4 ms·

It's a sad comment on our society that such an utterly ludicrous notion ever even raised its ugly head. We've all seen kids naked. Who cares.

timthorn 17y ago
The pictures are only illegal if they are deemed indecent by a jury - a picture of a naked child is not of itself indecent unless they think it is. However, the public view of indecency has changed greatly though, "thanks" to media campaigns, so there's a real risk that such pictures could be deemed indecent.
- semanticist 17y ago
  "What is clear is that you had no base motive, no sexual motive and there was not any question of deriving sexual gratification from what you were doing." That's what a judge said before passing down sentence for a guy who took 'fairy' pictures of children at the request of their parents. He got 150 hours community service, which I guess was the lightest sentence the judge could hand down. Story on it here: http://tinyurl.com/69ew9w http://tinyurl.com/69ew9w He pled guilty, probably to keep the case short and after being pressured to by the CPS. That means no jury was involved.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    .. well I guess he'll never do that again. You know, hearing things like that makes me determined to never, ever have anything to do with kids no matter what. If you're below 18 I won't even look at you, let alone talk, let alone help. It's just too risky. To me, this outcome is more perverse than any picture could be.
    - axod 17y ago
      I think that's the reason why most teachers in the UK are now female. Which is a sad state of affairs. I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of female:male in staff, as there are in pupils.
      - sailormoon 17y ago
        Absolutely right. And child care workers are 100% female, almost without exception. update: I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of female:male in staff, as there are in pupils. Man you got no idea. Rationality has completely departed. I know someone who recently completed a child care qualification. She was instructed that it was the law to ask the baby's permission to pick them up prior to doing so. They are babies. They cannot understand, let alone answer. And yet the students were instructed to go through the motions anyway. It is totally insane. This is in NSW, Australia, but don't gloat, all the western democracies copy and try to one-up each other - if it's not like this there, it will be soon.
      - semanticist 17y ago
        Not that being female guarantees anything: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jailed-child-sex-abuse http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jail...
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Nude pictures of children are usually "allowed" if they are for "artistic purposes" and dont depict them in a sexual way. I think the way they do it is grade them Level 1 but dont prosecute for it if there is no sexual context. (this is.. shaky... Im unsure of the law because I have only seen foreign cases/examples in this area) So this case is strange; it's not something I would have expected to see go to trial. The only thing I can think of is that there doesn't appear to have been any need to photograph them actually topless/nude in order to create the photo's - and so they might be judge gratuitous. 150hrs community service is light for a child sex offence - it's just above an official slap on the wrist I would say. So it could be the judge wanted to impress on the guy to be careful in future (or something). Ultimately the CPS were at fault there, IMO, in taking it to court.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  Sigh. The worse thing is, I reckon this idea that seeing children naked is "forbidden" encourages people to seek them out. It's the old, utterly predictable story - people want what they've been told they can't have. Anyway, that's getting off topic. Yeah, I suppose a hyper-media-brainwashed jury might reach the conclusion that some fuzzy grey image of a child is "porn". God help us all.

timthorn 17y ago

The pictures are only illegal if they are deemed indecent by a jury - a picture of a naked child is not of itself indecent unless they think it is. However, the public view of indecency has changed greatly though, "thanks" to media campaigns, so there's a real risk that such pictures could be deemed indecent.

semanticist 17y ago
"What is clear is that you had no base motive, no sexual motive and there was not any question of deriving sexual gratification from what you were doing." That's what a judge said before passing down sentence for a guy who took 'fairy' pictures of children at the request of their parents. He got 150 hours community service, which I guess was the lightest sentence the judge could hand down. Story on it here: http://tinyurl.com/69ew9w http://tinyurl.com/69ew9w He pled guilty, probably to keep the case short and after being pressured to by the CPS. That means no jury was involved.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  .. well I guess he'll never do that again. You know, hearing things like that makes me determined to never, ever have anything to do with kids no matter what. If you're below 18 I won't even look at you, let alone talk, let alone help. It's just too risky. To me, this outcome is more perverse than any picture could be.
  - axod 17y ago
    I think that's the reason why most teachers in the UK are now female. Which is a sad state of affairs. I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of female:male in staff, as there are in pupils.
    - sailormoon 17y ago
      Absolutely right. And child care workers are 100% female, almost without exception. update: I think it should be compulsory for schools+nurserys to have the same ratio of female:male in staff, as there are in pupils. Man you got no idea. Rationality has completely departed. I know someone who recently completed a child care qualification. She was instructed that it was the law to ask the baby's permission to pick them up prior to doing so. They are babies. They cannot understand, let alone answer. And yet the students were instructed to go through the motions anyway. It is totally insane. This is in NSW, Australia, but don't gloat, all the western democracies copy and try to one-up each other - if it's not like this there, it will be soon.
    - semanticist 17y ago
      Not that being female guarantees anything: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jailed-child-sex-abuse http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jail...
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Nude pictures of children are usually "allowed" if they are for "artistic purposes" and dont depict them in a sexual way. I think the way they do it is grade them Level 1 but dont prosecute for it if there is no sexual context. (this is.. shaky... Im unsure of the law because I have only seen foreign cases/examples in this area) So this case is strange; it's not something I would have expected to see go to trial. The only thing I can think of is that there doesn't appear to have been any need to photograph them actually topless/nude in order to create the photo's - and so they might be judge gratuitous. 150hrs community service is light for a child sex offence - it's just above an official slap on the wrist I would say. So it could be the judge wanted to impress on the guy to be careful in future (or something). Ultimately the CPS were at fault there, IMO, in taking it to court.
sailormoon 17y ago
Sigh. The worse thing is, I reckon this idea that seeing children naked is "forbidden" encourages people to seek them out. It's the old, utterly predictable story - people want what they've been told they can't have. Anyway, that's getting off topic. Yeah, I suppose a hyper-media-brainwashed jury might reach the conclusion that some fuzzy grey image of a child is "porn". God help us all.