zooloo wrote:

British law, in as far as I can find out, prohibits indecent photographs of a person under 16.

(Ref: Protection of Children Act 1978, amended 1988)

Being nude appears not to be mentioned, nor anything relating to under 18 (under 16, yes).

Do you have a reference to it being illegal to posses a nude photograph of anyone under 18? I have been unable to find one myself.

Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 45.

However, the act specifically refers to 'indecency' and not nudity - but I can tell you as a fact that NO photographer will now photograph ANYONE under 18 nude, as they know this Act was brought in specifically to strengthen the law as a "child pornography" measure.

zooloo wrote:

Personally I agree the Elton John picture is not indecent in isolation - if somebody had 5000 pictures of boys showing their torso I think I could be steered towards considering the collection indecent even though the individual pictures I would not.

Agreed. I would also find someone with a stash of 5000 pictures of fully clothed children somewhat disturbing, but that doesn't mean I'd feel confident convicting them.

What happened to "beyond reasonable doubt"? Surely claiming that naked pictures of a top half contain nakedness in the unseen bottom half has irremovable doubt attached to it. A jury is being asked to convict on a guess, and that is not just justice.

Anthony wrote:

What happened to "beyond reasonable doubt"? Surely claiming that naked pictures of a top half contain nakedness in the unseen bottom half has irremovable doubt attached to it. A jury is being asked to convict on a guess, and that is not just justice.

Were back to the "Thought Crimes" again !

No offence Zooloo, but I think there's an element of idealistic nonsense in your post. It is not difficult to have a yes or no on whether images of naked children are indecent. There has to be a line which, when crossed, means a crime has been committed.

To add a specific, the case I referred to involved the man having just three images. If I owned three albums by U2 I would have three similar images but would not be breaking the law. One could argue that having the images on CD covers gives me a legitemate reason for having them, but did I buy the CDs purely for the images? Does a person have a mail order catalogue so that they can discreetly satisfy their lust for little girls in underwear, or does the catalogue just happen to have such images within? The law should not be about second guessing a person's intent.

Circumstances should always be considered in judgements, but the law must remain consistent.

My own opinion is that if one image of a shirtless boy is not illegal, then neither should a collection of one thousand, because it merely means you have a collection of legal images. The reason for having such a collection is no-one's business but the collector. Beyond this we take the law into the realms of presumption.

Are we approaching the stage when we begin to criminalise people because they are different from the norm, even though what they do is not specifically illegal? Some might find that question annoying, but it has to be asked.

In The Know wrote:
zooloo wrote:

British law, in as far as I can find out, prohibits indecent photographs of a person under 16.

(Ref: Protection of Children Act 1978, amended 1988)

Being nude appears not to be mentioned, nor anything relating to under 18 (under 16, yes).

Do you have a reference to it being illegal to posses a nude photograph of anyone under 18? I have been unable to find one myself.

Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 45.

However, the act specifically refers to 'indecency' and not nudity - but I can tell you as a fact that NO photographer will now photograph ANYONE under 18 nude, as they know this Act was brought in specifically to strengthen the law as a "child pornography" measure.
Thank you.

I do think it's a jump from that to say "...nude pictures of ANYONE under the age of 18 ARE illegal in the UK". That statement is not actually true.

The Act also states "...defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented."

There is also provision if they are married or "lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship."

So in short, you can take pictures at 16 and have sex if you wish. There is no absurdity there as you have claimed elsewhere.

Nude photographs of anyone under 18 being illegal is very wide of the mark.

Professional/amateur photographers erring on the side of caution is not worth of note. The statement "as a fact that NO photographer..." you cannot state this as fact, it is opinion.

Overall you are isolating, misrepresenting and exaggerating selected parts to support your view. This is is something you do elsewhere too.

To decide beforehand with prejudice what you think the answer should be and then confirming that should be avoided.

You are misrepresenting issues to suit your own agenda.

Anthony wrote:
zooloo wrote:

Personally I agree the Elton John picture is not indecent in isolation - if somebody had 5000 pictures of boys showing their torso I think I could be steered towards considering the collection indecent even though the individual pictures I would not.

Agreed. I would also find someone with a stash of 5000 pictures of fully clothed children somewhat disturbing, but that doesn't mean I'd feel confident convicting them.

What happened to "beyond reasonable doubt"? Surely claiming that naked pictures of a top half contain nakedness in the unseen bottom half has irremovable doubt attached to it. A jury is being asked to convict on a guess, and that is not just justice.
That is an argument against the adversarial system. It is the job of one party to convince beyond reasonable doubt and another party the contrary

The tenent of reasonable doubt still exists, indeed if it did not it would not be argued for or against in court.

This is not a symptom of the collapse of Justice.

zooloo wrote:
Thank you.

I do think it's a jump from that to say "...nude pictures of ANYONE under the age of 18 ARE illegal in the UK". That statement is not actually true.

The Act also states "...defendant is not guilty of the offence unless it is proved that the child did not so consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the child so consented."

There is also provision if they are married or "lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship."

So in short, you can take pictures at 16 and have sex if you wish. There is no absurdity there as you have claimed elsewhere.

Nude photographs of anyone under 18 being illegal is very wide of the mark.

Professional/amateur photographers erring on the side of caution is not worth of note. The statement "as a fact that NO photographer..." you cannot state this as fact, it is opinion.

Overall you are isolating, misrepresenting and exaggerating selected parts to support your view. This is is something you do elsewhere too.

To decide beforehand with prejudice what you think the answer should be and then confirming that should be avoided.

You are misrepresenting issues to suit your own agenda.

The law has had the effect of rasing the age of a child from 16 to 18.

Many photographers now REFUSE to do any nudes under 18 - THAT IS A FACT.

As under-18s are now legally "children" within the context of this Act, you can imaging the headlines of photographing an under 18 year old (esp as the law would be enforced by the CPS / police).

I stand by my case - you are being pedantic by trying to split hairs.

zooloo wrote:

I do think it's a jump from that to say "...nude pictures of ANYONE under the age of 18 ARE illegal in the UK". That statement is not actually true.

You are misrepresenting issues to suit your own agenda.

Quote - "Speaking to The Guardian newspaper after the ruling, Detective Constable Simon Ledger said that he believed that this case would have far-reaching implications.

He said: 'It is no defence in law to say pictures of naked children(*) are artistic. The fact that he (Loam) has been convicted demonstrates they are not legal. Anyone who has David Hamilton's books can be arrested for the possession of indecent photographs."

(*)Remember - the law now states that anyone under 18 is a child (Sexual Offences Act 2003 Sec 45)

taken from British Journal of Photography -

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=285424

Hamilton's books are still available. QED

Arguing that a photograph is artistic is not a defence - and no reason why it should be as being artistic is not illegal - not indecent is a defence.

As for my splitting hairs your unwilling photographers have moved from none to many, if I am being simply pedantic why was that necessary?

zooloo wrote:
Hamilton's books are still available. QED


Just because some shops are still selling the book does not make it legal does it? It just means they haven't been raided YET.

A policeman - who had just won a case involving this particular book - says the law supports him (and the law seems to agree).

In The Know wrote:
zooloo wrote:
Hamilton's books are still available. QED

Just because some shops are still selling the book does not make it legal does it? It just means they haven't been raided YET.

A policeman - who had just won a case involving this particular book - says the law supports him (and the law seems to agree).


Selling the Cat in the Hat doesn't make it legal either, is it only being sold because they haven't been raided YET too?

The court case you refer to was in 2005, some 3 years later the book is still easily available on Amazon. Hardly a clandestine organisation.

Perhaps the prosecution involved a little bit more than possession of one book and you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the issue.

Your evidence doesn't support your argument.

zooloo wrote:

Perhaps the prosecution involved a little bit more than possession of one book and you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the issue.

Your evidence doesn't support your argument.

You read the policeman's comments yourself !!!!!!!!!!

In The Know wrote:
zooloo wrote:

Perhaps the prosecution involved a little bit more than possession of one book and you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the issue.

Your evidence doesn't support your argument.

You read the policeman's comments yourself !!!!!!!!!!
A policeman's opinion is not necessarily the law.

The book is easily available from Amazon if it were de facto illegal it would not be.

You read the Amazon book listing yourself!!!!!!!!!!

Oh... W H Smith, mentioned in your link, still stock Hamilton

Perhaps this fellows conviction was a tad more to do with the other 19,000 images he had?

The Cat wrote:
No offence Zooloo, but I think there's an element of idealistic nonsense in your post. It is not difficult to have a yes or no on whether images of naked children are indecent. There has to be a line which, when crossed, means a crime has been committed.

To add a specific, the case I referred to involved the man having just three images. If I owned three albums by U2 I would have three similar images but would not be breaking the law. One could argue that having the images on CD covers gives me a legitemate reason for having them, but did I buy the CDs purely for the images? Does a person have a mail order catalogue so that they can discreetly satisfy their lust for little girls in underwear, or does the catalogue just happen to have such images within? The law should not be about second guessing a person's intent.

Circumstances should always be considered in judgements, but the law must remain consistent.

My own opinion is that if one image of a shirtless boy is not illegal, then neither should a collection of one thousand, because it merely means you have a collection of legal images. The reason for having such a collection is no-one's business but the collector. Beyond this we take the law into the realms of presumption.

Are we approaching the stage when we begin to criminalise people because they are different from the norm, even though what they do is not specifically illegal? Some might find that question annoying, but it has to be asked.

Sorry to seemingly disregard your post Cat, I missed it.

If it is not difficult to have a "yes/no" answer to whether a picture is indecent please supply that answer.

On the CD covers etc, indeed there are numerous examples of children's images being used and ignored by the police. So if they have arrested somebody for having 3 pictures what caused them to do this? Why did they select that person in the first place, what lead up to this?

It seems unlikely they would visit people's homes at random and arrest them for pictures 1000s or more have. Perhaps the 3 pictures are part of the story and not the whole.

Owning a crowbar is perfectly legal but in some circumstances possession could lead to prosecution.