Re: Police: illegal to get sexual gratification from innocuous pictures of children
- From: Robbie <ngrobbieuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:28:56 +0100
Mike wrote:
MM wrote:But no one will ever know as the police will say *any* picture of aThe "child" can be of *any* age - up to and beyond the age of eighteen.
child, dressed or undressed, posed or not posed, that promotes sexual
gratification is an illegal image. And the "child" may be up to the
age of 18! This is more ludicrous than witch-burning in the Middle
Ages.
A photograph of a fully dressed 35 year old could be "child porn" if a
jury thinks the picture is indecent (whatever that means) and the model
appears to be under eighteen. The model's true age is irrelevant.
I do believe that this is not how the law is actually interpreted and enforced. The wording of the relevant section of the Protection Of Children Act 1978 is:
(section 2 (3))
(3) In proceedings under this Act relating to indecent photographs of children a person is
to be taken as having been a child at any material time if it appears from the evidence as
a whole that he was then under the age of 18.
Therefore a birth certificate, a passport or some such compelling evidence would satisfy the requirements of this section. If the model is 35 and this is provable then it stands to reason that there is no offence. Yes, we've heard about people being prosecuted with models offering to fly in to give evidence in court but this seems to be an urban myth.
--
Robbie
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Wage query - Is this allowed?
- Next by Date: the expert witness Institute Annual Conference 2nd October 2008 Options Options
- Previous by thread: Re: Police: illegal to get sexual gratification from innocuous pictures of children
- Next by thread: Re: these UK publicist cop shows ("roadwars" for instance sky3)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
