for Facebook is or was 16? So why did she have an account!! Parents need to take more responsibilities! And Children need to understand why things have a age restriction on them and should not abuse it![/p][/quote]I understand fully where you are coming from but she paid the ultimate price for it..I can guarantee you there are millions of underage children on facebook. And the boy in question who is 17 and legal to be on it performed an illegal act in my eyes. We are in 2013 and alway blame the victims when infact the whole internet is being abused. You do not know the family personally as I do and I can assure you they are a good hard working family teying there best in life and for them to read these comments is hurtful. We are all human we all makemistakes but it still doesnt make it right for a young mand to send various aroused pictures of himself to any girls of any age even 16 and above[/p][/quote]We all know what reporters are like they failed to mention they had seen she had only had facebook for 3 weeks and account was deactivated straight away...she had no photos of herself on there it was a way of her like many to connect with her friends..this certain person crossed a line unfortunately and the only one to suffer was the young girl..not one of you have showed any compassion as a human being instead quick to assume if shes on facebook at this age she deserves it..her mother is bad..she was caught out looking at ****..seriously this is astounding behaviour from adults[/p][/quote]Yeah I get where you are coming from as well. The problem is there is a lot of messed up people out there and in my eyes it is getting worse! I hope the family are ok and the little girl gets all the support she need! Healrightgrandad

10:35am Mon 23 Dec 13

peace77 says...

At the end of the day were all human with hearts and feelings..all make mistakes and all hopefully learn from them. Yes agrees she should not have been on facebook and agreed the boy who also is in the wrong its a no win situation...the girls account was deactivated straight away..the boy went on topost another pic of himself aroused to another very young girl..I end that here..merry christmas to you all x
At the end of the day were all human with hearts and feelings..all make mistakes and all hopefully learn from them. Yes agrees she should not have been on facebook and agreed the boy who also is in the wrong its a no win situation...the girls account was deactivated straight away..the boy went on topost another pic of himself aroused to another very young girl..I end that here..merry christmas to you all x peace77

10:47am Mon 23 Dec 13

peace77 says...

Healrightgrandad wrote:
peace77 wrote:
peace77 wrote:
Healrightgrandad wrote:
Minimum age for Facebook is or was 16? So why did she have an account!! Parents need to take more responsibilities! And Children need to understand why things have a age restriction on them and should not abuse it!
I understand fully where you are coming from but she paid the ultimate price for it..I can guarantee you there are millions of underage children on facebook. And the boy in question who is 17 and legal to be on it performed an illegal act in my eyes. We are in 2013 and alway blame the victims when infact the whole internet is being abused. You do not know the family personally as I do and I can assure you they are a good hard working family teying there best in life and for them to read these comments is hurtful. We are all human we all makemistakes but it still doesnt make it right for a young mand to send various aroused pictures of himself to any girls of any age even 16 and above
We all know what reporters are like they failed to mention they had seen she had only had facebook for 3 weeks and account was deactivated straight away...she had no photos of herself on there it was a way of her like many to connect with her friends..this certain person crossed a line unfortunately and the only one to suffer was the young girl..not one of you have showed any compassion as a human being instead quick to assume if shes on facebook at this age she deserves it..her mother is bad..she was caught out looking at ****..seriously this is astounding behaviour from adults
Yeah I get where you are coming from as well. The problem is there is a lot of messed up people out there and in my eyes it is getting worse! I hope the family are ok and the little girl gets all the support she need!
Thankyou means alot to them x if it was jist a nide pic then so be it still not nice but a pic of himself and aroused crossed a line..x merry christmas to you
[quote][p][bold]Healrightgrandad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Healrightgrandad[/bold] wrote: Minimum age for Facebook is or was 16? So why did she have an account!! Parents need to take more responsibilities! And Children need to understand why things have a age restriction on them and should not abuse it![/p][/quote]I understand fully where you are coming from but she paid the ultimate price for it..I can guarantee you there are millions of underage children on facebook. And the boy in question who is 17 and legal to be on it performed an illegal act in my eyes. We are in 2013 and alway blame the victims when infact the whole internet is being abused. You do not know the family personally as I do and I can assure you they are a good hard working family teying there best in life and for them to read these comments is hurtful. We are all human we all makemistakes but it still doesnt make it right for a young mand to send various aroused pictures of himself to any girls of any age even 16 and above[/p][/quote]We all know what reporters are like they failed to mention they had seen she had only had facebook for 3 weeks and account was deactivated straight away...she had no photos of herself on there it was a way of her like many to connect with her friends..this certain person crossed a line unfortunately and the only one to suffer was the young girl..not one of you have showed any compassion as a human being instead quick to assume if shes on facebook at this age she deserves it..her mother is bad..she was caught out looking at ****..seriously this is astounding behaviour from adults[/p][/quote]Yeah I get where you are coming from as well. The problem is there is a lot of messed up people out there and in my eyes it is getting worse! I hope the family are ok and the little girl gets all the support she need![/p][/quote]Thankyou means alot to them x if it was jist a nide pic then so be it still not nice but a pic of himself and aroused crossed a line..x merry christmas to you peace77

10:51am Tue 24 Dec 13

Dorset Logic says...

Fact!
Fact! Dorset Logic

9:10pm Wed 25 Dec 13

Rustyfootballer says...

this article is full of parent lies. BTW kids are sending a lot of photos of themselves to each other these days. Snapchat etc, its a fast changing world and so is youth behaviour.
this article is full of parent lies. BTW kids are sending a lot of photos of themselves to each other these days. Snapchat etc, its a fast changing world and so is youth behaviour. Rustyfootballer

11:03pm Wed 25 Dec 13

peace77 says...

Rustyfootballer wrote:
this article is full of parent lies. BTW kids are sending a lot of photos of themselves to each other these days. Snapchat etc, its a fast changing world and so is youth behaviour.
How do you know if its lies? Dont assume obviously some relation to the lad as if my 17/18 year old son sent a young girl of any age regardless of whether or not she should be on facebook I as a parent would have sent some appologies to the girl as a mother and spoke to my son and explain that you cannot send pictures of yourself aroused to young girls..I have the proof if anyone wants it..and yes snapchap etc is all fun etc and not a place where people send aroused pictures of themselves there are seperate sites for that..
[quote][p][bold]Rustyfootballer[/bold] wrote: this article is full of parent lies. BTW kids are sending a lot of photos of themselves to each other these days. Snapchat etc, its a fast changing world and so is youth behaviour.[/p][/quote]How do you know if its lies? Dont assume obviously some relation to the lad as if my 17/18 year old son sent a young girl of any age regardless of whether or not she should be on facebook I as a parent would have sent some appologies to the girl as a mother and spoke to my son and explain that you cannot send pictures of yourself aroused to young girls..I have the proof if anyone wants it..and yes snapchap etc is all fun etc and not a place where people send aroused pictures of themselves there are seperate sites for that.. peace77

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree