Nwicker60
19-Mar-14, 17:06
Graphic images included in posts by accused, court is told
A MAN who admitted posting indecent messages on the Facebook pages of girls as young as ten did it because he was bored.
Graphic images of male genitals accounted for two of the four inappropriate message sent by David Macleod, 21, Wick Sheriff Court heard today.
The four indecent messages, the other two of which were written, were posted between December 2012 and July 2013.
The court heard that the situation came to light following discovery of the messages by parents of the children who had received them.
David Barclay, prosecuting, said that in one case by a parent was checking what her daughter was receiving. On another occasion, a girl asked her mother how to delete items on her Facebook page and the parent decided to investigate the reason for the request.
Mr Barclay said: “The number of separate discoveries by parents produced various strands in the case which were linked together.”
The senior fiscal depute said that the various girls had made it clear in their responses what their ages were. They were aware that Macleod was “an older person".
One of the graphic images was clearly “indecent and inappropriate” and unwelcome by the person who received it. He told police that he had sent the messages at random, because he was bored.
The case was continued until April 16 for a background report. Macleod, of 14 Portormin Road, Dunbeath, will meantime have his name entered on the Sex Offenders Register.
A MAN who admitted posting indecent messages on the Facebook pages of girls as young as ten did it because he was bored.
Graphic images of male genitals accounted for two of the four inappropriate message sent by David Macleod, 21, Wick Sheriff Court heard today.
The four indecent messages, the other two of which were written, were posted between December 2012 and July 2013.
The court heard that the situation came to light following discovery of the messages by parents of the children who had received them.
David Barclay, prosecuting, said that in one case by a parent was checking what her daughter was receiving. On another occasion, a girl asked her mother how to delete items on her Facebook page and the parent decided to investigate the reason for the request.
Mr Barclay said: “The number of separate discoveries by parents produced various strands in the case which were linked together.”
The senior fiscal depute said that the various girls had made it clear in their responses what their ages were. They were aware that Macleod was “an older person".
One of the graphic images was clearly “indecent and inappropriate” and unwelcome by the person who received it. He told police that he had sent the messages at random, because he was bored.
The case was continued until April 16 for a background report. Macleod, of 14 Portormin Road, Dunbeath, will meantime have his name entered on the Sex Offenders Register.