Victim blaming and online safety

November 30th, 2013 at 11:00 am by Jadis

Another day of victim blaming:

A blackmaiiler who threatened to publish intimate photos of girls he befriended online says he accepts “90 per cent” of the blame – but says his 11-year-old victim should not have been on .

“What’s an 11-year-old doing on Facebook when you have to be 13 to be on Facebook?” Brandyn Alan Stewart, 21, said yesterday.

He said he was not blaming the girls but added: “I take 90 per cent of the responsibility, but it takes two as well.”

This was not the first time this creep had been caught doing this and just shows that there are some nasty, predatory people online.

An interesting point to note for parents:

Stewart had posed as a 16-year-old on a Facebook page he created on January 7. By February he had 426 friends – all of them young females.

Putting aside the access age to Facebook (13), where is  the parental supervision?  Many of these girls are minors.  Parents need to take an active interest in their children’s online presence and talk about whether it is a good idea to ‘friend’ people previously unknown to them online.  Check out this video, it is a very powerful demonstration of how our children don’t see online strangers as ‘stranger danger’

Tags: , ,

25 Responses to “Victim blaming and online safety”

  1. Changeiscoming (189 comments) says:

    We will make a Conservative out of you yet Jadis.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. duggledog (1,556 comments) says:

    That he should have a name like ‘Brandyn’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Interesting thing, if someone says that they are 15 on line, how are you to know any different ? I could possibly give him some benefit of doubt on the age, but his actions, asking for compromising photos then attempting blackmail, take it all back. Sleaseball doesn’t even begin to describe it.

    Sadly there’s probably no easy way to stop silly people giving complete strangers (and the whole who is this person really anyway applies) compromising photos. It can only help to show what can happen, but I doubt that some will ever learn. Foolishness is infinite.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kea (12,839 comments) says:

    Why were the accusers giving out “intimate” photos on the World Wide Web and expecting them to be confidential ?

    Are they retarded as well ?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Kea (12,839 comments) says:

    Putting aside the access age to Facebook (13), where is the parental supervision? Many of these girls are minors.

    1. No lets not put it aside. Others are not responsible for them breaking the rules.

    2. Maybe the parents were too busy on KB blaming others for their girls behaviour.

    3. They are not minors, they are legally children. The rape allegation victims in the roast busters case were minors.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wikiriwhis business (3,998 comments) says:

    ‘We will make a Conservative out of you yet Jadis.’

    surely she knows there’s no such thing now

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Keeping Stock (10,339 comments) says:

    I’ve also blogged on this. Not only does Brandyn Stewart have form for similar offending, but he admits that he pleaded guilty so as to avoid a trip to the Big House.

    I’m not prepared to cut Stewart any slack. His victims may have been impressionable, gullible or even stupid, but Stewart is the only sexual predator involved in this case. He is completely responsible.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Kea (12,839 comments) says:

    My daughter is showing her tits on the internet. It is a mans fault. He is immoral !

    http://hotselfshotsandmore.tumblr.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. MT_Tinman (3,186 comments) says:

    Kea you are wrong simply because you ascribe adult responsibilities to children.

    Children make mistakes and must be allowed to do so. As parents we can only hope they survive those mistakes while giving all the support those children will accept.

    This scumbag is preying on the fact of those mistakes, helping them make them.

    Of course there is one way to mitigate scum like this and that, quite simply, is to stop giving in to the god-botherers absolute horror of the bodies their god made for them and accept nudity as a norm.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    So, there is a difference between an 11 year old, and a 13 year old, that makes sexual advances from a much older man, acceptable?

    Depending on the physical attributes of the 11 year old (or the 13 year old) he sounds very much like a pedophile (sexually attracted to the immature form) or a sexual predator (unable to satisfy himself by the usual methods, resorts to vulnerable targets) – either way, he is a creep.

    Whilst I accept that the internet is a minefield for parents and young people, and that it is the parent’s responsibility to ensure their children cannot access sites where they are exposed to such predators, it is also extremely difficult to police, when young people can gain access through their cell phones etc.

    Which raises the issue – whose responsibility is it to protect immature and vulnerable people? How far should legislation go to protect, at a risk of denying ‘normal’ well adjusted people their simple pleasures?

    Personally, I believe it is nigh on impossible to protect your children from such people because you cannot be with them all the time, and peer pressure etc takes over. What is needed is a program, that supports the parents, is reinforced in schools (through the PE/human development criteria) that allows children to recognise such behaviour and deal with it in appropriate ways, so has to ensure their safety.

    From experience it is the child that has little confidence in themselves that falls prey to these creeps. Lock the bastards up by all means, but for everyone we lock up, there are more lurking in the shadows – a two pronged approach is required. Prevention as well as retribution.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kea (9,066) Says:
    November 30th, 2013 at 11:30 am

    At 13 years of age they are still minors.

    An 11 year old, can be just as sexually developed as some 13 year olds. Between 10-16, there can be very little difference in physical maturity.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kea (12,839 comments) says:

    Judith @ 1:18 pm

    You seem to have changed your tune since pillorising the two school boys in the roast busters case. Keep thinking and you may begin to see my point.

    “Of course there is one way to mitigate scum like this and that, quite simply, is to stop giving in to the god-botherers absolute horror of the bodies their god made for them and accept nudity as a norm.”

    MT_Tinman, yes you have a point. I have to laugh when a man tries to pretend he finds the sight of a naked woman “offensive” and has the cheek to turn around and call others sexually deviant.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (13,767 comments) says:

    Many people have abdicated their parental responsibilities. An anything-goes, free-for-all approach is prevalent in many households.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kea (12,839 comments) says:

    Manolo, it is not the parents responsibility to stop their kids posting nude photos on the net. It is someone elses.

    BTW, our age of consent is arbitrary and is much higher than in many other places. And no, I am not talking about the third world. I am referring to developed countries more advanced and prosperous than ourselves. The average is around 14.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

    In our idiot culture, that blindly follows the USA, we assume anyone under 18 is a child, because the Americans said so. So what is legal in most of world becomes “kiddy porn” when watched in countries that ape the US. This is the WORLD Wide Web and what the US thinks is irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. wreck1080 (3,912 comments) says:

    An 11 year old can certainly not be at fault at all.

    This guy deludes himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kea (12,839 comments) says:

    wreck1080 , the guy is a sexo.

    But that is not going to stop girls posting nude photos on the world wide web.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kea (9,073) Says:
    November 30th, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    No, I haven’t changed my tune. I have always claimed that adolescents, and in fact even young children need to be aware of the creeps in society who will befriend them solely for sexual gratification.

    However, there is a vast difference between a stranger on the internet, and people who are known to you, and within the same social group. When mixing with people who we know, we drop our guard and are less alert to people like the Roast Busters. This is why they use the MO that they do – because they know that in other situations, where their victims are complete strangers to them, they wouldn’t have much luck. It is the preying on young victims within their social group that makes the Roast Busters even more insidious because there is an element of trust that is breached.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kea (12,839 comments) says:

    Judith, no you are side stepping my point and invoking special-pleading for the Roast Busters.

    They are a couple of stupid school kids. On one hand you say kids must be protected as they are vulnerable. But suddenly you make an exception and want to hold them to adult standards of behaviour.

    Reading your second paragraph I could be forgiven for thinking you would consider it less of a crime if they grabbed some girl off the street, who is not part of their social group, and raped her without pretense. Because that is the logical conclusion of your point. It would be less “insidious” according to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Steve (North Shore) (4,561 comments) says:

    Thanks for the vid clip link Jadis. Kids just don’t comprehend how dangerous it is until it’s too late.
    Time to have another chat to my grandkids; 9, 11, and 13. I have before but this reinforces the need for another reminder. I don’t want to restrict them, just make them more aware

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kea 3.33 pm

    You are deliberately twisting, or being selective.

    The example was regarding the victims willingness to mix socially with people that existed within their social group, in doing so have an element of trust, that might not be apparent if they were, for example, approached by a stranger.

    In our social interactions we relax and are less vigilant among those we know, or of whom we are familiar with. That is what I find insidious about the RB’s, over and above their suggested crimes. They used that social standard as a tool. They used their familiarity in attending the same schools etc, to allow their victims to be more at ease with them, therefore perhaps not realising until it was too late what the intentions were (supposition there, as we do not really know – yet).

    Facebook is dangerous because it provides the means to create a similar ‘trust’ situation. The person maybe ‘friended’ by other friends, and therefore the immature person (using normal social cues) is less vigilant, and believes that person is more acceptable, and a ‘friend’. Predators and pedophiles use the guise of friendship, and the corresponding lack of vigilance to their benefit.

    Most kids know to be wary of strangers, it is the ‘strange friend’, they are less wary of, which is how they get trapped.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kea (12,839 comments) says:

    Judith, no I was not twisting anything and it is you who is being selective. The victims, of a rape accusation ( in the Roast Busters case) were a couple of school children. Yet you were quite happy to demand they behave like adults in that context. We even had Farrar calling them “men”. At that age they are still considered minors. Or are you now suggesting boys mature faster than girls ? We all know it is actually the other way around. In that case the drunken party girls were at least as mature as the school boys they hung out with.

    Your point about social groups is self evident, but I am not talking about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Mobile Michael (451 comments) says:

    There is no blame here for the girls or their families. The sole blame rests with Stewart.

    It’s sad that parents feel the need to monitor what kids are doing online – but that’s because of sickos like Stewart only.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kea (12,839 comments) says:

    MM, so you are cool with young girls posting nude pics on the net, just as long as the audience does not contain “sickos”. Wow !

    Personally I would prefer my daughter not to post naked sex pictures on the net, but that is just my opinion. Maybe I just need to relax a bit ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. HB (321 comments) says:

    the parents may not have even known the girl had a facebook profile.
    It is easy enough to create on a friends computer. You can even post status updates and check notifications for free from your cell phone. There are plenty of apps. that let you access facebook for free with your phone – a friends phone if you don’t have one of your own.
    If a child was determined it is relatively easy to access facebook without them knowing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    One of the issues here is the fact that this young man has been driven by a life of drugs.

    Yep that’s right. Apparently some turkeys have decided that he sufferers from ADHD and so have filled him full of Ritalin, a pernicious drug that exacerbates the real problem and masks the symptoms.

    That is his diet and food intakes. too much sugar ad so on.

    Had he not been subject to Ritalin but subject to a better diet and some food controls he perhaps would not have behaved this way.
    Now I don’t expect many to agree but I have seen this so often.

    Fix the food and fix the person.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote