I think you may be confusing the scientific and rhetorical meanings of hypothetical and fact. Rhetorically, facts can be fabricated to illustrate an argument, creating what is known as a “hypothetical situation”.
Falsifiability, in science, comes about from a similar, but not identical, process. A scientist creates a “hypothetical situation” using observable data and some proposed conditions for interconnecting that data. Then comes the process of seeing if the necessary conditions are met. If they aren’t, the hypothesis has been falsified. If they are, the hypothesis is affirmed.
Rhetorically, though, there doesn’t need to be any real-world basis for the observable data since a rhetorical hypothesis is not called upon to be falsifiable. However, it’s useful to view the details of a hypothetical situation as factual, even though they are fictions created to illustrate a point.
With that in mind, if one member of a discussion creates such a hypothetical situation, it’s generally bad form to ignore the conditions of the fictional situation. If it’s clearly stated that “Bob is not a child molestor. There is zero chance of child molestation.” it simply won’t do to go “But he’s trying to meet these children and likes boy bands… this clearly shows there’s a chance that he may try to molest them” There isn’t any chance. That’s one of the conditions of the hypothetical situation, as presented… the “facts” as it were.
So, what are your friends, neighbours, and employer going to do during these court proceedings? Reserve judgement until the state renders its opinion?
In all probability, no one will be charged with “internet grooming” in isolation, if at all. It’s just a run around to criminalize a type of behaviour to acquire ground to apply for a search warrant to go on a fishing expedition legally. In which case Bob gets his life peered into by the police, never gets charged with anything, and doesn’t have his life destroyed by false accusations… and Earl gets caught before he harms anyone.
However, this outcome, though beneficial for Bob, is an abuse of law. I really can’t see how this law, used properly, serves any net good.
1010011010 - my point was that there’s no need to discuss hypothetical situations of ‘internet grooming’ when real ones exist. Here’s two; you can search for others:
As most of you have realised, 1010011010 is being hysterical (in the unfunny sense). But not quite in the way that you think.
It is not entirely true that ‘grooming’ exists as a specific offence under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, although concerns about it were clearly the context for some of its provisions and HMQ was happy to give the impression that it had been outlawed.
What the Act did do was to create or clarify a number of related offences. The only point at which the term ‘grooming’ is actually used in the Act is when making it a offence to meet or travel to meet a child with the intention of committing a relevant offence. (Which offences are ‘relevant’ is laid out in loving detail in one of the Schedules.) This was introduced as a direct response to the concerns about grooming. Some of the other provisions, such as inciting a child to engage in sexual activity or the introduction of risk of sexual harms orders, are ones which could well be used against an Internet groomer and are none the worse for that. We’re not talking about innocent chats about boy bands.
I’m not talking about a hypothetical case of internet grooming. I’m talking about a hypothetical case that is not internet grooming. The fact that some posters haven’t caught on to this fact illustrates the point I’m trying to make. I can explicitly state “This guy has no interest in child molestation.” and people still confuse the issue. The police will have no such helpful hints… and I’m not a big fan of someone being classed as a sex offender for the rest of their life (with all the great public registration, posted notices, etc. etc.) for a crime they find abhorrent, but find themselves guilty of because the law lacks the ability to make the distinction.
…and in any case, neither of your characters Bob and Earl have shown any indication, interest or intent of a sexual nature. The police aren’t going to arrest someone, let alone prosecute, because of ‘suspicious parents’.
The only thing lacking is your ability to grasp that UK law does make that distinction.
That is why ‘grooming’ per se is not an offence. The concept was considered too vague. Instead, the Sexual Offences Act legislated against certain precisely defined categories of activities that might or might not be associated with the practice. In essence, all the relevant sections do is make it illegal to engage in sexual activity with a child or to act with the intention of engaging in sexual activity with a child. In cases where the charge is that the defendant acted with the intention of engaging in sexual activity, that intention must be proved. In exactly the same way that any other charge in a criminal case involving intent must be proved.
The Act makes no mention at all of the Internet. It didn’t need to, as the general principles it sets out are equally applicable, whether specific offences are committed online or not.
The repurcussions of being wrongfully convicted of child molestation or other related charge are much more severe than most other wrongful convictions. Being wrongfully placed on sexual offender lists for the rest of your life as well as being on the very bottom wrung of the correctional facilities ladder being the two biggies there.