Just a thought

A question perhaps.

We\’ve got lots of laws about photos of kiddies, lots of laws about how possession of such is the mark of the very demon etc, sufficient to have the holder thrown out of polite or any other society forever.

What actually is the age at which someone is a child? The age of consent? 16?

In which case, are these sorts of pics from the Olympics paedophilia?

He is, after all, 14…..

9 thoughts on “Just a thought”

  1. 18 is the cut-off for indecent photos of children. Yes, that means that a photo of a 17-year-old girl with her tits out is child pornography under English law.

    On the plus side for would-be-oglers of 14-year-old swimmers, while the legal definition of ‘indecent’ doesn’t require nudity, there haven’t been any cases in England of people being convicted for possessing solely swimwear-type pics.

    Tim adds: 18? That’s weird, given that a 16 year old is allowed to shag whoever he or she can persuade to do so (usually a rather larger number for the shes than the hes to be sure).

  2. Yes, it is; the current lot raised the age from 16 to 18 based (as with most new restrictions on porn-type-stuff) on the unholy alliance of conservative puritans and sex-negative feminists [*].

    You’re allowed to possess indecent pictures of a 16 or 17 year old if and only if you’re in a relationship with them. Presumably that means that if s/he dumps you you have to hard-delete them quick-smartish…

    [*] that’s in the sense of the opposite of these excellent and sensible women, not in the sense of “if you’re a feminist you must hate sex”.

  3. John B: “You’re allowed to possess indecent pictures of a 16 or 17 year old if and only if you’re in a relationship with them.”

    So if two 17 year olds photograph themselves having sex, then the sex is legal and the photos are legal, as long as they don’t show them to anyone else?

    If they do show the photos to others, then presumably they are breaking the law. But who is the victim of that crime? Presumably the people in the photos. In which case can they get money from the criminal injuries compensation board for making porn? 🙂

  4. There’s a case in the US of a 15-year-old girl who was arrested for making child pornography after postiong nude webcam photos of herself, which strikes me as more or less the most insane application possible of a law that was gibberingly insane to start with.

  5. There are laws against indecent images of children but I don’t think that all nudity counts as indecent as the law stands. There was an instance where an importer of naturist videos won their case even though the videos included footage of naked children.

    Despite some cases where people have been arrested for getting photos of naked babies developed or other nonsense there isn’t a ban on any images of children not fully clothed.

  6. It’s interesting, isn’t it. Because you would rationally expect his coach to have hundreds if not thousands of hours of video of him so clothed – every competitive dive he has ever made plus a certain amount of what he has done in training.

    Now, on the current E&W sentencing guidelines (pdf page 6) this either does not count or, at worst, creeps in to level 1. Under the older 1-10 Copine scale, this probably amounts to level 2 (semi-naked in legitimate setting) images.

  7. John B is correct about the stupidity of the current laws, but actually it gets even worse. It is not just photos of people under 18 (that is people the law considers competent to do anything else they want to do with their bodies except smut) it is photos of anybody that a police officer thinks might be under 18. Have any raunchy photos of a grandmother with a gifted plastic surgeon and it’s several years in prison for you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *