4 ms·

Ok, you are suggesting what I said was false, so I am researching sources: == UK Search for “New NPCC consent form”. Since 2020, seizing texts can only happen

Ok, you are suggesting what I said was false, so I am researching sources: == UK Search for “New NPCC consent form”. Since 2020, seizing texts can only happen with the complainant’s consent, and the form highlights that there should be no repercussion if consent is not given. Therefore, it doesn’t alleviate the main criticism of false accusations: The ability for the accused to prove his innocence. Link to the consent guidance: https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/download/a9b9b561b88b45c78772fb7fb59753ad https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/download/a9b9b561b88b45c78772fb... == Other countries I didn’t immediately find proof (searched Australia, US and Canada) but the general narrative that having her phone searched is a trauma for the victim, and therefore her phone should only be searched with her consent.

aaomidi 5y ago
> Ok, you are suggesting what I said was false, so I am researching sources: Not really, just before jumping to FUD it's good to take a step back and research. > Search for “New NPCC consent form”. Since 2020, seizing texts can only happen with the complainant’s consent, and the form highlights that there should be no repercussion if consent is not given. Therefore, it doesn’t alleviate the main criticism of false accusations: The ability for the accused to prove his innocence. Right, so if you're the defendant you can provide your own evidence because its YOUR content. Obviously there should be consent involved if you as the defendant say "go search the complaint's device"