Picture courtesy of EPA Media via BBC

 

A British man has become the first individual jailed under the Online Safety Act for encouraging self-harm. Karl Davies, 42, from Wirral, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for grooming and sexually abusing a schoolgirl, while also urging her to harm herself. The Manchester Crown Court heard that Davies displayed a "monstrous sense of sexual entitlement," causing devastation to his young victim.

 

Davies initiated contact with the 13-year-old via Snapchat in June 2023, compelling her to send indecent content over a year. Using multiple aliases, he arranged meetings in his car where he abused her, further coercing her to self-harm and record it. Despite his guilty plea to 17 charges, he denied being attracted to children, the court noted.

 

Davies’s conviction marks the first under Section 184 of the Online Safety Act 2023, which mandates online platforms to enforce age checks and prevent children from accessing harmful content. His arrest followed the girl's disclosure to her stepmother and the discovery of incriminating video evidence on her phone.

 

According to the prosecution, Davies manipulated the victim using deceit, portraying several identities to establish control and elicit compliance. The aliases he created grew increasingly threatening, and he even met the victim in person disguising himself as “Mark” for further abuse.

 

Key Takeaways:

 

• Karl Davies is the first to be jailed for encouraging self-harm under the Online Safety Act.
• He received a 20-year sentence, guilty of grooming, abuse, and coercing self-harm.
• Online platforms face requirements to protect children under this act.
   

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-10-21

 

 

20 years is too much.

 

6 minutes ago, FlorC said:

20 years is too much.

 

You jest of course. I'm sure other inmates will make his sentence seem like 40 years though.

                So a depraved pedo gets caught and prosecuted    Heralding the start of Starmers     "brand new law"  and thus celebrates its success and confirms how essential it is.   I don't understand why a brand new law had to be introduced for this pervert to be prosecuted, 

                The law is supposed to place requirements and responsibilities on on line platforms so why have no charges been made against any online platform in this flagship opening case?

This seems to be an attempt to support/justify the online safety act.

 

You don't need an online safety act to convict a nonce like this of sexually abusing kids. It's a saying you need a new automobile safety act because he abused her in his car. The existing laws covered this crime, the BBC saying "look what the online safety act allowed us to do" is a pathetic attempt to defend this intrusive and un-necessary policy from the BBC's ever increasingly authoritarian Labour government.

 

Hopefully this nonce gets the same treatment as Ian Watkins. Who, by the way was convicted without an online safety act.

 

Just now, JonnyF said:

This seems to be an attempt to support/justify the online safety act.

 

You don't need an online safety act to convict a nonce like this of sexually abusing kids. It's a saying you need a new automobile safety act because he abused her in his car. The existing laws covered this crime, the BBC saying "look what the online safety act allowed us to do" is a pathetic attempt to defend this intrusive and un-necessary policy from the BBC's ever increasingly authoritarian Labour government.

 

Hopefully this nonce gets the same treatment as Ian Watkins. Who, by the way was convicted without an online safety act.

 

Did the existing laws cover this perverts crimes?

 

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Did the existing laws cover this perverts crimes?

 

 

 

Yes.

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

Yes.

Then you’ll have no problems demonstrating with reference to the specific laws applicable to each of the crimes for which he is convicted.

 

In order to substantiate your claim.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Then you’ll have no problems demonstrating with reference to the specific laws applicable to each of the crimes for which he is convicted.

 

In order to substantiate your claim.

 

I could, if I wanted to waste my time with you. 

 

Sexually abusing kids was illegal before the online safety bill. Even when crimes are done over platforms like Skype. 

 

Refer to the Ian Watkins case for an example. 

12 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

                So a depraved pedo gets caught and prosecuted    Heralding the start of Starmers     "brand new law"  and thus celebrates its success and confirms how essential it is.   I don't understand why a brand new law had to be introduced for this pervert to be prosecuted, 

                The law is supposed to place requirements and responsibilities on on line platforms so why have no charges been made against any online platform in this flagship opening case?

The Online Safety Act was passed into law on October 26 2023.

 

Not by Starmer or the Labour Government.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

I could, if I wanted to waste my time with you. 

 

Sexually abusing kids was illegal before the online safety bill. Even when crimes are done over platforms like Skype. 

 

Refer to the Ian Watkins case for an example. 

But his crimes were much wider than sexual abuse.

Clearly this law has been used to deal with a very dangerous pervert.

 

A good result.

 

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But his crimes were much wider than sexual abuse.

Clearly this law has been used to deal with a very dangerous pervert.

 

A good result.

 

 

All covered by existing grooming/sexual abuse laws.

 

He would have been convicted of the same crimes with the same sentence before this "online safety" act came into play. Just as Watkins was. 

 

And you know it. 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

This seems to be an attempt to support/justify the online safety act.

exactly Time will tell if this legislation is open to misuse or not,  Just like the terrorism laws  when used in a pathetic attempt to get Tommy Robinsons phone. 

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

All covered by existing grooming/sexual abuse laws.

 

He would have been convicted of the same crimes with the same sentence before this "online safety" act came into play. Just as Watkins was. 

 

And you know it. 

Or so you tell us.

 

I wonder what it is about the Online Safety Act that bothers you so much?:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer#what-does-the-online-safety-act-do

 

 

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

exactly Time will tell if this legislation is open to misuse or not,  Just like the terrorism laws  when used in a pathetic attempt to get Tommy Robinsons phone. 

I suspect, given Yaxley Lennon’s social circle, that the Online Safety Act might also apply.

 

There’s certainly something on his phone he’d rather risk prison than reveal.

 

 

On 10/21/2025 at 10:03 AM, webfact said:

Picture courtesy of EPA Media via BBC

 

A British man has become the first individual jailed under the Online Safety Act for encouraging self-harm. Karl Davies, 42, from Wirral, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for grooming and sexually abusing a schoolgirl, while also urging her to harm herself. The Manchester Crown Court heard that Davies displayed a "monstrous sense of sexual entitlement," causing devastation to his young victim.

 

Davies initiated contact with the 13-year-old via Snapchat in June 2023, compelling her to send indecent content over a year. Using multiple aliases, he arranged meetings in his car where he abused her, further coercing her to self-harm and record it. Despite his guilty plea to 17 charges, he denied being attracted to children, the court noted.

 

Davies’s conviction marks the first under Section 184 of the Online Safety Act 2023, which mandates online platforms to enforce age checks and prevent children from accessing harmful content. His arrest followed the girl's disclosure to her stepmother and the discovery of incriminating video evidence on her phone.

 

According to the prosecution, Davies manipulated the victim using deceit, portraying several identities to establish control and elicit compliance. The aliases he created grew increasingly threatening, and he even met the victim in person disguising himself as “Mark” for further abuse.

 

Key Takeaways:

 

• Karl Davies is the first to be jailed for encouraging self-harm under the Online Safety Act.
• He received a 20-year sentence, guilty of grooming, abuse, and coercing self-harm.
• Online platforms face requirements to protect children under this act.
   

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-10-21

 

 

I have to say respect where it is due, it is great to see Yaxley-Lennon tweeting about this scum bag that it is great he has been taken off the streets and that our girls are being protected. After all that is what drives him, protecting the children.

Oh wait, no he hasn't said anything, he is gallivanting around Israel and posting his usual guff about immigrants. He doesn't give a flying fig about the children, probably hasn't even noticed this case. But if this guy had been called Ishmail he would be shouting his fat gob off, absolutely no doubt at all.

9 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

I have to say respect where it is due, it is great to see Yaxley-Lennon tweeting about this scum bag that it is great he has been taken off the streets and that our girls are being protected. After all that is what drives him, protecting the children.

Oh wait, no he hasn't said anything, he is gallivanting around Israel and posting his usual guff about immigrants. He doesn't give a flying fig about the children, probably hasn't even noticed this case. But if this guy had been called Ishmail he would be shouting his fat gob off, absolutely no doubt at all.

Ain’t that the truth!

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or so you tell us.

 

I wonder what it is about the Online Safety Act that bothers you so much?:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer#what-does-the-online-safety-act-do

 

 

Probably nothing, except that the convict is a white male.

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or so you tell us.

 

Of course sexual abuse of children was illegal before the "online safety" act.

 

To claim otherwise is ridiculous even by your standards. 

 

"Saving the kids" was just a pathetic attempt to justify this piece of privacy invading, censorious legislation. Hence the BBC's article when someone was convicted of sexual abuse of a child, something that was very clearly already illegal before the act. 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

exactly Time will tell if this legislation is open to misuse or not,  Just like the terrorism laws  when used in a pathetic attempt to get Tommy Robinsons phone. 

 

It is definitely open to misuse. It is designed to limit free speech under the guise of "false communication". that's why the lefties love it so much. 

 

They'll be crying like the American Libs under Trump when someone turns the tables and uses it on them. 

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Probably nothing, except that the convict is a white male.

 

Unlike you I am not obsessed with identity politics. 

 

A nonce is a nonce. 

 

This nonce would have been convicted under existing laws. 

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Unlike you I am not obsessed with identity politics. 

 

LOL, thanks for the laugh.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Online Safety Act was passed into law on October 26 2023.

 

Not by Starmer or the Labour Government.

 

So vital then that it required 2 years to convict someone "under it". 

 

A conviction that would have been secured under existing laws. 

Just now, stevenl said:

LOL, thanks for the laugh.

 

Who brought the race/sex of the offender into the conversation? Oh, that would be you. 😄

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Who brought the race/sex of the offender into the conversation? Oh, that would be you. 😄

Yes, and we know exactly why you didn't.

Of course this pedo committed sexual abuse, which was clearly a crime before this new law came in. It's the add-on of encouraging self-harm - was that covered under a previous law?

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Yes, and we know exactly why you didn't.

 

Yes, because I already stated why. 😄

 

A nonce is a nonce. Nothing to do with race. 

 

Just like this conviction was nothing to do with the online safety bill.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Did the existing laws cover this perverts crimes?

 

 

yes some offences where committed in face to face meetings

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Of course sexual abuse of children was illegal before the "online safety" act.

 

To claim otherwise is ridiculous even by your standards. 

 

"Saving the kids" was just a pathetic attempt to justify this piece of privacy invading, censorious legislation. Hence the BBC's article when someone was convicted of sexual abuse of a child, something that was very clearly already illegal before the act. 

 

 

“Of course sexual abuse of children was illegal before the "online safety" act.

To claim otherwise is ridiculous even by your standards. “

 

Jonny’s strawman is out and about again.

 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But his crimes were much wider than sexual abuse.

Clearly this law has been used to deal with a very dangerous pervert.

 

A good result.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“Of course sexual abuse of children was illegal before the "online safety" act.

To claim otherwise is ridiculous even by your standards. “

 

Jonny’s strawman is out and about again.

 

 

 

If you think the fact he used SnapChat was the real issue in this case, you might want to check your moral compass.