Re: Something rotten...
While I gave your comment a thumbs up, because I agree with the broad sentiment, there's something I don't quite agree with:-
"If a photo - or an entire series of photos - are clearly 'Level 1' they are also clearly non-pornographic."
That's not actually the case (depending on what's meant by "pornographic", and assuming you mean "indecent"). The Protection of Children Act 1978 criminalises possession of indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children, and indecency doesn't have to be limited to just what's pornographic.
While there are SAP level 1 images that aren't indecent, there are also SAP level 1 images that are indecent.
SAP level 1: "Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity."
SAP level 2: "Non-penetrative sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child."
Erotic posing can be clothed as well as unclothed. Flashing knickers could be an example. So could posing nude, with legs spread and labia majora spread apart for a clearer view, as long as it's not then "solo masturbation" (as that would then be level 2).
But does "erotic" automatically mean "indecent"? No, of course not.
A 17-year-old striking a sexy pose in sexy underwear may well count as "erotic posing" without being indecent. Think, for example, of a teenager going to see the Rocky Horror Picture Show at the local flea pit, dressed accordingly, and not indecently exposing herself while doing so. And think of that same teenager putting up some photos of that fun night out up on Facebook.
But a 9-year-old, posed to show underwear in a series of photographs that would otherwise be recognisable as "non-nude porn" in the case of, say, Tiffany Teen? Does that child understand why they're being posed in such ways? Would they agree to such "modelling" if they really understood what it's for? Is it not a mild form of abuse? Are such images really not indecent?
I remember, in infant school, that the game of "knicker chase" was not allowed, because it was "dirty". But we did PE lessons in nothing but our underwear - vests and knickers for the girls, who were then showing more than when caught in "knicker chase". In secondary school, teachers made us all take all our clothes off in front of each other. Showers after PE wouldn't have been quite so effective at rinsing the sweat off our bodies, otherwise.
Context and purpose are relevant to determining whether or not photographs are indecent.
According to the article:-
"The images were accessed after payment was made by credit card and then downloaded onto a third party's computer. Bohling subsequently copied the files to his computer.
According to prosecutor Karen Quintick, appearing in Beverley Magistrates’ Court earlier this week, the first set of images were "of young children and pre-teens wearing clothes and posing to reveal their underwear"."
Sounds like "non-nude porn", but with children. As abuse, it might be very mild, but still an inappropriate way to commercially exploit children. Sounds like a case of the Protection of Children Act 1978 being applied as originally intended.
But, having said all that, I do agree that we shouldn't be criminalising possession of non-indecent images simply because we don't like the possessor's thoughts. While the original purpose of posing a child in a particular way may well contribute to making the subsequent image indecent, I don't agree that an otherwise non-indecent image can magically become indecent by being looked at "in the wrong kind of way". We shouldn't be criminalising paedophiles for being paedophiles. That's why I was inclined to give your comment a thumbs up.