Here’s an entirely plausible scenario:

The person in the story said they thought they heard domestic violence in some of the recordings.

I know some people who are into “consensual nonconsent“, a form of BDSM which I do not understand, but as these acquaintances tell me they like being on the receiving end I have reason to trust them.

Any system or person which incorrectly identifies one of these groups as the other, in either direction, has life-altering negative consequences. Note that in the UK, some forms of consensual BDSM have been prosecuted as serious assault, and the person on the receiving end has been prosecuted for conspiracy to commit assault because they consented to it.

Any system which prevents DV information reaching the police is bad. Any system which reports BDSM to the police as DV is bad. I don’t even know what the relative frequencies of the two acts are, so I cannot even make a utilitarian ethical judgement.

> Note that in the UK, some forms of consensual BDSM have been prosecuted as serious assault, and the person on the receiving end has been prosecuted for conspiracy to commit assault because they consented to it.

Can someone versed in UK law clarify how such a stupid system emerged out of their laws? I'd guess that's an unintended consequence of how laws were worded, but it is mind boggling.

I'm not versed in UK law, but live in the UK and am aware of a few cases. Bottom line - British law does not recognize the possibility of consenting to actual bodily harm.

I'm not aware of any recent case where the person on the receiving end was prosecuted for consenting, perhaps the OC can cast some light on that.

My acquaintances mostly reference Operation Spanner which is about 30 years old now. I don’t know if that counts as recent or not, however while the Law Commission recommended in 1994(!) that this law be altered, it appears their recommendation was never adopted.